The FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments

Report was prepared by the Targeting and Evaluation Branch within the

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Information contained in

the report was supplied by the EPA regional offices and the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Printed on recycled paper
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

i July 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ........................................................ 1-1

2. Monitoring Compliance with Environmental Requirements..................... 2-1

2.1 Innovations in Compliance Monitoring .............................. 2-3

3. Using Enforcement to Ensure Protection through Compliance .................. 3-1

3.1 Civil Enforcement .............................................. 3-7

3.2 Criminal Enforcement .......................................... 3-11

3.3 Supplemental Environmental Projects .............................. 3-13

3.4 Injunctive Relief .............................................. 3-15

4. Using Incentives to Increase Industry Compliance ........................... 4-1

4.1 New Incentive Policies .......................................... 4-1

4.2 Environmental Leadership Program ................................ 4-2

5. Using Assistance to Increase Sector Compliance ............................ 5-1

5.1 Compliance Assistance Centers.................................... 5-2

5.2 Sector-specific Compliance Assistance .............................. 5-3

5.3 Compliance Assistance to Federal Facilities .......................... 5-7

6. New Approaches to Solve Environmental Problems .......................... 6-1

6.1 Sector-based Information and Initiatives ............................. 6-1

6.1.1 Sector Notebooks ........................................ 6-2

6.1.2 Sector-specific Initiatives .................................. 6-2

6.2 Place-based Initiatives .......................................... 6-6

6.2.1 Geographic Initiatives ..................................... 6-6

6.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystem Initiatives .............................. 6-9

6.3 Multimedia .................................................. 6-13

6.4 Environmental Justice .......................................... 6-14

6.5 Pollution Prevention ........................................... 6-16
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

 7. Enhancing Program Infrastructure: Policies, Training, and Guidance ............. 7-1

7.1 Policies and Regulations ......................................... 7-1

7.2 Training Programs ............................................. 7-3

7.3 Guidance Efforts .............................................. 7-6

8. Measuring Results and the Impact of Activities ............................. 8-1

8.1 Steps Toward Improved Measurement .............................. 8-1

Appendix: Significant Administrative, Judicial, and Criminal Cases .................... A-1
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

iii July 1996

ACRONYMS

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

BIF Boilers and Industrial Furnaces

CAA Clean Air Act

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFA Civilian Federal Agency

CWA Clean Water Act

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act

FFA Federal Aviation Administration

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act

FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FY Fiscal Year

MED Multimedia Enforcement Division

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

NETI National Enforcement Training Institute

NOV Notice of Violation

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OC Office of Compliance

OCEFT Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OPA Oil Pollution Act

PPA Pollution Prosecution Act

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEP Supplemental Environmental Project

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

UST Underground Storage Tank

WPS Worker Protection Standard
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 iv

This page is intentionally blank.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

1-1 July 1996

1. INTRODUCTION

In Fiscal Year 1995 (FY95), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made significant strides

in protecting the American people from the ills of environmental pollution and restoring the

quality of our nation’s environment. This work in FY95 led to the reduction of thousands of tons

of pollutants being dumped into the country’s rivers and streams, leaked into the soil, and spewed

into the air by those caught violating the federal environmental laws. These accomplishments are

the result of a common-sense approach to environmental enforcement - one that combines strong

criminal and civil cases, swift administrative actions, policies and programs designed to provide

incentives to companies to voluntarily confront, report, and correct their environmental violations,

and compliance assistance measures principally targeted at small businesses.

FY95 marked the first full year following the reorganization of the Agency’s enforcement and

compliance program. The expansion of the types of tools that EPA uses to ensure environmental

protection through compliance fully complements the existing criminal and civil enforcement

programs. The civil and criminal enforcement programs are the bulwark of efforts to punish

environmental violators, deter would-be violators, and ensure a level playing field so violators do

not gain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding members of the regulated community. 

The integration of all these approaches in FY95 has made the impact of EPA’s actions more farreaching than ever. Precedential enforcement cases have sent strong messages that the

environmental cop remains on the beat, and companies, both large and small, are availing

themselves of the compliance incentives provided by new EPA policies and the various

compliance assistance programs that have recently been developed at the state and federal levels.

This report of EPA’s FY95 accomplishments describes the results of these efforts. Section 2 of

this report details various activities related to monitoring compliance with the environmental laws. 

On-site inspections, investigations, and other information-gathering techniques are used to

identify and assess violations, allowing the Agency and its state partners to appropriately address

those problems posing the greatest risks to human health and the environment. These compliance

monitoring activities remain a vital conduit between the Agency and the regulated community,

and help to provide the best picture of individual instances of noncompliance.

Section 3 details significant criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement actions, and the results

achieved on behalf of the American public and the environment. These and other cases brought

by the Agency and the Department of Justice (DOJ) continue to be a highly effective means of

ensuring broad-based compliance. In every medium, and in every state, environmental

enforcement actions have led to huge reductions of pollutants that would otherwise spoil our

environment in violation of our laws. The results of many of the cases, set forth in this section of

the report, demonstrate the immense value of this part of the enforcement and compliance

program.

Sections 4 and 5 deal, respectively, with various compliance incentive and compliance assistance

approaches used in FY95. This past fiscal year has seen tremendous progress on each of these

fronts, which is the direct result of the previous year’s reorganization of the Office of
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 1-2

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) - new approaches building on traditional

successes. EPA’s promulgation of final Agency policies on self-detection, self-reporting, and selfcorrection, and for small businesses, offer the regulated community increased incentives to take

full responsibility for their actions, and for their compliance with environmental laws. These and

other approaches embody a recognition that environmental results are EPA’s bottom line; these

results are maximally achieved when a company monitors its own pollution practices, and when

those who responsibly come forward to correct their violations are treated differently (i.e., better)

than those who abuse the public trust in failing to discover and disclose their violations. EPA also

created several national compliance assistance centers in FY95, which will serve several sectors of

the regulated community and help those entities understand and comply with environmental

protection requirements. Working with the states, Native American tribes, and the regulated

community, these and other programs are reaching increasing numbers of people, which will

continue to yield benefits from compliance far into the future.

Section 6 of the report focuses on additional new approaches EPA is using to address

environmental pollution resulting from noncompliance. These activities include a range of

targeting approaches that address multimedia compliance issues, industrial sectors, and

geographic areas. In addition, these approaches are being employed in the specific context of

environmental justice issues. In FY95, the Office of Environmental Justice became a part of

OECA. Efforts designed to ensure that no one suffers disproportionately from the effects of

environmental violations remain a priority in EPA’s enforcement program. Section 7 deals with

infrastructure issues, including training and guidance that support state and federal environmental

enforcement and compliance programs. Section 8 discusses EPA’s FY95 actions that measure the

results of the overall program. New approaches in this regard are critical and are evolving to

account for the expansion of enforcement and compliance-related tools now in use by the Agency. 

The Appendix to this report highlights significant criminal, civil, and administrative actions taken

in FY95.

This FY95 accomplishments report documents an impressive array of achievements by EPA. 

These programs and policies work in concert to bring measurable results to the American people -

cleaner and healthier air, water, and land. Enforcement and compliance continues to play a vital,

and irreplaceable, role in the mission of EPA to ensure that the country’s environmental laws

work to their fullest extent in protecting our environment.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-1 July 1996

2. MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

Compliance with the nation’s environmental laws is not discretionary, and the vital protections

that our laws afford the American public depend on adherence to their requirements. Compliance

monitoring activities provide a crucial link between the regulated community, the Agency, and the

American people. Information garnered through these activities serves many purposes: 1) it

allows the Agency to carry out its mission of protecting public health and the environment from

pollution by providing necessary data on the effectiveness of our environmental laws, and other

Agency programs; 2) it allows the Agency, and OECA in particular, to address the greatest risks

to human health and the environment through priority targeting and remedial work; 3) it ensures

that the environmental laws are being complied with uniformly, so that those who violate the law

do not gain a competitive advantage through noncompliance; and 4) it helps OECA focus

compliance incentives and compliance assistance programs on those sectors, or entities, that need

the most regulatory attention.

There are several broad categories of compliance monitoring activities, including on-site

inspections, investigations, record reviews, settlement oversight, and targeted information

gathering. Many of the environmental statutes require facilities to monitor their own pollution

practices, and provide periodic status reports regarding their various emissions. In addition to

reviewing these required reports, the Agency has other information-gathering authorities that may

be used to obtain specific information from a targeted facility or industrial sector. Inspections

and/or other investigations also occur on a routine basis, or in response to tips or other

information provided by the public. Finally, settlement oversight involves monitoring a facility’s

compliance with terms of any agreements reached with the Agency as a result of an enforcement

action or a court order.

These and other compliance monitoring activities are used by OECA to most appropriately target

those violations that pose the greatest risks to human health or the environment. Depending on

the nature and scope of any violations discovered as a result of these monitoring activities,

criminal, civil, or administrative enforcement actions may be taken to provide immediate relief

from the illegal pollution activity, and other protective measures may be sought. Inspection

results are also used to inform the office’s compliance incentives and compliance assistance

programs. These types of information exchanges ultimately provide the foundation for allowing

EPA to administer the nation’s environmental laws in the most fair, effective, and efficient way

possible - one that provides the maximum benefits to the American people and the regulated

community as well.

In FY95, EPA and the states conducted 90,671 inspections at regulated facilities across the

nation. Table 2-1 shows the number of inspections conducted under each environmental statute

for each of the 10 EPA regions.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 2-2 Table 2-1 FY 1995 Inspections at Regulated Facilities Statute/Program Area Region Totals

I II III IV

V VI VII VIII IX

X

CAA (EPAand State)

StationarySources

939 251 9,991 4,834 6,688 2,936 2,151 1,081 1,667 225 30,763

CWA (EPAand State)

NPDESMajors

434 617 614 1,289 924 757 297 234 229 266 5,661

PretreatmentPrograms

33 35 61 206 169 41 61 31 58 12 707

EPCRA EPA 32 100 91 137 36 27 37 22 60 40 582FIFRA

EPA - - - - - - 2 117 - - 119State 1,259 1,068 2,110 3,037 3,454 13,340 409 1,369 2,620 972 29,638

TSCA

EPA 38 180 111 137 98 54 108 17 12 139 894State 250 120 202 199 282 132 188 96 74 - 1,543

RCRA

EPA 43 361 20 163 133 30 269 33 37 39 1,128State 798 3,195 1,559 6,836 3,756 1,539 711 484 385 373 19,636

Total Inspections at Regulated Facilities 90,671

CAA and CWA inspections are not broken out between EPA and states. EPA conducted approximately 2 percent of the CAA stationary source inspections reportedabove. For the CWA, EPA conducted approximately 19 percent of the major facility and pretreatment program inspections reported above.In addition to the regional and state FIFRA and TSCA inspections included above, there were 86 Good Laboratory Practices inspections conducted in FY 1995.These are the numbers EPA has traditionally used to measure the inspection program; however, EPA also maintains and reports data on other types of inspections.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-3 July 1996

2.1 Innovations in Compliance Monitoring

In FY 1995, EPA’s Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) completed its analysis of the

FY 1993-94 Federal Facilities Multimedia Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (FMECI). During

the FMECI, regions and states conducted 73 multimedia inspections and issued more than 110

enforcement actions for violations of nine separate environmental statutes. Approximately 44

percent of inspected facilities violated more than one statute and nearly 20 percent violated three

or more statutes. In addition, during FY 1995, FFEO continued to promote a commitment to

multimedia inspection and enforcement strategies by the regions. Most regions continued to

conduct multimedia inspections at federal facilities during FY 1995, and the results of the FMECI

indicate that most regions and states see benefits to using a multimedia approach. Lastly, an

increasing number of regions and states included supplemental environmental projects and/or

pollution prevention conditions in enforcement settlements as part of the FMECI.

In Region VI, improved information management contributed to more effective compliance

monitoring. Region VI developed a U.S./Mexico Hazardous Waste Tracking System

(HAZTRAKS). This system, a binational database that tracks the transboundary movement of

hazardous waste between Mexico and the U.S., serves both as a compliance monitoring tool on

waste shipments and assists in detecting violations of import/export regulations. During FY95,

nine administrative and judicial enforcement actions were filed and/or settled against companies

for failure to comply with federal laws applicable to the transboundary shipment of hazardous

wastes. These enforcement actions have been effective in signaling to the regulated community

the need for proper waste management practices.

HAZTRAKS has entailed significant international cooperation, with Region VI providing

computers and hardware/software on HAZTRAKS to Mexico to facilitate data entry of import

and export information into the binational tracking system. Computer training was also provided

through the University of Texas at El Paso.

A second information management effort consisted of the Electronic Data Interchange. Under this

project, which focused on streamlining existing paper processes associated with transboundary

movement of hazardous waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Enforcement Program in partnership with the Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation,

Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Ecologica, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission initiated a pilot project for the electronic transmission and exchange of environmental

compliance reports. Due to the transborder nature of the business conducted by Maquiladora

facilities, they are subject to the environmental compliance reporting requirements of both the

U.S. and Mexico, as well as to additional requirements of their respective customs and other State

agencies. The automation of reporting is providing a unique opportunity to streamline

environmental compliance reporting requirements by collapsing the paper requirements of

multiple agencies into a single electronic format. For FY95, the pilot phase of this project tested

the viability of electronically reporting manifest compliance data that are required of industry for

shipments of hazardous waste crossing the border into the U.S. for treatment, storage, and

disposal. The pilot has demonstrated that it is feasible to electronically exchange data, reduce
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 2-4

paperwork, speed up transboundary hazardous waste transactions, reduce data entry costs, and

provide real-time data for ongoing border compliance monitoring efforts.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-1 July 1996

3. USING ENFORCEMENT TO ENSURE PROTECTION

THROUGH COMPLIANCE

Criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement actions remain an effective, and appropriate,

means of addressing a wide range of environmental violations. The continued use of strong and

aggressive enforcement actions to ensure compliance has also driven the widespread acceptance

of EPA’s other compliance incentives and compliance assistance-related programs and policies. 

This strategic combination of traditional enforcement actions and other compliance-related

activities allows EPA to best apportion its resources to obtain the greatest protection for the

American people by ensuring full compliance with the environmental laws.

Traditional enforcement actions, brought at both the state and federal levels, serve several

purposes:

Emergency authorities allow the Agency to take immediate actions when public health or the

environment is at serious risk of harm from pollution and violations of the law. These judicial

or administrative actions often result in the immediate cessation by the violator of the harmful

pollution emission, and may require remediation or cleanup efforts to avert additional harm to

neighboring communities or to the environment.

Criminals, recalcitrant violators, or those whose violations pose serious risks to people or the

environment, can be punished through strong enforcement actions. Compliance with our

nation’s environmental laws is not optional, and enforcement actions are an effective means of

penalizing those who disregard the protection required by law.

Enforcement actions prevent violators from gaining any competitive advantages by skirting

pollution control requirements. No one should gain from violating the environmental laws,

and putting people’s health and the environment at risk. Furthermore, responsible citizens and

companies who make the necessary expenditures to comply with our laws should not be

placed at a competitive disadvantage to those who do not. EPA is committed to ensuring that

actions are taken to level the economic playing field for law-abiding companies.

Enforcement actions help deter future violations, providing assurance to the American people

that the environmental cop remains on the beat and that serious environmental violations will

not go undetected and unpunished.

Enforcement actions ensure that those responsible for the pollution pay for its cleanup, and

that the public does not shoulder the burden of these costs.

This section contains the highlights of EPA’s enforcement accomplishments in FY95. This past

year saw a continued increase in the number of environmental crimes prosecuted, addressing the

most egregious violators and cases of illegal pollution. In addition, FY95 saw a continued

increase in the amount of injunctive relief obtained by EPA through its enforcement actions (see

Tables 3-1 and 3-2 on the following pages). This figure represents a direct investment by
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 3-2

violators into the cleanup, protection, and preservation of our nation’s environment. Specific

highlights include:

Largest FIFRA §6(a)(2) Case in Program History - DowElanco agreed to pay $876,000 in

penalties for failing to disclose adverse effects incidents, most of which involved the widelyused insecticide chlorpyrifos. The complaint alleged 327 violations of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) §6(a)(2). The Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)

remanded the originally-proposed settlement of $732,000 because of concerns over

DowElanco's lengthy delay in reporting, which affected the penalty reduction calculation

under the FIFRA Enforcement Response Policy (ERP). EPA negotiated an increased penalty

and provided supporting documentation to show that it was in the public interest to encourage

registrants to disclose violations, even when such disclosure was very late. 

The DowElanco case arose in November 1994 after CBS News investigated an incident in

which the parents of a disabled child obtained a judgement against DowElanco for injuries

the court found were caused by pre-natal chlorpyrifos exposure. DowElanco disclosed to

EPA 249 unreported claims-related adverse effects incidents which spanned approximately

a decade.

FY95 Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Labeling Cases - EPA filed its first FIFRA

WPS misbranding actions against DuPont and Rhone-Poulenc in October 1994. DuPont is

charged with 379 counts of sale or distribution of four misbranded pesticide products; the

proposed penalty is $1.895 million. Rhone Poulenc is charged with 46 counts for a proposed

penalty of $230,000. Both DuPont and Rhone Poulenc failed to include required worker

protections on the pesticide labels.

TSCA §§5 & 8 Cases Issued - In FY95, EPA issued 53 administrative enforcement actions

for violations that occurred under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This number

represents the most cases ever taken by headquarters under TSCA in a single fiscal year. The

penalties assessed for the 53 cases totaled $1,137,000. 

All of the 53 cases involved violations of the TSCA §8(a) Inventory Update Rule (IUR). 

Specifically, these actions involved the chemical manufacturer’s and/or importer’s failure

to report in a timely manner specific chemical production and site information to the

Agency.

The information required to be reported is used by the Agency to make informed decisions

on potential environmental hazards, worker safety and the amounts of toxic chemicals

being introduced into the environment. In addition to federal and state agencies who rely

upon the information in establishing priorities, the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC)

also uses the data to prioritize chemical testing needs.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-3 July 1996

Table 3-1

Dollar Value of Fiscal Year 1995 Enforcement Actions (by Statute)

Statute Criminal Penalties Assessed Civil Judicial Penalties Assessed Administrative Penalties Assessed Dollar Value of Injunctive Relief Dollar Value of SEPs

CAA 156,700 10,464,583 2,366,859 114,784,941 4,331,622CERCLA 16,000 5,677,000 194,534 282,814,505 114,600CWA 11,564,900 8,919,150 5,462,329 302,902,435 50,162,839EPCRA 0 39,977 4,084,188 141,437 8,707,770FIFRA 73,600 39,300 1,630,039 5,071 685,879RCRA 10,961,400 937,500 13,076,989 2,229,785 5,457,366SDWA 100,000 34,000 255,191 520,874 20,000TSCA 0 168,282 7,042,884 1,842,977 15,125,576Multi-statute/unknown 348,500 8,645,680 1,941,161 201,395,027 19,235,121Total 23,221,100 34,925,472 36,054,174 906,637,052 103,840,773
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 3-4 Table 3-2 Cases Initiated and Concluded in FY95 Cases Initiated CAA CERCLA CWA NPDES CWA § 311 CWA § 404 EPCRA FIFRA RCRA SDWA Multi- Media /Unk. TSCA Total Criminal Referrals 38 7 91 w/CWA 3 0 12 94 2 0 5 256 Civil Referrals 37 102 35 11 3 3 1 14 5 0 3 214 Adm. Penalty Orders 102 23 173 17 22 244 160 91 86 0 187 1,105 Federal Facility Compliance Agreements

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Case ConclusionsCriminal Referrals 20 7 49 w/CWA 3 1 8 74 1 NA 3 168Civil Referrals 43 87 24 0 0 1 1 6 4 9 4 179Adm. Penalty Orders 127 28 191 15

4 201 105 104 55 45 239 1,114

Compliance Orders 130 257 825 - 40 NA NA 1 611 NA NA 1,864Federal FacilityCompliance Agreements

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3

1. Criminal referral initiation total includes four Title 18 and other cases; criminal conclusions include one Title 18 and one “other” case.2. Criminal cases are closed for various reasons including convictions and declination by DOJ, subsequent referral to state and local law enforcement

agencies, subsequent referral for civil/administrative action, etc.

3. Cases concluded during FY 1995 may have been initiated in any fiscal year.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-5 July 1996

National Enforcement Initiative on Inefficacious and Unregistered Sterilants and

Disinfectants - On February 15, 1995, EPA issued 13 civil administrative complaints against

the registrants of eight ineffective sterilant medical products, and against the manufacturer and

distributors of other sterilant and disinfectant products that were not properly registered with

EPA. A total of $3.1 million in civil penalties was sought.

Sterilants are used in hospitals, dental, medical and veterinary facilities for destroying all

forms of spores, bacteria, fungi and viruses on inanimate objects, particularly on delicate

medical and surgical instruments and equipment. Disinfectants are also used in these

facilities and in the home to control certain microorganisms. Ineffective sterilant and

disinfectant products may cause people to become ill because infectious microorganisms

that should have been destroyed remain viable.

National EPCRA §313 Community Right-to-Know Initiative - On June 16, 1995, the

Agency announced a nation-wide enforcement initiative against 47 companies that emitted or

released toxic chemicals into the environment but failed to make this information available to

EPA and the public as required under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA). 

EPA assessed $2.6 million in penalties against the companies for failure to supply

information on the release, transfer and management of 36 toxic chemicals, thereby failing

to make local communities aware of their potential exposure to these toxic chemicals. 

This community right-to-know information is required under the Toxic Release Inventory

(TRI) provisions of EPCRA.

The TRI reporting requirement provides the public, industry and federal, state and local

governments with a basic tool for making risk-based decisions about management and

control of toxic chemicals, which can have significant adverse effects on human health and

the environment. TRI data also allows the public as well as regulated entities to gauge the

progress of industry and government efforts to reduce toxic chemical wastes. 

National EPCRA §304/CERCLA §103 Hazardous Release Notification Enforcement

Initiative - On August 14, 1995, EPA announced an EPCRA §304 and Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) §103 Enforcement

Initiative focusing on accidental releases of ammonia and chlorine. 

This initiative included fines to 18 companies for failure to immediately notify local, state,

and federal authorities at the time of a non-permitted, non-exempted release of a

hazardous substance, as required by EPCRA §304 and CERCLA §103. The EPA regional

offices issued the enforcement cases, which were part of this national Hazardous Release

Notification Enforcement Initiative. Without timely notification, emergency responders

cannot adequately determine the need for a response action, which may include

evacuations, public announcements, and emergency medical care. Timely notification also

ensures that local citizens, fire departments, and health care providers have sufficient
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 3-6

information to make informed decisions about protecting the community and the

environment.

Antimicrobials - First Disinfectant Case - On February 15, 1995, EPA issued a Stop Sale,

Use or Removal Order on all quantities of Broadspec 128 and 256 (SSURO-95-H-3) and

announced civil penalties totaling $3.1 million against the registrants of eight ineffective

sterilants of medical instruments, the two hospital disinfectants, and against the manufacturers

and distributors of other sterilant and disinfectant products that were not registered as

required by EPA. Additionally, a civil administrative complaint was issued against the

company for $30,000 in penalties on violations of labeling requirements of FIFRA. This was

EPA's first enforcement action against a disinfectant product under its sterilant and

disinfectant testing program.

Specifically, the violations involved the sale or distribution of a misbranded/ inefficacious

disinfectant. EPA tested these products as part of an ongoing pesticidal efficacy effort to

verify the effectiveness of disinfectants. If these products are not effective, patients in

hospitals, nursing homes and trauma rooms are put at much greater risk of infection. 

As a result of EPA's enforcement action, the company sought a temporary restraining

order (TRO) against the Agency in U.S. District Court of Indianapolis, Indiana. Brulin

Corporation and the Agency subsequently entered into an agreement that requires the

company to retest the Broadspec products for efficacy. 

November 1994 Enforcement Initiative at Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities As

part of a continuing effort to protect human health and the environment from risk associated

with improper burning of hazardous waste, OECA coordinated its third hazardous waste

combustion enforcement initiative in FY95. The initiative included 32 enforcement actions

involving $7.5 million in penalties against owners and operators of incinerators and boilers and

industrial furnaces (BIFs) that burn hazardous waste. The 32 cases--22 settlements collecting

over $3.3 million in civil penalties, and ten administrative complaints seeking an additional

$4.2 million in penalties--were brought under RCRA and filed by EPA and state

environmental agencies in Georgia, Michigan, South Carolina, and Utah.

Model Lead-Based Paint Enforcement Program - OECA prepared a Model Lead-Based

Paint Enforcement Program and an accompanying guidance document. The Model Program,

developed pursuant to §404 of TSCA and codified as part of the TSCA §404 rule, will serve

as the basic guide for the federal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement program, as

well as a guide for states and tribes seeking authority to administer and enforce state/tribal

lead-based paint programs.

3.1 Civil Enforcement
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-7 July 1996

As shown earlier in this section, EPA assessed more than $70 million in civil penalties in FY95. 

On the judicial side, nearly $35 million in penalties were assessed, with nearly one-third of these

penalties assessed under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Administratively assessed penalties totalled

more than $36 million, with more than one-third of these penalties being assessed under RCRA. 

Combined, these penalties sent a strong message of deterrence to the regulated community. Some

of the more significant civil enforcement cases are discussed below.

Koch Materials - On March 29, 1995, EPA filed both a complaint and innovative settlement

agreement with Koch Materials and its sister asphalt companies, Elf Asphalt, Texas

Emulsions, and Southwest Emulsions. The agreement requires the asphalt companies to

immediately pay $102,000 in civil penalties for violations of TSCA §8(a) for failure to report

chemical production data to the EPA TSCA Chemical Inventory, as required under the TSCA

IUR. The updated inventory then provides EPA with a significant tool for identifying,

prioritizing, evaluating and developing a profile of toxic chemicals in the United States. The

data in the inventory is considered the only reliable source of national production volume

information for organic chemicals, and is used by the Agency to determine testing and

regulatory actions taken by the Agency. 

The settlement requires the company to review records for the past 10 years at each

facility to disclose TSCA and EPCRA §313 reporting violations, which allows local

communities to be aware of their potential exposure to these toxic chemicals. The audits

will cover approximately 90 operating facilities plus more than 50 formerly owned or

merged facilities across the country. This settlement arises from Koch Materials'

disclosure of its failure to report emulsifiers and other chemicals used in asphalt

production as required under the TSCA IUR for 1990. 

Koch Industries - In one of the largest Clean Water Act/Oil Pollution Act (CWA/OPA) cases

ever brought, DOJ, EPA, and the Coast Guard announced the filing of a civil lawsuit against

Koch Industries and several of its subdivisions for unlawfully discharging at least 3.5 million

gallons of oil into the waters of the United States. Since 1990, Koch and its subsidiaries were

responsible for more than 300 separate oil spills affecting waters of the United States,

including wetlands, across the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Alabama. In

this action, Koch faces potential penalties in excess of $50 million as well as requirements to

take such actions as are necessary to protect waters of the U.S. and eliminate future spills.

Copper Range - In a landmark settlement that will help reduce air and water pollution in the

northern regions of Michigan and Wisconsin, the Copper Range Company agreed to curb the

mercury, lead and cadmium output from its smelting plant in White Pine, Michigan and to pay

$4.8 million for civil penalties and environmental projects. 

Copper Range’s emissions of particulate matter have been a threat to air quality, resulting

in potential health effects including breathing impairments and respiratory ailments,

aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, damage to lung tissue and

alterations of the body's defense system against inhaled particles. The Copper Range

Company is also the largest emitter of mercury in the Upper Great Lakes. Environmental
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 3-8

justice issues involve fish advisories caused by excessive levels of mercury in fish taken for

subsistence purposes by local Native Americans. 

The settlement resolves a 1992 CAA suit brought by the National Wildlife Federation and

Michigan United Conservation Clubs that was later joined by the United States, Michigan

and Wisconsin. Alleged violations include: exceedances of emissions limits on particulate

matter (including excessive stack opacity) on a continuous basis, in violation of Michigan

State Implementation Plan (SIP) (CAA); and failure to report air toxics emissions (metals

and metallic compounds) (EPCRA and CERCLA). The case will result in annual emission

decreases of 1200 pounds of mercury, 50,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and at least 900 tons

of particulate matter. Mercury emission reductions will enhance Lake Superior water

quality and reduce mercury levels for continued subsistence fishing by local Indian tribes. 

The settlement also offered relief for local Native Americans whose blood contains

elevated levels of mercury from air pollution. 

Under the settlement, Copper Range will pay $1.6 million in civil penalties to the United

States, $200,000 in civil penalties to the state of Michigan, and $3 million into a trust fund

to be administered by Michigan and Wisconsin as trustees. As much as $1.4 million of the

civil penalty payment to the U.S. may be placed in a special §304(g) citizen suit fund

which may be appropriated for air enforcement and compliance activities. This is the first

time this new fund, added by the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, has been utilized. The

$3 million trust fund will be used for evaluation of the impact of mercury and other heavy

metals on the Lake Superior basin. 

Burlington-Northern - On March 29, 1995, Burlington Northern Railroad settled one of the

largest OPA cases. The claims arose from three separate oil and hazardous waste spills

caused by train derailments, including one near the town of Superior, Wisconsin, which spilled

nearly 22,000 gallons of aromatic concentrates containing various volatile organic

compounds, including carcinogens such as benzene and toluene; forced the evacuation of

approximately 50,000 people; and caused thousands of fish to be killed. The other two

derailments were in Wyoming and together spilled more than 3,400 barrels of oil into the

North Plate River.

Under the settlement, Burlington Northern agreed to pay a total of $1.5 million, including

a $1.1 million civil penalty (the largest single penalty awarded so far under the OPA),

$260,000 to reimburse EPA and other federal agencies for costs in responding to the

Wisconsin spill, and a $140,000 contribution to a fund managed by the Department of the

Interior and two bands of the Lake Superior Chippewas for injury to natural resources

caused by the Wisconsin spill. In addition, Burlington Northern agreed to spend $1.2

million to purchase three ultrasonic rail inspection cars which will improve the company's

ability to detect rail defects and prevent derailments like those that caused the three spills. 

Burlington-Northern will also pay $100,000 into a fund to study internal rail defects of the

type involved in these derailments.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-9 July 1996

In FY 1995, EPA issued a total of 20 enforcement actions with sanctions under RCRA to federal

facilities. RCRA penalties at federal facilities in FY 1995 totalled more than $1.5 million with an

additional $1.5 million worth of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) initiated as part of

enforcement settlements. In addition, the federal facilities program negotiated three CERCLA

Interagency Agreements and stipulated approximately $225,000 in penalty actions and $720,000

in supplemental environmental projects under CERCLA Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs). 

EPA also continued implementation of multi-media inspections and enforcement actions initiated

during the FY 1993-94 FMECI.

Specifically, EPA continued to emphasize aggressive enforcement of environmental regulations at

federal facilities, particularly RCRA requirements under the Federal Facilities Compliance Act

(FFCA). In FY 1995, FFEO and the regions issued 12 Consent Agreements and Final Orders

under RCRA §3008. The types of violations addressed under these actions ranged from illegal

transport of hazardous waste and improper waste management to inadequate waste

characterization and various procedural/administrative errors. Total penalties associated with

these actions amounted to nearly $360,000, with an additional $1.5 million worth of supplemental

environmental projects. During FY 1995, EPA also issued a total of six RCRA §3008 Complaints

and Orders with opportunities for hearings. The potential penalties associated with these actions

exceed $1.1 million. During the year, EPA, Region IV, and Region VI issued two Corrective

Action Orders under RCRA §3008(h) against the Air Force. Federal facilities affected by RCRA

Orders were located across seven EPA regions and included Army, Navy, and Air Force

installations, as well as facilities under the oversight of civilian federal agencies (CFAs) such as

the Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of the Interior

(DOI).

In addition to the activities conducted specifically by FFEO, the regions provided a strong

enforcement presence at federal facilities. Examples of such presence are discussed below:

Rocky Flats - In Region VIII, in resolution of 14 violations of the Rocky Flats Interagency

Agreement (IAG), the Department of Energy (DOE) agreed to pay $700,000 in cash penalties

and to expend $2.1 million for SEPs, with both the cash and SEP components to be split

evenly between EPA and Colorado. The settlement agreement required DOE to request a

specific authorization and appropriation for payment of the $350,000 cash penalty to EPA. 

Also in late September, DOE sent letters to effect the transfer of funds for all of the $2.1

million set aside for SEPs. These transfers include approximately $1.5 million for purchase of

open space surrounding Rocky Flats. Most of these funds will support an effort by

Westminster/Jefferson County to establish a wildlife corridor between the Rocky Flats Buffer

Zone and Standley Lake. These property acquisitions may also ensure the protection of

habitat of the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, which has been proposed for the Endangered

Species List.

Non-DOE Federal Generator Facilities - In this Region IX enforcement initiative, the

region found significant violations rates and ended the year with two complaints issued and

one pending against facilities located in different bureaus of DOI. Another highlight of
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 3-10

Region IX's formal compliance effort was the settlement of the RCRA complaint against

Schofield Army Barracks in Hawaii. The settlement included a SEP valued at over $1.2

million dollars. The SEP required a range of actions including elimination of 10,000 pounds

per year of spent solvent waste, reduction and upgrading of satellite accumulation points, and

adoption of a model hazardous substance management system, which should reduce the

generation of waste as well as assure that waste which is still generated is handled in an

optimal manner.

Alaska Department of Defense (DOD) Facilities - Upon passage of the FFCA, Region X

took significant penalty enforcement actions against three facilities which were considered

significant non-compliers because of over 10 years of chronic compliance problems. As a

result of the enforcement actions, these facilities have turned their operations around and are

now model facilities for RCRA compliance, to the point where no violations were noted

during the most recent inspections. Fort Richardson was recently awarded the Green Star

Award, recognized by EPA for environmental excellence, by the city of Anchorage for its

efforts in recycling. Other Army facilities in Alaska are in the process of receiving similar

awards from their communities. In addition, EPA and the Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation have signed a Statement of Cooperation with the Army to

provide a framework to resolve environmental issues, an agreement which has since expanded

to include the Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and other DOD facilities.

The Superfund enforcement program secured $851 million in private party cleanup commitments

in FY95. Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) commitments to site cleanup have averaged over

$1 billion per year for three of the past five years. Since the inception of the program, the total

value of private party commitments is estimated at more than $11 billion. PRPs continued to

initiate over 75 percent of new remedial work at National Priority List (NPL) sites during FY95.

PRP commitments for remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA) response work exceeded

$670 million. The type of response settlements and their estimated values were:

40 consent decrees referred to DOJ with an estimated response value of $362 million

31 unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) with which PRPs complied and for work estimated

at $306 million

6 administrative orders on consent (AOCs) for response work estimated at $2 million.

In an ongoing effort to promote enforcement fairness and resolve small party contributors'

potential liability under §122(g) of CERCLA, the Superfund enforcement program concluded 42

de minimis settlements with over 1,800 parties in the fiscal year. Through FY95, the Agency

achieved more than 200 de minimis settlements with more than 12,000 settlers.

In FY95, under CERCLA, the Agency reached a total of 163 administrative orders on consent,

and issued 94 unilateral administrative orders. The Agency addressed 184 past cost cases,
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-11 July 1996

including statute of limitation cases, all valued at more than $200,000 each. Of these cost

recovery actions 38 were administrative settlements, 30 were §107 referrals to DOJ, and 40 were

consent decrees. Seventy-five were decision documents to write-off past costs; one was a claim

in bankruptcy. In addition, the Container Corporation of America was assessed a $1.2 million

penalty under §104(e) of CERCLA. The penalty is the largest civil penalty ever obtained from a

defendant under §104(e).

During fiscal year 1995 the Agency achieved a total of 220 cost recovery settlements estimated at

more than $160 million, and collected over $254 million in past costs. To date the program has

achieved approximately $1.6 billion in cost recovery settlements, and collected over $1.1 billion in

past costs.

3.2 Criminal Enforcement

As shown on the following page in Table 3-3, a high level of enforcement activity by EPA's

criminal enforcement program during FY 1995 is reflected in several statistical categories. For

example, 256 cases were referred to DOJ in FY 1995 (the previous highest number was 220 in

FY 1994), and the number of cases initiated was up from 525 in FY 1994 to 562 in FY 1995. 

In FY 1995, the number of months of jail time to which defendants were sentenced totaled 890

months. One hundred and sixteen individual defendants pleaded or were found guilty and 31

corporate defendants pleaded or were found guilty. Over $23 million in criminal fines and

restitution were assessed in FY 1995. Additionally, in FY 1995, 245 corporate and individual

defendants were indicted.

Incarceration is a key component of the criminal enforcement program because of its deterrent

effect. Individuals are more likely to be deterred from criminal environmental misconduct because

of the stigma associated with a criminal conviction, as well as potential imprisonment. Those who

are convicted and sentenced to jail cannot pass the sentence on as another "cost of doing

business;" it must be served by the violator. Since 1990, individuals have received over 422 years

of incarceration for committing environmental crimes.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 3-12 Table 3-3 Criminal Enforcement Major Outputs (FY 1991 through FY 1995)
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-13 July 1996

Expected Pollutant Reductions

as a Result of SEPs

Total reduction of 637,000 pounds of nonhalogenated organics, including toluene and

xylene (9 cases)

Total reduction of 483,000 pounds of

halogenated organics, including solvents (6

cases)

Total reduction of 4,000 tons per year of

sulfur dioxide air emissions (2 cases)

Total reduction of 104,000 pounds per year of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) air

emissions (2 cases)

Clearly contributing to this increase in criminal prosecution is the Pollution Prosecution Act

(PPA) of 1990, which authorizes a number of enhancements to EPA's criminal enforcement

program, including increases in the number of criminal investigators to 200 and a commensurate

increase in support staff. By the end of FY 1995, EPA had increased the number of criminal

agents to 153 compared to 47 in FY 1989. This additional investment in agents has yielded

significant increases in most key areas of the criminal program including 562 cases initiated by the

end of FY 1995.

3.3 Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)

EPA uses SEPs to gain significant environmental benefits in conjunction with the settlement of

enforcement cases. Nominally, SEPs are projects voluntarily undertaken by members of the

regulated community in conjunction with case settlements to provide some level of environmental

benefit usually unrelated to the nature of the violations committed. In exchange for SEP

performance, the facility is granted penalty relief equaling some fraction of the total value of the

stipulated penalty. Historically applied

predominantly in reporting violation cases,

SEPs are maturing into a more versatile tool,

with SEPs now included in CAA, CWA,

RCRA, and other program area settlements.

As shown in Table 3-4 on the following page,

EPA negotiated nearly 350 SEPs in FY95,

totalling more than $103 million. Perhaps

more importantly, however, are the

environmental and human health benefits that

were derived from these cases. The text box

provides examples of such benefits. In FY95,

the highest number of SEPs was negotiated

under EPCRA (more than one-third). More

than half of all SEPs were categorized as

either pollution prevention or pollution

reduction.

Through the use of SEPs, Region I is

requiring facilities to either reduce or eliminate certain waste streams. In Region I during FY95,

19 SEPs were included in a total of 14 settlements. The types of SEPs included 3 pollution

prevention, 7 pollution reduction, 2 environmental restoration, 3 equipment donation, 2

environmental audits, 1 public awareness, and 1 public health/environmental justice. In Region II,

more than 260,000 pounds of EPCRA §313 chemicals will no longer be used or released into the

environment due to the implementation of SEPs. The expenditures incurred by the facilities to

achieve this reduction in emissions/usage was approximately $1.6 million.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-15 July 1996

Table 3-4

Fiscal Year 1995 Supplemental Environmental Projects and Their Associated Dollar Values

(By Statute and Type of SEP)

Statute Public Health Pollution Prevention Pollution Reduction Environmental Restoration/ Protection Environmental Assessments and Audits Environmental Compliance Promotion Emergency Planning and Preparedness Other Totals and Values

CAA No. 2 4 5 0 0 0 0 2 13

Value $4,331,622

CERCLA No. 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 21

Value $114,600

CWA No. 2 11 16 9 2 4 0 2 46

Value $50,162,839

EPCRA No. 3 43 31 1 2 4 49 0 133

Value $8,707,770

FIFRA No. 0 6 2 0 1 0 0 0 9

Value $685,879

RCRA No. 2 11 8 1 4 2 0 0 28

Value $5,457,366

SDWA No. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Value $20,000

TSCA No. 6 27 14 4 5 1 1 12 70

Value $15,125,576

Multimedia/unknown

No. 1 11 4 1 2 1 5 1 26Value $19,235,121

Totals No. 17 114 80 16 16 12 76 17 348

Value $103,840,773
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 3-16

Region IV identified two significant SEPs it achieved in FY95. Woodgrain Millwork, located in

Americus, Georgia, agreed to implement a $2.4 million pollution prevention SEP to redesign and

install a coating process to predominantly eliminate the current use of solvent- based toxic

chemicals, resulting in an overall 50 to 60 percent reduction of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs). Another SEP, in Clay County, Florida, involves construction of a force main from

Ridaught Landing Wastewater Treatment Plant to the County's reuse wastewater treatment

facility. This will eliminate the current surface water discharge into Little Black Creek. 

Construction will cost the County approximately $2.1 million.

In Region V, 14 SEPs were developed in settlement of EPCRA §313 enforcement actions and 2

in settlement of TSCA §§5 and 8 enforcement actions. These 16 SEPs resulted in the reduction in

the use of 1,134,128 pounds per year of toxic chemicals and in the reduction in the release of

825,560 pounds per year of toxic chemicals. In addition, Region V settled 16 polychlorinated

biphenyl (PCB) cases with SEPs costing $3,173,401 and involving the disposal of 1,039,282

pounds of PCBs and PCB items.

In FY95, Region VII was able to negotiate SEPs in 28 percent of its enforcement settlements. 

Over 80 percent of the SEPs negotiated involved pollution prevention projects representing

expenditures of nearly $3 million. Examples of the types of environmental benefits gained from

these SEPs include reduction of 20,000 pounds of xylene emissions per year; protection of

underground drinking water sources from contamination; immediate elimination of release of over

110 tons of sandblast residue to the environment, and permanent elimination of 388 tons per year

thereafter; replacement of refrigerant systems resulting in elimination of the use of over 1,700

pounds of chloroflourocarbon (CFC)-containing materials; and a collective reduction of TRI

chemicals by 3,165,000 pounds.

Region VIII is also encouraging industries to implement SEPs. Among its numerous SEPs,

Region VIII had the largest OPA penalty collected to date: the Burlington Northern Railroad

settled for $1.5 million in cash and the remaining in SEPs, and cost recovery. The SEPs included

a $100,000 study on improving early detection of spills in the industry.

3.4 Injunctive Relief

As shown earlier in this chapter, EPA actions resulted in more than $900 million in injunctive

relief. More than one-third of this relief was under the CWA. One of the more significant

injunctive relief cases was Ketchikan Pulp Company. On March 21, 1995,two weeks after

agreeing to pay $3 million in criminal penalties, the Ketchikan Pulp Company of Ketchikan,

Alaska, agreed to pay an additional $3.1 million in civil penalties, and to spend up to $6 million

more cleaning up damage it caused to Ward Cove. Accumulated wastes from the Ketchikan mill

have deprived the cove of its potential as a marine habitat.

The case alleged hundreds of violations of the CWA and CAA. The CWA allegations stemmed

from 42 occasions when the mill’s discharges into Ward Cove failed to meet the pH requirements

of its discharge permit, more than three dozen times when other effluent limits were exceeded,
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-17 July 1996

and repeated failure of the mill to report effluent monitoring results as required by its discharge

permit. 

Under the CAA, it was alleged that an oil-fired Ketchikan Pulp boiler failed to meet emission

standards over a two-year period, resulting in an estimated 1,600 tons of sulfur dioxide emissions

that should not have been released. 

This case is significant because it is among the largest penalties ever obtained by EPA in a CAA

New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) case and because of the innovative nature of some of

the injunctive relief in this case. Examples include Ketchikan’s agreement to: 1) conduct an

independent facility-wide multimedia audit that will ensure full compliance with environmental

laws and help efforts to prevent pollution; 2) eliminate direct discharges from its water treatment

plant; 3) develop a mill operations and maintenance program designed to minimize pollution; and

conduct a pollution prevention study modeled after EPA protocols that emphasizes the prevention

of toxic discharges or emissions. In addition, the case also demonstrates the concept of polluter

pays, since Ketchikan Pulp will be paying for the restoration of Ward Cove. 
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

4-1 July 1996

4. USING INCENTIVES TO INCREASE INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE

As mentioned earlier in this report, compliance with this nation’s environmental laws is an

obligation of all Americans - it is not discretionary. EPA’s goal is to ensure that the regulated

community fully complies with these laws to provide the maximum benefits for people’s health

and the environment. As a result of the reorganization of OECA, additional tools designed to

boost compliance with environmental laws are being used to enhance, and complement, the

traditional enforcement activities mentioned in the previous section. This section of the report

details certain programs and policies that provide the regulated community with incentives to

voluntarily comply with environmental requirements.

These programs and policies, which are set forth below, encourage the regulated community to

take full responsibility for their compliance status and their pollution practices. By providing, for

example, certain incentives for companies to engage in environmental audits or other

environmental management practices, this aspect of EPA’s programs helps lay the foundation for

internal corporate mechanisms that can detect and prevent future violations from occurring at a

facility. In addition, these incentives policies encourage a degree of openness between the

regulated community and the Agency. This increased level of trust and communication allows

EPA and the participating entity to jointly confront and address any violations without the delays

and expenses normally associated with contested litigation.

The following are some of the more significant compliance incentives activities undertaken by

EPA in FY95.

4.1 New Incentive Policies

EPA developed and implemented three major compliance incentive policies during FY95:

Environmental Audit Policy - EPA issued the "Voluntary Environmental Self-Policing

and Self-Disclosure Interim Policy," which offers dramatic new incentives for companies

that evaluate their own operations for compliance, then voluntarily disclose and correct

their violations. The policy provides incentives, such as reduced penalties and reduced

criminal liability, for companies that meet established conditions for finding, disclosing,

and fixing violations. It does not apply to parties engaging in recurring violations, or

violations that reflect criminal conduct or result in serious actual harm or imminent and

substantial endangerment. In addition, while the "punitive" or gravity-based component of

the penalty may be reduced, EPA will continue to recover any economic advantage that

companies may have gained from their noncompliance.

Small Business Incentives Policy - EPA issued the "Interim Policy on Compliance

Incentives for Small Business," which is intended to promote environmental compliance

among small businesses by providing incentives for participation in compliance assistance

programs and prompt correction of violations. Under the interim policy, EPA will

eliminate or reduce the civil penalty where a small business has made a good faith effort to
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 4-2

comply with applicable environmental requirements by receiving compliance assistance

from a non-confidential government or government supported program and the violations

are detected during the compliance assistance. The policy does not apply if the violation is

caused by criminal conduct or has caused actual serious harm or imminent and substantial

endangerment to public health or the environment.

Small Communities Flexibility Enforcement Policy - This policy describes the

circumstances in which EPA will generally defer to a state's decision to place a small

community on an enforceable compliance agreement and schedule that requires

compliance with all applicable environmental mandates by a specified date. Under the

policy, states can allow small communities to prioritize among competing environmental

mandates on the basis of comparative risk, and EPA will defer to the state's decision to

waive part or all of the noncompliance penalty.

4.2 Environmental Leadership Program

The Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is a national program currently being piloted by

EPA and the states in which facilities have volunteered to demonstrate innovative approaches to

environmental management and compliance. The ELP recognizes and rewards companies that

develop and implement comprehensive environmental management systems that result in

significant environmental improvements and yield outstanding compliance records. On April 7,

1995, EPA announced the 12 pilot facilities that would participate in the program (see Table 4-1

on the following page). These 12 facilities (10 private sector firms and 2 federal facilities) were

selected from a field of more than 40 applicants. The ELP projects focus on such issues as

development of innovative environmental management systems, creation of mentoring programs,

testing of third party auditing and self-certification protocols, and enhanced community

involvement policies.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

4-3 July 1996

Table 4-1

Environmental Leadership Program Participants

Company EPA Region State

Gillette (3 facilities) Regions I, V, IX Massachusetts, Illinois, California

Ocean State Power Region I Rhode Island

Duke Power Company Region IV North Carolina

The John Roberts Company Region V Minnesota

Ciba-Geigy St. Gabriel Region VI Louisiana

Motorola Region VI Texas

Arizona Public Service Region IX Arizona

Salt River Project Region IX Arizona

McClellan Air Force Base Region IX California

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Region X Washington

Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company Region X Washington

WMX Technologies Region X Oregon
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 4-4

This page is intentionally blank.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

5-1 July 1996

5. USING ASSISTANCE TO INCREASE SECTOR COMPLIANCE

Compliance assistance pertains to information and technical assistance provided to the regulated

community to help it understand and fully comply with the requirements of the environmental

laws. Along with the various incentives discussed in the previous section, compliance assistance

activities supplement the traditional enforcement actions EPA uses to ensure compliance with the

environmental laws.

Compliance assistance activities take place at both the state and federal levels and are mainly

targeted toward small businesses that make up the bulk of those facilities who need to comply

with environmental regulatory and statutory requirements. Many of EPA’s compliance assistance

activities involve partnerships with states and industry associations. For example, in FY95, these

efforts resulted in the initiation of four compliance assistance centers, located throughout the

country, and serving the following industrial sectors: printing, agriculture, metal finishing, and

auto repair. The participation of states and industry partners in the development of these

compliance assistance programs has allowed the Agency to tailor its assistance to those areas

where it can provide the most benefits.

There are several broad categories of compliance assistance:

Outreach to the states and regulated community through marketing of compliance guides,

seminars, information services, and other means of assistance

Response to requests for assistance, which may include requests for EPA to determine the

applicability of a particular regulation to a specific source, or more general inquiries to

hotlines or information centers

Partnerships between EPA, states, and industry, which may include development of selfaudit materials

Research to develop technologies needed to comply, or verify compliance, with new

regulations, or the development and dissemination of information pertaining to pollution

prevention technologies

On-site assistance, such as compliance consultations or audits.

These various compliance assistance activities help industry and government to work in tandem

toward the same goal - environmental protection through compliance with our laws. The

integration of these types of programs into OECA’s operations both promotes and ensures the

effectiveness of the other enforcement actions discussed in previous sections of this report.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 5-2

5.1 Compliance Assistance Centers

EPA, in partnership with industry, academic institutions, environmental groups and other federal

and state agencies, is establishing national Compliance Assistance Centers for four specific

industry sectors heavily populated with small businesses that face substantial federal regulation. 

The four centers are:

National Compliance Assistance Center for Printing Sector - In FY95, EPA's Office

of Compliance (OC), in conjunction with the Universities of Illinois and Wisconsin, the

Council of Great Lakes Governors, and the Environmental Defense Fund initiated

development of a National Resource Center targeted to the Printing Industry. This

electronically based “virtual” Center will conduct focus groups, distribute "best in class"

pollution prevention information, develop high quality technical and regulatory

information, and conduct training and outreach activities.

Agriculture Services Compliance Assistance Center - EPA initiated the Agriculture

Services Compliance Assistance Center in FY 1995. Utilizing existing distribution

networks, including the USDA Agriculture Extension Service, the Center will be a source

of environmental compliance information for agriculture producers. The Center will

develop material to be distributed by the USDA Extension Service and other national

associations that will give farmers “plain English” information on their regulatory duties

and pollution prevention opportunities.

Metal Finishing Resource Center - In FY95, EPA, and its partner, the National Institute

of Standards and Technology (NIST), initiated development of a Compliance Assistance

Center for the Metal Finishing Industry that will provide comprehensive and reliable

information on pollution prevention opportunities, regulatory compliance, and

technologies for reducing pollution. Initial products planned for release early in 1996

include an industry needs assessment survey; a directory of assistance providers; “plain

English” regulatory interpretations; pollution prevention on-line data; creation of a home

page on the World Wide Web; on-line expert assistance; and manufacturing efficiency case

studies.

Automotive Compliance Assistance Project - In FY95, EPA initiated a grant with the

Coordinating Committee for Automotive Repair (CCAR) for the development of an

Automotive Compliance Assistance Center. Initial products for this Center, when

operational in FY96, will include a 1-800 toll free system and an electronic bulletin board

on the Enviro$ense Home Page on the Internet. In addition, the grant will develop

community college compliance curriculum containing compliance and pollution prevention

information and local government consolidated inspection protocols.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

5-3 July 1996

5.2 Sector-specific Compliance Assistance

In recognition of the specific risks and prevalence of certain industry sectors, EPA continued

targeting specific sectors for compliance assistance. The following are some examples of the

sectors and the types of compliance assistance targeted toward them.

Dry-cleaning - EPA has targeted specific compliance assistance initiatives to the

perchloroethylene dry cleaning industry to increase compliance in the sector through

heightened awareness of the environmental regulations impacting their activities and the

pollution prevention opportunities available to the sector. Specific assistance projects

completed or underway include:

- Multimedia Inspection Guidance for Dry Cleaning Facilities - This manual will

assist environmental personnel in conducting multimedia inspections or audits at a

perc dry cleaning facility. A draft manual was completed in September 1995 and

will be finalized in FY96.

- Plain English/Korean Version of Perc Dry Cleaning Regulations - To assist dry

cleaners in complying with various environmental regulations, the Agency is

developing a comprehensive, readable version of environmental requirements. A

“Plain Korean” version of the guidance is under development as well to meet the

needs of the large component of Korean-Americans that populate the industry. 

These guidances will be field tested at dry cleaning facilities in the Fall of 1995 and

will be made widely available in FY96. 

Auto Services Industry - In FY95, EPA initiated two compliance assistance efforts

targeted at the auto services industry:

- National Environmental Curriculum - EPA, working through its grantee CCAR,

has identified 18 automotive topics of instruction to be used in the development of

curriculum modules for automotive technicians. These modules will address

compliance issues facing the automotive repair industry, as well as available

pollution prevention technologies. The curriculum should be available in late

FY96.

- Automotive Services Checklist - EPA has also developed a draft checklist of

federal environmental requirements that impact an automotive service and repair

shop. The checklist, which is ready to be pilot-tested by regional inspectors, will

be finalized in FY96. It will be made available to automotive shopowners to assess

their compliance status.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 5-4

Printing Facilities - In FY95, EPA initiated multimedia compliance/pollution prevention

assessment guidance for lithographic printers. The assessment guidance was developed in

conjunction with the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Printing Sector. The assessment

guidance helps states and/or EPA regional offices determine the compliance status of

printing facilities, as well as identify opportunities to use pollution prevention and

innovative technology to help facilities come into compliance or go beyond compliance. It

can also be used as a self-audit tool by printers to identify compliance issues and learn how

to incorporate pollution prevention into their facilities' practices. The guidance also

contains an extensive list of compliance assistance and pollution prevention materials

available for printers. EPA field tested the guidance at four facilities in the State of

Washington in conjunction with Washington State's Department of Ecology.

In addition, Region I provided compliance assistance to printers, including:

- Coordinated the activities of several state, private, and industry organizations in

Massachusetts offering compliance and pollution prevention services to printers

- Assisted Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation in establishing the

first of five model compliance facilities, which will also test pollution prevention

technologies

- Assisted the Toxics Use Reduction Institute at UMass-Lowell in demonstrating

near-zero VOC lithographic ink and blanket wash systems

- Began developing six compliance and pollution prevention workshops for printers,

and a joint workshop for textile manufacturers and screen printers.

Partners in Healthy Drinking Water (Mentoring Outreach on TCR Rule) - In

August 1995, EPA awarded four grants in the total amount of $150,000, to three states

and one tribal organization to fund participation in a compliance assistance mentoring

program pilot designed to assist small and very small public water systems to come into

compliance with EPA’s Total Coliform Rule (TCR). The TCR requires public water

systems to monitor the microbiological quality of drinking water. In FY94, 54 percent of

the small community water systems failed to meet the microbiological requirements. Pilot

grantees included the Colorado Department of Public Health, Iowa Department of Natural

Resources, Alaska Water Management Association, and Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. 

Each grantee is responsible for identifying small public water systems in their jurisdiction

that are out of compliance with the TCR on a recurrent basis and pair them with a

volunteer from a “mentor” public water system with a good compliance record. Mentors

provide such assistance as monthly reminders to conduct required sampling, and advice on

sampling protocols.

EPCRA Outreach - Region II conducted EPCRA outreach for non-reporters and current

reporters. A mailing was sent to over 1,000 New Jersey facilities in SIC Codes 26 (paper
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

5-5 July 1996

The New England Environmental Assistance Team

(NEEAT) is focusing in FY95 and FY96 on

assistance to municipalities, mainly with wastewater

issues, and on three industrial sectors that are also

CSI sectors: metal finishing, printing, and

electronics/computers. Activities in each sector fall

into clusters: on-site, tailored assistance (to

municipalities only), workshops/training, printed

information, technology development/demonstration,

telephone assistance, and a recognition program (to

be launched in FY96).

and allied products), 28 (chemicals

and allied products), 30 (rubber and

miscellaneous plastics products), 33

(primary metals), and 34 (fabricated

metals). The recipients were facilities

with less than 50 employees that had

not reported for TRI. This was

followed up with three seminars held

in January 1995 for these groups. 

New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection

representatives also participated in

these seminars, making presentations on the New Jersey Community Right-to-Know

Release Reporting Requirements and Pollution Prevention Laws. In addition, 10 EPCRA

§313 compliance assistance seminars were held in the region.

Metal Furnishing Manufacturers - Region III's Air Enforcement Program implemented

a Pilot Business Compliance Assistance and Incentive Strategy. The goal of this new

approach is to achieve the same or greater emissions reductions as would be achieved

through traditional enforcement actions by offering incentives for compliance (i.e.,

technical assistance and reduced penalties). The metal furniture manufacturing sector has

been selected as the pilot sector for compliance assistance. In FY 1995, the Region

provided staff training to deliver compliance assistance, coordinated discussions with state

and local authorities, developed compliance assistance materials that explain applicable

regulations and compliance requirements, and determined the baseline compliance rate.

Public Water Supply Systems (PWSS) - The PWSS Program in Region IV developed a

program for lead and copper field assistance for small systems in North Carolina. The

State and National Rural Water Associations will assist 200 systems that have lead and

copper violations by providing on-site technical assistance and compliance workshops to

return systems to compliance.

Noncommunity Water Systems - Region V and the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management Drinking Water Branch co-sponsored 15 compliance

assistance workshops at nine locations. The compliance assistance effort targeted almost

850 small transient noncommunity water systems that had failed to collect annual nitrate

samples for the past 2 years. A total of 309 system representatives attended the

compliance assistance workshops. As a result of joint efforts, about 600 of the targeted

systems are working to achieve compliance with the Federal nitrate requirements.

Foundries - To address high rates of noncompliance among foundries in Region VI, a full

spectrum of compliance and enforcement tools is being used. In partnership with the
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 5-6

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), EPA developed a compliance

assistance pilot project for the foundries in Oklahoma willing to participate in the program. 

The project started with a outreach seminar in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in April 1995. Facilities

were offered a six month grace period to conduct a multimedia self-assessment of their

operations, correct violations, and self-report to ODEQ on changes in their operation as a

result of the outreach. Participants were given relief from civil penalties while they

corrected any regulatory deficiencies discovered during the audit. In addition, ODEQ

provided on-site multimedia technical assistance to participating facilities that is similar to

the CAA §507 program for small businesses. 

Twenty-three of Oklahoma's 63 foundries took part in the program. ODEQ reported the

foundries’ compliance concerns and interests were in air (52 percent), storm water (30

percent), solid waste (17 percent), and hazardous waste (17 percent). Preliminary

statistics indicate 14 of the facilities in the program participated in the ODEQ/self-audit

program. The survey results of the workshop indicated six facilities had made changes to

their operations to address compliance issues as a result of the workshop. The Oklahoma

pilot has been praised by the industry and will serve as a model for helping to shape future

compliance assistance programs in the region to strengthen compliance and promote

pollution prevention.

Small Businesses - Region VII worked closely with the state Small Business Assistance

Programs (SBAPs) in all four states, as well as with pollution prevention contacts, to

implement active and successful compliance assistance programs that provide assistance to

businesses and communities on all federal and state environmental regulatory

requirements. All of the SBAPs conduct extensive outreach to a diverse group of small

businesses and all have received very positive feedback from stakeholders on their

compliance assistance efforts. Examples of the scope and types of compliance assistance

provided by the state SBAPs in FY95 include:

- The Nebraska SBAP addressed 34 complaints and 230 inquiries, provided on-site

assistance to 26 small businesses, and participated in outreach at various meetings

attended by 1,882 people. 

- The Iowa SBAP (with the Iowa Waste Reduction Center) provides compliance

assistance training to small businesses. The training addressing spray painting is

designed to reduce air emissions and material consumption. After attending this

training, one small business reduced material consumption by more than 30 percent

and average monthly material costs from $6,000 to $2,000.

- The Kansas SBAP has produced numerous compliance assistance materials

including fact sheets for farmers concerning air conditioning certification, quickreference guides for dry cleaners, a degreasing manual, and materials for chromium

electroplaters and printers. In addition, the Kansas SBAP distributes a quarterly
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

5-7 July 1996

newsletter focusing on specific CAA information that is important to small

businesses.

- The Technical Assistance Program (TAP) in the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources has established an environmental education program for elementary and

secondary school teachers. The TAP offers between 15-18 courses each year. 

The courses assist teachers in development of environmental education curricula.

Hazardous Waste Generators - Region IX, in cooperation with the California

Department of Toxic Substances Control, put on workshops for small- to medium-sized

hazardous waste generators across the state. The primary strategy was to conduct the

generator workshops in rural counties where information on the hazardous waste handling

requirements was harder to obtain. 

Region IX also identified federal facilities as a sector requiring compliance assistance. A

total of seven generator workshops for federal facilities was conducted during the year. 

Five workshops were conducted for the U.S. Navy in Hawaii, one for the San Francisco

Bay Area Health and Safety Council, and one as part of a federal facilities conference held

in the regional office. The combined total attendance for all the workshops conducted in

FY95 was approximately 1,000 people.

CFC Emitters - Region X's Air Program compliance assistance efforts focused on

outreach efforts to the regulated community for new requirements. The region prepared

information packets to sources regulated under the CFC program (primarily §§608 and

609) and conducted a limited number of inspections in areas where low numbers of notices

were filed. The region also targeted outreach efforts at demolition and renovation

contractors that remove heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. The region

conducted a workshop in conjunction with the local chapter of the Air and Waste

Management Association for Title V and new maximum achievable control technology

(MACT) standards. 

5.3 Compliance Assistance to Federal Facilities

During FY95, FFEO continued development and implementation of compliance assistance

programs in concert with the other offices within OECA. The following presents information on

some of the more significant compliance assistance efforts:

EPA/Army Pollution Prevention Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) - EPA recently

completed a series of pollution prevention technical assistance projects through an MOA

with the Army. In January 1995, FFEO helped form a partnership between EPA and the

Army to conduct pollution prevention research at three Army installations: Rock Island

Arsenal, Illinois; Ft. Benning, Georgia; and White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico. 
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 5-8

The pollution prevention opportunity assessments provided under the EPA-Army MOA

encouraged the development and adoption of production, recycling, and treatment

processes that result in the reduction of hazardous wastes. Each assessment included an

on-site visit, consultation with Army personnel, and a written report, which is a public

document.

FEDPLAN-PC - EPA developed a PC-based information management system (known as

FEDPLAN-PC) to support the federal agency environmental program planning process. 

The new system was implemented in all 10 EPA regions this year and many federal

agencies and departments received demonstrations of the software. The goal of the

process is to ensure that federal agencies identify all relevant environmental requirements

and devote adequate resources to address them. EPA uses FEDPLAN-PC to analyze

individual agency data submissions, identify gaps in agency plans, evaluate funding trends,

and forecast future budget requirements. The system also can be used by federal agencies

in their internal environmental program management. FEDPLAN-PC is comprehensive,

covering the full range of activities from pollution prevention and compliance to

remediation.

Federal Facilities Tracking System (FFTS) - EPA developed a significantly enhanced

version of FFTS to extract federal sector compliance data from other EPA compliance

data systems and to make it more readily available to EPA personnel. In addition, EPA is

currently sponsoring a pilot effort in Region X to test the capabilities of FFTS to track the

entire universe of facilities on a sector-by-sector basis. If the expansion to other sectors

proves successful, FFTS will save the government time and resources, and will enhance

the efficiency of EPA regional staff in promoting environmental compliance in both the

public and private sectors. 

Environmental Benchmarking - In FY 1995, EPA continued its identification of areas in

which federal agencies need improvement in fulfilling their environmental responsibilities. 

This identification establishes a benchmark from which to measure the degree of

improvement in federal agency environmental management programs. In addition, the

benchmarking initiative will enable EPA to assess the effectiveness of its own compliance

assistance and outreach efforts.

Civilian Federal Agency (CFA) Task Force - To offer enhanced compliance assistance

to the civilian departments and agencies throughout the government, EPA formed a task

force to address federal facilities’ unique environmental compliance management

problems. The purpose of the task force, chaired by EPA, is to identify deficiencies in

CFA environmental management and compliance programs, determine their causes, and

make recommendations for improvements. The task force has been instrumental in the

development of two key documents during FY 1995:
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

5-9 July 1996

- CFA Environmental Improvement Strategy, which contains specific

recommendations for improvements in six primary areas of need that could be

made through increased technical assistance from EPA or other sources

- Generic Audit Protocol is intended to assist in the conduct of environmental audits

and environmental management assessments of federal facilities. 

Environmental Auditing - The Generic Protocol for Conducting Environmental Audits

of Federal Facilities was released in March 1995. The document was a collaborative

effort by the Federal Audit Protocol Workgroup consisting of environmental audit experts

from various federal agencies and departments (DOD, DOE, DOI; EPA; Postal Service;

National Aeronautics and Space Administration; USDA; and FAA). This document

contains specific procedures (protocols) for evaluating the performance of facility specific

technical and multimedia programs, such as air, water, solid and hazardous waste against

compliance with federal environmental requirements.

In addition to guidance development, in March 1995, EPA, in joint effort with the

Institute for Environmental Auditing and DOE, sponsored a seminar and training designed

to provide an accelerated learning experience for audit professionals. Practitioners

throughout the federal government examined proven techniques, innovative tools, and

methods. In May 1995, EPA, in partnership with audit experts from DOE, designed and

conducted a one-day training course for 50 EPA personnel to support the Environmental

Leadership Program. 

Pollution Prevention - To assist federal agencies in meeting the challenges posed by

Executive Order (EO) 12856 "Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and

Pollution Prevention Requirements" and EO 12873 "Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and

Waste Prevention," EPA initiated or participated in a number of efforts ranging from the

formation of an interagency pollution prevention task force and the establishment of a

federal agency environmental management challenge program to pollution prevention

training and preparation of guidance documents. EPA conducted six training workshops

for federal agencies on how to prepare pollution prevention plans required under EO

12856. EPA also has developed a number of guidance documents to assist federal agency

compliance with the provisions of these executive orders. Specific examples of these

documents include:

- Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Planning Guide

- Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Project Analysis: A Primer for Applying

Life Cycle and Total Cost Assessment Concepts
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 5-10

- Executive Order 12856:Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and

Pollution Prevention Requirements: Questions and Answers

- Guidance for Implementing Executive Order 12856: Federal Compliance with

Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements

- Meeting the Challenge: A Summary of Federal Agency Pollution Prevention

Strategies.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

6-1 July 1996

6. NEW APPROACHES TO SOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

In FY95, EPA continued to enhance its programs that strategically target enforcement and

compliance activities to address the most significant risks to human health and the environment. 

These innovative approaches to targeting, which are discussed in this section, are organized

around whole facilities, industrial sectors, and geographic areas. In many instances, a multimedia

approach allows the Agency to better address persistent problems affecting a whole facility or

industry. A geographic orientation also permits the Agency to target its enforcement and

compliance efforts based on the aggregate impacts of pollution sources on certain communities. 

For example, these types of activities are used to support the office’s commitment to

environmental justice. These new orientations for targeting enforcement and compliance activities

also help integrate the work of the enforcement and compliance assurance program into the

community-based environmental protection efforts throughout the Agency.

Region VI Oil Pollution Act

Inspection Targeting and Tracking Process

Region VI has developed an OPA inspection targeting system that prioritizes inspections based on

greatest risk. The system conducts its analyses by considering spill history, past compliance

performance, sensitive ecosystems, drinking water intakes, surface waters, ground waters, impacts to

human health, conformance with industry standards, facility size, concentration of facilities,

topography, lightning strike data, soil corrosivity data, adverse weather conditions, areas prone to

flooding, and socio-economic factors. These data are compiled in a geographic information system

(GIS) database system. The data are shared with states, other federal agencies, and industry. The

purpose is to provide the best spill response and prevention mechanism available to combat oil

spills. The Coast Guard and over 35 major companies have requested assistance in development of

a similar system. EPA currently shares its data over the Internet and through CD ROM distribution.

6.1 Sector-based Information and Initiatives

The new framework for EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance programs reorients the

Agency's focus to compliance problems that pervade certain sectors of the regulated community. 

This sector-based approach enables the Agency to:

Address noncomplying sectors more effectively

Allow for "whole facility" approaches to enforcement and compliance

Measure more specifically rates of compliance and the effectiveness of enforcement

strategies

Augment enforcement strategies with appropriate compliance enhancement activities
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 6-2

Develop sector expertise, which should improve performance in all aspects of the

Agency's enforcement program.

During FY95, EPA made great strides in developing sector expertise. Such strides will allow the

Agency to begin making sector-based enforcement and compliance assurance an integral part of

everyday activities.

6.1.1 Sector Notebooks

In the Fall of 1995, EPA published a series of 18 Industry Sector Notebooks that provide an indepth profile of specific industry sectors. Each notebook includes discussions of general industry

information (economic and geographic); a description of industrial processes; pollution outputs;

pollution prevention opportunities; federal statutory and regulatory framework; compliance

history; and a description of partnerships that have been formed between regulatory agencies, the

regulated community and the public.

Sector Notebooks

Dry Cleaning Non-Metal Mining

Electronics and Computers Organic Chemicals

Fabricated Metal Products Petroleum Refining

Inorganic Chemicals Printing

Iron and Steel Pulp and Paper

Lumber/Wood Products Rubber and Plastics

Metal Mining Transportation Equipment Cleaning

Motor Vehicle Assembly Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete

Nonferrous Metal Wood Furniture and Fixtures 

6.1.2 Sector-specific Initiatives

A major national accomplishment during FY95, was OECA's first ever sector agreement. This

agreement with the Gas Processors Association (GPA) settled 51 enforcement actions. The focus

of this national agreement is reduced penalties for gas processors in exchange for a substantial

amount of TSCA chemical production information being reported to EPA. As a result of this

sector agreement, 249 facilities provided chemical production information for the 1990 IUR. 

Both GPA and EPA sought an agreement to encourage natural gas processors to file reports

pursuant to the Update of the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory. Sixty-eight companies

registered to participate in this natural gas sector agreement and 51 settlement documents were

approved by the EAB in FY95.

Based on its specific industrial base, each region develops and implements sector-based initiatives

to target those sectors presenting serious environmental problems. In FY95, several regions

pursued sector-based initiatives. Select initiatives are discussed below:
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

6-3 July 1996

Printing - In FY95, Region II inspected 30 of the approximately 100 flexographic

printing operations in the New York City metropolitan area and found a noncompliance

rate of 35 percent. Most of the cases are still pending, but when completed, the region

estimates approximately 200,000 pounds per year of VOC emissions will be eliminated.

Non-metallic Mineral Processing Operations - Due to the suspected noncompliance

among the rock crushing/processing operations in Region II, the region targeted this

sector for compliance/enforcement activities in FY95. The particulate matter (PM)

produced in rock quarrying and processing is usually of relatively large particle size,

though some of the dust generated tends to be in the respirable range (< 3 microns) and

constitutes a health hazard. The region's efforts were concentrated mainly in Puerto Rico,

because of its PM 10 nonattainment areas.

Industrial\Commercial Boilers - Region II is participating in a national Boiler

Enforcement Initiative designed to address the noncompliance status of such sources,

which have the potential to emit total particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. The region is

developing inventories of boilers in New York and New Jersey and has already issued

select informational request letters targeting two large organizations (New York City

[NYC] Board of Education--School Construction Authority and NYC Housing Authority)

that have approximately 1,000 boilers, out of the approximately 3,000 boilers in the NYC

area.

Sources of VOC Emissions - Region III completed the targeting strategy, identified the

largest VOC sources in a limited number of SIC code categories, and discussed each

facility/VOC source with the enforcement programs.

Wood Product Companies - Region III actively supported the National Wood Products

Initiative, which was designed to address excess air emissions, primarily of VOCs, in the

wood products industry. This included issuing and reviewing CAA §114 letter responses. 

Region III supported three wood products facilities (Georgia Pacific) for the national

Notice of Violation (NOV). As an offshoot of the national initiative, Region III issued

nine §114 letters to smaller wood product companies to determine their compliance with

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations and conducted inspections of six

wood products facilities in the region.

Foundries - Region VI targeted inspections across the region in FY94 and several

enforcement actions were initiated. During FY95, the RCRA Enforcement Branch

developed baseline information on the industry while on-going enforcement support

shifted resources to compliance assurance activities. To address high rates of

noncompliance in the region, a full spectrum of compliance and enforcement tools is being

used. In partnership with ODEQ, EPA developed a compliance assistance pilot project

for the foundries in Oklahoma willing to participate in the program.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 6-4

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) - Region VI issued a National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit to concentrated animal

feeding operations in February 1993. After 2 years of compliance and enforcement

efforts, nearly all major producers (400) in Oklahoma are compliant. The EPA issued

approximately 100 orders to producers to complete pollution prevention plans and the

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture met with each producer individually so the plan

would be implemented in a timely manner. Overall, compliance has been achieved through

outreach in combination with traditional enforcement mechanisms. 

In Region X, EPA, the state of Idaho, and the dairy industry agreed on a new approach to

inspect the approximately 1,400 dairy operations (CAFOs). In the past, EPA was only able

to inspect 5 percent of the dairy operations per year. In an effort to increase the number

of inspections, and educate the farmers about water quality protection, the Idaho State

Department of Agriculture (ISDA) will take the lead in inspections, while EPA retains its

oversight authorities. The ISDA already inspects the diaries for milk quality and with the

new agreement will expand their inspections to look at the waste management practices. 

With the number of ISDA dairy inspectors, it is anticipated that more than 95 percent of

the dairies will be inspected per year. For those dairies who are illegally discharging or

have inadequate waste management practices, ISDA will have the ability to revoke the

farmer's license to sell milk.

For the CAFO program in Oregon, EPA, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture also

entered into an agreement establishing a partnership for regulating the industry. In FY95,

30 joint inspections were conducted and EPA overfiled on four enforcement actions

(Oregon is a delegated NPDES state.) In addition, last fall approximately 150 farmers

attended an EPA and state sponsored "mock" inspection, prior to the joint inspections. 

The purpose of the "mock" inspection was to inform the farmers of what aspects of their

farms would be inspected and what type of waste management practices were expected by

the farmers.

Over the past three years, Region X has inspected approximately 200 CAFOs and issued

17 administrative orders and 21 complaints in Idaho. In addition, in the past year Region

X has issued 4 orders and 4 complaints in Oregon.

Oil and Gas Exploration and Production - In response to Region VI's December 3,

1993, modification of the NPDES general permit for offshore oil and gas exploration and

production, which incorporated newly promulgated discharge guidelines established at 40

CFR Part 435, the region undertook an initiative that ranked the 150 discharging

companies according to the seriousness of the violations and the relative magnitude of

their operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Administrative Orders requiring immediate

corrective action were drafted for those companies ranked among the most serious

violators. In some instances, violations were serious enough that administrative penalty

orders were also issued.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

6-5 July 1996

Vigorous enforcement of the NPDES general permit for offshore oil and gas exploration

and production has contributed to significant reductions in the reported concentration of

pollutants discharged to the Western Gulf of Mexico. Among the most toxic of the

discharges from these platforms is produced water (i.e., water extracted from the

underground formation of oil and gas, which is separated out, treated, and discharged to

the Gulf). Oil and grease concentrations in the produced water are measured monthly, and

the worst case measurement is reported annually for each discharge location. The figure

presented below depicts the reduction in reported oil and grease concentrations on an

annual average basis of more than 900 discharge points during the time period 1989 to

present.

In addition to compliance monitoring for produced water oil and grease, the permit

limitations for discharges of deck drainage, drilling fluids and cuttings, sanitary waste, and

other miscellaneous waste streams have also been closely monitored, and rigorously

enforced. Although not as readily quantified, it is apparent that substantial reductions

have also occurred in these areas.

Region IX also conducted an inspection initiative of the 19 oil and gas facilities (refineries,

exploration and production platforms) in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska. This was in

part in response to a citizen suit notice and the region’s enforcement actions against 18 oil

and gas exploration and production facilities. The purpose of the inspections was to

determine if the non-compliance activities identified in the enforcement actions were still

continuing. Inspections determined that the facilities were in compliance.

Bulk Pesticide Repackaging - Region VII continues to work with EPA headquarters,

states, and the pesticide industry in the bulk pesticide repackaging initiative begun four

years ago to assess the integrity of bulk repackaged pesticides. Based upon inspection
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 6-6

findings that 70 percent of bulk repackaged pesticides were contaminated with one or

more other pesticide active ingredients, EPA initiated several meetings of stakeholders to

identify and resolve this situation. In FY95, Region VII continued to work with

stakeholders to define toxicologically significant levels of pesticide cross-contamination in

bulk repackaged pesticides.

Boilers and Industrial Furnaces - Region VII combined compliance assistance and

RCRA administrative enforcement actions to address compliance issues involved with

implementation of the RCRA BIF Rule. During the past two years, Region VII has issued

a number of RCRA administrative enforcement actions to seven of the eight cement kilns

in the region that burn hazardous waste as interim status facilities under the BIF Rule. 

Concurrent with the issuance of these enforcement actions, Region VII also conducted

compliance assistance activities such as semi-annual regional roundtable discussions

between Region VII, states, and members of the cement kiln recycling coalition. Many of

the industry participants in these roundtable discussions were from facilities involved in the

Region VII enforcement actions. This combination of enforcement and compliance

assistance activities has led to increased communication and understanding among Region

VII, states, and the cement kiln industry. 

These activities have also resulted in the development and use of specific approaches to

implement the BIF Rule including a protocol for sampling and analysis to ascertain if the

cement kiln dust meets the Bevill exemption. Use of this protocol significantly decreases

the risk that hazardous cement kiln dust will be improperly disposed of and negatively

affect human health and the environment.

6.2 Place-based Initiatives

More and more, EPA and the states are focusing their compliance assurance and enforcement

efforts on specific places that require special attention. Such places can either be geographic

locations (e.g., cities, counties) or ecosystems (e.g., lakes, rivers). Like sector-based initiatives,

these national initiatives are best implemented at a regional level, where each individual region can

assess its own geographic areas and ecosystems and develop specific programs to meet the

individual needs.

6.2.1 Geographic Initiatives

At the national level, one specific example of a geographic-based initiative was the Miami,

Florida, initiative conducted by the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training

(OCEFT). Over the course of FY 1995 there has been a dramatic increase in the illegal

importation of CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals (ODCs) in the United States

subsequent to the promulgation of stringent amendments to the CAA. EPA’s Criminal

Investigation Division (CID) responded with aggressive investigation of these activities. Illegal

importations of CFCs often involve violations of United States Customs Service (USCS) statutes

related to smuggling and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) codes regarding the payment of CFC

excise taxes. During FY 1995, the majority of criminal activity in this area occurred in the Miami,
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

6-7 July 1996

Florida, area. EPA’s Miami Office initiated 12 investigations involving illegal ODC importations. 

EPA has selected a national coordinator to serve as a focal point among all area offices, the

USCS, and the IRS. In FY 1995, the first successful prosecutions of ODC smuggling cases

occurred with two convictions and four pleas to criminal counts. Four individuals were sentenced

to prison terms totaling 50 months.

EPA and the states are realizing that certain geographic areas create more harm to human health

and the environment than others. To address this situation and provide protection to residents of

these areas, the Agency is moving its compliance assurance and enforcement priorities to specific

geographic areas. The examples below highlight some of the specific initiatives in such areas:

Specific Urban Areas - Region I originally targeted four urban areas for special

enforcement attention and later added a fifth. The targeted urban areas were: Providence,

Rhode Island; Boston, Massachusetts; and Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven,

Connecticut. Regional staff worked with community groups and state and local officials

to identify sectors and facilities that posed the greatest risk of environmental harm in these

areas and to develop SEPs that would benefit the local population.

Long Island, New York and Camden, New Jersey - Much of Region II has high

population density and depends on ground water for potable water. To enhance aquifer

protection, especially sole source, the region has conducted aquifer protection initiatives

since 1991. In FY95, the region continued to emphasize this regional priority and

conducted geographic initiatives to protect groundwater in Long Island and Camden.

Chester, Pennsylvania - TRI reporters have been identified and ranked using the Chronic

Index, and four multimedia inspections have been conducted. For air emissions, 39

facilities were screened, 16 file reviews were conducted, 12 inspections were conducted,

and five NOVs and three §114 letters were issued in support of the initiative. Formal

administrative and/or judicial actions are still being considered at several facilities. For

RCRA, 43 hazardous waste and underground storage tank leak detection inspections were

conducted and coordinated by EPA (21) and the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection (PADEP) (22). Inspections were targeted at a mix of

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDs), large quantity generators (LQGs), and

small quantity generators (SQGs) that had not been previously inspected. Four NOVs

were issued by EPA and seven NOVs were issued by PADEP in response to identified

violations. 

South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - TRI reporters have been identified and ranked using

the Chronic Index. Two multimedia and several individual program inspections have been

planned and will be carried out during the second quarter of FY 1996. A health study is

being undertaken by Johns Hopkins University, the results of which will be used to further

target inspection candidates. A compliance assistance initiative has been started for the

auto body sector. In support of this initiative, the Air Radiation and Toxics Division has

screened 46 facilities, conducted 17 file reviews, and performed eight inspections. 
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 6-8

Fourteen facilities were screened for RCRA and NPDES program interest and inspections

will be conducted at five to ten of these facilities during FY 1996. One air case was

referred to DOJ. While this source was outside of South Philadelphia, it was adversely

impacting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead in a residential

neighborhood in South Philadelphia.

Greater Chicago, Illinois - In the Greater Chicago Geographic Initiative area, Region V

has continued to implement a strong enforcement program, and, in a separate nonregulatory program, the region has continued to work closely with state and local partners

to provide quality pollution prevention technical assistance in the community. The region

recently announced a significant settlement at the PMC facility in Southeast Chicago

where EPA joined in an action brought by two public interest plaintiffs under the Clean

Water Act. The settlement calls for payment of a $1.6 million penalty. The region also

continues to prosecute a 39-count multimedia judicial action against PMC's neighbor,

Sherwin-Williams, Inc. Vigorous enforcement of the CAA has also resulted in NOVs

against LTV Steel, Ford Motor Company and the City of Chicago's Northwest

Incinerator. The region is working to resolve each of these matters.

Southeast Michigan - There have been three ongoing projects in Southeast Michigan

Initiative (SEMI) that have involved compliance assistance activities. A pollution

prevention provider network has been established and is a self-sustaining organization. 

This was accomplished through an EPA grant to the Michigan Energy and Resource

Research Association (MERRA). MERRA also gathered names of industrial contacts at

the annual Michigan Department of Natural Resources pollution prevention conference

and met with about 25 assorted industry representatives.

An EPA grant was given to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments to conduct

pollution prevention outreach activities to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). 

They conducted many site visits to communicate the existence and availability of pollution

prevention resources. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality was awarded

a grant to continue pollution prevention compliance assistance at local POTWs.

The Southeast Michigan Coalition on Occupational Safety and Health received funds to

establish labor/management discussion groups to identify pollution prevention methods in

selected facilities. They have identified a number of sites and are continuing to work with

them on establishing and implementing comprehensive pollution prevention programs.

Gateway Initiative - This Region V initiative has resulted in significant enforcementrelated activities, including the following actions:

- TWI Consent Decree - A July 1995, Illinois EPA consent decree with Trade Waste

Incinerator (Sauget, Illinois) included a $200,000 SEP for the disposal of tires and

other garbage that has accumulated in vacant lots and abandoned housing. Flydumping (the unauthorized disposal of construction and household waste material)

is one of the Gateway community's highest concerns. TWI will place large
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

6-9 July 1996

containers around East St. Louis, Alorton and Washington Park, the exact

locations to be selected with community input.

- Chemetco - Settlement discussions continue with Chemetco (Hartford, Illinois)

regarding particulate matter and lead violations cited in the July 13, 1993,

complaint. Ambient lead monitoring around the facility continued to demonstrate

violations in FY95.

- Clark Refinery - Sulfur dioxide-related violations at the Clark Refinery (Hartford,

Illinois) were resolved through an administrative law judge's ruling following a

hearing on the violations. EPA prevailed on all counts and a final penalty of

$139,440 was assessed and paid. An NOV of alleged air permit violations was

also issued in March 1995.

- Other Notices Issued - An NOV and Finding of Violation (FOV) were issued to

National Steel (Granite City, Illinois) for alleged particulate matter and benzene

violations. An NOV and FOV were issued to Shell Oil (Roxana, Illinois) for

numerous alleged violations of sulfur dioxide, ozone and benzene regulations. The

EPA reviewed a benzene wastewater waiver from Shell and issued an initial intentto-deny letter. 

6.2.2 Sensitive Ecosystem Initiatives

The value of ecosystems can be measured in several ways. Living things and the ecosystems on

which they depend provide communities with food, clean air, clean water, and a multitude of

other goods and services. Consequently, the high rates of species endangerment, loss of natural

resources, habitat fragmentation, and losses of recreational opportunities pose a potential threat to

the health, lifestyle, and economic future of all Americans.

Many EPA activities have helped protect ecosystems. The Agency has implemented laws to

control many of the major sources that pollute the Nation's air, water, and land. Although these

laws and regulations address such problems, past efforts have been as fragmented as the laws

enacted to solve the problems. Because EPA concentrated on issuing permits, establishing

pollutant limits, and setting national standards, as required by environmental laws, it did not

concentrate on the overall environmental health of specific ecosystems. However, EPA is

currently placing high priority on developing compliance assurance and enforcement programs

that focus on such ecosystems. The following highlights some of the specific programs:

Chesapeake Bay - EPA was actively involved in the regional Chesapeake Bay program

geographic initiative. Involvement included having pesticide cooperating state programs

conduct at least 10 percent of their compliance monitoring inspections in the Chesapeake

Bay drainage basin. EPA was also involved in promoting Integrated Pest Management

(IPM) implementation in the Chesapeake Bay area through extensive outreach and

incorporation of IPM principles in state applicator training and certification programs. 
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 6-10

Chesapeake Bay issues have also been included in over 40 "TownTalk" outreach events

and in major educational exhibits such as the Philadelphia Flower Show and the

Pennsylvania Farm Show.

Region I Sensitive Geographic Areas

The Region I sensitive geographic area theme had two distinct sub-themes. First, Region I

committed to increase its efforts to improve coastal resources, particularly beaches and shellfish

areas. Second, the region committed to a greater level of wellhead protection. Working with the six

New England states, the region identified both threatened critical coastal resources and

communities solely dependent on ground water for drinking water supplies. 

Coastal Resources - EPA and the states worked with coastal municipalities to address raw

sewage discharges that were impacting recreational activities. In Maine, the communities

surrounding Casco Bay were placed on long term schedules to clean up the bay. In

Massachusetts, eight communities along the Charles River were issued enforcement orders

to address untreated discharges. In Connecticut, key communities on Long Island Sound

were placed on schedules for abating discharges.

Wellhead Protection - The second sub-theme required coordination of EPA and state

inspections using GIS mapping to target facilities in communities that use ground water as

the sole source of drinking water. The region and states targeted inspections in all media to

determine compliance and risk in these communities. Five of the six states identified

specific communities for wellhead protection areas. The region performed inspections in

those areas at sources that posed the greatest risk. The region found high compliance rates

among those industries inspected in wellhead protection zones.

Anacostia River - Region III completed investigation of two major storm sewers to

identify potential sources of PCB and heavy metal contamination to the Anacostia River. 

As a result of multimedia inspections and sediment sampling, Region III determined that

two federal facilities were likely connected with historic PCB and heavy metals

contamination of storm sewer sediment and river sediment in portions of both the

Anacostia River and the Tidal Basin. Beginning in the first quarter of FY 1996, Region III

will work with the identified federal facilities to determine how to remedy the past

contamination.

Great Lakes Enforcement Strategy (Region V) - The purpose of this strategy is to

eliminate or control to the maximum extent feasible, the discharge of critical pollutants

from point sources to the Great Lakes. For the past three quarters, Great Lakes significant

noncompliance rates have been reduced to at or below the 10 percent goal and are in fact

within 1 percent of the national average. The table shows that the Great Lakes

Enforcement Strategy has been especially successful in reducing critical pollutant loadings

in the Great Lakes.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

6-11 July 1996

Critical Pollutant Loads in Kilograms

Parameter 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 Decrease 

Cadmium 14,646 9,408 7,188 51%

Chromium 46,909 38,355 24,184 48%

Copper 114,518 109,558 94,363 18%

Dioxin/Furan 0 0 0 NA

Hexachlorobenzene 17 0 0 100%

Lead 53,322 29,548 23,645 56%

Mercury 347 357 269 22%

Oil & Grease 17,650,661 14,704,619 13,681,581 22%

Polyaromatic hydrocarbon 194 83 63 68%

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 54 13 5 91%

Zinc 337,010 337,562 331,691 2%

Total Pollutant Loads 18,217,678 15,229,503 14,162,989 22%

Galveston Bay Watershed - Located in Region VI, the Galveston Bay Watershed area

consists of the five counties surrounding the Bay. Within the watershed there are 1,680

municipal and industrial facilities of which 240 (approximately 15 percent) are major

facilities and currently tracked in the NPDES program. The remaining 1,440 facilities are

minor facilities and historically are not tracked for compliance in the NPDES program. 

Region VI developed a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Galveston

Bay that identifies problems and action plans to correct those problems. The plans include

prioritizing permitting, outreach, and enforcement actions for FY 1996; conducting 140

inspections of minor facilities in Harris and Galveston Counties; and issuing administrative

orders to 250 industries under the Storm Water Permit program.

As a part of a civil lawsuit settlement with EPA, the City of Houston agreed to conduct an

$800,000 toxicity study of the Houston Ship Channel, and associated side bays and

tributaries. As a result, Region VI has negotiated agreements with five industries

discharging to Patrick Bayou which are potential sources of water quality violations in the

Bayou. The industries have agreed to perform self audits of their facilities and processes

to locate any potential source of the pollutants identified in the Bayou.

Lake Pontchartrain - EPA, Region VI, and the Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality (LDEQ) initiated an enforcement and compliance outreach effort to address water

quality problems in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. As part of this initiative, EPA is

monitoring compliance of all major facilities and all minor facilities that have received an
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 6-12

Throughout FY 1995, EPA participated with

DOJ, the Coast Guard, and other federal and

state entities in environmental task forces to

address potential environmental violations in

the Mississippi River watershed. The

Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and

Kansas City Area Offices have investigations

that target polluters along the Mississippi

River and its tributaries. These investigations 

 target sources that threaten ecosystems and

environmental justice communities. 

Furthermore, the investigations are based

upon strong science and data, and

partnerships with other enforcement

agencies. At the close of FY 1995, EPA had

initiated almost 60 investigations under the

Mississippi River initiative.

NPDES permit. The LDEQ is continuing to initiate enforcement actions as needed to

address citizens complaints and address violations of state permits. A number of

enforcement actions that have been completed or are pending include:

- Civil actions with the cities of Baton Rouge, New Orleans, and Kenner

- Administrative fines pending with St. Tammany Parish Sewer District #6 and

Delatte Metals

- EPA orders to 64 scrap metal yards and approximately 25 minor sewage treatment

plants

- State orders to over 80 facilities in 1994 and 1995.

A number of outreach efforts have also been completed, including:

- Joint EPA, LDEQ, and Farmers Home Administration meetings with minor

facilities to explain how the enforcement process works and what funding

programs may be available to facilitate compliance

- Contacting each facility prior to issuance of any administrative action

- A press release issued concurrent with the issuance of orders to minor facilities.

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Initiative - Under this initiative, Region VI led a

major targeting effort to identity LQGs for RCRA inspections. Targeting was limited to

the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, extending one parish on either side of the river

from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to the

Gulf of Mexico (a total of 14 parishes). 

This system has been identified as a

sensitive environmental area and has a

significant environmental justice

component along much of the corridor. 

Industrial sectors located in this area

include: organic chemical and coatings

manufacturers; inorganic chemical

manufacturers; pulp and paper mills;

shipbuilders, barge cleaners, and

associated fabrication operations.

San Francisco Bay - Region IX

undertook, with members of the

Association of Bay Area Governments,

the California Department of Toxic

Substances Control, a San Francisco Bay
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

6-13 July 1996

FFEO is among the leaders in applying

innovative approaches to inspection targeting

and enforcement action resolution. For

example, the recently completed FMECI and the

subsequent implementation of multimedia

inspections and enforcement actions as an ongoing program element demonstrate the

importance of multimedia approaches to the

federal facilities compliance assurance and

assistance program.

Area Green Business Recognition Program. This program seeks to create a multi-agency

program that would recognize businesses for two levels of environmental performance.

Level I recognition would occur when businesses demonstrate compliance with all

environmental regulations while Level II recognition would occur for businesses achieving

excellence in waste reduction, pollution prevention, and resource conservation. At end of

FY95, this team presented the program concept to the Region’s Green Business Advisory

Committee and nine counties in the San Francisco bay area for review and comments. 

During FY96, the goal is to begin implementation in two bay area counties. The targeted

industry selected to focus on is automotive repair.

6.3 Multimedia

At the headquarters level, the Multimedia Enforcement Division (MED) continued to aid the

development of regional multimedia enforcement capacity by serving as a clearinghouse of

information and experience on multimedia inspections, case development, and litigation. MED

has been gathering various regional documents outlining different implementation strategies and,

along with headquarters policy and guidance, has developed a central repository for information

that is unique to multimedia enforcement or applies generally to all media programs. MED is also

providing support for the improvement of multimedia inspections by participating in various

workgroups developing inspection guidance, and by working with the National Enforcement

Training Institute (NETI) to develop a multimedia inspector training program.

An example of MED's involvement with the

regions and states was the 1995 Multimedia

Enforcement National Conference. The 118

attendees at the conference represented EPA

headquarters, including senior OECA

management, all 10 regions, and 17 state

environmental and enforcement agencies. A

final report, which is intended as a tool to help

disseminate knowledge of multimedia

enforcement activities and further

development of multimedia programs,

especially at the regional and state level, has been published, and is also available on the

Environ$ense electronic information system.

At the regional level, Region IV continued to significantly improve its Multimedia Targeting

Strategy. The region is using more environmental databases, (e.g., STORET, National Sediment

Inventory and GIS) to further improve and refine this process. The region conducted 32

multimedia Category D Consolidated Inspections with 13 of these inspections occurring at federal

facilities and another conducted with the National Enforcement Investigations Center. Region

IV's purpose for conducting these inspections was to emphasize holistic targeting, maintain a

holistic approach to compliance monitoring, and establish a holistic compliance presence.

6.4 Environmental Justice
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 6-14

One of the OCEFT initiatives is prosecution of

environmental crimes in environmental justice

communities. Each Area Office has identified

specific communities by race, ethnicity, or

income that bear disproportionate adverse

impacts from pollutant sources. EPA initiated

320 investigations during FY 1995 which

targeted industries that have repeatedly

committed environmental crimes in minority or

low income areas.

Many minority, low-income communities have raised concerns about the disproportionate burden

of health consequences they suffer from the siting and operation of industrial plants and waste

dumps, as well as from exposures to pesticides or other toxic chemicals at home and on the job. 

Their primary concern is that environmental programs do not adequately address these

disproportionate exposures.

To better address these types of issues, OC established an office-wide environmental justice

network and completed an environmental justice strategy entitled "Vision 2000 - A Five-Year

Strategic Plan for Environmental Justice," which includes workplans for nine specific program

initiatives. These initiatives included emphasizing environmental justice concerns in the

development of state grant guidance and regional MOA guidance.

FFEO prepared environmental justice profiles of 25 federal installations across all 10 EPA regions

to serve as models for how agencies should consider environmental justice in their planning

processes and to assist EPA and states in targeting enforcement actions.

Throughout the regions, an awareness of environmental justice issues is increasing and becoming

a consideration in all regional strategies and operations. For example, as part of its strategy to

assess the compliance status and gain insights into environmental concerns in environmental

justice areas, Region II has made compliance initiatives in environmental justice areas a priority

for a number of years. Environmental justice areas where local community groups had voiced

environmental concerns and environmental justice industrialized/residential areas with aging

infrastructure have received hundreds of targeted compliance evaluations as well as follow-up

enforcement. Areas include Catano, Puerto Rico; Greenpoint-Williamsburg, New York; Newark,

New Jersey, and Camden, New Jersey. In addition, in FY95, an analysis of factors such as

inspections and violation rates in

environmental justice and non-environmental

justice areas was conducted using GIS and

RCRIS. Region IV has also responded to

community concerns by placing special

emphasis on environmental justice areas. The

region prioritized inspections at combustion

facilities with environmental justice concerns

and has evaluated, using census data,

corrective action facilities for environmental

justice issues. Through multimedia

inspections, another environmental justice

area has been identified for further focus in

FY96.

In Region VI, activities in conjunction with the Agriculture Street Landfill Superfund NPL and

Environmental Justice Site have been a model of intergovernmental cooperation and community

relations. These activities have included meetings between EPA staff and the City of New

Orleans, as well as meetings of the Region VI Regional Administrator and the Assistant

Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response with the Mayor of New
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

6-15 July 1996

Orleans and with senior officials of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD). Region VI has used a fast track approach to investigation and NPL Listing of the site, as

well as remedial investigation/feasibility study. 

The Agriculture Street Site includes about 95 acres and was operated as a solid and liquid waste

landfill by the City of New Orleans between 1910 and the 1960s. Following the landfill's closure,

the City became closely involved in developing the property for residential use and later built a

school on the site. In the mid-1980s, EPA, state, and local officials studied the site extensively in

response to public concern over possible health problems caused by contaminants to which

residents may be exposed. Data from those studies indicated that the site did not pose an

immediate health threat to the residents. Nevertheless, in response to renewed concerns, Region

VI conducted an expanded site inspection (ESI) in 1993 for both site ranking and removal

assessment purposes. EPA also conducted emergency removal action at the site and has

continued its investigations with a removal/remedial integrated investigation study.

With its FY95 reorganization, Region VIII created an Environmental Justice Program within the

Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice Office. This program office will work

closely with the Technical and Legal Program Offices, as well as the other Assistant Regional

Administrator Offices, to develop a comprehensive way to target NPDES inspection and

enforcement to the greatest advantage to take care of environmental injustices.

6.5 Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention continues to garner much attention throughout all EPA offices and the states. 

Pollution prevention and waste minimization activities are routinely negotiated as SEPs into

settlement agreements. In addition, much of the Agency's compliance assistance involves

pollution prevention and waste minimization activities.

The Region II strategy has been to consistently promote pollution prevention through numerous

approaches at both state and federal levels. This includes major SEPs with significant waste

reduction, outreach through training and technology transfer, in-depth waste minimization audits,

screening inspections during all RCRA inspections, major grant support for innovative state

approaches, outreach, and waste oil reuse program development in the Caribbean. For example,

Kodak and DuPont are in the process of conducting major waste minimization projects as part of

SEPs. As a result of the Kodak settlement, nearly $12 million will be spent by Kodak for

pollution prevention/waste minimization projects that will result in an anticipated annual reduction

of 872,000 pounds of hazardous waste. Region II also funded the Multimedia Pollution

Prevention Program implemented by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(NYSDEC). In FY95, NYSDEC inspectors targeted for inspection and potential pollution

prevention 50 of the top 400 toxic releasing facilities within the state. Region II also conducted

40 waste minimization audits to ascertain whether generators of ozone depleting chemicals and

generators that send their hazardous wastes to incinerators are implementing RCRA-required

waste minimization plans.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 6-16

The Greater Chicago Pollution Prevention Program (GCP3) is a Region V cooperative nonregulatory partnership of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, the

City of Chicago Department of Environment, the Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and

Information Center, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and EPA. GCP3 promotes the

adoption of pollution prevention ethics and activities in industry, government, and community

groups in the Chicago area. 

Since GCP3's inception, 60 site visits and 31 industrial assessments have been completed,

resulting in significant pollution reductions as well as industrial cost savings from improved

production efficiency and reduced treatment costs. GCP3 has worked with industry to provide

workshops such as "Practical Solutions to Industrial Solvent Problems" and "Charting the Course

to Environmental Soundness in the Printing Industry." In addition, GCP3 joined with the Calumet

Area Industrial Commission, Chicago Legal Clinic, and Citizens for a Better Environment to cosponsor "Good Neighbors: Making the Toxic Release Inventory and Pollution Prevention Work

for You."

In Region IX, the Merit Partnership for Pollution Prevention (Merit) is a voluntary program

involving industry representatives, state and local regulatory agencies, and EPA Region IX. The

goal of Merit is to facilitate and implement demonstration projects that reduce environmental

impacts and make good business sense. Projects proposed to Merit are evaluated by a community

advisory panel and a steering committee of industry and agency representatives to ensure that they

are consistent with the goals of Merit. Merit is currently working with the metal finishing

industry, the oil refinery industry, an industrial laundry, semiconductor manufacturers, alternative

fuel vehicle proponents, and a multi-industry initiative to proactively address toxic spills. Merit is

also coordinating with representatives from the CSI, Design for Environment, and other EPA

initiatives.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

6-17 July 1996

This page is intentionally blank
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

7-1 July 1996

7. ENHANCING PROGRAM INFRASTRUCTURE:

POLICIES, TRAINING, AND GUIDANCE

The effectiveness of the various enforcement and compliance activities described in this report

depends, in large measure, on the improvement of policies, training, and guidance that support the

overall program. In FY95, the Agency worked with state and tribal partners, and with industry

representatives, to develop and implement several new or revised policies to improve program

implementation. Several of these policies have previously been discussed in this accomplishments

report, but other significant policies developed in FY95 are discussed below. In addition, EPA

has continued to expand its training programs at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels, working

to increase environmental protection capacities in all jurisdictions.

7.1 Policies and Regulations

In addition to new policies on environmental audits, small business compliance incentives, and

compliance flexibility for small communities (described in Section 4), EPA developed or revised

other significant policies:

Revised SEP Policy - This revision makes numerous improvements to the February 1991

policy. Specifically, it clearly defines a SEP and establishes guidelines to ensure that SEPs

are within EPA's legal authority. The policy also defines seven categories of projects that

may qualify as SEPs and specifically encourages projects that 1) address environmental

justice concerns, 2) are multimedia in scope and 3) implement pollution prevention

techniques. 

RCRA Enforcement Response Policy - EPA revised the 1987 policy to give the states

and regions practical, flexible guidance for use in evaluating and responding to facilities in

violation of RCRA. In particular, the revision focuses RCRA enforcement actions against

significant violators that present the greatest risk to human health and the environment,

and implements risk-based enforcement. 

NPDES Inspection Policy - This revised policy provides the regions flexibility in

conducting NPDES inspections. The new policy states that rather than inspecting 100

percent of the NPDES majors, the regions may now shift resources from low risk majors

to high risk minors to better address problem facilities or priority geographic areas. 

Clean Water Act Penalty Policy - The policy provides the flexibility needed to secure

appropriate relief in settlement of cases against municipalities. The new policy provides

many improvements to the 1986 policy, including an alternative approach to determine

penalties against municipalities; a revision to the method for calculating gravity; and two

new gravity adjustment factors to provide incentives for quick settlement and to mitigate

penalty amounts for small facilities. 
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 7-2

Title V - EPA issued several CAA Title V policy and implementation statements designed

to clarify Title V requirements. In particular, some of the clarifications address Title V

application requirements and key Title V certification issues.

Guidance on Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property -

The new guidance supersedes the 1989 guidance and allows the Agency greater flexibility

in entering into agreements that provide a promise by EPA not to sue the prospective

purchaser for contamination existing at the time of purchase. The new guidance allows

for a broader application of prospective purchaser agreements by expanding the universe

of eligible sites to include sites where any form of federal involvement has occurred or is

expected to occur and there is a realistic probability of incurring Superfund liability.

Policy Towards Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers - The policy

describes EPA's decision to exercise its enforcement discretion and not take enforcement

actions under CERCLA against owners of property containing aquifers contaminated by

hazardous substances as a result of the migration from a source or sources outside the

property.

Policy on CERCLA Enforcement Against Lenders and Government Entities that

Acquire Property Involuntarily - The policy states that EPA and DOJ intend to apply as

guidance the provisions of the Lender Liability Rule promulgated in 1992. (In 1994, the

D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the Lender Liability Rule after it determined that EPA

lacked the authority to issue a rule delineating the scope of CERCLA liability.) The policy

advises EPA and DOJ personnel to consult both the regulatory text of the Lender Liability

Rule and the accompanying preamble language in exercising their enforcement discretion

under CERCLA as to lenders and government entities that acquire property involuntarily.

Standardizing the De Minimis Premium - The guidance establishes presumptive

premium figures and describes the most likely basis for deviating from such figures. 

Additionally, the guidance recommends a method for effectively communicating the

premium determination process to the de minimis settlors and other interested parties at a

site.

In FY95, FFEO participated in two significant policy-making efforts. FFEO, in collaboration with

several other agencies, published a report entitled Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup. The

report, which represents the culmination of several years of intensive effort, explores the origins

of the federal facility environmental contamination problems, acknowledges federal responsibility

for addressing these problems, and identifies potential obstacles on the path towards reforming

federal facility environmental management. In addition, FFEO participated in the development of

a joint EPA/DOE policy on decommissioning DOE facilities under CERCLA. The policy was

formally executed on May 22, 1995, and establishes a decommissioning approach that protects

workers, human health, and the environment; is consistent with CERCLA; provides stakeholder

involvement; and achieves risk reduction without unnecessary delay.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

7-3 July 1996

Other significant regulation/rulemaking efforts include:

Hazardous Waste Combustion Rulemaking - This rule, which regulates all combustion

units that burn hazardous wastes, is being proposed under joint RCRA and CAA

authorities. EPA utilized the procedures established by the CAA for development of

MACT standards to establish new standards for organic and inorganic parameters for

combustion activities. OECA's primary role in the development effort has been to ensure

the overall enforceability of the rulemaking.

Detergents Rule - EPA finalized and published the gasoline detergents Phase 1 final rule

(enforcement provisions). The Act and rule require that all gasoline contain effective

detergents to assure prevention of fuel injection and engine deposits. Such deposits can

increase vehicle emissions. EPA hosted or participated in several regional and national

detergents rule workshops that were widely attended by industry and also drafted an

enforcement manual for detergents. In addition, EPA has drafted extensive regulatory

provisions and preamble language for the gasoline detergents Phase 2 rule (enforcement

provisions).

7.2 Training Programs

To educate EPA and state personnel on new policies, regulations, rules, or programs, EPA

routinely conducts training sessions and writes and issues guidance. The primary training arm of

OECA is NETI. In FY95, NETI developed or participated in the development of seven new

training courses: Advanced Negotiation Skills, Environmental Justice, Multimedia Inspection,

Pollution Prevention, Protecting Water Quality Through Enforcement and Compliance,

Enforcement Communications, and the RCRA Practitioners Workshop. Throughout the year,

NETI delivered training to more than 5,300 environmental enforcement personnel at the federal,

state, and local levels. NETI also organized the first EPA National Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance Conference attended by more than 200 enforcement and compliance professionals from

EPA's headquarters and regions. The conference promoted a common understanding about

strategic directions for EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program and explored issues

surrounding working relationships and partnerships with key stakeholders.

In addition to the NETI-sponsored training, OECA conducted numerous other training courses in

FY95, including:

SEP Training - In conjunction with the issuance of its revised SEP Policy, OECA

presented a series of training sessions on the revised policy. The course was produced as

part of the implementation of the policy and covers numerous improvements made by the

revised policy, including: definition of a SEP; guidelines to ensure that SEPs are within

EPA's legal authority; the seven categories of projects that may qualify as SEPs; step-bystep procedures for calculating the cost of a SEP and the percentage of that cost that may

be applied as mitigation before calculating the final penalty; and administrative procedures

when a SEP is included in a settlement.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 7-4

The course also contains modules on the Revised General Enforcement Policy

Compendium and on the PROJECT computer model, which is used to calculate the cost

of a SEP. It consists of a day of classroom work followed by a hands-on computer

session. The course has been presented twice at headquarters and at least once in each of

the regional offices. More than 500 EPA, state, and local environmental managers and

staff have attended. 

RCRA Practitioners Training Workshop - This workshop is designed to impart

program and legal staff with a strong working knowledge of RCRA and its enforcement

authorities as well as provide opportunities for discussion of cross-cutting issues. 

RCRA Inspector Institute - This three day course is designed to enhance inspectors'

knowledge and skill, thereby improving the quality of RCRA inspections. The RCRA

Inspector Institute was presented jointly by OECA and NETI on three occasions in FY

1995. The Institute was presented in Regions II and III and at NETI West. Over 140

state and regional personnel received the training at these three presentations. 

Training on Air Emissions Rules - This training provides an overview of the recently

promulgated RCRA air emissions rule for tanks, surface impoundments, and containers at

hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs).

RCRA Penalty Policy Training - OECA hosted a RCRA Advanced Practitioners Penalty

Policy Roundtable for regional and headquarters employees. The attendees participated in

discussions on various new developments in penalty policies, including the SEP, Audit,

and Small Business policies, and were updated on current administrative and judicial

enforcement developments.

National FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA Case Development Training Program - Four

national case development training courses were conducted in FY95 addressing FIFRA,

TSCA and EPCRA. The courses, covering two days of instruction each, explain the civil

administrative case development process from the gathering and evaluation of evidence

through the issuance of the complaint to the ultimate settlement or litigation of the issues. 

A course manual is provided to each attendee. The manual explains the case development

process through the citation of pertinent case law and actual examples of case documents.

Principles of Environmental Enforcement and Compliance - In bilateral exchanges

and capacity building, OECA coordinated, managed, and/or participated in deliveries of

the course "Principles of Environmental Enforcement and Compliance" in Bulgaria, Chile,

the Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Russia (several deliveries there), Taiwan, Ukraine,

and in Washington, D.C. to the World Bank. The course serves as an important

component of the U.S. program to meet its commitments undertaken at the United

Nations Conference on Environment and Development, including the commitment to

develop institutions and capacity for effective environmental enforcement.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

7-5 July 1996

Introduction to Superfund Enforcement - OECA developed a computer-based

overview that uses narration, video, text, animation, graphics, and interactive exercises to

explain the planning, management, and reporting requirements for basic CERCLA

enforcement activities. The training course covers PRP liability, PRP search, negotiation

and settlement, cost recovery, environmental justice and community involvement. The

course was delivered on compact disk (CD-ROM) and runs on a standard multimedia

personal computer. The four hour course was made available to all regional Superfund

offices as well as to EPA libraries. In the future, OECA will conduct a comprehensive

course evaluation to determine the effectiveness of CD-ROM as a training tool.

PRP Search Training - The two-day PRP search training focused on the increased

importance of PRP search activities at the Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection phase. 

The training was intended for site assessment managers, civil investigators, case

development staff for cost recovery referrals, regional counsel staff with PRP search

responsibilities, and contractors who had been involved in the search process for one year

or less. Topics covered include: elements of liability, prima facie case, PRP defenses,

criminal liability, and information documentation.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training - Training on the effective use of

mediation and other ADR techniques to assist EPA enforcement actions was provided to

all regional offices and headquarters during FY 1995. The intensive one-day training was

designed for legal and program staff who participate in enforcement settlement activities. 

The ADR Users Training, taught jointly by EPA ADR staff and ADR professionals who

have served as mediators in Superfund cases, concentrated on the inherent difficulties in

Agency negotiations and how ADR can facilitate prompt resolution of such disputes.

CERCLA Education Center (CEC) - During FY95, EPA’s Office of Site Remediation

and Enforcement provided support to the Technology Innovation Office in delivering two

courses offered within the CEC curriculum. 

- Fundamentals of Superfund - This five-day course provides an overview of

CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan and the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup

Model. It includes introductory-level coverage of enforcement topics, such as

CERCLA liability, identifying PRPs, settlement tools, ensuring adequate PRP

response and employee authorities and liabilities.

- Enforcement Process - This course provides in-depth information on enforcement

activities and responsibilities under CERCLA. The first two days are dedicated to

an enforcement overview and review of Superfund liability, PRP search activities,

administrative and judicial law involvement, settlement tools and cost recovery. 

The last two days involve participants in an intensive negotiation skills workshop. 
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 7-6

PRP Search Conference - The two-day PRP search conference focused on methods of

obtaining and documenting high quality evidence earlier in the search process and

reorienting the process to facilitate expedited settlements. The conference was intended

for experienced personnel who deal with liability and viability determinations and

information collection and documentation. Topics covered included: PRP searches for

expedited settlements and allocations, exchange of good ideas for searches, ability to

pay/financial analysis, information management including on-line systems, and early

sharing of information with PRPs.

National ADR Conference - In cooperation with Region I and the National Corporate

Counsel Association, the ADR Program held a conference on the effective use of ADR in

environmental disputes. The two-day conference brought together over a hundred

corporate executives, representing a wide range of the regulated community, with upper

management of EPA regional and headquarters offices and DOJ.

In addition to the several training courses specifically cited, EPA headquarters and the regions are

constantly offering and providing training to states and municipalities on similar topics relating to

development and implementation of EPA programs. Some of these training/seminar topics have

included:

Multimedia inspector training

Pollution prevention planning

Waste minimization

EPCRA reporting

EPCRA compliance assistance

Various statute-specific inspector courses.

7.3 Guidance Efforts

To further educate EPA and state employees on programs, EPA develops and issues guidance

documents or guidance statements. In FY95, the following are some of the significant guidance

pieces issued:

Agriculture WPS Interpretive Guidance - OECA issued three sets of WPS Questions

and Answers in FY95. This effort reflected a major effort to respond to all but the most

recent questions raised concerning the standard. The question and answer documents are

the work of a multi-office work group established to address interpretive policy questions

on the WPS. Questions have come from regions, state lead agencies, and the public. 

Guidance on the Exercise of Investigative Discretion - OCEFT issued this guidance,

which establishes discrete criteria for Agency investigators when considering whether or

not to proceed with a criminal investigation. The guidance is designed to promote

consistent but flexible application of the criminal environmental statutes. The criminal

case selection outlined in the guidance is based on two general measures - "significant
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

7-7 July 1996

environmental harm" and "culpable conduct." These measures, in turn, are divided into

nine factors which serve as indicators that a case is suitable for criminal investigation.

FY96/97 MOA Guidance - OECA’s annual MOA Guidance serves as EPA's vehicle for

articulating the goals and direction of the national enforcement and compliance assurance

program to EPA’s regional offices and state programs. The FY96/97 guidance

represented a significant change in strategic direction, shifting from our traditional focus

on media-specific enforcement activities to the balanced application of a broad range of

enforcement and compliance assurance tools to address community-based, industry sectorbased and media-specific programmatic priorities. These tools include compliance

assistance, incentive and recognition programs, compliance monitoring and data analyses

as well as civil and criminal enforcement actions.

FY95 Pesticides/Toxics Grant Guidance - In FY95, OECA took over management of

the pesticides and toxics cooperative agreement (grants) programs, which included the

lead-based paint grants program. These grants programs are designed to assist states,

territories, and Tribes in maintaining comprehensive compliance and enforcement

programs.

Draft Priority Guidance for Addressing Discharges of Raw Sewage from Separate

Sanitary Sewers - OECA publicly released its draft priority guidance for addressing

discharges of raw sewage, known as sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), from separate

sanitary sewers. EPA will continue to enforce against SSOs (which are violations of the

Clean Water Act in most instances) while a Federal Advisory Committee reviews the

national scope of the SSO problem and drafts solutions to control these unpermitted

discharges of raw sewage.

Guidance Document for §404 of TSCA, State Administered Lead-Based Paint

Programs - EPA has developed a "Model Lead-Based Paint Compliance and Enforcement

Program" guidance document. The purpose of the guidance document is to clarify the

term "adequate enforcement" with regard to lead-based paint programs and establish

guidelines for a "Model Lead-Based Paint Compliance and Enforcement Program" for

both state and federal programs. The document also establishes guidelines for EPA

approval of the compliance and enforcement program portion of state lead-based paint

programs.

In addition to its training and guidance efforts for domestic programs, OECA has continued

progress in international collaborative efforts for environmental compliance and enforcement

through the co-sponsorship of international conferences and development of hands-on workshop

and support materials. As an outgrowth of the Third International Conference, OECA completed

and distributed internationally, five technical support documents that summarize environmental

problems, control and prevention opportunities, and references for metals mining, petroleum

refining, deforestation, tourism, and residential and industrial waste disposal. Six new capacity

building support documents are being developed for the conference, including international
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 7-8

comparisons of programs for source self-monitoring, record keeping and reporting; multimedia

inspection protocols; organizing permitting, compliance monitoring and enforcement programs;

financing and budgeting; communications for enforcement; and transboundary shipments of

hazardous waste, pesticides and contraband CFCs.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

8-1 July 1996

8. MEASURING RESULTS AND THE IMPACT

OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

Environmental results are the ultimate measure of success. These environmental results can only

be achieved, at a minimum, when there is full compliance with our nation’s environmental laws. 

In FY95, while EPA continued to improve on its ability to ensure compliance with these

requirements, EPA also improved the methods of measuring the effectiveness of these efforts.

The expansion of compliance-related activities used by EPA, as a result of the 1994 enforcement

reorganization, has required additional means of measuring success. Although certain numerical

statistics of enforcement activity remain good indicators of Agency performance, EPA has

adopted new approaches that focus on sector compliance rates and environmental health. These

new approaches to measuring results have three principal objectives: 1) to measure

accomplishments for the full spectrum of enforcement and compliance assurance activities,

including those new compliance incentives and compliance assistance programs that supplement

traditional enforcement activity; 2) to measure the degree to which these various program

activities serve to protect human health and the environment; and 3) to measure industry

performance in terms of compliance rates.

8.1 Steps Toward Improved Measurement

In FY95, EPA took significant steps toward meeting the three objectives of the improved

approach to measuring success. FY95 became a transition year to develop and pilot test new

measures, information collection techniques, and re-engineered data systems. These changes will

lead to a much improved set of measures that will be used to assess more accurately the

effectiveness of enforcement and compliance assurance efforts and the performance of industry in

complying with environmental laws and regulations. Among the steps taken in FY95:

Established compliance assistance measure - Effective in FY 1996, EPA will begin

collecting information about compliance assistance activities. All regions will provide

information about the amount and types of general compliance assistance they deliver. 

They will also provide information about the results and impact of compliance assistance

initiatives targeted at specific industry sectors. States have been asked to report

voluntarily on this measure for FY96.

Emphasized environmental results of enforcement activities - The Case Conclusion

Data Sheet, piloted in every EPA region in FY95, was designed to provide systematic

reporting of the qualitative and quantitative impacts and results of administrative and

judicial enforcement cases. Information collected through this effort will include actions
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 8-2

Reduction in Pollutants

as a Result of Compliance Actions

or Other Conditions of Settlement

Air emissions of VOCs reduced by almost 800

tons per year (4 cases)

 Reductions of particulate air emissions of 95

percent (2 cases)

 Reductions in a total of 2,500 tons per year of

particulate air emissions (2 cases)

 Reduced use of toluene and xylene by 20,000

pounds (1 case)

 Ammonia emissions reduced 53 percent (1 case)

 Total reduction of almost 2,000 gallons of PCBs

(3 cases)

 Reductions in water pollutants of 45,000

pounds/year of biological oxygen demand (BOD)

and 58,000 pounds/year of total suspended solids

(TSS) (1 case)

 Reduction of 11,000 gallons of petroleum

products

taken by violators to return to

compliance, environmental impact

or benefit of actions taken by

violators, and qualification of

pollution reductions resulting from

these actions. (The text box

provides examples of some of the

impacts identified during the 1995

pilot.) Use of this sheet will also

provide useful information on the

value of injunctive relief and the

nature and value of SEPs.

Developed industry-specific

compliance rates - Through reengineering single-statute

compliance databases to organize

data by industry sector and facility,

EPA will be able to establish and

monitor rates of noncompliance

for industry sectors. This will

allow EPA and industries to see

the effects of various strategies on industry compliance and monitor the performance of

industries in complying with environmental requirements.

Thus, for each of the tools of the integrated enforcement and compliance assurance program

described in Sections 2 through 5 (compliance assistance, compliance incentives, compliance

monitoring, and civil/criminal enforcement), EPA’s improved approach to measuring success will

move beyond merely counting activities by EPA and states to include actions by regulated entities,

benefits to the environment and public health, and compliance level of industry sectors. On the

following page, Table 8-1 on improved measures shows how new information being collected

about each of the tools will contribute to the use of new and more powerful measures that can be

used to assess program effectiveness and industry performance. In FY 1996, EPA will be able to

use these new measures to further refine and adapt its enforcement and compliance assurance

program, and thereby increase its effectiveness in protecting public health and the environment.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

8-3 July 1996

Table 8-1

Improved Measures of Success

Tools

Measures*

Actions by Actions by Benefits to Level of

EPA/States Regulated Environment, Compliance

Community Health

Compliance

Assistance

Aggregate data on Aggregate data on Aggregate data on Aggregate or

assistance industry response emission anecdotal data on

provided reductions, etc. industry sectors

Compliance

Incentives

Aggregate data on Aggregate data on Aggregate data on

cases and self-disclosures types of benefits,

agreements and agreements quantifiable

results

Compliance

Monitoring

Aggregate Contributes to

inspection data sector-specific

compliance rates

Civil/Criminal

Enforcement

Aggregate case Aggregate data on Aggregate data on Contributes to

and penalty data violator actions to types of benefits, sector-specific

achieve quantifiable compliance rates

compliance results

* = Italics indicate new information being collected.
FY 1995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1996 8-4

This page is intentionally blank.
i July 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

REGION I .................................................................................... A-1

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. A-1

United States v. Borden, Inc. (D. MA) .................................................. A-1

United States v. Housing Authority of the City of New Haven and Aaron Gleich, Inc. (D. CT) ..... A-1

In re: City of Providence, Central High School .......................................... A-1

CERCLA ................................................................................ A-1

United States v. Coakley Landfill, Inc. (D. NH) ........................................... A-1

In re: General Electric Company ...................................................... A-1

M&V Electroplating Superfund Site .................................................... A-2

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... A-2

United States v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (D. MA) ................................. A-2

United States v. City of Lynn (D. MA) .................................................. A-2

United States v. City of New Bedford (D. MA) ............................................ A-2

United States v. Freudenberg-NOK General Partnership (D. NH) ............................ A-2

United States v. Hercules, Incorporated (D. MA) ......................................... A-3

BayBank, Inc. and Northland, Inc. ..................................................... A-3

In re: Town of Brookline ............................................................ A-3

EPCRA .................................................................................. A-3

In re: Colfax, Inc. .................................................................. A-3

RCRA ................................................................................... A-3

In re: Yale University ............................................................... A-3

In re: United States Coast Guard Academy ............................................. A-3

In re: Giering Metal Finishing, Inc. ................................................... A-3

SDWA .................................................................................. A-4

United States v. West Stockbridge Water Company and Victor Stannard (D. MA) ............... A-4

TSCA ................................................................................... A-4

In re: Altana, Inc. .................................................................. A-4

In re: Polaroid Corporation ......................................................... A-4

In re: Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc. ......................................... A-4

Federal Facilities .......................................................................... A-4

U.S. Coast Guard Academy .......................................................... A-4

Massachusetts Military Reservation .................................................... A-5

U.S. Naval Education and Training Center .............................................. A-5

REGION II .................................................................................... A-7

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. A-7

United States v. MTP Industries, Inc. ................................................... A-7

United States v. Caribbean Petroleum Corporation ....................................... A-7

United States v. Consolidated Edison and John's Insulation ................................ A-7

United States v. Public Service Electric & Gas ........................................... A-7

United States v. Del'Aquilla .......................................................... A-7

In the Matter of Glenmore Plastic Industries, Inc., and In the Matter of Supreme Poly Products,

Inc. ....................................................................... A-7

In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc. .......................................... A-8

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... A-8

United States v. Lifesavers Manufacturing Inc. ........................................... A-8

EPCRA .................................................................................. A-8

United States v. TR Metals Corp. ...................................................... A-8

In the Matter of Forto Chemical Corp. .................................................. A-8
Table of Contents

ii July 1996

In the Matter of Astro Electroplating, Inc. ............................................... A-8

In the Matter of Insular Wire Products Corp. ............................................ A-8

In the Matter of Ricogas, Inc. ......................................................... A-9

In the Matter of Puerto Rico Battery Co. ................................................ A-9

In the Matter of National Can of Puerto Rico, Inc. ........................................ A-9

In the Matter of Parke-Hill Chemical Corp. .............................................. A-9

In the Matter of Tropigas de Puerto Rico, Inc. ........................................... A-9

In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy, Inc. ...................................................... A-9

Ocean Dumping Act ....................................................................... A-9

United States v. Westchester County .................................................... A-9

RCRA .................................................................................. A-10

United States v. Mustafa (D. VI) ...................................................... A-10

In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc. ......................................... A-10

In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corporation. ............................................... A-10

In the Matter of Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. ..................................... A-10

In the Matter of B&B Wood Treating & Processing Co., Inc. ............................... A-10

In the Matter of the New York City Department of Transportation and R.J. Romano Co. ........ A-11

In the Matter of Oliver R. Hill and O.R. Hill Fuel Co., Inc. ................................ A-11

In the Matter of Wee Service Centers, Inc. .............................................. A-11

TSCA .................................................................................. A-11

In the Matter of CasChem, Inc. ....................................................... A-11

In the Matter of Millard Fillmore Hospital ............................................. A-12

In the Matter of San Juan Cement Co. ................................................. A-12

In the Matter of Johnson & Johnson .................................................. A-12

In the Matter of Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc. ........................................... A-12

In the Matter of the New York City Board of Education ................................... A-12

In the Matter of Degussa Corporation ................................................. A-12

In the Matter of Nissho Iwai American Corp. ........................................... A-13

Multimedia .............................................................................. A-13

In the Matter of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Burns & Roe Services Corp. ................... A-13

In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc. ......................................... A-13

In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company .......................................... A-13

In the Matter of Knowlton Specialty Paper, Inc. ......................................... A-13

In the Matter of Nepera, Inc. ......................................................... A-13

In the Matter of American Cyanamid Company ......................................... A-13

In the Matter of The United States Department of the Army, U.S. Army Armament Research and

Development Command, Picatinny Arsenal ...................................... A-14

In the Matter of New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. .................................. A-14

Federal Facilities ......................................................................... A-14

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Plum Island Facility ...................... A-14

U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal ......................................................... A-14

U.S. Army Fort Dix ................................................................ A-14

Seneca Army Depot ................................................................ A-15

Plattsburgh Air Force Base .......................................................... A-15

Stewart Air National Guard Base ..................................................... A-15

REGION III .................................................................................. A-17

Clean Air Act ............................................................................ A-17

Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL) (Third Circuit, E.D. PA) ........................ A-17

LTV Steel (W.D. PA) ............................................................... A-17

Shenango, Inc. (Neville Island, PA) ................................................... A-17

USX-Clairton and Edgar Thomson Plants (Clairton & Braddock, PA) ....................... A-17

Paragon Environmental Group and Haverford College ................................... A-17

E.K. Associates (EKCO/GLACO Ltd.) (Baltimore, MD) ................................... A-18
Table of Contents

iii July 1996

Mundet-Hermetite, Inc. ............................................................. A-18

S.D. Richman Sons, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA) ............................................ A-18

PECO Energy and Pepper Environmental Services, Inc. (Chester, PA) ....................... A-18

Harrison Warehouse Services Company, Inc., and Dewey Wilfong (Clarksburg, WV) ........... A-18

Kammer Power Plant (Moundsville, WV) ............................................... A-18

Hercules, Inc. (Covington, VA) ....................................................... A-19

Joseph Smith & Son, Inc. (Capital Heights, MD) ........................................ A-19

CERCLA and EPCRA non 313 .............................................................. A-19

Brown's Battery Breaking Superfund Site .............................................. A-19

GMT Microelectronics (Montgomery County, PA) ....................................... A-19

Virginia Scrap, Inc. (Roanoke, VA) ................................................... A-19

Malitovsky Cooperage Company, et al. (Pittsburgh, PA) .................................. A-20

Abex Superfund Site (Portsmouth, VA) ................................................. A-20

Delaware Sand and Gravel (District of DE) ............................................ A-20

Strasburg Landfill (Chester County, PA) ............................................... A-20

Blosenski Landfill ................................................................. A-20

Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. (WV) .......................................... A-21

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and Universal Food Corporation .................... A-21

Clean Water Act .......................................................................... A-21

John C. Holland Enterprises/Holland Landfill (Suffolk County, VA) ......................... A-21

Antoinette Bozievich-Buxton (York County, PA) ......................................... A-21

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (Pittsburgh, PA) ........................................ A-21

Blue Plains STP (Washington, DC) ................................................... A-22

Witco Corporation (Petrolia, PA) ..................................................... A-22

Modular Components National, Inc. (Forest Hill, MD) ................................... A-22

Goose Bay Aggregates, Inc. (Washington, DC) .......................................... A-22

Elk River Sewell Coal Co., Inc. (Monterville, WV) ........................................ A-22

Conagra Poultry Company (Milford, DE) .............................................. A-22

Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority (Leechburg, PA) ............................ A-22

Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) (Faulkner, MD) ................................... A-23

USX Corporation Steel Mill (Dravosburg, PA) .......................................... A-23

PEPCO (Benning Generating Station) (Washington, DC) ................................. A-23

National Railroad Corporation (AMTRAK) (Washington, DC) ............................. A-23

Columbia Natural Resources, Inc. .................................................... A-23

United Refining Co. (Warren County, PA) .............................................. A-23

EPCRA §313 ............................................................................ A-24

Owens-Brockway (Erie, PA) ......................................................... A-24

Dayton Walther Corporation (Harrisburg, PA) .......................................... A-24

Beaver Valley Alloy Foundry Company (Monaca, PA) .................................... A-24

Cabinet Industries, Inc. (Danville, PA) ................................................. A-24

FIFRA .................................................................................. A-24

Aquarium Products, Inc. ............................................................ A-24

Panbaxy Laboratories, Inc. .......................................................... A-24

Thrift Drug, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA) ..................................................... A-24

Precision Generators, Inc. .......................................................... A-25

E.C. Geiger, Inc. (Harleysville, PA) ................................................... A-25

RCRA .................................................................................. A-25

UST NOVs for Violations of the RCRA UST Requirements ................................. A-25

General Chemical Corporation (Claymont, DE and Marcus Hook, PA) ...................... A-25

AT&T Richmond Works (Richmond, VA) ............................................... A-25

Amoco Oil Company (Yorktown, VA) .................................................. A-25

Alexandria Metal Finishers, Inc. (Lorton, VA) ........................................... A-26

Exide/General Battery Corporation (Reading, PA) ....................................... A-26

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (Ravenswood, WV) ............................ A-26
Table of Contents

iv July 1996

In re: Beaumont Company .......................................................... A-26

Aberdeen Proving Ground Facility (Aberdeen, MD) ...................................... A-26

Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. (Institute, WV) ................................................... A-26

Lynchburg Foundry Company (Lynchburg, VA) ......................................... A-26

Rapid Circuits, Inc. ................................................................ A-27

Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics (South Charleston, WV) ............................ A-27

RCRA Corrective Measures ................................................................ A-27

AT&T Corporation ................................................................ A-27

Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA) ................................................ A-27

Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. .......................................................... A-27

Allied Signal Inc.'s Baltimore Works (Baltimore, MD) .................................... A-27

Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA) ................................................ A-27

Allied-Signal, Inc. (Claymont, DE) .................................................... A-27

SDWA ................................................................................. A-28

Leisure Living Estates (Elkton, VA) ................................................... A-28

Perry Phillips Mobile Home Park, (E.D. PA) ............................................ A-28

TSCA .................................................................................. A-28

General Electric Co. (Philadelphia, PA) ............................................... A-28

ANZON, INC. (Philadelphia, PA) ..................................................... A-28

Philadelphia Masjid, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA) ........................................... A-28

Multimedia .............................................................................. A-28

Horseshead Resource Development Company .......................................... A-28

Brentwood Industries (Reading, PA) .................................................. A-29

REGION IV .................................................................................. A-31

Clean Air Act ............................................................................ A-31

United States v. Environmental Resources, Inc. (W.D. KY) ................................. A-31

CERCLA ............................................................................... A-31

Peak Oil and Bay Drums Sites (Tampa, FL) ............................................ A-31

Peak Oil Site (Tampa, FL) ........................................................... A-31

LCP Chemicals Site (Brunswick, Glynn County, GA) ..................................... A-31

Yellow Water Road Site (Duval County, FL) ............................................ A-31

Maxey Flats Disposal Site (Fleming County, KY) ........................................ A-31

Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site (Concord, NC) .............................. A-32

Woolfolk Chemical Site (Fort Valley, GA) .............................................. A-32

Aqua-tech Environmental, Inc., Site (Greer, SC) ......................................... A-32

General Refining Site (Garden City, GA) ............................................... A-32

Reeves Southeastern Site (Tampa, FL) ................................................. A-32

Shaver's Farm Site (Walker County, GA) ............................................... A-32

Para-Chem Southern, Inc. (Simpsonville, SC) ........................................... A-33

Dickerson Post Treating Site (Homerville, GA) .......................................... A-33

Murray Ohio Dump Site (Lawrenceburg, TN) ........................................... A-33

Riley Battery Site (Concord, Cabarrus County, NC) ...................................... A-33

Cedartown Battery Site (Polk County, GA) ............................................. A-33

Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, FL) ................................................ A-33

Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, FL) ................................................ A-34

Kalama Specialty Chemical, Inc. (Beaufort, SC) ......................................... A-34

Sixty-One Industrial Park Site (Memphis, Shelby County, TN) .............................. A-34

Carolina Chemicals Site (West Columbia, SC) .......................................... A-34

Saad Trousdale Road Site (Nashville, TN) .............................................. A-34

Florida Steel Site (Indiantown, Martin County, FL) ...................................... A-34

Rutledge Property Site (Rock Hill, York County, SC) ..................................... A-34

Sayles-Biltmore Site (Asheville, NC) ................................................... A-35

Fuels and Chemicals Superfund Site (Tuscaloosa County, AL) ............................. A-35
Table of Contents

v July 1996

Diamond Shamrock Landfill Site (Cedartown, Polk County, GA) ........................... A-35

Brantley Landfill Site (Island, KY) .................................................... A-35

New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site (Wilmington, NC) .............................. A-35

Koppers Charleston Site (Charleston County, SC) ....................................... A-35

Lexington County Landfill Site (Lexington County, SC) ................................... A-36

Pike County Drum Site (Osyka, MS) ................................................... A-36

Cedartown Municipal Landfill Site (Cedartown, GA) ..................................... A-36

E.C. Manufacturing Property (Pineville, Mecklenberg County, NC) ......................... A-36

JMC Plating Site (Lexington, NC) ..................................................... A-36

Monarch Tile, Inc./Rickwood Road Site (Lauderdale County, AL) ........................... A-36

Shuron/Textron Site (Barnwell, SC) ................................................... A-36

J-Street Site, (Erwin, Harnett County, NC) .............................................. A-36

Clean Water Act/SDWA ................................................................... A-37

United States v. IMC-Agrico Company (M.D. FL) ........................................ A-37

United States v. City of Marianna, Florida (N.D. FL) ..................................... A-37

United States v. Metropolitan Dade County, et al. (S.D. FL) ............................... A-37

United States v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D. KY) ................................ A-37

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (TN) ............................................ A-37

Truman Griggs, individual (KY) ...................................................... A-38

Florida Department of Transportation Rest Areas (FL) ................................... A-38

Clay County, Florida - Ridaught Landing WWTP ........................................ A-38

Anheuser-Busch Companies (Jacksonville, FL) .......................................... A-38

City of Pensacola, FL .............................................................. A-38

Jacksonville Suburban Utilities, Jacksonville Heights WWTP (FL) .......................... A-39

EPCRA ................................................................................. A-39

WoodGrain Millwork, (Americus, GA) ................................................. A-39

Grief Brothers (Cullman, AL) ........................................................ A-39

Eufaula Manufacturing Company (Eufaula, AL) ........................................ A-39

Kason Industries (Shenandoah, GA) .................................................. A-39

Memphis/Shelby County Airport, TN .................................................. A-39

RCRA ................................................................................. A-39

Union Timber Corporation (GA) ..................................................... A-39

Masonite Corporation (MS) ......................................................... A-39

Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc. (NC) ............................................. A-40

Westvaco Corporation (SC) ......................................................... A-40

United States Coastal Systems Station (FL) ............................................. A-40

Central Florida Pipeline Corporation (FL) ............................................. A-40

United States Air Force Base at Myrtle Beach (SC) ...................................... A-40

Georgia-Pacific Corporation (GA) .................................................... A-40

Southland Oil Company, Inc. (Sandersville and Lumberton, MS) ........................... A-40

Arizona Chemical Company (MS) .................................................... A-41

Elf Atochem North America, Inc (AL) .................................................. A-41

Florida Solite (FL) ................................................................. A-41

Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation (SC) ............................................ A-41

Everwood Treatment Company, Inc., and Cary W. Thigpen (AL) ............................ A-41

TSCA .................................................................................. A-41

National Cement Company, Inc. (Ragland, AL) ......................................... A-41

Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center (Louisville, KY) .................................... A-42

Brook Run Mental Health Facility (Atlanta, GA) ......................................... A-42

Federal Facilities ......................................................................... A-42

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base (MBAFB) ................................................ A-42

REGION V .................................................................................. A-43

Clean Air Act ............................................................................ A-43
Table of Contents

vi July 1996

United States v. Copper Range Company (W.D., MI) ..................................... A-43

Navistar International Transportation Corporation (S.D., OH) ............................. A-43

Clark Refining & Marketing (Hartford, IL) ............................................. A-43

Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation (Madison, WI) ........................................ A-43

United States v. Coleman Trucking, Inc. (N.D., OH) ...................................... A-44

Cass River Coatings, Inc. (MI) ....................................................... A-44

Schepel Buick & GMC Truck Company (Merrillville, IN) .................................. A-44

Clean Water Act .......................................................................... A-44

Buffalo Oilfield Services v. Ohio Division of Oil and Gas ................................. A-44

Burlington Northern ............................................................... A-44

Akron, OH ....................................................................... A-44

115th Street Co., Chicago, Illinois (a.k.a. PMC Specialty Chemical Company) ................ A-45

Southern Ohio Coal Company ....................................................... A-45

Northwoods Organics, Inc. & Faulk Bros. Construction, Inc. (St. Louis County, MN) ........... A-45

Northwoods Organics .............................................................. A-45

A & W Drilling & Equipment Co., Inc. (Gibson County, IN) ............................... A-45

Danny L. Long & Sons Disposal Services, Inc. v. Ohio Division of Oil and Gas ............... A-46

PPG Industries, Inc. ............................................................... A-46

Tenexco/Terra Energy .............................................................. A-46

The Pillsbury Company ............................................................. A-46

EPCRA §313 ............................................................................ A-46

United Screw and Bolt Corporation (Bryan, OH) ........................................ A-46

Enamel Products and Plating Company (Portage, IN) .................................... A-47

FIFRA .................................................................................. A-47

J.T. Eaton & Company, Inc. (Twinsburg, OH) ........................................... A-47

Citizens Elevator Co., Inc. (Vermontville, MI) ........................................... A-47

RCRA .................................................................................. A-47

Marathon Oil Company (Robinson, IL) ................................................ A-47

Great Lakes Casting Corporation (Ludington, MI) ....................................... A-47

Abbott Laboratories ............................................................... A-47

S.C. Johnson & Sons, Inc. (Sturtevant, WI) ............................................. A-47

Republic Environmental Systems (Cleveland), Inc. ....................................... A-48

CMI-Cast Parts, Inc. (Cadillac, MI) ................................................... A-48

Van den Bergh Foods Company Madelia, MN) .......................................... A-48

Metro Recovery Systems d/b/a U.S. Filter Recovery (Roseville, MN) ......................... A-48

HRR Enterprises, Division of Kane-Miller Corporation (Chicago, IL) ....................... A-48

J. Stephen Scherer, Inc. (Rochester Hills, MI) ........................................... A-49

PSI Energy, Inc. (West Terre Haute, IN) ............................................... A-49

Long Prairie Packing, Inc. (South St. Paul, MN) ......................................... A-49

TSCA .................................................................................. A-50

Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, MI) ................................................. A-50

H & H Enterprises and Recycling, Inc. ................................................ A-50

S.D. Meyers, Inc. .................................................................. A-50

Dexter Corporation ................................................................ A-50

Lawter International Corporation (Northbrook, IL) ...................................... A-50

Federal Facilities ......................................................................... A-50

U.S. Army Fort McCoy ............................................................. A-50

U.S. Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant (NIROP) .................................. A-51

REGION VI .................................................................................. A-53

Clean Air Act ............................................................................ A-53

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Products, Inc. .............................................. A-53

CERCLA ............................................................................... A-53

United States v. Gurley Refining Co., Inc., et al. (8th Cir.) ................................. A-53
Table of Contents

vii July 1996

United States v. Bell Petroleum Services, Inc. (5th Cir.) ................................... A-53

United States v. Vertac Chemical Corporation (8th Cir.) .................................. A-53

United States v. Allied-Signal, et al. (E.D. TX) ........................................... A-54

United States v. American National Petroleum Co., et al. (W.D. LA) ......................... A-54

United States v. Bayard Mining Corp., et al. (D. NM) ..................................... A-54

United States v. Lang, et al. (E.D., TX) ................................................. A-54

United States v. David Bowen Wallace, et al. (N.D. TX) ................................... A-55

Hillsdale Drum Sites ............................................................... A-55

Hi-Yield Chemical ................................................................. A-55

Lithium of Lubbock ................................................................ A-55

In re: Reliable Coatings, Inc. (U.S.B.C., W.D. TN) (Liquidating Chapter 11) ................. A-55

Clean Water Act .......................................................................... A-55

United States v. Mr. Roger Gautreau (S.D. LA) .......................................... A-55

In the Matter of: City of Albuquerque, NM ............................................. A-56

EPCRA ................................................................................. A-56

In the Matter of: Formosa Plastics Company ........................................... A-56

In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company ............................................. A-56

Formosa Plastics Co. ............................................................... A-56

Shell Chemical Company ........................................................... A-56

In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company ............................................. A-57

Formosa Plastics Co. ............................................................... A-57

Shell Chemical Company ........................................................... A-57

RCRA .................................................................................. A-57

In the Matter of: Altus Air Force Base ................................................ A-57

SDWA ................................................................................. A-57

Cushman, Arkansas ................................................................ A-57

Colonias in Texas ................................................................. A-57

TSCA .................................................................................. A-58

In the Matter of: PPG Industries ..................................................... A-58

In the Matter of: El Paso Electric Company ............................................ A-58

United States v. USS Cabot/Dedalo Museum Foundation ................................. A-58

Federal Facilities ......................................................................... A-58

Lackland Air Force Base ............................................................ A-58

REGION VII ................................................................................. A-59

Clean Air Act ............................................................................ A-59

IES Utilities, Inc. (Cedar Rapids, IA) .................................................. A-59

Stupp Brothers Bridge & Iron Company ............................................... A-59

Barton Nelson Inc. ................................................................. A-59

CERCLA ............................................................................... A-59

United States v. Bliss, 28 DIOXIN-Contaminated Sites, Eastern Missouri .................... A-59

United States v. Bliss, Horse Arena, et al., 28 Dioxin-Contaminated Sites, Eastern Missouri ..... A-59

United States v. Monsanto Company, et al. ............................................. A-60

United States v. Cooperative Producers Inc. and Farmland Industries, Inc. ................... A-60

Rogers Iron and Metal Corporation (Jasper County, MO) ................................. A-60

Mason City, IA and Bob McKinness Grading & Excavating, Inc. (Mason City, IA) ............. A-60

Pacific Activities, Ltd. (Davenport, IA) ................................................. A-60

West Lake Landfill NPL Site (Bridgeton, MO), OU-2 ..................................... A-60

I.J. Stephens Farm Site (Newton County, MO) ........................................... A-61

Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings (St. Louis, MO) ....................................... A-61

The Aluminum Company of America Site (Riverdale, IA) .................................. A-61

Doepke Holliday Site (Johnson County, KS) ............................................ A-61

29th and Mead Superfund Site (Wichita, KS) ............................................ A-61

Emory Plating Company (Des Moines, IA) ............................................. A-62
Table of Contents

viii July 1996

Fremont Pesticides Superfund Site (Fremont County, IA) .................................. A-62

Helena Chemical (Hayti, MO) ....................................................... A-62

Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant (Waterloo, IA) ........................................ A-62

Irwin Chemical Company (Des Moines, IA) and Emory Plating Company (Des Moines, IA) ..... A-62

Clean Water Act .......................................................................... A-62

St. Columbkill Association and Berra Construction Co. ................................... A-62

EPCRA ................................................................................. A-63

Texaco Refinery (El Dorado, KS) ..................................................... A-63

K.O. Manufacturing, Inc. ........................................................... A-63

Heyco, Inc. (Garden City, KS) ....................................................... A-63

FIFRA .................................................................................. A-63

Farmers Cooperative Grain Company (Merna, NE) ...................................... A-63

Oil Pollution Act ......................................................................... A-63

Koch Industries, Inc. ............................................................... A-63

RCRA .................................................................................. A-63

University of Nebraska ............................................................. A-63

SDWA ................................................................................. A-64

Kansas Public Water Supplies ....................................................... A-64

Kansas Bureau of Water ............................................................ A-64

Multimedia .............................................................................. A-64

Iowa National Guard, AASF #2, Waterloo, IA ........................................... A-64

REGION VIII ................................................................................ A-65

Clean Air Act ............................................................................ A-65

South Main Texaco ................................................................ A-65

Plum Creek Manufacturing .......................................................... A-65

Colorado Refining Company ........................................................ A-65

Asarco, Inc. ...................................................................... A-65

ARCO, Snyder Oil Corporation ...................................................... A-65

CERCLA ............................................................................... A-65

United States v. Alumet Partnership, et al. .............................................. A-65

Portland Cement Company .......................................................... A-65

Lowry Landfill Superfund Site ....................................................... A-66

Rockwell International ............................................................. A-66

City and County of Denver .......................................................... A-66

Denver Radium/Robco Project a Brownsfield Redevelopment Success Story .................. A-66

Utah Power & Light/American Barrel ................................................. A-67

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Site ........................................ A-67

Hansen Container Site .............................................................. A-67

Layton Salvage Yard Site ........................................................... A-67

Broderick Wood Products Site ....................................................... A-67

S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company .................................................... A-67

Smuggler Durant Mining Company ................................................... A-68

Clean Water Act .......................................................................... A-68

United States v. John Morrell Company ................................................ A-68

United States v. Excel Corporation, Fort Morgan, CO (CD, CO) ........................... A-68

United States v. City of Fort Morgan, CO (CD, CO) ...................................... A-68

City of Watertown, South Dakota ..................................................... A-68

Sheyenne Tooling and Manufacturing Company ........................................ A-69

Trail King Industries ............................................................... A-69

Pettingill ......................................................................... A-69

Zortman Mining/Pegasus Gold ....................................................... A-69

F.L. Thorpe & Company ............................................................ A-69

Twin City Fan & Blower Company .................................................... A-69
Table of Contents

ix July 1996

Newman Signs Company ............................................................ A-69

FKI Industries .................................................................... A-70

Gopher Sign Company ............................................................. A-70

EPCRA ................................................................................. A-70

United States v. Pennzoil Products Company ........................................... A-70

KBP Coil Coaters ................................................................. A-70

Pillow Kingdom, Inc. ............................................................... A-70

Federal Facilities Agreement ................................................................ A-70

F.E. Warren Air Force Base ......................................................... A-70

Oil Pollution Act ......................................................................... A-71

United States v. Burlington Northern Railroad .......................................... A-71

Phillips Petroleum Company ......................................................... A-71

RCRA .................................................................................. A-71

United States v. Stanley L. Smith, et al. ................................................ A-71

Powder River Crude Processors ...................................................... A-71

Cordero Mining Company .......................................................... A-72

Worland Laundry and Cleaners, Inc. .................................................. A-72

Amoco Oil Company ............................................................... A-72

SDWA ................................................................................. A-72

Fort Thompson Water System, Fort Thompson, SD and Lower Brule Water System, Lower (Brule,

SD) ...................................................................... A-72

Clark Electric Motor Co. UIC-VIII-95-07. ............................................. A-72

Bobby Smalley, Donald Creager, Petroleum Products, Inc., and Straight Arrow Oil

Company—Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation

Commission ............................................................... A-73

Missoula Bottling Company, Inc. ..................................................... A-73

TSCA .................................................................................. A-73

Frontier Refining Corporation ....................................................... A-73

Gary-Williams Energy Corporation ................................................... A-73

Western Slope Refining Company ..................................................... A-73

Montana Resources Company ....................................................... A-73

Multimedia .............................................................................. A-74

Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc.; Amoco Production Company; and HS Resource, Inc. ....... A-74

Rocky Flats IAG ................................................................... A-74

REGION IX .................................................................................. A-75

McColl Superfund Site .............................................................. A-75

Dunsmuir Spill .................................................................... A-75

KRDC, Inc., and Sundance International, Ltd. .......................................... A-75

Jibboom Junkyard ................................................................. A-75

California Almond Growers Exchange ................................................ A-76

Witco Corporation (Oildale, CA) ..................................................... A-76

Masonite Corporation .............................................................. A-76

Minerec Mining Chemical ........................................................... A-77
Table of Contents

x July 1996

Federal Facilities ......................................................................... A-77

Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Yuma

Facility ................................................................... A-77

U.S. Army Schofield Barracks ........................................................ A-77

U.S. Army Johnston Atoll ........................................................... A-78

REGION X .................................................................................. A-79

Clean Air Act ............................................................................ A-79

United States v. Potlatch Corporation (D. ID) ........................................... A-79

United States v. Nu-West Industries (D. ID) ............................................. A-79

United States v. Daw Forest Product Company (D. ID) ................................... A-79

Clean Water Act .......................................................................... A-79

United States v. Alaska Pulp Company (D. AK) ......................................... A-79

James Roland ..................................................................... A-79

Alaska Pipeline Service Company .................................................... A-79

EPCRA ................................................................................. A-79

Leer-Gem Top and American Cabinet Concepts ......................................... A-79

Hopton Technologies ............................................................... A-79

Patrick Industries .................................................................. A-79

Cascade General .................................................................. A-80

Nosler, Inc. ....................................................................... A-80

Gary Loomis, Inc. ................................................................. A-80

RCRA .................................................................................. A-80

Alaska Pollution Control, Inc., Palmer, Alaska .......................................... A-80

United States v. Taylor Lumber & Treating, Inc. (D. OR) .................................. A-80

Northwest Enviroservice, Inc. (WA) ................................................... A-80

TSCA .................................................................................. A-80

Northwest Aluminum Company ...................................................... A-80

Peoples Utility District, Tillamook, Oregon ............................................. A-80

Willamina Lumber Company ........................................................ A-80

Caterpillar, Inc. ................................................................... A-81

Washington Department of Social and Health Services ................................... A-81

Multimedia .............................................................................. A-81

United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (D. AK) ....................................... A-81

FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE ................................................. A-83

Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Fort Defiance Facility ........... A-83

RCRA/Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program ............................................. A-83

Groom Lake ...................................................................... A-83

U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) ............................................ A-83

Altus Air Force Base ............................................................... A-83

U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal ......................................................... A-83

U.S. Army Natick Research Facility ................................................... A-83

F.E. Warren Air Force Base ......................................................... A-84

U.S. Army Rocky Mountain Arsenal ................................................... A-84

Army Materials Technology Laboratory ............................................... A-84

Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, Tennessee (DDMT) ................................ A-84

OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT ........................................................ A-85

United States v. William Recht Company, Inc., et al. (M.D. FL) ............................. A-85

United States v. Roggy (D. MN) ...................................................... A-85

United States v. Boomsnub Corporation (W.D. WA) ...................................... A-85

United States v. Adi Dara Dubash and Homi Patel (S.D. FL) .............................. A-85

United States v. Irma Henneberg (S.D. FL) ............................................. A-86
Table of Contents

xi July 1996

United States v. John Tominelli (S.D. FL) .............................................. A-86

United States v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (D. MA) .................................. A-86

United States v. Herman W. Parramore (M.D. GA) ....................................... A-86

United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (S.E.D. AK) .................................... A-86

United States v. Ronald E. Greenwood and Barry W. Milbauer (D. SD) ...................... A-87

United States v. OEA, Inc. (D. CO) .................................................... A-87

United States v. Percy King (D. KS) ................................................... A-87

United States v. Gaston (D. KS) ...................................................... A-87

United States v. David Albright (E.D. WI) .............................................. A-87

United States v. Attique Ahmad (S.D. TX) .............................................. A-87

United States v. Joel S. Atwood. (D. WA) ............................................... A-87

United States v. Barker Products Company (N.D. OH) .................................... A-88

United States v. Mary Ellen Baumann, et al. (D. DC) ..................................... A-88

United States v. James W. Blair (E.D. TX) .............................................. A-88

United States v. Lawrence M. Bordner, Jr. (N.D. IL) ...................................... A-88

United States v. Michael A.J. Brooks (W.D. WA) ......................................... A-88

United States v. Cenex Limited, dba Full Circle (E.D. WA) ................................. A-89

United States v. T. Boyd Coleman (W.D. WA) ........................................... A-89

United States v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al. (W.D. NC) ................................ A-89

United States v. Circuits Engineering (W.D. WA) ........................................ A-89

United States v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (E.D. CO) .................................. A-89

United States v. Daniel J. Fern (S.D. FL) ............................................... A-90

United States v. Gary Merlino Construction Co. Inc. (W.D. WA) ............................ A-90

United States v. Reginald B. Gist and William Rodney Gist (N.D. TX) ........................ A-90

United States v. Roland Heinze (W.D. TX) .............................................. A-90

United States v. James David Humphrey (S.D. TX) ....................................... A-91

United States v. Donald Jarrell (S.D. VA) .............................................. A-91

United States v. William Kirkpatrick (D. KS) ............................................ A-91

United States v. L-Bar Products, Inc. (E.D. WA) ......................................... A-91

United States v. Lee Engineering and Construction Company (M.D. GA) ..................... A-91

United States v. Mantua Manufacturing Company (S.D. TX) ............................... A-91

United States v. Marjani, et al. (E.D. PA) ............................................... A-92

United States v. Kenneth D. Mathews (D. OR) ........................................... A-92

United States v. Roy A. McMichael, Jr. (D. PR) .......................................... A-92

United States v. Micro Chemical, Inc. (W.D. LA) ......................................... A-92

United States v. Roger Mihaldo (W.D. MO) ............................................. A-93

United States v. Steve Olson (E.D. MO) ................................................ A-93

United States v. Paul E. Richards (W.D. NC) ............................................ A-93

United States v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D. GA) ................................. A-93

United States v. William Reichle and Reichle, Inc. (D. OR) ................................ A-93

United States v. Donald Rogers (D. KS) ................................................ A-94

United States v. Rose City Plating, Inc. (W.D. OR) ....................................... A-94

United States v. Richard Schuffert (M.D. AL) ........................................... A-94

United States v. Bruce D. Spangrud (D. OR) ............................................ A-94

United States v. Spanish Cove Sanitation, Inc., and John Lawson

(W.D. KY) ................................................................. A-94

United States v. Yvon St. Juste (S.D. FL) ............................................... A-95

United States v. Andrew Cyrus Towe, et al. (D. MT) ...................................... A-95

United States v. T&T Fuels (N.D. WV) ................................................. A-95

United States v. Warehouse Rebuilder and Manufacturer Inc. and Lonnie Dillard (D. OR) ...... A-95

United States v. George E. Washington (M.D. LA) ....................................... A-95

United States v. Paul Zborovsky and Jose Prieto (S.D. FL) ................................ A-96

State of Oregon v. Roger W. Evans, et al. .............................................. A-96

State of Washington v. Kevin L. Farris ................................................. A-96
Table of Contents

xii July 1996

States v. West Indies Transport, et al. .................................................. A-96

United States v. Herbert Zschiegner ................................................... A-96

United States v. Patel ............................................................... A-97

United States v. Southwest Trading Fuel Oil, Inc. ........................................ A-97

United States v. Peter Frank, et al. .................................................... A-97

United States v. Caschem, Inc. ....................................................... A-97

United States v. Con Edison ......................................................... A-97

Mohammed Mizani, H. Lee Smith and Lloyd Smith ....................................... A-98

George M. Tribble ................................................................. A-98

Kenneth Morrison ................................................................. A-98

Buckey Pile Line Company .......................................................... A-98

Linden Beverage .................................................................. A-98

Billy Lee Brewer ................................................................... A-98

Kenneth Chen ..................................................................... A-99

Summitville Consolidated Mining Co. ................................................. A-99

Louisiana Pacific Corp. ............................................................ A-99

Wheatridge Sanitation District and Mr. Lenny Hart ...................................... A-99

State of California v. John Appel, et al. ................................................ A-99
A-1 July 1996

REGION I

CLEAN AIR ACT

United States v. Borden, Inc. (D. MA): On March 24,

1995, the federal district court entered a civil consent

decree in which Borden agreed to pay a penalty of $82,278

for Clean Air Act violations. The action addressed

violations of Massachusetts SIP regulations that limit

volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from vinyl United States v. Coakley Landfill, Inc. (D. NH): The

surface coating operations. From September 1986 to May United States and the State of New Hampshire have

1992, Borden's Vernon Plastics Division in Haverill, entered a consent decree with Coakley Landfill, Inc.,

Massachusetts, operated vinyl surface printing lines using Ronald Coakley, and other individual members of the

coatings that emitted VOCs in excess of the SIP limits. In Coakley family resolving the liability of the Coakley

response to EPA's enforcement action, Borden achieved entities as owners and operators of the Coakley Landfill

compliance by reformulating its coatings and by installing Superfund site. The Coakleys did not settle at the time of

and testing full enclosures around two printing lines and by the first operable unit remedial design/remedial action

routing all VOC emissions to incinerators. The full (RD/RA) cleanup negotiations in 1991 because of lack of

enclosures represent state-of-the-art emissions capture financial resources. After that, however, the New

technology previously considered technically and Hampshire Supreme Court rendered a decision in favor of

economically infeasible. In reaching compliance, Borden the Coakleys against their insurers. The Coakleys then

reduced VOC emissions by at least 200 tons per year negotiated settlements with their insurers, the federal and

below 1986 levels. state governments, and the first operable unit RD/RA

United States v. Housing Authority of the City of New

Haven and Aaron Gleich, Inc. (D. CT): On August 17,

1995, the U.S. District Court in Connecticut approved a

consent decree which settles this Clean Air Act asbestos

case, originally filed in 1991 against a federally funded

low-income housing provider and an asbestos abatement

firm now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The case

involves claims by EPA that the defendants failed to wet

asbestos-containing material (ACM) and improperly

disposed of ACM during the 1990 demolition of a large, In re: General Electric Company: In September 1995,

vacant public housing complex in New Haven, the Region issued a unilateral administrative order to the

Connecticut. At the time of the demolition, the facility was General Electric Company (GE) requiring GE to remove

owned by the Housing Authority which had hired Gleich as soils highly contaminated with PCBs from residential

the asbestos abatement contractor for the demolition properties forming part of the Fletcher Paint Works and

operation. The settlement includes payment of a $43,000 Storage Facility Superfund site in Milford, New

penalty for which defendants are jointly and severally liable Hampshire. The contamination of the residential

as well as injunctive provisions designed to ensure future properties resulted from the spread of PCB-laden soils

compliance with the asbestos NESHAP. from the Fletcher property to the properties of neighboring

In re: City of Providence, Central High School: A

consent agreement and final order was signed on

November 8, 1994, in which the City of Providence,

Rhode Island, through its school department, agreed to pay

a $91,000 penalty for violations of the federal Clean Air

Act and the federally approved State Implementation Plan.

At its Central High School facility, the City failed to meet M&V Electroplating Superfund Site: On September 7,

opacity emission limits, to operate opacity monitors in 1995, EPA-New England issued an administrative order

accordance with the regulations, and to combust fuel with for removal action to three potentially responsible parties

the required sulfur dioxide content under federal at the M&V Electroplating Corporation Superfund site in

regulations. In the course of negotiations with EPA, the

City agreed to purchase fuel with the required sulfur

dioxide content and to operate its opacity monitor as

required by the regulations.

CERCLA

settlers. Under the settlement, the Coakleys will pay

$1,404,000. The United States and New Hampshire will

receive $842,400, to be divided among EPA, the U.S.

Department of the Interior, and the State based on the

proportion of expected costs at the site. The Coakleys also

agreed to impose controls on their property and to provide

permanent site access. The settling parties with whom

EPA entered into a RD/RA consent decree in September

1991 will receive $561,600.

homeowners. The Fletcher soils became contaminated

primarily through disposal of waste PCBs at the site by GE

in the 1950s and 1960s. The soils addressed in the

removal order were up to 130 times the safe level for

unrestricted residential exposure to PCBs set by national

guidance.
Region I Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-2 July 1996

Newburyport, Massachusetts. The order compelled Circle estimated to cost approximately $50 million, will eliminate

Finishing Corporation, former tenant and generator, Joyce an overflow which discharges near shellfish beds and will

Vigeant, current owner and owner at the time of disposal, greatly reduce overflows which discharge onto a popular

and M&V Electroplating Corporation, former operator and public beach. The schedule also includes a "reopener" date

generator, to remove hundreds of gallons of dangerous for negotiation of additional facilities to eliminate the

chemicals improperly stored at the former electroplating remaining overflows onto the beach.

facility. These substances presented an immediate and

substantial threat of fire. The site is located in a mixed

residential/commercial/industrial neighborhood, near a

daycare center, a play area, and within one half mile of a

grammar school. The town middle school and the

downtown commercial district are within one mile of the

site.

CLEAN WATER ACT

United States v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (D.

MA): On April 4, 1995, the federal district court entered

a civil consent decree requiring the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts and its general contractor, Dimeo

Construction Company, to undertake a $1.5 million

wetlands mitigation project; pay a $50,000 penalty; pay an

additional $378,000 penalty (economic benefit) if the

Commonwealth ever sells the undeveloped land abutting

the jail site; pay $150,000 to the Massachusetts Audubon

Society for the establishment of an endowment for the

preservation of 264 acres of valuable wetlands in Halifax,

Massachusetts; and offer a wetlands training course to

employees of Dimeo and to the Associated General

Contractors of Massachusetts. Between 1988 and 1990,

the Commonwealth and its contractor filled approximately

11.5 acres of forested wetlands in Dartmouth,

Massachusetts while constructing the Bristol County

House of Corrections. The defendants neither applied for

nor obtained a federal CWA Section 404 permit for this

activity.

A unique feature of the settlement is the Supplemental

Environmental Project (SEP) which involves the

Commonwealth funding an endowment to be created by

the Massachusetts Audubon Society (MAS) to be used to

preserve and maintain valuable wetlands that will be

conveyed to MAS in connection with another EPA-New

England wetlands settlement. This is the first time in the

country that a settlement in one wetlands case has been

used to ensure the success of the settlement in another

case.

United States v. City of Lynn (D. MA): EPA negotiated

an agreement with the City of Lynn, Massachusetts, to add

a schedule for the construction of combined sewer

overflow controls to an existing consent decree. Lynn's

CSO discharges violated Section 301(a) of the Clean

Water Act. The required CSO controls, which are

United States v. City of New Bedford (D. MA): On June

16, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the District of

Massachusetts entered a modified consent decree requiring

the City of New Bedford to construct a secondary

wastewater treatment plant. In 1993, the City of New

Bedford refused to construct the secondary plant in

accordance with the requirements of an earlier consent

decree. The United States filed a motion to enforce the

decree. Subsequently, New Bedford agreed to construct

the plant, and EPA negotiated a modified consent decree.

The modified decree requires completion of the new

secondary treatment plant by 1996, and payment of a

$51,000 penalty to the United States. In addition, the

decree requires payment of a penalty of $51,000 to the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which will be waived if

New Bedford complies with certain terms of the modified

consent decree.

United States v. Freudenberg-NOK General Partnership

(D. NH): On October 17, 1994, the U.S. District Court

entered a civil consent decree in which Freudenberg-NOK

agreed to pay $550,000 in civil penalties in settlement of

a civil action brought for violations of Sections 307 and

308 of the Clean Water Act. This action arose out of

Freudenberg-NOK's violation of the federal metal finishing

pretreatment standards and reporting requirements. The

Region referred this action following an inspection made

as part of the Region's efforts to ensure that industries

subject to categorical standards but located in jurisdictions

without federally approved pretreatment programs were

meeting federal requirements.

United States v. Hercules, Incorporated (D. MA): On

December 13, 1994, the federal district court entered a

civil consent decree which requires Hercules Incorporated

to achieve and maintain compliance with pretreatment

limitations, to pay a civil penalty of $250,000, and to

complete SEPs at a projected cost of $375,000. The

consent decree resolves a federal civil action which arose

under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act for pretreatment

violations at Hercules' branch facility in Chicopee,

Massachusetts. Included in the action were violations of

federal and local wastewater pretreatment standards for

pH, violations of national pretreatment standards for

organic chemicals, and a violation of the prohibition

against discharging pollutants that may pass through the

treatment plant.
Region I Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-3 July 1996

BayBank, Inc. and Northland, Inc.: On January 11,

1995, the United States signed agreements with BayBank,

Inc., and Northland Cranberries, Inc., to resolve potential

future claims against those companies related to In re: United States Coast Guard Academy: An

unlawfully-filled wetlands in Hanson and Halifax, administrative consent agreement and order was signed on

Massachusetts. The agreements require a variety of September 21, 1995, to settle the Coast Guard Academy's

restoration and mitigation projects, including the failure to comply with various RCRA requirements

conveyance of a 264-acre parcel of Atlantic white cedar involving the management of hazardous wastes and the

swamp to the Massachusetts Audubon Society. training of employees. The case was negotiated following

In re: Town of Brookline: EPA issued an administrative

penalty order against the Town of Brookline,

Massachusetts, for discharges of sewage into the Muddy

River in violation Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act.

The discharges resulted from illicit connections of sewer

lines to storm drains. EPA negotiated a consent agreement

with Brookline which requires the Town to locate and

remove all such connections by 1997, and to undertake a

variety of stormwater management practices. The consent

agreement requires that Brookline pay a $25,000 penalty

if the Town does not comply with the schedule for removal

of the illegal sewer connections. In re: Giering Metal Finishing, Inc.: On September 8,

EPCRA

In re: Colfax, Inc.: On September 29, 1995, EPA issued

an initial decision ordering Colfax, Inc., of Pawtucket,

Rhode Island, to pay a fine of $56,480 for its failure to file

MSDS sheets and chemical inventory forms as required

under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312. An administrative

complaint was issued against the company in September

1993 following discovery of the violations during an

inspection of the facility. The inspection revealed a history

of non-compliance with reporting requirements necessary

for local authorities to conduct chemical emergency

planning.

RCRA

In re: Yale University: An administrative consent

agreement and order was signed September 19, 1995, to

settle Yale University's failure to comply with various

RCRA requirements involving the management of

hazardous wastes and the preparation of emergency

procedures. The case was negotiated following a routine

inspection of four facilities at Yale. In addition to

requiring Yale to comply with RCRA regulations, EPA

agreed to a cash penalty of $69,570 and SEP expenditures

of $279,205 on three projects. One SEP is to test microscaling of undergraduate organic chemistry laboratories,

which will promote pollution prevention; the second is a

hazardous chemical waste management training program,

which will promote environmental compliance; and the

third is renovation of a building to be used for a lead

poison resource center, which will promote public health

in an environmental justice location.

a routine inspection of the Coast Guard Academy. In

addition to requiring the Coast Guard Academy to comply

with RCRA regulations, EPA agreed to SEP expenditures

of $259,362.92 on two projects in lieu of a proposed cash

penalty of $171,809. Under the terms of one SEP, the

Coast Guard will remove two underground fuel storage

tanks and one above ground storage tank and will replace

them with one dual compartment above ground tank to

serve as a central fueling station. The other SEP calls for

construction of a concrete block container storage building

to replace the current waste storage modular.

1995, EPA filed a consent agreement and order to settle an

administrative penalty action against Giering Metal

Finishing, Inc., (Giering). EPA initiated this

administrative action against Giering for violations of

RCRA requirements for the management of hazardous

wastes and the training of employees. The settlement

agreement requires Giering to pay a civil penalty in the

amount of $65,000, and to make expenditures in the

amount of at least $93,000 to implement three SEPs at the

facility. The SEPs include: (1) enhanced closed loop precoat rinses; (2) solvent substitution; and (3) a compliance

and pollution prevention audit.

SDWA

United States v. West Stockbridge Water Company and

Victor Stannard (D. MA): On December 20, 1994, the

court entered a default judgment against the West

Stockbridge Water Company and its owner, Victor

Stannard, assessing a civil penalty in the amount of

$350,000 and enjoining the defendants to comply at all

times with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water

Act. Water supplied by the water company periodically

exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for

coliform bacteria, with many samples showing the

presence of fecal coliform. The water company also

violated the Act's monitoring and public notice

requirements and the filtration treatment requirements of

the surface water treatment rule (SWTR). Believing that

the water company's violations presented an imminent and

substantial threat to the public health, EPA issued an

emergency administrative order to the defendants. The
Region I Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-4 July 1996

defendants' failure to comply with the emergency order led EAB also clarifies that a respondent's voluntary consent to

to the filing of the civil action and the $350,000 penalty. an inspection by State inspectors holding EPA credentials

TSCA

In re: Altana, Inc.: A consent agreement and final order

was signed February 15, 1995, settling an administrative

action for violations of TSCA Section 4. Altana, Inc. is a U.S. Coast Guard Academy: Region I announced on

corporation operating a business, the Byk-Chemie USA September 27, 1995, that the U.S. Coast Guard Academy

facility involving the manufacture and import of paint in New London, Connecticut, has agreed to spend

chemical additives. BYK-Chemie self-disclosed violations $259,254 on pollution prevention remedies as part of an

of TSCA Section 4 testing rules resulting from the enforcement settlement for hazardous waste violations.

importation of four subject chemicals without notice to the During and inspection of the facility, the Region cited the

Agency or participation in required toxicity testing on the Coast Guard Academy for violations ranging from failure

chemicals. The case was settled for a penalty of $35,000. to maintain adequate records to improper storage of

Incorporated into the settlement agreement is Altana's incompatible waste. The Coast Guard has agreed to

performance of a full TSCA environmental compliance conduct an SEP to remove two underground storage tanks

audit at its BYK-Chemie facility. and one above-ground tank to serve as a central fueling

In re: Polaroid Corporation: In November 1994,

Region I entered into a consent agreement and order with

Polaroid Corporation resolving TSCA new chemicals

program violations. Polaroid had notified EPA in October

1994, that an internal audit revealed the manufacture and

use of a new chemical for several years without

compliance with TSCA's premanufacture notification

(PMN) requirements. Beginning in 1992, Polaroid, of

Waltham, Massachusetts, had exceeded its low volume

exemption for the chemical by manufacturing in excess of

1,000 kilograms per year without having submitted the

chemical for the required EPA review of health and

environmental impacts. Polaroid paid a penalty of

$80,000, reduced from $160,000 in light of the prompt Massachusetts Military Reservation: Region I approved,

and voluntary disclosure of the violations. Polaroid is also with concurrence by EPA Headquarters, two SEPs at the

performing an audit of its compliance with TSCA low Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) as part of a

volume exemption requirements for approximately 100 settlement with the National Guard Bureau (NGB). In

other chemicals, and will pay stipulated penalties for any April 1994, EPA and NGB reached an agreement in

further violations uncovered by the audit. principle to settle a dispute relating to the October 6, 1993,

In re: Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc.: The

Environmental Appeals Board upheld EPA's inspection

authority and procedures under TSCA, and assessed a

$36,000 penalty for PCB transformer violations. The

violations were discovered during an inspection of Litton

Industrial Automation Systems, Inc.'s New Britain,

Connecticut, facility conducted by Connecticut Department

of Environmental Protection personnel under EPA's

inspection authority. The EAB decision affirms that under

TSCA Section 11, the EPA Administrator is authorized to

appoint state inspectors as "duly designated

representatives" of EPA to conduct TSCA compliance

inspections. This decision supports EPA's ability to

supplement its PCB compliance monitoring efforts by

using TSCA Section 28 grants for state inspections. The

waives any Fourth Amendment right to exclude from

evidence information derived from a warrantless search.

FEDERAL FACILITIES

station. The Coast Guard also will replace its current

waste storage modular building with a permanent concrete

block container storage building. The new building will be

used for the management of hazardous and Connecticut

regulated wastes. The Region announced that the

$260,000 SEP, a 50% increase over the original proposed

penalty amount was agreed to because the Coast Guard

Academy is located within an environmental justice area

identified by EPA for the State of Connecticut. The SEP

will directly decrease the likelihood of pollution migrating

into the Thames River, with which members of the

community regularly come into contact for fishing and

recreational purposes.

assessment of penalties under the MMR federal facility

agreement. Under the agreement, NGB will pay a $55,000

cash penalty and conduct and SEP in the amount of

$500,000 which meets the requirements of EPA's SEP

guidance.

A review of past and present operations and waste disposal

practices identified potentially contaminated areas,

including eight that cover 3,900 acres on the southern

portion of MMR. The materials found at the eight areas

are fly ash, bottom ash, waste solvents, waste fuels,
Region I Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-5 July 1996

herbicides, and transformer oil. The municipalities of

Bourne and Sandwich, and the Air Force base have an

estimated population of 36,000 people and have drinking

water wells within 3 miles of hazardous substances at the

site. Irrigation wells are also within 3 miles. Ashumet

Pond, less than one mile from the former fire training area,

is used for recreational activities. A freshwater wetland is

3,600 feet downstream of the area.

U.S. Naval Education and Training Center: Region I

reached a settlement with the Navy over violations of the

federal facilities agreement for the Naval Education and

Training Center (NETC), Newport, Rhode Island. The

Navy agreed to pay $30,000 in stipulated penalties,

undertake $220,000 in SEPs, pay $10,000 for an EPANavy "partnering" meeting, and provide the necessary

ecological risk assessments for two specific areas of the

facility.

The dispute concerned the Navy's repeated failure to

submit draft remedial investigation reports including

ecological and human health risk assessments for the

McAllister Point landfill and the old fire fighting training

area at the facility. The Region took the position that until

the Navy completes and submits the outstanding human

and ecological risk assessment reports, the Navy was out

of compliance with the requirements of Section 6.4 of the

FFCA for NETC.
Region I Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-6 July 1996
Region I Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-7 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION I .................................................................................... A-1

Clean Air Act .............................................................................. A-1

United States v. Borden, Inc. (D. MA): ...................................................... A-1

United States v. Housing Authority of the City of New Haven and Aaron Gleich, Inc. (D. CT):

.................................................................................. A-1

In re: City of Providence, Central High School: .............................................. A-1

CERCLA ................................................................................. A-1

United States v. Coakley Landfill, Inc. (D. NH): .............................................. A-1

In re: General Electric Company: ......................................................... A-1

M&V Electroplating Superfund Site: ....................................................... A-2

Clean Water Act ............................................................................ A-2

United States v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (D. MA): ..................................... A-2

United States v. City of Lynn (D. MA): ...................................................... A-2

United States v. City of New Bedford (D. MA): ............................................... A-2

United States v. Freudenberg-NOK General Partnership (D. NH): ............................... A-2

United States v. Hercules, Incorporated (D. MA): ............................................. A-3

BayBank, Inc. and Northland, Inc.: ........................................................ A-3

In re: Town of Brookline: ................................................................ A-3

EPCRA ................................................................................... A-3

In re: Colfax, Inc.: ...................................................................... A-3

RCRA .................................................................................... A-3

In re: Yale University: ................................................................... A-3

In re: United States Coast Guard Academy: ................................................. A-3

In re: Giering Metal Finishing, Inc.: ....................................................... A-3

SDWA ................................................................................... A-4

United States v. West Stockbridge Water Company and Victor Stannard (D. MA): ................... A-4

TSCA .................................................................................... A-4

In re: Altana, Inc.: ...................................................................... A-4

In re: Polaroid Corporation: ............................................................. A-4

In re: Litton Industrial Automation Systems, Inc.: ............................................ A-4

Federal Facilities ........................................................................... A-4

U.S. Coast Guard Academy: .............................................................. A-4

Massachusetts Military Reservation: ....................................................... A-5

U.S. Naval Education and Training Center: ................................................. A-5
A-7 July 1996

REGION II

CLEAN AIR ACT

United States v. MTP Industries, Inc.: On December 19,

1994, a consent decree was entered in federal district court

in this case involving a graphic arts company that was

using printing ink with excessive solvent content without

requisite control equipment. The decree provides for

payment of a $120,025 civil penalty by MTP and requires

the company to maintain compliance with the Clean Air

Act and applicable New York State Implementation Plan

(SIP) regulations. At present, the facility has installed

required pollution abatement equipment in advance of the

compliance schedule requirements of the decree. Stack

tests conducted on-site demonstrate compliance with the

pertinent emission standards.

United States v. Caribbean Petroleum Corporation: In

addition to the four administrative Subpart J cases, in

Fiscal Year 1992 Region II referred to DOJ one judicial

enforcement action against the Caribbean Petroleum

Corporation (CPC). A consent decree was entered on

March 16, 1995, in the District Court for Puerto Rico,

which provides for payment of a civil penalty of $350,000.

The complaint in this case alleged CPC violated the federal

Subpart J new source performance standards; specific

conditions of its PSD (Prevention of Significant

Deterioration of Air Quality) permit; and specific

provisions of the Puerto Rico State Implementation Plan.

The consent decree requires CPC to comply with Subpart

J performance standards, its PSD permit and those

provisions of the Puerto Rico SIP which were alleged to

have been violated. In 1994 Region II referred to DOJ

three judicial enforcement actions which included Subpart

J SO2 emission violation counts in addition to monitoring

violations. The Caribbean Petroleum case is the first of

these matters to be resolved.

United States v. Consolidated Edison and John's

Insulation: On March 8, 1994, the United States filed a

complaint against Consolidated Edison of New York, as

owner, and John's Insulation, Inc., as operator, for

violations of the asbestos demolition/renovation NESHAP

that occurred at Con Ed's Waterside generating station in

New York City. Allegations included violation of the work

practice and notification provisions of 40 CFR § 61.145.

A partial consent decree resolving the action against Con

Ed was entered on April 14, 1995, requiring a $100,000

penalty, which was paid in full May 1. John's Insulation

signed a partial consent decree soon thereafter that

required a penalty of $42,500, to be paid in three

installments. However, John's Insulation filed for

bankruptcy protection in December of 1994, causing the

United States to file a proof of claim to protect its

judgment on August 30, 1995.

United States v. Public Service Electric & Gas: The

vigilance of an off-duty Region II inspector resulted in this

enforcement action, resolved with the payment by PSE&G

of $230,000 in civil penalties. The inspector, while

commuting home, noticed a pile of old pipes laying in a

yard. A later inspection of the old gas cracking operation

revealed numerous violations of the asbestos NESHAP by

PSE&G. Following pre-filing negotiations with the

company, a consent decree was lodged at the same time the

complaint was filed, and subsequently entered on March

30, 1995. The decree required payment of the penalty and

the completion of an extensive worker training and

notification program by PSE&G.

United States v. Del'Aquilla: On August 23, 1995, a

judicial consent decree was entered in New Jersey District

Court resolving this action against Anthony Del'Aquilla

concerning asbestos demolition/renovation NESHAP

violations. The decree memorializes the defendant's

agreement to a civil penalty of $400,000 for those

violations. The agreement was signed by the Chapter 11

bankruptcy trustee, which acknowledges the validity of the

claim. When the bankruptcy judge eventually enters

Del'Aquilla's reorganization the United States will receive

payment of the penalty. The original court order enjoining

violations at the site will also remain in effect.

In the Matter of Glenmore Plastic Industries, Inc., and

In the Matter of Supreme Poly Products, Inc.: In

September 1995, Region II issued two administrative

complaints to Glenmore Plastic Industries, Inc., and

Supreme Poly Products, Inc., seeking penalties of

$137,000 and $183,361, respectively, for violations of the

applicable emission standards for volatile organic

compounds (VOCs). Both plants are located in Brooklyn,

New York, a severe non-attainment area for ozone.

Inspections at the two facilities (in late 1994 and early

1995) revealed that these coating and graphic arts facilities

used coatings and inks with VOC contents well above

permissible limits, causing excess VOC emissions which

exacerbates the area's ozone air quality problem. Supreme

also operated its facility without a valid operating permit.

In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.: The

last of four administrative actions issued by Region II as

part of a national Subpart J Enforcement Initiative was

resolved on November 17, 1994, by issuance of an
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-8 July 1996

administrative consent order to Phillips Puerto Rico Core. emergency response organizations in accordance with

The order requires Phillips to achieve compliance with the Section 312 of EPCRA. The 9-count complaint seeks

regulations in question, and to pay a civil penalty of $139,200 in penalties for these violations. The complaint

$99,000. The four Subpart J administrative Complaints alleges that the company failed to submit annual inventory

were issued in September of 1992 for failure to comply forms for hydrofluoric acid present at the facility to the

with H S monitoring requirements which became effective Commonwealth and local emergency planning committees 2

in October of 1991. In Fiscal Year 1994, prior to the and the local fire department for the years 1991 through

settlement of the Phillips Puerto Rico Core case, the other 1993. The information is intended to be available to the

three Subpart J administrative cases were settled. In total, public and to aid emergency response personnel in

the four matters resulted in $271,680 penalty payments. responding to any accidental releases of chemicals at

CLEAN WATER ACT

United States v. Lifesavers Manufacturing Inc.: On

March 23, 1995, a consent decree was entered in Puerto

Rico District Court in this Clean Water Act case. The

decree requires Lifesavers to pay a civil penalty of

$527,000 for its past violations of the CWA and its

NPDES permit. Lifesavers owns and operates a

manufacturing facility, producing chewing gum, in Las

Piedras, Puerto Rico. Industrial and stormwater discharges

were regulated under an NPDES permit, the terms of

which Lifesavers violated on various occasions during

1990-1992. Lifesavers has now ceased the direct

discharge of industrial wastes; the wastes are pre-treated

and sent to a publicly owned sewage treatment plant.

Lifesavers has improved its stormwater collection and

treatment system and is now meeting the stormwater

requirements of its modified NPDES permit.

EPCRA

United States v. TR Metals Corp.: At the request of EPA

Region II, the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey

initiated a civil action against the TR Metals Corporation.

Filed in federal district court, the complaint seeks

collection of a $34,000 default judgment due and owing to

the United States plus costs and interest. The debt arose as

the result of an administrative default order issued to the

company for violations of the EPCRA. The violations

occurred in 1987 and 1988 and involved the failure to

report toxic releases associated with the facility's use of

lead in amounts exceeding the reporting threshold. The

default order was subsequently appealed by the company

and confirmed by the Environmental Appeals Board. The

judicial complaint seeks an award of $44,371.99 plus any

accrued interest, penalty interest, and costs associated with

the maintenance of this action.

In the Matter of Forto Chemical Corp.: On January 25,

1995, Region II issued an administrative complaint

charging Forto Chemical Corporation with failing to

submit hazardous chemical information to the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and local planning and

facilities.

In the Matter of Astro Electroplating, Inc.: On March

30, 1995, Region II issued an administrative complaint to

Astro Electroplating, Inc., a New York company, citing

violations of Sections 311, 312 and 313 of EPCRA. The

complaint, which seeks a civil penalty of $318,300, alleges

that the company failed to (1) submit to State and local

emergency authorities, as required under Section 311,

copies of material safety data sheets for nitric acid and

sulfuric acid stored at its facility; (2) submit Tier I or Tier

II forms for those chemicals, as required by Section 312,

for the years 1992 through 1994; and (3) submit forms R

for copper, sulfuric acid and nitric acid, as required by

Section 313, for the years 1990 through 1992. Several of

these chemicals are designated as "extremely hazardous"

in the EPCRA regulations.

In the Matter of Insular Wire Products Corp.: On June

6, 1995, Region II issued an administrative complaint

against Insular Wire Products of Bayamon, Puerto Rico,

alleging violations of EPCRA. The complaint proposes

assessment of $306,000 in fines. The complaint alleges

that the company stored and used sulfuric acid—designated

an "extremely hazardous" substance under the law—and

diesel fuel between 1991 and 1993 in amounts exceeding

the EPCRA reporting thresholds. The company failed to

submit MSDS forms to State and local emergency

authorities; failed to submit Tier I and Tier II forms to

those authorities for the years 1991 through 1993; and

failed to submit forms R for sulfuric acid for the years

1992 through 1994.

In the Matter of Ricogas, Inc.: On September 26, 1995,

Region II issued an administrative complaint to Ricogas,

Inc., seeking $134,640 in penalties for failure to comply

with the EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 reporting

requirements for its Arecibo, Puerto Rico, facility.

Ricogas is a distributor of propane and liquified petroleum

gas (LPG). Propane and LPG are hazardous chemicals,

and were stored at the facility in excess of the 10,000

pound reporting threshold. Ricogas failed to submit the

required Material Safety Data Sheets to state and local

emergency planning and response authorities; and it also
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-9 July 1996

failed to submit emergency and hazardous chemical chemical inventory forms (Tier I or Tier II forms) to these

inventory forms (Tier I or Tier II forms) to these entities. entities as required by Section 312.

In the Matter of Puerto Rico Battery Co.: On September In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy, Inc.: On November 7,

29, 1995, Region II issued an administrative complaint to 1994, Region II issued an administrative consent order to

the Puerto Rico Battery Company of Camuy, Puerto Rico, Ciba-Geigy, Inc., assessing a penalty of $130,000 for

citing it for EPCRA violations and seeking $204,000 in violations of EPCRA at its Toms River, New Jersey,

penalties. The company failed to prepare a Material Safety facility. The order was based upon an inspection of CibaData Sheet for the storage of sulfuric acid, an "extremely Geigy's facility that resulted in a sixteen count complaint

hazardous substance," at its battery manufacturing facility alleging that Ciba-Geigy failed to report that it used certain

as required by EPCRA Section 311(a); and it failed to of the following: copper compounds; glycol ethers;

submit hazardous chemical inventory forms (for three chromium compounds; cobalt compounds; C.I. Disperse

reporting years) to the Commonwealth Emergency Yellow 3; diethanolamine and ethylene glycol during the

Response Commission, Local Emergency Planning calendar years 1988 through 1991.

Commission and local fire department, in violation of

EPCRA Section 312(a).

In the Matter of National Can of Puerto Rico, Inc.: On

September 27, 1995, Region II issued an administrative

consent order to National Can of Puerto Rico, Inc. The

order resolves a case initiated a year earlier, in which the

company was cited for violations of EPCRA Section 312

for its failure to submit to local emergency planning and

response agencies the required emergency and hazardous

chemical inventory forms (Tier I or Tier II forms) with

respect to sulfuric acid (for the reporting years 1990

through 1993). Under the settlement, the company will

pay a civil penalty of $160,000.

In the Matter of Parke-Hill Chemical Corp.: On

September 29, 1995, Region II issued an administrative

complaint to the Parke-Hill Chemical Corporation of

Mount Vernon, New York, for violations of EPCRA

Sections 311 and 312. The complaint seeks $143,550 in

penalties for the company's failure to submit MSDSs to the

appropriate federal, state and local authorities for four

hazardous or extremely hazardous substances (as required

by Section 311 of EPCRA); and for the Respondent's

failure to submit Tier I/Tier II forms (as required by

Section 312 of EPCRA) to the appropriate authorities in

1992, 1993, and 1994.

In the Matter of Tropigas de Puerto Rico, Inc.: On

September 29, 1995, Region II issued an administrative

complaint to Tropigas de Puerto Rico, Inc., seeking

$229,500 in penalties for failure to comply with the

reporting requirements of EPCRA Sections 311 and 312.

Tropigas is a distributor of propane, a hazardous chemical,

which it stores at its facility in excess of the 10,000 pound

reporting requirement. Tropigas failed to submit the

required Material Safety Data Sheets for these chemicals

to the state and local emergency planning authorities and

the local fire department as required by Section 311.

Tropigas also failed to submit emergency and hazardous

OCEAN DUMPING ACT

United States v. Westchester County: On October 3,

1994, a second order amending the consent decree was

filed in this Region II case in the Eastern District of New

York. Under the terms of the modified consent decree,

Westchester County, New York, will, no later than

September 15, 1995, achieve long-term compliance with

the Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA) through

implementation of a beneficial use sludge management

program. In addition, Westchester paid $200,000 in

stipulated penalties, to be evenly divided between the

United States and New York State. Of this sum, $100,000

was paid to the State to be devoted to an environmental

benefits plan in Westchester County. One million dollars

currently in escrow for past noncompliance will remain in

escrow pending the County's compliance with the

requirements of the amended decree.

RCRA

United States v. Mustafa (D. VI): On May 18, 1995, a

complaint was filed on behalf of EPA Region II in the U.S.

District Court of the Virgin Islands against a recalcitrant

violator, Fahri Mustafa, alleging violations of Subtitle I of

RCRA, governing underground storage tanks (USTs).

Mustafa, the subject of a prior EPA enforcement action,

ignored a final administrative order issued on September

7, 1993. That order required immediate compliance with

UST regulatory obligations and the payment of $74,105 in

civil penalties. Since issuance of the final administrative

order, Mustafa not only failed to pay any of the assessed

civil penalty, but continued to violate the UST regulations

at issue in that matter, and also violated additional UST

regulatory requirements. Releases of petroleum into the

environment are suspected at each of two gasoline filling

stations owned and operated by Mustafa on St. Croix.
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-10 July 1996

The complaint seeks not only collection of the past due Region II. The CAMU is expected to result in cost savings

amount under the administrative order, plus interest and of about $3 million through on-site disposal of up to

costs, but also a further civil penalty for continuing and 50,000 cubic yards of industrial sludge.

additional violations, as well as injunctive relief. The

violations alleged in the complaint include failure to

employ a method of release detection, failure to close outof-service USTs, failure to report and investigate suspected

releases, failure to conduct testing following repairs to an

UST system, and failure to respond to an information

request letter.

In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.: On all five counts of the complaint, originally filed in 1993:

September 29, 1995, Region II issued a corrective action (1) failure to notify EPA that it generated hazardous

order under RCRA §3008(h) for the Guayama, Puerto wastes; (2) failure to obtain a proper written assessment of

Rico, facility owned and operated by Phillips Puerto Rico its drip pad (used in the wood preserving operations); (3)

Core, Inc. The order requires that Phillips: (1) complete failure to have a curb or berm around the drip pad; (4)

the RCRA facility investigation (RFI) it had undertaken failure to properly document the cleaning of the drip pad;

pursuant to an earlier RCRA Section 3013 order; (2) and (5) failure to properly document the procedure for

complete a corrective measures study (which requires it to handling the treated wood. The complaint sought nearly

recommend a final corrective measure or measures) and $221,000 in civil penalties, and was the first case

construct, operate and maintain the corrective measure(s) commenced in Region II against a wood preserving

selected; and (3) implement interim measures as necessary. operation.

The facility manufactures various petrochemical products,

including gasoline and xylenes; and generates, treats,

stores and disposes of hazardous wastes including

corrosive waste, spent non-halogenated solvents, sludges,

toluene and various other aliphatic and aromatic

hydrocarbons.

In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corporation.: On September December 1992, addressed RCRA violations involving the

29, 1995, Region II issued a unilateral RCRA Section release of lead-based paint waste during abrasive blasting

3013 administrative order to Mobil Oil Corporation of the Williamsburg Bridge. The case, which established

regarding its Port Mobil facility on Staten Island, New a national precedent, is believed to be the first such RCRA

York. The order is based on a determination that the action to cite the RCRA rule which requires generators to

presence or release of hazardous waste at this facility minimize the release of hazardous waste or hazardous

presents a substantial hazard to human health or the constituents to air, water, or soil. Under the settlement, the

environment. EPA found that there had been repeated respondents jointly paid a $25,000 penalty. Compliance

releases at the facility over several years and that sampling had been secured previously through a separate

showed contamination—severe in some instances—of the administrative action. The Region's investigation also

soil and groundwater with benzene and other petroleum- uncovered the operation of an illegal hazardous waste

derived wastes. Many of these samples showed benzene storage facility by NYCDOT, in which lead-based paint

at concentrations so high that the samples themselves waste from structures throughout New York City was

would be classified as hazardous waste when discarded. stored without a RCRA permit after being transported

The order requires Mobil to perform a RCRA facility without hazardous waste manifests. These violations were

investigation and groundwater monitoring around two the subject of a second complaint issued to NYCDOT in

large surface impoundments. December 1992, which sought a $691,500 penalty.

In the Matter of Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.:

In June 1995, Region II amended a RCRA Section

3008(h) corrective action order issued in 1987 to Rollins

Environmental Services in connection with its hazardous

waste disposal facility in Bridgeport, New Jersey. The

amended order designated a corrective action management

unit (CAMU) at the facility, the first to be approved in

In the Matter of B&B Wood Treating & Processing Co.,

Inc.: On October 25, 1994, EPA issued an order granting

Region II's motion for partial accelerated decision against

B&B Wood Treating & Processing Co., Inc., a Puerto

Rico-based wood preserver. Finding that there existed no

genuine issue of material fact, the ALJ decided the Agency

was entitled as a matter of law to a judgment on liability for

In the Matter of the New York City Department of

Transportation and R.J. Romano Co.: On February 21,

1995, Region II issued an administrative consent order

settling an action against the City of New York

Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) and its

contractor the R.J. Romano Co. The complaint, issued in

Settlement negotiations regarding this action are ongoing.

In the Matter of Oliver R. Hill and O.R. Hill Fuel Co.,

Inc.: On March 6, 1995, Region II issued a unilateral

administrative Order pursuant to §7003 of RCRA to

Respondents Oliver R. Hill and O.R. Hill Fuel Co., Inc.

On October 8, 1994, the occupant of a residence located

near O.R.'s Gas & Grocery detected gasoline fumes while
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-11 July 1996

digging a groundwater well on his property. Site

assessment activities confirmed that O.R.'s Gas & Grocery

was the source of the release. On February 16, 1995, Hill

met with representatives of EPA and NYSDEC to discuss

the release and required steps for corrective action. Hill

subsequently informed EPA that he would not sign a

consent order assuming responsibility for the clean up.

Region II then issued the order unilaterally. The order

requires respondents to assess the structural integrity of all

underground storage tank (UST) systems at the facility;

repair and test, or permanently close, any UST system

determined to be corroded or potentially subject to

structural failure; characterize the rate and extent of

vertical and horizontal migration of hazardous constituents

in soils and groundwater at and adjacent to the facility; and

to remediate such contamination. To date the respondents

have failed to comply with any aspect of the order. EPA

will be pursuing additional enforcement against the

violators.

In the Matter of Wee Service Centers, Inc.: On August

30, 1995, Region II won a motion for partial accelerated

decision against Wee Service Centers, Inc., of Brooklyn,

New York. The motion sought a finding that the company

is liable for underground storage tank (UST) violations

documented at a gasoline service station it operates. Wee

Service was cited for multiple violations of Subtitle I of

RCRA at its Brooklyn facility and assessed a total civil

penalty of $34,603. The violations at the station involved

failure to maintain records of release detection for

underground storage tanks and failure to provide adequate

methods of release detection for underground storage

tanks. The violations are considered serious because the

facility is located over a sole-source aquifer which would

be greatly harmed by a petroleum release. Wee contested

the allegations in the complaint and sought an

administrative hearing. Region II filed the successful

summary judgment motion in response.

Wee is the operator of one of a number of gasoline stations

owned by the 1833 Nostrand Avenue Corp. of Baldwin,

New York. In a related matter, In the Matter of 1833

Nostrand Avenue Corp., Region II is proceeding to an

administrative trial over UST violations at its five service

stations in Brooklyn and Queens. The company at 1833

was cited for multiple violations of Subtitle I of RCRA at

all five facilities and assessed total civil penalties

exceeding $170,000. The violations involved failure to

maintain records of release detection for USTs; failure to

provide adequate methods of release detection for USTs;

and failure to maintain out of service USTs. The violations

are considered serious because all the facilities are located

over a sole-source aquifer which would be greatly harmed

by a petroleum release.

TSCA

In the Matter of CasChem, Inc.: On October 13, 1994,

Region II issued an administrative consent order to

CasChem, Inc., a subsidiary of Cambrex Corporation. As

part of the agreement, CasChem has agreed to pay a civil

penalty of $180,000 for violations of TSCA. In the action,

EPA had alleged two separate violations: CasChem's

failure to have timely submitted a notice of commencement

for a chemical substance, and its failure to have timely

submitted a report for the partial updating of the TSCA

Inventory Data Base for 29 separate chemical substances.

The matter was contested in an administrative proceeding.

Both parties sought partial accelerated decision with

regard to the inventory updating count, EPA seeking a

ruling that each separate failure constituted a separate

violation and CasChem arguing that whatever multiple

reporting failures occurred represent but one cognizable

violation.

In the Matter of Millard Fillmore Hospital: On

December 5, 1994, Region II issued a four-count

complaint against Millard Fillmore Hospital, Buffalo, New

York, alleging violations of the TSCA regulations

governing the use and maintenance of electrical equipment

containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The

complaint, covering the 1989-1993 period, seeks a total

civil penalty of $233,000. The Hospital owns and operates

five PCB transformers, each of which contains PCB

concentrations at or above 500 parts per million. The

complaint alleges the following violations: (1) failure to

prepare and maintain annual documents for the PCB

transformers; (2) failure to maintain records for quarterly

visual inspections of the transformers; (3) improper

storage of combustible materials too close to the

transformers; and (4) failure to protect the transformers

against low current faults.

In the Matter of San Juan Cement Co.: On December

23, 1995, Region II issued an administrative complaint

against the San Juan Cement Co. Inc., for TSCA violations

at its facility in Dorado, Puerto Rico. The complaint

alleged 72 violations of the TSCA PCB regulations, and

proposed a civil penalty of $347,000. During a 1993

inspection of the facility, EPA representatives determined

that since 1978 the company had owned, operated and

maintained twelve PCB transformers at its facility in ten

separate locations. The inspection revealed that

respondent was deficient in submitting required quarterly

and annual reports and in the required marking of access

doors to the majority of these transformers. In addition,

respondent had not notified the local fire department of the

location of the transformers, as required by the regulations.
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-12 July 1996

In the Matter of Johnson & Johnson: On March 31,

1995, Region II issued a four count TSCA administrative

complaint against Johnson & Johnson, Inc. The complaint

alleges that the corporation failed to keep records of its

visual inspection of its PCB transformers, that it failed to

maintain PCB annual documents, that it improperly

manifested PCBs, and that it improperly disposed of PCBs.

Arising out of a 1994 EPA inspection of the company's

North Brunswick, New Jersey, facility, the complaint

proposes that a penalty of $102,000 be assessed.

In the Matter of Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc.: On June

23, 1995, Region II issued an administrative complaint

citing violations of TSCA by Glens Falls Cement Company

at its Glens Falls, New York, facility, and seeking

$103,500 in fines. The facility consists of a limestone

quarry and a portland and masonry cement manufacturing

operation. An EPA investigation revealed that the

company owned and used several PCB transformers during

the years 1989-1993. The complaint alleged the following

TSCA violations concerning those transformers: failure to

maintain complete records of visual inspections; failure to

maintain annual document logs; failure to mark and to

correctly mark specified access areas to the transformers;

and failure to mark specified PCB transformers.

In the Matter of the New York City Board of Education:

On July 5, 1995, Region II issued an administrative

complaint under Title II of TSCA, the Asbestos Hazard

Emergency Response Act (AHERA), against the New

York City Board of Education. The complaint alleged 375

violations of AHERA, and proposed a $1.5 million civil

penalty. The Board is the Local Education Agency (LEA)

for the City and has AHERA responsibility for over a

thousand school buildings. The complaint alleges that the

head of the Board's Asbestos Task Force, who acted as the

designated person (DP) having responsibility for the

development and transmission of all of the LEA's AHERA

Management Plans to the Governor, knowingly submitted

false information on at least 375 of them.

In the Matter of Degussa Corporation: On December 1,

1994, Region II issued an administrative consent order to

Degussa Corporation. Degussa agreed to pay a civil

penalty of $170,000 for self-disclosed violations of TSCA

alleged in a fifteen count civil administrative complaint. In

the action, EPA alleged violations for Degussa's failure to

submit Premanufacture Notifications before importing new

chemical substances, and its failure to provide a proper

TSCA import certification on imported chemicals.

In the Matter of Nissho Iwai American Corp.: On

December 27, 1994, Region II issued an administrative

consent order to Nissho Iwai American Corporation, a

New York City-based chemical importer. The company

agreed to pay $130,000 in fines for TSCA violations.

EPA's 1992 complaint in this matter alleged that the

company failed to submit to EPA forms U for several

chemicals by December 1986 and February 1991.

Respondent had filed the missing forms prior to the

issuance of the complaint.

MULTIMEDIA

In the Matter of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Burns &

Roe Services Corp.: On December 27, 1994, Region II

issued two separate complaints for violations of RCRA to

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its contractor,

Burns & Roe Services Corp. of Oradell, New Jersey. The

violations occurred at the USDA's Plum Island Animal

Disease Center on Plum Island, New York. The complaint

against the USDA alleges four separate violations of

RCRA, including storage and treatment of hazardous

wastes without a permit, inadequate notification, and

failure to make a waste determination. The USDA

complaint seeks a civil penalty of $111,100. The

complaint against Burns & Roe alleges a single

violation—hazardous waste storage without a permit—and

seeks a penalty of $79,600. The violations were

documented as part of a 1993 multimedia inspection by

Region II at the Plum Island facility. These cases follow an

earlier complaint, issued by Region II on October 21, 1994

citing USDA for failing to respond to a RCRA Section

3007 information request letter issued in connection with

this investigation; that complaint seeks a penalty of

$18,750.

In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.: On

December 29, 1994, Region II issued administrative

complaints against Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc., seeking

penalties for violations under both TSCA and EPCRA.

The EPCRA complaint proposed a $51,000 penalty, and

was based on Phillips' failure to file a form R for nickel

compounds for each of the years 1989, 1990, and 1992.

The TSCA complaint proposed a $7,500 penalty and was

based on Phillips' violations of regulations pertaining to the

handling of PCB waste. Later in the fiscal year, on

September 29, 1995, Region II issued a corrective action

order under RCRA Section 3008(h) for the Phillips

Guayama facility. This order requires that Phillips: (1)

complete the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) it had

undertaken pursuant to an earlier RCRA Section 3013

order; (2) complete a corrective measures study (which

requires it to recommend a final corrective measure or

measures) and construct, operate and maintain the

corrective measure(s) selected; and (3) implement interim

measures as necessary.
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-13 July 1996

In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company: On In the Matter of The United States Department of the

September 13, 1995, Region II issued two administrative Army, U.S. Army Armament Research and Development

consent orders assessing a combined penalty of $170,000 Command, Picatinny Arsenal: In September 1995,

against Puerto Rico Sun Oil (PRSO) of Yabucoa, Puerto Region II and the U.S. Department of the Army executed

Rico, for violations of RCRA and EPCRA. The two orders enforcement and compliance agreements under TSCA, the

were based upon independent inspections of PRSO that Clean Water Act and RCRA. The agreements were

resulted in coordinated RCRA and EPCRA multimedia embodied in two separate documents. A federal facility

cases. The RCRA complaint was based upon the compliance agreement (FFCA) was issued pursuant to

unauthorized storage of hazardous waste and the EPCRA Executive Order 12088 to ensure the Army's compliance

complaint was based upon the failure to file a form R for with TSCA regulations concerning the handling of PCBs;

any of several listed toxic chemicals for the reporting years and the regulations under Section 311 of the CWA for spill

1989 through 1992. In addition to the civil penalty, PRSO prevention, control and countermeasures. The FFCA

agreed to submit a new Part A RCRA permit application includes schedules to insure the Army's compliance with

designating where its hazardous waste will be stored; and these regulations as well as a continued commitment to

PRSO will be submitting to EPA the required form Rs that remain in compliance.

comprise the basis of the EPCRA complaint.

In the Matter of Knowlton Specialty Paper, Inc.: On

June 30, 1995, Region II issued two administrative

complaints assessing penalties against Knowlton Specialty

Paper, Inc., a Watertown, New York, company. One

complaint sought $93,000 in fines for EPCRA violations,

and the other sought $36,000 in fines for TSCA violations.

The EPCRA complaint alleged that Knowlton failed to

submit form Rs for methyl ethyl ketone, methanol, acetone

and phenols for the 1989 and 1992 reporting years. The In the Matter of New Jersey Transit Bus Operations,

TSCA complaint alleged the company's failure to properly Inc.: On June 30, 1995, Region II issued an

mark, label, store and maintain records relating to the administrative complaint under Section 6009 of RCRA

storage of one PCB transformer. against New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. The

In the Matter of Nepera, Inc.: On May 25, 1995, Region

II issued an administrative complaint against Nepera, Inc.,

of Harriman, New York. The complaint sought a penalty

of $30,715 for the company's failure to submit a timely

form R for hydrochloric acid for the reporting years 1992

and 1993. The violations were identified as the result of an

August 1994 consolidated multimedia inspection

performed jointly by Region II and the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation. This was one

of the first such joint inspections between EPA and the

State of New York.

In the Matter of American Cyanamid Company: On

June 28, 1995, Region II issued an administrative

complaint against American Cyanamid Company for

violations at its Lederle Laboratories facility located in

Pearl River, New York. The complaint proposed

assessment of a $272,424 fine for the company's failure to

submit timely form Rs for 1,1,1-trichloroethane,

naphthalene, phosphoric acid, toluene, manganese

compounds and zinc compounds for the reporting years

1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993.

A RCRA consent agreement and consent order was also

issued under Section 3008 of RCRA and the Federal

Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The order resolved

EPA's allegations that the Army stored waste in an

unauthorized area and open-burned hazardous waste which

did not constitute waste explosives, in violation of RCRA.

The order requires the Army to comply with these

requirements and to pay a civil penalty of $41,565.

complaint alleged five different types of underground

storage tank (UST) violations at 18 company-owned

facilities throughout New Jersey. The complaint seeks a

penalty of $322,704 and alleges that the respondent failed

to: (1) properly close numerous UST systems; (2) satisfy

release detection requirements for tanks; (3) satisfy release

detection requirements for pipes; (4) use required spill

equipment; and (5) use required overfill equipment.

FEDERAL FACILITIES

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Plum

Island Facility: In December of 1994, Region II issued

two complaints to the USDA Plum Island Animal Disease

Center at Greenport, New York, and to a USDA contractor

for illegal storage and disposal of hazardous waste. The

administrative orders carry with them proposed civil

penalties in the amount of $111,100 against USDA and

$79,600 against the contractor.

U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal: Region II completed

enforcement activity on September 29, 1995 at the U.S.

Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering

Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, based on a July
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-14 July 1996

1993 multimedia inspection. The Arsenal is on the NPL that were out of compliance and the violations were

and has approximately 150 areas of concern. resolved as of March 7, 1995.

Included in the Region's consent agreement and consent

order under RCRA was a civil penalty of $41,565. The

inspection found Part B permit violations, including storing

hazardous waste in unauthorized locations and open

burning of non-explosive hazardous waste. The Region

also issued an NOV for failure to clearly mark

accumulation start dates on containers in the less than 90-

day accumulation areas and satellite accumulation areas,

failure to label containers with the words "Hazardous

Waste," and for violation of the land disposal regulations

storage prohibition. Under the CAA, the Region issued a

compliance order for violations of the new source

performance standards relating to industrial-commercial

institutional steam generating units. Also issued was a

notice of violation for violation of the New Jersey State

Implementation Plan for constructing equipment and

control devices without first obtaining a permit to

construct. The Region also completed a federal facility

compliance agreement to address TSCA/PCB and SPCC

violations.

U.S. Army Fort Dix: Region II issued notices of violation

on January 24, 1995 to Fort Dix, New Jersey, for Clean

Water Act violations. The NOV cited violations of the

interim limits contained in Attachment I of the order on

consent EPA-CWA-II-91-95 for the alkalinity parameter

permit limitation in July and August 1994 and the

violations of their permit limit for the pH parameter in

August 1993. Under the order, the Army will be

responsible for the completion of an environmentally

beneficial project (EBP) to offset the effects of the

violations. The sum of the EBP due is $39,000.

Seneca Army Depot: Region II issued a proposed

administrative order on February 3, 1995, which requires

the facility to comply with rules under the Safe Drinking

Water Act for installing filtration systems. The facility

failed to install filtration required under the regulations by

December 25, 1994, the deadline set by an EPA

determination with state input.

Plattsburgh Air Force Base: Region II issued a notice of

violation to Plattsburgh Air Force Base for underground

storage tank violations. A consent agreement and consent

order was issued March 31, 1995, addressing violations

from a June 1988 inspection, including inadequate record

keeping and hazardous waste sampling. In February 1995,

the Region issued a compliance order for the NSPS

violations. The Facility chose to shut down the boilers 

Stewart Air National Guard Base: Region II issued a

notice of violation to the Commander of Stewart Air

National Guard Base for record-keeping violations under

the underground storage tank regulations. A multimedia

inspection on March 6, 1995, revealed the facility's failure

to maintain the results of release detection monitoring for

at least one year. The letter required the facility to correct

the violation within 30 days and certify its compliance

within 10 days of taking action. A federal facility

compliance agreement was executed in July 1995 to deal

with the facility's failure to develop its pollution prevention

plan, which placed the facility out of compliance with its

stormwater-general permit under the CWA. In March

1995 the Region sent a noncompliance letter to the facility

for SPCC deficiencies related to tank truck loading areas

and overfill protection. The facility's schedule for

implementation was received in May 1995 and the facility

is developing an entirely new SPCC Plan, which was to be

completed by December 1995.
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-15 July 1996
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-16 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION II .................................................................................... A-7

Clean Air Act .......................................................................... A-7

United States v. MTP Industries, Inc.: ............................................... A-7

United States v. Caribbean Petroleum Corporation: ................................... A-7

United States v. Consolidated Edison and John's Insulation: ............................ A-7

United States v. Public Service Electric & Gas: ....................................... A-7

United States v. Del'Aquilla: ...................................................... A-7

In the Matter of Glenmore Plastic Industries, Inc., and In the Matter of Supreme Pol y

Products, Inc.: .......................................................... A-7

In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.: ....................................... A-8

Clean Water Act ........................................................................ A-8

United States v. Lifesavers Manufacturing Inc.: ....................................... A-8

EPCRA ............................................................................... A-8

United States v. TR Metals Corp.: .................................................. A-8

In the Matter of Forto Chemical Corp.: .............................................. A-8

In the Matter of Astro Electroplating, Inc.: ........................................... A-8

In the Matter of Insular Wire Products Corp.: ........................................ A-8

In the Matter of Ricogas, Inc.: ..................................................... A-9

In the Matter of Puerto Rico Battery Co.: ............................................ A-9

In the Matter of National Can of Puerto Rico, Inc.: .................................... A-9

In the Matter of Parke-Hill Chemical Corp.: .......................................... A-9

In the Matter of Tropigas de Puerto Rico, Inc.: ....................................... A-9

In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy, Inc.: .................................................. A-9

Ocean Dumping Act ..................................................................... A-9

United States v. Westchester County: ................................................ A-9

RCRA ............................................................................... A-10

United States v. Mustafa (D. VI): .................................................. A-10

In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.: ...................................... A-10

In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corporation.: ............................................ A-10

In the Matter of Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.: ................................. A-10

In the Matter of B&B Wood Treating & Processing Co., Inc.: ........................... A-10

In the Matter of the New York City Department of Transportation and R.J. Romano Co.: .... A-11

In the Matter of Oliver R. Hill and O.R. Hill Fuel Co., Inc.: ............................ A-11

In the Matter of Wee Service Centers, Inc.: .......................................... A-11

TSCA ............................................................................... A-11

In the Matter of CasChem, Inc.: ................................................... A-11

In the Matter of Millard Fillmore Hospital: ......................................... A-12

In the Matter of San Juan Cement Co.: ............................................. A-12

In the Matter of Johnson & Johnson: .............................................. A-12

In the Matter of Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc.: ....................................... A-12

In the Matter of the New York City Board of Education: ............................... A-12

In the Matter of Degussa Corporation: ............................................. A-12

In the Matter of Nissho Iwai American Corp.: ....................................... A-13

Multimedia ........................................................................... A-13

In the Matter of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Burns & Roe Services Corp.: ............... A-13

In the Matter of Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc.: ...................................... A-13

In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company: ...................................... A-13

In the Matter of Knowlton Specialty Paper, Inc.: ..................................... A-13

In the Matter of Nepera, Inc.: ..................................................... A-13

In the Matter of American Cyanamid Company: ..................................... A-13
Region II Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-17 July 1996

In the Matter of The United States Department of the Army, U.S. Army Armament Research

and Development Command, Picatinny Arsenal: .............................. A-14

In the Matter of New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc.: .............................. A-14

Federal Facilities ....................................................................... A-14

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Plum Island Facility: ................... A-14

U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal: ..................................................... A-14

U.S. Army Fort Dix: ............................................................ A-14

Seneca Army Depot: ............................................................ A-15

Plattsburgh Air Force Base: ...................................................... A-15

Stewart Air National Guard Base: ................................................. A-15
A-17 July 1996

REGION III

CLEAN AIR ACT

Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL) (Third

Circuit, E.D. PA): In what marks the largest negotiated

settlement of its kind, the U.S. Department of Justice and

the U.S. EPA (Region III) have reached settlement with

Consolidated Rail Corporation regarding violations of the

asbestos regulations (asbestos NESHAP) established

pursuant to the Clean Air Act. The settlement, embodied

in a partial consent decree, has been lodged in the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania. The asbestos NESHAP

violations at issue occurred at an abandoned grain elevator

site.

In satisfaction of the alleged asbestos NESHAP violations,

Conrail has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of

$800,000—a figure representing the largest settlement of

its kind, and the second largest amount ever assessed under

the Clean Air Act's asbestos regulations. In addition to

penalties, Conrail has also agreed to conduct all present

and future renovation and demolition activities in

compliance with the Clean Air Act asbestos NESHAP.

LTV Steel (W.D. PA): In October 1994, a consent decree

was entered in the Western District of Pennsylvania

memorializing the settlement negotiated between the

United States, Allegheny County, and the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs, and LTV Steel Company

(LTV), Defendant, in response to violations of the federally

enforceable Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan for

Pennsylvania by LTV at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania coke

production facility.

The consent decree required LTV to pay a civil penalty of

$900,000. LTV made changes to its plant and operations

during the time between the filing of the complaint and

settlement of the matter sufficient to bring the facility into

compliance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act that

were the subject of the complaint. Nonetheless, the Decree

required LTV to make certain significant improvements.

Shenango, Inc. (Neville Island, PA): EPA filed a

contempt action for Shenango's failure to comply with the

requirements of an existing consent decree. Shenango

owns and operates a 57 oven by-product coke oven battery

located at Neville Island, Pennsylvania. Coke oven gas

(COG) is produced by the destructive distillation of coal.

Undesulfurized COG when burned can result in sulfurdioxide emissions of over 10 tons per day. When COG is

properly desulfurized, sulfur-dioxide emissions are

approximately 1 ton per day. Under the existing consent

decree, Shenango was required to operate the existing

desulfurization plant (DSP) at agreed upon efficiency and

make certain modifications that would enable it to maintain

compliance with applicable regulations. EPA identified

that the COG DSP was removed from service on January

6, 1994, and was not operational until May 28, 1994. A

complete shutdown of the DSP for almost five months was

not reported to EPA immediately. EPA and Allegheny

County also identified several consent decree violations

that required resolution.

USX-Clairton and Edgar Thomson Plants (Clairton &

Braddock, PA): On March 1, 1995, Region III issued a

CACO (consent agreement/consent order) in settlement of

an administrative Clean Air Act complaint for penalty

which was filed against USX Corporation on September

30, 1994. The complaint alleged USX was in violation of

the Pennsylvania SIP requirement for NO monitoring at x

large size combustion units at three separate emission

sources in the Clairton, Pennsylvania, facility and at three

separate emission sources in the Braddock, Pennsylvania,

facility.This action was taken by EPA in support of the

State program which helps to foster a better partnership

between the two agencies. After negotiations, EPA

finalized a settlement with USX requiring the installation

of appropriate monitoring equipment for NOx on an

enforceable schedule and the payment of a $125,000 civil

penalty.

Paragon Environmental Group and Haverford College:

On March 20, 1995, EPA Region III filed a Clean Air Act

administrative complaint against Paragon Environmental

Group, Inc., and Haverford College for violations of the

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(asbestos). The complaint alleges that Paragon workers

violated asbestos NESHAP work practice standards by

removing spray-on asbestos from a Haverford dormitory

attic without adequately wetting the asbestos. (Paragon

operated a HEPA vacuum to collect particulate matter, but

this collection system was not adequate to contain asbestos

emissions.) EPA proposed a civil penalty of $25,000 for

this violation.

E.K. Associates (EKCO/GLACO Ltd.) (Baltimore, MD):

On April 27, 1995, Region III filed a consent agreement

and consent order (CACO) resolving Clean Air Act

violations at a Baltimore bakeware refurbishing facility

owned and operated by E.K. Associates, LP (d/b/a

Ekco/Glaco Ltd). EPA alleged that the facility violated the

regulatory standard governing emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) at miscellaneous metal coating
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-18 July 1996

facilities. The CACO required payment of a civil penalty the Regional Judicial Officer approved the settlement

of $37,000, which is in addition to a $15,000 penalty (CACO) between EPA and respondents PECO Energy and

previously paid to Maryland for these violations. Pepper Environmental Services. PECO and Pepper agreed

Mundet-Hermetite, Inc.: EPA resolved Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) violations against Mundet- Harrison Warehouse Services Company, Inc., and

Hermetite Industries (MHI) in a consent decree filed on Dewey Wilfong (Clarksburg, WV): On March 6, 1995,

April 25, 1995. The PSD violations are based on the U.S. District Court ruled that the defendants were

construction of Line #8 (rotogravure printing/coating line) liable for a total of 276 days of violations of the following

at the facility (an existing major stationary source, emitting requirements: (1) failure to give notice of demolition; (2)

approximately 840 tons of VOCs per year) in 1988. This failure to remove RACM (regulated asbestos containing

construction constituted a physical change to the facility material) prior to demolition; (3) failure to wet RACM

which resulted in a significant net emissions increase. during demolition; (4) failure to wet RACM awaiting

MHI's solvent usage reports for calendar years 1989 disposal; and (5) failure to dispose of RACM as soon as

through 1992, inclusive, demonstrated that the net practicable. The court awarded a $50,000 civil penalty.

emissions increase from Line #8 was greater than 40 tons

per year. MHI did not obtain a PSD permit prior to

beginning construction of Line #8. MHI initially reported

its permit violations to the Virginia Department of Air

Pollution Control which issued an notice of violation to

MHI. VDAPC and MHI entered into a consent agreement

and order to settle the permit violations in which MHI

agreed to pay a penalty of $16,177.40 and conduct a study

on the use of reduced solvent coatings. Due to the

seriousness of the violation, the uncertain injunctive relief,

and the low penalty, EPA took another enforcement action

to assure MHI's compliance and to indicate to the regulated

community that EPA expects compliance with PSD

requirements. MHI has permanently dismantled Line #8

avoiding PSD permitting and paid a civil penalty of

$90,000.

S.D. Richman Sons, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA): On May 4, years, SO emissions from Kammer have exceeded the

1995, an administrative complaint was issued to S.D. federal emission limit by from 80,000 to 100,000 tons per

Richman Sons, Inc., a Philadelphia wholesale scrap metal year.

dealer, for violations of the stratospheric ozone protection

requirements of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the

company disposed of numerous small appliances without

verifying that the refrigerant had been evacuated from the

appliances. This failure to verify prior refrigerant

evacuation resulted in the likely release of

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) containing refrigerant to the

environment. The complaint seeks a civil penalty of

$186,000.

PECO Energy and Pepper Environmental Services, Inc.

(Chester, PA): On April 19, 1995, Region III filed an

administrative Clean Air Act (CAA) penalty action,

alleging that PECO Energy (owner) and Pepper

Environmental Services (operator) violated the CAA

asbestos NESHAP when they demolished an asbestoscontaining building at a PECO facility located in Chester,

Pennsylvania. EPA sought a total proposed civil penalty

of $30,000 for these alleged violations. On July 18, 1995,

to pay a total civil penalty of $21,000.

Kammer Power Plant (Moundsville, WV): On July 7,

1995, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

West Virginia approved a modification of a previously

negotiated consent decree. The United States and the

defendants agreed to extend the deadline for compliance

with the federal emissions limit from September 1, 1995,

to January 15, 1996. As part of the agreement, the

defendants agreed to further reduce the sulfur dioxide

emission limitation for Kammer, which reduces the

allowable SO2 emissions by approximately 15,000 to

19,000 tons per year. The Kammer Power Station is in

violation of the federally enforceable West Virginia State

Implementation Plan (SIP) emission limitations for Units

1, 2 and 3. The West Virginia SIP established a statewide

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit of 2.7 lbs per million

Btu design heat input (lb/mmBTU). For the past several

2
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-19 July 1996

Hercules, Inc. (Covington, VA): EPA and the

Department of Justice signed a partial consent decree

settling an action between the United States and Hercules,

Incorporated, for violations of the Clean Air Act at a

facility formerly owned by Hercules in Covington,

Virginia. This action was settled as a result of pre-filing

negotiations and the partial consent decree will be filed

concurrently with the complaint. Hercules, Inc., and

Carver Massie Carver, Inc. (CMC), the demolition

contractor, violated several of the asbestos NESHAP

regulations.

The injunctive relief provisions of the partial consent

decree apply to all demolition and/or renovation

operations, in which Hercules is the owner or operator, in

all states, territories, and possessions of the United States.

In addition to complying with all the requirements of the

asbestos NESHAP the partial consent decree requires

Hercules to perform the following: (1) provide a training

program for its safety and environmental specialists to

assure awareness of the asbestos NESHAP; (2) appoint an GMT Microelectronics (Montgomery County, PA): On

"Official Responsible for Asbestos Compliance;" and December 30, 1994, the Assistant Attorney General for the

(3) distribute the memorandum attached to the partial Environment and Natural Resource Division at the

consent decree to those persons who have responsibilities Department of Justice concurred on the prospective

for the maintenance and demolition of facilities owned or purchaser agreement negotiated and executed by EPA and

operated by Hercules. For its violations of the asbestos GMT Microelectronics (the Purchaser of the Commodore

NESHAP, Hercules will pay a $1.2 million civil penalty. Semi-Conductor Superfund site in Montgomery County,

The penalty represents the largest settlement in an asbestos Pennsylvania) which resolves certain potential EPA claims

NESHAP case. under Section 107 of CERCLA against the purchaser.

Joseph Smith & Son, Inc. (Capital Heights, MD): On

September 28, 1995, EPA Region III filed a complaint and

notice of opportunity for hearing against Joseph Smith &

Son, Inc., for violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) at its

Capital Heights, Maryland facility. The complaint alleges

violations of the stratospheric ozone protection

requirements of Subchapter VI, Section 608 of the CAA,

42 U.S.C. §7671(g) and regulations promulgated

thereunder at 40 C.F.R. Part 82. The complaint alleges

respondent's failure to evacuate and recover refrigerants

from small appliances prior to disposal and seeks a civil

penalty of $27,000. Virginia Scrap, Inc. (Roanoke, VA): On February 2,

CERCLA AND EPCRA NON 313

Brown's Battery Breaking Superfund Site: On July 10,

1995, DOJ lodged a consent decree with the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by which the

settling defendants resolved their liability to the United

States with respect to the Brown's Battery Breaking

Superfund Site (Site).

Under the terms of the consent decree, General Battery

Corporation (GBC) agreed to do the following: (1)

perform the final site remedy, (2) perform extensive work

to protect natural resources, (3) pay $3 million in EPA's

past response costs and EPA's future response costs,

(4) pay $24,217 in past natural resource costs and up to

$10,000 of the Department of the Interior's future costs,

and (5) provide financial self-assurances for GBC's

consent decree obligations by either GBC or GBC's parent,

Exide Corporation.

The consent decree also provides GBC with the

opportunity to elect mediation of certain disputes

concerning EPA's decisions that additional response

actions are necessary or if EPA determines under Section

121(c) of CERCLA that the remedial action is no longer

protective of human health or the environment. In

addition, the decree provides GBC with a mechanism to

prove to EPA that certain groundwater cleanup standards

are technically impracticable to achieve and that less

stringent standards are appropriate.

The Agreement provides that in exchange for a limited

covenant not to sue which relates only to existing

contamination at the site, and contribution protection, the

purchaser will provide the Agency with a "substantial

benefit" which consists of the following: (1) payment of

EPA's response costs at the site incurred prior to the

effective date of agreement, approximately $625,000; (2)

payment of approximately $375,000 into an escrow fund;

and (3) payments of up to $65,000 annually for response

costs incurred at the site.

1995, Region III entered a consent order with Virginia

Scrap, Inc., for clean up of lead contamination on its

property in Roanoke, Virginia. This follows a nearly

identical consent order recently entered into between EPA

and Cycle Systems, Inc., also regarding lead-contaminated

property along the Roanoke River. Both are removal

orders under the authority of Section 106 of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation

and Liability Act. The lead contamination was discovered

as part of an environmental assessment of properties which

may be affected by an upcoming Corps of Engineers flood

control project.
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-20 July 1996

Malitovsky Cooperage Company, et al. (Pittsburgh, PA):

On February 21, 1995, a consent decree for response costs site.

in U.S. v. Malitovsky Cooperage Company, et al. was

entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District Strasburg Landfill (Chester County, PA): On February

of Pennsylvania. The consent decree was entered into 3, 1995, the United States filed a CERCLA Section 104(e)

between the United States and seven defendants pursuant action, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties, in the

to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, against David Ehrlich, Buckley & Company and Robert

42 U.S.C. §9607. The consent decree requires the settling Buckley, Sr. These parties have been identified by EPA as

defendants to pay $750,000 of the costs incurred by the former owners/operators of the Strasburg Landfill site in

United States in connection with the Malitovsky Drum site Chester County, Pennsylvania. They had failed to

located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. EPA had conducted adequately respond to CERCLA Section 104(e) requests

a removal action at the site, where a drum reconditioning seeking financial information, as well as requests

and hazardous waste storage and disposal facility had concerning corporate relationships/control and the

operated. involvement of the individual officers in the landfill

Abex Superfund Site (Portsmouth, VA): On September

28, 1995, the Regional Administrator signed the proposed

consent decree with the PRPs, Pneumo Abex Corporation,

the City of Portsmouth and the Portsmouth Redevelopment

and Housing Authority, for the Abex Superfund site and

requested the Department of Justice to execute the consent

decree and lodge it in the Eastern District of Virginia. The requests, in U.S. v. David Ehrlich, et al. (E.D. Pa).

proposed consent decree requires the PRPs to implement Buckley and Buckley & Company are PRPs at the

EPA's selected remedy for Operable Unit No. 1 at the site Strasburg Landfill site as former owners or operators of the

as that remedy is described in the Amended ROD executed site. The consent decree calls for the payment of a

in August 1994. The consent decree requires Pneumo collective penalty figure of $107,000 and injunctive relief

Abex to pay 100% of the past response costs incurred in for production of after-acquired year-end certified financial

connection with the site totaling $1,170,131.37 and future statements.

response costs associated with the implementation of the

remedy.

Delaware Sand and Gravel (District of DE): On June

14, 1995, the U.S. District for the District of Delaware

entered a consent decree related to the Delaware Sand and

Gravel Superfund site (site). The consent decree calls for

full performance of the remedial design and remedial

action at the site, reimbursement of $4,328,335.55 out of

$4,962,423.00 in previously unreimbursed past costs, and

payment of all of EPA's oversight and future response costs

pursuant to the remedial design/remedial action, with the

exception of remedial design oversight costs.

On July 27, 1995, DOJ lodged, and on September 22,

1995, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

entered two consent decrees by which the settling

defendants resolved their liability to the United States with

respect to the Delaware Sand and Gravel Superfund site.

In the first consent decree Avon Products, Inc., agreed to

pay $375,000 in partial reimbursement of the United

States' Superfund response costs incurred at the site after

April of 1988. In the second consent decree MRC

Holdings, Inc., agreed to pay $300,000 in partial

reimbursement of the United States' response costs at the

operation.

On May 22, 1995, the United States moved to enter a

partial consent decree between the United States and

Robert Buckley and Buckley & Company for penalties and

injunctive relief in connection with their failure to

adequately respond to EPA's CERCLA Section 104(e)

Blosenski Landfill: On July 11, 1995, the Department of

Justice entered three consent decrees, settling with 20

defendants in U.S. v. Blosenski, et al. The first decree with

17 companies (including ARCO, ICI Americas, Monsanto,

Valspar and Occidental Chemical) requires the

reimbursement of $4 million in past response costs and the

performance of all future remedial design and remedial

action work, which could total $13 million. In addition,

the decree requires that Delaware Container Corp. pay

$15,000 and that ICI pay $35,000 in penalties for violating

a CERCLA Section 106 Administrative Order. The

second decree with the site owner and former operator,

Joseph M. Blosenski, Jr., his wife and related companies,

requires the reimbursement of $1 million in past costs, the

payment of $100,000 in penalties for failing to comply

with a CERCLA Section 106 Administrative Order and the

provision of continued access to the site. The final cashout decree with Alexander Barry, a former owner of a

portion of the site, requires $5,000 reimbursement in past

costs. These consent decrees provide for over 90% of

EPA's past response costs.

Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. (WV): On

January 10, 1995, the Regional Administrator signed
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-21 July 1996

consent orders settling three administrative complaints North River; and to convey that 250-acre parcel to the

(filed in September of 1993) and two administrative North Carolina Nature Conservancy upon the written

complaints (filed in March of 1994) issued to Union direction of EPA. The Corporation also agreed to pay a

Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc. (Union Carbide). $45,000 civil penalty, and an additional $80,000 if it does

Two of the five complaints concerned violations of the not satisfactorily perform the restoration/mitigation work

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act contained in the consent order.

(EPCRA). The remaining three complaints were issued

for violations of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

The complaints relate to Union Carbide's failure to notify

the appropriate government agencies of releases of

hazardous materials into the environment in a timely

manner. The releases occurred at three Union Carbide

facilities located in Sistersville, Institute, and South

Charleston, West Virginia. Penalties to be paid to settle

the five complaints total $94,000.00.

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and Universal

Food Corporation: On August 3, 1995, Region III filed

four administrative penalty actions. Two of the actions

(one CERCLA/one EPCRA) were commenced against

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation for its failure to

notify immediately the National Response Center (NRC)

and the State Emergency Response Committee (SERC)

and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) of

a 1993 release of spent hydrochloric acid (KO62), in

excess of the reportable quantity (RQ), at its Allenport,

Pennsylvania, facility. EPA seeks $75,000 in total

penalties (i.e., $25,000 for the CERCLA action; $25,000

each for two EPCRA counts.) The other two actions (one

CERCLA/one EPCRA) were commenced against

Universal Food Corporation for its failure to notify

immediately the NRC, SERC and LEPC of a July 1994

ammonia release, in excess of the RQ, at its Baltimore,

Maryland, facility. The complaints seek $8,250 for the

CERCLA violation and $16,500 for the EPCRA violations.

CLEAN WATER ACT

John C. Holland Enterprises/Holland Landfill (Suffolk

County, VA): On July 31, 1995, John C. Holland

Enterprises, Inc., and EPA Region III entered into a

consent agreement and consent order settling a wetlands

violation at the Holland Landfill in Suffolk, Virginia. The

corporation destroyed approximately 70 acres of wetlands

over a 15-year period for the purpose of operating a

landfill. The settlement requires the corporation to restore

a 22-acre parcel of disturbed wetlands; restore a 25-acre

parcel of prior converted cropland, planting approximately

15,000 white cedar seedlings; convey the successfully

restored 25-acre parcel to the Great Dismal Swamp

National Wildlife Refuge; to acquire title to a certain

parcel consisting of 250 acres of wooded swamp along the

Antoinette Bozievich-Buxton (York County, PA): On

June 13, 1995, the Acting Regional Administrator signed

the recommended decision of the Regional Presiding

Officer, which found that Ms. Antoinette BozievichBuxton was liable for a $5,000 civil penalty for the filling

of wetlands at her horse farm in York County,

Pennsylvania, without the necessary Clean Water Act

Section 404 permit.

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (Pittsburgh, PA): On

June 28, 1995, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a

complaint against Allegheny Ludlum Corporation,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for numerous violations of the

Clean Water Act. The complaint alleges that the specialty

steel manufacturer violated, inter alia, the effluent

limitations in both its industrial user permit (issued by the

Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority) and its

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit issued to its Vandergrift, Pennsylvania

facility. It also alleges that the company violated certain

parameters contained in the NPDES permits. The

complaint further charges violations as a result of

numerous oil spills and other discharges. Moreover, the

complaint cites reporting violations and charges Allegheny

Ludlum with violating the Clean Water Act at the

company's Wallingford, Connecticut (Region I) facility by

discharging pollutants without a permit. For these

violations, the complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief

requiring Allegheny Ludlum to achieve and maintain full

compliance with the Act; civil penalties of up to $25,000

per day per violation; and such other relief as the Court

deems appropriate.

Blue Plains STP (Washington, DC): On January 24,

1995, the Department of Justice lodged in the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia a consent decree settling

the CWA enforcement litigation against the District of

Columbia. The consent decree requires the District to: (1)

pay a civil penalty of $500,000; (2) undertake a 12-month

pilot study of an experimental technology called "biological

nitrogen removal" (BNR) designed to reduce the levels of

nitrogen in the Blue Plains plant's effluent; (3) retain an

independent consultant to review the current practices and

procedures used by the District to procure parts,

equipment, labor and chemicals needed to keep the Blue

Plains plant operating within the limits of its NPDES
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-22 July 1996

permit; and (4) undergo a periodic "Operational Capability required by the permit; (4) cease all discharges not

Review." permitted by a valid NPDES permit; and (5) provide a

Witco Corporation (Petrolia, PA): On February 14,

1995, EPA issued an administrative complaint to the

Witco Corporation of Petrolia, Pennsylvania, for violating Conagra Poultry Company (Milford, DE): On June 15,

the Clean Water Act. The complaint alleges that since 1995, the Acting Water Management Division Director

March 1990, Witco discharged pollutants in excess of signed a consent agreement and consent order settling this

limits established in its National Pollutant Discharge administrative case against ConAgra Poultry Companies,

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The limits violated Milford, Delaware, for violations of Section 307 of the

include pH total suspended solids, oil & grease, nitrogen, CWA, 33 U.S.C. §1317. This is the first case brought by

ammonia, total manganese, fecal coliform, and biological the Region against an industrial user (IU) in the state of

oxygen demand. The complaint also alleges that Witco Delaware. The complaint, issued on August 16, 1994, and

discharged approximately 3,000 gallons of mineral oil amended on November 23, 1994, sought an $18,000

from its facility to the Allegheny River in violation of its penalty. The complaint alleged that during March 1994,

NPDES permit and the Clean Water Act. EPA assessed a the pretreatment facility at respondent's poultry processing

proposed civil penalty of $96,000. facility malfunctioned and discharged partially treated

Modular Components National, Inc. (Forest Hill, MD):

On March 20, 1995, the Water Management Division interference with the POTW, in violation of respondent's

issued an administrative penalty complaint to Modular IU permit. Both respondent and the POTW exceeded their

Components National, Inc., of Forest Hill, Maryland for respective BOD limits during March and April 1994.

violations of the Clean Water Act. EPA's penalty Respondent has agreed to pay a $14,000 civil penalty.

complaint alleged that Modular Components had violated

EPA pretreatment standards for the metal finishing

industry in its discharges into the Hartford County,

Maryland Treatment Facility. EPA's complaint proposed

a civil penalty of $65,000.

Goose Bay Aggregates, Inc. (Washington, DC): The $45,000 for violations of both its pretreatment program

Region has settled an administrative enforcement action in and effluent limitations contained in its NPDES permit.

an NPDES case. Goose Bay Aggregates, Inc., operates an Specifically, the Kiski Valley Authority, located in

aggregate processing and storage yard in Washington, Leechburg, Pennsylvania, violated its pretreatment

D.C., which discharges pollutants to the Anacostia River. program by failing to conduct sampling visits of its

Goose Bay violated its NPDES permit by failing to file its significant industrial users (SIUs) during 1992 and failing

discharge monitoring reports and by not taking some to adequately enforce violations of one of its categorical

samples for approximately a year. Goose Bay and the SIUs, Allegheny Ludlum. The POTW also violated its

Region agreed to a penalty of $18,500 for the violations. NPDES permit by exceeding effluent limitations for

Elk River Sewell Coal Co., Inc. (Monterville, WV): On

April 4, 1995, EPA issued an administrative order (AO) to

Elk River Sewell Coal Co., Inc., of Monterville, West Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) (Faulkner, MD):

Virginia, the operator of a coal-mining facility. The AO

cites the company for violations of its NPDES permit as

well as various provisions of the Clean Water Act,

including discharge of pollutants in excess of permit

effluent limitations and failure to submit discharge

monitoring reports as required by the NPDES Permit. The

AO, which was issued as part of the regional data integrity

initiative, orders Elk River to: (1) come immediately into

compliance with the conditions of its NPDES Permit; (2)

submit an evaluation of the treatment system, operations

and neutralization chemical usage at the site covered by the

Permit; (3) submit discharge monitoring reports as

written response to EPA of its intent to comply with the

order.

wastewater into the receiving publicly owned treatment

works (POTW) and caused pass through and/or

Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority

(Leechburg, PA): On June 29, 1995, the Regional

Judicial Officer signed a consent order requiring a

publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), the Kiski Valley

Water Pollution Control Authority, to pay a civil penalty of

suspended solids and five-day carbonaceous biochemical

oxygen demand, and flow limits.

The Department of Justice, on July 3, 1995, simultaneously

filed a complaint and consent decree in the U.S. District

Court for the District of Maryland, against the Washington,

D.C.-based PEPCO for Clean Water Act violations that

occurred at the defendant's fly-ash disposal facility in

Faulkner, Maryland. The violations occurred from 1988 to

1993 during which time a site supervisor either pumped or

oversaw the pumping of polluted water from holding ponds

into an adjacent swamp.

PEPCO discovered the illegal discharge and informed the

federal government of its occurrence. The consent decree
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-23 July 1996

provides for a penalty of $975,000, and the company has (approximately 500 gallons) of oil. The complaint sought

taken measures to assure there will be no recurrence of the penalties of $9,093.75 and offered an incentive of a 15%

situation. In part because of the self-confessed nature of reduction ($7729.69) for settlement within thirty (30) days

this action and subsequent cooperation, no criminal of the date upon which the administrative complaint was

charges were brought against the company or its officers. issued.

USX Corporation Steel Mill (Dravosburg, PA): On United Refining Co. (Warren County, PA): On June 28,

September 29, 1995, the Director of the Water 1995, the Associate Division Director for Superfund

Management Division signed an administrative complaint Programs issued an administrative penalty complaint for

issued under Section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act violation of Section 311(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act to

against USX Corporation for violations of its NPDES the United Refining Company seeking $10,000 in

permit at its steel mill in Dravosburg, Pennsylvania (the penalties. On December 1, 1993, there was a spill at the

Irvin Works). The complaint alleges that the Irvin Works Company's refinery in Warren, Pennsylvania, of

discharged pollutants into the Monongahela River in approximately 2,000 gallons of light cycle oil which

excess of its NPDES permit limits on eleven occasions entered Glade Run, a tributary to the Allegheny River, and

since 1990. The complaint also alleges that on May 26, a navigable waterway as defined in the CWA. The

1994, an equipment malfunction caused the Irvin Works to company responded quickly and effectively to the spill, and

discharge approximately 4000 gallons of oily, untreated most of the oil was cleaned up by the following morning.

wastewater into the Monongahela River, causing a large oil The effectiveness of the company's response was reflected

slick. USX reported this discharge to the National in a reduced penalty.

Response Center and hired a contractor to attempt to clean

up the spill. However, this discharge was unauthorized by

the permit and violated several conditions of USX's 1989

NPDES permit. The complaint also cites a September 22,

1994, discharge of oil which left a sheen of oil on the

Monongahela River. The complaint seeks a total penalty

of $40,000 for these violations.

PEPCO (Benning Generating Station) (Washington,

DC): On September 22, 1995, Region III filed an

administrative complaint against PEPCO (Respondent) for

violation of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C. 1311(a) for discharging water contaminated with

PCBs into the Anacostia River from its Benning

Generating Station. Respondent reported the incident. For

this violation, EPA is seeking a penalty of $10,000.

National Railroad Corporation (AMTRAK)

(Washington, DC): On March 17, 1995, the Region

issued a CACO in settlement of an administrative CWA

complaint for penalty which was filed against National

Railroad Corporation - Amtrak for violations of its NPDES

General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated

with Industrial Activity. Amtrak agreed to pay a penalty of

$30,000.

Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.: On June 28, 1995,

the U.S. EPA filed an administrative complaint against

Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., for violations of Section

311(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1321(b)(3),

for the discharge of oil into the navigable waters of the

United States. The complaint alleged that from November

1993 through April 1994 on four separate occasions,

respondent spilled a total of approximately 12 barrels

EPCRA §313

Owens-Brockway (Erie, PA): On May 16, 1995, an

administrative complaint was filed against OwensBrockway of Erie, Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges

violations of the Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act. Owens-Brockway failed to submit

toxic chemical release form Rs for four toxic chemicals

used at the facility in 1991, 1992, and 1993. The

complaint seeks penalties of $146,132.

Dayton Walther Corporation (Harrisburg, PA): On

October 21, 1994, a consent agreement and consent order

(CACO) was entered wherein Dayton Walther

Corporation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, agreed to pay a

$27,209 penalty for violations of the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to Know Act. Walther failed to

submit Toxic Chemical Release Inventory forms to EPA

and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for chromium and

xylene for three reporting years, 1989, 1990, and 1991.

Beaver Valley Alloy Foundry Company (Monaca, PA):

On November 18, 1994, a consent agreement and consent

order (CACO) was signed wherein Beaver Valley Alloy

Foundry Company, of Monaca, Pennsylvania agreed to pay

a $12,750 civil penalty for violations of the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. Beaver

Valley failed to submit a Toxic Chemical Release

Inventory form to EPA and the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania for manganese releases for three reporting

years.
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-24 July 1996

Cabinet Industries, Inc. (Danville, PA): On August 18,

1995, the Regional Presiding Officer signed a consent cleanser manufacturer Fitzpatrick Brothers, of Chicago,

order requiring Cabinet Industries, Inc., of Danville, had provided a "guarantee" that the product as supplied

Pennsylvania, to pay $8,000 in settlement of an complied with FIFRA, thereby relieving Thrift Drug of

administrative complaint filed by EPA on April 4, 1995. penalty liability under the Act. Having decided to settle

The complaint alleged that Cabinet Industries committed with EPA, and split the payment of the penalty in this

six violations of EPCRA by failing to submit toxic action, the Respondents will take their ongoing contractual

chemical release forms for six toxic chemicals used at its dispute, over the effect of the "guarantee," into state court.

Danville facilities in 1990 and 1991. Following issuance

of the complaint, Cabinet submitted revised usage figures

and an affidavit which showed that the company used less

than the threshold amount of xylene, MIK, MEK, and

toluene in 1990. The $8,000 civil penalty settles EPA's

claim for the remaining two counts.

FIFRA

Aquarium Products, Inc.: On June 30, 1995,

Administrative Law Judge Head issued an initial decision

in the case of In the Matter of Aquarium Products, Inc. ,

which held that Aquarium Products violated FIFRA

(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) by

selling the unregistered and misbranded pesticide

"Aquarium Oxygenator" on two occasions, for a total of

four violations. Judge Head felt that only a warning was

warranted because of Aquarium Products' cooperation in

remedying its violation. The decision reaffirms several

important FIFRA issues, including the fact that a product

is determined to be a pesticide not by what its

manufacturers want it to be used for, but what the labelling

suggests it may be used for.

Panbaxy Laboratories, Inc.: On February 15, 1995, the

Region issued a consent agreement and consent order,

resolving our FIFRA complaint which cited the sale of the

unregistered pesticide products "AIDEX Spray Cleaner"

and "AIDEX Soaking Solution" by product developer Dr.

Yash Sharma, individually and d/b/a as Panbaxy

Laboratories, Inc. The "AIDEX" products had been sold

to hospitals with the claim that they contained ingredients

effective in killing HIV, and were primarily for use on

medical instruments and contact surfaces. The products

are no longer produced and the corporation no longer

exists. Settlement is for a minimal penalty of $500 based

on an ability to pay analysis assessing Respondent

Sharma's very low income for several years.

Thrift Drug, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA): On January 24,

1995, the Regional Administrator signed separate consent

orders providing for the payment by Thrift Drug, Inc., of

$5,000, and by Fitzpatrick Brothers, Inc., of $23,500 for

violating FIFRA by the sale/distribution of the unregistered

pesticide product "Treasury Brand Cleanser" which

claimed on its label that it "disinfects as it cleans."

Pittsburgh-based Thrift Drug asserted that its supplier,

Precision Generators, Inc.: The Regional Administrator

has signed a consent order in the Precision Generators,

Inc., FIFRA case, in which the respondent has agreed to

pay the $4,000 proposed penalty. The administrative

complaint cited the respondent's sale and misbranding of

its unregistered pesticide product ethylene fluid used to

accelerate the ripening of fruits and vegetables. Such a

product is a "plant regulator" falling within the definition

of "pesticide" in FIFRA.

E.C. Geiger, Inc. (Harleysville, PA): On August 18,

1995, the Regional Administrator signed a consent

agreement and consent order finalizing settlement of the

administrative proceeding against E.C. Geiger, Inc.,

Harleysville, Pennsylvania, for violations of Sections

12(a)(1)(A) and (E) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136j(a)(1)(A)

and (B). The complaint alleged that during 1992, Geiger

sold or distributed an unregistered and misbranded

pesticide product, a rooting hormone called "Indole-3-

Butyric Acid - Horticultural Grade." For these violations

the complaint sought a $14,000 penalty. Geiger has

agreed to pay a penalty of $8,900.

RCRA

UST NOVs for Violations of the RCRA UST

Requirements: On June 28, 1995, Region III issued 17

UST NOVs to facilities in Pennsylvania and 2 UST NOVs

to facilities in Virginia. The NOVs notified the recipients

of violations of the RCRA UST regulations and advised

non-compliers that further enforcement action may be

taken if they did not, within 30 days after receiving the

NOV, provide EPA with documentation which

demonstrated their compliance with UST requirements.

General Chemical Corporation (Claymont, DE and

Marcus Hook, PA): The U.S. EPA signed a consent

agreement and consent order (CACO) with General

Chemical Corporation in settlement of an administrative

complaint, compliance order, penalty assessment, and

notice of opportunity for hearing issued to General

Chemical Corporation. The CACO settles violations of

RCRA alleged against respondent's manufacturing plant

located at Claymont, Delaware, and Marcus Hook,

Pennsylvania. The facility had operated three hazardous
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-25 July 1996

waste surface impoundments without a permit or interim unpermitted treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous

status, had failed to make hazardous waste determinations, waste, and meeting related waste handling and

and had failed to comply with land-disposal restrictions. recordkeeping requirements.

The settlement consists of a penalty of $350,000. General

Chemical will pay $100,000, and place $250,000 in

escrow until respondent completes, to EPA's satisfaction,

a $2.5 million pollution prevention supplemental

environmental project (SEP) in accordance with the

conditions stipulated in the CA/CO. A penalty credit will

be granted by EPA to respondent upon the completion of

the SEP. The ratio of the SEP gross cost to penalty credit

dollars is approximately 4:1 for estimated after-tax net

present value to penalty credit dollars. In the event

respondent fails to complete the SEP, the escrow funds

plus accrued interest will be forfeited to the United States.

The pollution prevention SEP will reduce the release of

pollutants to the environment by eliminating the current

use of a sluiceway where chemicals are treated and

subsequently discharged into the Delaware River. The

SEP will modify the current industrial process at the

Respondent's Marcus Hook manufacturing plant by

recirculating and recycling the wastewater for process

reuse. The recirculation and recycling of the wastewater

for process reuse will decrease the current thermal

loadings of approximately 25.0 million gallons per day into

the Delaware River to approximately 1 million gallons per

day of non-process stormwater.

AT&T Richmond Works (Richmond, VA): On

December 30, 1994, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

Thomas W. Hoya issued a ruling on cross-motions for

partial accelerated decision in the Matter of American

Telephone and Telegraph Company. The ruling Corporation, with the exception of two parcels of property,

constitutes a final decision with respect to five of twenty- one of which was known as the spent potliner pile. The

six counts in a $4.18 million administrative complaint Section 7003 consent order concerns the real property

initiated by EPA on July 31, 1991. The complaint alleges under the current ownership of the respondent upon which

numerous violations of RCRA at the AT&T Richmond the spent potliner pile is located. (The remaining portions

Works Facility. The ALJ ruled for EPA on three counts of the former Kaiser operation are being addressed through

related to inadequacies of AT&T's waste analysis plan in a separate RCRA Section 3008(h) administrative order on

meeting regulatory requirements and ruled for AT&T consent issued in September 1994 to Ravenswood for the

concerning the required frequency of wastestream analysis performance of an RFI/CMS.)

and additional analyses when tank systems are proposed

for use with substantially different hazardous wastes.

Amoco Oil Company (Yorktown, VA): On December 30, RCRA Enforcement Division, filed an appellate reply brief

1994, the Regional Administrator signed a consent with the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) in support

agreement and consent order resolving a RCRA

administrative penalty action against Amoco Oil Company

for alleged violations at Amoco's Yorktown, Virginia,

facility. Under the terms of the CACO Amoco agreed to

pay a $245,715.00 civil penalty and undertake injunctive

relief to comply with RCRA, including cessation of

Alexandria Metal Finishers, Inc. (Lorton, VA): On

February, 2, 1995, the Regional Administrator executed a

consent agreement and consent order (CACO) settling a

RCRA administrative penalty action filed against

Alexandria Metal Finishers, Inc., for alleged violations at

Alexandria's Lorton, Virginia, facility. In addition, the

CACO requires Alexandria to pay a $100,000 civil

penalty.

Exide/General Battery Corporation (Reading, PA): On

December 9, 1994, the Acting Deputy Regional

Administrator signed a consent agreement and consent

order (CACO) resolving a RCRA administrative penalty

action against Exide/General Battery Corporation for

alleged violations at Exide's Reading, Pennsylvania,

facility. Under the terms of the CACO, Exide agreed to

pay a $212,372.50 civil penalty and undertake injunctive

relief to comply with RCRA.

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation

(Ravenswood, WV): On April 3, 1995, the Acting

Regional Administrator signed a final administrative order

on consent for the performance of a RCRA facility

investigation (RFI) and a corrective measures study (CMS)

under Section 7003 of RCRA, for the Kaiser Aluminum &

Chemical Corporation facility in Ravenswood, West

Virginia. The respondent was the former owner of an

aluminum reduction and fabrication facility located on a

3,000-acre site adjacent to the Ohio River. In 1989,

ownership was transferred to Ravenswood Aluminum

In re: Beaumont Company: On April 28, 1995, the

Office of Regional Counsel, in conjunction with the OECA

of the Agency's interlocutory appeal in In re: The

Beaumont Company. EPA's interlocutory appeal seeks to

overturn an adverse ruling by an administrative law judge

(ALJ) dismissing, in part, a $1.2 million RCRA

administrative complaint against the Beaumont Company,

a West Virginia glass manufacturer.
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-26 July 1996

Aberdeen Proving Ground Facility (Aberdeen, MD): Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics (South

On July 25, 1995, EPA entered into a RCRA consent order

and consent agreement with the U.S. Army resolving a

January 5, 1994, RCRA §3008 complaint issued to the

Army for storing 171 containers of hazardous waste

subject to RCRA's land disposal restrictions at its

Aberdeen Proving Ground Facility in Aberdeen, Maryland

for longer than the one year period authorized by statute.

In addition, the Army was also cited for failure to properly

complete manifests for 22 such containers which were

shipped off-site for disposal. The settlement requires the

Army to pay a fine of $92,500 and properly dispose of the

containers of hazardous waste cited in EPA's complaint.

At the time of settlement, the Army had so disposed of this

material. This action was the first enforcement action

taken against a federal facility in Region III under the 1993

Federal Facility Compliance Act.

Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. (Institute, WV): Region III has

reached a settlement with Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., in an Part

22 administrative action brought for violations of RCRA

boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations at RhonePoulenc's Institute, West Virginia, plant. The settlement

calls for Rhone-Poulenc to pay a penalty of over $244,000

and to undertake numerous compliance tasks.

Lynchburg Foundry Company (Lynchburg, VA): On

August 24, 1995, the Regional Administrator signed a

consent order pursuant to of RCRA which requires

Lynchburg Foundry Company to perform tasks set out in

the compliance section of the consent agreement, and to

pay $330,000 to EPA. Lynchburg, located in Lynchburg,

Virginia, operates two facilities: Radford and Archer

Creek, both of which manufacture metal automotive parts.

Under the terms of the consent agreement and order,

Lynchburg must: (1) list all hazardous wastes handled at

both facilities within its hazardous waste notification filed

with the Virginia Department of Hazardous Waste; (2)

amend or supplement its emergency contingency plans for

both facilities to reflect the arrangements agreed to by local

emergency services; and (3) permanently cease illegally

storing or treating D006 and D008 hazardous wastes in

waste piles at either facility.

Rapid Circuits, Inc.: On December 19, 1994, The

Regional Administrator signed a consent agreement and

consent order In the Matter of Rapid Circuits, Inc. The

consent agreement requires Rapid Circuits to pay a penalty

of $23,250. The consent agreement and consent order

represents a settlement of an administrative complaint that

charged Rapid Circuits with violating the

notification/certification and recordkeeping requirements

of 40 CFR Section 268.7.

Charleston, WV): On May 16, 1995, the Regional

Administrator signed a consent order resolving a RCRA

administrative penalty action against Union Carbide

Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. (UCC), for

violations of the BIF Rule (Boiler and Industrial Furnace

Rule) at UCC's South Charleston, West Virginia, plant.

The complaint alleged failure to: continuously monitor and

record operating parameters; accurately analyze the

hazardous waste fed into the boiler; and properly mark

equipment. Under the settlement terms UCC is required

to pay a $195,000 civil penalty and comply with the

requirements of the BIF Rule.

RCRA CORRECTIVE MEASURES

AT&T Corporation: On October 14, 1994, the Associate

Division Director for RCRA Programs signed a final

administrative order requiring the AT&T Corp. to

implement corrective measures at its Richmond Works

Facility in accordance with the RCRA Record of Decision

and two subsequent explanations of significant differences

for the facility. EPA had issued AT&T a unilateral initial

administrative order in July 1994, and AT&T thereupon

disputed certain provisions of the initial order and

requested a hearing.

Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA): The Regional

Administrator signed the final decision and response to

comments on proposed corrective measures under RCRA

Section 3008(h) for the Honeywell, Inc., facility in Fort

Washington, Pennsylvania, on December 16, 1994. The

final decision describes the corrective measure selected by

EPA to address releases of hazardous waste at Honeywell,

presents the concerns and issues raised during the public

comment period and responds to all significant comments

received by EPA regarding the proposed corrective

measure. EPA previously described and evaluated

corrective measure alternatives in the statement of basis for

Honeywell, which was signed on August 26, 1994.

Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.: On December 30, 1994, the

Regional Administrator signed a final administrative order

on consent in the matter of Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.,

under Section 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6973. The

order requires the respondent to conduct a RCRA facility

investigation (RFI) and a corrective measures study.

Respondent will also be responsible for an interim

measures study initially in the form of sampling. Part of

the Akzo facility, originally a chemical manufacturing

facility owned by Stauffer Chemical Company, is part of

the Delaware City PVC Plant currently on the National

Priorities List.
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-27 July 1996

Allied Signal Inc.'s Baltimore Works (Baltimore, MD): Perry Phillips Mobile Home Park, (E.D. PA): On

On October 20, 1994, Judge William R. Nickerson of the

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland signed the

"Second Amendment to Consent Decree" for Allied Signal

Inc.'s Baltimore Works, a 20-acre site located on a

peninsula in Baltimore's Inner Harbor. In September of

1989 the court entered a consent decree between Allied,

the United States, and the State of Maryland pursuant to

Sections 3008(h) and 7003 of RCRA, under which Allied

agreed to remediate chromium contamination at the site, to

conduct further studies, and to carry out additional

corrective measures based on the results of such studies.

Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA): On August 18, have only partially complied with the terms of that

1995, the Regional Administrator signed a consent order emergency order, prompting the need for injunctive relief.

for the Honeywell, Inc., facility in Fort Washington, The complaint also seeks a penalty for these violations.

Pennsylvania. The order requires Honeywell, Inc., to

implement the corrective measures selected by EPA in the

final decision and response to comments signed by EPA on

December 16, 1994. Among other things, the remedy

includes the installation of two recovery wells and

continued treatment of contaminated groundwater.

Allied-Signal, Inc. (Claymont, DE): On December 29,

1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint, compliance

order and notice of opportunity for hearing to AlliedSignal, Inc., located in Claymont, Delaware, for failure to

comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

and the federal underground storage tank regulations. The

administrative complaint proposes a civil penalty of

$24,324. The alleged violation occurred at the AlliedSignal, Inc., facility, located at 6300 Philadelphia Pike,

Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. In addition to the proposed

penalty in the administrative complaint, EPA is also

seeking compliance by ordering Allied-Signal to

permanently close the underground storage tank located at

the facility.

SDWA

Leisure Living Estates (Elkton, VA): Region III issued a upon completion of two supplemental environmental

Safe Drinking Water Act Emergency Order to David projects (SEPs).

Short, Wayne Moore and Universal of Harrisonburg -

Leisure Living Estates. Messrs. Short and Moore own

Universal, a mobile home park in Elkton, Virginia, with a

community water supply system. The system has had,

among its deficiencies, acute violations of the total

coliform rule. An improperly operated septic system at the

site may have caused the coliform violations. The order

requires the system to provide an alternate source of water,

increase monitoring for coliform, begin corrective

measures, analyze for coliform contamination in

surrounding wells and develop a plan to correct the sewage

problem.

September 1, 1995, the U.S. Attorney's Office filed a

complaint under the Safe Drinking Water Act against Perry

Phillips and Jeanne Phillips, d.b.a. Perry Phillips Mobile

Home Park, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the

water supplied to the approximately 60 residents of the

mobile home park served by the park's public water system

has violated the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) and 1,1-Dichloroethylene

(DCE) for every month since at least June 1993. Although

EPA issued an administrative emergency order to the

Phillips in May 1993 for these same violations, the Phillips

TSCA

General Electric Co. (Philadelphia, PA): On March 21,

1995, the RA signed a partial CACO which was negotiated

in partial settlement of a TSCA administrative complaint

that was filed against GE for violations of the PCB

regulations codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 761. This partial

settlement relates to one count of the complaint which

alleges GE's failure to properly dispose of PCBs. GE has

agreed to pay $16,000 in settlement thereof. The

unresolved counts relate to GE's failure to obtain a permit

for its freon flush system; because this freon flush system

was used nationwide, these counts have also been pled by

Regions IV, V, VI, and X. The Agency's motions on

liability having been previously granted by ALJ Nissen and

upheld by the EAB.

ANZON, INC. (Philadelphia, PA): On March 30, 1995,

EPA Region III sent a letter of remittance to Anzon Inc.,

concluding a TSCA administrative action against Anzon

for violations of the TSCA Inventory update reporting

requirements. Respondent agreed to pay $57,800 in

settlement of this case, $43,620 of which was remitted

Philadelphia Masjid, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA): On May

15, 1995, the Regional Administrator, EPA Region III,

signed an order granting EPA's motion for default in an

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act case against

the Philadelphia Masjid, Inc. Respondent owns a private,

non-profit elementary school located in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. On December 16, 1994, an administrative

complaint was filed against respondent for failure to file an

asbestos management plan as required regulations

promulgated pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control

Act. The default motion was based on respondent's failure
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-28 July 1996

to file an answer to the complaint and failure to seek an emissions to below 50 TPY by September 30, 1995.

extension of time in which to submit an Answer. The During the period of violation, VOC emissions ranged

order mandates, inter alia, that the respondent pay a $4,000 between 120 and 315 tons per year with no control

penalty and develop an asbestos management plan for the equipment. Brentwood constructed and operated these air

school in accordance with the requirements of TSCA. contamination sources in an ozone non-attainment area

MULTIMEDIA

Horseshead Resource Development Company: On

August 23, 1995, a consent decree was entered by the U.S.

Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The

consent decree resolves the civil action filed by the United

States in January 1992 pursuant to Section 3008(a) of

RCRA, Sections 301 and 402 of the Clean Water Act and

Sections 113(a)(1) and (b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. This

consent decree satisfies EPA's goals of bringing the

defendants into compliance and deterring other potential

violations by defendants and other parties. The injunctive

relief, which fully satisfies existing federal and state

environmental standards, constitutes a comprehensive

upgrading of the entire facility. The defendants have

estimated the cost of the injunctive relief to be between 30

and 40 million dollars. The civil penalty of $5.6 million is

substantial, recovering one million dollars more than the

full economic benefit calculated in this case.

Brentwood Industries (Reading, PA): Brentwood and the

United States (EPA and DOJ) resolved outstanding

violations at Brentwood's Reading plant through a consent

decree entered on March 24, 1995. The consent decree

provided for a penalty payment of $200,000 and an

expedited schedule for reducing VOC 

without first undergoing new source review as required by

law. This enabled Brentwood to avoid installing required

control equipment or process modifications. This case

addresses both Clean Air Act and EPCRA violations.
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-29 July 1996
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-30 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION III .................................................................................. A-17

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. A-17

Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL) (Third Circuit, E.D. PA): ........................... A-17

LTV Steel (W.D. PA): ................................................................... A-17

Shenango, Inc. (Neville Island, PA): ....................................................... A-17

USX-Clairton and Edgar Thomson Plants (Clairton & Braddock, PA): .......................... A-17

Paragon Environmental Group and Haverford College: ...................................... A-17

E.K. Associates (EKCO/GLACO Ltd.) (Baltimore, MD): ....................................... A-18

Mundet-Hermetite, Inc.: ................................................................. A-18

S.D. Richman Sons, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA): ................................................ A-18

PECO Energy and Pepper Environmental Services, Inc. (Chester, PA): .......................... A-18

Harrison Warehouse Services Company, Inc., and Dewey Wilfong (Clarksburg, WV): .............. A-18

Kammer Power Plant (Moundsville, WV): .................................................. A-18

Hercules, Inc. (Covington, VA): .......................................................... A-19

Joseph Smith & Son, Inc. (Capital Heights, MD): ............................................ A-19

CERCLA and EPCRA non 313 ............................................................... A-19

Brown's Battery Breaking Superfund Site: .................................................. A-19

GMT Microelectronics (Montgomery County, PA): ........................................... A-19

Virginia Scrap, Inc. (Roanoke, VA): ....................................................... A-19

Malitovsky Cooperage Company, et al. (Pittsburgh, PA): ...................................... A-20

Abex Superfund Site (Portsmouth, VA): .................................................... A-20

Delaware Sand and Gravel (District of DE): ................................................ A-20

Strasburg Landfill (Chester County, PA): ................................................... A-20

Blosenski Landfill: ..................................................................... A-20

Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. (WV): ............................................. A-21

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and Universal Food Corporation: ........................ A-21

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... A-21

John C. Holland Enterprises/Holland Landfill (Suffolk County, VA): ............................ A-21

Antoinette Bozievich-Buxton (York County, PA): ............................................. A-21

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation (Pittsburgh, PA): ............................................ A-21

Blue Plains STP (Washington, DC): ....................................................... A-22

Witco Corporation (Petrolia, PA): ........................................................ A-22

Modular Components National, Inc. (Forest Hill, MD): ....................................... A-22

Goose Bay Aggregates, Inc. (Washington, DC): ............................................. A-22

Elk River Sewell Coal Co., Inc. (Monterville, WV): ........................................... A-22

Conagra Poultry Company (Milford, DE): .................................................. A-22

Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority (Leechburg, PA): ............................... A-22

Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO) (Faulkner, MD): ....................................... A-23

USX Corporation Steel Mill (Dravosburg, PA): .............................................. A-23

PEPCO (Benning Generating Station) (Washington, DC): ..................................... A-23

National Railroad Corporation (AMTRAK) (Washington, DC): ................................. A-23

Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.: ........................................................ A-23

United Refining Co. (Warren County, PA): ................................................. A-23

EPCRA §313 ............................................................................. A-24

Owens-Brockway (Erie, PA): ............................................................. A-24

Dayton Walther Corporation (Harrisburg, PA): ............................................. A-24

Beaver Valley Alloy Foundry Company (Monaca, PA): ....................................... A-24

Cabinet Industries, Inc. (Danville, PA): .................................................... A-24

FIFRA ................................................................................... A-24

Aquarium Products, Inc.: ............................................................... A-24
Region III Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-31 July 1996

Panbaxy Laboratories, Inc.: ............................................................. A-24

Thrift Drug, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA): ........................................................ A-24

Precision Generators, Inc.: .............................................................. A-25

E.C. Geiger, Inc. (Harleysville, PA): ....................................................... A-25

RCRA ................................................................................... A-25

UST NOVs for Violations of the RCRA UST Requirements: .................................... A-25

General Chemical Corporation (Claymont, DE and Marcus Hook, PA): ......................... A-25

AT&T Richmond Works (Richmond, VA): .................................................. A-25

Amoco Oil Company (Yorktown, VA): ..................................................... A-25

Alexandria Metal Finishers, Inc. (Lorton, VA): .............................................. A-26

Exide/General Battery Corporation (Reading, PA): .......................................... A-26

Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (Ravenswood, WV): ................................ A-26

In re: Beaumont Company: ............................................................. A-26

Aberdeen Proving Ground Facility (Aberdeen, MD): ......................................... A-26

Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. (Institute, WV): ....................................................... A-26

Lynchburg Foundry Company (Lynchburg, VA): ............................................ A-26

Rapid Circuits, Inc.: .................................................................... A-27

Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics (South Charleston, WV): ................................ A-27

RCRA Corrective Measures ................................................................. A-27

AT&T Corporation: .................................................................... A-27

Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA): .................................................... A-27

Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.: ............................................................. A-27

Allied Signal Inc.'s Baltimore Works (Baltimore, MD): ........................................ A-27

Honeywell, Inc. (Fort Washington, PA): .................................................... A-27

Allied-Signal, Inc. (Claymont, DE): ....................................................... A-27

SDWA .................................................................................. A-28

Leisure Living Estates (Elkton, VA): ....................................................... A-28

Perry Phillips Mobile Home Park, (E.D. PA): ............................................... A-28

TSCA ................................................................................... A-28

General Electric Co. (Philadelphia, PA): ................................................... A-28

ANZON, INC. (Philadelphia, PA): ........................................................ A-28

Philadelphia Masjid, Inc. (Philadelphia, PA): ............................................... A-28

Multimedia ............................................................................... A-28

Horseshead Resource Development Company: .............................................. A-28

Brentwood Industries (Reading, PA): ...................................................... A-29
A-31 July 1996

REGION IV

CLEAN AIR ACT

United States v. Environmental Resources, Inc. (W.D.

KY): On May 9, 1995, the U.S. District Court entered a

civil consent decree in which Environmental Resources,

Inc. (ERI) agreed to pay $13,000 in civil penalties in

settlement of an action brought under the Clean Air Act for

violations of the National Emission Standards of

Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos. The action arose

out of ERI's removal of asbestos-containing pipe insulation

from three buildings owned by the Louisville Water

Company in Jefferson County, Kentucky. The action

focused on ERI's failure to adequately wet the asbestoscontaining material as required to prevent asbestos from

contaminating the air.

CERCLA

Peak Oil and Bay Drums Sites (Tampa, FL): On June

20, 1995, Region IV referred RD/RA consent decrees for

the Peak Oil and Bay Drums Sites to DOJ. Three separate

consent decrees have been signed for the two adjacent

Superfund sites. Under the first decree, 45 Peak Oil site

PRPs will conduct the RD/RA for soils, sediments and

surface waters at the Peak site. Under the second decree,

85 Bay Drums site PRPs will conduct the RD/RA for soils,

sediments and surface waters at the Bay site. Under the

third decree, the PRPs from both sites will conduct the

RD/RA for the area-wide ground water underlying both

sites, as well as the wetlands monitoring for the south and

central wetlands lying adjacent to the abandoned site

facilities. Under the first two decrees, the PRPs will

reimburse EPA a total of $7.6 million for EPA's past costs.

Peak Oil Site (Tampa, FL): On July 17, 1995, EPA

entered into administrative settlements with 350 de

minimis PRPs for this site, under which the settling parties

are required to pay a share of past and future response

costs. Each PRP's payment amount is based on the PRP's

volume of waste oil sent to the site. Under the settlement,

EPA will retain the first $4.6 million generated through the

de minimis settlements and anything in excess of this

amount will be forwarded to the PRP group which has

signed a consent decree for performance of the remedial

design/remedial action, to help pay the costs of that work.

Thus far, in excess of $5 million has been received in

payments from the settling de minimis parties.

LCP Chemicals Site (Brunswick, Glynn County, GA):

On July 6, 1995, Region IV executed a §122 AOC for

performance of the RI/FS for this site by three (3) of the

five (5) corporate PRPs that EPA has identified for the site.

The three PRPs that will perform the RI/FS under EPA

oversight are Allied Signal, Inc., Atlantic Richfield Co.

(ARCO), and Georgia Power Company.

Yellow Water Road Site (Duval County, FL): On July 5,

1995, the Department of Justice lodged a consent decree

for performance of the RD/RA for this site, in the U.S.

District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Under

this settlement, ten companies and three Federal Agencies

that sent PCB-contaminated oils to this storage site will

perform the RD/RA for both the groundwater and soil

units, reimburse over $1,467,000 in past EPA response

costs, and reimburse 100% of EPA future response costs.

The RD/RA requires on-site solidification of PCBcontaminated soil and monitoring of PCB-contaminated

groundwater. If monitoring indicates that the PCBs are

migrating in the groundwater, the groundwater ROD

requires a pump-and-treat remedy to contain the

groundwater plume.

Maxey Flats Disposal Site (Fleming County, KY): On

July 5, 1995, a consent decree for the remedial

design/remedial action at the site, and an accompanying de

minimis consent decree, were lodged in the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The parties

settling with EPA under these decrees include the

Commonwealth of Kentucky, 19 major and de minimis

federal agency PRPs, 43 private party major PRPs

(including corporations, utility companies, hospitals and

universities), and more than 200 de minimis parties.

The site was operated as a low-level radioactive waste

landfill from 1963 to 1978, during which time an estimated

4 to 5 million cubic feet of radioactive wastes were

disposed of in unlined trenches. Radioactive leachate was

discovered to be migrating from the trenches in the early

1970s. The consent decrees provide for closure and

perpetual monitoring of this landfill, and the recovery of

more than $5 million in response costs incurred by EPA in

connection with the site.

Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site (Concord,

NC): On January 25, 1995, the Middle District of North

Carolina entered an RD/RA consent decree at the site in

Concord, North Carolina. The consent decree provides for

the $40 million cleanup and collection of 100% of past

costs at the site, utilizing preauthorization mixed-funding,

as well as a unique de micromis settlement.
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-32 July 1996

The site includes an inactive battery "cracking" facility and

10 source areas around the site, where the battery casings

were buried after being cracked. Approximately 4,000

PRPs were identified, including approximately 2,400 de

micromis parties. Of the non-de micromis parties, only

approximately 500 PRPs were located, creating an orphan

share of approximately 1,100 PRPs. The $40+ million

remedy (which could potentially climb to 100+ million)

selected for the site includes soil solidification and

stabilization, as well as an aggressive pump-and-treat

system. Additionally, past costs at the site currently total

approximately $4 million.

Woolfolk Chemical Site (Fort Valley, GA): With the site. EPA conducted a removal action at the site during the

concurrence of EPA-Headquarters and the Department of period 1985-1987. The Settling Defendants included the

Justice, Region IV has entered into an agreement and owners of the property and forty-six (46) generators.

covenant not to sue with three parties who plan to

redevelop land cleared and cleaned as part of a removal

action at the site. The site is a pesticide formulating facility

which was placed on the National Priorities List in 1990.

During the RI/FS, soil contamination was discovered in

residential yards surrounding the operating facility. EPA

issued a removal order, and the PRP performing the

removal purchased certain of the residential properties,

razed the houses, and removed contaminated soil to the

expected non-residential cleanup level. That PRP is now

willing to donate the land to the Peach Public Libraries, the

Fort Valley Redevelopment Authority, and the Peach

County Chamber of Commerce, who plan to construct a

public library, an adult literacy center, and an office for the

Chamber of Commerce and Redevelopment Authority on

the property. The covenant not to sue is conditioned upon

EPA's concurrence that the redevelopment project will be

consistent with EPA's upcoming ROD for this area.

Aqua-tech Environmental, Inc., Site (Greer, SC): On

July 21, 1995, Region IV entered into administrative de

minimis settlements with 98 parties for this site. This de

minimis settlement represents the first phase of the total de District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The

minimis settlement for the Aqua-Tech site. This phase of

the de minimis settlement was offered only to those de

minimis parties who sent gas cylinders to the site.

Settlements which resolve drum and lab pack liability will

be offered when additional information becomes available

concerning the full extent of contamination at the site.

Consequently, parties to this settlement who sent both

cylinder and drum or lab pack waste are resolving their

liability for cylinders only through this settlement and will

have continuing liability for other non-cylinder waste. The

site underwent a removal action which was completed in

January of 1994. On September 25, 1995, the Region and

77 major PRPs entered into an AOC for performance of

the RI/FS for the site.

General Refining Site (Garden City, GA): On November

23, 1994, the final consent decree settling United States v.

General Refining Company, et al. was entered in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Pursuant to the terms of the consent decree, the United

States recovered $2,150,000 in response costs incurred at

the site.

The General Refining Company, a closely-held

corporation, owned and operated a waste oil re-refining

facility at the site from 1961 to 1975. Waste oil, sludges

and filter cake containing hazardous substances, including

lead, cadmium, chromium and copper, were deposited onReeves Southeastern Site (Tampa, FL): On July 17,

1995, the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida,

Tampa Division, entered the RD/RA consent decree for the

site. Under the decree, the Reeves Southeastern

Corporation will conduct the RD/RA for three operable

unit Records of Decision and will reimburse EPA's past

costs in the amount of $297,000. In the past, wire fence

manufacturing operations resulted in the generation of

waste waters contaminated with zinc and other heavy

metals. The waste waters were stored in unlined holding

ponds. Soils and sediments in the ponds, soils and

sediments in hot spot areas around the site, ground water

underlying the site, and adjacent wetlands became

contaminated with heavy metals. The three Records of

Decision covered by the consent decree address,

respectively, soils, sediments and surface waters; ground

water; and the wetlands.

Shaver's Farm Site (Walker County, GA): On October

31, 1994, DOJ filed a cost recovery action styled United

States v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation in the U.S.

action seeks $5.8 million for past response costs plus a

declaratory judgement for future costs. In 1988, after

investigation disclosed a large number of buried drums and

some releases of dicamba and benzonitrile disposed of by

Velsicol at Shaver's Farm, EPA entered into a consent

removal order with Velsicol. In 1990, EPA took over the

work because of serious performance problems by

Velsicol's contractor. The complaint seeks to recover all

of the Government's response costs pursuant to Section

107 of CERCLA.

Para-Chem Southern, Inc. (Simpsonville, SC): On

October 7, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the District of

South Carolina, entered a consent decree for RD/RA in

connection with the Para-Chem Southern, Inc., Superfund
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-33 July 1996

site in Simpsonville, South Carolina. Under the terms of batteries to reclaim lead for scrap. Once the batteries were

the consent decree, Para-Chem Southern, Inc., will "cracked," the lead plates were removed for sale as scrap

perform and fund the entire RD/RA, and reimburse the metal, and the lead contaminated battery casings were

United States for costs incurred by the United States in stockpiled and littered across the site.

connection with such work, including, but not limited to,

oversight costs. The estimated cost of implementing the

selected remedy is $5,498,000. Para-Chem has already

agreed to pay all outstanding past costs incurred in

connection with the site in the amount of $275,563.23

under the terms of a cost recovery agreement entered

September 2, 1993.

Dickerson Post Treating Site (Homerville, GA): On

March 31, 1995, in a case entitled United States v.

Amtreco, et al., the U.S. District Court for the Middle September 1974 in rural Polk County, Georgia, which

District of Georgia approved and finalized a settlement of recovered lead from used automotive batteries. As a result

the United States' $2.1 million judgment for recovery of of a citizen's complaint, EPA found levels of lead

direct and indirect response costs incurred in a cleanup of contamination ranging from 7,080 to 19,300 parts per

this site. The settlement requires the defendants, the million. EPA conducted a two-stage removal at the site

individual and closely-held corporate owner/operators of beginning in January of 1989. The three (3) settling

the site, to pay $300,000 to the United States in parties are the owner of the land, AmSouth Bank, N.A. as

satisfaction of the judgment and resolution of all issues. trustee for the W.M. Leary Trust, and two (2) companies

Murray Ohio Dump Site (Lawrenceburg, TN): On April

20, 1995, Region IV issued a unilateral administrative

order to Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company (Murray

Ohio) for performance of the remedial design/remedial Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, FL): A cost

action at the site. Murray Ohio operates an active bicycle

manufacturing facility on approximately 27 acres

southwest of Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. Murray Ohio

began land disposal of F006 paint and plating sludge in

1963 and continued until 1982, on property then owned by

the City of Lawrenceberg, Tennessee. The sludges

contained chromium, nickel and zinc, and the landfill poses

a threat to groundwater from these contaminants. The

UAO requires Murray Ohio to implement a RCRA landfill

closure of the disposal area. The City of Lawrenceberg

was not named in the UAO because Murray Ohio indicated

that they would assume responsibility for the entire

cleanup.

Riley Battery Site (Concord, Cabarrus County, NC): On

December 15, 1994, Region IV signed an AOC with

Troutman Land Investments, Inc. (Troutman), which

requires Troutman to perform a removal action, as well as

reimburse EPA for approximately $44,000 in past costs, at

the site. The site is comprised of two adjoining parcels of

property formerly owned by the Riley family and generally

located at 5050 Zion Church Road, Cabarrus County,

Concord, North Carolina, where excessive levels of lead

contamination were discovered, due to the presence of

discarded battery casings and associated wastes.

Operations at the site, which occurred during the late

1940s and early 1950s, included the cracking of lead

Cedartown Battery Site (Polk County, GA): On

December 5, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Georgia, in a case captioned United

States v. AmSouth Bank N.A., et al. , entered three (3)

consent decrees negotiated by Region IV and the

Department of Justice, resulting in the recovery of

$230,760 in response costs for a removal action performed

by EPA at the site. Henry Dingler and his sons operated a

battery cracking operation from the 1960s through

which sold batteries to the Dinglers: Aaron McMahon,

d/b/a Hester Battery, Inc., and Carl Parker, d/b/a Dalton

Battery Service, Inc.

recovery action captioned U.S v. Ben Shemper & Sons ,

Inc., et al. was filed on December 27, 1994, in federal

court in the Northern District of Florida against several

recalcitrant potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at the

Sapp Battery Superfund site. This complaint against

viable non-settlors seeks to recover the remainder of EPA's

past costs in connection with the site which total

approximately $2.7 million.

Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, FL): On September

18, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District

of Florida entered a Consent Decree in United States v.

Bay Area Battery, et al., which provides for eleven

businesses and individuals that sent batteries which were

disposed of at the site to pay to EPA approximately

$214,500 toward unreimbursed costs (with an additional

amount of approximately $50,000 going to a group of

PRPs who have undertaken the cleanup of Operable Unit

One at the site). The eleven (11) parties that signed this

consent decree are alleged to have sent large quantities of

waste to the Sapp site, but due to their financial conditions,

are not able to pay their proportionate share of the cost of

the clean up. The settlement amounts paid by each of these

parties were negotiated on an ability-to-pay basis after a

detailed analysis of their financial conditions was

conducted by the Department of Justice.
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-34 July 1996

Kalama Specialty Chemical, Inc. (Beaufort, SC): The

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of South

Carolina entered the RD/RA consent decree for the site on

December 28, 1994. On August 10, 1994, Region IV Florida Steel Site (Indiantown, Martin County, FL): On

referred the RD/RA consent decree to the Department of January 24, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the Southern

Justice for lodging and entry. Pursuant to the consent District of Florida entered a consent decree executed by

decree, Defendants Kalama Specialty Chemical, Inc., and Florida Steel Corporation as settling defendant under

KalamaChemical, Inc., will perform soil and groundwater which Florida Steel has agreed to conduct RD/RA

remediation estimated to cost $3,502,167. In addition, the (Operable Unit 2) for cleanup of metals contamination in

Defendants agreed to reimburse EPA for all of its past groundwater at the site as well as wetlands restoration.

costs and for all of its future oversight costs. Florida Steel also agreed to reimburse all future response

Sixty-One Industrial Park Site (Memphis, Shelby

County, TN): On January 26, 1995, EPA issued a

unilateral administrative order to UT Automotive, Inc.,

Sixty-One Industrial Park, Lazarov Brothers Tin Compress Rutledge Property Site (Rock Hill, York County, SC):

Company, Inc., and Lazarov Brothers Surplus Sales

Company, Inc., and Mr. David Lazarov for removal

activities at the site. The UAO requires the Respondents

to remove and dispose of contaminated lagoon sludges,

drums, drummed waste, batteries, slag piles, explosives,

contaminated soils, and associated contamination.

Respondents are either current of former site owners or

operators.

Carolina Chemicals Site (West Columbia, SC): On

February 1, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the District

of South Carolina, Columbia Division, entered a CERCLA

§107 consent decree in United States v. Carolina

Chemicals, et al., which provides for the defendants at the

site to pay EPA $5,631,000, approximately 98% of past

costs for a 1989-1991 EPA removal. In addition to the

payment of past costs, the settlement resolves all claims

alleged against the United States and its contractor in a

separate but related cause of action, Richland-Lexington

Airport District v. Atlas Properties Inc., et al. In this

lawsuit, one of the PRPs alleged that EPA improperly

placed the contaminated stockpile from the 1989-1991

removal on its property.

Saad Trousdale Road Site (Nashville, TN): Region IV

utilized a combination of two AOCs and one UAO over

the last year, with various parties, to effectuate a removal

cleanup action at this waste oil site in Nashville,

Tennessee. The first AOC was signed October 5, 1994,

with approximately 100 PRPs who sent waste oil to the

site (the "Steering Committee"), and required limited

removal activities. The second AOC was entered into on

December 9, 1994, between EPA and Aluminum

Company of America (ALCOA), and required additional

removal activities of a limited nature. The Steering

Committee refused to enter into an AOC for full removal

of the remaining source soils and sludges. Consequently,

EPA issued a UAO to Steering Committee members on

July 28, 1995, requiring that the remaining removal work

be completed.

costs incurred by the United States. (Past response costs

were paid under the first operable unit consent decree

which addressed soil and sediment contamination.)

On February 14, 1995, EPA Region IV, under the

authority of CERCLA, issued UAOs to BASF/Inmont

Corp., Burlington Industries Inc., CTS Corp., Engraph

Inc., FMC Corp., Hoechst Celanese Corp., Reeves

Brothers, Inc., Rexham Inc., Textron Inc., Union Camp

Corp., W.R. Grace & Co., and William Rutledge, for

RD/RA. Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) receiving

the UAO included 11 generators and the owner/operator of

the facility. The selected remedy for groundwater

contamination at the site is pumping and discharge to a

publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

Sayles-Biltmore Site (Asheville, NC): Pursuant to the

"Guidance on Landowner Liability under Section

107(a)(10) of CERCLA, De Minimis Settlements under

122(g)(10)(B) of CERCLA, and Settlements with

Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property," Region

IV entered into a prospective purchaser agreement with

River Bend Business Park, Limited Liability Corporation

(LLC) for the sum of $165,000. The agreement was

signed by the Regional Administrator on March 20, 1995,

and was forwarded to Headquarters and DOJ for

concurrence. EPA initiated a removal action at the site in

May 1, 1994, removing several hundred drums, laboratory

containers, and eight vats of caustic material inside the

various buildings at the cost of $745,000.

Fuels and Chemicals Superfund Site (Tuscaloosa

County, AL): On March 27, 1995, Region IV ratified the

first amended AOC with U.S. Steel and 43 other PRPs to

complete Phase II of the removal at the site. This action

was at the request of the PRPs to facilitate the removal

agreement between the PRPs and add 9 additional parties

to the existing AOC signed on September 23, 1994. The

site, a 57-acre parcel of land located in a sparsely

populated area, operated from 1981 to 1992 as a fuels

blending and treating facility and was abandoned in

September 1992. EPA initially inspected the site on
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-35 July 1996

February 4, 1993. At that time, there was approximately consent decree involves the reimbursement of $545,723.52

800,000 gallons of waste stored on-site. On July 20, 1993, plus interest of $19,269.41 for costs spent by EPA and the

EPA entered into an administrative order on consent Department of Justice through August 31, 1994.

(Phase I AOC) with 11 parties requiring them to conduct

Phase I of a removal action at the site. Phase I of the

removal action consisted of the removal of pumpable

liquids from on-site tanks and drums and off-site disposal

in a manner satisfactory to EPA. On May 2, 1994, EPA

executed a unilateral administrative order directing 55

parties to conduct Phase II of the removal action at the site.

Following negotiations with EPA and 33 other PRPs, on

August 31, 1994, USX submitted a proposed

administrative order on consent requesting that it be

ratified and act to supersede the Phase II UAO. Region IV

ratified this "Phase II" AOC on September 23, 1994. This

recent action acts to amend the Phase II AOC to add an

additional 9 PRPs to the order.

Diamond Shamrock Landfill Site (Cedartown, Polk County, South Carolina in this CERCLA case. Despite

County, GA): On March 31, 1995, in a case captioned extended negotiations between EPA and the County, the

United States v. Henkel Corporation , the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered a

consent decree between EPA and Henkel Corporation for

RD/RA at the site. Under the terms of the proposed

settlement, Henkel will perform and fund the entire RD/RA

(estimated to cost $460,000), and reimburse the United

States for past costs of almost $388,000 and future costs

incurred by the United States in connection with such

work.

Brantley Landfill Site (Island, KY): On March 21, 1995,

Region IV issued a UAO which orders Barmet Aluminum

Corporation to conduct the RD/RA selected for

implementation at the site. The site consists of

approximately four acres used from 1978 to 1980 by Doug

Brantley and Sons, Inc., for the disposal of 250,306 tons of

salt cake fines generated by the Barmet Aluminum

Corporation. High concentrations of chlorides, sulfates

and other metals from the salt cake fines threaten the

groundwater. The remedy chosen requires that a new cap

be installed at the former landfill while groundwater

monitoring takes place to determine the extent of leachate

contamination migrating offsite. In the event that

unacceptable offsite migration is occurring, the remedy Cedartown Municipal Landfill Site (Cedartown, GA):

requires the installation of a short-term or long-term

leachate collection system.

New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site

(Wilmington, NC): On Wednesday, April 5, 1995, the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North

Carolina entered a consent decree for the payment of all of

EPA's past costs by three PRPs. The signatories to the

consent decree include Cape Fear Community College,

City of Wilmington, and New Hanover County. The

Koppers Charleston Site (Charleston County, SC): On

May 22, 1995, EPA Region IV, under the authority of

CERCLA, issued a UAO to Beazer East Inc., for interim

RD/RA. The interim RD/RA will be implemented to

mitigate the transport of non-aqueous phase liquid

(NAPL), from the former wood treating site into open

drainage ditches, marshlands, and the Ashley River. By

monitoring the effectiveness of the interim remedial action,

information will be gathered that will play an integral role

in determining the optimal and most cost effective method

of site wide remediation.

Lexington County Landfill Site (Lexington County, SC):

On June 13, 1995, EPA issued a UAO to Lexington

parties could not reach agreement on a proposed consent

decree. The Record of Decision (ROD) for this landfill

site was signed on September 29, 1994. The selected

remedy includes the following:

consolidation/containment/gas recovery/groundwater

Extraction and Treatment and Disposal at

POTW/monitoring. The remedy involves excavation of

waste in one part of the site and consolidation with waste

in another part of the site. An existing landfill cap in yet

another part of the site will be modified. Finally, a

groundwater leachate collection system will be installed

and a gas extraction system will be augmented.

Pike County Drum Site (Osyka, MS): EPA signed a cost

recovery agreement for the above-referenced site on

September 22, 1995. On September 22, 1995, Region IV

signed a cost recovery agreement in which the settling

potentially responsible parties are reimbursing the

Superfund $198,292.82. This settlement represents a

recovery of 61% of the site's total costs. The statute of

limitations expired in February 1995 and the cost recovery

agreement was completed pursuant to a tolling agreement.

Pursuant to an administrative recovery agreement, eight

industrial generator PRPs, the City of Cedartown and Polk

County have agreed to pay $668,302.88, which includes

all past costs through April 1995 associated with the

selected remedy at the site. The PRPs are conducting the

RD/RA under a unilateral administrative order issued on

March 22, 1994.

E.C. Manufacturing Property (Pineville, Mecklenberg

County, NC): On September 20, 1995, EPA Region IV,
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-36 July 1996

under the authority of CERCLA, issued a UAO to Dr. determine what remedial alternatives are best suited for

Amir Farahany, the present owner of the property. The remediating the entire site.

UAO requires the removal of drums of plating waste and

the removal of lead contaminated soil in a waste disposal

area on the property.

JMC Plating Site (Lexington, NC): On December 29, Inc. The UAOs require Respondents to conduct an

1994, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of engineering evaluation/cost analysis, expanded site

North Carolina, Greensboro Division, entered a second investigation and a removal action for the J-Street Site,

CERCLA 107 partial consent decree in United States v.

Gaither S. Walser et. al. This decree requires two

defendants at the site to pay EPA $145,000 of past costs

for a 1988 EPA removal at the former metal plating

facility. Combined with $446,000 recovered in a 1993

partial consent decree between EPA and other site

defendants, EPA's total recovery will amount to 54% of

$1,295,168.50 in past costs.

Monarch Tile, Inc./Rickwood Road Site (Lauderdale

County, AL): On December 1, 1994, EPA signed the

final AOC for an EE/CA and non-time-critical removal

action for the site. The AOC provides for expedited

investigation and commencement of removal activities, in

accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) at

40 C.F.R. Section 300.415, and "Guidance on the

Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup

Model SACM under CERCLA and the NCP," July 7, 1992

(OSWER # 9203.1-03). Investigation of the site,

conducted by EPA, Alabama Department of

Environmental Management, and Monarch Tile, Inc.,

showed the presence of hazardous substances at the

facility, including barium, nickel, lead, zinc, cadmium, and

chromium, which may constitute a threat to the public

health, welfare, and the environment.

Shuron/Textron Site (Barnwell, SC): On November 21,

1994, Region IV signed an AOC with Textron, Inc., which

requires Textron to perform a limited removal action, as

well as an early action RI/FS, at the site in Barnwell, South

Carolina. The site is comprised of a defunct opthalmic

lens manufacturing facility, which was originally owned by

Textron, but was later old to Shuron, Inc., which recently

dissolved after bankruptcy. Because of serious health

threats at the site associated with metal contamination in

the soils and surface waters, it was determined that a time

critical removal action was necessary to address the

immediate threat. Additionally, because preliminary data

from the site indicated the presence of large amounts of

contamination in the groundwater, the option of performing

an early action RI/FS was proposed to potentially

responsible parties (PRPs). As a result, the AOC provides

for a limited removal to address the immediate threats at

the site, while an RI/FS is performed concurrently to

J-Street Site, (Erwin, Harnett County, NC): On August

9, 1995, EPA issued unilateral administrative orders

(UAOs) to Swift Textiles, Inc., and Burlington Industries,

located in Erwin, Harnett County, North Carolina (the

site). Swift Textiles, Inc., is the present owner/operator of

the site and Burlington Industries, Inc., and was an

owner/operator of the facility at the time of disposal of

hazardous substances. Both Burlington and Swift have

been very cooperative and are complying fully with the

terms of the UAO.

CLEAN WATER ACT/SDWA

United States v. IMC-Agrico Company (M.D. FL): On

November 8, 1994, the Regional Administrator ratified a

consent decree between the United States and IMC-Agrico

Company (IMC) concerning IMC's violations of Section

301(a) of the CWA. IMC owns and operates phosphate

rock mines and associated processing facilities in Florida

and Louisiana. Eight of its mineral extraction operations

located throughout Florida and its Port Sutton Phosphate

Terminal located in Tampa, Florida, were the subject of

this referral. The action arose out of IMC's violation of its

permit effluent limits for a variety of parameters including

dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, ammonia, and

phosphorus, as well as non-reporting and stormwater

violations at the various facilities—over 1,500 permit

violations total. The case was initiated following review of

the facility discharge monitoring reports and EPA and state

inspections of the sites. The consent decree settlement

involved an up-front payment of $835,000 and a $265,000

Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). The pollution

prevention SEP involved converting IMC's scrubber

discharge and intake water systems into a closed loop

system, greatly reducing pollution loading at the Port

Sutton facility, by April 1995.

United States v. City of Marianna, Florida (N.D. FL):

In June 1995, EPA and the City of Marianna settled this

civil action brought under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The City agreed to pay $50,000 in civil penalties to settle

the action, which arose out of the City of Marianna's failure

to comply with the monitoring and reporting requirements

of the lead and copper rule.

United States v. Metropolitan Dade County, et al. (S.D.

FL): This Clean Water Act enforcement case was filed in

June of 1993 to address an emergency situation caused by
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-37 July 1996

the deteriorated condition of a large sewage pipeline injection and the plugging and abandonment of the New

(cross-bay line) running under Biscayne Bay, Florida, as Johnsonville, Tennessee, facility injection wells by

well as chronic and widespread overflows of raw sewage December 1998. Du Pont has set forth a systematic

into homes, streets, businesses and public waterways, procedure to change waste disposal operations at the

including Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. A first facility which will allow for the elimination of underground

partial consent decree, entered by the court in injection of the eight hundred thousand (800,000) gallons

January 1994, addressed replacement of the cross-bay line, per day of the 0.1 to 1.5 pH injectate into the Knox

as well as some short term preventative measures, pursuant Formation.

to the endangerment claim under Section 504 of the Clean

Water Act. The second and final partial consent decree,

entered by the court in September 1995, addresses the

remaining claims under Section 309 of the Act. The

settlement provides for a cash penalty of $2 million and

supplemental environmental projects (water reuse and

conservation) totaling at least $5 million. The county is

expected to spend more than $800 million rehabilitating its

system to prevent the chronic overflows of sewage. The

new cross-bay line has been constructed and is now

operational.

United States v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D. also seek to permit a new injection well in a lower horizon.

KY): On November 8, 1994, the court entered final The latest sampling shows no improvement in the water

judgment in this multi-media civil referral. Perdue- well impacted by the injection activities.

Davidson is an oil production company which produces

crude oil from two stripper-well fields in eastern Kentucky.

EPA filed this multi-media civil action pursuant to §§ 301 Six administrative complaints were issued to the FDOT for

and 311 of the Clean Water Act, §1423 of the Safe violations of the CWA at interstate rest areas. Subsequent

Drinking Water Act (Underground Injection Control) and investigation indicated that two of the facilities had

§311 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right- discharges that did not reach waters of the United States,

To-Know Act (EPCRA) to address Perdue-Davidson's and and consequently the complaints will be withdrawn. The

the owner's, Charles Perdue, numerous environmental typical STP serves an interstate rest area, was constructed

violations, including: repeated violations of an when the Florida interstate was built over 20 years ago,

underground injection control (UIC) administrative order, and had effluent and non-reporting violations in

NPDES permit reporting violations, unpermitted approximately 1991 and 1992. Both the physical rest

discharges, reporting violations under the spill prevention areas and the STPs were subject to intermittent

and control regulations, an illegal discharge of 70 barrels overloading until the FDOT installed surge tanks which

of crude oil, and other EPCRA reporting requirements. helped to bring these facilities into compliance. Consent

Injunctive relief in the November 1994 judgment required and all of the rest areas and STPs are in the process of

the owner to cease all well injection and disconnect all being expanded to handle the increase in interstate traffic.

pipes and lines used to transport fluid to and from the

water treatment plant, and submit a plan to ensure that As part of the settlement process the FDOT proposed to

further non-compliance did not occur after injection eliminate the surface water discharges. Approximately

activities ceased. An earlier judgment, entered May 6, $600,000 has been appropriated by the State of Florida to

1994, provided for payment of a $3.8 million penalty. This combine each set of two STPs into one and to install either

case represents an important decision requiring payment of percolation ponds or underdrain systems, thus eliminating

stipulated penalties for violation of a UIC administrative four point source discharges. The four SEPs (at a ratio of

order on consent, as well as for corporate officer civil approx. 1:7) were allowed a mitigation value of $85,000.

liability for company and corporate officer violations of The FDOT has agreed to pay a cash penalty of $25,000.

§§ 301 and 311 of the CWA.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (TN): A County, Florida, has owned and operated Ridaught

consent agreement and final order signed on August 2, Landing WWTP since January 1994. The respondent

1995, sets forth du Pont's elimination of underground violated several NPDES permit conditions and discharged

Truman Griggs, individual (KY): A Safe Drinking Water

Act §1431 emergency order was issued on June 2, 1995,

to Truman Griggs of Henderson, Kentucky, to address

three Class II injection wells. The injection process was

causing brine and oil waste to enter the drinking water

supply of an adjoining resident. The emergency order

mandated the respondent to stop injection and immediately

provide a temporary source of drinking water to the

affected resident. Provisions of the order will also require

permanent water to be supplied if the contamination

persists. Mr. Griggs has complied with the order and will

Florida Department of Transportation Rest Areas (FL):

agreements were signed for the remaining four facilities

Clay County, Florida - Ridaught Landing WWTP: Clay
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-38 July 1996

2 million gallons of wastewater from a break in an onsite settlement of $35,000 and EPA issued a tentative consent

pond berm. EPA issued an APO in the amount of $60,000 order on November 10, 1994.

for these violations. Clay County will complete an SEP of

constructing a force main from the Ridaught Landing

WWTP to a nearby re-use facility to eliminate the

discharge to Little Black Creek. The after tax net present

value of this project is $1.879 million with a capital outlay

of $2.149 million. The SEP is expected to be complete in

early 1998. EPA and Clay County settled for a $12,000

cash penalty and the completion of the SEP.

Anheuser-Busch Companies (Jacksonville, FL): perform a TIE/TRE in an effort to identify the toxicant.

Anheuser-Busch Companies was issued NPDES permits

for its Main Street and Lem Turner Sod Farms allowing the

discharge of contaminated run-off, irrigation runoff, and

field underdrains from stormwater detention ponds. The

waste generated during the brewery operation is digested

on-site. A part of that waste is discharged into the City of

Jacksonville's regional sewer system and a portion of that

waste is transmitted via a pipeline to the Main Street Sod

Farm. The wastewater is stored at the Main Street Sod

Farm and periodically a portion is transferred via pipeline

to the Lem Turner Sod Farm, 10 miles away. The

wastewater is sprayed onto the various acreage at both sod

farms.

Each of these two facilities was issued two AOs allowing

for time to pursue a stormwater control program.

Administrative complaints were issued for each permit for

effluent limitation violations resulting from the pond

discharges from May 1991 through October 1994. In

addition, wastewater from the brewery was discharged into

the stormwater collection system at the brewery site.

Wastewater was released into a wetlands area and then into

the Broward River.

On March 24, 1995, Anheuser-Busch requested a hearing

and filed an answer to the Complaints. The cases were

consolidated and negotiations between Anheuser-Busch

and EPA resulted in a tentative consent order (TCO) on

May 8, 1995, for a combined penalty of $32,600. This

action will be finalized upon execution of the final consent

order.

City of Pensacola, FL: EPA issued an administrative

complaint alleging that the City of Pensacola was in

violation of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. The City

of Pensacola owns and operates a municipal separate storm

sewer system (MS4), which discharges storm water into

Pensacola Bay and its tributaries. The City of Pensacola

failed to submit a complete NPDES Part II storm water

permit application. EPA issued a Class II complaint, citing

the violations, on September 26, 1994, assessing a penalty

of $74,720. EPA and the City of Pensacola reached a

Jacksonville Suburban Utilities, Jacksonville Heights

WWTP (FL): EPA issued a complaint to the respondent

on September 23, 1994, in the amount of $44,000 for

violations of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System Permit by failing 27 whole effluent toxicity tests

from September 1989 through July 1994 at the facility,

which discharges pollutants to Fishing Creek. The

respondent is currently under administrative order to

The final penalty amount of $35,000 was agreed upon.

EPCRA

WoodGrain Millwork, (Americus, GA): The company

agreed to implement a $2.4 million pollution prevention

SEP to redesign and install a coating process to

predominantly eliminate the current use of solvent based

toxic chemicals, resulting in an overall reduction of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) from 4.8 -5.7 pounds per

gallon of paint to 2.4 pounds of VOCs pounds per gallon

of paint applied. In addition to the SEP, a penalty of

$36,669 was paid.

Grief Brothers (Cullman, AL): The company agreed to

implement a $196,000 SEP to install equipment to

eliminate 1,1,1-Trichloroethane from its process, a 100%

Section 313 chemical reduction. In addition to the SEP, a

penalty of $28,000 was paid.

Eufaula Manufacturing Company (Eufaula, AL): The

company agreed to implement a $110,000 pollution

reduction SEP that includes the purchase of a solvent

recycling unit for recycling paint solvent wastes and the

installation of eight water spray-booth filtration systems to

allow capture of 100% emissions eliminating the need to

dispose of these solids in a landfill environment. In

addition to the SEP, a penalty of $13,800 was paid.

Kason Industries (Shenandoah, GA): This company

agreed to implement a $234,000 pollution prevention SEP

that involves the implementation of a closed-loop treatment

system which will exceed the required level of compliance

stipulated in the company's pretreatment permit and

eliminate process wastewater discharge to the POTW.

None of these installations are required by law. In

addition, a penalty of $13,430 was paid.

Memphis/Shelby County Airport, TN: The County

Airport Authority agreed to implement a $475,000

pollution prevention SEP that involves the purchase of

equipment that will assist in the de-icing of runways. The
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-39 July 1996

use of this equipment will reduce the amount of de-icing complaint for illegal storage of hazardous waste, failure to

fluid required, resulting in substantial source reduction in make a hazardous waste determination, and failure to

the use of ethylene glycol. In addition, the Authority manifest the DAS-fuel shipped off-site. The CACO

agreed to pay a $9,000 penalty to resolve its past violations requires Takeda to pay a civil penalty of $99,000, but

of EPCRA Section 304 and CERCLA Section 103. allows Takeda to bring DAS-fuel back on-site for

RCRA

Union Timber Corporation (GA): On September 29,

1995, Region IV issued an administrative order under

Section 7003 of RCRA to Union Timber Corporation and

its President and Vice President. The order was issued to

address the potential hazard to health and the environment

presented by creosote contamination at a wood treating

facility formerly operated just outside the small south

Georgia community of Homerville. Over the years, Union

Timber was the subject of numerous state notices of

violation, administrative orders and consent orders, in

response to its compliance failures. However, little

progress was made on actual cleanup. To support the

State's continued efforts to address this facility, Region IV

issued its order to abate the hazard under Section 7003,

directed to the corporation and its President and Vice

President, Alex K. and Alexander Sessoms, as persons

who have contributed to or are contributing to the potential

hazard.

Masonite Corporation (MS): On September 29, 1995,

Region IV issued a RCRA Section 3013 administrative

order requiring the Masonite Corporation to perform

monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting to determine

the nature and extent of hazards which may be posed by

the presence and release of hazardous waste at its facility

in Laurel, Mississippi. Masonite is a division of

International Paper. A draft RFA and other information

gathered by EPA on this facility revealed that 20 SWMUs

and 2 AOCs require further investigation due to past or

present potential releases of hazardous waste. Jurisdiction

is based upon the facility's storage of hazardous waste.

Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc. (NC): On August

31, 1995, Region IV entered into a CACO resolving

claims against Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc., for

violations of RCRA at its vitamin manufacturing plant in

Wilmington, North Carolina. As part of a solvent

extraction process, Takeda generated a by-product referred

to as DAS-fuel, which Takeda intended to burn for energy

recovery. Prior to receiving any permits to burn the DASfuel, Takeda generated DAS-fuel and stored it on-site for

a period in excess of 90 days without a permit or interim

status, and later shipped it off-site. EPA determined that

the DAS-fuel (essentially spent toluene mixed with DAS

water and polymers) was F005 hazardous waste. As a

result, on September 24, 1994, Region IV issued a

reprocessing, provided Takeda manages any waste it

produces as a result as a hazardous waste.

Westvaco Corporation (SC): September 25, 1995,

Region IV entered into a CACO with Westvaco

Corporation that requires the company to pay a $255,150

civil penalty, to perform RCRA closure of a hazardous

waste management unit, and to remediate groundwater

affected by the unit. The unit consists of a lime mud

lagoon whose contents had leached, raising the pH of the

surrounding groundwater to above 12.5. Westvaco has

agreed to remove the material from the lime mud lagoon

and to close the contaminated area beneath the lagoon as

a "Subpart X" unit. RCRA closure will be considered

complete when the pH of the groundwater is reduced to

below 12.5. Westvaco has also agreed to continue

remediation until the groundwater pH is 10 or below. If

clean closure is not successful, Westvaco will perform

post-closure care. This case establishes a precedent for

RCRA regulation of Kraft process intermediaries and

should encourage industry's trend toward management of

Kraft process by-products and intermediaries in aboveground tanks rather than in surface units.

United States Coastal Systems Station (FL): On August

30, 1995, Region IV entered into a CACO resolving

claims against the U.S. Navy Coastal Systems Station, a

federal facility, for violations of its RCRA permit at its

facility in Panama City, Florida. The violations related to

a late corrective action submission. The CACO requires

the facility to pay a civil penalty of $19,000.

Central Florida Pipeline Corporation (FL): A CACO

was filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk on September

29, 1995, resolving violations of RCRA alleged in a

complaint filed against Central Florida Pipeline

Corporation on February 22, 1994. The respondent

operates a bulk petroleum products storage and transfer

facility in Taft, Florida. The complaint alleged that the

respondent had managed a petroleum-contaminated water

tank containing benzene, which was discharged into two

lined surface impoundments up until September 1991.

The respondent had submitted a timely Part A application,

although it stated that it did so as a protective filer,

questioning whether it was managing a hazardous waste.

The allegations in the complaint included exceeding the

90-day accumulation period; failure to comply with

closure, financial and groundwater monitoring

requirements; and failure to submit an adequate Part A
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-40 July 1996

application. Under the CACO, respondent will pay a penalty of $442,150, to resolve numerous violations

penalty of $150,000. The unit has been closed under State alleged in a complaint and compliance order issued in

oversight. September 1994. These violations included: submittal of

United States Air Force Base at Myrtle Beach (SC): On

September 28, 1995, the Regional Administrator for

Region IV issued his final decision regarding the RCRA

Section 3008(h) initial unilateral administrative order

issued on September 19, 1994, to the U.S. Air Force,

requiring corrective action at Myrtle Beach Air Force

Base. The Base was closed in 1992, and has been the Elf Atochem North America, Inc (AL): On September

subject of numerous environmental restoration programs 28, 1995, EPA and Elf Atochem North America, Inc.,

such as the Installation Restoration Program and, more entered into a CACO to resolve allegations contained in an

recently, the Base Realignment and Closure Act. amended complaint and compliance order, filed on

Georgia-Pacific Corporation (GA): On September 29,

1995, Region IV entered into a consent agreement and

consent order (CACO) with Georgia-Pacific Corporation,

requiring the company to pay a $127,168.50 penalty and

to perform RCRA closure of a leaking black liquor storage

surface impoundment. Leakage from the impoundment Florida Solite (FL): EPA entered into a CACO

resulted in groundwater with a pH above 12.5 and agreement with Florida Solite Corporation on September

chromium above the MCL. This case establishes a 14, 1995, under which the respondent agrees to pay a civil

precedent for RCRA regulation of Kraft process penalty in the amount of $51,500, to resolve violations of

intermediaries and will further encourage industry's trend the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) regulations at the

toward management of Kraft process intermediaries in company's facility in Green Cove Springs, Florida. The

above-ground tanks rather than in surface units. allegations included failure to continuously monitor the

Southland Oil Company, Inc. (Sandersville and

Lumberton, MS): On September 29, 1995, Region IV

issued two RCRA complaint and compliance orders to

Southland Oil Company, Inc. The orders require

Southland to perform RCRA closure of unpermitted

surface impoundments managing F037 hazardous waste at

its two refineries. In addition, the orders propose a civil

penalty of $920,000 for each of the two refineries, for a Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation (SC): On

total proposed penalty of $1,840,000. The F037 September 19, 1995, EPA entered into a final

hazardous waste listing became effective on May 2, 1991. administrative order on consent under Section 3008(h) of

Prior to and after that date, Southland managed its refinery RCRA with Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation. The

wastes in a series of ditches and aerated and non-aerated consent order requires Gaston Copper to perform

surface impoundments. Southland never filed RCRA corrective action, from initial assessment through

Section 3010 notifications or Part A permit applications implementation, at its facility in Gaston, South Carolina.

for its management of the F037 waste. After EPA The importance of the order is underscored by Gaston

discovered the violations during inspections in April 1995, Copper's recent decision to cease operations at the site in

Southland discontinued use of the ditches and non-aerated the immediate future. Most of the facility will be

surface impoundments. Southland has not yet, however, dismantled and either sold or moved to other sites. This

performed RCRA closure of those units. order will ensure that appropriate remediation occurs

Arizona Chemical Company (MS): On September 29,

1995, Region IV entered into a CACO with Arizona Everwood Treatment Company, Inc., and Cary W.

Chemical Company resolving violations of the Boiler and Thigpen (AL): On July 11, 1995, an initial decision was

Industrial Furnace (BIF) regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 266, entered in a RCRA Section 3008(a) action filed in June

Subpart H, at Arizona Chemical's facility in Gulfport, 1992 and tried before an ALJ in an 8 day hearing in

Mississippi. Pursuant to this CACO, Arizona will pay a September 1993. The ALJ's decision found the

an inadequate certification of compliance; inadequate

continuous monitoring; violation of certified maximum

feed rates; failure to conduct periodic testing of the

monitoring equipment; failure to keep adequate BIF

records; and violation of maximum allowable emission

limits for carcinogenic metals and for chlorine/chlorides.

September 21, 1995. The amended complaint, as well as

the complaint previously filed on June 27, 1994, alleged

RCRA storage and permit violations at Elf Atochem's

Axis, Alabama, facility. The CACO requires Elf Atochem

to pay a civil penalty of $95,678.

composition and flow rate of all feed streams; failure to

develop and implement an adequate waste analysis plan;

failure to make a hazardous waste/Bevill determination on

a waste pile of lightweight aggregate kiln dust; failure to

submit a complete and accurate certification of compliance

(COC); and failure to make a hazardous waste

determination on a waste pile of refractory brick.

during this closure process.
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-41 July 1996

respondents liable but reduced the $497,500 proposed against the respondent on September 30, 1994, charging

assessed penalty to $59,700. On September 29, 1995, the respondent with violations of the TSCA PCB use and

Region IV appealed the decision to the EAB on the amount recordkeeping requirements.

of the penalty. The complaint had charged respondents

with the illegal disposal of D004 and D007 hazardous

waste without a permit and violation of the land disposal

restrictions, in the burial of waste at the respondents' wood

treatment facility near Mobile, Alabama. This case

represents the second administrative initial decision under

the 1990 RCRA Civil Penalty Policy.

TSCA

National Cement Company, Inc. (Ragland, AL): On solid waste management units (SWMUs) which had been

January 17, 1995, Region IV filed a consent identified as requiring investigation of releases of

agreement/consent order (CACO) signed by National hazardous waste, including at least two areas where

Cement Company, Inc., to settle alleged violations of releases from SWMUs will require interim corrective

Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), measures. Due to inadequate efforts on the part of the

15 U.S.C. §2605(e). The order required the respondent to Navy to address environmental concerns and involve EPA

pay $8,500 to the U.S. Treasury and to spend a minimum and the State, EPA decided to exercise its authority under

of $68,000 to complete a supplemental environmental RCRA. On September 19, 1994, following six months of

project (SEP) which involves the removal, transportation intensive efforts to negotiate an order on consent, EPA

and disposal of two PCB transformers. The case resulted issued the initial UAO to MBAFB. Contaminants

from EPA Region IV filing an administrative complaint including toluene, benzene, methylene chloride, and

against the respondent on September 26, 1994, charging chlorobenzene at MBAFB pose threats to off-site areas

the respondent with 26 violations of the TSCA PCB with contamination flowing through drainage ditches to the

marking and recordkeeping requirements. Intercoastal Waterway, Atlantic Ocean, wetlands, and tidal

Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center (Louisville, KY):

On January 10, 1995, Region IV filed a consent requires MBAFB to conduct adequate RCRA facility

agreement/consent order (CACO) signed by investigations and where appropriate, RCRA corrective

Commonwealth of Kentucky Tourism Cabinet to settle measures.

alleged violations of Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §2605(e). The order

required the respondent to pay $23,120 to the U.S.

Treasury and to spend $92,480 to complete a supplemental

environmental project (SEP) which involves the removal,

transportation and disposal of two PCB transformers. The

case resulted from EPA Region IV filing an administrative

complaint against the respondent on September 28, 1994,

charging the respondent with violations of the TSCA PCB

use, marking, and recordkeeping requirements.

Brook Run Mental Health Facility (Atlanta, GA): On

August 22, 1995, Region IV filed a consent

agreement/consent order (CACO) signed by Georgia

Department of Natural Resources to settle alleged

violations of Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control

Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §2605(e). The order required the

respondent to pay $3,750 to the U.S. Treasury and to

spend $37,500 to complete a supplemental environmental

project (SEP) which involves the removal, transportation,

and disposal of two PCB transformers. The case resulted

from EPA Region IV filing an administrative complaint

FEDERAL FACILITIES

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base (MBAFB): On September

28, 1995, Region IV Administrator issued a final decision

regarding the RCRA Section 3008(h) initial UAO issued

on September 19, 1994 to the U.S. Air Force requiring

corrective action at MBAFB. MBAFB was closed in

1992, and has been under the Base Realignment and

Closure Act (BRAC) Program. The base has 254 RCRA

march areas. Extensive contamination is also found in

groundwater in many areas of the base. The final UAO
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-42 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION IV .................................................................................. A-31

Clean Air Act ......................................................................... A-31

United States v. Environmental Resources, Inc. (W.D. KY): .............................. A-31

CERCLA ............................................................................. A-31

Peak Oil and Bay Drums Sites (Tampa, FL): .......................................... A-31

Peak Oil Site (Tampa, FL): ........................................................ A-31

LCP Chemicals Site (Brunswick, Glynn County, GA): ................................... A-31

Yellow Water Road Site (Duval County, FL): .......................................... A-31

Maxey Flats Disposal Site (Fleming County, KY): ...................................... A-31

Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site (Concord, NC): ............................ A-32

Woolfolk Chemical Site (Fort Valley, GA): ............................................ A-32

Aqua-tech Environmental, Inc., Site (Greer, SC): ...................................... A-32

General Refining Site (Garden City, GA): ............................................ A-32

Reeves Southeastern Site (Tampa, FL): .............................................. A-32

Shaver's Farm Site (Walker County, GA): ............................................ A-32

Para-Chem Southern, Inc. (Simpsonville, SC): ........................................ A-33

Dickerson Post Treating Site (Homerville, GA): ....................................... A-33

Murray Ohio Dump Site (Lawrenceburg, TN): ........................................ A-33

Riley Battery Site (Concord, Cabarrus County, NC): ................................... A-33

Cedartown Battery Site (Polk County, GA): ........................................... A-33

Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, FL): ............................................. A-33

Sapp Battery Site (Jackson County, FL): ............................................. A-34

Kalama Specialty Chemical, Inc. (Beaufort, SC): ...................................... A-34

Sixty-One Industrial Park Site (Memphis, Shelby County, TN): ........................... A-34

Carolina Chemicals Site (West Columbia, SC): ........................................ A-34

Saad Trousdale Road Site (Nashville, TN): ........................................... A-34

Florida Steel Site (Indiantown, Martin County, FL): .................................... A-34

Rutledge Property Site (Rock Hill, York County, SC): ................................... A-34

Sayles-Biltmore Site (Asheville, NC): ................................................ A-35

Fuels and Chemicals Superfund Site (Tuscaloosa County, AL): ........................... A-35

Diamond Shamrock Landfill Site (Cedartown, Polk County, GA): ......................... A-35

Brantley Landfill Site (Island, KY): .................................................. A-35

New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site (Wilmington, NC): ........................... A-35

Koppers Charleston Site (Charleston County, SC): ..................................... A-35

Lexington County Landfill Site (Lexington County, SC): ................................. A-36

Pike County Drum Site (Osyka, MS): ................................................ A-36

Cedartown Municipal Landfill Site (Cedartown, GA): ................................... A-36

E.C. Manufacturing Property (Pineville, Mecklenberg County, NC): ....................... A-36

JMC Plating Site (Lexington, NC): .................................................. A-36

Monarch Tile, Inc./Rickwood Road Site (Lauderdale County, AL): ........................ A-36

Shuron/Textron Site (Barnwell, SC): ................................................. A-36

J-Street Site, (Erwin, Harnett County, NC): ........................................... A-36

Clean Water Act/SDWA ................................................................ A-37

United States v. IMC-Agrico Company (M.D. FL): ..................................... A-37

United States v. City of Marianna, Florida (N.D. FL): .................................. A-37

United States v. Metropolitan Dade County, et al. (S.D. FL): ............................. A-37

United States v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D. KY): .............................. A-37

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (TN): ......................................... A-37

Truman Griggs, individual (KY): ................................................... A-38
Region IV Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-43 July 1996

Florida Department of Transportation Rest Areas (FL): ................................. A-38

Clay County, Florida - Ridaught Landing WWTP: ..................................... A-38

Anheuser-Busch Companies (Jacksonville, FL): ....................................... A-38

City of Pensacola, FL: ............................................................ A-38

Jacksonville Suburban Utilities, Jacksonville Heights WWTP (FL): ........................ A-39

EPCRA .............................................................................. A-39

WoodGrain Millwork, (Americus, GA): .............................................. A-39

Grief Brothers (Cullman, AL): ..................................................... A-39

Eufaula Manufacturing Company (Eufaula, AL): ...................................... A-39

Kason Industries (Shenandoah, GA): ................................................ A-39

Memphis/Shelby County Airport, TN: ................................................ A-39

RCRA ............................................................................... A-39

Union Timber Corporation (GA): ................................................... A-39

Masonite Corporation (MS): ....................................................... A-39

Takeda Chemical Products USA, Inc. (NC): ........................................... A-40

Westvaco Corporation (SC): ....................................................... A-40

United States Coastal Systems Station (FL): .......................................... A-40

Central Florida Pipeline Corporation (FL): ........................................... A-40

United States Air Force Base at Myrtle Beach (SC): .................................... A-40

Georgia-Pacific Corporation (GA): ................................................. A-40

Southland Oil Company, Inc. (Sandersville and Lumberton, MS): ......................... A-40

Arizona Chemical Company (MS): .................................................. A-41

Elf Atochem North America, Inc (AL): ............................................... A-41

Florida Solite (FL): .............................................................. A-41

Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation (SC): .......................................... A-41

Everwood Treatment Company, Inc., and Cary W. Thigpen (AL): ......................... A-41

TSCA ............................................................................... A-41

National Cement Company, Inc. (Ragland, AL): ....................................... A-41

Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center (Louisville, KY): .................................. A-42

Brook Run Mental Health Facility (Atlanta, GA): ...................................... A-42

Federal Facilities ....................................................................... A-42

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base (MBAFB): ............................................. A-42
A-43 July 1996

REGION V

CLEAN AIR ACT

United States v. Copper Range Company (W.D., MI):

On April 6, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the Western

District of Michigan entered a civil consent decree in

which Copper Range Company (CRC) agreed to pay a

civil penalty of $4.8 million. This action settled a citizen

suit filed by the National Wildlife Federation and the

Michigan United Conservation Clubs against CRC under

the Clean Air Act. The civil action alleged that CRC

caused excess emissions of particulate matter and excess

stack opacity, in violation of the Clean Air Act. CRC also

allegedly failed to report air toxics emissions (metals and

metallic compounds), in violation of CERCLA, and

EPCRA. There was also concern about substantial smelter

emissions of sulfur dioxide and heavy metals, including

mercury, in the sensitive Lake Superior ecosystem. The

settlement created a private trust fund. From the penalty

payment, $3 million has been directed toward

environmentally beneficial projects such as a study of the

impact of mercury on the Lake Superior basin.

As a result of the settlement, CRC agreed to either

implement an interim program to reduce mercury

emissions 40% by February 1995, and to achieve

compliance with Michigan's particulate rules by August

1996, or to temporarily close the smelter. Due to

economic reasons, CRC chose to close the smelter pending

a decision to modernize. The settlement also outlined a

schedule for modernizing the smelter or permanently

shutting it down by the end of 1999. This program will

ultimately result in annual emission decreases of 1,200

pounds of mercury, 50,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and at

least 900 tons of particulate matter, after operations

resume.

Navistar International Transportation Corporation

(S.D., OH): On January 3, 1995, the U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of Ohio entered a consent decree

between the United States and Navistar International

Transportation Corporation (formerly International

Harvester Company), located in Springfield, Ohio.

Navistar agreed to settle the case by paying $2,703,000 in

civil penalties for past violations at its assembly and body

plants. Navistar violated the allowable emission limits for

volatile organic compounds (VOC) under the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Ohio, at its Body and

Assembly Plant in Clark County, Ohio, an area which has

been designated as a primary nonattainment area for ozone.

The State of Ohio referred the case to U.S. EPA for

enforcement. Navistar came into compliance by installing

a robotics painting plant and incineration system, which

cost over $105 million. Navistar's emissions of VOC have

been reduced 77% from its 1984 level; the amount of paint

required for the operation has been reduced by 80,000

gallons per year; and the amount of solvents used has been

reduced by 90,000 gallons per year.

Clark Refining & Marketing (Hartford, IL): On March

9, 1995, Administrative Law Judge Frank W.

Vanderheyden issued an initial decision in the matter of

Clark Refining & Marketing, Hartford, Illinois. The

administrative complaint alleged violations of the New

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at Subparts A and

J. U.S. EPA filed an administrative complaint on

December 30, 1992, alleging that Clark had exceeded the

limit for hydrogen sulfide in its fuel gas; failed to

continuously operate its continuous emission monitor; and

had failed to, at all times, operate its facility in a manner

consistent with good air pollution control practice for

minimizing emissions. The complaint was amended on

July 19, 1994, based on 26 days of excess hydrogen sulfide

readings by Clark's continuous emission monitoring in the

first quarter of 1994. Throughout the case, Clark remained

very litigious, filing an appeal to the EAB after the initial

decision was issued. The appeal was later withdrawn and

the $139,440 penalty paid.

Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation (Madison, WI): On

March 13, 1995, a consent agreement and final order was

signed by Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation and U.S. EPA

resolving violations of the particulate matter emission limit

contained in the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan.

U.S. EPA alleged that Boiler No. 6 at Oscar Mayer's

Madison, Wisconsin, power plant was emitting 1.16

pounds of particulate matter per million BTU which is

almost two times the allowable emission limit for a boiler.

Facts provided by Oscar Mayer after issuance of the

complaint reduced the civil penalty from $154,000 to

$42,000. In addition, as the result of the U.S. EPA

enforcement action and in response to the Wisconsin air

toxics rule, Oscar Mayer agreed to cease combustion of

coal in Boiler Nos. 5 and 6 and replace them with two new

boilers that burn natural gas. This action has eliminated a

major source of particulate matter from the Madison area.

United States v. Coleman Trucking, Inc. (N.D., OH):

On July 28, 1995, the U.S. District Court entered a civil

consent decree in which Coleman Trucking, Inc., agreed to

pay $60,000 in civil penalties in a settlement of the civil

actions brought under the Clean Air Act. These actions

arose out of Coleman's violation of the National Emission
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-44 July 1996

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for on the Miller #1 well on September 29, 1992, January 1,

asbestos at four renovation operations located in and 1993, and January 26, 1993. With the signing of the

around Cleveland, Ohio. The actions alleged notice and consent agreement, Buffalo Oilfield Services, Inc. agreed

work practice violations of the NESHAP for asbestos. to pay $5,000 in penalties.

Cass River Coatings, Inc. (MI): A consent agreement Burlington Northern: Region V entered in a federal

and consent order was signed August 10, 1995, concerning consent decree with the Burlington Northern Railroad

Cass River Coating's alleged violation of Michigan's State Company to settle Oil Pollution Act (OPA) claims for

Implementation Plan. These violations stem from three separate oil and hazardous waste spills caused by

occasions when the company used coating formulations train derailments (one in Wisconsin and two in Wyoming).

that contained volatile organic compounds in excess of The $1.5 million civil settlement includes: $1.1 million

amounts allowed by the SIP. U.S. EPA initially sought a civil penalty under the OPA (the largest single penalty to

civil penalty of $50,000 for these violations. During date awarded under that statute in a single case); plus

negotiations, Cass River Coatings demonstrated an $260,000 to reimburse EPA and other federal agencies for

inability to pay the total $50,000 penalty. The Agency their costs in responding to the Wisconsin spill near

therefore mitigated the proposed penalty from $50,000 to Superior; and $140,000 contribution to a fund managed

$30,000. jointly by the Department of Interior, the Bad River Band

Schepel Buick & GMC Truck Company (Merrillville, Lake Superior Chippewas for injury to natural resources

IN): On May 22, 1995, the Regional Administrator signed caused by the Nemadji spill. Burlington Northern will also

a consent agreement and consent order resolving pay $100,000 into a fund to be used to study internal rail

allegations in a complaint issued for violations of the Clean defects of the type involved in the Nemadji River,

Air Act against Schepel Buick/GMC Truck, Inc., Wisconsin, and Worland, Wyoming, derailments.

Merrillville, Indiana. U.S. EPA alleged that Schepel

Buick/GMC Truck, Inc. allowed persons who were not

properly trained and certified by a technician certification

program approved by U.S. EPA pursuant to 40 C.F.R.

§82.40 to service, for consideration, air conditioners,

involving refrigerants for such air conditioners. U.S. EPA

sought a civil penalty of $17,575 for these violations.

Schepel Buick/GMC Truck, Inc. certified that it has

corrected the violations alleged in the complaint and that

it is currently in compliance with Section 609(c) of the

Act. Schepel Buick/GMC Truck, Inc. has agreed to pay a

penalty of $3,470 and to perform a Supplemental

Environmental Project (SEP) that will cost $8,766.

Schepel Buick will conduct a symposium on air and other

environmental compliance topics for regulated automotive

industries in northwest Indiana and will conduct 135 free

air-conditioning leak tests on cars that do not have a

manufacturer's warranty for such work.

CLEAN WATER ACT

Buffalo Oilfield Services v. Ohio Division of Oil and

Gas: On June 15, 1995, the Ohio Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Oil and Gas entered into a consent

agreement with Buffalo Oilfield Services, Inc. regarding

operation of the Miller #1 well, saltwater injection well #9

API number 3415521648, located in Bristol Township,

Trumbull County, Ohio. This agreement was based on

facts and findings that indicated that Buffalo Oilfield

Services, Inc. had violated the terms and conditions of the

permit by exceeding maximum surface injection pressure

of the Lake Superior Chippewas and the Red Cliff Bandof

Akron, OH: Region V entered into a federal consent

decree with the City of Akron, Ohio on July 28, 1995.

This decree settles the civil lawsuit filed by U.S. EPA and

Ohio EPA against Akron for violations of the Clean Water

Act. The consent decree requires the City of Akron to pay

a civil penalty of $290,000, with $194,300 going to U.S.

EPA and $95,700 to Ohio EPA. The decree requires the

city to improve its wastewater treatment facility to meet

NPDES permit limits. The decree also requires the city to

perform a supplemental environmental project valued at

$1.5 million to eliminate septic tank systems by providing

connections to sanitary sewers. This decree will eliminate

the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater to the

Cuyahoga River from the Akron WWTP, the discharge of

raw sewage from the city's separate sanitary sewers during

storm events, and the elimination of septic sewers in rural

areas.

115th Street Co., Chicago, Illinois (a.k.a. PMC Specialty

Chemical Company): During August 1995, the subject

civil action case was settled in principle, with all issues

remaining in dispute agreed upon by company and Agency

representatives. The terms of the decree include: the

company will pay a cash penalty of $1.645 million to the

U.S. EPA and pay substantial costs to the citizen's group

that was co-plaintiff with the government in this case; the

company agreed to do a feasibility study and construct a

biological pretreatment system; and as a pollution

prevention measure, the company agreed to shutdown their
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-45 July 1996

alkali blue process which will eliminate many toxic State-Federal partnership with private industry to establish

organic pollutants. pollution prevention and best management practices for

Southern Ohio Coal Company: On August 22, 1995, the

Regional Administrator signed and forwarded to Northwoods Organics: An administrative complaint and

Headquarters a consent decree which settles the United consent agreement was issued for NPDES permit

States' case against Southern Ohio Coal Company violations and for dredging and filling wetlands without a

(SOCCO). Due to a structural failure in one of two active permit. Northwoods Organics mines peat from peat bogs.

coal mines, one of the active mines, Meigs Mine No. 31 The process of peat mining includes dewatering the bogs

filled with approximately one billion gallons of acid mine removing the peat which is then dried and sold. The water

drainage (AMD). SOCCO went to OEPA seeking discharges from the bog violated NPDES limitations for

permission to dewater the mines and OEPA issued a iron, aluminum and pH. Since the CACO has been signed

Director's findings and final order on July 26, 1993, compliance with the NPDES permit has improved, but

approving SOCCO's dewatering plan which allowed there are still sporadic iron violations which U.S. EPA will

SOCCO to discharge the AMD from the flooded mine into encourage MPCA to pursue. The wetlands portion of the

adjacent waterways. The discharges of AMD eventually agreement required Northwoods Organics to restore 100

killed all or virtually all of the aquatic fauna in Leading acres of previously impacted wetlands, submit a feasible

Creek and caused some mortality in the upper reaches of wetlands reclamation plan upon cessation of all mining

the Raccoon Creek system. The consent decree requires activity on-site. Northwoods was fined a total of $63,000

full restoration of the streams affected by SOCCO's with $58,000 for wetlands claims and $5,000 for NPDES.

discharge, and extensive biological and chemical

monitoring and reporting by SOCCO during and following

the restoration efforts. The consent decree also calls for

the payment of a $300,000 penalty, $240,200 in payments

to U.S. EPA and DOI to cover the costs of monitoring,

field, and laboratory work incurred by the government,

$1.9 million into the Leading Creek improvement fund

which was created by the decree to finance projects to

enhance leading Creek over and above the restoration

efforts, and $100,000 to the State of West Virginia for

projects to benefit the Ohio River. SOCCO will also

spend an estimated $500,000 to develop a plan for

implementing the Leading Creek improvement fund, and

is expected to spend an additional $1 million on its

monitoring efforts.

Northwoods Organics, Inc. & Faulk Bros.

Construction, Inc. (St. Louis County, MN): A consent

agreement and consent order was signed on March 25,

1995, requiring Northwoods Organics and Faulk Bros.

Construction to pay a $63,000 civil penalty for past

violations of Sections 404 and 402 of the Clean Water Act

(CWA). The violations included: the discharge of dredged

and fill materials into approximately 135 acres of wetlands

adjacent to Pirtala Creek, a tributary to the St. Louis River

and Lake Superior, without a Section 404 permit from the

Corps of Engineers and Northwoods Organics' failure to

comply with reporting requirements of its NPDES permit.

A parallel CACO was issued, pursuant to Section 309(a)

of the CWA, requiring Northwoods Organics to restore

approximately 100 acres of additional wetlands and to

submit a feasible wetlands reclamation plan for the 135-

acre impact to the Corps with a Section 404 permit

application. This enforcement action has resulted in a

mining industry in the upper midwest.

A & W Drilling & Equipment Co., Inc. (Gibson County,

IN): On August 16, 1995, the Indiana Department of

Natural Resources and A & W Drilling signed an

administrative agreement regarding the failure to

demonstrate mechanical integrity on three Class II

injection wells. The agreed order also addressed various

minor violations associated with eleven oil wells also

located in Gibson County. These violations were

discovered through file reviews and routine inspections

conducted in April 1993. Provisions in the order called for

A & W to pay a fine of $12,100 and perform corrective

action on all wells. At this time, A & W has paid their

entire fine and corrected violations on all but one well.

This should ensure the prevention of contamination of

underground sources of drinking water.

Danny L. Long & Sons Disposal Services, Inc. v. Ohio

Division of Oil and Gas: On June 2, 1995, the Ohio

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas

entered into a consent agreement with Danny L. Long &

Sons regarding operation of the Creighton #1 well,

saltwater injection well #9, API number 3415121920 and

the Summers #4 well, saltwater injection well #12, API

number 3415124256, located in Sandy Township, Stark

County, Ohio. This agreement was the result of

investigations that indicated that Danny L. Long & Sons

had violated the terms and conditions of the permit by

exceeding the maximum surface injection pressure on the

Creighton #1 well and the Summers #4 well between

September of 1992 and December of 1993. Upon signing

of the agreement, Danny L. Long & Sons agreed to pay

$5,000 for its previous noncompliance.
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-46 July 1996

PPG Industries, Inc.: Since 1988, the Ohio Division of

Oil and Gas in cooperation with Ohio EPA, has been

working to get improperly plugged and leaking salt

solution mining wells replugged at PPG Industries, Inc.'s

abandoned salt solution mining facility and chemical plant

at Barberton, Ohio. Additionally, it was suspected that

industrial wastes had been disposed of in these solution

mined caverns in the 1960s and 1970s. In April of 1991,

U.S. EPA, Region V finalized a RCRA corrective action

consent agreement with PPG Industries, Inc. regarding this

site. In November 1991, U.S. EPA notified PPG that the

leaking brine wells were to be included as an additional

interim measure to the administrative order on consent. In

March of 1994, replugging operations commenced for four

leaking wells. The last leaking well was plugged in

January of 1995. Sampling and analysis of the solution

mining cavern fluids indicated the presence of man-made

chemicals associated with PPG waste streams. All wells

are now in compliance.

Tenexco/Terra Energy: Two final administrative consent

orders were issued concerning this case which dealt with

two related respondents. Tenexco was the Class II

injection well owner, and Terra Energy operated the well.

The well was located in Kalkaska County, Michigan.

Monitoring reports showed operating and other permit

violations, namely injection at a pressure that exceeded the

maximum in the permit, and there were also failures to

submit various monitoring reports and an acceptable

alternative demonstration of financial responsibility. Terra

Energy, as the operator, paid a higher penalty than

Tenexco. Indeed, this was the highest penalty assessed in

the Region V UIC program in FY 1995, $35,000.

Tenexco paid $7,500 as the owner in a separate FAO

issued in FY 1994.

The Pillsbury Company: On October 11, 1994, a final

administrative consent order was issued to the Pillsbury

Company concerning a nonhazardous Class I injection well

located their Aunt Nellies Farm Kitchen facility in

Buckley, Michigan, and included a unique SEP. The

permit violations included operating at an injection

pressure which exceeded the maximum and monitoring

violations. The SEP consisted of upgrades to their

monitoring and alarm systems; adding an automatic

shutdown mechanism to the alarm system, so that if the

maximum pressure was exceeded again, the well would

shut down without requiring a human to act; and replacing

the fluid in the annulus with fresh water so if a leak

occurred, there would be less harm to the environment, and

improving their plant filtration system. None of these are

required under the UIC program but will result in better

compliance. There was also a $9,500 penalty assessed and

paid.

EPCRA §313

United Screw and Bolt Corporation (Bryan, OH): A

consent agreement and consent order was signed on April

17, 1995, concerning the United Screw and Bolt

Corporation, Bryan Custom Plastics, Bryan, Ohio, facility's

alleged failure to timely file R forms reporting releases to

the environment of methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, xylene for

1987, 1988, and 1989; and n-butyl alcohol for 1989; as

required by Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act. Because of facts provided

by United Screw and Bolt Corporation after issuance of the

complaint and in consideration of their agreeing to spend

$111,983 on supplemental environmental projects (SEPs),

U.S. EPA reduced the penalty to $47,672. The SEPs

involved converting the facility's plastic parts

manufacturing process from one in which all parts had to

be painted to one in which all parts are molded to the

desired color and do not need to be painted. The SEPs

also included recycling of solvents still used at the facility.

Enamel Products and Plating Company (Portage, IN):

A consent agreement and consent order was signed on

June 13, 1995, concerning the Enamel Products and

Plating Company, Portage, Indiana, facility's alleged failure

to timely file R forms reporting releases of glycol ethers,

methyl ethyl ketone, naphthalene, zinc compounds, xylene,

toluene, ethyl benzene and n-butyl alcohol for 1988, 1989,

and 1990, as required by Section 313 of the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. Because of

facts presented by Enamel Products and Plating Company

after issuance of the complaint, and in consideration of

their agreeing to perform a Supplemental Environmental

Projects (SEP) costing $221,900, U.S. EPA reduced the

penalty to $136,610. The SEP is of the pollution

prevention type involving new equipment.

FIFRA

J.T. Eaton & Company, Inc. (Twinsburg, OH): J.T.

Eaton & Company, Inc., distributed and sold at least 13

unregistered pesticides (mostly rodenticides). These

unregistered pesticides resulted from varying the form of

the rodent bait and the packaging of several of Eaton's

registered products (e.g., registered as a bulk product) but

sold in ready-to-use place packs. The company also

distributed and sold a misbranded pesticide product and

made improper claims in advertising for another product.

A stop sale, use, or removal order and an administrative

complaint were issued simultaneously on March 23, 1995.

The penalty assessed in the complaint was $67,500. The

complaint was settled on August 25, 1995, for $40,000.
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-47 July 1996

Citizens Elevator Co., Inc. (Vermontville, MI): Citizens

Elevator Co. repackaged and distributed and sold the $480,000.

pesticide "Preview" in 5 gallon buckets, many bearing pie

filling labels, to at least 24 customers, constituting the

distribution and sale of an unregistered pesticide. The

complaint, issued June 30, 1994, assessed a penalty of

$108,000. In supplemental environmental projects for the

prevention of spills of pesticides and fertilizers and the

safer, more efficient storage and application of pesticides

and fertilizer, respondent spent $184,771. A consent

agreement signed June 30, 1995, settled the case for

$8,400.

RCRA

Marathon Oil Company (Robinson, IL): A consent

agreement and final order (CAFO) was signed on May 16,

1995. The CAFO required Marathon Oil Company to

implement a supplemental environmental project (SEP)

and pay a penalty of $41,500. The SEP consists of the

installation, and continued operation for a period of 5

years, of a closed loop sampling system. The sampling

system will reduce hydrocarbon air emissions by 6,200

pounds per year and the liquid hydrocarbon discharge to

the facility wastewater treatment system by 9,600 gallons

per year, and reduce benzene releases to the atmosphere

and wastewater treatment system by 830 pounds per year.

The SEP will cost a minimum of $200,000 and provides

significant environmental benefits by essentially

eliminating contamination discharges and emissions at a

critical part of the facility.

Great Lakes Casting Corporation (Ludington, MI): On

November 15, 1994, a consent decree was entered in the

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan in

the U.S. v. Great Lakes Casting Corporation case

requiring Great Lakes to pay a civil penalty of $350,000

for illegal hazardous waste disposal under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Abbott Laboratories: A consent agreement and final

order was signed in September 1995, concerning Abbott

Laboratories Corporation's violations of RCRA standards

applicable to the burning of hazardous waste in boilers and

industrial furnaces (BIF) at its North Chicago, Illinois

facility. Negotiations with Abbott Laboratories after

issuance of the complaint in February 1994, resulted in a

penalty of $182,654. Abbott also agreed to conduct a

supplemental environmental project (SEP) that will allow

Abbott to recover and recycle the methylene chloride

produced in its manufacturing processes and will reduce

fugitive methylene chloride emissions. The SEP involves

three separate, albeit similar, operations, replacing "wet"

vacuum pump systems with "dry" pumps and high

efficiency condensers. The projected cost of the SEP is

S.C. Johnson & Sons, Inc. (Sturtevant, WI): A consent

agreement and final order was signed on August 25, 1995,

concerning S.C. Johnson's alleged violations of the boiler

and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations. S.C. Johnson

burns waste solvent from its manufacturing processes in

two boilers located at its Waxdale facility in Sturtevant,

Wisconsin. Violations cited by the U.S. EPA found during

its initial BIF inspection included failure to adequately

analyze the waste before burning, and exceeding its

certified feed rates for total hazardous waste, chlorine and

chloride and ash. S.C. Johnson agreed to pay a cash

penalty of $50,000, and to conduct a supplemental

environmental project (SEP). The SEP requires

technological process changes, including the installation of

a liquid-liquid coalescer that will separate organic solvent

from the process waste for reuse. This will result in a

decrease in the amount of hazardous waste being produced

and burned in S.C. Johnson's boiler. The value of the SEP

is estimated to be more than $500,000.

Republic Environmental Systems (Cleveland), Inc.: A

consent agreement and final order (CAFO) was signed

June 7, 1995, concerning Republic Environmental Systems

(Cleveland), Inc.'s (RESI) alleged failure to comply with

the corrective action requirements of its RCRA permit.

The CAFO requires RESI, a commercial waste treatment

facility, to pay a $60,000 civil penalty and conduct a

supplemental environmental project (SEP). The SEP is a

pollution reduction project that will minimize permitted air

emissions from their non-hazardous waste stabilization

process. The SEP involves moving the stabilization

process indoors and installing particulate and organic

emission control systems. The SEP is projected to cost at

least $380,000 and will eliminate greater than 20 tons/year

of uncontrolled particulate and organic emissions from the

facility.

CMI-Cast Parts, Inc. (Cadillac, MI): A consent

agreement and final order was signed on December 22,

1994, which settled an administrative complaint filed

concurrently with the CAFO against CMI-Cast Parts, Inc.

CMI-Cast Parts, Inc. is a Michigan corporation which

owns and operates an iron foundry in Cadillac, Michigan.

CMI-Cast Parts, Inc. failed to obtain interim status or a

proper operating permit to treat, store or dispose of

hazardous waste at its Cadillac facility. From September

1990, to January 1994, the facility failed to comply with

the hazardous waste management standards. On January

26, 1995, CMI-Cast Parts, Inc., submitted a certified check

in the amount of $454,600.00, payable to the Treasurer of
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-48 July 1996

the United States of America, for final settlement of this

enforcement action.

Van den Bergh Foods Company Madelia, MN): On to settle an administrative complaint against HRR

March 14, 1995, U.S. EPA filed a consent agreement and Enterprises, Division of Kane-Miller Corporation,

final order to resolve an administrative complaint issued Chicago, Illinois. On July 9, 1992, the respondent released

against Van den Bergh Foods Company, a manufacturer of 800 pounds of anhydrous ammonia into the atmosphere.

frozen foods in Madelia, Minnesota. The complaint was This release was eight times the reportable quantity. On

for alleged violations of the release notification provisions March 28, 1994, U.S. EPA filed an administrative

of EPCRA & CERCLA stemming from an October 14, complaint under the authority of CERCLA Section 109, 42

1993, release of approximately 6,000 pounds of anhydrous U.S.C. §9609, and EPCRA Section 325, 42 U.S.C.

ammonia. U.S. EPA had proposed $75,000 in penalties. §11045, with allegations of failing to immediately notify

During settlement negotiations, U.S. EPA became aware Response Commission (SERC), and the Chicago Local

of two other less egregious releases of ammonia from this Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) of this release.

facility which also appeared not to have been immediately Additionally, the complaint alleged that the respondent

reported to the proper authorities. In consideration of the failed to file the annual emergency and hazardous chemical

quantity released, the turnaround time between the start of inventory form, as required under EPCRA Section 312, for

the releases and notification, the amount of penalties which calendar years 1987-1992 with the SERC and LEPC. The

could be sought for these two additional releases, the proposed penalty was $186,450.

conservation of resources and the litigation risks, it was in

the Agency's best interest to fold the potential new The respondent brought forth convincing evidence proving

violations into the original settlement. the actual storage quantity was less than originally

Metro Recovery Systems d/b/a U.S. Filter Recovery

(Roseville, MN): On March 23, 1995, U.S. EPA filed a

consent agreement and final order to resolve a compliant

issued against Metro Recovery Systems, a hazardous waste

recycling facility in Roseville, Minnesota. On March 25, J. Stephen Scherer, Inc. (Rochester Hills, MI): On

1994, U.S. EPA issued an administrative complaint against February 15, 1995, U.S. EPA, filed a consent agreement

the facility assessing $75,000 in penalties for failing to and final order to resolve a complaint issued against J.

immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) Stephen Scherer, Inc., Rochester Hills, Michigan. This

and the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) facility manufactures finger nail polish remover. On

of a release of a hazardous substance greater than its October 16, 1991, a flash fire occurred at this facility when

reportable quantity, and failing to submit a written follow- static electricity ignited acetone while an employee was

up report to the SERC as soon as practicable after the transferring acetone from one container to another. The

release. This release was 18 times the RQ and was not employee sucked the flames into his chest, scorching his

reported to the proper authorities until 5 hours after they throat and lungs. The employee was also burned externally

discovered the release. over 30%-40% of his body. As a result of this incident, the

During settlement negotiations Metro Recovery provided (LEPC) reviewed their files and found that J. Stephen

additional information regarding the quantity of ammonia Scherer, Inc., had not reported the storage of hazardous

released which would reduce the proposed penalties. chemicals as required under EPCRA §§ 311 and 312. The

However, during the pre-hearing exchange period, U.S. LEPC sent the facility two requests to come into

EPA discovered two additional releases of hazardous compliance prior to referring the facility to the State

substances which occurred during the time period of Emergency Response Commission (SERC). The SERC

January 22, 1992, and the date of the filing of the also attempted to bring the facility into compliance, to no

complaint. The facility reported these release under the avail. On March 31, 1993, U.S. EPA issued a complaint

name of U.S. Filter. These releases were also greater than against J. Stephen Scherer, Inc., assessing $277,200 in

the reportable quantity and not immediately reported to the penalties for failing to report to the SERC, LEPC, and fire

NRC and SERC. Rather than amend the complaint and department the storage of hazardous chemicals above the

start all over, U.S. EPA and Metro Recovery decided to threshold quantities by their respective due dates.

settle all three releases for $70,000.

HRR Enterprises, Division of Kane-Miller Corporation

(Chicago, IL): On November 14, 1994, U.S. EPA,

OCEPP, filed a consent agreement and final order (CAFO)

the National Response Center, the Illinois State Emergency

identified, reducing the penalty to $113,850. The

settlement-in-principle was reached during the week of

September 1, 1994, for $69,795, or 61% of the reduced

penalty.

Oakland County Local Emergency Planning Committee
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-49 July 1996

PSI Energy, Inc. (West Terre Haute, IN): On April 25, Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, MI): A consent

1995, U.S. EPA filed a consent agreement and final order

to resolve a complaint issued against PSI Energy, a

privately owned utility company in West Terre Haute,

Indiana. On September 25, 1992, U.S. EPA issued a

complaint against PSI assessing $100,000 in penalties for

failure to immediately report the release to the State

Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and the Local

Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and failure to

submit a written follow-up report as soon as practicable

after the release. This release was 1,000 times the RQ and

was reported to the SERC 4 hours and 55 minutes, and to

the LEPC 5 hours, after the release began. A written

follow-up report was submitted 73 days after the release.

Long Prairie Packing, Inc. (South St. Paul, MN): On

March 2, 1995, U.S. EPA filed a consent agreement and

final order to resolve a complaint issued against Long

Prairie Packing Company, Inc., a cold packing facility in

South St. Paul, Minnesota. On October 21, 1993, U.S.

EPA issued an administrative complaint against this

facility assessing $75,000 in penalties for failing to

immediately notify the National Response Center and the

State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) of a

release of a hazardous substance greater than its reportable

quantity, and failing to submit a written follow-up report to

the SERC as soon as practicable after the release. This

release was 15 times the RQ and was not reported to the

proper authorities until 33 hours after they discovered the

release.

During negotiations, Long Prairie Packing, Inc., provided

information that reduced the proposed penalties to

$39,500. The settlement includes 4 SEPs and a monetary

payment. The SEPs include: 1) the installation of

ammonia sensors in all condenser and compressor areas of

the facility; 2) the hiring of security personnel equipped

with pagers to ensure early detection of releases and

coordination with persons in charge of the facility on a 24

hour basis; 3) providing HAZMAT training to appropriate

employees; and 4) rerouting the ammonia fill line so that it

can be located outside the building. The total estimated

cost of the SEPS is $17,800. In addition, a small portion

of the $125,100 security employees' payroll costs can be

credited to the SEP because of their additional duties

regarding on-call monitoring. Long Prairie Packing, Inc.,

will also be making a monetary payment of $27,000;

$13,500 to the Superfund for the CERCLA violation and

$13,500 to the U.S. Treasury for the EPCRA violations.

The SEPs and monetary payment exceed the proposed

penalties.

TSCA

agreement and consent order (CACO) settling violations of

TSCA was filed on July 20, 1995. As a result of a federal

PCB inspection investigating an unmanifested waste

report, Ford Motor Company's Research and Engineering

Center was found to have improperly distributed in

commerce and failed to manifest PCB contaminated

wastewater, in violation of the TSCA PCB rules. As part

of the settlement, Ford Motor Company agreed to

implement a supplemental environmental project (SEP)

which entails removing and disposing of five PCB

transformers and replacing them with non-PCB

transformers. Ford Motor Company is to complete this

project by August 1, 1996, at a cost of $1,225,000.

H & H Enterprises and Recycling, Inc.: At the request

of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management,

Region V conducted a PCB inspection of the above site on

August 7, 1992. IDEM suspected contamination at the

facility because of the dumping of automobile residue

"fluff." Regulated concentrations of PCBs were found at

the site. A local court issued a cease and desist order and

ordered a site cleanup. The order was not completed and

H & H Enterprises was found to be in contempt. Shortly

afterward, the site caught fire and emergency response

personnel evacuated residents of the area. Region V

personnel testified on behalf of IDEM charging H & H

Recycling with five criminal counts in Lake County

Criminal Court, Crown Point, Indiana, in April 1995. The

President of H & H Enterprises and Recycling, Inc. was

convicted on two counts of violating Indiana's

Environmental Management Act.

S.D. Meyers, Inc.: U.S. EPA issued a civil administrative

action for violating the TSCA PCB rules against S.D.

Meyers, Inc., a corporation specializing in consulting,

brokerage and disposal of transformers. A competitor of

S.D. Meyers filed a complaint to U.S. EPA Headquarters,

charging that S.D. Meyers was importing samples into the

United States. The matter was referred to Region V,

where a subpoena was issued to S.D. Meyers for

information about its sample handling and customers. In

response to the subpoena, S.D. Meyers submitted

information that showed that oil samples containing PCBs

had been, and were still being imported from areas outside

the U.S. Customs territories. A civil administrative action

was filed April 20, 1995, against S.D. Meyers with a

penalty of $5,000.

Dexter Corporation: Region V filed a TSCA civil

complaint against the Dexter Corp. facility in Waukegan,

Illinois, on October 7, 1993, seeking $76,300 in penalties

for Sections 5 and 12 violations. EPA HQ issued a civil

complaint to the Dexter headquarters facility in Windsor
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-50 July 1996

Locks, Connecticut, on December 16, 1992, seeking penalty of $130,000 and develop a site management plan

$226,875 in penalties for Section 5 violations. to improve the pace of cleanup at the site, including adding

Region V and HQ settled the two complaints with one reviewing the Navy's proposed site management plan, and

CACO executed on October 11, 1994. Dexter paid civil will develop a final document with all provisions of the

penalties to both Region V and HQ, $51,105 and $86,400 agreement. The final agreement may result in changes to

respectively, and agreed to conduct a TSCA compliance the existing IAG for the NIROP site.

audit at 20 facilities in seven EPA Regions. Dexter also

will expend an estimated $1.5 million on equipment and

labor at their plant in Waukegan, IL, to reduce VOC

emissions from an aerospace coating manufacturing

operation by between 23 and 38 tons per year. Dexter will

receive up to $500,000 credit for the SEP, credit which

EPA will apply to the penalties Dexter will owe as a result

of violations discovered during its compliance audit. In a

memo to AAs and RAs, Steve Herman singled-out this

settlement saying, "...it should serve as an example of how

we may use traditional enforcement actions to advance

these (audit and SEP) projects and encourage forward

thinking solutions to environmental pollution."

Lawter International Corporation (Northbrook, IL):

The Region simultaneously issued and settled a civil

complaint against Lawter International Corp. on

September 25, 1995, for 15 separate violations of Sections

5 and 8 of TSCA. To settle Lawter paid a $280,000 civil

penalty and agreed to conduct a TSCA compliance audit at

15 facilities in five EPA Regions. Lawter will pay

stipulated penalties for violations it detects and reports in

accordance with the CACO up to a maximum of $300,000.

FEDERAL FACILITIES

U.S. Army Fort McCoy: In February of 1995, Region V

issued an administrative order to Fort McCoy, Wisconsin,

which is a RCRA hazardous waste generator and a

treatment and storage facility. In 1993, Region V cited

Fort McCoy for operating an open detonation unit (covered

under RCRA Subpart X) without obtaining interim status.

The order provides for a penalty of approximately $6,000,

and Fort McCoy will also implement a SEP worth nearly

$11,000. The SEP involves purchasing and utilizing

aqueous parts washers instead of solvent cleaners, and will

eliminate approximately 2,600 gallons of solvent from the

facility's waste stream.

U.S. Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant

(NIROP): In June of 1995, EPA Region V negotiated an

agreement in principle with the Navy regarding penalty

and site management issues at NIROP in Minnesota. As

a result of various violations of the NIROP cleanup

agreement, the Navy agreed to pay a

a second project manager. Region V is currently
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-51 July 1996
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-52 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION V .................................................................................. A-43

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. A-43

United States v. Copper Range Company (W.D., MI): ......................................... A-43

Navistar International Transportation Corporation (S.D., OH): ................................ A-43

Clark Refining & Marketing (Hartford, IL): ................................................. A-43

Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation (Madison, WI): ............................................ A-43

United States v. Coleman Trucking, Inc. (N.D., OH): ......................................... A-44

Cass River Coatings, Inc. (MI): ........................................................... A-44

Schepel Buick & GMC Truck Company (Merrillville, IN): ..................................... A-44

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... A-44

Buffalo Oilfield Services v. Ohio Division of Oil and Gas: ..................................... A-44

Burlington Northern: ................................................................... A-44

Akron, OH: ........................................................................... A-44

115th Street Co., Chicago, Illinois (a.k.a. PMC Specialty Chemical Company): .................... A-45

Southern Ohio Coal Company: ........................................................... A-45

Northwoods Organics, Inc. & Faulk Bros. Construction, Inc. (St. Louis County, MN): .............. A-45

Northwoods Organics: .................................................................. A-45

A & W Drilling & Equipment Co., Inc. (Gibson County, IN): ................................... A-45

Danny L. Long & Sons Disposal Services, Inc. v. Ohio Division of Oil and Gas: ................... A-46

PPG Industries, Inc.: ................................................................... A-46

Tenexco/Terra Energy: ................................................................. A-46

The Pillsbury Company: ................................................................ A-46

EPCRA §313 ............................................................................. A-46

United Screw and Bolt Corporation (Bryan, OH): ............................................ A-46

Enamel Products and Plating Company (Portage, IN): ........................................ A-47

FIFRA ................................................................................... A-47

J.T. Eaton & Company, Inc. (Twinsburg, OH): .............................................. A-47

Citizens Elevator Co., Inc. (Vermontville, MI): .............................................. A-47

RCRA ................................................................................... A-47

Marathon Oil Company (Robinson, IL): ................................................... A-47

Great Lakes Casting Corporation (Ludington, MI): .......................................... A-47

Abbott Laboratories: ................................................................... A-47

S.C. Johnson & Sons, Inc. (Sturtevant, WI): ................................................. A-47

Republic Environmental Systems (Cleveland), Inc.: ........................................... A-48

CMI-Cast Parts, Inc. (Cadillac, MI): ...................................................... A-48

Van den Bergh Foods Company Madelia, MN): ............................................. A-48

Metro Recovery Systems d/b/a U.S. Filter Recovery (Roseville, MN): ............................ A-48

HRR Enterprises, Division of Kane-Miller Corporation (Chicago, IL): ........................... A-48

J. Stephen Scherer, Inc. (Rochester Hills, MI): .............................................. A-49

PSI Energy, Inc. (West Terre Haute, IN): ................................................... A-49

Long Prairie Packing, Inc. (South St. Paul, MN): ............................................ A-49

TSCA ................................................................................... A-50

Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, MI): .................................................... A-50

H & H Enterprises and Recycling, Inc.: .................................................... A-50

S.D. Meyers, Inc.: ...................................................................... A-50

Dexter Corporation: ................................................................... A-50

Lawter International Corporation (Northbrook, IL): .......................................... A-50

Federal Facilities .......................................................................... A-50

U.S. Army Fort McCoy: ................................................................. A-50

U.S. Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant (NIROP): ..................................... A-51
Region V Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-53 July 1996
A-53 July 1996

REGION VI

CLEAN AIR ACT

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Products, Inc.: On

September 25, 1995, a joint stipulation and order of

dismissal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. Nitrogen Products, Inc.

(NPI), agreed to pay a civil penalty of $243,600 to the

United States for violations of the Clean Air Act, and

Subparts A and R of 40 C.F.R. Part 61. The foreign parent

corporation, Internationale Nederlanden Bank, N.V.,

acquired the facility through foreclosure and expended

over $2 million to cover the phosphogypsum stack and

regrade.

CERCLA

United States v. Gurley Refining Co., Inc., et al. (8th

Cir.): On December 28, 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion on this appeal of

the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Arkansas in United States v. Gurley Refinin g

Co., Inc. et al. The defendants in this matter, William

Gurley, Larry Gurley, and Gurley Refining Company, Inc.

(GRC), leased a one-acre oil sludge disposal pit in

Edmonson, Arkansas, in which they disposed of oil sludge

wastes containing CERCLA hazardous substances during

the early 1970s. In March 1992, the district court found

the defendants liable to the United States for $1.79 million

and for future CERCLA costs, estimated at $12-14 million.

Defendants filed notices of appeal with the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The defendants raised

issues concerning the "collateral estoppel" or res judicata

effect of a 1985 decision holding the corporation liable

under the Clean Water Act. Also in issue were the

admissibility of cost summaries presented at the CERCLA

trial and whether retroactive imposition of personal

liability upon employee Larry Gurley as an "operator"

violated due process.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals held that the district

court did not err when it found that Larry Gurley was liable

as an "operator" and that the imposition of liability upon

Larry Gurley for conduct that preceded the effective date of

CERCLA did not violate due process. The Court of

Appeals reversed the district court by holding that under

the res judicata doctrine EPA's CERCLA action against

GRC was precluded by the 1985 Clean Water Act

decision, because the CERCLA action was the "same cause

of action arising out of the same nucleus of operative fact

as the prior claim." The Court also held that the district

court did not err by concluding that the collateral estoppel

doctrine does not preclude EPA from proving the elements

of CERCLA liability against William Gurley (President of

GRC) or Larry Gurley and that the wastes the Gurleys and

GRC deposited in the Gurley pits did not fit within

CERCLA's petroleum exclusion. Last, the Court of

Appeals upheld the district court in the award of objectedto-attorney fees as CERCLA response costs. The Court of

Appeals remanded the district court's judgment in part for

further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In June

1995, William Gurley petitioned the United States

Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was opposed

by the Solicitor General and summarily denied by the

Supreme Court on October 2, 1995.

United States v. Bell Petroleum Services, Inc. (5th Cir.):

On September 15, 1995, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

issued an opinion in a second appeal of the Bell Petroleum

cost recovery action. This opinion reversed the judgment

of the district court on an earlier remand that found

defendant Sequa Corp. liable for only 4% of the Odessa

Chromium I Superfund site response costs, to the extent

the district court interpreted the prior Fifth Circuit opinion

to foreclose taking additional evidence on volumetric

apportionment, and remanded for further proceedings. The

Circuit Court also affirmed the district court's finding that

the United States can recover the costs of the focused

feasibility study (FFS), even though its earlier opinion held

the design and construction costs of the remedy based on

the FFS were not recoverable.

United States v. Vertac Chemical Corporation (8th Cir.):

On January 31, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in which it upheld the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas'

rejection of Hercules, Inc., claim that the United States is

a liable party under CERCLA Section 107(a) due to

Hercules' manufacture of Agent Orange (made up of 2,4-D

and 2,4,5-T) for the Department of Defense under the

Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA), 50 U.S.C. §2061

et seq. In addition, the Court of Appeals upheld the district

court's ruling that Hercules was not entitled to immunity

under Section 707 of the DPA, 50 U.S.C. §2157, and

therefore, was not entitled to implied indemnity from the

United States. The Court of Appeals cited its recent

decision concerning operator liability in Gurley Refining

Co., Inc., et al. v. U.S. (8th Cir. Dec. 28, 1994), noted

elsewhere herein, and distinguished the Vertac case from

FMC Corp. v. U.S. Department of Commerce , 29 F. 3d

833 (C.A. 3rd Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Region VI Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-54 July 1996

The Vertac NPL site was a herbicide and pesticide

manufacturing facility in Jacksonville, Arkansas. A ROD On June 15, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the District

for a contaminated off-site area was signed in September of New Mexico entered a consent decree in the Bayard

1990. A UAO for off-site remediation was issued to the Mining case, which settles the United States' claims

PRPs in June 1993. In addition, Hercules Inc., the against Viacom International Inc., Mining Remedial

principal viable PRP, agreed to comply with a UAO issued Recovery Company, and the Bayard Mining Corporation

in March 1994, to perform one of the on-site operable for the remediation of the Cleveland Mill Superfund NPL

units. Under the Order, Hercules will implement a $28.5 site. Under this consent decree, these companies have

million remedy to dismantle the old manufacturing process agreed to conduct or finance the $6,214,000 remedial

plant, and treat residual liquids and sludge left in old tanks action at the site, to pay all past costs ($970,000) and to

and vessels. This marked the fourth of six operable units pay all future costs incurred by EPA in the remediation of

to reach the clean-up phase of activity. The combined the site. The consent decree also provides $200,000 to

costs to clean up all six operable units is expected to State and federal natural resource trustees for mitigation of

exceed $100 million. In the civil enforcement action natural resource damages. The New Mexico Office of

associated with this site, the district court had granted Natural Resource Trustee is a signatory, as is the U.S.

summary judgment to the United States in October 1993 Department of the Interior.

on the issue of Hercules" joint and several liability for past

and future costs related to remedition of the Vertac site.

Also in late 1993, a jury had issued an advisory opinion

that Uniroyal Ltd. be held liable for past and future costs

related to remediation of the site. In 1994, the United

States entered consent decrees for cost recovery with both

Velsicol and Dow Chemical Company in that action. The

Vertac case demonstrates among other things, EPA's

continuing resolve to obtain both remediation and cost

recovery at even the most complex and controversial of

sites, benefitting both the public health and public interest.

United States v. Allied-Signal, et al. (E.D. TX): On July the site including the Main Waste Area, as well as a pilot

19, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of study on the effectiveness of the soil vapor extraction site

Texas entered a consent decree for the recovery of costs remedy. These response activities are valued at $15.6

related to the remediation of the Bailey Waste Disposal million (which may be low due to the complexity of

site. The parties to the consent decree are potentially remediating the Main Waste Area) and ARCO will also

responsible parties which did not enter into the previous pay the fund $1.1 million for past costs, for a total

consent decree providing for site remediation. This new settlement value of about $16.7 million, representing about

settlement provides for the reimbursement of half of the estimated total response costs at the site. That

approximately 85% of the funds paid out by the same date the United States also reached settlement in

government under the mixed funding consent decree (for principle with individual defendant Donald Lang (now

a total estimated recovery of approximately $2.6 million). deceased) for $250,000 based upon his ability to pay, his

United States v. American National Petroleum Co., et al.

(W.D. LA): On June 2, 1995, the U.S. District Court for

the Western District of Louisiana entered the consent

decree for the Gulf Coast Vacuum Site, Abbeville,

Louisiana, remedial design and remedial action involving United States v. David Bowen Wallace, et al. (N.D. TX):

the United States and 14 potentially responsible parties

(PRPs). Implementation of this excavation and on-site

biological treatment and disposal remedy is anticipated to

take three to ten years. The consent decree also requires

that if performance standards set out in the amended ROD

are not achieved, the hazardous substances will be

incinerated.

United States v. Bayard Mining Corp., et al. (D. NM):

United States v. Lang, et al. (E.D., TX): On November

29, 1994, the United States reached a settlement in

principle just prior to trial with defendants Atlantic

Richfield Company and ARCO Chemical Company

(collectively "ARCO") to resolve in part the U.S.

CERCLA cost recovery litigation concerning the PetroChemical Systems, Inc., Superfund NPL Site (also known

as the Turtle Bayou Site), Liberty County, Texas. Under

the terms of the proposed settlement, ARCO has agreed to

perform the remedial design and remedial action, as well

as operation and maintenance on primary threat areas of

advanced age and ill health. The United States also agreed

to dismiss the remaining other individual defendant, Wallis

Smith, without prejudice, due to his inability to pay any

amount in settlement.

On July 17, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Texas issued a memorandum opinion and order

entering the consent decree for the Bio-Ecology Systems

NPL site, Dallas, Texas. This partial consent decree

provides for reimbursement to the fund of over $8.34

million from state, federal and private defendants, as well

as over $1.13 million in cost recovery by the State of

Texas. The Court based its decision to enter the decree

upon its findings (vigorously contested by non-settling
Region VI Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-55 July 1996

defendants United Technologies Corp. [UTC] and CTU of included two federal agencies, the U.S. Coast Guard and

Delaware [CTU]) that the consent decree is fair, the Defense Logistics Agency, as well as California

reasonable, and consistent with the purposes of CERCLA. Institute of Technology, Altus Corporation, West Texas

In its memorandum, the court discussed in detail the factual Warehouse and the Burlington Northern Railroad,

bases for its findings. demonstrating a multi-sector federal, state, and private

Hillsdale Drum Sites: On March 30, 1995, the Region

issued a CERCLA administrative cost recovery (CR)

agreement pursuant to Sections 107(a) and 122(h)(1) of In re: Reliable Coatings, Inc. (U.S.B.C., W.D. TN)

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9622(h)(1). Under (Liquidating Chapter 11): On February 15, 1995, in

this CR agreement, EPA will recover $548,500 in confirmation of a plan of liquidation for Reliable Coatings,

CERCLA response costs. Inc., debtor Reliable settled its liability to EPA and the

Hi-Yield Chemical: On April 13, 1995, the Director of

the Region VI Hazardous Waste Management Division

signed an administrative order on consent (AOC) with

potentially responsible party (PRP) Voluntary Purchasing

Groups, Inc. (VPG) for removal action at the Hi-Yield

Chemical Superfund site, Commerce, Texas, estimated to

cost over $3,000,000. Releases of arsenic from the HiYield plant had resulted in the contamination of

neighboring residential areas. The removal action required

by this AOC addressed arsenic contamination at the nearby

residences by removal of soils contaminated above 20 ppm

arsenic and either off-site disposal or re-consolidation of

the soils on the former plant site.

On September 27, 1995, the Director of the new

Superfund Division signed an action memorandum

providing for the construction of a cap and slurry wall on

the site of the former Hi-Yield Chemical Plant, as well as

for the removal of contaminated sediments in nearby Sayle

Creek. On September 29, 1995, Region VI and the site

PRPs (including VPG) entered into an AOC providing for

PRP performance of removal action and reimbursement of

all EPA oversight costs, as well as providing for PRP

monitoring and maintenance activities for a period of thirty

years.

Lithium of Lubbock: On July 21, 1995, the Regional

Administrator for Region VI executed an administrative

order on consent providing for recovery of over $595,000

in past costs for the Lithium of Lubbock Superfund site,

Lubbock, Texas, representing approximately 94% of the

total CERCLA response costs incurred in connection with

the site.

Region VI initiated a CERCLA emergency removal action

at the Lithium of Lubbock site in June 1992. This

response action consisted of stabilizing batteries involved

in a fire at the site and disposing of or recycling the

batteries. The response action at the site was completed in

November 1992, and all batteries have been disposed of or

recycled. Parties responsible for reimbursement of costs

cooperative commitment to reimbursement of the fund for

the costs of expeditious Superfund cleanup.

United States for $93,288 as an administrative priority

claim for removal costs at the Reliable Coatings site in

Euless, Texas. The United States received about 93% of

the available estate assets. On August 9, 1994, the Region

forwarded to DOJ an urgent letter referral of this matter,

seeking immediate assistance in opposing an unsecured

creditor's motion for allowance of administrative priority

claim and in filing EPA's own priority administrative claim

against the estate. Region VI Emergency Response

Branch had initiated a time-critical removal action

pursuant to CERCLA Section 104(a) at the site on July 25,

1994, where about 1,800 drums of hazardous wastes,

sludge, and resins were stored, as well as numerous totes,

tanks, and vats containing the same waste materials and

solvents, and thousands of smaller containers.

CLEAN WATER ACT

United States v. Mr. Roger Gautreau (S.D. LA): On

October 25, 1995, a complaint and consent agreement

were filed with the court concerning Gautreau's discharge

of dredged and fill material on 2.75 acres of cypress

swamp in St. Amant, Louisiana. The consent order

resolves the matter through Mr. Gautreau's agreement to

perform onsite restoration of hydrology, removal of fill,

revegetation, and payment of penalty of $2,500. The case

was referred to EPA from the Corps of Engineers.

Gautreau initiated a construction project in waters of the

U.S. (wetlands) prior to obtaining authorization under

CWA §404.

In the Matter of: City of Albuquerque, NM: In 1995,

EPA initiated an enforcement action against the City of

Albuquerque for failing to properly operate its approved

pretreatment program in accord with Section 402 of the

Clean Water Act and with its own NPDES permit. The

action was settled by an agreement for the City to pay a

civil penalty and to conduct a study of the feasibility of

doing direct injection of treated effluent from the sewage

treatment works into the aquifer underlying the facility and

the City of Albuquerque. The study is hoped to be the
Region VI Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-56 July 1996

precursor of a project to accomplish the groundwater ethylene dichloride in September 1990, and a release of

injection sometime in the near future. hydrochloric acid in July 1991. Respondent did not report

EPCRA

In the Matter of: Formosa Plastics Company: EPA

filed suit against the facility alleging thirty counts of failure

to report releases pursuant to Section 103(a) of CERCLA,

three incidents of failure to report releases as required

under EPCRA Section 304(a), and two failures to file

follow-up reports as required under EPCRA Section

304(c). The complaint sought nearly $600,000.00 in

penalties.

The settlement with Formosa consisted of various

supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) and the

payment of a penalty. The primary SEP was the

installation of a $1.68 million containment system designed

to capture releases from the emergency release valves at

the facility. The implementation of this SEP should

substantially decrease the release of hazardous pollutants

into the environment from the facility. In addition, the

company agreed to allow EPA to perform a chemical safety

audit at the facility to determine whether there were

training or process changes the company could implement

to alleviate other types of releases from the facility. The

company also agreed to implement the Section 112(r) risk

management program requirements well in advance of the

required implementation date. The company further

agreed to perform a SEP for the City of Point Comfort, the

SEP to identified by the LEPC and the City Council, to

have a nexus to the violations and cost no less than

$10,000.00, and to donate $35,000.00 to the Regional

LEPC conference. In addition, the company paid

$40,000.00 penalty.

In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company: On August

18, 1995, Region VI filed a fully executed consent

agreement/consent order (CA/CO) to settle an

administrative action against Koch Refining Company for

alleged data quality violations of EPCRA §313(a) and 40

C.F.R. §372.30. Koch agreed to pay a penalty of $192,000

and submitted revised form Rs prepared in accordance

with an agreed methodology for specified chemicals for

calendar years 1989, 1990, and 1991.

Formosa Plastics Co.: On May 31, 1995, a Class I

CERCLA 103(a) and EPCRA 304(a) consent agreement

and consent order (CACO) was entered with Formosa

Plastics for numerous releases of vinyl chloride form its

Point Comfort, Texas, facility between February 1989 and

August 1992 that were not reported to the National

Response Center (NRC) in a timely manner following the

release. Additionally, respondent experienced a release of

these releases to the NRC, State Emergency Response

Commission (SERC), and Local Emergency Planning

Committee (LEPC) in a timely manner. Respondent

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $50,000 and agreed to

construct and maintain a secondary containment system

which will prevent large pressure releases of vinyl chloride

from the facility. The system cost is estimated to be $1.68

million with an anticipated start-up date of January 1996.

Additionally, as part of a SEP, respondent agreed to

complete the following actions: (1) implement a chemical

safety project for the citizens of Point Comfort, Texas at a

cost of $10,000; (2) permit a chemical safety audit to be

performed by a team led by EPA personnel to review

facility emergency response procedures and plans; (3)

develop and implement a risk management program; and

(4) provide funding ($35,000) to support a Region-wide

LEPC conference.

Shell Chemical Company: A CERCLA §103, Class I,

consent agreement and consent order (CACO) was entered

on April 12, 1995, with Shell Chemical, requiring it to pay

a civil penalty of $58,200 for substantial releases of 1,3-

pentadiene sulfuric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide,

and phenol in 1990 and 1991 from its Deer Park, Texas,

facility that were not timely reported to the National

Response Center. The penalty was based on the quantity

of the material spilled in excess of reportable quantities

and the time period from when the release occurred to

when it was reported to the NRC. During settlement

discussions, respondent provided information on modifying

reporting procedures at the facility to ensure that this type

of violation will not occur in the future.

In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company: On August

18, 1995, Region VI filed a fully executed Consent

Agreement/Consent Order (CA/CO) to settle an

Administrative Action against Koch Refining Company for

all alleged data quality violations of EPCRA §313(a) and

40 C.F.R. §372.30. Koch agreed to pay a penalty of

$192,000 and submitted revised Form Rs prepared in

accordance with an agreed methodology for specified

chemicals for calendar years 1989, 1990 and 1991.

Formosa Plastics Co.: On May 31, 1995, a Class I

CERCLA 103(a) and EPCRA 304(a) Consent Agreement

and Consent Order (CACO) was entered with Formosa

Plastics for numerous releases of vinyl chloride form its

Point Comfort, Texas facility between February 1989 and

August 1992 that were not reported to the National

Response Center (NRC) in a timely manner following the

release. Additionally, Respondent experienced a release of

ethylene dichloride in September 1990, and a release of
Region VI Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-57 July 1996

hydrochloric acid in July 1991. Respondent did not report consumers being served inadequately treated water not

these releases to the NRC, State Emergency Response meeting federal nor state standards. As a result, in October

Commission (SERC), and Local Emergency Planning 1990, the Arkansas Department of Health ordered the town

Committee (LEPC) in a timely manner. Respondent to install filtration treatment to correct the problem. The

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $50,000 and agreed to town received a grant of $600,000 to perform the work

construct and maintain a secondary containment system from the State but still violated the State order. As a result

which will prevent large pressure releases of vinyl chloride of the civil complaint, the Town of Cushman settled with

from the facility. The system cost is estimated to be $1.68 EPA and DOJ by agreeing to install filtration treatment and

million with an anticipated start-up date of January 1996. hire a State certified operator. The new treatment plant

Additionally, as part of a SEP, Respondent agreed to began operation in September 1995 and has significantly

complete the following actions: (1) Implement a chemical decreased the risk to consumers of consuming water that

safety project for the citizens of Point Comfort, Texas at a does not meet all of the Federal requirements of the Safe

cost of $10,000; (2) Permit a chemical safety audit to be Drinking Water Act. The Town also paid a penalty of

performed by a team led by EPA personnel to review $15,000 for the violations and its recalcitrance.

facility emergency response procedures and plans; (3)

Develop and implement a Risk Management Program; and

(4) Provide funding ($35,000) to support a Region-wide

LEPC conference.

Shell Chemical Company: A CERCLA §103, Class I, facilities. The environmental conditions at these

Consent Agreement and Consent Order (CACO) was developments pose a serious health risk to the residents of

entered on April 12, 1995, with Shell Chemical, requiring the border region, largely due to a failure on the part of the

it to pay a civil penalty of $58,200 for substantial releases developers to install necessary infrastructure. A

of 1,3-pentadiene sulfuric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrogen partnership was established with the U.S. Department of

sulfide, and phenol in 1990 and 1991 from its Deer Park, Justice (DOJ), EPA Headquarters and Region VI, and

Texas, facility that were not timely reported to the National Texas Office of the Attorney General (TX AG) to address

Response Center. The penalty was based on the quantity the problems existing in the Colonias.

of the material spilled in excess of reportable quantities

and the time period from when the release occurred to This resulted in a civil referral to DOJ against a major

when it was reported to the NRC. During settlement Colonia developer. EPA is seeking as relief through the

discussions, Respondent provided information on civil referral an injunction requiring the developers to

modifying reporting procedures at the facility to ensure that provide on a temporary basis an alternative drinking water

this type of violation will not occur in the future. supply for the residents of Cuna del Valle. In addition, the

RCRA

In the Matter of: Altus Air Force Base: On March 24,

1995, Region VI filed a unilateral RCRA Section 3008(h)

order against Altus AFB, Altus, Oklahoma. This is the

first Region VI unilateral RCRA Section 3008(h) order

against a federal facility, and is only the second unilateral In the Matter of: PPG Industries: In a settlement with

RCRA Section 3008(h) order against a federal facility in PPG Industries for violations of TSCA, PPG agreed to

the nation. The order requires the Air Force to perform conduct a SEP with the following components: (1)

interim measures, a RCRA facility investigation, a replacement of the heat transfer fluid in the

corrective measures study, and corrective measures Oxyhydrochlorination Reactor at the Vinyl Chloride II Unit

implementation. with a "white oil" material called XCELTHERM 600.

SDWA

Cushman, Arkansas: The Town of Cushman, Arkansas,

owned and operated a public water system that used an

unprotected spring for its source of water and provided no

water treatment except for disinfection. Rain adversely

affected the water quality of the spring, resulting in

Colonias in Texas: Colonias are severely distressed,

rural, residential developments along the U.S./Mexico

border that are characterized by substandard housing, lack

of paved roads, and inadequate or no water and wastewater

developer would be required to take permanent action to

prevent further endangerment to the health of residents of

the Colonia, preferably through the installation of essential

but lacking infrastructure.

TSCA

This switch in fluid eliminated the source of inadvertently

produced PCBs in the LP EDC reactor; (2) removal of

PCB capacitors from the facility, and replacing them with

36 non-PCB capacitors; and (3) retrofitting and

reclassification of five PCB contaminated transformers

located at the facility. PPG spent $324,318.53 on these

three SEP projects.
Region VI Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-58 July 1996

In the Matter of: El Paso Electric Company: In a

settlement with El Paso Electric Company for violations of

PCB regulations promulgated under 

TSCA, the company agreed to remove and dispose of in an

authorized facility 614 capacitors containing over 500 ppm

PCBs from its electrical substations. These capacitors

were replaced with non-PCB capacitors. This project

removed from service a substantial quantity of PCB oils

which could have been released into the environment in the

event of leakage or other failure, and removes certain El

Paso Electric facilities from regulated status.

United States v. USS Cabot/Dedalo Museum

Foundation: On November 17, 1994, the United States

filed for a permanent injunction to prohibit the Foundation

from selling and exporting the USS Cabot/Dedalo to India

for dismantlement. The ship is subject to TSCA

regulations because it has on board PCBs in concentrations

above 50 parts per million. The U.S. District Court

granted a permanent injunction against the Foundation on

March 30, 1995.

FEDERAL FACILITIES

Lackland Air Force Base: In early 1993, EPA Region VI

discovered that Lackland was illegally operating an open

burning ordinance disposal unit for waste ordinance. This

operation posed a potential threat to San Antonio's

drinking water supply. In an administrative complaint

issued against Lackland, EPA sought a penalty of

$346,500, closure of the open burning/open detonation

unit, and an environmental audit of the facility.

On May 12, 1995, Administrative Law Judge Spencer

Nissen ruled that EPA was not estopped from enforcing

because Lackland had relied on a letter from the state

regulator incorrectly advising the installation that it had

interim status. Judge Nissen also ruled that even though

Lackland had not disposed of additional hazardous waste

at the disposal facility after the effective date of the Federal

Facility Compliance Act, which ended federal facility

penalty immunity under RCRA, the failure to obtain a

permit was a continuing violation.
Region VI Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-59 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION VI .................................................................................. A-53

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. A-53

In the Matter of: Nitrogen Products, Inc.: .................................................. A-53

CERCLA ................................................................................ A-53

United States v. Gurley Refining Co., Inc., et al. (8th Cir.): .................................... A-53

United States v. Bell Petroleum Services, Inc. (5th Cir.): ....................................... A-53

United States v. Vertac Chemical Corporation (8th Cir.): ...................................... A-53

United States v. Allied-Signal, et al. (E.D. TX): .............................................. A-54

United States v. American National Petroleum Co., et al. (W.D. LA): ............................ A-54

United States v. Bayard Mining Corp., et al. (D. NM): ........................................ A-54

United States v. Lang, et al. (E.D., TX): .................................................... A-54

United States v. David Bowen Wallace, et al. (N.D. TX): ....................................... A-55

Hillsdale Drum Sites: ................................................................... A-55

Hi-Yield Chemical: ..................................................................... A-55

Lithium of Lubbock: .................................................................... A-55

In re: Reliable Coatings, Inc. (U.S.B.C., W.D. TN) (Liquidating Chapter 11): ..................... A-55

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... A-55

United States v. Mr. Roger Gautreau (S.D. LA): ............................................. A-55

In the Matter of: City of Albuquerque, NM: ................................................ A-56

EPCRA .................................................................................. A-56

In the Matter of: Formosa Plastics Company: .............................................. A-56

In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company: ................................................. A-56

Formosa Plastics Co.: .................................................................. A-56

Shell Chemical Company: ............................................................... A-56

In the Matter of: Koch Refining Company: ................................................. A-57

Formosa Plastics Co.: .................................................................. A-57

Shell Chemical Company: ............................................................... A-57

RCRA ................................................................................... A-57

In the Matter of: Altus Air Force Base: .................................................... A-57

SDWA .................................................................................. A-57

Cushman, Arkansas: ................................................................... A-57

Colonias in Texas: ..................................................................... A-57

TSCA ................................................................................... A-58

In the Matter of: PPG Industries: ......................................................... A-58

In the Matter of: El Paso Electric Company: ............................................... A-58

United States v. USS Cabot/Dedalo Museum Foundation: ..................................... A-58

Federal Facilities .......................................................................... A-58

Lackland Air Force Base: ............................................................... A-58
A-59 July 1996

REGION VII

CLEAN AIR ACT

IES Utilities, Inc. (Cedar Rapids, IA): During FY 1995,

Region VII settled the first acid rain administrative penalty

action in the country. The complaint alleged IES Utilities

, Inc., of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, failed to complete timely

certification testing of the acid rain continuous emission

monitors required for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,

carbon dioxide and volumetric flow at the Sixth Street

Power Station and Prairie Creek Generating Station, Cedar

Rapids, Iowa; Ottumwa Generating Station, Chillicothe,

Iowa; and at the Sutherland Generating Station,

Marshalltown, Iowa. A penalty of $124,100 was proposed

in the complaint for these violations of the CAA.

As part of the settlement, IES agreed to a supplemental

environmental project involving the purchase and

permanent surrender by the utility to EPA of 589 sulfur

dioxide (SO2) allowances as defined under the Acid United States v. Bliss, 28 DIOXIN-Contaminated Sites,

Deposition Control provisions of Title IV of the Clean Air Eastern Missouri: On April 14, 1995, EPA and the

Act. Each allowance constitutes an authorization to emit Missouri Department of Natural Resources issued a permit

during or after a specified calendar year, one ton of SO. to IT Corporation, Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. and Foster 2

Value of the allowances permanently removed from the Wheeler Environmental Corporation for a thermal

market was $76,570 at the time of the settlement. IES was treatment facility to be located at the disincorporated city

also required to pay a penalty of $25,630 to settle the of Times Beach for thermal treatment of dioxin

claims. contaminated soil and non soil materials from Times Beach

Stupp Brothers Bridge & Iron Company: The State of provisions of the CERCLA Consent Decree and Final

Missouri requested Region VII's assistance in regard to air

emission violations by Stupp Brothers Bridge & Iron

Company in St. Louis, Missouri. EPA issued a notice of

violation on April 1, 1995, pursuant to Section 113(a)(1)

of the CAA, finding Stupp Brothers in violation of Section

110 of the CAA. Stupp Brothers operates an industrial

coating operation and emits more than 2.5 tons of VOCs a

year. Stupp Brothers violated the state implementation

plan by failing to comply with the emission limit for

miscellaneous metal parts. EPA encouraged Stupp Bros.

to work out a compliance schedule with the State. The

State and Stupp Bros. thereafter entered into a consent

agreement/consent order addressing the violations and

bringing the facility into compliance with the Act.

Barton Nelson Inc.: A printer of miscellaneous products,

including stick-on notes, undertook construction without a

permit of a facility in Kansas City, Missouri. At the time

of construction, Kansas City was a non-attainment area but

has since been designated as in attainment. The City of

Kansas City, Missouri, asked Region VII to assist with the

permitting and enforcement actions. EPA personnel

performed an inspection to determine the applicability of

NSPS Subpart RR - Standard of Performance for Pressure

Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations.

After evaluating the permit requirements and the NSPS

applicability, EPA assisted the City with calculating the

economic benefit and gravity components of the penalty.

After obtaining a permit from the Kansas City, Missouri,

Pollution Control Agency, the source refused to enter into

a consent order to resolve its violations. The city referred

the source to the State, but the source continued to refuse

to enter into a consent order. At the State's request, EPA

initiated an enforcement action against the source,

whereupon the source, on receiving word of this pending

action, entered into acceptable consent orders with both the

State and local agency.

CERCLA

and other eastern Missouri dioxin sites under the

Order Between the United States of America; the State of

Missouri; Syntex Corporation; Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc. ;

Syntex Laboratories, Inc; and Syntex Agribusiness, Inc .

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

Missouri in the case of United States v. Bliss, Civil Action

No. 84-200C(1). The facility will consist of a hazardous

waste incinerator as well as associated facilities for storing

and processing contaminated and treated material.

United States v. Bliss, Horse Arena, et al., 28 DioxinContaminated Sites, Eastern Missouri: On August 15,

1995, Judge Nangle issued a favorable order in ruling on

motions by the defendant Syntex to construe, effectuate and

enforce the consent decree entered by the court on

December 31, 1990, and the motion of St. Louis County to

intervene in the existing litigation as plaintiff and its

memorandum opposing the Syntex defendants' motion.

The original motion filed by Syntex was necessitated by the

County's issuance in February 1995, of an air permit

setting limits on emissions from the incinerator which

Syntex has constructed at the Times Beach Site. Such

limits are at odds with the limits set in the joint EPA-State

RCRA permit.
Region VII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-60 July 1996

United States v. Monsanto Company, et al.: On May 31, Pacific Activities, Ltd. (Davenport, IA): On June 6,

1995, the United States, on behalf of the EPA, filed a civil 1995, an administrative order on consent (AOC) for the

action for recovery of over $700,000 in costs under performance of a time-critical removal action at this site

Section 107(a) of CERCLA. The action was filed against was filed with Region VII's Hearing Clerk. The site was

Monsanto Company, Allied-Signal, Inc., Missouri Pacific formerly occupied by a locomotive foundry as well as by a

Railroad Company, and Superior Oil Company, Inc., d/b/a company that conducted smelting operations for the

Superior Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. The United States production of nickel alloys. Site soils are extensively

seeks to recover past costs and oversight costs incurred by contaminated with lead (at levels up to 160,000 ppm),

EPA in response to releases and threatened releases of cadmium (at levels up to 2,400 ppm), and nickel (at levels

hazardous substances at the Thompson Chemical up to 120,000 ppm). The removal action provides for the

Superfund site in St. Louis, Missouri. A number of in-situ solidification of contaminated soils, with off-site

different industrial facilities have operated at the site since disposal of any media which is not amenable to

the late 1800s, which is currently in use as a bulk terminal solidification. PAL has agreed to reimburse EPA for all of

facility for solvent products. its past and future response costs for this removal action.

United States v. Cooperative Producers Inc. and

Farmland Industries, Inc.: On September 29, 1995, a

consent decree was signed and forwarded to DOJ for

lodging with the District Court of Nebraska. The consent

decree requires the settling defendants, Cooperative

Producers, Inc. (CPI, the current owner/operator), and

Farmland Industries, Inc. (Farmland, the former owner/

operator), to pay $954,019 in past costs and to continue

operation of a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to West Lake Landfill NPL Site (Bridgeton, MO), OU-2:

remediate the source control operable unit at the FARMAR-CO subsite of the Hastings ground water

contamination site.

Rogers Iron and Metal Corporation (Jasper County,

MO): As part of the Superfund Brownfields initiative, the

Regional Administrator entered into a prospective

purchaser agreement with Rogers Iron and Metal

Corporation (RIMCO), Rogers, Arkansas, on June 18,

1995. The Agreement involves RIMCO's purchase of

property located within the Jasper County Superfund NPL

site. This agreement meets the criteria discussed in the

Agency's new guidance for prospective purchaser

agreements issued in May 1995.

Mason City, IA and Bob McKinness Grading &

Excavating, Inc. (Mason City, IA): On July 28, 1995, an

administrative order on consent was filed with the

Regional Hearing Clerk wherein Interstate Power

Company and Kansas City Power & Light Company (the

"Performing Respondents") agreed to conduct a non-time

critical removal action of coal tar buried at the site and to

pay a specific amount of EPA's past costs and all of EPA's

oversight costs. In addition, by signing the order, two

additional parties, the City of Mason City, Iowa, and Bob

McKinness Grading & Excavating, Inc. (the

"Non-Performing Respondents") agreed to contribute

money toward the costs of the response action and payment

of EPA's costs.

In addition, as PAL entered into a consensual RCRA order

with EPA in 1991 which it failed to comply with, we have

required that PAL establish and fund a financial assurance

mechanism prior to EPA entering into the order. The

AOC also provides for the use of ADR in the form of nonbinding third-party mediation in the event that PAL

disagrees with the resolution of certain delimited disputes

by the Superfund Division Director.

An administrative order on consent (AOC) for the

performance of an RI/FS for OU-2 was signed by the

owner/operator of the landfill, Laidlaw Waste Systems

(Bridgeton), Inc., on December 9, 1994. This operable

unit addresses the nonradiologic hazardous substances

present at the site. Laidlaw, along with three other PRPs,

are currently conducting an RI/FS for OU-1, which is the

radiologic contamination contained in two cells at the

landfill. Studies have indicated that VOC, metals, and

pesticides are present in the landfill. This is a municipal

solid waste landfill that has operated since 1962. Pursuant

to this AOC, Laidlaw has agreed to reimburse EPA for its

past and future response costs for this operable unit.

I.J. Stephens Farm Site (Newton County, MO): On

September 28, 1995, EPA and Sunbeam Products, Inc.,

formerly Sunbeam Corporation d/b/a Sunbeam Outdoor

Products (Sunbeam), entered into an administrative order

on consent for removal response activities and

reimbursement of response costs at the I.J. Stephens Farm

Site. The consent order was issued pursuant to Sections

106(a) and 122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606(a) and

9622. The settlement will result in Sunbeam's

performance of a clean-up that will provide significant

environmental benefits. In accordance with the consent

order, Sunbeam must pay $30,000 for past response costs;

remove and dispose of all drums, drum components, and

waste containers from the site; excavate and dispose of

soils contaminated by the materials contained or formerly

contained in the drums; test drum contents, soil, and any
Region VII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-61 July 1996

other contaminated materials prior to disposal; and restore activities. EPA is committed to resuming and completing

site to its pre-removal condition by backfilling and seeding consent decree negotiations promptly. It was used for

the soil. disposal of industrial and commercial wastes in the 1960s

Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings (St. Louis, MO): In

July and August 1995, EPA entered into four separate de

minimis administrative settlements pursuant to Section

122(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9622(g). Pursuant to the

administrative orders on consent, the de minimis parties

are responsible for the following costs: (1) PeerlessPremier Appliance Company has an attributable share of

1.20% and is responsible for $13,236.65 in past costs and

$1,193.24 in future costs; (2) Canam Steel Corporation

has an attributable share of 1.29% and is responsible for

$14,238.45 in past costs and $1,283.55 in future costs; (3)

St. Louis Steel Products has an attributable share of

1.665% and is responsible for $18,412.20 in past costs

and $1,659.80 in future costs; and (4) Henkel Corporation

has an attributable share of .30% and is responsible for

$3,453.48 in past costs and $311.32 in future costs.

The Aluminum Company of America Site (Riverdale,

IA): On August 10, 1995, EPA Region VII issued an

administrative order on consent for removal action and

remedial investigation/feasibility study to the Aluminum

Company of America (Alcoa) to address contamination at

its Davenport Works facility, which is located on the

Mississippi River in Riverdale, Iowa. The removal actions

will address each area of potential contamination at the

facility, most of which were identified in a facility site

assessment (FSA) performed by Alcoa pursuant to a 1990

CERCLA Section 106 AOC. The FSA identified over 75

potentially contaminated areas (FSA units). The unique

aspect of the removal portion of the AOC is that it

establishes a risk-based process by which Alcoa will

assess each area of potential area contamination and, if

necessary, conduct removal actions to abate

endangerments to human health or the environment. Alcoa

will conduct a FSA unit evaluation in accordance with the

AOC's attachments and prepare a risk-based concentration

report for each unit or group of units, which will serve as

the basis for Alcoa's recommendation for further

investigations, a time-critical removal action, an EE/CA,

or no further action. Upon EPA approval of Alcoa's

recommendation, the company will implement the required

work.

Doepke Holliday Site (Johnson County, KS): On

February 16, 1995, Region VII issued an administrative

order to 34 parties directing them to begin implementation

of the remedial action for this site. The main requirement

of the order is to construct an impermeable cap over an old

disposal area on the site. The order also requires

environmental monitoring and operation and maintenance

and early 1970s. The principal component of the site

clean-up is installation of an impermeable cap over the

former disposal area. The cap will prevent contact with

any of the contaminated materials in the old disposal area.

It will also reduce infiltration of surface water through the

old disposal area, thereby minimizing movement of

contaminants away from the site.

29th and Mead Superfund Site (Wichita, KS): On July

20, 1995, EPA, the Kansas Department of Health and

Environment and the City of Wichita, Kansas, announced

that the 29th and Mead site in Wichita, Kansas, would be

removed from the National Priorities List (NPL) based on

the State and City agreeing to address the contamination at

the site. This action is being carried out as a state delisting pilot project. The site will be removed from the

NPL based on a determination by EPA that no further

response action under CERCLA is required at the site,

contingent upon the finalization of an agreement between

the City of Wichita and the Kansas Department of Health

and Environment (KDHE), which requires the City to take

responsibility for clean-up activities at the site with KDHE

oversight.

Emory Plating Company (Des Moines, IA): In July

1995, EPA entered into a CERCLA Section 122(h)(1)

settlement agreement with the owners of the site. EPA had

performed a fund-lead removal costing $325,000 at this

abandoned electroplating facility located in Des Moines,

Iowa. EPA filed a Superfund lien against the site. Notice

of the settlement was published in the Federal Register and

the agreement became effective on September 25, 1995.

The agreement provides that the site owners will make

their best efforts to sell the site and turn over the net

proceeds to Superfund. At the request of EPA, both Polk

County, Iowa, and the City of Des Moines agreed to write

off a major portion of the outstanding real estate taxes. A

sale was pending at the end of October 1995, and it is

anticipated that EPA will recover approximately $25-

27,000 in costs that otherwise would have been written off.

The sale will likewise get this commercial site back into

productive use and on the tax roles.

Fremont Pesticides Superfund Site (Fremont County,

IA): In December 1995, EPA entered into a CERCLA

Section 106 consent order with the Randolph State Bank

of Randolph, Iowa, to perform a removal action. The site

consisted of two proximate parcels in rural Iowa, with the

first parcel being surrounded by a state nature preserve.

The bank acquired the first parcel through deed in lieu of

foreclosure and proceeded to move containers of hazardous
Region VII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-62 July 1996

waste pesticides from the first parcel to the second parcel river crossing which had been placed in a creek, without

(owned under contract for deed by the debtor), where the first obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit.

containers were abandoned. The removal order required Because of the crossing's inability to pass expected high

the bank to dispose of the containerized waste and test for flows, water had backed up during storm events, damaging

soil contamination at the first site as well as contamination property both upstream and down. After extensive

in on-site farm structures. The containerized waste was negotiations, St. Columbkill and Berra entered into an

shipped off-site for disposal. Contaminated building administrative order on consent with the Agency requiring

debris will be shipped off-site for incineration. the removal of the crossing and the restoration of the scour

Helena Chemical (Hayti, MO): In November 1994, EPA

issued a unilateral order for removal site evaluation and

engineering evaluation/cost analysis and removal action to

Amoco Corporation, Helena Chemical Company, and

Rupert Crafton Commission Company. This site is

contaminated with pesticides as a result of pesticide

formulation and storage activities that occurred from

approximately 1965-1978. Amoco and Helena were in

business at the site until 1969, when Amoco sold its

interest to Helena. Rupert Crafton Commission Company

acquired the site in 1978. Contamination is highest in the

soils, but migration to the groundwater has been detected.

Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant (Waterloo, IA): In

May 1995, EPA and Midwest Gas (a division of Midwest

Power Systems Inc., Sioux City, Iowa) entered into a

CERCLA administrative order on consent for remedial

investigation/feasibility study. A coal gasification plant

operated at the site for the first half of this century. Waste

handling practices at the site resulted in spreading coal tar

residue, ash and associated wastes on unlined soils, and

filling topographical lows on the site. Removal work has

been done at the site to reduce the migration of

contamination from source areas.

Irwin Chemical Company (Des Moines, IA) and Emory

Plating Company (Des Moines, IA): At both these urban

sites where fund lead removal actions have resulted in

cleanup costs being incurred by the United States, Region

VII has executed innovative administrative CERCLA

122(h) settlement agreements which will result in partial

reimbursement of government costs and return the

properties to beneficial use. Each agreement provides that

the respondents will make their best efforts to sell the

respective site and turn the proceeds over to EPA (net of

certain expenses). At EPA's request, the County and City

agreed to compromise taxes and special assessments on the

Emory Plating Site property.

CLEAN WATER ACT

St. Columbkill Association and Berra Construction Co.:

On September 29, 1995, a CWA administrative order on

consent was issued to the St. Columbkill Association and

Berra Construction Company requiring the removal of a

hole. Removal and restoration has been timed by the order

to allow the bridge to continue to be used for a short period

while the only other access bridge to a small adjacent

community is being replaced.
Region VII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-63 July 1996

EPCRA FIFRA

Texaco Refinery (El Dorado, KS): An innovative Farmers Cooperative Grain Company (Merna, NE): As

settlement was reached with Texaco Refinery located in El part of settlement of a complaint issued against for

Dorado, Kansas, to resolve reporting violations of EPCRA violations of the FIFRA bulk repackaging requirements,

Section 313. As part of settlement, the company agreed to Farmers Cooperative Grain Company, Merna, Nebraska,

the accelerated development and completion of risk agreed to install and operate oilers in the legs of their grain

management programs for each of the following regulated facilities. The project results in the reduction of fugitive

substances at the El Dorado refinery: ammonia, sulfur dust emissions from the facility by approximately 90%.

dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrofluoric acid, propane and Community-based environmental and public health

butane. benefits were achieved at a total cost of the project to the

In addition, Texaco agreed to develop and submit to EPA

a generic risk management plan for each of the above listed

regulated substances. These generic plans will be

available for use as models by other members of the

regulated community to assist them in developing plans for

their own facilities when the requirements become

effective under the Clean Air Act. The estimated costs of

the programs and plans by Texaco is $247,000.

K.O. Manufacturing, Inc.: On April 13, 1995, the

Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued its decision

in K.O. Manufacturing, Inc., EPCRA Appeal No. 93-1.

The EAB reversed and remanded the original decision by

Judge Greene and held that respondent violated EPCRA

Section 313 by failing to file a form R for glycol ether

compounds 1987. The case was remanded for the

assessment of a penalty. Region VII appealed the February

28, 1993, initial decision as to the issue of liability for

failure to file a form R for glycol ether compounds for

1987. In the initial decision, the Presiding Officer granted

respondent's motion for accelerated decision and found that

respondent was not liable to file a form R for 2-

Butyoxyethanol because 40 CFR §372.65 did not provide

adequate notice that reporting was required. On appeal,

Region VII argued that the initial decision was based upon

an incorrect legal conclusion and that the final rule and the

1987 instructions for form R provided adequate notice of

the meaning of the requirement. The EAB agreed with the

Region and adopted the reasoning in Region VII's brief on

appeal and reversed the initial decision.

Heyco, Inc. (Garden City, KS): As part of the settlement

to resolve reporting violations under EPCRA §313, Heyco,

Inc. agreed to undertake a supplemental environmental

project (SEP) which entails the installation of a new paint

system and the use of new chemical formulations, at a cost

to the company of approximately $228,000. The new

process will totally eliminate the use of xylene in the

company's operations. Furthermore, Heyco agreed to limit

its use of all EPCRA Section 313 chemicals to under 5,000

pounds per year per chemical.

facility at $8,392.

OIL POLLUTION ACT

Koch Industries, Inc.: On April 17, 1995, a complaint

was filed in federal district court against Koch Industries,

Inc. and a number of its subsidiaries for violations of the

Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of

1990. The case was filed by the Department of Justice in

the Southern District of Texas, and represents a

cooperative effort among Regions IV, VI, and VII, EPA

Headquarters, the U.S. Coast Guard, and DOJ. The

Complaint proposes penalties of $1,000 per barrel of oil

discharged in over 300 spill events over the course of the

last 5 years. The total amount of oil discharged is in excess

of 50,000 barrels. The Region VII portion of the

complaint addresses over 30 separate discharges of oil

totalling in excess of 2500 barrels. The parties are now

involved in the discovery process.

RCRA

University of Nebraska: Pursuant to a consolidated

settlement of two RCRA §3008(a) complaints, the

University of Nebraska agreed to implement a system-wide

chemical and waste tracking program. As part of the

system-wide program, departments are able to offer

unneeded chemicals, that would have otherwise been

shipped offsite as waste, to other University departments,

resulting in a reduction in the amount of waste required to

be shipped offsite.

SDWA

Kansas Public Water Supplies: During FY 1995, EPA

negotiated and issued administrative compliance orders on

consent to nine (9) public water systems (PWS) for

exceedances of the nitrate Maximum Contaminant Level of

10 mg/l for public water supplies. Each of the nine orders

require the PWS to undertake certain tasks within a

twenty-four month period to achieve compliance. These

tasks include the provision of an alternative water supply
Region VII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-64 July 1996

to pregnant women and children aged six months or less and pumping facilities connected to the Pittsburgh

and the provision of public notification for each prior wastewater treatment plant, eliminating sewage discharges

violation of the Act. Consent orders were entered into with into abandoned mine shafts.

the following Kansas Public Water Supply Systems: City

of Abilene, City of Axtell, City of Attica, City of Beverly,

City of Kirwin, City of Osborne, City of Portis, City of

Preston, and City of Raymond.

Kansas Bureau of Water: Kansas' Bureau of Water

issued 25 wastewater treatment orders against various

municipalities and trailer courts located within the State.

Particularly noteworthy were orders issued to the cities of

Lawrence, Topeka, and Leavenworth and to four trailer

courts in Pittsburgh. The consent orders with the three

cities initiate projects to eliminate the discharge of water

treatment sludges to streams. The orders to the trailer

courts have resulted in ongoing efforts to form sewer

districts that will have collection

MULTIMEDIA

Iowa National Guard, AASF #2, Waterloo, IA: A

multimedia consolidated consent agreement and consent

order effective December 16, 1994, concluded three

complaints against the Iowa National Guard. The

complaints concerned facilities located in Johnston,

Waterloo, and Davenport, Iowa, and violations of RCRA

and SDWA. The settlement requires the respondent to

return to compliance with respect to the violations, pay

$35,000 in penalties, and to perform $500,000 in SEPs for

two city sewer connections and RCRA/SDWA

environmental audits at 21 facilities.

In response to the RCRA violations, the respondent, a state

militia helicopter reserve unit, asserted that it was a federal

facility as opposed to a state facility and that under the

Federal Facilities Compliance Act it was not subject to

penalties for those RCRA violations. However,

respondent had no such defense in the SDWA case. By

consolidating the three cases, the Region and respondent

were able to negotiate a satisfactory global settlement,

allowing both the EPA and the respondent to avoid the

time and expense of litigating the state militia/FFCA issue.
Region VII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-65 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION VII ................................................................................. A-59

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. A-59

IES Utilities, Inc. (Cedar Rapids, IA): ...................................................... A-59

Stupp Brothers Bridge & Iron Company: ................................................... A-59

Barton Nelson Inc.: .................................................................... A-59

CERCLA ................................................................................ A-59

United States v. Bliss, 28 DIOXIN-Contaminated Sites, Eastern Missouri: ........................ A-59

United States v. Bliss, Horse Arena, et al., 28 Dioxin-Contaminated Sites, Eastern Missouri:

................................................................................. A-59

United States v. Monsanto Company, et al.: ................................................. A-60

United States v. Cooperative Producers Inc. and Farmland Industries, Inc.: ...................... A-60

Rogers Iron and Metal Corporation (Jasper County, MO): .................................... A-60

Mason City, IA and Bob McKinness Grading & Excavating, Inc. (Mason City, IA): ................. A-60

Pacific Activities, Ltd. (Davenport, IA): .................................................... A-60

West Lake Landfill NPL Site (Bridgeton, MO), OU-2: ......................................... A-60

I.J. Stephens Farm Site (Newton County, MO): .............................................. A-61

Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings (St. Louis, MO): .......................................... A-61

The Aluminum Company of America Site (Riverdale, IA): ..................................... A-61

Doepke Holliday Site (Johnson County, KS): ................................................ A-61

29th and Mead Superfund Site (Wichita, KS): ............................................... A-61

Emory Plating Company (Des Moines, IA): ................................................. A-62

Fremont Pesticides Superfund Site (Fremont County, IA): ..................................... A-62

Helena Chemical (Hayti, MO): ........................................................... A-62

Waterloo Coal Gasification Plant (Waterloo, IA): ............................................ A-62

IrwinChemical Company (Des Moines, IA) and Emory Plating Company (Des Moines, IA):

................................................................................. A-62

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... A-62

St. Columbkill Association and Berra Construction Co.: ...................................... A-62

EPCRA .................................................................................. A-63

Texaco Refinery (El Dorado, KS): ........................................................ A-63

K.O. Manufacturing, Inc.: ............................................................... A-63

Heyco, Inc. (Garden City, KS): ........................................................... A-63

FIFRA ................................................................................... A-63

Farmers Cooperative Grain Company (Merna, NE): ......................................... A-63

Oil Pollution Act .......................................................................... A-63

Koch Industries, Inc.: ................................................................... A-63

RCRA ................................................................................... A-63

University of Nebraska: ................................................................. A-63

SDWA .................................................................................. A-64

Kansas Public Water Supplies: ........................................................... A-64

Kansas Bureau of Water: ................................................................ A-64

Multimedia ............................................................................... A-64

Iowa National Guard, AASF #2, Waterloo, IA: .............................................. A-64
A-65 July 1996

REGION VIII

CLEAN AIR ACT

South Main Texaco: A consent agreement settled

charges against South Main Texaco (1101 S. Main,

Torrington, Wyoming) for allegedly violating ozone

protection requirements of the Clean Air Act. At issue

were EPA charges that the company serviced automotive

air conditioners without using proper freon recovery or

recycling equipment. The penalty included money the

company saved by ignoring requirements. South Main

Texaco has since obtained chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)

recovery equipment and ensures technicians are properly

trained and certified in its use.

Plum Creek Manufacturing: On August 22, 1995, a civil

consent decree was lodged in the U.S. District Court in

Helena, Montana, in which Plum Creek Manufacturing,

L.P. (Plum Creek) agreed to pay $106,000 in penalties for

releasing visible contaminants from their veneer dryers.

These violations took place from at least September 1989,

until April 1992, at its Kalispell, Montana, plywood plant.

The State of Montana had previously brought an

enforcement action against Plum Creek for veneer dryer

violations which resulted in Plum Creek paying a $7,000

penalty and installing an air pollution control device on the

dryers. Plum Creek has a history of non-compliance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA concluded

that the State's penalty was insufficient to recover the

economic benefit realized by Plum Creek, and brought its

own action. This action demonstrates EPA's commitment

to see that violators do not profit from their violations.

Colorado Refining Company: Colorado Refining

Company (CRC) agreed to pay a $320,000 penalty and

will spend about $1.7 million upgrading equipment to

reduce air pollution from its oil refinery in Commerce City,

Colorado. As part of a settlement with EPA and the U.S.

Department of Justice, CRC—a subsidiary of Total

Petroleum—will modify equipment to prevent excessive

amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO ) from escaping into the air 2

when the oil refinery is operating. To achieve this, CRC

will upgrade its "Claus Plant," or sulfur recovery unit to

boost its sulfur removal capability.

The Agency's complaint alleged two Clean Air Act (CAA)

permit violations. One claimed the refinery degraded air

quality when its SO emissions surpassed allowable levels 2

several times between 1989 and 1994. At one point the

refinery registered emissions of 16,000 parts per million

(ppm).

Asarco, Inc.: Alleged lead and particulate pollution has

cost Asarco, Inc., $200,000 according to an agreement

between the company and the federal government. In the

consent decree lodged November 29, in U.S. District

Court in Helena, Montana, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency and the Department of Justice

maintained that Asarco violated national clean air

standards for several months in 1992. According to the

EPA, the company exceeded acceptable levels for lead and

small particle emissions at its East Helena lead smelting

facility.

ARCO, Snyder Oil Corporation: Atlantic Richfield

Company (ARCO) and Snyder Oil Corporation paid an

$875,000 penalty for Clean Air Act (CAA) violations

committed at the Riverton Dome gas plant on the Wind

River Indian Reservation. The CAA settlement is the

largest reached in EPA Region VIII's six-state region. As

part of the agreement, EPA issued Snyder a PSD permit

last July, which required it to reduce nitrogen oxide

emissions by installing control equipment. The equipment

was installed and tested, and met acceptable emissions

limits. ARCO and Snyder agreed to pay the penalty and

comply with all applicable laws in the future.

CERCLA

United States v. Alumet Partnership, et al.: On July 10,

1995, a proposed consent decree in United States v.

Alumet Partnership, et al., was lodged with the U.S.

District Court for the District of Colorado. The settling

defendants agreed to pay the United States $7,283,104 in

return for a covenant not to sue relative to all past and

future costs, excluding potential costs associated with the

standard statutory reopeners included in the consent

decree. The settlement amount includes a premium

payment to cover a variety of risks such as cost overruns

and uncertainties of litigation. Hence, the contribution

protection granted by the consent decree covers all

response costs incurred by PRPs at the site, as well as the

past and future costs of the United States.

Portland Cement Company: EPA and the State of Utah

reached a settlement agreement with Portland Cement

Company (Lone Star Industries, Inc.). The settlement

agreement has been entered in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court

in the Southern District of New York. The agreement

provides that EPA and the State of Utah will receive cash

and securities worth approximately $18.5 million.
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-66 July 1996

This settlement was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice million; to date, the Region has recovered approximately

on behalf of EPA, the Department of the Interior, and the $13 million.

State of Utah. The settlement funds will be used to pay for

past and future cleanup costs at the Portland Cement

Company Superfund site. The site was used for the deposit

of cement kiln dust, a by-product of cement manufacturing,

from 1965 through 1983. Cement kiln dust is caustic in

nature and contains high levels of lead and arsenic, which

pose a threat to health and the environment.

Lowry Landfill Superfund Site: On November 18, 1994, obligations related to the testing performed on such dates.

EPA-Region VIII issued a unilateral administrative order The alleged violations included: exceedance of

(UAO) for the performance of remedial design/remedial performance standards by air emissions from the treatment

action (RD/RA) to 34 potentially responsible parties plant on two occasions; failure to notify EPA and the

(PRPs) at the Lowry Landfill Superfund site. From 1965 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

to 1980, the City and County of Denver, the owner of the of discovery of noncompliance with the performance

site, accepted liquid, solid industrial, and municipal wastes standards within 24 hours and follow-up in writing within

there. Approximately 138 million gallons of wastes were 72 hours; failure to recycle vapor-phase carbon units and

disposed of in 75 unlined waste pits and covered with implement changeout procedures; and failure to submit a

refuse, native soils, and/or used tires. Waste Management schedule for proposed corrective measures within 14 days

of Colorado, Inc. (WMC), under contract with Denver, on an event requiring corrective measures. Within 45 days

assumed landfill operations in 1980. Chemical Waste of approval of this stipulation of compromise by the court,

Management (CWM) is a successor-in-interest to one or Denver shall pay $79,550 to the United States in full and

more persons who accepted hazardous substances for complete satisfaction of the claim of the United States.

transport to the site. After two years of RD/RA settlement

negotiations with Denver, WMC, and CWM, the Region

issued the UAO to those parties and 31 de maximus PRPs Denver Radium/Robco Project a Brownsfield

based on the refusal of Denver, WMC, and CWM to Redevelopment Success Story: On July 26, 1995, the

implement the remedy selected in the ROD and pay more prospective purchaser agreement between EPA, the State,

than 76% of the United States' past response costs. Most and Home Depot was signed by Bill Yellowtail, EPA

of the 31 de maximus PRPs have been sued by Denver,

WMC, and CWM in private cost recovery litigation and

have settled with those parties.

Rockwell International: On March 28, 1995, EPARegion VIII issued and made effective administrative order

on consent, de minimis settlement, Docket No. CERCLA

VIII-94-26 (AOC), with Rockwell International

Corporation (Rockwell), a PRP at the Lowry Landfill

Superfund site (site). Under the terms of the AOC,

Rockwell is required to pay $3 14,587 to the Superfund by

April 27, 1995, to settle its liability as a generator at the

site.

The Rockwell settlement is nearly identical in its terms to,

and is considered an extension of, the previous 27 de

minimis settlements negotiated relative to the site. The

settlement is based on the amount of waste sent by

Rockwell to the site from the Rocky Flats Plant (55,630

gallons). The U.S. Department of Energy, which owns the

Rocky Flats Plant, will make payment on behalf of

Rockwell, which operated the plant. The Region will

apply the settlement monies to past response costs incurred

at the site. Past response costs originally totalled $26

City and County of Denver: On September 18, 1995,

EPA proposed a stipulation of compromise between the

United States and the City and County of Denver regarding

Civil Action No. 84-JM-1507. The City and County of

Denver were in noncompliance with the modified consent

decree on August 11, 1993, October 14 and 19, 1993, and

November 8, 1993; arising from operating and reporting

Region VIII Regional Administrator. The agreement was

sent to Department of Justice for their signature and

publication in the Federal Register for a 30-day comment

period.

This agreement represents a major Brownfields

redevelopment success. In exchange for a covenant not to

sue from the United States and the State, Home Depot has

committed to share in the work at the site. The projected

cost of the remedy for operable unit IX was approximately

$1.7 million. Out of this total, the work Home Depot will

perform will save EPA and the State approximately

$900,000.00. Home Depot plans to redevelop this site by

construction of one of their home improvement supply

stores.

Utah Power & Light/American Barrel: The RD/RA

consent decree was entered on April 26, 1995. This will

implement a cleanup estimated to be worth up to $10.5

million, plus all "future response costs." Soils at the site

contaminated with polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) will

be excavated and recycled into asphalt to be use in paving

roads offsite. PAH-laden soil which fails TCLP will be

incinerated. The only unusual aspect of the consent decree
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-67 July 1996

is that the covenants explicitly cover asphalt that may be federal respondents (the U.S. Air Force and the U.S.

used in paving projects offsite. Defense Logistics Agency) paid $445,936.28. This

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Site: On

December 15, 1994, EPA issued unilateral administrative

orders for removal action at the CSMRI site, a former

mining research, facility, the State of Colorado, Colorado

School of Mines, and fifteen private potentially responsible Broderick Wood Products Site: The Broderick

parties (PRPs). The unilateral administrative orders Investment Company will pay nearly $25 million for the

(UAOs) require respondents to conduct an evaluation of government's past cleanup costs and for future cleanup of

off-site disposal options for stockpiled radioactive soils at contamination at the Broderick Wood Products

the site, and implement the removal option selected by "Superfund" site at 58th and Galapago in South Adams

EPA after EPA's review of respondents' evaluation. Under County. That agreement was part of a settlement lodged in

the terms of the UAO, the parties will complete the U.S. District Court in Denver involving EPA, the U.S.

removal action, estimated to cost approximately $4 Department of Justice, Broderick Investment Company (a

million, by April 1996. trust-operated Colorado limited partnership) and Tom

December 20, 1994, was the effective date of the trusts.

administrative order on consent for de minimis settlement

for the above-referenced site. The settlement partially

resolved the liability of 47 generator PRPs, each of whom

contributed less than 2% of the total waste at the CSMRI

site. The value of the settlement is $1,340,584.00, which

represents approximately 13% of the total estimated cost

of completion of the Superfund removal activities at the

site. In keeping with Agency policy, EPA did not offer

complete cash-out settlements to de minimis parties

because it lacked sufficient information about the

possibility and cost of future remediation actions at the site.

The wastes were left over from some 40 years of research

that CSMRI conducted for the mining industry. Wastes

and soil excavated during the 1992 emergency response

total about 15,000 cubic yards. EPA's order calls on the

parties to arrange for off-site disposal at a facility approved

by EPA and the State and designed to safely manage such

wastes by December of 1995. Smuggler Durant Mining Company: A cashout consent

Hansen Container Site: On September 22, 1995, EPA

entered into a de minimis settlement with 147 of the 205

generator PRPs who sent waste to the Hansen Container Smuggler, and the case is now completely closed. SDMC

site, a former drum recycling facility located in Grant paid $400,000 to the United States and guaranteed work at

Junction, Colorado. A total of $1,328.358.04 will be OU2 worth approximately $30,000. An administrative

recovered as a result of this settlement; this represents 22% consent order for work at OU2 (guaranteed by SDMC)

of total estimated site costs. The settlors are responsible was entered on May 8, 1995. Work under the AOC is not

for 17% of the total volume of waste sent to the site. yet complete.

Layton Salvage Yard Site: On September 21, 1995, EPA

signed the Layton settlement agreement to resolve liability

of potentially responsible parties for the United States' past

response costs at this military surplus/salvage yard site.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the

owner/operator of the facility, Mr. Marvin Allgood, paid

$5,000 (based on an ability to pay analysis) and the two

settlement resulted in the recovery of 78% of EPA's past

response costs. The settlement was reviewed as part of a

30-day public comment period and became effective in

early November.

Connolly, a trustee for BIC and several Broderick family

The company will pay for and, with EPA oversight,

conduct the cleanup of the site at an estimated cost of $13

million. In addition, they will reimburse the Superfund and

the State of Colorado for past response costs of $10.7

million and $630,000, respectively. The defendants agreed

to pay future EPA oversight costs, estimated at $700,000.

S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company: DOJ filed a

complaint against the S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company,

Inc., to recover response costs incurred in connection with

the remediation of operable unit VIII of the Denver radium

site. Those costs total approximately $2.8 million. The

complaint also sought a declaratory judgment that Shattuck

is liable for response costs incurred at OU VIII.

Discussions are ongoing among DOJ, EPA and Shattuck

to settle this matter.

decree with Smuggler Durant Mining Company was

entered by the U.S. District Court on August 2, 1995.

SDMC was the last party to settle in the United States v.

CLEAN WATER ACT

United States v. John Morrell Company: On August 31,

1995, John Morrell signed the partial consent decree to

address injunctive relief. The consent decree stays the civil

penalty portion of the complaint due to parallel

proceedings that have been invoked since August 12,
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-68 July 1996

1994. On September 27, 1995, the Region signed the to come into full compliance with the terms of its permit by

partial consent decree to address injunctive relief. December 31, 1997. It was estimated that the new POTW

Region VIII referred this matter as an emergency referral Concerning operation and maintenance of its POTW, the

in the Spring of 1993, after Morrell came forward to the city agreed to properly staff, operate and maintain the

Agency and revealed that persons at Morrell had been facility, including the performance of timely and

falsifying documents and destroying documents indicating appropriate replacement of malfunctioning and broken

that Morrell was not meeting its NPDES permit effluent equipment. The city shall adopt legal authority to enforce

limits. A criminal investigation of this matter is ongoing, the requirements of Sections 307 and 402 of the Clean

and therefore, Region VIII pursued only injunctive relief Water Act (CWA) and shall thereafter implement its

during negotiations with the defendant. The Region fully industrial pretreatment program as approved by EPA,

expects to negotiate penalties, in excess of $2 million, including the implementation of certain local limits. The

upon completion of the criminal case, assuming there are city must also issue permits to all significant industrial

no double jeopardy concerns. users (SIUs) providing for the payment of not less than

United States v. Excel Corporation, Fort Morgan, CO

(CD, CO): On July 18, 1995, the U.S. District Court

entered a civil consent decree in which Excel Corporation,

a beef slaughterhouse located in Fort Morgan, Colorado, Sheyenne Tooling and Manufacturing Company: The

agreed to pay $ 245,000 in civil penalties to the United U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint on behalf of

States, and $205,000 to the City of Fort Morgan. The civil the EPA against Sheyenne Tooling and Manufacturing

action alleged that Excel had failed to comply with federal Company for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act.

and local pretreatment standards developed to prevent pass Periodic compliance reports have shown that Sheyenne

through and interference. Tooling has violated the monthly average and daily

In mid-1991, Excel Corporation underwent an expansion, April to November of 1993, and possibly earlier. From

and increased the number of cattle slaughtered at its Fort July 1986, to April 1993, the company failed to conduct

Morgan plant. Excel failed to provide the additional level sampling and analysis of its wastewater streams before

of pretreatment required by its increase in pollutants, and discharge into the Cooperstown sewage treatment plant.

overloaded the City's publicly owned treatment works, The complaint sought civil penalties against Sheyenne

causing the City to violate effluent limits contained in the Tooling for discharging pollutants in violation of national

City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System pretreatment standards, failing to submit timely and

discharge permit. complete reports, and failing to sample and analyze its

United States v. City of Fort Morgan, CO (CD, CO): On

May 31, 1995, the U.S. District Court entered a civil

consent decree in which the City of Fort Morgan,

Colorado, agreed to pay $268,000 in civil penalties in Trail King Industries: On behalf of EPA, the U.S.

addition to taking significant steps to achieve compliance Department of Justice filed a civil action against Trail King

with federal pretreatment regulations under the Clean Industries, located in Mitchell, South Dakota, for alleged

Water Act. The civil action alleged that the city had failed violations of the Clean Water Act. Trail King Industries,

to implement its pretreatment program, to the degree that Inc., a metal finishing operation which manufactures longone of its industrial users caused the city to violate its own haul trailers, was cited for alleged failure to comply with

discharge permit. The Colorado Department of Public industrial pretreatment limits. The complaint alleged that

Health and Environment took its own action against the discharges violated national wastewater pretreatment

city's effluent violations and settled with the city for a standards for metal finishing operations.

$110,000 penalty.

City of Watertown, South Dakota: A consent decree for the San Juan River and its shoreline about seventeen miles

the resolution of the injunctive relief portion of the United south of Pagosa Springs, New Mexico, damaged by two

States' judicial case against the City of Watertown, South riverfront property owners and an earthmoving contractor.

Dakota was lodged with the court on October 3, 1995. EPA ordered landowners and their contractor to perform

Any civil penalty settlement will be addressed under the restoration work to return the river and wetlands to their

terms of a separate consent decree (CD). The city agreed original condition. EPA also fined the contractor for

the city envisions will cost in excess of $17.3 million.

$500 per day per violation for any noncomplying SIU.

The city shall also conduct and document inspections and

independent compliance monitoring of all of its SIUs.

limitations for zinc on numerous occasions from at least

wastewater for cadmium, lead, zinc, copper and chromium,

before discharging it to a publicly-owned wastewater

treatment facility.

Pettingill: Action by EPA has helped restore a portion of
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-69 July 1996

withholding information on the unauthorized dredge and facility settled for $85,000, and the Mitchell facility settled

fill work. for $65,000.

Zortman Mining/Pegasus Gold: On June 6, 1995, the Newman Signs Company: A consent order was signed

U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit, on behalf May 15, 1995, concerning Newman's alleged violations of

of EPA, alleging that the Pegasus Gold Corporation and federal pretreatment regulations for metal finishers. In the

Zortman Mining, Inc., failed to comply with the Federal complaint, EPA Region VIII had proposed a $25,000

Clean Water Act at its Zortman and Landusky Montana penalty for the company's failure to submit a baseline

mines. The complaint alleged that Pegasus Gold monitoring report (BMR), a 90-day compliance report, and

Corporation and Zortman Mining, Inc., failed to comply semi-annual monitoring reports. In the final settlement the

with the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants respondent agreed to pay $6,000 for the economic benefit

without National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System enjoyed by not monitoring its industrial wastewater

(NPDES) permits. Specifically, the complaint alleged that discharge and submitting the reports on time. Also, the

Zortman Mining Inc., and Pegasus Gold Corporation had company launched a year-long billboard campaign

discharged metal-laden mine drainage without NPDES throughout North Dakota promoting user protection of

permits for at least five years. wastewater treatment plants. This campaign was valued at

F.L. Thorpe & Company: A consent order was issued in

which F.L. Thorpe and Company agreed to pay a $5,000 FKI Industries: On June 13, 1995, a consent order was

cash penalty and perform a supplemental environmental issued to the Faultless-Nutting Division of FKI Industries

project (SEP) worth approximately $5,000. The SEP for alleged reporting violations of the federal pretreatment

included a complete environmental compliance audit of regulations for metal finishers. The company paid $4,500

respondent's facility by an approved environmental in penalties and agreed to install a total reuse treatment

consultant, along with an agreement to correct any system valued at $37,200. This treatment system was a

noncompliance identified by the audit. EPA reviewed valuable tool for studying pollution prevention. The

financial information submitted by respondent and made a company provided monthly evaluation reports on the

determination that respondent had an inability to pay the operation and maintenance of the treatment system, which

proposed penalty of $25,000. functioned as it was designed.

EPA issued a Class I APO to respondent on July 18, 1994,

for violations of the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.

Specifically, respondent failed to submit required

monitoring reports, and upon submission of the reports,

monitoring revealed violations of the effluent limitation for

cadmium, lead, and cyanide. Respondent is currently in

compliance with applicable reporting requirements and

effluent limits for its wastewater.

Twin City Fan & Blower Company: On July 13, 1995, significantly increasing the retention and monitoring time

two consent agreements were filed for National Pollutant which allows for separation of the solids prior to discharge.

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) violations at two Additionally, the new holding tank provides the

separate Twin City Fan & Blower Co. (TCF) facilities. opportunity to recycle this water back into the

The total sum of penalties was $150,000. The violations manufacturing process.

consisted of zinc and pH in excess of categorical effluent

limits. On February 21, 1995, EPA issued a Class I administrative

On April 4, 1994, EPA filed a complaint against TCF at its regulations implemented under the National Pollutant

Brookings facility for violation of pretreatment regulations. Discharge Elimination System program. Specifically,

On July 1, 1994, EPA filed a complaint against TCF at its respondent failed to submit required monitoring reports

Mitchell facility for violation of pretreatment regulations. and exceeded the effluent limitation for zinc on one

Compliance orders were also issued to each facility and the occasion after it began to submit the required reports.

violations have been addressed by TCF. The Brookings

$33,000.

Gopher Sign Company: On June 1, 1995, a consent

order was issued resolving a Class I penalty proceeding

under the Clean Water Act. Gopher Sign Company (GSC)

agreed to pay a $15,000 cash penalty and perform a

supplemental environmental project (SEP) valued at

$1,500. The SEP required GSC to re-engineer its

wastewater disposal system by installing a specialized

holding tank used for separating pollutants prior to

discharge. This new system was designed to decrease the

amount of regulated pollutants in the wastewater by

penalty order for violations of the Clean Water Act and
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-70 July 1996

EPCRA

United States v. Pennzoil Products Company: A consent

agreement and final order for United States v. Pennzoil

Products Company (Roosevelt Refinery) was signed on

May 4, 1995, by EPA and Pennzoil Products Company.

Violations included failure to submit EPCRA Section 313

form Rs for sulfuric acid for three years, failure to submit

timely form Rs for ammonia for two years, failure to

maintain records and documentation for several toxic

chemicals, and failure to report reasonable estimates of

releases to the environment for several toxic chemicals.

The final assessed penalty agreed to in the consent

agreement was $93,900. Since this facility has shut down,

there was no supplemental environmental project (SEP)

proposed.

KBP Coil Coaters: Alleged failure to notify authorities of States v. Burlington Northern Railroad for $1.7 million in

hazardous materials stored at their establishment could penalties in settlement of three violations of §311 of the

cost KBP Coil Coaters $35,790. In an administrative Clean Water Act (CWA). The violations included two oil

complaint EPA's Denver regional office charged that KBP spills in the State of Wyoming and a hazardous waste spill

violated EPCRA when it failed to disclose the presence of in the State of Wisconsin. Burlington Northern settled for

over 1,000 pounds of extremely hazardous sulfuric acid, $1.5 million in cash and the remaining in a supplemental

and more than five tons of the flammable white enamel environmental project and cost recovery. The SEPs

paint, known as Dynakote, provide facility chemical included the purchase of three rail cars to detect fractures

inventory, release information to State and EPA officials, in the rail and a $100,000 academic study on improving

and submit health and safety information about chemicals early detection of spills in the industry.

used on location to State and local emergency officials and

fire departments.

Pillow Kingdom, Inc. A consent agreement and consent settlement of the first Oil Pollution Act (OPA), Section

order was signed October 10, 1995, concerning Pillow 311 Class I penalty action under the Part 28 rules in

Kingdom's alleged failure to report under EPCRA §§ 311 Region VIII. The matter was concerned a spill of 10

to 313. Pillow Kingdom, a wood furniture manufacturer, barrels of oil. The matter was settled for $4,500.00. There

is one of the five largest emitters of toxic chemicals in was no injunctive relief necessary as the company

Colorado as reported in the National Toxic Release responded immediately to the spill. This action was a part

Inventory database. Pillow Kingdom caught the attention of the national OPA initiative coordinated out of

of a Denver fire inspector when he was informed that the headquarters last year.

local fire department was repeatedly responding to

dumpster fires at the facility caused by disposal of rags

used at the facility; EPA was contacted and a multimedia

inspection was conducted. OSHA and State Health

(RCRA) inspectors participated in the inspection with the

EPCRA program. An administrative complaint was issued

for the EPCRA violations; OSHA found deficiencies in the

areas of the OSHA hazardous communication standard and

in the respirator standard and issued a citation;

RCRA/State Health issued a warning letter. Pillow

Kingdom, Inc., will pay a $26,960 penalty and will spend

a minimum of $255,400 as a pollution prevention SEP to

significantly reduce VOC emissions.

FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT

F.E. Warren Air Force Base: On December 27, 1993,

the Region notified F.E. Warren Air Force Base that they

had violated the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) by

failing to containerize investigation-derived waste as

required by the field sampling plan. EPA and the Air

Force have entered a settlement agreement, effective

January 4, 1995, that required the Air Force to request

appropriation and authorization from Congress to pay a

penalty of $10,000. Additionally, the Air Force

implemented a supplemental environmental project,

instituting a base-wide recycling program for glass,

newsprint, aluminum, plastics, and steel/tin cans.

OIL POLLUTION ACT

United States v. Burlington Northern Railroad: On

April 3, 1995, the consent decree was lodged in United

Phillips Petroleum Company: On April 3, 1995, a

consent order was filed for Phillips Petroleum for

RCRA

United States v. Stanley L. Smith, et al.: On June 8,

1995, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming

entered a civil consent decree in which Stanley L. Smith,

et al., agreed to pay $24,000 in civil penalties over a twoyear period. The case was initially issued as a RCRA civil

administrative order on February 28, 1989, with a

proposed civil penalty of $45,000. The two RCRA

violations, which were retained in the subsequent

enforcement action, were for failure to notify of hazardous

waste activity and for failure to obtain a RCRA hazardous

waste permit to conduct disposal activities.
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-71 July 1996

Powder River Crude Processors: This case arose from

the contamination of an abandoned oil recycling facility

commonly referred to as Big Muddy Oil Processors

(BMOP) and most recently, Powder River Crude

Processors (PRCP), located near Glenrock, Wyoming.

BMOP was originally established for recycling petroleum Cordero Mining Company: In 1992, Region VIII filed a

wastes. BMOP was poorly operated and went into complaint against Cordero Mining Company alleging that

bankruptcy in 1983, at which time it ceased operations. Cordero had committed approximately 70 violations of

The facility was not operated again until 1988, at which Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Most

time Richard Wallace leased the facility from Dale of the violations were made in connection with twenty

Valentine and commenced operations under the name three shipments of used oil and spent solvents off their

Powder River Crude Processors (PRCP). After facility.

approximately six months of operation, PRCP ceased

operations in September 1988. What remained were large Cordero evidenced a willingness to settle by, among other

open pits, leaking tanks, railroad cars, and drums things, instituting a number of voluntary practices at the

containing petroleum wastes. EPA investigators mine which have resulted in the use of less chlorinated

discovered bird and small mammal carcasses at the site solvents, and better management of each hazardous waste

and observed some mammal carcasses trapped in oily stream. Cordero also made two gifts to community

wastes. In addition, the area is a known bald eagle feeding colleges in Wyoming and Colorado, to develop programs

and nesting area. which will educate the community about various aspects of

A review of scientific abstracts indicated that this facility agreed to a penalty of $100,000.

could have substantial adverse impacts on wildlife. EPA

therefore issued orders under RCRA §7003, in September

and October 1991, to Valentine, Wallace, and the

generators and transporters known to it at the time:

Texaco, Conoco, Phillips, True, and 88 Oil Companies,

Jim's Water Service, and Valentine Construction

Company.

The provisions of the §7003 administrative order included:

(1) secure the site for both the public and wildlife; (2)

assess the integrity of all tanks and impoundments;

(3) prevent the release of any additional contamination; (4)

characterize the extent of contamination from any of the

units, (5) submit a work-plan to cleanup the site; and (6)

submit various reports for review.

Some of the respondents, including Conoco, Phillips,

True/88 and Texaco, grouped together and provided

security around the processing and storage part of the

facility and installed netting and chain link fences around

the surface impoundments, but failed to comply with the

other provisions of the order. The case, based on the lack

of complete compliance with major provisions, was

referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ filed its

§7003 order on February 19, 1993, seeking injunctive

relief and penalties for failure to comply with the order.

Conoco, Phillips, True/88, and Texaco entered into a

settlement with the United States, agreeing to cleanup a

substantial majority of the site at a cost of $4.2 to $8.9

millon, and pay a total penalty of $300,000. Wallace

subsequently settled for a penalty of $30,000, based on his

ability to pay, and Valentine lodged a consent decree with

the court on which included paying a December 21, 1994,

$25,000 penalty. Litigation against the non-settling

defendants is currently underway for the remaining

injunctive relief and penalties.

solid and hazardous waste management. Cordero also

Worland Laundry and Cleaners, Inc.: In a complaint

filed February 2, 1995, in Denver, Colorado, EPA charged

Worland Laundry and Cleaners, Inc., and its officers and

directors, Dan and Gail Dover, and Duke and Jane Dover,

with seven counts of violating the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act.

According to the complaint, WLC employees dumped

water contaminated with spent solvents (perchloroethylene

(PCE)) down city sewers every day of operation. About

four times a month workers dumped PCE-contaminated

"still bottoms" into city dumpsters in an alley between

WLC and the Stockgrowers Bank. Still bottoms are wastes

created when dry-cleaning machines are "cooked down"

and cleaned.

Amoco Oil Company: EPA and Wyoming's Department

of Environmental Quality, on November 21, 1994, ordered

Amoco Oil Company to begin the formal studies that will

shape environmental cleanup at the company's shut down

refinery on West Yellowstone Highway at Casper,

Wyoming. Studies will concentrate on refinery property

that lies south of the North Platte River, on Soda Lake, and

the Soda Lake caustic pit northeast of the "operations"

portion of the refinery. Preliminary investigations over the

past several years have found high levels of lead and

floating hydrocarbons on the refinery grounds. At Soda

Lake, oil grease, benzene, carbon tetrachloride,

chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, and dichloroethylene have

been found in inlet water and sludges. Water samples from

Soda Lake showed low levels of chloroform and methyl-
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-72 July 1996

ethyl ketone. Amoco is required to provide information on 1995, the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation

the extent and depth of contamination of various kinds, on Commission (WOGCC) filed an administrative order

any migration of wastes off the site, and to describe past revoking $50,000 in financial bonding from Mr. Bobby

releases. At the end of the studies, the agencies will give Smalley, Mr. Donald Creager, Petroleum Products, Inc.,

Amoco the opportunity to enter into an order "on consent." and Straight Arrow Oil Company. This action was taken

The company would then undertake the cleanup as against these four well owners for numerous violations

described in the order and agreed to by EPA, the State, and including failure to plug and abandon two wells near

the Company. Evanston, Wyoming, failure to file a change in well

SDWA

Fort Thompson Water System, Fort Thompson, SD and

Lower Brule Water System, Lower (Brule, SD): On May

25, 1995, EPA conducted inspections of the filtration

treatment plants at the Fort Thompson and Lower Brule

water systems. During the inspections, it was determined

that the filtration treatment being used at both systems was

ineffective. As a result of these findings, Region VIII

issued emergency administrative orders under Section

1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), on May

26, 1995.

The source of water for the Fort Thompson and Lower

Brule water systems is Lake Sharpe on the Missouri River,

and is of sufficiently poor quality that it must be filtered.

Missouri River water is microbiologically a high risk

source, because of the presence of livestock and other

sources of contamination within the watershed.

Clark Electric Motor Co. UIC-VIII-95-07. Clark

Electrical Motor Co. is an electrical motor repair facility

located in an unsewered area of Billings, Montana. This Frontier Refining Corporation: EPA issued a complaint

area lies above a high quality, shallow aquifer, and there to Frontier Refining Corporation alleging violations of the

are many private wells utilizing groundwater in this area. partial updating requirements of inventory update rule

Based on Class V well inventory information, EPA requirements promulgated pursuant to TSCA. This case

required that the facility either permit or close their drain, was filed as part of a nationwide initiative against a large

which was accepting waste fluids from cleaning and number of members of the oil and gas industry, all of

repairing electrical motors. The Region issued several whom failed to comply with the partial updating

notices of noncompliance for failure to respond to the requirements by February 21, 1991. The parties agreed to

deadlines for permitting or closing. The Region has a settlement which requires Frontier to pay a $90,000

attempted to involve the RCRA program in these efforts penalty. The penalty is comprised of a $30,000 cash

and has issued a proposed administrative order that penalty payment and a supplemental environmental project

requires closure of the Class V well, cleanup of the which will cost $120,000. A consent agreement reflecting

surrounding area, acceptable alternative disposal, and a these terms was filed with the Regional Judicial Officer

penalty in the amount of $125,000. This is one of the requesting that it be incorporated into a consent order.

Region's first Class V cases, where a respondent has

actually admitted to pouring highly contaminated waste

into the drain. This area of Billings may be considered an

environmental justice area.

Bobby Smalley, Donald Creager, Petroleum Products, This case was filed as part of a nationwide initiative

Inc., and Straight Arrow Oil Company—Wyoming Oil against a large number of members of the oil and gas

and Gas Conservation Commission: On March 10, industry, all of whom failed to comply with the partial

ownership, and failure to file monthly monitoring reports.

The WOGCC order required the $50,000 to be used to

plug the wells and remediate the well sites. The WOGCC

also barred these parties from doing business in Wyoming

and referred them to the Wyoming Department of Criminal

Investigations on suspicion of falsifying information

requested by the WOGCC.

Missoula Bottling Company, Inc.: Missoula Bottling is

a mid-sized business located in Missoula, Montana, and

serves as a Pepsi-Cola distributor. On January 3, 1995,

Missoula Bottling formally agreed to pay EPA an

administrative civil penalty of $17,500 for failing to

prevent fluid movement into or above an underground

source of drinking water. EPA targeted this facility

because it had discharged auto service related wastewater

above the Missoula Valley Sole Source Aquifer. This UIC

settlement was reached within eight weeks of Missoula

Bottling receiving EPA's proposed administrative order,

fully recovered economic benefit, and levied a substantial

fine reflecting the gravity of the violation.

TSCA

Gary-Williams Energy Corporation: EPA issued a

complaint to Gary-Williams Energy Corporation, alleging

violations of the partial updating requirements of inventory

update rule requirements promulgated pursuant to TSCA.
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-73 July 1996

updating requirements by February 21, 1991. The parties Soon after the orders were issued, Weld County Waste

agreed to a settlement which requires Gary-Williams to Disposal decided to close the facility, and the companies

pay a $28,800 penalty. A consent agreement reflecting proposed a number of short-term measures beyond those

these terms was filed with the Regional Judicial Officer set out in the order. EPA agreed and modified the orders

requesting that it be incorporated into a consent order. on June 7 to incorporate these measures.

Western Slope Refining Company: EPA issued a

complaint to Western Slope Refining Company, alleging

violations of the partial updating requirements of inventory

update rule requirements promulgated pursuant to TSCA.

This case was filed as part of a nationwide initiative

against a large number of members of the oil and gas

industry; all of whom failed to comply with the partial

updating requirements by February 21, 1991. A penalty of

$102,000 was proposed. The parties agreed to a

settlement which requires respondent to pay a $15,300

penalty, based on a documented inability to pay the penalty

as proposed. A consent agreement reflecting these terms

was filed with the Regional Judicial Officer requesting that

it be incorporated into a consent order.

Montana Resources Company: Presiding Officer Smith

has lodged a consent order relating to Region VIII's and

Montana Resources' execution, a consent agreement

whereby Montana Resources agreed to pay a civil penalty

in the amount of $10,000 and expend $35,000 over the

next year to implement a pollution prevention

supplemental environmental project (SEP) involving early

retirement of PCB transformers to resolve the abovecaptioned administrative complaint, which sought $27,625

in civil penalties for alleged violations of TSCA §15 for

illegal disposal of PCB and significant paperwork

omissions.

MULTIMEDIA

Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc.; Amoco Production

Company; and HS Resource, Inc.: Three companies

cleaned up oily ponds that have killed birds and

contaminated soil and water near Ft. Lupton in Weld

County, according to the U.S. EPA in Denver. Weld

County Waste Disposal, Inc., a San Antonio, Texas,

corporation, Amoco Production Company, and San

Francisco-based HS Resources, Inc., immediately began a

series of actions aimed at ending the threat posed by oily

ponds at 4982 Weld County Road 35, east of Ft. Lupton.

On May 11, 1995, working with the USF&W, the

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,

and the Weld County Health Department, EPA issued an

order to the companies specifying actions to correct

problems at the facility. EPA issued orders to Amoco and

HS Resources because they were the two largest

contributors of waste during the last six years of operation.
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-74 July 1996

Rocky Flats IAG: In July 1995, in resolution of 14

violations of the Rocky Flats IAG, DOE agreed to pay

$700,000 in cash penalties and to expend $2.1 million for

supplemental environmental projects, with both the cash

and SEP components to be split evenly between EPA and

Colorado. The settlement agreement required DOE to

request a specific authorization and appropriation for

payment of the $350,000 cash penalty to EPA. DOE made

this specific request, and in anticipation of receiving this

line-item appropriation in its FY 1996 budget, sent a letter

to the Treasury in late September 1995, requesting

payment of this sum into the EPA Hazardous Substances

Response Trust Fund.

Also in late September, DOE sent letters to effect the

transfer of funds for all of the $2.1 million set aside for

SEPs. These transfers included approximately $1.5

million for purchase of open space surrounding Rocky

Flats. Most of these funds support an effort by

Westminster/Jefferson County to establish a wildlife

corridor between the Rocky Flats Buffer Zone and Standley

Lake. These property acquisitions may also ensure the

protection of habitat of the Preble's Meadow Jumping

Mouse, which has been proposed for the Endangered

Species List.
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-75 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION VIII ................................................................................ A-65

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. A-65

South Main Texaco: .................................................................... A-65

Plum Creek Manufacturing: ............................................................. A-65

Colorado Refining Company: ............................................................ A-65

Asarco, Inc.: .......................................................................... A-65

ARCO, Snyder Oil Corporation: .......................................................... A-65

CERCLA ................................................................................ A-65

United States v. Alumet Partnership, et al.: ................................................. A-65

Portland Cement Company: ............................................................. A-66

Lowry Landfill Superfund Site: ........................................................... A-66

Rockwell International: ................................................................. A-66

City and County of Denver: .............................................................. A-66

Denver Radium/Robco Project a Brownsfield Redevelopment Success Story: ...................... A-66

Utah Power & Light/American Barrel: ..................................................... A-67

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Site: ........................................... A-67

Hansen Container Site: ................................................................. A-67

Layton Salvage Yard Site: ............................................................... A-67

Broderick Wood Products Site: ........................................................... A-67

S.W. Shattuck Chemical Company: ....................................................... A-67

Smuggler Durant Mining Company: ...................................................... A-68

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... A-68

United States v. John Morrell Company: ................................................... A-68

United States v. Excel Corporation, Fort Morgan, CO (CD, CO): ............................... A-68

United States v. City of Fort Morgan, CO (CD, CO): ......................................... A-68

City of Watertown, South Dakota: ......................................................... A-68

Sheyenne Tooling and Manufacturing Company: ............................................ A-69

Trail King Industries: .................................................................. A-69

Pettingill: ............................................................................ A-69

Zortman Mining/Pegasus Gold: .......................................................... A-69

F.L. Thorpe & Company: ............................................................... A-69

Twin City Fan & Blower Company: ....................................................... A-69

Newman Signs Company: ............................................................... A-69

FKI Industries: ........................................................................ A-70

Gopher Sign Company: ................................................................. A-70

EPCRA .................................................................................. A-70

United States v. Pennzoil Products Company: ............................................... A-70

KBP Coil Coaters: ..................................................................... A-70

Pillow Kingdom, Inc. ................................................................... A-70

Federal Facilities Agreement ................................................................. A-70

F.E. Warren Air Force Base: ............................................................. A-70

Oil Pollution Act .......................................................................... A-71

United States v. Burlington Northern Railroad: .............................................. A-71

Phillips Petroleum Company: ............................................................ A-71

RCRA ................................................................................... A-71

United States v. Stanley L. Smith, et al.: .................................................... A-71

Powder River Crude Processors: ......................................................... A-71

Cordero Mining Company: .............................................................. A-72

Worland Laundry and Cleaners, Inc.: ..................................................... A-72

Amoco Oil Company: ................................................................... A-72
Region VIII Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-76 July 1996

SDWA .................................................................................. A-72

Fort Thompson Water System, Fort Thompson, SD and Lower Brule Water System, Lowe r

(Brule, SD): ....................................................................... A-72

Clark Electric Motor Co. UIC-VIII-95-07. .................................................. A-72

Bobby Smalley, Donald Creager, Petroleum Products, Inc., and Straight Arrow Oi l

Company—Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: .............................. A-73

Missoula Bottling Company, Inc.: ......................................................... A-73

TSCA ................................................................................... A-73

Frontier Refining Corporation: ........................................................... A-73

Gary-Williams Energy Corporation: ...................................................... A-73

Western Slope Refining Company: ........................................................ A-73

Montana Resources Company: ........................................................... A-73

Multimedia ............................................................................... A-74

Weld County Waste Disposal, Inc.; Amoco Production Company; and HS Resource, Inc.: ........... A-74

Rocky Flats IAG: ...................................................................... A-74
A-75 July 1996

REGION IX

McColl Superfund Site: On December 9, 1994, the

district court approved a consent decree embodying a past

cost settlement for the McColl Superfund site in Fullerton,

California. Co-plaintiffs the United States and the State of

California had reached agreement with four oil company KRDC, Inc., and Sundance International, Ltd.: EPA

defendants—Shell, Union, ARCO and Texaco, for the negotiated an administrative settlement for violations of

payment of $18 million to cover costs incurred by the Clean Water Act permitting requirements at Vail Lake

governments from 1980 to mid-1990. The governments' located in Riverside County, California. The defendants,

total claim for the ten-year period was $25.7 million KRDC, Inc., and Sundance International, Ltd., had

including interest. The governments had filed a motion for discharged fill material through dumping and grading

summary judgment on costs following the court's favorable activities below the ordinary high water mark of Vail Lake

summary judgment ruling on liability. The governments without obtaining a Section 404 permit from the Army

are pursuing further cost recovery against the site Corps of Engineers as required by the Clean Water Act.

landowner, who has also been found liable, and will later The discharges impacted approximately 22 acres that

be seeking recovery from all defendants for costs incurred contained potential habitat for endangered and threatened

since 1990. species, including the least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern

Dunsmuir Spill: In July 1991, a Southern Pacific train

derailed near the town of Dunsmuir in Northern California

causing a tank car filled with the herbicide metam sodium

to be spilled into the Sacramento River. Hundreds of

thousands of fish were killed along with virtually the entire

food chain of the river. Within 48 hours of the derailment,

EPA issued a Section 106 order under CERCLA to

oversee the removal action. EPA worked in cooperation

with approximately 60 local, state and federal agencies to

monitor the contamination as it flowed downstream and

ultimately to develop a treatment method to dissipate the

contamination once it reached the Lake Shasta reservoir.

Following the initial response action, EPA, with the

Department of Justice, worked in conjunction with the

State of California and other federal agencies to pursue a Jibboom Junkyard: On March 17, 1995, the U.S.

coordinated enforcement action to recover response costs, District Court for the Eastern District of California entered

penalties, natural resource damages and other a consent decree in the Jibboom Junkyard cost recovery

compensation from the PRPs. After extensive efforts to case. The consent decree requires six potentially

assess natural resource damages, in 1994, a joint responsible parties to reimburse the United States in the

settlement was reached totaling $38 million. The total sum of $4,463,438, and the California Department of

settlement recovers approximately $14 million for natural Toxic Substances Control in the total sum of $711,562, for

resource damages, to be managed by a joint federal and past costs incurred by the United States and DTSC at the

state trustee committee, and an additional $5 million for Jibboom Junkyard Superfund site in Sacramento,

on-going monitoring studies. Approximately $13 million California. The settlement amount represents

was for all of the agencies' response costs. EPA recovered approximately 90% of the past costs incurred by the

all of its response costs as well as a $500,000 penalty United States and DTSC at the site. The six PRPs are:

under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. This penalty Levin Enterprises (the successor in interest to the

recovered approximately the statutory maximum and was owner/operator, Associated Metals Company); Southern

one of the first to be assessed under the increased penalty Pacific Transportation Company; Pacific Gas & Electric

authority enacted by the 1990 Oil Pollution Act. Company; the Sacramento Municipal Utility District; the

Although the consent decree was entered by the federal Department of Transportation. To date, approximately

District Court for the Eastern District of California, the

consent decree has not gone into effect because of an

appeal by intervenors which is still pending before the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Willow Flycatcher.

This case was resolved with an administrative order on

consent that required approximately 13.3 acres of on-site

revegetation and restoration and approximately 16.25 acres

of off-site mitigation. A conservation easement for the offsite acreage was deeded to the California Department of

Fish and Game and protected a downstream portion of the

same watershed. In addition, the defendants agreed to pay

a $60,000 administrative penalty to the EPA and a

$40,000 penalty to the County. This joint settlement was

marked by a high level of cooperation and coordination

between EPA, the County, California Department of Fish

and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.

U.S. Department of Defense; and the California
Region IX Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-76 July 1996

75% of the settlement amount has been paid. The balance In addition, NOx emissions were lowered from

will be paid in FY 1996. approximately 180 tons per year before controls were

The fourth partial consent decree for the Operating were installed. While the Sacramento area is in attainment

Industries Superfund site was entered by the U.S. District for nitrogen oxide, NOx is a precursor for ground level

Court for the Central District of California on April 3, ozone and the Sacramento area is in nonattainment for

1995. This consent decree, valued at more than $60 ozone. This enforcement action also resulted in CAGE

million, resolved the liability of numerous municipal paying a civil penalty of $675,000.

entities, including 14 cities, one county, five garbage

disposal districts, and the California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans), and 29 municipal solid waste

transporters. These parties had been sued for contribution

by settlers under prior consent decrees, for arranging for

the disposal of municipal solid waste which allegedly

contained CERCLA hazardous substances. Additional

claims had been brought against the cities of Monterey

Park and Montebello based on a theory of owner/operator

liability, and against Caltrans for the construction of the

Pomona Freeway through the site. The consent decree

culminated a three-way negotiation between EPA, the

municipalities and their transporters, and the prior settlers.

A portion of the proceeds was retained by the prior settlers

as reimbursement for litigation expenses, and

approximately $4 million was paid for state and federal

past costs and to fund work under prior settlements. The

balance of the settlement proceeds is being held in escrow

to fund future cleanup efforts at the site, including final

remedy.

California Almond Growers Exchange: California gas burned at its refinery, and (3) installing and operating

Almond Growers Exchange (CAGE) is a cooperative of a scrubber to lower the H S content of fuel gas burned at

almond growers. CAGE processes the almonds of its its refinery. Witco has also paid $700,000 civil penalty for

members at a processing plant located in Sacramento, its violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Resource

California. At an adjacent facility, CAGE owns and Recovery and Conservation Act, and the Clean Air Act.

operates a biomass fired cogeneration facility. Most of the

biomass fuel for the cogeneration facility is almond shells

from the processing plant. The cogeneration facility

produces steam for the processing plant and electricity

which is sold to the local utility company. The

cogeneration facility emits carbon monoxide (CO) and

oxides of nitrogen (NO ) into the atmosphere. x

The Sacramento area is nonattainment for CO. Prior to

EPA's enforcement action, the cogeneration facility emitted

CO at a rate exceeding 6,000 tons per year and could, by

itself, cause localized exceedences of the national ambient

air quality standard for CO. A minor source permit issued

by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District (the "District") limited the cogeneration facility to

99 tons per year of CO, but the District refused to enforce

the limits contained in that permit. As a result of EPA's

enforcement action, CO emissions at the cogeneration

facility are less than 250 tons per year and the cogeneration

facility is now a relatively minor source of CO for the area.

added to approximately 135 tons per year after controls

Witco Corporation (Oildale, CA): Earlier this year, a

district court entered a consent decree which successfully

resolved an EPA multi-media enforcement action against

Witco Corp.'s Oildale, California oil refinery. Witco has

been disposing its wastewater into a deep disposal well,

risking contamination of an aquifer that may have some

long-term resource value. The wastewater recycling

project will allow Witco to terminate this practice and to

conserve large amounts of water (2,400 barrels of water

per day) in a water-scarce region. This recycling project

will serve as a model of innovative wastewater

management for other refineries and will help EPA's

efforts to promote water recycling and pollution

prevention.

Witco is also: (1) continuing an on-going investigation of

subsurface contamination at its refinery site resulting from

leaking storage tanks and waste disposal in injection wells,

(2) installing and maintaining a continuous emissions

monitoring system for monitoring the H S content of fuel 2

2

Masonite Corporation: Masonite Corporation has

operated a hardboard manufacturing facility in Ukiah,

California, since the early 1950s. Beginning in January

1989, Masonite modified its facility to add a new

production line. Region IX determined that the new

production line resulted in a significant net emissions

increase for volatile organic compounds. Section 165 of

the Clean Air Act, therefore, required Masonite to conduct

an air quality review and obtain a Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) permit prior to construction to

determine if the modification would effect ambient air

quality. A second violation arises from Masonite's

exceedence of a permit limitation on fuel oil consumption.

Region IX issued a notice of violation to Masonite in

March 1992, and a compliance order in May 1992.

Masonite installed a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO)

in June 1992.
Region IX Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-77 July 1996

Region IX also negotiated a resolution of the enforcement a complaint and compliance order to the BOR's Yuma

action with Masonite. On January 17, 1995, the United Desalting Plant located in Yuma, Arizona, assessing over

States filed a civil complaint and concurrently lodged a a $250,000 penalty. The Yuma Desalting Plant engages in

consent decree requiring Masonite to pay a civil penalty of the desalination of Colorado River water. On March 6,

$600,000, and providing for injunctive relief including 1995, EPA conducted an inspection of the facility. EPA

continuous operation of the RTO pending issuance of a inspectors observed approximately 61 containers (equal to

final permit. The citizen group objected to entry of the thirty-five full 55-gallon drums) of hazardous waste at the

consent decree on the grounds that it did not take into facility stored in and around the storage area. The

account the issues on which the EAB remanded the permit containers contained ignitable waste, corrosive waste,

and because the group believed that the civil penalty reactive waste, chromium, lead, etc. These containers had

should be paid towards further pollution reductions rather been stored on-site for up to 40 months without a permit.

than to the U.S. Treasury. Region IX and the Department Considering these wastes were largely characteristic

of Justice are currently preparing a motion for entry of the wastes that explode or ignite and that the storage area was

consent decree which will respond to the citizen group's subject to extreme desert heat and cold, the likelihood of

comments. release to the environment and danger to BOR employees

Minerec Mining Chemical: EPA issued a precedential

emergency order under Section 303 of the Clean Air Act U.S. Army Schofield Barracks: Schofield Barracks,

terminating the Minerec Mining Chemical's production headquarters for the 25th Infantry Division and the 45th

operations after the Minerec facility released a cloud of Support Group, is located in Wahiawa, Hawaii. The Army

hydrogen sulfide gas into the environment in June 1994 operates numerous motorpools and maintenance shops

resulting in approximately thirty-five individuals seeking located at the facility that generate wastes such as waste

medical treatment. The Minerec facility has a history of paint, waste solvents, and contaminated waste oils which

odor complaints, minor spills, and other incidents. State are RCRA regulated hazardous wastes. On July 14 and

and local officials, however, could not act to shut down the 15, 1995, EPA and the Hawaii Department of Health

facility or modify the company's operations because the (DOH) conducted a RCRA compliance evaluation

facility is located on Tribal land. inspection to evaluate compliance with RCRA regulations.

After lengthy negotiations and Minerec's implementation facility indicating Schofield was illegally operating as a

ofrevised safety and production procedures subsequent to RCRA storage facility and violating numerous generator

EPA's shutdown order, EPA amended the order to allow requirements. Moreover, EPA/DOH noted repeat

limited chemical production. The company, however, violations already identified during earlier visits by DOH.

again released hydrogen sulfide gas in May 1995, resulting On May 6, 1994, Region IX issued a complaint and

in sixteen individuals seeking medical care. At this time, compliance order assessing a $543,900 penalty. On

EPA requested that the company voluntarily shut down September 26, 1995, EPA settled the case with the Army

production operations pending judicial arbitration to for $77,347 in civil penalties plus 4 SEPs worth a total of

resolve the parties' disputes concerning ongoing Minerec $1,245,135.

operations, plant shutdown, and site remediation.

Subsequent to arbitration proceedings in June 1995, U.S.

District Court Judge Richard M. Bilby issued an order

allowing Minerec to produce one chemical until September

30, 1997, subject to strict operational, safety, and air

monitoring provisions. Further, Minerec is required to

vacate the premises, have remediated any hazardous

contamination, and have removed all improvements from

the site by December 31, 1997. Finally, the order provides

that any further releases of hydrogen sulfide gas into the

environment shall result in an immediate, final, and

complete shutdown of the plant.

FEDERAL FACILITIES

Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation

(BOR) Yuma Facility: In August 1995, Region IX issued

is potentially significant.

EPA/DOH discovered numerous conditions throughout the

U.S. Army Johnston Atoll: On March 13, 1995, Region

IX issued a complaint and compliance order to the Army

in response to a release of chemical nerve
Region IX Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-78 July 1996

gas from the incinerator at the Johnston Atoll Chemical

Agent Disposal System (JACADS). The incinerator,

located on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, is the

world's first full-scale, modern chemical weapons

destruction facility, and was built as a prototype for eight

proposed facilities on the U.S. mainland. Region IX

inspected the facility in August 1994. As a result of the

inspection and other information provided by the Army, the

Region assessed a $122,300 penalty for three violations.
Region IX Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-79 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION IX .................................................................................. A-75

McColl Superfund Site: ................................................................. A-75

Dunsmuir Spill: ....................................................................... A-75

KRDC, Inc., and Sundance International, Ltd.: .............................................. A-75

Jibboom Junkyard: .................................................................... A-75

California Almond Growers Exchange: .................................................... A-76

Witco Corporation (Oildale, CA): ......................................................... A-76

Masonite Corporation: ................................................................. A-76

Minerec Mining Chemical: .............................................................. A-77

Federal Facilities .......................................................................... A-77

Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Yuma Facility: ...................... A-77

U.S. Army Schofield Barracks: ........................................................... A-77

U.S. Army Johnston Atoll: ............................................................... A-78
A-79 July 1996

REGION X

CLEAN AIR ACT

United States v. Potlatch Corporation (D. ID): Consent

decrees with Potlatch Corporation and Olshan Asbestos

Removal Corporation were entered January 24, 1995, in

the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho to resolve

alleged violations of the asbestos NESHAP regulations

during demolition activities at the Potlatch Pulp and Paper

facility in Lewiston, Idaho. Potlatch agreed to pay a civil

penalty of $250,000 and to implement an extensive

internal asbestos control program at all its facilities

nationwide. Olshan agreed to pay a civil penalty of

$353,800 and to not conduct any further NESHAP

regulated asbestos operations. The total penalty of

$603,800 reportedly is the largest negotiated penalty to

date for asbestos NESHAP violations.

United States v. Nu-West Industries (D. ID): The Idaho Leer-Gem Top and American Cabinet Concepts:

District Court approved a consent decree resolving Region

X's claims that Nu-West had violated the Idaho State

Implementation Plan and new source performance

standards at its fertilizer production facility in Conda,

Idaho. The decree assesses a $150,000 penalty, requires

expenditure of $3.5 million to reduce sulfur dioxide air

emissions by 20,000 pounds per day and requires the

recycling of tons of waste material.

United States v. Daw Forest Product Company (D. ID):

A consent decree was entered in the U.S. District Court for

the District of Idaho settling Clean Air Act claims against

DAW Forest Products Company, Huetter, Idaho. The Hopton Technologies: For alleged EPCRA reporting

allegations involved violation of the Idaho State violations, Hopton Technologies, a resin manufacturer in

Implementation Plan opacity limits. DAW agreed to a Oregon, agreed to a penalty of $84,700. Half will be in

penalty of $215,000. The case was part of a geographic cash. The rest will be waived if the company installs a dust

initiative assessing effectiveness of the rule in the Idaho control scrubber system, which will substantially reduce

Panhandle. In response to our enforcement action, DAW fugitive dust and vapors, and an improved sump system,

installed controls reducing its particular emissions by which will reduce discharges to the local sewage treatment

about 100 tons per year. system. The SEP is valued at over $60,000.

CLEAN WATER ACT

United States v. Alaska Pulp Company (D. AK): EPA's

action to collect penalties for violations of the Clean Water

Act and of the terms of a prior consent decree by the

Alaska Pulp Company settled for $1,274,500.

James Roland: For alleged Clean Water Act permit

violations, James Roland, an Alaska placer miner, agreed

to pay $4,000 and to remediate previously mined land.

Runoff from the mined land had reduced the water quality

of a creek. This is believed to be the first time that an

administrative enforcement settlement agreement with an

Alaskan placer miner includes performance of a

supplemental environmental project. The SEP is valued at

about $11,000.

Alaska Pipeline Service Company: For alleged Clean

Water Act permit violations at its sewage treatment plant

in Valdez, Alaska, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company

agreed to pay $25,000 and to undertake supplemental

environmental projects at a cost of $160,000. The SEPs

include non-required training of the plant operators and the

training of other non-certified sewage treatment plant

operators in Alaska.

EPCRA

EPCRA cases against Leer-Gem Top and American

Cabinet Concepts were resolved. Leer-Gem agreed to pay

$5,782 and to replace surface coating guns with high

volume low pressure spray guns that would reduce solvent

use at its Clackamas, Oregon, facility in return for a credit

of $1,927 towards the assessed penalty. American Cabinet

agreed to pay $6,577 and to alter its Longview,

Washington, facility to support a water base coating

system, which would reduce its annual use of 25,000

pounds of xylene by approximately 75%, in return for a

credit of $3,288.

Patrick Industries: For alleged EPCRA reporting

violations, Patrick Industries, a cabinet manufacturer in

Oregon, agreed to a penalty of $120,389 and installation of

a finishing system to cure coating using ultraviolet light.

This project will cost about $304,000. It is expected to

reduce by 95% air emissions of xylene, methyl isobutyl

ketone and toluene by enabling the company to switch to

low-solvent coatings.

Cascade General: Cascade General, a ship repair facility

in Portland, Oregon, agreed to a penalty of $78,568 for

alleged EPCRA violations. The company agreed to pay
Region X Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-80 July 1996

$39,284 in cash and install air filtration dust collector and monitor for air leaks from hazardous waste processing

solvent recovery systems and to switch to water-based equipment, and improper management of hazardous waste

paint to remediate the balance of the penalty. The SEPs containers which could result in explosions or releases to

will cost about $117,000 to implement. The dust collector the storm drain. EPA determined the facility was no longer

will improve air quality in the facility by reducing dust in eligible to receive CERCLA wastes. The facility had a

work areas. The solvent recovery system will reduce by history of violations for federal and state hazardous waste,

90% the amount of solvents discharged to the air by water, and PCB requirements, and concerns about local

recovering batch solvents for reuse in the facility. For TRI fire and worker safety issues.

reporting years 1988-1993, total releases were reported at

253,000 pounds. During negotiations EPA and NWES entered into a

Nosler, Inc. Nosler, Inc., a bullet manufacturer, agreed to

a $54,798 penalty for failing to file toxic chemical release

reports. The amount of $33,704 is to be paid in cash. The

balance is to be remediated by eliminating the company's

use of trichloroethylene in the production of lead slugs and

by reducing the amount of lead dust generated during

ballistic testing. Project costs are estimated at $42,000.

Gary Loomis, Inc.: Gary Loomis, Inc., a sports

equipment manufacturer in Washington, settled an EPCRA

action for $18,100. Half the penalty will be waived when

the company installs a new technology distillation unit

reducing its use of acetone by 90% and reducing air

emissions by about 65 barrels of acetone a year. The SEP

will cost about $18,400 to implement.

RCRA

Alaska Pollution Control, Inc., Palmer, Alaska: The

Regional Administrator signed a consent agreement and

consent order resolving RCRA violations at Alaska

Pollution Control, Inc. (APC). APC operated a used oil

processing plant, a contaminated soil incinerator, and

hazardous waste boiler in Palmer, Alaska. APC agreed to

pay a cash penalty of $270,000. The facility has since Willamina Lumber Company: Willamina Lumber

closed its hazardous waste operations (storage and Company of Oregon settled a TSCA PCB action for

incineration), thus eliminating population exposure to $12,750, half to be paid in cash and the other half

pollutants emitted from its hazardous waste combustion suspended if the company completes early disposal of the

activities. The hazardous waste generated by the facility PCB equipment remaining at its facility.

will be shipped elsewhere for similar treatment.

United States v. Taylor Lumber & Treating, Inc. (D. TSCA PCB complaint by agreeing to a penalty of $28,900,

OR): The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon half to be paid in cash and the other half suspended in

entered the consent decree between the United States and recognition of the company's early disposal of PCB

Taylor Lumber & Treating, Inc. The decree in this RCRA equipment. The SEP will cost approximately $32,000 to

enforcement action requires that Taylor close an implement.

unpermitted surface impoundment, conduct facility-wide

corrective action, and pay a civil penalty of $70,000.

Northwest Enviroservice, Inc. (WA): EPA alleged

Northwest Enviroservice, Inc. (NWES), violated RCRA by

unauthorized storage and disposal of hazardous wastes in

unlined pits and in containment sumps, failure to fully

Section 3008(h) agreement for site-wide investigation and

clean-up of contamination. Independent of the

enforcement action, the company sold the hazardous waste

portion of the business and will only operate as a nonhazardous waste processing facility at the site. The

company is closing out and decontaminating the hazardous

waste portion of the facility.

TSCA

Northwest Aluminum Company: For alleged TSCA

violations, Northwest Aluminum Company in Oregon

agreed to pay $22,525 and to perform a project worth

$45,050 involving the early removal and disposal of PCB

large capacitors or reclassification to non-PCB status of

PCB-contaminated transformers. The project will

eliminate the potential risk of PCB exposure to human

health and the environment.

Peoples Utility District, Tillamook, Oregon: The

Tillamook, Oregon, People's Utility District settled a

TSCA PCB action for $9,350; half of which will be

waived if the utility completes early disposal of PCB

equipment.

Caterpillar, Inc.: Caterpillar, Inc., of Oregon resolved a

Washington Department of Social and Health Services:

For violations of TSCA PCB regulations, the Washington

Department of Social and Health Services agreed to a

penalty of $16,660. Region X agreed to mitigate half the

assessed penalty in exchange for the early removal and
Region X Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-81 July 1996

disposal of PCB transformers and PCB contaminated 1995. The case involves Clean Water Act and Clean Air

electrical equipment. Act violations at the Ketchikan Pulp Company mill in

MULTIMEDIA

United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (D. AK): A

consent decree was entered in the U.S. District Court for

the District of Alaska on September 19,

Alaska. The Clean Water Act allegations include

numerous violations of KPC's discharge permit and

unpermitted discharges of red liquor, magnesium and

cooking acid. The Clean Air Act part of the case involves

violations of the new source performance standards. The

air violations resulted in excess emissions of more than

1,600 tons of sulfur dioxide.

The consent decree requires KPC to pay a civil penalty of

$3,111,000 and to spend up to $6 million to remediate

contaminated sediments in Ward Cove. KPC also agreed

to eliminate direct discharges from its water treatment

plant, develop and implement a spill contaminant program,

use state certified wastewater treatment operators and

improve its monitoring and laboratory program. Specific

to air, KPC agreed to conduct additional performance tests

and conduct a facility mass balance for sulfur. Finally,

KPC agreed to conduct a facility-wide multi-media

environmental audit and pollution prevention study and to

develop an operation and maintenance plan incorporating

the results of the audit.
Region X Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-82 July 1996
Region X Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-83 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION X .................................................................................. A-79

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. A-79

United States v. Potlatch Corporation (D. ID): .............................................. A-79

United States v. Nu-West Industries (D. ID): ................................................ A-79

United States v. Daw Forest Product Company (D. ID): ....................................... A-79

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... A-79

United States v. Alaska Pulp Company (D. AK): ............................................. A-79

James Roland: ........................................................................ A-79

Alaska Pipeline Service Company: ........................................................ A-79

EPCRA .................................................................................. A-79

Leer-Gem Top and American Cabinet Concepts: ............................................ A-79

Hopton Technologies: .................................................................. A-79

Patrick Industries: ..................................................................... A-79

Cascade General: ..................................................................... A-80

Nosler, Inc. ........................................................................... A-80

Gary Loomis, Inc.: ..................................................................... A-80

RCRA ................................................................................... A-80

Alaska Pollution Control, Inc., Palmer, Alaska: ............................................. A-80

United States v. Taylor Lumber & Treating, Inc. (D. OR): ..................................... A-80

Northwest Enviroservice, Inc. (WA): ....................................................... A-80

TSCA ................................................................................... A-80

Northwest Aluminum Company: .......................................................... A-80

Peoples Utility District, Tillamook, Oregon: ................................................ A-80

Willamina Lumber Company: ............................................................ A-80

Caterpillar, Inc.: ...................................................................... A-81

Washington Department of Social and Health Services: ....................................... A-81

Multimedia ............................................................................... A-81

United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (D. AK): .......................................... A-81
A-83 July 1996

FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE

Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA) Fort Defiance Facility: On September 27, 1995,

EPA issued a complaint and compliance order to the BIA

for RCRA violations at the Fort Defiance, Arizona, facility,

including: operating a storage facility without a permit,

storing LDR waste beyond allowable deadlines, and failure

to file a notice of hazardous waste activity. Total civil

penalties assessed for the violations were $269,019. U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG): On June

RCRA/Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program: In

September of 1995, EPA transmitted five consent orders

to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) for final

negotiation and signature. On October 5 and 6, 1995,

EPA and the NNPP signed all five consent agreements and

compliance orders for facilities in Regions I, III, and IX in

accordance with the requirements of RCRA as amended by Altus Air Force Base: On March 24, 1995, EPA issued

the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) of 1992. The a unilateral administrative order under Section 3008(h) for

facilities involved were Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory- RCRA corrective action, including a RCRA facility

Windsor Site in Connecticut, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard investigation and corrective measures, if needed. Altus

in Maine, the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in requested a hearing on the order. In July 1995, a hearing

Pennsylvania, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia, and was held, with the Regional Judicial Officer (RJO)

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii. presiding. The Region awaits a recommendation by the

The FFCA also provided a limited three-year exemption

from the assessment of fines and penalties for Section

3004(j) land disposal restriction storage prohibition

violations involving radioactive mixed waste at DOE

facilities. The FFCA specified that DOE must develop an

inventory of mixed waste and develop comprehensive site

treatment plans (STPs) for mixed waste. All the Naval

Nuclear Propulsion facilities and DOE facilities that

generate or store mixed waste were required to develop

and submit STPs to EPA or an authorized state for

approval. The STPs were required to: (1) identify the

appropriate treatment facilities which will treat each mixed

waste stream, and (2) develop schedules for treating each

identified waste stream generated by the facilities.

The FFCA further provided that EPA or a state with the

requisite RCRA authority had to approve the site treatment

plan and issue an Order pursuant to Section 3008(a) of

RCRA by October 6, 1995, that required adherence to and

implementation of the approved site treatment plan. The

failure of a facility to have an approved site treatment plan

would result in the loss of sovereign immunity for fines and

penalties.

Groom Lake: On May 19, 1995, the Director of the

FFEO and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

signed a memorandum of agreement ensuring that EPA has

continued access to the operating location near Groom

Lake for administering environmental laws. Moreover,

due to national security concerns, the Air Force agreed to

provide reasonable logistical assistance to EPA. Finally,

EPA agreed that any classified information obtained by

EPA would be treated in accordance with applicable laws

and executive orders regarding classified materials.

19, 1995, a consent order was signed by the Army for

violations of RCRA land disposal restrictions pursuant to

a multimedia inspection conducted by NEIC at APG in

June of 1993. The Army was assessed with a penalty of

$100,000 for the violations and reached a settlement

amount of $92,000 as part of the order.

RJO to the Regional Administrator.

U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal: Region II completed

enforcement activity on September 29, 1995 at the U.S.

Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering

Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, based on a July

1993 multimedia inspection. The Arsenal is on the NPL

and has approximately 150 areas of concern.

U.S. Army Natick Research Facility: The U.S. Army has

agreed to pay a $49,000 penalty for mishandling hazardous

wastes at its Natick Research, Development, and

Engineering Center, Massachusetts. The facility

specializes in food engineering, aero-mechanical

engineering, and clothing, materials, and equipment

engineering. The Army failed to properly identify wastes

generated on site, and failed to label, date, and mark

hazardous waste containers. The facility was recently

named to the National Priority List.

F.E. Warren Air Force Base: As a result of

contamination of ground water, surface water, and soils,

F.E. Warren Air Force Base was listed on the NPL in

1990. EPA, Wyoming, and the Air Force subsequently

signed a FFCA in 1991. In the fall of 1993, the Air Force

violated the terms of the cleanup agreement. EPA

discovered these violations in December and notified the

Air Force that it was assessing stipulated penalties for

failure to containerize and test sampling and field
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-84 July 1996

investigation-derived wastes. The Air Force has agreed to completed in about 2010. Prior to the agreement, the

undertake a supplemental environmental project Army estimated cleanup would cost $2.8 billion to $3.6

implementing a recycling program for glass, newsprint, billion. Once the cleanup is certified completed by EPA,

aluminum, plastics, and steel/tin cans and to pay a cash the arsenal is to become a national wildlife refuge managed

penalty of $10,000. by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Army Rocky Mountain Arsenal: The Army Army Materials Technology Laboratory: EPA and the

manufactured chemical weapons, such as napalm bombs Army agreed on the terms of a federal facility agreement

and mustard gas, and conventional munitions, until the for the Army Materials Technology Lab (AMTL) in

1960s and destroyed weapons at the Arsenal through the Watertown, Massachusetts. AMTL is a BRAC I, fast track

early 1980s. In addition, the Army leased a portion of the base, slated for closure in September 1995. The Army and

Arsenal to the Shell Oil Company from 1952 to 1987 to EPA agreed on ways to accelerate the schedule of the

produce herbicides and pesticides. The Arsenal has been remedial process at this BRAC I base to reach a ROD date

described by courts as "one of the worst hazardous waste of August 30, 1996. The Army and EPA also agreed on

pollution sites in the country" due to extensive soil and new language in the FFA on the land transfer issue that

groundwater contamination from more than 750 different addresses EPA's concern regarding protecting the ongoing

hazardous wastes spilled or improperly disposed of in cleanup and ensuring the activities of subsequent

several areas. Three plumes of contaminated groundwater transferees do not interfere with cleanup efforts. The FFA

migrated off-site before intercept systems were installed, is accompanied by a side letter from the Army reinforcing

contaminating local wells and forcing EPA and local its commitment to ensure that the substance of protective

authorities to provide residents with bottled water. The language worked out with EPA is actually included in the

Arsenal was placed on the NPL in 1987, and in 1989 a appropriate land transfer documents. The AMTL site was

CERCLA cleanup agreement was signed between EPA, placed on the NPL in May 1994. In anticipation of NPL

the Army, and other stakeholders. However, the State did listing and because it was a BRAC site, EPA became

not sign the agreement because of ongoing litigation with actively involved in the fall of 1993.

the Army and Shell.

On June 13, 1995, EPA's Region VIII Administrator, the

Lieutenant Governor of the State of Colorado, the U.S.

Army, the Shell Oil Company, and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service signed a conceptual agreement for the

cleanup of the Arsenal. Based on the agreement, the Army

estimates the cleanup will cost $2.1 billion and will be

Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, Tennessee

(DDMT): A three party CERCLA Section 120 cleanup

agreement addressing cleanup at the DDMT NPL site was

finalized during FY 1995. The three parties were EPA, the

State of Tennessee, and the Defense Logistics Agency.

DDMT encompasses 642 acres, four miles from

Memphis's central business district in a mixed residential,

commercial, and industrial land use area of Shelby County,

Tennessee. This agreement, entered into under both

RCRA and CERCLA authorities, was significant in that it

gives the state authority to assess a penalty and if a dispute

can't be resolved at the Regional level, the Regional

Administrator may delegate resolution to the Assistant

Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance.
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-85 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE ................................................. A-83

Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Fort Defiance Facility: .............. A-83

RCRA/Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program: ................................................. A-83

Groom Lake: ......................................................................... A-83

U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG): ............................................... A-83

Altus Air Force Base: ................................................................... A-83

U.S. Army Picatinny Arsenal: ............................................................ A-83

U.S. Army Natick Research Facility: ....................................................... A-83

F.E. Warren Air Force Base: ............................................................. A-84

U.S. Army Rocky Mountain Arsenal: ...................................................... A-84

Army Materials Technology Laboratory: ................................................... A-84

Defense Distribution Depot Memphis, Tennessee (DDMT): .................................... A-84
A-85 July 1996

OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT

United States v. William Recht Company, Inc., et al. United States v. Boomsnub Corporation (W.D. WA):

(M.D. FL): On January 3, 1995, the statutory maximum

fine of $1.5 million was levied on the William Recht

Company, doing business as Durex Industries, and the

company was placed on probation for five years for

violations of RCRA that ultimately led to the deaths of two

nine year old boys in Tampa, Florida. On June 13, 1992,

the boys were overcome by toluene fumes emanating from

a trash dumpster in which they were playing. The boys

died as a result of their exposure to the toluene, which had

been illegally dumped into the dumpster. A criminal

investigation revealed that for many years it had been the

routine practice of the William Recht Company to dispose

of waste toluene in the facility's dumpster and to treat and

dispose of hazardous waste on site without a permit. The

company had been warned in 1988 by Hillsborough

County officials to discontinue its pouring of waste toluene

generated in Durex's urethane roller manufacturing process

into its trash dumpster. William Whitman, Durex's plant

manager, and Duane Whitman, shop foreman, were

previously convicted by a jury on July 28, 1994, of

knowingly treating, storing, and disposing of hazardous

waste without a permit; and was each sentenced to serve

27 months in prison.

United States v. Roggy (D. MN): F. George Roggy,

owner of Fumicor, Inc., of Edina, Minnesota, was

sentenced in St. Paul to five years in prison for unlawfully

applying an unapproved pesticide, Dursban, on 19 million

bushels of oats used by General Mills in the production of

160 million boxes of breakfast cereals, including Cheerios

and Lucky Charms. The sentence followed Roggy's

November 15, 1994, criminal conviction by a jury on one

count of misusing pesticides, one count of adulterating

food and 11 counts of mail fraud. Following the prison

term, Roggy also received three years of supervised

release, including 200 hours of community service in

which he will lecture the community on the hazards of

pesticides. Fumicor was under contract with General Mills

to apply the approved pesticide Reldan on oats stored by

General Mills at grain elevators in the port of

Duluth/Superior. Roggy submitted invoices totaling

$166,120 to General Mills that showed he had used the

approved pesticide Reldan to spray the grain. By

knowingly making the illegal switch from Reldan to the

unapproved and less expensive Dursban, Roggy saved

over $85,000. General Mills, which subsequently United States v. Irma Henneberg (S.D. FL): Irma

destroyed the grain, suffered a loss in excess of $140 Henneberg, manager of Caicos Caribbean Lines, Inc., was

million as a result of the fraud. found guilty by a federal jury on August 30, 1995 on 34

Edward Takitch, Vice President and General Manager, and

William Trimbo, Operation Manager, of the Boomsnub

Corporation, pleaded guilty to violations of RCRA and the

Clean Water Act. The Boomsnub Corporation also

pleaded guilty to unlawfully storing and disposing of

chromium-contaminated hazardous waste, and disposing

of hazardous waste into a State of Washington

groundwater remediation system. The Boomsnub

Corporation is an electroplating facility located in

Vancouver, Washington, that has repeatedly illegally

disposed of spent hexavalent chrome into the environment.

As a result, the entire water supply for the City of

Vancouver, and the Clark County area, has been

imminently threatened. The Washington State Department

of Ecology (WDOE) initiated a groundwater remediation

project at the cost of more than $3 million to the

Washington State taxpayers. A Superfund emergency

clean up action has removed more than 300,000 pounds of

chromic acid from a 40-foot diameter hole dug beneath the

Boomsnub facility and an underground network of pipes

used to dispose of chrome contaminated waste. To date,

six thousand tons of highly contaminated soils have been

removed. Nonetheless, the plume of contaminated water

continues to spread and increasingly threaten the water

supply for the citizens of the Clark County area. An

estimated $10 million will be spent in an attempt to save

the City of Vancouver's water supply.

United States v. Adi Dara Dubash and Homi Patel (S.D.

FL): Adi Dara Dubash was sentenced on July 24, 1995,

after pleading guilty to smuggling 8,400 cylinders of the

ozone depleting refrigerant gas dichlorodifluoromethane

(known as "CFC-12") into the United States in violation of

the Clean Air Act. He was sentenced to 22 months of

imprisonment, 3 years of probation and a $6,000 fine.

Dubash's co-defendant, Homi Patel, was sentenced on July

25, 1995, for the same offenses. Patel was sentenced to 3

years of probation and was required to pay a mandatory

special assessment. Beginning in October 1994, Dubash,

Patel and other co-conspirators caused seven cargo

containers of the CFCs to be shipped into the New York/

New Jersey area in bonded status. They further arranged

for five of the seven containers to be forwarded to Miami,

purportedly for reshipment out of the United States.

counts of making false statements on customs documents

used to illegally smuggle the refrigerant gas
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-86 July 1996

dichlorodifluoromethane (also known as CFC-12) into the one occasion, Conrail knowingly by-passed the OWS

United States. Henneberg made false statements on altogether.

shipping manifests filed with the U.S. Customs Service to

document the purported shipment of 209 cargo containers

of refrigerant gas allegedly shipped from Miami. The

purpose of the false manifests was to conceal the

smuggling of large quantities of CFC-12 into the domestic

commerce of the United States.

United States v. John Tominelli (S.D. FL): Customs violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

broker John Tominelli pleaded guilty on June 23, 1995, to (RCRA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Parramore

one count of violating the Clean Air Act by importing into pleaded guilty to storage of waste acids without a permit

the United States 11 cargo containers of the ozone and illegally discharging untreated acidic substances into

depleting refrigerant dichlorofluoromethane, known as the Tifton public sewer system. Parramore represented to

CFC-12, without possessing the consumption allowances the State of Georgia and waste generators that he recycled

required by the CAA; one count of smuggling CFC-12 into hazardous wastes by using them to produce fertilizers and

the United States; and one count of importing distilled other agricultural products. Instead of producing fertilizer

spirits without paying the required taxes. Tominelli faces products, Parramore accumulated vast quantities of

possible penalties including 15 years incarceration and hazardous wastes on his property in violation of his storage

fines in excess of $750,000. permit.

United States v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (D. MA): United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (S.E.D. AK):

The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) agreed to Ketchikan Pulp company (KPC) was sentenced on

plead guilty to six Clean Water Act felonies and pay $2.75 September 18, 1995, to pay $3 million in fines and to

million in fines according to a plea agreement filed in U.S. serve five years of probation for one felony and 13

District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 24, misdemeanor violations of the Clean Water Act. Pursuant

1995. The information charged Conrail with three counts to a plea agreement between it and the U.S. Government,

in violation of the CWA, knowingly discharging a harmful KPC was ordered to pay $1.25 million in fines within 15

quantity of oil to waters of the United States; knowingly days and allowed to defer $1.75 million in fines, which

discharging a pollutant without a permit; knowingly may be offset during the term of probation by

discharging a pollutant in violation of a limit imposed in a improvements to the company's wastewater treatment

permit; and knowingly violating a NPDES permit system. Ralph Lewis, President of KPC, appeared in court

condition requiring the submission of monthly discharge for the sentencing and acknowledged responsibility for

monitoring reports. Conrail operates a railroad switch and KPC's actions and apologized to the court. In April 1995,

terminal facility in Allston, Massachusetts, where it refuels Lewis appeared in court to enter a guilty plea on behalf of

and repairs locomotives and freights cars. Conrail KPC to one felony count of knowingly discharging

discharges yard drainage and groundwater from a wastewater and removed solids from KPC's primary

groundwater recovery well to the Charles River. An oil clarifier into waters of the United States over a five-day

and water separator (OWS) at the site is designed to treat period in 1990 in violation of the company's NPDES

the discharge prior to its entry into the Charles River. permit, and to 13 misdemeanor counts of negligently

EPA's investigation of Conrail was triggered by a large discharging magnesium oxide (MgO) from sewer

discharge of oil to the Charles River on April 7, 1994, manholes into waters of the United States without an

which created a soupy film thicker than a sheen over an NPDES permit.

area covering several hundred yards. The discharge

resulted when the OWS at the site failed due to improper

operation and maintenance. In addition, the system's

audible alarms, which Conrail knew did not work properly,

failed to sound. The investigation revealed that Conrail

has been discharging without a permit since September of

1992 when its NPDES permit expired. When Conrail's

permit was in effect, Conrail consistently failed to submit

the necessary discharge monitoring reports which showed

that Conrail had been discharging excessive amounts of oil

to the Charles River in violation of the permit. On at least

United States v. Herman W. Parramore (M.D. GA): On

April 12, 1995, Herman W. Parramore, Jr. entered a plea

of guilty to two felony counts charging violations of federal

environmental laws. Parramore and his companies,

Sogreen South Carolina, Inc., Sogreen Tifton, Inc., and

Sogreen Corporation were indicted in September 1994, for

United States v. Ronald E. Greenwood and Barry W.

Milbauer (D. SD): The falsification of discharge

monitoring reports (DMRs) by two former managers

employed by the John Morrell Company located in Sioux

Falls, South Dakota, led to both entering guilty pleas on

January 6, 1995, to violating the Clean Water Act and

committing other criminal offenses. Ronald E.

Greenwood, former manager of Morrell's waste water

treatment plant, and Barry W. Milbauer, former assistant

manager and chemist, each pleaded guilty to information
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-87 July 1996

charging them with conspiracy to commit offense or to

defraud the United States in violation of the Clean Water

Act.

United States v. OEA, Inc. (D. CO): The District Court concealing material information in violation of federal law.

for the District of Colorado ordered OEA, Inc., to pay a In the plea agreement, Albright pleaded guilty to

fine of $2.25 million and a witness/victims special concealing information and filing false statements.

assessment fee of $1,200. During his sentencing statement Albright was responsible for preparing, signing and

Judge Babcock admonished the defendant that "RCRA is submitting monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs)

a fact of life and it is crucial that corporate America to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

understand its responsibility to environmental problems (WDNR) under the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge

and there is no reason why this country should not set an Elimination System (WPDES) permit. From

example for the world." This sentence was imposed after approximately 1986 to April 1992, Albright submitted

OEA, Inc., pleaded guilty to six felony counts in violation false and misleading DMRs to the WDNR relating to the

of RCRA on April 28, 1994. These violations include one biological oxygen demand (BOD) of cooling water which

count of illegal transportation of hazardous waste, three was discharged to Clyman Creek. The BOD of the cooling

counts of illegal treatment of hazardous waste, one count water exceeded Aunt Nellie's WPDES permit limits, but

of illegal disposal of hazardous waste, and one count of the DMRs submitted by Albright during the relevant time

illegal storage of hazardous wastes. period understated the actual BOD levels.

United States v. Percy King (D. KS): Percy King, owner United States v. Attique Ahmad (S.D. TX): Attique

and operator of the King's Truck Wash in Park City, Ahmad, owner of Spin N #12 Market, was sentenced on

Kansas, pleaded guilty on February 10, 1995, in the July 24, 1995, in Houston, Texas, for pumping over 5,000

District Court of Kansas, to three counts of violating the gallons of water contaminated gasoline from his business'

Clean Water Act. King pleaded guilty to two counts of underground storage tank into both a gutter and the sewer

violating national pretreatment standards for introducing a system of Conroe, a city 50 miles north of Houston, in

flammable and toxic pollutant into the Park City, Kansas, violation of the Clean Water Act. Ahmad was sentenced

sewer system and one count of knowingly discharging a to 21 months of imprisonment, and was ordered to pay

pollutant into the sewer system which could result in restitution to the City of Conroe and to the Texas Natural

personal injury or property damage to the POTW. Resource Conservation Commission for over $20,000 of

Between March and August 1994, King's Truck Wash expenses incurred in remediating the illegal discharges.

allowed trucks to wash out residual methyl acrylate, a

flammable and explosive liquid.

United States v. Gaston (D. KS): Donald Gaston, a Vancouver, Washington, was sentenced on March 17,

former Montgomery County, Kansas, Highway 1995, for illegal disposal of hazardous waste, in violation

Administrator, was sentenced in the Federal District Court of RCRA. Atwood was sentenced to 30 days of

of Kansas to six months of home detention, and a $2,000 incarceration, and 90 days of electronically monitored

fine. He was also placed on probation for two years. home detention. He was also ordered to pay $19,000 in

Gaston had previously entered a plea of guilty on July 21, restitution and placed under supervised release for three

1993, for failing to report the release of hazardous years. As a condition of his supervised released, Atwood

substances into the environment. The road painting was ordered to properly dispose of approximately 45

activities of the Montgomery County (Kansas) Highway remaining drums of acetone and "still bottoms" (residue

Department generated a variety of hazardous wastes. remaining after the drums have been emptied). The case

These hazardous wastes, along with various types of solid began in September of 1993, when the Washington State

wastes, were kept in a storage and equipment shed known Department of Ecology (DOE) received information that

as "the Barn." Sometime after he became the County eighty 55-gallon drums of spent acetone were being stored

Highway Administrator, Gaston ordered the employees of at the Atwood Plastics facility. The company subsequently

both the county road crew and the county bridge crew to vacated the warehouse, leaving thirty-five 55-gallon drums

haul 11 drums of hazardous waste to the closed of acetone waste inside, and eighty 55-gallon drums of

Montgomery County Landfill where trenches were dug acetone and acetone still bottoms on an adjacent parcel of

(with the use of a county backhoe) and in which the drums rented property.

were buried.

United States v. David Albright (E.D. WI): A plea

agreement and information were filed on August 10, 1995,

charging David Albright, process engineer at Aunt Nellie's

Farm Kitchens in Clyman, Wisconsin (Aunt Nellie's), with

United States v. Joel S. Atwood. (D. WA): Joel S.

Atwood, former owner of Atwood Plastics, Inc., in
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-88 July 1996

United States v. Barker Products Company (N.D. OH):

Barker Products Company (Barker Products) and its owner 1995, to fifteen months of imprisonment for illegally

and President, Hal H. Myers, were each sentenced on disposing of hazardous electroplating wastes. The court

August 7, 1995, to two-year terms of probation for imposed the sentence for one count of disposal of

violations of the Clean Water Act. The firm was caught hazardous waste without a permit, in violation of RCRA.

using an illegal bypass system to illegally discharge In addition, the court fined Bordner $750, imposed 50

pollutants into the City of Cleveland's sewer system. hours of community service as a condition for 2 years of

Myers was not fined, but was ordered to perform 200 supervised release. Over a 15-year period, Bordner's

hours of community service for an organization dedicated hazardous wastes were continually poured into a floor

to preserving clean water. Barker Products was required drain that discharged into an outdoor ditch, and dumped

to provide 20 hours of waste treatment education to all of onto the ground outside the company's building. Wastes

its 55 employees. The company was discharging were also abandoned in open vats and drums in a decaying

electroplating rinses which contained heavy metals, building after Bordner ceased operations in 1991. As a

including cadmium and zinc, into the sewer system. result, the U.S. EPA has been forced to expend $750,000

United States v. Mary Ellen Baumann, et al. (D. DC):

Mary Ellen Baumann, President of East Chem

Corporation, of Hyattsville, Maryland, was sentenced on

August 28, 1995, to five years of probation, 200 hours of

community service, and more than $5,000 in restitution for

the unlawful disposal of toxic chemical waste. Patrick J.

Hill, her co-defendant, was sentenced to five years of

probation, six months of home detention, and more than

$5,000 in restitution. As part of the plea agreement, the

company will also pay $43,984 in restitution. Both

Baumann and Hill pleaded guilty on June 12, 1995, to one

count of unlawful disposal of hazardous waste, in violation

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Hill, a

warehouse worker employed by East Chem, was directed

by Baumann to dispose of the hazardous chemicals that

were of no use to East Chem. On June 1, 1994, Hill

loaded the hazardous waste from East Chem's warehouse

into his pickup truck and dumped it in a dumpster located

in a low-income minority community. Baumann later paid

Hill $400 for disposing of the chemicals. Upon discovery

of the hazardous waste, the residents of three nearby

apartment buildings had to be evacuated to a hotel where

they stayed at the expense of the District of Columbia

government. The hazardous wastes were later removed.

United States v. James W. Blair (E.D. TX): On May 17,

1995, James W. Blair, Jr., President of Smith Tank and

Equipment, Inc., located outside of Tyler, Texas, was

sentenced on one count of directing the illegal burning and

subsequent release of lead waste in 1992, and for failing to

notify the National Response Center of the release. Blair

received one year of probation and a $10,000 fine payable

in 30 days. In September 1992, Smith Tank employees

were filmed by a local television station burning the

contents of a storage tank.

United States v. Lawrence M. Bordner, Jr. (N.D. IL):

Lawrence M. Bordner, Jr., sole owner of the now defunct

electroplater, Bordner Manufacturing Company (Bordner),

located in Freeport, Illinois, was sentenced on January 31,

in clean-up activities at the site to date.

United States v. Michael A.J. Brooks (W.D. WA): On

November 21, 1994, Michael A.J. Brooks received three

years probation, 150 hours of community service, and was

ordered to pay $5,604 in restitution for the illegal disposal

of RCRA hazardous waste. This investigation was

initiated in response to information provided by the State

of Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) regarding

an illegal dumping of 27 drums of ignitable hazardous

waste in a remote area of the Columbia Business Center in

Vancouver, Washington. Investigators traced the drums to

R.A. Gray and Purcell, Co., Inc., which had paid $5,604 to

Michael A.J. Brooks, an employee of the firm, Pacific

Coast Environmental, Inc. (PCE), to transport the drums to

an authorized treatment, storage and disposal (TSD)

facility for proper disposal. During an interview with case

investigators, Michael A.J. Brooks admitted that on April

13, 1994, he picked up the drums from Gray and gave

Gray a $500 discount in return for full payment in advance.

Brooks said he requested that the check be made payable

to Pacific Coast, omitting the "Environmental." He then

drove to the Columbia Business Center and disposed of the

drums.

United States v. Cenex Limited, dba Full Circle (E.D.

WA): Cenex Supply & Marketing, Inc., doing business as

Full Circle, a pesticide applicator and retail supplier

located in Quincy, Washington, was sentenced on June 27,

1995, to one year of probation and ordered to pay a fine of

$10,000 for knowingly using trifluralin, a registered

pesticide, in a manner inconsistent with its labeling in

violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act. Cenex was further ordered to supply

$3,000 in chemicals to the City of Quincy and to report to

EPA the existence of any impoundment containing

pesticides at any Cenex location.

United States v. T. Boyd Coleman (W.D. WA): T. Boyd

Coleman, President of Advanced Electroplating and
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-89 July 1996

Finishing, Inc., was sentenced on July 28, 1995, to four detection by sampling and monitoring devices installed by

months of home detention, three years of supervised the local water authority at CEI's facility.

release, a $2,000 fine and 500 hours of community service.

Coleman pled guilty on May 31, 1995, to the illegal

treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste, in

violation of RCRA. Coleman was responsible for

abandoning 100,000 pounds of cyanide waste in

deteriorating tanks, drums and supersacks, along with forty

thousand gallons of flammable liquids and shock sensitive

materials. Sixteen supersacks, approximately 500 barrels

and containers of hazardous waste and other hazardous

chemicals, and deteriorating tanks of cyanide waste that

were abandoned by the corporation, posed a significant

threat to the health and safety of children in a nearby

school, to this environmental justice community, and to the

groundwater of the nearby Duwamish River.

United States v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al. (W.D. sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, cadmium and

NC): Fifty-one month sentences were imposed upon nickel. In December 1989, a criminal search warrant was

Corporate President, Keith Eidson, and Vice President, executed at the Eagle-Picher, Colorado Springs facility

Gabe Hartsell, of Cherokee Resources, Inc., as the result of where documents were seized revealing that on two

their convictions for violations of the Clean Water Act. occasions in 1989, regulated quantities of hazardous

The corporation was ordered to pay a fine of $50,000. substances were leaked into the groundwater that was a

Cherokee operated a facility in Charlotte, North Carolina, tributary to navigable waters.

which purported to reclaim waste oil for energy recovery

and to treat and dispose of oil-contaminated and other

industrial wastewater. The evidence showed that Cherokee

would routinely discharge contaminated wastewater into

the sewer system by running a hose into the employee

toilet. The wastewater contained toxic heavy metals far in

excess of the limits of Cherokee's pretreatment permit.

Evidence also indicated that the defendants instructed

employees to tamper with monitoring devices to avoid

detection.

United States v. Circuits Engineering (W.D. WA): contamination at the Monte Carlo Ocean Front Resort

Denney A. Renando, President and owner of the Circuits

Engineering Corporation (CEI), and Correy Youngren,

wastewater treatment operator, were sentenced on July 27,

1995, for discharging lead and copper into the local sewer

system in violation of the CWA. Renando was sentenced

to five months of imprisonment, five months of home

confinement, a $5,000 fine, and one year of probation

which requires him to participate in a mental health

treatment program. Youngren was sentenced to provide

50 hours of community service, one year of probation, and

one month of home confinement for his role in the

discharges. CEI, located in Bothell, Washington,

previously paid a $40,000 fine, and Renando, on behalf of

the corporation, was sentenced to 500 hours of community

service. The corporation has also spent thousands of

dollars to update CEI's waste treatment operation. In

February of 1994, agents learned that CEI was unlawfully

discharging pollutants through a by-pass hose to avoid

United States v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (E.D.

CO): Roland Farmer, Vice President of Eagle-Picher

Industries, Inc., pled guilty on September 26, 1995, on

behalf of the corporation to an information charging EaglePicher with two counts of unlawfully failing to report to

authorities the discharge from its facility of a reportable

quantity of hazardous substances. Eagle-Picher was

ordered to pay a $300,000 fine on the same day. The

discharge contaminated the Fountain Creek aquifer, which

leads to U.S. navigable waters. Eagle-Picher's Colorado

Springs facility produces high-tech nickel/cadmium

batteries for aerospace, aircraft and other uses. The

hazardous substance at the facility resulted from the

manufacturing of these batteries. The substances include

United States v. Daniel J. Fern (S.D. FL): On May 1,

1995, Daniel J. Fern, President of Air Environmental

Research Services, Inc., was sentenced to 57 months

imprisonment for three counts of making false statements

in violation of the Clean Air Act, for four counts of mail

fraud, and for one count of obstruction of justice. Air

Environmental Research Services, Inc., was a Davie,

Florida, based company engaged in asbestos consulting

and abatement. Fern falsified air samples and filed false

notices with the Metro Dade County Department of

Environmental Resources Management regarding asbestos

Hotel, located in Miami, Beach Florida. Fern defrauded

the hotel's insurance company by overstating the amount of

asbestos contamination and by misinforming the insurance

company about the existence of the asbestos abatement

work needed at the hotel. Fern perpetuated a fraud of over

$500,000. An investigation of Fern's abatement and

renovation work at the hotel showed that Fern did not have

a valid Florida license for asbestos abatement, and forged

the name of another individual on three different EPA

required notices.

United States v. Gary Merlino Construction Co. Inc.

(W.D. WA): On March 21, 1995, the Gary Merlino

Construction Company, Inc., entered a guilty plea to two

Clean Water Act violations and was sentenced to pay

$70,000 in penalties and placed on probation for three

years. The CWA violations, involving discharges without

a NPDES permit, were actually committed by Stoneway
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-90 July 1996

Sand and Gravel (Stoneway), a division of the Gary years of supervised release, and a $30,000 fine. The

Merlino Construction Company. The case began on company, LDI of San Antonio, Inc., was sentenced to a

November 4, 1993, when Stoneway Sand and Gravel fine of $470,000. Heinze and LDI pled guilty to Clean

discharged process wastewater from one of their holding Water Act and conspiracy charges on March 13, 1995.

ponds to the Cedar River by means of a pipe that lead to a LDI was hired by San Antonio-area restaurants and

drainage ditch. The outfall from the process wastewater businesses to collect and dispose of liquid wastes. LDI

pond was controlled by a locked valve. The valve had trucks collected the wastes from industrial and commercial

been locked pursuant to an order from King County grease, mud, and sand traps. Instead of disposing of the

regulatory authorities who had documented a number of wastes in landfills as required by EPA regulations and a

prior discharges from the pond. The November discharge city ordinance, LDI discharged the waste into conduits and

was witnessed by Washington State Department of conveyances that led to sewer lines.

Fisheries biologists who were conducting salmon surveys

on the river. King County regulatory authorities were

notified and again ordered Stoneway to cease and desist

from illegally discharging. The foreman of the facility

locked the valve and again promised no further discharges.

Investigation by CID special agents documented several

additional illegal discharges of thousands of gallons of

waste water from Stoneway to the Cedar River. Some of

those discharges literally flooded neighboring residential

property en route to the River. The Cedar River is a chief

drinking water supply for the City of Seattle and

surrounding areas. The Cedar River also supports a

critical salmon population, which has been decreasing in

recent years.

United States v. Reginald B. Gist and William Rodney

Gist (N.D. TX): Reginald Blair Gist and his son, William

Rodney Gist, pleaded guilty on September 22, 1995, to

three counts of an indictment charging them with

unlawfully disposing of hazardous waste, unlawfully

transporting hazardous waste, participating in a conspiracy

to dispose of and transport hazardous wastes, and

unlawfully discharging wastewater containing hazardous

wastes in violation of RCRA. From 1986 through

approximately January 1990, the Gists operated a zinc

cyanide plating facility named High Tech Plating, located

in Balch Springs, Texas. In January 1990, the Gists

abandoned the facility and relocated to Forney, Texas,

where they began operations as Metal Plating Systems

(MPS), also a zinc cyanide plating facility. In September

1992, MPS ceased doing business at the Forney site and

relocated to Terral, Texas. On December 6, 1994, the

Gists were indicted for violating RCRA, the Clean Water

Act, and Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code for the

disposal of hazardous wastes at the High Tech Plating

facility in Balch Springs.

United States v. Roland Heinze (W.D. TX): A Federal

Judge sentenced a San Antonio, Texas, waste-hauling

company and its Vice President for violating the Clean

Water Act and conspiracy. The company Vice President,

Roland Heinze, was sentenced to serve twelve months and

one day of confinement in a halfway house followed by two

United States v. James David Humphrey (S.D. TX): On

March 29, 1995, James David Humphrey pleaded guilty to

two counts of making a false statement under Section

1319(c)(4) of the Clean Water Act. In 1992, Humphrey

was employed at Fox Testing Laboratory, Inc., in

Harlingen, Texas, and was responsible for performing

analyses of samples taken from the City of Edinburg's

wastewater treatment system to determine the amount of

mercury, cyanide, and other materials discharged by the

city. Instead of actually performing the tests, Humphrey

admitted to falsely reporting to Edinburg that the

laboratory had performed the appropriate analyses.

United States v. Donald Jarrell (S.D. VA): Donald

Jarrell, owner and operator of a waste water treatment

plant in Fairdale, West Virginia, was sentenced on

September 6, 1995, to 30 months of imprisonment with

one year of probation. The discharge of the sewage

resulted from Jarrell's failure to upgrade the plant over

time as required by his NPDES permit conditions. Jarrell

abandoned the plant when it ceased to function, causing

raw sewage to back up, to spill through manholes in the

residential area, and eventually to discharge into a nearby

stream. During the past year, EPA Superfund cleaned up

the discharges and rebuilt the plant, and its ownership has

been transferred to the county public health department.

United States v. William Kirkpatrick (D. KS): William

Kirkpatrick, a former superintendent in the City of

Stafford, Kansas, pled guilty on June 20, 1995, to a

CERCLA violation for the disposal and release of over one

pound of polychlorinated biphenyls and failing to notify the

appropriate authorities. The investigation revealed that

during late summer or early fall of 1992, William

Kirkpatrick ordered two City of Stafford employees to bury

nine electrical capacitors containing PCBs in the city

landfill.

United States v. L-Bar Products, Inc. (E.D. WA): On

April 25, 1995, Stanley O. McCurdy, Plant Manager for LBar Products, Inc., of Chewelah, Washington, pled guilty

to one count of conspiracy to unlawfully dispose of
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-91 July 1996

hazardous waste and one count of disposal of hazardous sludge and spent solvent generated by the plant's

waste in relation to the 1991 burial of 79 drums containing operations. The drums were dumped at a vacant lot in a

spent sulfuric acid and sludge on L-Bar property in residential neighborhood in Houston. Area residents

Chewelah. McCurdy, L-Bar and Paul Ortman, the General reported the dumping to the Houston Police Department,

Manager were indicted on April 18, 1995, by a federal who then called in investigators from the Texas Natural

grand jury. This investigation began in January 1992 when Resource Conservation Commission and the EPA.

EPA received information from a former employee of LBar Products, Inc., that numerous drums containing

sulfuric acid and sludge were buried on L-Bar's premises.

Further investigation revealed that Ortman knew that

McCurdy had ordered an L-Bar employee to bury 68 acidcontaining drums. Ortman filed several annual dangerous

waste reports with the Washington Department of Ecology

which failed to reveal that hazardous waste was stored on

L-Bar's premises. In May 1992, a search warrant that was

executed at the facility uncovered 80 buried drums.

Several of the drums were leaking or had been crushed.

United States v. Lee Engineering and Construction Agents and other law enforcement agencies determined

Company (M.D. GA): Grover C. Lee, President of Lee that Mohammed Mizani, a New Jersey real estate

Construction and Engineering Company, entered a guilty developer, had begun asbestos removal in the building as

plea on June 21, 1995, on behalf of Lee Engineering, to early as 1988, when he used homeless men, who resided at

one count of illegally dumping hazardous waste without a a shelter he owned and operated, to remove the asbestos.

permit, in violation of the Resource Conservation and In January 1992, Mizani hired a crew of unqualified

Recovery Act. In 1990, Lee Engineering entered into a workers to continue the abatement job. When AMS

contract with AT&T to remove cables buried between inspectors were allowed into the building, large quantities

Augusta, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida. Lee of asbestos were discovered. It was evident that the

Engineering stripped the cable and reclaimed the copper asbestos had been dry stripped. Asbestos was strewn

and lead, which was sold to various metal recycling throughout the building and large quantities had been

companies. The cable had a black tar-like substance thrown down an elevator shaft

surrounding the outer layers of cable and an inside layer of

lead. Lee Engineering decided that it would be easier to

burn off the tar-like substance than properly dispose of it.

The ash and residue resulting from the burning contained

pieces of lead that accumulated around the burn site.

Company employees were then directed by Kenneth Lee,

Vice President of Lee Engineering, to load the ash onto

trucks and to dump it into holes dug into the ground to

conceal it.

United States v. Mantua Manufacturing Company (S.D. in Klamath County. His participation in the illegal

TX): The Mantua Manufacturing Company of Houston, manufacturing of methamphetamine led to the illegal

Texas, pled guilty and was sentenced on September 11, hazardous waste disposal. The judge sentenced Mathews

1995, for failing to register with EPA as a hazardous waste to five years of probation, three months in a community

generator, storing hazardous waste without a permit, and corrections center with no supervised release, and three

causing the transportation of hazardous waste without a months of home detention with an electronic monitor. The

manifest, all in violation of RCRA. The maximum fine of judge also sentenced Mathews to 150 hours of community

$150,000 was immediately imposed. Mantua is a service.

manufacturer of metal bed frames with its headquarters in

Walton Hills, Ohio, and plants in Ohio, Florida and

Houston. Federal and state officials first became aware of

Mantua s activity in June 1995, when the plant manager

hired a Houston area businessman, Clarence Holcomb, to

pick up and dispose of eighteen 55-gallon drums of paint

United States v. Marjani, et al. (E.D. PA): Lalit Verma

was sentenced to five years of probation on August 9,

1995, and fined $25,000 following his guilty plea of June

17, 1995, to an indictment charging him with conspiracy

to violate the asbestos NESHAP rules promulgated

pursuant to the Clean Air Act. This investigation was

initiated following a complaint in April 1992, received by

the City of Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS),

that asbestos was being thrown out of windows from the

Beury building, a fourteen-story commercial building

located in Philadelphia. Investigation by EPA OCE

United States v. Kenneth D. Mathews (D. OR): On

March 13, 1995, Kenneth Dean Mathews was sentenced

in Portland, Oregon, after having pled guilty to one count

of hazardous waste disposal in violation of RCRA.

Mathews was an employee of the U.S. Forest Service at

Winema National Forest located in rural Klamath County,

Oregon, when he disposed of hazardous waste containing

lead and chloroform in toilet vaults at the Oux-Kanee

recreational site in the Choloquin Ranger District located

United States v. Roy A. McMichael, Jr. (D. PR): A

tugboat captain, Roy A. McMichael Jr., pleaded guilty in

U.S. District Court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on November

4, 1994, to negligently letting a barge under tow break

loose and run aground, spewing more than 750,000 gallons
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-92 July 1996

of oil into the waters off a popular Puerto Rican beach in bargain, with the U.S. District Court regarding the illegal

January 1994. McMichael was the captain of the Emily S,

a tugboat, when it left San Juan on January 6, 1994, towing

the Morris J. Berman, a tank barge loaded with

approximately 35,000 barrels of Number 6 fuel oil (a

barrel contains about 42 gallons). Shortly after getting

underway, the towing cable between the Emily S and

Morris J. Berman parted. At the direction of McMichael,

the crew of the Emily S fashioned a makeshift repair, but

failed to install a protective thimble on the broken end of

the towing cable to help maintain the repair and failed to

obtain assistance in San Juan. McMichael placed Victor

Martinez, the first mate, in charge of the Emily S, and

ordered that the Emily S proceed at full speed to its

destination, Antigua. A few hours later, after the rest of the

crew had gone to sleep, Martinez discovered that the

towing cable had parted again. Using searchlights and

radar, the crew looked for the Morris J. Berman, but could

not find it. Later, on January 7, the Morris J. Berman ran

aground about 500 feet off Escambron Beach. The

grounding pierced its hull, spewing more than 750,000

gallons of oil into the water. McMichael failed to notify

the Coast Guard that the barge had broken loose and was

adrift in an unknown location. According to the factual

statement that was part of the plea, McMichael knew the

towing cable on the Emily S was in poor condition and

needed to be replaced, but, nevertheless, agreed to go to

sea with the Morris J. Berman under tow.

United States v. Micro Chemical, Inc. (W.D. LA): The

illegal transportation of hazardous waste by a Louisiana

pesticide formulation company, Micro Chemical, Inc., to

an unpermitted disposal facility in violation of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, resulted in a

$500,000 fine, five years of probation, and compliance

with corrective action measures contained in an EPA

corrective action administrative order on consent. In

March 1990, Micro Chemical transported hazardous waste

from its facility to a field in Baskin, Louisiana—a location

that did not have a RCRA permit. After its discovery, it

was removed under the Louisiana Department of

Agriculture's guidance. Micro Chemical has taken

measures to stabilize and prevent the spread of pesticide

contamination from the Micro Chemical facility site, as

required by a RCRA 3008(h) corrective action

administrative order on consent. The order will result in

the removal of all contaminated soil at the site, remediation

of contaminated ground water, and the remediation of all

off-site contamination that has migrated into a drainage

basin located adjacent to the site.

United States v. Roger Mihaldo (W.D. MO): On April 5,

1995, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Kansas City Missouri

filed a one count criminal information, pursuant to a plea

storage of hazardous waste by Roger Mihalko, a retired

Program Manager for the Kansas City, Missouri Health

Department. On March 16, 1993, Missouri Department of

Natural Resources (MDNR) employee was attending a

meeting of the Small Quantity Hazardous materials located

in Kansas City, Missouri commonly referred to as "Fort

Hazard." On March 19, 1993 the MDNR employee

inspected the facility and determined that it was not in

compliance with EPA regulations for the temporary

storage of hazardous waste. During his inspection he

noted that there were approximately 100 barrels of

different types of waste being stored together. Some of the

barrels were leaking, open and rusty.

United States v. Steve Olson (E.D. MO): Steve Olson,

owner of a commercial and residential building in the St.

Louis, Missouri area, pleaded guilty on August 2, 1995, to

failing to report the release of asbestos in violation of

CERCLA after having illegally removed and handled

asbestos from his building. Olson had planned to sell the

building, but during an inspection by a prospective buyer,

the buyer noticed asbestos on pipes in the basement. The

basement was used by some of the occupants to do laundry

and children played in it. The prospective buyer told

Olson the asbestos would have to be removed prior to the

sale of the building. Olson subsequently hired two

individuals to remove the asbestos insulation. In the

process, they contaminated the entire basement area,

including the personal property of some of the occupants

of the building. The asbestos insulation was put into

containers that were not properly designed or marked for

asbestos disposal, placed into a dumpster, and then

transported to a landfill not permitted for asbestos disposal.

United States v. Paul E. Richards (W.D. NC): Paul E.

Richards, former employee of Cranford Wood Carving,

Inc., also known as JMP Wood Products, Inc., located in

Newton, North Carolina, entered a guilty plea on July 7,

1995, for illegally disposing a listed hazardous waste

without a permit, in violation of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act. In 1993, Richards buried drums of

formaldehyde on his employer's property in two different

locations. He had been paid to properly dispose of the

drums, but instead illegally buried the drums and pocketed

the money. When he disposed of the drums, he removed

the labels which stated that the drums contained hazardous

waste. He has admitted to knowing that the drums

contained formaldehyde.

United States v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D.

GA): On October 6, 1994, R&D Chemical Company, a

family-owned and operated business in Mansfield, Ohio,

was sentenced. Brothers Noble and Oscar Cunningham
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-93 July 1996

and their corporation were charged with conspiracy to years of probation with a special condition that he be

transport hazardous waste from Ohio to an unpermitted confined to his home for a six-month period.

facility in Georgia and with illegal disposal of hazardous

waste. R&D Chemical accumulated a quantity of sludge

from industrial operations on the company farm in Ohio.

The sludge was a hazardous waste exhibiting the toxicity

characteristic for barium. Nevertheless, R&D Chemical

misrepresented the substance as being non-hazardous and

made arrangements to sell it to a Georgia company, calling

it "RD-344" to disguise it as a product. R&D Chemical

leased a truck and trailer and transported approximately

fifteen roll-off containers of the waste to a company in

Atlanta. The containers were abandoned in the company's

parking lot. In addition, R&D Chemical caused a portion

of the hazardous waste to be disposed of at a nonhazardous landfill in Atlanta. The court sentenced R&D

Chemical to five years probation, a $200,000 fine and

$146,716 restitution to the Atlanta company where the

waste had been abandoned.

United States v. William Reichle and Reichle, Inc. (D.

OR): On November 21, 1994, William Chester Reichle

was sentenced six months home confinement and five years

probation. The defendant and his company were sentenced

to joint restitution in the amount of $30,000 for clean-up

costs, a joint fine in the amount of $5,000, and 150 hours

of community service. The above sentences came about as

the result of an indictment which was filed against William

Reichle and his company, Reichle, Inc., on August 24,

1993, by a Federal grand jury in Portland, Oregon, in

which they were both charged with two counts of

hazardous waste disposal. The investigation began in

March 1992, when an unpermitted hazardous waste

disposal site was discovered on BLM property in rural

Clackamas County, Oregon, consisting of numerous 55-

gallon drums of paint waste and spent solvent.

United States v. Donald Rogers (D. KS): Donald Rogers,

President and CEO of the Kantex Corporation, a printed

circuit board manufacturing company, was sentenced on

September 1, 1995, for illegally transporting hazardous

waste without a manifest, illegal storage, and illegal

disposal of hazardous waste in violation of RCRA, and for

failure to notify the appropriate government agency of the

release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous substance,

in violation of CERCLA. Approximately 59 drums of

hazardous waste were generated and transported from

Kantex s facility during the research and development of

the circuit board devices. The drums were illegally

transported from Kantex's Olathe, Kansas, facility to an

unpermitted facility in Kansas City, Missouri. Rogers

failed to properly dispose of the hazardous waste after

ordered to do so under CERCLA. Rogers received three

United States v. Rose City Plating, Inc. (W.D. OR) On

May 4, 1995, Sharon Lynn LeBeck, Corporate Secretary of

Rose City Plating, Inc., pleaded no contest to one count of

hazardous waste disposal. Sharon LeBeck and her

husband, Nicholas LeBeck had been charged on March 17,

1995, with 32 counts of unlawful disposal, storage, or

treatment of hazardous waste, one count of supplying false

information to an agency, and three counts of theft. A

search warrant was executed at Rose City Plating, Inc., on

September 29, 1994, when it was discovered that the

LeBecks had disposed of thousands of gallons of hazardous

waste by abandoning their plating operation.

United States v. Richard Schuffert (M.D. AL) As a result

of transporting 60 drums filled with hazardous paint wastes

and solvents to an Alabama field, and abandoning them

there, a used-oil hauler was sentenced on June 30, 1995, to

a one year and one day prison term for transporting

hazardous waste to an unpermitted facility in violation of

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Richard

Schuffert, a used-oil hauler not licensed to transport

hazardous waste, transported 60 drums of paint waste and

solvents from a former ambulance manufacturing

company. Schuffert hauled the drums and abandoned them

in an Alabama field.

United States v. Bruce D. Spangrud (D. OR): Bruce

Douglas Spangrud, President of a water filter

manufacturing company, was found guilty by a jury on

September 20, 1995, of two counts of submitting false

written statements in lab reports submitted to EPA.

Pursuant to an earlier plea agreement, Spangrud had

previously entered a guilty plea to one violation. Prior to

sentencing, however, the government was advised that

Spangrud was also suspected of having made false and

misleading statements relative to issues involving

restitution. As a result, the U.S. Attorney's Office

withdrew its original plea agreement with Spangrud and

provided him with the option to agree to a lengthier jail

sentence or stand trial. Spangrud chose to stand trial,

which commenced on September 20, 1995. Spangrud's

company, Accufilter International, Inc., had produced and

marketed worldwide a water filtration device that used

silver impregnated charcoal. The silver portion of the filter

controlled bacterial growth within the carbon filters, and is

therefore classified as a pesticide requiring registration

with EPA pursuant to FIFRA. At the time the violations

occurred, allowable levels of silver in drinking water set

forth by the Safe Drinking Water Act were 0.05 mg/l. To

support his application for pesticide registration, Spangrud

submitted data to EPA that reported 24 samples of silver
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-94 July 1996

contained within water that was treated by the water

filtration devices. The 24 samples were all below the August 4, 1995, Andrew Cyrus Towe and the Powell

threshold level of 0.05 mg/l. During the investigation, County Museum & Arts Foundation pleaded guilty and

however, it was determined that of the 24 silver samples were sentenced for illegal asbestos removal, a violation of

reported to EPA, 14 of the values exceeded the allowable the Clean Air Act. Towe was sentenced to one year of

levels by as much as ten times. Also, discovered at supervised release and a $1,000 fine. The Powell County

Spangrud's business office were copies of the fictitious Museum & Arts Foundation's sentence included an $8,000

laboratory reports as well as the true and accurate fine. These sentences are the result of an investigation of

laboratory reports reflecting the higher silver values. a renovation project that took place in February 1990, at

United States v. Spanish Cove Sanitation, Inc., and

John Lawson (W.D. KY): On October 25, 1994, John

Lawson was sentenced to serve 6 months in prison

followed by six months home incarceration for his

conviction on five felony and nine misdemeanor violations

of the Clean Water Act. His company, Spanish Cove

Sanitation, Inc., was fined $35,000. The Kentucky

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had issued

Lawson an NPDES permit for the operation of Spanish

Cove Sanitation's wastewater treatment plant, which serves

a residential subdivision in Louisville. Despite frequent

citations (including a criminal complaint) from the local

Department of Public Health and the Kentucky DEP for United States v. T&T Fuels (N.D. WV): Clyde Bishoff,

operational and equipment deficiencies at the Spanish employed as superintendent of two underground coal

Cove plant and other treatment plants operated by Lawson, mines at T&T Fuels, Inc., located in Presto County, West

Spanish Cove repeatedly violated effluent limitations for Virginia, pleaded guilty on September 18, 1995, to one

several years. On December 30, 1991, the Department of count of discharging acid mine drainage (AMD) in

Public Health and DEP inspectors found that Spanish Cove noncompliance with NPDES permit limits from April

was pumping water over a hillside with a submersible 1994 to August 1995, in violation of the Clean Water Act.

pump from a sludge bed. The water then flowed directly The permit required T&T Fuels, Inc., to meet certain pH,

into a creek leading to the Ohio River. Samples taken iron, manganese and suspended solids limits which were

revealed that the discharges contained up to 5,800 colonies not met as a result of the volume of AMD wastewater

per milliliter of fecal coliform bacteria, far in excess of the being discharged. Additionally, Bishoff admitted in his

400 colonies permitted by the NPDES permit. plea agreement that he conspired with other persons that

Additionally, on May 22 and August 4, 1992, Spanish have not been charged as of yet, from 1982 to August of

Cove was not chlorinating its effluent, which also resulted 1995 to violate the CWA by diverting AMD from the two

in discharges of effluent with high levels of fecal coliform mines, called T&T #2 and T&T #3, prior to treatment and

bacteria in violation of its NPDES permit. to discharge it via concealed pipes into waters of the

United States v. Yvon St. Juste (S.D. FL): Yvon St.

Juste, a representative of the owners of the Honduran United States v. Warehouse Rebuilder and

vessel M/V Barth, entered a guilty plea on August 28, Manufacturer Inc. and Lonnie Dillard (D. OR): On

1995, to violating the Clean Water Act for directing the March 28, 1995, Lonnie Dillard, owner and President of

discharge of oil into the Miami River. St. Juste supervised Warehouse Rebuilder and Manufacturer, Inc. (WRM), was

the operations of the M/V Barth, a vessel designed to haul sentenced after entering guilty pleas on December 21,

liquid cargo. The vessel delivered a load of cargo and 1994, to the unlawful storage of hazardous waste, in

diesel fuel to Haiti and apparently filled one of the tanks, violation of RCRA. The case began in September 1993

which still contained some diesel fuel, with water for the with the discovery of approximately 40 leaking fifty-five

return trip. Upon arrival in Miami, the ship was docked at gallon drums near a river bank in rural Oregon. Within

a facility on the Miami River. St. Juste is charged with days, EPA/CID agents identified a generator owned by

ordering the ship's engineer to discharge the diesel/water WRM and served a search warrant at that facility in Grants

mixture into the river. Pass, Oregon. During the search warrant, the owner and

United States v. Andrew Cyrus Towe, et al. (D. MT): On

the Old Montana State Prison located in Deer Lodge,

Montana. The Old Montana State Prison is a Museum

administrated by the Powell County Museum & Arts

Foundation. During the renovation, friable asbestos was

improperly stripped from boilers, and left lying on the

ground both inside and outside of the boiler house. The

cost to the Montana Department of Health for the

emergency clean up of the friable asbestos was $58,000.

Waters previously pleaded guilty on July 10, 1995, to

environmental and other criminal violations, and was

sentenced to serve one year of supervised release, and

ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.

United States.

President of WRM, Lonnie Dillard, confessed to the

unlawful transportation and disposal of approximately 40
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-95 July 1996

drums of hazardous waste, trichloroethane (TCE), over a company had multiple leaks in its scrubber unit associated

two-year period. with its plating tanks. It was determined, however, that the

United States v. George E. Washington (M.D. LA):

George E. Washington, former employee of H.B.M. River re-supply material for the plating operation) to flow

Plant, Inc., a subsidiary of Hall Buck Marine, pleaded directly into an aquifer which served as the major source of

guilty on September 29, 1995, to a one-count indictment, drinking water for the neighbors of the facility and others

charging him with causing the illegal discharge of located down-gradient from Surgichrome. Surgichrome

approximately fifteen 55-gallon drums containing was also illegally storing substantial amounts of hazardous

industrial waste into the Mississippi River. As a result of waste on site since its opening in 1979.

his guilty plea, Washington faces a maximum of three

years of imprisonment and a maximum fine up to

$250,000. HBM previously pleaded guilty to a felony

criminal information filed on June 28, 1995, which

charged that HBM intentionally discharged contaminated

wastewater into the Mississippi River without a permit.

HBM agreed to pay $440,000 in fines. HBM is a vessel

and barge cleaning and repair facility which handles

hazardous materials, including, benzene, toluene, xylene,

chromium, mercury, lead, carbon tetrachloride,

chloroform, and tetrachloroethylene.

United States v. Paul Zborovsky and Jose Prieto (S.D. cans upright to prevent further spillage. During an

FL): Jose Prieto and Paul Zborovsky were sentenced on interview, Farris admitted his involvement in the dumping

September 6, 1995, for smuggling the ozone depleting and provided a written statement to investigators. He also

refrigerant gas dichlorodifluoromethane (also known as admitted that he had known that his actions were wrong.

CFC-12) into the United States. Prieto was sentenced to On May 3, 1995, Farris pleaded FY 1995 guilty to the

26 months of imprisonment. Co-defendant Paul information filed in Superior Court, waived his right to a

Zborovsky was sentenced to two months of imprisonment, pre-sentencing investigation, and was subsequently

two months of home detention and a $5,000 fine. sentenced to 14 months in prison.

Zborovsky entered a plea prior to trial. Zborovsky pleaded

guilty to one count of violating the Clean Air Act (CAA)

by importing CFC-12 into the United States without the

consumption allowances issued by the Environmental

Protection Agency. He also pleaded guilty to one count of

smuggling.

State of Oregon v. Roger W. Evans, et al.: On April 4, Filipino laborers after illegally obtaining "crewman" visas,

1995, Surgichrome, Inc., a plating operation, and its for the purpose of doing drydock work on dead vessels as

President, Roger W. Evans entered guilty pleas to two well as other shore-based operations. Once here, the

informations, each containing two (2) counts alleging foreign workers were required to live in shipping

violations of Oregon State law for the unlawful disposal of containers and to work 56-hour weeks for salaries that fell

hazardous waste in the first degree. As the result of his far short of the U.S. minimum wage. The defendants

plea, Roger W. Evans was sentenced to serve five (5) years engaged in a myriad of environmental crimes including

of probation, to pay $30,000 in joint-restitution with the ocean dumping, violations of the Clean Water Act and

corporation payable to the complainant at the rate of $500 violations of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The defendants

per month, and 100 hours of community service. As the were convicted of depositing raw sewage and pollutants

result of its plea, Surgichrome, Inc., was sentenced to serve from the drydocking operations within 150 feet of the

five (5) years of probation, to pay the $30,000 in joint Virgin Islands' municipal power plant desalinization intake

restitution with Roger W. Evans, and 100 hours of pipes.

community service to be performed by the President or any

Vice President of the corporation. Consent searches of

Surgichrome by CID and OSP investigators with the

assistance of ODEQ technical personnel revealed that the

main source of contamination was a leaking concrete sump

which allowed chromium contaminated "drag-out" (used to

State of Washington v. Kevin L. Farris: On May 3,

1995, Kevin L. Farris pleaded guilty to one count of

malicious mischief in the first degree for illegally dumping

numerous containers containing hazardous liquids on

Larch Mountain in Vancouver, Washington. Several

witnesses reported to police that they had seen a truck

bearing the description of Farris's truck carrying loads

similar to those found at the dump site heading in the

direction of the dump site. The lands on the mountain are

managed by the Washington State Department of Natural

Resources. Two witnesses reported they sat some of the

States v. West Indies Transport, et al.: On December 19,

1994, after a trial in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, a

jury convicted W. James Oelsner, West Indies Transport

Co., Inc., and WIT Equipment Co., Inc., of 15 separate

environmental, visa fraud and tax fraud counts and a

racketeering count. The defendants brought in a group of

United States v. Herbert Zschiegner: Herbert

Zschiegner, the former owner and operator of Zschiegner

Refining Co., a Howell Township, New Jersey, precious
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-96 July 1996

metals recovery operation, pled guilty on April 26, 1995,

to illegally dumping chemicals into a Monmouth County

brook and adjacent wetlands during the period from 1990

to 1992. Zschiegner admitted to violating three counts of

the Clean Water Act by illegally discharging, without a

permit, acids, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc

and iron from his metals recovery operation into the

Haystack Brook and surrounding wetlands between

January 1990 and October 31, 1992. On September 28,

1995, Zschiegner was sentenced to 16 months

imprisonment on each of three counts of violating the

Clean Water Act, to run concurrently, and 3 years

probation. As part of his plea agreement and sentence,

Zschiegner is also required to pay $650,000 to EPA as

partial restitution for the costs incurred by the Agency in

cleaning up the former business site.

United States v. Patel: On January 17, 1995, Mahendra

"Mike" Patel was convicted after a jury trial in federal

District Court for the Northern District of New York on

one count of violating RCRA relating to illegal storage of

a hazardous waste. Patel, the former president of MGM

Textiles Industries, was indicted in 1994 for illegal

disposal (by abandonment) of a hazardous waste, and for

illegal storage of a hazardous waste. The indictment

followed an abandonment of property in St. Johnsville,

New York. Patel was sentenced on May 12, 1995, to five

years probation and six months home confinement. In

addition, Patel was ordered to make restitution to EPA, for

its costs in cleaning up the MGM site, in the amount of

$415,082.11. In furtherance of this restitution, Patel was

ordered to forfeit $50,000 by June 1995. The remaining

monies will be paid at the rate of $2,500 per month.

United States v. Southwest Trading Fuel Oil, Inc.: On

April 11, 1995, South West Trading Fuel Oil, Inc., pled

guilty in federal District Court for Puerto Rico to one count

of violating the Clean Water Act, by negligently

discharging, or causing to be discharged, oil from a tank

into Guaypao Bay, Puerto Rico. In addition, the

corporation has agreed to pay a $50,000 fine. On May 5,

1994, about 80,000 gallons of used oil spilled from a

storage tank at the company's facility; approximately 5,000

gallons entered the pristine bay in Guanica, Puerto Rico.

The remaining 75,000 gallons have sunk into the ground

in front of the storage tank. The spill occurred when a thief

tried to steal a motor from a storage tank within the former

Guanica Sugar Mill, rupturing a hose and allowing the oil

to spill out. The motor, which was left on the ground is

used to pump used oil into the tank where it is stored. The

thief was not caught. The tank, which was originally

intended to hold thousands of gallons of molasses (utilized

in sugar refining), had no dyke surrounding it. Its use for

the storage of oil was therefore illegal.

United States v. Peter Frank, et al.: On April 4, 1995,

after a trial in federal District Court for the Eastern District

of New York, Noble "Buzzy" Darrow—one of five

defendants in this matter—was found guilty of knowingly

and willfully causing waste oil to be placed on board the

Nathan Berman (a barge), though he knew that the barge

did not have a Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection to

carry oil. The remaining defendants were acquitted of all

charges, and Darrow himself was also acquitted of other

environmental crimes; however, the defendants face

additional environmental charges on which they are

scheduled to be tried starting in January 1996.

The prosecutions arose out of an investigation by EPA and

other federal agencies of a September 27, 1990, oil spill

that occurred in the Kill van Kull waterway, off Staten

Island, New York. The spill was a result of the sinking of

the barge Sarah Frank. The indictment alleged that the

defendants sought to enrich the Frank Companies by,

among other methods, the illegal disposal of sewage sludge

and industrial waste; the illegal handling, storage and

disposal of waste containing polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) and the illegal disposal of oil into United States

waters. The conspiracy counts were severed from this first

trial; they will be the subject of the separate trial mentioned

above.

United States v. Caschem, Inc.: On October 21, 1994,

Caschem Inc., a subsidiary of Cambrex Corporation, and

its former regulatory affairs manager, Stuart Cooper, pled

guilty to a one count information filed the same day related

to the storage of hazardous waste without a permit, a

violation of RCRA. The arraignment took place in U.S.

District Court for New Jersey. As part of the plea

agreement, Caschem Inc., will pay a $1 million fine. On

January 12, 1995, Stuart Cooper was sentenced to 2 years

probation, a $5,000 fine and 200 hours community service.

United States v. Con Edison: On August 19, 1989, an

explosion of a Con Edison steam pipe in the Gramercy

Park area of Manhattan released approximately 200

pounds of asbestos into the air. Many people had to be

evacuated from their homes during the ensuing cleanup

operation. In 1993, Con Edison and two corporate officers

were indicted on various charges including conspiracy to

conceal the release of asbestos in violation of CERCLA

and EPCRA and Title 18, failure to notify the United States

of the release in violation of EPCRA, failure to notify the

community emergency coordinator and the state emergency

planning commission in violation of EPCRA, and giving

false statements and causing others to give false statements

in violation of Title 18. After commencement of trial in

October 1994, Con Edison and Constantine Papakrasas, an

Assistant Vice President in charge of Con Edison's Steam
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-97 July 1996

Operations Division, pled guilty. Con Edison pled to four in restitution in connection with the discharge of oil from

counts, including conspiracy, EPCRA failure-to-notify, and a ruptured pipeline in 1990. The company pled guilty to

two violations of Title 18. Con Edison was sentenced to negligently violating the CWA when a landslide occurred

three years of probation under the supervision of a in the area of its pipeline, causing it to rupture. The

court-appointed monitor, and fined $2 million. Due in part rupture resulted in the discharge of significant amounts of

to his failing health, Mr. Papakrasas was fined $5,000. oil into the Allegheny River in western Pennsylvania.

Mohammed Mizani, H. Lee Smith and Lloyd Smith: On Linden Beverage: On September 8, 1995, a federal jury

July 16, 1995, Mohammed Mizani, H. Lee Smith, and in the Western District of Virginia at Harrisonburg, found

Lloyd Smith pled guilty to count one of the indictment Linden Beverage Corporation, Inc., of Warren County,

charging them with conspiracy to violate the asbestos Virginia, and its President and Chief Operating Officer,

NESHAP rules promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act, Benjamin Rice Lacy, III, guilty of multiple violations of

42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. Lee Smith was sentenced to one

year probation and a $50 special assessment on July 17,

1995, for his role in the illegal asbestos abatement.

Mohammed Mizani and Lloyd Smith each face a maximum

sentence of 5 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

On August 9, 1995, Lalit Verma was sentenced to five

years probation, fined $25,000 plus a special assessment

of $50. This sentence follows his guilty plea entered on

June 17, 1995, to count one of the indictment charging him

with conspiracy to violate the asbestos NESHAP rules

promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

George M. Tribble: George M. Tribble, a former civilian

supervisor at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia, was sentenced

January 24, 1995, to six months home detention, fined

$5,000 and ordered to pay restitution of approximately

$31,000 and to perform 250 hours of community service

for removing asbestos-containing material from a building

owned by his wife and burying it on post. Tribble pled

guilty to one count of negligently endangering another

person pursuant to a Clean Air Act misdemeanor. The

$31,000 in restitution covers the Army's expenses in

cleaning up Tribble's disposal site.

Kenneth Morrison: On January 30, 1995, Kenneth

Morrison entered a plea of guilty to two counts of a nine

count criminal indictment for violations of the Clean Water

Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act and the asbestos

NESHAP regulations. On August 2, 1994, Morrison, a

scrap metal salvager, was indicted by a federal grand jury

on charges that he violated the CWA by discharging a

harmful quantity of oil into waters of the United States and

failed to notify authorities of the oil spill. Approximately

1,000 gallons of oil were discharged into the Schuylkill

River during a tank salvaging operation conducted by Mr.

Morrison at the former Celotex industrial facility located at

3600 Grays Ferry Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Buckey Pile Line Company: Buckeye Pile Line Co. pled

guilty May 12, 1995, to a Clean Water Act misdemeanor

and was sentenced to pay a fine of $125,000 and $100,000

false reporting and violating Clean Water Act NPDES

effluent limitations. An associated company, Freezeland

Orchard Co., Inc., was found guilty of one count of

falsifying CWA discharge monitoring reports. Lacy was

found guilty of seven counts of falsifying DMRs and lab

reports, and one count of knowingly discharging pollutants.

Linden was found guilty of six counts of falsification and

one count of knowing discharge. On the first day of trial,

co-defendant Jeffrey Allen Morris, former plant manager,

agreed to cooperate with the government pending

acceptance into the U.S. Probation Office, Pre-Trial

Division Program. Lacy faces a maximum sentence of

three years in prison and a $50,000 fine for the discharge

count, and a two-year sentence and $10,000 fine for each

count of falsifying documents.

Billy Lee Brewer: Billy Lee Brewer, plant manager at the

Dunbar, West Virginia, sewage treatment plant, pled guilty

to negligently violating the Clean Water Act in connection

with the discharge of untreated sewage into Kanawha

River in violation of the facility's NPDES permit. The

investigation began when citizens complained of smelling

sewage in a wetland area adjacent to the Kanawha River.

Inspectors for the West Virginia Department of

Environmental Protection observed sewage slicks in the

river. They then discovered that a lift station had been

disabled, causing raw sewage to discharge to the wetland

area and the Kanawha River rather than going to the

treatment plant. The investigation revealed that Brewer

had directed plant personnel to disconnect the power to the

lift station. Brewer is scheduled to be sentenced on

December 4, 1995, and faces a maximum jail term of one

year, a fine of up to $100,000 or $25,000 per day of

violation, or both.

Kenneth Chen: Kenneth Chen, a California-based real

estate investor, was sentenced to 4 years in jail, 4 years

probation and fined $25,750 as a result of his plea to

charges of illegal storage of hazardous waste at the

Worsted Mills Complex in Cleveland, Ohio. Chen was

also ordered to pay $1.4 million in restitution to the City of

Cleveland to repay clean-up costs. Numerous investors in
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-98 July 1996

the property have been prosecuted in state court as a result with U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stating that his

of a joint state/federal investigation. Chen's firm, Premiere sentence should have been based on a level 12 rather than

Enterprises, was also charged and sentenced to pay a fine level 18 as agreed to in the plea agreement. Hart

of $25,000. contended that the district court misapplied the sentencing

Summitville Consolidated Mining Co.: A grand jury in

Denver, Colorado, returned an indictment charging the

Summitville Consolidated Mining Company and Thomas

Chisholm, its former environmental manager, with

violations of the Clean Water Act at what was once the

largest producing gold mine in Colorado. The indictment

charged that Summitville and Chisholm committed one State of California v. John Appel, et al.: A jury at

count of conspiracy, knowingly discharging pollutants Ventura, California, convicted John Appel and his son

without Clean Water Act permits, knowingly and willfully Tony Appel of conspiracy and violation of the State Water

submitting false statements to the EPA by not reporting the Code for their unpermitted filling activities on San Antonio

quantity and quality of discharges at or about the mine, and Creek in 1994.

knowingly and willfully violating Colorado Department of

Health permits. The Summitville Mine is now a Superfund John Appel owns Eager Beaver Tree Trimming Service

site, listed on the EPA's National Priority List for cleanup. and farmland along San Antonio Creek near Ventura,

Louisiana Pacific Corp.: The U.S. EPA and the U.S.

Department of Justice announced that a federal grand jury

in Denver, Colorado, indicted Louisiana-Pacific Corp., and

two former employees of its mill in Montrose, Colorado.

The indictment alleged that Dana Dulchery, the former mill

manager, and Robert Mann, the former mill

superintendent, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the

Clean Air Act in connection with the operation of the

Montrose facility. The indictment alleged in other counts

that the corporation, Dulchery and Mann committed

separate violations of the Clean Air Act by tampering with

monitoring devices at the mill and by making false

statements about emissions and production levels at the

mill.

Wheatridge Sanitation District and Mr. Lenny Hart: On

February 25, 1993, a federal grand jury in the District of

Colorado returned an indictment charging Mr. Lenny Hart,

Acting Superintendent of the Wheatridge Sanitation

District (WSD), with six counts of false statements in

accordance with the Clean Water Act, and three counts of

illegal treatment and disposal of hazardous waste in

accordance with RCRA. Ultimately, as a result of a plea

agreement, the defendant pled guilty to three counts of

making false statements in violation of the Clean Water

Act, and the other counts were dismissed. Pursuant to the

plea agreement the Wheatridge Sanitation District was

fined $35,000. The court found "relevant conduct" did

occur, with respect to Lenny Hart, and that he bore

responsibility as an aider and abetter. The court also found

that "intent" did exist and as a result changed the

sentencing level to 18 as opposed to 12 (the level in the

plea agreement). Hart was sentenced to 27 months in

federal prison. On January 12, 1994, Hart filed an appeal

guidelines by imposing "relevant conduct" and "intent."

On July 28, 1995, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

issued an order and judgment which affirmed the district

court's imposition of sentence in the case. Hart must serve

27 months in federal prison.

California. For several years he had disposed of the refuse

from this business in the bed of the creek thereby avoiding

landfill charges. Efforts to compel Appel to stop this

activity by state Fish and Game authorities and by the

Corps of Engineers were unsuccessful and resulted in a

referral to EPA for enforcement in early 1994. In April

1994, Appel was issued an administrative order by Region

IX requiring him to stop the discharges and to remove

illegal fill.

Investigation showed that Appel continued to dump refuse

and other fill into the river through the summer of 1994.

In December 1994, Region IX obtained a preliminary

injunction from the U.S. District Court requiring him to

stop the discharges and Appel apparently complied. In

heavy rains that winter,
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-99 July 1996

Appel's fill affected the hydrology of the river in a way that

caused neighboring properties to flood.
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-100 July 1996

TEMPORARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT ........................................................ A-85

United States v. William Recht Company, Inc., et al. (M.D. FL): ................................ A-85

United States v. Roggy (D. MN): .......................................................... A-85

United States v. Boomsnub Corporation (W.D. WA): ......................................... A-85

United States v. Adi Dara Dubash and Homi Patel (S.D. FL): .................................. A-85

United States v. Irma Henneberg (S.D. FL): ................................................ A-86

United States v. John Tominelli (S.D. FL): .................................................. A-86

United States v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (D. MA): ..................................... A-86

United States v. Herman W. Parramore (M.D. GA): .......................................... A-86

United States v. Ketchikan Pulp Company (S.E.D. AK): ....................................... A-86

United States v. Ronald E. Greenwood and Barry W. Milbauer (D. SD): ......................... A-87

United States v. OEA, Inc. (D. CO): ....................................................... A-87

United States v. Percy King (D. KS): ....................................................... A-87

United States v. Gaston (D. KS): .......................................................... A-87

United States v. David Albright (E.D. WI): .................................................. A-87

United States v. Attique Ahmad (S.D. TX): .................................................. A-87

United States v. Joel S. Atwood. (D. WA): ................................................... A-88

United States v. Barker Products Company (N.D. OH): ....................................... A-88

United States v. Mary Ellen Baumann, et al. (D. DC): ........................................ A-88

United States v. James W. Blair (E.D. TX): ................................................. A-88

United States v. Lawrence M. Bordner, Jr. (N.D. IL): ......................................... A-88

United States v. Michael A.J. Brooks (W.D. WA): ............................................ A-88

United States v. Cenex Limited, dba Full Circle (E.D. WA): .................................... A-89

United States v. T. Boyd Coleman (W.D. WA): ............................................... A-89

United States v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al. (W.D. NC): ................................... A-89

United States v. Circuits Engineering (W.D. WA): ............................................ A-89

United States v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (E.D. CO): ...................................... A-89

United States v. Daniel J. Fern (S.D. FL): .................................................. A-90

United States v. Gary Merlino Construction Co. Inc. (W.D. WA): ............................... A-90

United States v. Reginald B. Gist and William Rodney Gist (N.D. TX): ........................... A-90

United States v. Roland Heinze (W.D. TX): ................................................. A-90

United States v. James David Humphrey (S.D. TX): .......................................... A-91

United States v. Donald Jarrell (S.D. VA): .................................................. A-91

United States v. William Kirkpatrick (D. KS): ............................................... A-91

United States v. L-Bar Products, Inc. (E.D. WA): ............................................ A-91

United States v. Lee Engineering and Construction Company (M.D. GA): ........................ A-91

United States v. Mantua Manufacturing Company (S.D. TX): .................................. A-91

United States v. Marjani, et al. (E.D. PA): .................................................. A-92

United States v. Kenneth D. Mathews (D. OR): .............................................. A-92

United States v. Roy A. McMichael, Jr. (D. PR): ............................................. A-92

United States v. Micro Chemical, Inc. (W.D. LA): ............................................ A-92

United States v. Roger Mihaldo (W.D. MO): ................................................ A-93

United States v. Steve Olson (E.D. MO): ................................................... A-93

United States v. Paul E. Richards (W.D. NC): ............................................... A-93

United States v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D. GA): .................................... A-93

United States v. William Reichle and Reichle, Inc. (D. OR): .................................... A-93

United States v. Donald Rogers (D. KS): ................................................... A-94

United States v. Rose City Plating, Inc. (W.D. OR) ........................................... A-94

United States v. Richard Schuffert (M.D. AL) ................................................ A-94
Office of Criminal Enforcement Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-101 July 1996

United States v. Bruce D. Spangrud (D. OR): ............................................... A-94

United States v. Spanish Cove Sanitation, Inc., and John Lawson (W.D. KY): ..................... A-94

United States v. Yvon St. Juste (S.D. FL): ................................................... A-95

United States v. Andrew Cyrus Towe, et al. (D. MT): .......................................... A-95

United States v. T&T Fuels (N.D. WV): ..................................................... A-95

United States v. Warehouse Rebuilder and Manufacturer Inc. and Lonnie Dillard (D. OR): .......... A-95

United States v. George E. Washington (M.D. LA): ........................................... A-95

United States v. Paul Zborovsky and Jose Prieto (S.D. FL): .................................... A-96

State of Oregon v. Roger W. Evans, et al.: .................................................. A-96

State of Washington v. Kevin L. Farris: .................................................... A-96

States v. West Indies Transport, et al.: ..................................................... A-96

United States v. Herbert Zschiegner: ...................................................... A-96

United States v. Patel: .................................................................. A-97

United States v. Southwest Trading Fuel Oil, Inc.: ........................................... A-97

United States v. Peter Frank, et al.: ........................................................ A-97

United States v. Caschem, Inc.: ........................................................... A-97

United States v. Con Edison: ............................................................. A-97

Mohammed Mizani, H. Lee Smith and Lloyd Smith: .......................................... A-98

George M. Tribble: .................................................................... A-98

Kenneth Morrison: ..................................................................... A-98

Buckey Pile Line Company: .............................................................. A-98

Linden Beverage: ...................................................................... A-98

Billy Lee Brewer: ...................................................................... A-98

Kenneth Chen: ........................................................................ A-99

Summitville Consolidated Mining Co.: ..................................................... A-99

Louisiana Pacific Corp.: ................................................................ A-99

Wheatridge Sanitation District and Mr. Lenny Hart: ......................................... A-99

State of California v. John Appel, et al.: .................................................... A-99