-- 7 I @j&p 10 -. 10: 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenfs Reporl 

I. 

11. 

111. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

Table of Contents 

Message from Administrator William K. Reilly and Herbert H. Tate, Jr., 

Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement 

Institutionalizing a Cross-Program/Multi-Media Enforcement Perspective 

A context setting narrative that describes the Agenq's crossprogram/multi-media enforcement 

initiatives and its progress implementing them. 

Environmental Enforcement Activity 

Major Enforcement Litigation and Key Legal Precedents 

An alphabetized summary of important civil and criminal judicial case settlements, administrative 

actions, and key court decisions that occurred during the year. 

Building and Maintaining a Strong National Enforcement Program 

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

Subsections on local enforcement, Federal facilities, cooperative work with environmental groups, 

relationships with other Federal agencies and international issues. 

Media Specific Enforcement Highlights and Regional Accomplishments 

Brief summaries of each National program and each Region's FY 1991 highlights. 

Appendix: Historical Enforcement Data 

FY 1991 National Penalty Report 

List of EPA Headquarters and Regional Enforcement Information 

Contacts 

i 
: . ' 

. ,:, 
FY 1991 Enforcemenl Accomplishmenls Report 

A Message from the Administrator and Assistant Administrator 

EPA’s commitment to the vigorous enforcement of environmental law, and 

the commitment of the Bush Administration, is reflected in the significant 

expansion of the Agency’s civil, criminal, and federal facility enforcement activities 

since 1989. Overall, this Administration has assessed about 55 percent of all the civil 

penalties and criminal fines assessed in EPA history -- $200 million for FY 1989-1991 

compared with $166 million for FY 1972-1988. The Department of Justice under 

Attorneys General Richard Thornburgh and William Barr has our gratitude -- 

indeed, the Department deserves the thanks of every American for its full support 

and participation in this enterprise. 

Over the past year, EPA enforcement again operated at record levels, setting alltime highs for criminal referrals and civil penalties. EPA’s enforcement record 

shows that over the past three years the Agency: 

Referred to the Department of Justice over 44 percent of all criminal 

referrals in Agency history; 

*Obtained 50 percent of the Agency’s total guilty verdicts or pleas, 

resulting in sentences meting out more than 65 percent of all months 

of incarceration ordered in Agency history; and 

Assessed more than 67 percent of all criminal penalties assessed in 

Agency history. 

During FY 1991, EPA moved beyond its traditional enforcement of mediaspecific laws to emphasize cross-program, multi-media enforcement. We now target 

our inspection and enforcement efforts on the basis of the most significant health 

and ecological risks across all environmental media. 

We achieved these levels and took these steps even as we increased our use of 

non-regulatory tools like voluntary pollution prevention, environmental 

information and education, and market-based economic incentives to achieve our 

goals. Indeed, some of the voluntary, direct actioh programs like “33/50” are 

achieving results faster than our more traditional regulatory programs. Under this 

program, more than 700 companies have committed to reduce -- by 300 million 

pounds -- emissions of 17 high-priority toxics by 1995. 

Nonetheless, enforcement remains one of the most important tools in EPA’s 

arsenal. Only because we are committed unequivocally to vigorous enforcement are 

we able to expand our methods as we seek the most cost-effective approaches to 

environmental protection. 

1-1 
FY 1991 Enforcemenl Accomplishmcnrs Reporr 

The FY 1991 Enforcement Accomulishments Reuort provides a concise 

summary of the Agency's enforcement efforts over the last year, including 

explanations of EPA's Strategic Plan for Enforcement, highlights of significant 

enforcement cases, and statistical information on EPA and state programs. Above 

all, this report sends a clear message of deterrence to potential violators: this Agency 

is committed to a vigorous and effective environmental enforcement program, now 

and into the future. 

Administrator 

Herbert H. Tate, Jr. 

for Enforcement 

.. 

1-2 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

11. FY 1991: Institutionalizing a Cross-ProPradMulti-Media 

Enforcement Perspective 

In retrospect, FY 1991 may well prove to be a turning point for environmental 

enforcement. It was the year that the Environmental Protection Agency @PA) 

moved from policy development to implementation of its Enforcement Four-Year 

Strategic Plan. During the past twelve months, the Agency has made major strides 

in integrating a cross-program/multi-media approach to its inspection and 

enforcement programs. By integrating a cross-program/multi-media perspective 

into all stages of the enforcement planning and decision-making, the Agency 

intends to achieve additional public health and environmental protection results, 

deterrence, and efficiency which could not be achieved through the use of 

traditional single-media approaches alone. 

EPAs commitment to cross-program/multi-media enforcement is one 

reflection of its greater emphasis on better integrating consideration of health and 

ecological risks into inspection targeting and case selection. While these concepts 

apply in single-medium cases as well, cross-program/multi-media enforcement is 

intended to result in comprehensive identification and remediation of problems at 

a facility. Cross-program/multi-media inspections also have the potential of better 

focusing senior management in the regulated community on the broad range of 

environmental compliance issues, better ensuring that they do not overlook 

significant environmental problems. 

Throughout its Regional Offices, EPA is experimenting with different 

techniques for inspection targeting, case screening, and case coordination. The 

Agency is carefully building the structures necessary to support crossprogram/multi-media enforLement, since frankly, this type of enforcement does not 

come naturally to EPA's structure and culture. This building process, initially 

viewed by many in the Agency with skepticism and concern, is now being 

implemented with excitement and enthusiasm. 

An example of how this approach is working nationally is the series of crossmedia enforcement actions, both civil judicial and and administrative, filed against 

major sources of lead emissions. The actions were filed by EPA and the Department 

of Justice on July 31,1991, against violators located in each of EPA's ten regions. EPA 

coordinated across its compliance programs to file enforcement actions under six 

environmental statutes to reduce a specific pollutant -- lead. Along with pollution 

prevention, education, and training, enforcement was a major component of the 

agency-wide strategy to significantly reduce lead exposures to the public - - 

particularly the risk of high blood lead levels in children -- and to the environment. 

The Department of Justice filed twenty-four civil cases in Federal courts across the 

country, and EPA initiated direct administrative enforcement actions against 

fourteen facilities, assessing some $14 million in total penalties. The cases in the 

initiative were filed under six different statutes: the Resource Conservation and 

2-1 
<&) %ML 

FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Recovery Act (RCRA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Clean Water Act (CWA); the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Clean Air Act (CAA); and the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

EPA has also focused geographically on the Chesapeake Bay and the Great 

Lakes as cross-program/multi-media initiatives. In FY 1992, EPA plans to add 

another pollutant-specific initiative, and industry-specific initiative, a companyspecific initiative, other regional geographic-based initiatives, and an international 

initiative focused on the Mexican border. 

In order to have the capability to look at patterns of noncompliance within or 

across environmental programs, EPA needs accurate, readily accessible data on 

source compliance ' status. These data will ,help targeting of specific ,geographic, 

industry, company, facility, or pollutant-specific sources based on compliance status, 

compliance history, and/or environmental risk profile. To provide that capability, 

EPA has developed an automated capability which can link information from its 

various mainframe computer systems. I This new .capability, known as Integrated 

Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) utilizes EPA's powerful mainframe computer 

capacity to allow EPA enforcement personnel to engage in an interactive analysis of 

compliance and enforcement data that is contained in the various media .program 

data systems. This capability also provides access to ' corporate identification' 

information allowing users to structure their analyses based on corporate parentage 

EPA is also developing cross-program/multi-media training courses. for its 

compliance inspectors and its technical and legal staffs;. these courses will .be, 

available to State environmental program and legal personnel.' , Courses will. be 

offered under the umbrella of the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI), 

created to provide training to EPA, State, and 'local personnel involved :.in 

environmental enforcement. ~ State .representatives serve on the Institut;?'s 

Advisory Council and participate actively in.curriculum development and program 

design. 

or structure, industrial sector, pollutants, and/or geographic sector. .. ,. ' 

, . 

The emphasis on cross-program/multi-media enforcement raises ,questions 

about EPA's working relationships with the States. In response to requests from 

States for clarification, on August 9, 1991, EPA issued a proposed Addendum on 

Multi-Media Enforcement to the Policy ' Framework on .State/EPA Enforcement 

Agreements. As the proposed addendum makes clear, a cross-program/multimedia approach is not intended to change the. current structure under which State 

and local governments h.ave the' primary enforcement responsibility, nor ,current 

ground rules for 'determining which.leve1 of gqvernment should assume the lead 

for enforcement response. ' However, implementation of a cross-program/multimedia approach will require even closer Federal/State working relationships. EPA 

is committed to working cooperatively with States to forge those relationships. i 

2-2 
FY I991 Egorcement Accomplishments Report 

111. ' Environmental Eniorcement Activity 

Federal Tudicial and Administrative Enforcement Activitv 

Judicial Enforcement - Civil 

During FY 1991, the EPA made a concerted effort to approach its enforcement activity 

with a cross-program/multi-media perspective, and where appropriate, to bring crossprogram/multi-media and multi-facility enforcement actions against violating facilities to 

bring about , comprehensive solutions to complex interrelated environmental problems. 

With this cross-program/multi-media perspective, the Agency intends to achieve additional 

public health and environmental protection results, deterrence, and efficiency which might 

nof be achieved through use of traditional single-media approaches alone: 

An Agency-wide workgroup analyzed operational modifications that would facilitate 

greater use of cross-program/multi-media approaches, and recommended modifications to 

the counting methodology that had been used in the past to track and account for civil 

referral activity. These adjustments are, intended to more accurately reflect the greater 

magnitude of cross-program/multi-media actions and the ,variety of violations being 

addressed, and to. remove any accounting-related disincentives to bringing these cases. 

' . ' Through ' this transition period, EPA maintained an aggressive ! civil judicial 

enforcement program by referring 393 cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ). While the 

393 cases are the highest total ever referred in one year, EPA has not claimed a record year 

since under the old counting method, the Agency would have had 366 referrals, slightly 

below.the previous referral record of 375 in FY 1990. (With the new counting^ approach;we 

estimate that the 375 civil cases referred to DOJ in M 1990 would have1 totaled 406). 

, >., 1 . . . . . . , 

.. 

.. I 

I 

EPA Civil Referrals to DOJ 

FY 1977 to FY 1991 

FY77 FY78 FY79 FYSO FYBl FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 

I 

WSnaDES I ITOXICS/ BWATER 0 RcnA SUPERFUND AIR I 

Illustration 1 

3-1 

I 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Since FY 1989, 1,132 civil judicial cases have been referred to DOJ, nearly thirty percent 

of all civil cases referred in the 20 years since the Agency's creation (historical data are 

contained in the Appendix to this report). The federal Superfund program established a new 

high-water mark in FY 1991 with 164 civil judicial cases referred to DOJ (a number not 

influenced by the new counting procedure). 

Monitoring Judicial Consent Decrees 

At the end of FY 1991, the Agency reported that 686 judicial consent decrees were in 

place and being monitored to ensure compliance with the provisions of the decrees, an 

increase of 40 over last year and three and a half times the number of six years ago. Where 

noncompliance with the terms and conditions of a decree is found, EPA may initiate 

proceedings with the court to compel the facility to live up to its agreement and seek 

penalties for such noncompliance. EPA initiated actions against more than 100 violating 

facilities during the year including the referral of 14 cases to DOJ for enforcement of the 

consent decree with the court. 

Judicial Enforcement - Criminal 

In FY 1991, EPA's criminal program established records for most categories of criminal 

enforcement activity. New records included referring 81 cases to DOJ (the previous record 

was 65 in FY 1990), bringing charges against 104 defendants (the previous record was 100 in FY 

1990), and the number of months of jail time to which defendants were sentenced with 963 

months (the previous record was 745 months in FY 1990). Forty-eight criminal cases 

concluded during the year, and 82 defendants were convicted. In addition, 28 of the 

defendants convicted were sentenced to incarceration. 

EPA Criminal Enforcement Program 

FY 1982 to FY 1991 

120 

FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 

Referrals to DOJ Ea Cases successfully Defendants H Defendants 

prosecuted charged convicted 

Illustration 2 

3-2 
FY 1991 E$orcement Accomplishmenls Report 

. -. 

FY 1991 saw continued integration of the criminal enforcement program into the 

Agency's regulatory programs, as well as greater recognition in the regulated community of 

EPA's willingness to pursue violations utilizing criminal enforcement authorities. As the 

previous illustration indicates, case referrals and the number of defendants charged and 

convicted have increased since 1982. Evidence of the strong recent growth of the criminal 

program is that 53% of all referrals, 65% of all months sentenced, and 68% of all penalties 

assessed have occurred during the last three years. 

Imposition of incarceration and probation is an extremely effective part of the criminal 

program, and serves as a strong deterrent. Probation is very effective because in the event 

that an individual commits another crime (not limited to environmental crimes), the 

provisions of the probation normally call for the automatic imposition of the prison 

sentence that was suspended in lieu of probation. Since 1982, individuals have received 

prison sentences for committing environmental crimes totaling 261 years, and 785 years of 

probation have been imposed. 

Administrative Enforcement 

EPA posted its second highest annual total for administrative enforcement activities 

in FY 1991 with 3,925 actions. The Agency record of 4,136 was set in FY 1989. The totals for 

FY 1991 demonstrate that although judicial actions (both civil and criminal) are crucial to 

EPA's overall success, and are generally looked to as the chief indicator of the vitality of 

Agency enforcement efforts, other indicators need to be evaluated to assess EPAs 

effectiveness in enforcing environmental laws and regulations. Congress has given EPA 

expanded authority in recently enacted or reauthorized statutes to use administrative 

mechanisms to address violations and compel regulated facilities to achieve compliance. 

The FY 1991 figures indicate that EPA programs continue to make widespread use of these 

effective and less resource intensive tools. 

EPA Administrative Actions: FY 1977 to FY 1991 

45w 

rlwo 

uw 

3Mx) 

zoo 

2m 

1500 

loo0 

500 

0 

FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 M82 FY83 Pi84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 pi90 M91 

Elm WEPCRA FIFRA 0 CERCLA 

RCRA CWAISDWA CAA 

Illustration 3 

3-3 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

1' W' 

Federal Penalty Assessments I 

Delaying or foregoing capital investment in pollution controls, as well as failure to, 

provide- resources for annual ' pollution control operating expenditures, can. allow 

undeserved economic benefits to accrue'to a regulated entity. As part of the effort to deter 

noncompliance, EPAs enforcement programs have developed. penalty policies designed to 

assess penalties which recover any- economic benefit that a noncomplying facility has 

realized, and assess additional penalties commensurate with the gravity of the violation(s). 

,: ,. , i; 

.: In FY 1991, $73.1' million in 'civil penalties were assessed, an all-time record ($41.2 

million in civil judicial penalties and $31.9 million in administrative penalties, both all-time 

records). This represents a 21 percent increase over FY 1990 and in FY 1991 alone, 23 percent' 

of all civil penalty dollars in EPA's history were obtained. Overall, 53% of all civil penalty 

dollars in EPA's history were assessed in the last three years. Since its creation, EPA has 

imposed $321.3 million in civil penalties ($209 million with civil judicial actions and $113 

million,with administrative actions). 

Criminal fines totaled $14.1 million in FY 1991 (before deducting suspended 

sentences), which represents a two and a half fold increase from FY 1990 and is the highest 

amount ever assessed by EPA for criminal cases. In the five years EPA's criminal 

enforcement program has been tracking penalty. data, $43.8 million in criminal fines have 

been imposed before deduction of suspended sentences. One third of all criminal fines in 

EPA's historywere assessed in FY 1991. 

Overall, in the last three years, EPA has assessed 55% of all civil penalties and criminal 

., . ,I -. . 

' 

fines combined ( see chart below).' 

, -. 

I I T 2so,000,000 

Total Criminal Fines and Civil Penalties Assessed I 

200,000,000 

5166.1 million 

150,000,000 

./ 

$ 

100,000,000 

.,. ,. 

./ 

50,000,000 

0 

M 1972-1988 M 1989-1991 

In FY 1991, $9.7 million in Clean Air Act civil penalties were assessed ($7.3 million for 

stationary source violations and $2.3 million for mobile source violations); $26.6 million in 

Clean Water Act penalties were assessed ($23.1 million in civil judicial penalties and $3.5 

3-4 
FY 1991 Enforcernenl Accomplishments Reporr 

million in administrative penalties); over $10.6 million in Toxic Substances Control Act 

administrative penalties were assessed; and $17.7 million in Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act penalties were assessed ($10.0 million in civil judicial penalties and $7.6 

million in administrative penalties). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

and Safe Drinking Water Act programs are largely delegated to the States; however, EPA 

assessed over $932,000 and $2.0 million respectively, under these statutes. The Toxic Release 

Inventory program assessed nearly $3.9 million. Over $889,700 in Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) §302-§312 and CERCLA 5104 penalties were 

assessed. The Wetlands program assessed $504,200 and the Marine and Estuarine Protection 

program assessed $264,000. The FY 1991 total includes a civil judicial penalty for $220,000 

assessed under the Lead Control Contamination Act (a 1988 amendment to the Safe Drinking 

Water Act) This penalty reflects the first case brought by the Agency under this Act. 

Federal Judicial and Administrative 

Penalties Assessed Fy 1977 to FY 1991 

80,000,000 

70,000,000 

60,000,000 

50,000,000 

$ 40,000,000 

30,000,000 

20,000,000 

10,000,000 

0 

Fm rn N79 N#n NE1 FY82 Ne3 FYM m5 N86 NU? NW NW m N91 

Administrative Judicial 

Illustration 4 

For further information on EPA penalty practices, see the National Penalty Report in the 

Appendix. 

State Judicial and Administrative Enforcement Activity 

Several hundred thousand facilities are subject to environmental regulation, and the 

job of ensuring compliance and taking action to correct instances of noncompliance with 

federal laws is entrusted both to EPA and to the States through delegated or approved State 

programs. EPA and the States must rely on a partnership to get the job done, with State 

environmental agencies shouldering a significant share of the nation's environmental 

enforcement workload. In FY 1991, the States referred 544 civil cases to State Attorneys 

General and issued 9,607 administrative actions to violating facilities. 

3-5 
i$+) FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report ' 

State Judicial Referrals: FY 1985 to FY 1991 

FY91 

FY90 

FY89 

M88 

FY87 

FY86 

M85 

n 1w 200 3w 400 500 MM 700 8W 900 lMl0 

IRCRA OAIR HWATER 

State Administrative Actions: FY 1985 to M 1991 

FY91 

FY90 

FY89 

I I FYBB 

I I FY87 

I FY& 

0 moo 4000 m 8wO lW00 1mo 14wO 

BRCRA .AIR OWA~ HFIFRA 

Illustrations 5&6 

EPA Contractor Listing 

In FY 1991, a near record number of facilities were added to EPA's List of Violating 

Facilities (List) under the authorities provided to EPA by Clean Air Act 5 306 and Clean Water 

Act § 508, to bar facilities that violate clean air or clean water standards from receiving 

Federally funded contracts, grants or loans. Federal agencies are prohibited by statutory 

mandate from entering into contracts, grants or loans (including subcontracts, subgrants or 

sibilance) to be performed at facilities owned or operated by persons who are convicted of 

violating air standards under CAA §113(c) or water standards under CWA 5309k) (and 

involved in the violations), effective automatically on the date of the conviction. Facilities 

which are mandatorily listed remain on the List until EPA determines that they have 

3-6 
+."* ".* k+y FY 1991 En,forcement Accomplishments Report 

corrected the conditions giving rise to the violations. Nineteen facilities were listed in FY 

1991 based on criminal convictions -- one short of the record set in FY 1990. Ten facilities 

were removed from the List in FY 1991. Since FY 1986, 74 facilities have been placed on the 

mandatory list. Fifty-two facilities remained on the List as of the end of FY 1991. 

Facilities with records of civil violations may also be listed, at the discretion of the 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, upon the recommendation of certain EPA officials, 

a State Governor, or a member of the public (referred to as discretionary listing). A facility 

may be recommended for discretionary listing if there are continuing or recurring violations 

of the CAA or CWA after one or more enforcement actions have been brought against the 

facility by EPA or a state enforcement agency. Facilities recommended for discretionary listing 

have a right to an informal administrative proceeding. Facilities listed under discretionary 

listing are automatically removed from the List after one year, unless the basis for listing was 

a criminal conviction in a state court or a court order in a civil enforcement action. They 

may be removed from the List at any time if the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement 

determines that the facility has corrected the conditions which gave rise to the listing or that 

the facility is on a plan that will result in compliance. In FY 1991, EPA proposed to list one 

facility under its discretionary listing authority. Seven pending discretionary listing actions 

were withdrawn by EPA after consent agreements were entered into in the underlying civil 

enforcement cases. 

3-7 
FY 1991 Enforcemeni Accomplishmenis Repori 
FY 1991 E~forcemenr Accomplishments Report 

Iv. 

FY 

Maior Enforcement Litigation 

and Key Lecal Precedents - 

Protecting Public Health and 

the Environment through 

Enforcement 

This chapter provides highlights of major 

1991 litigation which support media - 

enforcement priorities and demonstrate 

innovative approaches in the enforcement 

process. FY 1991 was an exciting and challenging 

year for EPA's enforcement effort. The Agency 

began implementation of a new approach, 

described in the Enforcement Four-Year Strategic 

Plan and the Enforcement in the 1990's Proiect by 

which Federal and State governments could 

better promote compliance with, and effective 

deterrence against violations of, environmental 

laws. Cases are listed alphabetically and not in 

order of importance 

Clean Air Act Enforcement 

In FY 1991, this program's activities 

centered upon implementation of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990. The Clean Air Act 

program regulates the emission of both toxic and 

criteria pollutants from both stationary 

(factories, plants, utilities) and mobile (auto) 

sources. Stationary source air toxics litigation 

centered upon violations of the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPS), especially those 

involving asbestos and benzene, while mobile 

source air toxics litigation emphasized 

violations of the lead phasedown rules, as well 

those involving fuel switching, volatility, and 

additives requirements. Enforcement of the 

(NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants involved 

violations of, regulations for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide and 

particul&s. 

Stationary Source Program 

The largest penalty 

to date for violations of 5165 of the Clean Air Act 

and the regulations regarding Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) was obtained 

from American Cyanamid on September 5, 1991. 

The company agreed to pay a civil penalty of 

$625,000 for construction of a facility in the Pearl 

River, New York, without first obtaining a 

necessary PSD permit and without giving the 

state or EPA the notification of construction 

required by the New Source Performance 

Standards. EPAs enforcement efforts forced 

American Cyanamid to halt construction 

immediately on the facility until it obtained the 

proper PSD permit, which the company received 

in May 1990. 

Region IV 

negotiated a judicial consent decree with this 

facility for violations of the federal New Source 

Performance Standards under the Clean Air Act. 

EPA charged the facility with failure to timely 

conduct certain testing and to notify EPA of 

activities required by those standards. Under the 

consent decree, the company agreed to pay a civil 

penalty of $145,000. 

Bakery Enforcement Initiative 

Large, commercial bakeries are significant 

sources of VOC emissions (which come primarily 

from the biological action of yeast). Region I1 

issued Notices of Violations citing VOC 

violations at six major baking plants, including 

suck industry giants as Nabisco Biscuit; SB 

Thomas, Inc. and Continental Baking. Other 

bakeries cited include Harrison Baking, 

Marathon Bakery. and Automatic Rolls. 

Continental Baking was the subject of a FY 1990 

pre-referral negotiation (PRN), referral and in 

FY 1991 reached a settlement with EPA pursuant 

to which it will pay a civil penalty of over 

$328,000. Continental has also spent over 

$500,000 on an afterburner to control its VOC 

emissions. 

-k In May 1991, 

the United States settled its action for 

Bethlehem Steel's State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) violations under the Clean Air Act at two 

coke oven batteries known to be leaking 

carcinogenic emissions into the atmosphere from 

more than ten percent of their doors. Bethlehem 

of Burns Harbor, IN, had also violated a site 

specific S1P provision which prohibited visible 

emissions of more than 20 percent opacity on a two 

hour average basis from a battery combustion 

stack. The consent decree requires Bethlehem to 

achieve and maintain compliance, improve 

operation and maintenance practices, self-monitor 

emissions for the life of the consent decree, and 

pay a penalty of $600,000. 

4-1 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

CFC Importer Cases /I 

In FY 1991, EPA settled five cases against 

companies that imported chlorofluorocarbons 

(CFCs) without first obtaining required 

consumption allowances. Such imports violate 

the Rule to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone, 40 

C.F.R. Part 82, which limits the amount of 

identified stratospheric ozone-depleting 

chemicals (ODCs) that can either be 

manufactured in the United States or imported 

from other countries. By limiting the amount of 

consumption allowances that are available in a 

given year, the United States limits the amount 

of ODCs that can enter the country in that year, 

and fulfills its international commitment not to 

use more than its share of these chemicals as the 

world phases out their production. Companies 

found to have imported ODCs without 

allowances can ensure that the United States 

remains within its ceiling by purchasing 

unexpended allowances after the fact, by 

exporting ODCs to countries that are below their 

ceilings, or by transforming the ODCs into ozonebenign substances. 

*An 

administrative order under 5167 of the Clean Air 

Act was issued to Coors Brewing, Elkton, VA, on 

April 25, 1991, requiring cessation of construction 

of a mapr source without a valid permit. Coors 

obtained a prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permit from EPA on March 19,1981, for the 

construction of a 10 million barrel per year 

brewery facility in the Elkton area of 

Rockingham County, Virginia. Coors did not 

commence construction of the brewery during the 

required time period, so the company requested 

and obtained extensions to the permit. Each of 

these extensions was permissible because every 

extension required Coors to perform a new best 

available control technology (BACT) and 

modeling analysis prior to the start of any 

construction related to the brewery. The company 

has not yet constructed anything that was 

provided for in the permit. Subject to certain 

conditions, the latest extension gives Coors until 

April 15, 1992, to initiate construction of the 

brewery. 

Subsequently, Virginia was delegated authority 

to administer the PSD program on behalf of EPA. 

Coors violated the PSD regulations when it 

constructed, without receiving an appropriate 

permit modification from the Commonwealth, 

one of two planned natural gas-fired (NG) boilers, 

not contemplated by the original PSD permit, to 

serve as back-up units for the coal-fired boilers 

that were permitted. In addition, a six-inch NG 

line, metering, and pressure reducing station; 

outside overhead pipe gallery; and power house 

building for the NG boilers have also been 

constructed at the planned Coors brewery site. The 

continued construction of the facility without a 

valid PSD permit would violate §165(a) of the 

Clean Air Act, PL 101-549,42 U.S.C. ' 7475(a), and 

the Commonwealths State Implementation Plan. 

(M.D. Laulslana): An 

eight-year old, heavily contested, precedentsetting Clean Air Act case concerning violations of 

the federal regulations limiting emissions of 

vinyl chloride into the air, was settled on March 

25,1991. A civil enforcement case was filed in the 

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of 

Louisiana in February 1983, against Ethyl 

Corporation regarding its plastics plant in Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana. The complaint alleged that 

Ethyl discharged vinyl chloride to the 

atmosphere on at least 81 occasions, between 1976 

and 1981. Ethyl moved to dismiss the complaint 

on the grounds that the vinyl chloride regulations 

established work practices, not emission 

standards, with the result that the regulations 

would not be valid. The District Court Judge 

accepted Ethyl's argument and dismissed the 

complaint. EPA appealed this ruling and the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

reversed the decision, holding that ' the 

regulations were emissions standards, and 

remanded the case to District Court for trial. 

Ethyl filed a Petition'for a Writ of Certiorari 

with the US. Supreme Court on August 30, 1985, 

but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. 

After extensive discovery proceedings and then 

settlement meetings in which the District Court 

Judge participated, EPA and Ethyl agreed on a 

resolution of the case. A consent decree was filed 

on March 25, 1991, ordering Ethyl to pay a civil 

penalty of $320,000. 

.. 

A sixyear old Clean Air Act case against Formosa 

Plastics Corp., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in the 

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of 

Louisiana was settled on November 5, 1990: .The 

Formosa Plastics case was filed in January 1984, 

alleging violations of the federal Clean Air Act 

regulations limiting emissions of vinyl chloride 

into sthe air from Formosa Plastics' ethylene 

dichloride and vinyl chloride manufacturing 

.. 

4-2 
('0 .* 

FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Repon 

facility. In mid-1985, a District Court Judge in the 

Middle District of Louisiana had placed a stay on 

proceedings in all cases alleging violations of the 

Clean Air Act requirements regarding vinyl 

chloride emissions. The Judge had ruled in a 

similar case against Ethyl Corporation that the 

vinyl chloride regulations established work 

practices, not emissions standards, and so were not 

valid. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit reversed the District Court Judge in the 

Ethyl case, and the U.S. Supreme Court was 

asked to consider the case. The Supreme Court 

declined to consider the Ethyl case, and the Fifth 

Circuit ruling was final. Subsequently, the stay 

was lifted on the Formosa Plastics case and 

negotiations resumed. A consent decree for 

penalties only was entered on November 5, 1990, 

and a civil penalty of $65,000 was paid on 

November 8,1990, which closed the case. 

(W.D. Mal: As part 

of the National Multi-Media Lead Enforcement 

Initiative, a complaint and consent decree were 

filed simultaneously on July 31,1991, under which 

Gates agreed to pay $200,OLW for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) violations and 

violations of the SIP requirement to obtain 

operating permits at Gates' lead-acid battery 

manufacturing plant in Warrensburg, Missouri and 

four other facilities. Gates further consented to 

three supplemental environmental projects. The 

first requires a multi-media environmental 

compliance and management audit of the Missouri 

and Florida plants. The second is a pollution 

prevention project reducing the use of l,l,l, 

trichloroethane (a solvent and degreaser used at 

the plant). The third is a pollution reduction 

project designed to minimize lead oxide waste. 

General 

Dynamics (GD) is the operator of Air Force Plant 

No. 4 in Fort Worth, Texas, the only facility at 

which the F16 fighter plane is made. A case 

filed in 1987 alleged that GD violated the EPAapproved Texas air pollution standards governing 

emissions to the air of volatile organic compounds 

at three coating operations at the facility. In a 

landmark decision in FY 1990, a court for the first 

time ruled that the contractor at a Government 

Owned, Contractor Operated (GOCO) facility is 

considered the operator as a matter of law. This 

held significance for cases involving GOCO 

facilities where the contractor claimed that it is 

the alter ego of the United States government, 

exercising no independent judgment or authority. 

An Agreed Order was issued by the US. District 

Court for the Northern District of Texas on 

January 2, 1991, granting EPA's request for 

summary judgment on whether GD had violated 

the Texas standards. The court further ruled that 

GD must come into compliance with the 

applicable standards within three years or cease 

operations. The,.order also included a penalty 

amount of $350,000, that was offset by GDs 

claims against the Ai r Force. 

Y.S. v. Ge-pQJlk A 

consent decree was entered on April 11, 1991, 

resolving the Government's action under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) against General Motors 

Corp. (GM) for violations at its Lordstown, Ohio, 

automobile assembly plant. As a result, GM 

installed a coating system that reduces volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) from its paint shop 

operations from approximately 3,400 tons per year 

to 750-800 tons per year. GM paid a civil penalty 

of $1,539,326. 

-: The complaint in this 

case alleged that when the college renovated the 

college library, asbestos was not identified and 

work practice standards were not followed, 

resulting in asbestos contamination throughout 

much of the library. Subsequent to EPA and 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Conservation inspection and identification of 

asbestos, the college decontaminated the library 

books and other items within the library. This is 

the first asbestos case EPA has brought in Oregon 

in many years, and resulted in a penalty of 

$131,250. 

Pursuant to a settlement 

with both the United States and the State of 

Maine, J. M. Huber Corp. paid a $328,000 civil 

penalty and installed costly control equipment to 

ensure future compliance with the Clean Air Act. 

The federal and state governments had 

concurrently filed actions against the company for 

excess particulate matter emissions from its 

waferboard facility in Easton, Maine. From July 

1988 to December 1990, J.M. Huber Corp.'s 

particulate emissions exceeded the standard in 

Maine's federally-approved state implementation plan. As part of the settlement, the 

company agreed to comply. with a particulate 

emission limit which is even stricter than the 

regulatory limit. The consent decree was entered 

by the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Maine in July 1991. 

4-3 
FY 1991 Enforcemqu Accomplishments Report 

: Region X issued a 

compliance order to Ketchikan Pulp Corporation 

(KPC) during FY 1991 for failure to install sulfur 

dioxide emission control equipment on an oil-fired 

power boiler. It is estimated that KPC's failure 

to .install this equipment resulted in an extra 

burden of approximately 910 tons per year to the 

Ketchikan, Alaska, airshed. .KPC shut down the 

boiler in response to the order. 

In this 

case involving violations of the asbestos 

regulations, the court provided a clear statement 

that the government may establish violations of 

the asbestos .work practice standards without 

proving visible emissions of asbestos. The U.S. 

District Court for the District of Kansas ruled on 

October 2, 1990, that visible emissions of asbestos 

are not an element of proof in establishing 

violations of the asbestos work practice standards 

under 5112 of the Clean Air Act. The court held 

that the defendant is liable for penalties for 

violations of the asbestos regulations and the 

Clean Air Act, and granted the United. States 

motion for summary judgment on liability. The 

case was originally filed on, August 22, 1989, for 

violations of the asbestos regulations, including 

violations of the work practice standards for 

asbestos at three facilities where asbestos 

removal was conducted. 

On April 18, 1991 the court also issued a 

preliminary injunction against MPM, its owner, 

Michael McGill, and Asbestos Removal Company, 

Inc., a company which had been purchased by 

McGill, prohibiting McGill from dispersing any 

assets pending assessment of a penalty for ,the 

asbestos violations.. 

US. v. Nevada Power EPA signed a 

consent decree with Nevada Power on August 20. 

1991, requiring, the company to pay' a civil 

penalty of $400,000 for by-passing the pollution 

control equipment at its Reid-Gardner fossil-fuel 

fired electrical generating station in Moapa, 

Nevada, violating opacity and particulate 

matter standards, failing to properly operate 

continuous emission monitors ("CEM") and failing 

to record and report CEM data in violation of 5111 

of the .Act and the NSPS for opacity and 

particulate matter. 

The case was generated as part of a Region IX 

initiative targeting "good pollution control 

practices" and related violations at electric 

power generating stations. This settlement also 

authorizes EPA to determine compliance with 

particulate and opacity standards on the basis of 

data generated by the CEM. 

The three Maine municipalities, 

(Madawaska, Fort Kent and Frenchville), which 

own the Northern Aroostook Regional Incinerator 

Facility located in Frenchville, Maine, agreed to 

pay a civil penalty of $125,000 for particulate 

violations at the incinerator. The defendants had 

violated the New Source Performance Standard 

for Incinerators, 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart E, and 

the applicable particulate emissions standard in 

the Maine SIP. The defendants have agreed to 

shut down the incinerator and switch. to a new 

solid waste disposal program. involving a 

combination of recycling and landfill disposal. 

.. 

Richardson:, (E.D. MI): On June 28,1991, Judge 

George Woods, Eastern District, Michigan, 

entered an order in US. v. Stanson Wreckine Co. 

and Williams and Richardson Co. requiring the 

defendants to pay a civil penalty of $60,000. The 

order requires the defendants to comply with the 

asbestos NESHAP regulations under the Clean 

Air Act and contains specjfic requirements with 

regard to notice, inspector training, and asbestos 

abatement worker training. Fines of $20,000. were 

assessed against each defendant for NESHAP 

violations. Additionally, Stanson, of Detroit, 

was assessed $10,000 for failing to respond to a 

5114 information request and $10,000 for violating 

an administrative order issued by EPA under 5113 

of the CAA. 

US. v. St& of Haxau. 

Transoortation: Illustrating the unusual locations 

with the potential for asbestos-related .air, 

pollution, EPA obtained a penalty of $20,000 from 

the State of Hawaii, Department of 

Transportation (HDOT) for violations of the 

asbestos NESHAP. during a demolition of 

asbestos-lined concrete planters at the Honolulu 

International Airport. The complaint alleged 

that HDOT violated the NESHAP by its,failure 

to notify EPA of the demolition, its failure to 

remove the asbestos prior to demolition, its 

failure to keep the asbestos wet during demolition 

and its failure to properly store the asbestos 

debris. The consent decree was signed by EPA on 

August 22,1991. 

., .. 

Aconsent 

decree entered on April 30, 1991 resolved;a 

4,4 
s" ...* 

FY 1991 Enforcement Accornplishmenrs Reporr 

significant Clean Air Act civil action' against 

Unitank Terminal Service, Unitank, Inc., and DRT 

Industries, Inc. for past violations of the 

NESHAP for equipment leaks of benzene at a bulk 

liquid storage' terminal (petroleum and chemical 

products) in Philadelphia, PA. After prevailing 

on certain issues via summary judgment and 

obtaining a' precedent-setting opinion, the U.S. 

obtained the defendants' agreement to pay civil 

penalties in the amount of $135,000, despite the 

fact that the defendants had previously sold the 

facility on March 7, 1990. 

1Ls. v. USX PA) (W.D. 

EB1:' A Clean Air Act civil complaint against 

USX Corporation for violations of the CAA and 

the . Pennsylvania/Allegheny County State 

Implementation Plan at various sources (coke oven 

battery, bleeder stacks, and quench towers) at 

USXs coke plant in Clairton, PA, was filed on 

February 25, 1991, in the U.S. District Court for 

Westem Pennsylvania. The violations involve 

the venting of raw coke oven gas at the bleeder 

stacks and the use of contaminated water to cool 

hot coke at the quench towers. The violations are 

alleged to have occurred on several occasions since 

1987. The complaint seeks to have USX install 

new equipment. and take other steps to prevent 

any additional violations and payment of a civil 

penalty of $25,oW for each violation. 

v. Wards Cove P Wards 

Cove paid a civil penalty of $60,000 for 

violations of the asbestos NESHAP during the, 

renovation of two retorts (sterilization vessels) at 

the company's packing plant at Excursion Inlet, 

Alaska. Signed by EPA on May 20, 1991, the 

decree 'further provides that defendants will 

comply with the asbestos NESHAP in the future 

and will institute an asbestos control' program to 

ensure such compliance. 

YS. v. We!-. Weyerhaeuser 

agreed to pay a penalty of $500,000 for failing to 

comply with PM and NOx emission limitations in 

a. minor source permit issued by EPA. 

Weyerhaeuser also agreed to install additional 

control equipment on their Marshfield, Wisconsin, 

facility and undergo Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration review if it ever again exceeds the 

permit emission restrictions. 

ILS. v. Wick In this case the 

Port of Seattle and its contractors (Gordon Brown, 

Ballard 'Construction and Tor0 Construction) paid 

$80,000 for asbestos NESHAP violations during 

.. 

renovations at Sea-Tac Airport. In addition to 

payment of the civil penalty, the consent decree in 

this case requires the Port of Seattle and Wick to 

implement an extensive internal asbestos control 

program which includes inspection and sampling 

of all facilities being renovated or demolished, 

designation of asbestos program managers and site 

coordinators, and complete specified asbestos 

training. 

The 

defendant agreed to pay a $250,000 civil penalty 

and to comply with the Indiana State 

Implementation Plan. To reduce volatile organic 

compound emissions from its paper coating line, 

Zimmer, of Indianapolis, IN, must either use low 

solvent technology, install an incinerator and 

capture system, or cease operation of the 

violating line by July 1992, 15 months after entry 

of the consent decree. 

YS. and Commonwealth of PA. v. USX 

-: A consent decree 

resolving a significant Clean Air Act civil action 

against USX Corporation (USS Division) for 

violations of the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan at various sources (sinter 

plant, open hearth furnaces, and blast furnaces) 

at USX's steel plant in Fairless Hills, PA, was 

successfully completed during FY 1991. The ternk 

of the settlement include the payment by USX of 

civil penalties in the amount of $700,000, and 

agreement to provisions requiring compliance 

with all applicable CAA requirements upon any 

future resumption of operation of the previously 

operating noncomplying sources. Operation of the 

relevant sources was suspended by USX on January 

31, 1991. The consent decree was executed during 

FY 1991 and waslodged onOctober4,1991. 

(D. MD): A Clean Air Act civil 

complaint against Bethlehem Steel Corporation 

for violations of the Maryland SIP at various 

emission points (charging operations, door areas, 

offtake piping, combustion stacks, and pushing 

and hot coke transfer operations) at three coke 

oven batteries at Bethlehem Steel's plant in 

Sparrows Point, MD, was filed on April 25, 1991, 

in the US. District Court. The violations involve 

excess emission of particulate matter. The 

complaint seeks a court order to direct Bethlehem 

Steel to comply with the CAA and payment of a 

civil penalty. 

4-5 
*..s ...* 

FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

State Air Enforcement Actions 

Beginning with the FY 1991 Accomplishments 

Report, €PA will be including significant state 

enforcement actions submitted by the €PA 

Regional offices. We anticipate that State 

actions will play a greater role in future reports. 

American S ienaturel Foote Da vies. Lincoln. NF 

W: A State consent decree was entered on 

October 15, 1990, for the defendant's failure to 

obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

permit as required by the Nebraska 

Implementation Plan. The defendant paid 

580,000 penalty and was required to obtained a 

permit to comply with the SIP. 

Products. Inc.. Wmsnsbure MQ A 

State consent decree was entered on July 5, 1991, 

for the defendant's failure to obtain new source 

review permits under the Missouri 

implementation plan. The Company paid a 

$20,000 penalty for the violations which was the 

statutory maximum for the violation under the 

facts of the case. ' The source is a lead-acid 

battery manufacturing plant. This case is a 

companion case the Region's Clean Air Act 

judicial case which was filed as part of the 

Agency's lead initiative ( see page 4-3). 

Slav Bulk Terminwnc.. St. Lou is, MQ . A State 

consent decree was entered on January 31, 1991 for 

violation of the emissioi standards for benzene 

under the EPAs National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. The Company agreed 

to pay a $28,000 penalty and was'required to meet 

a schedule to comply with the emission 

standards. 

s v. Dymagm&~ Dynagen, Inc., a 

subsidiary of General Tire Company, operates a 

rubber plant located in Odessa, Texas. The Texas 

Attorney General's office filed suit against 

Dynagen, Inc. in December 1989, on behalf of the 

Texas Air Control Board (TACB). The TACB had 

reported more than 70 air emission violations 

including styrene and. butadiene, known 

carcinogens, against the company over the 

preceding two-year period after receiving 

numerous complaints from local residents. The 

case was settled in September 1991, with the 

company agreeing to a $1.4 million cash 

settlement. In addition to the cash settlement, 

the company agreed to spend more than $12 

million to install state-of-the-art equipment to 

rid the plant of faulty air emissions. This was 

the largest settlement 'ever assessed under the 

Texas Clean Air Act, making it a landmark, 

settlement. 

Sate of Texas v. 

During 1987, International Paper Corporation 

(IPC) at Nacogdoches, Texas, started production 

of wafer board with a permit from the Texas Air 

Control Board (TACB) that allowed 280 tons per 

year (TPY) emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from the resins used .to .bond 

the wafer board together. The VOCs were 

methylene diphenylisocyanate. Via stack tests, 

the TACB determined that the actual emission 

rate was approximately 1,000 TPY, making IPC 

subject to the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) standards, requiring. Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) for control 

equipment. IPC entered into an order with TACB 

in 1988; however, subsequently it was determined 

that BACT (a wet electrostatic precipitator on. 

the veneer dryers) was not in use at the facility to 

control VOCs. On March 6, 1991, EPA staff met 

with the company to discuss their violations and 

urged them to resolve the situation with TACB. 

Subsequently, IPC entered into negotiations with 

TACB and agreed to use the BACT and pay a 

$350,000 administrative penalty. EPA reviewed 

and concurred with TACBs enforcement penalty.. 

., 

Federal Facilities - Air 

Federal Facilities Asbestos 0 rder: Region II 

issued a compliance order to the US. General 

Services Administration for asbestos NESHAPs ~ 

violations in connection with. renovation 

operations at the federal office building in New 

York City - the second largest government office 

building in the country. The order was issued in 

response to a particular violation, but in deciding. 

to issue the order Region I1 considered a lengthy 

history of similar violations at this building and 

at other GSA-managed buildings. EPA had been 

attempting to reach a settlement with GSA 

concerning these violations at the time the new 

violations were documented. The order applies to 

all buildings owned or operated by GSA in Region 

11. The violations which gave rise to the order. 

involve the removal of ceiling tiles which were 

covered with asbestos dust (from asbestos 

insulation which had fallen onto them from 

above). Region 11 determined that such asbestoscovered tiles were subject to the requirements of 

the revised asbestos NESHAPs rule. . This 

interpretation was confirmed by EPA 

4-6 
FY 1991 ErJbrcemenr Accomplishmatus Report 

Headquarters. In addition to GSA, EPA also 

issued orders to its contractors perfodng the 

renovation work. Although GSA disagrees with 

EPAs interpretation and has elevated the 

matter, it is cooperating in establishing a more 

consistent approach to asbestos control at its 

facilities, and states that it has suspended work 

involving asbestos at its facilities. 

OnMay 

6, 1991, EPA issued a Prevention of Sigdficant 

Deterioration (PSD) determination and New 

Source Performance Standards ' (NSPS) 

applicability determinations to the General 

Services Administration (GSA), thereby removing 

the principal barrier to permit issuance for 

renovations to coal-fired boilers at the GSA 

Centra1 and West Heating Plants in Washington, 

DC. ' Concurrent with its PSD/NSPS 

determinations, EPA drafted a proposed longterzh Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement 

for the two heating plants. The Agreement was 

SignedbyGSAandEPA. 

In, March, 1989, GSA notified EPA and the 

District of Columbia of its intent to renovate the 

plants. In June, 1990, EPA, in reevaluating the 

%ope of the proposed projects, determined that 

PSD and NSPS might be applicable, and advised 

GSA of this. In July, 1990, EPA learned that work 

had begun on West Unit # 4 in December, 1989, 

without a permit. On July 20, 1990, EPA and the 

District.of Columbia met with GSA. GSA was 

advised to discontinue work on West # 4 until the 

PSD/NSPS questions were resolved. EPA also 

informed GSA that during its investigation of 

PSD applicability, modeled violations of the 

sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards were found to occur during normal 

operation of the heating plants. The violations 

were caused by "downwash effects resulting from 

insufficient stack height. 

GSA continued construction on West # 4 until 

September 12, 1990, when the District of 

Columbia issued a NOV requiring further 

construction to be suspended. The NOV stated 

that, District of Columbia permits "...cannot be 

issued until it has been determined if PSD or 

NSPS applies ..." An lnterim Federal Facilities 

Compliance Agreement with GSA was signed on 

January 29, 1991 to provide conditions and 

requirements for operation of West Heating plant 

pending final determinations of ED and NSPS 

applicability. 

-on 

June 21, 1991, the U.S. EPA, Region IV and the 

US. Department of Energy, Savannah River Field 

Office (DOE-SR), entered into the first interim 

agreement between EPA and DOE, an Interim 

Federal Facility Compliance Agreement and 

negotiations for a Federal Facility Compliance 

Agreement. This interim agreement was intended 

to permit the patties to develop a final phase 

pIan to bring the DOE-SR into compliance and 

maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act and 

the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The interim 

agreement required DOE-SR to immediately enter 

into good faith negotiationson a Federal Facility 

Compliance Agreement and to take certain 

immediate corrective actions in order to bring 

DOE-SR into full compliance with the NESHAP. 

A final agreement is now in place. 

Clean Air Act Enforcement 

Mobile Source Program 

Lead Phasedown 

ULyJ&m& In this case, Dupont, the major 

distributor of tetraethyl lead, was alleged to be 

liable under the lead phasedown regulations as a 

"refiner,'' since it participated in the blending of 

exorbitant amounts of lead in excess of federal 

limitations. EPA's determination of "refiner" 

status was based on the fact that Dupont was a 

major supplier of lead and Dupont oversaw the 

blending operations of the lead. EPA issued a 

Notice of Violation on November 24,1986 alleging 

lead phasedown violations and citing Dupont as a 

refiner along with Will Petroleum. Inc., A. 

Terricone, Inc., and Triad, Inc. Since Dupont 

denied responsibility and would not settle, a 

complaint was filed in Federal District Court in 

New Jersey on Decembcr 2.8, 1969 against E.I. 

Dupont Nemours Company. The United States 

pursued litigation of this case in order to make 

the supplier of such a highly toxic substance 

responsible for such a violation. This case was 

settled for $875,OOO pursuant to a court entered 

Consent Decree filed on July 2,1991. 

EPA alleged that during 

numerous quarters Western Refining had exceeded 

the lead standard, illegally banked and used 

lead rights, and incorrectly reported usage of lead 

to EPA. An excess of 4,640 million grams of lead 

was introduced into the environment as a result of 

.. 
FY 1991 Erforcement Accomplishments Report 

these alleged violations. In addition to liability 

being imposed against the corporate defendants, 

liability was imposed against two individuals 

that were discovered to be integrally involved in 

the management and ownership of Western 

Refining. This case was settled on April 24, 1991 

for a total penalty of $300,000. 

Fuel Volatility 

. On March 5, 1990, a 

complaint was filed in District Court alleging 

eight days of violations of gasoline volatility 

regulations. During discovery in this case, 

Unocal's counsel notified the United States that 

he had determined that gasoline analysis reports 

relied on by Unocal in presenting its defense had 

been fraudulently altered to reflect complying 

RVP test results. The United States and Unocal 

subsequently entered into an Agreement in 

Principal in September 1991, providing for 

payment of a civil penalty of $80,000, certain 

ongoing reporting requirements by Unocal, and 

stipulated penalties for any future violations or 

failure to comply with the reporting 

requirements. 

Aftermarket Catalytic Converter Policy Cases 

In a well publicized 

action last year, EPA initiated enforcement 

against Car Sound Exhaust Systems, a 

manufacturer of aftermarket catalytic converters. 

This case is significant because it expanded the 

scope of EPA's aftermarket catalyst program 

which had previously only focused on the 

installers of these catalysts. This should further 

insure the integrity of the program by addressing 

the responsibilities of the catalyst manufacturers 

as well. Car Sound Exhaust Systems was 

manufacturing and selling catalytic converters 

with insufficient internal catalyst material, 

contrary to information it had previously 

submitted to EPA, and was thus in violation of the 

policy. This case was settled on January 14, 1991. 

The settlement included a penalty component of 

$3O,ooO and a public education component of 

$20,000. 

ColeEl'A issued a Notice of Violation in 

September, 1989 against Cole Muffler for 444 

violations of EPA's aftermarket catalytic 

converter policy at 27 separate Cole Muffler 

Shops located in New York and Pennsylvania. 

Mitigation efforts by Cole Muffler resulted in a 

voluntary recall of all vehicles. ' However, the 

company would not agree to an acceptable penalty 

for these violations. A complaint was filed in 

federal district court on May 16, 1991. EPA 

subsequently determined that Cole Muffler had 

committed additional violations of the 

tampering prohibition, resulting in a total of 3,288 

violations. The complaint was amended on 

February 27, 1992 to reflect the additional 

violations. This is the largest aftermarket 

catalytic converter case handled by EPA. 

US. v. and Tire Cm EPA 

received a very favorable decision in this case 

which centered on EPA's aftermarket catalytic 

converter policy. This case involves an 

automobile repair shop that installed 51 twoway catalytic converters on vehicles requiring the 

installation of three-way catalytic converters, 

and four aftermarket catalytic converters on 

vehicles still subject to the vehicle 

manufacturer's five year/fifty-thousand mile 

warranty. A complaint was filed in the District 

Court for Virginia after Economy refused to settle 

with EPA. The court granted the government's 

motion for summary judgment for liability, giving 

"considerable deference" to EPA's consistent 

interpretation that replacing a three-way 

converter with a two-way converter was 

tampering, and further stated that the 

legislative history supported EPA's 

interpretation. 

Tampering Cases 

TED'S dMaJ&u& for Power: During N 1991, 

EPA resolved its longest running case against a 

manufacturer of emission control defeat devices, 

CEDs d/b/a Products for Power. This case arose 

from an investigation initiated in early 1980 of 

this company and a number of others which 

manufactured and distributed catalytic converter 

replacement pipes, commonly referred to as "test 

tubes," which were designed to be installed in 

place of catalytic converters. EPA proceeded 

with its investigation of manufacturers under the 

theory that the manufacturer was causing 

regulated parties (repair shops) to tamper with 

emission controls in violation of 5 203(a) of the 

Clean Air Act. Prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments it was a violation of 5 203(a) of the 

Act to "cause" a regulated party to tamper with a 

motor vehicle's emission control system. Effective 

with the new Amendments, the manufacture or 

sale of a "defeat device" such as a test tube, is 

now explicitly a violation. 

4-8 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

After extensive litigation involving the legality 

of EPAs search warrant and following extensive 

investigation, EPA cited CEDs for causing 

tampering on 42 vehicles. EPA and CEDs signed 

a Settlement Agreement in June 1987 which 

required the company to terminate all operations 

associated.with test tubes within 120 days and to 

pay $75,000 to the government over .the next 24 

months. After EPA discovered that CEDs had 

neither terminated its sale of test tubes, nor begun 

it's payment of the required civil penalties, the 

matter was immediately referred to the 

Department of Justice who filed for breach of the 

agreement. The court agreed with the government 

that CEDs violated the agreement and that the 

government assessment of the company's profits 

realized as a result of the breach of the agreement 

resulted in a penalty which includes the original 

settlement agreement penalty plus these profits 

and a punitive penalty amount. Under the decree, 

CEDs must terminate all manufacturing and sales 

of illegal "test tubes," pay a civil penalty of 

$292,ooO, insure EPA a right of entry for future 

inspections, and permanently. enpins CEDs from 

engaging in the manufacturing, sale, or 

distribution of these devices. 

Cases Involving Manufacturers that Engage in 

High Performance Modification of Vehicles 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

established the prohibition against the 

manufacture or sale of defeat devices. 

§203(a)(3)(B) of the Act, prohibits any person 

from manufacturing, selling, offering to sell, or 

installing any part or component intended for use 

with, or as part of, any motor vehicle, where a 

principal effect of the part or component is to 

bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device 

or element of design installed on or in a motor 

vehicle in compliance with the regulations at 40 

C.F.R. Part 86, and where the person knows or 

should know that such part or component is being 

offered for sale or installed for such use or put to 

such use. 

The legislative history associated with 

the prohibition against defeat devices cites "test 

pipes" and programmable read-only memory 

(PROM) chips as examples of such devices. All 

the- known manufacturers of lest pipes have 

ceased such production. EPA is currently 

investigating PROM chips manufactured by 

three different .companies. ~ Samples of the 

PROM chips have been sent to the EPA 

laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to determine 

whether they are defeat devices under the 

Clean Air Act provisions. 

Cars. In this case, EPA alleged 

that Callaway modified 111 1988 Chevrolet 

Corvettes prior to sale and delivery to the 

ultimate purchaser in violation of the Clean Air 

Act. Records uncovered by EPA indicate that the 

company was aware that these modified vehicles 

would not meet federal emissions standards. This 

action by EPA was well publicized and should 

send a strong message to the industry regarding 

EPA's efforts to control high performance 

modifications that increase emissions. This case 

was settled on August 15, 1991. The settlement 

amount is contingent on the results of an EPA 

conducted test of a vehicle modified by Callaway 

Cars. If EPA concludes that the modified vehicle 

satisfies federal emission standards, then 

Callaway Cars will pay a'penalty of 5200,000, 

otherwise, it will pay a penalty of 5356,000. 

Warranty.Cases 

I, This action alleged that 

Chrysler Corporation denied warranty coverage 

as required by the Clean Air Act in 40 instances. 

This is EPA's second case of this nature. The 

emissions warranty covers defects in emissions 

related parts or components in an automobile for 

five years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first. 

This case was settled on January 25, 1991, with a 

civil penalty of 580,000 and a public education 

component of $80,000 to be paid to Colorado State 

University. Furthermore, Chrysler agreed to 

reimburse the owners of the vehicles at issue, as 

well as those vehicle owners discovered through 

a review of its records, for costs incurred because of 

Chrysler's failure to honor the warranty. 

Moreover, Chrysler agreed to make certain 

changes to its warranty policy as a term of the 

settlement with EPA. 

Nonconformance Penalty Program 

In W 1991, pursuant 

to the Nonconformance Penalty Program (NCP), 

EPA performed a production compliance audit at 

General Motors Corporation to determine the 

emission levels emitted by certain heavy duty 

engine families. Based on the audit, EPA 

collected $386,902 in NCPs from General Motors 

for the introduction into commerce of 4,153 heavy 

duty engines not in compliance with federal 

emission standards. 

4-9 , 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Manufacturers Investigations 

In addition to the recall, SEA, and imports 

enforcement programs, in FY 1991, MOD 

continued to investigate whether manufacturers 

are in Compliance with Title IZ of the Clean Air 

Act. These investigations focused on 

manufacturers that introduced vehicles into 

commerce without obtaining an EPA certificate of 

conformity demonstrating compliance with 

Federal emission requirements. FY 1991 efforts 

yielded several full-scale investigations 

resulting in substantial settlement payments to 

EPA. In addition to these enforcement actions, 

MOD is continuing eight manufacturer 

investigations. 

MOD also took action against 

Excalibur Automobile Corporation, Inc., 

(Excalibur), a manufacturer 'of neoclassic luxury 

automobiles. Excalibur is currently in chapter 7 

liquidation bankruptcy. EPA determined that 

Excalibur sold 148 vehicles in the United States 

without a certificate of conformity in violation of 

§203(a)(l) of the Act. In February of FY 1991, EPA 

referred the case to the U.S. Attorney's office. 

The US. Attorney filed a proof of claim in 

bankruptcy court against Excalibur seeking 

$1,480,000 in civil penalties for the 148 

violations. 

Clean Water Act Enforcement 

Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement 

supports the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is 

the permit program regulating both direct and 

-During FY 1991, EPA concluded its 

investigation of Cushman, lnc. EPA determined 

that Cushman introduced into commerce 1626 

vehicles without an EPA certificate of conformity 

certifying compliance with federal emission 

requirements in violation of §203(a)(l) of the Act. 

By settlement agreement, Cushman agreed to pay 

civil penalties of $88,000 and to implement a 

retrofit and incentive program to render the 

vehicles excluded from the Clean Air Act 

requirements. The retrofit and incentive program 

required Cushman to provide free service parts to 

all vehicle owners as an incentive to retrofit their 

vehicles. The service part kit is valued at 

$147.50. To date, Cushman has delivered 244 

service part kits to vehicle owners for a total 

value of $35,990. 

4-10 

indirect discharges to the nation's navigable 

waters. 

On May21, 

1991, the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Rhode Island entered a consent decree requiring 

that Allens Manufacturing Co. Inc. of Providence, 

RI pay a $210,000 civil penalty and comply with 

federal and local pretreatment standards. Allens 

specializes in the production of belt and shoe 

buckles and other metal stampings. As a result of 

its metal plating operations, Allens discharges 

process wastewater containing heavy metals to 

the Narragansett Bay Water Quality 

Management District Commission publicly own" 

treatment works. This discharge is governed by 

EPAs pretreatment standards. As alleged in the 

government's . complaint, Allens repeatedly 

violated federal electroplating and metal 

finishing pretreatment .limitations as well as 

local pretreatment limits. In addition, Allens 

violated various monitoring and rep'rting 

requirements. 

On April 22, 1991, the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Massachusetts entered stipulated amendments to 

the government's Clean Water Act consent decree 

with Alto-Tronics Corp. of Burlington, MA. The 

amendments contained a civil penalty of $300,000 

for violations of the consent decree that required 

compliance with national categorical 

pretreatment requirements. Alto-Tronics, a 

printed circuit board manufacturer, discharged 

heavy metals into the sewer and sewage 

treatment system operated by the Massachusetts 

Water Resources Authority which, in turn, 

discharges into Boston Harbor. 

A Regional Presiding 

Officer issued a decision on May 22,1991, granting 

judgment against Ashland Oil, Inc., and assessing 

Ashland a civil penalty of $51,000. The case was 

brought administratively under §311(j) of the 

Clean Water Act, and 40 CFR Part 114, and 

alleged 'that Ashland did not have a legally 

adequate Spill Prevention, Control and 

Countermeasures Plan in effect at its Floreffe 

facility near Pittsburgh, PA, during the period 

immediately before, during and after the 

disastrous spill of diesel oil on January 2, 1988.'A 

hearing was held in May of 1990. The Presiding, 

Officer rejected Ashlands defenses that its Plan 

was adequate under the regulatory standard; that 

it had no obligation to anticipate equipment 

failure based on its past experience at that 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

facility and that increasing the size of a tank did 

not require amendment to the Plan. 

-, (S.D. OH): On 

November 28, 1990, the United States District 

Court in Cincinnati entered a consent decree 

settling a Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement 

case against defendants over past wastewater 

violations at their South Point, Ohio facility. 

The decree resolved a suit filed by the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) on EPAs behalf 

alleging that the plant had exceeded its 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit limits more than 900 

times between July 1983 and September 1987. The 

defendants agreed to pay a $627,000 civil penalty. 

The case demonstrates that substantial penalties 

will be imposed for past violations, particularly 

when a company saves significant amounts of 

money by failing to promptly correct violations. 

y5. v. BP Oil. Inr; On December 14, 1990, a 

consent decree was entered resolving an 

enforcement action brought against BP Oil, Inc. for 

Clean Water Act violations at the company's 

Marcus Hook, PA, oil refinery. Under the decree, 

BP was required to pay a $2.3 million penalty, 

$2,191,000 to the United States and $109,000 to 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

On August I, 

1991 a complaint was filed in this action citing 

defendant's violations of its Clean Water Act 

NPDES permit for discharges into Ponce Bay, 

Puerto Rico. The action was filed as part of EPAs 

National Lead Initiative. Caribe Tuna exceeded 

its permit limits for a number of pollutants, 

including lead, some 370 times from December, 

1986 to July, 1990. The facility is a tuna fish 

processing and canning facility operated by a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi Foods. 

The only treatment provided prior to discharge of 

its effluent is screening, and the effluent has 

consistently violated NPDES permit limits. 

A consent decree 

was entered in this case on January 15, 1991, 

requiring Cerro to recycle its wastewaters in order 

to meet pretreatment limits for copper and nonferrous metals at its Sauget, IL plant. Cerro also 

was required to pay a civil penalty of $1,400,000. 

In 

settlement of one of the most significant lead 

discharge cases in EPA history, the owner of a 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, organic chemical 

.. 

manufacturing and lead recovery facility agreed 

to pay the United States a civil penalty of 

$750,000 for violations of the effluent limitations 

in a federal wastewater discharge permit. As 

part of the July 1991 EPA Lead Initiative, the 

United States filed a complaint in the US. 

District Court for the Middle District of 

Louisiana alleging that Ethyl Corporation had 

violated its NPDES permit and 5301 of the Clean 

Water Act by discharging to the Monte Sano 

Bayou and the Mississippi River, on numerous 

occasions during the period from December 1987 

through July 1991, pollutants in quantities in 

excess of permit limitations for total lead, total 

suspended solids, total organic carbon, 

chlorinated hydrocarbons and pH. The United 

States and Ethyl subsequently agreed to a 

settlement whereby Ethyl will pay the United 

States a penalty of $750,000 and undertake an 

environmental audit of the Baton Rouge facility. 

The consent decree setting forth the terms of 

settlement was lodged with the Court on August 

28, 1991. The United States' motion for entry of 

the consent decree was filed with the Court on 

October 17,1991. 

(New yprkz On June 14, 1991 the 

New Jersey District Court entered a Consent 

Decree in this case arising out of a January, 1990 

oil spill from a ruptured underwater pipeline. 

Under the terms of the Decree, Exxon will provide 

about $10 million for a trust fund to mitigate 

environmental damage resulting to natural 

resources from the spill of over 500,000 gallons of 

oil. The fund will be administered by two federal 

agencies, the States of New York and New Jersey 

and the City of New York. In a related 

development discussed under "Criminal 

Enforcement Program," below, a guilty plea was 

entered by Exxon in connection with the same 

spill. 

Kid On April 6, 1991 the Puerto Rico District 

Court entered a an order requiring payment of 

nearly $2.8 million in penalties, and permanently 

enjoining Island Petroleum Products, Inc. and its 

owner, Jorge Luring, from any discharge from its 

electroplating facility, either directly to the 

waters of the United States or indirectly to a 

sewage system. Discharge may not resume until 

payment has been made of a $50,000 penalty 

owing under a 1988 Consent Decree in the case, 

plus payment of $2,736,000 in stipulated 

penalties for civil contempt of the prior Decree. 

4-11 
p: 

FY 1991 Erforcement Accomplishments Report 

In May, 

1991, the United States and California filed suit 

against the Cities of Los Angeles and Burbank and 

against Chevron, USA., Continental '. Can. 

Company, Inc., Stainless Steel Products, Inc, 

Teledyne Industries, Inc.,.and Zero Corporation for 

violations of EPAs industrial waste pretreatment 

requirements. EPAs pretreatment regulations 

require cities, like, Los Angeles and. Burbank, to 

properly regulate discharges of industrial 

wastewater to their cities' sewer lines. In 1990, 

EPA and California conducted.. a detailed. I 

evaluation of Los Angeles and Burbanks 

performance in implementing their. pretreatment 

programs and documented a number of serious! 

deficiencies. Most importantly, both cities had 

numerous industries which were repeatedly 

violating Federal standards for treating toxic 

wastewater prior to discharge to the sewer 

system. EPA and California identified the five 

companies sued as serious violators of Federal 

pretreatment requirements that were not being 

properly regulated by Los Angeles or Burbank. 

EPA has issued orders to the cities and to the 

industries to require them to comply with Federal 

standards. The civil action is intended to ensure 

compliance with the orders and to assess an 

appropriate civil penalty for the violations of 

Federal requirements. ., 

us. v. 

Pauer Cow: EPA and the, 

Department of Justice lodged consent decrees in a 

Clean Water Act enforcement action against.. 

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation . ("L-I"'), and 

Simpson Paper Company ("Simpson") on 

September 9, 1991. The Consent Decrees resolved 

claims brought in 1989 against L-P and Simpson 

for repeated violations of ,NPDES permits at two. 

pulp mills located near Eureka, California. Under 

the 'consent decrees, Louisiana Pacific' and 

Simpson are each required to pay $2.9 million in 

civil penalties, the fourth largest penalties ever 

collected under the~Clean Water Act. 

EPA and DOJ brought suit to remedy.two water 

pollution problems: the persistent chronic'toxicity 

of the mills' effluents (as measured' by..several 

bioassay tests) and the adverse impact, to 

recreational users exposed to the mills' effluent 

discharges. The Consent Decrees impose several. 

obligations to remedy these problems. One, L-P 

and Simpson must install treatment .technologies 

shown effective at reducing chronic toxicity of the 

companies' effluents. Two, L-P must install an 

.. .. 

. .. ., 

outfall extension to ensure that L-P effluent does 

not wash into areas used for recreation. Three, 

Simpson must study whether treatment measures 

can render its effluent colorless, odorless, free .of 

potential skin irritants and free of compounds 

demonstrated in surrogate testing to have 

carcinogenic potential. If Simpson is unable to 

meet these criteria through treatment, it must 

also install an outfall extension to ensure that its 

effluent. does not wash into. areas used for 

recreation. ., .. 

., 

UU - us. v. hteh@ku 

Commlsaon: EPAs seven-year 

enforcement case effort to clean up Boston Harbor 

paid.off during FY 1991 with the initiation of 

construction of the long-awaited new secondary 

treatment plant at Deer. Island:. . The 

groundbreaking ceremony was held in July 1991. 

The harbor's water quality is expected to improve 

when the primary treatment portion of, the plant 

is completed in 1995 and when the secondary 

treatment portion of the plant is completed in 

1999. ' In the meantime, interim improvements to 

existing facilities and the elimination of scum 

discharges have . already led to significant 

improvements in the harbor's water quality. '. 

.. 

At the same time, the harbor cleanup plan'was 

jeopardized this past year by the initial failure 

of the State of Massachusetts to make available 

a landfill. site needed to. ensure the proper 

disposal of sewage sludge and-other treatment . 

plant residuals. In-response, in February 1991; the 

U.S. District Court for the District .:of 

Massachusetts imposed . a sewer connection 

moratorium. throughout the Boston metropolitan 

area. This finally led to the transfer of a landfill 

site in Walpole, MA, by the state legislature, 

breaking more than a decade of logjams in siting sludge disposal 

p: 

facilities. I 

On August 18, 

1991, a consent decree was entered in Federal 

District Court in Minnesota to settle a suit against 

the MC/MWCC for Clean Water Act (CWA) 

violations at the Blue Lake and Seneca 

Wastewater Treatment Plants. The case (which 

came about as a result of the US. filing over a 

Minnesota suit) reaffirmed that States arc 

expected to act as US. EPA's partners in 

enforcement, and must seek penalties that are 

consistent with Federal policy. US. EPA 

disagreed with Minnesota over the relatively 

small penalty levied by the State on MC/MWCC. 

.. 

4-12 
FY 1991 ElyCorcement Accomplishments Repowri 

- 

As a result of the decree, MC/MWCC paid a total 

civil penalty of $527,000 ($395,000 to the US. 

and $132,000 to the State) rather than the 

$132,000 

p: 

in installments to be paid to the State. 

Consent Decrees 

were entered in two National Municipal Policy 

Enforcement Initiative cases and Phase 1 

Pretreatment Enforcement Initiative case in 

Region 11. Under the Decrees the municipalities 

in question will provide upgraded sewage 

treatment facilities, and pay civil penalties as 

follows: Hoboken, New Jersey ($225,000; achieve 

compliance with NPDES permit limits by 

1/8/93); West New York, New Jersey ($160,000; 

achieve compliance by 5/31/93) and Dunkirk, 

New York ($100,000; achieve compliance with 

pretreatment and NPDES requirements by 

7/1/92). The Hoboken and West New York cases 

were two of a number of cases brought against 

municipalities in Hudson County, New Jersey. The 

consent decrees resolve the last actions in that 

group of cases, and culminate a decade-long effort 

to bring these municipalities into compliance. 

.. 

W.D. PAk On September 

10, 1991, the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Pennsylvania granted the 

government's motion for a preliminary injunction 

against the Municipality of Penn Hills, PA. Penn 

Hills had for some time been discharging 

untreated and partially treated sewage from 

several treatment plants. The bypassing occurred 

most often in wet weather. Two of the Penn Hills 

plants are not far upstream from the intake of the 

Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority, a water 

'supplier. Penn Hills had failed to respond in 

substance to repeated state and federal efforts to 

address Penn Hills' noncompliance with its 

NPDES permits. In the preliminary injunction, 

the court ordered Penn Hills to take immediate 

steps to identify all points at which bypassing 

was taking place, and to develop a plan to 

eliminate the bypassing. The court also ordered 

Penn Hills to hire an independent outside 

contractor to review the operation of the plants 

and to develop an overall process control strategy. 

(ED. PzLt In 

the first of two record-setting Clean Water Act 

civil penalties assessed in FY 1991, an industrial 

pretreater (unlawfully discharging wastewater 

contaminated with excess ammonia and iron to 

the Easton, Pennsylvania sewage treatment 

plant) was fined $3.1 million for its violations of 

national pretreatment standards and local 

pollutant loading limitations established by 

Easton. This penalty recouped the full economic 

benefit that accrued to Pfizer as a result of its 

Violations, and assessed an additional penalty 

based on the seriousness of Pfizer's violations. 

The assessment of this negotiated penalty was 

encompassed in a consent decree entered with the 

court. I'fizer was sued along with several other 

parties, .the most prominent of which is the 

Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority which is being 

sued for failing to properly implement its 

industrial pretreatment program. 

(Puetio Rico Wastewatsx 

Region I1 continues to devote 

extensive resources to this case involving a large 

number of PRASA wastewater treatment 

facilities. The Region is monitoring PRASA's 

compliance with a series of court orders entered in 

this case. Motions to Enforce were filed on a 

quarterly basis; Motions to Establish a 

Compliance Schedule for Advanced Waste 

Treatment were prepared and filed; a modified 

court order pertaining to requirements for operator 

training and rehabilitation of PRASA's pump 

stations 

e 

was negotiated and filed; and 

claims were reviewed (and mostly 

denied). In related developments, CWA §309(g) 

administrative penalty actions were filed for 

violations at PRASA's Mayaguez, Fujardo and 

Las Piedras treatment plants. Extensive 

administrative litigation has ensued in two of 

p. 

these cases, while the third was settled. 

On March 4, 

1991 Administrative law Judge Spenser Nissen 

denied Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and 

granted in part EPAs Motion for Accelerated 

Judgment in this Clean Water Act §309(g) case. In 

this ruling, the ALJ found the Respondent liable 

for discharging without a permit domestic sewage 

into the Culebrinas River in San Sebastian, Puerto 

Rico. The respondent had built a 544 unit 

development of low income housing. As part of 

the development, PRURHC constructed a sewage 

collection system and a pump station to transport 

the sewage to a treatment plant. The collection 

system was never connected to the plant and, 

instead, raw sewage was discharged from the 

inoperative pump station through a manmade 

ditch to the River. Respondent argued that it was 

not responsible for the discharge and that 

residents had improperly connected to the system. 

The ALJ found Respondent strictly liable for the 

system and the discharge, but ordered a hearing 

4-13 
FY 1991 Et$orcement Accomplishments Report 

on the appropriate amount of the penalty. . . 

On March 22,1991, 

the US. District Court for the Southern District 

of Indiana, assessed one of the largest civil 

penalties ever obtained for pretreatment 

violations .- $2,093,750. The penalty was 

assessed against Roll Coater for its violations of 

the national categorical pretreatment standards 

for coil coaters. This was one of the first Clean 

Water Act cases that EPA has taken to trial on 

the issue of penalties. The court awarded a 

penalty well in excess of the economic benefit 

that Roll Coater obtained as a result of the 

savings it obtained during the years it was 

discharging wastewater containing chromium, 

zinc and cyanide to the public sewers in violation 

of applicable national pretreatment standards. 

This case was filed in July 1989. The opinion filed 

by the court only dealt with the issue of penalties 

since Roll Coater had completed installation of a. 

new treatment plant and achieved compliance by 

August 1989. 

w. In June 1991 an administrative 

compliance order was issued to the Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe ordering the tribe to cease the discharge of 

raw sewage to Rosebud Creek. Citizens 

complaints from the reservation and the obvious 

human health risks associated with the release 

of raw sewage prompted this .action. Through 

close coordination with the municipal facilities 

branch of EPA this action proved to be successful. 

The discharge was ceased as required by the 

Order. The discharge of raw sewage to the 

nations waters are a common occurrence on 

reservations due to the lack of federal funding. 

Through coordination with municipal facilities, 

EPA can help to eliminate these poor conditions 

by providing money, technical assistance and a 

reasonable schedule for achieving compliance 

with the Clean Water Act to the tribes. This case 

has served as a model for providing assistance to 

other reservations with poor wastewater 

treatment conditions. 

US. v. So- DistrrCf- In 

September, 1991, EPA and Massachusetts settled 

an action against the South Essex Sewerage 

District (SESD) which addressed the discharge 

of pollutants into Massachusetts Bay in violation 

of the Clean Water Act. Under the consent decree 

entered by,the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Massachusetts on September 16, SESD agreed to 

pay a fine of $225,000 and comply with a 

.. 

schedule to construct a secondary wastewater 

treatment plant and meet interim effluent4imits. 

SESD is a sewer authority that represents the, 

communities of Beverly, Marblehead, Peabody, 

and Salem, MA. It operates a 41 million gallon a 

day primary wastewater treatment facility .in 

Salem. SESD had applied for and been denied a 

§301(h) waiver under .the Clean Water Act, but 

had not proceeded to. construct a secondary 

wastewater ,, treatment plant. .I, 

OnNovember 

7, 1990, a consent decree resolving Y.S. v. Terre 

Haute. IN was entered by the court. Among other 

things, the Decree requires Terre Haute, to 

undertake both short-term and a long-term 

compliance programs. The main features of the 

long-term program are: rehabilitating ,the. 

anaerobic digesters, constructing additional plant 

improvements, and carrying out a long-term solids 

management plan, and an operating plan for the 

treatment plant. Additionally, the consent decree 

requires Terre Haute to pay a civil penalty of 

$81,000 for past violations of the Clean Water 

Act. ,". 

(N.D. IN1: The consent 

decree with USX Corp.'s Gary Works .facility, 

entered in U.S. District Court in Hammond, IN, on 

October 22, 1991, marked a turning point in,the. 

history of the Grand Calumet River. At a'cost of 

$34.1 million, including $1.6 million in civil 

penalties, USX must bring its Gary Works plant 

into compliance with the Clean Water Act;.The 

decree specifies more than 100 steps designed, to 

effect source-by-source . reduction of ,waste 

materials at the plant. Furthermore,.USX must 

develop and implement a sediment remediation 

plan designed to address contaminated river 

sediments along the five miles of Grand Calumet 

River abutting USX property. Not only does the 

settlement require compliance with the Gary 

Works' 1983 permit, it stipulates further .actions 

in anticipation of the more stringent limitations 

in the next permit. .. 

US. v. Wl, 6. D. Ohis4 

On July 16, 1991, the U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of Ohio entered a settlement 

containing the largest civil penalty ever obtained 

by'the United States, or a citizen group, for Clean, 

Water Act wastewater discharge violations,.: -- $6;184,220. During the course of this litigation, 

Wheeling-Pittsburgh installed most of the basic 

treatment facilities and monitoring stations. 

needed to comply with its water'permits at its 

.. 

.. 

.. 

4-14 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Steubenville, Mingo Junction and Yorkville 

facilities in Ohio, at a total cost of over $20 

million. This record penalty and a comprehensive 

compliance program was obtained despite the 

fact that Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel was in 

bankruptcy from 1985 through 1991. In addition to 

paying the penalty, the settlement requires 

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel to undertake numerous 

measures to remedy past violations and prevent 

future violations. Pursuant to the settlement, 

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel will conduct a 

comprehensive facilities evaluation to identify 

and remedy all possible sources of water pollution 

discharges, implement a toxicity reduction 

program, and conduct biannual environmental 

audits. This case was initiated by the US. in June 

1988 because Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel. had 

committed thousands of violations of applicable 

Clean Water. Act permit requirements, including 

repeated discharges of wastewater containing 

lead, zinc, cyanide, total suspended solids, oil 

and grease, and total chrome to the Ohio River in 

violation of applicable limits. 

For discharging excess amounts of 

sugar which resulted in increased levels of BOD 

into the Yegen Drain, Yellowstone River, this 

facility in Billings, MT, paid total pena es of 

$338,000, (an initial penalty of $l85,OL# plus 

stipulated penalties of $153,000). The company 

also installed monitoring equipment costing 

$250,000. The facility was found to be out of 

compliance with its Consent Decree which 

stipulates payment of the statutory maximum 

penalty if high BOD levels resulted from further 

discharge. Western Sugar also spent $1 million to 

correct its new monitoring equipment, Sugar also 

spent another $1,000,000. 

State Water Enforcement Actions 

Beginning with the FY 1991 Accomplishments 

Report, EPA will be including significant stnte 

enforcement actions submitted by the EPA 

Regional offices. We anticipate thnt State 

actions will play a greater role in future reports. 

-: The State of 

Colorado settled three enforcement actions 

against Coors Brewing during FY 1991. The first 

enforkement action, settled on October 23, 1990, 

resulted from an unpermitted discharge of ground 

water contaminated with solvents and BTEX into 

Clear Creek. The State settlement included a 

cash penalty of $250,000 with an additional 

.. 

$400,000 in credit projects. EPA's RCRA 

enforcement action for this discharge was 

initiated on June 16, 1990, and settlement for 

$700,000 was reached on October 3,1991. A second 

State enforcement action against Coors resulted 

from an operator error at the brewery which 

caused beer to be discharged to the wastewater 

treatment plant, which in turn caused a fish kill 

in Clear Creek. The State collected $36,000 for 

this discharge. The State issued a separate 

action against Coors for effluent violations of 

their NPDES permit. The State settled with 

Coors for $175,oW for these violations. Coors 

Brewing has required that their departments 

begin to coordinate and clear all actions through 

their environmental department to prevent 

further environmental damage. 

-: In the largest out-ofcourt settlement for violations of the Utah Water 

Pollution Control Act and the Utah Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System Permit for its mill 

at Orem,Utah Geneva Steel Corporation paid 

$467,000 in upfront and stipulated penalties 

between December 1989, and June 1991. These 

stipulated penalties for discharging excessive 

ammonia concentrations were included in the 

Settlement Agreement signed May 31,1990. 

NoelWater. Co.. M&M!2 The Noel Water 

Company treats wastewater from the Hudson 

Foods poultry processing plant. The State 

established that the facility had improperly 

discharged wastewater into the Elk River, 

located in southeast Missouri. The Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources filed suit in 

federal court against Noel Water Company and 

Hudson Foods on January 28, 1991, for repcated 

water pollution violations. It was the first 

lawsuit of it kind ever filed by the State of 

Missouri under the citizen suit provisions of the 

Clean Water Act. In addition to compliance 

schedules for both Noel and Hudson, the 

companies agreed to pay in excess of $200,000 plus 

contributions to local agencies. 

-: In one of the largest out-ofcourt penalty settlements for violations of the 

Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 

Thiokol Corporation agreed to pay $70,000 in 

penalties to the State of Utah. Meanwhile, 

Utah agreed to waive another $25,000 in 

penalties if Thiokol met all deadlines of the 

compliance schedule in the Settlement Agreement 

signed by both parties September 9, 1991. This 

settlement agreement concluded regulatory 

4-15 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

enforcement actions against the. company for 

violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control 

Act which began with the issuance of a Notice of 

Violation and Order on February 22,1991. 

Federal Facilities - CWA 

YSBF Chw- (Colorado): On 

January 10, 1989, a NPDES Reconnaissance 

Inspection was performed at the facility. As.a 

result of deficiencies found during an inspection, 

EPA entered into a Federal Facility Compliance 

Agreement to Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base. 

(January 4, 1991). The Agreement contained a 

construction schedule which required Cheyenne 

Mountain AFB to connect the North Portal 

oil/water separator to the Fort Carson Sanitary 

Sewer and to terminate discharge from Outfall 

001 by September 30, 1991. Cheyenne Mountain 

AFB has met all requirements of the FFCA. 

Dakota): Mt. Rushmore operates a wastewater 

treatment plant which discharges under an, 

NPDES Permit. The facility has had problems 

consistently meeting the effluent. limit in. its 

permit. To .correct identified problems at. the 

facility, EPA entered into a Federal Facility 

Compliance Agreement with Mt. Rushmore (April 

20,1991). The Agreement contained a construction 

schedule to upgrade the facility. Mt. Rushmore 

has met all requirements of the FFCA. 

Marine Protection Research. , and 

Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) 

DuringFY 

1991 Region I1 continued to track compliance with 

the nine judicial Consent Decrees and Enforcement 

Agreements entered into by EPA with the States 

of New York and New Jersey and the municipal 

sludge dumpers. Although the six municipalities 

in New Jersey ceased all ocean dumping of sludge 

in March, 1991 as scheduled; .EPA' negotiated 

modifications of five of the nine Decrees to allow 

time for the exploration of beneficial reuse of 

sludge as a long-term, land based .alternative. 

The five municipalities for which such 

modifications were made' are: Westchester 

County, N.Y., Middlesex County and Bergen 

County Utilities Authorities, N.J., Linden Rosell 

Sewage Authority, N,J., and Rahway Valley 

Sewage Authority, N.J. In addition, EPA issued 

demand letters to' collect stipulated penalties for 

violations of the Consent Decrees by the PasSaic 

Valley Sewerage Commission, N.J. and the Joint 

Meeting of Essex and Union Counties, N.J. The 

violations they are, charged with involve, 

inadequate interim sludge handling contracts. 

and D . EPA Region. IX %$ into a c=&t with the Port of 

Oakland resolving its Marine Protection Research 

and Sanctuaries .Act (MPRSA) administrative 

enforcement action against the Port of Oakland. 

The Port of .Oakland and. .its contractor, Great 

Lakes Dredge and'Dock Co., violated the MPRSA 

by: 1) discharging contaminated dredge sediments 

into the Pacific Ocean in violation of a.MPRSA 

permit, and',?.) failing to adhere to various 

operational and monitoring requirements imposed 

by, the MPRSA permit. .Under the ,consent 

agreement, the Port paid a civil penalty of 

$150,CiJO. '., ' . 

Wetlands Enforcement (5 404) ,. . 

Section 404 of the Clean', Water ,Act 

regulates the discharge of dredge and .-fill 

material into navigable waters.. Enforcement 

emphasizes redress for unpermitted discharges 

in environmentally sensitive areas and seeks 

restoration . of, , or compensation for,, 

environmental damage. 

j:' -I 

1 A&A PI er in 

On June 6, 1991, 

Region VIII ordered A&A Enterprises to restore a 

placer mining site in wetlands adjacent to Gamble 

Gulch and Boulder Creek. The Region,also began 

proceedings to assess up to $24,800 in penalties for 

violations of 5404 of the Clean Water.Act in.1990 

and 1991. These administrative enforcement' 

actions followed attempts to resolve. the 

violations informally. Publicity associated with 

the enforcement actions generated several public 

comments in support of strong enforcement again? 

the firm. Small placer mining operations are 

widespread in Region VI11 and. the deterrent 

effect of the enforcement actions should .extend 

beyond the immediate area of the Blue Spruce 

Placer Mine violations. , ., 

., , . .. 

1990, Richard Anderson and the City of 

Hampden, North Dakota, signed . :an 

administrative order on consent requiring 

restoration of seven wetlands that had. .been 

illegally drained into a county rqad righkof-way; 

4-16 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

The drainage activities violated 5404 of the 

Clean Water Act and Federal Highway 

Administration prohibitions against draining 

wetlands into the rights-of-way of federallyfunded roads and highways. The restoration 

work was overseen in the field by representatives 

of the US. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Soil Conservation Service. Satisfactory 

restoration of the 32 acres of wetlands affected by 

the violation has been completed. 

Water Dv On 

the eve of a Class I administrative penalty 

hearing scheduled to begin on September 23,1991, 

the Clifton Water District agreed to pay a 

$2O,OOO penalty for constructing a municipal 

water supply diversion structure in the Colorado 

River east of Grand Junction, Colorado, in 

violation of 5404 of the Clean Water Act. The 

discharges, which occurred in the late fall of 1988 

and winter of 1989, affected a reach of the river 

inhabited by the Colorado Squawfish, a 

federally listed endangered species, and the 

razorback sucker, which was recently proposed for 

listing as an endangered species. The penalty 

settlement represented a milestone in a series of 

enforcement actions in response to the District's 

Clean Water Act violations during 

construction of the diversion structure. In June, 

1989, EPA ordered the District to perform an 

alternatives analysis and studies of the 

structure's impact on migration of endangered fish 

species. On May 30, 1991, the District signed a 

consent agreement requiring it to seek after-thefact authorization for the structure from the Corps 

of Engineers. The consent agreement also requires 

the District to remove any structures and fill 

material that are not authorized by the Corps at 

the conclusion of the after-the-fact permit 

process. 

YS. V. Golf - 

Region IV fined Golf Legends, Ltd. $75,000 for the 

unauthorized filling, excavation, and clearing of 

approximately 123 acres of forested wetlands near 

Conway, SC. In addition to the fine, Legends 

restored and created approximately 40 acres of 

wetlands on site, preserved in perpetuity 

approximately 460 acres of wetlands adjacent to 

the golf course and a 100 acre bay in the Conway, 

SC area. 

.. 

Inc. (- A 

Colorado developer paid a $2O,OOO 

administrative penalty and agreed to perform a 

three-acre wetland restoration project on Boulder 

Open Space property. The wetland restoration 

project is intended to compensate for Markel's 

filling of 1.3 aaes of urban wetlands between 1984 

and 1987 without a Clean Water Act 5404 permit 

and then building apartment units on them. The 

19-acre wetland impacted by the project wa5 

given a high priority for protection under the 

City of Boulder's local wetland protection 

program because of its size and the amenities it 

provided to nearby residents. EPA agreed to the 

compensatory mitigation project instead of 

requiring the removal of the buildings and the fill 

they were built on because of the tenuous financial 

condition of the developer and the savings and 

loan company that had financed the project. The 

City of Boulder played a key role in the 

enforcement action by providing technical advice 

to EPA and negotiating the agreements under 

which the developer was allowed to perform the 

mitigation work on Open Space land near Boulder 

Reservoir. The case reflects the Region's 

continuing commitment to enforcement actions 

aimed at protecting wetlands in urbanizing areas 

in the Rocky Mountain west. 

On January .17, 1991, 

Region VI11 completed a series of administrative 

enforcement actions begun in 1989 against the 

Ramsey County Water Resources District for 

violations of 5404 of the Clean Water Act. The 

District is a state-chartered drainage 'agency 

operating in Ramsey County, North Dakota. Late 

in 1988 the District hired a contractor to excavate 

a channel at least 45 feet wide through prairie 

pothole wetlands for the purposes of converting 

wetlands to crop land. An estimated 5,W cubic 

yards of vegetation and soil was discharged in 

wetlands on either side of the drainage channel 

and the ditch drained 600 - 700 acres.of palustrine 

emergent semi-permanently flooded wetlands. 

The Region's enforcement actions culminated in 

payment of a $2,500 penalty by the Water 

Resources District and the completion of 

restoration measures aimed at blocking the ditch 

and breaching the spoil piles along it. The case 

marked Region VIII's first administrative 

penalty action for a g04 violation and sent a 

strong deterrent message to other drainage 

districts in North Dakota where similar 

enforcement actions were underway or pending. 

Floyd E. and F- 

(E.D. Mal: As a result of this 

enforcement action, 200 acres of wetlands will be 

established to replace wetlands destroyed by the 

4-17 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

defendant. In settlement of a Clean Water Act 

sC4 enforcement action on September 15, 1991, 

forested wetlands, emergent wetlands, and 

aquatic beds will be established in the 

floodplains of two streams in north central 

Missouri. In addition, a 140 acre greenbelt will be 

established in perpetuity along the larger of the 

two streams, and the defendants will pay a 

$5,000 civil penalty. In the construction of its 

aquaculture ponds, the defendants destroyed 160 

acres of forested wetlands, wetland pasture, 

oxbow wetlands and stream channels. 

.. v. w1- 

-: After more than three years of 

protracted litigation, the New Jersey District 

Court on May 17,1991 dismissed this challenge to 

an EPA "veto" under s04W of the Clean Water 

Act of a wetlands fill permit. Though nominally 

a defensive litigation, the case has significance 

to EPA wetlands enforcement program, holding 

that EPA may "veto" an "after-the-fact'' permit 

proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The 

plaintiff, a developer, sought to enjoin EPA 

and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 

enforcing any provisions of the Clean Water Act in 

connection with property it owns and has 

developed in the Hackensack Meadowlands, 

New Jersey. The plaintiff asserted that 

enforcement action threatened by EPA for 

violations of 904 of the CWA was causing it 

irreparable injury. The action arose after EPA, in 

March, 1988, issued the W04(c) "veto" of any 

permit to fill wetlands within approximately 57 

acres of property owned by the plaintiff. The 

plaintiff's request for reconsideration has been 

denied; an appeal' to the Third Circuit is 

considered likely. 

In July, 

1991, a Presiding Officer issued an Initial 

Decision, assessing a penalty of $125,000, and 

directing the respondent to submit a restoration 

plan for EPA approval, and to implement an 

approved plan of restoration for approximately 

75 acres of tidal wetlands. Mr. Sasser owns 

property in South Carolina that includes 

wetlands which were historically impounded to 

facilitate rice cultivation. 

(Montana): In the first ruling of its kind in the 

9th Circuit, the Sinclair Oil Corporation was 

found in violation of 5404 of the Clean Water Act 

for bulldozing a large amount of streambed 

material in the Little Big Horn River in Montana 

during late winter and early spring, 1987. The 

court held that a redeposit of indigenous 

strea,nbed materials constitutes an addition of 

pollutants and that the defendant's activities 

were therefore regulated. Following the 

appointment of a settlement judge to facilitate 

the resolution of civil penakyissues, the Sinclair 

Oil Company agreed to pay a. penalty of $15,000 

and a consent decree was entered by the court on 

August 28, 1991. Stream restoration work had 

been completed pursuant to an EPA 

administrative order which was issued in 1987. 

The court's favorable ruling is important because 

the kind of stream alteration work at issue is 

commonplace throughout Region VIII. 

U: - Region IV fined the Stewarts 53,000 for 

the unauthorized filling in a trout stream in 

Robbinsville, NC. The fill resulted in a large fish 

kill downstream., The Stewarts restored the 

impacted area and also paid the State of North 

Carolina $3,000 for costs incurred by the fish kill 

and restocking the impacted stream. 

er. Colorad& During 

December 1990, Techpartnership, I a Boulder, 

Colorado, commercial real estate development 

partnership, completed removal of illegally 

discharged fill placed in 1.8 acres of a 19 acre 

wetland. The discharges, which violated 5404 of 

the Clean Water Act, occurred in 1987and 1989. In 

March, 1991, Techpartnership paid a. $5,000 

administrative penalty following administrative 

enforcement action begun by EPA Region VI11 in 

September, 1990. The affected wetland.received a 

high priority for protection in a City of Boulder 

study of wetlands within the Boulder Planning 

Area and was the subject of illegal discharges by 

others as well. EPAs enforcement actions 

reflected the Region's emphasis on urban 

wetlands and resulted in the restoration of 

wetland values in the affected area. 

A conservation 

easement was established as part of a consent 

decree entered on July 18, 1991, by the US. 

District Court for the District of Connecticut in 

the wetlands enforcement case of U.S. v. Winding 

Brook Turf Farm The defendant, which proposed 

the easement as a supplemental environmental 

project, was alleged to have filled 17 acres of 

wetlands in Suffield, CT. In settlement of EPAs 

complaint, the defendant agreed to restore the 

damaged wetlands, pay a $35,000 penalty, and 

establish a conservation easement on the filled 

.. 

4-18 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report @-- 

wetlands and adjoining land to help ensure better shallow disposal wells (Class IV); enforcing the 

long-term protection of the wetlands. hazardous waste restrictions promulgated under 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HS WA); 

Safe Drinkine; Water Act (SDWA) and enforcing against violations at injection v 

Enforcement 

Public Water Supply Program (PWSS) 

The PWSS program establishes a 

regulatory program for public water systems and 

requires EPA to set drinking water standards 

(including Maximum Contaminant Levels) for a 

variety of pollutants. 

YS. v. City of N- An important 

precedent was established during 1991 in EPAs 

drinking water enforcement case brought against 

the City of North Adams, MA. On August 7, 

1991,the federal district judge ruled that the EPA 

could bring a federal court action notwithstanding 

the earlier filing of a state court action, where 

the state court action sought relief less extensive 

than that sought by EPA and where the state 

court action was not filed within thirty days of 

the state receiving a Notice of Violation from 

EPA. Prior to the initiation of the federal court 

action, the City had refused to agree to any 

binding schedule for the construction of a drinking 

water filtration plant. Trial in federal court was 

held in November 1991 to establish a federally 

binding schedule and to set the penalty that the 

City will need to pay because of its past delays. 

YS. v. ELK0 -(S.D. Ohio): As part 

of the Agency's Lead Enforcement Initiative, a 

civil action was filed against the EBCO 

Company, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio, for the 

manufacture and sale of drinking water coolers 

which were not lead free. This was the first 

action under the Lead Contamination Control Act 

of 1988, which amended the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA). A Consent Decree was entered by 

the Court which provided for a repair recall 

program and a $220,000 penalty. This is the 

largest penalty ever obtained under the SDWA. 

Underground Injection Control 

Program (UIC) 

The UIC program establishes a regulatory 

program for underground injection practices for 

five classes of wells. Enforcement priorities 

include violations at deep hazardous waste and 

commercial disposal wells (Class I); violations 

at oil and gas wells (Class 11); using banned 

wells fo-r other, than hazardous waste, mining, or 

oil and gas (Class V). 

Underwound Iniection Control 

Initiative 

On September 13,1991, EPA issued, after an 

intensive period of negotiations, ten National 

Administrative orders on consent with ten major 

oil companies. The oil companies to whom the 

orders were issued are Amoco, Ashland, B.P., 

Exxon, Marathon, Mobil, Shell, Sun Oil, Texaco 

and Unocal. The Orders require extensive 

inventory information, cessation of injection, 

waste minimization, extensive closure, an 

oversight contractor for a representative sample 

of the closures, and penalties totaling more than 

$800,000. 

This enforcement action was the first of its 

kind under the Underground Injection Control 

Program in its use of national administrative 

orders to address oil company operations in 49 

states and territories and was brought to identify 

the Class V wells of the companies and remedy 

contamination associated with their use. The 

initiative will result in the permanent closure of 

over 1800 service station bay drain wells nationwide that had been receiving automotiverelated wastes such as oil, anti-freeze, solvents, 

etc., some of which had been seeping into 

underground sources of drinking water. Closure of 

these. wells will prevent further contamination. 

U.S. v. TLS. Inc. (S.D. Miss.) A judgement by 

default was issued against TLS, Inc., Heidelberg, 

Mississippi, on July 22, 1991, for violation of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act's UIC regulations. TLS 

failed to pay an administrative penalty of 

$10,000, and stipulated penalties of $200 per day 

agreed to in an Administrative Order on Consent, 

which also required TLS, Inc., to properly plug 

and abandon an injection well. The Court 

awarded the government penalties of $7,500, the 

unpaid balance due, plus stipulated penalties 

accruing under the Administrative Order at the 

rate of $200 per day from October 7, 1988 until 

compliance is achieved with the provisions of 

the Administrative Order, plus interest on the 

total amount from the date of the Court's Order 

until paid in full, plus all costs. 

4-19 
.. . 'I (,. ' .~,. .. .>, .. o,., .- .. ., 5, .. (1. "%. 

FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

.. 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) Enforcement 

(Superfund) 

FY I991 Superfund enforcement made 

significant strides towavd refining certain areas 

of CERCLA enforcement and attaining the 

"Enforcement first" goal of the 90-Day Superfund 

Management Review. The benefifs of the FY 

1991 enforcement program include bofh savings in 

the expenditure of the Fund and acceleration of 

the nation's efforts to cleanup hazardous sites. A 

model consent decree was adopted which wilI 

simplify and speed the retfiemenf process. In 

additiorr, close integration of the Response and 

Enforcement Programs continues to result in a 

healthy increase in cleanup settlements through 

judicial actions and consent decrees. , 

3L.S v. Alabama Po wer. et a IAN. Di&&hf: .A 

settlement involving many of the Southeast's 

electric cooperatives and .a subsidiary of the 

Southern Company resulted,in a recovery for the 

government of 51,325,518 in costs spent to 

remediate. a National Priorities List (NPL) 

Superfund Site. Over 100 generators were 

designated as potentially responsible parties 

(PWs). They negotiated with EPA for one year to 

achieve the settlement which includes conduct by 

the PRps, of thirty years of operation and 

maintenance at the Site. The consent decree was 

entered in the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Alabama on May 10, 1991. 

The Site, located in Greenville;, '.Alabama, 

included two pieces of property which.had.&n 

contaminated with PCBs in the course of 

transformer repair operations at the nowbankrupt Mowbray Engineering Company. EPA 

cleaned up the Site pursuant to Superfund before 

discovenng that there were viable PWs. 

,' i' 

-Qm 

New Y& On Jan. 

1' 

15. 1991, the 

A 

District 

em 

Court 

granted in its entirety the government's Motion 

for Summary Judgment against Alcan Aluminum, a 

PW at the Pollution Abatement Services (PAS) 

Superfund site in New York. Alcan was ordered to 

pay EPA and its co-plaintiff, the State of New 

York, about 54 million in past costs.ineurred in 

connection with cleanup work at the site. Alcan 

had refused to participate in a 1987 settlement 

with some 83 other PRPs, pursuant to which they 

reimbursed the plaintiffs about $9.1 million in 

past costs. EPA sued Alcan for all costs not 

recovered from those settlors. From 1970 to 1977 

Alcan had sent to PAS about 2W gallons of PCBs, 

and about 4.6 million gallons of a waste emulsion 

contaminated with small quantities of metals 

including lead, cadmium and chromium. Alcan 

had argued that these contaminants were in such 

low concentrations that the materials did not 

constitute "hazardous substances" under CERCLA; 

the court rejected any lower limit for 

concentration of hazardous constituents. The court 

also awarded the government prejudgment 

interest and declared that EPAs indirect costs are 

also recoverable. The opinion is particularly 

important because Alcan has refused to 

participate in numerous other Superfund 

settlements involving essentmlly the same sorts 

of waste shipments. 

Ahway v. IJ- The District 

Court of New Jersey on February lY, 1991, denied a 

motion to stay an EPA administrative 0rder.for 

Access issued by Region I1 pursuant to $104(e) of 

CERCLA. The court also granted EPAs crossmotion and ordered the plaintiff to comply with 

the administrative order. That order sought 

access to Alloway's property which, although not 

contaminated nor even contiguous to contaminated 

property, is a potential route to the Ewan 

Property Superfund site, which is "landlocked" 

and has no road access. Alloway also argued that 

the 5th Amendment of the Constitution required 

EPA to compensate him before entering. his 

property. The court dismissed this claim as well, 

noting that Alloway could file a Tucker Acidaim 

after the action. The opinion stressed~+EFXs 

police power and supported a broad'rea&ngof tiie) 

statctory term "adjacent property." Alloway 

appkaled the decision to the Third.iCircuit Court 

of'Appeals, which denied the requesied stay 'of 

the order.: EPA then promptly carried out-the site 

work in question, rendering any further litigatidn 

at this time moot. 

-& 

. ...,, 

.. 

January 4, 1991, the. Sixth Circuit reversed and 

remanded the Eastern District Court of 

Michigan's ruling that a successor corporation 

could not be liable under CERCLA §107(a). '-The' 

Department of Justice filed an amicus brief'in the 

plaintiff's appeal of the September 25, 1989, 

decision in this CERCLA private .party 

contributjon action. The plaintiff seeks to 'recover 

costs incurred in cleaning a site contaminated 

with .hazardous substances. The plaintiff. sued 

the succeswr corporations of the 'site's former 

4-20 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

owner. The Sixth Circuit concluded that Congress 

included successor corporations within the 

description of entities that are potentially liable 

under CERCLA for cleanup costs. The court also 

concluded it did not have to fashion a federal 

common law rule to reach a determination. The 

court applied Michigan corporation law to find 

that a successor corporation is liable after there 

has been a formal merger. 

EPA Region X successfully 

negotiated and executed an administrative order 

on consent for a removal action at a privatelyowned site with the US. Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA). Two such administrative orders on 

consent have been negotiated and executed with 

DLA with respect to the Arctic Surplus site. 

Arctic Surplus is a 22-acre site located in a mixed 

commercial/residential area near Fairbanks, 

Alaska. Past activities at the site involved the 

disposal and treatment of military surplus, 

including the salvaging of batteries and the 

incineration of transformer casings and 

transformer oil containing PCBs. Much of this 

military property was surplused by the U.S. 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). Asbestos, PCB, 

and lead contamination are prevalent,.and pose a 

direct threat to the area's drinking water supply. 

The first administrative order (1990) required 

DLA to conduct specific removal activities at the 

Arctic Surplus site. 111 1991, DLA entered into a 

second order with Region X which provided that 

DLA would finance EPA removal activities at the 

site during the summer of 1991, including an extent 

of contamination survey and necessary 

removal/containment activities. Pursuant to this 

order, DLA agreed to pay $500,000, into an EPA 

site-specific account and agreed to pay an 

additional $500,000 if necessary. These costs 

included the payment of oversight costs. In 

addition, DLA agreed to pay directly for lab 

work, continue groundwater monitoring and to 

continue investigating long-term treatment/ 

disposal options for dioxin. Stipulated penalties 

were included in the order. 

North America.~. (D. New 

lerse;rl: A Consent Decree was signed by the 

Defendant in June, 1991, pursuant to which 

Atochem will carry out a $46 million RD/RA at 

the. Meyers Property Site in New Jersey. The 

company has also agreed to reimburse EPA $2.7 

million in past costs, as well as all future costs 

incurred by EPA. Under the settlement, Atochem 

will carry remedial work at the site, located in 

Franklin Township. Soils at the site were found 

to contain a variety of chemicals, including 

chlorinated pesticides (particularly DDT and its 

breakdown products), and volatile and semi-' 

volatile organic compounds. A predecessor of 

Atochem was an owner/operator of the site 

produang DDT there in the early 1940s. 

et al. ID. Nw 

The District Court on September 9, 1991 

entered a default judgment against two 

defendants in this action. The complaint in this 

case named nine defendants who are PRPs at the 

SCP/Newark Superfund site in New Jersey.' The 

defendants failed to participate with other PRPs. 

in a 1985 settlement for a removal action valued 

at about $3 million. Region I1 then issued to nonsettlors a unilateral administrative order 

requiring them to cooperate and coordinate with 

the settlors on the removal work. Four of the 

defendants did not comply with their orders; 

other defendants failed to comply with the 

consent order they executed. The complaint in 

this action seeks cost recovery, civil penalties and 

treble damages against the non-compliers. The 

two defendants involved in the default judgment, 

Maas & Waldstein Co. and Automation 

Components, Inc., had declared bankruptcy. 

Under the default judgment they were 'each 

declared jointly and severally liable for $289,272, 

the full amount of costs incurred by EPA in 

connection with the site. The default judgments 

will be entered in the appropriate Bankruptcy 

Courts. 

US. v. AVX Cu On July 16, 1991, the 

United States District Court for the District of 

Massachusetts entered the first consent decree for 

this site between plaintiffs EPA, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and two 

defendants, Aerovox, Inc. and' Belleville 

Industries. These defendants are a current and 

former operator of a capacitor manufacturing 

plant on New Bedford Harbor responsible for PCB 

dumping which caused extensive contamination of 

harbor sediments and biota. 

Under the consent decree, the plaintiffs will 

recover a total of $12.6 million for remedial 

activities and natural resource damages. 

Furthermore, in September of 1991, the 

Department of Justice lodged a consent decree 

settling the liability of AVX Corporation at this 

Superfund site for $66 million. Under the 

settlement AVX Corporation, ' the major 

4-21 
contributor to PCB contamination of New Bedford 

Harbor, will contribute $50 million toward 

remedial activities at the site and $7 million to 

federal and state trustees for the restoration of 

natural resources damaged by PCB contamination. 

US. v. Bethlehem, (7th Cir. 19901: On 

December 28, 1990, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the 

District Court's determination that U.S. EPA 

properly denied Bethlehem Steel's petition, 

under 51Wb) of CERCLA, for reimbursement of 

costs expended by the Company to conduct a 

partial cleanup of the Conservation Chemical 

Company of Illinois (CCCI) facility in Gary, IN. 

5106(b) was enacted as part of the 1986 Superfund 

Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) 

amendments. Bethlehem had received a 5106 

order to conduct the cleanup activities prior to the 

enactment of the SARA amendments but complied 

with the order post-SARA. The court agreed 

with the EPA that 5106(b) was applicable only to 

a party which both received and comulied with a 

CERCLA 5106 order after enactment of the SARA 

amendments. This was a matter of first 

impression although a similar case is pending 

before the District of Columbia Circuit and at 

least one other case has been filed by Bethlehem 

in Colorado. 

Conaa 

An Administrative Order on 

Consent was issued May 20,1991, settling recovery 

of $250,000 in past response costs, $2 million in 

future costs, and the performance of certain 

removal actions at the Bingham Creek Channel 

site. Kennecott Utah Copper Company agreed to 

reimburse the Superfund for costs incurred by 

Region VIII's Emergency Response program in the 

investigation and cleanup of lead soil 

contamination in residential areas near West 

Jordon, UT, and also agreed to haul the 

contaminated soils to a repository on its property 

for secure storage. 

In a 

case with potential precedential value involving 

EPAs work at Superfund sites, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a lower 

court ruling against a property owner's request to 

stay EPAs CERCLA-related pre-clean up 

activities until EPA conducted appropriate 

review under 5106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The Court of Appeals decision 

of January 1991 agreed with the U.S. District 

Court's earlier opinion that the Boarhead 

Corporation's complaint lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to the timing procedures for 

judicial review specified in 5113(h) of CERCLA, 

as amended. 

The decision allowed EPA to continue with site 

investigative work at the Boarhead Farms site in 

Bucks County, PA. The decision suggests that 

EPA's clean up activities at Superfund sites cannot 

be slowed or halted as a result of legal actions 

brought against EPA by private parties under 

other statutes, where CERCLA is determined to 

take precedence over those statutes. The case had 

added importance since both the State of 

Pennsylvania.Historical and Museum Commission 

and the National Trust for Historic Preservation 

filed an amicus curiae brief supporting Boarhead 

Corporation's appeal of the lower court ruling. 

On April 4, 

1991, the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of Texas signed a consent decree between 

the United States and those parties who have 

agreed to conduct a remedial action at the Brio 

Superfund Site. The court also entered an order 

which denied petitions from a citizen group and 

two utility districts who had wanted to change 

the proposed consent decree. The court in its ruling 

indicated that the EPA, in proceeding with this 

settlement, "adequately represented the 

interests" of these parties. The intervenors" 

concerns centered around objections to the remedy 

decision (onsite incineration) and a belief that 

potential health risks were inadequately 

evaluated. The intervenors have appealed the 

District Court's decision to the Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit, however, there is no stay of 

the District Court's decisions. Consequently, entry 

of the consent decree has paved the way for EPA 

to begin a long delayed remedial process which 

will save the government an estimated $60, 

million and eliminate a potential threat to 

human health and the environment. 

RichardC Sm- On January 7, 1991 the 

District Court rejected plaintiff's claim for an 

alleged taking at its property, the. Brook 

Industrial Park Superfund Site in Bound Brook, 

New Jersey. The plaintiff refused to grant EPA 

access to the property to conduct investigatory 

work. Region 11 issued an administrative access 

order under 5104(e) of CERCLA. The owner then 

filed this lawsuit. ' The court dismissed the 

plaintiffs claims for compensation for an alleged 

taking, on two grounds: (1) lack of subject matter. 

4-22 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenrs Report ' 

jurisdiction, and (2) failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. The plaintiff's 

contention that EPA is bound by the terms of an 

old State cleanup order was also rejected. The 

court granted the Motion of EPA and its codefendant, the US. Air Force, to dismiss the case 

entirely. 

it 2+ (Leadville. 

Colorado): EPA issued three Administrative 

Orders for the California Gulch Superfund site 

located in the Leadville Mining District, 

Leadville, Colorado. The study area covers about 

16 square miles which have been impacted by 

mining, milling, and smelting activities for over 

' 100 years. The Site contains many mine waste and 

smelter waste piles and acid mine drainage. Soil, 

ground water, and surface water contamination 

from metals in these mining wastes has been 

documented. 

Under the terms of the first Administrative 

Order, EPA required Resurrection Mining Company 

to perform certain tasks in support of the 

Remedial Investigation (RI) activities for the 

site. The RI will identify contaminants of concern 

and remedial action alternatives which will be 

evaluated in the Feasibility Study and finalized 

in the Proposed Plan and the Record of Decision. 

Under the terms of the second Administrative 

Order, EPA required ASARCO, Inc., to perform 

certain studies in support of the RI activities for 

the site. The studies require dwelopment of Work 

Plans and implementation of Work Plans after 

EPA approval. 

Under the terms of the third Administrative 

Order, EPA required the respondent, Hecla Mining 

Company, to perform an Engineering 

Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Malta Gulch 

mine tailings, to determine the nature and extent 

of any releases and any appropriate response 

activities at the Malta Gulch tailings. The 

Order stipulates that Hecla would "resolve any 

remaining liability by agreeing to implement 

and/or pay an appropriate share of the cost of 

EPA's chosen or likely response action for the 

Malta Gulch tailings ...." The response action 

would expedite remediation of the impacts to 

human health and/or the environment resulting 

from the Malta Gulch mine tailings. 

Co.. et al. (Ooeratine 

On September 16, 

1991, a Second Partial Consent Decree was entered 

resolving claims for the first two operable units 

and past costs with an additional 65 parties. The 

first decree involved over 100 parties and was 

worth over $67 million in site work and past costs. 

The second settlement is valued at over $8.5 

million, and it includes premiums of nearly $1 

million from recalcitrant parties. In addition, the 

District Court for the Central District of 

California denied a motion to intervene that had 

been filed by a non-settlor who sought to delay 

entry by challenging EPAs allocation formula. 

The non-settlor asserted that its right to 

contribution from the settling parties provided a 

protectable interest under .§113(i) of CERCLA. 

The court did not agree and denied the motion. 

The Operating Industries, Inc. site is a 190-acre, 

former landfill that operated for 36 years, 

accepting industrial and municipal waste. EPA 

has now, through the two Consent Decrees, settled 

with approximately 185 parties for site control 

and monitoring and leachate management, 

including the construction of an onsite leachate 

treatment plant. 

In an innovative first use of authority under 

CERCLA, four major petroleum companies and a 

pipeline partnership have been ordered to take 

actions necessary to prevent interference with an 

ongoing Superfund remedial action. On February 

8, 1991, Region VI issued a Unilateral 

Administrative Order (UAO) under the 

authority of CERCLA 5106. The Respondents to 

the UAO are alleged to be responsible for releases 

of petroleum related .contaminants which are 

threatening to interfere with an ongoing 

groundwater cleanup at the South Valley 

Superfund 'Site in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

With this new use of 5106 authority, the 

Respondents have been brought within the 

domain of CERCLA even though they are not all 

Potentially Responsible Parties and the releases 

in question are petroleum related. The 

Respondents are currently in compliance with the 

order and are expediting actions to address the 

petroleum contamination. 

On July 7, 1991, Region I1 issued a unilateral 

administrative order for RD/RA at the 

Cinnaminson Landfill to Sanitary Landfill, Inc., a 

subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. The first 

operable unit work which the company will 

perform under the order, including groundwater 

4-23 
extraction and treatment, is valued at .$20 

million. In addition, Sanitary Landfill has 

reimbursed EPA about $3.2 million.in past costs for 

the site. ,. 

I of clhr 

EhrkIa: On September 10, 1991 a consent decree 

involving the City Industries site in Winter Park, 

Florida was lodged in US. District Court, Middle 

District of Florida. Under the .terms of this 

decree, approximately 146 settling defendants 

(including approximately 120 de minimis 

defendants) agree to "cash out" (i.e.. fund all of 

the Remedial Action, which is estimated to cost, 

over $4 million), to reimburse EPA for all future 

response costs, to reimburse EPA for all past costs 

incurred since a previous decree in this case 

(approximately $117,000), and to pay the longterm operation and maintenance costs of the 

cleanup. 

Wash- Following a 

complaint filed by the US. in FY 1990, six consent 

decrees were entered in FY 1991 settling all 

government claims under CERCLA Chapters 106 

and 107 resulting in over 100% recovery of costs to 

the government. EPA obtained recovery of all 

costs, implementation of all response actions and 

(W.D. m: 

A Unilateral Administrative Order was issued in 

Ott/Storv/Co rdova on February 5, 1991. The 

Respondents, Cordova Chemical Company. ' of 

Michigan, Cordova Chemical Company of 

California, Aerojet General Corporation, ' CPC 

International, Inc., ,and Dr. Arnold C Ott, were 

directed to perform remedial design for the 

remedy as described in the Record of Decision 

under CERCLA dated September 29, 1990, for the 

second operable unit associated with the site and 

to implement such design through ,remedial 

action. ,, , 

On August 27,1991, after 15 days of trial and the 

entry of thousands of exhibits and documents, the 

judge of the US. District Court issued a 75 page 

opinion in favor of the United States, requiring 

Ott /Storv/Co rdova to conduct a clean-up in 

Muskegon, MI, at a cost estimated to exceed $50 

million. The judge held the State of Michigan not 

liable under CERCLA for clean up activities at 

the site. More importantly, however, the case 

provides the government with a very favorable 

precedent and guidelines for determining the 

recovery of penalties in this matter. .. .. : . . 

liability of parent corporations regarding 

compliance with environmental law. The Court 

held CPC and Aerojet, the parent corporations, 

liable for 'cleaningup after themselves, their 

predecessors, and their subsidiaries. 

US. v. C- ._ This case involved 

three separate settlement agreements, in the form 

of two judicial consent decrees and .one. 

administrative agreement. The consent decrees, 

lodged on June 20, 1991, were CERCLA 5107 cost, 

recovery agreements with 34 and 3 potentially 

responsible parties (PRPs), respectively, .together 

reimbursing EPA approximately $1,045,000 for. 

removal.costs. EPA also issued an administrative 

order on consent for this site, obligating 199 & 

minimis ' generators to ' reimburse EPA 

approximately $419,000. The total sum 

recovered, 'approximately $1.46 ' million, 

represents 90% of the costs incurred by.EPA during 

the removal at this site. In August 1991, the 

Department of Justice filed a complaint against 

the two recalcitrant PRPs in order to recover the.. 

remaining ten percent. This case is particularly 

noteworthy because it combines some of EPAs 

major enforcement themes, & & minimis 

settlements and actions against recalcitrant 

parties. 

yS. v. Dow C- (Casper,, 

Wyoming): EPA and three PRPs, KNEnergy, Inc., 

The Dow Chemical Company, and I Dowell-' 

Schlumberger, Inc., reached a settlement for. 

Remedial Design/Remedial Action at this Site in 

Casper, Wyoming. .I 

,( 

The PRPs agreed to pay $5.4 million. :in 

reimbursement of past costs incurred by EPA at the. 

Site, including costs -associated with the 

installation of a municipal water system .for 

residents. The PRPs also agreed to implement the 

remedy set forth in the ROD issued by EPA.in 

September of 1990. Because the ROD calls for 

separate remediation of the two separate ground- 1 

water plumes, the PRPs will perform the work 

pursuant to two separate statements of. work, 

allowing work to proceed in a more rapid, phased 

manner. - ,, 

,,!, . 

r of De-, On 

May 29, 1991, EPA and the. Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) entered into an administrative, 

consent order pursuant to 5104 and 5106. of 

CERCLA for the removal and proper disposal:of 

70,000 pounds of depleted uranium stored in a 

dilapidated building owned by Chemical 

.. 

4-24 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenis Repori 

Commodities, Inc. near DeSoto, Kansas. CCI 

purchased the depleted uranium from the Defense 

Surplus Sales Office, a department in the Defense 

Supply Agency (now DLA) in 1965 and 1966., The 

material has been stored at the site for more than 

twenty-three years. Due to the weight of the 

material, the floor of the building. was in 

imminent danger of collapse threatening the 

release of the depleted uranium. into the 

environment. DLA commenced the response action 

in July, 1991. 

y5. v. Daw On May 22, 

1991, a consent decree between the United States 

and Dow Corning Corporation for the. Howe 

Valley Landfill site was entered in the Western 

District of Kentucky. Under the decree, Dow 

Coming is obligated to perform or pay for all 

remaining cleanup at the site. EPAs selected 

remedy consists primarily of excavation of 

contaminated soils. Soils contaminated with 

inorganics will be disposed of off-site; soils 

contaminated with organics will be aerated. Air 

and ground-water monitoring are also required as 

are certain deed restrictions. Dow Corning agreed 

to reimburse EPA for all of its past and future 

costs, totaling approximately $154,000. 

In'September, 1991, an RD/RA 

consent decree was entered for the Wasatch 

Chemical Site in Salt Lake City, Utah..This 

decree is a three party agreement among EPA, the' 

State, and the settling defendants which requires 

the defendants to: 1) reimburse 100 % of past EPA 

costs totaling $419.000; 2) pay EPAs future 

response costs; and 3) implement the selected 

remedy through performance of RD/RA. The 

selected remedy includes the use of an innovative 

technology, in-situ vitrification. 

ervice kup. et al. (W. 

D. New yerkz On September 30 a consent decree 

was lodged in District Court in connection, with 

the Resolve Manufacturing Superfund site in 

Falconer, New York. The five settling defendants, 

as well as a number of other companies and 

individuals, are PRPs at the site, but refused to 

participate in a 1987 settlement pursuant to 

which over 100 other PRPs carried out a removal 

action valued at about $1 million. Region 11. 

issued the non-settlors a unilateral 

administrative order requiring them to cooperate 

and coordinate with the settling PRPs in 

performing the removal work. While some 

respondents complied with this order, others -I 

including the defendants in this lawsuit -- did. 

not. The,.settling defendants in this decree are: 

ESG, Custom Muffler Service Center; Inc., Products 

Finishing, Inc., Ethan Allen, Inc., and Seco Corp. 

These companies agreed to pay all outstanding 

EPA costs. in connection with the site, .about 

$88,000, plus civil penalties in the. amount of 

$40,000 for their ' violation of .the EPA. 

administrative order. EPA is considering what 

action to take against the 'remaining noncomplying PRPs.who also refuscd to join in this 

consent decree. 

er. et al. (D. New Ter On August' 

29, 1991 the New' Jersey District Court issued a 

ruling favorable to the government with respect to 

the scope of review of EPAs selection of a response 

action. The defendant had requested de novo' 

review of the remedy selection, arguing that it 

had an inadequate opportunity to participate in 

the public comment procedure because it been 

notified late that it was a PRP. The court:rejected 

the challenge, agreeing with EPA that any 

opportunity to comment it might afford 'the 

defendant should be limited to the procedures sct 

forth at 40 CFR §300.825(c) of the 1990'National 

Contingency Plan. The court remanded the matter 

to ,EPA, allowing the defendant to comment as 

provided'in that. rule. The court specified that 

comments must be based on information available' 

at the time of the original comment period. The 

court further held that review of EPAs remedy 

selection will be based' on the 'administ;ative 

record under the standard of review set forth in 

§113(j)(2) of CERCLA. The decision is significant 

in that it is the first time a court has applied 40 

CFR §300.825(c), and it represents a narrowing of', 

the comment opportunity afforded by the same 

court in US. v. Rohm & Haas Co. in similar 

circumstances. 

-on 

September 27, 1991, a complaint was filed in 

District Court against nine individuals and 

companies in connection with Quanta Resources 

Superfund site in Edgewater, New Jersey. The 

defendants are PRPs that refused.to participate in 

a 1985 settlement pursuant to which more than 60 

other PRPs carried out a removal action valued at 

about 59 million. Region I1 then issucd'to these 

non-settlors a unilateral administrative order 

requiring them (1) to cooperate and coordinatewith the settlors in performing the .removal, 

action, and (2) to perform .certain additional' 

removal work which the settlors were not obliged 

to perform. .The additional work called for by' 

4-25 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

this "carve-out" order - one of the first of its kind 

in the nation -- included testing and removal of 

soil and waste storage tanks, and testing of 

Hudson River sediments. The defendants, who 

refused to comply with this order are: James Frola 

and Albert Von Dohln (site owners), Alcan 

Aluminum Corp., Chemical Management, Inc., 

Luzon Oil Co., Petroleum Tank Cleaners, Inc., 

Snyder Enterprises, Inc., Texaco, Inc. and Total 

Recovery, Inc.. The complaint seeks recovery of 

about $617,000 in past EPA expenditures, plus 

civil penalties and treble damages. Two other 

firms which received the Same unilateral order 

and also failed to comply previously signed 

consent agreements with EPA. Browning Ferris 

Industries paid $125,000 and Peabody 

International Corp. paid $360,000 in past EPA 

costs. These amounts represent more than 10 times 

what those companies would have paid had they 

chosen to participate in the original settlement. 

0 v. I 

On October 11, 1990, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated two 

injunctions granted to the State of Colorado for 

activities on the Idarado mining site, located 

between the towns of Telluride and Ouray in 

southwestern Colorado. These injunctions, 

granted by the District Court for the District of 

Colorado on February 22, 1989, imposed a 

modified state cleanup plan on the defendants 

and required them to pay the permanent 

relocation costs of tenants on the property. 

The United States filed an amicus curiae brief 

seeking to overturn the District Court's ruling 

based on the lower court's incorrect interpretation 

of the statutory language found in CERCLA 

5121(e)(2). The United States argued that the 

state was not entitled to injunctive relief under 

CERCLA 5121(e)(2). Relying on the Cadillac 

Fairview, Cannons, and Akzo Coatines cases, the 

Tenth Circuit agreed and held that the language 

of CERCLA 5106 and 5121 do not create an 

explicit right to injunctive relief for the states. 

This Administrative 

Order on Consent issued pursuant to 51% of 

CERCLA was negotiated using the theory of 

liability successfully advanced by EPA in the 

United States v. Aceto Aericultural . Chemicals 

case. The site is an abandoned pesticide 

formulation facility which had been operated 

under several corporate names by several 

different parties. Because there were no former 

owners or operators apparently capable of 

carrying out the necessary response actions, EPA 

successfully negotiated an order for removal 

actions with a group of nine generator PRPs who 

had sent technical grade pesticides to the site for 

formulation. The settlement, which was filed.on 

June 18, 1991, will foster the use of the Axh 

theory of liability at other such facilities. 

YS. v. I. 1- et al. (N.D. ILt 

Through an innovative de minimus settlement 

under the Superfund law involving five 

administrative orders, combined with persistent 

non-settler/non-complier enforcement actions, 

Region V EPA obtained full clean-up of the I. Jones 

site in Fort Wayne, IN, reimbursement of 90 

percent of past costs and substantial 5106(b) 

penalties. The finances included a 55 million 

PRP-conducted final phase of a three phase 

removal action, and reimbursement of $2,575,041 

in response costs. Following the original de 

minimus settlement with 139 generators in 

October 1989, the. Region negotiated specific 

complier, . non-complier, . de minimus and 

"installment payment" plans with individual 

parties. In addition, a cost recovery referral 

against the current owners was made to DOJ in 

September 1990; in October 1991, the U.S. 

amended the .filed complaint to include 

additional parties. This is the first suit filed in 

the Region *king treble damages and, statutory 

penalties for noncompliance with the unilateral 

removal orders under 5106. ., 

,. 

. In this 

-Court of 

Appeals decided that the Eighth Circuit Court of 

Appeals misapplied Missouri 'insurance ,law in 

Continental Insurance Co. v. NEPACCO, 842 F.2d 

977 (8th Cir. 1986). The three judge panel in 

held that CERCLA response costs are damages 

under Missouri insurance law compensable under a 

comprehensive general liability , policy. 

Specifically, the court reasoned that a Missouri 

court would rely on the common understanding of 

the word "damages" and would not impose a 

technical meaning. The panel thus agreed with 

the federal government,, which participated in 

this case as amicus curiae urging the court to find 

that CERCLA response costs are "damages" 

which must be paid by an insurance carrier. 

-.a: unilateral 

New yprk): 

administrative order for RD/RA at the Kentucky 

Avenue Wellfield Superfund site to Westinghouse 

Corp. The work which. Westinghouse will: do 

. , 

I: 

4-26 
FY I991 Enforcement accomplish men!^ Report 

under the order is an interim remedy valued at 

$15 million, and includes treatment of 

contaminated groundwater. The RI/FS for the 

first operable unit at the site identified 

Westinghouse as the primary source of 

contamination in the portion of the aquifer 

addressed by the remedy. Westinghouse agreed, in 

a separate administrative consent order, to 

perform the RI/FS for the second operable unit. 

m. On April 15, 1991, Region I1 issued a 

unilateral administrative order for RD/RA at 

the King of Prussia Superfund site to five PRPs: 

Cabot Corp., Carpenter Technology Corp., Ford 

Electronics & Refrigeration Co., Johnson-Matthey, 

Inc., and Ruetgers-Nease Chemical Co. The work 

to be conducted under the order is valued at 515 

million, and includes excavation and treatment of 

contaminated soils, sludges and groundwater. The 

site is an abandoned liquid chemical waste 

treatment/disposal facility operated by the King 

of Prussia Technical Corp. from 1970 to 1975. 

US. v. KO- 8~ &aze~E& 

Gainesville..: After executing the Record of 

Decision for the Cabot Carbon/Koppers Site on 

September 27, 1990, EPA issued a Special Notice 

Letter to the Cabot Corporation, which was the 

past owner of one half of the Site. EPA also 

issued Special Notice Letters to Koppers 

Industries, Inc. (Koppers) and to Beazer 

Industries, Inc. (BEI), which were, respectively, 

the current and 'past owners of the other half of 

the Site. Negotiations f0r.a global consent decree 

were unsuccessful, as BE1 refused to accept joint 

and several liability for the groundwater remedy 

for the entire Site. However, Cabot continued to 

negotiate concerning its half of the Site, resulting 

in a Consent Decree which was lodged on 

September 12, 1991. Under this Consent Decree, 

Cabot'agreed to perform the RD/RA on its half of 

the Site; as well as to reimburse EPA for over 

$416,000 in past costs. Region IV issued unilateral 

administrative orders (UAOs) to Koppers and 

BE1 on March 22; 1991. Those parties are 

complying with the UAO as it pertains to work on 

the Koppers half of the Site. 

On June 12,1991, 

EPA and the Department of Justice lodged a 

consent decree in the United.States District Court 

for the Northern District of California. The 

consent decree requires Beazer East, Inc., a 

potentially responsible party, to perform RD/RA 

of the Koppers NPL Site in Oroville, California. 

Wood products were treated at the site, resulting 

in soil and groundwater contamination by 

hazardous substances including cyanide, dioxins 

and furans. Beazer has agreed to perform design, 

construction, operation and maintenance of a 

groundwater and surface soil operable unit valued 

at approximately 577 million. The decree also 

requires Beazer to pay past costs and future costs 

associated with the site. 

On February 8, 1991, the 

United States District Court for the District of 

New Jersey granted the United States' motion to 

strike affirmative defenses in the above CERCLA 

5107 cost recovery case and issued a lengthy 

opinion favorable to the government. Thirteen of 

the defendants filed a third-party action against 

more than 250 defendants, including 17 local 

governments. The defendants asserted that the 

United States excluded a class of defendants in 

violation of the Constitution when it named only 

industrial defendants and not municipalities. 

The court found that the Agency's Interim 

Municipal Settlement Policy is consistent with 

EPAs broad discretion to select defendants and is 

rationally related to CERCLAs purpose, and thus 

does not violate the equal protection clause of the 

Constitution. The court also held that the 

Interim Municipal Settlement Policy is a general 

statement of policy rather than a rule subject to 

the notice and comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act. Response costs for 

remediating contamination at the Helen Kramer 

Landfill, the number four site on the NPL, are 

estimated at $60 million. 

Park SuDerfund: In M 1991 EPA 

entered into a $21 million settlement, whereby 19 

potentially responsible parties will perform 

cleanup at the Laurel Park NPL Site in 

Naugatuck, CT, and reimburse EPA and the State 

of Connecticut for past and future response costs. In 

addition, to expedite cleanup, EPA negotiated an 

agreement whereby the PRPs begin remedial 

design activities administratively, prior to the 

consent decree being lodged with the court. 

Moreover, concurrent with the settlement referral, 

the United States filed a CERCLA cost recovery 

action for unreimbursed costs against four nonsettling PRPs. This action sends a clear message 

to PRPs that recalcitrance in settlement 

negotiations has a high price. 

al. (D. New Jerseyk On July 

3, 1991, the court granted EPAs Motion for 

Summary Judgement in this case which seeks 

4-27 
FY I991 Enforcemenr Accomplishmenis Report 

penalties from two PRPs which failed to comply 

with a unilateral cleanup order. In 1984 Region I1 

issued a unilateral order for a removal action at 

the Duane Marine site' in Perth 'Amboy, New 

Jersey, to about 35 PRPs, including the site owner 

and, operator,. Edward -Lecarreaux. All but 

Lecarreaux complied with the order. Some months 

later, EPA identified additional PRPs and issued 

a second unilateral order requiring these new PRPs 

to cooperate and coordinate with the first group of 

Respondents in 'the performance of the removal 

action.' Again, all but one - Lightman Drum Co. - complied. EPA filed suit seeking response costs 

and civil penalties from these two non-compliers. 

The July 3 decision held the companies liable for 

costs and .penalties; a hearing on 'the amount. of 

penalties was scheduled for November 1991. The 

case is notable because it is the first time a court 

has ruled that penaltyTliability accrues against 

PRPs who fail to comply with an order, even 

though other PRPs have elected to comply and 

.. camed.out the work in question. . . ,. 

.. 

New: A consent decree was lodged on July 

3, 1991, for performance of the RD/RA for 

Operable Unit 2 at the Lone Pine site in New 

Jersey (the -case). The settlement, signed by 

some 118 companies, is valued. at ' about $10.3 

million. The RD/RA work for Operable Unit 1, 

valued at about $40 million, is alsb being done by 

PRPs under a 1989 settlement. In the Armstrong 

case, EPA sued 17 PRPs who refused to join that 

earlier settlement, seeking recovery of additional 

past costs. .A settlement with all but one of the 

AlTIlSh'o rg defendants was lodged on ,April, '29, 

1991, providing for payment of $4.4.million -- about 95% of EPA's outstanding costs. 

The City and 

County of Denver and Metro Wastewater 

Reclamation District will be conducting the 

N/FS for the Soils and Surface Water and 

Sediments Operable Units (Operable Units 4&5) 

at the Lowry Landfill site in Denver, CO. These 

studies will focus the data collection needed to 

characterize the extent of contamination and 

contribution of contamination from the soils and 

the surface water and sediments to the'other 

operable units. ,An Administrative Order on 

Consent was signed March 25,1991, and is the last 

of .the N/F!% to. be conducted on the site: The 

studies are anticipated to be completed by March 

1993 at a cost to the Respondents of two million 

dollars. . .. ,.. ... 

New W: A 

consent decree was lodged on September-27, 1991, 

providing for a cash out of $10.85 million for the 

costs of the Superfund RD/RA work for Area I1 of 

the ,Marathon Battery Site in Cold Spring, New 

York. There were two settling parties: Marathon 

Battery Company and the U.S. Army. A third 

PRP, Gould, Inc., declined to settle. EPA .will 

perform the RD/RA. work for this Area. The 

Army is making an. additional payment of 

$500,000 to Marathon for past work at the site 

which Marathon carried out. EPA plans to seek 

recovery of its unreimbursed costs forhea 11, past 

costs for the entire site, and a declaration 'of 

liability for future costs for the entire site;from 

GouId. In addition, EPA is commencing 

negotiations with the settling parties, for 

reimbursement of costs for Areas I and 111: ' '". .. 

US. v.' Mm Inc... Arkwood 

SuDerfund Site (W.D. Arkam& In June 1991, 

Mass Merchandiser's Inc., agreed to conduct the 

cleanup under CERCLA at the Arkwood 

Superfund Site. This agreement was included in a 

Consent Decree requiring implementation of 

remedial. design and remedial action plus 

reimbursement of all oversight and prior response 

costs. Mass Merchandisers will implement. 

treatment involving both soil washing and 

incineration at an estimated 'cost of $12 million. 

The Arkwood Superfund Site is a former wood 

preserving facility utilizing both 

pentachlorophenol-(PCP) and creosote processes:' 

Y.S. v. 

.., 

Feed and ,%& h. Coyin@& 

Oil Sew This cost recovery case provides a ruling 

favorable to the government concerning successor 

corporation liability. On May 16, 1991, after a 

trial on the merits, a judgment was entered for the 

United States in the US. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Missouri, against the 

Defendants. In particular, the court held that 

Defendant MORECO Energy Inc. was liable as a 

successor corporation under a broadened version of 

the "mere continuation" exception known as the 

"substantial continuity" or "continuity of 

enterprise" exception to the general asset 

purchase rule which does not impose liability on 

a ..corporation purchasing assets for. acts -or 

omissions of the seller corporation. The Court 

awarded EPA a judgment against all defendants 

for $1,200,000 in past response costs. ,. 

4-28 
FY 1991 Enforcemenr Accomplishments Report 

us. v. -' on 

Friday, March 22, 1991, the first de minimis 

landowner settlement in Region V was lodged in 

this case. This settlement with Penn Central 

Railroad will result in recovery of $1.2 million. 

Trial on enforcement of unilateral administrative 

orders is scheduled to begin on May 6,1991. EPA 

has negotiated and lodged in court a & minimis 

landowner settlement. The settlement with Penn 

Central, a defendant in the case, provides 

a cash payment of $1,15O,oM). Penn Central 

acquired a railroad right-of-way adjacent to the 

Midco I1 NPL site when it came into being in the 

late 1970s. 

Montana): A Consent Decree settling recovery of 

$25O,OCO in past response costs was entered with 

the United States District Court of Montana on 

March 4, 1991. Michael Chovanak and his 

insurance company agreed to reimburse ,the 

Superfund for costs incurred by Region VIII's 

Emergency Response program in responding to and 

cleaning up cyanide contamination resulting from 

a fire at the Motherlode Gold and Silver, Ltd. 

facility in East Helena, MT, which occurred in 

October 1984, 

On September 24, 1991, the 

North Miami City Council signed the consent 

decree for the Munisport Landfill Site. The city 

agreed to perform the estimated $6 million 

pD/RA which includes designing a leachate 

collection system for the site. The city also 

agreed to pay $140,000 for past costs the 

government incurred at the site. The leachate 

has damaged area natural resources, including a 

protected mangrove preserve and local fisheries. 

,. 

. .. 

On September 30. 1991, Region I1 issued a 

unilateral administrative order for RD/RA at 

the 102nd Street Landfill site in Niagara Falls, 

New York. The order was issued to the two PWs 

for the site, Occidental Chemical Corp. and Olin 

Corp. The work they will do is valued at about 

$30 million. EPA, and its co-plaintiff the State of 

New York, have been in litigation with these 

companies for several years concerning this site; 

the RVFS work was done by the PRps under an 

earlier stipulation in the case. All parties to the 

litigation agreed that issuance of the EPA order 

would be an appropriate way to move the cleanup 

process forward. 

OnJune4, 

1991, a partial consent decree was lodged in this 

case concerning the York Oil Superfund Site in 

Moira, New York. The decree embodies a mixed 

funding settlement with the Aluminum Company 

of America (Alma). The U.S. Army, and The US. 

Air Force.. Under the decree, Akoa agreed to 

perform RD/RA for the first operable unit at the 

site; the Army and Air Force will contribute 

funding for the work, and a portion of the work 

will be paid for EPA from the Superfund under a 

preauthorization decision document. The settling 

parties will also pay a portion of EPAs past costs 

and oversight costs. The settling parties work 

and contributions are valued at about $4.1 

million; EPAs contribution to the site work is 

about $3.5 million. EPA plans to seek recovery of 

the balance of its costs from non-settling parties. 

The site was a waste oil recycling facility. 

Chnpaqz: A court ruled that the United States 

may bring a claim under CERCLA against Penn 

Central Corporation ("KC"), the reorganized 

corporation which emerged following the 1978 

discharge in bankruptcy of the Penn Central 

Transportation Company ("PCTC"). The United 

States.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on 

September 19,1991, issued an order granting leave 

to the United States to file a complaint against 

PCC under CERCLA based on the fact thak 1) at 

the time the consumption order discharging PCK 

from .bankruptcy was entered in 1978, CERCLA 

had not been enacted; and 2) the restructuring of 

PCTC into PCC was not a "liquidation-type" 

reorganization as the PCTC retained all assets 

other.. than railroad assets. The order is 

significant since it represents a split in the 

Circuits regarding whether the United States 

should be allowed to file a CERCLA claim 

against a reorganized corporation following a 

discharge in bankruptcy and since it could have a 

widespread impact benefiting the government. 

PCC has' been granted a stay in the matter 

pending a ruling on its proposed petition for 

certiorari to the Supreme Court. 

-on .. December 27, 1990, the United States filed a 

Stipulation and Consent for the entry of Partial 

Summary Judgment on joint and several liability 

against defendant Rohm and Haas Company for 

costs and declaratory judgment for future resgonse 

costs. Rohm and Haas, the major generator of 

hazardous substances disposed of at the Lipari 

4-29 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Landfill - the number one site on the NPL - agreed 

to stipulate liability for costs incurred to 

remediate the landfill portion of the Lipari 

Landfill. Rohm and Haas has not acknowledged 

liability for the portions of the response action 

necessitated by migration of hazardous substances 

from the Landfill to several streams, a marsh, 

and a lake. Rohm and Haas agreed to the 

stipulation rather than file a response to the 

United States' Motion for Summary Judgment 

which was filed in August 1990. 

(S.D. QHk On May 31, 

1991, .the US. District Court for the RD/RA 

Consent Decree between the United States, Dow 

Chemical Company, Ashland Chemical, Inc., 

Aristech Chemical Corporation, E.H. Shilling & 

Son, and General Contractors, Inc. The Decree 

provides for a remedy with an estimated value of 

$11 million at the E.H. Shilling & Son Landfill 

site near Ironton, Ohio. Significantly for the 

Agency, the Decree parallels the model RD/RA 

consent decree and contains provisions .for 

technical impracticability, periodic review, 

additional work, and alternative dispute 

resolution that 'may be useful in subsequent 

negotiations involving other sites. 

ys. v. s 

remedial design/remedial action requires ' a 

conservation easement to preser+e and maintain 

the wetlands at the NPL Site. This is the first 

consent decree in EPA Region IV which provides 

for the government's acquisition of a conseivation 

easement. 'The easement consists of specific 

restrictions on the wetlands to ensure that these 

areas remain undisturbed, except as necessary for 

the implementation of the remedial action. EPA 

will transfer the easements to the State of 

Florida after completion of the remedial action: 

The State of Florida has formally assured EPA 

that it. will accept the transfer of the easement 

following completion of the remedial action. 

CiQ-Fkm 

On November 

13,1990, three consent decrees were entered in the 

District Court for the District of Utah, Central 

Division. The Sharon Steel settlement involved 

three cash-outs, under the authority of CERCLA 

5104, 5106, and 5107, totaling over $63 million. 

The settlements are embodied in three consent 

decrees that resolve the United States' claims 

against Sharon Steel Corp., UV Industries and 

the UV Liquidating Trust, and Atlantic Richfield 

Co. ("ARCO) relating to both the Midvale 

Tailings Site and the Midvale Slag Site. 

$2,300,000 of the total settlement fund will be 

allocated to the Department of the Interior for 

purposes of restoring, replacing, or acquiring the' 

equivalent of natural resources, with the 

remainder of the funds to be credited to the 

Superfund and earmarked for purposes of the 

Sharon Steel Site. An Administrative Order 'on 

Consent (AOC) was previously entered between 

the U.S. and the State of Utah as a & minimus' 

p: 

landowner. 

On 

March 28, 1991, the US. District Court for the 

Western District of Michigan entered a Consent 

Decree under the Superfund Law in US: v. 

Sheller-Globe CorDoration, et al.. Forty-one. 

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) signed the 

Decree for the Auto Ion Chemical Inc. Superfund' 

site in Kalamazoo, MI. The settlors agreed'to 

implement the Remedial Design/Remedial 

Action for soil remediation in the first operable 

unit and to pay to certain response costs incurred 

(and to be incurred) with remediation of the' 

facility. The estimated cost of remediation 

associated with this first operable site is $3.4 

million. 

-On 

May 29, 1991, Region I1 issued a unilateral 

administrative order for RD/RA at the Solvent 

Savers site to five PRPs: The American Locker 

Group, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.. General'Electric 

Co., IBM Corp., and Pass & Seymour, Inc. The 

work they will do under the order is valued at 

about $29 million. The site was formerly used as' 

a chemical waste recovery and drum 

reconditioning plant. Soils at the site are 

contaminated with volatile organic compounds; 

metals and PCBs; groundwater is' also: 

contaminated. The remedy includes groundwater 

treatment, and removal and treatment or off-site 

disposal of contaminated soils. 

.. 

.. 

_ill 

The District Court of the Eastern 

District of Missouri entered a consent decree 

between the United States and Syntex on 

December 31,1990, obtaining work valued at $100 

million. The decree calls for Syntex to do the bulk 

of the work at the Missouri Dioxin sites including 

excavating and burning in a portable incinerator 

the dioxin-contaminated soil. The decree also. 

provides that Syntex will pay EPA $10 millionin. 

past cost?.. .. 

.. 

.. 

4-30 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

NewYPLbt On 

February 22, 1991, a consent decree was entered 

regarding the Syosset Landfill Superfund Site. 

Under the decree the Town will implement the 

remedial action selected by EPA for this 

municipal landfill. The Town will cap the 

landfill using a geosynthetic membrane, and will 

additionally reimburse EPA for oversight costs. 

The value of the settlement is estimated at $26.3 

million. 

-: On August 7, 

1991, EPA and the State of Maine reached 

agreement with 60 potentially responsible parties 

at the Union Chemical Co. Inc. Superfund Site in 

South Hope, Maine. Under the terms of the 

settlement, the 60 PRPs will perform the remedy 

selected in EPAs record of decision, and will pay 

the United States a total of $2.8 million towards 

El'As future oversight costs and in reimbursement 

of EPAs past costs. The settlement also allows 

the PRPs to undertake optional treatability 

studies for an alternative remedy for treatment of 

contaminated soils. In addition, EPA approved a 

& minimis settlement with an additional 270 

PRPs, who will contribute approximately $3.1 

million towards performance of the remedy. The 

settlements constitute a 96% recovery of EPAs 

remaining claims with respect to the site. 

Moreover, also regarding the Union Chemical Site 

in FY 1991, in 

(D. Maine), EPA recovered significant penalties 

against three defendants who failed to respond in 

a timely way to EPA information requests issued 

under 5104 of CERCLA and 53W7 of RCRA. The 

three defendants, Ethan Allen Inc., Spencer Press 

Inc., and IMC Magnetics Corp. (New Hampshire 

Division) agreed to pay penalties of $21,000, 

$15,000 and $7,500, respectively, for failing to 

respond in a timely way to information requests 

issued in 1987 concerning their shipments of 

hazardous substances to the Union Chemical Co. 

site. 

Inc. (-: A 

Consent Decree settling recovery of $280,000 in 

past response costs was entered with the United 

States District Court of North Dakota, 

Northwestern Division, on April 8, 1991. United 

Agri Products, Inc., agreed to reimburse the 

Superfund for costs incurred by Region VIII's 

Emergency Response program in responding to and 

overseeing the clean up of contamination resulting 

from a fire at a pesticide warehouse in Minot, 

ND, which occurred in April 1987. 

On October 2, 

1990, Region 11 and the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry conducted an 

inspection of the White Chemical Company in 

Newark, New Jersey and determined that the 

site conditions were so dangerous that it was 

necessary to shut down the factory and evacuate 

the site. White Chemical refused to comply with 

EPAs request and Region I1 requested the 

Department of Justice to file a complaint for a 

temporary restraining order (TRO). On October 3, 

1990, White Chemical filed a motion for showcause order in bankruptcy court in an effort to 

preempt EPAs TRO. On October 5, 1990, the 

Bankruptcy Judge ordered White Chemical to 

leave the site immediately. The United States 

filed its motion for a TRO in federal district court 

on October 9,1990. On that day, the court granted 

the United States' motion for a TRO; a 

preliminary injunction was subsequently granted. 

Superfund Information Request 

Enforcement Initiative 

Enforcement of CERCLA information 

requests remains a high priority of the Agency's 

Superfund enforcement program. Compelling 

compliance with such requests helps to generate 

acceptable settlement offers from PRPs. PRPs 

will, for example, be more willing to settle when 

they are assured that other parties are not 

escaping par ficipation by ignoring EPA 's 

information requests or filing incomplete 

responses. 

The Agency launched a national initiative 

to emphasize enforcement of CERCLA §204(e)(2) 

requests in September 1989. This emphasis was 

reiterated in FY 2991 as the Agency not only 

continued fo litigate previously filed cases but 

also filed seven additional cases of this type, 

which are summarized below. 

US. v. AIco Tool The 

complaint, filed February 12, 1991, seeks civil 

penalties and injunctive relief for the defendant's 

failure to comply with Region V's request for 

information relating to the Conrail Railroad site 

in Elkhart, Indiana. 

US. v. Ernest Barkman The complaint, filed on 

November 15, 1990, seeks an injunction ordering 

the defendant to supply the requested 

information as well as civil penalties for his 

failure to respond to EPAs request. The defendant 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

failed 'to comply with Region III's request for 

p. 

information regarding the Walsh Landfill site. 

The 

complaint, filed November 19, 1990, seeks to 

compel .compliance with Region Ks request for 

information and asks the court to assess penalties 

for the defendant's failure to respond to the. 

request regarding the BHFI electroplating site in 

Los Angeles, California. 

*I .. 

Adams,: The complaint, filed July 16, 1991, asks 

the court to order the defendants to comply with 

Region IXs request for information as well as to 

assess penalties for the defendants' 

noncompliance. ' 

ILS. v. PrW The court entered a default 

judgment against the site operator on October 10, 

1990. The judgment included a $50,000 penalty for 

the defendant's failure to respond to Region Ks 

information request. This is the second largest 

penalty ever assessed for noncompliance with a 

CERCLA information request. 

The U.S. filed 

a complaint on January 28, 1991, seeking civil 

penalties ,and injunctive relief for the refusal of 

Pretty Products, Inc. and its corporate parent, 

Lancaster Colony Corporation, to supply certain 

requested information relating to the Coshocton 

City Landfill site in Ohio. 

Y.S. v. U- Inc. et al; The 

Agency recovered penalties from three parties 

who failed to respond in a timely nianner to 

Agency information requests, issued pursuant to' 

CERCLA 5104(e) and RCRA 53007, regarding the 

Union Chemical Company site in Maine: The 

three defendants, Ethan Allen Inc., Spencer Press 

Inc, and IMC Magnetics Corp. (New Hampshire 

Division) agreed in a settlement with Region 1 to 

pay penalties totaling $ 43,500. 

Superfund Enforcement Lead Initiative 

.. 

As part of an Audi lead initiative, EPA 

and the Department of Iustice filed six 

complaints and lodged two consent decrees' under 

CERCLA. These Superfund enforcement actions 

involve various sites across the country and over 

a hundred potentially responsible parties. 

Together, the six complaints, request 

reimbursement'of approximately $10 million in 

Superfund money that EPA spent on cleanup 

actions at six sites where lead was a contaminant 

of concern. EPA's Superfund cleanup actions 

helped reduce lead contaminated' groundwater, 

treat lead contaminated surface and subsurface 

soils, and eliminate the airborne threat of lead ' 

contaminated dust to nearby residences. These 

Superfund enforcement actions are designed to 

support ' EPA's overall enforcement efiort to 

target lead, a highly toxic metal, and reduce 

lead exposure from Superfund Sites. 

Lead Cases 

In the Ma&r of -East kidma 

EPA entered 'into .an 

Administrative Order on Consent with ASARCO, 

the potentially responsible party (PRP) at this 

Site on July 19,1991. Under the 0rder;ASARCO 

is removing lead-contaminated soil from schools; 

daycare centers, yards, parks, playgrounds and 

unpaved streets and alleys.The ASARCO/East 

Helena Superfund Site occupies eighty acres and', 

is located in East Helena, Montana. 'ASARCO 

Incorporated (Asarco) owns and operates a' 

primary lead smelter in East Helena, Montana. 

During the 102 years of operation of the smelter, 

both stack and fugitive emissions have- been 

released into the Helena Valley. As an operating 

smelter, the plant's air emissions are undergoing 

air quality State Implementation Plan' (SIP) 

review and revision by the state of Montana. The' 

smelter is about one quarter miie from residential 

areas of East Helena. About half of the yards,, 

playgrounds and parks in East Helena have more 

than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) lead in their 

surface soils. Natural background soils in the area 

,. 

,, 

contain 12-20 ppm , L lead. , 

. .. 

The site has three separate operable units (OUs): 

The first OU was addressed in July 1990. "The 

second operable unit will address the removal of 

lead-contaminated soil from residential 'areas 

such as yards, parks, playgrounds, and unpaved" 

streets and alleys. EPA, in conjunction with 

ASARCO and the Montana Department of 

Health and . Environmental 'Sciences, believes' 

that the removal of highly contaminated -lead 

soils is the most effective way to lower exposuie' 

to lead in East Helena. The removal action 'is 

expected to take several years to complete. 

U.S. v. AtlW . On July 31, 1991, the 

Department of Justice filed a complaint in the 

United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Ohio under CERCLA. The complaint 

.. 

.. .. . 

4-32 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Reporr 

seeks reimbursement of $1.2 milli.on in Superfund 

monies expended at the Site in connection with 

EPA response actions and requests a declaratory 

judgment on liability for future expenditures. 

The United Scrap Lead Superfund Site is located 

in Troy, Ohio and is about twenty-five acres in 

size. N/FS was completed in August 1988 and the 

ROD was signed on September 30,1988. The ROD 

requires excavation and on-site treatment of 

battery casings, excavation and on-site treatment 

of surface soils containing lead concentrations 

greater than 500 parts per million (ppm), 

demolition of structure, monitoring of surface 

water, air and groundwater, and construction of 

new well. Remedial actions at this Site will 

involve an innovative soil washing technique. 

On July 31, 

1991, the Department of Justice filed a complaint 

in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania seeking reimbursement of 

more than $5 million in Superfund money 

expended for past response costs and a declaratory 

judgment on liability for future response costs 

pursuant to CERCLA 5104, 5106, 5107 and 5113. 

The Douglassville Disposal Superfund Site is a 

defunct waste oil processing facility located in 

Douglassville, Pennsylvania. The site consists of 

approximately 50 acres located along Highway 

724 on the southern bank of the Schuylkill River. 

The site is approximately three miles northwest 

of Pottstown and 11 miles southeast of Reading 

and, is;:almosti entirely within the 100 year 

flpogplain .of, the Schuylkill River. The facility 

cgvist$~,ofla. :waste oil processing area in the 

southern portion of the site and numerous other 

areas uSed for waste disposal. These disposal 

areas included two large lagoons that were once 

filled with waste oil sludge, an oily filter cake 

disposal area, an oil drum storage area, an area 

where waste oil was landfarmed into the soil, 

the former processing/tank farm area, a small 

backfilled lagoon, an old incinerator, and an area 

of scrap metal and tanks. 

A second Record of Decision, representing the first 

operable unit ("OU1") at the site, was signed on 

June 24, 1988. The remedial action selected 

consisted of removing liquids and sludges from 

various areas at the site and transporting them 

off-site for incineration. In addition, the former 

processing area was to be dismantled and 

uncontaminated tanks sold for scrap. Lastly, 

provisions were made for the disposal of 

contaminated and uncontaminated rubble at both 

OnJuly 

31, 1991, the Department of Justice. filed .a 

complaint in the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking: (i) 

injunctive relief pursuant to CERCLA §104(e) for 

site access for EPA authorized representatives to 

effect remedial activities; (ii) reimbursement of 

about $1 million in Superfund money spent on 

response costs at the site; and (iii) a declaratory 

judgment on liability pursuant to CERCLA 5113(g) 

for further response costs in connection with the 

site. 

The Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard Superfund Site 

occupies about 20 acres of land adjacent to and 

north of Old Route 22 in Weisenburg Township, 

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, approximately 9 

miles from Allentown. During the 1950s, 60% and 

70s, the property was used as an automobile 

junkyard at which battery salvage operations 

took place. Over time, large piles of battery 

casings were accumulated at the Site. On 

December 15, 1985, an EPA Field Investigation 

Team site inspection of the property revealed 

soils downgradient from the battery piles 

contaminated with high amounts of lead and 

chromium. Three homes are immediately 

adjacent to the property. 

US. v. NL On July 31, 1991, the 

Department of Justice filed a complaint in the 

United States District Court for the Southern 

District ";of ''. Illinois seeking enforcement of 

Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) issued, 

under CERCLA 5106 and reimbursement ' under 

CERCLA 9107. 

The NL Industries\Taracorp Superfund Site is 

located in Granite City, Illinois. The primary 

source of contamination at this site is a secondary 

lead smelter that operated from the 1903 through 

1983. Uncontrolled air emissions have caused the 

lead contamination to migrate off-site, with lead 

being distributed throughout the surrounding 

community. EPA signed a Record of Decision on 

March 30, 1990, which required the cleanup of 

contaminated residential soils to 500 parts per 

million (ppm) lead. About 1,200 residences in and 

near Granite City, Madison, and Venice, Illinois 

are to be cleaned at an estimated cost of over $28.5 

million dollars. 

On November 27, 1990, the Region issued fortythree UAOs to the potentially responsible parties 

4-33 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

PRPs at this site and requested that they 

commence remedial action. After a period of 

negotiation, the PRPs refused to comply with the 

orders. EPAs complaint requests that the PRPs 

reimburse EPAs past costs, imposition of 

penalties and punitive damages for failure to 

comply with the UAOs, and injunctive relief to 

require the defendants to implement the remedial 

action. 

On July 31, 

1991, the Department of Justice filed a complaint 

in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California to recover $2.5 

million in Superfund money. EPA is also 

requesting the court impose punitive damages and 

penalties of more than $7 million for the 

defendants' failure to comply with a UAO. 

The B & H Battery Site is 2.8 acres in size and is 

located in a mixed residential and open livestock 

area in Norco, California. The former site 

operator bought old batteries and refurbished 

them. However, a number of batteries were not 

refurbished and the operator either dismantled 

the batteries or sold them intact to scrap metal 

yards and two lead smelters. Dismantled 

batteries were broken open and the waste battery 

acid was drained directly onto the ground. Lead 

contaminated battery pieces were also scattered 

over the Site. 

EPA issued a UAO to the PRPs at the Site that 

required the PRPs to remedy the lead 

contamination and commence Site cleanup. The 

PRPs refused to fully comply with the order, thus 

forcing EPA to take over response actions at the 

Site and incur costs of several million dollars. 

Municipal Initiative 

On July 27, 2992, EPA Administrator Reilly 

announced an initiative on municipal liability. 

EPA committed to develop national guidelines 

for allocating costs to municipal solid waste 

(MSW), convene a national conference to discuss 

cost allocation issues (which was subsequently 

held October 10 & 11, 2992), and develop a model 

settlement document for municipalities that 

have generated or transported MSW to 

Superfund sites. The October conference, 

involving a cross-section of all affected'private 

and public sectors, discussed the problems in. 

allocating costs and a wide variety of creative 

possible solutions. The guidelines will be used to 

limit the number of third party suits brought 

against local governments that have contiibuted 

waste to Superfund landfills. 

Municipal Cases 

U.S.. et a 1. V. Acush netCo etaL . In June 1991, the 

United States District Court for the District of 

Massachusetts entered a CERCLA 9106 and 5107 

consent decree. Under the consent decree, fourteen 

potentially responsible parties have agreed to 

conduct the remedial design, remedial action, and 

operation and maintenance for thirty years at the 

First Operable Unit. The present value of these 

activities is estimated to be $10.5 million. The 

settlers have also agreed to reimburse the United 

States for: (1) 100% of the United States' future 

oversight costs for the first five years of the 

remedy, and 50% thereafter, up to a total of $1.5 

million; and (2) past costs of $620,000. 

LEL et al. v. Co.. et a.L 

On June 24, 1991, a complaint was filed and a 

proposed consent decree in the above referenced 

case was lodged with the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Washington. 

The consent decree is designed to settle the 

enforcement action under CERCLA 5106 and, 5107 

at the St. Paul Waterway Problem Area of the 

Commencement Bay , Nearshore/Tideflats 

Superfund Site. The complaint also includes a 

claim for relief under 5311 of the Clean Water 

Act, and the consent decree contains a covenant not 

to sue under that provision of the statute. 

The consent decree requires the potentially 

responsible parties (PRPs) to assume 

responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of ,, 

a cap placed over contaminated sediment 

pursuant to a previous consent decree entered into 

with the State of Washington. The PRPs also 

agree to reimburse the United States for: (1) all 

past costs through the date of the Record of 

Decision (ROD), which total $354,536; (2) 60% of 

EPA's oversight costs from the date of the ROD 

through the date of entry of the consent decree; 

and (3) all future oversight and response costs. 

The consent decree also settles claims for natural 

resource damages by the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, the Department of 

Interior, the State of Washington, the Puyallup 

Tribe of Indians, and the Muckleshoot. Indian 

Tribe. 

4-34 
"u. 

FY f99f Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Prospective Purchaser Agreements 

Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site (SouthL 

On September 27, 1991, the 

Department of Justice concurred in a Prospective 

Purchaser Agreement for this site. The Agreement 

pertains to the Arizona Department of 

Transportation's (ADOT) proposal to construct a 

freeway through the northern portion of the 

South Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site (SlBW) 

in Tempe, Arizona. 

The Prospective Purchaser Agreement provides 

the ADOT with a covenant not to sue under 

CERCLA 5106 and $107 and RCRA 57003 for any 

present contamination on or under the proposed 

freeway portion of the SIBW site. ADOT has 

agreed to conduct response activities on the 

freeway portion of the SIBW site worth over $1.1 

million. In addition, ADOT also grants EPA an 

irrevocable right of access to the Freeway 

Property, upon reasonable notice and at reasonable 

times, for the purpose of monitoring compliance 

with the agreement and undertaking response 

actions at the SIBW site. 

-: On 

May 9, 1991, the Department of Justice concurred 

in the above referenced Prospective Purchaser 

Agreement. The Agreement pertains to the 

purchase of the Fick Foundry property at the 

Mouth of City Waterway Problem Area of the 

Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats 

(CB/NT) Superfund Site. The Agreement 

provides the Settling Parties, and any successors 

in interest, a covenant not to sue for the sediment 

contamination at the Mouth of City Waterway 

Problem Area. The Settling Parties have agreed 

to pay the United States $350,000 and perform 

cleanup activities at the Fick Foundry Property. 

Federal Facilities - SuperfundRCRA 

On September 13, 1991, the 

Regional Administrator signed a Federal Facility 

Agreement under CERCLA 5120 that provides 

remedial action at the Crab Orchard National 

Wildlife Refuge. The other signatories are the 

Department of the Interior, the Department of 

the Army, and the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency. It is the first CERCLA Section 

120 agreement to include more than one other 

Federal agency as a PRP. It is also the first 

CERCLA 5120 agreement to provide for private 

party participation in remedial activities 

4-35 

pursuant to 5120(e)(6) and 5122 of CERCLA. 

a On September 28, 1990, EPA issued a 

Notice of Non-compliance (NON) against the 

facility citing improper waste determination, 

inadequate closure plan, inadequate ground water 

monitoring, improper management of land 

disposal restricted wastes, and other violations 

including non-compliance with an Administrative 

order issued by the state on February 16,1988. On 

September 4,1991, a separate NON was issued for 

leaking underground storage tanks. During 

negotiations, there was agreement that the RCRA 

Federal Facility Compliance Agreement should 

be revised to include the UST order requirements. 

The final FFCA was signed by the facility on 

September 12, 1991. The FFCA requires 

comprehensive assessment of groundwater 

contamination, remediation, and implementation 

of procedures to bring the facility into compliance 

with RCRA. 

W: On September 20, 1991, the Regional 

Administrator signed an Amended Federal 

Facilities Agreement between U.S. EPA and the 

Department of Energy (DOE) for the clean-up of 

the in Fernald, 

OH. For the first time, WE has acknowledged 

EPA's authority to assess stipulated penalties, 

noting N/FS submittals are inconsistent with 

CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan. 

The agreement, which utilizes innovative risk 

assessment techniques, requires DOE to implement 

remedial action, pay $100,000 in penalties, and 

perform supplemental environmental projects 

worth $150,000. 

of the FElant: In September 1991, EPA signed an 

agreement with the State of Nebraska and the 

U.S. Department of the Army covering cleanup of 

the former Nebraska Ordnance Plant, located 

near Mead, Nebraska. The former Defense 

Department facility, much of which is now 

occupied by the University of Nebraska's 

Agronomy Research Center as well as several 

private landowners, has contamination in both 

soil and groundwater from the Defense 

Department's handling of explosives and solvents 

at the site. The interagency agreement pursuant 

to 9120 of CERCLA covers investigation and 

cleanup by the Army over approximately five 

years. 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

bw 

w: EPA entered into Federal Facilities 

Agreements (FFA) with the Army for these two, 

facilities in May 1991. The FFAs address the 

investigation, development, selection, and 

implementation of response actions for all 

releases or threatened releases of hazard 

substances at the installations. A site specific 

Master Environmental Plan will be appended to 

each FFA to serve as a detailed comprehensive 

plan for the work to be performed pursuant to 

CERCLA. 

.. - 

-: EPA, the state of Maine, 

and the Air Force entered into a FFA under 

CERCLA 5120 on January 30, 1991. Loring is 

located in the north of Maine in a very rural area. 

Loring was selected for closure pursuant to the 

1990 Base Closure and Realignment Act and is 

scheduled to close September 30,1994. Hazardous 

wastes generated on the base include waste oils, 

fuels cleaned from aircraft and vehicles, spent 

solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls, , and 

pesticides. EPA is committed to overseeing the 

remediation of the contamination at the base 

pursuant to the terms of the FFA. 

EPA, 

the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the 

Navy entered into a CERCLA 5120 FFA which 

became effective June 7, 1991. The Navy will 

undertake work necessary to implement the 

September 1990 ROD for groundwater remediation 

at the facility, conduct RI/FS work as needed to 

characterize the source of groundwater 

contamination, and remediate soils on site. The 

FFA also provides mechanisms to conduct other 

response actions and CERCLA-mandated five 

year reviews, as necessary. 

OnApril24, 

1991, EPA, the Air Force,.and the State of New 

Hampshire signed an Interagency Agreement for 

the Superfund cleanup at Pease Air Force Base in 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Pease is an NPL 

Site under CERCLA. The Interagency Agrement 

contains precedent-setting provisions which 

ensure that the cleanup will be unimpeded by 

closure and redevelopment, while at the same 

time allowing those activities to take place. 

Bprky Flats plant: A Federal Facility 

Compliance Agreement (FFCA) was signed by 

EPA and WE on May IO, 1991. The FFCA 

addresses storage prohibition violations of the 

land disposal restrictions program of RCRA for 

certain mixed wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant.. 

These wastes are prohibited from land disposal ' 

without prior treatment and can not be.stored 

except for the sole purpose of accumulating, 

sufficient quantities of waste as.are necessary for 

the proper recovery, treatment or disposal. 

However, no treatment capacity nor treatment 

technologies exist at this time to handle these 

wastes. The purpose of the Agreement is to have 

DOE address the storage violation by getting 

treatment technologies developed and 

operational. 

Savannah River Sit% On March 13, 1991, EPA. 

signed a RCRA FFCA with DOE to address RCRA 

Land ' Disposal Restriction issues at the. 

Department of Energy's (DOE'S) Savannah River 

Site (SRS) in Aiken; South Carolina. The FFCA 

was'negotiated because DOE is storing wastes at 

SRS which are. prohibited from land disposal. 

The land disposal restrictions program prohibits 

the land disposal of certain wastes unless pretreated using specific technologies or. to specified 

treatment standards. For a number of prohibited 

waste streams .at SRS, no operational treatment 

systems exist. The storage of these wastes 

constitutes a technical violation of the land 

disposal. requirements of RCRA. ' This FFCA . contains an important commitment on behalf of 

DOE to develop, construct and operate 

technologies to treat radioactive mixed ' waste 

streams and to address the related waste 

management issues associated with those waste 

streams at SRS. 

ite (Scranton 

Notice of Noncompliance, Compliance Schedule 

and Notice of Necessity for Conference (NON) to 

the United States Department of the Interior; 

National Park Service 'for, violations of the,^ 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Fd the 

Pennsylvania. Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Management Regulations at the Steamtown 

National Historic Site in Scranton, PA. The NON ,, 

cites the respondent for, among other things, 

accumulating ' more' than 1000 kilograms ,of 

hazardous waste at the facility without a permit 

or interim status, storing hazardous waste at the 

facility without a permit, storing open containers 

of hazardous waste at the facility, and failing to 

have the prescribed containment system in the 

facility's container storage area. The Region 

hopes that 'an ensuing Federal Facility 

Compliance Agreement will resolve long 

On September 30, 1991, Region 111 issued a : 
FY 1991 Enforcemenl Accomplishments Report 

outstanding PCB problems. 

U.S. uKS: A CERCLA 5120 Interagency 

Federal Facility. Agreement, between the US. 

Department of the Army, the Kansas Department 

of Health and Environment (KDHE) and EPA, 

Region VII, became effective in . June, ' 1991 

following' 45 days of public comment. 'This 

Agreement requires the Army to conduct an RI/S 

and select and perform appropriate remedial 

actions under KDHE and EPA oversight and/or 

approval at the Fort Riley Kansas NPL Site. 

Addressing the ,entire facility, this, Interagency 

Agreement requires the Army to investigate and 

remediate all known and suspected areas of 

contamination which resulted from the historical 

disposal practices at the facility including seven 

solid waste landfills and surface areas.. Each.. 

discrete area of Contamination will be addressed 

as operable units under the agreement. There was 

substantial public opposition to this agreement, 

and the Region engaged. in extensive public 

education and outreach. The primary area of 

concern to the public, the 4 square mile impact 

zone, will be included in the RI/FS. ,. 

In the Matter of U.S. DewZment of Emg~ 

The .first. 

corrective action order under RCRA to.be issued by. 

EPA Region VI to a Department of Energy (WE) 

facility was issued on December 10, 1990, to the 

DOE Pantex facility at Amarillo, Texas. The 

order includes a Corrective Action Plan which 

outlines timeframes, scope of corrective action 

activities during interim measures, RCRA 

Facility Investigation (RFI), corrective measures 

and corrective measures implementation phases. 

The proposed order 'alleged that hazardous 

waste constituents were land disposed via udined 

ditches, playa lakes, and/or the on-site sanitary 

landfill. Wastes . have . migrated into the 

underlying Ogallala Formation which contains' 

tKe Ogallala aquifer, one of the most productive 

and extensive aquifers in the United States. The 

final order provides for the cesdtion'of land 

disposal of certain 'waste streams: sampling and 

analysis, submission ,of interim measures reports 

and recommendations, along with. RFl and 

corrective measures requirements. 

rce Base: On September 25, 1991, 

EPA, the Air Force, and the State .of Wyoming 

enteied into a FFA under CERCLA'5120 for the' 

Warren 'Air Force Base,'Waste generated at the 

facility has consisted primarily of spent solvents 

4-37 

from equipment cleaning,and various maintenance 

operations. The Air Force also maintained an 

acid well used for spent battery acid disposal. 

Five landfills are located at the facility and 

these hold various non-hazardous and hazardous 

wastes. Two fire protection areas involve 

extensive use of various fuels and combustible 

materials for fire training exercises. Both arcas 

are now closed and were replaced by a third. The 

agreement calls for the investigation and cleanup 

of the facility. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) Enforcement 

The RCRA enforcement program supports a 

comprehensive regulatory and corrective action 

program to ensure the safe treatment, storage, 

and disposal of hazardous wastes. In the past 

fiscal year, an aggressive enforcement program, 

including both civil judicial and administrative 

actions, emphasized multi-media coordination 

and targeted initiatives. With a new RCRA 

civil penalty policy 'in place, the RCRA 

enforcement program will seek increased 

penalties and economic sanctions, while 

continuing to encourage settlements incorporating 

pollution prevention and waste minimization 

goals. 

NATIONAL INITIATIVES 

L&d Ban Initiative 

On February 22, 1991, €PA and the 

Department of Justice announced eight judicial 

and 20' administrative actions to enforce the 

Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) of RCRA. The 

Land Ban Initiative was well-publicized and 

should play a significant role in deferring future 

LDR violations. €PA Administrator William K. 

Reilly underscored the importance of these 

enforcement .efforts stating that "[tlhese 

enforcement actions are part of a continuing 

nationwide campaign by EPA and the Justice 

Department to stop people from illegnlly putting 

hazardous wastes in the ground. The restrictions 

are intended to significantly reduce the nation's 

reliance on land disposal of hazardous wastes in 

order to protect ground water and minimize risks 

of exposure to hazardous wastes." 

As part of the Land Ban initiative, ~'$1.85 

million consent decree was lodged with €.I. Du 

Pont de Nemours i,n federal district court. The 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

consent decree resolved certain alleged past 

violation of the land disposal restrictions 

provisions at Du Pont’s Chambers Works facility 

in New Jersey. It also provided for an 

independent compliance audit and pollution 

prevention measures. Several other significant 

cases were filed as part of the initiative. The 

administrative cases sought a total of over $3.5 

million in penalties against a variety of 

companies, including BF Goodrich and CibaGeigy. The judicial cases included actions 

against Grumman St. Augustine Corp., National 

Rolling Mills, and Profeco and a multimedia 

enforcement action under RCRA and the Clean 

Water Act against Columbia Manufacturing. 

-: G~mmanSt. Augustine Corporation’s (GSAC) business 

consists of stripping, painting and refurbishing 

aircraft. GSAC generates two major FOO2 waste 

streams, wastewater treatment sludge and paint 

chips. The complaint alleges that after 

November 8, 1986, GSAC violated LDR by failing 

to determine if these waste streams were 

restricted I40 CFR §268.7(a)) and failing to 

provide the required notice and information to the 

disposal facility (40 CFR §268.7(a)J. 

A judicial 

complaint was filed on February 22,1991, alleging 

multiple RCRA violations by National Rolling 

Mills, Inc. (“NRM”), Paoli, PA. The violations 

alleged in the complaint included: storage of 

drums of land ban restricted hazardous waste onsite for more than one year; failure to maintain 

on-site copies of notifications and certifications 

for off-site shipments of restricted hazardous 

waste; failure to notify off-site treatment or 

storage facility of applicable treatment 

standards for shipments of restricted hazardous 

waste; and failure to include waste minimization 

description efforts in their 1990 Biennial (both 

treatment, storage and disposal and generator) 

Reports. 

US. v. Inc. and Columbia 

-: On February 22,1991, the 

United States filed a multi-media civil action for 

penalties and injunctive relief against Columbia 

Manufacturing Co. Inc., the present facility owner 

and operator, and MTD Products Inc., the 

facility’s prior owner and operator, under RCRA 

and the CWA. Columbia manufactures bicycles 

and school furniture at its factory in Westfield, 

MA. EPA multi-media inspectioh of the 

Columbia facility disclosed 29 violations of 

federal and Massachusetts RCRA regulations at 

the Columbia site, as well as significant 

violations of the CWA by Columbia and MTD 

Products Inc. Among other matters, the complaint 

focuses on tyo unlined surface impoundments at 

the facility which were used as part of its 

wastewater treatment facilities. Metal 

hydroxide sludge (waste from its electroplating 

operations) was routinely pumped into these 

impoundments for permanent disposal until May 

1983. Analysis of soils in and around these 

impoundments detected significant levels of 

cyanide. Analyses of groundwater samples in the 

vicinity of these impoundments indicate 

significant levels of several hazardous wastes, 

including chromium, cadmium, trichloroethylene 

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

ILS. v. E.I. .& Co. (Chambers 

Y&r.k& The United States entered into .a 

settlement agreement with E. I. du Pont de 

Nemours (“Du Font”) in this RCRA enforcement 

action focused on New Jersey’s largest hazardous 

waste treatment and disposal facility. On May 

22,1991, the U.S. District Court for the District of 

New Jersey entered a consent decree settling this 

RCRA 53008 case. The consent decree was filed 

with the court concurrently with a complaint on 

February 22,1991. The settlement resolves certain 

past LDR violations that the United States 

alleges occurred at the company’s Deepwater, 

New Jersey facility, known as “Chambers Works.” 

Du Pont violated~the LDR provisions of RCRA by 

unlawfully disposing of corrosive acids and toxic 

solvent wastes att the Chambers Works, and by I 

violating related LDR testing, waste analysis 

and.record keeping provisions. The consent decree . 

requires Du Pont to pay a $1.85 million penalty to ; 

the United States. In addition, Du Pont is 

required to conduct an environmental compliance 

audit and pollution prevention study pursuant to , the settlement. 

us. v. PFroteccion Tecnica Ecologica, Inc. (“Proteco”) is a 

hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal 

facility located in Puerto Rico. Proteco allegedly 

violated eight separate provisions of a consent 

decree that it had previously entered into with 

the United States to address alleged violations of 

RCRA at its facility. Additionally, Froteco 

allegedly violated 16 requirements,under RCRA:s 

“interim status” provisions .for hazardous waste 

facilities operating prior to the issuance of a 

permit. ,Three of these interim status claims 

allege violations of the LDR requirements: 

4-38 
"Y 

FY 1991 Erforcement Accomplishments Reporr 

Proteco allegedly failed to retain appropriate 

records from generators who shipped LDR wastes 

to its facility; Proteco allegedly failed to amend 

its Waste Analysis Plan to incorporate LDR 

requirements; and Proteco allegedly stored LDR 

wastes at its facility for more than one year for 

purposes other than the accumulation of 

quantities necessary to facilitate proper recovery, 

treatment or disposal. Proteco lost its interim 

status to operate on May 15, 1990. In this action, 

the United States is seeking injunctive relief and 

civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each 

violation of RCRA, and stipulated penalties and 

injunctive relief for violations of the consent 

decree. 

Lead Initiative 

On Iuly 32,2992,20 RCRA cases (12 judicial 

and 8 administrative) were filed as part of a 

multi-media initiative to enforce existing laws 

and regulations aimed at reducing lead exposure 

to the public and the environment. A total of 36 

(24 judicial and 22 administrative) actions were 

filed under six environmental statutes -- the first 

time a specific pollutant was tnrgeted for 

multimedia enforcement action. The RCRA cases 

in the initiative were truly multi-media, 

addressing lend Contamination in soil, water and 

air. 

On July 

31, 1991, a civil Complaint was filed against 

American Brass, which owns and 'operates a 

secondary brass smelting facility in Headland, 

Alabama. The company was cited for violations 

of the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions 

prohibiting placement of hazardous wastes 

which contain lead (Wo8) in excess of the 

regulatory treatment level for that metal. The 

lawsuit seeks injunctive relief requiring 

compliance with LDR requirements and 

prohibiting further operation until American 

Brass can assure EPA that it can operate in 

accordance with RCRA. Simultaneously, a Motion 

for Contempt was filed in the Middle District of 

Alabama regarding violations of a Consent Decree 

lodged against American Brass. This Motion 

sought injunctive relief requiring American Brass's 

compliance with the Consent Decree requirements 

and prohibiting further operation until the 

company can assure EPA it can operate in 

accordance with the Consent Decree. These issues 

wer;' resolved as of March 9, 1992 when the 

District Court entered a modified consent decree 

between EPA and American 

Brass. 

hihe Matte I of hoc0 0 il Co : On July 31,1991, 

Region Ill issued a RCRA ' administrative 

complaint seeking penalties against Amoco, 

regarding the unpermitted storage and 

management of lead- containing wastes at 

Amoco's Yorktown, VA oil refinery. This 

complaint was issued as part of EPAs Lead 

Initiative. In addition, the complaint cites Amoco 

for storage of hazardous wastes in drums and 

tanks for longer than the 90-day accumulation 

period without a permit, numerous record keeping 

violations, an inadequate contingency plan, and 

failure to make adequate hazardous waste 

determinations. Concurrent with issuance of the 

complaint, EPA sent Amoco a draft RCRA 

§3008(h) corrective action consent order to address 

releases from the facility. Administrative 

P 

litigation is pending in this matter. 

On July 

31, EPA issued a 3008(a) administrative 

complaint seeking penalties to AT&T for RCRA 

violations at its Richmond Works facilities in 

Richmond, VA. The complaint allegations 

include: unpermitted storage of hazardous wastes, 

failure to manifest hundreds of shipments of 

hazardous wastes, numerous LDR record keeping 

violations, an inadequate contingency plan,and an 

inadequate training program. Concurrent with 

issuance of the complaint, EPA sent a RCRA 

3008(h) consent order to AT&T to implement the 

remedy selected by EPA in the RCRA Record of 

Decision for the facilities. 

us. V. En vironmental Pacific Corpo ration. 

As part of Environmental Pacific 

Corporation's (EPC) operations at Amity, Oregon, 

EPC received lead acid and alkaline batteries, 

which it allegedly drained prior to shipment to 

recyclers or sent undrained to recyclers. During an 

inspection conducted by EPA Region X and the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 

hazardous constituents, including lead, cadmium, 

chromium, barium, mercury and silver, were found 

in soil and surface waters off-site. The civil 

judicial action undertaken by Region X seeks an 

injunction requiring EPC to clean up the lead and 

other hazardous constituents contaminating its 

facility and to study all areas where releases 

might have occurred. 

This is an 

enforcement action against Group Dekko for 

unlawful land disposal of toxic, lead-bearing 

4-39 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

- 

waste in an uncontrolled pile that may contain as 

much as 60 million pounds of waste. The waste 

pile was generated at a copper recovery facility 

near Kendallville, Indiana, that is part of Group 

Dekko's Reclaimers operating division. The 

complaint also addresses an unlawful shipment of 

waste as well as numerous testing and 

recordkeeping violations at Reclaimers. The 

complaint seeks an injunction requiring Group 

Dekko to cease using the waste pile and ,to 

maintain testing and records at the site as 

required by RCRA. The complaint also seeks civil 

penalties. 

U. v. Kurdziel 

Industries (formerly Kurdziel Iron Industries, Inc.) 

is an enforcement action concerning Kurdziel's 

gray iron foundry located in Rothbury, Michigan. 

Wastewater and waste by-products from 

operations containing hazardous amounts of lead 

had been discharged into settling ponds and other 

areas at the foundry for years. The United States 

has filed a motion to hold Kurdziel in contempt of 

court for numerous violations of a Consent Decree 

it had agreed to in 1987, including failure to abide 

by the Decree's requirements concerning 

groundwater monitoring, financial assurance for 

closure of the contaminated areas, and .liability 

insurance in case of an accident involving the 

contaminated areas. ,The action seeks an 

injunction requiring compliance and payment of 

stipulated penalties by Kurdziel. 

On July 31, 1991, 

the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint 

in the US. District Court for the District of 

Connecticut against Raymark Industries Inc. 

requesting that the court order Raymark to study 

and perform corrective action at its facility in 

Stratford, CT. Raymark had manufactured 

automobile brakes and friction products at this 34 

acre facility from 1919 through 1989, and disposed 

of its hazardous wastes (principally leadasbestos wastes and dust) on-site. In some areas, 

this lead-asbestos fill is up to 17 feet deep. There 

is also extensive groundwater contamination onsite. The complaint requests that the court order 

Raymark to comply with an administrative order 

issued by EPA on March 31, 1987, pursuant to 

53013(a) of RCRA, which instructs the company 

to study its site in order to ascertain the nature 

and extent of the hazard created by the presence 

and release of hazardous waste. Raymark has 

failed to'comply with the terms of the order. 

Based on the results of this. study, the complaint's 

second claim requests that Raymark be ordered by 

the court to carry out a corrective action plan as 

approved by EPA. 

On 

July 31, 1991, the U.S. filed a case in the US. 

District Court of Wyoming against Torrington 

Hide & Metal under CERCLA 5106 and RCRA. 

97003 imminent and substantial endangerment 

statutory authorities. On February 28,,1989, US. 

EPA issued a RCRA §3008(a) administrative 

complaint, to Torrington Hide & Metal for twenty 

years of illegal disposal of hazardous waste 

resulting in lead contamination in the soils. The 

administrative case was vacated and a referral 

was filed in 1991 due to injunctive relief needs at 

the site. The defendants have claimed 

bankruptcy, and EPA has performed assessment 

and stabilization activities at the site ,to 

minimize potential exposure. 

Export-Import Cluster Filing 

On September 26, 1991, EPA filed 16 

administrative actions under RCRA as part of a 

multi-media effort targeting illegal export and. 

import of hazardous waste or chemicals. A total 

of 23 cases were filed to enforce the export and 

import, regulations of RCRA, TSCA, FIFRA and 

the Clean Air Act. This cluster filing illustrated 

the increasing priority the Agency is placing on 

transboundary environmental problems. 

Eight of the 16 RCRA cases concerned 

shipments of hazardous waste to Mexico and 

were developed in cooperation with the Mexican. 

government. Other RCRA actions involved 

shipments of hazardous waste or chemicals to 

and from Canada, and exports to Asia and 

Europe. These administrative actions address a 

broad .range of. export and import 'violations 

including: failure to notify EPA and receive 

consent prior to export of hazardous waste to a 

foreign country; shipments of hazardous waste in . 

violation of quantity limits set out in EPA's 

acknowledgement,of the consent provided by the 

receiving 'country;. and violations related to 

tracking of waste shipments. 

b~aiter of Bmmehsm Bolt CDmOanv. 

p: 

.. This RCRA 

action involves a bolt and bar manufacturing 

operation that uses steel reclaimed from scrap 

metal in its manufacturing process. Hazardous 

waste generated at.the facility, emission control. 

dust from an electric arc furnace, was collected in a 

baghouse and was exported to Mexico for 

. .. 

4-40 
FY 1991 Enforcemenr Accomplishmenrs Report 

reclamation. EPA issued an Acknowledgement of 

Consent to export after it received BBC's Notice 

of Intent to Export, and obtained Mexico's consent. 

EPA alleges, however, that BBC exported a 

greater quantity of waste than it indicated it 

would export in its original Notice of Intent, and 

prior to obtaining EPA's acknowledgement of 

Mexico's consent to increase the volume of waste 

which may be shipped, in violation of 40 CFX 

5262.53. EPA's complaint asks BBC to comply 

with the regulations and seeks a penalty for 

violations. 

This 

action involves an electroplating facility which 

performs several types of plating operations. 

These operations include precious metal plating, 

plating of common metals and anodizing. The 

facility uses conventional treatment which 

includes chrome reduction, cyanide destruction 

and chemical precipitation of metals to treat its 

process wastewater. The alleged RCRA 

violations, which have been occurring since 1987, 

include failure to notify EPA of some exports of 

hazardous wastes, resulting in some unauthorized 

shipments; failure to properly complete manifests 

for export shipments; failure to submit annual 

reports; and additional regulatory violations 

under Subtitle C of RCRA, including violations of 

the Land Disposal Restrictions, and container 

management provisions of RCRA. EPA's 

Complaint asked Coastal to comply with the 

regulations and seeks penalties for violations 

In the mer of Sheffiela Steel Comoration: 

This RCRA action involves a steel mill operated 

by Sheffield Steel Corporation located in Sand 

Springs, Oklahoma. Waste generated by the 

facility includes emission control dust (K061) from 

the production of steel in electric arc furnaces, and 

contains chromium, lead, and cadmium. The 

waste is shipped to Zinc Nacional, Monterrey, 

Mexico, for reclamation. The violations alleged 

in the complaint include export of wastes prior to 

receiving an EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for 

the export; the export of a greater quantity of 

hazardous waste than represented in the 

facility's notification of intent to export, without 

renotifying EPA of the intent to ship additional 

wastes and obtaining an EPA Acknowledgment of 

Consent to the additional shipments; and the 

export of wastes without the EPA 

Acknowledgement of. Consent accompanying the 

shipment. EPA is 'seeking compliance with the 

regulations and penalties. 

.. . 

This action 

involves a commercial wastewater treatment and 

hazardous waste storage facility, which is a 

major exporter of hazardous wastes to Canada. 

Essentially all of the waste generated and 

handled by Stablex are shipped to Stablex 

Canada, in Blainville, Quebec, which was 

formerly owned by the same company. The 

alleged RCRA violations, which have been 

occurring since 1988, include the export of certain 

types of hazardous wastes which were not 

included in the facility's notification of intent to 

export upon which Canada's consent to receive 

the wastes was based; failure to provide adequate 

Notification of Intent to export; failure to 

properly complete manifests for export 

shipments; and additional regulatory violations 

under Subtitle C of RCRA, including violations of 

the Land .Disposal Restrictions. EPA is seeking 

compliance with the regulations and penalties. 

In September Region I1 filcd an 

administrative complaint against this firm 

alleging violations of RCRA pertaining to the 

trans-boundary movement and handling of 

hazardous wastes. The Region I1 case seeks 

penalties which may be among the largest of the 

16 RCRA cases included in the initiative. 

REGIONAL INITIATIVES 

Great Lakes Enforcement Initiative 

As part of its effort to clean-up the Grand 

Calumet River area and Great Lakes Region, 

EPA filed three civil judicial lawsuits on October 

16, 1990 against companies with facilities near 

Gary, Indianh. These actions, against Inland 

Steel Co., Inc., Bethlehem Steel Corp. and 

Federated Metals Corp., involved violations of 

hazardous waste, air and water laws and, 

together, constituted a unique, geographicallylimited coordination of statutory enforcement 

authorities. 

EPA sought to compel Inland to comply 

with its air, water and hazardous waste permits 

and to clean up toxic contamination deposited in 

sediments at the Indiana Harbor area of 

southern Lake Michigan and on its 2 112 mile 

man-made peninsula which the company used 

for hazardous waste disposal. Bethlehem 

Steel's. operation in Burns Harbor, Indiana 

generates several types of hazardous wastes; 

releases threatened the Little Calumet River 

4-41 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenls Repor! 

and the Burns Ditch which flow into Lake 

Michigan. At Federated Metals'former smelting 

and refining facility in Whiting, Indiana, 

releases of lead and cadmium threatened human 

health and endangered the surrounding wetlands 

and Lake George. 

California Generators Administrative 

Enforcement Initiative 

Beginning in FY 1990, EPA Rep'on VI11 

developed an administrative. enforcement 

initiative targeting a group of California 

hazardous waste generators who improperly 

shipped wastes to unpermitted facilities in 

Wyoming and Utah. The region filed a total of 

eleven such actions. The cases, which involved 

multiple shipments, alleged three violations per 

shipment: (1) the improper shipment of 

hazardous wastes to unpermitted facilities, (2) 

the failure to include a proper shipping manifest 

wit the shipments, and (3) the failure to provide 

a land disposal ban notice. Several of these 

cases were concluded in FY 1990. 

In FY 1991, Region VI11 successfully resolved the 

remaining cases, with penalties ranging from 

520,000 to $247,000. The defendants in these 

actions included BFM Energy, Cessna (General 

Dynamics), City of Fontana, SAIC, Harbor, Inc., 

Paul-Munroe, VAL Circuits, DICO, Inc. and 

Exotic Materials. 

Region II Fur Pelt Industry Non-Notifier RCRA 

Enforcement Initiative 

During FY 1991, Region I1 filed 

administrative complaints against six New 

jersey firms engaged in fur processing and 

transportation of the resulting wastes. The firms 

illegally generated, stored, transported and 

disposed of hazardous wastes generated during 

the processing of fur pelts. The industry uses 

sawdust soaked with solvents to clean fur pelts. 

Two fur processors charged, Ella Industries, Inc. 

and Superior Dyed Furs, Inc., ignored all RCRA 

rules and disposed of the solvent-laden waste 

sawdust through transporters which then 

brought the sawdust to horse stables, factories 

and other locations not authorized to accept 

hazardous wastes. The improper handling and 

disposal of the solvent-laden waste sawdust 

could cause environmental contamination and 

human health problems; the solvents used 

include suspected carcinogens. The transporters 

cited are Lignum Chemical Works, Inc., Atlantic 

Sawdust and Paper Shredding, Landew Sawdust, 

Inc., and Ray Reilly Stables, Inc. During FY 1991 

Region I1 inspectors visited 27 fur industry 

facilities. 

Virgin Islands UST Enforcement 

In FY 1991, Region I1 issued a complaint 

seeking penalties and compliance order against 

Frank Mustafa in the U.S. Virgin Islands, for ' 

violations of UST notification and leak detection 

requirements. The Virgin Islands environmental 

agency reported a large upsurge of interest in 

compliance following the press reports. Of 25 

parties issued Notices of Violation by the Virgin 

Islands government in FY 1991 regarding leak 

detection infractions, all have since responded. 

The compliance rate for leak detection in the 

Virgin Islands now stands at loll%, either 

through implementation of the leak detection 

requirements or through closure of existing 

facilities. 

Region II Waste Oil Enforcement Initiative ' 

In FY 1990 civil actions were filed against 

seven Region I1 waste oil handlers for violations ' 

of the used oil regulations and other RCRA 

requirements. (Two administrative actions were 

also filed at that time against waste oil 

handlers.) With respect to two of the civil 

actions there were significant litigation 

developments in FY 1991. On August 8, 1991,,the 

court in U.S. v. Nassau Oil (E.D. New Yorkl 

issued a default judgment in favor of EPA 

awarding a civil penalty of 5900,000. In U.S. v. 

Eastern Oil (D. New lersev), the court denied the 

bulk of summary judgment motions filed by both ' 

the government and the defendant, but granted 

the government's summary judgment motion as to 

certain counts. The parties subsequently reached 

a settlement, providing for a penalty payment of 

$195,000. The ensuing consent decree was entered 

on February28, 1992. Eastern has also agreed to 

adopt new operating procedures at its facility to 

insure the proper handling of used oil, and to 

mark its tanks with logos reading "Don't Pollute 

- Recycle Oil." 

Other Significant RCRA Actions 

Inc. tb 

yark)/ On May 24, 1991, Region Il issued an order 

under 57003 of RCRA requiring the removal of 

hazardous wastes from the premises of a' former 

metal plating factory in New York City. The order 

4-42 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishhmenrs Reprt 

-__ -_ .- --I_- 

was directed w the owners and operators of the 

former factory, and specified steps which had to 

be taken to ensure the prompt and sfe removal of 

the wastes discovered at the site, as well as 

certain testing and possible remedial action 

relilting to the sewage system connections at the 

facility, This case was developed with crossmedia cooperation in the Regional office. A 

Region 11 EPCRA inspection in December 1989, 

resulted in an administrative complaint issued to 

Accurate Famous Castings, Inc. When the 

Respondent company failed to respond to the 

complaint, EPCRA inspectors again visited the 

facility and found that the company had vacated 

the premises. The inspectors found about seventy 

55-gallon drums on site, many in poor condition, 

and many marked as containing cyanide plating 

wastes, an acutely hazardous substance. The 

EPCRA program forwarded this information to 

the RCM program, and after an accelerated 

investigation the $7003 cleanup order was issued. 

In an 

administrative caw, the owner/operator of a 

brass and aluminum foundry in Iowa was found 

liable under 53004 of RCRA for conducting 

treatment of hazardous waste without a permit. 

The Chief Administrative Law Judge ruled on 

September 24, 1991, that Acme Brass and 

Aluminum Foundry's practice of mixing hazardous 

baghoux! dust with non-hazardous foundry sand 

in an open pile behind its facility was treatment 

of a hazardous waste which required a RCRA 

permit. In addition, the ALJ ruled that although 

the company wa5 a small quantity generator, it 

failed to comply with certain conditions of the 

small quantity generator regulations and thus was 

not exempt from the RCRA permit requirements. 

On January 

25, 1991, the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Ohio entered a wnsent decree 

settling a RCRA enforcement action against GSX 

Chemical Services of Ohio, Inc. {formerlyknown 

as Alchem-tron, 1nc.h The settlement provided, 

in part, for the payment of a civil penalty Of 

$350,000.00. In this action, filed on December 5, 

1986, the United States alleged that a number of 

the units at the Defendant's facility located in 

Cleveland, Ohio, lost interim status on November 

8, 1905, when Alchem-tron failed to certify 

compliance with the applicable financial 

responsibility requirements. In 1989, the district 

court granted the United States motion for partial 

summary judgment and held that the units at 

issue had lost interim status. The court 

permanently enjoined the Defendant from 

treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste 

in the units that lost interim status. The parties 

subquently entered into the consent decree in 

order to settle the remaining penalty-related 

issues 

YCh January 30,1991, 

the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Michigan issued an order holding 

Buckeye in contempt for failing to comply with a 

1987 mwnt dtxree. The contempt order includes 

provisions requiring defendant to: (1) 

immediately commence ground water monitoring 

on a quarterly basis; (2) fully and timely 

implement post closure care; (3) pay $104,871 as 

payment of the outstanding civil penalty due, 

plus interest; and (4) pay $5.31 million in 

stipulated penalties for violating the consent 

decree. The government subsequently garnished 

Buckeye's assets to satisfy the contempt order. 

The defendant has moved to quash the 

government's efforts to execute the contempt order 

and that motion is currently pendin& 

On September 10, 1991,' the USEPA 

filed a RCRA XM3 Administrative case on consent 

against the Burlington Northern Railroad 

Company. The action was filed to impel cleanup 

of a Cheyenne site containing high levels of lead. 

Known contamination of soil, and potential 

Contamination of surface and . ground water 

including drinking water sources made this site of 

imminent and substantial endangerment to hudn 

health and the environment. Cleanup activities 

to be performed 'include immediate access 

restrictions to the site, installation of wells and 

groundwater monitoring,. an evaluation of the 

depth of soil contamination and contaminants 

present, an evaluation of all drinking water 

supply wells within 1/4 mile of the facility, soil 

stabilization and removal, and site reconstruction. 

This case was interesting betause Burlington 

Northern was neither an owner or an operator, 

and most of the disposal activities at the site 

occurred prior to 1980. A simultanrous unilateral 

s7003 order was filed ag;linst the owner of the 

site to cdmpel their participation in the cleanup 

as necessary and to ensure that if any 

contamination remained on site, a deed notice was 

entered .with the approptiate local zoning 

authority. 

4-43 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accompliskmenrs Report . 

On August 28, 199l,,a 

complaint was filed against three respondents, 

each an operator and owner of a.hazardous waste 

treatment, storage and disposal facility located 

in Santa Barbara County, California. The 

complaint seeks civil penalties and injunctive 

relief for numerous violations o( RCRA, including 

improper expansion' of landfills, disposal of 

waste in excess of specified design capacity,. 

inadequate insurance coverage and failure to 

amend its closure plan for new construction. The 

complaint also seeks corrective action. The cak 

has been consolidated with an.,action filed the 

previous day by the County of Santa .Barbara 

under RCRA's citizen suit provision. The State of 

California has moved to intervene to present 

claims under bath,RCRA and state law. 

, 

' 

! 

In this action to debar the 

respondents from federal . assistance, loan and 

benefit programs. Region VI1 obtained an 

agreement by respondents to accept a debarment 

for three years.. The three year period was the 

amaunt of'time proposed by the Region in its 

notice. The debarment order was entered on 

September 17, 1991. The debarment was proposed 

by the Region as .a result of respondents' 

violations of hazardous waste regulations under 

RCRA, including a conviction of respondent 

Chemical Commodities, Inc. for violations. .. .. 

aklahnma. In the first such actions taken by the 

EPA, these four companies.were cited in early 

1991 in administrative enforcement actions for 

importing hazardous waste from facilities in 

Mexico without the required notifications to EPA. 

The hazardous waste regulations under RCRA 

require that before importing hazardous, waste, a 

cumpany .must submit a. written notification to 

EPA at least four weeks in advance of the date 

the hazardous waste is expected to arrive at the 

U.S. facility. , 

*r of c. p. (7 Inc. (spilth 

Sadin& On Januav, 7,1991, Region IV entered 

into a RCRA §3008(a). Consent Agreement with 

C.P. Chemicals, Inc. The consent agreement, 

provides for C.P.: Chemical's payment of a 

$242,500 civil penalty and settlement of a ' 

complaint and compliance order ,which the 

Region issued to C.P. Chemical because the state 

had been unable, for a number of years, to bring 

the Respondent into compliance with RCRA. 

Among the diversity of RCRA violations the 

Region charged the company with were: (1) 

continuing to operate a hazardous waste 

management unit for 173 days after losing interim 

status to operate this unit; (2) failing.to submit a 

closure/post-closure plan for this unit; and (3) 

failing to certify compliance with RCRA 

financial assurance requirements for three of its 

hazardous waste management units. 

ves (N 

EPA and Craig Adhesive Company signed a 

Consent Agreement in late September 1991, 

settling a RCRA Administrative action for 

violations of seventeen regulations in the N.J. 

Administrative Code. Operating a hazardous 

waste storage facility without having applied 

for a RCRA permit,' using leaking and 

deteriorating containers for hazardous waste, and 

failure to inspect its storage area were among the 

most significant of the' allegations in the EPA 

Complaint. The company is presently undergoing 

a New jersey RCRA cleanup and has agreed to 

pay' a civil penalty of $230,000 and spend 

$185,000, over three years, and to implement a 

research and development program to reduce or 

substantially eliminate hazardous solvent 

constituents from 'its solvent-based adhesive 

formulations. 

: .. 

decision established strict liability for absentee 

landowners by awarding a penalty of $25,W 

against the operator of a facility for violations of' 

Land Disposal Restrictions and assessed a 

penalty of $12,500 against the city that owned 

the facility. The judge found the city liable :as 

the owner, although it was not involved in the 

operations. However, the judge calculated 'the 

city's penalty based upon its own conduct and 

declined to hold the owner strictly liable for the 

penalty assessed. 4 

On August 

24, 1990, EPA Region IX issued a RCRA 3008Ca) 

order against Deluxe Packages for alleged 

violations of Subtitle C of RCRA at its South San 

Francisco, California facility. Deluxe Packages 

produces flexible packages for the 'food industry. 

EPA cited Deluxe Packages for failure to make a 

4-44 
FY 1991 Enforcemenr Accomplishmenis Report 

waste determination of generated waste and for 

storage of hazardous waste without a permit. On 

May 22, 1991, EPA signed a consent agreement 

with Deluxe Packages. Deluxe Packages agreed 

to pay a civil penalty of $93,000 and perform all 

work EPA ordered to bring the facility into 

compliance, including implementation of 

hazardous waste management unit closure plan. 

In the Matter of Eli Lilly Industries: On 

September 16, 1991, the Regional Administrator 

in Region I1 signed a Consent Agreement and 

Consent Order in the above matter. EPA had 

issued a Complaint to Eli Lilly on December 24, 

1990, alleging that the company had violated 

the terms of its RCRA permit. The five counts set 

forth in the Complaint alleged that Eli Lily had 

violated 'the terms of its RCRA permit by 

improperly operating its hazardous waste 

incinerator. The violations included: 1) failure to 

maintain the scrubber pH monitor; 2) failures to 

maintain the total dissolved solids monitor; 3) 

exceeding the allowable total dissolved solids 

concentration in the scrubber water; 4) failures to 

perform checks to verify that the incinerator 

automatic waste feed cut-off system was 

operational; and 5) failure to perform daily 

calibrations of the incinerator stack carbon 

monoxide monitor. As part of the conditions of 

settlement of this matter, the company agreed to 

pay a penalty of $74,127 and to develop and 

install a Distributed Control System for its 

hazardous waste incinerator, which will provide 

improved combustion, temperature, pH, and waste 

destruction control for the incinerator. 

.. 

On November 8, 

1991, the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Connecticut granted a request by Envirite 

Corporation to re-open the Consent Decree in U.S. 

v. Envirite Coruoration, Civil Action No. H-89- 

279(EBB). The Judge vacated the Consent Decree, 

ordered the return of the penalty, and restored the 

case to active status. In a Joint Stipulation of 

Dismissal resolving this litigation and a Consent 

Agreement and Order resolving a related RCRA 

civil administrative action, the United States 

has agreed to a dismissal of the complaint and 

will return to Envirite the sum of $66,740 and 

Envirite will address several matters including 

revisions to the ground-water assessment program 

for its Thomaston, CT facility. The Joint 

Stipulation of Dismissal was filed with the 

District Court on March 31. On April 2, 1992 the 

Court signed the Stipulation, ordering the 

dismissal of the civil judicial action. 

.. 

Waste &~L~.QI ("EWCL 

In a 1989 decision, 

the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Indiana assessed penalties of $2.778 

million against Environmental Waste Control 

(EWC), permanently enjoined operation of the 

EWC landfill, and ordered EWC to conduct 

corrective action. The penalty in this case was 

the largest RCRA civil judicial penalty ever 

assessed by a court at that time. The lower court 

granted such relief based on EWCs operation of 

the landfill after losing interim status as a result 

of financial assurance and ground water 

monitoring deficiencies, and based on the 

contamination to ground water that resulted from 

landfill releases. On October 31,1990, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

affirmed in all respects the district court's order 

in favor of the government (and the intervcning 

citizen's group, Supporters To Oppose Pollution 

(STOP)). On April 22, 1991, the US. Supreme 

Court denied EWCs petition for certiorari. The 

issues presented in the certiorari petition related 

to whether the lower courts correctly ruled that 

EWC lost interim status and whether the district 

court erred in issuing an injunction closing the 

landfill. 

Inc. v. EPB: On November 21, 

1990, the District Court of Minnesota upheld a 

decision by the Chief Judicial Officer ("CJO) 

that assessed a $77,000 civil penalty against 

Federal-Hoffman, Inc. for violations of RCRA 

regulations governing placement of liquid waste 

into landfills. In 1986, EPA Region V brought an 

administrative enforcement action under RCRA 

§3008(a) alleging that the plaintiff, a small 

arms manufacturer, illegally disposed of waste 

containing free liquids in that plaintiff's interim 

status unit which did not have "a liner and 

leachate collection and removal system that 

meets the requirements of §264.301(a)," as 

required by 40 CFR §265.314(a). The company 

argued that its unit qualified for the "existing 

portion" exemption provided in §2264.301(a). The 

Agency's position was upheld by the CJO, who 

imposed a civil penalty of $77,000 for the 

regulatory violations. The district court deferred 

to the Agency's interpretation of its own 

regulations, and agreed that the "existing 

portion" exemption did not allow the plaintiff to 

by-pass the regulatory restrictions on disposal of 

!ig&l waste into landfills. The court also found 

that the administrative record fully supported 

the factual basis for the CJOs decision regarding 

the existence of a regulatory violation, and 

4-45 
J."'.9* 

'f FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

upheld the amount of civil penalties assessed by 

the Agency. 

,, 

Inc. (N;D. 

hmd This case involved persistent and 

successful efforts to assert EPAs authority to 

conduct inspections under RCRA. EPA Region VI1 

tried unsuccessfully , to secure access to. the 

Flexsteel Industries, Inc. (Flexsteel) facility in 

Dubuque, Iowa, for purpses of conducting an 

inspection to determine whether hazardous 

wastes or hazardous constituents had been 

released into the environment from solid waste 

management units. On August 1,1991, pursuant to 

53007 of RCRA, EPA filed an application for an '; 

administrative search warrant in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of 

Iowa, Eastern Division. Following an ex parte 

hearing on the application, a Chief United 

States Magistrate issued the administrative 

search warrant. On August 6,1991, FlexsteeI filed 

a motion to quash the administrative warrant 

and requested oral argument. The Magistrate 

denied Flexsteel's motion. The inspection of the 

Flexsteel facility was performed on August 13, 

1991. On August 22, 1991, Flexsteel renewed its 

motion to quash the administrative search 

warrant. Finding that Flexsteel's renewed motion 

failed to raise any claims not previously heard 

and considered by the court, on October 8, 1991, 

the Magistrate issued an order denying 

Flexsteel's renewed motion. ,, 

In the Matter of FAn order representing the.largest 

civil penalty yet assessed under RCRA .was 

entered into with Formosa Plastics Corporation, 

Point Comfort, Texas, on February 27, 1991. .On 

October 11, 1990, EPA Region VI had issued a 

RCRA §3008(a) Complaint against this facility 

for several RCRA violations, including failure to 

submit a RCRA permit application, develop a 

waste analysis plan, make a. hazardous waste 

determination, maintain leakproof containers, 

develop a closure plan, and demonstrate financial 

assurance. Under the agreed final order, Formosa 

Plastics agreed to pay a cash penalty., of, 

$3,375,000, set up a $1,ooO,OOO trust fund to benefit 

the environment, and implement a program of 

pollution prevention ' projects and environmental 

audits. Formosa Plastics was also issued a RCRA , 

agreed corrective action order on February 27, 

1991. Under this corrective action order, Formosa 

Plastics will investigate the type and extent of 

soil and ground water contamination at the 

facility and will develop and implement a 

remedial action plan. 

On March 29, 1991, 

the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of New York entered a consent decree 

between General Electric .Co. .and the United 

States., Pursuant to the agreement, General 

Electric Company agreed to pay $176,000 in^ 

penalties for violations of RCRA Subtitle C, at its 

silicone production facility in Waterford, New 

York. In addition, GE agreed to construct a 

container/drum storage pad with a protective roof 

and take. other measures .related to container. 

storage and management practices. .. ., 

of GSX Chetnlcal Services of Qhu 

GSX Chemical Services of Ohio, Inc. owns 

and.operates as a hazardous waste management 

facility in Cleveland, Ohio. A ,Consent 

Agreement and Final Order was entered between 

GSX and EPA Region V with an assessment of 

$110,000 penalty for violations .of., an 

Administrative Complaint. GSX was cited for 

improper storage of hazardous materials, nonmarked containers, , storage of waste 'in 

unpermitted areas, non-documentation of training 

for emergency coordinators, and several ,other. 

violations. .In addition, an earlier penalty was . 

assessed for $350,000 as part of a LOIS .judicial 

action. .. 

ILS, v.. The In one of the 

Agency's first efforts to enforce the terms of an 

interim status corrective action order, a complaint 

was filed on July.31, 1991, in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Maine against ..The 

Hanlin Group Inc. The consent order, issued 

pursuant to 53008(h) of RCRA, required,. the 

company to conduct a site assessment withrespect 

to mercury, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform . releases to the, groundwater and mercury . 

contamination of soil at the company's Orrington, 

Maine, site and to submit an interim RCRA 

facility investigation report, ' all of .which.,the. 

company is alleged to have failed to do . in' 

accordance with the order. The complaint. seek.s 

payment of penalties of up to $25,aoO per day or in. 

the ,alternative, stipulated penalties of $5;000 

per violation per day as spelled out in .the : 

administrative consent order; for violations of the, 

consent order. and completion . of the.' site 

assessment, subject to EPA approval,. as 

expeditiously as' possible. 

protection from creditors under Chapter.11 of ,the 

US. Bankruptcy Code three weeks prior, .to :the 

I .. 

Hanlin. filed,, for ' 

.. . filing of the complaint. ,. 

4-46 
in obtaining an order appmving. the sale of a 

facility by a bankrupt owner (Harklau Industries) 

to a prospective purchaser of the property 

(Hawkeye Leisure Trailers Limited) On the 

eqxese conditiorx that both the owner and the 

buyer sign a consent agreemt negotiated by 

Region VII, under $3008(a) of RCRA. The order 

was entered on August 26, 1991, by the Unit4 

States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 

District of Iowa. Both parties and EPA have 

subsequently signed the agreement and, as a 

result, the process of removing the drummed 

wastes and testing for possible hazardous waste 

contamination in the soil and ground water at the 

site has commenced. 

InOctohor of 1990, the U.S. District Court for the Northem 

Disi&t of Ohio, entered a congnt decree between 

the US. and Household Manufacturing, Inc., Eljet 

Industries, Inc, and Elier Manufacturing. IW. This 

action concerned the Eljer Plumbinpare Division 

facility (Eljer) of Household Manufacturing, InC. 

located in Salem, Ohio. The facility i5 an iron 

foundry that nlanufacturs and enamels bathroom 

fixtures. The consent decree provided that the 

defendants would implement B closu~ plan for a 

]and disposal unit that had lost interim status; 

implement a prow ground water monitoring 

system; cap all hazardous wastes until closure 

was initiated; comply with financial 

respwibility requirement; and comply with 

other operating requirements along with paying a 

civil penalty of $2351100. 

& October 8,1991, more than three 

years after the trial of this case was concluded, 

the US. District Court for the Northern District, 

of ‘Alabatna issud a final judgment in W 

wes v. IL- 1. The United States filed 

this multi-media action against ILCO and ILCO’S 

president, Diego Maffei, in March 1985, and the 

State of Alabama intervened as co-plaintiff. The 

action sought civil penalties and injunctive relief 

for violations of RCRA and CWA. and 

~mburjement of repm costs in4 by EI‘A 

under to CERCLA. The Original action ab 

included claims for further injunctive relief under 

@005(h) and 57003 of RCRA and 5106 of 

CERCLA, although these claims were settled 

during trial in July and August 1988. ne WUtT 

imcd a preliminary ruling on December 10,19W, 

ruling in favor of the United States on nearly 

:-=no. finding defendants liable for civil 

penalti=, injunctive relief, and reimbursement Of 

costs. The court did not at that time 

enta a judgment, nor did it rule on the amount of 

penalties or the form of injunctive relief. 

In its finat judgment, the court imposed a $3.5 

million penalty on ILCO; it ordered ILCQ tQ 

comply with RCRA and CWA, impsing several 

specific requirements including meeting the RCRA 

financial responsibility requirements during 

closure; and it ordered ILCO and Maffei to 

reimburse the United States for CERCLA response 

cost$. The court divided the penalty at $2 million 

to be paid to the United States, and:$1.5 million 

to be paid to the State of Alabama. This case has 

been appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit. 

on June 17, 1990, the United States had filed 

complaint against Marine Shale Processors in 

US. District Court alleging that the company 

was illegally placing hazardous wastes On the 

land, was claiming to be a recycler but was 

adually incinerating hazardous waste without a 

permit, and was discharging water pPllutiQ* 

without a permit, Marine Shale began to iemove 

the ash from its property on March 23, 1981, and 

the United States promptly asked the District 

court for a temporary restraining order. Before 

the hearing on that request, Marine Shale aged 

not to remove the ash until a ruling by the court on 

a preliminary injunction in an agreed order on 

Match 28,1991. 

4-47 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Midwestern Drum Services, Inc. located in Venice, 

Illinois, owns and operates as a hazardous waste 

management facility. A Consent Agreement and 

Final Order was entered between Midwestern 

Drum Service and EPA Region V for a civil 

penalty of $112,125 for such violations as failure 

to amend the contingency plan to include all drum 

areas, failure to make weekly inspections, failure 

to keep containers closed during storage, failure to 

identify hazardous wastes, and numerous other 

violations. Major issues in the case included 

whether or not Midwestern Drum was a small 

quantity' generator and whether Midwestern. 

Drum operated an incinerator at its facility., The 

small quantity generator issue was resolved on 

procedural grounds in a partial motion for 

summary judgment when the company failed to 

fiIe a timely response. 

-, In Region VII's 

first RCRA settlement with a National Guard 

facility, the Region successfully negotiated a. 

consent agreement and consent order pursuant to I 

53008(a) of RCRA with ' the Missouri Air 

National Guard facility located in Bridgeton, 

Missouri, near the St. Louis, Missouri airport. 

Based on an EPA inspection on June 21, 1989, EPA. 

filed a RCRA §3008(a) complaint on January 3, 

1990, alleging violations of RCRA storage, and 

land ban requirements. In addition, the complaint 

demanded payment. of civil penalties in. the 

amount of $11,5643. The.Missouri Air National 

Guard admitted to the violations; however, the 

Guard argued that it was a federal facility, not 

subject to penalties under RCRA. EPA argued that 

the facility was a state facility and therefore 

subject to RCRA penalties. The Missouri Air 

National Guard ultimately agreed to settle the 

case and paid the civil penalty, despite its prior 

assertions that the facility 'was a federal 

facility. 

On August 26, 1991 Municipal and Industrial 

Disposal Company (M&U appealed a Summary 

Judgment granted in favor of the EPA on July 26, 

1991, by the US. District Court for the Western 

District of Pennsylvania. In Municioal and 

-s , filed 

December 1988, M&I sought review of a Final 

Decision by EPAs Chief Judicial Officer (CJO)' 

holding that M&I had violated RCRAs groundwater monitoring requirements at its inactive 

hazardous waste landfill located in Elizabeth 

Township, PA. The CJOs Decision awarded EPA 

an administrative penalty of $25,250. EPA filed 

a counterclaim against M&I seeking enforcement 

of the Final Decision, including payment of the 

$25,250 plus interest, as well as'the imposition of 

penalties for M&I's failure to comply with the 

Final,,Decision. EPA also sought penalties for 

M&I's .' failure to perform a study pursuant to. 

RCRA 5 3013; which EPA,,had orderdin March.. 

1987. ,In mid-1989, both parties filed 'Motions for 

Summary Judgment and the District.Court denied 

M&I's Motion. while granting the US'S Motion. 

The Court .found M&I liable for, the original 

administrative penalty of $25,250, for penalties 

plus interest on the unpaid original judgment, and 

found M&I liable, without setting a fixeddollar 

amount of liability,.for its failure to comply with 

the53013Order. , . . 

US. v. 0- A civil ,suit was'. 

filed on' .March 27, 1991, against Ownbey. 

Enterprises, Inc. of Dalton, GA, alleged violations 

of ,the underground, storage tank provisions, 'of 

RCRA. According to the 'complaint, Ownbey 

Enterprises, Inc.. .failed to . undertake 'certain 

corrective actions to address groundwater and soil 

contamination resulting from leaking underground. 

storagetanks at Deep Springs Grocery, 1ocated.on 

Beaverdale Road ,. near Dalton, GA. ,' The.. 

requirement had been included in an 

administrative Consent Order agreed to by, the 

company on February, 15, 1989. The Complaint 

further alleges.that Ownbey Enterprises failed. to 

provide a permanent water 'supply to users of a 

drinking, water well which had :.been 

contaminated .by petroleum leaking from.. the^. 

underground storage , tanks. The suit ~ further 

alleges that the company did.not carry out its own. 

plan to clean up the groundwater contamination; 

in violation of the administrative Consent Order. . This action, seeks to require the Ownbey. 

Enterprises, Inc. to comply with. the 

administrative Consent Order, impose civil 

penalties for the company's failure ' to -comply 

with the Order' up to $25,000, for each .day'of. 

I 

violation after July,ZO, 1990. . . . . .. ,:#; 

b *e klansr af pow- : 

,..'I! .. .. 

hco. Wvomingl: On September 17, 19912 the' 

U.S. EPA issued a 57003 Administrative.Order' 

against TexacoJnc. for ,cleanup of the Powder 

River Crude (PRC) facility. Starting in August,. 

1988; PRC .received at least 210,000 gallons of 

waste oil from . the Texaco Casper ,Refinery. 

Between receipt of this waste and September 

1989, PRC ceased operations. In September:1989; 

4-48 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

EPA identified significant staining and other 

evidence of random discharges and releases of 

oily waste at the PRC site. In August 1990, EPA 

collected samples at PRC which contained 

benzene over the TCLP hazardous waste criteria 

as well as high concentrations of lead. A visit in 

August 1991 identified that waste had breached 

impoundments and tanks and was flowing 

uncontrolled through the site. In addition, concern 

was raised over the structural integrity of the 

tanks themselves. In conducting an environmental 

assessment of the PRC release, EPA contacted 

Wyoming Game & Fish (WG&F) and U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service. The PRC area was identified as 

a 'migration pathway for peregrine falcons and 

bald eagles, federally-listed threatened and 

endangered species. These agencies expressed 

concern about the hazard to migratory water fowl 

and sparrows which might feed in the area. 

WG&F identified wetlands in the area and 

ranked it as having value for recreation and 

wildlife habitat. The issuance of the order to 

Texaco was one of a series of fifteen orders issued 

by EPA and compels clean-up of PRC including the 

necessary removal of the contamination. On a 

short term basis, the 57003 action is intended to 

prevent .endangerment to wildlife as well as the 

catastrophic failure of the containment structures 

currently holding the waste materials. 

-On 

October 15, 1991 the United States filed a reply 

brief .before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Sixth Circuit responding to Production Plated 

Plastics' (PPI') interlocutory appeal of two 

district court decisions. PPP challenged the 

district court's grant of summary 'judgment on 

liability and a separate grant .of summary 

judgment for injunctive relief. On February 20, 

1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Sixth Circuit affirmed both district. court 

decisions. 

In an opinion and order dated January 24, 1991, 

the US. District Court for the Western District of 

Michigan, granted in part the United States' 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 

Injunctive Relief, in an action brought under 

RCRA: Accordingly, the court ordered defendants 

PPP;! Michigan City Plastics, Inc. (MCP) the 

company which owns PPP, and Michael J. Ladney, 

Jr., majority stock holder of MCP and corporate 

officer. of both corporations, to immediately 

commence closure of its Richland, Michigan, 

facility. in accordance with its .approved closure 

plan. Although PPI' obtained interim status in 

1980, its authorization to treat, store and dispose 

of the listed hazardous waste F006, generated in 

its processes, was lost in November 1985. This is 

believed to be the first RCRA case in which the 

court awarded injunctive relief on summary 

judgment. The court held that an evidentiary 

hearing is not always required before an injunction 

is issued, if affidavits or other documentation 

clearly establish the plaintiff's right to the 

injunction. Furthermore, if the purpose of the 

legislation would be thwarted by a failure to 

comply, and the legislation specifically 

authorized injunctive relief, no finding of 

irreparable injury or balancing of the equities 

need be made. 

et al.. (Geo reia): 

On July 11,1991, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court ruled 

in favor of the United States' objection to Publix's 

motion to abandon property, including underground 

storage tanks. The U.S. objection, filed July 3, 

1991, alleged that abandonment was not 

appropriate in that the underground storage tanks 

located at 41 facilities may pose an imminent and 

identifiable harm to the environment in violation 

of RCRA. The Court not only ruled that the 

debtors had the burden of proving that 

abandonment was appropriate, but also that six 

months was an appropriate extension of the bar 

date to allow an investigation of the 41 facilities 

located in five southeastern states. 

In The Matte r of Rail Ser vices. (Ca lvert C ik 

KyL: Region IV issued a 57003 unilateral order 

which compelled Rail Services to cease operation 

until it trained its employees in the proper 

techniques for safely managing the solid and 

hazardous wastes generated at the facility. 

Previously, an employee was killed when he used 

improper safety measures in entering a rail car. In 

addition, hazardous waste removed from the rail 

cars were managed unsafely. This action 

represented the Region's first 57003 order issued 

for mismanagement of solid waste. 

EPA has alleged 

in an administrative penalty complaint that the 

Rhone Poulenc facility in Institute, WV, has 

violated §268.3(a) of Subtitle C of RCRA by 

imperhssibly diluting a multi-source leachate 

waste stream containing metal constituents. EPA 

Hazardous Waste No. F039 (wastewaters) is 

prohibited from land disposal unless the waste 

meets applicable treatment standards. The 

complaint alleges that the facility has been 

diluting such wastes to achieve compliance with 

4-49 
LDR.as a substitute for adequate treatment. 

Penalties assessed for this violation and 

additional LDR violations total $546,000. 

In the Matter of Safetv-Kleen Corp.: On 

Thursday, June 27,1991, a Consent Agreement and 

Order was filed with the Region I Hearing Clerk 

resolving this action. The complaint and 

compliance order in, this action was originally 

filed in September, 1990, and asserted that 

Safety-Kleen. had failed, to properly determine 

whether two of its waste streams, generated at its 

Bridgewater, Massachusetts, Service Center were 

LDR wastes prior to off-site shipment. A penalty 

of $19,000 was assessed. During negotiations with 

the company, Safety-Kleen came forward with 

information relating to the same violation 

occurring at seven additional Safety-Kleen 

facilities in Region I, relating to 27 additional 

waste streams. Under the terms ,of this Consent 

Agreement, Safety-Kleen has agreed to pay a 

civil penalty of $116,000 and EPA has agreed to 

release the company from liability for the 

originally cited and additional violations. A 

$16,000 portion of the civil penalty is to be offset 

in return for Safety-Kleen's production and 

distribution of a video, aimed at generators of 

LDR wastes, explaining the LDR requirements. 

The videotape will be distributed ' by SafetyKleen to 100 trade associations and industry 

groups chosen by EPA Region I. 

In the Matter of Salt 

-: OnNovember 

22, 1989, EPA Region IX issued a RCRA §3008(a) 

order against Salt River Project (SW) for 

violations at its Navajo Generating 'Station 

(NGS). The Order cited the facility for disposal 

of hazardous waste without a permit, storage for 

greater than 90 days, and failure to notify EPA of 

storage and disposal activities. NGS is a coalfired electric generating station located 'on the 

Navajo Nation near Page, Arizona. Since the 

facility is located on Indian lands, EPA has 

jurisdiction. The facility uses a chromium 

compound in the bearing cooling water (BCW) 

system. The water is well over the El' Toxicity 

concentration for. chromium. Under normal 

circumstances, the BCW system is a closed-loop 

system, with the cooling water running from 

storage tanks to.heat exchangers and equipment to 

be cooled and back to storage tanks. However, 

these systems require periodic cleaning and 

maintenance and this means the system must be 

drained. Since 1982, the BCW system had been 

drained four times, with the water from the BCW 

,, 

systems ' being released to a concrete-lined 

channe1,going through an unlined ditch, .through 

a pipe, into a surface impoundment. These 

activities were never reported to EPA. In , 

addition, EPA found that drums of various 

hazardous wastes were stored for over 90 days in 

the facility's storage area. 

On January 4,1991, EPA and SRP signed a consent 

agreement wherein SRP agreed to pay a $113,500 

penalty and to undertake a site investigation'to 

determine whether contamination exists at the 

facility as a result of the release of chromium-. 

contaminated water. If significant contamination 

is found, the facility will prepare a remediation 

plan for EPA approval and, then conduct 

remediation. To help ensure future compliance 

with regulatory requirements, SRP. agreed to 

submit written operating -procedures describing 

steps taken to assure that wastes will be stored no , 

longer than 90 days as well as ,submit quarterly 

reports and manifests to EPA for the year 

describing hazardous waste generation and 

disposal. 

(Wvomine): On July 23, 1991, the United States 

District Court for the District of Wyoming entered 

a consent decree between Sinclair Oil and the 

United States resolving disputes relating to 

Region , VIII's , issuance of unilateral 

administrative orders under RCRA §7003(a) and 

§3008(h) against Sinclair .Oil Corporation's 

Little America Refining Company ("LARCO) in 

Evansville, Wyoming. Pursuant' to the consent 

decree, Sinclair will perform Interim Measures, a 

RCRA Facility Investigation, and a Corrective 

Measures Study, and will .implement those 

corrective measures proposed. In addition, 

Sinclair will resolve all pending issues regarding 

closure of the hazardous waste management units 

at the LARCO facility. 

In'the mer of, S 

ues Iowm 

administrative hearing in Region VI1 under the 

40 C.F.R. Part 24 regulations, EPA, Region VII, 

issued a Final Administrative Order (FAO) to 

Solvay Animal Health, Inc. on June 3, 1991 

pursuant to RCRA §3008(h). An Initial 

Administrative Order (IAO) . under RCRA 

§3008(h) was issued.to the company on December 

29,1989. Solvay contested the IAO and requested 

a hearing on this matter which was held on 

March 6, 1990 pursuant, to the Part 24 regulation. 

The Presiding Officer's Recommended Decision 

4-50 
and the Regional Administrator's Final Decision 

were issued on February 26, 1991 and April 22, 

1991, respectively. Both the IAO and FA0 

required Solvay to conduct a RCRA facility 

investigation and corrective measures study to 

address the nature and extent of any release of 

hazardous wastes/constituents from its facility. 

The decision provides significant precedential 

value to other contested RCRA 53008(h) orders 

because Solvay contested virtually every 

provision of the IAO, which was patterned after 

the model IAO. The final decision upheld all the 

model IAO provisions in all but two respects. The 

Final Decision requires the Region to provide 

copies of all guidance documents that are utilized 

by the Region in reviewing submitted work 

products or in overseeing the work to be 

performed, and precludes the Region from 

requiring indemnification in the unilateral order. 

On July 19,1991, the Chief Judicial 

Officer (CJO) Ronald upheld an Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ) Initial Decision of March 28, 

1991, and rejected Standard Tanks appeal as 

untimely. The Respondent/Petitioner, one of the 

Frank Family companies which were the subject 

of Region Il's most extensive multi-media 

enforcement work during FY 1991, was charged 

with RCRA violations for failure to demonstrate 

that it had obtained insurance for its hazardous 

waste treatment and storage facility. After a 

two-day trial in February 1989, the ALJ had 

found Respondent liable and imposed a penalty of 

$132,312.50 - more than twice as much as 

requested in EPAs administrative complaint. 

This amount was $10,000 higher than the 

economic benefit calculated by EPA. The ALJ 

decided on that increase, finding that 

"Respondent's conduct ... displayed deliberate 

neglect, indifference, or both. It is a luminous 

example of lack of good faith." When rejecting 

Standard Tanks appeal, the CJO also denied 

Respondent's Motion to Reopen the Hearing. 

US. v. U- On April 1, 

1991, the United States amended the RCRA 

complaint filed in September, 1990 in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Connecticut 

against the United Technologies Corp. (UTC), 

significantly expanding the case to indude 

additional violating facilities, as well as 

violations at previously included facilities. The 

original complaint alleged over 100 violations of 

RCRA's requirements at six UTC facilities in 

Connecticut. These violations included improper 

hazardous waste container management, storage 

of hazardous wastes without a permit, 

inadequate personnel training and record keeping, 

incomplete contingency planning, inadequate 

groundwater monitoring, non-compliance with 

land disposal restriction notification requirements 

and export regulations, and violations of a prior 

consent agreement with EPA. The amended 

complaint adds over 50 additional RCRA 

violations at five of the original six facilities, 

and at a Pratt & Whitney facility on Colt Street 

in East Hartford and a Sikorsky Aircraft facility 

in Stratford, a. 

US. v. Vi On March 7, 

1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 

Circuit affirmed an April, 1990, decision by the 

U.S. District court for the District of New Jersey 

ordering Vineland Chemical Company (Vineland) 

to pay a $1.223 million civil penalty for 

violations of the LOIS provisions of RCRA, and 

to close their two surface impoundments in 

accordance with New Jersey requirements. 

In affirming the decision of the District Court, 

the Third Circuit found that: 1) joint and several 

liability attached under RCRA to a facility 

owner/operator without any need for a showing of 

bad faith, and 2) constitutional due process is not 

violated by imposition of a penalty for RCRA 

violations which occurred during the pendency of 

a defendant's judicial appeal of EPAs LOIS 

determination. Vineland lost their authorization 

to operate under Interim Status on November 8, 

1985, as a result of submitting a deficient RCRA 

53005(e)(2)(B) certification of compliance with 

groundwater monitoring and financial 

responsibility requirements. 

er of Whitehead 011 Co 

Nebraska): On Sept. 6, 1991, EPA settled its first 

complaint for violations of the financial 

responsibility rules for underground storage tanks 

(UST). Whitehead oil Co. Inc. of Lincoln, 

Nebraska, came into compliance and paid a 

$60,768 penalty. This enforcement action will 

discourage UST owners from transfemng USTs to 

smaller companies, as suggested in trade 

publications, as a strategy to comply with the 

phased-in financial responsibility rule which 

provides later compliance dates for small 

businesses. Whitehead had transferred three of 

its USTs to an affiliate in order to defer its 

compliance date. 

4-51 
FY 1991 Enforcement AccomplishmentsReport 

.. of w1- 

On June 26, 

1991 the U.S. EPA entered into a final 

order/consent . agreement with Wilson and. 

Hampton ' Painting Contractors, a painting 

contractor in Southern California that shipped 

hazardous waste to an illegal. TSD facility in 

Wyoming. A RCRA §3008(a) administrative 

order was issued on November 8, 1990, for'noncompliance with the RCRA generator regulations 

which resulted in a final assessed penalty of 

$20,000. Wilson and Hampton, as a part of the 

settlement, agreed to purchase and utilize. a 

solvent recovery system, prepare an article for a 

national paint trade magazine discussing the 

necssity of understanding and complying with 

RCRA, present a seminar to the Painting and 

Decorating Contractors Association concerning the 

importance of compliance, and train their 

personnel in regulations covered by RCRA and the 

Department of Transportation. 

State RCRNCERCLA Enforcement ,. 

Actions . 

,. 

Beginning with the FY 1991 

Accomplishments Report, EPA will be including 

significant state enforcement actions submitted 

by the EPA Regional offices. We anticipate that 

State actions will play a greater role in future 

reports. 1j 

State Aee ncv for Surulus ProDertv. (le fferson Citu. 

Missouril: This is a state agency that manages 

the surplus properties of the State of Missouri:' 

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) found that the facility had improperly 

managed and disposed of hazardous waste. On 

April 11, 1990, . the MDNR issued an 

administrative order that required the facility to 

investigate. and remediate any contamination. 

The MDNR assessed a penalty against their 

sister state agency for the hazardous waste 

violations. On January 9, 1991, MDNR and the 

State Agency for Surplus Property developed a' 

settlement agreement that required payment of a 

monetary penalty and the establishment of a 

statewide hazardous waste training program for 

state employees., A penalty of $22,000 was also 

assessed. 

CP Che micals (New lersey.) : The New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection and 

Energy reached agreement with CP Chemicals, 

Inc., of Middlesex County, New Jersey, in 

.. ,. 

connection with an adminishative enforcement 

action for a series of water pollution discharge. 

violations. The company agreed to pay'a penalty 

of $3.2 million, and to investigate and clean up 

groundwater contamination at its Sewaren 

facility. 

-: E.I. DuPont 

de Nemours agreed to pay the State of New 

Jersey a civil penalty of $663,000 in an 

administrative enforcement action which cited 

air pollution violations" at the company's 

Deepwater (Salem County) plant. The company 

also agreed to install improved equipment to 

prevent excess 'emissions in the future, and 

committed itself to a schedule to achieve 

compliance with State emission limits. ' ' ' 

.. 

.. 

This facility is' a correctional institution for^ the 

State of Missouri. The Missouri Department of 

Natural' Resources (MDNR) found that the 

facility had improperly managed and disposed of 

hazardous waste. On May 18, 1990, the MDNR 

issued an administrative order that required the 

facility to correct hazardous waste management ' 

procedures. On January 30, 1991, MDNR and the 

Missouri State Penitentiary developed a 

settlement agreement that required payment of a 

monetary'penalty of $25,000. 

Orleans San it- Landfill. (New Yorl(l: The:,,New 

York State Department of Environmental' 

Conservation (NYSDEC) took . : 'vigo'rous, 

enforcement action against the Orleans' Sanitary , 

Landfill (OSL) and its owner, John Smith, for 

systematic' under-reporting of waste accepted at 

the landfill.. . In addition to obtaining the highest 

penalty in New York history--$3.1 million--the 

Department pioneered the ,use of several 

innovative sanctions designed to insure that 

future 'operations at OSL are conducted in' full 

compliance with environmental laws: NYSDEC ' 

barred the owner of OSL from being involved, 

owning or operating a solid waste management 

facility operation anywhere in New York State. 

In addition, the Department required the future 

landfill operations to fund a Department monitor 

to' serve as "YSDEC's eyes and ears at the 

facility and ensure future compliance; and it 

required the hiring of a Certified Investigative 

Auditing Firm to oversee and audit the company's , 

operations to ensure compliance with operating 

requirements. 

,. , 

4-52 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenrs Reporr 

Safetv-Kleen: On November 21, 

1991, the California Environmental Protection 

Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control 

(DTSC) signed a consent agreement with SafetyKleen Corp. which resolves violations are fifteen 

separate Safety-Kleen hazardous waste storage 

and treatment facilities located in California. In 

this agreement, DTSC agreed to process SafetyKleen's numerous permit applications in a 

coordinated statewide review and provide 

Safety-Kleen with DTSC's final approval 

covering all applicable Safety-Kleen facilities. 

Safety-Kleen agreed to pay a total of $1.3 

million which consists of a penalty component of 

$1 million and a $300,000 component which is a 

reimbursement to DTSC for their cost associated 

with reaching and executing the settlement 

agreement. 

yprkl: NYSDEC issued a comprehensive, multimedia Order on Consent to Schenectady 

Chemicals, Inc. (SCI), imposing a $1.3 million 

penalty against SCI, and requiring the company 

to undertake, subject to extensive Departmental 

oversight, a wide array of compliance, 

investigative and remedial measures in numerous 

program areas including water, air and hazardous 

waste. SCI must also develop and implement a 

Best Management Practices plan at each of its 

four facilities designed to identify specific 

practices which will prevent or minimize the 

potential for releases of pollutants to the waters 

of the State. Altogether, SCI expects to spend up 

to $60 million to meet its obligations under the 

Order. 

-e Che& (ioint State & EPA 

actions): On October 22, 1990, the South Dakota 

Department on the Environment and Natural 

Resources issued the state equivalent of a 93008 

(a) order to Terry Schulte. Violations included 

failing. to manifest properly, failing to make a 

hazardous waste determination, failing to label 

drums properly, failure to undertake activities 

required for contingency plans such as posting fire 

extinguisher locations, spill control materials, 

and fire alarms. No penalties were collected, 

although compliance was achieved and land ban 

violations were referred to Region VI11 EPA for 

action. 

On December 14, 1990, the US. EPA filed an 

administrative penalty order against Terry 

Schulte Chevrolet Incorporated, Docket No. 

RCRA 53008 VIII-91-04, This action was at the 

request of South Dakota due to the state not 

having delegation for ,land disposal restriction 

violations. The violations included failure to 

ship listed hazardous waste to an authorized. 

hazardous waste facility with the required land 

disposal restriction notices and/or certifications, 

and a penalty of $156,250 was proposed. To date 

no settlement has been reached, and the case is 

proceeding toward an administrative hearing 

before an ALJ. 

we "* sea- dba Sew 

alaf.onu& Seagate 

Magnetics was investigated in regard to their role 

in causing the unlawful transportation of 

unmanifested plating waste to an unpermitted 

facility. On December 7, 1990 a final judgement 

was entered against Seagate Magnetics in Santa 

Clara County Superior Court. The judgement. 

ordered the defendant to pay $600,000 in civil 

penalties pursuant to the Hazardous Waste 

Control Act, $250,000 pursuant to the Business and 

Professions Code, $1oO,ooO in cy-pres restitution to 

the Department of Toxic Substances Control and 

$42,197 in costs, for a total of $992,197. A 

permanent injunction was also ordered. 

-: This firm 

manufactures optical lenses. The company 

produces a lead sludge which they had disposed 

of improperly. The Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources (MDNR) conducted a multimedia investigation of this facility and found 

that the facility has caused lead contamination 

in the Lake of the Ozarks. On May 15,1991, the 

MDNR referred the case to the Missouri Attorney 

General's Office for formal enforcement action, 

which is to include environmental relief and 

monetary penalties. The MDNR and Sola have 

tentatively reached a multi-media settlement 

(both waste and water programs) for Sola's past 

hazardous waste management practices and 

environmental damages. A penalty in excess of 

$25O,ooO is being discussed. 

OnSeptember 

4, 1991, Arizona and defendant Talley agreed to 

settle this civil action for a $500,000 penalty, the 

largest environmental penalty in Arizona history. 

The action, filed in October 1990, charged Talley 

with 15 violations of Arizona's hazardous waste 

laws. Under the agreement, Talley will amend its 

application for a hazardous waste treatment 

permit, meet record-keeping and employee 

training requirements, and search for and clean up 

any existing hazardous waste. 

4-53 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report (i& 

Deuot (North) CJ&Q& 

ytahl: The State of Utah completed negotiations 

with the Tooele Army Depot concerning an August 

24, 1990 NOV/CO issued by the State of Utah. 

The agreement required Tooele to remedy all 136 

counts of the NOV/CO. 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) Enforcement 

TSCA enforcement embraces the basic 

tenets of pollution prevention and data quality. 

TSCA's regulation of existing and new chemical 

substances encourages the manufacture and use of 

substances that pose only reasonable effects on 

human health and the environment. In FY 1991, 

TSCA enforcement actions emphasized 

compliance with the premanufacture 

notification requirements for new chemical 

review, the reporting and retention of 

information under 58, compliance with the 

AHERA rule, and the proper use, storage, and 

disposal of PCBs. Many settlements resolving 

TSCA administrative enforcement actions are 

notable for their inclusion of supplemental 

environmental projects incorporating pollution 

prevention and environmental auditing 

provisions. 

In the Matte I of A&D International: On May 28, 

1991, the Chief Judicial Officer signed a consent 

order settling an administrative civil penalty 

action. The Agency had charged A&D 

International, Inc., with violations of the 

Halogenated Dibenzo-p-dioxin/Dibenzofuran 

Test Rule and violations of the TSCA Good 

Laboratory Practices Standards (GLPs). A&D 

imported the chemical substance chloranil, for 

which dioxin testing is required under the Test 

Rule and §4 of TSCA. The Agency accepted the 

payment of a penalty of $12,000 and an agreement 

not to import chloranil in the future to settle this 

case. 

Axline Ma intenance Facilitieg. . During FY 1991, 

Region I1 issued administrative complaints 

against a number of airlines for PCB violations at 

aircraft maintenance facilities. PCBs are 

contained in transformers and other electrical 

equipment used and serviced at the facilities. 

Complaints were issued against American 

Airlines (seeking $354,000 in penalties), British 

Airways ($131,000) and TWA ($296,000) as part 

of this industry-specific enforcement initiative. 

p: In September 1989 

EPA charged Alcolac with violating 55 and 58 of 

TSCA. The violations impaired the Agency's 

ability to evaluate a chemicals effect on human 

health and the environment. Earlier in 1989, 

Alcolac pleaded guilty in Federal court to 

illegally exporting a solvent used in making 

chemical weapons, which was ultimately to be 

reexported to Iran. In October 1990, Alcolac 

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $280,000, conduct 

a TSCA compliance audit covering four U.S. 

manufacturing facilities, and conduct two industry 

outreach programs. In accordance with the 

settlement agreement, EPA anticipates issuing a 

demand letter for stipulated penalties based upon 

the final audit report. 

-: These companion cases were El'As first 

administrative actions involving violations of 

the terms of TSCA 55(e) consent orders. Under 

55(e), EPA may issue a consent order which 

prohibits or limits manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of a 

premanufacture notification substance pending the 

development and review of information 

addressing potential risks. The settlements 

included penalty payments of $28,345 by 

Cyanamid, $3,600 by Ruetgers-Nease, and the 

implementation by both companies of a Company 

Standard Policy and Practice Directive. 

The 

Chief Judicial Officer signed a consent order 

settling this TSCA 55 and 58 administrative civil 

penalty matter. The settlement consists of the 

payment of $37,200 civil penalty, implementation 

of an environmentally beneficial project, and 

additional certifications for TSCA compliance. 

Bedoukian was charged with improperly 

submitting to the Agency untimely and false 

notices of commencement of the manufacture of 

new chemical substances. 

YS. v. Bo- In a consent decree 

entered on January IO, 1991, in settlement of a 

civil enforcement action, Boliden Metech Inc. 

agreed to undertake a sampling and analytical 

program to determine the extent of PCB 

contamination of several piles of shredded 

materials containing precious metals. Once the 

extent of PCB contamination is determined, 

Boliden is required to dispose of the contaminated 

piles and materials in accordance with the PCB 

4-54 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

regulations. Until 1990, Boliden shredded 

computer parts and other products at a shredder 

facility in Providence, RI in order to recover 

valuable metals. In the late 1980s, the piles of 

shredded material were found to contain PCBs. 

Boliden has now shut down the shredding 

operation. 

of B-: In 

February 1991, EPA filed a $3,061,000 TSCA 

administrative complaint alleging violations of 

55 premanufacture notification requirements by 

Burlington Industries. Settlement negotiations 

are underway. 

In the Matter of DSM lXdns U.S.. Inc. (New 

This major TSCA 55 and 513 importer case 

was settled in August, 1991, with an agreement by 

the respondent to pay a penalty of $750,000 and 

implement various steps to prevent recurring 

violations. Under TSCA, anyone manufacturing or 

importing a new chemical substance not included 

on EPAs Chemical Substances Inventory must 

submit a premanufacture notice at least 90 days 

prior to manufacture or import. Compliance with 

TSCA must also be certified by importers. EPA 

inspections at DSM Resins found that the firm 

had not filed appropriate notices for several 

chemical substances. In addition, the company 

has now implemented a computerized tracking 

system to ensure that all of its imports comply 

with TSCA rules. 

In the M-: In March 

1991, General Electric Co. (GE) agreed to pay a 

$150,000 penalty to settle Region I's complaint for 

violations of the PCB regulations under the 

TSCA. EPA charged GE with widespread 

violations at its Pittsfield, MA facility: failing 

to properly mark PCB transformer locations, 

storing combustible materials near PCB 

transformers, improper PCB storage, inadequate 

recordkeeping, and failing to follow required PCB 

spill response procedures. GE also violated its 

approval for PCB incineration through improper 

operating and recordkeeping procedures. 

As part of the settlement, GE committed to the 

removal of all of its PCB electrical equipment 

from the Pittsfield facility over a period of three 

years. The equipment to be removed from service 

and properly disposed of includes over 130 PCB 

transformers and over 1300 PCB capacitors. These 

actions are expected to reduce the risks of PCB 

spills and fires at the facility. EPA estimates the 

cost of the removal and disposal project at over $1 

million. 

In June 1991, the Chief Judicial Officer approved 

a settlement agreement with General Electric 

Chemicals which included penalty, audit, and 

pollution prevention provisions. A TSCA 

administrative complaint was issued alleging 

violation of 58(e), the substantial risk 

information reporting provision. General Electric 

Chemicals agreed to pay a 575,000 penalty, and 

General Electric Company, GECs corporate 

parent, agreed to conduct a TSCA §8(e) 

compliance audit of all its domestic subsidiaries. 

In addition, both GEC and GE agreed to 

implement $890,000 worth of pollution prevention 

projects involving reductions in emissions or the 

use of acrylonitrile, 1J-butadiene, various 

phenols, I,l,l-trichloroethane, and methylene 

chloride. These chemicals are some of the 

Agency's top 25 chemical candidates for pollution 

prevention targeting. 

-and In Wer of CWM 

(New yprkt In March 1991, 

Region I1 issued administrative complaints to 

these companies for violations ' of the TSCA 

regulations and approvals relating to the 

handling and disposal of PCB-contaminated 

wastes. EPA inspections of the records at GM's 

Massena, New York facility showed that 

hydraulic fluid in some machines contained PCBs 

in excess of 500 parts per million. These fluids 

were processed through the waste water 

treatment system where reclaimed fluid and 

sludge from the process also had over 500 ppm of 

PCBs. This sludge was solidified with sand and 

limestone and shipped to the landfills operated 

by CECOS and CWM (a subsidiary of Chemical 

Waste Management, Inc.). These landfills hold 

TSCA approvals issued by EPA for disposal of 

PCB wastes. Under the conditions of their 

approvals, PCB<ontaminated wastes, of the sort 

sent by GM, required testing prior to being 

accepted for interment in the landfills. The 

companies failed to test the wastes, and did bury 

them. They should have rejected such wastes for 

burial, requiring instead that they be incinerated 

due to the elevated PCB concentrations. 

In the Wr of G- Tire & RIlMer 

ComDanv: On November 29, 1990, the Region VI 

Regional Administrator signed a Consent 

Agreement and Final Order (CAFO), resolving 

the case against Goodyear Tire & Rubber 

4-55 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Company, Houston, Texas. The CAFO assessed a 

$135,000 penalty. However, $121,500 of the 

penalty was deferred pending timely completion 

of the removal of PCB Transformers from .its 

Houston facility in accordance with Remittance 

Agreement. The Remittance Agreement provided 

that Goodyear shall remove all PCB 

Transformers from its facility by October 1, 1990, 

and spend at least $405,000 on the removal and 

replacement of eight transformers. Goodyear had 

been charged with improperly disposing of PCBs 

(five leaking transformers) and failing to timely 

repair or replace the five PCB Transformers. 

In,the first joint effort in Region I under TSCA and 

the Superfund Removal Program to address 

violations of TSCA and subsequent remedial work 

relating to the clean-up of PCB spills, Region I 

entered into an administrative settlement on 

September 30, 1991, with Great Northern 

Nekoosa Corp. Under the agreement, Great 

Northern agreed to pay a penalty and reimburse 

EPA for its investigative and oversight costs of. 

remedial work conducted at the company's 

facility in East Millinocket, Maine. In addition 

to spending in excess of $7 million for. the 

remediation of PCB spills, the company.agreed to 

pay an administrative penalty of $20,800 and to 

reimburse EPA for its costs in the amount of 

$210,000. The clean-up performed by, Great, 

Northern Nekoosa Corp. was completed in. 

January, 1991. 

In July and 

August of 1991, nine additional administrative 

cases were filed against Hall-Kimbrell 

Environmental Services Inc. for alleged violations 

of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 

("AHERA") involving Respondent's inspections of 

schools for asbestos and its preparation of 

management plans to abate asbestos found. Total 

proposed penalties against this Respondent now 

exceed $5.8 million and are the result of one case 

each from Regions V and IX, and seven from 

Region VII, in addition to the original eleven 

from Region VIII. All of the complaints allege 

that materials which may contain asbestos were 

missed during Respondent's inspections, and the 

Region V and IX complaints allege that the 

resulting management plans did not contain all of 

the elements required by the regulations 

promulgated pursuant to AHERA. Negotiations 

aimed at a national settlement of the outstanding 

violations have been ongoing since September of 

1990, but, since no settlement had been reached as 

of August, EPA notified the 1300 local educational 

agencies in 40 states where Respondent worked 

that there may be deficiencies in their 

inspections and management plans. On September 

6, 1991, EPA issued a TSCA subpoena to Hall-' 

Kimbrell requesting, that EPA inspectors be 

allowed to inspect the copies of management 

plans stored in Respondent's Lawrence, Kansas, 

warehouse. Also in September, the House 

Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on 

Governmental Operations, held a hearing on 

EPAs AHERA program in. general and the 

prosecution of this case in particular. 

-: In one of the first TSCA 

administrative actions seeking the statutory 

maximum penalty of $25,000 per-day of. 

violation, the Administrative .Law Judge ruled 

that notice to OSHA of the death and injury to its 

employees does not relieve Halocarbon .of the 

duty to report 'under §&?(e), the substantial .risk 

information reporting provision of TSCA. The 

ruling came through an Order granting EPAs 

Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense. This 

administrative enforcement action involves 

failure to report substantial risk information 

under 58(e) based upon the, February 1989 

chemical release incident at. a Halocarbon 

facility where one worker was killed and another 

seriously incapacitated. The case is still pending 

p: 

and a Hearing date.has not yet been set. 

In this 

TSCA administrative civil penalty action for 

violation of the 58(a) Preliminary Assessment 

Information Rule, Jetco agreed to pay a penalty of 

$19,500, review and certify compliance with all 

§&?(a) reporting .requirements, and ,prepare and 

submit a TSCA compliance manual. . . 

e. Washineton... A 

consent agreement between the facility and EPA 

was signed in February 1991, assessing a penalty 

of $30,600. The company paid $15,300 in cash; 

the remainder of the assessed penalty will be 

permanently suspended, provided the company 

spends $30,600 to dispose of PCBs remaining in use 

at their facility., The facility had been issued an 

administrative complaint in' November 1990, 

alleging that the facility violated TSCA PCB, 

regulations regarding disposal, recordkeeping and 

inspections. 

4-56 
p: 

FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenis Report @I 

On June 6, 1991, 

Markem Corp. of Keene, NH agreed to pay a 

penalty of $33,000 and undertake . three 

supplemental environmental projects not required 

by law in a multi-media settlement of an 

administrative complaint filed by EPA for the 

company's violations of Federal PCB regulations. 

This settlement is unusual in that each of the 

three SEPs involves reduction or elimination of a 

different pollutant. Each of the projects results in 

the elimination or reduction of a pollutant and are 

therefore beneficial for the environment: 1) 

removal and proper disposal of a PCB 

transformer; 2) installation of a cleaning-solvents 

recovery system; and 3) a project designed to 

eliminate the use of heavy-metal pigments in the 

company's ink products. These three projects all 

The estimated cost'of these three projects is 

$210,500. This settlement is the culmination of an 

action begun by EPA in June 1990, for violations of 

the Federal regulations promulgated under TSCA 

controlling the use and recordkeeping of PCBs. 

This administrative enforcement action was 

brought for violation of TSCA §Ne). Monsanto 

failed to report the results of a carcinogenicity 

study of Santogard PVI within 15 days as 

required. Pursuant to a consent agreement 

Monsanto agreed to pay a fine of $198,000 and 

conduct an environmental audit on its studies of 

developmental toxicity effects, reproductive 

effects, and carcinogenicity. Post audit, the 

company paid $648,000 for the Triolations found in 

p: 

the audit. 

on 

June 27th, 1991, EPA and Moore Business Forms, 

Inc. signed a consent agreement settling a TSCA 

case for $2.2 million -- the largest 55 penalty on 

record. The consent agreement also required 

completion of an independent TSCA audit, with 

the highest stipulated penalties ever -- $50,000 - - for violations of TSCA 55 and 58. This also was 

the first consent agreement to require an 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-ToKnow Act (EPCRA) audit and training program. 

Moore self-disclosed violations of TSCA 55 and 

§8 to EPA in April 1991. After an expedited 

safety review by EPAs Office of Toxic Substances, 

the Agency granted enforcement discretion to the 

company for release of customer-owned stocks of 

paper products containing the chemical substances 

involved in the violations. In exchange, EPA 

secured Moore's agreement to accept EPAs 

jurisdiction over the matter, to provide batch'. 

records, to waive its right to an administrative 

hearing, and to cooperate fully in negotiating,the 

case. The company's request for further 

enforcement discretion was denied pending' the 

signingof the consent agreement. 

EPA cited the company with failing to notify the 

Agency prior to manufacturing dnd using six 

chemical substances. that did not appear on the 

TSCA Inventory. 55 of TSCA mandates that no 

person may ,manufacture or import a chemical 

substance which does not appear on the TSCA 

inventory without submitting to EPA a 

premanufacturing notice (PMN). The complaint, 

which was issued simultaneously with' the 

signing of the consent agreement, also cited Moore 

for failure to provide a certification statement to 

the district ' director at the port of entry 

adequately representing the true compliance 

p: 

status of a chemical substance. 

In this 

administrative civil penalty action, Moses Lake 

disclosed to the Agency that it had violated 

TSCA 95 by importing new chemical substances 

which did not appear on the TSCA Inventory of: 

existing chemical substances, and that it had 

failed to provide a certification statement to the 

district director at the port of entry as the true 

compliance status of these chemicals pursuant to 

TSCA 513. This matter was settled for $130,000 

following issuance of an administrative 

complaint. 

, 

~. 

On September 27: 1991, 'a.8 

settlement was executed in this case providing for 

payment of a $120,000 penalty and including 

significant pollution prevention provisions. The 

Respondent failed to remove from service by July 

1, 1986 transformers containing .dielectric fluids 

with more than 1000 ppm of PCBs, as required by 

the TSCA rules. ' As part of the settlement, New 

Jersey Transit agreed to spend nearly $110,000 to 

conduct an extensive PCB sampling survey at 

seven of its rail facilities; a total of 1050 samples 

will be taken. The company also selected retrofitting or rebuilding of transformers as its means 

of . coming into compliance, which is 

environmentally .more sound than ' having 'the 

transformers drained and refilled. ' 

-: A consent. 

agreement was signed on August 1,1991, assessing 

a penalty of $286,000, the largest TSCA PCB 

4-57 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenrs Report 

penalty ever assessed in EPA Region X. Of this 

total penalty, the company paid $143,000 in cash. 

The remainder of the assessed penalty will be 

permanently suspended, provided Oregon Steel 

Mills spends at least $286,000 by 1993 to dispose 

of PCBs remaining in use at their facility. The 

complaint alleged violations of the federal TSCA 

PCB regulations, including improper disposal, 

storage, marking,. recordkeeping, and failure to 

register PCB transformers. 

Port of P-: The Port was 

issued an administrative complaint in March 

1991, alleging that the Port violated TSCA PCB 

regulations, including disposal, recordkeeping, 

and registration violations. A Consent Agreement 

was signed in August 1991, assessing a penalty of 

$55,208, a reduction based on the Port's 

expenditures of $43,500 to dispose of PCBs at the 

p: 

facility. 

In September 

1991 the Agency issued an administrative 

complaint against SIKA for violations of TSCAs 

55 premanufacture notification and import 

requirements. The Agency proposed to assess a 

civil penalty of $13,118,500, but reduced this 

amount by 50%, to $6.6 million, to reflect SlKA's 

timely and voluntary disclosure of the violations 

to the Agency in accordance with the TSCA 55 

Enforcement Response Policy. This case was issued 

as part of the Agency's border cluster filing 

initiative in which it took action against 23 

facilities for violating law concerning the illegal 

import or export of hazardous waste and certain 

chemical substances and pesticides. 

On March 28, 1991, 

an administrative complaint was issued against 

Texaco, Inc., Midland, Texas, seeking a $157,150 

civil penalty for PCB violations. The Complaint 

charged Texaco with improper disposal of PCBs, 

improper use of PCB capacitors, incomplete 

annual documents, and storage for disposal of PCB 

capacitors in excess of the one year limit imposed 

by the PCB regulations. On November 7, 1991, a 

Consent Agreement and Final Order was filed 

with the Regional Hearing Clerk, assessing a 

$134,520 civil penalty against Texaco, Inc. The 

violations resulted from an August 1989, EPA 

inspection of Texaco, Inc.'s Midland, Texas office. 

EPA 

issued a civil administrative complaint against 

Triangle Laboratory, Inc., for violations of the 

TSCA Good Laboratory Practices Standards. 

Triangle performed testing required under §4 of 

TSCA on the behalf of four chloranil importers. 

The Agency filed a motion to strike five of the 

affirmative defenses raised- by Triangle' 

Laboratory in response to an administrative 

complaint charging the laboratory with 

violations of the TSCA Good Laboratory Practices 

Standards. Despite the answer's general denial' 

and thirteen affirmative defenses, the .only 

significant . issue was whether a 'testing 

laboratory can be subject to. TSCA. the Agency. 

moved to strike all affirmative defenses relating 

to liability, so as to address this issue .directly. 

That issue was never decided because a settlement 

was soon reached. On October 18,1990, the Chief 

Judicial Officer signed a CACO to settle the first 

enforcement action brought .'against a laboratory 

for violations .of the TSCA Good Laboratory 

Practice Standards. Triangle agreed pay a civil 

penalty of $13,950 in settlement. 

... 

In the Matter of Uw, .. United Technologies Corp. paid $730,000 in 

August 1991 to settle an EPA action for 

widespread PCB violations. EPA brought this 

action under TSCA in December 1989, to address 

violations at .five UTC manufacturing :and 

research facilities. The severity of the violations 

and UTC's history of prior PCB.violations in New 

England prompted the assessment of .the .largest 

TSCA penalty ever by RegionI. 

The settlement incorporates a unique commitment 

by UTC to submit to a PCB testing program and 

compliance audit by an independent consulting 

firm. The audit component requires an intensive 

PCB testing and removal program for a variety of 

manufacturing and research equipment (hydraulic 

systems; heat transfer systems, air compressors) 

at four separate facilities. The audit is expected 

to be completed in 1992. The audit firm will 

monitor compliance with all PCB regulatory 

requirements, including proper marking, storage, 

and recordkeeping. The audit, and the removal of 

PCBs from equipment are expected to. reduce the 

risks of spills; improper disposal,. PCB fires, and 

other human and environmental exposure at the 

facilities. The audit firm will also analyze 

UTC's management systems as they, relate to PCB 

compliance. UTC will pay stipulated ,penalties 

to EPA for any violations disclosed by the audit. 

The settlement includes an 'additional 

supplemental environmental . project in which 

UTC will remove and properly dispose of PCBs 

from PCB electrical equipment at three facilities 

,. 

. ,. 

4-58 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

at a cost to the company of $150,000. 

In the Matter of W- Co. (N~H 

Jsrs& EPA Administrative Law Judge Frank 

Vanderheyden issued a ruling in June 1991, 

holding Wego liable for violations of TSCA @(a) 

reporting rules. The ruling followed a two-day 

trial in June 1990, during which Wego argued that 

during negotiations to settle a previous 

enforcement action the Agency lawyer had 

promised EPA would not sue the company again. 

EPA denied such representations had been made, 

sought to prevent Wego from calling the EPA 

lawyer as a witness, and argued that testimony on 

the subject by Wego witnesses should be stricken 

from the record. Judge Vanderheyden granted 

these motions and held Respondent liable for the 

violations. The Judge'reserved his ruling on the 

question of penalties.:.'. 

m. v. (PA) State Hqutd .. On 

September 27, 1991, Region III issued a complaint 

alleging violations of 52614- of . the Toxic 

Substances Control ' Act to Norristown State 

Hospital. This is the first Region 111 Worker 

Protection Rule civil complaint issued. The 

complaint alleges that the hospital failed to 

conduct monitoring. at the initiation of each 

asbestos job, failed to institute a required 

respirator program, failed to provide separate 

storage facilities for protective and street 

clothing, and failed to provide annual medical 

examinations. ,. , 

., 

.. and WhmJi. 

T~QW (E.D. PB1: In what is believed to be the 

first use of a receivership to accomplish a PCB 

clean up under TSCA, a District Court granted a 

motion by the United States. and ordered the 

appointment of a receiver to manage the clean up 

of PCB contamination of the Jack Frost Sugarhouse 

in Philadelphia, PA. The Court also entered 

judgment against the defendants for $500,000 to be 

used by the receiver to accomplish the clean up. 

The United States ,requested this relief after 

defendants' repeated failure to comply with 

terms of consent decrees requiring clean up of the 

site. 

Emergency Planning id Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 

Enforcement !. ,, 

EPCRA establishes a structu're at the state 

and local levels to assist communities in planning 

for chemical emergencies and requires facilities 

to provide information to EPA on various 

chemicals present in the community, which 

shall be made available to the public. Under 

§313 certain manufacturing facilities must 

provide E P A w i t h annual data on the amounts of 

chemicals that they release into the 

environment, either routinely or as a result of 

accidents. In addition, facilities must report 

accidental releases of "extremely hazardous 

substances" and CERCLA "hazardous substances" 

to state and local response officials, and report to 

state and local officials inventories of chemicals 

on their premises for which Material Safety 

Data sheets exist. FY 1991 enforcement efforts 

targeted nonreporters as well as late and 

incorrect reporters. 

ytahl: On May 8.1991, EPA and the All American 

Gourmet Company entered into a consent 

agreement for violations of EPCRA 9313. The 

agreement was based upon failure to submit 

required reports under EPCRA 5313. In addition to 

agreeing the pay a civil penalty of $25,740, the 

All American Gourmet Company was required to 

assist in the construction of a new sewer line 

which will reduce and/or eliminate the 

formation of hydrogen sulfide in the sewer 

system. 

-: On July 3, 

1991, Region IV ratified a consent agreement and 

order in this matter including a penalty of $6,000. 

The Region had initiated an administrative 

enforcement action against Bittner for failure to 

report its processing of styrene and its use of 

acetone in its facility in Diaz, Alabama in 1989. 

The agreement includes Bittnefs commitment to 

reduce styrene emissions by either using a styrene 

vapor suppressant additive in its manufacturing 

process or by installing air scrubbing equipment. 

The cost of either of these improvements is 

estimated to be $20,000. 

On May 9,1991, Region I signed a Consent Order 

settling the civil administrative enforcement 

action brought against Bristol County for 

violations of CERCLA 5103 and EPCRA 5304 and 

5312 resulting from a chlorine release. Under the 

terms of the Consent Agreement and Order, Bristol 

County will pay $7,000 and will make 

supplemental environmental expenditures with 

first year costs estimated at $60,000 to $70,000. 

These expenditures will be for the replacement 

4-59 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

all of the Water Authority's gaseous chlorination 

systems with less hazardous liquid hypochlorite 

systems. 

In ,re CBI w: .On April 30, 1991, an 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded $99,000 

in this case. Complainant had alleged that the 

Respondent, CBI Services of Bourbonnais, IL; 

violated 5313 of the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) ' by 

filing the required Form Rs for six listed 

chemicals 230 days after the due date of July. 1, 

1988, and after an EPA inspection. The ALJ 

lowered the complainant's.penalty, holding that 

because the date of inspection of a facility can be 

controlled by EPA, the regulated .community 

cannot determine the point at which penalties for 

failure to report will increase under the policy; 

therefore, disparate treatment or the appearance 

of disparity must 'result from the application of 

the policy to these "nonreporters." Because the 

CBI Services decision is the third that.questions 

the basis of the distinction between late and 

nonreporter, the Office. of Enforcement issued 

guidance for the resolution and initiation of. all 

5313 EPCRA cases against similar nonreporters. , 

Inc. (West 

Jordan.: On April 26, 1991,.EPA and the 

Fashion Cabinet Manufacturing, Inc. entered into 

a consent agreement for violations of EPCRA 5313. 

The agreement was based upon failure to submit 

the,. required reports under EPCRA, 5313. In 

addition to a $19,950.50 civil penalty, the 

Agreement requires Fashion Manufacturing, lnc. to 

undertake and complete capital I environmental 

projects including: installation of a laminator 

which would replace a substantial quantity of 

toluene, methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl 

ketone, installation'of a new dust collector . and 

removal of the underground toluene storage tank. 

-: On August 31, 

1991, Region IV ratified a consent agreement and 

order in this matter. The Region had initiated an 

administrative enforcement action against Foam 

Design of Lexington, Kentucky, for its failure to 

report for 1988 its.use of Methylenebis (phenylisocyanate). Under the terms of the settlement, 

Foam Design will pay a penalty of $10,450 and 

will spend approximately $53,000 on an 

environmentally beneficial project. That project 

will consist of the construction of a system to 

recycle polystyrene scrap, which will result in an 

85% reduction in the amount of methylenebis 

Used. 

I .. . 

In' the Matter. of G- On 

December 14, 1990, in the largest EPCRA 

settlement in the nation to date, Region I resolved 

an administrative action against Gary Chemical 

Corp., 'a plastics and rubber manufacturing 

facility in Leominster, MA, for failure to submit 

estimates of its emissions of four toxic chemicals. 

Violations included the failure to notify EPA and 

the; Commonwealth of Massachusetts of its 

emissions of .lead compounds, antimony 

compounds, barium compounds, and di-(2- 

ethylhexyl) phthalate in calendar years 1987 

and 1988. In settlement of the case, the company 

submitted the required information and agreed'to 

pay a penalty of $142,800. 

-: on 

I. 

August 15, 1991, in settlement of an 

administrative action against Granite State 

Packing of Manchester, NH, the company agreed 

to pay a $35,190 penalty and donate $35,400 

worth of computer'and ,other emergency response 

equipment to the NH State Emergency Response 

Commission and the Manchester Fire and Police 

Departments. The computer equipment will assist 

the SERC in tracking hazardous materials within 

the state and will enhance fire and. police 

hazardous material response capabilities.' The 

company was cited for failing to make timely 

notifications. of an anhydrous ammonia release, 

under 5103 of CERCLA and 904 of EPCRA, and 

for failing to Drovide chemical inventorv data to "1 

local and state contingency planning groups, under 

5 312 of EPCRA. ' 

-: on 

June 26,1991, EPA and Longmont Foods Inc. entered 

into a Consent Agreement for violations of EPCRA 

5313. In addition to a $11,850 civil penalty, 

Longmont Foods Inc. agreed to provide training 

courses for its management and other personnel 

involved in the generation, handling, and. 

disposal of hazardous materials. The Company 

also agreed to expend $53,550 on an environmental 

project including sending its sludge which it 

currently landfills for disposal to the Department 

of Energy's bioconversion program 

v. NVF C- On March 29,1991, Region 

1II signed a consent agreement and consent order in 

final settlement of an EPCRA 5313 complaint 

filed against the NVF Company (Yorklyn, DE). 

The settlement of the complaint called for 

performance of two pollution prevention projects 

costing a total of $435,000 and payment of a 

$16,500 cash penalty. 

4-60 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report (9 

Pitt-Des Moines.: EPA filed a complaint 

against Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. (PDM) alleging 

PDM failed to file a Form R for the calendar year 

1988 for the substances nickel and chromium. In 

July of 1990 the case was heard by Judge Daniel 

Head. PDM argued that it did not exceed the 

EPCRA threshold for these substances and was 

therefore not liable. In a final ruling, Judge Head 

assessed a penalty of $12,000.00 for failing to file 

a Form R for nickel in 1988. .The major points of 

the decision are: rejects the argument that the 

amount of material "processed" only includes the 

portion actually affected by the processing, 

accepts the contents of the company's Form R as 

admissions, but rules that admissions can be 

controverted or explained at trial, accepts as 

correct the proposed penalty, but reduces. the 

penalty for "mitigating factors" such as the lack 

of possibility of any accidental release and the 

lack of a danger to the people involved in the 

processing. The decision provides further support 

for calculating the EPCRA threshold amount 

using the total amount of material processed, 

rather than just the portion affected by the 

processing. 

bow PAn ALJ held that an action for penalties for 

EPCRA violations is not subject to the automatic 

stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. An order 

granting EPAs motion for accelerated decision 

was entered on August 8, 1991. Judge 

Vanderheyden concluded that Respondent had 

violated 5313 of EPCRA and assessed a penalty of 

$10,000. 

A complaint was issued for failure to submit toxic 

chemical release inventories for xylene for 

calendar years 1987 and- 1988. The respondent 

answered the complaint denying the allegations 

and further stating that it was a debtor. in a 

Chapter 7 bankruptcy.proceeding and had ceased 

all business activities. A motion for accelerated 

decision on the issues of liability and penalty was 

then filed by Region VII. Judge Vanderheyden 

concluded in his order that: 1) this matter was not 

subject to the automatic stay provisions of the 

Bankruptcy Code; 2) it was shown clearly and 

conclusively that the respondent was subject to 

the requirements of EPCRA and had violated 

5313 by failing to submit Form Rs for xylene for 

the years 1987 and 1988; and 3) complainant had 

demonstrated persuasively that the penalty 

amount sought was appropriate under the 

provisions of EPCRA and the EPCRA enforcement 

response policy. 

On August 21,1991, 

an ALJ issued an accelerated decision in response 

to an EPCRA administrative complaint which 

had been issued on June 19,1989 to Rohr for failure 

to report to the Toxics Release Inventory the toxic 

chemical l,l,l-trichloroethane which it 

"otherwise used" at its Auburn facility in 1987. 

The decision granted EPAs motion for accelerated 

decision on liability and penalty, and assessed 

the full proposed penalty of $17,000. 

In the first administrative case filed in 

Region VI1 for violations of the emergency release 

notification requirements, EPA collected $63,000. 

The settlement was entered on February 7, 1991, 

resolving violations of 5304 of EPCRA and 5 103 

of CERCLA. The company had failed to timely 

notify Federal, state and local authorities, as 

required by CERCLA and EPCRA, of a release of 

539,000 pounds of sulfuric acid from its facility in 

Herculaneum, Missouri. 

Inc. On 

September 6, 1991, EPA entered into a Consent 

Agreement with Spence-Geiger, Inc. (SG) for 

violations of AHERA. The case involved the 

failure to properly inspect and identify asbestos 

containing materials in school buildings. The 

settlement ensures that all potential inspection 

and management plan violations of AHERA by 

SG are addressed within one year. This is 

significant because the total number of schools 

involved is in excess of 160 in Colorado. This case 

also sends a message to the regulated community 

and school districts of the Agency's position on 

the seriousness of complying with the AHERA. 

001 EPA filed an 

EPCRA administrative complaint against Tiz's 

Door Sales alleging it failed to report three toxic 

chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 

for the years 1987, 1988 and 1989. The final 

assessed penalty was $14,450. A portion of the 

penalty was deferred pending implementation of 

supplemental environmental projects (SEI'S) 

consisting of the purchase of high efficiency spray 

equipment and improvements to the paint spray 

booth at the facility; this portion of the penalty 

will be waived if the SEPs are installed. The 

SEPs are expected to significantly reduce the 

releases of TRI chemicals from this facility as 

well as reduce the amount of chemicals used at 

the facility. 

4-61 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenis Report 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Enforcement 

EPA regulates the use of pesticides in the 

United States under the authority of FIFRA by 

requiring that all pesticides sold and used in the 

United States, including imported products, be 

registered with EPA. FIFRA is designed to 

provide for pre-market clearance of pesticides 

and post-market surveillance of pesticides and 

pesticidal devices to ensure prevention of 

unreasonable adverse effects upcn human health 

or the environment. In accordance with the 

statute the States have primary enforcement 

responsibility for pesticide use violations. FY 

1991 enforcement efforts focused on violations of 

the import-export requirements, good laboratory 

practices requirements, product mislabeling, and 

sale ,of unregistered pesticides. 

Dlvalon): In October 1991, the Agency issued its 

first ever administrative civil penalty complaint 

alleging violations of the FIFRA Good 

Laboratory Practices Regulations. The sixty count 

complaint was issued for $260,000. Carter 

Wallace was the sponsor and registrant of several 

studies submitted to the Agency in support of a 

pesticide registration, which were conducted by 

AMA Laboratories. An EPA inspection revealed 

that, despite a compliance statement signed by 

Carter Wallace and AMA that the studies were 

conducted in accordance' with FIFRA Good 

Laboratory Practices, serious violations had 

occurred during the conduct of the studies. A 

Notice of Warning was issued against AMA 

Laboratories pursuant to FIFRA §14(a)(2), which 

is the maximum level of action that can be taken 

for a first-time violation by a laboratory under 

FIFRA. 

. .. 

Vancouver. WA. Pm 

OR and Eaufic Wood 

EPA Region X charged 

three companies, Columbia Cascade, Permapost 

Products, Inc., and Pacific Wood Treating, with 

distribution of an unregistered pesticide because 

they sold wood products which had been treated 

with unregistered wood preservatives. The 

Region settled with Pacific Wood Treating for a 

penalty of $4,920 and with Columbia Cascade for, 

a penalty of 51,188. 

.. 

p: on 

November 11, 1990, the Agency settled a civil 

administrative action against Hartz Mountain for 

violations of §6(a)(2) of FIFRA. Section 6(a)(2) 

requires.registrants to notify the Agency of any 

additional factual information that comes to 

light regarding unreasonable adverse effects of a 

registered pesticide. An inspection of Hartz 

Mountain's facility revealed that Hartz 

Mountain had received numerous complaints of 

adverse effects following exposure to the Hartz 

Blockade Cat Flea and Tick Repellent and Hartz 

Blockade Dog Flea and Tick Repellent. These 

complaints contained sufficient information to 

enable Hartz Mountain to investigate whether or 

not the reported adverse effects and exposures 

occurred. Four counts of the Agencyk complaint 

charged Hartz Mountain with failure to notify 

the Agency of four series of similar incidents of 

adverse effects reported to Hark Mountain by its 

customers. Hartz Mountain was charged with 

failure to notify the Agency of fourteen incidents 

of adverse effects where Hartz Mountain was 

advised by an expert that the effect may have 

resulted from exposure to the pesticide. Hartz 

agreed to pay $45,000 in settlement. 

In the In a 

decision that has broad implications for the 

producers of ultrasound pesticide devices, the ALJ 

held that Impex Industries ultrasound units were 

"misbranded" within the meaning of FIFRA. 

Basing her decision on testing data presented by 

EPA, the ALJ found that Impex's ultrasound units 

did not control or repel rodents as stated in 

labeling. EPA brought the action against Impex 

Industries in 1984. The ALJ's June 1991, decision 

assessed 

p: 

Impex a $1,000 penalty. 

' In a 

settlement between EPA and Gotham Chemical 

Co. Inc. in September, 1991, Gotham agreed to pay 

a $21,250 civil penalty for violations FIFRA. 

EPA had brought an administrative action 

against Gotham, located in Stamford, CT, for its 

misbranding and adulteration of pesticide 

products used for controlling algae and bacteria in' 

water. Gotham sold these misbranded and 

adulterated products to four CT hospitals in 1988 

and 1989 for use in the water cooling towers of the 

hospitals. The penalty obtained in this 

settlement is the largest ever obtained by Region I 

for violations of FIFRA. 

In April 

1991, the Chief Judicial Officer signed the consent 

order approving the consent agreement in this 

matter, which required Monsanto to pay a 

4-62 
#..S .'.% 

FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

penalty of $287,920 to settle the administrative 

action brought for violations of FIFRA §17(a) 

export labeling and notification requirements. 

This represents the highest penalty obtained in 

settlement of a FIFRA administrative action. 

The consent agreement also requires Monsanto to 

bring all past and future shipments of the 

pesticide into compliance with the purchaser 

acknowledgement requirement. The amended 

complaint charged Monsanto with failure to 

obtain the purchaser acknowledgement statement 

for shipments of an unregistered pesticide and 

p: 

failure to provide bilingual labeling. 

In 

October 1990, EPA filed an administrative 

complaint against Sandoz Corp. for violating 

§17(a)(l) and 512(a)(l)(a) of FIFRA by exporting 

shipments of four unregistered pesticides without 

first obtaining statements from the foreign 

purchasers acknowledging that pesticides were 

not registered for use in the United States, and the 

same shipments violated FIFRA §17(a)(l), 

§Z(q)(l)(H) and 512(a)(I)(E), because the 

products were not labeled with the statement 

"Not Registered for Use in the United States of 

America". Pursuant to a consent agreement, 

Sandoz paid a penalty of $98,003 and conducted 

an audit to determine compliance with FIFRA 517 

export requirements. EPA has issued a demand 

letter for stipulated penalties of $11,000 for 

p: 

violations found in the audit. 

on 

June 28, 1991, EPA was granted motion for 

accelerated decision on liability which 

favorably disposed of a number of arguments 

raised during the Agency's recent pesticides 

export initiative. The decision affirmed the 

Agency's position that for pesticides exported to 

non-English speaking countries, FIFRA requires 

bilingual labeling, and that this labeling must be 

affixed before the pesticides reach the foreign 

country. The court rejected Shield-Brite's 

argument that the requirement for bilingual 

labeling was not valid because it appeared in a 

policy statement rather than a regulation, and 

stated that "the requirement for such labeling is 

clearly established by FIFRA and EPA's 

published interpretation." The Court rejected 

Shield-Brite's argument that the language of the 

policy could be read to allow either English 

the language of the importing country, holding 

that such a construction would be illogical. The 

decision clearly states that exporters must comply 

with the bilingual labeling requirement before 

the pesticides reach the foreign country even if 

p: 

the export is an intra-corporate transfer. 

This 

was the first administrative enforcement FIFRA 

case to be heard in EPA Headquarters. Sporicidin 

appealed the initial order which held that 

Sporicidin made unauthorized claims for two 

disinfectant products, ie., that the products 

would kill the AIDS virus. The Chief Judicial 

Officer affirmed both the findings and the 

$10,000 violation penalty. In the text of the 

appeal decision, the Chief Judicial Officer made 

several legal findings of importance to both 

FIFRA enforcement and to the administrative 

process in general. The major finding is that the 

phrase "claims made as part of the products 

distribution and sale" is tw be construed broadly. 

Thus, the Chief Judicial Officer rejected 

Sporicidin's contention that only claims that 

physically accompany particular pesticide stocks 

during their sale or distribution are covered by 

FIFRA. EPA charged Sporicidin with making 

false claims and using misleading information in 

the process of selling its disinfectants to 

hospitals. At the time of this violation, the 

Agency had accepted no claims that a product 

would kill the AIDS virus and had approved no 

claim to that effect. Making such claims for a 

pesticidal product was therefore in violation of 

FIFRA. This case was part of a 1988 initiative 

against the making of such unacceptable claims. 

.. . 

On March 29,1991, EPA issued an administrative 

complaint against E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 

Company, Terra Chemicals International, Platte 

Chemical Company and Lesco. Inc. for numerous 

multiple sales and/or distributions of an 

adulterated pesticide registered to Dul'ont. EPA 

had earlier discovered that quantities of 

DuPont's benomyl pesticide products had been 

contaminated with atrazine (an herbicide) during 

production by Terra Chemicals, an agent of 

DuPont, some time in 1989. EPA issued stop sale 

orders to DuPont and the other named 

corporations shortly after discovering the 

adulterated benomyl, and DuPont voluntarily 

recalled the adulterated products. EPAs 

administrative complaint seeks civil penalties 

from each of the corporations for each of the 256 

documented sales or distributions of the 

contaminated benomyl. 

At the time this complaint was issued, EPA 

learned from DuPont that new batches of 

4-63 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenfs Reporf 

atrazine-contaminated benomyl had been 

discovered. DuPont has begun a voluntary recall 

of all of its benomyl products. On March 29,1991, 

EPA issued stop sale orders to DuPont and the 

related producing and 'distributing corporations, 

prohibiting the further distribution of DuPont's 

contaminated benomyl products. 

Criminal Enforcement - All Statutes 

YS. v. Ncus and 

hnpmy (E.D. Kentuckv): On February 1, 1991, 

in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, Samuel 

T. Alcus, I11 was sentenced to pay a $10,000 fine 

and to serve three years probation pursuant to his 

guilty plea to one count of the negligent discharge 

of brine into the Birch Branch River in Magoffin 

County, Kentucky between November 1989 and 

January 1990. Alcus is the president of AEIKAARS Production Company, an oil production 

company with several leases throughout Western 

Kentucky. The company was also sentenced 

pursuant to a plea of guilty, to one count of the 

knowing discharge of brine into the Birch Branch 

River during the same time period and was 

sentenced to a $100.000 fine. As part of the 

sentence, Alcus and AEI-KAARS paid $55,000 of 

the imposed fine as restitution to the Kentucky 

Hazardous Waste Management Fund, a fund 

establis$ed to assist in financing the Kentucky 

Environmental Crimes Workshop. The sentencing 

marked an end to the first successful CWA 

conviction in the history of Kentucky relating to 

the stripper well industry. 

. 

US. v. Baytan k Inc.. et a 1. (5th Cirh On June 13, 

1991, the US. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit affirmed the conviction of Baytank 

(Houston), Inc., a chemical transfer and storage 

facility, on two counts of improper storage of 

hazardous wastes in violation of RCRA. On one 

count, Baytank was fined $50,000, and received a 

suspended sentence on a second count 'provided 

that it execute a community service program. On 

appeal, the defendant challenged jury 

instructions given at . trial relating to the 

knowledge 'requirement under RCRA. The' court 

rejected the.challenge, and adopted the general 

intent standard for criminal violations of RCRA, 

holding that it is not necessary to prove that the 

defendant knew that the waste had been 

identified under EPA regulations as hazardous. 

The court stated that "knowingly" as, used in 

RCRA means that the defendant knows factually 

that he/she is storing, what is being stored, that' 

,, what is being stored factually has the potential 

to harm others or the environment, and that 

he/she has no permit. On appeal, the 

government's challenge to the trial court's 

overruling conviction on a'number of counts was 

successful. A retrial on these counts is pending. 

(N.D. Georeia): On July 

17; 1991, in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta, 

Georgia, Kenneth Birchfield was convicted by a 

federal jury of the illegal disposal of hazardous 

waste, in violation of RCRA. Birchfield was also 

convicted of manufacturing and possession with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine, carrying a 

firearm during a drug offense, and possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon. Birchfield and his 

codefendant James Angerami were also convicted 

of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with. 

intent to distribute methamphetamine and 

possession of a nonregistered firearm. The 

defendants and three (3) other individuals had 

been involved in the illegal production (of 

methamphetamine from a business named Metro 

Fab. During the illegal manufacturing process, 

all wastes and substandard product batches were 

dumped on the ground adjacent to the clandestine 

laboratory located in the Atlanta metropolitan 

area. The three (3) individuals, Glenda 

Newsome. Edwin Eugene Trout and Shawn Lee 

Rawls,had been convicted on April 26, 1991. of 

conspiracy and possession of an illegal drug. ' All 

defendants in the case have been sentenced to 

serve lengthy prison sentences. .'. ,. 

YS. v. EhAmmM 'and Bc!r.iQhn Ophd 

On November 7, 1990, US. 

District Judge Douglas Woodlock sentenced John 

Borowski to 26 months in prison, followed by two 

years of supervised release, and a $400,000 fine in 

the first knowing endangerment criminal case 

under the CWA. It is the longest prison term in 

Ncw England for an environmental violation. 

The' case concerned the illegal discharge' of toxic 

metals and dangerous chemicals into the sewer 

system, and the endangerment of employees as a 

result. John Borowski is president of Borjohn 

Optical Technology Inc. of Burlington, MA. The 

company was also fined $50,000 and ordered to 

make a lump sum payment of $15,500 for medical 

insurance for two of its former employees. 

The illegal discharges stemmed from Borjohn's 

metal finishing operations, in which the 

company plated various metals, including nickel, 

onto Bradley Fighting Vehicle elevation mirrors, 

., 

4-64 
. .. ., .. 

.+- "'* :..+,?,*,:.\, - 

.. . .:. :.. ., 

I I.. . FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

... . .. . . .+- "'* :..+,?,*,:.\, - 

.. . .:. :.. ., 

I I.. . FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

... . .. . . 

M-1 Tank mirrors, and cruise missile folding 

mirrors. The defendants ordered employees to 

dump the chemicals down the sewer using plastic 

buckets. During the illegal disposals, the 

employees were exposed to toxic levels of nickel, 

nitric acid, and nitrogen dioxide. The discharges 

to the sewer eventually led to the Massachusetts 

Water Resource Authority's sewage treatment 

plant, which in turn discharges to Boston Harbor. 

A jury in the US. 

District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma convicted Raymond T. Brittain, a city 

public utilities director exercising general 

supervisory authority over the Enid, Oklahoma's 

wastewater treatment plant, for failure to report 

discharges of pollutants in violation of a CWA 

permit. On appeal, the US. Court of Appeals for 

the Tenth Circuit addressed the question of 

whether a "person," as opposed to the permittee, 

could be liable for a permit violation. The court 

held that the statute plainly states that any 

"person" (including an individual as well as a 

corporation or other organization, & a 

municipality) who causes a permit violation 

through knowing or negligent conduct, is subject to 

criminal sanctions. The court went further, 

however, and stated that responsible corporate 

officers, to be held criminally liable, would not 

have to "willfully or negligently" cause a permit 

violation. Instead, the willfulness or negligence 

of the subordinate actor would be imputed to the 

supervisor by virtue of his ' position or 

' On April 30, 1991;.the. 

-for the Sixth Circuit 

affirmed-the ajnvictions of Paul J. Buckley for 

crimiiia1,violations of the CAA and CERCLA. At 

trial, 'in,:the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Ohio, a jury found Buckley, the project 

manager, guilty of knowingly emitting asbestos 

into the environment in the process of demolishing 

a stationary source, as well as for failing to notify 

the appropriate Federal agency of a known 

release of a reportable quantity of asbestos, as 

required by CERCLA. On review, the Court of 

Appeals upheld the trial court's finding that 

both the CAA and CERCLA are general intent 

statutes. The knowledge elements of both statutes 

require merely that the defendant had knowledge 

of the emissions themselves, not knowledge of the 

statute proscribing the emissions. Thus, the 

government need not prove wrongful intent or 

awareness of wrongdoing in prosecutions under 

these statutes. Good faith on the part of the 

.. 

.. responsibility. , .. ,. . ., 1 .. . ' 

defendant is immaterial. The court rationalized 

its holding by finding that dealing with 

hazardous materials, such as asbestos,. puts 

individuals on notice that criminal ~ statutes 

regulate the handling and disposal of the 

substances. 

et al. (N.D. Te.x.a& In 

the first Federal criminal ;prosecution . for 

violations of a city's pretreatment program, 

Control Disposal (located in Dallas, Texas) and 

its CEO, Herman Goldfaden, pled guilty to felony 

violation of the CWA for disposing of industrial 

waste trap residues into the Dallas sewer system. 

The defendants also pled guilty to a felony, 

violation of RCRA. The company and Goldfaden 

were sentenced on July 16, 199,l with Control 

Disposal receiving a one-million dollar criminal 

fine. Goldfaden was sentenced to three years of 

imprisonment and a $75,000 fine. 

S. v. Defense Svstems Corpwatb On 

Eptember 30, 1991, Defense Systems Corporation 

a/k/a Hi-Shear Corporation pled guilty to two 

RCRA counts in the United States District Court 

for the District of Nevada. The corporation 

agreed to pay a penalty of $375,000 on each count, 

or a total of $750,000 to the federal government 

and was placed on 5 years of probation. The 

corporation further agreed to pay a penalty of 

$375,000 to the State of Nevada. 

Defense Systems Corporation retails and 

manufactures explosive devices. The first count of 

the indictment charged that the corporation 

transported hazardous wastes, namely 

propellants and other explosive wastes from its 

California facility to its Nevada facility, 

without a hazardous waste manifest as required 

by RCRA. The second count charged the. 

corporation with the illegal storage of hazardous 

wastes, namely propellants and other explosive 

wastes, at the Nevada facility although the 

corporation did not have a storage permit or 

interim status as required by RCRA. 

On July 23, 1991 three employees of the Defense 

Systems Corporation were indicted for four counts 

of illegally transporting, storing and disposing of 

hazardous waste and making a false statement to 

EPA. Trial for the three individuals is scheduled 

in the near future. 

et al. ~~ As 

part of a global settlement of Federal enforcement 

actions arising from the discharge of over ten 

4-65 
@) FY 1991 Enforcemant AccomplishmentsReport 

million gallons of crude oil from the tanker Txxon 

Valdez" in the Prince William Sound, Alaska on 

March 23, 1989, the two corporate defendants, 

Exxon Corporation and the Exxon Shipping 

Corporation, entered into a new plea agreement 

with the government on September 30,1991. (The 

Captain was prosecuted by the State of Alaska). 

The original plea agreement was rejected by the 

federal judge on April 24,1991. 

In the new agreement, formally entered before the 

court on October 8,1991, Exxon Shipping agreed to 

plead guilty to three counts and Enon 

Corporation agreed to plead to one count of the 

indictment returned against them in Anchorage, 

Alaska on February 27,1990. Exxon Shipping pled 

to a misdemeanor violation of the CWA for the 

negligent discharge of oil without a permit, a 

misdemeanor violation of the Refuse Act for the 

illegal discharge of refuse (oil) from a ship, and a 

violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for 

unpermitted killing of over 36,000 migratory 

birds. The company agreed to pay a fine of $20 

million. The Exxon Corporation pled to the one 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act count, and agreed to 

pay a fine of $5 million. Both defendants also 

agreed to now make a remedial payment of $50 

million to the State of Alaska, and $50 million to 

the federal government for restoration projects 

relating to the oil spill. A companion civil 

consent decree requires establishment of a 

$9OO,ooO,ooO trust fund for remediation. 

On March 20, 1991, 

Exxon pled guilty to a misdemeanor information 

charging it with negligently discharging oil into 

the Arthur Kill without a permit, in violation of 

the CWA. As part of a global settlement 

involving the United States, the States of New 

York and New Jersey, and the City of New York, 

Exxon agreed to pay a criminal fine of$5,ooO,000. 

In addition, as described under "Water 

Enforcement Program," above, on the same date in 

the Eastern District of New York, Exxon's 

agreement to a civil settlement of $10,000,000 was 

accepted by the court. 

ILS. v. Enviro-Analvsts.~.. et al. (D. 

wisconsin): On October 4,1991, in one of the first 

successful environmental criminal trial involving 

the sale of fraudulent laboratory reports, EnviroAnalysts, Inc. and its owner, John Ruetz, were 

found guilty of falsifying analytical data for 

clients who were required to comply with the 

CWA and RCRA. Ruetz and the lab were 

convicted for routinely falsifying data by using 

incorrect equipment and procedures to certify 

compliance and fabricating test results 2 for 

samples that had never been taken. The vicepresident of Enviro-Analysts, Robert Schloesser, 

was charged separately and previously pled 

guilty to two counts of violating the CWA. 

Eventually, Schloesser testified against the 

corporation and Mr. Ruetz. The extent of the 

effect of Enviro-Analysts' criminal conduct on the 

program reliance on voluntary compliance by the 

regulated community is now being examined by an 

extensive review of permits issued by the State of 

Wisconsin. 

et al. (- 

On August 29, 1991 Kamal Gabra pleaded guilty 

to a criminal violation of FIFRA. This case, 

handled by EPAs Office of Inspector General, 

involved illegal export of misbranded and 

mislabeled pesticides, and falsification of EPA 

documents in furtherance of the scheme. Gabra's 

three companies, Liberty International 

Agricultural Products, Nevacide, Ltd., and 

Hercules Chemicals, USA., shipped hundreds of 

thousands of dollars worth of pesticides to 

Middle Eastern countries since 1988, though not 

all the shipments were illegal. Sentencing is 

scheduled for November, 1991. Gabra apparently 

took the orders for the pesticides from clients, and 

others mixed the chemicals for him. Gabra has 

agreed to provide information about those who 

helped him circumvent Federal laws. Gabra is 

also now out of the business of exporting 

pesticides. 

p: on 

August 30, 1991, in the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 

Atlanta, Georgia; Reginald Max Goldsmith was 

convicted by a jury on both counts of a two count 

indictment charging violations of RCRA. The 

indictment, handed down on July 2,1991, charged 

Goldsmith with the illegal transportation and 

storage of hazardous waste to an unpermitted 

storage facility. The proof at trial demonstrated 

that Goldsmith, using a fraudulent company, 

contracted with Hunt Chemicals Company to 

transport and dispose of approximately two 

hundred 55-gallon drums containing various 

hazardous wastes. After improperly removing 

the drums, Goldsmith provided Hunt Chemicals 

with fraudulent documents representing 

compliance with all EPA regulations regarding 

the transportation and disposal of hazardous 

waste. The drums ultimately were discovered, 

and illegally discarded, at three separate 

4-66, 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Reporr 

locations in the Atlanta metropolitan area. 

Sentencing is scheduled for a later date. 

OnNovember21, 

1990, Charles A. Hassler was sentenced pursuant 

to his guilty plea to the charge of violating the 

Land Ban Restrictions of RCRA. Hassler was 

sentenced to serve three months community 

confinement and to pay a $500 fine. Hassler, the 

former Director of Public Works and City Engineer 

for Longwood, Florida, admitted that in October 

1988, he knowingly directed municipal employees 

to illegally bury sixteen drums of hazardous 

waste within 100 yards of the city's water 

reservoir. Several of the drums ruptured, causing 

contamination of the surrounding soil. The 

sentencing marked a successful end to the nation's 

first prosecution under EPAs recently 

implemented Land Ban Restrictions. 

ILS. v Crnda 

Keyin 6. Mom and rohnl Cox. Tn. 

On September 16,1991, in 

the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Tennessee, Western Division, 

Memphis, Tennessee, George Ault entered a plea 

of guilty to a one count indictment charging a 

felony violation of the CWA. Auk, a supervisory 

employee of Croda Inks, an ink formulator and 

producer, admitted to the knowing discharge of 

solvent washes and water washes, which were 

generated during the ink formulation process, into 

McKellar Lake without a permit. Also indicted 

on that date was George Moore, former general 

manager at Croda's Memphis plant, for the 

illegal storage of hazardous waste without a 

permit, in violation of RCRA in addition to a 

knowing discharge in violation of the CWA. 

Moore's son Kevin G. Moore and John Michael Cox, 

both Croda employees, also pled guilty to making 

false statements and misrepresentations to EPA 

Special Agents investigating the violations at 

Croda. All defendants will be sentenced at a 

later date. The corporation, pursuant to a guilty 

plea entered in April, 1991 for negligent 

violations of CWA was sentenced on July 10,1991, 

to three years probation and ordered to pay a fine 

of $200,000, half to be suspended upon the 

payment of 5100,000 restitution to the State of 

Tennessee Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund. 

Further, the corporation was ordered to publish a 

public apology, and incur the costs of remedial 

action at the Memphis plant site. 

(D. 

On July 3, 1991, in Portland, Maine, International 

Paper Company pleaded guilty to violations of 

Federal laws at its Androscoggin Mill in Jay, 

Maine, and was fined 52.2 million. The mill is 

the largest paper mill in Maine, and the fine is 

one of the largest imposed in Maine for 

environmental violations. The company was 

convicted of three counts of storing and treating 

hazardous waste without a permit or interim 

status in violation of RCRA, and two counts of 

making false statements to the government in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. 51001. From 1986 to 1988, 

the company generated and mixed ignitable 

waste solvents with waste oil prior to disposal by 

incineration in the mill's power boilers. In 1987, 

the company falsely stated that it did not 

generate hazardous waste at its mill, and in 1986 

it. falsely stated that its mill had only one 

outfall to the Androscoggin River, when in fact it 

had two. All of these crimes were committed 

knowingly by the company. No individuals were 

charged. The U.S. Attorney said that since 1988 

the company has taken steps to come into 

compliance with environmental requirements. 

On September 13, 

1991, in Richmond, Virginia, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed 

the sentence of two years and nine (9) months 

incarceration for Mark.Irby (the longest jail term 

ever' handed out in South Carolina for an 

environmental crime). Irby, the former plant 

manager of a wastewater treatment facility, was 

convicted of multiple violations of the CWA. He 

was sentenced on November 28, 1990 pursuant to 

his conviction on charges that from March, 1987 

through September, .' 1988, he knowingly 

discharged sewer sludge into the Reedy River in 

South Carolina, tampered and caused 

falsification of wastewater monitoring reports, 

and failed to report nonpermitted discharges to 

the appropriate State and Federal authorities as 

required by law. 

Irby appealed his only sentence, which he is 

presently serving. Irby asserted that the District 

Court erred in increasing his offense level under 

Part Q of the Sentencing Guidelines, which 

states, if the offense resulted in an ongoing, 

continuous, or repetitive discharge, release, or 

emission of a pollutant into the environment, the 

offense level increases by six levels. 

The Court of Appeals found that the CWA's 

definition of "pollutant" encompasses "sewage 

sludge:" The record showed that Irby ordered the 

discharge of approximately 500,000 gallons of 

4-67 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

partially treated sludge at least twice a week for 

two years.. The District Court found as fact that 

actions performed at Irby's direction allowed 

sewage sludge from .the waste sludge holding 

basin to be discharged virtually untreated into 

the adjacent river. Because of the huge quantities 

of pollutant discharged, the finding of the lower 

court clearly was not erroneous, said the Appeals 

court. 

ULMIZL: On April 15, 1991, William Ellen was 

sentenced to serve six months in prison, 12 months 

probation and 60 hours of community service 

relating to his conviction on five.felony counts of 

violating the CWA. Ellen was the project 

manager involved in. the filling of ,86 acres of 

wetlands on the Eastem Shore of,Maryland. 

On June 20,1991, the United States District Court 

in the Northern District of New York reaffirmed 

the principle that under RCRA, ignorance of the 

law is no excuse. Defendant Laughlin, president 

and/or plant manager of ,GCL Tie Treating, Inc., 

and defendant Donnelly, a supervisor at GCL, 

were charged, in a twenty-seven count indictment 

with the illegal storage and disposal of 

hazardous waste without a permit. In a pre-trial 

determination, the court agreed with the 

government's assertion that, in order to obtain a 

conviction under RCRA §6928(d)(2)(A), the 

government need not prove that the defendants 

knew that it was illegal to treat, store, or dispose 

of' hazardous waste without a permit. , The 

government, thus does not have to prove that the 

defendants knew that a permit was required or 

that the defendants. knew that the company did 

not have a permit. In coming to its decision, the 

court explicitly disagreed with a contrary case, 

Y.S. v. Tohnson and Towers finding the reasoning 

weak and unpersuasive. Instead, the court 

adopted the rule from US. v. Hoflin, which is 

that due to the public welfare nature of RCRA, 

proof of knowledge of the permit requirement or 

permit status is not required.. For the first time, a 

court in &e Second Circuit ruled on the issue of the 

state of knowledge necessary to prove a RCRA 

disposal violation. This decision should have 

important precedenti,al value with the Second 

Circuit. 

-(New On May 17, 1991, 

James Long pled guilty to a one count information 

charging him with falsifying information 

pertaining to asbestos removals performed by 

Safe Air Environmental Group,, Inc., at .the 

Bethlehem Steel Plant in Tonawanda, NY. (See 

also discussion under "Air Enforcement Program," 

above, describing parallel civil proceedings 

initiated in connection with NESHAPs violations 

at this facility.) . This case was investigated 

through'the auspices of .the Western District of, 

New York LECC sub-committee on environmental 

crimes . 

On October 7,1991, the Supreme Court 

refused to grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari 

filed by Louisville Edible Oil Products, Inc. This 

action allows the appellate decision below to 

stand. In a decision, of first impression in the 

context of environmental law, the Sixth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. ruled that the Western District 

of Kentucky. was correct to deny defense motions to. 

dismiss the indictments based , on the 

Constitution's. . prohibition . against double 

jeopardy. The reason for the decision was that, 

under the dual sovereignty doctrine; the 

prohibition against. double jeopardy does not 

apply to charges placed by separate sovereigns 

(the Federal and county governments) even,if the 

charges are both for the same offense. .Even 

though EPA had delegated EPAs CAA authority 

to. Kentucky, (which then redelegated to a county 

agency) to enforce the. NESHAPs requirements for 

asbestos, the court found that the county agency 

was not a mere ''tool" or conduit for Federal 

enforcement; The reason for this finding was that 

EPA .lacks statutory authority to control *the 

actions of the county agency, and indeed with 

regard to the violator the county agency acted on 

its own authority and despite EPAs conflicting 

views on how to proceed on the violations. This 

important decision .has confirmed EPAs 

traditional position that in the criminal context 

the Federal government and the-states maintain 

separate, independent, and concurrent enforcement 

authority.. As a .result.of this decision, the.case 

will now proceed to trial. The company, which 

manufactures edible oils such as salad oil, 

demolished or .renovated two facilities that it 

owns in Louisville, Kentucky. The indictment 

charges the company, an affiliated company, and, 

several. top corporate officers with asbestos 

related violations of CAA and CERCLA. 

US. v. h2aLhmM and Watsan Waste . LM 

et al. (W A circuit court.for the 

first time addressed whether the RCRA's 

"knowing" requirement applies to a corporate 

officer who did not actually know of his 

4-68 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

corporation's illegal act (as opposed to not 

knowing the regulations which covers the 

corporation's activity): Following a jury trial 

during September 1989, in the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Rhode Island, MacDonald and 

Watson Waste Oil Company, 'Eugene E. 

DAllesandro, President of MacDonald and 

Watson, and two other MacDonald and Watson 

employees were convicted, among other counts, of 

knowingly transporting and causing the 

transportation of hazardous waste' to a facility 

which 'did not have a RCRA permit. 

DAllesandro's conviction was based on the 

"responsible corporate officer" doctrine, on 

evidence that he was a "hands-on" manager, and 

that he knew in the past the company had 

violated RCRA. There was no direct evidence 

showing that he actually knew.. that ' the 

shipment of hazardous waste in question was 

being transported to .,his company's disposal 

facility in Providence, Rhode Island. The First 

Circuit Court of Appeals vacated DAllesandro's 

conviction and rejected the broadest form of the 

"responsible corporate officer" doctrine, which 

would allow for the conclusive establishment of 

the element of knowledge by a mere showing that 

the individual. held a' position of corporate 

responsibility. At the. same time, however,'the 

First Circuit affirmed. that .knowledge did not 

have. to be proven by direct evidence but could be 

inferred from the defendant's position, conduct 

and other facts and circumstances. 'The court went 

further and stated that "willful blindness to facts 

constituting the offense. may be' sufficient to 

establish knowledge." The case was .remanded 

for retrial of Mr. DAllesandro, who is presumed 

innocent unless proven guilty. .The convictions of 

the MacDonald and .Watson Waste Oil Company 

and the two other employees were affirmed. 

US. v. .Inc. (D.'DEl The 

largest employer in. southern Delaware pled 

guilty'to Federal hazardous wastes violations'on 

March 26, 1991, for storing hazardous waste 

without a permit and failing to notify the EPA of 

a release of a hazardous. substance. Nanticoke 

Homes, .Inc. generated ignitable waste at the 

company's Greenwood, DE facility 'and failed to 

ship any hazardous wastes offsite for disposal 

over a 31 month period, and 'company employees 

crushed and buried drums containing hazardous 

wastes on the property. As a result of the first 

Federal environmental prosecution in the State of 

Delaware, Nanticoke Homes, Inc. was sentenced 

on July 30, 1991, to pay a fine of $300,000 and to 

perform 400 hours of community service. The 

parallel Nanticoke Homes criminal prosecution 

and expedited environmental cleanup represent a 

model example of multi-office, multi-program, 

and civil/criminal coordination. 

yS. v. N- (New yprkt On 

May 29,1991, New York Bus Service was assessed 

a criminal penalty of $25,000 based upon its plea 

of guilty to a one count information charging it 

with negligently discharging ethylene glycol into 

the Hutchinson River, New York without a 

permit, in violation of the Clean Water Act. This 

case was a joint investigation between the FBI, 

New York City Dept of Sanitation Police and 

EPA; 

d of Water 

us. In the first 

Federal criminal prosecution for violations 

related to the SDWA's regulation of public water 

supply systems,'on October 29,1990, the municipal 

Board, its Superintendent (Gerald Elwell), and 

employee (Peter Lauzon), and the 

owners/operators of the Pownal Water Company 

(Murray and Bertha Lewis) entered pleas of 

guilty, in the US. District Court for Vermont, to 

charges that they filed false statements on 

monthly water system operations reports. 

(Charges against several co-defendants are still 

pending.) Under the Safe Drinking Water 

program, water suppliers must test for 

contaminants such as turbidity and report results 

to- state authorities.and to EPA. It was alleged 

that the defendants knowingly falsified these 

reports, in violation of the Federal Criminal 

Code's false statement statute. Pursuant to a plea 

agreement with the government, the Board was 

fined $100,000, with payment suspended on 

condition that the Board comply with all legal 

requirements in the future. Lauzon was placed on 

probation; Elwell and'the Lewises were placed on 

probation and fined $500. 

US. v. (W.D. W: The 

United States obtained a plea agreement in this 

case which is an excellent example of 

Federal/state cooperation and coordination in 

criminal enforcement of environmental statutes. 

On October 20,1990, the Pillsbury Company plead 

guilty to one count of negligent discharge of 

ammonia into the Silver Creek in Joplin, 

Missouri, which resulted .in a substantial 

fishkill. The plea agreement provides for 

payment of a $1OO,ooO fine. 

Pillsbury also paid $75,000 to the City of Joplin 

4-69 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

as compensation for damages from the spill. The 

State of Missouri Attorney General settled its 

case against I'illsbury for $100,000. The City will 

use the settlements to purchase composting 

equipment for use by the Southwest Missouri 

Regional Solid Waste Commission, (SMRSWC). 

SMRSWC is a non-profit corporation formed by 

six southwest Missouri communities. 

pal 

January 31, 1991, Geronimo Villegas, the owner of 

Plaza Health Laboratory, was convicted, after a 

jury trial, of two counts of knowingly discharging 

hepatitis tainted blood vials into the Hudson 

River without a permit and two counts of knowing 

endangerment for discharging those vials into the 

Hudson River in violation of the CWA. 

Following that conviction, the defendant moved, 

pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, for a judgment of a acquittal. 

On December 13, the judge set aside the 

convictions of knowing endangerment and 

affirmed the convictions on knowing discharge. 

The defendant was sentenced to one year 

imprisonment, but is now out pending appeal. The 

Government has appealed the dismissal, and the 

defendant has appealed the convictions not 

dismissed. 

InAQY& On August 21, 1991, in the Eastern 

District of Tennessee, Greenville, Tennessee, Ray 

R. Pleasant and William F. McMurray each 

entered guilty pleas before U.S. District Judge 

Thomas G. Hull to a criminal information 

charging violations of Federal environmental 

laws. The information charged Pleasant and 

McMurray with a violation of the CWA alleging 

negligent discharge of oil-contaminated water. 

Pleasant and McMurray were also charged with a 

violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

stemming from the deaths of numerous waterfowl 

as a result of the illegal discharge. The charges 

resulted from the defendants' actions on Memorial 

Day, May 27, 1991, when they pumped water 

contaminated with diesel fuel from underground 

storage tanks and from an excavated pit on 

Pleasant's property in Kingsport, Tennessee into a 

storm sewer which emptied into the Madd 

Branch of the Holston River. 

o Co-c.. et al. (D. 

Washineton): On September 18, 1991, the U.S. 

District Court, sitting in Yakima, Washington, 

entered into a plea agreement whereby the 

PureGro Company pled guilty to one FIFRA 

misdemeanor count. The case arose from the firm's 

application of a wastewater mixture from a 

company evaporator tank containing the 

pesticides Dyfonate and Telone I1 to a field near 

Pasco, Washington on May 12, 1987, in a manner 

inconsistent with the labeling of those pesticides. 

The pesticides were sprayed on the surface of the 

field without calibrating the amount or 

concentration of the pesticides, causing illness to 

several nearby residents. The Government 

dismissed four RCRA counts against the company 

and all the individual defendants. The Company 

was fined $15,000. In addition, the District Court 

ruled that, despite the "responsible corporate 

officer" doctrine, a corporate employee 

responsible for environmental and safety matters 

could be held criminally liable only for 

"knowing" conduct, and not for activities of others 

of which he "should have known." The court 

further held that the term "knowingly" modifies 

hazardous waste, as well as, treats, stores or 

disposes of. 

(W. D. Kentuckv): On May 

22, 1991, in the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Kentucky, sitting in 

Louisville, Queen Products Company (QPC) and 

John Thomas Cottrell were sentenced pursuant to 

their guilty pleas entered on March 20,1991, to an 

information charging violations of RCRA. QPC 

was also sentenced pursuant to its guilty plea to a 

one count information originating in the Southern 

District of Indiana, charging the company with 

the knowing disposal of hazardous waste without 

a permit. QPC, a corporation engaged in the 

manufacture of electrical enclosures, admitted to 

the knowing disposal of hazardous waste without 

a permit at its Louisville, Kentucky facility and 

at property owned by the president in 

Jeffersonville, Indiana. The company was 

sentenced to pay a fine of $165,000, half to be 

suspended upon payment of $82500 to the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky as restitution and an 

additional $10,000 to be paid to the State of 

Indiana as restitution. 

QPC was also placed on eighteen months 

probation, and ordered to publish a public 

apology and to incur the cost of remedial action at 

the sites. Cottrell, the former plant 

superintendent of QPC, admitted to the knowing 

transportation and disposal of hazardous waste 

without a permit. He was sentenced to serve four 

months incarceration of a three year sentence, the 

balance suspended, two years of probation, and to 

pay a total of $1O,ooO in fines. 

4-70 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

US. v. et al. (Ep. 

Tennb A jail term for an environmental crime was 

imposed against Gale Eugene Dean, the 

production manager of General Metal Fabricators, 

a metal coating facility in Irwin, Tennessee, and a 

division of Sanchez Enterprises, Inc. On August 5, 

1991, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of TeMeS.932 sentenced Dean to 40 months 

imprisonment for his part in the illegal disposal 

of spent solvents by burying the drums at the 

General Metal Fabricators' site between 1984 and 

1989. On August 22, 1991, Sanchez Entelprises, 

Inc. entered a plea of guilty to a single felony 

violation of RCRA for the illegal disposal of 

hazardous waste. The corporation was fined 

$150,000, of which $25,000 is to be paid into an 

environmental fund for the State of Tennessee. 

Massl In a case against one of the largest asbestos 

removal companies in Massachusetts, Saunders 

Asbestos Service and its foreman, Dominic 

Lamarra, were sentenced on April 1, 1991, in the 

District of Massachusetts, for violating the CWA 

by discharging large amounts of asbestos-laden 

wastewater into the Charles River. Lamarra was 

sentenced to four months incarceration, and the 

company to a $5,000 fine and 2 years probation. In 

1988, Lamarra supervised and directed his 

employees to wet down asbestos with water and 

then illegally dispose of the waste by pumping 

the asbestos-laden water into a street in 

Brookline, Massachusetts. The case is the result 

of the first joint environmental prosecution 

brought cooperatively by the United States 

Attorney's Office, the Commonwealths Attorney 

General's Office, and the Commonwealths 

Environmental Strike Force. 

On May 14, 

1991, United Technologies Corp. pleaded guilty to 

six felony violations of RCRA and was sentenced 

to pay a $3,000,000 fine, the largest criminal fine 

for a hazardous waste violation in the country. 

The case related to the use and disposal of an 

industrial solvent at the company's Sikorsky 

Aircraft Division in Stratford, CT. Workers at 

the facility sprayed the solvent on helicopter 

transmissions after the transmissions were tested. 

The resulting waste fell to the floor and was 

routinely hosed and squeegeed out the door onto 

the ground. An area of approximately 4,W 

square feet was contaminated and eventually 

removed by Sikorsky under EPA supervision. 

During the relevant period of time, Sikorsky, 

which employs 14,000 people, had one person 

responsible for environmental compliance for all 

of its facilities nationwide. 

US. 

m: 

v. MichaeL Weitzenhoff and Th~ma 

On October 2,1991, a jury, in the District 

Court in Hawaii, convicted two former 

government officials of the Hawaii Kai 

Wastewater Treatment Plant of Clean Water Act 

violations. The two were found guilty of illegally 

dumping tons of partially treated sewage sludge 

into the waters of Hawaii, and are the first 

individuals convicted in Hawaii of CWA 

violations. Michael Weitzenhoff, the formal 

plant manager, and Thomas Mariani, the former 

assistant manager, were convicted of five felony 

counts under the CWA, and of an additional 

conspiracy count, charging them with authorizing 

the illegal discharges. The government alleged 

the discharges occurred in 1988 and 1989 on an 

estimated 40 occasions. The discharges were 

secretly made at night to avoid detection. 

Although it was not possible to determine the 

exact amount discharged, an expert estimated 

that some 440,000 Ibs. of solids were in the 

millions of gallons of waste activated sludge 

discharged through the outfall. Sentencing is 

scheduled for January 13,1992. 

YS. v. Weverhawssx Co. (W.D. Washh@ml 

On November 16, 1990, the Weyerhaeuser 

Company agreed to enter a plea of guilty to five 

misdemeanor counts for violations of the CWA. 

The criminal charges stemmed from the 

unpermitted discharge over a nine year period of 

paint wastes and wash water into Shannon 

Slough, a tributary of the Keyholes River, from 

the end seal and stencil painting operation at the 

company's Aberdeen, Washington sawmill. As 

part of the plea agreement, Weyerhaeuser agreed 

to pay a $125,000 criminal fine and $375,000 will 

be placed in a trust fund to be controlled by public 

officials as a form of restitution to the citizens of 

Grays Harbor County. The money from the fund 

will be used for cleaning up and eradicating all 

pollution sources along the Shannon Slough. 

Trustees of the fund will be representatives of 

governmental entities, including EPA. This case 

was the first effort of the newly created 

Environmental Crimes Unit of the US. Attorney's 

Office for the Western District of Washington, 

now staffed full-time by two Assistant United 

States Attorneys. 

Contractor Listing 

Under the Clean Air Act CAA 5306 and 

4-71 
"u. 

FY I991 Enforcement Accomplishmenls Report 

the Clean Water Act CWA $508, €PA has 

authority to prevent facilities that violate 

Federal water pollution and air pollution 

requirements from receiving or being used in the 

performance of Federally funded contracts, 

grants or loans, by placing the facility on the 

List of Violating Facilities. Federal agencies are 

prohibited by statute from entering into 

contracts, grants or loans (including subcontracts, 

subgrants or subloans) to be performed at 

facilities owned or operated by persons who are 

convicted of violating air standards under CAA 

§113(c) or water standards under CWA $309(c). 

The prohibition is effective automatically on 

the date of the conviction. Facilities which are 

mandatorily listed remain on the List until €PA 

determines that they have corrected the 

conditions giving rise to the violations. 

Facilities with records of civil violations 

may also be listed, at the discretion of the 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, upon 

the recommendation of certain €PA officials, a 

State Governor, or a member of the public (this is 

referred to as discretionary listing), A facility 

may be recommended for listing if there are 

continuing or recurring violations of the CAA or 

CWA after one or more enforcement actions have 

been brought against the facility by EPA or a 

state enforcement agency. Facilities 

recommended for discretionary listing have a 

right to an informal administrative proceeding. 

Facilities.listed under discretionary listing may 

be removed from the.List automatically after one 

year, unless the basis for listing was a criminal 

conviction in a state court or a court order in a 

civil enforcement action. They may be removed 

from the List at any time if the Assistant 

Administrator determines that the facility has 

corrected the conditions which gave rise to the 

listing or that the facility is on a plan that will 

result in compliance. 

Two significant contractor listing cases in 

FY 1991 were Exxon Corvoration lExxon Bavway 

Refinerv. Bavonne Terminal and Inter-Refiner3 

Piveline) and Bir Apple Wrecking Corn. The 

Assistant Administrator's decision in the Exxon 

mandatory listing case established that a listed 

facility may include integrally related sites of 

operation constituting one complex facility, in 

this case a petrochemical refinery, pipeline, and 

terminal. 

In Big Aaole, a discretionary listing case 

against a construction and demolition company, 

the General Counsel upheld on appeal the 

Agency's interpretation of the definition of 

"facility" as including the business address of a 

construction company -- not the building or 

demolition site where the violation occurred. 

The General Counsel reversed on other grounds 

the Case Examiner's decision to list Big Apple, 

and remanded the case to the Case Examiner for 

further proceedings.: 

Gorp- In a 

discretionary listing proceeding against Big 

Apple Wrecking Corporation of Bronx, New York, 

an EPA Case Examiner had determined in 1990 

that Big Apple should be placed on the List. 

On appeal of the Case Examiner's decision by Big 

Apple, the General Counsel upheld EPA's 

interpretation of the "facility" to be listed as 

being the business address of a mobile or 

transitory business, rather than the site at which 

the violations occurred (which usually is not 

owned by the violator). However, the EPA Case 

Examiner's decision to place Big Apple on the List 

was vacated and remanded for further 

proceedings; the General Counsel held that he 

was unable to determine from the record of the 

proceeding whether the Case . Examiner had 

applied a wx rule that any series of violations 

could constitute "continuing or recurring 

violations" (the legal standard for discretionary 

listing), or whether the Case Examiner had 

conducted a case-by-case determination, as EPA 

had indicated it would in the 1985 preamble to 

the contractor listing regulations. Nevertheless, 

the General Counsel .held that there were 

undoubtedly numerous violations by Big Apple of 

the asbestos NESHAPS standards, which could 

constitute a basis for listing if the proper legal 

standard was applied. The General Counsel 

indicated that, on remand, the Region could 

initiate a new listing proceeding against Big 

Apple, or continue the current proceeding to 

clarify the application of the legal standard 

applied. 

m. In a mandatory listing case involving Exxon 

Company, U.S.A.'s (Exxon) Bayway Refinery, 

Bayonne Terminal, and Inter-Refinery Pipeline 

(IRPL), EPA determined that the three sites.of 

,operation are not independent facilities, and that 

Exxon's facility consisting of the three sites 

should remain on the List of Violating Facilities 

(List). Exxon's complex petrochemical facility. in 

Linden and Bayonne, NJ, was listed after Exxon 

4-72 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Corporation pled guilty to criminal violation of 

CWA 9 309(c) for spilling some 567,000 gallons of 

Number 2 heating oil into the Arthur Kill, as a 

result of negligent failures in training, 

supervision, and operation. 

In denying the first "independent facilities 

petition" filed under 40 CFR Part 15, the Acting 

Assistant Administrator relied upon the 

historical, operational, personnel, and budgetary 

connections among the three sites of operation, 

finding that the IRPL was controlled solely by 

employees and managers of the Terminal and the 

Refinery, and that together the three sites were 

part of a larger system serving a unitary purpose. 

The Acting Assistant Administrator also noted 

that even if the Terminal and Refinery were 

independent, each could be listed properly, 

because each could be deemed to be a facility 

which gave rise to Exxon Corp.'s conviction, in 

view of the responsibilities each had for 

operating the IRPL. Therefore, all three sites 

were properly placed on the List, and remained 

listed pending resolution of Exxon's petition for 

removal of the facility from the List. 

Steel CPIPI: A 

discretionary listing action against three 

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. (WheelingPittsburgh) facilities for continuing or recurring 

violations of the CWA was concluded when 

Wheeling-Pittsburgh entered into a Consent 

Decree, settling the civil enforcement actions 

against it. The discretionary listing case played 

an important role in facilitating the settlement of 

the judicial enforcement actions against 

Wheeling-Pittsburgh, which included a 

$6,000,000 civil penalty. 

Multi-Media Enforcement 

In FY 1990, 

EPA became aware of serious CAA asbestos 

NESHAPs violations in connection with the 

demolition of BSC's Basic Oxygen Furnace at its 

Lackawanna, New York plant. At that time, EPA 

initiated a case concerning this violation, and 

scheduled a full multi-media inspection for the 

first quarter of FY 1991. As a result of this 

inspection and other information EPA gathered 

subsequently, EPA identified an additional 

serious asbestos violation in connection with the 

demolition of the Slab Mill, and significant 

EPCRA and CWA/SPCC violations. EPA issued 

an administrative complaint for the- EPCRA 

violation; EPA issued several administrative 

orders to BSC and its contractors for the 

CAA/NESHAPs violations; EPA prepared an 

administrative complaint for the CWA/SPCC 

violation, which will be issued in early N 1992; 

and EPA terminated settlement negotiations with 

BSC, and requested that DOJ immediately file a 

civil action for the asbestos violations (which 

was done on October 1,1991). EPA also continued 

to oversee implementation of a RCRA §3008(h) 

order issued to BSC in FY 1990 addressing cleanup 

of contamination at the facility. 

On June 28,1991, Region 

111 issued complaints under 516 of the TSCA and 

53008(a) of RCRA against the Boeing Company, 

Ridley Township; PA. The complaints were issued 

following a multi-media investigation of the 

Boeing Helicopter Company Division. The RCRA 

complaint alleges fifteen counts, including the 

failure to provide LDR prohibition levels on 107 

LDR notifications, failure to ensure that facility 

personnel complete initial safety training 

programs, and failure to remedy the deterioration 

or malfunction of equipment or structures, which 

an inspection had revealed, on a schedule that 

ensures the .problem does not lead to an 

environmental or human health hazard. The 

TSCA complaint alleges nine counts, including 

marking, storage and record keeping violations of 

the PCB Rule. 

.. 

EPA perform'eci a 

comprehensive multi-media inspection of this 

contractor-operated Federal facility located on 

Long Island, New York, and documented serious 

violations in a number of media. EPA issued 

administrative complaints citing serious TSCA 

and RCRA violations. 'EPA also issued an 

administrative order under the Clean Air Act for 

asbestos NESHAPs violations; EPA identified 

serious CWA/SPCC violations, which will be the 

subject of an administrative complaint to be issued 

in early FY 1992. Further, EPA is in the process of 

negotiating plume stabilization measures (a 

pumpand-treat system), and a CERCLA IAG for 

long-term cleanup of contaminated groundwater. 

Finally, EPA required the submission of 

information'pursuant to 9114 of the CAA and is 

investigating potential violations of PSD and 

VOC regulations. 

Caldwell Systems (CSI), 

a defunct commercial hazardous waste incinerator 

in North Carolina, was the subject of a public 

health advisory by a TSDR in July 1990. Region 

IV issued a RCRA §3008(h) order in May 1991, 

4-73 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

requiring corrective action in response to releases 

that occurred at .the CSI site. The Region also 

conducted a site investigation under §104(b) of 

CERCLA to establish whether the site poses any 

current risk to area residents, and to identify 

information relevant to the corrective action 

under the RCRA order. 

On December 20,1990, the 

Region I11 Regional Administrator signed a 

CERCLA unilateral administrative order for .the 

East 10th Street Site in Marcus Hook, PA. This 

order was issued to several past and present 

owners and operators of. the site. The order 

requires the respondents to identify and properly 

dispose of bagged and loose asbestos, identify and 

properly dispose, of drums of PCB-containing 

materials and other hazardous substances, and to 

identify and properly dispose of other PCB 

contamination. These tasks are to be completed in 

compliance with the CAA and TSCA. The order 

also restricts and conditions access to the site by 

the respondents and their agents. 

Phar Oil and ljm 

Oil Well ViCWA and SDWA authorities were used. to stop 

unpermitted discharges. The Region used its 

authority under both the CWA and the SDWA to 

address violations at two separate oil well 

operations in Kentucky. In one case, against 

Hawk, Inc., and Phar Oil, the Region negotiated 

a combined settlement of $8,000 with .these 

parties for the unpermitted injection of brine into 

wells. The enforcement action was the result of. 

joint inspections by EPA. and the State of 

Kentucky. In addition to the penalty, Hawk 

completed remedial, actions to stop. the 

unpermitted discharges. 

The Region used the same approach in enforcing 

against similar violations by Jim Daugherty in 

the Taffy Field in Ohio County, Kentucky. To 

settle this matter, Daugherty agreed to obtain a 

UIC permit for one of the wells, to plug and 

properly abandon. four other injection wells, to 

monitor all wells and take any other necessary 

corrective actipn. He also agreed,to pay a penalty 

of55,000. * 

.. 

A consent 

agreement and administrative penalty order was 

filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk on August 

27, 1991 to fully resolve a CWA administrative 

action against the, Florida Department of 

Corrections (DOC) for NPDES violations at the 

Lawtey Correctional Institute in Lawtey, Florida. 

The agreement requires payment of a $12,6W 

penalty and the implementation of a mitigation 

project consisting. of a Radon survey and 

abatement work at Lawtey and other DOC 

facilities. 

Region 1V had cited the Lawtey facility for 

exceedances of its NPDES permit limits and 

assessed a Class I administrative penalty of 

$25,000 against the DOC. In exchange for a 50% 

reduction in the penalty, the DOC offered a series 

of environmentally beneficial projects. the Region 

accepted a Radon project valued at 535,000, 

which involves a survey to determine the levels 

of radon at DOC facilities. Those facilities with 

radon readings above recommended levels will 

undergo remediation to. reduce the radon 

emissions. /. 

., 

Deoot FeCOmOliance: On July 17,1991, Region 

111 and the Department of the Army entered into 

a multi-media Federal Facility Compliance 

Agreement (FFCA) regarding the Letterkenny 

Army Depot. The FFCA resolves numerous 

outstanding RCRA and CWA violations and is 

designed to bring the Depot into RCRA and CWA 

compliance. The FFCA also commits the Depot to 

perform a multi-media environmental audit of 

the Depot, and further establishes pollution 

prevention and waste minimization projects to 

reduce the production and disposal of hazardous 

wastes at the Depot. 

.. 

RCRA was the lead program. with the UIC 

program in issuing an Order to LL&E for failure to 

notify in a timely manner, pursuant to RCRA, of 

benzene injections. The State cited LL&E for UIC 

and base RCRA violations and assessed a 525,000 

penalty. LL&E owns an oil refinery in southern 

Alabama which injects wastewater into Class I 

UIC well. LL&E injection well was erroneously 

permitted as a Class I1 well (a well associated 

with production of oil and gas). LL&E injected 

benzene into the well on several occasions in 

amounts in excess of the Land Disposal Restricted 

Treatment Standards. EPAs RCRA program 

coordinated and led a multi-media inspection at 

the facility. As a result of the order, the facility 

then made .process changes that rendered the 

waste non-hazardous. 

On April 12, 

1991, the State of Maine entered into a consent 

4-74 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

decree with the International Paper Company. 

Under the consent decree, International Paper 

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $885,000 to 

resolve multi-media violations of the State's 

environmental regulations. The State of Maine 

inspected International Paper's Jay, ME facility, 

the largest paper mill in the state, in 1988 and 

found numerous violations of the RCRA 

regulations, as well as of water, air, hazardous 

matter, and waste oil regulations. The consent 

decree requires International Paper to comply 

with all the applicable federal and state 

environmental regulations and provide testing, 

analysis, and monitoring of the site. 

-: RCRA 

and UIC issued a Consent Agreement and final 

Order with an April 23, 1991 effective date to 

Monsanto for disposing hazardous wastes in a 

surface impoundment and the subsequent injection 

of the waste to a UIC well. The order assessed a 

total penalty of $29,300 for the RCRA and UIC 

violations. The Monsanto Chemical Company 

plant in Pensacola, Florida had a spill of maleic 

anhydride, a land disposal restricted waste on 

July IO, 1990. Because the material was 

discharged into Monsanto's surface 

impoundments, all of the material in the 

impoundments became a listed hazardous waste 

under RCRA's mixture rules. When the liquid 

from the impoundments was then injected into an 

underground injection well that was not permitted 

to receive listed waste, a violation of the SDWA 

occurred. 

OnDecember 

31, 1990, a Federal Facility Compliance 

Agreement (FFCA) was signed with the NASA 

Langley Research Center located in Hampton, 

VA. This FFCA addresses violations of both the 

CWA and the TSCA and represented the first 

multi-media FFCA completed in the Region. 

Since this facility is in the Chesapeake Bay 

drainage basin, the FFCA helped the 

Chesapeake Bay Program goal of bringing 

Federal facilities in the Chesapeake drainage 

basin into compliance with environmental laws 

v: 

by the end of December 1990. 

This facility, located in a 

densely populated area of New York City, was 

found to be operating with virtually no proper 

management of its hazardous feedstock and waste 

streams. Toxic chemicals were leaking into the 

ground, and there was almost no security to 

prevent persons from entering into the plant area. 

.. 

A multi-media inspection identified significant 

RCRA and EPCRA violations. A CERCLA 

removal order on consent was issued for clean up of 

the waste materials and reimbursement of EPAs 

oversight costs. The order was complied with. 

Administrative complaints citing RCRA and 

EPCRA violations were then issued, seeking 

penalties of about $1 million. 

US. v. Nevillecal Comoanv: On 

September 30,1991, EPA issued an administrative 

complaint to Neville Chemical Company, 

Pittsburgh, PA for violations of the chemical 

reporting requirements under 58 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act. The complaint assessed a 

penalty of $78,000. On the same date, EPA issued 

a CAA administrative compliance order to 

Neville ordering the company to comply with the 

benzene Waste Operation National Emissions 

Standard for Hazardous Pollutants. This facility 

is one of the targeted sites in the Region's cross 

media risk-based enforcement project. 

& Gas -: - On September 15, 

1991, EPA executed a CERCLA 5106 Order on 

Consent with Oxy, the past owner and operator of 

a contaminated area in Copperhill, Polk County, 

TeMeSsee. Oxy has agreed to operate a 

wastewater treatment plant that treats acid mine 

drainage, deep mine waters, and contaminants 

from an abandoned tailings pond, until the 

influent to the plant meets water quality 

standards. Oxy will also conduct a hydrogeologic 

study of the area, install ground monitoring wells, 

and upgrade the wastewater treatment plant. 

Effluent limitations established by the State of 

Tennessee's NPDES permit program are included 

in the order as ARARs, and OXY has agreed to 

pay stipulated penalties if the effluent from the 

plant violates the ARARs. 

Peach Metals Industries. Inc. Site - On February 12, 1991, 

the Region issued a CERCLA 106 Unilateral 

Administrative Order requiring the removal of 

numerous 55-gallon drums and vats containing 

electroplating chemicals and other plating 

process wastes, and all associated contamination 

from an abandoned electroplating facility. The 

order also required the removal of all 

contamination contained in and about a surface 

impoundment and drainage ditch at the facility. 

Prior to the issuance of the order, EPA coordinated 

its enforcement action with the State of Georgia. 

Immediately after issuance of the EPA Order, the 

State issued an administrative enforcement order, 

4-75 
pursuant to 'its' RCRA-equivalent , statute, 

requiring the present owners to apply for a 

'Closure/Post-closure RCRA Permit and to conduct 

corrective actionb) at the facility. 

The corrective action(s) required by Georgia's 

order involved addressing . groundwater 

contamination problems (releases from the surface 

impoundment primarily) from the disposal of 

hazardous wastes at. the facility. 

,. 

On September 30, 1991, Region In entered into an 

administrative order by consent pursuant to 51431 

of the SDWA and 5106 and 5122.of CERCLA. The 

consent order settles an appeal to the Third 

Circuit Court of Appeals of an .administrative 

order issued.by EPA on February 11,1991. Region 

111 had issued its first combined SDWA and 

CERCLA unilateral administrative order to 

Precision National Plating Services, Inc. requiring 

remedial action for groundwater contamination at 

the company's Clark's Summit, PA facility. EPAs 

order.found that underground drinking water was 

contaminated by. chromium. released from 

Precision National's facility. The appeal of the, 

order will be withdrawn as part of the 

settlement. , ., 

lLS. v. S2Il-h~ OnSeptember 25,.1991, a. 

consent order was issued assessing a penalty of 

$710,000 against SICPA Industries of America for 

violations of TSCA 55, 58, and 513 and EPCRA 

5313. SICPAS violations of TSCA include among 

other things, the failure to file a pre-manufacture 

notification before importing a new chemical 

substance on 54 days in 1984 and 1985 and failing 

to certify .that the& imports. either complied 

with the requirements of TSCA.or were not subject 

to TSCA. The agreed penalty for all TSCA 

violations reflected in the consent order, including 

those voluntarily disclosed to, EPA during 

settlement. negotiations, is $681,100, believed to 

be the largest penalty ever collected by Region I11 

for violations of TSCA. The EPCRA penalty was 

$28,900. ' ,, 

Region' I11 issued an 

SDWadministrative order by consent under RCRA.and 

the SDWA to STAR Enterprises, a joint venture 

partnership in which Texaco Marketing, Inc. has 

an interest, to address a massive release of oil 

that is migrating under a residential area in 

Fairfax, VA. 

The order constituted an arrangement. for, the 

removal of oil within the meaning of 5311(c)(l) of 

the CWA. In order to obtain access for STAR to 

perform the work, it was necessary for the United 

States to file suit against 'the Stockbridge 

Community Association which owns an 8.3 acre 

parcel of property between the site from which, 

the oil apparently originated and a community of 

residences. The Association had refused to grant 

access voluntarily becauseits members were angry 

about the spill and about the threats of explosion 

and drinking water contamination the spill 

presents. Access was granted by the Court on 

October 2,1991, and work has commenced. 

ys. v. -, 

Region I11 sent USX a draft RCRA consent order 

for corrective actions and also issued 

administrative penalty complaints under the 

CWA and TSCA and the United States sent a 

demand for stipulated penalties for violations of 

the consent decree in US. et a1 v. USX Corn ., in 

response to violations at USXs Fairless Hills, PA 

steel plant. I The draft RCRA order seeks .to 

initiate a process whereby. USX would 

characterize the extent of hazardous waste 

deposition at the Fairless facility, evaluate the 

risks posed by that contamination, and prepare 

and evaluate alternatives for remediation. This 

site was one of the targeted sites in the Region's 

cross media, risk- based enforcement project. . 

The first Federal charges as a 

result of an investigation conducted by the 

Philadelphia Environmental Task Force were 

filed on September 11, 1991. York Metal Finishing 

Company and its owner Edwin, Walter were 

charged with storing hazardous waste without a 

permit and with discharging polluted 

wastewaters containing cyanide into the 

Philadelphia sewer system. The, defendants 

have agreed to pay $120,000 to reimburse the City 

and to pay a fine to the federal government of 

$100,000 for RCRA and CWA violations.. In 

addition, the company's discharge to the sewer 

system has ceased and the illegally stored drums 

have been removed. Sentencing for the defendants 

has not been scheduled. The Philadelphia 

Environmental Task Force was formed to organize 

and coordinate Federal, state, and local resources 

to more effectively investigate and prosecute 

environmental crimes. 

4-76 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

V. Building and Maintaining a Strong National Enforcement Program 

Program Development 

FY 1991 Pollution Prevention Activities 

A strong enforcement program creates a climate of deterrence which forcefully encourages 

pollution prevention on the part of the regulated community. The costs of being in violation - both the 

direct litigation costs as well as those resulting from remediation and civil or criminal penalties -- may 

be substantial. Compliance with stringent regulatory requirements creates an incentive for companies to 

find better ways to reduce and manage their waste. 

Once the Agency has detected a violation and initiated an enforcement action, it can use its 

formal negotiations/settlement process to fashion pollution prevention conditions as part of the consent 

order or decree. During FY 1991, the Agency issued two policies relating to the systematic use of 

pollution prevention conditions in enforcement settlements: The Policv on the Use of Supplemental 

Environmental Proiects in Enforcement Settlements(February 12,1991) and the Interim Policv on the Use 

of Pollution Prevention and Recvcline - Conditions in Arrencv Enforcement Settlements (February 25, 

1991). Both encourage the federal negotiators to incorporate pollution prevention conditions in both 

single and multi-media settlements when feasible, and lay out the boundaries and criteria the Agency 

will use to consider whether to seek and/or accept a pollution prevention activity as a basis for 

compliance and/or penalty mitigation activity. The Agency is interested in proposals that not merely 

transfer problems from one media to another, but is instead seeking genuine and permanent source 

reduction. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) 

Section 204 of the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 mandated that the Administrator establish 

the National Enforcement Training Institute within the Office of Enforcement to train Federal, State, 

and local lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators, and technical experts in the enforcement 

of the Nation's environmental laws. During FY 1991, the Agency took several steps to meet that 

statutory mandate. 

An Advisory Council consisting of 38 representatives from EPA (Headquarters and the Regions), 

the NEIC, DOJ, State and local governments, and academia was formed to focus on significant 

enforcement training issues such as developing alternative funding approaches to assure that the NETI 

is self-sustaining, communications, outreach/delivery, and adequacy and effectiveness of enforcement 

curricula. 

A key element of the NETI's training mission is the development and delivery of basic 

enforcement training with a multi-disciplinary, multi-media perspective. An agenda for this course 

was prepared and circulated for comnient. New training on the Clean Air Act Amendments, RCRA, the 

Non-APA Consolidated Rules (Part 26, and an Enforcement Workshop for Lab Personnel were developed 

and delivered. Existing generic enforcement skills courses covering inspections, criminal investigations, 

financial case analyses, technical and scientific case development, information systems, enforcement 

communications, enforcement negotiations, and administrative practices and procedures were brought 

under the NETI "umbrella." Over 1800 enforcement personnel at the Federal, State, and local levels 

were trained in more than 60 courses delivered at EPA Headquarters and the Regions, the NEIC, and 

FLETC. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

5-1 
f$&) FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Addendum on Multi-Media Enforcement 

The Office of Enforcement drafted an Addendum on Multi-Media Enforcement to the policv 

Framework on State/Federal Enforcement Ameements (1986). This Addendum describes EPA's 

approach to multi-media enforcement and encourages, but does not require, States to undertake multimedia enforcement; lays out how EPA will build state capacity; outlines general processes for advance 

notice and consultation including strategic planning, enforcement cluster planning, and case screening. 

Most importantly, the Addendum lays out principles for multi-media enforcement by EPA in delegated 

or approved states that reflect the criteria in the Policv Framework. Members of the Steering 

committee on the State/Federal Enforcement Relationship, EPA's Programs Offices and Regions 

commented extensively on this draft in the last quarter of M 1991. OE will issue the final Addendum 

during FY 1992. (For further information contact OCAPO) I. 

Contractor Listing Policy on The Role of Corporate Attitude, 

Policies, Practices and Procedures . , 

EPA issued a policy statement clarifying the role of corporate attitude, policies, practices and 

procedures in determining whether the condition giving rise to a criminal conviction has been corrected. 

This policy has been applied in several recent cases. Such policies, practices and procedures will 

always be relevant when a facility that has been listed as the result of a criminal conviction requests 

removal from the List. The significance of these factors will depend upon the degree of intent involved 

in the violation. Cases in,volving fraud, concealment, falsification or deliberate deception are the most 

serious. 

Factors which EPA will consider relevant include the existence or lack of appropriate and 

effective programs to prevent and detect environmental problems and violations of law; appropriate 

and effective training programs; effective communication of standards for employees, and enforcement 

of those standards; and appropriate and effective corrective action (including environmental audits in 

appropriate cases) after a problem or violation has been detected. (For further information contact 

OCAPO) 

Penalty Calculation Models (BEN and ABEL) 

The BEN model, which is used to.calculate a violator's economic gain from noncompliance, was 

used over 4,000 times by the EPA and 36 States. It was used in two States to set all time record civil 

penalties in two enforcement actions. It is estimated that the ABEL model, which is used to analyze 

violators' claims that they cannot afford to pay for compliance or penalties, was used in a similar 

number of instances. The Office of Enforcement provides consultation help on inquiries and conducts 

training courses in the Regions, Headquarters and one local government enforcement program (For 

further information contact OCAPO) 

Federal Facility Enforcement 

In 1991, the Deputy Administrator approved an OE reorganization which created the new Office 

of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE). This reorganization consolidated the Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response's (OSWERs) Federal facilities program with those Federal facility-related 

functions previously assigned to.the Office of Federal Activities (OFA). OFFE is charged with securing 

compliance by Federal agencies with all environmental laws. The creation of OFFE reflects EPAs 

commitment to multi-media enforcement of environment laws against Federal facilities. 

5-2 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

The Federal government manages a vast array of industrial activities at its 27,000 installations. 

These activities present unique management problems from the standpoint of compliance with Federal 

environmental statutes. Although Federal facilities are only a small percentage of the regulated 

community, many Federal installations are larger and more complex than private facilities and often 

present a greater number of sources of hazardous waste requiring cleanup. During FY 1991, a total of 15 

Federal agencies reported a combined budget of approximately 52.9 billion to be devoted to 

environmental programs in the various media areas. This amount, a new record, was almost double the 

FY 1990 record of $1.5 billion. 

EPA has continued to encourage compliance at Federal facilities through a vigorous enforcement 

and outreach program. Nationwide, over 820 inspections were conducted at Federal facilities during 

Fiscal Year 1991. The cornerstone of the enforcement program dealing with the 116 Federal facilities 

listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) is the negotiation of an enforceable Interagency Agreement 

(IAG) under CERCLA at each facility, with specific schedules for cleanup of the hazardous wastes at 

the sites located on those installations. During FY 1991, EPA negotiated 24 agreements under CERCLA 

to accomplish required hazardous waste cleanups, for a total of 85 IAGs signed to date with other 

Federal agencies. Additionally, to date EPA has signed 70 Federal Facility Compliance Agreements 

(FFCA's) and issued 18 Unilateral Orders and Administrative Consent Orders with other Federal 

agencies under statutes other than CERCLA. 

EPA took several precedent setting actions in Federal facilities cases during FY 1991. One of the 

most significant of these came as a result of a stipulated penalty dispute at the Department of Energy 

(DOE) Fernald facility. This was the first time a stipulated penalty dispute under a CERCLA IAG was 

elevated all the way to the EPA Administrator for resolution. In May 1991 the dispute was settled. 

The settlement provided that DOE pay $100,000 in fines and spend $150,000 on extra environmental 

projects at Fernald. This settlement received national attention by the Federal regulated community. 

Another difficult and complex negotiation with DOE covered RCRA violations at the Rocky 

Flats Plant in Colorado. The agreement, signed in May 1991, requires DOE to take steps to come into and 

maintain compliance with the land disposal restrictions ("land ban") provisions of RCRA. In this case, 

in lieu of stipulated penalties, a system was devised whereby EPA will be able to cite violations of the 

agreement and declare the amount of the penalty that would have been assessed against a private 

party in similar circumstances. DOE, in turn, must report the violation and the penalty amount to 

Congress. 

EPA also negotiated a federal facility compliance agreement to address TSCA violations at the 

DOE gaseous diffusions plants in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Also in the TSCA area, EPA 

negotiated a TSCA compliance agreement with the Navy to address the large number of Naval vessels 

contaminated with PCBs. 

On September 13, 1991, EPA signed a Federal Facility Interagency Agreement under CERCLA 

Section 120 with the Department of Interior, the Department of the Army, and the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency, which provides for remedial action at the Crab Orchard National 

Wildlife Refuge. The agreement is the first to date between the Department of the Interior and EPA 

pursuant to CERCLA Section 120 and it is one of the first, if not the first CERCLA Section 120 agreement 

to include more than one other federal agency as a PRP. It is also the first CERCLA Section 120 

agreement to provide for private party participation in remedial activities pursuant to Sections 120 (e) 

(6) and 122 of CERCLA. 

The EPA Federal facilities program also represented the Agency on the Defense Environmental 

Response Task Force, an interagency group tasked with reporting to Congress under the Base Closure and 

Realignment Act of 1988. On November 5,1991, the Task Force submitted its report, which addressed: 

5-3 
@) FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

a) ways to improve interagency coordination within existing laws, regulations, and administrative 

policies; and b) ways to consolidate and streamline, within existing laws and regulations,the practices, 

policies, and administrative procedures of relevant federal and state agencies in order to expedite 

response actions. EPA is continuing the base closure discussion. To support this effort, EPA established a .,. ' formal internal workgroup on base closure issues during FY 1991. .!. , 

EPA also worked during FY 1991 to develop a consistent approach to the environmental issues 

associated with the closure of military bases. The initial focus of this effort was on Pease' Air Force 

Base in Portsmouth, N.H., where a proposal has been made to redevelop a portion of the base as an 

aircraft maintenance facility. The EPA Federal facilities program facilitated the deve1opm:ent of an 

agency position that would enable the base to be redeveloped in an environmentally sound manner 

while at the same time ensuring that the Air Force can discharge its responsibilities under CERCLA. . 

EPA continues to recognize that it is far more efficient to prevent pollution problems at Federal 

installations through educational outreach before those problems actually occur. .The Agency has 

continued to seek fundamental change in the behavior and understanding of Federal agency personnel 

regarding responsibilities in the environmental arena. To promote this change, EPA has continued .to. 

coordinate a number of important interagency educational and outreach efforts in the enforcement area 

to accomp1ish:this goal. For example, during FY 1991 EPA continued to host the highly successful 

EPA/Federal Agency Environmental Roundtable, where representatives of approximately 50 Federal 

agencies meet monthly to exchange information. At the Roundeble, EPA media experts discuss existing 

or proposed regulatory approaches affecting compliance by the other Federal agencies. .The Roundtable,. 

also provides a forum for an exchange of technological information between agencies. ' , ... ,, .. 

EPA also continued a high-level dialogue. with DOD and DOE to improve protection of the 

environment at installations under their control. This was accomplished through the efforts of a 

steering committee consisting of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment), the Director 

of the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Ma,nagement at DOE, the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator for Federal Facilities, Enforcement at EPA, and seven workgroups consisting of, subject 

matter "experts" from each of the three agencies: These'workgroups are developing position papers and 

approaches to remove barriers, to developing effective compliance and cleanup programs.' These 

position papers will be coordinated throughout EPA. ,I ,t. ' 

To facilitate close coordination throughout the Agency on Federal facilities issues, the EPA 

Federal facilities program established a "Leadership Council" consisting of headquarters 

representatives, regional officials from program offices and regional Counsels as members., The. 

Leadership Council met for the first time during FY 1991. It has focused initially on policy matters and 

strategic initiatives related to cleanup programs at Federal .facilities. Priority topics included 

oversight, accelerated cleanups, technology development and base closure. ., 

. .. I' 

Also during FY 1991, OFFE began a pivotal national dialogue on Federal Facility Environmental 

Management. The participants in this effort, facilitated by the Keystone Center, met several- times: 

during FY 1991. This multi-party group includes representatives from DOD, DOE, EPA, State and tribal 

govemments,environmental and public interest groups; The group has focused on the development 'of a 

consensus concerning priority setting for the cleanup of federal facilities., Its deliberations will continue 

in FY 1992. (For further information contact OFFE) .. 

I.. , ., 

.,,, i. .. 

,. . .. 

,.. .. 

5-4 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

National Reports on M 1991 EPA and State Performance 

Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response 

The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response concept seeks to establish predictable 

enforcement responses by both EPA and the States, with each media program defining target 

timeframes for the timely escalation of enforcement responses. Tracking of timeframes commences on 

the date the violation is detected through to the date when formal enforcement action is initiated. 

The programs have also defined what constitutes an appropriate formal enforcement response based on 

the nature of the violation, including defining when the imposition of penalties or other sanctions is 

appropriate. Each year OE compiles an end-of-year report which summarizes the performance by each 

of the media programs. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

National Penalty Report 

Each year, EPA produces a comprehensive analysis of the financial penalties EPA obtained from 

violators of environmental laws. The report contains an Agency-wide overview for each program and 

compares annual performance with historical trends. (see Appendix) 

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

Each year, EPA assembles an end-of-year report which summarizes quantitative indicators of 

EPA and State enforcement activities on a State-by-State basis. The FY 1991 report is scheduled for 

publication in May 1992. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan 

As part of EPA's Agency-wide strategic planning process, the Office of Enforcement developed a 

comprehensive enforcement plan with both media-specific and cross-media components. The 

Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan outlines the capabilities which will be needed to enhance 

enforcement efforts for the future. Several of these efforts are now being implemented on a pilot basis, 

while others will be fully developed over the next several years. The Strategic Plan is a sound guide 

for the Agency's future enforcement efforts. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

Enforcement in the 1990's 

The decade of the 1990s represents a new era in environmental enforcement as the Federal, State 

and local governments and citizen's groups better combine their resources to vigorously enforce the 

nation's environmental laws. The strategic planning reflected in the Enforcement Four-Year Strateeic 

In FY 1991, the Office of 

Enforcement, other EPA personnel in Headquarters and the Regions, and, in some instances, non-EPA 

personnel, produced reports, collected in the Enforcement in the 1990's Project. which complement the 

earlier Strateeic Plan. These final reports provide recommendations for action in six discrete areas: 

measures of success, the State/Federal relationship, environmental rulemaking, innovative 

enforcement techniques, compliance incentives, and the role of local governments. 

set themes and directions for the Agency's enforcement program. 

The 1990's Pro.Wreports establish an agenda that points in new directions and identify numerous 

action steps for EPA staff at Headquarters, the Regions, the States, the local governments, and citizens. 

EPA has begun to implement many of these, and more will be undertaken in the near future. The 

Enforcement in the 1990's Proiect provided valuable, practical ideas whose implementation will 

strengthen significantly the Agency's enforcement program. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

5-5 
@) FY 1991 E~orcemenr Accomplishmenfs Report 

Intergovernmental/International Enforcement Activities 

International Environmental Enforcement Training 

' Environmental issues have become a global concern and many countries are developing 

requirements to protect the environment. Without a strong program to ensure compliance with those 

requirements and deter violators, however, environmental requirements will not achieve their intended 

results. 

In FY.1991, the US. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with Poland's Ministry of 

Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry, the Katowice Ecological Department and 

the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, developed a three-day 

environmental enforcement training course to address these issues This course was designed for 

international use by many countries and cultures. The goal of the course is to develop a replicable 

training program on environmental enforcement principles for any country, or locale .interested in 

enhancing compliance and achieving results. By introducing policy-makers, including government 

officials, industry and academic leaders, and private citizens, to essential elements in the design of 

enforcement programs, the course will create a forum within which officials can design their own 

environmental management approach, write enforceable requirements and structure their own 

compliance monitoring and enforcement programs. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

Mexican Border 

In FY 1991, EPA released the Integrated Environmental Plan for the US.-Mexico Border Area for 

public comment. The plan is currently in the process of being revised. The integrated plan for the border 

is part of a larger plan by which the economies of Canada, the US. and Mexico will be further united in 

the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The NAFTA will incorporate the integrated 

plan for the border as part of the Administration's commitment to help strengthen environmental 

protection on both sides of the border. 

SEDUE (Mexico's EPA) and EPA are jointly responsible for administering the plan and have made 

commitments to initiate cooperative environmental protection, monitoring and enforcement activities in 

the coming years. Among the priorities identified in the plan are: control of municipal and industrial 

discharges to surface waters; tracking the movement of hazardous waste and the proper disposal of 

waste to prevent surface or subsurface water contamination; controlling and reducing air pollution 

sources; and development of pint contingency response plans for spills of hazardous materials. These 

initiatives will be implemented through the cooperative efforts of SEDUE, EPA and the states as 

embodied in the Border plans and its annexes. (For further information contact OE-Water) 

Clean Air Act 

Inspector Training Delivery Demonstration 

EPA signed a multi-year, cooperative agreement with Rutgers University at Cook College and 

the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Environmental and Occupational Health 

Sciences Institute to demonstrate and deliver quality compliance inspector training on a quarterly basis. 

to State, local, and EPA compliance staff. The training will fulfill requirements of EPA Order 3500.1. 

While this training is not required of State/local personnel, State/local officials have identified the 

need for systematic training and indicated a strong desire to participate. Non-agency personnel may 

5-6 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

attend if space is available. The agreement is a turn-key operation requiring communication and 

marketing, training delivery, and evaluation functions. (For further information contact Stationary 

Source Compliance Division (SSCD)) 

Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy 

The Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy is part of the Agency Lead Strategy which is intended to 

lower population exposure to lead. To accomplish this goal, the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) identified 29 lead sources in non-attainment areas. These sources were inspected to 

determine compliance status. Enforcement actions were initiated against eight sources for violations of 

SIP requirements and ambient air quality standards. To ensure accurate recording of data, OAQPS has 

positioned two monitors at each source to monitor the ambient air quality. In addition to the monitoring 

efforts, OAQPS is recommending changes to SIPS in order to provide greater enforceability in 

regulations. (For further information contact SSCD) 

Rule Effectiveness 

The Stationary Source Compliance Division has been working to revise the Rule Effectiveness 

protocol. Revisions stress State involvement in the program and address calculation methods and 

application of the results of the studies to challenge the 80 percent effectiveness default value in the 

ozone strategy. The national protocol document should be issued early in FY 1992. (For further 

information contact SSCD) 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

SSCD issued the Revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) on March 29,1991. The revised 

CMS provides a more flexible and systematic approach for determining State inspection commitments. 

This strategy recommends the development of a comprehensive inspection plan that identifies all 

sources committed to be inspected by the State agency during their fiscal year, and the subsequent 

evaluation of the commitments by the Regional Office at the end of the year. 

The first year of CMS implementation demonstrated that a closer coordination and exchange 

between the Region and State was possible by encouraging flexibility in determining the Inspection 

Plan for the following year. This and other lessons learned from the implementation of CMS have been 

used to revise and subsequently strengthen the Strategy. This coordination and open negotiation is 

encouraged and strengthened under the revised CMS. 

The revised CMS requires additional reporting activities and responsibilities. Additional 

reporting is justified in the interest of developing the most environmentally effective inspection 

program in a given State, and as a basis for more open and informal planning and negotiation between 

the State and EPA. These efforts will help build a stronger State-Federal partnership. In addition to 

reporting activities and responsibilities, a network of CMS Regional Representatives has been 

established to ensure successful implementation of the strategy. (For further information contact SSCD) 

Early Reductions - State Delegation 

Under the Early Reductions Programs, a source must submit an enforceable commitment to EPA or 

its delegatee, pledging to achieve the required emission reductions to qualify for a six year extension of 

compliance with MACT. 

A draft "Early Reductions Program; State Delegation Manual' was prepared to combine some of 

the requirements currently used by NSPS, NESHAP, and ED programs. Recommendations are provided 

5-7 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

on the criteria a Regional Office should consider in evaluating a State's request for delegation. (For 

further information contact SSCD) 

Significant Violator/Timely and Appropriate Guidance 

A substantial revision to the Agency's Significant Violator (SV) and Timely and Appropriate 

Guidances has been under development during the past two years to: (1) encourage a greater degree of 

team-building and cooperative resolution of Significant Violators by all responsible agencies, (2) 

encourage agencies to give priority attention to those violators which they believe are most 

environmentally important; (3) permit an increased degree of agency flexibility in identifying and 

resolving Significant Violations and, (4) provide a more accurate picture of the time and resources 

necessary to bring and maintain major sources into a state of continuous compliance. 

The guidance specifically defines what a Significant Violator is and gives agencies two options 

in resolving them. They may resolve Significant Violators or prioritize the Significant Violators 

with the use of a checklist provided in the guidance. The violators would then be resolved according to 

their ranking. The guidance is expected to be effective in mid FY 1992. (For further information contact 

SSCD) 

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC ) Technical Agenda Activities 

Ten VOC "Technical Agenda" activities were accomplished by the Stationary Source Compliance 

Division during FY 1991. These projects were selected after surveys of the Regions identified where 

guidance and support were needed to assist Regional and State/local agencies enforce the air 

compliance program. The projects consisted of compilation of data bases and policy documents, 

development of inspection procedures and clarification of test methods so that the compliance status of 

VOC sources could be determined and appropriate, consistent enforcement follow-up activity 

determined. (For further information contact SSCD) 

Stratospheric Ozone Protection Compliance Program 

Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 expands the restrictions on consumption and use 

of chemicals that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer; adds new chemicals to the list of those 

already regulated, and; accelerates the phaseout of CFCs and halons. The Amendments add carbon 

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and ten previously unregulated CFCs to the list of chemicals8 

controlled by the Rule to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone. The Agency built upon the existing program 

to ensure compliance among producers and importers of the newly regulated chemicals. The compliance 

program relies upon the submission and analysis of quarterly reports, production and shipping records, 

information from US. Customs and inspections to monitor compliance. (For further information contact 

SSCD) 

Clean Air Act - Mobile Sources 

Enforcement Provisions for Reformulated Fuels, Anti-dumping and 

Oxygenated Fuels of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

The Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) established workgroups to draft the new enforcement 

provisions, through negotiated rulemaking, prescribed by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

These enforcement provisions include: reformulated gasoline regulations, anti-dumping regulations, and 

oxygenated gasoline guidelines to be implemented through a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

purpose of the reformulated gasoline regulations is to reduce VOC and toxic emissions by at least 15% in 

5-8 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

the nine most severe ozone non-attainment areas with the option for many other areas to enter the 

program as well. The purpose of the anti-dumping regulations is to prevent the dumping of "dirty" 

gasoline components removed in the reformulated areas into ozone attainment areas that would 

degrade air quality from levels below that resulting from the use of gasoline produced in 1990. The 

pu'pose of the oxygenated gasoline guidelines is to reduce carbon monoxide (CO) emissions in 39 CO nonattainment areas throughout the country during the winter months by the addition of oxygenates (e.g., 

alcohols and ethers) to gasoline. Enforcement of the oxygenated program will be handled by the 

respective state, rather than by the EPA. (For further information contact FOSD) 

Volatility Enforcement Program 

Last year OMS increased the efficiency of field inspectors by equipping each with a reliable and 

accurate instrument for quickly measuring gasoline volatility in the field. This eliminated the need to 

ship over 9,000 samples (90%) for enforcement analysis to the laboratory in Ann Arbor and resulted in 

an enormous cost savings. This new device enabled inspectors to inform facility operators on site of 

potential violations and advise that the product be removed from distribution or sale until it was 

brought into compliance. More importantly, EPA resources were able to reach a much larger segment of 

the regulated industry. (For further information contact FOSD) 

Clean Water Act 

Chesapeake Bay Enforcement Initiative 

Upon assuming the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council in December 1990, EPA 

Administrator Reilly announced two concrete goals: 1) reducing the Clean Water Act significant noncompliance (SNC) rate of major dischargers in the Bay watershed by 50% by the end of calendar 1991 

and 2) bringing all Federal facilities located in the Bay watershed into full compliance with all 

environmental statutes by the end of 1991. Through an enhanced enforcement effort by EPA Region 111 

and the Bay States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the 50% reduction in the SNC rate was 

achieved by December 1991, and nearly all the Federal facilities had been compelled to fully comply. 

Region 111 and the Bay States'also executed a long-term strategy for increased enforcement in the Bay 

watershed. (For further information contact OE-Water) 

Wetlands Penalty Policy 

On December 14, 1990, EPA issued the final "Clean Water Act Section 404 Civil Administrative 

Penalty Settlement Guidance and Appendices." The document provides guidance to EPA staff on 

calculating an appropriate settlement penalty for Class I or Class I1 Section 404 administrative penalty 

proceedings. The guidance considers all of the statutory penalty factors and contains a matrix for 

environmental significance. The statutory criteria portion of the policy can also be used to calculate 

judicial settlement amounts. Use of the Guidance will promote more nationally-consistent settlement 

penalties for Section 404. (For further information contact OE-Water) 

Publication of Proposed Non-APA Penalty Procedures 

On July 1, 1991, EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule for assessing 

administrative penalties under several statutes without recourse to the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The proposal encompasses actions under the NPDES and Oil Pollution Act sections of the Clean Water 

Act, the Underground Injection Control provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as elements 

of CERCLA and EPCRA. The Agency also announced its plan to use these procedures as guidance for the 

5-9 
@I FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Clean Water Act sections before the rule is promulgated as final. EPA is now considering the public 

comments received on its proposal. (For further information contact OE-Water) 

EPNArmy Guidance on Judicial Enforcement Priorities 

During FY 1991, EPA and the Department of the Army jointly issued guidance to the EPA Regions 

and Army corps of Engineers districts on judicial enforcement priorities for unauthorized discharges of 

dredged or fill material to waters of the United States in violation of the Clean Water Act. The stated 

purposes of the guidance are: encouraging consistency in the manner in which EPA and the Corps enforce 

the Act’s requirements nationally, protecting the integrity of the Section 404 regulatory program, and 

directing limited program resources in a manner that produces the most beneficial environmental 

results. (For further information contact OW-Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds-Wetlands 

Division) 

Implementing the Regulatory Definition of Significant Noncompliance (SNC) for 

Industrials Users (IU) 

In July, 1991, the EPA promulgated modifications to the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 

CFR 403) which included a regulatory definition of SNC for IUS. In response to comments and questions 

from the regulated community, the EPA issued a policy statement which clarifies how the definition is 

to be properly implemented. The policy clearly establishes a rolling quarters evaluation of SNC, 

similar to the NPDES direct discharge program, and identifies how POTWs and EPA Regions are to use 

effluent data in determining SNC. This policy promotes parity in how IU SNC is determined and 

allows the EPA to more efficiently assess the implementation of the National Pretreatment Program. 

(For further information contact OWE0 

Guidance on Division of CWA Administrative Penalties with State or 

Local Governments 

On September 27, 1991 EPA issued to Regions, guidance on the issue of whether the 1987 Clean 

Water Act (CWA) authorizes EPA to divide administrative penalties with State or local governments. 

The Agency had previously issued guidance on the subject of dividing judicial penalties with the States 

(October 30, 1985). Based on a review of the relevant statutes (the CWA and the Miscellaneous 

Receipts Act), the guidance finds that no authority exists under the CWA administrative penalty 

authority for EPA or an administrative law judge to award any portion of an administrative penalty to 

a State or local government. The CWA limits the administrative assessment of penalties to penalties 

for violations of Federal law. Further, the Miscellaneous receipts Act requires that penalties finally 

assessed by an administrative law judge must be paid only to the United States Treasury. (For further 

information contact OWEC) 

Revised Pretreatment Compliance Inspection Checklist 

On September 27,1991, the final revised Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCU checklist was 

transmitted to the Regions. A revised PCI guidance document and a question-byquestion PCI reference 

guide were also transmitted with the checklist. This package was developed to replace the PCI section 

of the Pretreatment Compliance Insuection and Audit Manual for Auoroval Authorities, issued July 

1986. The PCI checklist was revised to reflect the considerable evolution of the pretreatment program 

in the past five years. The revisions ensure that the PCI would continue to be a useful tool in accurately 

assessing POTW pretreatment monitoring and enforcement activities. In addition, emphasis on the 

interview section of the PCI checklist was reduced and the format of the file review section was revised 

5-10 
FY 1991 E@orcement Accomplishments Report 

to encourage the inspector to better document problems. Regions and States are generally expected to 

begin using this revised PCI checklist in FY 1992. (For further information contact OWEC) 

Pretreatment Enforcement Initiative 

On May 1, 1991, EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that judicial 

enforcement actions were filed that day against the City of Los Angeles, four other public entities, and 

six companies to address pretreatment violations. Those Actions were part of an ongoing Federal and 

State effort that addressed, through formal enforcement actions, pretreatment violations by over 250 

other public entities and companies since late 1989. In 1989, EPA and DOJ launched the first phase of 

their pretreatment enforcement initiative against public entities which had failed to implement and 

enforce pretreatment requirements. EPA also announced that a $3,100,000 settlement with Pfizer, Inc. 

(of Easton, PA) had been lodged in court; this constituted the largest federal civil penalty which had 

been obtained (up to that date) under the Clean Water Act. (For further information contact OWEC) 

NPDES and Pretreatment Inspector Training and Development 

The Water Enforcement Division of OWEC presented a variety of inspector training during N 

1991. NPDES/Pretreatment program specific minimum training was presented nine times (Dallas, 

Denver, Cleveland, Boise, New York, Atlanta, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Trenton). 

Pretreatment compliance inspection training was present five times (Denver, Buffalo, New Paltz, 

Philadelphia, and Boston). Two specialized training workshops were held (1) to conduct diagnostic 

inspections in Florida, and (2) for offshore oil facility compliance evaluation in New Orleans. 

Approximately 300 EPA and State inspectors received training. More than thirty on-the-job-training 

(OF) exercises held as part of compliance inspections conducted by OWEC contractors. A new class for 

compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs) was developed. 

Five inspector training modules which address NPDES Overview, Legal Issues, Laboratory 

Analysis, Biomonitoring, and Sampling Procedures were presented in workshops. The sampling module 

was completed in December 1990 and the others earlier in FY 1990. Drafts of the Diagnostic Inspection 

Manual and Training Guides for Students and Supervisors were prepared during the year. A 16 minute 

training video on ”Inspecting a Parshall Flume” was also completed. (For further information contact 

OWEC) 

Safe Drinking - Water Act 

Underground Injection Control Initiative 

On July 18, 1991, EPA announced the 5)(28 Class V Proposed National Administrative Orders on 

Consent with ten major oil companies, (Amoco, Ashland, BP, Exxon, Marathon, Mobil, Shell, Sun Oil, 

Texaco, and Unocal). On September 13,1991, the ten National Administrative Orders on Consent were 

issued in final. The Orders require extensive inventory information, cessation of injection, waste 

minimization, extensive closure, an oversight contractor for ten percent of the closures, and penalties 

totaling more than 5800,000 for the ten oil companies. This action will lead to the permanent closure of 

over 1800 service station bay drain wells nationwide which had been receiving automotive-related 

wastes such as oil, anti-freeze, solvents, etc. This enforcement action was the first of its kind under the 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program in its use of national administrative orders to address oil 

company operations in 49 states and territories. (For futher information contact OE-Water) 

5-11 
FY 1991 E$orcement Accomplishments Report 

Resource Conservation and Recoverv Act 

The Revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy 

EPA issued a new RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP) in October, 1991. A 1989 Inspector General 

Report and a 1990 Agency review of the overall RCRA program, the RCRA Implementation Study 

(RIS), had concluded that the prior 1984 penalty policy did not create a sufficient deterrent effect and 

failed to adequately reflect the gravity and duration of violations. The new RCPP is designed to ensure 

that penalties reflect the gravity and duration of violations and requires that economic benefits of 

noncompliance (EBN) be recouped using the BEN computer model. The RCPP also includes mandatory 

penalty documentation requirements. Further, for the first time, the RCPP will apply to civil judicial 

settlements, in addition to administrative complaints and settlements. 

Under the 1990 RCPP, the penalty for a violation is calculated in four steps: (1) determining the 

appropriate gravity based penalty (GBP) based on the "probability of harm" posed by a violation and 

its "extent of deviation from regulatory requirements"; (2) calculating a multiday component based on 

the duration of the violations (if appropriate); (3) adjusting the overall GBP based on case-specific 

factors; and (4) calculating and recapturing the EBN obtained by the violator. 

A critical change in the new RCPP concerns the assessment of multiday penalties. Under the old 

penalty policy, multiday penalties were in assessed in rare, "egregious" cases only. The 1990 RCPP 

creates three classifications of violations based on the relative gravity of the violations. These 

multiday penalty classifications, which apply to days 2-180 of continuing violations, are "mandatory," 

"presumed," and "discretionary." Multiday penalties for days 180+ of all violations are discretionary. 

To facilitate the implementation of the RCPP, the Office of Enforcement (OE) and Office of 

Waste Programs Enforcement (OWE) developed a joint RCl'P training course. OE and OWPE presented 

the course to all Regional EPA offices, Headquarters, the Department of Justice, and State 

representatives. 

While the new RCPP has been in effect throughout W 1991, EPA has continued to litigate and 

settle a significant number of older cases under the 1984 policy. Nevertheless, preliminary indications 

are that the RCPP is resulting in significantly higher penalties (see Section VI, pp. - - - ). Agency data 

show that in FY 1990, prior to the Revised RCPP, the number of proposed administrative actions or 

complaints totaled 122 with proposed total penalties of $18.8 million. The highest penalty collected 

was $550,000. After implementation of the revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy, the number of proposed 

administrative actions totaled 99 with proposed total penalties of $56.7 million. The highest penalty 

collected was $3.3 million. EPA anticipates penalty totals in future years to continue to exceed preRCPP levels. (For further information, contact OE-RCRA or OWPE). 

Pollution Prevention 

The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has been working to develop a 

pollution prevention action plan for RCRA, including an enforcement section which recognizes the need 

for several activities, including training for inspectors and guidance on the use of pollution prevention in 

enforcement settlements. OSWER developed a policy on the "Role of the RCRA Inspector in Promoting 

Waste Minimization," which was released in September, 1991. The policy provides RCRA inspectors 

with extensive background on pollution prevention and its relation to RCRA inspections, minimum 

training requirement for inspectors before conducting an inspection for pollution prevention and an 

outline of the inspectors' role in outreach. (For further information contact OWPE) 

5-12 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Air Emissions Training 

The RCRA Enforcement Division provided training on the first phase of the Air Emission Rule to 

RCRA field inspectors/enforcement personnel in all ten Regions. This is the first rule under RCRA that 

requires TSDFs to regulate air emissions from certain types of equipment. (For further information 

contact OWPE) 

Land Disposal Restrictions Handbook/ Land Disposal Restrictions 

OWPE revised the LDR Handbook to include the latest LDR rule development. The handbook is 

designed to help the regulated community understand and comply with land disposal restrictions. This 

handbook was distributed in February, 1991. OWE updated the original LDR Enforcement Strategy to 

include all of the latest LDR determinations. The strategy is intended to help the EPA Regions' and 

States' RCRA Enforcement Programs establish work load and violation priorities. (For further 

information contact OWPE) 

Organic Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Workshop Rule Enforcement Strategy 

and Workshops 

OWE developed and issued a strategy on enforcing the requirements of the new TC Rule. 

Workshops on enforcing the TC Rule were held in ten regions and two states. (For further information 

contact OWPE) 

Enforcement Policy Compendium 

OWPE updated and significantly expanded RCRA enforcement policy compendium for use by 

Headquarters, Regional and State enforcement staff. The three-volume compendium contains guidance 

documents and other pertinent information, along with an extensive listing of other applicable 

dmmentsnot included in the compendium. (For further information contact OWE) 

RCRA Inspection Information Pamphlets 

Two pamphlets were developed which describe three different types of RCRA compliance 

inspections; Compliance Evaluation Inspection; Compliance Groundwater Monitoring Evaluation; and 

Operations and Maintenance Inspection. The pamphlets are designed to educate owner/operators of 

facilities that are subject to such inspections on what is being evaluated, what EPA authority is, and 

what follow-up action might be expected. (For further information contact OWPE) 

Suverfund 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Enforcement Program 

A highly successful pilot program in Region V in the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

techniques in Superfund actions made major strides toward meeting Agency goals of implementing ADR 

into Agency practice. The pilot demonstrated the transaction costs benefits to the Agency of using 

mediation professionals to assist in the resolution of complex Superfund actions. The Agency is currently 

expanding this pilot to other Regions for use in additional Superfund actions. 

In the Fall of 1990, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement presented testimony 

before Congressional committees in support of passage of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act 

5-13 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

(subsequently enacted as Public Law 52-101). In furtherance of the Act, the Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement has been appointed by the Administrator as Agency Dispute Resolution Specialist with 

responsibility for statutory requirements. The Office of Enforcement has established an Agency-wide 

task force to oversee implementation of the Act. (For further information contact OE-Superfund) 

Model RDlRA Consent Decree 

On July 8,1991, EPA published in the Federal Reeister an Interim Model CERCLA Consent Decree 

for Remedial Design/Remedial Action Settlements. This document provides model language for 

drafting RD/RA consent decrees for settlements pursuant to CERCLA sections 106, 107 and 122. The 

model language standardizes CERCLA consent decrees and will expedite settlements by reducing the 

time and resources consumed by RD/RA settlement discussions. (For further information contact OESuperfund) 

Residential Homeowner Policy 

On July 3, 1991, EPA issued a guidance document entitled "Policy Towards Owners of Residential 

Property at Superfund Sites", signed by Assistant Administrators of the Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response and the Office of Enforcement. The policy provides guidance for Regional staff 

regarding the Agency's policy toward residential homeowners whose activities have not led to a 

release or threat of release of hazardous substances, resulting in the taking of a response action at the 

site. (For further information contact OE-Superfund) 

Lender Liability 

On June 24,1991, EPA published in the- a proposed rule interpreting the "secured 

creditor" exemption in CERCLA. The proposed rule specifies a range of activities that a security 

holder can undertake without incurring Superfund liability. The rule also provides that a security 

holder can foreclose on contaminated property without necessarily voiding the exemption, provided 

that the foreclosing lender also seeks to sell the proper! within a reasonable period of time so as to 

recoup the loan loss. In addition, the proposed rule provides protection for federal entities such as the 

Resolution Trust Corporation that acquire property involuntarily. The Agency received approximately 

350 public comments on the proposed rule and is in the process of finalizing the rule. (For further 

information contact OE-Superfund) 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSCA Section Ne) Compliance Audit Program (CAP) 

During FY 1991, EPA launched the TSCA Section 8(e) Compliance Audit Program (CAP), a firstof-its-kind voluntary audit program designed to achieve the Agency's goal of obtaining any outstanding 

Section 8(e) substantial risk information, and provide maximum encouragement for companies to 

voluntarily audit their files. Section 8(e) applies to any person who manufactures, imports, processes, 

or distributes a TSCA-covered chemical substance or mixture and who obtains new information that 

reasonably supports a conclusion that the substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to 

health or the environment. Under the CAP, companies agreed to register for the program, conduct a 

corporate-wide audit for TSCA 8(e) reportable information, and pay stipulated penalties for each 

study reported up to an overall $1,000,000 ceiling. The CAP sets forth guidelines that identify - in 

advance - EPAs enforcement response, and allow companies to assess liability prior to electing to 

participate. Approximately 125 companies (excluding subsidiaries) registered for the CAP which is 

5-14 
FY 1991 Enforcemenf Accomplishments Report 

not scheduled to conclude until late 1992 or early 1993. The CAP program follows closely the approach 

taken by EPA in the settlement of the TSCA Section 8(e) case involving Monsanto Corporation, in which 

Monsanto paid a record penalty of $859,000 for such violations. (For further information contact OEToxics Litigation Division (TLD)) 

OSHA-EPA Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding 

A joint OSHA-EPA Enforcement Workplan for FY 1991 was signed by the EPA Assistant 

Administrator for Enforcement and the Administrator of OSHA. The workplan, and supplemental 

agreement covering cross-agency training and data exchange, implement the November 1990 

Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding signed by Administrator Reilly and former Secretary of 

Labor Elizabeth Dole. The work implements ongoing efforts to inspect petrochemical facilities as part 

of the OSHA "PetroSEP" initiative, lead reduction initiative, and cross-agency tip and complaint 

reports. In addition, EPA is exploring the possibility of having OSHA monitor compliance with TSCA 

Section 5(e) consent orders which require manufacturers of new chemicals to implement a number of 

protective measures for their employees, such as dermal and respiratory equipment, and a hazard 

communication program. Ideally, when OSHA conducts an industrial hygiene inspection at a facility 

which produces, processes or uses a chemical covered by a 5(e) order, it would monitor for compliance 

with the 5(e) order as well as for compliance with the OSHA health standards. (For further 

information contact OE-TLD) 

Inter-Agency Agreements 

Two examples of Inter-Agency agreements, initiated in FY 1991, involve the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). In December, 1990, EPA and 

DOD entered into an agreement that allows the import of 300,000 pounds of PCBs and PCB items into 

the U.S. for disposal. The agreement requires DOD to comply with the PCB Notification and 

Manifesting for PCB Waste Activities Final Rule and provides for a specific schedule to be followed 

during shipment, transport and disposal phases of the project. The Office of Compliance Monitoring 

(OCM) also entered into an agreement with MSHA for cooperation on inspections and targeting for PCBs 

in underground mines. This agreement will be implemented in FY 1992. (For further information contact 

OCM) 

Compliance Monitoring Strategies 

During FY 1991, EPA updated and finalized compliance monitoring strategies addressing the 

asbestos ban and phase out rule, and polychlorinated-biphenyls (PCBs) rule. (For further information 

contact OCM) 

Federal Insecticide, Fundcide, and Rodenticide Act 

Pesticide Export Enforcement Initiative 

EPA issued complaints charging nine companies with unlawful export of pesticides in violation of 

FIFRA 517 and 512. The charges included export of pesticides labeled only in English to foreign 

countries in which English is not an official language, failure to obtain a statement from the foreign 

purchaser acknowledging that the pesticide was not registered for use in the United States, and failure 

to label pesticides "Not Registered for Use in the United States of America". 

5-15 
Section 6(a)(2) Reporting Requirements 

In January 1991 EPA mailed a letter to over 225 persons and firms holding registratiolls for 

pesticides used on domestic animals. The letter explain& the reqitirements of FIFRA $6(a)(2), which 

requires registrants to report all "additional factual infomation regarding unreawnable adverse effects 

on the environment of the pesticide.,." In the course of settlenlent IlqotiatiOnS Of %(a)@) 

administrative e~iforcement action, EPA learned that other pet care industry repistrants either 

misundrrstand or are unaware of this section's requiremen&. (For further information contact OE-TLD) 

Good Laboratory Practices 

On September 30,1991, OCM issued the Interim Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) for the FlFRA 

Gaod tshratory Practice (GLP) Regulations. The policy sets forth the procedures for determining the 

appropriate enforcement response for violations of the FIFRA GLP standards. The EPA relies on data 

submitted by registrants as the basis for the Agency's regulatory decisions involving pestidde product 

registrations, tolerances, experimental use permits, special local needs registrations, emergetlcy 

exemptions, or any other researrh or marketing permit for a pesticide. In Conjunction with EYAS data 

audit Violatjons program, of the the FIFRA FlFRA GLPs GLPs may are impact: intended 1) the reliability to ensure the Or Scientific quality and nlfrits integity of test of d ata; this data. 2) the

ability of EPA to validate or reconstruct test results, and to make sound and tiRleh regulatory decisions 

regrtrding a pesticide; and 3) the administration of the GLP inspctiox! and enforcement program. 

Therefore, noncornpliince with the FERA GLP regulations may result in very serious harm to the EPA'S 

regulatory mission, and ultimately, human health and the environment. [For further information* 

contact OCM) 

oLawn Care Compliance MonitoringlEnfotcement Initiative 

During ~y 1991, E.M di&ibuted lawn care advertising compliance m0nitOting guidance to the 

Regions and States as part of an FY 1991/1992 lawn care enforcement initiative. Of approxirnateiy 

1,000 lawn care advertisements collected by the EPA Regions, OcM identified approxim3tety 267 

advertisements (17%) as having potential violations. Headquarters and the Regons will foll0wUp on 

the violations addressing lawn care products and pursue appropriate enforcment actions. During fl9Z 

State pe&icide enforcement grantees will be conducting use inspections fon~ssing on lawn Care, as Wellas 

mviewing advertisements. EPA Regional and State enforcemetlt activities will be coordinated w~th 

the Federal Trade Commission, which has authority over advertisiltg for lawn care services. (For 

further infomation, centact QCM) 

5-16 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Senior Pesticide Officials Training Program 

In FY 1991, OCM and the Office of Pesticides Programs implemented the second year of a national 

training program to assist senior State officials managing State-delegated pesticide enforcement 

programs. Two hundred and fifty pesticide program leaders from 49 States, six tribal groups and two 

U.S. territories participated in the 1-2 week residential training session at the University of 

California at Davis. The goal of this program is to enhance State and Regional capabilities to develop 

and implement pesticide regulatory programs for the 1990s and to undertake new environmental 

initiatives which feature reduction, pollution prevention and innovative approaches to pesticide 

management and enforcement. (For further information contact OCM) 

FIFRA 519 Procedural Rule 

In FY 1991, EPA drafted the FIFRA 919 Proposed Procedural Rule, which covers procedures for: a) 

EPA acceptance of CanceIed pesticides for disposal; b) the requirements for a voluntary or mandatory 

recall of suspended or canceled pesticides; c) requirements for submittal of storage and disposal plans, 

and the Agency's procedures for review of plans; and d) indemnification procedures for suspended and 

canceled pesticides. (For further information contact OCM) 

FIFRA §6(g) Policy Statement 

On March 28, 1991, EPA issued the FIFRA 96(g) Proposed Policy Statement which outlines the 

responsibilities of persons who must submit information under FIFRA @(g) and accompanying 

procedures for information submittal. Section 6(g) of FIFRA requires persons to notify the Agency and 

appropriate State and local officials of the quantity and location of any suspended or canceled 

pesticides in their possession. (For further information contact OCM) 

Policy Statement for Pesticide Exports 

In FY 1991, OCM drafted the Final Policy Statement for Pesticide Exports. The policy clarifies 

the requirements for labeling exported pesticides and the requirements affecting the export of research 

and development pesticides. It also broadens the scope of actions which will trigger international 

notifications and presents a new systcm for transmittal of international notices. The policy is expected 

to be published in the Federal Register in January, 1992. (For further information contact OCM) 

Case Development Training Program 

In FY 1991, OCM conducted a highly successful Case Development Training Program for Regional 

and State case development officers in NJ, MO, CA, VA, TX, MA and WA. The course covered a range of 

topics including evidence gathering and evaluation, and the civil administrative process. About 300 

State and federal case officers, attorneys, and inspectors attended. Each attendee received a manual 

which outlines TSCA, FIFRA, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA), as well as a TSCA case study used in a mock settlement conference. (For further information 

contact OCM) 

Emervencv Planninv and Communitv RiEht to Know Act (EPCRA) 4 313 

EPCRA §313 Targeting System (ETS) 

By the end of FY 1991, OCM had installed the pilot EPCRA 9313 Targeting System (ETS) in nine 

5-17 
FY 1991 Enforcemenr Accomplishments Reporr 

Regions. The system provides the Regional EPCRA 5313 inspectors with a flexible, PC-based tool for 

creating automated inspection targeting lists based upon region-specific priorities. (For further 

information contact OCM.) 

EPCRA 5313 Late Reporter Initiative 

On June 10, 1991, EPA issued approximately 2,429 Notices of Noncompliance to facilities which 

had submitted over 5,000 late reports under EPCRA 5313 after the July 1 deadline in 1989 or 1990 or both 

years. This effort required a quality assurance review of the EPCRA files of over 400 suspected late 

facilities; a crosscheck, by hand, of the list of late facilities with the list of over 1500 facilities 

inspected by the Regions; and the creation of a dBase file downloaded from the TRIS database, of 

facilities submitting late reports. EPA is now able to track the timeliness of those facilities which 

received an NON for late reporting; enabling EPA to assess penalties for repeated late reporting. (For 

further information contact OCM.) 

5-18 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

VI. Media Specific Enforcement Performance and 

Regional Accomplishments 

Clean Air Act - Stationary Sources 

At the beginning of FY 1991, EPA's Stationary Source Compliance Program, in conjunction with 

State agencies, identified 401 Significant Violators (SV). Throughout the year an additional 660 SVs 

were identified. By the end of the fiscal year, 608 SVs were brought into compliance, subject to an 

enforceable compliance schedule, or were subject to formal enforcement action. In addition to 

traditional SIP, NSPS, and NESHAP inspection activity, the air compliance program conducted 1,250 

inspections of wood heater manufacturing and retailing operations. 

To improve efforts to return air emissions facilities to compliance, the EPA's Stationary Source 

Compliance Division piloted Compliance Planning and Oversight initiatives in Virginia and Maine. 

This program, developed with close State and EPA Regional involvement, establishes an 

accountability process in which the States negotiate compliance program goals and strategies. 

EPA supplemented the successful asbestos NESHAP outreach program by developing and 

distributing brochures to asbestos removal contractors. 

Under Title VI1 of the Clean Air Act, EPA initiated a number of regulatory activities to 

implement the title's enforcement provisions. These initiatives include work on Field Citations, 

Citizen Suits, and contractor listing. 

Clean Air Act - Mobile Sources Field Operations and Support Division 

EPA's Field Operations and Support Division in the Office of Mobile Sources enforces the fuels, 

anti-tampering, emissions warranty, and related provisions of Title 11 of the Clean Air Act and assists 

in developing enforcement policy. This enforcement program covers all phases of enforcement including: 

field investigating (augmented by State and local efforts and by contractor inspections), the issuance of 

Notices of Violation (NOVs), negotiation of settlements, referral of cases to the U.S. Department of 

Justice, and litigation if necessary. 

Major enforcement achievements during FY 1991 include the acceptance by all participating 

parties of an Agreement in Principal relating to the reformulated gasoline and oxygenated fuels 

provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The volatility enforcement program resulted in 

continuing high levels of compliance. Settlement of lead phasedown cases brought substantial 

penalties for violations. As a result of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, tampering enforcement 

was initiated in the area of high performance modifications to vehicles. 

EPA issued a total of 269 NOVs, of which 157 were for violations of the aftermarket catalytic 

converter policy, 56 were for fuel volatility violations, 54 were for tampering and fuel violations and 

two were for lead phasedown violations. 

EPA settled 211 cases in FY 1991 with cash civil penalties totaling $2,246,008, and additional 

payments totaling $454,381 went to alternative payment projects. The largest civil penalties were 

generated from the settlement of five outstanding lead phasedown cases with $1,218,249 in total civil 

penalties. 

6-1 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Reporl 

'+.+ ,,& 

Clean AU Act - Mobile Sources Manufacturers Operations Division 

The Manufacturers Operations Division in the Office of Mobile Sources enforces the provisions of 

Title I1 of the Clean Air Act related to the manufacture of new motor vehicles, including the testing of 

production line motor vehicles and engines and in-use vehicles to determine conformity with Federal 

emission requirements. EPA conducts its own investigations, surveillance, and testing of new and in-use 

vehicles, and concentrates its enforcement efforts on testing of new motor vehicles and engines on the 

production line; testing and recall of in-use motor vehicles; and, monitoring the importation and 

modification of nonconforming motor vehicles. 

EPA's recall testing program is a key component of efforts to enforce Federal emission 

requirements. Since the beginning of recall activity, a total of 31 million vehicles have been recalled as 

a direct result of EPA investigations. In FY 1991, the motor vehicle emission recall program continued to 

play an important role in EPA's enforcement efforts, investigations resulting in 6 influenced recalls 

involving 2 manufacturers and a total of 1.2 million recalled vehicles. In addition, 830,000 vehicles 

were recalled voluntarily by manufacturers without specific EPA action. .. 

In addition, EPA continued motor vehicle enforcement testing in a high altitude area '(Denver, 

Colorado). This high-altitude program conducted in coordination with the Colorado Department of 

Health, was initiated to ensure vehicles in high altitude areas comply with Federal emission 

standards. Colorado tested 8 engine families representing 1.0 million vehicles, and 4 influenced recalls 

are expected as a result of this testing program. 

The Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA) program consists of production-line emission-testing of.: 

new lightduty vehicles and heavy-duty engines. Less than 80 individual tests ordered during FY 1991 

induced over 24,000 additional voluntary emission tests conducted by manufacturers. The heavy-duty 

SEA audits focused on engines that manufacturers choose to participate in the-averaging, banking and 

trading programs. The audits targeted engines which had family emission limits either below the 

Federal standards or close to the engines certification level. Thirteen (13) heavy-duty engine audits 

were conducted and a result of these audits, EPA revoked two manufacturer's certificates of conformity, 

for two engine families which failed the audits because the engine configurations would not meet 

applicable emission limits. The certificates were re-issued when the manufactures made modifications 

to the engines and testing demonstrated compliance with Federal standards. The manufacturers also .. 

agreed to recall previously produced engines. .. 

EPA's Imports Program, implemented on July 1, 1988, permits only independent commercjal 

importers (ICIs) that possess an appropriate certificate of conformity from EPA to import nonconforming 

vehicles. Accordingly, the IC1 is solely responsible for meeting all EPA emission requirements for all 

nonconforming vehicles it imports. To determine compliance with the Imports program in FY 1991, MOD, 

conducted in-office document audits of all operating ICIs conducted four on-site IC1 inspections and one 

port of call inspection. Pursuant to these audits, numerous imports regulation violations were identified., 

In addition to pursuing enforcement action on these viola,tions, investigations of four other ICIs for 

various imports regulations violations are continuing. 

Clean Water Act Enforcement - NPDES 

-. 

Record Penalties under NPDES 

EPA water enforcement in FY 1991 obtained record-breaking penalty dollars, removing to the 

greatest extent feasible the economic benefit of non-compliance. An overview of recent water 

enforcement activities shows the following accomplishments: 

6-2 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishntents Report 

Nearly 25 percent ($26.6 million) of total civil penalties assessed under the Clean Water Act 

since 1975 ($106 million) were assessed in FY 1991; 

Five of the ten largest civil penalties ever assessed under the Clean Water Act were assessed in 

FY 1991; 

The top two civil penalties were obtained in FY 1991 ($6.1 million against WheelingPittsburgh Steel Corp. for effluent violations and $3.1 million against Pfizer, Inc. for 

pretreatment violations); and 

Over half (21 of 39 cases) of civil CWA penalties in excess of $500,000 were assessed in the last 

three years. 

Timely and Appropriate Enforcement and the NPDES Exceptions Report 

The NPDES enforcement program has defined Significant Noncompliance (SNC) to include 

violations of effluent limits, reporting requirements, and/or violations of formal enforcement actions. 

The NPDES program does not track SNC against a "fixed base" of SNC that is established at the 

beginning of the year, rather, the program tracks SNCs on a quarterly basis. During FY 1991,91% of all 

NPDES SNCs were resolved in a "timely and appropriate" manner. 

Those facilities that have been in SNC for two or more quarters without returning to 

compliance or being addressed by a formal enforcement action are identified on an "exceptions list". 

During.FY. 1991, 354 facilities were reported on the SNC exceptions list including 152 facilities that 

were unaddressed from the previous year and 202 facilities that appeared on the list for the first time 

during the year. Of the 354 facilities on the exceptions list, 204 returned to compliance by the end of the 

year, 109 were subject to formal enforcement action, and 41 facilities remained to be addressed during 

the upcoming year. 

National Municipal Policy 

.. - ... 

Through implementation of the National Municipal Policy (NMP), over 95% of all major 

Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) are in compliance A total of 101 major POTWs completed 

construction to meet final effluent limits during FY 1991, and all but four facilities in the NMP universe 

have been addressed through a judicial or administrative schedule, are in the referral process to 

establish a schedule, or have already complied. Estimates of environmental benefits directly related 

to NMP requirements include removal of an additional 2.8 million Ibs/day of conventional pollutants 

and removal of over 18,000 Ibs/day (approximately 9 tons) of toxic pollutants. 

Clean Water Act Enforcement - 5404 (Wetlands) 

EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly enforce the requirements of 904 of the Clean Water 

Act, which prohibits the unpermitted discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and other 

waters of the United States. Under a Memorandum of Agreement between the two agencies, the Corps - as the Federal permitting agency - has the lead on Corps-issued permit violations and EPA has the 

lead on many unpermitted discharge cases. 

A primary goal of EPA's wetlands enforcement program is environmental protection. EPA seeks 

timely removal of the unauthorized discharge and restoration of the site, where appropriate. Another 

important goal of 904 enforcement is deterrence, both with regard to the particular violator and to the 

regulated community as a whole. Consequently, EPA may seek monetary penalties either alone or in 

6-3 
FY 1991 Er$orcemenr Accomplishmenrs Report 

addition to injunctive relief. The program also strives for fair and equitable treatment of the regulated 

community. EPA is committed to enforcing the requirements of 9404 to ensure'that violators are not 

allowed to profit from their illegal actions, During FY 1991, EPA continued to use the various 

enforcement mechanisms provided under the Clean Water Act in response to violations of 9404. 

Nationwide, the EPA Regions issued 98 administrative compliance orders, 21 administrative penalty 

complaints, and referred 11 civil and criminal judicial cases to the Department of Justice. In addition, 

the Agency continued to build on recent efforts to strengthen coordination with the Department of the 

Army and the Department of Justice on 9404 enforcement matters. 

Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement 

Public Water System Supervision Program(PWSS) 

, : 

In FY 1991, the PWSS Program strengthened and improved enforcement at the State and Federal 

levels. EPA Regional offices more than doubled their enforcement efforts from the previous year, with 

significant increases in the numbers of notices of violation (NOW, proposed administrative orders 

(PAOs), and final administrative orders (FAOs) issued against violating systems. EPA issued a total of 

2,448 NOVs, 443 PAOs, and 303 FAOs (as compared with 453 NOVs, 312 PAOs, and .149 FAOs in M 

1990). 

Many of these enforcement actions were a result of Regional initiatives. Several Regions issued 

PAOs and FAOs against water system users in an attempt to address water systems in violation where 

no owner was identified. Regions also issued NOVs against the majority of coliform monitoring and, 

reporting violators in selected states. Nationally, the Regions focused on violations incurred by water 

systems that serve over 10,000 people. Both Regions and States have issued NOVS and administrative 

orders (AOs) against many of these water systems. " *'.-? ' '' . 

State and EPA timely and appropriate enforcement performance continued to improve along with 

improvements in the rate of resolving exceptions. More SNCs were identified in FY 1991 as a redt of a 

more stringent SNC definition that became effective during the year. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Enforcement (RCRA) 

The primary recommendations of the 1990 RCRA Implementation Study (RIS) for the RCRA 

Enforcement Program included strategically targeting enforcement actions, publicizing enforcement 

actions, maximizing the deterrent effect of RCRA enforcement, improving the mix of civil judicial and 

administrative cases, seeking higher penalties, and incorporating pollution prevention into 

enforcement settlements. During FY 1991, the RCRA Enforcement Program implemented those 

recommenda tions. 

The RCRA Enforcement Program played a significant role in three strategically targeted 

initiatives in FY 1991: 1) In February, 1991, EPA announced eight judicial and twenty administrative 

actions targeted at violators of the Land Ban Disposal Restrictions regulations. Assessed penalties 

from the administrative cases totaled $3.5 million. The settlement of a civil judicial action against 

DuPont netted a $1.85 million penalty. 2)The twenty RCRA cases (12 judicial and 8 administrative 

cases) filed in July, 1991 were a significant part of a multi-media initiative (total 36 cases) to enforce 

against a specific pollutant-lead; and 3) A multi-media initiative against exporters (generators and 

transporters) of hazardous waste was announced in late September, 1991. The RCRA Enforcement 

Program contributed sixteen of twenty-three cases to the initiative. Each of these well-publicized 

initiatives sought to convey the message that company non-compliance of RCRA regulations will be 

likely to result in enforcement actions and will involve significant monetary penalties. ' In addition, the' 

6-4 

! 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenis Report 

initiatives targeting exporters and violators of the Land Disposal Restrictions follow from priorities 

identified in OE's Enforcement Strategic Plan. 

Consistent with the RIS, the RCRA program has worked to improve the ratio of civil judicial 

enforcement actions to administrative actions. In FY 1991, the Agency wihlessed a dramatic surge in 

judicial referrals as part of this effort. EPA referred 34 civil judicial actions to the Department of 

Justice for filing in Federal District Court. This represents a significant increase over FY 1989 and FY 

1990, in which the Agency referred 16 and 18 cases respectively. 

The revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP) was implemented in FY 1991. This revised 

policy provided the Regions with the ability to assess multi-day penalties as well as assess higher 

dollar penalties. Agency data show that in FY 1990, prior to the RCPP, the number of proposed 

administrative actions or complaints totaled 122 with proposed total penalties of $18.8 million. The 

highest penalty collected was $550,000. After implementation of the revised RCRA Civil Penalty 

Policy, the number of proposed administrative actions totaled 99 with proposed total penalties of $56.7 

million. The highest penalty collected was $3.3 million. .. 

The Regions incorporated more pollution prevention activities into enforcement settlements. One 

such action in FY 1991 involved the Du Pont facility at Deepwater, NJ. As part of the enforcement 

settlement, Du Pont must study 15 processes for waste minimization opportunities and provide EPA data 

on their findings. This data will assist EPA in future efforts to promote pollution prevention. The 

RCRA Enforcement Program also developed a policy on the role of the inspector in promoting waste 

minimization. The policy included extensive background information on pollution prevention, minimum 

training requirements of inspectors before they could perform a pollution prevention inspection and the 

role of the inspector in this outreach program. 

Superfund Enforcement 

FY 1991 was a banner year for the Superfund Enforcement Program. The estimated value of the 

263 settlements reached with Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs) in FY 1991 exceeded $1.4 billion for 

all activities (compared with 283 settlements worth $1.3 billion in FY 1990). Of this amount, 

approximately $1.1 billion was for 5106 or §106/107 remedial (RD/RA) settlements (versus $1.0 billion 

in FY 1990). In FY 1991 the Agency 'referred 71 5106 or 5106/107 consent decrees for RD/RA to the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), for remedial work estimated at $834 million (60 consent decrees worth 

$730.6 million were referred in FY 90). In FY 1991 the Agency issued a total of 137 unilateral 

administrative orders (UAOs), versus 134 in FY 90, and 132 administrative orders on consent were signed 

with PRPs. Of the total of 137 UAOs issued, 48 UAOs were issued under 5106(a) for RD/RA work (44 

were issued for RD/RA in FY 90). At the end of FY 1991 PRPs were in compliance with 29 of the UAOs 

issued for RD/RA; these were valued at $286 million. Under 5107 only, the Agency referred 73 cases to 

DOJ seeking cost recovery for past costs worth $164.8 million (as oppsed to 79 referrals seeking $184.5 

million in FY 1990). Since the inception of the Superfund Program in 1980, PRPs have committed 

to response actions worth over $5 billion. The percentage of PRP leads at NPL sites (under enforcement 

consent decrees or administrative orders) for remedial design (RD) and remedial action (RA) responses 

has increased to 70% for RD and 63% for RA respectively (Federal Facilities excluded). When SARA 

was passed in FY 1987 the percentage of PRP leads at NPL sites was 27% for remedial designs, and 37% 

for remedial actions. 

6-5 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Superfund Program Accomplishments 

(All Actions) 

TotalROD Total RD Total RA 

Y89 FYSil FY91 FY88 FY89 FYW FY91 FYB8 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY88 FY89 FYSil FY91 

€PA Seleeted Remedy 0 Fund-Lead Respan- PKP-Lead Re.panse 

.I 

Toxic Substances Control Act Enforcement (TSCA) 

During FY 1991, OPTS launched the TSCA #(e) Compliance Audit Program (CAP), a first-of-its-' 

kind voluntary audit program designed to achieve the Agency's goal of obtaining any outstanding §8(e) 

substantial risk infomiation, and provide maximum encouragement for companies to voluntarily audit 

their files. Section He) applies to any person who manufactures, imports, processes, or distributes a 

TSCA-covered chemical substance or mixture and who obtains new information that reasonably 

supports a conclusion that the substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the 

environment. Under the CAP, companies agreed to register for the program, conduct a corporate-wide 

audit for TSCA @(e) reportable information, and pay stipulated penalties for each study reported up 

to an overall $1,000,000 ceiling. The CAP sets forth guidelines that identify, in advance, EPA's 

enforcement response and allows companies to assess liability prior, to electing to participate. 

Approximately 125 companies (excluding subsidiaries) registered for the CAP which is not scheduled to 

conclude until late 1992 or early 1993. These companies represent a wide variety of industries including 

those engaged in chemical production and importation, petroleum refining, paper production, the 

aerospace industry, and microelectronics. 

During FY 1991, the EPA's toxics enforcement program included approximately 168 settlements 

with Environmentally Beneficial Expenditures (EBEs) (16 for FIFRA, 87 under TSCA, and 65 under 

EPCRA) or Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP). . These settlements include provisions such as 

altering manufacturing processes to reduce waste, use of safer products, removal of PCB-containing 

transformers, and requirements to conduct compliance audits. 

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

EPA's FIFRA program placed high priority on import/export issues in M 1991, including 

participating in the Agency's import/export initiative and case filing. 

Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs), which are management standards for operating laboratories 

6-6 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

active in environmental matters, are a major factor in efforts to assure high quality data in support of 

pesticide registrations. A significant amount of FIFRA test data comes from abroad, and OPTS 

international program, involving bilateral Memorandums of Understanding (MOW and multilateral 

activities in the Organization for Economic Cooperation'Development (OECD), is an important means 

of ensuring the quality of the data. 

In 1991, OCM implemented three MOUs with inspectional visits addressing GLPs to Germany, 

Switzerland, and the Netherlands. OCM initiated new MOW activities with Japan (related to toxic 

chemical inspections) and established contact with the European Commission and Israel. In May 1991, 

OCM also successfully managed the OECD Vail Consensus Workshop on the application of GLPs to 

field studies. The document produced by this Consensus Workshop will have a major impact on how the 

U.S. and our major trading partners conduct studies in the field. 

B. Regional Office Accomplishments 

Region I - Boston 

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

During FY 1991, Region I accelerated its efforts to build a multi-media perspective into all 

phases of its enforcement programs. In pursuit of this goal, the Region made adjustments to many 

aspects of the enforcement process, including inspections, case development, negotiations, data 

compilation, and policy-setting. 

For example, in FY 1991 the Region completed design of a facility multi-media survey form to be 

used by EPA inspectors conducting single-program inspections. This checklist form provides inspectors 

with key questions to ask under any of EPAs regulatory programs if they see evidence of possible 

violations of a program other than the one for which the inspection is being conducted. During FY 1991, 

75 of Region I's senior inspectors received training on use of the multi-media survey form, and the 

Region designed procedures for ensuring that the inspectors' observations are addressed by the 

appropriate program. 

In its Federal facilities enforcement program, the Region conducted multi-media inspections at 

four federal facilities posing significant environmental problems. The follow-up actions to these 

inspections are being coordinated among the EPA programs in which violations were uncovered and also 

with the affected States. Because of the success of this effort, Region I is planning to increase the 

number of multi-media inspections at Federal facilities in FY 1992. 

Region I also made further refinements to its case screening process under which a multi-media 

compliance/enforcement status check is conducted for any facility slated for enforcement, and a Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI) Report for the facility is reviewed. As a result of this screening process, the 

Region coordinated the issuance of several administrative penalty actions to facilities found to be 

simultaneously violating more than one regulatory program. The programs most commonly involved in 

these multi-media administrative actions were those under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 

The Region also has ongoing three significant multi-media judicial actions involving violations of 

RCRA and the Clean Water Act. 

In negotiating settlements to enforcement actions, Region I continued efforts begun in FY 90 to 

encourage innovative forms of relief. The Region has achieved many settlements incorporating 

supplemental environmental projects which go beyond merely correcting the violations cited by the 

action. Often the ideas for such projects arose from review of the TRI report for the violating facility 

6-7 
*..s .++ 

5 n.3 sz2 FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report. 

and led to adoption of projects to reduce or eliminate releases of toxic air pollutants not currently 

regulated under Federal law. In two major judicial enforcement actions, Region I ended the year having 

made substantial progress toward negotiating settlements that will include comprehensive 

environmental auditing programs. ,. 

Region I also recognized the need for better integration of data from each enforcement program. 

The Region thus designed a multi-media enforcement tracking system (MMETS) which complements a 

national effort to integrate enforcement data. MMETS is a tickler system that contains information 

about current enforcement actions and planned inspections and enforcement at facilities throughout New 

England. In FY 92 use of MMETS will become a standard component of case screening in the Region. 

To facilitate the multi-media approach to enforcement, Region I has frequently relied on an 

Enforcement Workgroup composed principally of managers of the Region's enforcement programs. With 

representatives from all the programs, the Workgroup has been effective in developing regional 

policies for implementation of new directions in enforcement, such as fine-tuning the multi-media case 

screening process. Taken together, all the changes described send a clear signal that Region I has 

broadly embraced the Agency:s push towards a multi-media perspective in its enforcement programs. 

,. . 

Region I1 - New York 

(New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands) . 

Region II's record for'& 1991 displays a continued strong commitment to an aggressive'enforcement 

program. It was also a year in which the Region devoted considerable effort to a number of enforcement 

initiatives, including notably the multi-media enforcement program. The Region is proud of the results 

they have achieved: the Region carried out six major, consolidated multi-media inspections, and 

commenced five multi-media enforcement cases. The Region has in place an ambitious multi-media 

inspection pr0gra.m for FY 1992 to build on their current efforts. Perhaps of greater importance, the 

Region has created effective institutional structures in the Region for enhanced multi-media 

coordination, communication, and tracking. 

Region I1 had a very strong year in the civil enforcement program. The Region sent nearly 60 civil 

referrals, consent decree enforcement referrals and PRN packages to Headquarters or the Department of 

Justice during FY ,1991; the Region's second highest total ever. Region I1 settled or otherbe resolved 

fifteen non-Superfund civil cases, yielding penalties of over $3.8 million -- their highest ever, and ove; 

two and a half times the FY 1990 total. One single case - the Dupont RCRA settlement -- accounted for 

$1.85 million in penalties, and included landmark pollution prevention provisions. 

The Region's Superfund enforcement program accounted, for 26 civil referrals and pre-referral 

negotiation packages, a Regional record. The total dollar value of all settlements and orders complied 

with, including Federal facility Inter-Agency Agreements, was over $280 million. This brings the 

dollar value of their Regional Superfund enforcement program to $970 million during the past three 

fiscal years alone, and substantially over $1 billion since its inception -- a significant and impressive 

milestone: Region I1 developed, four new civil referrals in support of the national Superfund NonSettlor/Non-complier (NS/NC) Enforcement Initiative. , 

Region II's administrative enforcement activity levels reached an all time high in FY 91, with 

over 585 new actions commenced proposing penalty assessments of over $50 million. Indeed, proposed 

penalties in five separate programs exceeded $1 million. Region I1 completed about 175 adjudicatory 

cases; the administrative case resolutions resulted in penalty assessments .. of,about $4.34 million, nearly 

twice the.FY 90 assessments. 

The Region continues to closely monitor compliance with civil and administrative consent decrees 

6-8 
FY 1991 Enforcemenr Accomplishmenls Reporr 

and orders, fully utilizing the Agency’s Consent Decree Tracking System. Five consent decree 

enforcement cases in FY 1991, and some six Motions to Enforce were filed in court. 

The pace and intensity of the criminal enforcement program has increased in FY 91, with six new 

case referrals; plea agreements in several cases (including one very significant case -- Exxon/New 

Jersey), and a substantial number of new investigations initiated. 

Region I11 - Philadelphia 

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

During FY 1991, Region 111 organized a cross-media enforcement workgroup to explore multimedia enforcement opportunities for situations involving noncompliance and risk to human health and 

the environment. At the close of the fiscal year, the work group had completed site characterization 

reports on six facilities and had brought enforcement actions against four. In addition to facilityspecific actions, the work group established a model process to conduct multi-media site screening, 

including risk assessments, at facilities; developed and piloted the use of cross-media enforcement 

authorities to address significant environmental concerns; and accelerated the use of multi-media 

inspections in the Region. Participation in the work group was praised by both technical and legal 

members as a positive experience that provided cross program education. 

Region I11 established a comprehensive case screening program which achieved its goals of 

identifying potential multi-media enforcement cases, improving civil/criminal coordination and 

enhancing docket management and the use of innovative enforcement techniques. The entire Region I11 

significant noncompliance case inventory, over 325 cases, was screened during FY 1991 in a series of 

program-specific screening meetings. From these meetings, over 70 cases were evaluated for potential 

multi-media enforcement action during multi-program screening meetings attended by senior program 

enforcement managers. The case screening process played an important role in a number of successful 

multi-media enforcement actions issued during FY 1991 and at the close of the fiscal year the Region 

retained an active potential multi-media case inventory of over 25 cases. 

Region 111 was an active participant in the national Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Land Ban Initiative which sought to focus attention and enforcement action on violators of the RCRA 

land disposal restriction rule. The Region completed five administrative complaints and referred one 

case for judicial action. All of these actions were completed and announced as part of the national Land 

Ban Initiative on February 22,1991. 

In a comprehensive multi-media enforcement initiative designed to address significant lead 

compliance problems, Region I11 completed four judicial and nine administrative actions as part of the 

national Lead Initiative announced on July 31, 1991. The penalties being sought in the administrative 

actions totaled over $10 million. Enforcement actions were issued as a result of violations in the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 

As part of its continuing focus on multi-media compliance within the Chesapeake Bay drainage 

area, Region I11 completed many significant actions during FY 1991 to initiate compliance actions by 

industries, municipalities, and Federal facilities. Enforcement actions continued under the Clean Water 

Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Clean Air Act, 

with notable successes attained in completing Federal Facilities Compliance Agreements for Federal 

facilities. Other activities included increased attention to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act inspections and encouragement of alternative pest conhol measures and Integrated Pest 

Management in the Bay area. 

Approximately a dozen multi-media inspections were conducted or coordinated this year by 

6-9 
FY 1991 Enforcemeni Accomplishmenis Repor1 

Regional Environmental Services Division staff. They were targeted mostly through the Regional cross 

media enforcement project or by the enforcement screening process. These inspections have provided 

valuable experience for Regional staff and provided excellent opportunities to enhance skills. 

Significant progress has been made on developing a multi-media screening protocol and it is anticipated 

that a pilot effort will be implemented in the second quarter of FY 1992. 

The Region participated in the development of the nation-wide EPA/Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration Memorandum of Understanding (MOW which calls for information exchanges, 

cross agency referrals, training, and joint inspections. The joint inspections are viewed as the first 

tangible product, and Region I11 was the first EPA Region to achieve this goal by conducting a joint 

EPA/OSHA multi-media inspection at WITCO Corporation, Bradford, PA. This facility was part of 

OSHA's Petroleum Special Emphasis initiative and also was consistent with EPA priorities. In 

addition, EPA staff have referred several potential violations to OSHA and, as a result of those 

referrals, OSHA investigations were initiated. 

An enforcement action, initiated by Region 111 staff,'was escalated to the Office of Drinking 

Water and Office of Enforcement and evolved into the first national administrative orders on consent 

issued by the Agency. These orders, completed following extensive negotiations with both primacy 

States and companies, have proven to be an effective mechanism to address violations for corporations 

which operate on a national basis. 

The orders address 'the discharge of automotive wastes into injection wells (septic tanks and 

drywells, commonly known as Class 5x28 wells) by ten major oil companies. The generic orders for all 

companies had many "firsts" including distribution of outreach materials, mandatory implementation 

of pollution prevention and waste minimization procedures for service stations, generic closure plans, 

and oversight contractor services supplied by the company to certify compliance with closure. 

Region IV - Atlanta 

(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee) 

Region IV supported the Agency's national multi-media enforcement focus by initiating new 

activities and implementing institutional changes to accomplish multi-media objectives and goals. 

Region IV has identified five regional geographic initiatives that support the Agency's goal of 

increased multi-media activities. Currently, Region IV is working with the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio and Regions I11 and V on what is know as the Tri-State Initiative. 

The principal goal is to achieve environmental improvements through the use of regulatory and nonregulatory tools. Examples of these tools include sampling, monitoring, multi-media inspections, 

pollution prevention, and voluntary reduction. Other Regional geographic initiatives underway or in 

the planning stage are; Calvert City, KY, Chattanooga Creek Basin, (GA and TN), Tampa Bay, FL, and 

South Florida. 

Region IV completed several other activities that provide the institutional capability to 

respond to multi-media requirements. These activities include: 

development of multi-media inspection and enforcement protocols; 

pollution Prevention training of key enforcement staff, to determine what 

is pollution prevention and when and how to incorporate it into enforcement 

settlements; 

development of a multi-media enforcement training course in cooperation with NEIC; 

6-10 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

improvement of enforcement communications that include quarterly issuances of the 

regional multi-media news to highlight current and ongoing regional activities; and, 

establishment of a Total Quality Management Quality Action Team (QAT) chaired 

with improving multi-media enforcement actions. 

Region IV programs continue to make significant contributions to creating EPAs outstanding national 

record, including participation in several national initiatives. Notable achievements in this area 

include a civil case filing against American Brass, Inc., as part of the National Lead Initiative, and a 

filing against Grumman as part of the National Land Ban Initiative. 

Region V - Chicago 

(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin) 

Region V's record of enforcement accomplishments during FY 1991 again demonstrated national 

leadership in environmental enforcement. The region led the national in numbers of judicial referrals, 

settlements, and assessed penalties by a wide margin. Region V also accelerated its efforts in 

implementing a risk-reduction based, cross-program perspective in its enforcement targeting, screening, 

case development, negotiations, and filings." The Geoer auhic . Enforcement Initiative (GEI) targets 

limited geographic areas with chronic non-compliance profiles and severe risks to human health and 

the environment. The GEI has lead to an acceleration of multi-media, risk-based targeting of facilities 

for enforcement actions. This geographic approach promises a greater opportunity to obtain measurable 

results, primarily in terms of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reductions. The first GEI focused its 

attention and resources on Southeast Cook County and Northwest Indiana. The overall goal of this GEI 

is 50% reduction in toxic loading to NW Indiana by 1995. Within the regulated community, GEI hopes 

to instill both environmental concern and momentum. Ideally, the Initiative will serve both as a 

deterrent to non-compliance and an inspiration for voluntary environmental improvements. Amoco Oil's 

voluntary testing program in NW Indiana suggests this may already be happening. 

On October 16,1991, DO], on behalf of Region V EPA, filed three civil enforcement cases in NW 

Indiana--Inland Steel Corooration's Indiana Harbor facility (RCRA, CWA, SDWA, CAA), Bethlehem 

Steel CorDoration's Burns Harbor Facility (RCRA, SDWA), and the Federated Metal Corporation's 

Whiting facility (RCRA). The coordinated case filings included in the GEI not only mark a turning 

point in this area, but also stand out as a ground-breaking model for interdivisional cooperation and 

multi-media enforcement. Widespread press coverage that EPA will be seeking 50% reduction of toxic 

releases in NW Indiana and throughout the Great Lakes Basin promises to deter non-compliance 

throughout the target area. 

The GEI for the Northwest Indiana/Southeast Chicago area developed very rapidly to produce 

tremendous results in water enforcement. A final stipulation resolved consent decree violations by the 

East Chicapo Sanitary District. It was entered in Federal District Court on October 4, 1991. A consent 

decree with the bankrupt USS Lead Company designed to control contaminated run-off from the site 

into the Grand Calumet River was entered on May 28, 1991, and the first installment of a $40,000 

penalty has been paid. An agreement in principle was reached with LTV Steel of East Chicago which 

will result in the payment of a $250,000 fine and a $3 million sediment remediation effort in a water 

intake plume that opens directly into Lake Michigan. The company is expected to sign the decree by 

late October 1991. Gary Sanitary District signed a Consent Decree on September 3, 1991, that calls for a 

$1.25 million civil penalty, the repair and proper operation and maintenance of the Gary wastewater 

treatment facilities and $1.7 million of sediment remediation on the Grand Calumet River 

immediately downstream of the USX Gary Works discharges. The decree is expected to be entered in 

October 1991. These cases form the foundation of the first comprehensive enforcement effort undertaken 

6-11 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

in a specifically designated Area of Concern. 

In response to public concern for the ambient air quality in this GEI area, and the nationwide 

interest in coke oven emissions, Region V instituted an area-wide coke oven compliance initiative. Coke 

oven emissions are a known carcinogen, which have been listed under 5112 of the Clean Air Act as 

hazardous emissions. The Agency is currently developing standards for these e~ssions under its 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) program. There are fifteen 

operating coke oven batteries in this area in Region V, representing over 50 percent of the Region's total, 

and almost 20 percent nationwide. Under the direction of the Region V air enforcement office, detailed 

inspections of all NWIndiana/SE Chicago coke oven batteries were completed in FY 1991. Violations 

were found at five of the coke oven batteries, and settlement negotiations to remedy the problems are 

underway. 

Region V has. actively participated in, national enforcement initiatives, including the filing of 

eight of the 24 judicial actions filed national-wide in the Lead initiative. These complaints include 

actions under RCRA, CERCLA, and the Clean Water Act. 

On September 26, 1991, Region V filed two administrative'RCRA cases involving improper 

import of hazardous waste from Canada. These cases were part of. a, nation-wide Imwrt/Exmrt 

Enforcement Cluster filing of two judicial and - 21 administrative . import/export cases. -An 

Administrative Complaint filed against Industrial Fuels and Resourcg South Bend, Indiana alleged 

that the facility failed to submit required annual reportsfor exporting material during the periods of. 

1987-8 and 1989-90. The Agency is seeking compliance with annual report regulations as well as 

penalties for past violations. ' The ' second regional action, brought. against the Safetv-Kleen 

Coruoration, alleges that the facility failed'to submit the required notifications of its intent to receive 

hazardous wastes from foreign sources. The Administrative Complaint entered against the facility 

requires the filing of such notices and seeks payment of a civil penalty. ' 

, . .. 

, .. 

Region VI -'Dallas , ,, 

(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas) 

The Fiscal Year 1991 enforcement accomplishments in Region VI include expansion of multi-media 

enforcement and intense involvement in the development of enforcement activities and environmental .. enforcement planning with Mexico. ., 

Four very intensive multi-media inspections were completed in Region VI during FY 1991. These 

inspections included inspection and enforcement,personnel from all EPA programs and from the State 

agencies. The inspections were designed to assure that facilities in a targeted geographic are in 

compliance with all environmental statutes and are not releasing toxics to the environment in violation 

of the law. In addition, each of these facilities was request& to and has submitted a voluntary Toxics 

Reduction Plan, in which the facility has outlined proposed methods of reducing the level of toxics 

released to the environment beyond the level required by law. The compliance status of each of these 

facilities in the various media is either under review or negotiations ,have commenced toward 

developing a compliance order. Toxic Reduction Plans are being completely analyzed and will be 

approved.after the compliance status is determined for all media. 

The four multi-media inspections completed during FY 1991 were completed in two phases, with 

Air, "DES, and RCRA being conducted during Phase A and all other programs and sampling under Air, 

NPDES, and RCRA being conducted during Phase B. The phased approach allowed a more complete 

inspection with a second opportunity to address issues not adequately addressed or understood during 

Phase A. The phased approach worked better with smaller facilities due to the limited number of 

environmental staff the facility had available to escort EPA personnel throughout the site. The larger 

6-12 
FY 1991 Enforcemenr Accomplishments Report 

facilities generally had a larger staff and more flexibility. Regardless of the size of the facility, 

advanced planning and knowledge of the size and expertise of the facility's environmental staff is 

paramount in the effective completion of a multi-media inspection. 

Multi-media training is being implemented in Region VI with a module being added to the Basic 

Inspector Training Course which provides new inspectors with an overview and status of multi-media 

inspection activities in Region VI. In addition, multi-media inspection screening checklists are being 

developed for use in FY 1992. 

In order to plan for expanded multi-media enforcement activities in FY 1992, Region VI prepared 

a Multi-Media Enforcement Strategy which centers on a method for targeting facilities for multimedia inspections, based on environmental risk and on the likelihood for violations in more than one 

program. The strategy is intended to provide for several levels of multi-media inspections, including 

the very intensive inspections with personnel from all programs, limited two media inspections, and 

the use of multi-media screening checklists in single media inspections. The FY 1992 strategy has also 

been provided to the States with requests for development of similar strategies in FY 1992 for FY 1993. 

Four cases were filed against hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDs) 

for failing to provide notifications to EPA of the intent to import hazardous waste, as required by RCRA 

regulations. These cases were the first to be filed against violators involved in illegal hazardous 

waste shipments from Mexico. Two export cases were filed against hazardous waste generators for 

failing to comply with the terms of export notifications and Acknowledgements of Consent to export to 

Mexico emission control dust or sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces. These 

two cases were part of the national cluster filing of import/export cases on September 26,1991. 

EPA Region VI met with SEDUE, EPAs counterpart in Mexico, to begin work on an import/export 

database integrating existing EPA/SEDUE data sources. The purpose of the database is to use as a tool 

for coordinated enforcement of US.-Mexico regulations related to hazardous waste transport and 

management. The Region joined with SEDUE on seven cooperative visits to US. and Mexican 

(maquiladora) facilities in order to review compliance by those facilities with U.S. and Mexico 

hazardous waste requirements. The United States is particularly interested in "maquiladoras", which 

are manufacturing plants located in Mexico in a sister city to one in the United States (e.g., Ciudad 

Juarez and El Paso). The raw materials are shipped from a plant in the United States to a plant in 

Mexico, where the manufacturing is done. 

In December 1989, Presidents Salinas and Bush requested that environmental agencies draft an 

Integrated Border Environmental Plan (IBEP) to assure that the border environment would be protected. 

Region VI was the major author of the industrial source control section of this document and of the 

hazardous waste section of the version which was first made available to the public in 1991. The 

Region also participated in multiple meetings with states and local governments regarding the plan. 

Finally, Region VI participated with the Office of International Activities in conducting six public 

hearings and one public meeting on the IBEP in Texas and New Mexico. 

In FY 1991, EPA Region VI co-hosted the third annual Maquiladora Conference in Tijuana, Mexico, 

along with SEDUE. The conference was attended by 700 participants. The purpose of the conference 

was to present information and discussions of the 1983 U.S./Mexico Agreement on Cooperation for the 

Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area. The Conference focused on the 

implementation of Annex I11 of the agreement, which concerns the transboundary shipment of 

hazardous wastes and and hazardous materials. The conference also addressed U.S. and Mexican 

regulations that govern the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous 

wastes generated by the maquiladoras and U.S. border facilities. 

6-13 
s' 19 

fi%+ Qy FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report ,' I 

A meeting was held on September 11, 1991, with representatives of the US. parent companies of 

eight maquiladoras operating in the border region in order to discuss the latest international 

environmental developments and their prospective impacts on their operations. EPA explained the 

status and direction of the proposed Integrated Border Environmental Plan (IBEP), as well as United 

States federal and state initiatives planned for the remainder of 1991 through 1994. Each company 

was asked to sign an environmental compliance pledge committing to make every effort to ensure that 

its operations in Mexico,. as well as the operations of all maquiladora, subsidiaries or other affiliates 

operating in Mexico fully comply with Mexico's environmental laws. In addition, each company was 

requested to sign a compliance assessment pledge committing to initiation of an assessment of the 

compliance status of all of its operations in Mexico. The assessment would include a review of all of its 

operations to determine whether they are in compliance .with all applicable provisions of .Mexico's 

environmental laws. Each company was asked to submit to SEDUE, either a statement that its 

operations are in compliance with Mexico's environmental laws or a proposal to expeditiously come'into 

compliance with Mexico's environmental laws and was asked to submit to. Region VI a confirmation 

that it has transmitted the results of the assessment to SEDUE. 

Region VI1 - Kansas City 

(Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska) 

Region VI1 actively participated in the National Lead Enforcement Initiative. Region VI1 

contributed to the overall effort with one judicial and four administrative enforcement actions. The 

judicial case was filed under the Clean Air Act, and the Region filed one CERCLA, one CWA, one 

EPCRA and two RCRA administrative cases. These case5 were in addition to other EPA and state 

enforcement actions taken since 1990 to address lead contamination under state and tediral 

environmental statutes. 

Region VI1 filed three RCRA administrative cases on February 22, 1991, in the national effort to' 

address violations of the land disposal regulations. One of the cases,, In the Matter of Universal 

Rundle COT., was settled by an order entered July IS, 1991, requiring the respondent to pay a civil 

penalty of $96,280. 

Region VI1 filed its first export case under RCRA on September 26,1991, against a facility which, 

failed to file a notice of intent to export hazardous wastes and failed to obtain EPA approval prior to 

exporting the wastes. 

. .. 

Region VI1 initiated a number of enforcement actions involving two or more statutes, and 

negotiated several settlements which require environmental remediation in more than one media. For 

example, in United States v. Gates Enerw Products, an action under the Clean Air Act, the defendant 

agreed to develop and implement an operational change to reduce lead releases into air, land, and 

water media. In a RCRA administrative action, In the Matter of Hallmark Cards, Inc., the respondent 

is required to reduce printing-related hazardous wastes by 80% and to reduce air emissions of volatile 

organic compounds by 80%. The Region also included requirements for 'multimedia environmental audits 

in a number of settlements of enforcement actions. 

Region VI1 included pollution prevention and waste minimization requirements in a number of 

settlements of enforcement actions in FY 1991, primarily in actions under EPCRA, TSCA and FIFRA. In 

twelve settlements entered pursuant to EPCRA 5313, the Region assessed penalties of $208,500 and, 

required supplemental environmental projects totaling $294,150, including reductions in or cessation of 

the use of chemicals regulated under 5313. In 33 settlements under TSCA for violations of the 

polychlorinated byphenyls (PCB) regulations, Region VI1 obtained agreements to dispose of 6,500 PCB' 

transformers, 381 PCB-contaminated transformers, 265 capacitors, and to test and eliminate PCBS in 

65,919 transformers. 

6-14 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Region VI11 - Denver 

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

Organizational Improvements 

During M 1991, Region VI11 implemented several organizational changes designed to enhance 

the Region's media-specific enforcement activities as well as to expand multi-media capabilities. An 

important modification has been the implementation of a two person team: the Regional Enforcement 

Officer and the Regional Enforcement Coordinator, whose fulltime duties center on multi-media and 

other enforcement issues. Their duties include: (1) monitoring new directions in the national enforcement 

program and strengthening the Region's ability to address these new directions (2) promoting the 

Administrator's multi-media program by developing the multi-media aspects of various enforcement 

processes, such as case screening and inspection targeting; (3) assisting with regional initiatives 

(geographic, industrial, or pollutant-specific); (4) supporting the Enforcement Standing Committee in 

addressing enforcement issues and activities, such as case screening and inspection targeting. 

Region VI11 also broadened and strengthened the role of the Enforcement Standing Committee 

which is responsible for making Regional enforcement-related decisions. The committee is chaired by 

the Deputy Regional Administrator, and made up of the Division Directors and their Deputies, the 

Enforcement Branch Chiefs, the Regional Enforcement Officer, the Regional Enforcement Coordinator, 

the Office of Regional Counsel, the Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of External Affairs. 

The Committee meets at least once each month to review and screen potential cases according to the 

national case screening guidance. For Regional issues, the committee establishes subcommittees (which 

function as a Quality Action Team) to research specific topics and/or to develop options. To date this 

method has successfully redesigned the screening process, targeting, enforcement strategic planning, 

communications, and financial analyst support. In pursuing the multi-media processes, the Region has 

Seen value added in the improved communication and coordination between EPA Regions and programs 

and Region VI11 and its States. Region VIll's involvement in multi-media efforts has increased 

knowledge of other program requirements, and and it has improved working relationships among the 

people who manage the programs. Many of the Region VI11 programs reported that the multi-media 

efforts have given them an extra set of ears and eyes in the field, resulting in more efficient use of 

resources and more comprehensive correction of environmental problems. 

To enhance multi-media capabilities, Region VI11 established a new branch and a new office: the 

Multi-Media Enforcement Branch (MMEB) and the Office of Strategic Integration (0%). The MMEB, 

which is housed in the Environmental Services Division, focuses on multi-media and cross-program 

inspections and coordinates the Region VI11 multi-media field work. The OSI, which is housed in the 

Policy and Management Division, focuses on ambient and compliance data for effective targeting of 

enforcement resources across programs, coordinates policy activities and data integration in support of 

multi-year planning and inspection targeting and supports multi-media efforts through use of the 

Agency's new Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system and the Geographic 

Information System (GIs). Region VI11 has been a national leader in the use of IDEA. Activities in FY 

1991 included: (1) in June 1991, the Region sponsored a demonstration for managers and staff and 

training for enforcement data personnel on the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) 

system; (2) the Region used the IDEA system to develop FY 1992 inspection targets; (3) IDEA is 

routinely used in the Regional case screening process which has resulted in identification of additional 

multi-media components to cases. 

Region VIII's Sand Creek Enforcement Pilot Project is a multi-media, cross-program, geographic 

initiative designed to survey and inspect facilities in the Sand Creek area near metropolitan Denver. 

This initiative, includes not only EPA Region VI11 but also the State of Colorado and local entities. It 

has provided experience in the use of inspection checklists, multi-media inspection coordination, multi6-15 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Repri 

media enforcement, the use of the GIS for initiatives, and multi-agency coordination. This initiative 

was designed to be performed in three phases. Phase One, involving selection of the study area, 

preparation of the workplan, and preparation of the communications plan, is complete. Phase Two 

consists of two parts. The first portion consists of initial "survey" inspection performed by teams of 

inspectors from individual programs as well as the State and local Health Departments. Each program 

prepared its own checklist and trained the state and local personnel in its use. Evaluation of the 

checklists used during the inspections will help to target inspections where information obtained 

during the inspections indicated potential violations. Eighteen (18) inspectors were trained to use 

survey forms which outlined the basic requirements for each of 13 regulatory programs. The results of 

these "surveys" will indicate which facilities require more in-depth program specific inspections at a 

later date. The second portion of Phase Two consists of follow-up inspections. The planning stage for 

these inspections began in the first quarter of FY 1992. and the actual field work is scheduled for the 

second quarter of FY 1992. The lead inspection and '/or enforcement role will go to either Colorado 

Department of Health or EPA Region VI11 with the lead depending on which agency has authorization 

for the regulations. Phase Three will be the wrap-up phase where the Region looks at the costs versus 

the benefits and lessons learned. Thereafter a comprehensive enforcement strategy between the State 

and EPA will be developed. 

Region IX - San Francisco 

(Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Trust Territories ) 

Region IX concluded a geographically based Enforcement Pilot Project which focused the, 

Pretreatment Program, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Program and Wetlands Protection 

Frogram to preserve and protect the unique environmental character of San Francisco Bay. Both, 

referrals and administrative enforcement actions resulted from the Region's intensive Pretreatment 

Program Evaluations which were conducted at three south bay wastewater treatment plants. Enhanced 

coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District office for Clean Water Act, 

9404 permitting, and multi-agency training in wetlands enforcement will support this initiative well 

into the future. The SPCC efforts verified substantial compliance levels which reflect the deterrence 

established by the 1989 Shell Oil, Martinez case. Additional geographically based multi-media 

enforcement initiatives will be considered as part of the Region's enforcement management process. 

Region IX enforcement efforts produced landmark settlements with the signing of Clean Water 

Act Consent Decrees with two northern California pulp mills (Louisiana Pacific and Simpson Paper 

Company), achieving $5.8 million in penalties, commitments to alter processes, provide treatment, and 

extend discharge structures as necessary to comply with their NPDES permits, notably chronic toxicity 

limits. These nationally publicized settlements incorporate our concern for chronic toxicity, ,coastal 

protection, and pollution prevention. 

Aggressjve Region IX enforcement on the US/Mexico, border continues. Elpower Corporation, a 

battery manufacturer with facilities in San Diego and in Mexico, was found to have violated EPCRA at 

one of their US. based facilities. In negotiating a settlement of the administrative action, Elpower 

agreed to reduce,the lead usage at their Mexican based facilities by 88,561 pounds per year. 

Assuring proper operation and maintenance at major electric power plants was supported by recent 

Region IX settlement agreements reached with Nevada Power Company (NPC) and Arizona Public 

Services Company (APSC). These coal-fired steam generating facilities, continued to operate NSPS 

affected units during periods of malfunction without employing good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. NPC will pay $400,000, APSC will pay $1,310,000, and both companies agreed 

to significant stipulated penalty provisions. These cases are the first time that failure to comply with, 

good operations and maintenance requirements was used successfully as the principal cause of action. 

6-16 
FY 1991 Enforcemenr Accomplishments Report 

The Department of Justice on behalf of EPA filed a major lawsuit against the owner and operators 

of the Casmalia Landfill, a commercial hazardous waste land disposal facility in Santa Barbara 

County, California. This is the largest case filed under RCRA in the State of California. EPA is seeking 

penalties in excess of six million dollars and injunctive relief for conducting clean-up activities at the 

site. Costs for closure and cleanup of the site are expected to exceed $20 million. 

Region X - Seattle 

(Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington) 

Five multi-media inspections were conducted by Region X during FY 1991. The Region inspected 

pulp and paper mills, and also focused on the Longview, Washington geographic area. Region X 

learned that multi-media inspections can be a very effective method to establish the baseline 

compliance status of a source and to look at a facility from a more holistic viewpoint. Even when civil 

enforcement actions were not taken, procedures to ensure continuous compliance, such as establishing 

formal operation and maintenance programs, helped to increase awareness and promote an integrated 

view of environmental programs. The Region believes the effort brought about a strong deterrence effect 

since other mills, as well as other companies in the area, heard about the "new" EPA inspection 

approach. Inspections were conducted at Weyerhaeuser, Longview, WA; Boise Cascade, St. Helens, OR; 

Kalama Chemical, Longview, WA; Reynolds Aluminum, Longview, WA; and Port Townsend Paper, Port 

Townsend, WA. 

Criminal enforcement in Region X produced three landmark actions. In US. v Exxon 

Cowration and US. v Exxon Shimins? - Cowration, as part of a global settlement of Federal 

enforcement actions arising from the discharge of over 10 million gallons of crude oil from the tanker 

"Exxon Valdez" in Prince William Sound on March 23,1989, the two corporate defendants entered into a 

new plea agrement with the government on September 30,1991. In the new agreement, Exxon Shipping 

agreed to plead guilty to three counts and Exxon Corporation agreed to plead to one count of the 

indictment returned against them in Anchorage, on February 27, 1990. Exxon Shipping will plead to a 

misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1311(a) and 51319(c)(l)(a), for the negligent 

discharge of oil without a permit; a misdemeanor violation of the Refuse Act for the illegal discharge 

of refuse (oil) from a ship, 33 U.S.C. 5 407 and 5411; and a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

16 U.S.C. 5703 and 5707(a) for the unpermitted killing of over 36,000 migratory birds; and pay a fine of10420 million. The Exxon Corporation will plead guilty to the one Migratory Bird Act count and pay a 

fine of $5 million. Both defendants also agreed to make a remedial payment of $50 million to the State 

of Alaska and $50 million to the federal government for restoration projects relating to the oil spill. 

The plea agreement was accepted in Federal District Court on October 8,1991. 

The second was a RCRA guilty plea in U.S. v. Rome - Vallev Circuits. Inc. On March 25, 1991 

Henry Broughton, on behalf of his corporation, Rogue Valley Circuits, Inc. of Medford, Oregon, pled 

guilty to both felony counts of the indictment that had been issued on March 20, 1991. Rogue Valley 

had been charged with violation of RCRA as a result of its illegal transportation and disposal of 

hazardous wastes. The company manufactures arcuit boards and had disposed of its electroplating 

wastes on Broughton's rural ranch in southwestern Oregon. On April 24,1990, agents executed a federal 

search warrant authorizing the excavation of buried sludge by EPAs Superfund contractors at the 

ranch. Based on the analysis of this sludge, EPA and Broughton signed a consent order under CERCLA 

which holds Broughton liable for the clean-up costs amounting to about $800,000. 

In pleading guilty, Rogue Valley Circuits, Inc. also entered into a plea agreement with the US. 

Attorney's Office. Under the agreement, the company will bear all cleanup costs, which have been 

estimated to range between $500,oM) and $800,000. On May 28, 1991, Rogue Valley Circuits was 

sentenced to pay a $1 million fine. 

6-17 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

In the third criminal case, agreed to enter a plea of guilty to five 

misdemeanor counts for violations of the federal Clean Water Act. The criminal charges stem from the 

unpermitted discharge of paint wastes, solvents and wash water into Shannon Slough, a tributary of 

the Chehalis River, from the end seal and stencil painting operation at the company's Aberdeen, 

Washington, sawmill. 

As a result of an inspection and a subsequent search warrant executed on October 6, 1989, the 

agents learned that Weyerhaeuser had discharged these wastewaters directly into the Shannon 

Slough for almost nine years. As part of the plea agreement, Weyerhaeuser paid a total of $500,000 in 

a combination of fines and restitution. Of this half million dollar amount, $125,000 was paid by 

Weyerhaeuser as a criminal fine. This represented a fine of $25,000 per count, the maximum possible, 

fine under the Qean Water Act. The remaining $375,000 was placed in a trust fund controlled by public 

officials as a form of restitution to the citizens of Grays Harbor County. The money from the fund was 

used for cleaning up and eradicating all pollution sources along the Shannon Slough. Since the federal 

involvement commenced in July 1989, Weyerhaeuser has spent almost $1.4 million to clean up the 

property adjacent to the Shannon Slough, and to remedy historic pollution problems at the plant. The 

$375,000 for the trust fund was in addition to this amount. 

As a result of their criminal convictions, both Exxon and Weyerhaeuser were mandatorily listed 

for violation of the Clean Wat& Act under provisions of the EPAs contractor listing process pursuant to 

40 CFR 15.10a~. 

. ., 

6-18 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Appendix 

Historical Enforcement Data 

National Penalty Report 

List of Headquarters Enforcement Contacts 

List of Regional Enforcement Information Contacts 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

+OOO'Oy 2 

*oooo*y 2 

N 

W 

woooow 2 

2 

goo0g:vly 2 

cn 

@ 

w *ooo~g$ 

N 

KOONWN @+2 

YWU 00 
FY I991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

~ 

000 

n 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

'I 

FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

NATIONAL PENALTY REPORT 

OVERVIEW OF EPA FEDERAL PENALTY PRACTICES 

FY 1991 

March 1992 

Compliance Policy and Planning Branch 

Office of Enforcement 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This report was coordinated by the Compliance Policy and Planning Branch of the Office of 

Enforcement. Ann DeLong was the project manager and principal author. Robert Banks 

provided the graphs. The following contributed the program-specific data: 

Criminal Enforcement Howard Berman, OE 

Clean Water Act 

Judicial 

Administrative 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

UIC 

PWSS 

David Drelich, OE 

Ken Keith, OWEP 

Peter Bahor, ODW 

Anne Jaffe Murray, ODW 

Wetlands Protection John Goodin, OWOW 

Marine and Estuarine 

Protection Catherine Crane, OW 

Stationary Source Air 

Mobile Source Air 

Jerry MacLaughlin, OE 

Marcia S. Ginley, OMS 

RCRA 

Judicial 

Administrative 

EPCRA 5 302-312 and 

CERCLA § 103 

Toxics Release Inventory, 

TSCA and FIFRA 

James Chen, OE 

Robert Small, OWPE 

Joe Schive, OWPE 

Jerry Stubbs, OCM 

These authors and their colleagues devoted many long hours to the collection, verification, 

analysis and display of these data. Questions and comments concerning this report should 

be addressed to Ann DeLong, (202) 260-8870. 
FY 1991 Enforcemenl Accomplishments Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

General Findings 

Program Highlights 

11. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT 

Programs Covered 

Cases Covered , 

Purposes and Limitations 

111. GENERAL OVERVIEW 

Highlights 

Median and Average Penalties 

Percentage of Cases Concluded with a Penalty 

Rangeof Penalty Amounts 

Highest Penalties 

Types of Cases 

Criminal Enforcement 

Relative Contributions 

6 
FY 1991 Etforcement Accomplishments Report 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

General Findinps 

Overall, this Administration has assessed some 55% of all civil penalties and criminal fines, 

combined, assessed in EPA history ($200.7 million for FY 1989-1991 compared with $166.1 million fot 

FY 1972-1988). 

Fiscal Year 1991 brought the highest penalty dollars in EPA's history, with $73.1 million in civil 

penalties. This represents a 21 percent increase over FY 1990. There was only a slight increase in the 

number of cases from FY 1990 to FY 1991, indicating that this increase in penalty dollars was due 

primarily to an increase in penalty amounts per case. Program offices are making effective and 

forceful use of EPAs penalty authorities. 

EPA has obtained almost $320 million in cash civil penalties from FY 1974 through FY 1991 in some 

12,530 civil judicial and administrative cases. 

In FY 1991 alone, 23 percent of all civil penalty dollars in EPAs history were obtained. 

In the last three years, 53 percent of all civil penalty dollars in EPAs history were assessed. 

The FY 1991 total includes a civil judicial penalty for $220,000 assessed under the Lead Control 

Contamination Act. This Act, designed to prevent excessive lead from drinking water coolers, was a 

1988 amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act. This penalty reflects the first case brought by the 

Agency under this Act. 

Criminal fines totaled $14.1 million in FY 1991 (before deducting suspended sentences). This 

represents a two and a half fold increase from FY 1990 and is the highest amount ever assessed by 

EPA for criminal cases. Seventy-five years of incarceration were imposed (before suspension). 

In the five years EPAs criminal enforcement program has been tracking penalty data, $43.8 million 

in criminal fines and 298 years of incarceration have been imposed before deduction of suspended 

sentences. One third of all criminal fines in EPAs history were assessed in FY 1991. 

Penalties were obtained in 85 percent of the cases concluded in FY 1991. 

Propram HiPhlichtS 

Most programs set new records for total civil judicial and administrative penalty dollars. 

In descending order of total penalties assessed, these programs were the following: CWA, RCRA, 

Stationary Source Air, EPCRA 5313, UIC, FIFRA, EPCRA 5302-5312 and Marine and Estuarine 

Protection. The increases for these programs over last year's totals ranged from 22% for Stationary 

Air to 214% for UIC. 

Medians reached record highs for both judicial and administrative cases in the CWA and UIC, and 

fot administrative cases alone in Wetlands'. 

* Throughout the report, Wetlands actions refer to CWA 5404. CWA 5402 and pretreatment actions are 

referred to as CWA actions. 

3 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Many programs set records for highest penalties within program offices. 

The largest penalty assessed in FY 1991 was $6,184,220 obtained in a CWA judicial case. The sccond 

largest penalty was assessed in a RCRA judicial case which settled for $5,405,000'. Both penalties 

were higher than the second highest penalty assessed in FY 1990 ($3,750,000)". Additional 

programs with highest penalties greater than $1 million included Stationary Air judicial, RCRA 

administrative and TSCA administrative. 

Federal penalty dollars were dominated by CWA with 36% of the total. RCRA was sccond with 

24%, followed by TSCA (15%), Stationary Air (10%) and EPCRA 313 (5%). 

Numbers of cases were dominated by five programs. TSCA had the highest number of cases with 20% 

followed by Mobile Source Air (16%), CWA (15%), FIFRA (13%) and EPCRA 313 (12.7%). All five 

programs rely heavily on administrative enforcement. 

11. Purpose. Scoue, a nd Limitations of this Reuort 

This overview report summarizes the penalty practices of EPA in FY 1991 in civil judicial, administrative, 

and criminal enforcement actions. Except where specifically noted, the term "penalties" is used in this 

overview to refer only to civil (administrative and judicial) penalties, not criminal fines. 

This report does not attempt to portray a complete picture on penalties obtained during enforcement of fcderal 

environmental laws, because it does not reflect penalties obtained by state or local governments, either 

directly or through court actions with EPA. States conduct the vast majority of enforcement actions under 

these laws, working through programs approved by'EPA to carry out federal requirements. 

Proerams Co vered 

Thirteen EPA penalty programs are addressed in this report. Table 1, gives their names, the typcs of 

enforcement cases each used in FY 1990, and any acronyms by which they are cited in this report. 

Cases Covered 

The penalties discussed in this report are cash amounts assessed in EPA enforcement cases that were concluded 

in FY 1991. They include final judgments by court settlements in consent decrees and consent orders and final 

administrative orders. 

This report does not include proposed penalties or other amounts under discussion prior to the conclusion of a 

case, and it does not include penalties paid to entities other than the Federal Government. Contempt 

enforcement actions (cases seeking to invoke sanctions for a failure to comply with a prior court order, decree, 

or administrative order) are not included.'** "Stipulated penalties" and "deferred penalties" also arc not 

included in this report; they are penalties stipulated in an administrative or court order that are due only if 

the violator fails to carry out certain other requirements of the order. Nor does the report includc the use of 

other sanctions, such as contractor listing, sewer moratoriums, or the suspension or revocation of permits. 

' 

** 

The RCRA judicial penalty contains 55 million in contempt actions. 

The highest penalty in FY 1990 was $15 million assessed under TSCA and RCRA in the Texas 

Eastern Pipeline case. This was the single highest penalty in the Agency's history. 

With the exception of a RCRA judicial case in Region V which includes $5,000,000 in contempt 

actions. 

' 

**I 

.. 

4 
FY 1991 Enforcemeni Accomplishmenis Report 

Table 1 

Penalty Programs Covered in this Report 

Promam ' Tvws of Cases 

Criminal Enforcement Judicial 

Clean Water - NPDES (CWA) .. Judicial 

Administrative 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

Wetlands Protection 

Judicial 

Administrative 

Judicial 

Administrative , 

Marine and Estuarine Protection Administrative 

Stationary Source Air 

Mobile Source Air 

Judicial 

Administrative 

Judicial 

Administrative 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Judicial 

Administrative 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA 5302-5312) 

Administrative 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Administrative 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA 5103, 

or Superfund 5103) 

Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI, or EPCRA 5313) 

Administrative 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), . Judicial 

Administrative 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

Administrative 

Credits, benefit projects, or non-monetary actions which parties in enforcement cases often agree to carry out as 

part of a settlement are also not included in this report. Such actions may yield large environmental benefits 

of substantial dollar value. Narrative description of specific cases can be found in the FY 1991 Enforcement 

Accomplishments Report. 

As in past reports, the FY 1991 Federal Penalty Report does not include penalties assessed in the Underground 

Storage Tank program (UST). The reason for this exclusion was because UST is primarily a state delegated 

program. 

One element of this report is an analysis of the extent to which EPA used penalties in its enforcement cases. 

Some cases did not obtain penalties. The cases without penalties included in this report are enforcement 

5 
FY 1991 Enforcemenr Accomplishments Reporf 

actions in which a penalty is authorized by the statutes and regulations on which the'case is based. If 

Congress did not authorize EPA to assess a penalty for a given type of violation, an enforcement action for such 

a violation would not be counted as a case in this report. 

Penalties are counted in this report as assessed in a final administrative action or in a court order; appeals and 

collection of penalties are not considered here. The word "obtained is used in this report as a general term 

referring to penalties that were assessed by a court or by EPA administrative orders. Its meaning is the same 

as "assessed" or "imposed." 

Purposes and LimitatiQnS 

This overview report is not an evaluation of practices by EPA programs, and it should be viewed in the context 

of the total enforcement effort. The report may illuminate individual characteristics of programs and 

provide a helpful comparison among programs. Identifying differences may stimulate further thinking about 

penalties in general, advancing the goal of more effective use of penalties as part of an overall enforcement 

program. 

The reader should bear in mind that the data presented here are historical'in'nature, and do not necessarily 

represent present penalty practices. Nothing in this report may be used as a defense or guide to future 

settlements of federal cases involving penalties. 

The specific penalty data used in this report were obtained from several federal data systems. The data have 

been approved by the responsible program offices, but the quality and completeness of the data may vary. 

.. 

111. GENERAL OVERVIEW! 

Fiscal Year 1991 brought the highest penalty dollars in EPAs history, with 573.1 million in civil 

penalties. This represents an 21 percent increase over FY 1990. There was only a slight increase in 

the number of cases from FY 1990 to FY 1991, indicating that this increase in penalty dollars was due 

primarily to an increase in penalty amounts per case. Program offices are,making effective and 

forceful use of EPAs penalty authorities. 

EI'A has obtained almost $320 million in cash civil penalties from FY 1974 through FY 1991 in some 

12,530 civil judicial and administrative cases. (. 

In FY 1991 alone, 23 percent of all civil penalty dollars in EPAs history were obtained, 

In the last three years, 53 percent of all civil penalty dollars in EPA's history were assessed. 

The FY 1991 total includes a civil judicial penalty for $220,000 assessed under the Lead Control 

Contamination Act. This Act, designed to prevent excessive lead from drinking water coolers, was a 

1988 amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act. This penalty reflects the first case brought .by the 

Criminal fines totaled $14.1 millio'n in FY 1991 (before deducting 'suspended' sentences). This 

represents a two and a half fold increase from FY 1990 and is the highest amount ever. assessed by 

EPA for criminal cases. Seventy-five years of incarceration were imposed (before suspension). 

In the five years EPAs criminal enforcement program has been tracking penalty data,,543.8 million 

in criminal fines and 298 years of incarceration have been imposed before deduction of suspended 

' Agency under this Act. : \ 

.. 

sentences. One third of all criminal fines in EPAs history were assessed in Fy.1991. ,~ ,. ,. 

Penalties were obtained in 85 percent o'f the cases concluded in FY 1991. 

6 
FY 1991 E$orcement Accomplishmems Report .. 

The total amounts of civil penalties for each program in FY 1991 are shown in Table 2. Criminal penalties are 

shown in Table 4. The historical picture is shown in Figures I and 2, displaying total penalties by fiscal year. 

The relative contributions of the different EPA programs to the FY 1991 totals of civil penalty dollars and 

number of cases with penalties are shown in Figures 3 and 4. 

Seven programs set new records for total civil judicial or administrative penalty dollars. These programs 

were CWA, Marine, Stationary Air, RCRA, EPCRA 5302-5312, EPCRA 5313 and FIFRA. The penalties ranged 

from the high for FIFRA of $932,925 to a high for CWA of $26.6 million. The percent increases for these 

programs over last year's totals ranged from 22% for Stationary Air to a 214% increase for UIC. 

A comprehensive summary of the programs' civil penalty data appears in Table 3. 

Table 2 

Total Amount of Civil ludicial and Administrative Penalties in FY 1991 

Clean Water Act 

Judicial 

Administrative 

Judicial 

Administrative 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

Wetlands Protection 

Judicial 

Administrative 

Marine and Estuarine Protection 

Administrative 

Stationary Source Air -Judicial 

Mobile Source Air 

Judicial 

Administrative ' j 

RCRA 

Judicial 

Administrative 

EPCRA 5302-§312 - Administrative 

CERCLA 5103 - Administrative 

Total dollars (%) 

$ 26,623,930 (36%) 

23,109,832 

3,514,098 

$ 2935,734 (3%) 

570,514 

1,465,220 

$ 504,200 (1%) 

172,500 

33 1,700 

$ 264,200(<1%) 

$ 7,346,481 (10%) 

$ 2,334,008 (3%) 

9,800 

2,324,208 

$17,671,457 (24%) 

10,026,594 

7,644,863 

$ 631,218 (4%) 

$ 258,450 (4%) 

Toxics Release Inventory - Administrative $ 3,910,210 (5%) 

TSCA - Administrative $10,591,315 (15%) 

FIFRA - Administrative $ 932,925(1%) 

TOTAL $ 73,104,128 

No. All Cases*(%) 

205 (12%) 

57 

148 

161 (10%) 

8 

153 

23 (1%) 

8 

15 

5 (4%) 

65 (4%) 

212 (13%) 

3 

209 

142 (8%) 

18 

124 

23 (1%) 

20 (<1%) 

194 (12%) 

336 (20%) 

278 (17%) 

1,664 

'Number of all cases" includes all cases with or without penalties. Percentages shown here will differ from 

analyses presented elsewhere in this report which are based on only those cases with cash penalties. 

'I* The total RCRA judicial amount includes $5,000,000 in contempt actions. 

7 
,. i 

.. ,. ', .I 

'. I FIGURE 1 

Federal Judicial and Administrative Penalty Assessments ,. 

.. FY 1977 U, FY 1991 

1 

.. . , 

ADMINISTRATIVE NJUDI~AL 

- ,, 

I 

,' I:. , I 

FIGURE 2 '.LC 

, ..,I_ . :,, , , . .. 

TOTAL PENALTIES BY FISCAL YEAR 

80,000,000 

70,000,000 

60pO0,000 

D 

L 

L 40,000,000 

A 

R 30,000,000 

S 

20~0,000 

10,000,000 

0 

0 50,000,000 

. FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY8l "82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 'FY89 FY90. FY91 

.. 

. I .I I1 .. 

8 
FY 1991 Enforcemenr Accomplishments Report 

9 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

FIGURE 3 

MOB 

FY 1991 

PERCENT PENALTY DOLLARS BY PROGRAM 

OTHERS 10% 

TSCA 

RC 

.15' 

:RA 

TRI 5% 

FIGURE 4 

3VA 

10% 

L 36% 

FY 1991 

PERCENT PENALTY CASES BY PROGRAM 

HERS 5% CWA 12% 

.. 

OT 

;EE 13% 

SDWA 10% 

'ATAIR 4% 

TRI 12% 

RCRA 8% 

.. 

10 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishmenis Report 

Table 4 

Total Amount of Criminal Fines and Incarceration in FY 1991 

Number of defendants convicted 72 

Total fines assessed 

Before suspension 

Total months incarceration 

Sentenced (before suspension) 

Ordered (after suspension, before parole) 

$14.1 million 

963 months (80 years) 

610 months (51 years) 

Median and Averaee Penalties 

This section of the report attempts to look beyond the aggregate figures to see what the typical penalties 

were for each program. Average and median penalty figures represent different aspects of the program. 

The average penalty is the total dollars divided by the number of penalty cases in a given program. While 

an average is useful in seeing overall program accomplishments, it may give a misleading picture if the 

penalties within that program went to extremes. One high-penalty case and a large number of low-penalty 

cases could produce a mid-level average, even though no cases had a mid-level penalty. 

The median is useful to gain a different perspective on a program without the heavy influence of a few 

extremely large or small penalties. The median penalty represents the middle number in the series of all 

penalties for a given program arranged in order of size. That is, there were as many penalties below the 

median as above it. 

Medians - Figure 5 shows trends in medians over several years for the largest EPA penalty programs during 

that period. Among the programs with five years or less of penalty history, only RCRA judicial cases are 

shown. In the Mobile Source Air and TSCA programs, the data reflect several different penalty authorities, 

including some that lead to higherdollar penalties. However, most of the cases in both these programs are in 

lower-dollar categories, which results in low median penalties. 

Medians increased for both administrative and judicial cases in the RCRA program and remained the same for 

judicial cases in the Water and Stationary Source Air programs. The median for administrative cases in the 

Mobile Air program remained at the same level as FY 1990. Decreases were seen in the median penalties in 

administrative cases in both the TSCA and RFRA programs in FY 1991. 

In the foregoing discussion of change in medians, there is no mention of TSCA judicial cases or Stationary 

Source Air administrative cases, because there were too few cases in FY 1990 or 1991 or both years to make 

these categories suitable for such analysis. 

Clean Wate r Act: The median judicial penalty rose from its FY 1990 level of $63,000 to a record high 

of $100.000 in FY 1991. The median administrative penalty also rose to a new high of $72,000 from $10,650 in 

FY 1990. 

Safe Drinking Water Act: The median judicial penalty remained at $8,500, the same level as in FY 

1990. (This reflects FY 1991 medians of $14,000 for four UIC cases and $11,250 for two PWSS cases.) The 

median administrative penalty remained at $4,000 in FY 1991, the same as in FY 1990. (The subprogram 

medians in FY 1991 were $6,000 for 140 UIC cases and $4,000 for 14 PWSS cases.)' 

*This does not include the $220,000 Lead Control Contamination Act penalty 

11 
,NO '"h 

FY 1991, Enforcement Accomplishmenis Repori i9 

Wetlands Protection: In this fourth year of administrative penalty cases concluded by the program, 

the median dropped to $5,000, compared to the FY 1990 level of $11,000. The median judicial penalty was 

$42,500, an $5,000 increase from $5,000 in FY 1990. (This is the fourth year Wetlands penalties have been 

. presented separately in this report. They were included as part of Clean Water Act data in penalty reports 

prior to FY 1988.) 

Marine and Estuarine Protection: This program is in its second year for cases concluded and 

median administrative penalty from $19,594 in FY 1990 to $66,050 FY 1991. 

0 Stationarv Sou rce Air: The median judicial penalty rose slightly from $48,000 in FY 1990 to $48,250 

in FY 1991. The record was set in FY 1987 with a median of $65,750. 

0 Mobile Sod : The median judicial penalty was $4,900, reflecting only three cases. This is a 

slight increase from the FY 1990 level of $4,000 for three cases. The median administrative penalty remained 

at 1,200 in FY 1991, the same level as FY 1990. 

The median judicial penalty of $157,942 was the highest to date in this program. The median 

administrative penalty continued rising forthe eighth year in a row, also attaining a new record of $21,475. 

EPCRA 302-312 In the third year of concluded cases, this program surpassed its first two years 

median's with a penalty of $40,500 compared to $20,600 in FY 1990. 

0 CERCLA 6 103: In the third year of concluded cases, this program's median penalty decreased from the 

FY 1990 level of $25,000 to $13,900 in FY 1991. 

Toxics Re lease Inventore In this third year of concluded cases, this program's median penalty also 

decreased slightly from $13,000 in FY 1990 to $12,750 in FY 1991. 

The median administrative penalty attained a record high of $12,500, rising from $8,000 in FY 

1990. Prior to FY 1986, TSCA medians were not calculated on a program-wide basis. 

9 FIFRA: The median penalty rose from $1,056 in FY 1990 to $1,920 in FY 1991, setting a new record for 

FIFRA medians. 

Averaves - Average civil judicial or administrative penalties increased in seven programs in FY 1991 as 

compared with twelve in FY 1990. Declines were evident in five programs. However, it should be noted that 

averages may be influenced by a few large cases. A year with one or two extremely large cases may havc a 

much higher average penalty than a year without any, even though the latter may have had larger 

penalties in most enforcement cases. 

Averages rose to record highs in the Clean Water Act in both judicial and administrative cases. For judicial 

cases only, averages rose to new highs in the Stationary Source Air and RCRA programs. For administrative 

cases, increases in the averages were seen in the Safe Drinking Water Act program, Wetlands program, RCRA, 

TRI and FIFRA programs. 

Lower average penalties were reported 'in the SDWA and Wetlands programs in judicial caSes and in 

administrative cases in the Mobile Air, EPCRA and CERCLA §lo3 programs. 

. 

Clean Water Act: The average judicial penalty rose to a record high of $405,258. In the fourth year of 

administrative penalties, the average attained a record.of $23,937. 

12 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Safe Drinkine Water Act: The average judicial penalty dropped to $21,152 compared to a high of 

$37,557 in FY 1990. However, the average administrative penalty rose to $9,566 in FY 1991.' 

Wetlands Protection: The average judicial penalty dropped to $21,563, compared to $49,114 in FY 

1990. In the fourth year of administrative penalties, the average rose in FY 1991 to a record high of 522,113. 

Marine and Estuarine Protection: In the third year of administrative penalties, the average rose 

to a record high of $66,050 in FY 1991 with five cases concluded. 

0 Stationary Sou rce AiC The average judicial penalty rose from $100,615 in FY 1990 to 5112,217 in FY 

1991. 

Mobile Source Air: The average administrative penalty rose for the first time in two years, from 

$8,962 in FY 1990 to $11,121 in FY 1991. The average judicial penalty dropped sharply from 5335,667 in FY 

1990, to $3,267 in FY 1991 based on only three cases. 

'RCRA The average judicial penalty increased from the FY 1990 average of $325,333, to $527,245 setting 

a record. The average administrative penalty rose substantially to $37,129, compared to 525,339 in FY 1990 

(this excludes one very large penalty of $3,375,000 from the average). 

EPCRA 6 302-312: In this third year of concluded cases, the average penalty dropped from $40,627 to 

$29,709. 

CERCLA 6 103: In this third year of concluded cases, the average penalty dropped sharply from 

$31,400 to 58,550. 

Toxics Release Inv e n tory, In this third year of concluded cases, the average penalty rose from 

$15,626 to 520,464. 

TSCA: The average administrative penalty decreased slightly to $33,867 compared to $34,311 in FY 

1990. (Averages were not calculated on a TSCA program-wide basis before FY 1986.) 

FIFRA The average penalty rose to a new high of $3,350. For the FIFRA program, this is an increase 

over the FY 1990 average of $2,555. 

Percen tape o f Cases Concluded wi t h a Pen a 1 ty 

A high percentage of cases were concluded with a penalty in all programs except one (UIC). Excluding this one 

program from the calculation, 84 percent of all FY 1991 cases were concluded with a penalty, a decrease from 

the FY 1990 level of 93%. (See Table 4 for each program's percentage with penalty.) 

Ranpe of Penaltv Amounts 

This section examines how EPAs penalties in FY 1991 ranked along the scale from low dollars to high dollars. 

The penalty cases are sorted into eight ranges from no-penalty cases ("zero dollars") to cases of $1 million or 

more. 

Figure 6 shows the penalty distribution of all FY 1991 cases. 

This does not include the $220,000 Lead Control Contamination Act penalty. 

13 
FY 1991 Enforcemeni Accomplishmenis Report 

i 

.. 

_. 

/ 

\. 

-:q- . ,'. .. 

- 

m 

m 

m 

0 

m 

m 

m 

h 

m 

m 

(0 

w 

m 

* 

m 

0 

m 

N 

m 

c 

m 

0 

m 

- 

m 

-. 

00000000~ 

00000000 

00000000 

00000000 W*NZ~(~~N --- 

0000000~ 

0000000 

0000000 

0000000 

h w ln P 0 N,,- 

'\ 

14 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

FIGURE 6 

PENALTY DISTRIBUTION - ALL PROGRAMS 

FY 1991 

ZERO$ <$5,000 <$10,000 <$25,000 <$50,000 <$100,000 <$I MILL >=$1 

MILL 

Ranges 

ADMINISTRATIVE 0 JUDICIAL 

N 250s 

PENALTY DISTRIBUTION - FY 1991 

Minus Mobile and FIFRA Administrative 

Y 

m 

b 200.- 

150 -- e 

I 

0 

f loo-- 

C 

50 -- e 

e 

s o+ n, 

ZERO$ <$5,000 <$10,000 <$25,000 <$50,000 <$100,000 <$I MILL >=$1 

MILL 

Ranges 

15 
(9 FY 1991 Et$orcement Accomplishments Report 

FIGURE 7 

.~ iiiiiia:- 

z ., ....-" .... 
FY 1991 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

[i 

FIGURE 8 

Z.LI.. .- u .... 

di II! 

7 

2.lr.. .- " .... 

+ 

Z.. r.. .- " .... 17 
FY 1991 Erforcement Accomplishments Report 

Hiphest Penalties 

Eight programs established new records for highest individual administrative or judicial penalties -- that is, 

the highest penalty assessed in a single case. Record judicial penalties were set in FY 1990 in the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (UIC) and Wetlands programs. Record administrative penalties were set in the Clean 

Water Act, EPCRA 5302-312, CERCLA 5103, Toxics Release Inventory (EPCRA 5313), and FIFRA. TSCA set 

the highest administrative and judicial penalties in FY 1990. The highest penalties in each program are 

shown in Table 5. 

Table 5 

Hiehest - Penaltv in FY 1991 bv Proeram 

Clean Water Act 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

Wetlands Protection 

Marine and Estuarine Protection 

Stationary Source Air 

Mobile Source Air 

RCRA 

EPCRA 5302-312 

CERCLA 5103 

Toxics Release Inventory 

TSCA 

FIFRA 

$ 6,184,220 

$ 220,000 

$50,000 

5 1,500,000 

$ 5,000 

$ 5,405,000* 

Administrative 

$125;000 

$ 125,000 

$ 100,ow 

5 150,000 

_. 

5 875,000 

$ 3,375,000 

$ 82,250 

$60,000 

$142,800 

$ 2,220,000 

$ 287,920 

* Includes $5,wO,wO in contempt actions. 

Twes of Cases 

About $41.2 million, or 56 percent, of all EPA federal penalty dollars in FY 1991 came from judicial cases. The 

remaining $31.9 million (44 percent) came from administrative cases. 

There were more administrative cases than judicial cases. Some 89 percent (1,250) of all cases with penalties 

were administrative enforcement actions, compared to 11 percent (152 cases) that were judicial actions. 

In general, the penalty is likely to be higher in a judicial case than in an administrative case, but the ranges 

overlap. For instance, among EPAs larger penalties in FY 1991, the highest administrative penalty was $3.4 

million brought by the RCRA program, and the highest judicial penalty was $6.2 million brought by the 

Clean Water Act program. 

18 
FY 1991 Enforcemenl Accomplishmenrs Reporl 

Considered on an agency-wide basis, the proportions of dollars and cases from the judicial and administrative 

categories in FY 1991 are similar to those in the past five fiscal years. The percentages within that period 

varied within a range of 15 percentage points for penalty dollars, and 4 percentage points for cases. 

Criminal Enforcement 

The Criminal Enforcement program operates on a cross-media basis, serving all the major programs that have 

been authorized by Congress to use criminal sanctions against violators. Most criminal cases include charges 

under more than one environmental law, but for statistical purposes each case is listed under one predominant 

statute. On this basis, the programs with the largest numbers of fines assessed in FY 1991 were RCRA ($8.7 

million), CWA ($5.2 million) and CAA ($.3 million). 

Relative Contributions 

The Clean Water Act program dominated civil penalty dollars in FY 1991, with 36 percent of the total (see 

Figure 3). It was followed by RCRA (24 percent), TSCA (15 percent), Stationary Source Air (10 percent) and 

Toxics Release Inventory (5 percent) programs. 

The majority of cases with penalties in FY 1991 were concluded by programs that made heavy use of 

administrative cases (see Figure 4): TSCA (20 percent), FIFRA (17 percent), Mobile Source Air (13 percent). 

These shares are very similar to M 1990 program shares. 

19 
@J FY 1991 E$orccmenl Accomplishments Report 

EPA Headquarters Enforcement Offices 

Office of Enforcement (OE) 

Assistant Administrator 202-260-4134 

Deputy Assistant Administrator 202-260-4137 

Deputy Assistant Administrator-Federal Facilities 202-260-4543 

Director of Civil Enforcement 202-260-4540 

Enforcement Counsel for Air Enforcement ' 202-260-2820 

Enforcement Counsel for Water Enforcement 202-260-8180 

Enforcement Counsel for Superfund Enforcement 202-260-3104 

Enforcement Counsel for RCRA Enforcement 202-260-3050 

Enforcement Counsel for Pesticides and Toxic Substances Enforcement202-260-8690 

Office of Criminal Enforcement 

Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations (OCAPO) 

Office of Federal Activities (OFA) 

Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) 

Contractor Listing Program 

National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC - Denver) 

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 

Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) 

Field Operations and Support Division (FOSD) 

Manufacturers Operations Division (MOD) 

Office of Water (OW) 

Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) 

Office of Drinking Water (ODW) 

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE - CERCLA) 

Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE - RCRA) 

Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances 

Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM) 

202-260-9660 

202-260-4140 

202-260-5053 

202-260-9801 

202-475-8780 

303-236-5100 

703-308-8600 

202-260-2633 

202-260-2479 

202-260-5850 

202-260-5543 

202-260-7166 

703-308-8404 

202-260-4808 

202-260-3807 
PY 1991 E~orcement Accomplishments Report 

. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices 

Enforcement Information Contacts 

Region I -Boston 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachussetts, 

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont 

Region I1 - New York 

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico. 

Virgin Islands 

Region 111 - Philadelphia 

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia 

Region IV - Atlanta 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee 

Region V - Chicago 

Illinois; Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota 

Ohio, Wisconsin 

Region VI - Dallas 

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, Texas 

Region VI1 - Kansas City 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska 

Region VI11 - Denver 

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming 

Region IX - San Francisco 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, 

Trust Territories 

Region X - Seattle 

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 

Office of Public Affairs 

JFK Federal Building 

Boston, MA 02203 

617-565-3424 FTS 8-835-3417 

Office of External Programs 

Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building 

26 Federal Plaza 

New York, NY 10278 

212-264-2515 FTS 8-264-2515 

Office of Public Affairs 

841 Chestnut Building 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

215-597-9370 FTS: 8-597-9370 

Office of Public Affairs 

345 Courtland Street, N.E. 

Atlanta, GA 30365 

404-347-3001 FTS 8-257-3004 

Office of Public Affairs 

230 South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, 1L 60601 

31 2-353-2072 FTS 8-353-2072 

Office of External Affairs 

First Interstate .Bank Tower at Fountain Place 

1445 Ross Ave. 12th Floor Suite 1200 

Dallas TX 75202 

214-655-2200 FTS: 8-255-2200 

Office of Public Affairs 

726 Minnesota Avenue 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

913-551-7003 FTS: 8-276-7003 

Office of External Affairs 

999 18th Street Suite 500 

Denver, CO 80202-2405 

303-293-1692 FTS 8-330-1692 

Office of External Affairs 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

415-744-1020 FE 844-1565 

Office of the Deputy Regional Administrator 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

206-442-5810 FTS: 8-399-5810