FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

i May 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2. Fiscal Year 1996: The Numbers ...................................................... 2-1

2.1 Criminal Enforcement ........................................................ 2-2

2.2 Civil / Administrative Actions ................................................. 2-2

2.3 Superfund Enforcement ...................................................... 2-3

2.4 Impacts of Settlements ....................................................... 2-5

3. Fiscal Year 1996: The Activities ..................................................... 3-1

3.1 Industry Sector Priorities ..................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 National Sector Priorities ............................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Regional Sector Priorities ........................................... 3-10

3.2 Media-specific Programs ................................................... 3-20

3.2.1 Air ................................................................. 3-20

3.2.2 Water .............................................................. 3-22

3.2.2.1 Drinking Water ...................................... 3-23

3.2.2.2 Industrial or Municipal Discharges to Surface Water . . 3-24

3.2.2.3 Wetlands ............................................ 3-27

3.2.3 Toxics .............................................................. 3-28

3.2.3.1 EPCRA .............................................. 3-29

3.2.3.2 FIFRA ............................................... 3-32

3.2.3.3 TSCA ............................................... 3-35

3.2.4 RCRA .............................................................. 3-37

3.2.5 CERCLA ........................................................... 3-40

3.3 Criminal Program .......................................................... 3-43

3.4 Community-based Protection Priorities ..................................... 3-44

3.4.1 Region 1 ............................................................ 3-45

3.4.2 Region 2 ............................................................ 3-47

3.4.3 Region 3 ............................................................ 3-49
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 ii

3.4.4 Region 4 ............................................................ 3-51

3.4.5 Region 5 ............................................................ 3-53

3.4.6 Region 6 ............................................................ 3-56

3.4.7 Region 7 ............................................................ 3-57

3.4.8 Region 8 ............................................................ 3-58

3.4.9 Region 9 ............................................................ 3-59

3.4.10 Region 10 .......................................................... 3-60

3.5 Federal Facilities ............................................. 3-62

3.6 Cross-cutting or Multimedia Initiatives ..................................... 3-65

3.6.1 Cross-cutting or Multimedia Projects / Highlights ................... 3-65

3.6.2 Federal Activities ................................................... 3-68

3.6.3 Pollution Prevention ................................................ 3-72

3.6.4 Environmental Justice ............................................... 3-76

3.6.5 Compliance Assistance .............................................. 3-81

3.7 Performance Partnership Agreements ....................................... 3-86

Appendix A: Current and Historical Enforcement Data ..................................... A-1

Appendix B: Significant Administrative, Judicial, and Criminal Cases ....................... B-1
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

iii May 1997

ACRONYMS

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

AO Administrative Order

APO Administrative Penalty Order

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 Performance Partnership Agreement

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

PWS Public Water System

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEP Supplemental Environmental Project

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

UIC Underground Injection Control

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

UST Underground Storage Tank

WPS Worker Protection Standard
The FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishment s

Report was prepared under the direction of the Targeting and Evaluatio n

Branch and the Planning Branch within the Office of Enforcement an d

Compliance Assurance. Information contained in the report was supplied by

the EPA regional offices and the Office of Enforcement and Complianc e

Assurance.

Printed on recycled paper
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 iv

This page is intentionally blank.
FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

1-1 May 1997

1. INTRODUCTION

Since its inception in 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has been fostering a balanced approach to

environmental protection. Such a balanced approach would combine enforcement and compliance

assurance activities to protect all Americans from the threats to our health and environment. In

Fiscal Year (FY) 1996, EPA made strong progress toward that balanced approach. These strides

were measured by three primary indicators:

Number of enforcement actions

Impact of enforcement activities on the environment

Number of compliance-related activities.

This FY96 accomplishments report documents those achievements. 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 continue to play a vital and irreplaceable role in

EPA’s mission of ensuring that the country’s environmental laws work to their fullest extent in

protecting our environment.

The FY96 numbers show that enforcement and compliance efforts recovered from the temporary

effects of the government shutdown and the budget impasse. The short-term consequences were

considerable. Once the impasse was resolved, however, both headquarters and the regions

succeeded in getting the enforcement program on its feet again.

Also in FY 1996, EPA began systematically collecting and reporting on the qualitative impact of

its enforcement efforts. Traditionally, EPA measured its success against enforcement outputs,

such as penalties, fines, and referrals. This year, however, EPA began measuring the positive

impact on the environment from each case. Instead of focusing strictly on a penalty amount, EPA

now also gauges the effect on the environment, such as reduced emissions or elimination of a

hazardous substance.

In addition, as part of its compliance assurance activities, EPA developed and implemented

several compliance-related activities, including its compliance assistance centers and numerous

compliance-related policies. These activities are designed to bring facilities and municipalities into

voluntary compliance, as opposed to using enforcement actions to bring them into compliance.

Overall, FY96 was a positive and productive year for OECA, both in terms of traditional

indicators and its new approaches. This FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Accomplishments Report is designed to provide an overview of the significant achievements

gained by EPA’s headquarters and regional offices during the past fiscal year. Specifically,

Chapter 2 presents the FY96 quantitative data for all enforcement activities, including inspections;

administrative, civil, and criminal actions; and supplemental environmental projects. In addition, it

attempts to quantify the benefits to the environment as a result of these enforcement actions.
FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 1-2

Chapter 3 presents information on the specific activities conducted during FY96, including

community-based environmental protection, sector-based initiatives, media programs, multimedia

or cross-cutting programs, and performance partnership agreements. This chapter primarily

highlights policies, enforcement or compliance assurance initiatives, and other activities that

contributed to the protection of human health and the environment. The activities include both

headquarters and regional level activities. The appendices to this report provide information on

traditional enforcement measures over the years and describe significant criminal, civil, and

administrative actions taken in FY96.
FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-1 May 1997

2. FISCAL YEAR 1996: THE NUMBERS

Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 was a productive year for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), both in terms of its traditional indicators (e.g., enforcement actions, penalties) and the

impact of its actions on public health and the environment. EPA rebounded from recent

challenges to post respectable or better numbers in several of its traditional indicator categories. 

EPA believes it may have underestimated the impact of the regional enforcement program

reorganizations, but, overall, those problems have been overcome and the “dip” reflected in the

FY95 numbers was an anomaly. All the regions have completed reorganizing and are fully

implementing national and regional priorities.

Exhibit 2-1 presents the total enforcement activities taken by EPA and the states in FY96. As

shown, the states accounted for nearly 10,000 enforcement actions. When EPA and the states

combine efforts and present a unified enforcement approach, Americans can be assured that those

violating environmental laws and endangering health and the environment will be discovered, and

the problems will be fixed.
EPA Criminal Referrals

EPA Civil Actions for Sanctions

EPA Formal Administrative

Actions

State Enforcement

Actions

FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 2-2

Exhibit 2-1

FY 1996 Enforcement Activities

The following sections of this chapter highlight EPA’s various enforcement programs -- criminal

enforcement, civil administrative actions, and the Superfund enforcement program. The chapter

concludes with a discussion of the positive impact of the EPA enforcement program on human

health and the environment.

2.1 Criminal Enforcement

Criminal enforcement continued to be the fastest growing component of the enforcement

program. This reflects the Agency's targeting of the most willful violators and violations with

serious potential risk. For example, the number of defendants indicted in FY96 totaled 221. EPA

referred 262 cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in FY96 (the previous highest number was

256 in FY95), and the number of cases initiated in 1996 was 548.

In FY96, the period of jail time to which defendants were sentenced totaled 1,160 months,

compared to 860 months in FY95. One hundred and seven individual defendants pleaded or were

found guilty in criminal judicial proceedings, in addition to 33 corporate defendants. More than
FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-3 May 1997

$76,660,670 in criminal fines and restitution were assessed in FY96, compared with $23 million in

FY95.

Incarceration is a key component of the criminal enforcement program. 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 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 more than 588 years of incarceration for

committing environmental crimes. Exhibit 2-2 compares the criminal programs outputs for 1994

through 1996.

The numbers presented in this table reflect some major criminal cases concluded during FY96. 

For example, the Iroquois Pipeline Operating Company action was the largest criminal

enforcement settlement since Exxon-Valdez. The company and four of its top officials pleaded

guilty to degrading scores of wetlands and streams while constructing a natural gas pipeline from

Canada to Long Island. The company was required to clean up 30 streams and wetlands and pay

$22 million in fines and penalties. In other elements of the criminal enforcement program, the

total length of sentences increased, while the number of cases initiated and defendants charged

decreased slightly. 

2.2 Civil/Administrative Actions

Civil judicial enforcement bounced back strongly in FY96. There were 295 judicial referrals, up

38 percent from the previous year (214). (The combined total of civil and criminal referrals is the

second highest in EPA history). A total of $66.2 million in judicial penalties was assessed, up

almost 90 percent over the previous year. Almost $30 million in administrative penalties was 

assessed, down 17 percent from the previous year. The totals of administrative penalty

complaints, conclusions and compliance orders decreased from the previous year. Despite the
Cases Initiated Referrals Defendants Charged Sentences (Years) Fines ($ Millions)

FY 1994 525 220 250 99.0 36.8

FY 1995 562 256 245 74.0 23.2

FY 1996 548 262 221 93.0 76.7

Cases Initiated Referrals Defendants Sentences Fines

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Cases Initiated Referrals Defendants Sentences Fines

FY 94 FY 95 FY 96

FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 2-4

Exhibit 2-2

EPA Criminal Enforcement: Major Outputs FY 1994 to FY 1996

drop in administrative penalties, the combined total of all criminal fines and civil penalties ($172.8

million,) is the highest in history. Exhibit 2-3 illustrates EPA’s combined penalties (including

criminal, civil, and administrative) over the past 3 years. Exhibit 2-4 presents the breakdown of

the FY96 formal civil enforcement actions by statute and type of action.

2.3 Superfund Enforcement

In FY96 the Superfund enforcement program secured potentially responsible party (PRP)

commitments exceeding $1.3 billion. Of this amount, PRPs signed settlements for an estimated

$888.5 million in future response work and settlements for more than $451.6 million in past costs.

Since the inception of the program, the total value of private party commitments (future and past)

is estimated at more than $14 billion ($11.9 billion in response settlements and $2.1 billion in cost

recovery settlements). 

In FY96, PRPs initiated more than 70 percent of the remedial work at National Priority List

(NPL) sites. PRP commitments for remedial design and remedial action response work exceeded

$700 million during FY96. The types of remedial response settlements and their estimated values

were as follows:
$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996

Criminal Civil Judicial Administrative

Adm. Penalty

Complaints

870

Adm. Penalty

Conclusions

1004

Adm. Compliance

Orders

1186

Field Citations

115

Judicial Referrals

to DOJ

295

Judicial

Conclusions

292

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Number of Civil Actions

Adm. Penalty

Complaints

870

Adm. Penalty

Conclusions

1004

Adm. Compliance

Orders

1186

Field Citations

115

Judicial Referrals

to DOJ

295

Judicial

Conclusions

292

TSCA

SDWA

RCRA

FIFRA

EPCRA

CWA

CERCLA

CAA

FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-5 May 1997

Exhibit 2-3

EPA Penalties FY 1994 to FY 1996

Exhibit 2-4

EPA FY 1996 Formal Civil Enforcement Actions
FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 2-6

Thirty-nine consent decrees referred to the DOJ with an estimated response value of

$487 million

Nineteen unilateral administrative orders with which PRPs complied, for work

estimated at $196 million

Nine administrative orders on consent and one consent agreement for response work

estimated at approximately $17 million.

To promote enforcement fairness and resolve small party contributors' potential liability under

§122(g) of the Comprehensive Emergency Response and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Superfund

enforcement program concluded 40 de minimis settlements with over 1,800 parties in the fiscal

year. Through FY96, the Agency achieved more than 240 settlements with over 14,000 settlers.

In FY96, the Agency reached a total of 111 administrative orders on consent, and issued 70

unilateral administrative orders. The Agency addressed 181 past cost cases, including statute of

limitation cases, each of which was valued at more than $200,000. Of these cost recovery

actions, 54 were §107 referrals to DOJ, 15 were administrative settlements, 28 were consent

decrees, 1 was a bankruptcy referral, and 83 were decision documents to write-off past costs.

EPA also achieved 220 cost recovery settlements estimated at $451.6 million and collected over

$252 million in past costs during FY96. To date, the program has achieved approximately $2.1

billion in cost recovery settlements and collected more than $1.4 billion in past costs.

2.4 Impacts of Settlements

One of the principles underlying EPA’s enforcement program is that the polluter should pay for

and correct the damage caused and prevent future problems. In addition to penalties, the two

main elements of enforcement settlements are injunctive relief -- the actions needed to eliminate

noncompliance, correct environmental damage, and restore the environment -- and Supplemental

Environmental Projects (SEPs) -- "extra" actions taken by the violator to benefit the public or the

environment, which are taken into account when assessing a penalty. As noted, this is the first

year that EPA has begun to collect and report systematic information on these components,

although the Agency has collected some data on an "ad hoc" trial basis over the last several years. 

Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6 provide a breakout of the environmental impacts of all FY96 enforcement

actions and of the FY96 SEPs.

The total monetary value of all program SEPs and injunctive relief (including Superfund)

undertaken by regulated entities was $1.49 billion in FY96 (highest of the last 3 years). 

In addition to the $1.49 billion, there is an estimated $888.5 million in future Superfund PRP

response work referred to DOJ or in administrative orders about to be finalized. (This amount is

not included in the FY96 aggregate numbers.)
Increased

 Public Awareness

8%

Ecosystem Protection

28%

Human Health /

Worker Protection

46%

Other

Benefit

 3%

Increased Federal/State/

Local Gov't

 Knowledge

10%

Environmental Restoration/

 Land Use

3%

Increased Public Awareness

12%

Increased Federal/State/Local

Gov't Knowledge

4%

Environmental Restoration 2%

Human Health /

Worker Protection

51%

Ecosystem Protection

28%

Other Benefit 3%

FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-7 May 1997

Exhibit 2-5

Environmental Impacts of FY 1996 EPA Enforcement Actions

Exhibit 2-6

Environmental Impacts of FY 1996 SEPs
FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 2-8

The total value of settlements in any single year depends upon the profile of the non-complying

sectors and violations addressed. SEPs and injunctive relief can be affected by a few abnormally

large cases. For example, the total dollar value of FY95 SEPs was $103 million, while the total

value of FY96 SEPs was $66 million. A $30 million SEP was included in FY96 that was part of a

Clean Water Act settlement with the city of Honolulu, Hawaii. Generally, the cases that involved

the largest expenditures were those in which violators had to install new pollution control

equipment or change their production processes to reduce pollution. 

Combining a number of similar types of actions into a broader category, about 25 percent of all

activities (tasks) required by civil judicial and administrative enforcement settlements called for

regulated entities to physically change the way they operated their facilities or reduce emissions or

discharges to the environment. (Note: There are more activities than cases because of multiple

violations or multiple tasks that must be taken to return to compliance.) For example:

The Colorado Public Service Company will spend $140 million -- the second largest

expenditure in Clean Air Act history -- to install state-of-the-art pollution controls to

reduce air pollutants at its facility near Steamboat Springs

The General Motors Corporation will spend about $25 million to recall and retrofit

more than 500,000 Cadillacs to settle charges that "defeat devices" on one of its

engines resulted in illegal emissions of carbon monoxide.

About 75 percent of the activities required by civil enforcement settlements called for regulated

entities to improve their environmental management systems, take preventive actions to avoid

noncompliance, or enhance the public's right-to-know. These three activities could be achieved

through such actions as conducting environmental audits, complying with the Toxic Release

Inventory or other reporting or recordkeeping requirements, properly manifesting hazardous

wastes, and certifying proper asbestos removal training. The majority of these were done through

administrative enforcement. Exhibit 2-7 illustrates the activities regulated entities had to conduct

based on an enforcement action to come into compliance.

The data also indicate that about 46 percent of the injunctive relief in civil cases and 51 percent of

the SEPs provided additional human health protection. Similarly, 28 percent of both injunctive

relief and SEPs protected natural ecosystems. One settlement, for example, will help clean up the

heavily polluted Grand Calumet River in northwest Indiana. The settlement creates a trust fund to

pay for dredging of severely contaminated sediments in the river and to restore damaged wetlands

and wildlife habitat along its banks. 

The case conclusion data sheets captured the impact of enforcement settlements in terms of

reduced discharges or emissions of pollution into the environment. The Agency has been able to

report specific pollution reductions in 25 percent of the FY96 settlements with greater reductions

anticipated. This does not mean that only 25 percent of EPA cases resulted in reduced pollution,

but rather that specific information on estimated reductions was available for these cases.

 
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

Use Reduction

Industrial Process

Change

Emissions/Discharge

Change

Storage/Disposal Change

Remediation/Restoration

Removal

Remedial

Design/Remedial Action

Testing

Auditing

Monitoring/Sampling

Only

Recordkeeping Only

Labeling/Manifesting

EPCRA Reporting

Information Letter

Response

Permit Application

Training

Provide Site Access

Site Assessment &

RI/FS

Other

(1.8%)

45

(3.3%)

82

(4.9%)

122

(9.5%)

234

(5.3%)

132

(7.4%)

184

(1.7%)

43

(6.1%)

150

(5.1%)

126

(11.8%)

291

(6.2%)

154

(5.2%)

128

(3.5%)

86

(5.5%)

132

(6.0%)

148

(3.8%)

94

(1.7%)

43 (1.6%)

39

(6.0%)

148

Percentages are based on number of

cases which included complying action

FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-9 May 1997

Exhibit 2-7

What Regulated Entities Had to Do to Comply with FY 1996 Concluded EPA

Enforcement Actions

The settlements resulted in aggregate reductions of that can cause respiratory diseases including

asthma (e.g., ozone-creating volatile organic compounds [VOCs], particulates), or can cause

headaches and cardiopulmonary problems (e.g., carbon monoxide).

In FY96, information on concluded EPA enforcement actions specifically indicated that pollutant

reductions or eliminations were required in at least a quarter of the cases. Table 2-1 presents the

pollutant reductions as a result of those actions.

In some instances, significant benefits were secured from one large case: 

Georgia-Pacific Corporation will reduce VOC emissions from its wood product

facilities in eight southeastern states by at least 90 percent -- a reduction of 10 million

pounds/annually

The GM recall will reduce excess carbon monoxide emissions by approximately

100,000 tons

In other instances (e.g., lead and asbestos), the cumulative reductions resulted from a larger

number of actions.
FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 2-10

These data indicate that the Agency is focusing efforts on the most serious pollutants and

potential risks, making the polluter pay for noncompliance and securing settlements that have a

“real world” impact on protecting health and the environment.

Table 2-1. Pollutant Reductions as a

Result of FY96 Settlements

Pollutant Reduction

(millions of pounds)

Carbon monoxide 199,586,928

Lead 16,684,787

VOCs 10,560,777

Particulates 8,940,646

Copper 8,814,755

Asbestos 7,707,764

Carbon dioxide 2,863,967

Chromium 2,566,524

Methanol 1,319,615

Toluene/Toluene waste 987,615

Sulfur dioxide 632,667

Sulfur oxide 436,368

PCBs 302,940

Ammonia 250,327

NOx 211,097

Benzene/Related compounds 118,705
FY96 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-11 May 1997

This page is intentionally blank.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-1 May 1997

3. FISCAL YEAR 1996: THE ACTIVITIES

In Fiscal Year (FY) 1996, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offices at both the

headquarters and regional levels conducted significant enforcement and compliance assurance

activities that contributed to the protection of human health and the environment. These activities

ranged from enforcement and compliance assurance initiatives to policies to voluntary programs

that assist compliance. As part of the Clinton Administration’s efforts to reinvent environmental

regulations and address environmental problems on a multimedia, industry-wide basis, these

activities focused on bringing facilities into compliance and reaping the resulting benefits to the

environment.

The chapter is organized into five sections that describe significant activities at both the

headquarters and regional levels. For example, EPA has developed compliance and enforcement

strategies for specific industry sectors that warrant priority attention. Section 3.1 describes these

strategies and resulting activities. For FY96, EPA identified 3 national priority sectors and 10

significant sectors. These sectors were selected as priorities for several reasons, including high

noncompliance rates, high-volume Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) releases, and prevalence among

the regions. Designation as an EPA priority sector means these sectors receive special emphasis,

both in terms of compliance assistance and enforcement.

Section 3.2 discusses special accomplishments and initiatives within EPA’s traditional media

programs. Although several specific multimedia initiatives are ongoing within the Agency, the

backbone of environmental protection is the media-based programs (e.g., air, water, toxics). In

FY96, EPA continued its media-based efforts and used them in conjunction with other special

initiatives to ensure the best protection of human health and the environment. This protection was

further ensured through EPA’s criminal enforcement program, which is discussed in Section 3.3.

Section 3.4 describes community-based environmental protection (CBEP) activities. In FY96,

EPA developed multimedia enforcement and compliance strategies for environmental and

noncompliance problems associated with particular communities or places, including ecosystems

or other natural resource areas. Community-based approaches, which provide opportunities to

address environmental justice concerns, have proven effective in facilitating collaborative planning

and involvement with the people living in those communities.

In addition to the special initiatives and media programs, EPA has several initiatives ongoing that

are multimedia in nature and cut across several other programs. These activities include

enforcement and compliance assistance at federal facilities, which are discussed in Section 3.5.

Other efforts, including international activities, environmental justice, pollution prevention, and

compliance assistance are presented in Section 3.6.

In FY96, EPA also initiated its performance partnership agreements (PPA) between the regions

and states. Several regions made significant strides in setting up agreements with their respective

states. These PPAs ensure a coordinated approach to environmental protection across an entire

region. Section 3.7 highlights the successes with PPAs.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-2

In Region 3, an administrative complaint and order was

issued to BP Refining. This case was initiated in support

of the Chester Community environmental justice and

Refinery initiatives. The complaint proposed a penalty

of approximately $162,000 for alleged violations of the

benzene waste NESHAP and was resolved immediately. 

The case will result in lower benzene and VOC

emissions when the refinery restarts. The region and 

TOSCO (the new owner of the refinery) will discuss 

compliance issues when the refinery resumes operations.

3.1 Industry Sector Priorities

For FY96 and FY97, EPA set three industrial sectors for priority attention: petroleum refineries,

dry cleaners, and primary nonferrous metals. In addition, EPA established 10 significant sectors

for attention: auto service/repair, agricultural practices, industrial organic chemicals, mining,

plastic materials/synthetics, printing, iron and basic steel products, pulp mills, municipal

wastewater treatment for combined sewer overflows/sanitary sewer overflows, and coal-fired

powerplants. In focusing their compliance efforts, regions incorporated a combination of national

priority, nationally defined significant sectors, and regionally identified sectors. EPA selected the

national sectors by considering multiple factors, including industry compliance history, high

volume TRI releases, significant cross-regional impacts, and institutional sector-based expertise. 

This section highlights both national and regional sector priorities.

3.1.1 National Sector Priorities

Petroleum Refineries - Petroleum refineries generate a wide variety of hazardous wastes,

effluents, and air emissions in large quantities. Large volumes of wastewater containing many

organic chemicals are routinely discharged from refineries, and PCB transformers are commonly

found at refineries. The activities described below characterize compliance and enforcement

efforts among EPA’s regions:

Region 2 conducted 4 multimedia inspections and 10 single-media inspections at 14

petroleum refinery facilities within the region, involving comprehensive processes analyses

(RCRA). The overall rate of compliance was found to be high. In addition to compliance

monitoring, the region has planned a regional symposium for FY97 and intends to

emphasize the use of SEPs to achieve pollution prevention where possible in Puerto Rico

and the Virgin Islands. Thirteen enforcement actions for CAA, RCRA, and CWA were

brought in FY96, with 9 NOVs issued.

Region 3 examined the compliance

status of all five petroleum refinery

facilities, four of which were found to

be in violation. EPA issued two

NOVs, one AO, and one APO. The

region conducted multimedia

inspections at two major refineries in

May and June 1996. The final reports

will be reviewed for potential

enforcement action in FY97.

Region 4 completed four petroleum refinery inspections during FY96, including one

multimedia inspection. Of these inspections, one resulted in a formal enforcement action

and one an informal action (by either the states or EPA). 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-3 May 1997

Region 6 identified numerous issues that must be 

handled to more fully address the 47 minor refinery

facilities within the region. These include addressing 

compliance tracking and permit issuance for minors,

which has been a secondary priority for the NPDES

program nationally; facilities that are operating under

expired or often outdated permits; and compliance files

that may contain unreliable information or be otherwise

incomplete. In response, the region’s enforcement

program has coordinated with the NPDES permits staff

in the Water Quality Management Division to try to

expedite permit issuance/reissuance to minor facilities in

this targeted sector, particularly in priority watersheds.

Region 4 drinking water program activities focused on the only refinery with a Public

Water System (PWS). The program reviewed the Safe Drinking Water Information

System (SDWIS) to determine which petroleum refineries in Region 4 have PWSs and

their PW compliance status. Only one refinery-- Chevron USA Products Company

(Pascagoula, MS) --was found to have a PWS. Based on state-coordinated inspections,

this facility was found to be in compliance with the federal primary drinking water

regulations. Under the NPDES program, the region negotiated with each state to conduct

inspections and compliance assistance activities at facilities identified in Permit

Compliance System (PCS). Of a total of 32 facilities in this sector category, state

commitments were obtained to inspect 21 facilities.

In Region 5, judicial complaints alleging RCRA violations were filed against two

refineries. RCRA violations at a third refinery were referred to DOJ, and a RCRA

administrative 3008(a) complaint was filed against a fourth refinery. 

In addition, representatives from the region’s Air and Radiation Division (ARD), Water,

RCRA, and Superfund participated in roundtable discussions with the American

Petroleum Institute (API). ARD’s Refinery Workgroup continued its efforts of ensuring

continuous compliance with SIPs, NSPS, NESHAPs, and permits at the region’s

petroleum refineries through enforcement and compliance activities. During the year,

enforcement actions and/or ongoing investigations were pursued at 16 of the region’s 19

refineries, including five multimedia investigations/cases. The region’s Water and ARD

programs participated in various compliance assistance activities with the API. The

region’s Water program formed the E Waste and Water subgroup and worked with the

ARD Refinery Workgroup to address specific media problems with the refineries

represented by API. Members of both groups also worked with API to identify and

resolve enforcement issues related to existing regulations. The Refinery Workgroup is

also undertaking a pilot project with one refinery in the region to demonstrate the

environmental benefit of enhanced emissions monitoring.

Region 6 developed an inventory of major and minor NPDES refinery facilities using PCS. 

Either EPA or a state agency inspected 39 of the 49 major facilities in the region. As the

reports were received, they were

reviewed. Facility files were made to

identify any possible compliance

problems. Approximately 35 majors

have been determined as being

compliant and 14 as noncompliant. 

Because these petroleum refineries are,

in most cases, large companies familiar

with the CWA and the regulations,

traditional enforcement was used when

needed. The types of violations found

were either minor deficiencies noted

during the inspections or effluent
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-4

violations reported by the permittee. These violations were addressed with warning letters

to nine facilities and AOs to five facilities.

For FY96, the Region 6 RCRA program started to assess compliance trends at smaller

facilities (i.e., production less than 100,000 bls/year) and compare the trends with

historical expectations for this sector. Overall, nine compliance evaluation inspections

(CEIs) were completed at large and small refinery facilities during the June-September

1996 timeframe. Additionally, the region completed two case-development inspections

related to corrective action.

Region 6 commenced roundtable discussions with representatives of Texas MidContinental Oil and Gas Association (TMOGA) and the American Petroleum Institute

(API). Eight work groups were formed to address numerous refinery issues, including 

RCRA compliance; benzene wastewater rule; plant fuel gas (NSPS); EPA/state reporting;

information exchange, training, and improper procedures; inspection transactions and

recordkeeping; leak detection/fugitive emissions, and enforcement process-related issues. 

The RCRA work group selected three issues for the group's initial consideration--

container management requirements, waste determination, and recycling practices --and 

identified possible solutions for the first two. Efforts are underway to develop a best

management practices (BMPs) document to address container management concerns. In

addition, other pertinent documents (e.g., sampling protocol) will be available to industry

to facilitate compliance with waste determination requirements via an interactive Web site. 

 RCRA work group discussions also indicated that forthcoming Subpart CC regulations

may likely result in future noncompliance.

During FY96, Region 6 inspected eight refineries; the states inspected all other regional

refineries. Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, for example, inspected 100 percent of the 3,

17, and 40 refinery facilities in their states, respectively. Other states inspected 3 of 4 and

6 of 7 facilities, respectively. The general compliance rate was found to be high, although

11 state violations were identified. In addition, the region initiated civil judicial

enforcement actions for Basis Petroleum (formerly Phibro), located in Texas City, Texas,

and referred them to DOJ during the fourth quarter of FY96. During the third quarter of

FY96, the region referred air violations at Sun Company, Incorporated, Tulsa, Oklahoma,

to DOJ for civil judicial enforcement action.

Region 7 distributed a guidance document summarizing the final petroleum refining

NESHAP to all facilities with a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 2911.

Because most of the affected facilities are located in Kansas, the region has focused

outreach efforts in that state. As a separate project, the National Enforcement

Investigation Center (NEIC) compiled the repetitive areas of noncompliance of

environmental issues identified during refinery investigations conducted in the last 4 years. 

The resulting document was used to assist enforcement activities of regional, state and

local regulatory agencies. In conjunction with activities of the petroleum sector team, the

region also issued a unilateral administrative order to the Robert Cooley Trust on October
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-5 May 1997

28, 1996, to abate potential environmental and human health threats at the Mid America

Refining Company (MARCO) site in Chanute, Kansas.

Region 8 has 16 operating petroleum refineries in five states that all have capacities below

60,000 barrels per day. The region organized a petroleum refinery sector team to

comprehensively evaluate the compliance status and the public health and environmental

risk from the petroleum refining industry using a multimedia-based approach. The team 

developed targeting data and implemented an interim environmental justice inspection

protocol. In addition, the team considered risk data and calculated a pollution inefficiency

indicator that indicates a refinery’s ability to produce a product without releasing toxic

pollutants into the environment. 

In Region 8, EPA conducted 16 inspections at petroleum refineries. Two coordinated

multimedia inspections were conducted. Frontier Refining in Cheyenne, Wyoming,

received inspections by air, hazardous waste, TSCA-PCB, and EPCRA 313 within a 4-

week period. Crysen Refining, in Woods Cross, Utah, was subject to inspections by air,

hazardous waste, TSCA Sections 5 and 8, and TSCA-PCB programs. Followup

coordination activities continue. The Underground Injection Control program is using

information request authority to gather Class V well information at refineries. As part of

outreach efforts, the Regional Refinery Workgroup met with the Rocky Mountain Oil and

Gas Association (RMOGA). The meeting was the first scheduled quarterly meeting

intending to begin an open dialog with the members of the RMOGA Refinery Committee,

which represents 13 of the 16 refineries in the region. 

During FY96, Region 9 continued to actively conduct inspections, enforcement, and

outreach with refineries. The region specifically pursued compliance with EPA’s NSPS

requirements relating to storage tanks with slotted guidepoles for floating roofs, achieving

improved compliance at five refineries. As a result of these actions, several refineries were

among the first in the Nation to employ relatively simple, but effective, controls that will

have a significant impact on reducing air emissions from storage tanks. By reducing these

emissions, the companies are also saving product; therefore the companies benefit at the

same time that public health and the environment are better protected. In terms of

reducing air pollution, the use of these controls equates with taking nearly 5,000 cars off

the road. As part of the settlements in these cases, the companies agreed to install

controls on these tanks, as well as on storage tanks that are not subject to NSPS

requirements. The region estimates that these controls will result in a total reduction of at

least 280,000 pounds of VOCs per year. Refineries involved include Chevron U.S.A.

(Richmond), Chevron Pipe Line Co. (La Mirada), Mobil Oil Corporation (Torrance),

Ultramar Incorporated (Washington), and the Union Oil Company of California (Carson

and Arroyo Grande).

Activities in the petroleum refinery sector for Region 10 RCRA focused primarily on

traditional compliance and enforcement activities. The state of Washington conducted

multimedia inspections on its six facilities. During the inspections, the state used various

tools-- traditional compliance monitoring and enforcement, as well as pollution prevention
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-6

assistance. Similar results have occurred with the 5 facilities in Alaska. In FY 96, EPA

conducted two inspections at these facilities, one as part of a multimedia inspection. 

Neither inspection detected significant compliance issues. Both EPA and the states are

moving toward more compliance assistance with these facilities. 

Dry Cleaners - Dry cleaners pose significant air, water, and waste issues and have the potential to

significantly impact human health and the environment. For example, in Region 2 the 5,000 dry

cleaners emit in aggregate 62,500 tons per year of perchloroethylene (perc), a possible

carcinogen, into the air, discharge 16 tons per year of perc in the wastewater, and generate 31.5

tons of solid waste per year. Dry cleaners pose additional challenges because the majority of dry

cleaners are small businesses that may not be fully aware of environmental regulations. This

problem is compounded because language barriers, in many instances, complicate outreach and

educational efforts.

The following activities characterize compliance and enforcement efforts focused on dry cleaners 

within EPA’s regions:

The Region 1 air enforcement office completed 93 inspections of dry cleaners, using a

multimedia compliance approach that integrates air MACT, RCRA, and UIC requirements

into the inspection format. EPA issued 31 notices of noncompliance (NONs). The most

common violation involved the failure to keep proper records and to record and/or

conduct equipment leak checks. Impediments to compliance are perceived to be lack of

sophistication of the small business owners, the economics of compliance and, in some

cases, language barriers. 

Region 2 undertook a 2-year, multimedia initiative that combined vigorous compliance

assistance with strong enforcement. Region 2 conducted 180 air compliance

inspections/visits of dry cleaning establishments. Of these, 120 were found to be subject

to the new MACT standard. Thirty-seven of the 120 regulated facilities were in

compliance with the CAA. The Nassau County Department of Health found similar

results during 186 water compliance inspections of dry cleaners. The department found

only 75 (40%) of the facilities in compliance with UIC requirements. Region 2 also gave

four presentations on the national air emission standards for perc to approximately 300 dry

cleaners in New Jersey and 300 in New York City. In addition, the region co-sponsored a

multimedia, multi-agency seminar with the Neighborhood Cleaners Association that

addressed federal, state, and local requirements applicable to dry cleaners in Long Island; 

200 people attended.

Region 3 worked with Small Business Assistance Programs (SBAPs) and EPA’s Office of

Compliance to offer a presentation on dry cleaner MACT standard compliance to 700

Korean dry cleaner association members who operate 400 facilities in the greater

Washington, DC, area. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-7 May 1997

Region 4 conducted 3 RCRA inspections, 148 air inspections (249 in conjunction with the

state of Georgia), and 10 UIC inspections (Class V) at dry cleaners. Of the 249 air

inspections, the rate of noncompliance was 59 percent. 

The Region 5 air program had the states take the lead in addressing and implementing 

outreach and compliance assistance activities. Region 5 surveyed state activities and

found the states to be conducting outreach campaigns, especially mailings and workshops. 

To assist in measuring the effectiveness of compliance assistance, the Illinois PPA contains

a commitment to develop a method and assess the success of state compliance outreach

and education in this sector. The Underground Injection Control (UIC) branch continued

a source identification project in Illinois, but did not find any dry cleaners discharging into

Class 5 wells. States completed the RCRA inspections projected, and several state

programs provided compliance assistance.

The Air program staff in Region 6 visited approximately 158 dry cleaning sites, and state

small business air programs (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)

visited 334, for a total of 492 dry cleaners. Approximately 62 of these sites received

additional special onsite assistance due to identified violations or not understanding the

regulatory requirements. Approximately 60 percent of the dry cleaners were found to not

be complying with all requirements (recordkeeping violations were typical, as were waste

management/ disposal violations at sites that are using old equipment [e.g., transfer type

machines]).

Region 6 and the Dallas Small Business Technical Assistance Office developed a video on

dry cleaning to educate dry cleaners on the proper techniques to use to comply with the

federal regulations for dry cleaning. The video, funded through the EPA small business

assistance grant, will be distributed in early FY97.

Region 6 small business programs contacted fabric care associations to publish final

compliance reminders for dry cleaning establishments, in addition to mailing approximately

1,000 reminders to dry cleaners to submit final compliance reports. State small business

programs (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas), the Dallas Small

Business Assistance Program, and the Korean Dry Cleaners Association conducted dry

cleaning seminars. Attendance at the seminars reached approximately 300 in the industry

sector.

Region 6’s RCRA program completed 11 multimedia site visits (air and RCRA) in Texas

city. Additionally, four multimedia site visits (air and RCRA) and one RCRA inspection

were completed in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. Problems ranged from recordkeeping and

training discrepancies to waste management concerns. One-on-one discussions with

facility operators have proven to be highly effective. Of the 16 RCRA site

visits/inspections, only one facility was being considered for a RCRA enforcement action

at the end of FY96. Problems at the other 15 facilities have been addressed with

compliance assistance efforts.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-8

Region 7 conducted 30 RCRA CEIs, including screening inspections for CAA, CWA, and

SDWA in the state of Iowa. The compliance rate improved by 75 percent from the

problems identified in FY95. The RCRA CEIs identified a common problem with open

containers across the industry related to the use of a container provided by one recycling

company. Because the containers were physically difficult to close, all dry cleaning

facilities that used these new containers had violations for open containers. The recycling

company was contacted regarding the open containers, and the inspectors explained the

requirement to facility contacts. During RCRA compliance CEIs, Region 7 provided eight

compliance assistance documents.

Region 8 received more than 1,600 CAA initial notices from small business dry cleaners,

including both pickup stores and plants with perc systems. All six states in the region

conducted outreach activities for dry cleaners through small business assistance programs

funded from CAA Title V fees program. The outreach activities informed each dry

cleaner owner of the requirements of the national emission standards for perc dry cleaners

that became fully effective September 22, 1996. Outreach was conducted via workshops,

mass mailings of guidance materials, and individual visits. State inspectors also inspected

several dry cleaner operations for both CAA and hazardous waste standards. The region

served warning letters and notices of violation in a few cases. EPA inspectors also

performed nine compliance audits in Wyoming, using a multimedia inspection checklist.

In Region 9, numerous state workshops were held for approximately 7,000 dry cleaners. 

In addition, onsite assistance was provided directly to about 200 dry cleaners. In the San

Francisco Bay area, local agency inspectors conducted onsite visits to more than 700 dry

cleaning facilities. The regional office also worked with Hawaii to advise dry cleaners on

MACT requirements and the completeness of their dry cleaner initial notifications.

In Region 10, the states alone performed RCRA compliance monitoring activities at dry

cleaners as part of their overall compliance programs. All four states have devoted

significant traditional compliance efforts to dry cleaners in past years and have transitioned

to compliance assistance. This sector, therefore, is not considered to be a regionally

significant compliance issue for the RCRA program. Of note was the formation of an

Oregon state-wide fund, comprising of contributions from all dry cleaning facilities, that

will be used to help clean up releases from past and present dry cleaning operations. The

state of Washington completed a comprehensive guidebook for the dry cleaning industry 

that explains all of the applicable environmental regulations. This booklet is being

translated into various languages.

Primary Nonferrous Metals - The following activities characterize EPA regional compliance and

enforcement efforts focused on primary nonferrous metal facilities:

Region 3 conducted 30 inspections and reviewed the compliance status of 26 facilities and

found 13 to be in violation. EPA issued five NOVs, three AOs, one APO, and two civil
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-9 May 1997

referrals. Two facilities were referred to the state for resolution. Additionally, two

settlements were reached with Weirton and Franklin Smelting.

Region 4 conducted 18 RCRA inspections at primary nonferrous metal facilities, including

three multimedia inspections. Of the 18 inspections, 1 resulted in a formal enforcement

action and 3 in informal enforcement actions (by either the states or EPA). AEEB also

conducted 18 inspections, including 3 multimedia inspections, but found no significant

noncompliance. Water program activities included a regional focus on primary nonferrous

metal facilities with a PWS. The region coordinated single-media inspections with

delegated states. The NPDES program negotiated with each state to conduct inspections

and compliance assistance activities at 9 of 10 facilities identified in PCS as belonging to

the industry sectors in each state.

In Region 5, ARD closely monitored the actions of a primary copper smelter in complying

with the requirements of a federal consent decree filed in 1995. As part of the decree, the

company elected to cease operations and seek permits to construct a new plant. Region 5

personnel are working with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in

reviewing a pending permit application.

Region 6 conducted a RCRA initiative focused on foundries. Baseline data on foundries,

obtained through 23 inspections (FY94/95), indicated an overall noncompliance rate of 60

percent with RCRA regulations. Of the five EPA enforcement actions taken thus far in

the foundry initiative, one complaint and three final orders were issued in FY96. During

FY96, penalties totaled $1.35 million, and injunctive relief valued at $513,000 resulted in

the removal of approximately 5,500 tons of hazardous waste from communities during 

site cleanup. The foundry initiative focused on creating partnerships between EPA, states,

and industry, as well as on using inspections, enforcement, compliance assistance, and

incentive tools to complement each other and facilitate compliance. With Texas

completing its foundry program in FY97, for example, EPA expects that at least half the

industry (i.e., 150 foundries) region-wide will have participated in the compliance

assistance element of the program.

Region 7’s primary nonferrous metals manufacturing sector team conducted a thorough

review of all four facilities located in Region 7. Three of these were lead smelters and one

was an aluminum smelter. In each case, these facilities already had high profiles in the

region and were already being closely evaluated by Region 7 on a cross-program basis. 

In Region 8, the Technical Enforcement Program (TEP) in the Office of Enforcement,

Compliance, and Environmental Justice began focusing on the sector approach. Each

sector drafted a sector workplan that described in greater detail the activities that would

take place in that sector for FY96 and FY97. The mining and nonferrous metals sector

workplan included the commitment to concentrate on nonferrous metals facilities in FY96. 

TEP activities in the primary nonferrous metals sector included universe identification and

comprehensive evaluation of nonferrous metals facilities. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-10

In September 1996, the U.S. District Court entered a

consent decree requiring Cyprus Bagdad Copper

Corporation to pay $475,000 to the United States and

$285,000 to Arizona to settle violations of the federal

Clean Water Act and the Arizona Environmental Quality

Act at the company's Yavapai County copper mine. In

May 1996, the District Court entered another consent

decree requiring Cyprus Miami Mining Corporation to

pay penalties totaling $295,000 to the United States and

Arizona for past violations at its Gila County mine. The

decree with Cyprus Miami further requires that the

company undertake a supplemental environmental

project to stabilize and reclaim inactive tailings

impoundments resulting from historic copper ore milling

operations at the site. 

Region 9 continued its efforts on the

Arizona Copper Mines Initiative. The

region initiated settlement discussions

regarding NPDES permit violations at

five mines, and developed cases for

violations at several non-permitted

facilities. The region also played an

active role in the national enforcement

case against ASARCO, including

gathering additional information for

the enforcement cases and

participating in settlement discussions.

EPA Region 9 and the state of

Arizona concluded several enforcement

actions as part of the Arizona Copper

Mines Initiative. This multiyear initiative was undertaken to assess the impact of active,

inactive, and abandoned copper mines on surface water and groundwater, to develop an

inventory of Arizona copper mines, and to ensure the cleanup and remediation of

contaminated mine sites. The U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Forest Service, Arizona State

Mine Inspector’s Office, Arizona DEQ and Region 9 inventoried more than 7,000 mines

sites and developed a list of approximately 700 high potential problem mines. The

initiative’s objectives include the completion of demonstration projects and voluntary

cleanup of inactive and abandoned mines through outreach and cooperative agreements

with the mining industry. EPA and the state also have taken enforcement actions to

secure compliance with federal and state water pollution laws.

Region 10 focused on the 10 aluminum smelters in Washington and Oregon. Both states

are now authorized for K088 potliner waste. While these facilities are primarily overseen

by the states, EPA conducted two inspections at aluminum facilities, both of which

resulted in only minor compliance issues. The region also engaged in extensive

discussions with the Washington State Department of Ecology about recycling the potliner

waste under a proposal submitted to the agencies. In addition, the region formed a

multimedia coordination team to address the environmental issues posed by FMC, a

phosphorous producer on tribal land in Idaho.

3.1.2 Regional Sector Priorities

In addition to national sector priorities, EPA regions implemented regional sector enforcement

and compliance priorities from among the nationally defined significant sectors and regionally

developed sector priorities. Regional sector targeting allows each EPA region to focus on the

environmental and health problems that are most pressing in its area. In addition, as one region

noted, “sector targeting is proving to be an effective approach for coordination across programs,

of various tools, and with state partners; targeting for assistance and enforcement; and assessment

of results.” The following discussion highlights regional sector priorities.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-11 May 1997

Region 1 - Region 1 conducted regional sector initiatives in the following sectors: organic

chemical manufacturing, printing, electronics and computers, and metal finishing. In the printing

sector, the region conducted compliance activities, developed a pollution prevention manual,

conducted focus groups, held eight workshops, participated in the Common Sense Initiative (CSI)

national work group, and supported a new low-VOC ink demonstration project. 

Using an approach that integrates enforcement and assistance, the region found violations in 70

percent of its inspections of metal finishing facilities. As a result of this enforcement targeting,

began an initiative to perform pollution prevention and compliance audits of small metal finishers,

conducted six workshops, and is producing a model facility video.

Region 2 - The Region 2 universe in the industrial organic chemical (IOC) sector includes 194

facilities that use and generate a wide range of chemicals through a variety of processes. 

Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities conducted in FY96 include 31 RCRA

inspections, resulting in one NOV and another under consideration at the end of the FY; 6 air

inspections, resulting in one administrative order being issued; 3 TRI inspections, and 9 TSCA

inspections. In an effort to provide wide coverage of the regulated community in this industrial

sector, the region focused inspections at facilities that the states have not inspected routinely. Of

the facilities selected for inspection, RCRA found the compliance rate to be very high (97%). The

other programs have also found a high rate of compliance in this sector. 

Printers/ Graphic Arts - New York and New Jersey have more than 8,000 printers/graphic

arts facilities, which emit in aggregate 12,180 tons per year of VOCs. Region 2 undertook

a compliance/enforcement initiative to ensure that printers are complying with the

CAA.The region inspected 25 printers in the New Jersey harbor area and 40 printers in

New York city over the last 2 years and found 92 percent and 80 percent compliance

rates, respectively. Region 2 sponsored a New York City printer education project along

with EPA headquarters, New York City DEP, and New York State DEC as part of EPA’s

CSI to help inform local printers about pollution prevention measures and build

community understanding of the pollution prevention techniques used by this sector. The

region has actively hosted meetings with local New York printers, trade associations,

community groups, regulators, and technical assistance providers to identify customer

needs and encourage project participation. These efforts produced an environmental

compliance and pollution prevention technical assistance directory for New York City

printers.

Pharmaceutical Sector - Region 2 coordinated with the Chemical Industry Branch in the

Office of Compliance in planning compliance assistance and pollution prevention activities

for this sector. Headquarters and the region agreed to create a pharmaceutical sector

notebook. In addition, they held three pollution prevention/compliance assistance

outreach seminars designed to reach a diverse audience, including facility representatives,

permit writers, inspectors, and enforcement staff. The region also compiled a master list

of all programs’ pharmaceutical inspection candidates for FY96 and FY97. Based on this

compilation, 4 multimedia consolidated and 23 coordinated inspections are planned (9 in
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-12

NY, 8 in NJ, 6 in PR) in the next 2 years. All consolidated inspections were performed as

of April 30, 1996. A multimedia inspection of one facility from this list (Tishcon)

uncovered significant violations in several programs. In addition, the RCRA and NPDES

programs have conducted three coordinated inspections to date. 

Region 3 - Automobile Service Sector (S/SW Philadelphia) - In conjunction with a communitybased study being conducted in south and southwest Philadelphia, Region 3 developed a pilot

project to improve awareness and compliance with environmental regulations at auto body and

auto repair shops. A multi-stakeholder workgroup designed the pilot program and is developing

workshops and summarizing Pennsylvania, EPA, and city of Philadelphia regulations applicable to

autobody and autorepair shops. In addition, Philadelphia Air Management is planning mailings

and workshops on new autobody regulations and the Pennsylvania DEP assigned its contractor to

develop a fall workshop for the sector.

Surface Coating Sector (Metal Furniture - ARTD) - Region 3 reviewed the

compliance status of 24 facilities. Of these, eight facilities were found to be in

violation, and two others are suspected to be in violation. EPA issued three NOVs,

three AOs, and one civil referral. Compliance assistance was offered to two facilities. 

EPA referred three facilities to the state for enforcement action. Due to the number of

violations and the relatively small size of the facilities, a compliance assistance

initiative was launched. In Pennsylvania, 402 potential candidates were identified. 

Forty-eight of these facilities were sent invitations to participate in compliance

assistance and compliance incentive activities. Seven will participate during FY97. 

These activities will be expanded to Virginia and Maryland.

Region 4 - Plastic Materials and Synthetics - The RCRA program completed 11 inspections

(including 3 multimedia), resulting in 2 informal enforcement actions by the states or EPA. 

AEEB conducted 20 inspections, finding no significant noncompliance. Of the 20 inspections

conducted, 3 were multimedia. The program reviewed SDWIS to determine which plastic

materials and synthetics facilities in Region 4 have a PWS and their PWS compliance status. 

Seven plastics and synthetics facilities in Region 4 were found to have a PWS. In FY97, the

Drinking Water program will complete its review and assessment of SDWIS data for violations at

these facilities, and determine if compliance assistance or formal enforcement is appropriate.

Agricultural Practices - Region 4’s RCRA program completed 2 inspections and took

one informal enforcement action. In addition, North Carolina is concentrating

enforcement activities on animal feedlots, primarily the tremendous growth in hog

farms in the state. Tennessee’s Department of Agriculture agreed to reduce nonpoint

source pollution from agriculture practices. In addition, Tennessee requires fertilizer

and pesticide manufacturers to submit storm water pollution prevention plans to

document operating practices that minimize runoff and leachate pollution. 

Chloro-Alkali Facilities - RCRA completed two inspections, including one multimedia

inspection. AEEB conducted three inspections, two of which were multimedia, and
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-13 May 1997

found no significant noncompliance. Drinking water program activities included a

regional focus on chlor-alkali facilities with a PWS. The number of single-media

inspections was coordinated with delegated states, as appropriate. In addition,

compliance assistance activities were conducted. 

Region 5 - Iron and Basic Steel Products - Regional activity increased at steel-producing facilities

during FY96. Traditional enforcement tools continue to be the main route for achieving

compliance, but innovative means of using these traditional tools have been employed. For

example, the coke oven NESHAP has become a useful tool in monitoring the compliance status of

coke batteries in the region due to its daily compliance monitoring requirement for several

emission points at the coke battery. In more than one case, NESHAP data have been used to

enforce SIP and permit limits. SEPs are being actively sought in all settlement cases, especially

since most iron and steel facilities are located in GEI areas or environmental justice areas. For

example, a settlement with a coke plant in Illinois includes a SEP that will replace an existing

end-of-the-pipe treatment system for charging emissions with a system that recycles the emissions

back into the coke battery. Most of the ARD activity is in some stage of enforcement. Emission

reductions are or will be realized as injunctive relief is obtained and SEPs implemented. These

activities are expected to bring about major reductions in the levels of particulate matter, VOCs,

and hazardous air pollutants.

The UIC Branch continued its compliance monitoring, inspection, and enforcement

activities under this sector. In addition, work on the Bethlehem Steel case, which was

referred to DOJ continued. In FY96, a number of active cases with steel mills, primarily in

northwest Indiana, continued to develop. SEP activities were concluded at a major mill,

leading to the removal of more than 100,000 yards of contaminated sediment from the

Grand Calumet River. Additional SEPs were negotiated with the steel companies to

conduct work in cleaning up an additional 5 miles of the river. The Water program

worked closely with the Natural Resource Trustee in northwest Indiana to restore or add

habitat to the Grand Calumet River ecosystem, associated with the steel mills.

Multimedia Iron and Steel Sector Activities -Region 5’s Water program, along with ARD,

developed the mini-mill initiative and followed up letters sent to industry with meetings to

explain the initiative and to offer assistance to small businesses in a manner consistent with

EPA policy. The initiative encourages self-audits and self-reporting, since many of these

shops have not been inspected in several years. Based on an ongoing case, compliance

problems involving release of contaminated water from slag quench into groundwater may

be a common industry issue. Contaminated water was found to be seeping into surface

waters from process pits leaking into groundwater in northwest Indiana. Facility 

inspections as well as Agency Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Iron and Steel effects, are

attempting to alert industry to the issue and gain compliance if problems are found. ARD

has found that many of these shops have replaced equipment, which may trigger NSPS. 

The success of this initiative cannot be evaluated at this time.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-14

Agricultural Practices

In August of 1996, the Louisiana Department of

Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) worked with the

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and

state commercial pesticide applicators, farmers,

consultants, and industry associations to address a series

of pesticide-related fish kills in the northeast part of the

state. The state agencies determined that the fish kills

were linked to several pesticides used in cotton

production, including curacon, methyl parathion, and

azinphosmethyl. Numerous inspections and

investigations found no misuses of pesticides. Through

outreach to cotton producers in the area that outlined a

strategy for reducing the amounts of pesticides washed

into adjacent waterways, the agencies were able to

prevent additional fish kills. The LDAF commended the

cooperation by the cotton-producing community in

northeast Louisiana.

Industrial Organic Chemicals - Air program work focused generally on getting federal,

state, and local staff conversant with the requirements of the HON regulation and training

staff in inspection techniques. 

Region 6 - Industrial Organic Chemicals - The CWA program inspected approximately 71 of 104

major facilities. Fifty-five of these were determined to be compliant and 31 noncompliant. In

response to the violations noted in inspection reports and effluent violations, 15 warning letters

were written and 10 administrative orders issued. In addition, the enforcement program has

coordinated with the permits staff in the Water Quality Management Division to expedite permit

issuance/reissuance to minor facilities in targeted sector and priority watersheds. The air program

inspected 17 facilities identified under the industrial organic chemical classification and provided a

MACT information package specific to the facility for the inspector. The RCRA program

completed 10 inspections at industrial organic chemical facilities. Overall, no substantive RCRA

violations were found. The RCRA program is attempting to assess compliance trends at smaller

facilities and, subsequently, compare the trends with historical expectations for this sector. 

CAFOs - A Cumulative Risk Index Analysis (CRIA) team is developing an algorithm

to evaluate the cumulative impacts associated with concentrated animal feeding

operations (CAFOs). The main forces driving the development of the CRIA derives

from a need for an efficient time- and cost-savings decisionmaking process for

issuance of general permits to CAFO. The CWA program concentrated on getting

information to the CAFO industry and on assisting individuals in taking action to be

covered by the general permit. In general, medium and large size industries have

chosen to be covered. Smaller industries are not required to obtain coverage and have

not done so. Through inspections (the states of New Mexico and Oklahoma

performed approximately 305), outreach activities, and performance monitoring under

the general permit, the region was able to upgrade the knowledge of regulatory

requirements and compliance

performance of many existing and

new facilities.

Automotive Repair - The primary

concern of the Region 6 air

program for this sector has been

the proper use of materials

containing chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs) and control of illegal

importation of Class I materials

(e.g., R-12 used in motor vehicle

air conditioners). The region

continued outreach to the

regulated community and general

public. As the program has

matured, EPA’s role has shifted 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-15 May 1997

from information disseminated through presentations and mailouts of information

packets to collection of alleged violation information, enforcement and penalty actions. 

To help obtain accurate, provable information from citizens that will lead to successful

enforcement actions, the region developed a letter and form requesting written details

of alleged noncompliance. In FY96, the region assessed penalties two cases, issued

two AOs, ditributed five section 114 letters to facilities suspected of violations, and

took no action in three cases. The region also developed training for customs agents

and other concerned agencies in the United States and Mexico to increase their

knowledge of the problem of ozone depletion, the regulations to address the problem,

and ways in which the material is being illegally transported. This training, which

includes a reference manual and was given in both English and Spanish, has proven

highly successful. 

Sanitary Sewer Overflows - The Water Enforcement Branch continued to address 

facilities experiencing sanitary sewer overflows in their collection systems. Meetings

were held with several of the facilities to discuss the city’s compliance plan and

schedules. As schedules were agreed upon, administrative orders were issued to the

facilities incorporating the schedules. Eighteen administrative orders were issued to

permittees with Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), 10 of which were schedule orders. 

In addition to working with the individual cities, training was held for the Southeast

Section of the Water and Industrial Waste, Incorporated, an operators organization in

southern Louisiana; as well as to the Region 6 American Consulting Engineer's

Council Workgroup, the Northeast Texas Section of the Water Environment

Federation and to an ad hoc group of owners and operators of North Texas collection

systems.

Combustion Strategy - Boilers and Industrial Furnace (BIF) - The region conducted

five BIF inspections, based upon inspection frequency (i.e., amount of time lapsed

since the last inspection). Additionally, the region inspected the only active CERCLA

incinerator. Although no new enforcement actions were initiated, the region filed

seven final administrative orders with penalties totaling $544,000. The actions

produced $279,000 in injunctive relief and $2,750,000 in SEPs. The final orders

addressed approximately 14 million tons of waste.

Region 7 - In FY96, Region 7 formed multimedia sector teams for the three national and two

significant sectors selected by the region. Each team comprised representatives from all the

appropriate Region 7 media programs, Office of Regional Counsel (ORC), Enforcement

Coordination Office (ECO), and pollution prevention staff. Each sector team had a team leader,

and the teams evaluated each sector for environmental and compliance problems. The teams also

targeted and implemented appropriate enforcement and compliance assistance activities tailored

for the sector presence in each Region 7 state. The results were very different for each sector. 

The region is still evaluating the results of its sector activities, but has gained valuable insight into

the resources, practices, and impediments associated with implementing multimedia sector

activities.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-16

Automotive Service/Repair Industry - Region 7 staff developed and staffed an

information booth at the Vision 2000 Hi-Tech Training and Exposition in Kansas City,

Missouri, on March 1-3. This exposition provided printed information on topics and

regulations related to auto repair to approximately 1,200 automotive service

technicians, shop owners and operators, and industry vendors in attendance. The

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (DHE) UIC program closed a Class

IV well at a radiator repair shop. The well, a septic tank/leachfield, was contaminated

with high concentrations of lead. Sludge and rinsate from the shop had lead levels as

high as 129.7 mg/l. However, most of the lead was captured in the sludge, which was

removed. Floor drains were plugged, the tank removed, and the subsurface

remediated. The region also closed five industrial disposal wells. These closures

included a Class IV well, which is currently undergoing RCRA and UIC remediation. 

Most of the wells are associated with motor vehicle repair waste streams.

Agricultural Sector - Region 7 developed a draft guidance handbook for agriculture

dealerships that gives a synopsis of EPA regulations that affect farm suppliers and lists

state and Region 7 contacts who can answer questions. The region also issued

guidance to all of the state and local air agencies on how to calculate the potential to

emit air emissions for grain elevators. In addition, the wetlands program of EPA

developed two fact sheets that fit into a national brochure. The results of 20

inspections by the Kansas Department of Agriculture, which focused on grainhandling facilities in Kansas, indicate a significant level of noncompliance with the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (i.e., 13 administrative

compliance conferences, 5 warning letters, and 20 NONs). The second phase of this

initiative, which will be implemented in FY97 includes development of compliance

materials to address these violations.

Region 8 - Coal-Fired Powerplants - Thirty-eight significant coal-fired powerplants operate in the

region. The region selected this sector because of ongoing issues related to the new acid rain

program and impact of plants on prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) Class I areas and

plant impacts in nonattainment areas. Most plants in Region 8 are subject to programs

administered by the states via EPA-approved SIPs or delegations of federal programs. Thus, the

states have the enforcement lead. The region focused on evaluating the compliance status of all

coal-fired powerplants generating more than 25 MW of energy. In addition, environmental justice

issues were evaluated for all the CFPP facilities. The region identified 20 plants that warrant

attention and worked with the states to address all concerns.

Agriculture - Region 8 formed an Agricultural Practices Team to develop and

implement a multimedia sector compliance strategy. Agricultural chemical (i.e.,

pesticide and fertilizer) manufacturers and distributors, as well as feedlot operations,

were identified as the practices or facilities of greatest concern in Region 8. Efforts

were made to increase the amount of compliance assurance and compliance assistance

devoted to these practices and facilities. The region worked with state environmental

and agricultural agencies to identify 10 facilities from the above categories for
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-17 May 1997

comprehensive multimedia compliance evaluations. Facilities were targeted primarily

using size, compliance history, and cross-media interest, but the region also attempted

to work with the states to consider such factors as potential risk to human health

and/or the environment and environmental equity. Each state has committed, either in

its SEA or PPA, to support this initiative. Although some evaluation activity

occurred in FY96, the majority of the evaluations will occur in FY97. In addition, the

region has taken steps to cross-train or to at least increase the awareness of its

inspectors of the various environmental statute requirements applicable to the

agricultural practices sector.

Auto Service Industry - Region 8 developed a strategy to improve the compliance

status within the auto service sector. This strategy incorporated inspecting or

contacting 5 percent of the identified 25,000 auto service facilities in the region. The

plan identified an approach to contact large masses of the sector through the regional

compliance assistance effort, which was developed in a partnership with Front Range

Community College. Additionally, the region developed an inspection strategy to

look at the significant noncompliers and other targeted facilities. Within this

inspection plan, the region identified specific numbers of inspections in the auto service

sector to each state in its respective workplan. These targets were identified in

accordance with the number of auto service facilities within the region and each state. 

The region also participated in numerous citizen complaint inspections in Colorado.

Mining - Region 8 referred 6 CERCLA section 106 and/or 107 actions at miningrelated sites. In addition, the region concluded 10 CERCLA administrative order

actions at mining-related sites. The region also entered into alternative dispute

resolution in an attempt to resolve a cost recovery action at a mining site in Utah. At

several other sites, the threat of CERCLA response actions at sites impacted by mining

activities has prompted response actions under other authorities. The NPDES

program settled the judicial case against Zortman Mining Incorporated/Pegasus Gold

Corporation (PGC) resolving CWA violations at the Zortman and Landusky mines. 

The conditions of the settlement require PGC to pay the United States and the state of

Montana $2 million in fines. In addition, PGC will spend approximately $1.6 million

to conduct a community health evaluation and an aquatic study, as well as improve

five different drinking water systems on the Ft. Belknap Reservation. PGC will also

submit financial assurance totaling $32.3 million to the state of Montana to cover the

costs of long-term water treatment. The Ft. Belknap Community Council will also

collect $1 million from PGC. This is the largest total settlement in Region 8 for CWA

violations to date. In addition, the TSCA program issued a complaint and notice of

opportunity for hearing to Zortman Mining, Incorporated, alleging that six 1.9 gallon

General Electric pyranol, PCB, large, high voltage capacitors removed from use were

not marked as required. The complaint contains a proposed fine of $3,000.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-18

Region 9 - Agriculture Initiative - The Agriculture Initiative includes various activities in support

of community-based agricultural pollution prevention in FY96, with an emphasis on improving the

region’s ability to monitor and measure environmental improvements. Progress in implementation

of demonstration projects included the addition of at least 30 new farmer participants utilizing

biological farming practices on more than 500 acres across four counties in the Central Valley of

California. New community partners in the biological farming projects were also brought on

board. The region also supported the Biologically Integrated Orchard System project, a

demonstration project working with California's billion dollar almond and walnut industries to

reduce pesticide and fertilizer use. This project has achieved reductions or elimination of the use

of priority pesticides that are known to be contaminating groundwater, surface water, and air;

reductions of synthetic nitrogen; eliminations of open-air burning of orchard pruning debris; and

enhanced soil quality that improves water-holding capacity while resisting erosion and minimizing

PM-10. 

Auto Repair/Service Shops - Region 9 has supported the San Francisco Bay Area

Green Business Recognition Program, a multiagency program that recognizes

businesses for environmental compliance and excellence in resource conservation and

pollution prevention. During FY96, the program established green business program

steering committees in Alameda and Napa counties, identified and secured lead agency

commitments from the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (DEH)

and the Napa County DEM, finalized both a "compliance" and "green business"

checklist for the automotive repair industry, prepared a Green Business Program

Implementation booklet, developed local marketing and public awareness plans, and

tested the program on 7 to 10 auto repair shop volunteers in both counties. In early

FY97, the group will hold program kick off meetings with Alameda's meeting

scheduled for early November and Napa’s meeting scheduled for early January. 

Region 10 - Mining - During FY96, the regional mining coordinator and Office of Water Mining

specialist developed a draft regional mining strategy to identify ways to improve environmental

conditions at mine sites across the region. The strategy identifies specific tasks necessary to

achieve necessary improvements, focusing on early involvement in mine site planning, setting

priorities for inactive and abandoned mine reclamation, and recognizing the need to work with a

variety of partners to achieve overall environmental improvement goals. In addition, the region

has worked with the Forest Service on enforcement actions at several abandoned mine sites in

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho; joined a federal lawsuit against a number of mining companies in

the Coeur d'Alene mining district in an effort to seek funding for environmental and human health

cleanup actions; and funded two efforts to promote mine site cleanup in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. 

The NPDES compliance section has also undertaken enforcement/compliance at several mine sites

in Alaska and Idaho this past year.

Auto Service/ Repair Shops - The authorized states have devoted significant resources

to these facilities and, now, primarily focus on UIC/RCRA outreach and technical

assistance. In Alaska, EPA worked with the state agency to develop and partially fund

the Pit Stop program, a technical assistance program specifically directed to this
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-19 May 1997

sector. EPA will use the results from this program, which has been well received by

the regulated community, in determining the overall RCRA priority for this sector in

FY97, in conjunction with other EPA direct implementation programs under

leadership of the UIC program.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-20

3.2 Media-specific Programs

As demonstrated throughout this document, EPA has developed several different initiatives

focusing on very specific segments of environmental protection (e.g., community-based

environmental protection, industry sectors). Through its specific media programs, EPA is using

all of its available tools (e.g., compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement) to

ensure the overall quality of environmental performance remains high. These programs ensure

that all regulated entities comply with their environmental requirements, regardless of their

specific sector, size, or location.

This section presents the Agency’s compliance assurance and enforcement highlights and

accomplishments in each of the media-specific programs. Media-specific priorities set for FY

1996 included the following:

Air - air toxics, operating permits, and implementing new enforcement tools

Water - watershed approach, safe drinking water, and wetlands protection

Toxics, Pesticides, and EPCRA - protect human health from high risk and hazardous

chemicals, ensure emergency preparation and notification information and release

information is available to communities

RCRA - new regulations, outreach and assistance, and generators

CERCLA - worst sites first, enforcement first/cost recovery, and enforcement

fairness/reduction of transaction costs.

3.2.1 Air

The Agency’s air program has the responsibility of ensuring that the United States and its

territories maintain a high level of air quality. The program accomplishes this task basically by

enforcing and assisting compliance with the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations. The

following are some of the major accomplishments for the air program in FY96:

Clean Air Act Citizen Awards Program - In FY96, EPA, in conjunction with other

federal agencies, developed and implemented the Citizen Awards Program. The

purpose of the program is to present monetary rewards (up to $10,000) to citizens

who furnish information or services that lead to a criminal conviction or civil penalty

under the CAA. EPA expects the awards program will encourage citizens to become

more involved in EPA’s enforcement of environmental laws, and that compliance with

the Clean Air Act will increase. Although the final rule has yet to be published, EPA

has the authority to offer and pay awards. EPA decided to carry out a pilot awards

program to gain experience before issuing a final rule.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-21 May 1997

Outreach on Specific Industries - Region 1 conducted enforcement assistance

activities in several communities on urban auto repair shops. In Providence, RI, and

Methuen, MA, air and toxics program representatives and other EPA staff met with

town officials to provide compliance monitoring and enforcement guidance. In

Boston, MA, the region participated in joint inspections with the city's environmental

strike force. In addressing this sector with an urban priority overlay, the region found

EPA existing regulatory authority did not adequately reach the most serious facilities,

so it focused instead on building local capacity to use the communities’ more effective

tools of zoning.

ENVVEST Air Initiative - In FY96, Vandenberg Air Force Base, the Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District, and EPA Region 9 reached preliminary

agreement on a final project for the Vandenberg ENVVEST Air Initiative. The

objective of the Vandenberg ENVVEST initiative is to transfer money allocated for

Title V compliance to fund emission reduction activities at Vandenberg Air Force

Base. Vandenberg, with the help of Santa Barbara's Innovative Technology Group, has

completed a feasibility study to retrofit boilers and expects to have a plan by early

1997 that will achieve a 10 ton-per-year reduction of NOx.

Stratospheric Protection Program - Region 9 developed a marketing plan to promote

citizen awareness of the health effects related to ultraviolet radiation during the month

of September, which was declared "Ozone Layer Awareness Month" (OLAM) in the

region. Educator guidance kits were mailed to over 900 science teachers,

environmental educators, and school principals in the four-state area. San Francisco

Community Television promoted OLAM with the telecast of "Ozone: Double

Trouble."

In addition to these activities, nearly every region within EPA focused its efforts on outreach,

compliance assistance, and enforcement activities regarding the newly-promulgated Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule. This rule includes a market-based provision,

called emissions averaging, that allows facilities flexibility to control certain emissions points to

achieve the required emissions reductions in the most cost-effective manner possible. The MACT

rule spells out how facilities may use emissions averaging and which emission points may be

included. The following highlight some of the activities conducted during FY96 in regard to the

MACT rule:

The air toxics program in Region 6 initiated several pilot programs to determine how

to implement the MACT programs. The pilot programs involved the aerospace and

chromium electroplating/anodizing MACT standards. The electroplating/anodizing

MACT was chosen as a pilot for compliance assistance to small businesses. State

small business offices were approached for assistance and to identify non-notifiers. In

addition, compliance assistance was initiated to facilities that did not submit accurate

or complete notifications. Under this MACT, the region has initiated review and

approval of compliance extensions and alternative monitoring schedules. The
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-22

In a significant enforcement case involving asbestos in

Region 2, a judge levied the maximum penalty of

$2,975,000 against Hoboken Shipyards/Sandelwood

Construction Company for 119 violations of the asbestos

NESHAP regulations. In setting the maximum penalty,

the judge cited the company’s lack of respect for

environmental regulations. The company continued to

demolish buildings without prior removal of asbestos and

proper notification to EPA even after receiving an

administrative order from EPA and a federal court

preliminary injunction.

aerospace MACT was chosen to pilot procedures for identifying the universe of

applicable sources. Additionally, assistance was provided to those facilities that have

already notified to improve the accuracy and completeness of notifications. 

Region 7 conducted outreach on the chromium electroplating MACT rule. Seventyfive sources in Region 7 self-reported as being subject to the chromium electroplating

MACT. The air program made 63 telephone calls to sources the region identified as

potentially subject to the new standard but that did not report. This effort identified 15

additional sources subject to the MACT. These sources were sent compliance

assistance materials, including a copy of the regulation and a compliance reference

book.

In Region 8, AMOCO in Salt Lake City, Utah, requested alternative monitoring from

40 CFR 60 Subpart J. The AMOCO protocol is the only request the region and

headquarters reviewed and commented on

prior to testing. The protocol was submitted

after Region 8 and headquarters issued a

clarification paper on the critical factors to be

addressed in an alternative monitoring

demonstration for Subpart J.

Region 9 initiated and developed an outreach

program that responds to inquiries from

industry, the public, and interested state/local

agencies on the MACT. A master list of

MACT regulations was prepared in FY96 to

serve as the basis for the region's outreach and

compliance efforts.

3.2.2 Water

Protecting our nation’s water resources has been an ongoing activity in this country for more than

100 years. Legislation to prevent pollution of the oceans, rivers, lakes, and streams was enacted

long before there ever was an EPA. Today, protection of those same resources remains a high

priority for EPA and its state partners, who strive to maintain that protection through the

implementation of two water-related programs, one for drinking water and one for industrial or

municipal discharges to surface waters. The following sections detail some of the activities

accomplished in FY96 in both of these programs.

In addition, EPA’s water program also has responsibility for enforcing against activities that

destroy or alter wetlands. Working in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA

uses authority granted to it in the Clean Water Act to ensure such activities do not occur, and if

they do occur, that they are addressed and mitigated. Section 3.3.2.3 discusses EPA’s activities

in FY96 related to protecting wetlands.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-23 May 1997

3.2.2.1 Drinking Water

EPA’s drinking water program is responsible for establishing mandatory and comprehensive

national drinking water quality standards. Such standards are established and administered

through the Safe Drinking Water Act. The goal of these standards is to ensure that the nation's

public health is not endangered by drinking water of unacceptable quality. EPA is responsible for

developing the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and policies and helping the states

implement and enforce the requirements.

In FY 1996, the drinking water program undertook several initiatives to ensure that drinking

water remained, or became, safe to consume. The following are some of the accomplishments

from the last fiscal year:

Region 2’s UIC program used GIS and the global positioning satellite system to evaluate

risk to groundwater and PWS wells from injection wells. As a basis for determining high

priority areas, SIC codes were used by cross referencing the type of activity performed at

the facility with those identified on a modified Common Sense Initiative listing. Selected

areas were then prioritized based on ecological and environmental health risk. The

selected SIC codes were then used in conjunction with the Dun & Bradstreet database to

identify facilities for inspection. The facilities were address-matched and plotted on the

GIS risk rank grid map, which was used to target inspections in the area.

Since the inception of this UIC initiative, 230 facilities have been inspected, approximately

100 wells have been closed, and 40 known facilities remain to be inspected in the seven

identified communities. GIS data layers of UIC information are provided to the respective

state health departments.

Region 2 entered into an administrative settlement with the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority related to violations of Surface Water Treatment Rule final orders, which

included a $33,000 penalty, and a SEP for $25,000. The use of SEPs is new in working

with PWSs.

During FY96, Region 3 entered into an agreement with the Government of the District of

Columbia which required immediate steps to correct public notification violations, and

which committed the District to injunctive relief activity to bring the District’s public

water system into full compliance at a projected cost of approximately $55 million.

During FY96, in Region 5, more than 1,100 public water systems returned to compliance,

either through formal enforcement actions or through compliance assistance means. For

example, in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management,

Region 5 participated in workshops targeted to 900 violators of nitrate monitoring

requirements. So far, 780 systems have voluntarily returned to compliance, the remaining

120 violators are receiving federal followup.

3.2.2.2 Industrial or Municipal Discharges to Surface Waters
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-24

Region 2 - Community Public Water Systems (Non-PRASA Initiative)

There are 234 community Public Water Systems that are not operated by the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and

Sewer Authority (PRASA) in Puerto Rico. These systems serve approximately 80,000 people who live in

the Central Mountain Region of Puerto Rico. Typically, these systems do not have an identifiable owner,

serve poor rural communities of less than 500, are not incorporated, and have no treatment other than

some providing less than effective disinfection. Most are significant non-compliers (SNC) because of

violations of the coliform MCL. Region 2 has a long standing commitment to ensure that all citizens of

Puerto Rico, regardless of status, have access to safe drinking water.

The goal of this initiative is to increase public awareness of the need for safe drinking water, increase

system compliance with the drinking water regulations and improve overall drinking water quality for the

individuals served by these non-PRASA systems. This initiative has seen considerable activity in FY96:

Enforcement: Region 2 has issued administrative orders to 125 of the 234 non-PRASA

surface water systems, requiring the systems to install filtration or abandon the source. In

addition, the region now provides non-PRASA PWS with Spanish translations of

enforcement documents thereby improving the ability of the non-PRASA systems to respond

and ultimately comply with the orders. More than 50% of the systems have responded to the

125 AOs (less than 10% responded under traditional enforcement methods) and 10 of the 125

systems have actually complied with the AOs prior to the final compliance dates. The

remaining systems are being addressed by Puerto Rico Department of Health.

Education: The Water Source Book has been translated into Spanish. This document will

be used as a teaching aid and be incorporated into Puerto Rico's public school curriculum.

Technology: In FY96, construction began on a conventional slow sand filtration facility to

serve a population of 500. Construction should be completed in FY97. This facility will

serve as a demonstration of low maintenance, low cost water treatment, that the Puerto Rico

Department of Health can prescribe as best available technology.

Technical Assistance - Public/Private Partnership: The public/private partnership,

Partnership for Pure Water (PPW), with the Puerto Rico Pharmaceutical Industries

Association has continued to provide assistance to the non-PRASA systems.

Through the Clean Water Act, and specifically the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) program, EPA regulates the discharges of industrial and municipal wastewaters 

to surface waters of the United States. This program requires that most wastewater be treated to 

certain levels prior to its discharge into rivers, lakes, and streams. The following illustrate some

of the specific accomplishments within the NPDES program in FY96:

Electronic Data Interchange for the Discharge Monitoring Reports - In FY96, EPA

developed the electronic data interchange (EDI) process to simplify the reporting of

discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) from the regulated community to the Agency’s
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-25 May 1997

PCS. To support the EDI process, EPA developed an implementation guidance; terms,

and conditions agreements; PCS software enhancements; training manuals for the regions,

states, and trading partners; electronic transfer security procedures; and a communication

and outreach plan. As part of the EDI, EPA initiated a pilot with Ciba-Geigy and Conoco.

EPA also provided training on EDI.

NPDES Monitoring Burden Reduction - In FY96, EPA established a national

workgroup to reduce the NPDES monitoring burden for those facilities that have an

established record of compliance with their NPDES monitoring and reporting

requirements. Compliance and performance-based "entry criteria" will be used to assess a

permittee's eligibility for the reduced monitoring scheme. Several options for this entry

criteria were developed and discussed with industrial and municipal stakeholders, and with

environmental groups. Input from the various groups was used to finalize criteria that will

hopefully result in a 25 percent reduction in monitoring. This workgroup received the

National Silver Hammer Award from Vice President Al Gore.

EPA also implemented streamlining measures that reduced compliance oversight on

approximately 23 percent of NPDES major industrial and municipal facilities in Region 6. 

Facilities that met the definition of "basically compliant" were notified they could submit

to the Agency summary information on instances of noncompliance as opposed to

individual reports. This streamlining has reduced the number of reports submitted to EPA,

meets all requirements of the facility’s current permits, and results in fewer letters from

EPA. Facility reaction to this pilot has been very favorable.

Sanitary Sewer Overflows Enforcement Guidance - In March 1996, EPA issued

additional Enforcement Management System (EMS) guidance on setting priorities for

addressing discharges from separate sanitary sewers. The guidance supplements the

current EMS by establishing a series of guiding principles and priorities for use by EPA

regions and NPDES states in responding to separate sanitary sewer discharge violations. 

The guidance focuses on the importance of correcting dry weather overflows, and those

wet weather flows which, through frequency of occurrence or flow volume, have an

adverse impact on water quality or public health.

To address the problem of SSOs, Region 4 formed a Collection Systems Workgroup. The

purpose of the workgroup is to:

- Develop a compliance and enforcement program for the region that is compatible

with the EMS that relates to SSOs

- Develop a cooperation strategy for Region 4 and its states for implementing the

SSO compliance and enforcement program and carrying out associated training

activities

- Develop a guidance manual for evaluating the adequacy of a utility’s collection

system operation, maintenance, and management programs

- Identify collection systems that should, in accordance with the above referenced

compliance program, be subjected to appropriate enforcement action
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-26

- In cooperation with the states, collect the necessary data and carry out the

appropriate enforcement actions.

To date, Region 4 has expended considerable effort in drafting "Region 4 Manual for

Evaluating Municipal Sewer System OM&M Programs." Additionally, the workgroup has

developed a model evaluation notification letter and an evaluation outline for inspectors,

and finalized and used a model administrative order. The region has also expended

resources to develop the compliance and enforcement program, which has been submitted

to management for approval.

Municipalities with Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) - Region 5 developed and

piloted a CSO Inspection Checklist. The purpose of the checklist is to train regulators on

CSO control requirements, facilitate in the evaluation of the municipality’s CSO control

program, and provide technical assistance to CSO communities. Region 5, in cooperation

with Indiana and Illinois, conducted seven CSO inspections using this tool. Refinement of

this tool continues as the region plans on conducting approximately 25 additional CSO

inspections.

Organic and Inorganic Chemicals - In FY96, Region 5 began tracking the compliance

trends for its major dischargers. Table 3-1 presents the region’s findings.

Table 3-1. Compliance Trends for Major Dischargers

Quarter Inorganic Chemical Industry Organic Chemical Industry

4/95 - 9/95 88% 100% 1

7/95 - 12/95 92% 89%

10/95 - 3/96 92% 100%

1/96 - 6/96 92% 100%

1 Dow Chemical (Midland, MI) is not included since it is reported under Inorganic Chemical Industry and would

involve duplicate reporting of compliance, inspections and enforcement. It is listed as the top-ranking U.S.

company with inorganic chemical manufacturing operations, and the 2nd-ranking U.S. company with organic

chemical manufacturing operations. However, it is listed in PCS under SIC 2821, which is Plastics Materials.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) - CAFOs are becoming high

priorities for enforcement and compliance personnel in some regions. The environmental

impact of such operations is becoming more clear and the Agency is realizing these types

of operations must be addressed. Based on the growing density of CAFOs in Region 6,

the region developed the CRIA that will be used to provide consistent, systematic,

science-based information on cumulative impacts from multiple operations in a given
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-27 May 1997

watershed. This GIS platform tool is the first of its kind in the country and has wide

ranging applications through a number of programs.

In Region 10, CAFOs in Idaho and Oregon were targeted for special focus in FY96. For

CAFOs in Idaho, EPA, the state, and dairy industry signed an MOA outlining the roles

and responsibilities of each party in a new approach to inspect dairy operations. There are

approximately 1,100 dairy operations in Idaho and historically EPA has been able to

inspect only 5 percent of the dairy operations per year.

To increase the number of inspections, and educate the farmers about water quality

protection, EPA, the Idaho State Departments of Agriculture (ISDA) and Environmental

Quality (IDEQ), and the Idaho Dairy Association, agreed on a new approach to inspect

the dairy operations. While EPA and IDEQ still retain their authorities to intervene in

cases of serious health or environmental threats, the ISDA will take the lead in

inspections. Currently, ISDA already inspects the dairies for milk quality and with the

new agreement will expand their inspections to look at the waste management practices.

To date, EPA has conducted several activities to facilitate in the transition of CAFO

inspections to ISDA, including an inspector training workshop. In the past year, more

than 2,600 inspections have been conducted under this MOA. All 1,100 dairies where

inspected. As a result, the region has an accurate picture of the rate of noncompliance. In

addition, those facilities identified as being out of compliance are now either in compliance

or on a compliance schedule with the state Department of Agriculture.

In FY96, EPA and the Oregon Department of Agriculture continued the partnership they

established in 1994 for regulating the CAFO industry. The agreement includes joint

inspections. The CAFO program focus was widened to include a priority watershed in the

south coast area near Coos Bay. As part of this, a mock inspection sponsored by EPA

and ODA was conducted. Out of 34 CAFOs in this watershed, approximately 20 were

represented at the mock inspection.

3.2.2.3 Wetlands

EPA has been heavily involved with several regulations regarding wetlands, including revisions to

the Corps of Engineers’ nationwide permits and a USDA regulation implementing the 1996 Farm

Bill. The revisions to nationwide permits have been published and the USDA regulation were

published as interim final in July. At the regional level, several regions have been developing and

implementing wetlands strategies with ambitious goals and objectives.

Region 2 has initiated a geographically targeted outreach program that provides local education

on wetlands regulations, available reference materials, contacts, and information on the

importance of wetlands. In addition to the outreach, the region is also targeting enforcement

resources toward the same areas that receive the outreach. The region is also targeting Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands to establish an EPA presence for wetlands protection in the

Caribbean.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-28

Region 4 has developed a strategy consisting of three primary principles, all designed to protect

wetlands in the region:

Implement the no net loss of wetlands concept through more state involvement

Apply the watershed approach to the wetland enforcement program

Determine how best to measure whether no net loss of wetlands is being achieved.

In FY96, approximately 750 acres of wetlands were preserved, plus 75 acres and several miles of

stream bottoms restored through enforcement actions. In addition, the region’s GIS program

continues to develop its capabilities and its proficiency in generating data for mapping wetlands 

losses. The Program has lost no wetland acreage because of fill left in place as a result of an

enforcement action. Most wetland enforcement cases require restoration of the site, and if fill is

left in place, mitigation off-site is required. The Program has documented that all mitigation/

restoration ordered by EPA has been performed.

In Region 5, a fiscal year plan was developed that would contribute to the objectives and goals as

defined by regional management and maintain a wetlands protection priority of “no net loss.” To

address these issues, the wetlands regulatory program has developed a workplan and strategy to

develop new enforcement cases through a coordinated federal and state screening process in field

investigations. Screening teams, consisting of EPA, Corps of Engineers, and state inspectors will

investigate alleged violations and collectively recommend whether federal enforcement activities

should be taken. It is anticipated this initiative will assist in bringing EPA enforcement actions

back to a level of past performance.

In FY96, a total of $1,683,000 in civil penalties was collected and/or assessed from final judicial

actions in Federal District Court. Most of the penalties were obtained through a contempt action

for noncompliance with a federal consent decree. In May 1996 the Federal District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois entered a final judgement against Robert Krillich, et. al., assessing

$1,307,500 in civil penalties for failure to construct 3.1 acres of wetlands as required in a consent

decree.

3.2.3 Toxics

The regulation and control of toxic substances was one of the driving forces behind the

establishment of EPA. In the 1960s, literature was published that presented horror stories about

the use of pesticides in agricultural practices and the harm being caused by them and other toxic

substances. In response to these public outcries, EPA initiated its efforts to control those

substances and reduce their negative impact on human health. Nearly 20 years later, in the late

1980s, EPA began implementing a community right-to-know act, that not only required facilities

to report on the amounts and types of toxic substances it had on site, but also provide information

for emergency situations should such events occur. Today, EPA continues to implement these

toxic substance control and communication programs. The following sections provide the FY96

accomplishments for activities under the three statutes that comprise EPA’s toxic substances

program.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-29 May 1997

3.2.3.1 EPCRA

The purpose of EPA’s EPCRA program is to ensure that regulated facilities meet their emergency

planning and community right-to-know requirements. A large part of EPCRA involves providing

information to EPA that is then loaded onto the TRI Database, which is available to the public. 

Facilities are required to report the amounts of certain extremely hazardous substances they either

manufacture, store, or use onsite, as well 

as how much wastes are generated, treated, or shipped offsite.

A large part of EPA’s responsibilities includes locating non-reporters and getting them to report

the required information. Historically, this has been performed using enforcement actions, but

recently, EPA has been conducting significant outreach to the regulated community, both to get

them to report and to help them report correctly. The following highlights are examples of EPA’s

efforts using both traditional enforcement and compliance assistance:

EPCRA Section 313 National Community Right-to-Know Enforcement Initiative - On

July 15, 1996 the Agency announced a nation-wide initiative involving 42 companies for

failing to report to the TRI community right-to-know information on the types and

quantity of toxic chemicals they released into the environment over a four-year period.

National Food Sector Initiative - This FY96/97 EPCRA Section 312 initiative involves a

National EPCRA Section 312 Emergency Preparedness Sector Enforcement Agreement,

which is targeted toward facilities in SIC code 20 within the Food and Kindred Products

Sector. Use of a sector enforcement agreement will allow EPA to bring thousands of

facilities into compliance, while also collecting a small penalty to provide some incentive

for future compliance. More traditional means of investigation and legal action would

result in only a few hundred facilities being contacted. Companies who submit their

EPCRA Section 312 hazardous chemical inventory forms and who sign the sector

agreement will receive a $2,000 penalty cap. The major components of the national

enforcement initiative are:

- Identify suspected noncompliant facilities based on information provided by State

Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs).

- Contact facilities to remind them of their EPCRA Section 312 reporting obligations.

- Mail EPCRA Section 312 compliance assistance letters and information packages to

suspected noncompliant facilities notifying them of the state agency they may want to

contact if they need to come into compliance, or if they need to notify the EPA that

they are not regulated under EPCRA Section 312.

EPCRA compliance monitoring approach - During FY96, Region 2 undertook a

compliance monitoring initiative particularly as an outgrowth of the Napp Industries

investigation (the investigation of an explosion at a chemical company which killed 5

employees). The region compiled a list of small to medium specialty chemical

manufacturers in Bergen and Essex Counties in New Jersey involved in toll work similar
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-30

to the operations at Napp. The list of toll operators was added to the facilities in Essex

and Bergen Counties in New Jersey on the EPA-HQ High Risk List. The region then

considered additional factors such as prior contact with the Agency, release notification

history and inclusion in the New Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA)

program to select our final list of compliance assistance inspection candidates.

Thirty three compliance inspections of this priority universe of candidates were conducted

in FY96. These inspections differed from the usual enforcement inspections because these

facilities were known to be in compliance with EPCRA Sections 311 and 312. The

purpose of the inspections was to verify complete compliance with EPCRA, provide

addition information concerning other regulations (e.g., SPCC or risk management

planning) and to screen facilities for future chemical safety audits. Ultimately, chemical

safety audits were conducted for four facilities.

Environmental Justice Targeting - Region 2 reviewed the past 8 years of ERNS data for

facilities included on the EPA list of high risk facilities located in northern New Jersey. 

Based on this review, 33 facilities were visited and screened for chemical safety audit

consideration. Comparing the location of these facilities to the New Jersey environmental

justice demographics map, 14 of 33 or 42 percent of these facilities are located in areas

with an environmental justice score of 40 or greater. Of the 33 facilities screened, four

facilities were selected for audits during the second half of FY96 and 2 of these were in

environmental justice areas (S. Bronx and Newark).

In addition to the above compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, EPA also conducted

extensive outreach, training, and compliance assistance to the EPCRA regulated community. The

following are some examples of those efforts:

Region 2 notified 1,600 facilities reporting under TRI of regulatory changes. The region

provided 12 seminars on the regulations to over 750 facility representatives. The region

also addressed 200 attendees at seminars sponsored by the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection.

Region 3 conducted 10 EPCRA Section 313 compliance assistance workshops and

seminars to assist the regulated community in completing release inventory forms and to

promote pollution prevention and compliance with the statute. These workshops were

presented in each state in Region 3. There were about 300 total attendees.

A total of eight Section 313 seminars were conducted in Region 4 in FY96. The region

also provided outreach on its Computer-aided Management of Emergency Operations

(CAMEO) program. The CAMEO pilot program was a tremendous success, as training

was provided to state and local agencies throughout the region.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-31 May 1997

Region 5 conducted six compliance assistance/outreach workshops, one in each state of

the region. Emphasis was placed on inviting smaller facilities to attend and on expansion

and delistings that have changed the list of reportable chemicals.

Region 5 also initiated a plastic foam products compliance project. The targeted industry

was SIC code 3086. This industry was targeted based on an EPCRA Section 313

inspection. The facility found out of compliance during the EPCRA Section 313

inspection told the inspectors they knew nothing about EPCRA and had neither seen nor

heard anything about EPCRA through their trade associations. It was the facility’s belief

that other facilities with similar processes would also be out of compliance with EPCRA. 

Region 5 designed a compliance project to provide this industry with the necessary

outreach to bring them into compliance. The following are details of the project:

- 545 facilities were identified as having SIC code 3086. Of these, 183 facilities were

already in compliance and were eliminated from the project; 52 facilities were in partial

compliance and were sent letters to bring them into total compliance; and 362 facilities

needed to be contacted

- These 362 facilities were sent outreach packets. Of these, 33 packets were

undeliverable; 115 facilities claimed an exemption; 10 facilities were already in

compliance; 3 facilities came into compliance; and 201 facilities did not respond to the

outreach mailing.

- Of those 201 facilities that did not respond received follow up telephone calls, 30

facilities were found out of business; 112 facilities claimed an exemption; 10 facilities

were found already in compliance; and 32 facilities came into compliance.

This project brought 86 facilities in Region 5 into compliance with EPCRA Sections 311

and 312.

Large numbers of anhydrous ammonia using facilities in Region 5 have not reported under

EPCRA Sections 311 and 312, to the SERC or the Local Emergency Planning Committee

(LEPC). To address this issue, Region 5 provided EPCRA training to 12 building

inspectors in Stark County, Ohio. The training will assist the inspectors in disseminating

information to the facilities they inspect to increase EPCRA compliance.

Region 6 determined that an aggressive outreach program would significantly increase the

base of facilities reporting under EPCRA. Since then, outreach projects have been

conducted for a total of 249 counties/parishes in the region. This has included 52,575

packets of information mailed to the facilities, 315 workshops conducted, and 5,714

facility personnel attending workshops.

Region 7 conducted a SERC / LEPC Conference. More than 300 SERC and LEPC

members participated in this conference sponsored by the FEMA, EPA, and the state of

Missouri. The conference goal was to foster renewed interest in hazardous materials

preparedness, strengthen the federal, state, and local partnerships, and to provide an
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-32

update on recent and near-term regulatory activity. The primary topic of the conference

was SARA Title III/EPCRA and its requirements for SERCs and LEPCs. 

The region also conducted a TRI data use show. Topics included new upcoming

regulations of the Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act, and pollution

prevention techniques, as well as the usual Form R training.

In Region 9, more than 550 telephone requests for compliance assistance information on

EPCRA Section 313 regulations were answered. A public meeting was held in San

Francisco for the Phase II EPCRA expansion (addition of 7 industrial groups) and was

supported by the region through development of an informational packet and mailing to

over 700 organizations, associations and community groups.

In FY96, the TRI was used as a key tool in supporting the Region 9 CBEP projects. In a

broad effort to increase utilization of the TRI data by citizens' groups and to verify that

industry is in compliance with the TRI regulations, the region conducted a mailing to over

500 community-based organizations in the region. This mailing contained information on

what TRI data contains, how to access the data, and how the data has been used to reduce

toxic emissions in communities. 

TRI program also directly supports many CBEP efforts in the region. First, the program

can provide information on the TRI program, make the data available to the community

and help them interpret this data to better understand the possible environmental impacts

of these releases. This has been done through mailings to community groups and through

presentations by EPA staff. Second, the program has, in certain instances, specifically

targeted inspection of facilities in these areas to follow up on specific complaints about

industrial facilities located in mixed use areas.

3.2.3.2 FIFRA

Since its inception in 1970, one of EPA’s primary areas of responsibility has been pesticides. 

Charged with protecting human health and the environment from the dangers identified in Rachel

Carson’s Silent Spring, EPA regulates the manufacturers and users of all pesticides, including

fungicides, insecticides, and rodenticides. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) and its implementing regulations are EPA’s primary tool for ensuring safe

production and use of pesticides. In addition, there is a worker protection component of FIFRA

that ensures that all workers who may be exposed to pesticides are provided the proper warnings

and precautions, as well as safety equipment. The following discussion provides accomplishments

in FY96 in EPA’s pesticide programs.

As part of its core pesticides program, Region 2 developed a community outreach

program to provide communities with a basic knowledge of pesticides and the federal

regulations. Mass mailings were sent out to libraries in New York and New Jersey and

senior citizen groups in New Jersey announcing the availability of a Pesticide

Familiarization Program. Eleven sessions were attended by 393 people.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-33 May 1997

Region 3 supported efforts by West Virginia to produce videotapes targeting WPS issues

for Haitian and Creole worker communities.

In FY96, Region 4 undertook extensive training regarding its pesticide program. The

following are the types of training conducted by the region:

- Compliance Activity Tracking System (CATS)

- Annual urban entomology training

- Inspector training for the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama

on basic computer usage, basic investigation techniques, and CATS data input.

- Investigation procedures training for the Madison Police Department, Madison,

Alabama, as part of the Northern Alabama stewardship effort.

- Development of inspector training manuals in the states of Mississippi, Alabama,

and Kentucky.

Region 4 also conducted two enforcement initiatives regarding pesticides. The Delta

Initiative/Aerial Applications was an enforcement initiative created as a result of several

years of inconsistent and poor enforcement of alleged violations of pesticides laws by

aerial applicators in Mississippi. A thorough audit was conducted of the Mississippi

Agricultural Aviation Board (Ag Board) activities, which included its relationship with the

Department of Agriculture and Commerce and the public perception of the state's

enforcement effort. 

The region conducted 42 compliance assistance inspections and 42 follow-up inspections

and assisted the Ag Board in amending the enforcement response policy. The Ag Board

has completely reorganized and modified its standard operating procedure in accordance

with the region's recommendations.

In response to a massive fish kill in Northern Alabama and increasing concerns of alleged

adverse health effects, Region 4 worked to solve some age-old problem in non-traditional

ways. The region put together a coalition that subsequently became the Alabama State

Steering Committee for the Partnership for the Responsible Use of Pesticides. The

committee has met with an action committee and is developing a survey in cooperation

with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the state toxicologist to

help assess potential adverse health effects in the area which may be associated with the

aerial application of pesticides on cotton. Region 4 has assisted in the development of

BMPs and outreach/education efforts in the northern cotton belt of Alabama. 

Region 5, in cooperation with EPA and Region 4, began the development of National

Urban Pesticide Control and Enforcement Guidance that will be implemented in FY97 and

continue for the remainder of the millennium. The National Strategy was developed after

incidents involving the illegal use of agricultural pesticides in Michigan and Ohio resulted

in significant health risks to residents and the necessity to evacuate homes and conduct

emergency clean-up efforts totaling more than $21 million dollars. The Strategy will
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-34

provide guidance to states on how they can approach the issue of the illegal diversion of

agricultural pesticides for urban/residential pest control and actively minimize potentially

very serious public health threats to sensitive populations (infants, children, the elderly) in

economically depressed communities.

Acting on a tip from a local TV investigative reporter, EPA Region 6 initiated an

investigation into the manufacture, sale and distribution of a disinfectant product AIDS

QUAT-9 that had not been registered with EPA or the state of Texas. An investigation by

the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), confirmed that AIDS QUAT-9 had been

manufactured by RLD Chemical Manufacturing, and sold to the Dallas Independent

School System (DISD) and the Dallas County Jail by Lipscomb Industries, Inc., and by

RLD Chemical Manufacturing. In addition, RLD Chemical Manufacturing did not have

the required EPA establishment registration to produce pesticides. Chemical analysis of

samples taken during the inspection at DISD showed that the product did not meet the

guaranteed analysis for percentage active ingredient indicated on the label. 

The TDA issued a Stop Sale Order to RLD Chemical Manufacturing on April 12, 1996,

and Region 6 issued a Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order to DISD and to the Dallas

County Jail on April 19, 1996. FIFRA enforcement staff met with representatives of RLD

Chemical Manufacturing and Lipscomb Distributing, Inc. The companies stipulated to all

the counts and asked for leniency in the amount of the penalty, based on inability to pay. 

The region is developing civil complaints for the two companies and expects to issue them

in the early FY97. 

The Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry conducted a compliance assistance

project to inform pesticide users making applications in, on, or around multiplex or

government subsidized and administered housing about new state laws that require these

applicators to be certified or work under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. A

mailing with informational packets and a survey form was sent to multiplex housing

owners and subsidized housing managers, and special certification materials and

workshops were developed. Enforcement inspections will verify compliance. 

In addition to the specific incident above, the states in Region 6 are actively engaged in

compliance assistance and enforcement of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) and

conducted a total of 4,398 inspections. The states are conducting compliance assistance

audits in an effort to further educate the regulated community about the required

provisions of the WPS. Follow-up inspections are being conducted to further document

that the identified deficiencies have been corrected. Routine inspections at marketplaces

and producer establishments, and in response to complaints, are also being conducted by

the states.

Region 7, in conjunction with its state partners, has reinvented the process associated with

inspections of pesticide dealerships for compliance with worker protection standards. This

project, called the Worker Protection Compliance Assistance Initiative, was nominated

for Vice President Gore’s National Performance Review Award for 1996.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-35 May 1997

A workgroup developed a short, easily understood guidance document for use by the field

inspectors who conduct pesticide inspections. This guidance limits the amount of

documentation collected by the inspector and provides opportunities for compliance

assistance as well as voluntary compliance, when warranted, by the pesticide dealerships. 

The guidance empowers the field inspectors, who are on the front line, to use their best

judgement in how best to proceed in ensuring compliance with the worker protection

standards. Customer service to the state Department of Agriculture as well as the

pesticide dealerships are envisioned as a result of this initiative. Tangible benefits include

minimization of paperwork, procedural red tape associated with inspections, quicker and

higher levels of compliance, and governmental resource savings thereby allowing limited

resources to be used more effectively. Enforcement resources would be focused on the

"bad actors" rather than numerous small dealerships confused regarding complex

regulations and requirements. 

The Region 8 FIFRA program will issue an estimated 38 warning letters as a result of FY

96 inspections; this is non traditional measure of enforcement in FIFRA. Another example

of a non traditional measure, is the amount of compliance assistance performed on all

FIFRA inspections. For instance, the average compliance time spent per FIFRA

inspection is approximately one hour, which represents approximately half of the total onsite inspection time. Examples of compliance assistance include providing information on

the new worker protection standards, discussing personal safety/health needs, and

providing recommendations concerning the safe handling and disposal of pesticides.

An FY96 FIFRA inspection resulted in the implementation of integrated pest management

(IPM) by the Denver School District, Denver, Colorado, in the entire school system. This

program will significantly reduce the amount of pesticides used in 150 school buildings,

which accommodate more than 75,000 school children annually.

3.2.3.3 TSCA

TSCA is the primary statute that regulates the manufacture and sale of toxic substances in the

United States. In addition to providing such controls, it also regulates several toxic substances in

our environment including lead and PCBs. This section contains the FY96 accomplishments in

three areas: 1) Core TSCA, which deals with the manufacture and sale of toxic substances, 2)

lead, and 3) PCBs.

Working closely with Regions 2, 3, and 5, EPA amended the TSCA sections 8, 12 and 13

Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) in response to comments that the original policy required

updating to reflect current trends in environmental enforcement, and to address a perceived

inequity where record-keeping violations were penalized more severely than violations of TSCA

section 5, which controls the manufacture of new chemicals.

Region 9's Core TSCA program provided compliance assistance information to 200 importers of

chemicals in Arizona and Nevada. Staff also attended two trade shows that many brokers and
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-36

importers in California attended. The program also sent information on TSCA regulations to 100

brokers in Northern California. Region 9 also coordinated with U.S. Customs regional office on

TSCA implementation in regards to imports. Staff provided training to the San Francisco Office

on TSCA regulations and Customs' role. Region 9 has also participated in Customs' efforts to

coordinate all agencies responsibilities for imported chemicals. The result of importer initiative

has been an increase in technical assistance calls by importers and Customs. Customs in Region 9

is implementing TSCA regulations more effectively and also providing compliance assistance to

importers.

Other regions worked on developing lead-based programs. In Region 2, for example, outdoor

firing ranges can pose a significant environmental and public health threat if left uncontrolled with

respect to dispersal of lead shot and clay targets. It is estimated there are up to 1,000 ranges with

10 million pounds of lead in Region 2. Accordingly, the region has been conducting a combined

enforcement and compliance assistance program to address both short term and long term

environmental and public health concerns, promote redesign of ranges for lead and clay target

collection, and familiarize range owners/operators with environmental regulations and potential

issues.

To support another aspect of Region 2’s range strategy, eight inspections were conducted. In

addition, the region continued to oversee the cleanup and redesign of the Westchester County

range under a RCRA Section 7003 Order. This is part of the strategy to gain practical knowledge

applicable to BMPs as well as to establish an enforcement presence intended to push ranges to

seek compliance assistance. Part of the strategy also includes obtaining stakeholder support. In

this regard, the region has received assistance and information from the National Rifle Association

(NRA).

Region 7 is developing a coloring book to promote lead-based paint awareness with children. 

The coloring book will be used for Earth Day and in other presentations geared to children and

parents. It will also be used as a resource to build awareness of lead hazards and prevention of

lead poisoning in the context of developing state Lead programs.

Region 9 is focusing its efforts on Section 1018 of Title X, which requires that information on

lead-based paint be disclosed prior to any sale or lease of pre-1978 target housing. To provide

compliance assistance to the vast regulated community aware of these requirements, Region 9’s

Lead Program has used presentations, partnerships, and distribution of materials in an intensive

outreach effort. Specifically:

Partnerships were established throughout Region 9 with more than 50 real estate

associations, real estate training groups, county health departments, city health

departments, apartment associations, and advocacy groups

Region 9 staff has made more than 15 presentations on Section 1018 requirements to

these partners, as well as over 30 more presentations on the larger topic of lead hazards

and regulations
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-37 May 1997

Three separate mass mailings of guidance documents and supporting materials on the

1018 rule have been sent to a 300-member mailing list of relevant federal, state and local

governments, training institutions, and other organizations

Training and curriculum development assistance on 1018 was provided to realtor groups

Region 9 staff responded to 1633 compliance assistance calls.

Region 5 continues to pursue its PCB 2000 Phasedown Strategy under TSCA. The PCB 2000

Phasedown Strategy is initially focusing on voluntary disposal of PCB electrical equipment by the

major electrical utilities in the Great Lakes Basin. The enforcement component of the strategy is a

proposal for using regional enforcement discretion to encourage participation in the PCB

Phasedown Program. We believe that lack of an enforcement discretion component has

discouraged greater participation in the Phasedown Program. To date, one PCB Phasedown

commitment has been signed by a major utility, Northern Indiana Public Service Company

(NIPSCO). In FY96, the region received a letter from a second major utility expressing interest

in voluntary disposal of PCBs.

The region conducted PCB inspections at General Motors (GM) facilities in Pontiac, Michigan in

direct response to complaints and concerns voiced from concerned citizens and local government

officials. The local concerns were over the possible spread of PCB contaminated dust from

demolition of GM facility buildings and the use of possibly PCB contaminated fill, from GM

facilities, within the community. In addition to conducting PCB inspections in the Pontiac area,

the region met with all concerned parties to seek their input in developing a strategy to address

these issues. 

Region 5 is also providing the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) with regulatory and technical

compliance assistance in their cleanup of PCB contaminated soil within the CHA’s Altgeld

Gardens Residential Community. Altgeld Gardens is located within the Greater Chicago

Geographical Initiative Area. The region is attempting to build a community partnership between

the CHA and Altgeld residents. The region has participated in a community wide meeting and has

facilitated several other meetings with CHA and Altgeld community leaders to address community

concerns and seek input on the cleanup. In addition, the region has prepared PCB fact sheets

specific to the Altgeld PCB contamination and has prepared additional written responses to

community questions and concerns.

3.2.4 RCRA

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) addresses the management of solid and

hazardous waste, as well as USTs, that contain hazardous substances or petroleum. RCRA

Subtitle C regulations provide "cradle-to-grave" regulation and control of hazardous wastes by

imposing various waste management requirements on generators, transporters, and facilities that

treat, recycle, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes. Under Subtitle D of RCRA, EPA has

developed criteria applicable to the management of solid waste, which is primarily regulated by

state and local governments. The central Subtitle D regulation addresses municipal solid waste
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-38

landfills and is intended to be implemented by approved state solid waste permitting programs. 

Subtitle I of RCRA establishes rules for USTs containing petroleum or hazardous substances. 

These rules focus on preventing, detecting, and correcting releases of regulated substances.

The following illustrate some of the RCRA-related accomplishments in FY96. 

1996 RCRA Enforcement Response Policy - To assure a consistent enforcement

response across all regions and states, EPA issued a revised Hazardous Waste Civil ERP. 

The revised ERP incorporates a risk-based enforcement concept for addressing violating

facilities, and provides greater enforcement flexibility when addressing small businesses,

small communities, and facilities conducting self-audits. Among its most significant

advances, the revised ERP:

- Establishes timely enforcement criteria that consider alternative state enforcement

processes, complexity of cases, SEPs, multimedia concerns and enforcement

initiatives

- Develops a practical definition of return to compliance that creates a more

accurate compliance picture by now recognizing facilities currently on lengthy

compliance schedules as having returned to compliance

- Simplifies the classification system used to designate violators for determining the

appropriateness of an enforcement action that will increase consistency of

classification among states and regions, while emphasizing a facility-wide, riskbased approach to classifying violators. 

Under the revised policy, states and EPA can focus their enforcement resources against

significant violators.

The Mercury Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996 - During

FY96, EPA worked to substantially revise the enforcement provisions of the Mercury

Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act. This new act establishes a

nationwide rechargeable battery recycling program to prevent disposal into landfills, where

heavy metals from discarded batteries could leach into groundwater and drinking water

supplies. The program established by this new law is exclusively federal and pre-empts all

inconsistent state laws. This new EPA program covers not only the disposal and recycling

of covered batteries but also affects the manufacture and distribution in commerce.

Import-Export Program - The Import-Export Program within EPA began developing a

data base known as the Waste International Tracking System (WITS). This PC-based

system currently is tracking imports of RCRA hazardous wastes and PCBs, primarily from

Europe and Canada. The program receives approximately 1,000 notifications of intent to

import hazardous waste annually. The Program is also participating in a pilot program

with Environment Canada to evaluate the potential uses of EDI for the transmission of

such information.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-39 May 1997

At the regional level, several different types of activities were conducted, ranging from traditional

enforcement activities to compliance assistance and outreach. In Region 2, for example, used oil

seminars in the Caribbean are an integral part of an overall management strategy that includes

development of a regulatory program, management standards, laws and regulations, recycling

provisions and incentives, and outreach/compliance assistance. All four seminars in Puerto Rico

were conducted in Spanish and all outreach material, including a manual, were translated into

Spanish. This translated version, the first in the nation, is being shared with other regions and

headquarters. It is anticipated that the management program, including the seminars, will result in

the prevention of 2-3 million gallons per year of used oil currently being improperly

disposed/released to the environment.

Region 6 has issued favorable acknowledgments to 19 companies regarding their voluntary

decision to improve the environmental management and compliance of their facility by disclosing

and correcting various hazardous waste violations. These companies are among the first in the

nation to have self-disclosed and corrected RCRA violations under the EPA self-disclosure policy. 

Region 6 has promoted the policy through a compliance assistance outreach program with the

U.S./Mexico maquiladora associations. Each company discovered its violations through their

voluntary self-audit programs, reported and corrected their violations, and developed procedures

to prevent future occurrences. These disclosures have qualified for the full civil penalty mitigation

benefit of the EPA interim policy.

Region 7 conducts compliance assistance visits at all new notifiers. This visit consists of

providing the facility with programmatic outreach materials and a walk-through of the facility by

an inspector. During FY96, Region 7 conducted approximately 237 compliance assistance visits

at new notifiers, covering all facility types and various industries.

Region 9 undertook a variety of RCRA compliance assistance programs in FY96, including

Conducting 8 generator workshops in California reaching about 425 people

Conducting a new basic hazardous waste generator workshop that was specifically

targeted at and designed for tribal environmental staff and generators operating on tribal

lands

Attending and speaking at trade shows and association meetings

Filming an educational video.

Region 10 began to place more emphasis on compliance assistance in specific geographic areas. 

For example, a new position in the regional compliance unit was established to focus on outreach

and assistance to the regulated community, primarily in Alaska. A toll-free information line was

established to respond to the various requests from the state of Alaska.

Under RCRA UST Program, Region 4 successfully settled with the Worsley Companies, Inc. of

Wilmington, North Carolina. This case has the largest UST civil penalty yet collected in the
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-40

country ($199,325) and includes SEPs worth more than $2 million. Worsley Companies operates

convenience type food/gasoline franchises under several names in the southeast. 

3.2.5 CERCLA

In FY 1996, one of the major areas of focus under CERCLA was the Agency’s Brownfields

Initiative. Brownfields are abandoned parcels of land, usually in urban areas, that are either

contaminated or perceived to be contaminated from prior industrial activity. Working closely

with other federal agencies, EPA began the task of exploring opportunities to not only remediate

these parcels of land, but remediate them to the extent they can be used again and create new

economic opportunities. During FY96, Region 6 made the development and implementation of

Brownfields a priority. An integral portion of that effort involved assistance to state programs for

voluntary cleanups. To accomplish these goals, the region established partnerships with other

state and federal departments and agencies working in areas that support Brownfields and related

activities. Through regional technical and financial assistance for program development, four of

the five states in the region now have specific legislation authorizing state voluntary cleanup

programs. The fifth state is developing legislation that will be introduced in the next legislative

session. The region has also entered into an agreement with the state of Texas on the conduct of

their voluntary cleanup program that provides some documentation regarding federal intent to

entities that complete a cleanup under the program. This program has been extremely successful

in the cleanup of properties that would generally not be addressed by the federal program and the

return of those properties to use. In addition to the national pilot grants awarded to New Orleans,

Louisiana, and Laredo and Houston, Texas, the region provided funding for Brownfields grants to

Dallas, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana.

In Region 7, the City of St. Louis was awarded a Superfund Brownfields Pilot to investigate and

plan for redevelopment of the Dr. Martin Luther King Business Park, a 26-acre site immediately

west of downtown St. Louis and the former location of several metal plating, light manufacturing,

and gas station facilities. During the first year of the two-year work plan, the city has sold or

optioned three city blocks to two new and one expanding business creating 100 new jobs. The

remaining nine city blocks are being tested for environmental contamination and marketed.

In addition to the Brownfields initiative, the Superfund program at the headquarters and regional

levels continued to conduct its enforcement efforts, including policy development and training and

outreach. For example, to promote redevelopment of contaminated properties EPA has sought to

protect prospective purchasers, lenders, and property owners, from Superfund liability. EPA’s

Guidance on Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property has stimulated

the development of sites where parties otherwise may have been reluctant to take action. This

was done through agreements known as “prospective purchaser agreements,” that bona fide

prospective purchasers will not be responsible for cleaning up sites where they did not contribute

to or worsen contamination. Of the 45 agreements to date, more than 50 percent have been

reached since the issuance of the guidance last fiscal year.

Region 7 recently finalized two prospective purchaser agreements. Through these agreements,

EPA provides a covenant not to sue a prospective purchaser of contaminated property for
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-41 May 1997

existing contamination so that reuse or redevelopment of the property may be encouraged. 

Without such agreement, a purchaser of contaminated property would incur Superfund liability

upon acquisition of the contaminated property. One of the agreements involves land

contaminated with mine waste that is located at the Jasper County Site, a large mining site in

southwest Missouri. The work to be performed by the purchaser includes grading the site,

leveling piles of mining wastes, filling open mine shafts with rock, and fencing the site to prevent

public access. The purchaser plans to use the currently vacant property for operation of a metal

recycling facility. 

The second agreement involves the Kansas City Structural Steel Site in Kansas City, Kansas. The

purchaser is a neighborhood organization working with disadvantaged Latino and Hispanic

community members, who will use the property for light industrial purposes. The current plan is

to construct a self-storage complex on the property. Consideration received by EPA includes

institutional controls concerning use of the property, and implementation of operation and

maintenance requirements.

Through continuation of two previous rounds of administrative reforms and initiation of a third

round of reforms, in FY 1996, Superfund enforcement continued to substantially improve the

program. The following are some of the accomplishments over the past year in administrative

reforms:

Interim Guidance on Orphan Share Compensation for Settlors of Remedial

Design/Remedial Action and Non-Time-Critical Removals - This guidance describes

where EPA will provide compensation for a portion of the shares that may be attributable

to insolvent or defunct parties (i.e., the orphan share) to PRPs who agree to perform

cleanups.

Special Accounts Short Sheet - This memorandum encourages regions to use special

accounts for settlement funds and advises them on the creation and use of these accounts.

Documentation of Reason(s) for Not Issuing CERCLA 106 UAOs to all Identified

PRPs - This memorandum reaffirms EPA policy to issue unilateral administrative orders

(UAOs) section 106 of CERCLA to the largest manageable number of PRPs after

considering the adequacy of evidence of a party’s liability, their financial viability, and their

contribution to the site.

Revised Guidance on CERCLA Settlements with De Micromis Waste Contributors - 

These new guidance and associated model settlement documents are designed to

discourage third party contribution litigation against contributors of extremely small

volumes of waste (“de micromis parties”) and, where necessary, improve EPA’s ability to

resolve their liability concerns quickly and fairly.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-42

Reducing Federal Oversight at Superfund Sites with Cooperative and Capable Parties -

Directive OSWER # 9200.4-15 presents factors for regions to consider when determining

if a PRP is cooperative and capable and, thus, eligible for reduced oversight.

In addition to these policies and directives, the Superfund program was also busy developing and

distributing several fact sheets, including:

The Effect of Superfund on Involuntary Acquisitions of Contaminated Property by

Government Entities

Policy Toward Owners of Property Containing Contaminated Aquifers

The Effect of Superfund on Lenders that Hold Security Interests in Contaminated

Property

Public Availability of Superfund Enforcement Documents

The Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Provision of RCRA Section 7003.

As in past years, training remains a vital component of the Superfund program. In FY96, the

program continued to develop and present Superfund-related training including the Introduction

to Superfund Enforcement Computer-Based Training Course, the Fundamentals of Superfund, the

Enforcement Process course, and ADR training.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-43 May 1997

3.3 Criminal Program

One of the Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensic, and Training’s (OCEFT) initiatives is

prosecution of environmental crimes in environmental justice communities. Each Criminal

Investigation Division (CID) Area Office has identified specific communities by race, ethnicity, or

income that bear disproportionate adverse impacts from pollutant sources. In the past year,

almost thirty percent of all cases investigated involved minority or low income locations. 

Throughout FY 1996, EPA participated with the Department of Justice, the United States 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 1996,

CID had initiated 100 investigations that involved or had a direct impact on the Mississippi

watershed.

During the course of FY 1996 there continued to be 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 Clean Air Act. CID has 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. There are over 40 open CFC

investigations nationwide. Nineteen of these cases involve smuggling of CFCs into the United

States. 

All criminal cases rely on the January 12, 1994, Office of Criminal Enforcement Guidance on the

Exercise of Investigative Discretion, 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. 

Cases that fail to meet at least one of the identified criteria are not appropriate for federal criminal

investigation and prosecution. The guidance requires referral of such cases to EPA's civil

enforcement arm for administrative or civil judicial action or, where appropriate, to state or local

prosecutors. The criminal case selection outlined in the guidance is based on two general

measures - significant environmental harm and culpable conduct. These measures, in turn, are

divided into nine factors that serve as indicators that a case is suitable for criminal investigation. 

The Pollution Prosecution Act (PPA) of 1990 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 1996, EPA had increased the

number of criminal investigators to 151 compared to 47 in FY 1989. This additional investment

in agents has yielded significant increases in most key areas of the criminal program including 548

cases initiated by the end of FY 1996.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-44

3.4 Community-Based Protection Priorities

In FY96, EPA made significant progress in advancing community-based environmental protection

(CBEP). The Agency has actively promoted and encouraged regions to adopt CBEP as they

implement their compliance and enforcement activities. Through policies and initiatives, EPA is

giving regions and our co-regulators flexibility to allow local communities, neighborhoods, and

developments to set their own environmental priorities and to pursue environmental goals that 

meet their environmental needs and still meet Agency requirements. EPA is developing the tools

that will allow it to better address and tailor Agency responses to community needs. EPA is also

empowering communities for example by opening its compliance and enforcement data bases to

the public and building new tools including risk-based targeting Geographic Information Systems

(GISs) to focus on problem areas, particularly in environmental justice communities, and

enforcing communities’ rights to information about toxic and hazardous materials in their

communities. The addition in FY96 of the Office of Environmental Justice enhances EPA’s ability

to do CBEP in environmental justice communities. 

The EPA FY96 CBEP Progress Report, which was sent to the Deputy Administrator in January

1997, highlights CBEP activities in 18 compliance and enforcement areas in which EPA had

significant outputs. The EPA FY97 CBEP Performance Plan identifies 23 CBEP continuing and

new CBEP activities in compliance and enforcement areas in which EPA expects to have

significant efforts in FY97. The resource estimates for CBEP activities in EPA that were

specifically identified in the 1997 plan total 25.5 full time equivalents (FTEs) and $5.477 million

of contract or grant assistance money. The following summary highlights EPA FY96 CBEP

activities.

Many EPA policies and guidances are aimed at providing information and flexibility for

communities to set and pursue their local environmental goals. Formerly desolate brownfield

properties, for example, are being cleaned up and redeveloped economically under EPA’s

brownfields policies, which address and remove liability barriers to development. The November

1996 policy on comfort/status letters facilitates local community stakeholders and development

interests in undertaking cleanup and redevelopment efforts. Similarly, EPA policy on enforcement

flexibility for small communities allows small communities, in partnership with the states, to

establish environmental compliance goals and priorities for their communities.

One of EPA’s goals is to increase public and regulated community understanding of the linkage

between the condition of the local environment and compliance with environmental requirements. 

To achieve this goal, EPA has developed CBEP tools and information systems and provided

compliance assistance and resources for CBEP projects. Significant CBEP compliance and

enforcement activities in this area include risk-based targeting activities, the use of mitigated

penalty amounts for supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) in the settlement of enforcement

cases to do CBEP projects, the expanded public access to compliance and enforcement data bases

through the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) data base and IDEA for Windows, 

and EPA funding assistance for pilot CBEP projects that demonstrate compliance and
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-45 May 1997

enforcement CBEP approaches. EPA has also supported inspections and other activities to

identify and resolve local community environmental issues. 

In addition, EPA has taken enforcement initiatives to protect communities’ rights (under the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act [EPCRA] Section 313) to know about

chemicals released into their environments and to assure that local emergency protection groups

are informed (as required by EPCRA Section 312) about quantities of chemicals are stored in

their communities. During FY96, OECA also did substantial work with other Agency offices to

assure compliance with and the enforceability of recent environmental requirements that will

protect the public health of inner city residents from such toxics as lead, illegally used agricultural

chemicals, and pollutants from mobile sources, including urban bus fleets.

OECA issued Interim Final Operating Principles for compliance and enforcement in November

1996, which include activities supporting CBEP, such as inspections on ecosystem or geographic

area bases and collaborative planning; targeting; and information sharing with state, tribal, and

local governmental entities. Additionally, OECA is developing strategic goals for compliance and

enforcement. These goals are proposed to include an emphasis on themes related to CBEP

including communities and places, partnerships, public participation, and equal protection for all

populations (environmental justice) under environmental laws.

The community-based projects described in this section are achieving meaningful results. Some

take the form of traditional enforcement activities, yet, many of the benefits of community-based

projects consist of less tangible effects, such as establishing relationships with marginalized

communities, bringing together stakeholders concerned with a specific resource or region, and

developing a solution that works for everyone affected. Moreover, it is important to recognize

that a significant part of these benefits will be achieved in the long-term, not the short-term. 

Many of the issues being addressed by community-based enforcement initiatives are significant

problems, which cannot be resolved overnight. Thus, many of these projects reflect the early

phases of achieving community-based solutions. The remaining challenge is to address the new

issues posed by such work and to effectively integrate these projects into the broader mission of

environmental enforcement.

The CBEP projects described in the remainder of this section are organized by EPA region and

reflect selected examples of the work the Agency is doing in this area. 

3.4.1 Region 1

Region 1 employed a variety of tools to focus its community-based protection efforts on two

areas: two municipalities, as part of its public agencies priority, and protecting natural resources

within four sensitive ecosystems. All targets were chosen to achieve the greatest potential

compliance, deterrent, and enforcement impact.

Haverhill, Massachusetts, and Sanford, Maine - The Region 1 Public Agencies Team undertook

an enforcement and assistance initiative in two municipalities, Haverhill, Massachusetts, and
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-46

Sanford, Maine. The comprehensive approach taken within the two towns used both assistance

and enforcement tools. This approach proved effective in identifying systemic barriers to sound

town management of environmental concerns and offering tailored assistance to the municipal

government.

The findings of multimedia assessments in the two municipalities led the team to conduct an

outreach campaign to town officials throughout New England, which put the officials on notice of

potential scrutiny, identified potential compliance vulnerabilities, and provided information for

addressing concerns typical of municipalities. 

This activity involved the use of numerous enforcement tools, including 44 inspections,

compliance assistance at 11 wastewater treatment sites, 20 workshops, identification of a

regulated waste stream, referral of waste drum removal to the state, and town tank removal at

three sites. The activities resulted in the development of three enforcement cases, a criminal

investigation, and two underground storage tank (UST) field citations. This action had a

pronounced deterrent effect as word of Region 1 enforcement presence and assistance efforts

spread to surrounding towns.

Mystic River Watershed - The second community-based compliance effort in Region 1 consisted

of an innovative field reconnaissance approach to identifying and addressing environmental

concerns in the Mystic River watershed of Boston Harbor. Existing EPA data bases and files

served as key sources of traditional information. The recon process extended beyond traditional

approaches to ensuring compliance, however, by including interviews with local officials,

environmental advocate groups, and other federal, state, and local environmental officials

combined with field reconnaissance and investigative techniques.

The Region 1 Office of Environmental Measurement and Evaluation (OEME) led a 10-week

recon pilot effort in the Mystic River watershed of Boston Harbor. The region’s Sensitive

Ecosystems Team selected Mystic River as a target for place-based enforcement and assistance

activities, and the Urban Environments Team also examined Mystic-related issues. The Mystic

River watershed recon identified opportunities for cross-media compliance/enforcement, technical

assistance, permitting, Superfund responses, and citizen volunteer monitoring and cleanup efforts. 

Through studying an area encompassing seven towns, the recon project produced

recommendations for compliance and enforcement follow-up at 36 facilities and areas of concern,

13 of which had multimedia concerns, as well as technical assistance and community-requested

assistance opportunities.

In following up on the recon pilot, Region 1 performed more than 60 air, water, Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC),

and EPCRA inspections. These inspections yielded a significant number of enforcement or

assistance opportunities. Region 1 will further develop the partnerships with state and local

agencies started by the recon project and report back to the communities periodically on progress

made.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-47 May 1997

Lower Charles River Basin, Massachusetts - Toward the goal of a fishable/swimmable Charles

by 2005, Region 1 took enforcement actions against five towns in the lower basin to eliminate

illegal sewage discharges and combined sewer overflows into the Charles River. In addition the

region continued efforts to develop comprehensive storm water management programs.

South Coastal Massachusetts - Region 1 conducted 61 inspections targeted to protect the

wellhead area of the sole-source aquifer and wetlands, as well as to restore closed shellfish beds. 

In targeting wetlands violations, the team surveyed 12 conservation commissions and aerial

photographs.

Runnins River Watershed, Massachusetts and Rhode Island - In an effort to restore the habitat

of the Runnins River and Hundred Acre Cove (home to the endangered diamondback terrapin),

Region 1 is working with state officials to investigate and address the sources of increased fecal

coliform levels.

3.4.2 Region 2

Region 2 conducted four community-based initiatives during FY96, including the South Bronx

Community-Based Environmental Protection Project, which addressed concerns that the South

Bronx community is disproportionately impacted by a high number of waste management

facilities, and that air pollution and odors cause an elevated rate of asthma and respiratory

problems in the community. The area is zoned mixed industrial-residential and is composed

mostly of a low-income, minority population base, which prompts environmental justice concerns. 

As part of the South Bronx project, EPA coordinated efforts of a large group of stakeholders,

including five New York state agencies, in an effort to accomplish four specific goals:

Assure local facility compliance with all federal, state, and city regulations, statutes, and

permit conditions

Educate the community on the cause and management of asthma through coordination of

efforts with the city and state Departments of Health

Promote civic awareness of health protection, environmental protection, and regulatory

and policy issues

Create a stronger bond between government and the community leading to realistic

expectations of government.

As part of the project, EPA conducted approximately 150 inspections, and the state conducted

more than 100 inspections. Although the Agency found that the overall level of compliance in the

South Bronx was consistent with that in other geographic areas, EPA also found varying degrees

of noncompliance at 42 facilities. Enforcement actions ranging from notices of violation (NOVs)
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-48

Enforcement actions resulting from inspections in Long

Island have lead to this program piloting a new approach

to EPCRA case settlement. When five relatively small

propane distribution facilities were found to be out of

compliance with EPCRA Sections 311/ 312, they were

issued “show cause” notices. These notices allowed

them an opportunity to bring relevant settlement

information to the Agency for consideration in penalty

assessment. The cases are currently in settlement

negotiation.

to administrative orders (AOs) with civil penalties will be issued in the second quarter of FY97 to

return facilities to full compliance.

EPA and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) have also monitored

ambient air in the South Bronx to compare pollutant levels with those in other areas of New York

City where asthma rates are lower. Pollutant levels were not determined to be comparably higher

in the South Bronx. Nevertheless, EPA is facilitating and or supporting numerous studies to

further examine this issue.

In promoting civic awareness of health protection, environmental protection, regulatory and

policy issues, the region has also established an information repository at the community boards;

attended more than 10 community board/public meetings; responded to correspondence from

concerned citizens; and compiled information on asthma, bioaerosols, environmental regulations,

and EPA’s CBEP policy for dissemination to the public.

Barceloneta - Manati, Puerto Rico, Community-Based Project -- The Barceloneta/Manati

Multimedia Aquifer Protection Project is one of Region 2’s pilots for implementing wellhead

protection programs at the local level. The project redirects resources in order to better address

human health risks posed by groundwater contamination. This project used a variety of tools,

including groundwater contamination prevention activities, increased public awareness, vigorous

compliance and enforcement, groundwater modeling, and strengthening of local capacity for

detecting well contamination. Despite impediments, including land use practices, the need for

support from mayors and other government officials and language difficulties, this project:

Conducted 27 underground injection control (UIC) inspections covering 22 automotiverelated facilities, 1 dry cleaner, 3 photo studios, and 1 print shop. Twenty of the 27

facilities were found to be in violation of UIC requirements, 6 were not UIC-related, and 1

was in compliance and obtaining a permit.

Inspected three major manufacturing facilities in the Barceloneta/Manati area for possible

air violations. All three facilities were found to be in compliance.

Completed a groundwater model of the Rio Grande de Manati under an interagency

agreement (IAG) with the Corps of Engineers.

Long Island Groundwater Aquifer

Protection Initiative -- This initiative was

undertaken to address concerns relating to

contamination of the sole source aquifer,

which provides the drinking water for 2

million people on Long Island, New York. 

It also supports EPA's Wellhead Protection

Program. Fifty-seven RCRA compliance

inspections were conducted at hazardous
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-49 May 1997

waste generators. GIS technology allowed targeting of handlers using the following selection

criteria-- groundwater vulnerability, environmental justice, and no inspections within the last 3

years. 

Massena New York, Community-Based Environmental Project -- Members of the St. Regis

Mohawk Indian Nation have expressed concerns about their observations of an increasing rate of

disease in their community, especially among younger age groups, which they attribute to

environmental pollution. In response, EPA and the New York DEC embarked on a

compliance/enforcement initiative in the Massena area to ensure that the St. Regis Mohawk Indian

Nation are given equal protection under federal environmental statutes. This initiative involved a

direct commitment to the community by the Regional Administrator, close collaboration between

Region 2 and the New York DEC, targeted compliance monitoring and enforcement actions,

work with stakeholders to address problems presented by the regulated community (e.g.,

electrical power generating stations, primary and secondary nonferrous metals production, and a

sewage treatment facility), and a high priority assignment to site cleanups in the area.

3.4.3 Region 3

Region 3 initiatives include both community-based, area-based, and issue-driven priorities. The

community-based initiatives include Chester, Pennsylvania, where Region 3 conducted

community-based enforcement activities, including 44 RCRA inspections (over 2 years), which

led to two formal enforcement actions (undertaken by the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection [DEP]), nine Notices of Violation (five Pennsylvania DEP and four

EPA), and 33 followup letters transmitting completed inspection reports and compliance

assistance information. In addition, the region negotiated a SEP with Westinghouse requiring the

company to purchase a street sweeper, perform physical plant modifications to control fugitive

particulate emissions, and spend $50,000 to support a lead SEP still under development by the

Delaware County Regional Water Quality Control Authority. Region 3 also issued an

administrative complaint and order to BP Refining. This case, which was initiated in support of

the Chester Community environmental justice and refinery initiatives, proposed a penalty of

approximately $162,000 for alleged violations of the benzene waste National Emissions Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and was resolved immediately. The region continued

its CBEP initiative in the Chester area by holding a public meeting and two quality of life

workgroup meetings to assess the community's environmental priorities, as well as two industry

group meetings to discuss corporate response options.

South/Southwest Philadelphia, Pennsylvania -- Region 3 conducted a second community-based

enforcement/compliance assistance initiative in south/southwest Philadelphia. The region

conducted multimedia inspections at two major refineries in May and June 1996 and performed

single media inspections and enforcement. EPA issued one RCRA Subtitle C penalty action and,

based on observations made during the RCRA inspections subjected this facility to a

Comprehensive Emergency Response, Liability, and Recovery Act (CERLCA) removal

assessment. With respect to compliance assurance, EPA and the Pennsylvania DEP launched a

work group with the city of Philadelphia and other partners to improve compliance with
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-50

environmental regulations among autoservice shops, starting with a pilot in south/southwest

Philadelphia. An environmental seminar was held for autobody shops on October 1, 1996. In

response to community concerns regarding air quality in the area, the region commenced an air

monitoring program. To promote compliance by dry cleaners in Philadelphia, regional and city air

management services staff inspected approximately 20 dry cleaners in Philadelphia. Nearly all of

these facilities were violating the dry cleaner Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT)

standard. Followup is planned for FY97. Regional staff, however, already gave a presentation on

MACT compliance to 150 members of the Korean Dry Cleaner Association of Philadelphia.

Anacostia River, District of Columbia -- Based on inspections and sediment sampling, the region

determined that the Washington Navy Yard (WNY), Southeast Federal Center (SEFC), and

Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) are past contributors of polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) and heavy metals to the Anacostia River and the Tidal Basin. The region further

established that no current operations at these facilities are continuing sources of toxics and heavy

metals and that the storm sewer outfalls remain the primary continuing source of contamination to

the river and to Tidal Basin. Region 3 issued two administrative complaints for UST violations

and improper management of hazardous constituents against the WNY and is negotiating a

corrective action order. The order envisions that the WNY will conduct activities to support

future remediation of contaminated Anacostia River sediment. As a result of these investigations

and knowledge of the extent of contamination at the WNY, a National Priority List (NPL) status

is being pursued.

Chesapeake Bay -- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement

efforts associated with the Chesapeake Bay include the Blue Plains settlement, which addresses

key maintenance and financial issues, as well as a judicial complaint filed against Tug Tred for

unpermitted discharge of reinforced concrete into the bay. The region settled administrative

penalty cases against Pepco-Benning (Washington, DC), NGK Metals (PA), and city of Lebanon

(PA) for effluent violations and city of Chambersburg (PA) for pretreatment violations. Region 3

also issued administrative complaints against Allied Signal (VA), Somerset County (MD), and city

of Harrisburg (PA) for effluent violations.

Acid Mine Drainage -- Within Region 3, acid mine drainage degrades the water quality of

hundreds of miles of surface water. To combat this, the Region 3 NPDES branch has taken a

variety of enforcement actions against coal facilities. Region 3 mailed Section 308 letters to

owners/operators of coal facilities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The region also

issued and tracked administrative compliance orders, which addressed reporting and effluent

violations. In addition, the NPDES branch issued three administrative penalty complaints for

discharging without an NPDES permit, failing to submit discharge monitoring reports, and having

effluent violations. These complaints propose penalties between $50,000 and $75,000. The

region also referred three coal cases to EPA headquarters and DOJ, and settled a prior case

(Rayle Coal Company, Tridell Realty Company, et al.) for a penalty of $145,000.

Acid Deposition -- The region is continuing its effort to target sources of acid deposition that are

affecting sensitive resources. The government's litigation team in U.S. v. Ohio Power Company
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-51 May 1997

When inspecting several petroleum and SOCMI

facilities, regional inspectors identified at least two

facilities that were documenting leak rates approximately

10 times lower than those measured by the region during

inspections. Such discrepancies suggest that the

region’s efforts to identify necessary LDAR program

improvements can substantially reduce emissions, even

in the absence of LDAR program violations.

reached an agreement with Ohio Power to settle the penalty claims arising from the defendant's

violation of the sulfur dioxide emission limitation in the West Virginia state implementation plan

(SIP). The settlement includes a $200,000 civil penalty payment and a SEP of two early

compliance nitrous oxides (NO ) reduction projects valued at $500,000. x

Ozone Non-Attainment -- Region 3 performed volatile organic compound (VOC) and hazardous

air pollutant (HAP) source leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections at three refineries and

six synthetic organic chemical manufacturers

(SOCMI). These inspections identified two

sources in violation (enforcement actions

pending, including the first hazardous organic

NESHAP [HON] referral in the Nation) and

provided opportunities for the region to

recommend fugitive VOC and HAP control

improvements at all sources. At several

petroleum and SOCMI facilities, regional

inspectors identified poor management and

documentation of LDAR activities and very high leakage rates. Although not violations of LDAR

requirements, the high leakage rates prompted the region to recommend and encourage the

facilities to improve their LDAR programs in ways that would directly or indirectly reduce

emissions. The region has also used its reviews of periodic compliance reports as opportunities to

assist industry in improving compliance, as well as emissions monitoring. Moreover, during

inspections of 15 potential VOC sources for compliance with EPCRA Section 313, Region 3

identified five violations.

3.4.4 Region 4

The Region 4 enforcement and compliance program made significant contributions to support

community-based environmental protection during FY96. By working with state partners and

local agencies, the region pursued numerous activities to help communities meet their objectives

for a safe and healthy environment. Most of these activities are ongoing and, thus, it is difficult to

assess overall success. Nevertheless, the progress made in FY96 and that which will follow in

FY97, exemplifies the important role of enforcement and compliance in supporting communitybased efforts. Key Region 4 community-based enforcement and compliance projects include the

following projects.

Charleston/North Charleston, South Carolina -- Activities in the heavily industrialized area of

Charleston and North Charleston, South Carolina, focused on environmental justice concerns,

heavy industrialization in the area, local community and economic concerns, and facilities with

suspected or known multimedia noncompliance, as well as the presence of numerous CERCLA

sites and a major Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) facility. The region organized an

internal group that included all program areas with ongoing activity in the North Charleston area. 

Close collaboration and coordination among members of EPA's internal CBEP working group has

yielded significant environmental results and raised several cross-program issues that may not
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-52

The largest benefit of these community-based,

multimedia efforts has been a significant improvement in

the coordination of EPA's overall activities in the

Charleston/North Charleston area. Yet, it also has

become increasingly apparent that significantly more

resources are essential for the success of this CBEP

effort to engage the community and address the many

important multimedia issues and community/

environmental justice concerns that exist here. In

addition, a coordinated effort with other federal and state

agencies is needed so that information on environmental

studies in the Charleston/North Charleston area can be

shared among agencies.

have been discovered had it not been for the multimedia attention focused on this region under the

CBEP. The following activities were undertaken and accomplishments achieved, among others:

Ten targeted RCRA inspections (3 multimedia) that resulted in six informal enforcement

actions taken by South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, three

pending enforcement actions, and one consent order that specified $150,000 in penalties

and an agreement to perform RCRA corrective action across the entire facility. A

multimedia inspection of a bulk petroleum distribution terminal revealed contaminated

storm water ponds, which prompted the region to focus additional resources on these

types of facilities in the Charleston/North Charleston area.

NPDES inspections of Macalloy

(smelting) and Allied Terminals (bulk

petroleum) revealed significant

amounts of surface water discharges

from heavily contaminated storm

water runoff and undocumented storm

water discharges, respectively, which

are currently being evaluated. 

Early indications of progress include

the coordination on the Allied

Terminals multimedia inspection may

lead to an EPA-lead multimedia

enforcement action addressing NPDES and RCRA violations; and the concerns raised

during the multimedia Macalloy inspection have resulted in EPA’s request for the posting

of adjacent Shipyard Creek and may result in an EPA-lead NPDES enforcement action

against the facility.

Lower Mississippi Valley -- The region's enforcement and compliance programs also supported

region-wide efforts to target critical geographic areas. Such efforts included conducting 9 RCRA

inspections and taking 2 informal enforcement actions at facilities located within the counties that

border the Mississippi River, conducting 37 UIC inspections, and conducting 24 NPDES

inspections, which resulted in 17 notices of violation (NOVs), eight Section 308 requests, five

AOs, and five administrative penalty orders (APOs). The region has also worked closely with

state staff from Tennessee to develop a strategy to minimize storm water pollution in Fayette,

Lauderdale, Shelby, and Tipton counties. This strategy includes obtaining technical assistance

from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture.

Mobile County, Alabama -- The Mobile Bay study area is another region-wide priority area. To

augment ongoing environmental assessments, planning, and other activities, the region’s

enforcement program responded to citizen complaints regarding air pollution by conducting

activities focused on environmental justice. The region also secured a grant for Tuskegee
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-53 May 1997

University to develop a nontraditional survey to determine community concerns. In addition,

Region 4 performed 16 inspections in Mobile and Baldwin counties, Alabama.

Brunswick, Georgia -- Region 4 is conducting a large-scale study to assess environmental and

health concerns in Brunswick, Georgia. To support the goal of ensuring that activities in the area

address community concerns, tools such as inspections, sampling, technical assistance, and

monitoring have been utilized. The Region 4 Environmental Services Division, Water

Compliance Team (WCT) assisted the Water Management Division by characterizing the

wastewater contribution of the most significant NPDES facilities to the Turtle/Mackay river

systems. In addition, the Air Division worked with the Georgia Environmental Protection

Division (EPD), Environmental Services Division (ESD) and the Waste Management Division to

plan and conduct extensive ambient air monitoring in support of the Brunswick initiative. 

3.4.5 Region 5

Region 5 employs a team approach to coordinate and manage environmental activities within

discrete geographic areas. The region’s CBEP initiatives are discussed below.

Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative -- Region 5 and the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management (DEM) finalized the Northwest Indiana Environmental Initiative

Action Plan, which targets high-risk areas, including ozone and hazardous air pollutants,

contaminated sediments (a major cause of use impairments), and discharges of toxics under the

NPDES program. Under this plan, Region 5 has conducted both inspections and formal

enforcement during the fiscal year, either on a single media or multimedia basis. In addition, the

DEM reached a significant settlement with USX Corporation for its Gary Works under the air

program, and Region 5 notified the public of the USX cleanup plan for 5 miles of the river under

RCRA, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition,

Region 5 and the Indiana DEM jointly announced a CWA settlement between the government and

a number of industries in the Hammond area that will put $4.7 million in payments into a trust

fund for remedial and restoration work.

Northeast Ohio Initiative - The Northeast Ohio Initiative focuses on improving environmental

quality in this historically industrialized area by working with the community to develop a

strategic action plan that helps the community solve its highest priority environmental concerns. 

Under this initiative, Region 5 participated in 25 meetings with a range of individuals or groups;

worked with the Toxic Sweep Task Force to achieve a voluntary cleanup of the Beck Chemical

site in Cleveland, Ohio; co-sponsored with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) and the Ohio EPA an asbestos workshop for state and local agency personnel; and

funded the Regional Environmental Priorities Project (REPP), which assessed and identified the

top environmental concerns (e.g., out-migration from the urban core, quality of the urban

environment, quality of outdoor air, quality of surface water, and use of resources/energy) in 7 of

the 15 counties in the Northeast Ohio Initiative area. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-54

A key component to the Ashtabula River Partnership is

the local participation in the planning and execution of

the remediation. A core group of interested parties,

including federal and state agencies, formed the

partnership in summer 1994. Additional members of the

watershed community volunteered and were solicited to

participate in this partnership. The partnership chose to

follow the National Environmental Policy Act process

and have the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversee the

project.

Region 5 provided various grant support for the

Southeast Michigan Initiative including a grant of

$85,000 established with the Southeast Michigan

Council of Governments to develop a profile of

environmental indicators to use as a baseline against

which success can be measured, a grant of $85,000 to a

not-for-profit organization to facilitate “Good Neighbor”

discussions between communities and industry in areas

where there are controversial environmental issues or

issues not amenable to traditional enforcement (e.g.,

odors), and funding in the amount of $135,000 and

technical assistance to the city of Detroit to use city law

enforcement agencies to address a major problem of

illegal dumping. This last project has achieved great

success in the number of violators prosecuted, vehicles

impounded, and cleanups ordered. 

Ashtabula River Partnership -- The Ashtabula River Partnership is a unique and dynamic

approach to a watershed’s environmental problems. The International Joint Commission (IJC) has

designated the Ashtabula River and Harbor, including the Fields Brook tributary as 1 of the 43

Great Lakes areas of Concern (AOC). The system is contaminated by various pollutants

including PCBs, heavy metals, and organics

(e.g., trichloroethylene and

hexachlorobutadiene).

The goal of the Region 5 Ashtabula River

Partnership is to remediate the site so that it

can be removed from the AOC list. Interim

goals include removal of contaminated

sediments from the river and harbor,

completion of the Fields Brook Site

remediation, and identification and control of

other contaminant sources to the system. 

During FY96 the partnership completed sediment sampling for TSCA and RCRA

characterization, completed field surveys for sediment volume estimates, established a local

project coordinator, identified final candidate disposal sites, finalized projected volume of

sediment (TSCA and non-TSCA), and identified preferred disposal site alternative using criteria

based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) among other accomplishments.

Southeast Michigan Initiative -- The Southeast Michigan Initiative involved numerous CBEP

activities during FY96. The scope of the activities ranged broadly from enhancement of local

enforcement efforts to assistance in empowering local communities through good neighbor

agreements and environmental education. The

primary mechanism used was allocation of

grant funds, which were dedicated and

available through Agency appropriations for

regional geographic initiatives.

Gateway Initiative -- The Gateway Initiative is

a community-based effort that targets 18

communities, many with environmental justice

populations, in the metropolitan East St.

Louis, Illinois, area. The goal of this initiative

is to improve the quality of life and protect the

natural resources within these communities, as

well as build sustainable public involvement in

local environmental issues. Region 5

accomplished this by taking direct action in

facilitating the involvement of other federal,

state, and local agencies; awarding grants that will develop environmental stewardship at the local
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-55 May 1997

Some of the successes in the Gateway Initiative are the

result of direct regional program involvement, while

others are the result of actions taken by Agency partners,

grantees, and other individuals. All can be attributed to

the synergy and partnerships generated by the Gateway

Initiative, however, EPA and Illinois EPA enforcement

staff, for example, are promoting community issues when

asked by facilities for suggestions for SEPs during

enforcement discussions. Most recently, a state of

Illinois consent decree resulted in a company setting out

containers in communities plagued by illegal dumping

and paying for disposal.

level; and empowering individuals with

education and opportunities for increased

public involvement. The following list

highlights selected accomplishments:

More than 17,000 illegally dumped tires

from at least five communities were

collected and shredded for use as a fuel

supplement by local plants.

Twenty of the 1,800 abandoned and

derelict structures in East St. Louis

were demolished through a private donation to a neighborhood organization. Twenty

more are proposed for demolition under Superfund emergency response due to the poor

condition of exterior transite (asbestos) siding.

Two NOVs (Illinois Power and Shell), one finding of violation (FOV) (Clark), and one

administrative complaint (National Steel) were issued for Clean Air Act (CAA) violations.

A grant awarded to the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department was used to establish an

environmental crimes unit. 

Site assessment work was done at 20 abandoned sites in East St. Louis at the request of

the community. The vast majority of the sites do not appear to be contaminated. Only

one, an old lead smelter, warranted offsite sampling.

Upper Mississippi River Initiative -- Over the past year the region has formed a team to focus

attention on the Upper Mississippi River basin. Members from each of the regional programs are

represented on the team, as well as representatives from Region 7; the Office of Wetlands, Oceans

and Watersheds; and the Office of Research and Development. The team has formed partnerships

with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Biological Resources Division; U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS); and the states. One the successes of the team has been to help facilitate the

“Environmental Summit,” which was held in February 1996. This summit brought together

representatives from environmental organizations, agriculture, the barge industry, and federal and

state agencies to begin to discuss the environmental and economic problems facing the river. 

Several IAGs between EPA and USGS’ Biological Resources Division, were also initiated. One

grant was for the completion of a “Status and Trends” report for the river. A second IAG

addressed the fate and transport of nutrients and sediments in the Upper Mississippi River basin. 

A final IAG is for the completion of a survey of persons who use the river to determine their

knowledge of the river and to determine whether their greatest areas of concern for the river

environmental or economic.

The team has also worked with local community groups to identify where EPA’s support for

environmental justice and education activities are needed. In addition, an Adaptive Environmental
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-56

Through appropriate enforcement combined with

outreach and education, the Galveston Bay project

demonstrates how compliance assistance can be used to

provide facilities with opportunities to comply without

jeopardizing enforcement efforts.

Assessment model funded by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), is being

developed based on broad input.

3.4.6 Region 6

Region 6’s community-based initiatives addressed several specific sites, including Galveston Bay.

Region 6 undertook an initiative focused on the large number (more than 1,400) of minor facilities

in the Galveston Bay watershed area historically not tracked for NPDES compliance. The longterm goals of this project are to improve both compliance rates and water quality in the receiving

streams. 

Permitting, outreach, and enforcement

actions were prioritized using water quality

data to identify stream segments with water

quality standards violations. Four areas

comprising several stream segments into

which approximately 300 minor facilities

discharge were identified. Approximately 150 minor facilities with active permits were targeted

for inspections. The Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) performed

these inspections under a Section 106 grant. EPA reviewed the inspection reports and other

information. Many facilities had no prior contact with EPA and were not aware of CWA

requirements. Enforcement followup activities included 25 warning letters for minor violations

and 10 AOs for significant violations. The 114 remaining inspection reports will be addressed in

FY97. As part of compliance assistance/outreach, all facilities were mailed packages with

information concerning monitoring and reporting requirements, a copy of their NPDES permit,

preprinted discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), and a contact name. Approximately 100

followup calls were made to explain the information. 

Texas City Community-Based Project -- This initiative, which is in the planning phase, is a pilot

to determine how local governments can work cooperatively with industry, state and federal

entities in promoting compliance and enforcement. The basic concept is to involve local

government and community in improving environmental compliance in Texas City, Texas. Six

meetings/roundtable discussions with representatives from the TNRCC, Galveston County Health

Department, Texas City municipal offices, and Region 6 have been held to establish a framework

for the project. The project will include both an enforcement and a compliance assistance

component.

Compliance Assistance Workshops for Maquiladora Industry -- In partnership with the

Mexican Environmental Prosecutor (PROFEPA) and the TNRCC, the region held six compliance

assistance workshops for the Maquiladora hazardous waste importers. As a result of these

workshops, the region received voluntary self-disclosures from more than 19 facilities. Each

company discovered its violations through its voluntary self-audit programs, reported and

corrected its violations, and developed procedures to prevent future occurrences. These

disclosures qualified for full civil penalty mitigation. This program marks a milestone toward
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-57 May 1997

bringing the participating companies which handle more than 325 tons of hazardous waste

annually, into voluntary compliance through a self-policing and self-disclosure initiative.

U.S./Mexico Border Hazardous Waste Tracking -- Region 6 continued to provide leadership

regarding international hazardous waste tracking efforts. The region trained EPA headquarters

and Canadian and Mexican governments, thereby facilitating efforts to develop waste tracking and

reporting systems patterned after Haztraks. In addition, the region completed procurement,

computer installation, and training to support the Mexican component of the binational hazardous

waste tracking system. 

Osage Mineral Reserve -- Through a work group, Region 6 evaluated training needs for 500 to

600 oil producers operating more than 3,000 injection wells on the Osage Mineral Reserve. The

group developed the Osage Operators' Environmental Handbook and an Osage Operators'

Environmental Manual, which include practical information on how small oil producers can

comply with Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and EPA requirements. This effort has been very

successful in opening communication channels between the work group participants and

increasing understanding of each member’s goals and responsibilities.

Hobbs & Farmington -- Based on discussions with the New Mexico Environmental Department,

the region learned that the community of Hobbs had concerns about the impacts its oil service

industry was having on municipal facilities and the potential for contamination of its sole source

aquifer. The region conducted three RCRA inspections at the suspected facilities and “windshield

tours” of several others. As industry became aware of EPA's compliance monitoring activities,

virtually every oil service facility in the town “cleaned up their operations” (i.e., immediately and

unilaterally began implementing appropriate waste management practices). RCRA violations

were confirmed at two facilities and enforcement actions taken. The region also helped the city

develop protective ordinances and discussed with city representatives the option of leveraging

SEPs that might benefit the community. More than 82 tons of hazardous wastes were removed

from the community with more than $228,000 expended to address community concerns and

compliance issues.

3.4.7 Region 7

Region 7 identified and designated team leaders for several place-based projects, including the

Mississippi River Basin. The Region 7 Section 404 program targeted several areas in the

Mississippi River basin for enforcement actions and is cooperating with the Corps of Engineers to

obtain better case documentation. A draft enforcement agreement with the St. Louis District was

initiated.

Heartland Sky Program -- The 1996 Heartland Sky Program is the Kansas City region's

public/private community effort to voluntarily reduce emissions that contribute to ozone

formation. The program consists of 1) increasing public awareness and ascertaining public

perception of air quality issues and 2) securing commitments from key organizations to take

specific measures on ozone alert days. Highlights of the program include completing a public
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-58

Through both technical and enforcement representatives,

EPA has been providing leadership and expertise in

helping the French Gulch Remediation Opportunities

Group work toward characterizing and cleaning up a

historical mining site. Region 8 is using a multimedia

"toolbox" approach to this site so the group can evaluate

the most appropriate and effective tools for remediating

the site. The presence of federal, state, and local

enforcement representatives has encouraged the group to

consider a variety of regulatory and funding approaches.

opinion survey covering several metro area counties, mailing 460,000 educational brochures with

area residents’ electric service bills, securing commitments from 6 of the 30 major fleet operators

with 6,700 vehicles to schedule refueling operations during conditions less conducive to ozone

formation, and securing commitments from 15 local governments. 

3.4.8 Region 8

Region 8 expended significant effort during FY96 exploring ways to integrate community-based

environmental projects into regional operations. This section highlights some specific communitybased projects conducted by Region 8.

French Gulch Remediation Opportunities Group -- Region 8 has been actively involved in the

formation of a CBEP effort to address the impacts of historical mining operations in French Gulch

near Breckenridge, Colorado. EPA has provided funding for facilitation and organization of a

local stakeholder group. A group consisting of

representatives from government; private

landowners; community residents; local

business interests; and others has been meeting

to develop goals and approaches for

addressing the impacts of historic mining

operations in this area. The work of the French

Gulch Remediation Opportunities Group is an

example of the holistic community-based

approach that Region 8 is piloting to address

inactive and abandoned mine sites.

Headwaters Funding -- The Rocky Mountain Headwaters Mining Waste Initiative was the first

regional geographic initiative to be implemented. Since its inception in FY 94, Headwaters has

awarded approximately $3 million in grants and cooperative agreements to local and state

recipients to build community-based programs or to solve technical and administrative problems

associated with primarily abandoned or inactive mining sites throughout the Western United

States. These expenditures are resulting in on-the-ground recognition of the unusual nature and

complexity of mining sites.

Marty Indian School -- Marty School is on the Yankton Sioux Indian Reservation, South

Dakota. An oil spill occurred in 1995. EPA investigated in 1996 and determined that no

imminent hazard existed, but a number of environmental and regulatory issues were noted. 

Region 8 is supporting efforts at the Marty School as a CBEP activity. The enforcement program

will work in concert with the community to conduct inspections and compliance assistance

activities and take enforcement action, if necessary, consistent with the Indian Policy Act of 1984. 

Also, the region envisions that the Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental Justice

will participate in long-term environmental studies involving Marty School, adjacent Mosquito

Creek, and the agricultural environs. At the present time, compliance with NPDES, Oil Pollution
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-59 May 1997

Act (OPA), RCRA, UST, EPCRA, Asbestos Hazard and Emergency Response Act (AHERA),

and TSCA will be determined.

3.4.9. Region 9

Region 9’s community-based initiatives addressed several sites, including Brownfields. During

FY96, numerous new Brownfields sites in California were officially designated, including

Emeryville, Hunters Point (San Francisco), portions of Los Angeles, Oakland, Richmond,

Sacramento, and Stockton. In addition, the Navajo Forest Products Industries mill site in

McKinley County, New Mexico, was selected as a Brownfields site in conjunction with the

Navajo Nation. The region also conducted significant groundwork on the Prospective Purchaser

Agreement with Monsanto with regard to the San Gabriel Superfund site (closure with Monsanto

was achieved in FY97). In addition, numerous “comfort letters” were issued in FY96 to

prospective Region 9 developers, who are seeking some level of comfort if they purchase,

develop, or operate on brownfields property. The comfort letters represent a win-win situation

for EPA, the developers, and the community, while minimizing environmental risk and

encouraging cleanup and reuse.

Oakland -- In West Oakland, Region 9 worked closely with the community to evaluate major

issues of concern (e.g., contaminated soil and groundwater, air quality, and lead) using various

tools, including the TRI. In an effort to increase utilization of the TRI data by citizen groups,

Region 9 conducted a mailing that contained information on what TRI data are available, how to

access the data, and how the data can be used to reduce toxic emissions in communities. In

addition, the region conducted targeted inspections of facilities in Oakland to follow up on

specific complaints. The results of each inspection were communicated to the community liaison

and, ultimately, to neighborhood residents. As a result of these inspections, one civil complaint

was filed against a foundry located adjacent to residential housing. 

Tribal Lands -- As the lead region for tribal activities in FY96, Region 9 invested significant

resources in supporting tribal programs. In response to a pattern of noncompliance with RCRA

and other statutes at BIA-owned and operated facilities on tribal lands, the region began working

with BIA national and area offices to develop a plan to improve BIA compliance. Concurrently,

the region's RCRA and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) compliance staff conducted

enforcement actions against several BIA facilities. Upon learning that the BIA budget is less than

$5 million nation-wide for compliance with all environmental regulations, Region 9 worked with

BIA to ensure that the Tribal Operations Committee addressed this concern. The region

maintained regulatory and public pressure on BIA to improve its compliance record by continuing

to conduct compliance and enforcement activities at BIA facilities.

U.S./Mexico Border -- Region 9 conducted a lead education project designed to foster

international cooperation in addressing the issue of childhood lead poisoning through the

development of a model that could be replicated in sister cities along the U.S./Mexico border. 

This is being pursued through recruiting and training a team of community health workers to
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-60

Region 9 conducted the Lompoc Reduced Risk

Pesticides Management Demonstration Project to

develop and design multidisciplinary pollution

prevention projects focusing on integrated pest

management practices in the agricultural/urban interface

area of Lompoc, California. After ensuring that there

was an excellent compliance rate with agriculture

regulations, the region worked with growers in going

beyond compliance. The project is facilitating dialogue

among growers, university scientists, pest control

advisors, and others in the agricultural industry. In

addition, a pest management advisory group with broad

participation from both the private and public

agricultural industry is working to identify and prioritize

practices, technologies, and products with the potential

to reduce the risk of pollution from pesticides.

identify lead sources unique to the border area and to conduct a door-to-door outreach campaign

to educate residents on the health effect of lead exposure.

Pesticides Projects -- In communities subject to pesticide drift (Lompoc and Watsonville, as well

as Warner Springs, Davis, and Brentwood in previous years), Region 9 has worked to verify the

efficacy of the compliance program and to

correct any deficiencies in that area. In

addition, the region has pursued a dialogue

within the community to more fully assess the

scope of the issue. 

The “beyond-compliance” approach regarding

pesticide drift has multiple purposes: to

provide opportunities for affected

communities and their historically

underrepresented members to participate in

the regulatory process; to support the

resolution of conflicts arising from the use of

agricultural pesticides within the community

of origin; and to glean the lessons of playing a

participatory, rather than a leadership, role vis

a vis the impact of federal policy in individual

communities.

3.4.10 Region 10

Region 10’s community-based initiatives included projects, such as the Coeur d'Alene Basin

Restoration Project. EPA, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and the state of Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality entered into an MOA in 1992 to “coordinate efforts to improve, restore,

and protect the quality of the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, human health, and other related

natural resources in the Basin.” The three parties established the Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration

Project (CBRP), which integrates all participants into a coordinated, multiorganizational approach

for addressing environmental issues. A framework document prepared as part of the CBRP,

identifies the activities of basin participants that focus on improving water quality, remediating

hazardous waste, and protecting human health and the environment. Within the context of the

basin project, EPA achieved the following accomplishments during FY96:

A number of CERCLA removal actions were ongoing and/or planned in response to

mining and milling impacts in the basin.

Other remediation activities related to mine and milling included continued work on a

pending complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for environmental

damage caused by historic metals mining and ore-processing activities in the Coeur

d'Alene River Basin, commitment of staff for implementation of the NPDES program
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-61 May 1997

Region 10 found that impediments of community-based

work include the high cost of visiting the many tribal

lands (especially in Alaska), lack of a complete inventory

of all hazardous waste generators on tribal lands, and

lack of familiarity with RCRA regulations on the part of

the tribes and the resultant lack of awareness of the

wastes generated on their lands.

The result of the RCRA program’s work on tribal lands

is that the tribes are now much more cognizant of

activities on their land that are regulated by RCRA. In

addition, work focused on improving waste management

is continuing.

strategy, and commitment of staff and funding resources for completion of a

comprehensive environmental information management system and strategic ecosystem

management plan.

Several activities are underway to respond to the adverse impacts to water quality

associated with the increase in nutrients and sediments. These activities include, for

example, a $20,000 grant for the Panhandle Health District to develop a guidance manual

addressing the use, storage, management, and disposal of wood or mill yard debris and a

$38,000 grant for the Kootenai Regional Wastewater Coordinating Committee to

complete the Spokane River Water Quality Management Plan.

Tribal Lands -- Region 10 awarded grants to 52 tribes or consortia to enable them to conduct

environmental assessments and develop

environmental programs. This included six

new consortia in Alaska, working with more

than 50 additional tribes. Work among these

groups focused on the development of water

programs and participation in watershed

planning, development of tribal

implementation plans and Title V permit

programs, improving solid and hazardous

waste management, and conducting

inspections and enforcement actions.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-62

In FY 96, the federal facilities enforcement program

emphasized three major program areas: environmental

restoration under RCRA and CERCLA; implementation

of a multimedia enforcement strategy; and fostering the

adoption and implementation of environmental

management standards by federal agencies and states.

3.5 Federal Facilities

The primary goal of EPA’s Federal Facility Program is to ensure that all agencies reach a level of

compliance with environmental requirements that equal or surpass the rest of the regulated

community. To accomplish this goal, EPA uses a three-pronged approach: compliance assistance

and training, compliance oversight and enforcement, and review of federal agency environmental

plans and programs.

During FY96, the EPA placed particular

emphasis on a number of key initiatives

including the issuance of the following:

Strategy for Improving Environmental

Management Programs at Civilian

Federal Agencies

Interim Policy on Conducting Environmental Management levels at Federal Facilities

E.O. 12856 Code of Environmental Management Principles for Federal Agencies

Guidance for EPA Participation in Department of Energy Environmental Budget

Formulation

The Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee. 

Significant progress was also made in assisting federal agencies in implementing E.O. 12856 and

other environmental executive orders including the development of pollution prevention strategies

and plans and the first year of reporting for federal facilities under the national TRI. On the

legislative front, significant new federal facilities enforcement authorities have been gained for

EPA and states as a result of the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization. Key enforcement and

compliance assurance accomplishments are described below.

Compliance Assurance - The fourth year of the Federal Facilities Multimedia

Enforcement/Compliance Program (FMECP) concluded in FY96 with a total of 29 multimedia

inspections performed at federal facilities. Of the 29 inspections, 11 were performed at Civilian

Federal Agency facilities with the remaining inspections at DOD and DOE facilities. 

Beginning with the Second Quarter of FY96, EPA began distributing Environmental Compliance

Status Reports to all federal agencies on a quarterly basis. These reports, which are sent directly to

senior agency environmental officials, contain information on EPA and state inspections and

enforcement actions undertaken in the previous quarter. The reports highlight significant

administrative orders and penalty actions taken and includes a name list of facilities in SNC in

each media program. The purpose of these quarterly reports is to ensure that senior environmental

managers in all agencies are regularly receiving information on their environmental performance

and any related compliance issues or problems at their facilities.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-63 May 1997

At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Offpost & Onpost),

near Denver, Colorado, there were multiple disputes

over groundwater standards, institutional controls, cross

contamination of an aquifer and characterization of risk

and soil. In December 1995, the parties resolved the

dispute and avoided additional litigation and delay by

signing the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Conceptual

Remedy Agreement. This agreement also facilitated the

signing of the Offpost ROD, signed in December 1995,

and the Onpost ROD signed in June 1996. These RODs

document the cleanup activities at the site including the

cleanup of basin F waste piles and PCBs.

Compliance Assistance - On May 31, 1996, EPA issued an interim policy and guidance on

conducting Environmental Management Reviews (EMR) at federal facilities. The interim final

policy defines an EMR, specifies the operating principles under which EMRs are to be conducted

by the EPA Federal Facility Program, and describes the context in which EMRs will be conducted

by EPA during the FY 96 EMR pilot program.

A final version of the Code of Environmental Management Principles (CEMP) was developed by

EPA working with representatives of other federal agencies and published in the Federal Register.

(61 FR 54062, October 16, 1996). The CEMP includes five broad environmental management

principles developed to address all areas of environmental responsibility at federal agencies,

including: 1) management commitment, 2) compliance assurance and pollution prevention, 3)

enabling systems, 4) performance and accountability, and 5) measurement and improvement.

In addition, the Civilian Federal Agency Task Force issued the Strategy for Improving

Environmental Management Programs at Civilian Federal Agencies. This document addresses the

problems faced by civilian federal agencies (non-DOD, non-DOE) in meeting environmental

challenges.

Environmental Restoration Activities Under CERCLA - EPA continues enforcement efforts

related to cleanup and environmental restoration. At the end of FY 96, 152 final and proposed

federal facilities were on the NPL, including 122 military installations, the major DOE nuclear

weapons production sites, and civilian federal agency sites. At the end of FY96, 77 interagency

agreements with federal agencies defined the

cleanup process. These agreements all contain

a creative dispute resolution process providing

all parties the opportunity fully to air their

views. Through the resolution of five IAG

disputes this year, EPA avoided unnecessary

cleanup delays, reached a variety of

agreements with federal agencies including

methods of determining exposure scenarios,

remediation goals, risk assessments and

reached agreement over cleanup standards. 

Other Initiatives/Projects - In February 1996,

nine Region 2 programs participated in a four day inspection of the Veterans Affairs Medical

Center in Northport, New York. In June 1996, 10 Region 2 programs and one New York City

Department of Health program participated in a 4-day inspection of the Coast Guard Support

Center, Governors Island, New York, prior to the facility's closure in August. Three UST

violations were detected for which one NOV was issued, and two air violations were detected for

which one CO was issued. Minor deficiencies found during the PWS inspection were corrected.

During FY 96, Region 8 began work on a joint services pollution prevention video highlighting

some success stories at both Fort Carson and the Air Force Academy. EPA contributed $5,000

to production costs, and contributed staff time for script writing and editing. Fort Carson and the
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-64

Air Force Academy each contributed $20,000 as well as considerable staff time and on-site

filming. Region 8 plans to distribute copies of the video throughout the Army and Air Force, as

well as to Regional Federal Facility Coordinators, FFEO, and EPA Region 8 states.

The Region 9 Federal Facilities Coordinator worked with EPA program offices, the Navajo

Nation Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian

Affairs and Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation to identify environmental issues and roles

and responsibilities related to coal mining activities on Navajo and Hopi lands. During FY96, a

Superfund site investigation was conducted and an environmental justice grant awarded to a

stakeholder group to address some of these issues. Region 9 will continue to work with involved

parties during FY97.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-65 May 1997

3.6 Cross-cutting or Multimedia Initiatives

Cross-cutting or multimedia initiatives are those special projects or activities that do not target

specific areas, industry sectors, or media programs, but cut across all of these to ensure a better

protection of human health and the environment. Such projects or activities may consist of

policies, data systems, voluntary programs, training, or strategic planning. The following sections

describe some of these types of programs, specifically cross-cutting or multimedia

projects/highlights, federal activities, federal facility programs, criminal program, pollution

prevention, environmental justice, and compliance assistance.

3.6.1 Cross-cutting or Multimedia Projects/Highlights

Small Business Policy - On June 3, 1996, EPA issued the final version of its Policy on

Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses. Based on comments since publication of the interim

version, the policy was expanded to allow businesses to obtain the penalty relief not only by using

on-site compliance assistance, but also by conducting an environmental audit, promptly disclosing

and correcting the violations. The policy provides incentives for small businesses to seek

compliance assistance and to identify potential environmental problems.

Policy on Flexible State Responses to Small Community Violations - EPA’s Policy on Flexible

State Enforcement Responses to Small Community Violations was signed by Assistant

Administrator Steve Herman on November 22, 1995. The policy encourages establishment of

state small community environmental compliance assistance programs (SCECAPs) that provide

flexible enforcement responses to small communities making good faith efforts to comply with

environmental mandates. With the policy, EPA responded to these states’ expressed needs and

gave states an unprecedented degree of flexibility in responding to the environmental

noncompliance of municipalities while defining parameters of acceptable conduct that ensure

adequate protection of public health and the environment. Dangerous environmental problems

must be corrected immediately. Criminal violations must be prosecuted as always.

IDEA & IDEAWin - For the 5 years prior to FY1996, the Integrated Data for Enforcement

Analysis (IDEA) capability was a mainframe-only system that, due mostly to its’ inherent

complexity, had a limited user community of highly computer oriented individuals. In FY1996,

IDEA for Windows (IDEAWin) was placed into production. IDEAWin, a user-friendly,

Windows version of IDEA (with a rapid link to the mainframe within it) dramatically simplified

the use of the Agency’s powerful multimedia enforcement and compliance analytical capability. 

In its initial two and one-half months, 83 different HQ and regional users accessed IDEAWin and

performed 601 queries in which at least one IDEA report was requested. For reference, the

original mainframe IDEA, responded to 11,868 queries over the full fiscal year. However, a

casual telephone survey of regional expert users determined that most were likely to learn and

then use IDEAWin instead of mainframe IDEA. To assure rapid user support to the increasing

IDEA user community, DMB established an automated hotline for public access user support

with menu system containing information about IDEA and how to obtain public access. The
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-66

system includes a capability to fax fact sheets to the caller. This service, reached by calling 1-888-

EPA-IDEA supplements the existing user support hotline, which is staffed by three individuals (on

a rotating basis). 

The IDEA team also established and ran a public access pilot to determine public use and reaction

to IDEA. Developed a list of diverse set of organizations to be included in the pilot and made

arrangements for their participation. Provided guidance on how to access and use the system. As

a result of this pilot, arrangements were made with the National Technical Information Services

(NTIS), to provide mainframe registration and documentation to public users and with the

National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI) to provide user

documentation. To make the information about IDEA available to the largest group of people,

two approaches were used. Information about IDEA can now be obtained on the World Wide

Web (http://es.inel.gov/EPA/idea) and through the automated hotline (1-888-EPA-IDEA), which

provides fax-back capability. 

MERIT Partnership for Pollution Prevention - The MERIT Partnership for Pollution

Prevention is a voluntary and cooperative venture of the public and private sectors. The MERIT

Partnership produced a promotional video targeted at prospective partners (potential steering

committee members and community advisory panel members; industrial associations, companies,

governmental agencies, etc.), which helped gain Vice President Al Gore’s support for MERIT. 

Under MERIT’s ISO 14000 Project, the group was successful at bringing together the major

players in manufacturing, banking, insurance, environmental risk assessment, accounting and

auditing, and government to facilitate demonstration projects that will show how EMSs can be

strengthened and implemented in different industries to achieve both improved environmental

performance and economic competitiveness among businesses in the U.S. In the second half of

FY 1996, Merit began the new series of precedent-setting projects involving EMSs based on the

ISO 14001 standard. One of Merit’s EMS projects has already been nationally recognized as the

premiere effort in exploring financial incentives that may drive companies to develop strong

EMSs. This project focuses on the insurance benefits that companies may accrue as a result of

having ISO 14001 EMSs. 

Environmental Leadership Program - In FY96, the Environmental Leadership Program (ELP)

concluded a successful pilot program and began developing and preparing to implement a fullscale program. Twelve facilities participated in the pilot program; the lessons learned from the

pilot will form the basis for establishing the full-scale program, which will be implemented in

FY97 or 98. The ELP concluded its pilot program by sponsoring a two-day workshop to present

information on the pilot and discuss its plans for a full-scale program. During the workshop, pilot

facilities shared information on their projects and EPA shared information on its designs for a fullscale program. The workshop was attended by more than 100 people from all levels of

government, trade associations, and industry.

The ELP is a national initiative that provides recognition and certain other benefits to facilities

demonstrating strong commitments to continued compliance and “beyond compliance” efforts. 

To qualify for participation in the ELP, a facility must have a good record of complying with
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-67 May 1997

Contacting EPA’s

Compliance Assistance Centers

National Metal Finishing Resource Center

(http://www.nmfrc.org)

GreenLink: the Automotive Compliance

Information Assistance Center

(http://www.ccar-greenlink.org)

1-888-GRN-LINK (476-5465)

Printer’s National Compliance Assistance Center

(http://www.hazard.uiuc.edu/pneac/pneac.html)

National Agriculture Compliance Assistance

Center

(http://es.inel.gov/oeca/ag/aghmpg.html)

environmental laws, regulations, and permits. It must also demonstrate that it has an

environmental management system (EMS) that meets ELP requirements. These requirements

include having an auditing program and community outreach and employee involvement program,

and undertaking environmental enhancement activities. ELP is voluntary in that no facility is

required to participate, and any facility may choose to apply if it believes it has met the Program

requirements.

Through the ELP, EPA expects to better protect the environment and human health by promoting

a systematic approach to managing environmental issues and by encouraging environmental

enhancement activities. Another goal of the Program is increased identification and timely

resolution of environmental compliance issues. EPA expects that implementation of the full-scale

ELP will multiply compliance assistance efforts by engaging facilities as mentors and by

reallocating regulatory resources for inspections toward facilities that pose greater environmental

risks than those posed by ELP facilities. ELP was also developed with the intent of fostering

constructive and open relationships among agencies, the regulated community, and the public. 

Compliance Assistance Centers - During FY96, EPA established four compliance assistance

centers -- one each for the printing, automotive service and repair, metal finishing, and agriculture

sectors. The centers function as communication centers and serve sectors with large populations

of companies, particularly small companies. The ultimate goal of the centers is to provide small

businesses with an understanding of their specific environmental requirements and encourage

them to take appropriate steps to improve their compliance status.

Each center provides its services via the internet or through telephone and fax back/mail back

capabilities. To date, the centers have received significant interest from their various regulated

communities. For example, the National Metal Finishers Resource Center has 1,600 registered

users (48 percent are metal finishers). GreenLink, which is the auto service and repair center, has

received 322 telephone calls and fax-back

requests and nearly 100,000 visits to its website. 

Because of this high rate of interest, EPA is

developing four new compliance assistance

centers. These centers will assist chemical

manufacturers, municipal/local governments,

transportation, and printed wiring board

manufacturers. These new centers are targeted

to open in FY98.

Environmental Training - The National

Enforcement Training Institute’s statutory

mandate is to provide training for federal, state,

local and tribal environmental enforcement

personnel, including attorneys, inspectors,

technical staff and investigators. NETI and its

partners trained almost 4,700 environmental
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-68

enforcement professionals in fiscal year 1996. Providing training for state, local and tribal

personnel remained a strong focus of NETI’s efforts, as 2,512 students were trained from these

organizations. A total of 1,436 federal employees received training, and international students

numbered 739. Approximately 50 training courses were offered by NETI and its partners during

FY 96. The majority of courses taught were in the civil enforcement arena: 2,426 students were

trained in a variety of civil enforcement matters. Students taking courses in criminal enforcement

numbered 1,522.

National Enforcement Screening Strategy - Development of the National Enforcement

Screening Strategy continued during FY 1996. NESS is a program to conduct multimedia

analyses of companies with facilities in several regions to determine their compliance with

environmental requirements on a national basis. The program was developed by EPA, the

regional offices, and several states. The project began with a screening of over 300 companies

with potential compliance problems. The group was then refined into a smaller number of

companies for further analysis. The project continues on into FY 97, with specific activities being

conducted with respect to the target companies and planning continuing with the regions and

states on a new round of screening.

Revised Interim Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP) Policy - EPA continued to

collect information on the Revised Interim Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy and to

consult with regions and other offices on the applicability of this policy to specific cases. As a

result of this experience, action to put the policy into final form was initiated at the end of FY 96,

for completion in FY 97. Further, an Internet-based information site, the SEP National Data

Base, began development. This site, located on EPA’s Enviro$en$e web site, includes information

on previously performed SEPs. By “browsing” on parameters such as statute, violation,

pollutant, cost of the project and category of SEP, a defendant in an enforcement action or a

regulatory authority can receive a listing of projects, with technical details, appropriate to the

proposed settlement. Further, the data base includes model settlement language and applicable

guidance documents.

3.6.2 Federal Activities

EPA’s Office of Federal Activities (OFA) in OECA manages: 1) the Agency's responsibilities

under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air

Act, including administration of the EPA filing system for all federal environmental impact

statements (EISs), 2) the Agency’s internal responsibilities for the "cross-cutters" (e.g.,

Endangered Species Act [ESA], National Historic Preservation Act, and Executive Orders on

Wetlands and Floodplains), and 3) the Agency’s international enforcement and compliance

assurance program activities, including capacity building and cooperative international

enforcement activities.

NEPA Compliance - Since 1989, the number of EISs filed has steadily increased. In FY96, 571

EISs were filed (333 draft and 238 final). During FY96, EPA commented on 219 draft EISs and

159 final EISs. Of these, EPA identified significant problems in 30 draft EISs and environmental
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-69 May 1997

concerns in 123. EPA also referred one project to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

for resolution during this period.

Under the 309 Review Program, OFA has continued to work with agencies sponsoring projects to

improve the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process used, and to modify those projects

deemed to be environmentally unsatisfactory. Below are some of the targeted projects, grouped

by agency, that merited EPA’s continued efforts to ensure environmental accountability. (Note:

although not specifically mentioned, all of the projects listed herein involved close cooperation

with regional staff and leadership). 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC):

- Two dam re-licensing projects pitting issues of water quality versus hydropower

(Kingsley and North Platte/Keystone Diversion Dams, NE; Cushman Hydroelectric

Project, Skokomish River, WA).

- FERC’s proposed rule (open access rule) to increase competition in the electricity

market that could have led to significant increases in air pollution. In May 1996, the

Administrator formally referred the proposed rule to CEQ, leading to an agreement

with FERC on potential mitigation measures.

- Two new dam projects involving trade-offs among hydropower objectives vs. stream

and wetland impacts, water quality, aquatic resources, and wildlife (Basin Mills

Hydroelectric Project, Penobscot River, ME; Felts Mill Hydroelectric Project, NY).

U.S. Forest Service (FS):

- EPA worked to resolve environmental issues on three controversial mining proposals

on FS lands: Stibnite Mine Expansion (heap leach gold mining), East Fork South Fork

Salmon River, ID; Carlota Open-Pit Copper Mine Project, AZ; and New World Mine

(gold), near Yellowstone National Park, MT (a World Heritage Site). The mining

projects raised potential issues of ground and surface water contamination, aquatic life

and riparian habitat impacts, tailings stability, endangered species, habitat loss, and air

quality. EPA worked with the FS to resolve the issues and develop appropriate

mitigation. In the case of the highly controversial New World mine, EPA represented

the Agency in the Administration’s effort to strike an agreement with the proponent,

Toronto-based Crown Butte, that stopped the proposed New World Mine. 

- Salvage Timber Sales. Following enactment of PL 104-19 (the Rescissions Act and

Salvage Rider) and President Clinton's Memorandum to Implement the TimberRelated Provisions of the Act, OFA represented EPA in the inter-Agency deliberations

on timber salvage activities. OFA also participated on the policy workgroup, and as a

technical representative on the interagency workgroup that reviewed the national

timber salvage program in the northwest and southeast.

Bureau of Reclamation: In April 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation issued a final

supplement to its 1990 final EIS on the controversial Animas-La Plata Irrigation Project,
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-70

CO. EPA’s environmental concerns were not resolved by the final supplement. The

Agency continues to pursue resolution of the environmental issues through participation in

a public forum, led by Governor Romer of Colorado, to explore alternatives to the

proposed project.

Corps of Engineers (COE):

- EPA identified significant environmental issues including wetland and habitat loss from

proposed construction of two controversial water supply projects (City of Marion

Water Supply Project, IL; Regional Raw Water Supply Plan, Lower Virginia

Peninsula). EPA negotiated successful resolution of its concerns over the City of

Marion project, and continues to work for resolution of the Virginia project. 

- The COE's draft EIS addressed proposed revisions to the Missouri River Master

Water Control Manual, the basic water control plan and objectives for the operation of

the mainstream reservoirs. The EIS did not address continuing degradation of the

Missouri River ecosystem, likely jeopardy to three federally listed endangered species,

nor adequately examine alternatives. EPA continues to discuss resolution of the issues

with COE.

- The COE's draft EIS for the American River Watershed Project-Auburn Detention

Dam Plan, CA, examined American River flood control measures, including a flood

detention dam to be constructed at Auburn, with potential for impacts on water

quality, air quality, the canyon ecosystem and associated recreational resources. EPA

was able to reach an agreement with the COE that it would not to go forward with the

detention dam alternative at this time.

- The COE proposed to reissue its CWA Nationwide Permits (NWPs). EPA's review of

the proposal revealed deficiencies including, in particular, lack of environmental

documentation for the NWP proposal. EPA worked with the COE to develop a

proposal meeting the requirements of the CWA and NEPA. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):

- EPA and the regions continued to work with the FHWA to improve its analyses of

potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to wetlands and habitat and to

decrease the number of segmented projects. Specific significant projects included: 

Route 125 South, CA; Wilmington Bypass, NC; US Highway 12, WI (involving 

potential impacts to the Baraboo Hills, a National Natural Landmark); and the South

Lawrence Trafficway, Lawrence, KS (also involving environmental justice issues). 

EPA's NEPA Compliance Policy - EPA is required to comply with the procedural requirements

of NEPA for its research and development activities, facilities construction, wastewater treatment

construction grants, and EPA-issued NPDES permits for new sources, and is considered to be

"functionally equivalent" to the procedural requirements of NEPA for its other activities. Among

its responsibilities in this area, EPA: continued to ensure Agency compliance with cross-cutting

environmental laws; prepared draft preliminary guidance for adding environmental justice to
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-71 May 1997

EPA's NEPA compliance process and released it for public comment; and worked closely with

OW, OGC and the regions to develop guidance for NEPA compliance for grants for 20

wastewater projects directed under the FY96 Appropriations Act. 

International Enforcement and Compliance - OECA continued to manage the Agency’s

international enforcement and compliance assurance program activities, including capacity

building and cooperative enforcement and compliance assurance activities in the international

arena.

Developed enforcement and compliance assurance plans for Border XXI, a comprehensive

binational plan that will guide government action, infrastructure development and

industrial growth in the border area. Our contribution focused on cooperative targeted

enforcement initiatives, aggressive inspection programs on both sides of the border,

networks of state, local and federal agencies, compliance monitoring, and promotion of

pollution prevention and voluntary compliance.

Supported task forces in the Attorney General offices of Texas and New Mexico to utilize

state and local enforcement authorities against developers of colonias on the U.S. side of

the border with Mexico. Colonias are unplanned communities in which developers often

sell or lease land to economically disadvantaged minority members without providing basic

water and sewer services.

In cooperation with Regions 6 and 9 and other offices, developed and implemented the

1996 workplan for the U. S./Mexico Cooperative Enforcement Workgroup, which calls

for building interagency cooperation on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border and among

all agencies involved in environmental enforcement, such as training for U.S. and Mexican

Customs in transboundary hazardous waste and CFC shipment compliance monitoring

along the border.

In connection with case development on the Mexican Border, EPA worked: 1) to develop

complex targeting methodologies and to supplement HAZTRAKS with industry data; 2)

with Mexican authorities in the Chihuahua area, to target follow up on suspected violators

regarding wastes abandoned in Mexico; 3) in the Sea-Soil case (involving sale by a U.S.

company of a fertilizer the salinity of which compromised the drinking water on several

ranches in Mexico), with Region 9 and Cal-EPA to develop an enforcement response; 4)

to provide state grants to assist with environmental enforcement to benefit colonias; 5) to

assist communications in maquiladora audit-disclosure cases; 6) to promote use of SEPS;

and 7) to provide counsel generally regarding proposed transboundary enforcement

initiatives. 

In cooperation with the regions and other offices, EPA developed and implemented the

1996 Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s work plan calling for cooperation

among the U.S., Mexico and Canada in environmental enforcement and compliance. 

Partnership-building activities have included: working toward a common approach for
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-72

voluntary EMSs companies are expected to adopt under ISO 14000; developing a

continent-wide waste tracking system to improve enforcement and compliance of

requirements controlling hazardous wastes; improving enforcement of CFC requirements

under the Montreal Protocol; and promoting voluntary compliance.

On behalf of EPA and in partnership with the Netherlands' Ministry of Housing, Spatial

Planning and the Environment, OFA planned and conducted the Fourth International

Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in Chiang Mai, Thailand; 200

governmental and non-governmental participants from 100 countries and international

organizations attended. Associated OFA accomplishments included: commitments from

participants to form six regional environmental enforcement networks; Conference

Proceedings contributions from over 55 countries and international organizations; five

new capacity building support documents printed and distributed for comment which

provide comparative hands-on information on source self monitoring requirements,

multimedia inspection protocols, and transboundary shipments of potentially hazardous

(waste, pesticides and ozone depleting) substances, and, in partnership with the Dutch,

documents financing environmental permit, compliance monitoring and enforcement

programs; communication strategies for enforcement; and organizing programs an Internet

homepage for all conference-related material.

EPA provided support for the successful effort required to develop and enact the

Antarctic Environmental Protection Act. In anticipation of an EPA rulemaking and

associated EIA for tourism activities in Antarctica, OFA has supported a study that

provides data on the 46 sites most heavily visited in Antarctica.

Capacity building:

- EIA Outreach: OFA delivered training in the Principles of Environmental Impact

Assessment to four more countries (Russia, Hungary, India and Ukraine). Hand-off

was completed for Hungary and Ukraine. In addition, OFA provided technical

assistance and information on EIA policies and procedures to representatives from

France, Australia, Korea, India, Japan, the Newly Independent States, and China.

- Principles of Environmental Enforcement and Compliance. This 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 (the 1992 Earth

Summit in Rio de Janeiro), including the commitment to develop institutions and

capacity for effective environmental enforcement. During FY96, OFA presented the

course in one- or three-day versions in Belize, El Salvador, Malaysia (2 deliveries),

and Thailand; in the Washington area, the course was delivered to South Africa, the

World Bank, and as a training session to forty potential EPA facilitators.

3.6.3 Pollution Prevention

In FY96 Region 1 established a new, multimedia organization that places compliance and

pollution prevention within a single office, the Office of Environmental Stewardship (OES). As
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-73 May 1997

part of the new organization, Region 1 built an unprecedented multimedia Office of Assistance

and Pollution Prevention that has introduced and expanded upon a number of initiatives. In this

way, all assistance efforts of the region incorporate pollution prevention objectives.

Region 2 negotiated several SEPs in FY96 that resulted in significant pollution prevention. For

example, the RCRA program negotiated eight SEPs that will result in environmental

improvements, including:

Proper management and recycling of 144,000 gallons of used oil at one facility and the

implementation of a used oil characterization program for one million gallons per year at

another

Safe management of 10,000 gallons of lead paint waste that was being improperly

disposed

Safe management of 8,000 gallons of hazardous waste that had been abandoned

Elimination of 100 pounds per month of volatile hazardous waste that had been previously

released into the atmosphere

Cleanup of 268 cubic yards of lead contaminated soil at a foundry, of which 30 cubic

yards have already been removed.

In addition, the Region 2 TSCA program has continued to actively promote pollution prevention

through its use of SEPs. TSCA settlements in FY96 incorporated numerous SEPs, as well as

injunctive relief, which has resulted in the following types of environmental improvements beyond

compliance:

Total of 31 PCB transformers containing 7,265 gallons of PCB contaminated liquids, were

removed from active use and properly disposed eliminating risk of fire, spills or exposure

The Coast Guard has agreed to notify all their facilities nationwide of the requirements for

proper handling of CFC's, during servicing & disposal of Coast Guard's air conditioning &

refrigeration equipment

School buildings in at least five school districts in environmental justice areas of Long

Island were cleared of aged hazardous chemicals that had accumulated in classrooms and

laboratory storage areas, thereby reducing risk to students & faculty

Day care centers at five locations in New York have been tested for lead and have

successfully undergone lead abatement and/or encapsulation of lead in paint and

playground soils to meet federal standards.

Region 4 produced two videos on the subjects of pollution prevention and field citations

respectively. The videos were viewed at the annual EPA/state/local enforcement workshop in lieu
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-74

of sending personnel. This was a flexible, innovative method to accomplish EPA's mission during

the budget constraints era.

Region 6, in partnership with the U.S./Mexico Pollution Prevention Workgroup, produced and

distributed the third in a series of bilingual pollution prevention industry specific manuals. The

bilingual Pollution Prevention in the Electronics Industry manual was reviewed extensively by the

Workgroup members, finalized and distributed to maquiladoras, Universities, Chambers of

Commerce and through the Workgroup contacts. A fourth manual, Pollution Prevention in the

Textile Industry, had also been extensively reviewed by the Workgroup members, and will be

published by March 1997. 

Region 6 developed the pollution prevention portions of the Border XXI Framework Document,

which codifies how the United States and Mexico will coordinate environmental management

issues into the next century. The region also awarded six cooperative agreements under the

Pollution Prevention Incentives for states grant program, two special cooperative agreements

under the set aside grant program, and two grants to support the activities of the US/Mexico

Pollution Prevention Work Group under the regional geographic initiatives and Office of

International Activities grant programs.

Region 7 incorporated various pollution prevention SEPs into its administrative penalty

settlements. The SEPs represented expenditures by the respondents of almost $2,250,000. One

facility alone will reduce toluene usage at their facility by approximately 90 percent and will

achieve a reduction of EPCRA section 313 chemicals to below the 10,000 pounds per year

threshold level to meet the TRI requirements. 

Region 7 presented 11 Pollution Prevention Environmental Excellence Awards to environmental,

community and nonprofit organizations; large and small business, industry, trade and professional

organizations; and federal, state and local governments. These organizations sponsored a wide

variety of projects ranging from education, communication, technology transfer, and cooperative

geographic efforts to innovative incentives that prevent pollution. The annual awards program

recognizes environmental excellence through pollution prevention.

Region 7 staff initiated a multimedia pollution prevention pilot project to identify commercial

grain storage sites that could contaminate drinking water supplies. Review of the available data

indicate that the groundwater near 107 grain storage sites operated by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) have been contaminated by carbon tetrachloride, a commonly used grain

fumigant. This pilot project targets commercial grain storage facilities with the potential to

contaminate drinking water based on the region’s experience with USDA sites, to determine

whether groundwater contamination is present, and to work with the facilities to identify and take

steps to protect any threatened public water systems. 

During FY96 the procedure of having RCRA inspectors provide pollution prevention handouts

during their regular compliance inspections was expanded to include air and water inspections. 

Region 7 staff have established a records system that includes industry-specific pollution
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-75 May 1997

During FY96, MERIT program in Region 9 completed

the reverse osmosis applications for anodizing

operations project at DANCO Metal Surfacing and

Anodizing of Ontario, California which implemented and

evaluated a reverse osmosis (RO) technology. 

Installation of the RO unit resulted in the recycling to the

process bath concentrated black dye and nickel acetate

solutions, recycling clean water back to the rinse tank,

and eliminating the discharge to the POTW. Results

from the project indicated the RO units have (1) reduced

water use and waste water generation by 60,000 gallons

per month and (2) reduced black dye usage by 11.5

pounds per month. Consequently, the trivalent

chromium present in the black dye and the nickel present

in the nickel acetate have been eliminated as pollutants

discharged to the POTW. The payback period was

approximately 2 years.

prevention material. This allows inspectors to provide pollution prevention information specific

to a particular industry during each inspection.

Region 9 presented the first Regional Pollution Prevention Awards to four companies for their 

longstanding commitment to pollution prevention. EPA recognized:

IBM Corporation's Storage Systems Division in San Jose, California, for its aggressive

pollution prevention program that has shown impressive environmental benefits over the

past decade as well as economic savings of $7.3 million since 1991.

Larry's AutoWorks of Mountain View, California, for its continuing pollution prevention

efforts and its leadership and initiative in advancing pollution prevention practices in the

automotive repair industry.

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space of Sunnyvale, California, for its continuing

dedication to pollution prevention, including its comprehensive staff and management

participation which reduced the facility’s Toxic Release Inventory emissions from 241,900

pounds to 12,200 pounds (95 percent) since 1990.

The Monsanto Company's Avon plant in Martinez, California, for its history of continuous

improvement of environmental management systems. The plant reduced air emissions 75

percent since 1982, despite a 91 percent increase in annual production. Further, the plant

achieved a 16-fold reduction in potential employee exposure to catalyst dust, eliminating

the need for respirators. The cost for Monsanto's improvements was $40,000 with an

annual savings of $77,000.

In Region 9, the MERIT Partnership for

Pollution Prevention has conducted projects

with the metal finishing and industrial laundry

industries. The metal finishing work 

involves the implementation of pollution

projects at small and medium-sized metal

finishing facilities in southern California. The

projects include technical and financial

support to participating facilities to implement

and evaluate pollution prevention techniques

and technologies for targeted metal finishing

processes. The industrial laundry work

focused on assessing the effectiveness of

various pollution prevention measures in a

small industrial laundry and in some of the

small businesses that are customers of the

laundry. Activities completed in the second half of FY96 include one pollution prevention

component that involved the development and implementation of best management practices
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-76

(BMPs). This included training of the laundry personnel to implement BMPs. In addition, the

design of an in-process recycling and treatment system was completed.

Region 9 has partnered with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, DOE Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory, the City of Phoenix, and the Phoenix Chapter of the American

Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society to provide pollution prevention technology transfer

to Arizona metal finishers. In late 1995, the project selected three volunteer demonstration

facilities in South Phoenix, an environmental justice community, to receive pollution prevention

opportunity assessments. The lessons learned from these three local facilities are now being used

in a series of twelve in-depth technical workshops for other area metal finishers to prove to them

the benefits of implementing pollution prevention.

3.6.4 Environmental Justice

Despite conflicting views as to the cause, there continues to exist a wealth of evidence that

residents in communities of color and poor people bear a disproportionate burden of exposure to

pesticides and other environmental hazards. Environmental justice is about raising awareness to

the issues, trying to achieve fairness in environmental policy and trying to impact how

environmental policy decisions are made. This section summarizes selected environmental justice

accomplishments in headquarters and in the regions.

The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a federal advisory committee

established in September 1993 to provide independent advice, consultation and recommendations

to the EPA Administrator on matters related to environmental justice. It is a unique and effective

means of identifying and addressing environmental justice problems in a comprehensive manner. 

The following examples highlight some of the NEJAC’s activities in FY96:

A Model Plan for Public Participation was developed by the Public Participation and

Accountability Subcommittee of the NEJAC. The plan encourages public participation in

all aspects of environmental decision and stresses several keys to building successful

partnerships: interaction and community participation are essential and maintaining

honesty and integrity in the process and articulating goals, expectations, and limitations. 

EPA has used the plan in its public meetings with excellent results.

The NEJAC/OSWER National Relocation Pilot came about as a result of public

comments provided at a NEJAC council meeting and a NEJAC public roundtable on

relocation. Public meetings were held with the community in Pensacola, Florida to ensure

that relocation was in the best interest of the 358 residents in this predominantly African

American community living adjacent to two contaminated Superfund sites. The relocation

will cost approximately $25 million and the site will be cleaned up, redeveloped and

rezoned by the city for non-residential use. The Pensacola Relocation Pilot will serve as a

national model and has wide ranging implications for the Agency’s policy on relocation.

In FY96, the Agency awarded $3 million in Office of Environmental Justice Small Grants

to 152 organizations across the nation to address such issues as childhood lead poisoning,
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-77 May 1997

pollution prevention and sustainable development. These small grants were awarded

through the regional offices.

The Community/University Partnership is in its third year and has allotted over $4 million 

to awardees addressing environmental justice issues. Such grants help community groups

efficiently address local environmental justice issues through active partnership with

institutions of higher education. This year the office awarded an estimated $2 million in

grants, with a maximum grant award of $250,000. 

The National Enforcement Training Institute and the Office of Environmental Justice

(OEJ) developed an environmental justice training program for enforcement personnel. 

The course provides an overview of environmental justice, beginning with the history of

pollution and examines the impact the environmental justice movement has had on society

in general and on enforcement and compliance activities in particular. The objectives of

the course are to raise awareness of the environmental justice issue and provide the

student with knowledge of what constitutes an environmental justice enforcement issue.

At the regional level, there were also significant accomplishments in environmental justice. The

following are examples of such accomplishments:

Region 1 created a cross-cutting Urban Environments Team to coordinate compliance and

pollution prevention actions in support of the region's comprehensive strategy for its

Urban Environment Initiative. The Urban Team targets activities within urban

communities for which environmental justice is a primary consideration, and for these

areas coordinates planning across media enforcement programs and our Office of

Assistance and Pollution Prevention. 

In August 1992, within Region 2, the Comite De Apoye a Los Trabajadores Agricolas

(CATA)- Farmworkers Support Committee, tested water wells serving 51 camps in four

counties in New Jersey and found that 33 percent had exceedances of nitrate standards. 

Based on these results, CATA applied for and received an EPA environmental justice

grant to repeat and expand the monitoring. Similar results were reported to EPA in

February 1996. As a result, EPA has taken action to ensure the water supply in these

camps is tested on a more frequent basis and that contamination problems are resolved. 

By the end of FY96:

- 30 of the 100 migrant worker camps were determined by the appropriate state

agency to meet the definition for public water supply under the SDWA. As such,

these camps have been added to the states PWS inventory and are subject to

SDWA monitoring.

- Region 2 is monitoring compliance of the newly inventoried water systems and

performing data audits of state and local agencies that oversee the camps. Where

compliance is not maintained and the state fails to take action, Region 2 will issue

enforcement actions.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-78

In Region 3, the Baltimore Urban Environmental Initiative includes a Childhood Lead

Poisoning Prevention Program, aimed at providing families who live in high-risk housing,

with at-risk children, with materials and techniques needed for cleaning their homes to

reduce lead-bearing dust. Over 1,300 lead-dust cleaning kits have been distributed to

families in targeted areas around Baltimore City. The Baltimore City Health Department

trains families to use the Lead-dust cleaning kits, provides lead education, and produces

lead awareness videos.

In Region 3, the City of Chester has the highest concentration of industrial facilities in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It has the highest infant mortality rate coupled with the

lowest birth rate in the state, the highest death rate due to malignant tumors, the highest

percentage of African-Americans of any municipality in the state, and is the poorest

community in Delaware County. The Chester Risk Assessment Project was part of an

initiative by Region 3 and agencies of the Commonwealth to study environmental health

risks. Findings include: 1) blood lead in Chester children is unacceptably high, 2) both

cancer and non-cancer risks from the pollution sources at locations in the city of Chester

exceed EPA acceptable levels, 3) air emissions from facilities in and around Chester

contribute to cancer risk to the citizens of Chester, and 4) health risks from eating

contaminated fish from streams in Chester and the Delaware River are unacceptably high. 

The Chester Implementation Workgroup, comprised of people from different federal,

state, county or city agencies or departments, and citizens groups address health and

quality of life issues. The first area to be addressed is the reduction of children’s blood

lead levels. Public awareness efforts have begun, testing and a comprehensive health

study is being planned and potential abatement/mitigation actions are being developed

along with location funding mechanisms to implement these clean up efforts.

Region 3’s Drinking Water/Ground Water Protection Branch of the Water Protection

Division completed a project with Edison High School, Philadelphia. EPA helped

students restore and maintain an on-site school pond which had fallen into disarray. The

student body is mostly Hispanic and African-American and the school is located in a

blighted section of the city. This pond was created by the students/faculty and served as a

resource for biology classes.

Region 3 has a Cooperative Agreement with the Johns Hopkins University School of

Hygiene and Public Health to conduct an environmental and health characterization of

south/southwest Philadelphia. The purpose of the study is to determine the state of the

environment using existing data bases and to develop a health profile of the community. 

The region participates on the Environmental Implementation Team (EIT), which reviews

the progress of the study. Johns Hopkins will conduct educational seminars to provide the

community with a background that will allow them to review the report and understand its

findings.

Region 3 launched the Anacostia Ecosystem Initiative to help address interstate

environmental issues in the Anacostia River watershed (MD and DC) and the minority

areas of the District, known as the Anacostia neighborhood. This project includes
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-79 May 1997

watershed restoration, multimedia risk reduction, and public education and awareness.

The project has had a profound impact on the community and in offering EPA services to

the community in a coordinated and targeted fashion. Regular community meetings have

been held to keep the public informed of EPA activities. The project has resulted in several

firsts for the region, including a full-time community liaison. In addition, EPA was

instrumental in getting public fish consumption advisories strengthened and new signs

posted along the River, conducting Clean Water Act enforcement actions to stem major

waste oil spills into Hickey Run. A comprehensive hazardous Waste Site Assessment

activity has been undertaken to respond to significant community concerns to address

historical dumping activities in the community and related to Anacostia River pollution.

In FY 96, Region 4 conducted an environmental justice investigation at the Pineview

Sanitary Landfill/Yerkwood Community. The investigation was requested by the Region

4 Water Management Division in support of the environmental justice program and in

response to environmental concerns from the Yerkwood Community about the Pineview

Sanitary Landfill. The region found that two creeks that traverse the Yerkwood

community were polluted and identified some of the sources impacting the creeks. In

addition, it was determined that the NPDES permit requirement to sample the landfill

outfalls following a 0.1 inch rainfall event may not provide representative samples of storm

water discharges, and that the semi-annual sampling frequency for the outfalls may not

provide sufficient information for decision making.

Region 4’s Air and EPCRA Enforcement Branch along with the Alabama Department of

Environmental Management pursued a community-based protection approach to address

complaints of air pollution originating from various sources (e.g., area sandblasting,

painting of boats, and open burning of laminants from wood furniture manufactures.)

received from citizens living in and around Mobile, Alabama. The Office of

Environmental Justice awarded a grant of $150,000 to Tuskegee University, an

historically black university, to survey the community and design an educational outreach

program for the community that will educate them on environmental processes such as

regulatory development, permitting, and enforcement.

Region 5 sponsored a conference on community involvement in the enforcement process

on June 27, 1996, in conjunction with Chicago-Kent College of Law that brought together

public interest attorneys, community representative, and EPA. The conference focused on

the issues of identifying the community, community involvement in enforcement targeting;

and community involvement in settlement negotiations. Important issues and suggestions

were raised and discussed, yielding a few general themes. Community skepticism toward

the Agency needs to be addressed by trust-building efforts, notably establishment and care

of better informational networks available to communities. Via Internet and other means,

EPA needs to improve communication of information on specific cases and educate the

public about the enforcement process.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-80

Region 6 awarded 16 environmental justice grants totaling $300,000 for activities in

Region 6 environmental justice communities. These grant projects serve as vehicles for

community outreach and support of environmental justice initiatives. 

The Region 6 environmental justice workgroup recently completed work to draft a

regional environmental justice strategy implementation process. Included in the strategy is

the development of a more-defined structure and implementation protocol for the regional

environmental justice program, internal environmental justice training and grant-writing

training for communities. 

Utilizing the regional GIS, Region 7 overlaid media-specific facility information such as

location of RCRA facilities, RCRA large quantity generators, Superfund sites, USTs, air

emission sources, and TRI releases in the St. Louis area with pertinent socioeconomic

information obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. Based on this information FY97

multimedia inspection targets have been identified in areas of environmental justice

concern.

A principal Region 8 environmental justice activity was conducting multimedia

inspections/ compliance assistance at two major Tribally owned and operated businesses in

North Dakota (Sioux Manufacturing Company, and Turtle Mountain Manufacturing

Company). Based on information in our data systems, these two companies are the largest

employers on Tribal lands in Region 8, excluding casino operations. They each employ

over 100 people and have multimedia environmental concerns.

Region 8 developed an environmental justice applications GIS model to address the need

to respond quickly to requests for site-specific information about environmental justice

concerns. The model is available on the computers of Region 8 staff and permits anyone

to identify quickly the demographics of a site and to map other permitted facilities in the

area. The model prints a map showing the site and the location of nearby permitted

facilities as well as demographic information. In addition, it creates a report listing

demographic data and the names of permitted facilities that are shown on the map.

Region 8 developed environmental justice protocols for inspection targeting, which relies

on readily available information in the regional GIS system to rank all facilities in a given

sector using specific environmental justice criteria. These criteria include demographics

(low income data and minority data) and a surrogate factor for potential disproportionate

risk (number of TRI facilities within a one-mile radius). 

Region 8 has integrated environmental justice concerns into the NEPA process through

having environmental justice staff coordinate with regional NEPA staff, national NEPA

training efforts, and national NEPA guidance initiatives. For example, for the ZortmanLandusky EIS for the expansion of a mine and heap leach facility adjacent to the Fort

Belknap Reservation in Montana, staff provided comments that identified environmental

justice considerations that needed to be addressed in the NEPA process. These
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-81 May 1997

considerations included treaty issues and cultural and religious use of resources that may

be impacted by the mine expansion.

Region 9 conducted an environmental justice pilot projects in West Oakland and

Watsonville as part of the region’s environmental justice assessment project. These

projects seek to identify minority and/or low-income communities with numerous existing

or potential environmental hazards, identify options for addressing the most significant

environmental problems in these communities, and begin to address the problems through

EPA action and the involvement of other agencies with jurisdiction. 

3.6.5 Compliance Assistance

Over the past 2 years, since its reorganization, one of OECA’s new responsibilities is fostering

compliance among the regulated community. The Agency uses several tools to help meet these

responsibilities. Discussed below are some of the activities undertaken during the last fiscal year

that promoted and encouraged compliance assistance in the regulated community. Additionally,

many of the sector-based and media-specific sections of the report include discussions of

compliance assistance efforts.

Region 1’s Assistance and Pollution Prevention Unit provided technical assistance in many

different forms. The region handled more than 7,000 requests for assistance, sponsored

over 80 workshops and training sessions, visited over 150 businesses and municipalities,

developed compliance manuals, organized innovative technology demonstration projects,

and provided nearly $1 million in grants for assistance and pollution prevention projects. 

Noteworthy achievements in FY96 include:

- Launching the New England Environmental Leadership Program and StarTrack thirdparty certification pilot

- Establishing the CLEAN program pollution prevention and compliance audits for small

metal finishing businesses in New Hampshire and Maine.

Region 1 focused its compliance and pollution prevention assistance work on sectors that

had a history of compliance problems, had assistance needs unmet by other sources, had

the potential to improve significantly with information on compliance and pollution

prevention, were willing to work with EPA, and were not enforcement targets. The

region targeted: metal plating and finishing (SICs 3471 and 3479), electronics (SICs 3672

and SIC 3674), printing (SICs 2711-2789), auto repair (SICs 753 and 754; also, 554) and

municipalities. Three of these sectors were also CSI priorities. Combined, these include

over 75,000 entities. 

In Region 1, assistance and pollution prevention staff were involved in 53 on-site

assistance visits during FY 1996. Of the 53 visits, 21 visits provided technical and

compliance assistance to wastewater treatment plants, 6 provided technical and

compliance assistance to LEPCs and SERCs, and one visit was part of the CLEAN

program described below. The remaining 25 assistance visits included 10 audits of
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-82

More than 70 industry representatives attended Region

1's Metal Finishing 2000 workshop in Portsmouth, NH. 

Northeast Utilities, NH Department of Environmental

Services, and Maine Metal Products Association cosponsored this compliance and pollution prevention

education event. Participants rated the workshop high,

especially the technology demonstrations provided by

vendors and EPA's presentation on energy savings.

Region 2 found that small businesses along with civilian

federal agencies (CFAs) have lower compliance rates

than larger companies and DOD and DOE facilities

because of their general lack of resources and expertise

with environmental compliance. The region decided to

conduct a networking campaign to ensure inclusion of

small businesses and CFA’s on its mailing lists for

outreach events. It also partnered with other agencies on

providing seminars targeted to these groups to help

promote compliance. 

environmental management system as part as the StarTrack, ELP, and Federal Facilities

programs, 8 visits to provide technical assistance in EPCRA, 6 visits to conduct chemical

safety of accident investigations under EPCRA, and one visit to provide technical

assistance regarding the reuse of materials in a closing operation.

Region 2 established the Compliance

Assistance and Program Support

Branch within the Division of

Enforcement and Compliance

Assistance to serve as the focal point

for delivering multimedia compliance

assistance and facilitating technology

transfer to the regulated community,

the public, states and other local

partners. This new branch coordinates with Region 2’s inspectors and local partners upfront to ensure more efficient targeting and effective delivery of outreach.

Region 2 teamed with local partners to offer workshops designed for priority sectors (e.g.,

dry cleaners) and Federal Facilities. Multimedia seminars for industry-wide audiences

were also held - these provided “one

stop” overviews of EPA’s new

regulations, policy updates and

innovative approaches. Single media

compliance assistance information

packets and seminar invitations were

mailed to facilities potentially impacted

by new regulations (e.g., RCRA Air

Emission and UST rules). 

Region 2 held three multimedia

seminars to provide businesses across

industry sectors with regulatory/policy updates on 7 EPA programs. 1,149 New Jersey

and 1,200 New York companies were invited; 263 attended. These seminars resulted in

an increased awareness of regulatory requirements and contacts for assistance. All

participants requested EPA to conduct more multimedia seminars. Fifty RCRA technical

assistance manuals (i.e., TC, LDR and waste minimization) were requested and distributed

to industry as follow-up to the multimedia seminars. 

Region 2 conducted TRI outreach by mailing 1,600 facilities the latest changes to the

regulations, holding 9 seminars attended by 600 facility representatives, conducting 3

multimedia seminars with over 150 facility representatives, supporting 4 NJDEP seminars

attended by 200 facility representatives, and making 8 presentations concerning the

recently effective Section 1018 Disclosure Regulations (4 were for the new regulated

communities and 4 were for other government agencies). A total of 1,100 people were

trained.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-83 May 1997

Region 2 hosted two Common Sense Initiative meetings in New York City whereby local

stakeholders agreed to learn, and in turn, educate small printers within their communities

on how to incorporate pollution prevention into business practices. The community

developed a technical directory for compliance and pollution prevention. This project

could serve as a national model for outreach to printers and their communities and could

impact nearly 2,500 printers in New York City.

Region 2 also: 1) cosponsored with New Jersey 5 workshops reaching approximately 350

mostly small businesses on complying with the 1988 UST upgrade requirements, 2)

conducted 2 seminars for small businesses on stormwater permitting, 3) conducted a

seminar in New York in partnership with Research Triangle Park and EPA headquarters

on the new RCRA Subpart CC Air Emissions Rule, and 4) made 5 presentations at

industry seminars on EPA internet resources for providing compliance assistance.

Region 3’s CWA 104(g) Operator Outreach Program provides free onsite technical

assistance to small communities having problems complying with their NPDES permit. A

part-time or full-time onsite trainer is assigned to a community and helps evaluate

problems and develop a remedial work plan. Trainers work with the community, the

operator, and authority members to achieve compliance. Assistance is provided in areas

such as process control, maintenance management, laboratory procedures, sludge

treatment and disposal, financial management, safety, energy efficiency, and right-to know

compliance. Innovative tools being used in this program include on-site computers with

special software, video tapes for lab procedures, a handbook to accompany these videos,

and a handbook for local officials is also being prepared.

Region 4’s compliance assistance highlights range from general compliance assistance

activities to efforts targeted at specific high priority sectors. For example, North

Carolina's RCRA program reported over 1450 man-hours of on and off-site technical

assistance to industries in the state. Thirty-one percent of these hours were waste

minimization technical assistance. 

Region 4 examples of targeted efforts included dry cleaners and chrome electroplaters. 

These two industries were targeted for major compliance assistance efforts in Florida and

Georgia due to new NESHAPs aimed at reducing inhalation risks to the public and

workers. These initiatives were highly successful in educating industry to enhance

compliance, evoke changes in behavior, and either have or are expected to result in

increases in sector compliance rates. Georgia reported an 81 percent compliance rate for

chrome electroplaters with the new air toxics NESHAP. Florida reported 64 percent of

dry cleaners targeted this year entered the regulatory system via notification as a result of

on-site compliance assistance. However, while most states report a significant amount of

activity, reporting of results such as the above was very limited.

Region 5’s Pretreatment Team provides both informal and more formalized assistance to

members of state and local governments, regulated industries and their consultants to
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-84

improve understanding and compliance with the requirements of the National Pretreatment

Program. In FY96, formal assistance included working with approximately 20 POTWs to

upgrade their legal authority, enforcement procedures, and/or local limits to improve their

programs and make them consistent with current federal limits. Onsite assistance was

provided during the course of two pretreatment audits and three pretreatment compliance

inspections; offsite assistance was provided to a POTW in bringing a centralized waste

treater under control. Team members also participated in three national meetings for

those involved in the pretreatment program. More than 500 people attended. Team

members also contributed to five workshops and meetings reaching statewide or

geographic area audiences.

Region 5 conducted workshops for more than 900 violators of the SDWA nitrate

monitoring requirements. Since the workshops, 780 systems have voluntarily returned to

compliance; the remaining 120 are receiving federal followup. It is anticipated that at least

30 of the 120 remaining systems will return to compliance via other methods of

compliance assistance.

Under the Region 5 RCRA program, the direct implementation program completed

assistance to tribes applying for monitoring waivers and was able to approve waivers that

saved the tribes more than $1 million in monitoring costs. Similarly, the Region 5 states

implemented waiver programs that also significantly reduced monitoring costs for

regulated public water systems.

Region 8 conducted compliance assistance as part of the asbestos awareness training,

implementing EPCRA 313 TRI provisions for federal facilities, auto service/ RCRA

compliance assistance, and the agriculture sector chemical safety initiative.

Region 9 organized a highly successful roundtable on regulatory reform involving over a

dozen small business representatives from the San Francisco Bay Area. The dialogue

resulted in several useful recommendations for the Agency and strengthened the region’s

communication with the local business community and the Small Business Administration.

In FY 1996, Region 9 developed strategies for identifying its priority activities and

outcomes for small business assistance in two related areas: 1) assisting small businesses in

complying with environmental regulations, and 2) providing small and disadvantaged

businesses greater access to government procurement opportunities. These strategies will

be implemented in FY 1997. Interviews and internal focus groups will be used to evaluate

current programs and identify ways to better coordinate assistance and outreach.

EPA issued a document that provides a list of EPA statutory and regulatory provisions

that may affect agricultural commodity producers. The document also provides a partial

list of EPA publications associated with the various legal provisions that allows interested

persons to obtain additional information about specific requirements. There is also a list

of direct sources of assistance (e.g., hotlines). 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-85 May 1997

EPA issued a set of 17 new questions and answers interpreting the Worker Protection

Standards. The question and answers are additions to a larger document developed in

prior years and accessible to the regulated community and federal and state regulators. 

The division also substantially completed an inspectors’ pocket guide to the standard,

which will also be available to the regulated community when published in FY 97.

EPA produced the Multimedia Compliance/Pollution Prevention Assessment Guidance for

Lithographic Printing Facilities. This guidance helps regions and states determine the

compliance status of printing facilities and identify ways to bring them into compliance and

go beyond compliance. This document can be provided to the printing community for

conducting self-assessments/self-audits and can be valuable in assisting printers to develop

methods to incorporate pollution prevention into their everyday practices. 

OECA’s Chemical Industry Branch completed the EPA/CMA Section 608 compliance

assistance pilot project, which developed an overview of the amendments to the 608

requirements, training module, and self-audit checklist were developed and were made

available to the public through CMA and the Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline. 

Approximately 700 copies of the regulatory overview and 300 copies of the training

module and self-audit checklist were distributed through the hotline. EPA received

positive feedback from the industry on these tools. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-86

3.7 Performance Partnership Agreements

To ensure the best possible protection of human health and the environment across the country, it

is imperative that environmental regulatory agencies at all levels of government share the same

priorities and present a unified approach to environmental protection. Just as EPA headquarters

and the regions negotiate MOAs, the regions and their respective states develop PPAs. PPAs are

tools that allow the regions and the states to present that unified approach and work together to

develop and implement environmental management programs. Such agreements are the

framework on which environmental protection is based.

FY 1996 was the charter year for PPAs nationwide. The National Environmental Performance

Partnership System (NEPPS) set them into motion. NEPPS created a new approach to the

relationship between federal implementation of environmental protection activities and state

implementation. The principles focus on joint planning based on environmental goals, more public

understanding of environmental protection and government activities, and a differential approach

to oversight. 

In FY96, several regions began the process of negotiating PPAs with their states. In Region 1,

for example, principal negotiation teams were developed for all six New England states --

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. The scope of

each of the PPAs is presented in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2. Scope of Performance Partnership Agreements in Region 1

State Agency Scope of PPA Scope of Grants

CT Department of Environmental All programs Water, RCRA, UST, pesticides,

Protection PCBs, air

ME Department of Environmental All programs All programs

Protection

MA Department of Environmental All programs All programs

Protection

NH Department of Environmental All programs Water, RCRA, UST, air

Services

RI Department of Environmental Waste Waste, water, pesticides, air

Management

RI Department of Health All programs PWSS, lead, asbestos, radon

VT Department of Environment and Water Water, air, UST, RCRA

Conservation

VT Department of Agriculture Pesticides FIFRA
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-87 May 1997

In Region 2, the region and New Jersey DEP negotiated and signed a PPA that shifts the

emphasis from traditional measures used to evaluate compliance and enforcement programs to

measures such as compliance rates and timely and appropriate enforcement response. A PPA is

currently being negotiated with New York in a similar fashion.

In Region 4, the Regional Environmental Strategic Plan (RESP) recognizes, as a guiding

principle, the need for the region and the states to develop stronger, more collaborative

partnerships to strengthen their joint capacity to address environmental issues. The RESP

recognizes PPAs as a key vehicle to accomplish this objective. During FY96, Region 4 promoted

and developed such partnerships with its state counterparts. As a result of these efforts, the

region is poised to sign its first PPA/Performance Partnership Grant with the state of Georgia for

FY97, its first PPA with the state of North Carolina for FY97, and is working toward an FY97

PPA with the state of Florida.

The region's pending partnership agreement with the state of Georgia is particularly noteworthy

because Georgia will be the first Region 4 state to take advantage of the new performance

partnership grant authority. The pending agreement represents a joint effort on environmental

strategic planning covering 13 environmental programs, including air, water and hazardous waste. 

The agreement will also cover important areas such as pollution prevention, environmental justice,

and community-based environmental protection.

In FY96, Region 5 was operating with one signed Environmental Performance Partnership

Agreement (EnPPA). By the end of the fiscal year, the region was renegotiating the standing

PPA for FY97, along with four new EnPPAs in other states. To better implement its EnPPA

process in the future, and to assist other regions in the same process, Region 5 reviewed its

activities and developed a list of lessons learned. The following are some of the recommendations

that resulted from the regional review:

Having a solid NEPPS workgroup, including members from all levels, participation of the

Office of Inspector General, and having a core group to screen all agreements

Assigning individual state leads, with a coordinator

Conducting an informal internal process to review and negotiate EnPPAs

Obtaining senior leadership team (SLT) attention

Implementing the new NEPPS approach, including environmental indicators, cross-media

awareness, and single media communication

Encouraging high state participation, each with a different EnPPA approach.

During FY96, Region 8 discussed, negotiated, and implemented two PPAs. Colorado and Utah

entered into PPAs, while all six states were funded through categorical grants for three quarters
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 3-88

and then with PPGs in quarter four. NEPPS set into motion the development of the Colorado and

Utah agreements.

Colorado - While the negotiations that took place during FY95 were quite time consuming

and detailed, there were still a number of issues that needed to be resolved in regard to

comments received from the public. Specifically, the federal enforcement role was an area

that required extensive negotiations to be able to finalize the responsiveness summary. 

Even then, several areas had to be agreed upon. The state of Colorado was the only state

in the nation to work with EPA to pilot the development of leadership criteria, to evaluate

state performance for leadership designation of high performing programs. A working

group developed a comprehensive set of measures, now known as the Fundamental

Performance Measures Document, that describes the performance levels necessary for

acceptable core program performance, (including the 10 EPA measures) and for

leadership program performance.

Utah - Region 8 and the state discovered that the enforcement measures portion of the

FY95 PPA were not as useful as intended. During the course of the second quarter,

regional and state management agreed to develop an EPA-Utah DEQ Quality Assurance

Team to develop better measures of success for enforcement and compliance efforts to be

piloted in FY97. The workgroup developed a report that includes measures for each

sector area, by media.

The four states of Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada) have yet to express active

interest in a PPA. Thus, in the absence of a declaration of intent to develop an agreement, the

region is pursuing joint priority-setting with the states, through the opportunity presented in

Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) proposals received from Arizona and Hawaii. Region 9

has established task forces of in-house state expertise to work with each state on setting a 

strategic direction, aside from working through the mechanics of their PPG proposals. For the

near term, the object of implementation is to identify with each state, within each media,

opportunities for program and administrative improvements and flexibility, areas for reduced

federal oversight, areas for streamlining, and ways to benchmark program performance. For the

long term, the object of implementation will be to operate on the basis of joint decision-making,

using more environmental indicators and public outreach to shape our priorities with the states. 
Appendix A

Current and Historical

Enforcement Data
EPA Regional Inspections EPA Adm. Penalty Final Orders (Conclusions)

FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96

CAA Stationary 1,248 1,081 2,064 CAA 127 103

CAA Mob. Source NA NA 107 CERCLA 28 39

Asbestos D & R 615 961 635 CWA 210 169

NPDES Minors 636 558 499 EPCRA Data 201 184

NPDES Majors 1,510 1,250 1,046 FIFRA Not 105 107

CWA 311 NA NA 2,267 RCRA Available 104 119

CWA 404 NA NA 342 SDWA 55 76

EPCRA 313 765 644 571 TSCA 239 207

EPCRA non-313 NA NA 689 Total* 1,069 1,004

FIFRA 569 587 116 SOURCE: Case Conclusion Data Sheets

RCRA 1,488 2,112 1,829

UST NA NA 579

SDWA 11,259 6,095 6,569 EPA Field Citations

TSCA 1,452 1,241 898

Total 19,542 14,529 18,211 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96

SOURCE: program databases/IDEA, manual reports UST NA NA 115

EOY projection includes 60 CERCLA 103 and 70 SOURCE: Case Conclusion Data Sheets and Docket

CAA CFC inspections.

There were also 95 GLP inspections by HQ

(OC/AED/LDIB); 94 FIFRA and 1 TSCA New EPA Civil Referrals to DOJ

FY 94 FY 95 FY 96

EPA Administrative Compliance Orders Issued CAA 141 37 70

CERCLA 144 102 127

FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 CWA 86 49 48

CAA 279 130 154 EPCRA 6 3 9

CERCLA 264 257 197 FIFRA 1 1 3

CWA 1,127 865 504 RCRA 35 14 19

EPCRA NA NA 2 SDWA 11 5 17

FIFRA NA NA 10 TSCA 6 3 2

RCRA 16 1 35 Total 430 214 295

SDWA 330 611 284 SOURCE: Docket

Total 2,016 1,864 1,186

SOURCE: Docket, PCS and AFS

EPA Civil Judicial Conclusions

EPA Administrative Penalty Order Complaints FY 94 FY 95 FY 96

CAA 43 62

FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 CERCLA 87 121

CAA 152 102 88 CWA 24 60

CERCLA 0 23 37 EPCRA Data 1 10

CWA 284 212 153 FIFRA Not 1 5

EPCRA 305 244 196 RCRA Available 6 22

FIFRA 230 160 73 SDWA 4 7

RCRA 99 91 88 TSCA 4 5

SDWA 100 86 57 Total* 170 292

TSCA 304 187 178 SOURCE: Case Conclusion Data Sheets

Total 1,474 1,105 870

SOURCE: Docket

FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-1 May 1997

Table A-1. National Totals - FY 1996 Enforcement Activity
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 A-2 Table A-2 Dollar Value of FY 1996 EPA Enforcement Actions (by Statute) Statute Type of Enforcement Action Criminal Penalties Assessed Civil Judicial Penalties Assessed Administrative Penalties Assessed Dollar Value of Injunctive Relief Dollar Value of SEPs CAA 5,202,800 30,885,091 2,439,633 205,580,107 16,973,165 CERCLA 2,000 2,367,491 708,057 452,148,874 267,675 CWA 62,214,200 19,790,390 3,441,475 576,958,752 5,219,412 EPCRA 0 1,373,700 4,090,324 698,560 5,133,681

FIFRA 118,000 11,610 1,336,785 502,599 1,594,210RCRA 8,076,000 9,066,018 7,771,104 60,988,395 14,173,682SDWA 50,300 2,720,000 240,081 117,704,795 77,000TSCA 600 40,151 9,969,019 15,267,648 22,371,389Other * 997,000 0 0 0 0Total 76,660,900 66,254,451 29,996,478 1,429,849,730 65,810,214

* = Includes cases with U.S. Code - Title 18 violations and cases involving falsification of groundwater sampling and lab analysis.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-3 May 1997

Table A-3. EPA Administrative Actions Initiated (by Statute)

FY 1973 through FY 1996

Statute

Fiscal Year

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

CAA 0 0 0 210 297 129 404 86 112 21 41 141CWA/SDWA

0 0 738 915 1,128 730 506 569 562 329 781 1,644

RCRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 237 436 554CERCLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137FIFRA 1,274 1,387 1,614 2,488 1,219 762 253 176 154 176 296 272TSCA 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 70 120 101 294 376Totals 1,274 1,387 2,352 3,613 2,644 1,622 1,185 901 1,107 864 1,848 3,124Statute Fiscal Year

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

CAA 122 143 191 224 336 249 214 354 279 435 232 257CWA/SDWA

1,031 990 1,214 1,345 2,146 1,780 2,177 1,977 2,216 1,841 1,174 1,033

RCRA 327 235 243 309 453 366 364 291 282 115 92 269CERCLA 160 139 135 224 220 270 269 245 260 264 280 236FIFRA 236 338 360 376 443 402 300 311 233 249 178 117TSCA 733 781 1,051 607 538 531 422 355 319 333 240 207EPCRA 0 0 0 0 0 206 179 134 219 307 244 186Totals 2,609 2,626 3,194 3,085 4,136 3,804 3,925 3,667 3,808 3,544 2,440 2,305
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 A-4 Table A-4. EPA Criminal Enforcement FY 1982 through FY 1996 Action Fiscal Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Referrals to DOJ 20 26 31 40 41 41 59 60 65 81 107 140 220 256 262Defendants charged 14 34 36 40 98 66 97 95 100 104 150 161 250 245 221Months sentenced 0 0 6 78 279 456 278 325 745 963 1,135 892 1,188 888 1,116
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-5 May 1997

Table A-5. EPA Civil Referrals to the Department of Justice

FY 1973 through FY 1996

Statute Fiscal Year

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

Air

4 3 5 15 50 123 149 100 66 36 69 82

Water 0 0 20 67 93 137 81 56 37 45 56 95CERCLA 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 10 2 20 28 41RCRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 43 12 9 5 19Toxics/Pesticides

0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 7 14

Totals 4 3 25 82 143 262 242 210 118 112 165 251Statute

Fiscal Year

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Air 116 115 122 86 92 102 86 92 80 141 37 70Water 93 119 92 123 94 87 94 77 84 97 54 65CERCLA 35 41 54 114 153 157 164 137 129 144 102 127RCRA 13 43 23 29 16 18 34 40 30 35 14 19Toxics/Pesticides

19 24 13 20 9 11 15 15 15 13 7 14

Totals 276 342 304 372 364 375 393 361 338 430 214 295
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 A-6 Table A-6. State Environmental Agencies Judicial Referrals and Administrative Actions FY 1987 through FY 1996 Administrative Actions Program Area Fiscal Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 FIFRA 5,922 5,078 6,698 4,145 3,245 3,095 4,172 3,528 2,486 2,333 Water 1,663 2,887 3,100 3,298 3,180 2,748 3,960 4,063 4,231 4,598 Air 907 655 1,139 1,312 1,687 1,411 2,005 2,050 1,833 1,534 RCRA 613 743 1,189 1,350 1,495 1,389 1,744 1,609 1,235 841

Totals 9,105 9,363 12,126 10,105 9,607 8,643 11,881 11,250 9,785 9,306

Judicial Referrals

ProgramArea

Fiscal Year

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Water 286 687 489 429 297 204 383 162 169 169Air 351 171 96 156 190 258 174 325 124 198RCRA 86 46 129 64 57 112 133 91 104 66Totals 723 904 714 649 544 574 690 578 397 433
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-7 May 1997
Appendix B

Significant Administrative, Judicial,

and Criminal Cases
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-i May 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION I .................................................................................... B-1

Clean Air Act .............................................................................. B-1

U.S. v. General Electric Company (D. Mass.) ................................................. B-1

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company ........................................................ B-1

U.S. v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc. (D., R.I.) ...................................................... B-1

CERCLA ................................................................................. B-2

U.S. v. C&M Corp. et al. (D. Conn.) ........................................................ B-2

U.S. v. Charter International Oil Co. (1st Cir.) ................................................ B-2

U.S. v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc. et al. (D. Mass.); U.S. v. Coaters, Inc. et al. (D. Conn.) ....... B-2

U.S. v. Federal Pacific Electric Co., Inc. et al. (D. Mass.) ....................................... B-3

Raymark Industries, Inc. .................................................................. B-3

U.S. v. Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation (D. R.I.) .............................. B-3

U.S. v. City of Somersworth et al. (D. N.H.) .................................................. B-3

U.S. and the State of Vermont v. Browning-Ferris of Vermont, Inc. & Disposal Specialists, Inc. (D. Vt.) . B-4

Michael and David Vining ................................................................ B-4

Clean Water Act ............................................................................ B-4

U.S. v. CPF, Inc. (D. Mass.) ............................................................... B-4

U.S. v. Cumberland Farms Inc. et al. (D. Mass.) ............................................... B-4

U.S. v. Dexter Corporation (D. Conn.) ...................................................... B-5

Town of Essex, Massachusetts ............................................................. B-5

Ideal Forging Corporation ................................................................ B-5

EPCRA ................................................................................... B-5

FL Industries, Inc. ....................................................................... B-5

RCRA .................................................................................... B-5

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Boston) ................................... B-6

U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center ....................................................... B-6

TSCA .................................................................................... B-6

Teknor Apex Company ................................................................... B-6

Multimedia ................................................................................ B-6

James River Paper Company (D. N.H.) ...................................................... B-6

REGION II .................................................................................... B-7

Clean Air Act .............................................................................. B-7

U.S. v. Automatic Rolls (D. NJ) ........................................................... B-7

Baxter Healthcare, Corp. ................................................................. B-7

U.S. v. Chevron (D. NJ) .................................................................. B-7

U.S. v. Chevron, USA, Inc., PJS Construction Company, Inc., Mayer Pollock Steel Corporation,

and Falcon Associates, Inc. (D.NJ) ..................................................... B-7

U.S. v. CITGO Asphalt Refining Company (D.NJ ............................................. B-7

U.S. v. General Electric (N.D.NY) ......................................................... B-7

U.S. v. Harry Grant and Sandalwood Construction Corp. (D.NJ) .................................. B-8

U.S. v. Mobil (D.NJ) .................................................................... B-8

U.S. v. Owners Realty (S.D.NY) ........................................................... B-8
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-ii

CERCLA ................................................................................. B-8

U.S. v. 175 Inwood Associates, et al. (E.D.NY) ............................................... B-8

United States v. Allied Signal, et al. (D.NJ) .................................................. B-9

U.S. v. Barrier Industries, Inc. (S.D.NY) ..................................................... B-9

U.S. v. NCaribe General Electric Products, Inc., et al. (D.PR) .................................... B-9

Ciba-Geigy Superfund site ................................................................ B-9

U.S. v. First Marine Shipyard Inc., et al. (E.D.NY) ........................................... B-10

U.S. v. Kevan M. Green and Polymer Applications, Inc. (W.D.NY) .............................. B-10

U.S. v. International Paper Company, et al. (S.D.NY) ......................................... B-10

U.S. v. Occidental Chemical Corporation (W.D.NY) .......................................... B-10

U.S. v. Peirce, et al. .................................................................... B-10

Quanta Resources site ................................................................... B-11

U.S. v. Rohm & Haas, et al. .............................................................. B-11

Sidney Landfill site ..................................................................... B-11

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... B-11

United States v. Caribe Tuna, Inc. (D.PR) ................................................... B-11

United States v. Hi-Temp Specialty Metals, Inc (D.NJ) ........................................ B-11

Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente, Inc. v. Mayaguez Water Treatment Company, Inc.,

et al. (D.PR) ...................................................................... B-11

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority ................................................. B-12

United States v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA I)(D. PR) .................... B-12

United States v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA II)(D.PR) .................... B-12

United States v. Virgin Islands Department of Public Works (D. VI) ............................. B-12

RCRA ................................................................................... B-12

1833 Nostrand Avenue Corporation ....................................................... B-12

Caribbean Petroleum Corporation ......................................................... B-13

HOVIC and Amerada Hess .............................................................. B-13

U.S. v. Oliver R. Hill and O.R. Hill Fuel Co. (N.D.NY) ........................................ B-13

Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company ............................................... B-13

San Juan Cement ....................................................................... B-14

U.S. v. Sugar Corporation, et al. (D.PR) .................................................... B-14

West Point U.S. Army Military Academy (West Point, New York) ............................... B-14

SDWA .................................................................................. B-14

Seneca Army Depot (New York) .......................................................... B-14

TSCA ................................................................................... B-15

Atlantic City Convention Center .......................................................... B-15

Chemical Waste Management ............................................................ B-15

New Jersey State Department of Corrections ................................................ B-15

New York City Board of Education ........................................................ B-15

New York State Office of Mental Health .................................................... B-15

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ................................................. B-15

Prestolite Electric Incorporated ........................................................... B-16

REGION III .................................................................................. B-17

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. B-17

Hercules, Inc. (Virginia) ................................................................. B-17

U.S. v. Ohio Power Company (West Virginia) ............................................... B-17

U.S. v. Sahara Holding Company (West Virginia) ............................................ B-17

CERCLA ................................................................................ B-17

U.S. v. American Cyanamid, et al. ......................................................... B-17
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-iii May 1997

U.S. v. American Recovery Company, Carnegie National Gas Company, and US

 Corporation (Pennsylvania) ......................................................... B-17

Brown’s Battery Breaking Superfund site (Pennsylvania) ....................................... B-18

Centre County Kepone Superfund site (Pennsylvania) ......................................... B-18

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation ................................................... B-18

Croydon Superfund site (Pennsylvania) ..................................................... B-18

Dover Gas Light Superfund site ........................................................... B-18

Drake Chemical Superfund site (Pennsylvania) ............................................... B-18

U.S. v. Fidelcor Business Credit Corporation (Pennsylvania) .................................... B-18

HH, INC. Burn Pit Superfund site (Hanover County, Virginia) .................................. B-18

Keystone Sanitation Landfill site (Pennsylvania) .............................................. B-19

Merit Products Superfund site (Pennsylvania) ................................................ B-19

Old City of York Landfill (Pennsylvania) ................................................... B-19

Palmerton Zinc Superfund site (Palmerton, Pennsylvania) ...................................... B-19

Paoli Rail Yard Superfund site (Pennsylvania) ............................................... B-19

PECO Glenside Mercury Spill site (Pennsylvania) ............................................ B-19

Pneumo Abex Corp. v. Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Inc., et al. (Virginia) ............ B-19

Publicker Industries site (Pennsylvania) .................................................... B-20

U.S. v. Woodlawn Landfill (Maryland) ..................................................... B-20

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... B-20

U.S. v. Blue Plains (Virginia) ............................................................ B-20

Dean Dairy Products, Inc. (Pennsylvania) .................................................. B-20

DuPont, Inc. (Delaware) ................................................................. B-20

Halle Enterprises, Inc. (Virginia) .......................................................... B-20

Pennzoil Products Company and Eureka Pipe Line Company (West Virginia) ...................... B-20

Sun Company (Pennsylvania) ............................................................. B-21

EPCRA .................................................................................. B-21

Cage Graphic Arts, Inc. (Pennsylvania) ..................................................... B-21

EMI Company (Pennsylvania) ............................................................ B-21

HPC Associates et al. (Pennsylvania) ...................................................... B-21

Larstan Industries (Maryland) ............................................................ B-21

Service Wire Company (West Virginia ..................................................... B-21

RCRA ................................................................................... B-22

Bil-Dry Corporation (Pennsylvania) ....................................................... B-22

Heritage Metals Finishing, Inc. (Pennsylvania) ............................................... B-22

Neville Chemical Company (Pennsylvania .................................................. B-22

Remac USA, Inc. (District of Columbia) .................................................... B-22

Washington Navy Yard (Washington, D.C.) ................................................. B-22

Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (West Virginia) ........................................ B-22

SDWA .................................................................................. B-22

Government of the District of Columbia: .................................................... B-22

TSCA ................................................................................... B-23

Bayer Corporation (Formerly Mobay Corporation) (West Virginia) .............................. B-23

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Inc. (SEPTA) (Pennsylvania) .................. B-23

Multimedia ............................................................................... B-23

Horsehead Industries (Pennsylvania) ....................................................... B-23

REGION IV .................................................................................. B-24

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. B-24

Willamette Industries, Inc. ............................................................... B-24
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-iv

CERCLA ................................................................................ B-24

Arlington Blending and Packaging site and Gallaway Pits site (Shelby County, Tennessee) ............ B-24

Basket Creek site (Douglasville, Georgia) ................................................... B-24

Carolawn site (Fortlawn, South Carolina) ................................................... B-24

Distler Farm and Brickyard sites (Louisville, Kentucky) ........................................ B-24

J & A Enterprises site, (Huntsville, Alabama) ................................................ B-25

North Hollywood Dump site (Memphis, Tennessee) .......................................... B-25

Old ATC Refinery (Wilmington, North Carolina) ............................................. B-25

Olin Corporation (McIntosh, Alabama) ..................................................... B-25

Piper Aircraft Corporation site (Vero Beach, Florida) ......................................... B-25

Fred Ramsey Tank site (Valdosta, Georgia) ................................................. B-26

S&S Flying Service site (Marianna, Florida) ................................................. B-26

T H Agriculture & Nutrition site ( Montgomery, Alabama) ..................................... B-26

Welco Plating Dump site (Jackson County, Alabama) ......................................... B-26

Woodbury Chemical Company site (Dade County, Florida) ..................................... B-26

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... B-27

CAPS Development, Inc.(Lamar County, Mississippi) ......................................... B-27

Cobb County Department of Community Development (Cobb County, Georgia) .................... B-27

Jack Freeman (Lee County, Florida) ....................................................... B-27

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) (Cobb County, Georgia) .......................... B-27

Sam Hall, d/b/a Hall's Septic Services ...................................................... B-27

Jefferson County, Alabama ............................................................... B-27

Mobil Oil Corporation (Polk County, Florida) ............................................... B-28

U.S. v. Southdown, Inc., d/b/a Florida Mining and Materials Concrete Corporation .................. B-28

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) (Spring City, Rhea County, Tennessee) ............ B-28

EPCRA .................................................................................. B-29

State Industries, Inc (Ashland City, Tennessee) ............................................... B-29

FIFRA ................................................................................... B-29

Acry-Tech Coatings, Inc.; Insecta Sales, Inc., and Council-Oxford, Inc. ........................... B-29

UCB ................................................................................ B-29

RCRA ................................................................................... B-29

Crown Central Petroleum (Crown, Georgia) ................................................. B-29

DOE’s Oak Ridge Facility (Tennessee) ..................................................... B-29

Everwood Treatment Co., and Cary W. Thigpen .............................................. B-29

Flanders Filters site (Washington, North Carolina) ............................................ B-29

Fort Campbell ......................................................................... B-30

Memphis Depot Defense Logistics Agency’s (Memphis, Tennessee) ............................. B-30

North Carolina - Chapel Hill ............................................................. B-30

Precision Fabricating and Cleaning Company (PFC) .......................................... B-30

Safety Kleen Corporation (Smithfield, Kentucky) ............................................. B-30

Stone Container Corporation ............................................................. B-30

Taylor Road Landfill site (Hillsborough County, Florida) ....................................... B-30

U.S. v. Waste Industries, Inc., et al. ........................................................ B-31

Worsley Companies, Inc. ................................................................ B-31

 SDWA .................................................................................. B-31

Iris Court Apartments ................................................................... B-31

TSCA ................................................................................... B-31

Gray PCB site (Hopkinsville, Kentucky) .................................................... B-31
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-v May 1997

REGION V .................................................................................. B-33

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. B-33

Abitec Corporation (Columbus, Ohio) ...................................................... B-33

B.F. Goodrich Company (Henry, Illinois) ................................................... B-33

Countrymark Cooperative (Mount Vernon, Indiana) ........................................... B-33

Fort Howard Corporation (Green Bay, Wisconsin) ............................................ B-34

Georgia-Pacific Corporation (Gaylord, Michigan) ............................................ B-34

Heekin Can Inc. (Alsip, Illinois) .......................................................... B-34

Rockwood Stone, Inc.(Newport, Michigan) ................................................. B-35

USX (Indiana) ........................................................................ B-35

CERCLA ................................................................................ B-35

Conservation Chemical Company of Illinois, Inc. site (Gary, IN) ................................. B-35

Sanitary Landfill Company Superfund site (Moraine, OH) ...................................... B-36

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... B-36

Hammond Industries (Hammond, Indiana) .................................................. B-36

Leggett and Platt (Grafton, Wisconsin) ..................................................... B-36

LTV Steel (East Chicago, Indiana) ........................................................ B-36

U.S. v. Sanitary District of Hammond et al. .................................................. B-37

Southern Ohio Coal Company ............................................................ B-37

U.S. Steel ............................................................................ B-37

EPCRA .................................................................................. B-37

USX Corporation ...................................................................... B-37

FIFRA ................................................................................... B-38

Chempace Corporation .................................................................. B-38

Northrup King Co. ..................................................................... B-38

RCRA ................................................................................... B-38

Gary Development Company (Gary, Indiana) ................................................ B-38

Ross Incineration Services, Inc. (Grafton, Ohio) ............................................. B-38

TSCA ................................................................................... B-38

Amoco Corporation (TSCA-V-C-10-93) ................................................... B-38

Itochu International Corporation (5-TSCA-96-005) ........................................... B-39

Safety Kleen Corporation (5-TSCA-96-014) ................................................ B-39

REGION VI .................................................................................. B-40

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. B-40

United States v. Amoco Oil (Texas City, Texas) .............................................. B-40

United States v. Basis Petroleum, Inc. (Texas City, Texas) ..................................... B-40

GNB Industrial Battery Company (Arkansas) ................................................ B-40

Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos, New Mexico) ................................... B-40

United States v. Lyondell Petrochemical Company (Houston, Texas) ............................. B-41

United States v. Sun Refinery (Tulsa, Oklahoma) ............................................. B-41

CERCLA ................................................................................ B-41

Bayou Bonfouca (Slidell, Louisiana) ....................................................... B-41

Bio Ecology (Grand Prairie, Texas) ........................................................ B-41

Chino Mines (Grant County, New Mexico) .................................................. B-41

Hi-Yield (Commerce, Texas) ............................................................. B-41

Highway 71/72 Refinery (Bossier City, Louisiana) ............................................ B-41
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-vi

Lincoln Creosoting (Bossier City, Louisiana) ................................................ B-41

Marco of Iota (Iota, Louisiana) ............................................................ B-41

Odessa Drum (Odessa, Texas) ............................................................ B-41

Pesses (Fort Worth, Texas) .............................................................. B-41

Rab Valley (Panama, Oklahoma) .......................................................... B-41

Sheridan (Hempsted, Texas) ............................................................. B-41

South Eighth Street Landfill (West Memphis, Arkansas) ....................................... B-42

Tex Tin (Texas City, Texas) .............................................................. B-42

Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program agreement ............................................... B-42

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... B-42

United States v. Roger J. Gautreau (Louisiana, Maryland) ...................................... B-42

United States v. New Orleans Sewerage & Water Board (New Orleans, Louisiana) .................. B-42

United States v. Yaffe Iron and Metal Co., Inc ............................................... B-42

FIFRA ................................................................................... B-42

United States v. Harry James Saul and Ronnie Snead (Eastern District of Arkansas) ................. B-42

Skarda Flying Service, Inc. ............................................................... B-43

RCRA ................................................................................... B-43

American Airlines, Inc. (Tulsa, Oklahoma) .................................................. B-43

BJ Services Company, U.S.A. (Hobbs, New Mexico) ......................................... B-43

Camp Stanley Storage Activity (Boerne, Texas) .............................................. B-43

Cooper Cameron (Richmond, Texas) ....................................................... B-43

Fina Oil & Chemical Co. (Deer Park, Texas) ................................................ B-44

Fina Oil and Chemical Company (La Porte, Texas) ........................................... B-44

Fort Hood Army Post (Killeen, Texas) ...................................................... B-45

Go/Dan Industries (Laredo, Texas) ........................................................ B-45

HICA Steel Foundry and Upgrade Co. (Shreveport, Louisiana) .................................. B-45

Lafitte Industries, Inc. (Lafitte, Louisiana) .................................................. B-45

Merichem Company (Houston, Texas) ..................................................... B-45

Micro Chemical (Winnsboro, Louisiana) .................................................... B-45

Mosby Enterprises, Inc.(Belle Chasse, Louisiana) ............................................ B-45

National Research Laboratories, Inc. (Albuquerque, New Mexico) ............................... B-46

NIBCO, Inc ........................................................................... B-46

Solv-X Corporation (Albuquerque, New Mexico) ............................................ B-46

Sparton Technology, Inc. (Albuquerque, New Mexico) ........................................ B-46

Why Wastewater (El Paso, Texas) ......................................................... B-46

SDWA .................................................................................. B-47

United States vs. Tenneco Sac and Fox Tribe ................................................ B-47

TSCA ................................................................................... B-47

Abilene Radio and Television Company .................................................... B-47

El Paso Electric Company ............................................................... B-47

City of Hearne, Texas ................................................................... B-47

University of Texas at Austin Balcones Research Center ....................................... B-47

Koch Refining Company L.P. (Corpus Christi, Texas) ......................................... B-47

Mobil Chemical Co. .................................................................... B-48

Phibro/Basis (Houston, Texas) ............................................................ B-48

Shell Oil Company (Norco, Louisiana) ..................................................... B-48

Vulcan Chemicals Company (Geismar, Louisiana) ............................................ B-48
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-vii May 1997

REGION VII ................................................................................. B-49

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. B-49

U.S. v. Elliott Drywall & Asbestos, Inc. (Kansas City, Kansas) .................................. B-49

U.S. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Cape Girardeau, Missouri) ................................... B-49

Stupp Brothers Bridge & Iron Company (St. Louis, Missouri) ................................... B-49

Western Resources, Inc. (Topeka, Kansas) .................................................. B-49

CERCLA ................................................................................ B-49

Carter Carburetor site (St. Louis, Missouri) ................................................. B-49

U.S. v. Connor Investment (Jasper County, Kansas) ........................................... B-50

Dutton-Lainson Company (Hastings, Nebraska) .............................................. B-50

U.S. v. Eveready Battery (Red Oak, Iowa) .................................................. B-50

U.S. v. Gold Fields Mining Corporation (Galena, Kansas) ...................................... B-50

U.S. v. Missouri Electric Works (Cape Girardeau, Missouri) .................................... B-50

National Mine Tailings site, (Park Hills, Missouri) ............................................ B-51

North Landfill Subsite Pilot Allocation ..................................................... B-51

Osage Metals site (Kansas City, Kansas) .................................................... B-51

Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings (St. Louis, Missouri) ........................................ B-52

Rockwell International Corporation-Ralston site (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) ............................ B-52

U.S. v. Russell Bliss, et al., Missouri Dioxin Litigation (St. Louis, Missouri) ....................... B-52

Citizens Against Dioxin Incineration (C.A.D.I.) and Gateway Green Alliance v. U.S. EPA,

Carol Browner, and I.T. Corporation, U.S. District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) .......... B-52

U.S. v. Sherwood Medical Company (Norfolk, Nebraska) ...................................... B-52

Thompson Chemical (St. Louis, Missouri) .................................................. B-53

U.S. v. TIC Investment and Stratton Georgoulis (Charles City, Iowa) ............................. B-53

U.S. v. Waste Disposal, Inc., et al. (Kansas City, Kansas) ...................................... B-53

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... B-53

U.S. v. ASARCO, Inc. (Omaha, Nebraska) .................................................. B-53

ASARCO, Inc. (Reynolds County, Missouri) ................................................ B-54

FIFRA ................................................................................... B-54

Battle Creek Farmers Cooperative Non-Stock (Pierce, Nebraska) ................................ B-54

Big Sky Flying Service (Waterloo, Iowa) ................................................... B-54

MFA, Inc. ............................................................................ B-54

RCRA ................................................................................... B-54

Ash Grove Cement Co. (Louisville, Nebraska) ............................................... B-54

Craig Foster Ford (Tripoli, Iowa) .......................................................... B-54

Harmon Electronics, Inc. (Grain Valley, Missouri) ............................................ B-54

MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (St. Charles, Missouri) ...................................... B-55

U.S v. Mikkel and Janet Mandt d/b/a FiberdYNE/FluidYNE (Cedar Falls and New Hartford, Iowa) .... B-55

Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. (Centerville, Iowa) .............................................. B-55

Wayne Manufacturing (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) ................................................. B-55

TSCA ................................................................................... B-55

Everlast Fitness MFG. Corp. (Moberly, Missouri) ............................................ B-55

Farmland Industries, Inc. (Sergeant Bluff, Iowa) .............................................. B-55

GEC Precision Corporation (Wellington, Kansas) ............................................ B-56

Multimedia ............................................................................... B-56

Arlington Plating (St. Louis, Missouri) ..................................................... B-56

Cole Enterprises (Jefferson County, Missouri) ............................................... B-56

U.S. v. Commercial Equipment Company, Inc. and Curtis Hough (Carol, Iowa) .................... B-56

Farmland Industries, Inc. (Coffeyville, Kansas) ............................................... B-57
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-viii

Genesis Industries (Kansas) .............................................................. B-57

City of Independence, Missouri: ........................................................... B-57

J.Z. Disposal Services (Warren County, Missouri) ............................................ B-57

Midwest Alloys Foundry ................................................................. B-57

National Manufacturing AKA Valentec-Olivette (Olivette, Missouri): ............................ B-58

Newt Marine Services ( Dubuque, Iowa) ................................................... B-58

Terra Industries, Inc. (Sioux City, Iowa) .................................................... B-58

REGION VIII ................................................................................ B-59

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. B-59

Colorado Refining Company (Commerce City, Colorado) ...................................... B-59

U.S. v. Plum Creek Manufacturing (Kalispell, Montana) ....................................... B-59

Public Service Company (Hayden, Colorado) ................................................ B-59

Stone Container Corporation (Missoula, Montana) ............................................ B-60

CERCLA ................................................................................ B-60

Bingham Creek ARCO (West Jordan, Utah) ................................................. B-60

Chemical Handling Corporation (Broomfield, Colorado) ....................................... B-60

Colorado School of Mines Research Center (Golden, Colorado) ................................. B-60

Hansen Container (Grand Junction, Colorado) ............................................... B-60

Kennecott Utah Copper - North Facility Soils/Wastewater Treatment Plant (Magna, Utah) ............ B-60

McLaren Tailings (Cooke City, Montana) ................................................... B-61

North Clear Creek Tails Superfund site (Central City, Colorado) ................................. B-61

Ogden Union Railway and Depot (Ogden, Utah) ............................................. B-61

Summitville Mine (Summitville, Colorado) .................................................. B-61

Union Pacific Railroad Company (Huron, South Dakota) ....................................... B-61

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... B-61

Altenberg Slough (Flathead County, Montana) ............................................... B-61

Amoco Oil Company (Casper, Wyoming) ................................................... B-62

City of Blackhawk (Blackhawk, Colorado) .................................................. B-62

Clark Equipment Company (Gwinner, North Dakota) ......................................... B-62

Emulsified Asphalt (Casper, Wyoming) .................................................... B-62

Pegasus Gold Corporation (Phillips County, Montana) ......................................... B-63

Persona Incorporated (Watertown, South Dakota) ............................................ B-63

EPCRA .................................................................................. B-63

Pillow Kingdom (Denver, Colorado) ....................................................... B-63

RCRA ................................................................................... B-63

Amoco Oil Company (Casper, Wyoming) ................................................... B-63

REGION IX .................................................................................. B-65

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. B-65

U.S. v. Chevron, Mobil, Ultramar, and UNOCAL (California) .................................. B-65

Kelco Division of Merck & Co., Inc. (San Diego, California) ................................... B-65

CERCLA ................................................................................ B-65

Arizona Copper Mines Initiative .......................................................... B-65

Burbank Operable Unit (OU) (San Fernando Valley, California) ................................. B-66

Casmalia Resources Hazardous Waste Management Facility (Santa Barbara, California) ............. B-66

U.S. v. Chapman (Palomino Valley, Nevada) ................................................ B-66

Glendale North and South Operable Units (OU) (San Fernando Valley, California) .................. B-67

Hendler v. U.S. (California) ............................................................. B-67
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-ix May 1997

Lorentz Barrel & Drum and Stringfellow ................................................... B-67

North Hollywood Operable Unit (OU) (San Fernando Valley, California) ......................... B-67

U.S. v. Omega Chemical Corporation (California) ............................................ B-68

U.S. v. Operating Industries, Inc. (OII) (California) ........................................... B-68

U.S. v. United Heckathorn (Richmond, California) ............................................ B-68

REGION X .................................................................................. B-69

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. B-69

United States v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation (Spokane, WA) ...................... B-69

United States v. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company (Kenai, AK) ................................ B-69

CERCLA ................................................................................ B-69

Hanford (Hanford, Washington) ........................................................... B-69

King Salmon Airport (Alaska) ............................................................ B-69

Port Hadlock Detachment (Hadlock, Washington) ............................................ B-69

Tulalip Landfill (Marysville, Washington) ................................................... B-69

United States v. Western Processing (Kent, Washington) ....................................... B-69

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... B-69

Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Platforms (Cook Inlet, Alaska) ......................................... B-69

Esplin Dairy (Nehalem Bay Oregon) ....................................................... B-70

Four Brothers Dairy (Shoshone, Idaho) ..................................................... B-70

Gienger Farms, Inc. (Tillamook Bay, Oregon) ............................................... B-70

Ketchikan Pulp Company (Ketchikan, Alaska) ............................................... B-70

Misty Meadow Dairy (Tillamook, Oregon) .................................................. B-70

Port Townsend Paper Corporation (Port Townsend,Washington) ................................ B-70

Veerman Dairy (St. Paul, Oregon) ......................................................... B-70

EPCRA .................................................................................. B-70

American Cabinet Concepts, Inc. (Longview, Washington) ..................................... B-70

Bullseye Glass Company (Portland, Oregon) ................................................ B-70

James River Corporation (Camas, Washington) .............................................. B-70

Tillamook County Creamery (Tillamook, Oregon) ............................................ B-70

RCRA ................................................................................... B-70

Cook Inlet Pipeline (Drift River, Alaska) ................................................... B-70

Shemya Air Force Base (Shemya, Alaska) .................................................. B-71

TSCA ................................................................................... B-71

Roseburg Forest Products (Riddle, Oregon) ................................................. B-71

Tanana Power Company (Tanana, Alaska) .................................................. B-71

U.S. Oil & Refining (Tacoma, Washington) ................................................. B-71

City of Wrangell (Wrangell, Alaska) ....................................................... B-71

Multimedia ............................................................................... B-71

V-1 Oil (Reston, Idaho) ................................................................. B-71

OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT .................................................... B-72

Clean Air Act ............................................................................. B-72

U.S v. Georgia-Pacific .................................................................. B-72

U.S. v. General Motors .................................................................. B-72

Clean Water Act ........................................................................... B-72

U.S. v. District of Columbia (Blue Plains Litigation) .......................................... B-72
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-x

United States and State of Montana v. Pegasus Gold Corp. And Zortman Mining, Inc.

and Gros Ventre Tribe, Assiniboine Tribe, Ft. Belknap Community Council,

and Island Mountain Protectors Association v. Zortman Mining, Inc. Consolidated Settlement ..... B-73

RCRA ................................................................................... B-73

Harmon Electronics/Beaumont ............................................................ B-73

United States and the State of Louisiana v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc. et al. ..................... B-73

FIFRA ................................................................................... B-74

Pfizer/AgrEvo ......................................................................... B-74

Rohm and Haas Company ............................................................... B-74

TSCA ................................................................................... B-74

Elf Atochem North America, Inc. .......................................................... B-74

CRIMINAL .................................................................................. B-75

United States v. John P. Sochocky dba A’Quality Environmental Services (Eastern Distric

 of Pennsylvania) ................................................................... B-75

United States v. Arizona Chemical Co., Inc. (Southern District of Mississippi) ..................... B-75

United States v. Mark O. Henry, et al.(District of New Hampshire) .............................. B-75

United States v. Richard Hub, et al. (District of Kansas) ....................................... B-75

United States v. Bruce R. Burrell (Southern District of Florida) .................................. B-76

United States v. Robert Cyphers (District of Oregon) .......................................... B-76

United States v. Bunker Group, et. al. (District of Puerto Rico) .................................. B-76

United States v. James J. Wilson (District of Maryland) ........................................ B-76

United States v. Iroquois Pipeline Operating Co., Inc., et. al.(Northern District of New York) ......... B-77

United States v. Kelley Technical Coatings, Inc., et al. (Western District of Kentucky) ............... B-77

United States v. Leo G. Kelly (Western District of Wisconsin) ................................... B-77

United States v. Marman U.S.A, Inc., and Robert Renes (Middle District of Florida) ................ B-78

United States v. Midwest Alloys Foundry, et al. (Eastern District of Missouri) ...................... B-78

United States v. John Morrell and Co. (District of South Dakota) ................................ B-78

United States v. Larry Vaughan (Southern District of California) ................................. B-79

United States v. William Nowak (District of Washington) ...................................... B-79

United States v. Ray F. McCune and Bruce L. Jones (District of Utah) ............................ B-79

United States v. Ray Phipps, et al. (Western District of Texas) .................................. B-79

United States v. Thomas R. Rudd (Northern District of Texas) .................................. B-80

United States v. Summitville Consolidated Mining Co., Inc. (District of Colorado) .................. B-80

United States v. Don Budd, et al. (Eastern District of Texas) .................................... B-80

United States v. Pacific and Arctic Pipelines, Inc., et al. (District of Alaska) ....................... B-81

United States v. Wilbur-Ellis, et al. (District of Idaho) ......................................... B-81
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-1 May 1997

REGION I

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S. v. Avon Tape, Inc. (D. Mass.): On March 7,

1996, the District Court entered a consent decree in

EPA's action against Avon Tape, Inc. for Clean Air Act

permitting violations and excess emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs). Avon Tape is a small,

closely held business headquartered in Brockton, MA

that manufactures pressure sensitive tape for the shoe

industry. From 1982 through 1993, Avon Tape's paper

and fabric coating facility in Avon, MA used coatings

that violated MA SIP limits for VOCs, with excess

emissions of approximately 30 tons per year. These

emissions contributed to ozone levels above the

national ambient air quality standard. Avon Tape also

installed new coating lines in 1982 and 1986 without

applying for construction permits or meeting emission

requirements for new construction in ozone

nonattainment areas. The settlement requires Avon

Tape to operate in compliance with applicable VOC

limits, to keep VOC emissions below 42 tons per year,

and to pay $180,000 in penalties.

U.S. v. General Electric Company (D. Mass.):

General Electric (GE) operates a facility in Lynn, MA

at which the company tests and manufactures aircraft. 

The enforcement issues arose from GE's failure to

obtain prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)

permits for one boiler and for four test cells used for the

testing of jet engines. The boiler and the test cells emit

NOx in quantities that trigger the PSD new source

review requirements of the Clean Air Act. GE

installed/constructed two new test cells in the early

1980s and modified two test cells in the late 1980s,

without obtaining required permits. GE

installed/constructed the boiler without obtaining an

adequate permit. The boiler also emitted NOx in

excess of the levels permissible in EPA's New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS).

In May, 1996, the District Court entered a consent

decree in which GE agreed to pay $225,000 in civil

penalties and expend at least $1.2 million to perform an

SEP involving the replacement of oil-based coolant

with a water-based coolant to be used in its milling and

lathing machine processes. The company also agreed

to certain emissions restrictions for its test cells and

boilers for the pollutants NOx and SO2. The company

will eventually receive a permit from the MA DEP

consistent with these emissions restrictions.

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company: A September

23, 1996 consent agreement and order resolved an

action against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for

CFC violations under the Clean Air Act. Goodyear will

pay a penalty of $23,560 and implement a nation-wide

SEP costing $709,000. At three New England

automobile repair facilities, Goodyear had serviced

automobile air conditioners using technicians lacking

training and certification in CFC recovery and

recycling, and without having certified to EPA that the

facilities were in compliance. The three Goodyear

stores cited are in Woonsocket, RI, Westfield, MA, and

South Portland, ME. As a condition of settlement,

Goodyear will establish company-wide management

practices to promote and monitor compliance with CFC

requirements and will purchase automotive antifreeze

recycling machines for use at 575 Goodyear stores

nation-wide, including 39 in New England.

Picatinny Arsenal (New Jersey): Region II issued a

compliance order May 15, 1996 to the U.S. Army

Armament Research, Development, and Engineering

Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey for

noncompliance with requirements under the Clean Air

Act regarding prevention of significant deterioration in

air quality (PSD). The Arsenal is subject to the PSD

requirements because operation of two boilers on the

facility have caused significant net emissions increases

of Nox. Stack tests in November 1994 and January

1995 were made on two boilers that had been

converted from coal to natural gas as a primary fuel and

#6 fuel oil as a secondary fuel. Test results showed that

net emissions of NOx from the Arsenal using fuel oil

vs. natural gas would increase “significantly” using

natural gas -- by more than 40 tons per year --above the

level of emissions from fuel oil as it existed before the

modification of the two boilers. The order directs the

Army to display the PSD non-applicability of the #6

fuel oil to natural gas conversion within 60 calendar

days or comply with the requirement of the PSD

regulations. Picatinny Arsenal is in northern New

Jersey. The installation employs approximately 5,500

people in research and development of munitions and

weapons. The Arsenal is on the National Priorities List

and has approximately 150 areas of concern.

U.S. v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc. (D., R.I.): On January

16, 1996, the District Court of Rhode Island entered a

consent decree in which Stanley-Bostitch, a Delaware

corporation, agreed to pay $225,000 in civil penalties

as part of a final settlement of this Clean Air Act case. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-2

Arising out of an EPA inspection of Stanley's States alleged that Charter's predecessor-in-interest, a

manufacturing facility in East Greenwich, RI, the New Bedford fuel oil supplier which also cleaned fuel

complaint alleged violations of the SIP based on oil soot from boilers, disposed of this material at the

Stanley's use of a paint, in 1991 and 1992, containing Sullivan's Ledge site. In its consent decree with the

VOCs in excess of allowable limits and on its failure, United States, Charter agreed to pay $215,000 plus

from 1991 to March 25, 1994, to obtain a minor source interest. In return, the government broadly covenanted

permit before installing and operating a boiler at that not to sue Charter "pursuant to sections 106 and 107 of

facility. The complaint also alleged that, in 1992 and CERCLA ... for reimbursement of response costs or for

1993, Stanley violated the NSPS by failing to comply implementation of ROD I or ROD II." As to

with regulations pertaining to the same boiler which contribution protection, the decree did not define what

require, among other things, compliance with a matters were addressed; rather, it stated that Charter

standard for sulfur dioxide, completion of certain was "entitled to such contribution protection ... as is

performance tests, emissions monitoring, reporting and provided by CERCLA § 113(f)(2)." 

recordkeeping. Each of the violations was corrected by

Stanley by the time the complaint and consent decree In its motion to enter the decree, the U.S. argued that

were filed. Charter was only entitled to contribution protection for

CERCLA 

U.S. v. C&M Corp. et al. (D. Conn.): On July 6,

1996, the District Court issued a decision upholding a

consent agreement entered into between the U.S. and

certain generators at the Yaworski Lagoon Superfund

site. The consent agreement provides for a de minimis

settlement. The settlement arose from a 1990 consent

decree providing for payment of response costs and

remediation of the Yaworski site. Under that consent

decree, all obligations fall in the first instance on the

principal generator, Pervel Industries. It also provides

that if Pervel proves unable at some future time to

continue the work, the remaining settling defendants

would become responsible for completing it. In the fall

of 1993, Pervel informed EPA that it was financially

incapable of continuing the work. To resolve the

liability of the other settling generators, who sent a

combined total of 1.5% of the waste to the site, EPA

entered a consent agreement with them by which they

were given a de minimis settlement for payment of

approximately $310,000. 

The owners/operators opposed entry of the consent

agreement. In its July, 9, 1996 ruling, the court held

that entry was proper on the ground that the settlement

was fair and reasonable and was within the U.S.'s

discretion. The court also stated that the U.S. has the

discretion to enter into CERCLA settlement discussions

with any parties it chooses at any time as long it does so

in good faith. The owners/operators have appealed

entry of the consent agreement to the Second Circuit.

U.S. v. Charter International Oil Co. (1st Cir.): On

May 9, 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First

Circuit affirmed a trial court decision concerning the

scope of contribution protection afforded by a

CERCLA consent decree. The case concerned the

Sullivan's Ledge site in New Bedford, MA. The United

costs associated with the government's remainder case

(i.e., costs that had not been recovered in prior

settlements concerning the site). Charter disagreed,

arguing that the decree provided it with complete

protection against contribution suits by prior settlers. 

The trial court granted the government's motion to

enter the decree and rejected Charter's position. 

The First Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision and

rejected Charter's argument that the scope of

contribution protection afforded by a decree is as broad

as the decree's covenant not to sue. Instead, the First

Circuit expressly supported the government's view that

the scope of a covenant not to sue is not necessarily the

same as the matters addressed by a settlement, for

which settlers receive contribution protection from

other liable parties. 

U.S. v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc. et al. (D.

Mass.); U.S. v. Coaters, Inc. et al. (D. Conn.): On

August 21, 1996, a consent decree was lodged with the

District Court which resolves the liability of two

potentially responsible parties, Coaters, Inc. and Fibre

Leather Manufacturing Co., for contamination at the

Sullivan's Ledge Superfund site in New Bedford, MA,

and the Solvents Recovery Systems of New England

(SRS) Superfund site in Southington, CT. Both

defendants generated wastes that were transported to

these sites for disposal and, as a result, are liable to

EPA under Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA.

Coaters, Inc., a manufacturer of artificial leather and

coated fabrics, is located in New Bedford, MA. Under

the terms of the Sullivan's Ledge Superfund site

settlement, Coaters will make payments totaling

$418,000 to the U.S. in six annual installments. In

addition, Coaters will pay the site's prior settlers (which

are suing Coaters and Fibre Leather in a separate

contribution action) $387,000 in four annual

installments.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-3 May 1997

Fibre Leather, a manufacturer of artificial leather and constructing a protective cap over the Raymark site in a

latex saturated papers, is also located in New Bedford. manner which will accommodate Leach's planned

Under the terms of the Sullivan's Ledge Superfund site shopping mall development on the property. In

settlement, Fibre Leather will pay the U.S. and prior addition, Leach agrees to pay EPA and the State of

settlers $380,000, which will be split evenly between Connecticut a minimum of $500,000 in consideration

the plaintiffs. and to adhere to all institutional controls at the site,

Under the terms of the settlement concerning the SRS damage the protective cap and to provide EPA and the

Superfund site, Coaters and Fibre Leather will pay the state with access to the site. The agreement also

U.S. $115,000 and $30,000, respectively, to resolve includes a windfall profits provision under which, if

their site-related liabilities. Leach or someone to whom Leach sells the property

U.S. v. Federal Pacific Electric Co., Inc. et al. (D.

Mass.): On September 27, 1996, two consent decrees

were lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Norwood

PCB Superfund site. In the first decree, CornellDubilier Electronics, Inc. (CDE) and Federal Pacific

Electric Company, Inc. (FPE) (prior

owners/operators/generators) agreed to perform the

bulk of the remaining remedial work at the site, valued U.S. v. Rhode Island Solid Waste Management

at $9,900,000. In the second decree, Cooper Corporation (D. R.I.): In July, 1996, a consent decree

Industries, Inc. (prior operator/generator) will pay was lodged with the District Court which provides for

approximately $5,500,000 toward past and future performance of the remedy set forth in the Record of

oversight costs at the site. Each PRP is also paying a Decision for Operable Unit 1 at the Central Landfill

$60,000 penalty for violation of a CERCLA § 106 Superfund site in Johnston, RI. (The court

administrative order issued on August 8, 1990. Both subsequently entered this consent decree on October 2,

decrees also contain a provision designed to encourage 1996.) Under the consent decree, the RI Solid Waste

future redevelopment of the site through waiver of Management Corporation, a quasi-state agency which

claims against prospective purchasers. The court owns and operates the landfill, will perform the remedy

entered a consent decree between the U.S. and the fully, at an estimated cost of $32-37 million. The

remaining settling defendant, Friedland Brothers settling defendant will also pay $250,000 in past costs. 

Enterprises, on August 14, 1995. Liability for future oversight costs will be capped at

The significant provisions in the settlement concerning action and at $25,000 per year for operation and

waiver of claims against future landowners/developers maintenance activities, in 1995 dollars adjusted upward

confirm EPA’s new efforts to return Superfund sites to annually. The Operable Unit 1 remedy consists of

beneficial reuse. Additionally, the Region saved capping the landfill and preventing the highly

significant costs at the site by scaling back the cleanup contaminated groundwater in a “hot spot” area from

without endangering human health. Consistent with the migrating off-site by using a groundwater pump-andAgency’s efforts to assess risks and clean sites mindful treat-system.

of possible future uses, the original remedy of cleaning

up this industrial site to residential use at a cost of

approximately $55 million through the use of solvent

extraction was amended to an excavation and capping

remedy for a cost savings of approximately $20

million.

Raymark Industries, Inc.: On July 29, 1996, Region I an innovative landfill cleanup technology, and commits

signed a landmark prospective purchaser agreement EPA to share the risks of using that technology. Under

with Leach Family Holdings, Inc. The agreement the agreement, EPA will pay half of the costs of the

clears a major hurdle allowing Leach to move forward new technology, not to exceed $3.5 million, if the

with its plans to redevelop the Raymark site in technology does not fulfill expectations. The

Stratford, CT, including the estimated creation of 1,000 agreement also requires the settling parties to

new jobs and the addition of $1,000,000 in local tax implement a contingent, more traditional landfill

revenue. Under the agreement, Leach agrees to technology if necessary, and to pay certain past and

reimburse EPA for the costs the Agency will incur in future oversight costs related to the site. The

including the requirement to avoid actions which could

realizes a substantial profit from sale of the property

during the three years following purchase of the

property, a portion of those profits would be shared

with the government. In exchange, the agreement

grants to Leach and its successors a covenant not to sue

and contribution protection for the existing

contamination at the site.

$200,000 per year for remedial design and remedial

U.S. v. City of Somersworth et al. (D. N.H.): On

March 19, 1996, the District Court entered a consent

decree for the remedial design and remedial action at

the Somersworth Sanitary Landfill Superfund site in

Somersworth, NH. In a settlement which is the first of

its kind in the nation, the agreement calls for the use of
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-4

innovative technology has been estimated to cost wastewater to the Town of Ayer's municipal sewer

approximately $7 million. The contingent remedy has system in violation of federally enforceable

been estimated to cost approximately $26 million. pretreatment reporting requirements and local limits on

A total of 20 parties signed the consent decree, suspended solids. The Ayer wastewater treatment plant

including General Electric and the City of discharges to the Nashua River. CPF is a beverage

Somersworth. The settlement also caps a several year bottler employing approximately 105 employees with

effort to reduce the transaction costs for small waste sales of approximately $53,000,000, and is essentially

contributors at a landfill site, in part by including a a joint venture owned 20% each by five different Pepsi

unique negotiated two-tier de minimis settlement with distributors. Ayer issued the company several

15 small contributors. This de minimis settlement municipal orders requiring actions to end the

provided the small parties with settlement options violations, but the company failed to fix the problems. 

which were agreed by all the parties to be both modest EPA learned of the situation through inspections of the

and fair. municipal pretreatment program. 

U.S. and the State of Vermont v. Browning-Ferris of

Vermont, Inc. & Disposal Specialists, Inc. (D. Vt.):

On September 16, 1996, a consent decree was lodged

with the District Court which provided for 98%

recovery of all EPA costs, as well as for the conduct of

long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a

landfill cap, and other systems constructed under an

administrative order on consent entered between EPA

and the owner/operator, BFI-Vermont, Inc. and its

related company, Disposal Specialists, Inc. The

consent decree provides for significant recovery of

EPA oversight costs for the site, BFI's landfill in

Rockingham, VT. The consent decree also provides

the State of Vermont with a Grant of Environmental

Restrictions and Right of Access which ensures that

necessary institutional controls will be adhered to and

encourages the beneficial reuse of the property once

cleanup levels are attained. The parties included

language in the consent decree which allows EPA to

require the PRPs to perform any additional response

actions necessary to protect human health, welfare, or U.S. v. Cumberland Farms Inc. et al. (D. Mass.): On

the environment. September 18, 1996, the District Court entered a

Michael and David Vining: A Prospective Purchaser

agreement became effective on May 29, 1996

concerning one parcel of land at the Industry-Plex

Superfund site in Woburn, MA. The agreement

provides the Vinings with protection from CERCLA

liability in exchange for obtaining $30,000 and

commitments to provide any necessary access to the

parcel and to abide by all institutional controls

developed as part of the remedy for the site. The

Vinings intend to use the property for a materials

recovery facility and paper recycling center. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

U.S. v. CPF, Inc. (D. Mass.): On August 2, 1996, the

U.S. District Court entered a consent decree settling the

Clean Water Act action against CPF, Inc. of Ayer, MA. 

EPA's action arose out of CPF's discharges of

discharges of biochemical oxygen demand and total

In the settlement, CPF agreed to pay a penalty of

$160,786 and to spend an additional $99,625 to fund a

package of SEP projects to enhance protection of the

Nashua River watershed. The SEPs include: (1) an

$80,000 conservation land acquisition of 15 acres

along the Nashua River for water quality and habitat

protection and public recreational use; (2) a $7,000

project to stop sediment erosion plaguing a portion of

the Squannacook River, a tributary to the Nashua and a

prime trout fishery; and (3) a $12,625 bi-lingual

(English/Spanish) storm-sewer stenciling project in

Ayer and Fitchburg to help prevent the dumping of

wastes down public storm drains to the Nashua River. 

Though not a SEP, CPF also agreed to spend an

additional $50,000 to fund a volunteer water quality

monitoring program throughout the Nashua River

watershed under contract with a regional environmental

group. By the time the case was settled, CPF attained

compliance with applicable pretreatment limits. 

consent decree between the U.S. and Cumberland

Farms, Inc., which resolves a long-standing wetlands

enforcement action against Cumberland for its

unpermitted filling of 180 acres of wetlands in Halifax

and Hanson, MA between 1977 and 1990. Under the

consent decree, Cumberland is required to deed two

undeveloped tracts of land, totaling 225 acres, to the

MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife for permanent

conservation. In addition, the company will establish a

30-acre wildlife and wetlands corridor on the most

seriously damaged site and pay a $50,000 civil penalty. 

This settlement, together with an earlier agreement

with the subsequent purchasers of the property on

which the violations occurred, Baybank and Northland

Cranberries, Inc., will preserve a total of 490 acres of

undeveloped habitat in the same watershed as the

violations. This represents the largest permanent

preservation of habitat arising from a federal

enforcement action in New England.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-5 May 1997

The 30-acre wildlife and wetland corridor to be created were able to negotiate an agreement that satisfied all

by Cumberland will include 16 acres of new wetlands the parties.

and will provide critical access for wildlife between

Burrage Pond and the Great Cedar Swamp. Large This case is an example of state-federal cooperation

portions of the Great Cedar Swamp are being deeded to that resulted in a solution to a serious problem that has

the MA Audubon Society as a result of the earlier been largely neglected in the past - septic system

Northland/Baybank agreement. pollution of estuaries and shellfish beds in unsewered

U.S. v. Dexter Corporation (D. Conn.): On August

26, 1996, a joint motion to terminate the Clean Water

Act provisions of the U.S. v. Dexter Corp. consent

decree was granted by the federal court. The motion Ideal Forging Corporation: In FY 96, Region I

was made after the company paid a $9 million civil settled its largest Clean Water Act Section 311

penalty and completed all the water pollution remedial administrative enforcement action to date against Ideal

work which was required by the decree. The decree Forging Corp. of Southington, CT for violations of the

resolved the governments' action against Dexter for Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations. Ideal is a metal

violations of the Clean Water Act and RCRA at its pulp forging facility located near the Quinnipiac River that

and paper mill in Windsor Locks, CT. The company is manufactures plumbing fixtures and valves. As a result

still undertaking remedial work relating to hazardous of a spill investigation, EPA found that Ideal did not

waste contamination at the facility. have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

Over six million gallons per day of wastewater from the company for an illegal spill of oil into the river.

facility's pulp and paper operations is discharged into

the Connecticut River. EPA, together with the State, Under the terms of the settlement, the company paid a

had initiated civil, criminal, and administrative $30,000 penalty and performed a $26,000 SEP. This

suspension and debarment actions against Dexter for, project consisted of having the company hire

among other things, chronically discharging pollutants consultants to conduct both an environmental

in excess of that allowed under its water discharge compliance audit and a site assessment at its facility. 

permit, and having numerous illegal spills and The audits submitted by the company were

unauthorized discharges from various outfalls at the comprehensive and will provide important information

facility on a continuing basis. on the environmental compliance status of the facility. 

As part of the civil settlement, the company agreed to the company implements the recommendations of the

pay $9 million in penalties and take extensive remedial audits. 

action - in particular, installation of treatment facilities

to significantly decrease the oxygen depleting pollutant

loadings to the river. 

Town of Essex, Massachusetts: Successful

negotiations among EPA, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and the Town of Essex, MA on an

innovative solution to the town's septic system

problems concluded with the signing of a state court

judgment in the spring of 1996. Under the judgment,

the town agreed to address the long-standing bacterial

contamination of the Essex Bay estuary and local clam

flats caused by failing septic systems and illegal

connections to the town storm drains. Specifically,

Essex will be instituting a comprehensive program to

inspect and correct septic system and illegal connection

problems and institute a town-wide oversight and

management program. EPA had referred this matter to

DOJ with the intent of filing a federal action seeking

injunctive relief under Section 504 of the Clean Water

Act if settlement could not be expeditiously reached at

the state level. Working closely together, EPA and MA

communities. In Essex, the shellfish bed closures and

restrictions directly affect the local economy, such as

the clam diggers and seafood restaurants in the area.

(SPCC) Plan for its facility. EPA also cited the

EPA, in cooperation with the CT DEP, is ensuring that

EPCRA

FL Industries, Inc.: On October 27, 1995, Region I

issued a consent agreement which required FL

Industries to pay a penalty of $97,930 in settlement of

EPCRA violations. EPA initiated this action based on

FL's failure to submit material safety data sheets

(MSDSs) and Tier I and Tier II reports for certain

EPCRA listed chemicals used at its Clinton, MA

facility in 1987 to the local emergency planning

committee, the Massachusetts Emergency Response

Commission, and the local fire department. The

complaint also cited FL for its failure to submit Form

Rs for certain chemicals. 

RCRA

Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Boston,

Massachusetts): On August 2, 1996, Region I issued

a complaint and compliance order under Section 3008
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-6

(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to proposed in the complaint was $80,625. The penalty

the South Huntington Avenue Veterans Affairs Medical agreed to in the CAFO remained at $80,625.

Center in Boston, Massachusetts. The complaint

alleges eight violations and assesses a penalty of

$76,550. Violations include the failure to safely store

incompatible hazardous wastes and/or materials

incompatible with hazardous wastes; storage in

containers that were not compatible; the failure to

appropriately label containers; and the failure to

provide proper certification for land disposal

restrictions. During a multimedia inspection,

inspectors found that jars of caustics were stored with

jars of acids and also that jars of explosives were stored

with caustics in cardboard boxes. Such storage could

trigger an explosion, putting VA employees and

veterans at risk. They found 240 glass and plastic jars

of waste chemicals stored in cardboard boxes labeled

as hazardous waste containers. 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center

(Boston): A consent agreement and Final order was

signed on September 29, 1996 concerning the alleged

failure of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical

Center, Boston (VA) to comply with RCRA

regulations. The several violations at issue concerned

the management of hazardous waste, including the: 1)

failure to safely store incompatible hazardous wastes

and/or materials incompatible with hazardous wastes;

2) failure to appropriately label containers of hazardous

waste; 3) failure to provide a proper lab pack

certification on a land disposal restriction notification;

and 4) failure to provide a proper land disposal

certification notice. These violations were identified

during a routine site inspection. Facts provided by the

VA led Region I to reduce the proposed penalty

amount to $74,300. In the settlement the VA agreed to

conduct a SEP involving hazardous waste management

training for appropriate personnel at all New England

U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Centers. 

U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center: A consent

agreement and Final order (CAFO) was signed on

September 16, 1996 concerning the U.S. Navy

Undersea Warfare Center's alleged failure to comply

with RCRA regulations at two facilities in New London

and one facility in East Lyme, CT (Command Center at

Newport, RI). The violations at issue concerned the

management of hazardous waste, including the: 1)

failure to properly label containers of hazardous

wastes; 2) failure to conduct appropriate hazardous

waste determinations; 3) failure to prepare an adequate

hazardous waste contingency plan; and 4) failure to

provide hazardous waste training to applicable

personnel. These violations were identified during a

routine site inspection by Region I. The penalty

TSCA

Teknor Apex Company: A September 30, 1996

consent agreement and order resolved TSCA violations

by Teknor Apex of Pawtucket, RI. Teknor Apex had

failed to report the identities and volumes of several

chemicals manufactured in 1989, as required by EPA's

Inventory Update Rule. Teknor Apex manufactures

organic plasticizers, vinyl resins, garden hose, plastic

sheeting, and color pigments. The violations, which

occurred at facilities in Attleboro, MA and in

Brownsville, TN, hampered EPA's efforts to assess the

health and environmental risks of chemical

manufacture and distribution. The settlement provides

for a penalty of $52,950 and implementation of SEPs

costing $ 300,000. Four SEPs at the Attleboro facility

will reduce toxic emissions, reduce and improve the

quality of wastewater discharges, and reduce the

volume of industrial wastewater processed at Teknor’s

on-site wastewater treatment plant.

MULTIMEDIA

James River Paper Company (D. N.H.): In August

1996, the U.S. District Court in Concord, NH entered a

consent decree settling a May 1995 case against James

River Corporation and its successor, Crown Vantage,

for violations at the James River pulp and paper mills

in Berlin and Gorham, NH. The consent decree

includes a $200,000 penalty, requires Crown to control

foam in its discharges, and requires an assessment of

all potential sources of illegal discharges to the

Androscoggin River and evaluation of the adequacy of

practices, procedures, and facilities in place to prevent

unpermitted discharges. The consent decree also

includes an SEP to reduce the release of sulfuric

compounds into the air. The SEP is now operational

and is removing more than 6 tons of sulfuric compound

air emissions on a daily basis. The case arose primarily

out of a sulfuric acid spill that reached the Berlin, NH

wastewater treatment plant in 1993. The company had

failed to follow proper procedures for reporting the

spill.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-7 May 1997

REGION II

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S. v. Automatic Rolls (D. NJ): Several years ago

Region II carried out an initiative to assess the status of

compliance of large commercial bakeries in New

Jersey with applicable air emissions regulations. 

Under this initiative, Region II allowed the bakery

owner to test the facility, or to waive the costly test and

agree to a compliance agreement. A consent decree

resolving a VOC emission case against Automatic

Rolls was lodged in the District of New Jersey on

March 14, 1996. Under the decree the defendant,

Northeast Foods (the parent of Automatic Rolls), is

required to install over $250,000 worth of emission

collection and incineration equipment in order to come

into compliance with the emission limits. The

emissions in question are volatile organic compounds

(VOC), a precursor to ozone (smog) formation. 

During the baking process, ethanol, a VOC, is emitted

by the leavening action. Northeast will also pay a civil

penalty of $81,831 for its past violations. This case is

one of six similar cases which were part of the Region

II initiative. 

Baxter Healthcare, Corp.: Region II inspectors

discovered, and confirmed by obtaining subsequent

documentation, that Baxter Healthcare Corp. had

installed and operated an NSPS-regulated steam

generating unit without complying with NSPS

producers and in violation of SO emission standards. 2

On September 27, 1996 Region II issued an

administrative consent order to Baxter, located in

Carolina, Puerto Rico, resolving these violations. 

Baxter agreed to pay a civil penalty of $85,000, comply

with the applicable NSPS regulations at all affected

units and perform a Supplemental Environmental

Project. Under the SEP, which has a value of at least

$51,600, Baxter agreed to use low sulfur fuel in its

non-regulated boilers, thereby reducing total sulfur

emissions at its facility. Baxter has agreed to use the

low sulfur fuel in these additional units for a period of

at least 12 months, after which it will phase out the use

of these boilers. 

U.S. v. Chevron (D. NJ): On February 26, 1996, the

United States filed a complaint against Chevron USA,

Inc. in the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of

the Clean Air Act (CAA) arising out of Chevron's 1983

replacement of an air pollution control device with a

less efficient device at its refinery in Perth Amboy,

New Jersey. Also filed was a Stipulation settling the

case for a total penalty of $698,349. The complaint

against Chevron alleged multiple violations of the

NSPS Subpart J Standards of Performance for

Petroleum Refineries. During the period that the

settlement was negotiated, Chevron demonstrated that

it was able to meet the Subpart J sulfur oxide emission

standards with pollution abatement equipment installed

in 1993, and has now come into full compliance with

the CAA.

U.S. v. Chevron, USA, Inc., PJS Construction

Company, Inc., Mayer Pollock Steel Corporation,

and Falcon Associates, Inc. (D.NJ): On December

8, 1995, the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey entered a consent decree that

settles an enforcement action initiated by the United

States under the Clean Air Act against Chevron and

three of its contractors for violations of the Asbestos

demolition NESHAP. Region II inspectors, as well as

citizen observers, found that asbestos removal which

occurred in 1989 and 1990 at the Chevron Refinery

facility in Perth Amboy, NJ violated the asbestos

NESHAP rules. The asbestos removal occurred as part

of the renovation of Chevron's boiler house and the

demolition of a catalytic cracking unit at the facility. 

The consent decree provides for the payment by the

defendants of penalties of $155,000 for the violations. 

The decree also requires Chevron and the other

defendants to comply at all times in the future with the

requirements of the Asbestos NESHAP.

U.S. v. CITGO Asphalt Refining Company (D.NJ):

EPA Region II and CITGO Asphalt Refining Company

(CARCo) reached a settlement which requires CARCo

to pay a penalty of $1,230,000, and to implement a

compliance schedule. The injunctive centerpiece of

this settlement requires CARCo's Paulsboro refinery to

comply with the sulfur oxide emission standard set

forth at 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.100 to 60.109 (Subpart J). 

The underlying enforcement action also addressed

CARCo's violation of the Subpart J monitoring and

testing requirements, portions of the New Jersey SIP,

and NESHAP reporting violations. 

U.S. v. General Electric (N.D.NY): On August 27,

1996, the court entered a Stipulation and order of

Dismissal under which the United States settled a civil

action against the General Electric Company for

violations of the New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS) promulgated under the Clean Air Act. The
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-8

Stipulation requires GE to pay penalties in the amount Realty and Management Construction Corp, the last of

of $60,684 for violations of EPA's NSPS for Volatile seven contractors originally sued along with the New

Organic Liquid Storage Vessels. GE violated these York City Board of Education as part of Region II's

regulations by failing to equip two methanol storage contribution to a nationwide asbestos initiative that

tanks which are located at its facility in Waterford, New resulted in the filing of 13 cases in 1989. This case

York with internal floating roofs to control the emission involved falsification of testing data about asbestos in

of volatile organic compounds. schools, required to be gathered under federal law. The

U.S. v. Harry Grant and Sandalwood Construction

Corp. (D.NJ): On November 17, 1995 the court

granted the United States' motion for Summary

Judgement and awarded the requested statutory

maximum penalty against both defendants. Harry

Grant and Sandalwood were found to be operators of

the demolition of approximately 70 acres of run down

buildings (formerly a Bethlehem Steel shipyard) in an

area of the Hoboken waterfront. 

The Court found that there were 119 violations of the

asbestos demolition NESHAP that occurred during the

summer of 1988, resulting in a total penalty of $2.975

Million. The judge refused to mitigate the penalty,

reasoning that the violations continued after EPA

issued administrative orders requiring that they be

ceased, and the violations may have endangered the

health of hundreds of nearby residents. In applying the

penalty assessment criteria of §113(e)(1) of the CAA,

the Court found no basis from the evidence available in

the record to assess anything less than the maximum

$25,000 for each of the 119 violations found. 

U.S. v. Mobil (D.NJ): On May 17, 1996, the United

States filed a complaint against Mobil Oil Corporation,

in the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of the

Clean Air Act's NSPS Subpart J regulations at its

refinery in Paulsboro, New Jersey. Also, filed was a

Stipulation and order settling the case for a total penalty

of $142,800. The complaint against Chevron alleged 

multiple violations of monitoring, testing, and reporting

requirements. The complaint also alleged that Mobil's

monitoring data indicated that Mobil failed to "operate

and maintain" its facilities in a manner consistent with

good pollution abatement practice. This count was

supported by Mobil's own monitoring data, which

consistently exceeded the applicable sulfur oxide

standards.

In September 1993, EPA issued a compliance order

addressing all the above-mentioned violations. Mobil

swiftly responded to the order and has maintained

consistent compliance with Subpart J since 1994. As

such, the case was resolved as a penalty only

settlement.

U.S. v. Owners Realty (S.D.NY): On September 6,

1996, a consent Judgment was entered against Owners

judgment mandates that no principal of the company

may ever again engage in the asbestos abatement

business and the Company must pay a $412,500

penalty. This civil action was stayed for approximately

three years while EPA was conducting criminal

investigations.

CERCLA

U.S. v. 175 Inwood Associates, et al. (E.D.NY): On

March 29, 1996, a complaint was filed in federal

District Court on behalf of EPA Region II with respect

to the Rockaway Metal Products Superfund site,

located in Inwood, Nassau County, NY. The action

seeks cost recovery from 175 Roger Corp., a

partnership named 175 Inwood Associates, and the

individual partners of that partnership (Abraham

Woldiger, Abraham Taub, and Peter Hoffman). The

complaint also seeks civil penalties under CERCLA for

failure to fully respond to EPA information requests,

failure to comply with EPA's request for access and

administrative access order, and failure to comply with

an EPA administrative clean-up order relating to the

site.

Rockaway Metal Products leased the site from 175

Inwood Associates. In May 1989, Rockaway

abandoned its facility at the site, leaving behind

approximately 150-250 drums, 22 pressurized

cylinders, a tanker-trailer and 4 underground storage

tanks. These conditions led, in 1992, to the issuance by

EPA of an administrative order to 175 Inwood

Associates, then the owner of the site. The order

required the respondent to perform a removal action at

the site. 175 Inwood Associates ultimately did carry

out the removal action, but failed to comply with a

number of the deadlines and other requirements of the

administrative order. Indeed, 175 Inwood Associates'

noncompliance forced EPA, in early 1993, to make

preparations for carrying out the removal action itself;

175 Inwood Associates resisted that effort by refusing

to provide EPA with access to the site so that EPA

could carry out the cleanup. The partnership and its

partners also failed to comply with several EPA

information requests.

United States v. Allied Signal, et al. (D.NJ): A

consent decree resolving litigation related to the

Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services (BROS) Superfund
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-9 May 1997

site, Logan Township, New Jersey was lodged with the precursors were abandoned in the facility and in trailers

District Court in Camden, New Jersey, on Monday, at the site. In 1994-95, EPA conducted a cleanup to

September 30, 1996. More than 90 companies and remove these wastes. The removal action, and EPA's

federal and state agencies agree under the consent associated investigative and enforcement activities to

decree to contribute at least $221.5 million in date have cost in excess of $3.1 million.

reimbursement of past costs and towards future

groundwater and wetlands work at the site.

The parties include EPA, the State of New Jersey,

some 79 private PRPs, and a number of other Federal

and State agencies (named as generator defendants in

contribution claims). The extremely complex

settlement, valued at $221.5 million -- one of the

largest Superfund settlements ever -- provides for cost

recovery and performance of future response work. 

The federal PRPs will be paying the majority of the

costs of the settlement.

U.S. v. Allied Signal et al. (S.D.NY): On May 1, 1996 G.E. and Caribe G.E. in 1984, the companies

a CERCLA consent decree was entered on behalf of completed a remedial investigation and feasibility study

Region II, relating to the Cortese Landfill Superfund of the site and are also conducting the design and

site located in Narrowsburg, New York. Thirty parties implementation of the remedy selected by EPA in its

executed the decree, which requires the parties to 1988 Record of Decision. EPA has incurred more than

implement the remedy selected in the September 30, $1.4 million in response costs in overseeing the

1994 Record of Decision for the site, as well as companies' response actions and in conducting other

reimburse the United States for future response costs activities. G.E. has reimbursed $450,000 of this

that will be incurred in overseeing the implementation amount. The new lawsuit seeks the remainder of our

of the remedy. The selected remedy to be implemented costs.

by the parties has an estimated value of approximately

$10 million. The site remedy includes a low

permeability cover system, the removal and off-site

treatment and/or disposal of drum disposal areas, the

extraction and treatment of contaminated ground water,

establishment of institutional controls, and future

monitoring to evaluate the remedy's effectiveness.

U.S. v. Barrier Industries, Inc. (S.D.NY): On potential source areas of groundwater contamination on

October 24, 1995, the Department of Justice filed a the site. The estimated cost of the work that Cibacomplaint in the Southern District of New York on Geigy will perform is $20 million. In addition, Cibabehalf of EPA Region II. The action seeks the recovery Geigy will also pay all of EPA's unreimbursed past

from Barrier Industries, Inc. and Kurt Wasserman, its response costs, $797,000, plus all of EPA's future

CEO, of the response costs incurred by EPA with response costs, including oversight costs. 

respect to the Barrier Industries, Inc. Superfund site,

located in Port Jervis, New York. The complaint also The site is on the National Priorities List and located in

seeks civil penalties for Kurt Wasserman's failure to Toms River, Ocean County, New Jersey. Groundwater

respond to CERCLA §104(e) information requests, a at the site is contaminated with organic and inorganic

temporary restraining order which bars Kurt compounds, and emanates from surface and subsurface

Wasserman from transferring assets, and an order former disposal areas on the site. Pursuant to a

nullifying a fraudulent conveyance from Kurt settlement with EPA in 1994, Ciba-Geigy is currently

Wasserman to his wife, Mildred Wasserman. remediating the groundwater contamination. EPA

Barrier manufactured janitorial chemicals at the site assessment for source area surface soils, as well as a

from 1978 until December 1993, when an estimated remedial investigation to examine the nature and extent

15,000 drums, pails, lab chemical containers, and of the contamination in the source areas at the site. In

approximately 200 storage tanks and reactor vessels of performing the feasibility study for the source areas,

hazardous wastes, chemical products, and product

U.S. v. Caribe General Electric Products, Inc., et al.

(D.PR): On March 26, 1996 a complaint was filed in

federal court on behalf of EPA Region II with respect

to the G.E. Wiring Superfund site in Juana Diaz, Puerto

Rico. The action seeks recovery from Caribe General

Electric Products, Inc. ("Caribe G.E.") and its parent

company, the General Electric Company ("G.E."), of

the response costs incurred by EPA with respect to the

site. EPA also seeks a declaratory judgment as to G.E.

and Caribe G.E.'s liability for future response costs. 

The site is a National Priorities List site. Pursuant to an

administrative consent order entered into by EPA and

Ciba-Geigy Superfund site: On October 18, 1995,

Region II issued an administrative order on consent

under Sections 104, 107, and 122 of CERCLA to the

Ciba-Geigy Corporation. The order requires CibaGeigy to perform, under EPA oversight, a feasibility

study for Operable Unit Two to develop and evaluate

remedial alternatives for approximately twenty-one

recently completed a baseline public health risk
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-10

Ciba-Geigy has agreed to adopt EPA's risk assessment wastes from the mid-1950's until approximately 1980. 

and remedial investigation report. I.S.A. and Round Lake were transporters of hazardous

U.S. v. First Marine Shipyard Inc., et al. (E.D.NY):

On September 30, 1996 the U.S. filed a complaint for

CERCLA cost recovery and penalties related to Region

II's cleanup of the barge Nathan Berman. The

complaint seeks recovery of approximately $1.8 U.S. v. Occidental Chemical Corporation (W.D.NY):

million from First Marine Shipyard, Marine Facilities In March, 1996 a cost recovery consent decree

Inc., Marine Movements, Inc., and Peter Frank and memorializing partial settlement of the Love Canal

Jane Frank Kresch individually. It also includes a litigation was entered by U.S. District Court. The

second cause of action against First Marine Shipyard settlement recovers $137 million that the U.S.,

for failure to comply with an administrative CERCLA primarily through EPA Region II, spent on the site --

§106 order issued to it in March of 1993. $129 million (in four installments, plus interest) from

U.S. v. Kevan M. Green and Polymer Applications,

Inc. (W.D.NY): On May 21, 1996 a complaint was

filed on behalf of EPA Region II against Kevan M.

Green and Polymer Applications, Inc. relating to the

Polymer Applications Superfund site, located in the

Town of Tonawanda, Erie County, NY. The complaint

sought a court order allowing EPA access to the site so

that the Agency could complete a cleanup. On August

29, 1996, the court issued an order granting EPA the

access requested.

The site is a former phenolic resins and rubber

products manufacturing facility. In March 1994, EPA

inspected the essentially abandoned facility and

discovered, among other things, large quantities of

hazardous substances in numerous deteriorating drums, U.S. v. Peirce, et al.: On August 10, 1996, the district

tanks and other containers. EPA commenced a court in this case entered a consent decree that had

removal action at the site immediately after the been signed on behalf of EPA Region II, 17 private

inspection. parties, and four federal agency PRPs, relating to the

U.S. v. International Paper Company, et al.

(S.D.NY): This case relates to the Warwick Landfill

site, located in Warwick, Orange County, NY. On

June 10, 1996 the district court entered a consent

decree signed on behalf of EPA Region II and two

companies -- I.S.A. in New Jersey, Inc. ("I.S.A.") and

Round Lake Sanitation Corporation ("Round Lake"). 

The consent decree requires the escrow agent who is

holding the proceeds of the sale of assets of I.S.A. and

Round Lake to pay the United States $262,500 (plus

interest) in settlement of the US' claims under

CERCLA for civil penalties and punitive damages,

arising out of I.S.A. and Round Lake's noncompliance

with an administrative order issued by EPA in 1992. 

The consent decree also requires the escrow agent to

pay the United States $487,500 (plus interest) in partial

reimbursement of EPA's past response costs at the site. 

The site is on the National Priorities List and is a

former municipal landfill. The site was used for the

disposal of industrial, commercial and municipal

substances to the site. The companies were two of the

PRPs whom EPA ordered to implement the selected

remedy for the site, which includes capping of the

landfill. 

Occidental, and $8 million from the U.S. Department

of Defense on behalf of the Army. 

Prior to the enactment of CERCLA, the United States

filed a complaint (citing primarily §7003 of RCRA)

against OCC, the successor corporation to the Hooker

Chemicals & Plastics Corporation for the Love Canal

site in December 1979. Of the $137 million total

reimbursement, $108.3 million will be reimbursed to

the Superfund, with the remainder going to the Federal

Emergency Management Agency for its costs in

relocating residents from the Love Canal area. The

Army's contribution to the settlement resolves OCC's

counterclaim which alleged that the Army disposed of

hazardous wastes in the Canal during World War II. 

York Oil Superfund site -- a National Priorities List

site located in Moira, Franklin County, NY. The

consent decree provides for the implementation of the

remedy selected in EPA's February 1988 Record of

Decision for the site, which involves the solidification

and stabilization of contaminated soils and the pumping

and treatment of groundwater. The decree embodies a

mixed funding settlement under which EPA will be

paying approximately 16% of the cost of the $17

million remedy. The settling PRPs also agreed to

reimburse EPA for $4 million of its past costs at the

site.

In September 1996, EPA Region II also signed a

separate cost recovery consent decree in this case with

24 PRPs who had not signed the RD/RA consent

decree. This new consent decree was lodged with the

district court on November 6, 1996 and calls for the

payment of an additional $2,225,000 to EPA. This

amount will help defray EPA's mixed funding share

under the RD/RA consent decree, and also reimburses
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-11 May 1997

EPA for some of the past costs that were not covered waste from a portion of the site and consolidating it

by the RD/RA consent decree. with another part of the landfill; constructing

Quanta Resources site: On December 14, 1995

Region II issued an administrative order on consent

under CERCLA in connection with the Quanta

Resources site in Edgewater, New Jersey. The site is

on the west bank of the Hudson River. The order

requires respondents, County of Bergen and

Metropolitan Edgewater Associates, to undertake EPA has also entered into administrative de minimis

certain removal activities to address surface and settlements with four small waste contributors at the

subsurface contamination on a portion of the fifteen- site. The most recent of these settlements was signed

acre site. Furthermore, the respondents will reimburse by EPA and the Sidney Central School District in

EPA for all past response costs and oversight costs September, 1996. The School District will be paying

relating to the work under the order. EPA $40,701.95 in return for a covenant not to sue

The site operated as a coal tar-processing facility from

1930 until 1974, and as a waste oil storage and

recycling facility from 1974 until 1981, when it was

closed by the State of New Jersey due to illegal waste

disposal practices. A site assessment by EPA in 1985

revealed the existence of surface and subsurface

contamination. 

On September 27, 1996, Region II entered into another

administrative order on consent with the Allied Signal,

Inc., a former owner and operator for a removal action

at the site. Under this order, AlliedSignal is obligated

to sample and remove contaminated surface soils, as

well as any underground storage tanks, pipes and other

waste material that may be found during the removal

action. The estimated value of the work is $350,000. 

In addition, this order obligates the respondent to

reimburse EPA for all past and future response costs

relating to the work and this order.

U.S. v. Rohm & Haas, et al.: In a case Region II has

been litigating for over ten years, on September 26,

1996, Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the District Court

of New Jersey, issued an order and Opinion granting

the United States' motion for partial summary Judgment

as to liability against defendant Owens-Illinois, and

striking 21 of its 22 affirmative defenses. The Judge

denied the United States' motion in regard to OwensIllinois' affirmative defense relating to the issue of

divisibility of harm. Trial on the issue of divisibility is

pending. 

Sidney Landfill site: This NPL site is located in the

Towns of Masonville and Sidney, NY and was used as

a waste disposal landfill from 1967 to 1972. On July 5,

1996, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order to

Amphenol Corp. and AlliedSignal, Inc., requiring them

to design and implement the remedy selected by EPA

in its September 1995 Record of Decision. The

selected remedy for the site includes excavating the

independent closure caps over four discrete areas; and

extracting contaminated groundwater in one location at

the site. The estimated cost of the selected remedy is

$10.3 million, not including the contingent

groundwater remedy, and $15.5 million if the

contingent remedy is included.

regarding the site.

CLEAN WATER ACT

United States v. Caribe Tuna, Inc. (D.PR): On April

30, 1996, a Stipulation, Settlement agreement and

order was entered resolving this Clean Water Act

NPDES action brought by Region II. Defendant

operated a tuna packing operation in Ponce, Puerto

Rico and had been in chronic violation of its NPDES

permit. The settlement calls for a cash penalty of

$300,000. There is no injunctive relief required

because the facility has been closed and is not

anticipated to reopen. 

United States v. Hi-Temp Specialty Metals, Inc

(D.NJ): A consent decree was entered on December

22, 1995 resolving this Clean Water Act (Pretreatment)

case brought by Region II. This enforcement action

was initiated against the Defendant for numerous

violations of the pretreatment regulations promulgated

pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA). The

Defendant achieved compliance with the CWA in

November 1993, therefore, this settlement was for

penalties only. Defendant is required to pay a penalty

of $300,000 (plus interest) in four installments over

three years, with the final payment due on January 22,

1999.

Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente, Inc. v.

Mayaguez Water Treatment Company, Inc., et al.

(D.PR): EPA Region II was actively engaged in the

negotiations and was instrumental in assisting in the

resolution of this Clean Water Act Section 505 citizens'

suit. The parties involved included the citizens group,

Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente (MPSA), the

Mayaguez Water Treatment Co. (MWTC) and its two

parent companies -- Star-Kist Caribe, Inc. and Bumble

Bee International, Inc. -- and the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-12

A consent decree between MPSA and MWTC, Star- The Stipulation covers 31 inland sewage treatment

Kist and Bumble Bee was entered on May 23, 1996. plants (STPs) under the order. The studies will cover

The consent order requires MWTC to pay a penalty of all 55 inland STPs. The water quality studies are

$500,000 to EQB for all past violations of the permit estimated to cost about $3 million, with additional

and Water Quality Standards and contains stipulated injunctive relief requirements to cost over $25 million. 

penalty provisions payable to EQB for exceedences of

the limits established in the order or for failures to meet

the compliance schedules established in the order. The

consent decree requires MWTC to construct an

upgrade to its onsite waste water treatment plant; to

conduct studies to determine if sedimentation and

metals bioaccumulation in Mayaguez Bay are occurring

as a result of the MWTC discharge; to conduct a waste

minimization study; and to make a payment of

$500,000 to the University of Mayaguez for the

purposes of conducting an ecological study of

Mayaguez Bay. The consent decree also requires

MWTC to construct and operate the effluent diffuser

required for the mixing zone included in the new

NPDES Permit, which Region II issued on June 27,

1996. 

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority: Region

II issued consent agreements/consent orders (CA/COs)

resolving these three Clean Water Act 309(g) Class II

administrative penalty actions against PRASA's

Bayamon, Carolina and Puerto Nuevo POTWs for

violations of their NPDES permits. Under the

CA/COs, PRASA is required to pay an administrative

penalty of $210,000 and undertake a SEP worth at least

$60,000 to install a telemetry system at 20 pump

stations associated with these POTWs. The telemetry

system will allow remote, "real-time" monitoring of

their operation.

United States v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer $675,000 in stipulated penalties for violations of a

Authority (PRASA I)(D. PR): A Joint Stipulation of prior Court order.

the Parties Concerning Achievement of Final NPDES

Permit Limitations, which was entered into between

PRASA and Region II pursuant to the 1978 and 1983

Court orders, was signed by the parties in September

and lodged with the Court on October 7, 1996. The

Stipulation provides for a cash payment of $375,000 by

PRASA in settlement of all pending quarterly

enforcement motion penalty amounts assessed by EPA

pursuant to the Court orders. It also requires that

PRASA formulate a schedule for Water Quality Studies

to determine appropriate advanced waste treatment

(AWT) effluent limits; and sets forth

design/construction schedules for necessary AWT

facilities once the studies are completed. The

Stipulation also modifies the 1985 Court order by

allowing STPs to be removed from the order once they

meet secondary treatment requirements, rather than the

current requirement to meet permit limits for BOD

(biological oxygen demand) and SS (suspended solids). 

United States v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer

Authority (PRASA II)(D.PR): A consent decree was

entered by the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico on

December 5, 1995 in this Clean Water Act NPDES

action brought by Region II. The consent decree calls

for a cash penalty of $200,000; the construction of

sludge treatment and disposal facilities at eight of

PRASA's water treatment plants; and the creation of a

line of credit of $25 million with the Government

Development Bank of Puerto Rico which is to be used

by PRASA to help finance the construction of sludge

treatment and disposal facilities at an additional

seventy-four water treatment facilities which are the

subject of a separate administrative order.

United States v. Virgin Islands Department of Public

Works (D. VI): In January, 1996 an Amended consent

decree was entered in this Clean Water Act (NPDES)

action brought by Region II. The Amended consent

decree sets compliance schedules for the Virgin Islands

to construct improvements at eleven existing POTWs

and construct two new POTWs. This injunctive relief

is expected to cost approximately $35-40 million. 

Under the Amended consent decree, the Virgin Islands

must also establish a $625,000 Corrective Action Fund

to finance day-to-day operational improvements at all

POTWs. A Court Monitor was appointed to oversee

compliance and the Virgin Islands was required to pay

RCRA

1833 Nostrand Avenue Corporation: In July 1996,

Region II entered into an administrative settlement

resolving five related RCRA Underground Storage

Tanks (UST) enforcement actions. The consent order

contains three separate Supplemental Environmental

Projects with a combined value of more than $500,000,

and assessed a penalty of $29,500.

1833 Nostrand Avenue Corporation ("1833") and its

sister corporations, all of Baldwin, New York, own

gasoline service stations in Nassau, Suffolk, Kings, and

Queens Counties in New York State. The action arose

from violations of the release detection and closure

regulations for USTs, promulgated pursuant to Subtitle

I of RCRA, at five Brooklyn gasoline service stations

owned by 1833. Five separate administrative
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-13 May 1997

complaints were issued against 1833 and various the RCRA regulations as well as the operating permit

operators of the stations. Settlements were negotiated for the HOVIC facility. The complaint seeks

with most of the operators, and another was found approximately $166,000 in penalties. 

liable by the administrative law judge following a

motion by EPA for accelerated decision. The owner

would not settle, and the five cases against 1833 were

consolidated into one action.

With a hearing imminent, the parties were able to

negotiate a settlement. The agreement requires

respondent to bring the five Brooklyn stations that were

the subject of the EPA complaint, and twelve other

stations located in Queens and owned by a corporation

affiliated with 1833, into full compliance with the

release detection requirements. Outside contractors

had to be hired to perform tank tightness tests and to

monitor the manual inventory of the tanks. The

company must further contract for Statistical Inventory

Reconciliation as an extra precaution to detect releases. 

Additionally, 1833 is required to perform site

assessments at the six stations and to upgrade two

facilities to the 1998 UST standards two years earlier

than required by law. The Queens stations are owned

by an 1833 affiliate corporation, LouHal Properties,

Inc., and had not been named in the EPA complaints.

Caribbean Petroleum Corporation: Region II issued trying to negotiate an order on consent, Region II

a corrective action order on consent to Caribbean unilaterally issued an administrative order requiring the

Petroleum Corporation for work at the company's defendants to assess the structural integrity of all their

Bayamon, Puerto Rico facility. This facility has been underground storage tank systems; to repair and test, or

the subject of past and ongoing multi-media permanently close any UST system determined to be

enforcement efforts and is part of Region II's Cataño corroded or potentially subject to structural failure; to

geographic initiative. Issued pursuant to §3008(h) of characterize the rate and extent of vertical and

RCRA, the order requires the company to conduct a horizontal migration of hazardous constituents in soils

facility investigation to determine the nature and extent and groundwater at and adjacent to the facility, and to

of any contamination at the site, to conduct a study of remediate such contamination. The Defendants did not

cleanup options (known as a corrective measures comply with the order and, pending assumption of

study), and to perform certain short term cleanup steps. responsibility by the defendants, New York State,

The order also mandates an assessment of the nearby working cooperatively with EPA, has undertaken much

Las Lajas Creek and process sewers at the facility. of the required remedial work.

HOVIC and Amerada Hess: Region II filed in

September, 1996 an administrative complaint against

the Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. (HOVIC) and its

corporate parent, the Amerada Hess Corporation

(Amerada Hess). Both named respondents, through

HOVIC, own and operate one of the largest petroleum

refineries in the Western Hemisphere, located on the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company: In

island of St. Croix in the United States Virgin Islands. June, 1996 Region II entered into an administrative

The facility produces gasoline, other fuels and various consent order with the Puerto Rico Industrial

petroleum distillates. Development Company ("PRIDCO") in which

The complaint alleges violations of RCRA, including: Supplemental Environmental Project. Under the

(1) failure to determine whether certain wastes project PRIDCO will, in an organized and methodical

generated constituted a hazardous waste and (2) the manner, increase its oversight of its tenants at its

improper land disposals of such wastes, a violation of industrial properties (of which there are hundreds) in

U.S. v. Oliver R. Hill and O.R. Hill Fuel Co.

(N.D.NY): A complaint was filed in the Northern

District of New York seeking injunctive relief and the

assessment of civil penalties against Oliver R. Hill and

O.R. Hill Fuel Co. Inc. for their violation of a Region II

administrative order issued under §7003 of RCRA (the

order authority for potential endangerment situations). 

This action stems from a petroleum release from

underground storage tank systems located at a gasoline

filling station and convenience store located on lands of

the Onondaga Nation, a federally recognized Indian

tribe, near Syracuse, New York.

The defendants had been doing business as O.R.'s GAS

AND GROCERY until mid-1993. In October 1994,

the occupant of a nearby residence detected gasoline

fumes while digging a groundwater well. The

Onondaga Council of Chiefs requested assistance from

the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation and EPA Region II. Site assessment

activities confirmed that the gas station was the source

of the release. In March 1995, after unsuccessfully

In the complaint, the government requests that the court

enjoin the defendants to comply with the previously

issued order and seeks civil penalties pursuant to

§7003(b) of RCRA for the Defendants' violations of

that order. 

PRIDCO committed itself to spend over $170,000 on a
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-14

an attempt to identify earlier those tenants with West Trading Co., and Puerto Rico Used Oil Collectors

financial and environmental compliance problems. Inc. with violating the used oil requirements under

The settlement resolved an administrative complaint in

which EPA had alleged that PRIDCO had stored In May 1994, EPA had documented that Sugar

hazardous waste without a permit in violation of §3005 Corporation and South West Fuel Inc. were storing

of RCRA. One of PRIDCO's industrial tenants had used oil in violation of RCRA's used oil regulations (40

abandoned hazardous waste for which PRIDCO had CFR 279 Subpart E) at Sugar Corporation's Guanica

become legally responsible. Mill facility situated in Ensenada Ward, Guanica,

Under the settlement PRIDCO will perform site 125,000 gallons of used oil from this facility were

assessments and an increased number of inspections at discharged into the Guanica Bay. In June 1995, some

its properties. It agreed to set up databases tracking used oil was illegally transported from the Guanica Mill

such information and to create new internal facility to another facility owned by Environmental

management systems so that the newly acquired Management Services where it was temporarily stored

information would trigger prompt response actions in violation of the used oil requirements. Between June

where problems were observed at its facilities. 1995 and May 1996, all of the remaining used oil was

PRIDCO also agreed to pay a $4,000 penalty as part of removed from Sugar Corporation's Guanica facility and

the settlement. properly disposed of. 

San Juan Cement: Continuing EPA's focus on

combustion facilities, Region II issued an

administrative complaint pursuant to Section 3008(a)

of RCRA against San Juan Cement for alleged

violations of RCRA at the company's Dorado, Puerto that had remained at its facility. The government,

Rico facility. The complaint proposed a penalty of one continues to prosecute its claims against the other nonhundred and forty-nine thousand dollars for the settling defendants in this case. 

corporation's violation of regulations that apply to the

burning of hazardous waste in an industrial furnace. 

Specifically, the complaint alleged that San Juan

Cement violated various operating limits set forth in its

Certificate of Compliance, as well as other operating

limits and recordkeeping requirements set forth in 40

C.F.R. Part 266. The complaint also alleged that the

company did not submit to EPA by the required

deadline a complete and accurate Certificate of

Compliance. In addition to this RCRA action, Region

II has previously undertaken enforcement against this

company under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the

Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. 

U.S. v. Sugar Corporation, et al. (D.PR): A consent

decree resolving the government's claims against one of

several defendants in this RCRA case initiated by

Region II was entered in September 1996 in federal

District Court in Puerto Rico. Under the settlement,

Sugar Corporation agreed to pay a civil judicial penalty

of $250,000 to resolve its liability for violating the used

oil requirements of RCRA. This is believed to be the

largest civil judicial penalty that has been obtained to

date for violations of EPA's used oil requirements.

A civil complaint had been filed in May 1996 charging

the Sugar Corporation, Environmental Management

Services Inc., Humberto Escabi-Trabal individually

and doing business as South West Fuel Inc. and South

RCRA.

Puerto Rico. On May 14, 1994, approximately

Sugar Corporation has now constructed the appropriate

secondary containment around the tank that had stored

used oil and has agreed to pay for most of the costs

associated with removing and disposing of the used oil

West Point U.S. Army Military Academy (West Point,

New York): Region II issued a complaint, compliance

order, and notice of opportunity for hearing February

22, 1996 for hazardous waste violations against the

U.S. Army Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. The

order included a total assessed penalty of $24,496 for

alleged RCRA storage and manifesting violations,

which involved “a large quantity generator that

generates hazardous waste from laboratory, training,

and vehicle and equipment maintenance operations.”

EPA discovered the violations during an August 11,

1995 RCRA compliance evaluation inspection at the

facility.

SDWA

Seneca Army Depot (New York): Region II reached a

final federal Facilities Compliance agreement (FFCA)

June 25, 1996, which requires a New York Army

facility to comply with the Surface Water Treatment

Rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The FFCA,

signed by EPA and Seneca Army Depot, in Romulus,

New York, required the facility to comply by

eliminating its unfiltered surface water source and

connecting to a water supply being developed by the

Town of Varick, N.Y.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-15 May 1997

TSCA

Atlantic City Convention Center: Region II issued a

TSCA administrative complaint on August 22, 1996

proposing a penalty of $180,000 against three New

Jersey respondents: the New Jersey State Sports and

Exposition Authority, the Atlantic City Convention

Center Authority, and the Atlantic City Convention and

Visitor's Authority. The complaint alleges respondents'

failures to comply with TSCA and EPA regulations

concerning the management of PCBs and equipment

containing PCBs at the Atlantic City Convention

Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Chemical Waste Management: Region II and

Chemical Waste Management (CWM), a subsidiary of

Waste Management, Inc. and one of the nation's leading

hazardous waste disposal operators, settled a

longstanding PCB administrative complaint with CWM

agreeing to pay a civil penalty over $200,000. The

Region had alleged that CWM failed to test various

shipments of biological treatment sludges for PCB

concentration levels; the shipments were sent to

CWM's Model City, New York, disposal facility. 

CWM accepted these shipments varying in number

between one and six, on 48 separate days. The Region

alleged that CWM's failure to conduct individual

truckload testing violated a condition of a PCB disposal

approval EPA had issued respondent pursuant to

TSCA.

CWM disputed liability, and the parties engaged in

extensive motion practice; CWM had argued that

testing each waste stream (there were three) satisfied

the applicable requirements. In September 1994, the

Agency's Chief Administrative Law Judge Lotis ruled

in the Region's favor. Rejecting CWM's arguments to

dismiss the case (as well as its arguments that the

Paperwork Reduction Act barred the proceeding),

Judge Lotis upheld our interpretation of the PCB

disposal approval and further held that the approval

constituted an order under TSCA. The parties

subsequently agreed to settle the matter for a civil

penalty of $203,000. 

New Jersey State Department of Corrections: On July

19, 1996 Region II issued an administrative complaint

under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

against the New Jersey State Department of

Corrections (DOC) for violations of the PCB

regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 6(e) of the

Act. The complaint cited sixteen violations of TSCA

and proposed a civil penalty of $1,755,000. The

violations occurred at two different correctional

facilities in Yardville and Avenel, New Jersey. 

Inspections of these facilities revealed that the State

DOC had numerous violations of inspection, recordkeeping, disposal, marking and registration

requirements for electrical transformers containing high

levels of PCBs. Several of the deficiencies dated back

a number of years. 

New York City Board of Education: On September

25, 1996 Region II issued a consent agreement/consent

order under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response

Act (AHERA -- Title II of TSCA) to the New York

City Board of Education. The order requires that the

Board of Education pay a $1,500,000 fine,

systematically reinspect each of its 1,069 schools for

asbestos, and prepare new management plans to ensure

that all school buildings are in compliance with

AHERA. The settlement results from an administrative

complaint filed against the Board after the criminal

conviction for fraud in New York State court of the

Board's employee chiefly responsible for asbestos

management. As provided by AHERA, the Board will

use the fine to pay some of the cost of compliance,

estimated to total $10-12,000,000. The Board is

required to finalize the work at a rate of 75 school

buildings per calendar quarter. 

New York State Office of Mental Health: On

September 19, 1996, Region II entered into an

administrative consent order and consent agreement

with the New York State Office of Mental Health. The

State Agency agreed to pay a penalty of $70,000, and

to perform a substantial Supplemental Environmental

Project (SEP) costing over $570,000. The order is in

settlement of two administrative complaints issued by

the Region against the State Agency alleging various

violations of TSCA and its regulations regarding

proper management of PCBs at the State's Bronx

Psychiatric Center (Bronx, New York) and Central

New York Psychiatric Center (Marcy, New York). In

the complaints EPA alleged that the State had failed to

properly dispose of leaked PCBs, and failed to compile

and maintain various records including inspection

reports for PCB-containing equipment. The SEP

provides for the abatement and/or encapsulation of lead

paint at 5 children's day care centers run by the State.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: Region

II achieved a comprehensive settlement of a TSCA

administrative complaint against the Port Authority of

New York and New Jersey, a joint State agency which

operates JFK and LaGuardia Airports in New York

City. The Region had cited the Authority for multiple

violations of PCB regulations at the airports. The

settlement provides that respondent will pay a civil

penalty of $19,500, and undertake two Supplemental

Environmental Projects (SEPs). One SEP consists of a

three year fluorescent bulb recycling program for all
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-16

Port Authority facilities in the New York metropolitan

area at a total cost of $130,000. The second SEP is a

storm water management training program to be

carried out at the airports over a two year period at a

cost of $90,000.

Prestolite Electric Incorporated: Region II entered

into a consent agreement and consent order on July 24,

1996, with Prestolite Electric Incorporated, a

manufacturer of motors, diodes, and alternators for

motor vehicles, located in Arcade, New York. The

agreement was the result of an administrative

complaint issued under TSCA which alleged multiple

violations of TSCA and the regulations promulgated

thereunder concerning management of Polychlorinated

Biphenyls (PCBs). The order requires Prestolite to

pay a penalty of $7,500 and to perform a Supplemental

Environmental Project (SEP). The SEP obligates

Prestolite to spend a minimum of $64,000 on the

removal and disposal of PCB Transformers to eliminate

the presence of PCBs at the facility.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-17 May 1997

REGION III

CLEAN AIR ACT

Hercules, Inc. (Virginia): EPA entered into a Partial

consent decree settling an action between the United

States and Hercules, Inc. (Hercules), for violations of

the Clean Air Act at a facility formerly owned by

Hercules in Covington, Virginia. 

U.S. v. Ohio Power Company (West Virginia): On

May 21, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia entered the amended consent

decree resolving a Clean Air Act action alleging

violations of the state sulfur dioxide emission

limitations at the Kammer Power Plant. The amended

decree imposes interim SO emission limitations for 2

Kammer pending West Virginia's promulgation of a

comprehensive, area-wide SO2 SIP revision. In

addition, Ohio Power has agreed to pay a $200,000

penalty and to perform a supplemental environmental

project at another facility to reduce NOx emissions.

U.S. v. Sahara Holding Company (West Virginia):

On December 21, 1995, the District Court in West

Virginia entered a stipulated order wherein the

defendants, David Marshall and Sahara Holding

Company (Sahara) agreed to comply with a November

13, 1996 administrative order to cease violations of the

asbestos NESHAP. The violations arose in the course

of the renovation of an apartment building (Broaddus

Apartments) owned by Sahara in Clarksburg, West

Virginia. David Marshall was the contractor. Sahara

failed to comply with the Stipulated order and the U.S. v. American Recovery Company, Carnegie

United States moved for contempt. It was determined National Gas Company, and USX Corporation

that Sahara had violated numerous deadlines in the (Pennsylvania): On September 18, 1996, the U.S.

Stipulated order, including failure to secure and seal Department of Justice lodged a proposed settlement

windows and doors on the building, and failure to with three defendants in a federal court action seeking

submit a work plan for the cleanup. The Magistrate recovery of the United States costs under CERCLA. 

then recommended a total fine of $17,500. In addition, Under the terms of the proposed consent decree,

he recommended that the United States be awarded its submitted to the federal district court, the three Settling

costs and attorneys' fees, and Sahara be ordered to Defendants, American Recovery Company, Carnegie

comply with an expedited schedule for sealing the Natural Gas Company and USX Corporation, will pay

building and submitting a work plan. the sum of $245,000 for recovery of past response

On July 1, 1996, EPA signed a referral of a second the Municipal and Industrial Disposal Company site. 

contempt action against Sahara. Sahara has continued The settlement (coupled with three earlier settlements

to violate the outstanding orders, including the against nine other named defendants) reflects a 70

contempt order. In particular, Sahara has not percent (70%) recovery of total response costs

implemented the work plan for remediation of asbestos associated with the site. USX Corporation, along with

contamination at the site and has communicated an Bethlehem Steel Corporation, has performed the

intent to not implement the work plan in the future. removal action at the site. 

The second contempt motion prompted another hearing

in August, 1996. The Magistrate ruled in favor of EPA

and again ordered Sahara to comply with the Stipulated

order. Sahara completed some tasks, but not all and

requested an extension of time. The extension was

granted, but Sahara was ordered to hire an oversight

contractor, which it did. EPA is still pursuing this

matter.

CERCLA

U.S. v. American Cyanamid, et al.: On April 24,

1996, a consent decree between the United States,

State of West Virginia, and 56 settling defendants was

lodged with the Federal District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia resolving the United States

and West Virginia's claims for past response costs at

the Fike/Artel Superfund site in Nitro, West Virginia.

The United States will recoup $19.6 million of its

$39.5 million in past response costs (West Virginia

will also recoup $1.115 million). In addition, the

settling parties have committed to further clean up the

site, provided that the estimated cost for the site

remediation does not exceed $59 million. Finally,

certain ongoing site remediation measures, estimated at

$30 million, are also included in the consent decree. 

Therefore, the total site remediation work being paid

for by the settling defendants (either in reimbursement

of past costs or implementation of present or future

operable units) is valued at $109 million. 

costs incurred by the United States in connection with
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-18

Brown’s Battery Breaking Superfund site

(Pennsylvania): On May 30, 1996, EPA and General

Battery Corporation entered into a consent decree with

respect to the Brown’s Battery Breaking Superfund

site. The Defendants will perform various remedial

activities at the site and will pay approximately

$3,050,000 in past and future costs associated with Dover Gas Light Superfund site: On July 5, 1996,

cleanup of the site. EPA entered into a CERCLA consent decree with the

Centre County Kepone Superfund site

(Pennsylvania): On September 30, 1996, EPA

entered into a consent decree with the Centre County

Kepone Superfund site. The site, a 32.3 acre chemical

manufacturing facility, and a portion of the Spring

Creek watershed, is located in State College, Centre

County, Pennsylvania. RNC has agreed to perform

various remedial actions at the site including:

extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater,

excavation and offsite, disposal of contaminated soils,

monitoring of surface water discharge from the site,

and improvements to the surface water drainage system

in the plant production area. RNC will also pay more

than $292,000 in pasts costs to settle this matter.

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation: Region

III approved a modification to a 1995 CERCLA

administrative consent order with Columbia Gas

Transmission Corporation which permits the Agency to

finance certain oversight activities using funds

provided in advance by the settlor and maintained by

EPA in a reimbursable account rather than from the

Hazardous Substances Superfund. Under the 1995

settlement, Columbia will characterize contamination

and perform CERCLA removal actions selected by

EPA at compressor stations and other locations along

the company’s 19,000 mile pipeline system. The U.S. v. Fidelcor Business Credit Corporation

system, which spans Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, (Pennsylvania): On July 19, 1996, the court entered

Virginia, West Virginia, New York, North Carolina, this consent decree in the CERCLA cost recovery

Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware includes over action. The consent decree requires the four original

200 compressor stations, approximately 15,000 liquid defendants (Fidelcor Business Credit Corporation and

removal points, approximately 3,000 mercury metering three of its officers) to pay the Superfund $720,000 as

stations, and numerous other locations. Oversight is reimbursement of removal costs expended at the

expected to range from $500,000 to several million Thompson Street Trailer (Philadelphia, PA) and

dollars per year. Eddystone Avenue Trailer (Eddystone, PA) sites.

Croydon Superfund site (Pennsylvania): A HH, INC. Burn Pit Superfund site (Hanover County,

Prospective Purchaser agreement for a parcel of Virginia): Reynolds Metals Company and Westvaco

property at the Croydon Superfund site (the site) in Corporation have agreed to perform certain removal

Bristol, Pennsylvania. was agreed to by EPA on actions at the HH Burn Pit Superfund site in Hanover

September 20, 1996. The purchaser is Slogam County, Virginia. Under the consent order, the

Enterprises Limited. Buying property at the companies will dispose of drums containing

contaminated site could have exposed future owners to decontamination water, soil and sediment cuttings, and

liability under CERCLA. Under the settlement, the drilling muds. These wastes were generated during the

purchasers are now obligated to pay the United States course of the Fund-lead RI/FS and were placed in 55-

$20,000. The purchasers must also provide gallon metal drums and stored on-site for future

unrestricted access to the site, and may not interfere

with remedial activities at the site. In exchange for

these commitments from the purchasers, EPA is

granting a limited Covenant Not to Sue the purchasers

for CERCLA liability arising from existing

contamination at the site. 

State of Delaware regarding the Dover Gas Light site.

The State of Delaware is a current owner of the site,

which formerly was the location of the Dover Gas Light

Company, a coal gasification utility operation. The

total settlement provides for the cash payment of $1

million, plus access to the site. It will reimburse the

United States $200,000 for past costs; $200,000 for

future costs; and $600,000 to reimburse future costs for

work performed by the Chesapeake Utility Company. 

This settlement with the State is precedential in light of

the Supreme Court's opinion in Seminole Tribe of

Florida v. Florida et al., Civil No. 94-12 (March 27,

1996), holding that the Eleventh Amendment precludes

some private party suits against States.

Drake Chemical Superfund site (Pennsylvania): On

February 14, 1996, EPA and American Color and

Chemical Corporation entered into a consent decree in

regard to the Drake Chemical Superfund site in Lock

Haven, Pennsylvania. Under the terms of the consent

decree, the Settling Defendants will finance and

perform a cleanup of contaminated groundwater at the

Drake site. Additionally, the United States will be paid

$3.6 million toward its response costs for the Drake

site. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will receive

$400,000 toward its costs at the site. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-19 May 1997

disposal. The companies will reimburse EPA

oversight costs associated with this work.

Keystone Sanitation Landfill site (Pennsylvania): Underwriters, Inc. (formerly “Penn Central

On May 3, 1996, DOJ lodged with the court a de Corporation”), to perform response activities at the

micromis consent decree entered into with 73 settlers.

This de micromis filing is the second in a series of de

micromis settlements for this site. EPA and DOJ

continue to evaluate de micromis petitions from

approximately 700 third-and fourth-party defendants.

Merit Products Superfund site (Pennsylvania): 

Following a 30 day public comment period in which no

comments were received, the Prospective Purchaser

agreement for the Merit Products Superfund site was

finalized. EPA previously had conducted a CERCLA

Removal Action, removing drums, vats, and other

containers of hazardous substances from the site,

located in North Philadelphia, after it had been

abandoned by its prior owner. Under the settlement,

Henshell will initially pay $3,500 to EPA, and

complete an environmental audit of the site. If

Henshell decides to buy the site it would pay EPA an

additional $14,000, and would remove and properly

dispose of any underground storage tanks located at the

site within ninety (90) days of acquisition. For its part,

the City has assumed responsibility for the removal and

proper disposal of any asbestos containing materials

that may be contained in the site's structures.

Old City of York Landfill (Pennsylvania): On

September 21, 1995, EPA issued a final determination

for the Old City of York de minimis settlement. In

September 1994, eleven de minimis generators for the

Old City of York Landfill site located in York County,

Pennsylvania entered into a CERCLA) administrative

order on consent (AOC) to resolve their liability to the

United States. The AOC requires each generator to

pay its per capita share of EPA's past costs at the time

of the settlement, its volumetric share of the site's future

costs, and a 200% premium on the future costs. The

total settlement equals $819,140.48. 

Palmerton Zinc Superfund site (Palmerton,

Pennsylvania): On September 30, 1996, EPA entered

into eleven (11) administrative orders on consent

(AOC) with de minimis landowners in Palmerton,

Pennsylvania. Under the terms of the AOCs, the

respondents agreed to grant access to EPA and to

cooperate with EPA in an ongoing Removal Action in

Palmerton. Under the terms of the settlement,

Defendants agree to pay approximately $9 million as an

initial payment. In addition to this initial payment, the

Settling Defendants have agreed to pay, over a six year

period, future payments of $4.35 million, plus interest.

Paoli Rail Yard Superfund site (Pennsylvania): On

September 30, 1996, EPA issued a Unilateral

administrative order to American Premier

Paoli Rail Yard Superfund site. Under the order,

American Premier is responsible for cleanup activities

in the 400-acre watershed which includes the

residential area adjacent to the site. Remediation

activities include polychlorinated biphenyls

("PCBs")removal in the residential area and removal of

sediments containing PCBs from the stream sediments

along North Valley Creek, Hollow Creek, and Cedar

Hollow Creek (all tributaries to Little Valley Creek)

and Little Valley Creek and Valley Creek. 

Contaminated soils and sediments will be transported

by American Premier back to the Rail Yard Property

where they will be treated. The Rail Yard Property

itself, the only remaining portion of the site, will be

remediated by SEPTA, Amtrak and Conrail.

PECO Glenside Mercury Spill site (Pennsylvania): 

On March 8, 1996, the EPA issued an order to PECO

as the result of a mercury spill in a residential home. In

November of 1995, PECO performed routine gas line

and service changeovers to twenty-three homes in the

Glenside area. On February 20, 1996, a resident of

Garfield Avenue reported a suspected spill of elemental

mercury in the basement of his home and requested

assistance. On the same day, EPA and PECO

responded to the residence to perform a site

assessment. PECO advised EPA that the spill of

elemental mercury was likely the result of poor

handling of the old gas regulator removed during the

service meter changeover in November of 1995. The

residents of that home were relocated that day. Several

other homes on the block, which received service in

November, were notified. PECO has been performing

cleanup activities at the site. 

Pneumo Abex Corp. v. Bessemer and Lake Erie

Railroad Company, Inc., et al. (Virginia): On

September 12, 1996, Judge Raymond A. Jackson, of

the Eastern District of Virginia, issued a decision in the

Pneumo Abex Corp. V. Bessemer and Lake Erie

Railroad Company, Inc., et al. case. This case was filed

by Pneumo Abex to seek recovery of costs incurred in

responding to releases of hazardous substances at or

from the Abex Superfund site in Portsmouth, Virginia. 

The action was filed against approximately nineteen

railroads that had sent scrap journal bearings to the

former Abex Foundry. The court found Abex liable for

50 percent (50%) liable of the total response costs at

the site and the Railroads liable for the remaining 50

percent (50%) of the total response costs at the site. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-20

The court concluded that recoverable response costs to User Permit. Dean based its rebuttal case on the fact

date totaled $6.83 million. that it had not enjoyed an economic benefit from the

Publicker Industries site (Pennsylvania): On April

11, 1996, EPA entered into a consent decree with

Publicker Industries, Inc. and Sagrocry, Inc.,

Publicker's subsidiary (the "Settling Defendants"), for

the Publicker Industries Superfund site in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. EPA has spent over $17 million in

response costs to date and will incur additional

response costs in the future.

U.S. v. Woodlawn Landfill (Maryland): The $6

million cost recovery consent decree in the Woodlawn

Landfill case was lodged in the U.S. District Court for

the District of Maryland on September 30, 1996. 

Under the terms of the consent decree, the Board of

County Commissioners for Cecil County, Maryland, the

owner of the landfill, will pay the United States $4.75

million, plus interest, in installments over five years,

and the U.S. Department of the Navy, a generator of

wastes disposed in the landfill, will pay $1.25 million,

toward the costs of cleaning up this Superfund site in

Colora, Maryland. The first payments received will be

used to reimburse the United States for its past

response costs of $1,011,446. All other funds received

will be deposited in a site-specific Special Account in

the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund and will be

used both to reimburse EPA for its future response

costs and to partially reimburse another PRP,

Bridgestone/Firestone, for its costs in implementing the

remedy under a unilateral administrative order. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

U.S. v. Blue Plains (Virginia): On August 2, 1996,

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

formally approved and entered the Stipulated

agreement and order settling the enforcement action

brought against the District of Columbia for violations

of the Clean Water Act at its Blue Plains wastewater

treatment plant. The agreement requires the District to

rehabilitate and reconstruct certain treatment units at

Blue Plains over the next two years, at an approximate

cost of $20 million, to make timely payments to

vendors and contractors supplying goods and services

to Blue Plains, and to maintain adequate inventories of

treatment chemicals at the plant. 

Dean Dairy Products, Inc. (Pennsylvania): On July

10, 1996, the court issued a $4.031 million judgement

against Dean Dairy Products, Inc. for Clean Water Act

pretreatment violations. The court found Dean liable

for 1,833 violations of the Clean Water Act: 79 for

interference with the Union Publicly Owned Treatment

Works (POTW) and 1,754 violations of its Industrial

delaying capital expenditures which eventually brought

it into compliance with the Clean Water Act. The

United States stipulated to this fact, thus negating the

need for expert testimony, and introduced Dean

documents that showed Dean could have reduced

production to come into compliance, an option to

which Dean had assigned a value of over $417,000 in

1994 alone. The court doubled the economic benefit to

reach the final penalty of $4.031 million

DuPont, Inc. (Delaware): On August 1, 1996, EPA

and DuPont, Inc. entered into an agreement to settle an

action for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act at

its Edge Moor, Delaware facility. The company will

pay a $20,000 penalty and complete two special

environmental projects. The Edge Moor plant

processes titanium dioxide for paint and pigments. 

Under the terms of the consent order, the first SEP will

consist of an upgrade of the facility’s treatment system

with the addition of a neutralizer. This project will

involve a capital expenditure of at least $200,000. 

EPA believes that the project will result in water

quality protection above Clean Water Act

requirements. The second SEP will be a study of

process waste reduction at the facility. DuPont will

then implement the study’s recommendations to the

extent economically feasible. The company agrees to

pay an additional sum (up to $52,000) if it fails to

complete these projects.

Halle Enterprises, Inc. (Virginia): On September 11,

1996, EPA entered into a consent agreement and

consent order in settlement of the CWA case against

Halle Enterprises, Inc., Kingstowne Ltd. Partnership;

and Warren E. Halle. This matter involved the illegal

fill of wetlands in violation of the Clean Water Act on a

1,110 acre parcel of land which is a commercial and

residential planned community known as Kingstowne,

located in Fairfax County, Virginia. respondents

agreed to mitigate and restore at least twenty-four (24)

acres of wetlands, complete the conditions as set forth

in two Wetlands Conservation Easements which cover

different parts of the property, perform a Supplemental

Environmental Project (SEP) by creating three storm

water control structures upstream of the Kingstowne

Lake, and pay a penalty of $25,000. In the event

respondents do not complete the SEP an additional

penalty of $25,000 will be paid. An administrative

order on consent was issued at the same time which

sets forth the details of the restoration/mitigation work

to be performed.

Pennzoil Products Company and Eureka Pipe Line

Company (West Virginia): The United States filed a
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-21 May 1997

complaint against Pennzoil Products Company and

Eureka Pipe Line Company (a wholly-owned EPA executed a consent agreement and order settling

subsidiary of Pennzoil) in the Southern District of West an administrative action against EMI Company for 

Virginia. The complaint seeks Clean Water Act payment of $20,000 and agreement to perform a

penalties for thirty seven (37) Pennzoil oil discharges Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). The SEP

and for sixteen (16) Eureka oil discharges, all of which requires respondent to install and operate (for one (1)

reached navigable waters of the United States. In year) baghouse emissions control technology for four

addition to penalties, the United States seeks injunctive (4) electric induction furnaces presently not subject to

relief given the companies' long history of discharges Best Available Control Technology (BAT) control

caused by pipeline corrosion. requirements. The total SEP capital costs and

Sun Company (Pennsylvania): On September 23,

1996, EPA entered into an agreement with defendants

to address alleged Clean Water Act violations at the

Sun Company's oil refinery in Philadelphia. Under the

terms of the consent decree, the company will pay a

$600,000 penalty, restore over an acre of wetlands, and

donate a hazardous materials emergency vehicle valued

at $300,000 to the City of Philadelphia. The HPC Associates et al. (Pennsylvania): On December

Settlement resolves Sun's liability for alleged violations 4, 1995, Administrative Law Judge Thomas W. Hoya

of its Clean Water Act permit at the South Philadelphia ordered that the Administrative Hearing scheduled be

refinery and its violations of its NPDES permit canceled, after EPA and the respondents reached

occurring at the oil refinery. On numerous occasions, agreement. respondents were ordered to pay $80,000

the Philadelphia Refinery discharged pollutants within 60 days for failure to report the presence of

(including oil and grease, total suspended solids, BOD, Chlorine at an apartment complex in Huntington

ammonia, pH and phenols) into the Schuylkill River in Valley, Pennsylvania. 

amounts exceeding the limitations set in their NPDES

permit. 

Defendants have completed all injunctive relief set

forth in the decree. Sun upgraded their Philadelphia

Refinery wastewater treatment, stormwater conveyance

and operational practices to prevent further violations

of the NPDES permit. Sun remains liable for all

stipulated penalties incurred since June 1994. The

proposed consent decree is subject to a thirty-day

public notice and comment period and to final court

approval.

EPCRA

Cage Graphic Arts, Inc. (Pennsylvania): The consent

agreement and consent order was negotiated in

settlement of a 15 count Administrative complaint

issued against Gage Graphics Arts, Inc., (Cage), a

manufacturer of printing plates, located in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. respondent was charged with fifteen

counts of failure to report to the State Emergency

Response Commission (SERC) and the Local

Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and the Local

Fire Department. Cage paid a $5000 penalty and will

complete a $577,114 SEP. The project will eliminate

the use of the extremely hazardous chemical, nitric

acid, from its manufacturing process. 

EMI Company (Pennsylvania): On May 29, 1996,

operating expenditure costs for one year are estimated

to be at least $786,664. Those particulates include

some of the regulated materials (copper and

manganese) that are the subject of this action. Region

III filed the administrative complaint against EMI

Company of Erie, Pennsylvania for EPCRA reporting

violations. 

Larstan Industries (Maryland): On February 13,

1996, EPA and Larstan Industries entered into a

consent agreement, resolving the company’s EPCRA

reporting violations. Larstan agreed to pay a cash

penalty of $5,000 and to perform a Supplemental

Environmental Project (SEP) to eliminate the use of

1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) in its operations. The

SEP requires Larstan to spend at least $145,964 in

capital costs and increased operating costs to substitute

a water-based solution for TCA in its rubber-molding

operations. Larstan has committed to not using TCA or

any other toxic chemical in its rubber molding

operations for at least 5 years. If Larstan fails to

complete the SEP, it will be liable for an additional

penalty of $14,047. 

Service Wire Company (West Virginia): On May 15,

1996, EPA issued a consent order settling an EPCRA

administrative action for a $35,000 total penalty. 

respondent had failed to file Toxic Release Inventory

Reporting Forms for two years for copper used in the

manufacture of wire at its Huntington, West Virginia

plant. This settlement requires the payment of a

$25,000 penalty, and completion of a Supplemental

Environmental Project with a gross cost of $100,000,

for which $10,000 in penalty mitigation will be

recognized. This pollution reduction project involves

the reclamation of copper fines and other pollutants
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-22

from a lubricating solution which would otherwise be “earthen” diking. The secondary containment required

sent to the South Charleston Treatment Plant. by the SEP must include concrete containment

RCRA

Bil-Dry Corporation (Pennsylvania): On September

30, 1996, EPA issued an administrative complaint

against Bil-Dry Corporation of Philadelphia for

violating the federal law on hazardous waste storage

and disposal. The complaint seeks a $231,800 penalty

for alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) at Bil-Dry’s facility located at

5525 Grays Avenue in Philadelphia. The complaint

alleges that EPA and Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection (PADEP) inspections in

December 1995 and April 1996 uncovered violations

of several hazardous waste requirements at the

southwest Philadelphia facility. The alleged violations

include failure to conduct hazardous waste

determinations of solid wastes stored on the premises;

violation of land disposal regulations; failure to develop

and retain a written inspection plan at the site; failure to

maintain and update a closure plan and closure cost

estimate; improper management of hazardous waste

containers; and failure to file a bond with PADEP.

Heritage Metals Finishing, Inc. (Pennsylvania): On

September 30, 1996, EPA issued an administrative

complaint against Heritage Metals Finishing, Inc., for

alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA alleges that the

Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania metal finishing company

violated RCRA’s storage, disposal, and recordkeeping

requirements. The agency seeks a penalty of $43,800

for these violations. The complaint alleges Heritage

failed to determine whether its chromium and methyl

ethyl ketone (MEK) wastes were hazardous and

whether the wastes were restricted from land disposal;

failed to comply with hazardous waste storage

manifesting, and recordkeeping requirements; and

failed to respond to information requests. EPA also

issued Heritage a compliance order directing it to

comply with these regulations.

Neville Chemical Company (Pennsylvania): On

November 9, 1995, the United States District Court for

the Western District of Pennsylvania entered a consent

decree which requires Neville Chemical Company,

Inc., located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to implement

a Supplemental Environmental Protect (SEP). It is the

first settlement pursuant to the May 8, 1995 “Interim

Revised EPA Supplemental Projects Policy.” The SEP

required by this consent decree requires Neville to

provide appropriate secondary containment of two

tanks which are used to store fuel oil distillate. The

current containment of these tanks consists primarily of

sufficient to provide for the entire contents of the large

single tank plus sufficient freeboard to allow for

precipitation. The cost of this project is approximately

$390,000.

Remac USA, Inc. (District of Columbia): On

September 27, 1996, EPA issued an Administrative

complaint, Compliance order and Notice of

Opportunity for Hearing ("complaint") against REMAC

USA Inc. (REMAC), a transporter that owns and

operates a hazardous waste transfer facility located at

1525 W Street, N.E., Washington, DC. respondent

violated RCRA by operating a hazardous waste facility

without a RCRA permit. In addition to injunctive

relief, the proposed penalty is $203,500. 

Washington Navy Yard (Washington, D.C.): On

September 30, 1996, EPA issued two administrative

complaints against the U.S. Navy, Washington Navy

Yard located on the Anacostia River. The first of these

complaints alleges that the U.S. Navy failed to file

notification, operated without a permit, failed to

maintain fire protection equipment, and failed to train

facility personnel or to retain requisite documentation.

This complaint seeks proposed civil penalties in excess

of $196,000 and certain injunctive relief. The second

complaint (Underground Storage Tank/UST) alleges

that the U.S. Navy failed to submit timely notifications,

failed to comply with release detection requirements, or

failed to comply with record keeping requirements. 

This RCRA UST complaint seeks injunctive relief. 

These complaints are the first ever in the nation issued

against a Federal Facility.

Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (West

Virginia): On September 27, 1996, EPA issued a

RCRA Initial Unilateral administrative order to

Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (Wheeling Pitt). 

The order requires Wheeling Pitt to perform a RCRA

facility investigation and corrective measures study at

its facility located at 1134 Market Street, Wheeling,

West Virginia. 

SDWA

Government of the District of Columbia: On July 12,

1996, EPA entered into an agreement that requires the

District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. (the District)

to immediately address its public notification

violations. On November 13, 1995, EPA Region III

issued a Proposed administrative order to the District

for several violations of monthly maximum

contaminant levels (M.C.L.s) for total coliform bacteria

and for acute violations of the M.C.L. for total coliform
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-23 May 1997

in September, 1993; June, 1995; and November, 1995, agreement, consent order and a Settlement Conditions

in violation of the Safe Drinking Act (SDWA). The Document with SEPTA, settling a TSCA

District also failed to give the proper notice of violation administrative complaint. Under the terms of the

to the public or users of the system. EPA held a public Settlement Conditions Document SEPTA agreed to pay

meeting on April 9, 1996 to address public concerns. a $11,500 penalty and to perform a Supplemental

A formal public hearing was held on April 17, 1996. Environmental Project (SEP) at a cost of $718,000. 

The public comment period closed in May, 1996. SEPTA will remove three (3) PCB Transformers

This order requires the District to submit for EPA at its 44th Street Pump Room and replace them with

approval, a plan for remedial action and non-PCB transformers and will remove ten (10) PCB

implementation. It will be a long term plan that will Transformers containing a total of 9,254 gallons of

bring the District into full compliance. The plan will PCB dielectric fluid at its Butler Substation and Grange

include a financial management program; a flushing Substation that provide traction power to the Broad

and disinfection program; a sampling program; a cross Street Subway and replace them with non-PCB

connection control program; a program for the ultimate transformers. SEPTA will also retrofill eight (8) PCB

rehabilitation of all storage facilities; and a storage tank or PCB-contaminated transformers at various locations

maintenance program. In addition, the plan will and convert them to non-PCB transformers. 

address corrosion control treatment and monitoring of

the water quality effects on secondary bacteriological or

biofilm growth.

TSCA

Bayer Corporation (Formerly Mobay Corporation) to spend another $30-40 million dollars to reduce

(West Virginia): On September 30, 1996, EPA filed a

consent agreement and order settling a Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) case against Bayer

Corporation (formerly Mobay Corporation). Under the

terms of the settlement, Bayer has agreed to pay a

$500,000 penalty, and perform two environmentally

beneficial projects that will cost an estimated four

million dollars. EPA’s 1991 administrative complaint

alleged that Mobay had violated TSCA’s reporting

requirements for the import and manufacture of toxic

substances. In addition to the $500,000 penalty, Bayer

has agreed to complete two Supplemental

Environmental Projects (SEPs) that go beyond legal

requirements. The first SEP, a pollution prevention

project, involves modifications to a chemical

manufacture system at Bayer's New Martinsville, West

Virginia facility. This project, which will cost an

estimated $3.5 million, should reduce the hazardous

waste generated at the plant by approximately 2.4

million pounds. The second project is an

“environmental audit” of Bayer's compliance with

TSCA requirements, which will cost an estimated

$500,000. The audit will cover chemical substances

(as defined by TSCA) that were imported or

manufactured by Bayer Corporation in 1994 and 1995. 

Bayer must report and pay stipulated penalties for all

violations uncovered by the audit, and promptly correct

these violations.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation

Authority, Inc. (SEPTA) (Pennsylvania): On

September 24, 1996, EPA entered into a consent

containing a total of 42 gallons of PCB dielectric fluid

MULTIMEDIA

Horsehead Industries (Pennsylvania): On November

13, 1995, a hazardous waste recycler near Allentown,

Pennsylvania agreed to pay a $5.65 million penalty and

harmful releases of lead and cadmium into the soil, air

and water. The settlement will upgrade the facility to

limit release of contaminated dust and curb drainage

from the Palmerton, Pennsylvania processing facility of

Horsehead Industries and Horsehead Resources

Development Company. This dust and drainage had

contaminated the nearby Aquashicola Creek and the

Lehigh River. The agreement resolves a lawsuit filed

against Horsehead which alleged that the company

violated the CAA, CWA, and RCRA. 

The consent decree provides that Horsehead will

upgrade and change its ongoing operations to limit dust

and visible stack emissions from its processing

operations. A visible air emissions monitoring system

will be installed so that state environmental officials

can monitor the emissions via an online computer

system. This system will allow them to have instant

access to air monitoring data, and be aware of any

problems as they occur. Additionally, Horsehead will

construct buildings to house materials that contain

hazardous substances while those materials await

processing. All outdoor storage piles will be removed,

and those sites will be closed consistent with RCRA. 

Horsehead will also apply for a recycling permit from

the state to extract, and resell zinc-containing materials

from hazardous wastes received at the facility. Finally,

control measures will be put in place to reduce run-off

of contaminated water from the facility which includes

a 2.5 mile long cinder bank that was generated over the

life of the facility.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-24

REGION IV

CLEAN AIR ACT

Willamette Industries, Inc.: On April 1, 1996, the

Department of Justice filed a complaint against

Willamette for emitting particulate matter from its

waste wood boiler in excess of the limit in Subpart D

and the limit in its state permit. The complaint alleges

violations from June 1991 through October 1994 and

seeks civil penalties of $25,000 for each day of

violation. Willamette operates a paper mill in

Bennettsville, S.C. that includes a waste wood boiler

that provides steam for manufacturing. The boiler is

subject to Subpart Db, which limits particulate

emissions to 0.10 pounds per hour. The mill was

constructed as a major source under South Carolina's

PSD program. The PSD permit further limits

particulate emissions to 0.05 pounds per hour. The

boiler's particulate emissions were not adequately

controlled until its scrubber was replaced by a different

control device in 1994. Efforts to negotiate an

appropriate civil penalty in the context of pre-referral

negotiations were not successful.

CERCLA

Arlington Blending and Packaging site and

Gallaway Pits site (Shelby County, Tennessee): On

August 28, 1996, a CERCLA 107 consent decree was

entered for the sites pursuant to which the settling

defendant, Velsicol Chemical Company (Velsicol), will

reimburse EPA $3,500,000 in past costs. In addition,

Velsicol agreed to reimburse EPA for all of its future

oversight costs of the remedial design/remedial action

that Velsicol is performing pursuant to a unilateral

administrative order. The Arlington site was a former

pesticide formulation and packaging facility. The

Gallaway site is a gravel mine in which wastes from the

former Arlington facility were dumped. EPA's past

costs were a result of fund-lead removal and

investigatory activities.

The consent decree resolves over 10 years of litigation

between the United States and various defendants. The

complaint for past costs on the above sites was filed in

1986 against Velsicol, Terminix International, Inc.

(Terminix), Chemwood Corporation (Chemwood),

William Bell, and Robert Meeks. Pursuant to Court

ordered mediation between the defendants, all of the

defendants, including the third party defendants, have

settled with Velsicol with the exception of Terminix.

Basket Creek site (Douglasville, Georgia): On June

28, 1996, the U.S. District Court entered a partial

CERCLA Section 107 consent decree in which Young

Refining Corporation agreed to pay $51,000 of EPA's

past response costs at the site. After analysis of the

defendant's financial condition by DOJ's Antitrust

Division, EPA and DOJ concluded that Young

Refining could not be expected to pay more than

$85,000 without impacting its continued viability. This

defendant was already incurring costs in defending a

separate action brought by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.

(CNSI) for contribution based on CNSI's costs incurred

in performing a removal action under an EPA unilateral

order. Young was also obligated to expend substantial

amounts in compliance with a consent order with the

Georgia Environmental Protection Division to clean up

its own facility. Accordingly, EPA and DOJ proposed

that the total amount available ($85,000) be split

between the U.S. ($51,000) and Chem-Nuclear

Systems ($34,000). This settlement was designed to

allow the defendant to remain in business and to

complete its preexisting obligations for environmental

restoration at its own facility. Chem-Nuclear Systems

has concurred in writing with the entry of this decree,

avoiding additional litigation expenses for all parties. 

Carolawn site (Fortlawn, South Carolina): On

October 19, 1995, a partial CERCLA Section 107

consent decree was entered in the U.S. District court

for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division

pursuant to which the United States recovered

$292,950 in past response costs incurred by EPA at the

site for removal actions taken. The site was formerly

operated as a disposal and recycling facility during the

late 1970s and through the early 1980s. The settling

defendants are a group of twenty-eight corporations

who arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances

at the site. The recovered costs represents the

remainder of outstanding costs incurred by EPA during

removal activities conducted in 1981 and 1982. This

site has been the subject of previous cost recovery

consent decrees for EPA's removal costs and is now on

the NPL undergoing the remedial cleanup process. 

Distler Farm and Brickyard sites (Louisville,

Kentucky): On October 12, 1995, a CERCLA Section

107 cost recovery consent decree for the sites was

entered in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Kentucky. The consent decree

settled complaints by the United States and the
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-25 May 1997

Commonwealth of Kentucky against approximately 30 1960s, though dumping was believed to have continued

PRPs. The PRPs agreed to pay to EPA and the through the 1970s. The City of Memphis was the

Commonwealth $6,355,000 in past response costs and operator, while Proctor & Gamble and Velsicol

to reimburse EPA for the future costs of performing the Chemical were the two largest generators. 

remedial action at the sites. The total value of the Contaminants deposited at the site included chlorinated

settlement was approximately $16,000,000. hydrocarbons and other pesticides, plus also

The Brickyard and Farm sites were both repositories of wastes. A variety of emergency removal actions were

hazardous wastes received by Donald Distler through undertaken during the years 1980-1984. The ROD,

his company Kentucky Liquid Recycling (KLR). When issued on September 13, 1990, requires a number of

KLR was unable to receive a permit to operate a waste remedial measures, including solidification and/or

incinerator, the wastes the company had contracted to removal of contaminated sediments in the surface

dispose of were either buried at a farm owned by impoundments and installation of a permanent cap on

Donald Distler's parents along the banks of the Ohio the landfill.

River or stored at the Brickyard, which was an

abandoned brick manufacturing facility. The response

costs incurred were for a series of removals at the farm On July 30, 1996, EPA signed the final AOC for an

and brickyard and for the RI/FS and RD/RA at the site. EE/CA and the non-time critical removal action for the

J & A Enterprises site, (Huntsville, Alabama): In

accordance with the Agency's commitment to assure

enforcement fairness for PRPs, on February 29, 1996,

EPA - Region IV entered into a Cost Recovery

agreement with J & A Enterprises (J & A). J.& A.

agreed to pay quarterly installments to EPA over a 3

year period totaling $60,000. EPA reviewed J & A's

tax returns for the last 5 years along with other financial

information. Based on the Agency's review of these

documents, it was determined that J & A was able to

pay $60,000 over a 3-year period and still remain in

business. The total Agency response costs at the site

through May 31, 1996, is $215,634.49. On September

16, 1996, EPA signed a 10 Point Settlement Document Olin Corporation (McIntosh, Alabama): On July 26,

serving as a Decision Document Not to Pursue Cost 1996, EPA issued a RCRA Section 7003

Recovery for the outstanding balance of $155,634.49. administrative order to the Olin Corporation in

North Hollywood Dump site (Memphis, Tennessee):

On November 8, 1995, two final partial CERCLA

Section 107 consent decrees were entered in the U.S.

District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. 

Both settled United States v. Velsicol Chemical

Corporation, The Proctor & Gamble Cellulose

Company, and City of Memphis, Tennessee v. Enco,

Inc., et al. Pursuant to the terms of the first consent

decree, the United States recovered $1,595,000 in

response costs incurred at the site relating to the RI/FS

and the supplemental RI/FS from the Velsicol

Chemical Corporation and the City of Memphis, Piper Aircraft Corporation site (Vero Beach,

Tennessee. Pursuant to the terms of the second consent Florida): On July 19, 1996, a consent decree for

decree, the United States recovered $300,000 in remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) between the

oversight response costs from Proctor & Gamble. United States and The New Piper Aircraft Corporation

This site, a landfill for municipal and industrial waste, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of

was the State of Tennessee's first NPL listing. This Florida, Fort Pierce Division. After Piper Aircraft

landfill was used from the mid-1930s through the mid- Corporation (Old Piper) negotiated a consent decree

heptachlor, chlordane, endrin, copper, and other toxic

Old ATC Refinery (Wilmington, North Carolina): 

site. Investigation of the site, conducted by Black &

Veatch, showed that the presence of hazardous

substances at the facility, including lead, zinc and

cadmium, which may constitute a threat to the public

health, welfare, and the environment. The removal

action recommended by the EE/CA calls for removal of

all containerized waste from the site and proper

disposal at an off-site facility. It is further

recommended that the contents of the tanks and piping

associated with the Above Ground Storage Tanks

(ASTs) be removed and disposed. Last, two source

areas will be treated or removed to an off-site facility

and additional sampling will be conducted in the

portion of the areas defined in the EE/CA. 

McIntosh, Alabama. The Olin McIntosh Plant is a

Superfund site, and in May 1996, EPA and Olin lodged

a consent decree with the 4th U.S. District Court,

Southern District of Alabama, to implement RD/RA

activities at that site. District Judge W.B. Hand refused

to enter the consent decree on the basis that Superfund

is unconstitutional. Since that conditions exist at the

facility that may present an imminent and substantial

endangerment, RCRA issued a § 7003 order to Olin to

implement certain conditions of the Superfund Record

of Decision.

(New Piper), a Delaware corporation, was entered in
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-26

with the United States, New Piper purchased in July (William Singleton) was insolvent, a financial analysis

1995 the assets of Old Piper pursuant to a plan of of the City indicated that Marianna could pay a portion

reorganization of Old Piper confirmed (also in July of the $1.5 million costs incurred in the cleanup. The

1995) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern government filed a complaint against the City on April

District of Florida, and assumed all obligations of Old 6, 1994. Under the agreement the City will pay

Piper under the negotiated consent decree. Under this $500,000 plus interest accrued in four payments over

settlement, New Piper will conduct RD/RA for three years. The first payment of $200,000 was paid

groundwater and reimburse 100% of past and future within 30 days of the entry of the consent decree.

response costs. The RD/RA requires groundwater

extraction and air stripping of volatile organic

compounds to meet applicable state and federal surface

water discharge criteria.

Fred Ramsey Tank site (Valdosta, Georgia): On operators of T H Agriculture Superfund site in

February 15, 1996, DOJ filed a cost recovery action Montgomery, Alabama will perform and fund the

styled United States v. Fred Ramsey , in the U.S.

District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The

action seeks approximately $265,000 in response costs

at the time of the complaint plus penalties for Mr.

Ramsey's non-compliance with Section 104(e)

CERCLA Information Requests issued to Mr. Ramsey. 

The Fred Ramsey Tank site is the location where Mr.

Ramsey disposed of 3 above-ground storage tanks and

a tanker trailer which contained tank bottoms from Mr.

Ramsey's former solvent recycling operation, Ramsey

Chemical, Inc. Mr. Ramsey had sold the Ramsey

Chemical facility to another operator and the buyer had

required that Mr. Ramsey remove the out-of-use tanks

from the facility. Instead of disposing of the tanks and

their contents legally, Mr. Ramsey bought a vacant lot

and disposed of the tanks on the lot without obtaining a

permit or notifying any regulating entity. In August of Welco Plating Dump site (Jackson County,

1996, EPA referred additional claims against Mr. Alabama): On March 5, 1996, the U.S. District Court

Ramsey under RCRA to DOJ, requesting that DOJ for the Northern District of Alabama, in a case

amend the complaint to add RCRA counts. Subsequent captioned United States v. J.C. Collins, Jr. et al.,

settlement negotiations have led to a settlement in entered a CERCLA § 107 consent decree for recovery

principle pursuant to which Mr. Ramsey will pay of costs associated with EPA's removal of settling

$325,000 for CERCLA response costs, CERCLA defendants' metal plating wastes at the site. After

Section 104(e) penalties and RCRA penalties, and a establishing the settling defendants' limited ability-toparallel settlement will obtain remaining response costs pay, the parties agreed to settle EPA's $1.8 million

from certain generator PRPs who were former outstanding response costs for the amount of $130,000. 

customers of Ramsey Chemical, Inc. Originally, the settling defendants initiated removal

S&S Flying Service site (Marianna, Florida): On

October 6, 1995, the District Court for the Middle

District of Florida entered a consent decree to resolve

EPA's CERCLA Section 107 cost recovery action

against the City of Marianna, Florida, for costs incurred

by EPA for removal actions at the site. The consent

decree provides for payment of $500,000 towards past

response costs at the site which is the City's municipal

airport. The removal involved the incineration of

pesticide-contaminated soil at the end of one of the

airport runways which was completed in September

1990. After an exhaustive search of PRPs, the Region Woodbury Chemical Company site (Dade County,

determined that while the owner of S&S Flying Service Florida): On May 25, 1996, a consent decree was

T H Agriculture & Nutrition site ( Montgomery,

Alabama): On April 12, 1996, the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

entered a consent decree whereby the owners and

interim remedial action/remedial design, and reimburse

the United States for costs incurred in connection with

such work, including, but not limited to, oversight

costs. The estimated cost of implementing the selected

remedy is $6,100,000. T H Agriculture & Nutrition

Company, Inc., (THAN) formerly owned and operated

a storage and distribution facility for industrial and

agricultural chemicals on a portion of the site. Elf

Atochem North America, Inc., f/k/a Pennwalt

Corporation (Elf), owned and operated a chemical

formulation and distribution facility on a portion of the

site adjacent to and up gradient from the THAN

Property, handling substances similar to those handled

by THAN. Elf and THAN are both signatories to the

consent decree.

activities at the site in 1987 pursuant to a Unilateral

administrative order issued by EPA. However, in 1988

defendants J.C. Collins and Welco, Inc. were indicted

and subsequently pled guilty to several criminal counts

of violating CERCLA, RCRA, and the Clean Water

Act; the court sentenced J.C. Collins to jail and a fine

and Welco Inc. to probation and payment of a fine and

EPA's response costs. EPA performed the actual

removal in 1989 after establishing that the settling

defendants were thereafter not able to complete the

action in a timely and satisfactory manner.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-27 May 1997

entered providing for payment of $40,000 in settlement

of a §107 cost recovery action against Woodbury

Chemical Company and related PRPs. The case raised

policy issues concerning the extent to which EPA

should pursue recovery for costs in matters where "no

action" RODs follow PRP removal actions, as well as

legal issues concerning the scope of the § 107(I)

"FIFRA exemption." Based on the distinctive facts of

this case, the United States agreed to a substantial

compromise of its costs, in part because this site

probably would never have been listed on the NPL

under EPA's current policy making it appropriate to

consider all activities, including removals, conducted

before the final listing decision. EPA deleted the site

from the NPL on November 27, 1995. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

CAPS Development, Inc.(Lamar County,

Mississippi): respondent conducted unauthorized

excavation, mechanical land clearing and dam

construction in waters of the U.S. On July 3, 1996,

EPA issued a consent agreement which required the

respondent to pay a $50,000 penalty and undertake the

following Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP)

which the parties agree is intended to secure significant

environmental protection and improvements. 

respondent agrees to perform a one-day workshop on

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for contractors,

developers and other interested parties in the

Hattiesburg, Mississippi area. Appropriate outlines

and written materials shall be included in the

workshop. The total expenditure for the SEP shall not

be more than $5,000. This was the first of several

similar cases where developers in the Mississippi

coastal area are constructing residential developments

without the proper U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's

permit.

Cobb County Department of Community

Development (Cobb County, Georgia): respondent,

during the widening of Sandy Plains Road in

northeastern Cobb County, required the discharge of

fill into waters of the U.S. pursuant to Nationwide

permit 24. The County's failure to adequately

implement and/or maintain erosion and sedimentation

control devices for the project resulted in erosion of

road fill into tributaries of Willeo Creek, degrading

stream water quality and resulting in sediment

deposition in downstream lakes. The penalty consisted

of a $10,000 penalty and the County will sponsor

training for its employees and road contractors and

their personnel in all pertinent aspects of county

standards for land disturbing activities, particularly

wetland impacts.

Jack Freeman (Lee County, Florida): respondent

mechanically land cleared approximately 30 acres of

pine flatwood wetlands during conversion of the site to

pasture land. A settlement was negotiated to include a

$15,000 penalty plus restoration of 20 acres. 

Restoration consisted of natural revegetation and

removal of invasive exotic vegetation. 

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)

(Cobb County, Georgia): respondent, by its failure to

properly implement and/or maintain erosion and

sedimentation control measures at two road

construction sites in Cobb County, Georgia, has caused

earthen fill to be deposited in approximately 3.5 acres

of wetlands. respondent paid a penalty of $34,000 and

provided state wide training on erosion control for 763

employees of GDOT and their contractors. GDOT is

also being required to remove sediment from a private

lake impacted by the erosion.

Sam Hall, d/b/a Hall's Septic Services: EPA learned

that Sam Hall was dumping sewage wastes into 3

abandoned coal mine entrances in Floyd County,

Kentucky. On March 5, 1996 (after respondent refused

to accept Certified Mail delivery), EPA had the U.S.

Marshall's Office serve Sam Hall with an Emergency

administrative order issued and effective on January 31,

1996. The order required Mr. Hall to, in part, cease

and desist from dumping fluid wastes into mine

entrances and to notify EPA within 24 hours of receipt

of the order whether and how he would comply. 

Failing to receive a response from the respondent, the

Water Programs Enforcement Branch (former

Groundwater Protection Branch) requested that the

Emergency Response and Removal Branch initiate a

cleanup of the mines and mine entrances. The cleanup

is continuing. In addition, ERRB is conducting tests to

determine the extent and source of Fecal Coliform

contamination in the drinking water supplies of area

residents.

In the interim, EPA has referred the case to the

Department of Justice, recommending that Justice file a

civil judicial action against Sam Hall, d/b/a Hall's

Septic Service, for enforcement of the Emergency

administrative order. Additional relief may be sought

to include the provision of alternate sources of drinking

water for area residents and to recover the costs of the

cleanup.

Jefferson County, Alabama: EPA signed a consent

decree with the Jefferson County Commission, the

Cahaba River Society and Kipps and Angwins

(citizens), to settle an EPA complaint against Jefferson

County, Alabama for violations of the Clean Water Act. 

The lawsuit alleged that Jefferson County committed
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-28

violations of the Clean Water Act at its wastewater discharge violations during 1991 - 1994 at three of the

treatment facilities which discharge into the Cahaba facilities were the basis of the action. EPA referred this

and Black Warrior Rivers. Jefferson County is a matter to the DOJ on February 10, 1995 and, in

municipality in Alabama which owns and operates 10 compliance with the Civil Justice Reform Executive

wastewater treatment plants discharging into the order, on February 27, 1996, DOJ issued a pre-filing

Cahaba and Black Warrior Rivers. The violations notification letter in order to notify Mobil of the nature

include effluent violations of National Pollutant of the dispute and attempt to achieve settlement before

Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permits, intentional filing a civil complaint. Mobil, EPA and DOJ met on

bypass of treatment works resulting in discharges of September 13th in an attempt to resolve the remaining

untreated sanitary sewage, overflows of the sanitary storm water violation issues. Following the meeting,

sewer collection systems resulting in discharges of Mobil made an acceptable offer (above EPA's bottom

untreated sanitary sewage, and discharging without a line) of settlement. DOJ is currently drafting a motion

NPDES permit. to finalize the settlement and close of the case.

The consent decree requires the County to eliminate

further bypasses and unpermitted discharges of

untreated wastewater containing raw sewage to the

Black Warrior and Cahaba River basin, eliminate

sewer system overflows, achieve full compliance with

its NPDES permits, and achieve full compliance with

the Clean Water Act. The County is required to pay a

penalty to the U.S. Treasury of $750,000. In addition,

the decree calls for a $30,000,000 Supplemental

Environmental Project (SEP). The SEP is a Greenway

project involving segments of the Cahaba and Black

Warrior Rivers and/or their tributary streams. The

County will acquire and maintain protected areas along

the streams; the primary environmental purpose will be

to restore, protect and enhance the water quality of, and

to reduce and/or prevent erosion and non-point source

pollution loads from entering the designated rivers. 

The County will enact a three-phase approach to

improve and correct the infiltration/inflow problems

and will initiate a Sewer System Evaluation and enact

improvements to their sewer system and wastewater

treatment plants. The SEP and other remedies required

by this decree will improve the water quality of the

Cahaba and Black Warrior Rivers and reduce the

overall potential adverse environmental impact. The

secondary benefit shall be to protect, restore and

enhance aquatic and stream corridor habitats of the

Rivers. 

Mobil Oil Corporation (Polk County, Florida): On

September 13, 1996, the EPA and the Department of

Justice (DOJ) reached settlement with Mobil Mining

and Minerals Corporation (Mobil) in this matter. 

Following settlement negotiations regarding the alleged

effluent and storm water discharge violations, Mobil

agreed to pay a $200,000 penalty. There was no

required injunctive relief. DOJ is drafting a Stipulated

order and Motion for Dismissal of the matter. Mobil

Oil Corporation d/b/a/ Mobil Mining and Minerals

Company previously owned and operated several

mining facilities in Polk County, Florida. Alleged

NPDES effluent and unpermitted storm water

U.S. v. Southdown, Inc., d/b/a Florida Mining and

Materials Concrete Corporation: On September 5,

1996, the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, entered a

consent decree where Southdown agreed to spend at

least $200,000 to develop and conduct a SEP for

environmental compliance promotion in the ready-mix

concrete industry. The SEP consists of at least 18

environmental compliance workshops to be conducted

in Florida, California, and other states to instruct readymix concrete plant owners and operators regarding

applicable environmental regulations and how to

comply with them. In addition, Southdown agreed to

pay a civil penalty in the amount of $350,000.

On September 13, 1994, the United States filed a

complaint against Southdown for violations of Section

301 of the CWA and the conditions and limitations of

an NPDES permit issued by EPA. The violations

included failure to discharge effluent limits for PH and

Total Suspended Solids of the NPDES permit. The

facility, a ready-mix concrete producer located in

Tallahassee, Florida, discharged from 5,000 to 10,000

of wastewater per day for a total of 409 days of

violations. In June 1993, the facility ceased operations

and sold the property.

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT)

(Spring City, Rhea County, Tennessee): respondent

channelized approximately 700 feet of stream bed and

impacted 2 acres of adjacent wetlands during

construction of an interchange. respondent was

required to pay a penalty of $10,000 and to perform

stream restoration. In addition, respondent was

required to develop and produce an in-house training

course on wetland identification and Section 404

regulatory procedures to be approved by EPA. The

course will utilize trainers from the Tennessee

Department of Environment and Conservation, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service, and EPA. TDOT was also required to

develop, publish and distribute 500 copies of a wetland
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-29 May 1997

brochure to the public. The brochure was developed order was issued pursuant to Section 3008(a) of RCRA

through the joint review of the Tennessee Department to the Crown Central Petroleum facility (Crown) in

of Environment and Conservation, the Tennessee Columbus, Georgia. Crown, a bulk petroleum storage

Wildlife Resource Agency, and TDOT, and contained facility, was discovered discharging hazardous waste

general wetland permitting information and permitting (D018) directly onto the ground at the facility. EPA

contacts in the State of Tennessee. TDOT has been alleges that Crown is in violation of failing to make a

guilty of several wetland violations and the training hazardous waste determination and disposing of

requirements of this penalty action were targeted at hazardous waste without a permit. A penalty of $

halting future infractions. 239,000 was assessed in the complaint. 

EPCRA

State Industries, Inc (Ashland City, Tennessee): On

July 1, 1996, Region IV filed an Administrative

complaint assessing penalties of $701,556 against State

Industries, Inc., of Ashland City, Tennessee, for

violations of the Emergency Planning and Community

Right to Know Act (EPCRA). and the Comprehensive

Environmental response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA). Of the 64 Counts in the complaint, 58

are violations of EPCRA § 313's Toxic Release

Inventory (TRI) requirements by State Industries. The

case is part of the Headquarter's EPCRA 313 Initiative.

FIFRA

Acry-Tech Coatings, Inc.; Insecta Sales, Inc., and

Council-Oxford, Inc.: Three additional complaints

were filed in the region involving failure of the

companies to have Worker Protection language on the

labels. All three companies are now in compliance and

agreed to pay penalties of $3,920, $5,900, and $4,900. 

UCB: UCB failed to file with the EPA Office of

Pesticides programs an amended label containing

Worker Protection language on their product "Ziram

Granuflo." Additional label misbranding counts in the

complaint were for failure to have directions for use,

failure to have storage and disposal statements, failure

to have precautionary statements, and the use of an

incorrect EPA Establishment Number on the label of

the pesticide. A count for failure to file a report was

also included in the complaint. A total of over 250,000

pounds of "Ziram Granuflo" was released in the

channels of trade. UCB recalled the unlabeled material

and placed the corrected labels on the containers. This

"Danger" toxicity fungicide is primarily used on

almonds in California. This action involved inspectors

in California and EPA Region IV. A penalty of

$304,725 was assessed.

RCRA

Crown Central Petroleum (Crown, Georgia): On

September 30, 1996, a complaint and Compliance

DOE’s Oak Ridge Facility (Tennessee): Region IV 

reached settlement with Lockheed Martin Energy

Systems for failure to adequately inspect hazardous

waste tank systems in one area at DOE’s Oak Ridge

Tennessee facility. The RCRA consent agreement and

consent order imposes a $22,500.00 penalty for

improper inspection procedures. The facility now

properly performs the tank inspections. The facility

originally noted the violation during a Martin Marietta

internal audit conducted in June of 1994 and the DOE

Inspector General’s Office discovered it to still be a

problem in January 1995. 

Everwood Treatment Co., and Cary W. Thigpen: On

September 30, 1996, the Environmental Appeals

Board (EAB) reversed the Presiding Officer's

determination that Everwood's disposal of hazardous

waste without a permit or without complying with the

Land Disposal Restrictions posed a minor potential for

harm. In the original decision, the Presiding Officer

concluded, in part, that due to the lack of established

actual harm to the environment a minor potential for

harm occurred, and assessed a penalty of $59,700. 

Region IV appealed on grounds that EPA's assessed

penalty of $497,500, calculated using the 1990 RCRA

Civil Penalty Policy, was based on a major potential for

harm that includes both risk of exposure and harm to

the regulatory program. In the Final order, the EAB

agreed with EPA's violation classification, and assessed

a penalty of $273,750, including a 25% upward

adjustment for willful noncompliance that EPA

included in the proposed penalty.

Flanders Filters site (Washington, North Carolina):

On January 2, 1996, Region IV signed an

administrative order on consent with Flanders Filters,

Inc., which requires Flanders Filters to perform a

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at their facility

in Washington, North Carolina. Flanders Filters, Inc.

has been the only industrial operation on this property. 

Flanders Filters manufactures high efficiency, borosilicate glass micro-filters and air filter framing

systems. The "Expanded site Inspection Report " was

prepared in August 1993. This report documented the

presence of arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc,

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and pyrene in elevated
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-30

concentrations in surface soils around the drum storage trends of noncompliance at colleges and universities

area, the spray field, and along the drainage pathway to across the nation.

Mitchell Branch. This report also substantiated the

presence of chromium, copper, and zinc above

background levels in the surface water. No compounds

of concern were identified in a nearby private well. In

February 1995, Flanders Filters sampled the existing

monitoring wells located around Spray Field #2. The

test results found the following contaminants above

background levels for groundwater or in exceedence of

North Carolina's groundwater standards: 1,1-

dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, methylene

chloride, ammonia nitrogen, total organics carbon,

aluminum, manganese, sodium, zinc, and sulfate. 

Therefore, the site was identified as a NPL-caliber site

which encouraged Flanders Filters to enter into the

administrative order on consent to conduct the

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.

Fort Campbell: On February 16, 1996, the Army's results: (1) completion of a well survey that would

101st Airborne Division (Fort Campbell) in Fort allow for proper notification to all residents affected by

Campbell, Tennessee and Kentucky, entered into a the groundwater contamination; (2) water quality

CACO with EPA, agreeing to pay a $ 54,500 penalty sampling; and (3) requires groundwater remediation

for violations of RCRA. These violations included and an assessment of discharge of contaminated

failure to make a hazardous waste determination and groundwater into the Indian River.

numerous hazardous waste storage violations. Several

months later, on September 26, 1996, EPA issued

another Compliant and Compliance order against Fort

Campbell assessing a $ 48,700 penalty for violations of

RCRA similar to those addressed in the February 1996

CACO. These recurring violations were discovered in

an inspection conducted after the finalization of the

CACO.

Memphis Depot Defense Logistics Agency’s of Kentucky on June 27, 1995, and January 24, 1996. 

(Memphis, Tennessee): Region IV issued a The violations included treatment of hazardous waste

Compliant and Compliance order assessing a $20,000 without a permit, failing to meet the requirements for

penalty against The Defense Logistics Agency’s hazardous waste container storage areas, and failing to

Memphis Depot in Memphis Tennessee for RCRA conduct and document inspections of hazardous waste

violations. The facility violated the conditions of its storage areas.

permit by improperly storing incompatible wastes,

creating potentially dangerous conditions. Local

citizens have raised Environmental Justice issues about

this facility.

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill: In facility to conduct sampling and analysis of potentially

September 1996, EPA issued a RCRA § 3008(a) contaminated media at the site. Under the RCRA

Compliant and Compliance order to the University of §3013 order, the company is directed to conduct site

North Carolina - Chapel Hill (UNC) for violations of sampling and analysis at the facility, including dioxin

its hazardous waste storage permit, and for hazardous analysis. If Stone does not comply with the order, EPA

waste storage violations at several other locations can conduct the sampling and dioxin analysis and later

throughout the campus. In the complaint, EPA recover the cost of EPA's efforts from the facility.

assessed a penalty of $ 80,724, including a 25%

upward adjustment for UNC's history of

noncompliance. This action arose from a concern of

Precision Fabricating and Cleaning Company

(PFC): In September 1996, EPA issued a Unilateral

administrative order to Precision Fabricating and

Cleaning, Inc., of located in Cocoa, Florida. The UAO

was issued under the authority of Section 7003 of

RCRA and Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water

Act. PFC posed an imminent and substantial

endangerment to human health and the environment by

allowing groundwater contaminated with

trichloroethylene and its degradation products to affect

private wells and migrate into the Indian River. The

EPA combined RCRA/SDWA emergency order has

provided to support the State's ongoing efforts to

address the serious problems associated with these

releases from the facility. The issuance of the

emergency order is expected to achieve the following

Safety Kleen Corporation (Smithfield, Kentucky):

Safety-Kleen Corporation operates a hazardous waste

storage and recycling facility located in Smithfield,

Kentucky. On September 30, 1996, EPA issued a

complaint and Compliance order, pursuant to Section

3008(a) of RCRA, requiring Safety-Kleen to pay a

penalty of $73,748 for violations resulting from RCRA

inspections conducted by EPA and the Commonwealth

Stone Container Corporation: On September 4,

1996, EPA issued an administrative order pursuant to

RCRA Section 3013 of RCRA to Stone Container

Corporation in Panama City, Florida, requiring the

Taylor Road Landfill site (Hillsborough County,

Florida): As a result of Region IV's emphasis on de

minimis settlements, the Region IV Settlement Team
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-31 May 1997

put together a de minimis settlement that the Agency

believes is fair to both major PRPs and de minimis

PRPs. PRPs that contributed 1% or less of waste to the

site were sent de minimis settlement offers. Consistent

with the Agency's new de micromis policy, we

removed parties from the PRP list that contributed

.002% of waste or less at the site. Those PRPs that

sent greater than 1% of the waste at the site were sent

special notice letters to negotiate an RD/RA consent

decree. We are currently wrapping up negotiations

with these parties. 

On July 22, 1996, the Agency sent de minimis offers to

71 de minimis PRPs. 32 of these parties accepted

EPA's offer and signed the de minimis settlement. This

settlement was signed by the Region on September 18,

1996, and concurred on by DOJ. It was published in

the Federal Register for a 30 day public comment

period on October 30, 1996. The public comment

expires November 29, 1996. The total recovery from

the de minimis settlement will be $287,340.44. These

funds will be applied to offset EPA's past costs at the

site which total $1,408,782.00. The remaining past

costs, less an orphan share, will be paid by the major

PRPs under the terms of a consent decree.

U.S. v. Waste Industries, Inc., et al.: On April 3,

1996, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

North Carolina entered the Final consent decree in

Waste Industries. The Final consent decree requires

defendants to perform an additional three years of

groundwater monitoring at Flemington Landfill to

ensure the decline in contamination continues, and

requires the defendants to reimburse the United States

for past costs associated with the Flemington Landfill. 

The United States filed its complaint in this matter on

January 11, 1980, pursuant to Section 7003 of RCRA,

seeking injunctive relief to abate an imminent and

substantial endangerment resulting from the disposal of

solid or hazardous waste at the Flemington Landfill site

(the site). On August 5, 1987, a Partial consent decree

was entered by the District Court, requiring the

defendants to conduct a complete assessment of

groundwater contamination in and around the site, and

to make a recommendation to EPA regarding the

necessity for groundwater remediation. The defendants

completed their study on May 2, 1989, and EPA

reviewed the results and issued a Final Decision

Document, dated June 29, 1995, concurring with the

defendants' recommendation that no further

groundwater remediation is necessary. DOJ lodged the

Final consent decree on January 19, 1996. No

comments were received during the public comment

period. 

 

The Final consent decree requires the defendants to

monitor groundwater at the site for a period of three

years. The defendants will also reimburse the United

States for past costs associated with groundwater

sampling at the site in the amount of $175,000.

Worsley Companies, Inc.: The UST Section

negotiated a final consent agreement as settlement of a

consolidated administrative enforcement action against

Worsley Companies, Inc., Worsley Oil Company of

Wallace, Inc., and Worsley Oil Company of

Elizabethtown, Inc. for violations of the Underground

Storage Tank (UST) provisions of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The

Administrative Compliance and complaint orders

alleged a range of violations including the failure to

notify proper authorities of the existence of USTs,

failure to comply with tank and piping release detection

requirements, and failure to comply with the

requirements to investigate and confirm releases.

Under the terms of the consent agreement and consent

order, the Companies have agreed to pay a civil penalty

of $199,325 to the United States Treasury, correct the

violations, implement a comprehensive environmental

compliance policy, and perform three Supplemental

Environmental Projects (SEPs). The civil penalty is

the largest penalty settlement for EPA's UST program

nationwide.

SDWA

Iris Court Apartments: The Drinking Water Program

issued an administrative order to Iris Court

Apartments, located in Hillsborough County, for failure

to monitor and report for coliform bacteria, and for

failure to notify persons served by the system of it

failure to monitor. Iris Court was the only drinking

water significant noncomplier in Region IV referred to

EPA by a State in FY 96 for federal enforcement. The

administrative order provided support to the State's

efforts to achieve system compliance. Consequently, in

addition to acting to comply with the Federal order, the

water system entered into a consent agreement with

FDEP which includes payment of an assessed penalty

of $1,560.

TSCA

Gray PCB site (Hopkinsville, Kentucky): The City of

Providence, Kentucky, and General Waste, Inc.,

entered into an AOC for past costs based on the Ability

to Pay Determinations done by the Region. During

settlement negotiations with the City of Providence,

EPA probed the city's revenue resources and were

convinced that the city had limited cash on hand,
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-32

restricted taxing abilities, and were heavily indebted. 

While, the General Waste provided financial

documentation to the Region that displayed restricted

funds available for payment of past costs. Both AOCs

are settlements of $25,000 in two payments of

$12,500. The time period for payment is one year for

the city of Providence and for two years for General

Waste, Inc. Total past costs at this Removal site are

$550,000.00.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-33 May 1997

REGION V

CLEAN AIR ACT

Abitec Corporation (Columbus, Ohio): In September

1996, U.S. EPA and ABITEC Corporation of

Columbus, Ohio executed an Administrative consent

order (AO) and a consent agreement and consent order

(CACO). The AO and the CACO resolve alleged 1993

violations of the Clean Air Act by ABITEC’s coal-fired

boilers. The AO requires ABITEC to periodically test

the coal-fired boilers until replacement gas-fired units

are installed and in use. As required by the CACO,

ABITEC paid a penalty of $135,000. The ABITEC

Corporation is a vegetable-oil processing facility in

Columbus, Ohio. The facility has been using three

coal-fired boilers that were installed before 1950, to

generate the steam required in the oil-refining process. 

In a stack test of ABITEC boilers 1, 2, and 3 in 1993,

resulting particulate emissions were found to exceed

the limit specified in the permit for these boilers. In

addition, opacity readings obtained during stack testing,

as well as COM readings during operation of the

boilers, were found to exceed the permit limits. 

Consequently, U.S. EPA issued Notices of Violation to

ABITEC in 1993 and in 1994. 

ABITEC representatives and U.S. EPA agreed to

execute orders requiring ABITEC a) to install within

four years gas-fired units to replace the coal-fired

boilers, b) to conduct periodic testing of its coal-fired

boilers, in order to determine continued compliance

with particulate emission limits, and c) to pay the

government a penalty of $135,000. ABITEC may

terminate the administrative order anytime by

permanently terminating energy production at the

facility, after providing due notice to U.S. EPA.

B.F. Goodrich Company (Henry, Illinois): This case

involved violations of the vinyl chloride National

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40

C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart F, at a polyvinyl chloride resin

manufacturing plant located in Henry, Illinois. During

the time period of the violations, the facility was owned

and operated by the B.F. Goodrich Company

(Goodrich) and is now owned by The Geon Company

(Geon). Vinyl chloride is a Group A carcinogen that,

when inhaled, has been linked to cancers of the liver,

brain, lung, and digestive tract in humans.

U.S. EPA first began to uncover Goodrich's violations

during a May 1992, Federal inspection. U.S. EPA later

determined the full nature and extent of the violations

after requesting and receiving information from

Goodrich and Geon. U.S. EPA determined that

Goodrich had: failed to properly test for and report to

the regulatory agencies of vinyl chloride emissions

from its “dispersion” resin process from January 1989,

to August 20, 1991; discharged excess emissions of

vinyl chloride to the air in amounts up to two times the

allowable standard from the dispersion resin process on

135 days from January 1989, to August 20, 1991;

discharged excess emissions of vinyl chloride to the air

in amounts up to four times the allowable standard

from the “suspension” resin process on 10 days during

the Summer of 1992; and had preventable releases of

vinyl chloride from equipment on July 26, 1989, and on

June 29, 1990. To correct these violations, Goodrich

implemented several equipment and process changes at

the facility. 

U.S. EPA and DOJ informed Goodrich and Geon of the

alleged violations in the Spring of 1994, and provided

Goodrich and Geon an opportunity to negotiate

settlement prior to filing a civil complaint. After

settlement was reached, a civil complaint and a consent

decree were simultaneously filed on March 29, 1996. 

The final consent decree was entered on July 3, 1996,

and on August 1, 1996, Goodrich paid the required

penalty of $450,000.

Countrymark Cooperative (Mount Vernon,

Indiana): On May 30, 1996, U.S. EPA and

Countrymark Cooperative, Inc. (Countrymark), entered

into a consent agreement and consent order settling an

enforcement action against Countrymark’s petroleum

refinery located in Mount Vernon, Indiana. The

Administrative complaint filed against Countrymark on

January 28, 1994, alleged violations of Federal sulfur

dioxide emission testing and monitoring requirements

at a process heater in the refinery. The settlement

requires Countrymark pay a $32,000 cash penalty and

perform a supplemental environmental project (SEP)

that will reduce volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from the refinery by approximately 56

tons/year. It is estimated that the SEP will cost

Countrymark $250,000. Countrymark is located in an

ozone attainment area. The SEP Countrymark has

agreed to undertake involves installing VOC emission

controls required by Indiana’s SIP for refineries in

ozone non-attainment areas. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-34

Fort Howard Corporation (Green Bay, Wisconsin): 

On July 15, 1992, U.S. EPA, Region V, issued a for both VOCs and particulate matter emissions, and

Finding of Violation to Fort Howard Corporation, complied with U.S. EPA’s civil penalty policy. This

Green Bay, Wisconsin. Fort Howard was cited for case is an excellent example of what can be

violating Federal sulfur dioxide limits found in the New accomplished for the environment through effective

Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Specifically, state/federal partnership.

Fort Howard was found to be in violation of the NSPS

for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators for one of its

power boilers. Fort Howard’s boiler #8 was permitted

to operate with a heat input rate of less than 250

MMBTU/hour. Information provided to WDNR on the

sulfur and heat content of Fort Howard’s coal indicated

that emissions were more than four times the NSPS

allowable level. 

In August 1993, Region V referred the Fort Howard

case to the Department of Justice (DOJ). On May 28,

1996, a consent decree was entered. Fort Howard

agreed to permanently derate the boiler, accomplished

by restricting the fuel feed rate and feed capacity, to

operate at a heat input below 235 MMBTU/hour, in

any hour of operation. The consent decree also requires

Fort Howard to pay a penalty of $350,000. 

Georgia-Pacific Corporation (Gaylord, Michigan): a certification of compliance which consisted of results

On May 10, 1996, as part of a significant national of destruction efficiency testing performed on the

enforcement case against Georgia-Pacific Corporation coating lines’ VOM control devices (incinerators). 

(G-P), the State of Michigan entered into a settlement

with G-P that addressed violations of the Clean Air Act On September 4, 1992, U.S. EPA filed an

at its Gaylord, Michigan plant. Specifically, Michigan Administrative complaint against Heekin for failure to

cited violations of the federal Prevention of Significant submit a timely certification. In the meantime, U.S.

Deterioration (PSD) rules and State permitting EPA determined that Heekin had failed to perform the

requirements for modifying its plant processes without destruction efficiency testing on Heekin’s coating lines’

first obtaining appropriate construction permits. As a incinerators in accordance with the required test

result of this settlement, G-P paid to Michigan a civil methods and procedures in the FIP. U.S. EPA issued a

penalty of $700,000. The State also secured a second NOV to Heekin on December 31, 1992,

commitment from G-P to install air pollution controls alleging that the destruction efficiency tests, on which

on its wood chip dryers and hot press to reduce Heekin's late certification was based, failed to conform

emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). to the required test methods and procedures. 

Emissions could be reduced as much as 500 tons per

year. The final deadline for installing all controls is In March 1993, U.S. EPA discovered that the

October 1, 1997. Although the Gaylord plant was cited requirement to certify under the FIP, which constitutes

in a national Notice of Violation issued by the Office of an information collection request under the Paperwork

Enforcement And Compliance Assurance, Air Reduction Act (PRA), failed to display the Office of

Enforcement Division, on August 5, 1994, it was Management and Budget control number in the Federal

ultimately not included in the national settlement Register and in the Code of Federal Regulations, as

reached with G-P because of the State lead in resolving required by the PRA. U.S. EPA therefore determined

the violations in Gaylord. Even though the State was in not to seek penalties for the late certification violation

the lead, U.S. EPA was a direct participant in the but proposed to amend the complaint to address

negotiations with G-P. Heekin's failure to test in accordance with the test

The settlement also addressed violations associated increased from $26,000 to $55,000.

with particulate matter from the plant’s pre-dryer,

which Region V had cited in its Notice of Violation On October 29, 1993, U.S. EPA filed a motion to

issued July 15, 1992, and referred to the Department of amend the original administrative complaint. Heekin

Justice on September 25, 1992. U.S. EPA deferred to finally completed proper testing required by July 1,

the state settlement, which addressed federal concerns

Heekin Can Inc. (Alsip, Illinois): This case involved

violations of the volatile organic material (VOM)

emission test requirements under the Federal revisions

to the Illinois State Implementation Plan for ozone

(Federal Implementation Plan or FIP). The violations

occurred at a can coating/printing facility located at

12701 South Ridgeway Avenue, Alsip, Illinois, which

is a non-attainment area for ozone and also an

Environmental Justice area. During the time period of

the violations, the facility was owned and operated by

the Heekin Can Company, Inc. (Heekin) and is now

owned and operated by the Ball Metal Food Container

Corporation. U.S. EPA initiated this case by issuing a

Notice of Violation against Heekin on September 27,

1991, for failure to submit a certification of or

exemption from compliance with the coating emission

limitations set forth in the FIP. Heekin later submitted

methods set forth in the FIP. The pled penalty
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-35 May 1997

1991, in March of 1994. In March of 1995, which will eliminate the emissions of fugitive dust. 

Administrative Law Judge Head granted U.S. EPA's The Company also agreed to pay a penalty of $70,000

motion. This ruling was significant because it upheld to the state of Michigan.

U.S. EPA's position that penalties can be sought for

violation of a substantive requirement, and the testing

requirements of the FIP are substantive. The amended

complaint was filed April 18, 1995. 

On May 24, 1996, U.S. EPA and Heekin entered into a

consent agreement and consent order in settlement of

the complaint. Heekin has since paid the required

penalty of $37,500. 

Rockwood Stone, Inc.(Newport, Michigan): 

Rockwood Stone, Inc. operates a Dolomite/Limestone particulates by 70%, and sulfur dioxide by 80%

Processing and Crushing Plant. The company installed (estimated value $30 million); an emissions control

and operated a seven foot crusher, two five foot project at the sinter plant to reduce particulates by

crushers, several screens and many conveyors without 70%, and sulfur dioxide by 80% (estimated value $30

first obtaining the necessary permit to install, in million); and a new coke plant waste water treatment

violation of the applicable rules of the Michigan State plant, to eliminate the use of contaminated wastewater

Implementation Plan. The Company also emitted for coke quenching (cooling) (estimated value $37

fugitive dust (particulate matter) from its facilities in million).

excess of the allowable limit of Federal Prevention of

Significant Deterioration requirements. According to a These projects will allow Lake County to continue to

study performed by the company, the Total Suspended meet air quality standards for particulate matter, and

Particulate emissions for the quarry and processing reduce the amounts of ozone producing emissions from

plant were calculated to be 660 tons per year. The the Gary Works.

total PM10 emissions for the quarry and processing

plant were calculated to be 403 tons per year. The State

and the company negotiated a compliance plan which

addressed these violations and included a Fugitive Dust

Control Plan. A consent order was proposed by the

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality which

included a schedule for implementation of the plan. 

However, although the Company did negotiate the

terms of the order, it refuged to consent to the final

order. 

On July 21, 1995 the U.S. EPA issued a request for

information under section 114 of the Clean Air Act in

order to collect the necessary information to support a

Federal action for the proper resolution of the case. 

This Federal presence made the company to resume

negotiations with the state of Michigan so that the

issues would be resolved with no intervention of the

U.S. EPA. The order was finalized and placed for

public comment. However, after the public notice, the

Company delayed signing the Final order until the U.S.

EPA intervened once again and prepared a Notice of

violation. Under this new Federal presence the

company signed the Final order and hand delivered it to

the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ). On February 26, 1996 the MDEQ issued the

Final order consent agreement to Rockwood. The

Company has obtained the required permit to install

and has committed to a Fugitive dust control plan,

USX (Indiana): In April 1996, IDEM announced an

administrative agreement with USX requiring $190

million in environmental improvements targeted to

reduce air emissions from its Gary Works facility by

14,800 tons per year by September 1997, and also

requiring USX to pay a $6 million fine. The agreed

order settles air pollution violations at the blast furnace,

coke battery, and other Gary Works operations. 

Specific projects that will be implemented include: An

emissions control project at the sinter plant to reduce

CERCLA

Conservation Chemical Company of Illinois, Inc. site

(Gary, IN): The EPA's site assessment documented

several imminent and substantial threats to the

environment at the CCCI site. EPA identified twelve

non-empty deteriorating tanks containing acids and

solvents; a number of corroded empty tanks with acid

and caustic residue; a number of drums containing

acids and caustic liquids; a number of empty drums

with acid and caustic residue; soil contaminated with

hazardous substances; lagoons/sludge pits containing

hazardous substances; 5000 cubic yards of PCBcontaminated soil; five uncontrolled packs containing

laboratory chemicals; 20 cubic yards of asbestoscontaining materials; contaminated waste oils; and

contaminated groundwater. Analytical testing of waste

samples taken during that site investigation revealed

the presence of hazardous substances and hazardous

wastes on-site.

EPA issued a General Notice of Potential Liability for

the CCCI site to over two hundred Potentially

Responsible Parties (PRPs), including the

owner/operator of the site and a number of generators. 

On August 30, 1996, EPA entered into a final de

minimis settlement with 153 de minimis PRPs at the

CCCI site. Under the administrative order on consent
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-36

for that de minimis settlement, the settling parties

agreed to make settlement payments that included each

settling party’s fair share of the past and estimated

future response costs at the site, plus a premium

assessed against estimated future response costs to

account for potential cost overruns, the potential for

failure of the selected response action to clean up the

site, and other risks.

Sanitary Landfill Company Superfund site

(Moraine, OH): The Sanitary Landfill Company

(IWD) Superfund site is a 53-acre property that was minimis settlement. 

proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List

("NPL") on October 15, 1984. U.S. EPA placed the

site on the NPL on June 10, 1986. 

U.S. EPA, the Ohio EPA, and a group of potentially

responsible parties (PRPs) entered into a three-party

administrative order by consent (AOC) for

performance of the RI/FS, effective December 16,

1987. The PRPs formed a group called the Cardington

Road Coalition (CRC). 

During 1989 and 1990, the CRC conducted the RI. A

final RI was approved by the Agencies on January 10,

1992, and the FS was completed on November 12,

1992. The Regional Administrator issued a Record of

Decision ("ROD") on September 27, 1993, which

selected the appropriate remedial action for the site.

The Agencies entered into a three-party AOC for

Remedial Design of the remedy with a group of PRPs

on June 6, 1994. This group consisted of the CRC plus

TRW, Inc. and Waste Management of Ohio. This

group performed the remedial design activities and the

SSI in accordance with the AOC. On January 25,

1996, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant

Difference in which the Agency concluded that phase II

of the SSI was unnecessary and that no further analysis

of the SSI was necessary.

The ROD estimated that the cost of the remedy was $8

million. The cost of U.S. EPA oversight 

U.S. EPA initiated negotiations for the Remedial

Action ("RA") on August 16, 1995, upon issuance of

"special notice" to potentially responsible parties

pursuant to CERCLA § 122(e). 

Negotiations ensued, leading to a FY 96 consent

decree. Thirty-one municipalities [The municipalities

are all members of the Montgomery County Solid

Waste District ("MCSWD"). The MCSWD operated

an incinerator, which sent excess municipal waste to

the landfill. Some of that waste contained commercial

or industrial waste containing hazardous substances.]

The defendants will pay $60,000 of the Agency's

oversight costs within 30 days of entry of the decree

and they will pay 50% of the remaining oversight costs. 

The PRPs who have decided to participate in this

settlement fall into one of two categories. The "Settling

Defendants" have agreed to perform the work and to

pay the oversight costs as discussed above. The

"Premium Settling Defendants" are those generator

PRPs who had a total waste contribution of less than

.5% of the total waste at the site and who elected to pay

a premium to the Settling Defendants and receive a de

CLEAN WATER ACT

Hammond Industries (Hammond, Indiana): On

September 17, 1996, U.S. EPA and IDEM jointly

announced a Clean Water Act settlement between the

governments and a number of industries in the

Hammond, Indiana area. This case was brought as part

of the continuing effort to address the contamination of

the Grand Calumet River, and to curtail existing

sources of pollution. The settling defendants include:

American Maize Products Company (now known as

Cerestar USA, Inc.), Lever Brothers Company, and

Ferro Corporation (Keil Chemical Division). The

consent decree will require remedial and restoration

work in the Grand Calumet River through a trust fund

that will be established with payments of $4.7 million

($4.1 million in direct payments made as injunctive

relief, and $600,000 in penalties paid to the State that

the State will place into the Fund).

Leggett and Platt (Grafton, Wisconsin): On Monday,

April 1, 1996, a consent decree was entered in the

Milwaukee Federal court with Leggett & Platt,

concerning their Grafton, WI, facilities(2). A penalty

of $450,000 was stipulated in the decree based on four

years of reporting failures and exceeding the Federal

Pretreatment standards for the Metal Molding and

Casting industry. Also, the company agreed in the

consent decree not to discharge process wastes to the

Grafton POTW. As a result of this stipulation the

company started a water recycle system in April, 1995,

with several levels of plant water cleanliness. After

several months of experimentation the company

observed that the recycle system had a two-year payout

due to the reduction of the use of plant lubricants. The

yearly savings were in excess of $50,000/year. 

Therefore, there was no economic benefit available for

recovery. 

LTV Steel (East Chicago, Indiana): Outside of some

minor additional sediment cleanup work being done

around the perimeter of the LTV Steel No.2 Intake

Flume, this sediment project was completed September
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-37 May 1997

6, 1996. The preliminary estimate on the total amount Clean Water Act and Sections 10 and 13 of the Rivers

of sediment removed is 112,000 cubic yards at a cost of and Harbors Act. The use of these statutory authorities

approximately $12 million. to compel sediment cleanup is unprecedented. 

The significance of this project is that it is the first The vehicle used in the consent decree for performing

sediment removal project in the Indiana Harbor remedial and restoration work in the river is the Grand

Canal/Grand Calumet River system to be completed Calumet River Restoration Fund ("Fund"), a trust that

that has removed a significant amount of ancient (pre will be established with payments of $4.7 million under

1975 deposited) contaminated sediment from the river the consent decree ($4.1 million in direct payments

system within recent years. The LTV Steel No.2 Intake made as injunctive relief, and $600,000 in penalties

Flume was identified by the U.S. Coast Guard in recent paid to the State that the State has agreed to place into

litigation as a vehicle and source for oil pollution the Fund).

reaching some of the beaches along the southern shore

of Lake Michigan. The removal of all of the

contaminated oily sediment in the LTV Steel No. 2

Intake Flume, as a result of the sediment clean up

program in the flume, should help reduce the total

amount of oily pollutants entering southern Lake

Michigan and help meet some of the objectives of the

International Joint Commission.

U.S. v. Sanitary District of Hammond et al.: The following the restoration efforts, the payment of a

United States’ and the State of Indiana’s settled Clean $300,000 penalty, $240,200 in payments to U.S. EPA

Water Act pretreatment claims against Defendants and DOI to cover the costs of monitoring, field and

American Maize Products Company (now known as laboratory work incurred by the government,

Cerestar USA, Inc.), Lever Brothers Company and $1,900,000 into the Leading Creek improvement fund

Ferro Corporation (Keil Chemical Division) in the case which was created by the decree to finance projects to

of United States v. Sanitary District of Hammond et

al. This case was brought as part of a continuing effort

to address the profound contamination in the Grand

Calumet, tributary to Lake Michigan and Northwest

Indiana. The Grand Calumet River flows through this

highly industrialized and economically depressed area

and is one of the most polluted waterways in the

country. Hammond is located on the West Branch of

the river, where sewage sediments have accumulated in

depths of up to 16 feet.

The settling defendants are indirect dischargers that

send their waste water to the Hammond Sanitary

District, which in turn discharges directly to the West

Branch of the Grand Calumet River. The complaint

alleged that the industries violated a variety of federal

and local pretreatment standards that govern their

discharges to the District and that are federally

enforceable under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water

Act, and that these violations have resulted in sediment

contamination in the severely polluted West Branch of

the Grand Calumet River. The United States sought

three types of relief against the industries: (1) penalties

pursuant to Section 309(b) of the Clean Water Act; (2)

prospective injunctive relief consisting of plant

improvements and future compliance with the Clean

Water Act; and (3) cleanup of the contaminated

sediments in the West Branch of the Grand Calumet

River under the authority of Section 309(d) of the

Southern Ohio Coal Company: On March 22, 1996

a complaint and consent decree which settles the

United States' case against Southern Ohio Coal

Company (SOCCO) were filed in Federal court. The

consent decree requires full restoration of the streams

affected by SOCCO's discharge of a billion gallons of

acid mine drainage, extensive biological and chemical

monitoring and reporting by SOCCO during and

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 $1,000,000 on

its monitoring efforts.

U.S. Steel: In June, 1996, U.S. EPA held a public

meeting announcing that USX and U.S. EPA had

worked out in principal, via a draft consent decree, the

terms of a Grand Calumet River (GCR) sediment

remediation project plus an upgrade of water pollution

abatement equipment at the USX Gary Indiana plant. 

The sediment remediation portion of the draft consent

decree calls for the removal of all of the contaminated

GCR sediment, identified as non-native soils, in the

upper five (5) mile stretch of the GCR. Approximately

700,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment costing

about $50 million will be removed; USX will pay for

all work. Companion consent decrees are under

negotiation with the RCRA program and with the

Natural Resource Trustees for associated issues. 

EPCRA

USX Corporation: On September 27, 1996, U.S.

EPA Region V simultaneously issued and settled an

enforcement action against USX Corporation's Gary
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-38

Works for violations of Section 313 of the Emergency GDC had operated a hazardous waste landfill without

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1991, complying with applicable requirements, including

1992, and 1993. This case was the result of a ground-water monitoring and financial responsibility. 

combined effort between NEIC and the Region. USX While GDC had asserted that it is a “sanitary landfill

has now submitted 12 delinquent Form Rs to both the for disposal of municipal and commercial waste”, the

EPCRA Reporting Center and to the State of Indiana, Decision holds GDC to have received hazardous

and will pay the largest penalty ever collected by wastes for storage, treatment, or disposal, and is

Region V for EPCRA Section 313 violations-- therefore subject to hazardous waste regulation under

$178,500. The case officer for WPTD was Bob Allen, RCRA and the Indiana Administrative Code. GDC has

the ORC attorney was Tom Martin, and the NEIC been ordered to pay a penalty of $86,000 for failure to

inspector was Martha Bennett comply with ground-water monitoring, financial

FIFRA

Chempace Corporation: On September 26, 1996,

Region V PTES filed a civil administrative complaint

against Chempace Corporation of Toledo, Ohio

alleging 99 counts for the distribution or sale of

unregistered and misbranded pesticides, and pesticide

production in unregistered establishments. the total

proposed penalty in the complaint is $200,000. The

case is significant in that Chempace had, previous to

the complaint, canceled all of the company’s pesticide

product registrations pursuant to Section 4 of FIFRA,

as well as their establishment registration pursuant to

Section 7. However, the company continued to

produce and sell those canceled pesticides in a facility

that was not registered.

Northrup King Co.: On September 30, 1996, as a

result of a FIFRA inspection conducted by Region V on

March 27-28, 1996, Region V issued a FIFRA civil

complaint to Northrup King Co. of Golden Valley,

Minnesota. The pesticide involved in the case is a

genetically engineered corn seed that protects against

the corn borer. Because this case is the first FIFRA

complaint involving a genetically engineered pesticide,

the case is nationally significant. The complaint

alleged 21 counts of sale and distribution of an

unregistered pesticide, 21 counts for failure to file a

Notice of Arrival for pesticide imports, and 8 counts of

pesticide production in unregistered establishments, for

a total proposed penalty of $ 206,500. A consent

agreement and consent order was filed simultaneously

with, and in resolution of the complaint. The

respondent agreed to pay $165,200, which is the

largest penalty collected by Region V under FIFRA. 

RCRA

Gary Development Company (Gary, Indiana): On

April 4, 1996, a Decision and order was issued by

Administrative Law Judge Greene in the matter of Gary

Development Company (GDC), which was the subject

of a two-part hearing that concluded in December

1990. In a May 1986 complaint, Region V alleged that

assurance, and preparedness/prevention requirements

for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities. Also, the order grants all the injunctive relief

requested by U.S. EPA, including implementation of

closure, post-closure, and a ground-water quality

assessment program. 

Ross Incineration Services, Inc. (Grafton, Ohio): 

On May 30, Under the imminent hazard authority of

Section 7003 of RCRA, an administrative order on

consent was signed with Ross Incineration Services,

Inc. The order addresses concerns arising from an

explosion which caused extensive damage to the

incinerator on December 5, 1995, as well as nine other

incidents which occurred over the previous two years.

In addition to placing strict limits on the operation of

the incinerator, the order requires Ross to hire a

consultant to conduct a Hazard and Operability

(HAZOP) Study, which is a rigorous analysis of the

facility’s operations, processes and procedures. Ross

will be required to make improvements following U.S.

EPA’s review of the study. The order also requires

Ross to conduct emissions testing after the

improvements have been made. After addressing

public comments, the order was finalized on September

30.

TSCA

Amoco Corporation (TSCA-V-C-10-93): On June 1,

1996, the Pesticides and Toxics Enforcement Section

and Amoco Corporation signed a consent agreement

and consent order in settlement of a TSCA civil

complaint. EPA alleged that Amoco failed to provide

recipients of a chemical subject to a Section 5(e) order

with the required health effects warning labels and

material safety data sheets with prescribed language. 

EPA proposed a penalty of $2,106,000, which was

reduced 50% for voluntary disclosure to $1,080,000. 

As part of settlement, Amoco completed a SEP to

install water treatment feed tanks at a plant in Joliet,

Illinois, to replace two wastewater feed ponds. The

feed ponds collected wastewater containing a number

of toxic chemicals, allowing those chemicals to

evaporate or settle into the sediments. The project
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-39 May 1997

reduced air emissions by 200 tons per year and

eliminated the risk of sediment and groundwater

contamination. The project cost Amoco about $13

million. EPA reduced the penalty to $216,000 in

consideration for completion of the SEP.

Itochu International Corporation (5-TSCA-96-005):

On February 7, 1996, the Pesticides and Toxics

Enforcement Section issued a civil complaint to Itochu

International Corporation, Bannockburn, Illinois 1996,

alleging that Itochu shipped quantities of a chemical

subject to a TSCA Section 5(e) order to four customers

without either labeling the chemical as to its health

hazards and precautionary measures or notifying the

recipients in writing that the substance was to be used

for research and development purpose only. EPA

proposed a penalty of $40,000.

Safety Kleen Corporation (5-TSCA-96-014): On

August 5, 1996, the Pesticides and Toxics Enforcement

Section issued a civil complaint to Safety Kleen

Corporation, East Chicago, Indiana alleging that Safety

Kleen imported for a commercial TSCA purpose

dozens of batches of a chemical not on the TSCA

Inventory and falsely certified to U.S. Customs at the

time of each import that the chemical was in

compliance with TSCA. EPA proposed a penalty of

$1,800,000.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-40

REGION VI

CLEAN AIR ACT

United States v. Amoco Oil (Texas City, Texas): 

NEIC conducted Phase I and Phase II of a multi-media

inspection of Amoco Oil's Texas City, Texas refinery in

January and March 1996. The company was found to

be in violation of the New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA). The case was referred to the U.S.

Department of Justice (DOJ) on September 30, 1996. 

The requested relief is a civil penalty and injunctive

relief requiring the facility to correct the violations.

United States v. Basis Petroleum, Inc. (Texas City,

Texas): In July 1993, the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC) conducted an air

inspection of Basis' refinery in Texas City, Texas. 

Several violations of the Clean Air Act discovered by

the TNRCC during this inspection were referred to

EPA Region VI in June 1995. In March 1994, EPA

Region VI conducted its own air inspection of the same

facility, during which additional violations were noted. 

The case containing some of the state violations as well

as those found by EPA was referred to DOJ on

September 30, 1996. There are five counts for

violations of NSPS and NESHAP. Region VI also

listed several areas of concern that warrant further

investigation and inquiry. The Region VI litigation

team has drafted a request to obtain additional

information. If additional violations are found, the

referral will be supplemented.

United States v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc.

(Beaumont, Texas): EPA Region VI conducted a

multi-media inspection of Elf Atochem's Beaumont,

Texas facility on April 13, 1995. Violations of the

CAA and the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)

were found. The case was referred to DOJ on

September 24, 1996, with five counts for violations of

NSPS and NESHAP. This case is a part of a

nationwide case being developed by the National

Enforcement Screening System team. The requested

relief is a civil penalty and injunctive relief requiring

the facility to correct the violations.

GNB Industrial Battery Company (Arkansas): GNB

failed to conduct initial performance test on several

"affected facilities" as required under 40 C.F.R. Part

60, Subpart KK New Source Performance Standards

for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants at its Fort

Smith, Arkansas battery manufacturing plant. After

notification from Region VI, the company conducted

the required performance tests. To settle the penalty

matter, GNB agreed to pay a civil penalty of $63,177

and to conduct a Supplemental Environmental Project. 

The SEP consists of the following: Installation of

fence-line ambient air monitors at the plant site to

detect lead and other emissions; installation of a highefficiency dust collection system to capture lead

emissions from 18 lead pots and their associated

crossing stations, and from 4 curing ovens; and

construction of a containment building for the plant's

lead oxide unloading facility. The SEP will reduce lead

emissions into the atmosphere. The SEP has been

valued at $384,669. Region VI has agreed to give

GNB a 3-for-1 credit for the SEP which was agreed to

under the 1991 SEP Policy.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos, New

Mexico): On June 13, 1996 the Region VI

Administrator signed a compliance agreement between

EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding

noncompliance of the Los Alamos National Laboratory

(LANL) with National Emissions Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Subpart H,

Emissions of Radionuclides from DOE Facilities. The

agreement satisfied the noncompliance issues related to

exceedance of the emission standard and deficiencies in

stack monitoring designs and operations methods cited

in two Notices of Noncompliance issued by EPA in

1991 and 1992. 

The agreement marked the end of a long negotiations

process that included the taking of public comments

and public meetings to explain the terms of the

agreement. Negotiations were delayed while EPA

processed DOE's application for approval to utilize an

advanced and innovative single-point sampling device,

called the "shrouded probe" for collecting

representative samples of stack emissions. EPA

approved the shrouded probe for use at all DOE

facilities, as an alternative to multi-point sampling by

isokinetic probes, which are specified in the NESHAP. 

Use of the shrouded probe allowed certain stacks at the

LANL facility to be brought into full compliance with

EPA requirements more quickly and with less

expenditure of resources.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-41 May 1997

United States v. Lyondell Petrochemical Company Hi-Yield (Commerce, Texas): On September 30,

(Houston, Texas): On September 26, 1996, Region 1996, the Region entered into an administrative order

VI requested that DOJ initiate a civil enforcement on consent with the Southern Pacific Transportations

action against Lyondell Petrochemical Company for Company and St. Louis Southwestern Railway

violating Section 112 of the CAA. The referred Company (both now merged with Union Pacific) for

NESHAP violations were identified during a conduct of a removal to address contamination on

September 1992 EPA inspection of Lyondell's railroad property adjacent to the Hi-Yield site. This

petroleum refinery in Houston, Texas. The referral action will complete response activities in the

proposes a civil penalty of $158,515, which Lyondell community and assures that the Region has agreements

has agreed to pay. to reimburse all site-related costs.

United States v. Sun Refinery (Tulsa, Oklahoma): Highway 71/72 Refinery (Bossier City, Louisiana): 

EPA Region VI has signed and submitted to the

Department of Justice a civil referral against Sun

refinery, Tulsa, Oklahoma. The referral is for

violations of the Clean Air Act and the Oklahoma SIP. 

Specifically, the violations include five violations of the

NSPS and three violations of the federally enforceable

Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulations. EPA has Lincoln Creosoting (Bossier City, Louisiana): On

received several citizen complaints and congressional November 21, 1995, the Region and Joslyn entered

inquiries regarding Sun. Two citizens' lawsuits have into an administrative order on consent for a non-time

been filed against Sun and a third is pending. critical removal action to address contamination in

Additionally, the Oklahoma Department of residential areas affected by the Lincoln Creosoting

Environmental Quality has been working with EPA on site. The cleanup was finished during the fiscal year.

an investigation of Sun.

CERCLA

Bayou Bonfouca (Slidell, Louisiana): A consent

decree with Kerf-McGee providing for recovery of

$20,000,000.00 was lodged on June 13, 1996. This is

particularly important because, until two years ago the

region had not expected to be able to recover any of the

costs. In addition, suit has been filed against seven

other parties and it is expected that additional cost will

be recovered.

Bio Ecology (Grand Prairie, Texas): On March 29,

1996, the Court granted the United States summary

judgment against CTU Corporation, finding them liable

for costs related to the remediation of the Bio Ecology

site. Subsequently, the Region entered into an

agreement in principle with the remaining PRP

resulting in potential recovery of $2,600,000 and final

resolution of the case.

Chino Mines (Grant County, New Mexico): The

Region and Chino Mines entered into an administrative

order on consent for PRP reimbursement of costs

incurred assisting the State of New Mexico to oversee

remedial activities on June 11, 1996. The site is a

State-lead voluntary cleanup pilot. Under the original

agreement with the State, Chino had agreed to

reimburse the Region for providing assistance to the

State.

On July 31, 1996, the Region issued a unilateral

administrative order to CanadianOxy requiring the

company to perform a removal action to address lead

contaminated areas of a residential development. The

company is complying with the order.

Marco of Iota (Iota, Louisiana): The Region entered

into an administrative order on consent with de

minimis, de micromis and other parties for

reimbursement of costs incurred on June 5, 1996. The

total amount of the settlement was in excess of

$1,000,000.00. A unique aspect of this settlement was

the use of limited alternative dispute resolution to

confirm allocation amounts.

Odessa Drum (Odessa, Texas): On May 23, 1996,

the Region entered into two administrative orders on

consent resolving the liability of the PRPs. An

additional order was signed by the Region on August

21, 1996. This settlements have a present value of

$4,419,281.10, and monies received will be placed in a

special account to fund the site remediation.

Pesses (Fort Worth, Texas): This removal action was

concluded with the entry of a consent decree for

recovery of $2,600,000.0 on July 12, 1996.

Rab Valley (Panama, Oklahoma): The Region and

Joslyn Corporation entered into an administrative order

on consent for a non-time critical removal action on

March 8, 1996. Under the AOC, Joslyn will perform a

response action to address contamination from a wood

treating facility.

Sheridan (Hempsted, Texas): A de minimis consent

decree for recovery of $32,160 from five parties was

entered by the Court on April 10, 1996.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-42

South Eighth Street Landfill (West Memphis,

Arkansas): The Region and a group of generator

PRPs entered into an administrative order on consent

for the development of a remedial design on march 1,

1996. The remedial design will address contamination

from an oil re-refining business which was disposed of

in an unlicensed landfill on the bank of the Mississippi

River. This site is also an allocation pilot.

Tex Tin (Texas City, Texas): In response to a claim

filed by Tex Tin Corporation against the United States

on may 10, 1996, the Region filed a counterclaim for

costs related to site investigation, ranking and other

response activities against Tex Tin. As previously

noted, the site was also proposed for listing on the

National Priorities List.

Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program agreement: A

voluntary cleanup program agreement was negotiated

with the State of Texas and assistance has been given

to the other states in the Region for the development of

legislation and regulations for their voluntary cleanup

programs.

CLEAN WATER ACT

United States v. Roger J. Gautreau (Louisiana,

Maryland): On January 9, 1996, the United States

District Court entered a civil consent decree in which

Mr. Gautreau agreed to perform onsite wetland

restoration activities and to pay $4,500 in civil

penalties to resolve a civil action brought under the

Clean Water Act. These actions arose out of Mr.

Gautreau's unauthorized discharge of fill material into

wetlands in St. Amant, Louisiana. Mr. Gautreau payed

the penalty and performed the required restoration. In

June of 1996, the District Court accepted a motion of

termination and the matter was concluded.

United States v. New Orleans Sewerage & Water

Board (New Orleans, Louisiana): In 1993 the United

States filed a civil complaint alleging violations of the

Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act against the Board. 

The sanitary sewer and collection system of New

Orleans are in very poor condition and have caused

hundreds of unpermitted discharges of contaminated

water to the waters of the United States. Trial was set

for October 7, 1996. Over the summer months

preceding trial, the team consisting of EPA and DOJ

legal and technical staff participated in extensive

settlement negotiations with the Board. Minor issues

were resolved, but significant aspects of the case

including necessary injunctive relief measures and

scheduling were not settled. The court removed the

case from the trial docket on the eve of trial and

ordered the parties to participate in non-binding

mediation. Mediation proved unsuccessful, in large part

due to the inability of the parties to agree on an

appropriate assessment of penalty and other major

issues related to long-term injunctive relief. The court

has set the new trial date for March 2, 1998. This case

is significant for many reasons including issues related

to litigating against a small governmental entity,

environmental justice claims, legal issues associated

with Sanitary Sewer Overflows, and the use of

alternative dispute resolution for technical disputes. 

United States v. Yaffe Iron and Metal Co., Inc.: In

March of 1996, Yaffe Iron and Metal Co., Inc. (Yaffe),

a metals recycling facility located in Muskogee,

Oklahoma, agreed to pay a penalty of $150,000 in

settlement of a civil complaint filed against it pursuant

to Section 309(b) of the Clean Water Act ("the Act" or

"CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b). In addition to the

penalty, Yaffe agreed to perform a Supplemental

Environmental Project ("SEP") in the form of a multimedia environmental audit of the company's Muskogee

facility. The SEP is valued at approximately $40,000. 

The complaint, which was filed in June of 1995 with

the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of Oklahoma, alleged that Yaffe violated the CWA by

discharging pollutants to waters of the United States

without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System ("NPDES") permit in violation of Section 301

of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311. 

FIFRA

United States v. Harry James Saul and Ronnie

Snead (Eastern District of Arkansas): Harry Saul,

part owner and operator of Harry Saul Minnow Farm,

Inc., Prairie County, Arkansas, and a company

employee, Ronnie Snead, were sentenced on June 19,

1996, by Federal Magistrate Henry L. Jones for a

misdemeanor violation of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The

defendants had mixed furadan, a restricted use

pesticide, with minnows and spread the treated

minnows on a levee on the minnow farm to control

nuisance birds. Mr. Saul and Mr. Snead stipulated to

the facts of the case after a one count Bill of

Information was filed in May, 1995, but argued that to

the ordinary person, "inconsistent with the label" would

mean conduct that the label specifically prohibits. The

government argued that the label lists the specific uses

for Furadan, and that the statute lists specific

exceptions to prohibited conduct, none of which were

applicable to the defendant. Saul was ordered to pay a

$5,000 fine and Snead a $1,000 fine for use

inconsistent with the label. The defendant's attorney

notified Judge Jones that his clients have decided to
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-43 May 1997

appeal the Court's judgement. Case law resulting from

the appeal may affect other prosecutions. 

Skarda Flying Service, Inc.: In May and June 1989, settling an administrative case against BJ Services

Skarda Flying Service, Inc. (SFS), a small aerial Company, U.S.A. (respondent). The complaint alleged

pesticide applicator in Hazen, Arkansas applied the RCRA violations stemming from respondent's failure to

registered pesticide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy butyric acid obtain a permit to store hazardous waste and failure to

(2,4-DB) to rice crops in 38 separate applications. make hazardous waste determinations. The proposed

2,4-DB is labeled only for soybeans and peanuts, and penalty in the complaint was $85,774.00. Pursuant to

not for rice. An inspection by an Arkansas State Plant the terms of the CACO, respondent agreed to pay a

Board inspector in early 1990 revealed the 2,4-DB penalty of $3,452.00 and agreed to fund a

applications. In June 1990, the Arkansas State Plant Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) in the

Board found that SFS had applied 2,4-DB to rice and amount of $81,548.00. The SEP involves the

put SFS on probation, but did not impose a civil establishment of a hazardous waste collection program

penalty. Region VI decided to take its own aimed at collecting household hazardous waste and

enforcement action in light of the inadequate hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small

enforcement response by the Plant Board, and on quantity generators in the Hobbs, New Mexico area.

September 27, 1991, filed a FIFRA complaint against

SFS alleging 38 violations of FIFRA for the company's

application of 2,4-DB in a manner inconsistent with its

labeling ($500 per violation). SFS answered admitting

the violations and requesting a hearing.

On October 17, 1996, Judge Andrew S. Pearlstein

issued an Initial Decision reducing the $19,000

administrative penalty to $5,000. The decision holds

that the FIFRA Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) is

inconsistent with FIFRA Sections 14(a)(2) and

14(a)(4) as well as 40 CFR Section 22.27 in that it

does not allow for any reduction from the maximum

statutory penalty amount for first offenses by "for hire"

applicators. With regard to the "ability to pay" factor,

the Judge ruled that it was not necessary to examine in

detail evidence on respondent's finances." While the

SFS could pay the whole penalty amount, to do so

would leave the company no reserves to meet

"unanticipated expenses". 

RCRA

American Airlines, Inc. (Tulsa, Oklahoma): A

CACO was filed against American Airlines, Inc.

(respondent) on July 31, 1996. The complaint alleged

respondent had discharged degreasing solvents

(hazardous waste) into the on-site injection wells, in

violation of the RCRA land disposal restrictions. In the

CACO, American agreed to pay a cash penalty of

$20,000, to take affirmative actions to prevent further

injection of restricted wastes, and to fund a SEP in the

amount of $385, 235. The SEP provides for 98% or

6969 pounds/year reductions in chrome waste through

a chrome recovery system and the elimination of 26

million gallons of waste water into injection wells

annually. 

BJ Services Company, U.S.A. (Hobbs, New Mexico):

On July 1, 1996, a complaint and a consent agreement

and consent order (CACO) were simultaneously filed,

Camp Stanley Storage Activity (Boerne, Texas): A

Final consent agreement and consent order (CACO)

was filed on August 17, 1996, settling an

administrative case against the respondent. Pursuant to

the terms of the CACO, respondent agree to pay a

penalty of $45,000 in cash and agreed to fund a SEP in

the amount of $555,000. The SEP includes auditing

and investigation of the extent of contamination at the

Base which occurred prior to RCRA (1980). 

Additionally, Camp Stanley has eliminated the

operations of disposing of waste munitions in their land

based open burning/open detonation unit. Another

Department of Defense (DOD) facility, which is

permitted, will dispose of waste munitions for Camp

Stanley. The SEPs conducted by Camp Stanley are

expected to reduce releases by approximately 20 tons

per year of nitrosamines and nitro-aromatic compounds

to soils at the facility. 

Cooper Cameron (Richmond, Texas): This

enforcement action arose out of the Region VI Foundry

Initiative. EPA conducted an inspection of the Cooper

Industries, Inc., Oil Tool Division in Richmond, Texas

on September 21 - 23, 1994. At that facility, the

Cooper Oil Tool Division manufactured a variety of

low and high carbon steel and stainless steel oil tool

castings for valves and other equipment. During the

inspection, EPA discovered a waste pile which

contained Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) baghouse dust. 

This material was sampled using the TCLP method and

was found to contain chromium (D007) above the 5.0

mg/L regulatory level. Therefore, the EAF baghouse

dust is a hazardous waste. Cooper Oil Tool Division

was acquired by Cooper Cameron Corporation which

was spun off from Cooper Industries, Inc. in 1995. As

the corporate successor to the Oil Tool Division,

Cooper Cameron became responsible for the cited

violations. Region VI simultaneously filed the CACO
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-44

on September 30, 1996, assessing a civil penalty of violations stemming from respondent’s operation of a

$45,000 plus injunctive relief. Additionally, Cooper boiler burning hazardous waste with an incomplete or

Cameron has agreed to remediate, under the TNRCC an inaccurate certification of compliance; exceedance

Voluntary Cleanup Program, approximately 30 acres of of limits established in the certification of prewaste materials stored in piles on their site. It is compliance and compliance test notification during

estimated that this action will reduce the risk of compliance testing; failure to continuously monitor, and

releasing more than 100 tons of chromium record emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and

contaminated soil. The agreement to remediate the oxygen; failure to conduct tests of the automatic waste

waste pile is a result of the company’s concern over feed cutoff system for a boiler burning hazardous

environmental justice issues. The surrounding waste; failure to develop and/or update facility waste

community is approximately 51% minority while analysis plan, inspection plan and schedule, personnel

Texas’ average is 39%. training plan, and contingency plan; and operation of an

Enviro-Chem, Inc. (Hobbs, New Mexico): On June

25, 1996, a complaint and a consent agreement and

consent order (CACO) were simultaneously filed,

settling an administrative case against Enviro-Chem,

Inc.,(respondent). The complaint alleged RCRA

violations stemming from respondent's failure to obtain

a permit to store hazardous waste and failure to make

hazardous waste determinations. The proposed penalty

in the complaint was $10,911.00. Pursuant to the

terms of the CACO, respondent agreed to pay a penalty

of $911 and agreed to fund a Supplemental

Environmental Project (SEP) in the amount of

$10,000. The SEP involves the promotion and

presentation of a two day Environmental Compliance

Promotion and Compliance Assistance Seminar

(RCRA/EPCRTKA) to the business and industry of the

Hobbs\ Permian Basin community. Fina Oil and Chemical Company (La Porte, Texas): 

Ethyl Corporation (Magnolia, Arkansas): On

August 30, 1996, a CACO was filed against Albemarle

Corporation, A.K.A. Ethyl Corporation, (respondent)

for RCRA violations involving storage of hazardous

wastes and the use of an unpermitted underground

injection well at the facility. (The company was

injecting about 50 tons per year of hazardous waste into

this well.) The violations were discovered by a Region

VI EPA compliance evaluation inspection. Pursuant to

the terms of the CACO, the respondent agreed to

remedy the violations, agreed to pay a civil penalty of

$40,000, and to fund a SEP valued at $150,000 (aftertax, net present value). The SEP is designed to protect

diminishing ground water resources in the area by

recycling process water and/or converting to surface

water use. The facility is a major user of ground water

in the area, currently consuming 850 gallons per

minute. Injunctive relief is estimated to cost the

respondent approximately $113,500.

Fina Oil & Chemical Co. (Deer Park, Texas): A

CACO was filed on September 30, 1996, which settled

an administrative case against Fina Oil (respondent). 

This enforcement action was conducted under Region

VI's BIF initiative. The complaint alleged RCRA

incinerator burning hazardous waste without a permit

or interim status. Pursuant to the terms of the CACO,

Fina agreed to pay a penalty of $178,000 in cash to

satisfy the approximately $460,000 in civil penalties

assessed by Region VI. respondent also agreed to fund

six SEPs in the amount of $2 million. Fina will submit

a draft SEP implementation plan to EPA for review and

comment. The six SEPs include (1) a pollution

prevention engineering assessment, (2) upgrading the

waste heat boiler controls, (3) installation of improved

flash tank line heaters, (4) installation of flash tank

powder seals, (5) improvement of sludge dewatering,

and (6) installation/operation of piping to extend the

use of an alkyl flare. These SEPs are expected to

reduce volatile emissions from Fina’s plant by 800 tons

per year. 

On September 30, 1996, a complaint and a consent

agreement and consent order (CACO) were

simultaneously filed, settling an administrative case

against FINA Oil and Chemical Company

(respondent). The complaint alleged RCRA violations

stemming from respondent's operation of a boiler

burning hazardous waste with an incomplete or an

inaccurate certification of compliance; exceedance of

limits established in the certification of precompliance

and compliance test notification during compliance

testing; failure to continuously monitor, and record

emissions of carbon monoxide (C0) and oxygen; failure

to conduct tests of the automatic waste feed cutoff

system (AWFCS) for a boiler burning hazardous waste;

failure to create and maintain an adequate operating

record for a boiler burning hazardous waste; failure to

develop and/or update facility waste analysis plan,

inspection plan and schedule, personnel training plan,

and contingency plan; and operation of an incinerator

burning hazardous waste without a permit or interim

status. Pursuant to the terms of the CACO, respondent

agreed to pay a penalty of $178,000.00 and agreed to

fund a Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in

the amount of $2,000,000.00. The SEPs involve a

pollution prevention engineering assessment at

respondent's facility, upgrading of the waste heat boiler
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-45 May 1997

controls, installation of an improved flash tank line $9,500. This action addressed 10 tons of improperly

heaters, installation of flash tank powder seals, stored hazardous waste.

improvement of sludge dewatering, and installation and

operation of piping to extend the use of alkyl flare.

Fort Hood Army Post (Killeen, Texas): The Region (respondent), a chemical manufacturing facility. The

filed a CACO on September 30, 1996, against Fort CACO required the facility to return to compliance in

Hood Army Post (FHAP), (respondent). The response to alleged violations of the BIF regulations,

complaint issued against respondent alleged RCRA and to pay a civil penalty of $100,000. RCRA

violations stemming from respondent’s failure to obtain violations included failure to test the Automatic Waste

a permit to store hazardous waste, failure to obtain Feed Cutoff System; exceeding Arsenic and Ash feed

permits for a hazardous waste treatment units, and rate limits; lack of control of fugitive emissions; failure

failure to amend the closure plan. FHAP submitted a to amend a closure plan; and failure to operate within

settlement proposal in mid-August 1996. Pursuant to submitted Certification of Compliance parameters. In

the terms of the CACO, FHAP agreed to pay a penalty addition, respondent agreed to perform a pollution

of $100,000 in cash and agreed to fund a SEP in the abatement SEP with an agreed cost of $690,000 for

amount of $1.86 million. The SEP involves the engineering, major new equipment, and labor to install

implementation of an environmental audit of the the new equipment. The SEP is designed to capture all

hazardous waste activities and includes implementation process emissions and eliminate odors normally

of approximately 88 oil/solvent recovery units. The associated with a production facility of this type. The

Fire Training Unit, which was determined to have been SEP will result in an estimated 776 lbs/yr reduction in

inappropriately employed to manage and dispose of waste gases containing cresols, phenols, and dimethyl

hazardous wastes, will be closed upon TNRCC's phenols.

approval of the final closure plans for this unit. The

respondent will provide a SEP implementation plan to

Region VI to review for adequacy prior to performance

of the SEPs.

Go/Dan Industries (Laredo, Texas): The facility, an 1990 a release from the facility was reported by a

importer of hazardous waste from Mexico, is located in citizen. Investigations revealed that the company had

a predominantly Hispanic area. A CACO was filed on attempted to dump 100 cubic yards of pesticide

June 12, 1996, against Go/Dan Industries (respondent) contaminated soil offsite. People living near the dump

for failure to notify of hazardous waste activities and site became ill from the fumes and the state ordered the

failure to complete manifests for imported hazardous soil to be returned to Micro Chemical. Ultimately a

waste. Pursuant to the terms of the CACO respondent criminal case was initiated for the midnight dumping. 

agreed to pay a penalty of $20,024. Other storage violations detected were the subject of an

HICA Steel Foundry and Upgrade Co. (Shreveport,

Louisiana): On November 7, 1995, EPA issued

HICA Steel Foundry and Upgrade Company an

administrative order (complaint). The order proposed

a $472,000 fine and required closure of several

unauthorized hazardous waste management units. This

action required the removal and proper disposal of

2600 gallons on corrosive and ignitable hazardous

waste and 255 tons of lead and chromium contaminated

waste from the facility.

Lafitte Industries, Inc. (Lafitte, Louisiana): On

September 24, 1996, EPA filed a complaint and CACO

against Lafitte Industries (respondent) for RCRA

violations. The facility is located in Lafitte, Louisiana,

a predominantly low income minority area. Pursuant to

the terms of the CACO respondent agreed to address

the RCRA storage violations and to pay a penalty of

Merichem Company (Houston, Texas): A CACO

was filed on December 18, 1995, against Merichem

Micro Chemical (Winnsboro, Louisiana): Micro

Chemical is a pesticide formulating, mixing, and

packaging facility 3000 feet up gradient of the

Winnsboro’s groundwater well complex. In March

administrative complaint issued in September 1992. 

A RCRA 3008(h) order on consent was entered into on

September 1994 to remediate the site. In resolving the

September 1992 complaint, a final order was issued on

March 28, 1996. Micro Chemical agreed to pay a

penalty of $25,000 and agreed to fund a SEP valued at

$25,000. The SEP established collection events for

household waste and waste pesticides in the Franklin

Parish area. During FY96, the SEP enabled about 100

tons of waste to be collected and properly disposed.

Mosby Enterprises, Inc.(Belle Chasse, Louisiana):

On September 24, 1996, EPA simultaneously filed an

complaint and CACO against Mosby for hazardous

waste violations. The facility is located in Belle Chase,

Louisiana, a predominantly low income minority area. 

Pursuant to the terms of the CACO Mosby agreed to

address the RCRA violations including open burning of

hazardous waste and agreed to a penalty of $33,000. 

The action resulted in the removal of 27 tons of waste
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-46

from the community (burn pile remediation and proper the CACO, respondent agreed to pay a penalty of

disposal of illegally stored waste). $15,059.00 and agreed to fund a Supplemental

National Research Laboratories, Inc. (Albuquerque,

New Mexico): On August 30, 1996, a complaint and a

consent agreement and consent order (CACO) were

simultaneously filed, settling an administrative case

against National Research Laboratories, Inc.,

(respondent). The complaint alleged RCRA violations

stemming from respondent's failure to obtain a permit Sparton Technology, Inc. (Albuquerque, New

to store hazardous waste, failure to adequately Mexico): On September 16, 1996, EPA Region VI

characterize waste as hazardous waste, and failure to filed a Unilateral administrative order under Section

specify accumulation dates on drums containing 3008(h) of RCRA against Sparton Technology, Inc.

hazardous waste. The proposed penalty in the (Sparton) of Albuquerque, New Mexico. This action

complaint was $30,000.00. Pursuant to the terms of will require Sparton to implement the selected remedy

the CACO, respondent agreed to pay a penalty of to address ground water and soil contamination. 

$7,500.00 and agreed to fund a Supplemental Sparton manufactured electronic components from

Environmental Project (SEP) in the amount of 1961 until 1994, when operations were discontinued. 

$22,500.00. The SEP involves the establishment of an Past waste management practices produced a

outreach educational program directed at households contaminant plume in the ground water containing

and conditionally exempt small quantity generators in waste solvents at levels several times the maximum

the Albuquerque area. The purpose of the SEP contaminant levels established under the Safe Drinking

program is to educate the target groups regarding the Water Act. This environmental problem is

proper ways of handling and disposing of hazardous compounded due to the fact that ground water is the

waste. sole source of drinking water for the City of

NIBCO, Inc.: A Final consent agreement/consent

order was signed by both Region VI and NIBCO on

September 30, 1996. NIBCO agreed to pay $750,000

in cash to satisfy the approximately $2.5 million in civil

penalties assessed by Region VI in this Foundry

Initiative enforcement action. The enforcement action

against NIBCO originated because the facility was

treating sand used in the casting of metal valves

(casting sand) with metallic iron dust, without a permit,

and disposing of the material in the Nacogdoches

municipal landfill. The casting sand absorbs lead

during the casting process, making it a hazardous

waste. In order to offset the civil penalty, NIBCO

agreed to work with TNRCC and the City of

Nacogdoches to characterize the foundry sand waste

disposed of in the Nacogdoches municipal landfill, and

ensure closure and post-closure measures are

performed in accordance with all applicable Why Wastewater (El Paso, Texas): EPA and the

requirements and schedules established by TNRCC. Department of Justice reached agreement with Why

Solv-X Corporation (Albuquerque, New Mexico):

On September 13, 1996, a complaint and a consent

agreement and consent order (CACO) were

simultaneously filed, settling an administrative case

against Solv-Ex Corporation, (respondent). The

complaint alleged RCRA violations stemming from

respondent's failure to obtain a permit to store

hazardous waste and failure to adequately characterize

waste as hazardous waste. The proposed penalty in the

complaint was $60,237.00. Pursuant to the terms of

Environmental Project (SEP) in the amount of

$45,178.00. The SEP involves the establishment of a

hazardous waste collection program aimed at collecting

hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small

quantity generators in the Albuquerque, New Mexico

area.

Albuquerque and a water supply well is located

approximately two miles down-gradient from the

leading edge of the ground water contaminant plume.

Under a RCRA Section 3008(h) administrative order

on consent signed with EPA in 1988, Sparton

performed the following: 1) Installed and operated an

on-site ground water recovery and treatment system; 2)

investigated ground water contamination; and 3)

evaluated various cleanup alternatives. This

administrative order on consent was terminated on June

24, 1996, when a final remedy was selected by EPA. 

EPA Region VI initially attempted to negotiate the

implementation of the remedy; however, negotiations

were terminated on August 7, 1996, when Sparton filed

a complaint in U.S. District Court seeking to force EPA

to select Sparton’s preferred remedy. 

Wastewater, Inc., of El Paso, Texas in September

1995, resolving allegations against the company for

storing maquiladora hazardous waste shipments

without a permit. EPA and the Department of Justice

(DOJ) filed a consent decree in which the facility

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $103,000. The

mismanagement of hazardous waste between

predominantly minority and low income communities

remains a major concern along the border. This action,

addressing more than 17,000 gallons of illegally stored
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-47 May 1997

hazardous waste, underscores the Region’s resolve to service which could otherwise have been released into

provide greater protection to such communities. the environment; elimination of these capacitors also

SDWA

United States vs. Tenneco Sac and Fox Tribe: In

December, 1994 the Department of Justice and the

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

notified the Region that DOJ wanted to bring a civil

case against some oil production companies in

Oklahoma on the Sac and Fox tribal land. The oil

companies had contaminated groundwater, both

shallow and deep, and had caused some surface

damage. The Region and OECA agreed that the best

environmental case could be brought under the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) emergency powers

provisions. Under the SDWA, the Administrator of

EPA can take whatever action is necessary to abate an

imminent and substantial endangerment to a public

water system or an underground source of drinking

water.

On January 23, 1995 the Region referred the case to

DOJ under the SDWA alleging several oil companies

contaminated the underground source of drinking water

under the Sac and Fox tribal land. DOJ filed a

complaint against Tenneco on January 31, 1996. The

complaint asked the court to require Tenneco clean up

the aquifer and pay damages to the tribe.

On August 8, 1996 the parties reached a settlement in

principle based on Tenneco providing the Sac and Fox

tribe the following: (a) a potable water supply from

wells to be constructed on 3-40 acre tracts of land off

tribal land. The land is to be conveyed in Trust to the

tribe, (b) irrigation water from the Deep Fork River on

the Reservation, (c) surface and shallow groundwater

remediation, along with trash removal and a cash

payment of $300,000 in lieu of other clean-up, (d)

reforestation of a pecan grove damaged by the oil field

activity, (e) cash damages in the amount of $750,000,

(f) government agreement not to hold Tenneco

responsible for any other environmental damage caused

by their activities in the area. 

TSCA

Abilene Radio and Television Company: KRBC-TV,

Abilene, Texas: In a settlement with Abilene Radio and

Television Company for violations of PCB regulations

promulgated under TSCA, the company agreed to

perform a SEP involving the removal and disposal of

67 capacitors containing over 500 ppm PCBs. These

PCB capacitors were located at the company's Abilene,

Texas facility and were replaced with non-PCB

capacitors. This SEP project removes PCB oil from

removes this facility from regulated TSCA PCB status. 

The SEP cost is estimated at $10,371 and a $7,500

penalty was also assessed.

El Paso Electric Company: EPA discovered TSCA

PCB violations during inspections of several EPEC

electrical substations. EPA issued an enforcement

action on September 27, 1995 and filed the consent

agreement on October 3, 1995. No civil penalty was

assessed based on the bankrupt status of the company

and the agreement to conduct a SEP. EPEC conducted

a SEP involving the permanent removal and disposal of

approximately 560 PCB Capacitors (capacitors

containing 500 ppm PCBs or greater) from electrical

substations in the EPEC service area. EPEC replaced

each of the removed PCB Capacitors with non-PCB

capacitors. EPEC spent approximately $290,000 on

the SEP.

City of Hearne, Texas: In a settlement with the City

of Hearne, Texas for violations of PCB regulations

promulgated under TSCA, the City of Hearne agreed to

conduct a SEP which will identify all existing oil-filled

electrical equipment within the City of Hearne

Electrical System. The SEP will also involve the

removal and disposal of all PCBs and PCB Equipment

that contain PCBs at 50 ppm or greater within 2 years. 

The SEP cost for this project is estimated to be

$99,000.

University of Texas at Austin Balcones Research

Center: In a settlement with The University of Texas

at Austin, Balcones Research Center ("the University")

for violations of PCB regulations promulgated under

TSCA, the University agreed to perform a SEP

involving the removal and disposal of one PCBContaminated transformer, three PCB Capacitors, and

approximately 19,700 PCB fluorescent light ballasts

(approximately 72,000 lbs). The SEP removes from

service a substantial quantity of PCB Items which

eliminates the risk of any PCBs being released into the

environment in the event of leakage or other failure. 

The SEP cost is estimated to be in excess of $598,000.

MULTIMEDIA

Koch Refining Company L.P. (Corpus Christi,

Texas): An Amended complaint, and a fully executed

consent agreement/consent order (CACO) were signed

and filed on February 16, 1996. These documents fully

resolved the alleged violations stemming from a RCRA

and Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) multimedia

on-site inspection at the facility. Conditions of the

CACO required Koch to timely and satisfactorily
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-48

address 23 alleged RCRA violations and seven alleged

TSCA violations in order to return to compliance with On March 21, 1996, the U.S. District Court entered an

State and Federal regulations, and to submit a civil Administrative Penalty order in which Vulcan agreed

penalty of $575,000 for alleged violations of both the to pay $81,375 in penalties. This was a multimedia

TSCA and RCRA programs. As a result of this action, action which included TSCA and RCRA. The

approximately 10,560 gallons of waste per year will be enforcement action arose from Vulcan's failure to

properly managed. These wastes contained spent properly analyze PCB waste streams and failure to

caustics, refinery waste waters, volatile organics, and properly store PCB's and PCB items. The action

PCBs. addressed 108,000 gallons of waste and resulted in the

Mobil Chemical Co.: A Final consent

agreement/consent order (CACO) was signed by both

Region VI and Mobil on November 22, 1995. The

CACO resolved a multimedia compliant filed against

Mobil for alleged violations of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, and

the Clean Water Act. The settlement entailed a

payment of $250,000 in cash and $3.5 million for three

SEP's. The three SEP's included (1) an expanded leak

detection and repair system, (2) pump retro-fitting and

replacement, and (3) toluene tank emissions control. 

Additionally, Mobil removed and disposed of a waste

pile containing 92 tons of lead contaminated soil.

Phibro/Basis (Houston, Texas): Basis Petroleum and

EPA Region VI entered into a Final consent

agreement/consent order (CACO) on September 17,

1996. This enforcement action stemmed from a Multimedia Inspection conducted at Basis by Region VI. 

Violations of RCRA, the CWA, and TSCA were

alleged by Region VI. The alleged RCRA violations

included failure by Basis to keep containers of

hazardous waste closed when not in use but containing

volatile hazardous waste, improper labeling of

containers of hazardous waste, and inadequate landban

records. Settlement negotiations resulted in Basis

paying $34,500 in cash and development of a standard

operating procedure for facility personnel to follow in

the future to ensure compliance with the

aforementioned regulatory programs. 

Shell Oil Company (Norco, Louisiana): On January

26, 1996, the U.S. District Court entered a civil

consent decree in which Shell agreed to pay $1 million

in penalties and fund a SEP worth $9 million. This was

a multimedia action which included the CWA, CAA,

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and RCRA. The

RCRA counts arose from Shell's improper disposal of a

listed hazardous waste (F005) into a nonhazardous

landfill. The SEP includes implementation of an

enhanced leak detection and repair program, air toxics

reduction, enhanced environmental management,

treatment of caustic olefins, and a regeneration/reuse

project. The SEP calls for an overall emissions

reduction of 991 tons.

Vulcan Chemicals Company (Geismar, Louisiana):

implementation of an enhanced leak detection and

repair program, and an enhanced environmental

management program.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-49 May 1997

REGION VII

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S. v. Elliott Drywall & Asbestos, Inc. (Kansas City,

Kansas): A consent decree was entered April 19,

1996, in the United States District Court for the

District of Kansas against Elliott Drywall & Asbestos

settling violations by Elliott of the National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

requirements for asbestos. The violations occurred

during work performed by Elliott at the University of

Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas. The

consent decree requires that Elliott pay a civil penalty

of $50,000 for the violations. In negotiating a

settlement of these violations, Elliott asserted a claim

that it was financially unable to pay any penalty. 

Region VII performed an analysis of Elliott’s financial

records, and determined that the company was

financially able to pay a penalty of $50,000, which

Elliott ultimately agreed to do.

U.S. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Cape Girardeau,

Missouri): Lone Star Industries, a non-metallic

mineral processor, is subject to the CAA New Source

Performance Standards for such facilities set forth at 40

C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart OOO. In violation of those

requirements, Lone Star failed to notify the Agency of

equipment located at its plant subject to the

requirements of Subpart OOO, and had not conducted

performance tests of that equipment to ensure that

particulate emissions from the equipment did not

exceed the emission limits set forth in the regulations. 

As a result of negotiations between the government and

Lone Star, a consent decree has been entered in U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

resolving these notification and testing violations. The

consent decree imposes a civil penalty of $40,000 on

Lone Star. The required emission testing was also

completed by Lone Star during the course of settlement

negotiations. 

Lone Star was one of several hundred companies in the

State of Missouri that had been notified of a Region

VII’s Subpart OOO Voluntary Compliance Program. 

Lone Star did not participate in the voluntary

compliance program, and this action was taken as part

of phase 2 of that initiative, enforcing against facilities

subject to the Subpart OOO requirements but who

chose not to voluntarily disclose their violations.

Stupp Brothers Bridge & Iron Company (St. Louis,

Missouri): Region VII provided assistance and

support to the State of Missouri resulting in a consent

agreement between Stupp Bros., Inc.,and the Missouri

Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) addressing

Stupp Brothers’ violations of the federally approved

Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Stupp Brothers, a fabricator of large custom engineered

steel structures for use in bridges and major industrial

and high-rise buildings, is subject to the emission limits

for VOCs set forth in Missouri's SIP. Stupp Brothers’

violations of those emissions limits spanned back to

1992. In the fall of 1995, MDNR asked Region VII for

assistance as negotiations between Stupp Bros. and the

State had broken down. 

After meeting with Region VII and MDNR, Stupp

Bros. agreed to enter into a consent agreement with the

state. The consent agreement requires reduction of

VOC emissions in accordance with a compliance

schedule and sets forth stipulated penalties in event of

an exceedance. 

Western Resources, Inc. (Topeka, Kansas): Western

Resources, Inc., an electric utility located in Topeka,

Kansas, failed to perform required sulfur dioxide

emission certification tests. Emissions of sulfur dioxide,

an acid rain precursor, are regulated under the CAA

Acid Rain regulations. The regulations require that

facilities certify the quality of their sulfur dioxide

emissions data by January 1. 1995, which Western

Resources did not do. On October 2, 1995, Region VII

issued an administrative compliance order to Western

Resources, requiring the facility to install, certify,

maintain, and operate a natural gas metering system

that meets the required design and installation

specifications; to perform a visual inspection of each

orifice palate to ensure compliance; to complete a

calibration of all auxiliary measurement equipment

necessary to calculate natural gas flow; and to submit a

revised certification application for each unit affected

by the order. 

CERCLA

Carter Carburetor site (St. Louis, Missouri): On July

23, 1996, EPA, Region VII issued a CERCLA Section

106(a) Unilateral administrative order for Removal

Response Activities (“order”) to ACF Industries, Inc.,
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-50

requiring ACF to conduct a time-critical removal action

at the Carter Carburetor site. The Carter Carburetor

site includes a facility that occupies one and one half

square blocks in St. Louis, Missouri. The facility

consists of several multistory, connected,

manufacturing and warehouse buildings in a mixed,

urban commercial/residential area. Widespread PCB

contamination exists throughout the abandoned facility,

portions of which are exposed to the outside

environment due to broken windows and collapsed roof

areas. PCB contamination also exists in a parking lot

outside the abandoned portion of the facility, probably

as a result of releases from PCB transformers. The

removal action addresses a portion of the facility that

has been abandoned for several years, and is currently

owned by the St. Louis Land Reutilization Authority

(LRA). 

The estimated cost of the removal action is $1,906,116. 

The removal action will involve the removal and

disposal of all PCB articles, drums, machinery and

equipment left in the abandoned portion of the facility,

including PCB contaminated furnaces, ventilation and

air ducts, exhaust systems and piping. The abandoned

portion of the facility will then be dismantled and

disposed of. Underground lines, tanks and/or sumps

will be removed and disposed of. The concrete floor

will be decontaminated and an interim cover will be

installed pending further response actions to address

remaining portions of the facility. Once the removal

action is complete, there is potential for redevelopment.

U.S. v. Connor Investment (Jasper County, Kansas): 

On September 27, 1996, Connor signed a consent

decree which allows the creation of a soil repository for

the Jasper County site clean-up of residential yards. 

The company also signed a temporary access

agreement to begin design work prior to entry of the

consent decree. By the implementation of this consent

decree, a facility is available to implement the remedial

action at the site. 

Dutton-Lainson Company (Hastings, Nebraska):

Dutton-Lainson Company has agreed in an

administrative order on consent issued pursuant to

Section 106 of CERCLA to perform a removal action

on its property located at the Well #3 Subsite in

Hastings and to reimburse EPA for its oversight costs. 

This removal action requires Dutton-Lainson to

perform soil vapor extraction in order to prevent

further migration of trichloroethane (TA) and

trichloroethylene (THE) contamination into the

groundwater. EPA has acted to control the source of

carbon tetrachloride contamination at this subsite. 

Dutton-Lainson will implement source control

addressing the remaining contamination.

U.S. v. Eveready Battery (Red Oak, Iowa): EPA has

signed a consent decree with seven companies, two

individual landowners and the city of Red Oak, Iowa, in

a global settlement for the Red Oak Landfill Superfund

site. The settlement in the decree divides various

responsibilities "severally" among the settling parties. 

Under the settlement, Eveready and its parent, Ralston

Purina Co., will carry out remedial design and

implement the remedy, primarily the capping of the

landfill. A manufacturing company with a plant located

in Red Oak, the Douglas & Lomason Co. will, along

with the City, provide long-term operations and

maintenance and monitoring after the cap is completed. 

Several other settling parties, including Uniroyal, Inc.

and Uniroyal Holding, Inc., joined the foregoing parties

in paying for EPA's past costs at the site, and these

parties will also pay in advance for EPA's RD/RA

oversight costs, providing EPA with a premium in

exchange for cashing out these future costs. The

consent decree was lodged with the court on September

27, 1996. The settlement contained a waiver of claims

against de minimis parties.

U.S. v. Gold Fields Mining Corporation (Galena,

Kansas): On March 29, 1996, the U.S. filed a

complaint in Federal District Court for the District of

Kansas. The named defendants are Gold Fields Mining

Corporation and Viacom International, Inc, seeking

past costs incurred by the United States for response

actions at the Cherokee County site, Galena Subsite. 

Settlement negotiations were conducted with the two

defendants prior to filing this complaint; however, after

several months of negotiations, agreement was not

reached. In order to facilitate settlement, the

defendants have been granted additional time to answer

complaint. The past costs relate to costs incurred by

the U.S. for the Remedial Investigative, Feasibility

Study and the installation of an alternate water supply

and the groundwater/surface water cleanup. The

Cherokee County site and the Jasper County sites are

adjacent to each other in Southwest Missouri and

Southeast Kansas, in an area which was one of the

largest lead and zinc mining areas in the world from

1850 through 1970. (Tri-State Mining area -

Northeastern Oklahoma in Region VI is included in the

Tri-State Mining area.) The Jasper and Cherokee sites

cover about 400 square miles. The sites contain

millions of tons of surface mine wastes. Thousands of

residences use private shallow groundwater wells for

domestic water supplies, and many residents live

adjacent to or on mine waste.

U.S. v. Missouri Electric Works (Cape Girardeau,

Missouri): On August 14, 1996, the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Missouri re-entered

the remedial design/remedial action consent decree for
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-51 May 1997

this site. This consent decree had originally been

entered on August 24, 1994, however a group of nonsettling potentially responsible parties who had

attempted to intervene in District Court appealed their

denial of intervention to the Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals. These PRPs had claimed that the cost

allocation formula which was part of the consent decree

placed excessive liability on non-settlers. On August

30, 1995, the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of the

intervenors on the issue of intervention, finding that

these non-settling parties should be allowed to

intervene as a matter of right as the contribution

protection accorded to the settlers would cut off the

ability of the non-settling PRPs to recoup any excessive

allocation of liability, if it was found by the District

Court that the cost allocation formula was unfair. On

remand, the District Court found the consent decree,

including the cost allocation formula, to be fair,

reasonable and consistent with CERCLA, and the

consent decree was re-entered. (On October 4, 1996,

the intervenors appealed the District Court’s decision

to re-enter the consent decree to the Eighth Circuit.)

Missouri Electric Works, Inc. was the former

owner/operator of this site where it operated a

transformer repair and disposal facility for

approximately 40 years. Site soils and groundwater are

heavily contaminated with PCBs. Approximately 175

parties signed the consent decree as Settling

Defendants, Soil De Minimis Settling Defendants, Soil

and Groundwater De Minimis Settling Defendants, or identified in the consent decree to pay EPA $80,000 in

Settling Federal Agencies. The consent decree also reimbursement for costs incurred in performing a

provided preauthorization mixed funding to the settling removal action at the site. The new owner will

parties. redevelop the property into a productive business that

National Mine Tailings site, (Park Hills, Missouri):

A CERCLA prospective purchaser agreement for

property that is part of the National Mine Tailings site

in Park Hills, Missouri has been signed. Under this

agreement, Airtech Inc., the prospective purchaser, will

purchase three acres of this forty acre Mine Tailings

site, and perform certain clean-up work on the property

it purchases in exchange for a covenant not to sue and

contribution protection. Airtech plans to build a light

manufacturing facility on the property that will create

30-45 new jobs in the community making productive

use of this site once again. The Agency is receiving the

substantial direct benefit of the work, and the

community is receiving benefit through creation of new

jobs and returning this idle property to productive use. 

The site is in an inactive lead and zinc mining area

known as the "Old Lead Belt", which for many years

was one of the major lead and zinc producing areas in

the world.

North Landfill Subsite Pilot Allocation: In 1996

Region VII invited PRPs at the North Landfill Subsite

of the Hastings Ground Water Contamination to

participate in a Pilot Allocation, to test the allocation

procedure outlined in the proposed Superfund Reform

Act of 1994. In June 1996, all PRPs had agreed to

participate and had signed confidentiality and tolling

agreements and the parties had jointly selected an

allocator. On July 9, the parties completed negotiations

of a Protocol agreement which set forth the procedures

and time line to be followed and a document repository

was set up in two locations. The parties submitted to

the Allocator a preliminary statement which described

the parties’ connection with the subsite.

The PRPs nominated other Allocation Parties but only

the five original PRPs agreed to participate in the

allocation process; they are referred to as the

Cooperating Parties (CPs). The CPs and EPA are

proceeding with the Allocation Pilot following the

guidance issued by the Agency for this initiative.

Osage Metals site (Kansas City, Kansas): On

September 26, 1996 a consent decree was entered in

the District Court of Kansas which enables formerly

contaminated industrial property to return to productive

use. The decree requires the property owner of this

Superfund site to transfer ownership of the site to a

third party. Incorporated into this consent decree is an

administrative order which requires the third party

will generate tax revenue for the city of Kansas City. 

The site was formerly a scrap yard that ceased

operating in 1993 after a flood destroyed part of the

warehouse. The property was filled with scrap and

debris until EPA performed the removal action to clean

up the PCB and lead contamination in the soils. Since

1993, no commercial activity has been occurring at the

site. The City of Kansas City had an interest in

restoring the property to a productive state and had

taken steps to condemn it in order to include the site in

a tax incremental financing district ("TIF"). A

developer, W.W. Land Company, had an interest in

buying the property and developing it. Wyandotte

County had a $14,467.17 tax lien on the property and

was taking steps to foreclose.

Discussions between Region VII EPA, DOJ, the City,

the County, the owner and operator, and the developer

were held. The owner agreed to sell the property to the

developer for $90,000; Wyandotte County agreed to

abate the taxes by 50%; the City of Kansas City agreed
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-52

not to condemn the property; the developer agreed to Syntex Defendants (Syntex Corporation, Syntex

pay the owner $3000, pay $7000 to the county in back Agribusiness, Syntex USA, and Syntex Laboratories),

taxes and to reimburse EPA in the amount of $80,000. the remediation of the dioxin contamination in eastern

EPA agreed to dissolve the lien and grant contribution Missouri through incineration at the Times Beach site

protection and a covenant not to sue the owner and is now underway or completed at most of the sites. The

operator through a consent decree and to the developer County of St. Louis filed a Motion to Intervene in this

through an administrative order. litigation pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of

Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings (St. Louis,

Missouri): A Superfund allocations pilot project was

initiated at this site for the allocation of past response

costs of approximately $1,100,000 and a future

removal action of approximately $300,000. Four

generator potentially responsible parties (PRPs) agreed

to participate in the allocation pilot project. The owner

and the operator are not participating in the process,

but agreed to sign the necessary tolling agreements. 

The next step is selection of the allocator and

negotiation of the allocations process document and the Citizens Against Dioxin Incineration (C.A.D.I.) and

nomination of additional PRPs. Gateway Green Alliance v. U.S. EPA, Carol

Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings located near (Eastern District of Missouri): On March 21, 1996,

downtown St. Louis, Missouri was a facility that C.A.D.I. and Gateway Greens, represented by

manufactured clear plastic coatings and paints. The Greenlaw, Inc., filed suit alleging violations of

operator would accept large quantities of recycled and CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA, NEPA, and state nuisance

off-specification paint wastes. These drums were statutes, in the implementation of the eastern Missouri

stored in the six story facility. EPA performed a dioxin sites clean-up. The 1988 Record of Decision

removal action in 1993 removing approximately 4000 was construction of a temporary incinerator to be

drums that demonstrated the characteristic of located and excavation and transportation of dioxin.

ignitability. The drums posed a risk of fire and

explosion from malfunctioning electrical wiring. The C.A.D.I./Gateway Greens lawsuit was another

Rockwell International Corporation-Ralston site

(Cedar Rapids, Iowa): Effective March 4, 1996,

Rockwell International Corporation, the responsible

party for the Ralston site in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, agreed

to pre-fund the payment of EPA's future costs by

making quarterly payments into a special account. The

first phase of the removal work began in July 1994 and

included installation of a clay cap over the former

landfill and stabilization of the creek bank to protect

against erosion. A Dual Vapor Extraction ("DVE") U.S. v. Sherwood Medical Company (Norfolk,

system is being used in the second phase of the Nebraska): A consent decree resolving the liability of

removal. Sherwood Medical Company (SMC), the only PRP at

From at least 1956 to 1958 Rockwell International to Sections 106 & 107 of CERCLA on August 29,

Corporation ("Rockwell") operated an industrial 1996. The consent decree provides for an extremely

landfill at 228 Blains Ferry Road in Northeastern Cedar favorable settlement of the CERCLA claims at the

Rapids. Rockwell burned and/or disposed of solvents, Sherwood Medical Company site located in Norfolk,

paint sludge, refuse and drums containing concrete Nebraska. By the terms of the decree, SMC will

encapsulated cyanide salts. The site is located adjacent implement the remedial design and remedial action

to a creek and is approximately 2 acres in size. consistent with the Record of Decision for the site, and

U.S. v. Russell Bliss, et al., Missouri Dioxin

Litigation (St. Louis, Missouri): In accordance with a

consent decree between the U.S., the State, and the

Civil Procedure (FRCP) on June 21, 1995, in an

attempt to change the emission standard in the permit. 

On November 8, 1995, the Judge ruled on St. Louis

County's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. The Court

noted that the County had merely reiterated the points

raised in its previous submissions and noted that the

County had not come forward with any evidence to

show that the standards imposed under the consent

decree were harmful to public health. In addition, the

court ruled that local standards were not ARARs.

Browner, and I.T. Corporation, U.S. District Court

attempt to stop implementation of the incineration

remedy. (At least three other suits have been filed

since 1990.) We expect further action by Greenlaw, as

well as intense pressure from C.A.D.I. and the Gateway

Greens. While no one wants an incinerator in their

area, the vast majority of eastern Missouri citizens, as

well as members of Congress, want the project to go

forward to completion and the 27 sites returned to

beneficial use.

this site, was lodged and complaint was filed pursuant

will pay the government's future costs. SMC has

previously paid the past costs attributable to the site,

carried out a removal action, and performed the RI and

FS. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-53 May 1997

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality join in the RD/RA settlement, so EPA carved out past

(NDEQ) has participated in the negotiations of the costs and filed a Section 107 cost recovery action to

terms of the consent decree, and EPA has coordinated recover our past costs from the non-settlors, including

extensively with NDEQ throughout this project. The Mr. Georgoulis. 

State is not a party to this decree; however, the State

has no "Superfund" law and has not incurred any of its

own costs. 

Thompson Chemical (St. Louis, Missouri): EPA and Kansas. It was used for disposal of industrial and

four PRP's have signed an administrative order on commercial wastes in the 1960s and early 1970s. On

consent requiring the PRPs to undertake an engineering May 20, 1996, the United States District Court for the

evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) at the Thompson District of Kansas entered the consent decree

Chemicals site in St. Louis, Missouri. Current owners previously lodged in this matter. This consent decree

Superior Oil Company, Inc. (Superior), and Missouri fully resolves the United States’ claims for

Pacific Railroad Company (Missouri Pacific), and implementation and long-term operation and

previous site operators Monsanto Company and Allied maintenance of the remedial action for the Doepke

Signal, Inc., have agreed Holliday site and provides for recovery of EPA’s past

to undertake the EE/CA activities within the next six and future response costs in full. The principal

months. component of the site clean-up is installation of an

The site is located in an industrial area along the

Mississippi River in St. Louis, Missouri. Superior EPA Region VII issued a unilateral order to all viable

currently operates the site as a bulk terminal facility for

solvent products. Significant sampling at the site has

documented the presence of polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds and dioxin

in the soils at the site, above levels of concern to EPA

Region VII. 

U.S. v. TIC Investment and Stratton Georgoulis

(Charles City, Iowa): Stratton Georgoulis has filed a

petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court,

asking the Court to review an October 16, 1995 ruling

by the 8th Circuit holding him personally liable under

Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA for response costs at the

White Farm Equipment (WFE) Dump site. Georgoulis

was CEO of White Farm Equipment Company and sole

shareholder of WFE's parent company. In this case,

there was no evidence that Mr. Georgoulis directly

controlled or had knowledge of the WFE’s arrangement

for disposal. The court found that "Georgoulis' actions

inexorably led to the continuation of WFE disposal of

wastes at the dumpsite", and that "lack of evidence

showing his involvement in or knowledge of details of

the disposal arrangement does not bar liability." The

8th Circuit held that the proper standard to be applied

in such cases is whether the officer or director had the

authority to control and did in fact exercise actual or

substantial control, directly or indirectly, over his/her

company's arrangement for disposal. 

This litigation arose out of CERCLA clean-up activities

at the White Farm Equipment Dumpsite in Charles

City, Iowa. The remedial action was recently

completed by Allied Products Corporation under terms

of an RD/RA consent decree. Three PRPs refused to

U.S. v. Waste Disposal, Inc., et al. (Kansas City,

Kansas): The Doepke-Holliday site is on property

overlooking the Kansas River in Johnson County,

impermeable cap over the former disposal area.

non-de minimis PRPs in February 1995, directing the

remedial action to go forward while we completed

consent decree negotiations. The work was promptly

started and is on schedule. Altogether, with two

settling federal agencies, sixty-six parties are resolving

their liability to EPA in this consent decree.

CLEAN WATER ACT

U.S. v. ASARCO, Inc. (Omaha, Nebraska): On

January 5, 1996, a consent decree between the U.S.

and ASARCO, Inc., was entered in U.S. District Court

for Nebraska, resolving claims for injunctive relief and

civil penalties for ASARCO’s violations of the CWA at

its Omaha lead refinery. ASARCO failed to obtain an

NPDES permit under the CWA for its discharges of

pollutants to the Missouri River, had constructed no

wastewater treatment facilities, and had conducted no

regular monitoring of its discharges. The settlement

provides for a civil penalty payment of $3,250,000, a

compliance schedule for construction of a wastewater

treatment system, and Supplemental Environmental

Projects (SEPs) totaling $1,000,000. The consent

decree also contains interim effluent limitations, subject

to stipulated penalties, to be met during construction of

the wastewater treatment facility.

The SEPs include a requirement that ASARCO spend

$650,000 to acquire property within the Missouri River

Corridor in Nebraska for the purpose of creating new

or enhanced wetlands and restoring and improving

wildlife habitat. In addition, ASARCO is required to

provide $350,000 to fund sampling studies in the

Omaha area.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-54

ASARCO, Inc. (Reynolds County, Missouri):

ASARCO Lead Company has agreed to pay $1.7

million to the State of Missouri - the largest penalty

ever assessed by Missouri in an environmental

enforcement action - for discharging excessive amounts

of lead into a tributary of the Black River in

southeastern Missouri. In addition to the penalty,

ASARCO is also required to build a new wastewater

treatment plant for its mine located on the West Fork of

the Black River, at a cost of approximately $500,000.

FIFRA

Battle Creek Farmers Cooperative Non-Stock

(Pierce, Nebraska): In this case, the Region

discovered that Battle Creek was allowing pesticide

wastes from a rinsate lagoon to drain from the Co-op’s

property onto neighboring land, in violation of FIFRA. 

In addition to assessing an administrative penalty for

the violation, Region VII referred the case to the

Nebraska Department of Agriculture for potential

violations of the state’s secondary containment

regulations. 

Upon completion of an inspection of the co-op, the

state documented violations of the state regulations and Craig Foster Ford (Tripoli, Iowa): Region VII filed

issued a Letter of Warning (LOW) to Battle Creek. In its first used oil penalty case , alleging that Craig Foster

response to the state’s LOW, the Co-op has submitted Ford, an auto dealership in Tripoli, Iowa, violated the

plans to upgrade its secondary containment to bring it RCRA used oil regulations. The facility stored used oil

into compliance with the state regulations. outdoors in a variety of about 200 unmarked and

Big Sky Flying Service (Waterloo, Iowa): On June

14, 1995, an complaint was issued to Big Sky Flying

Service for pesticide use violations under FIFRA. The

pesticide, Buctril + Atrazine Herbicide, had been

aerially applied by Big Sky to a corn field near Harmon Electronics, Inc. (Grain Valley, Missouri):

Waterloo, Iowa. Due to wind conditions and Oral arguments on an appeal filed by Harmon

application methods, the pesticide was allowed to drift Electronics, Inc., a manufacturer of electronic rail

onto nearby property, damaging vegetation on that switching equipment in Grain Valley, Missouri, were

property. In addition to payment of a penalty for the heard by the EAB on Wednesday, May 1, 1996. 

violations, Big Sky purchased and has agreed to use Harmon had appealed from a judgment in which the

aerial application equipment designed to reduce leaks Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assessed a civil

and over spray, thereby reducing the possibility of penalty of $586,716 against Harmon for various RCRA

pesticide drift in the future. violations associated with operation of a hazardous

MFA, Inc.: Region VII negotiated a consolidated

settlement resolving four administrative civil

complaints which named MFA, Inc. as a corespondent. The complaints addressed

cross-contamination of repackaged pesticides and

product under-formulation at MFA facilities in Ste.

Genevieve, Fairfax, and Shelbina, Missouri, in

violation of FIFRA. In addition to payment of a civil

penalty, MFA has installed and implemented secondary

containment that far exceeds the state’s requirements,

at a cost of over $285,000.

RCRA

Ash Grove Cement Co. (Louisville, Nebraska): Ash

Grove Cement Company entered into a RCRA 3008(a)

CA/CO assessing a civil penalty of $140,000. In

September, 1993, EPA Region VII issued an 

administrative action against Ash Grove for violations

of the RCRA BIF regulations at its Louisville,

Nebraska, facility.

On January 29, 1996, representatives of Ash Grove

Cement Company met with the Regional

Administrator, the Director of the Air, RCRA and

Toxics Division and ORC to announce its decision to

drop its hazardous waste-derived fuel program at its

Louisville, Nebraska facility. Ash Grove cited

economic reasons for its decision. Ash Grove stated it

intends to pursue the use of scrap tires and other

non-hazardous waste fuels at this facility. EPA and

NDEQ will work closely together to assure that proper

oversight of Ash Grove's closure of its hazardous waste

fuel program in Louisville is properly undertaken. Ash

Grove will pay a civil penalty of $140,000 for its

RCRA violations.

leaking drums and containers, continuing to do so even

after the issuance of a Notice of Violation after an

inspection of the facility. The administrative complaint

proposes a penalty of $19,400 for the violations. 

waste landfill without a permit. From the beginning of

operations in the 1970s until the end of 1987, Harmon

disposed of approximately 30 gallons of spent solvent

per month by pouring them on the ground behind its

facility. On appeal, Harmon claimed that because

Harmon had self-reported the violations, no penalties

should be assessed. Harmon also raised the issue of the

potential applicability of the statute of limitations at 28

U.S.C. § 2462 to these violations and argued that the

EPA’s actions were barred by the doctrines of res

judicata and collateral estoppel because Harmon had

entered into an agreement with the State of Missouri
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-55 May 1997

after EPA filed its complaint, although the agreement June 1994 EPA inspection of the facility, EPA’s

did not assess penalties. The EAB has not yet issued a inspector observed approximately 20 containers of

decision in this matter. hazardous waste, ranging in capacity from 5 to 55

MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (St. Charles,

Missouri): MEMC executed a RCRA Section 3008(h)

order on consent for Corrective Measure

Implementation (CMI) on July 19, 1996, for its

manufacturing facility located in St. Peters, Missouri. 

The order essentially requires MEMC to maintain

operation of the groundwater pump and treat remedy it

previously instituted as an interim measure, and to

implement institutional controls to limit access to areas

of the facility where there is some low level soil

contamination. This is the first corrective action

implementation order ever issued in Region VII. The

order implements the corrective measure selected by

EPA in the statement of basis issued December 3, 1994

and the final decision document issued April 21, 1995. 

Technical oversight of implementation will be provided

jointly by Region VII and the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources.

U.S v. Mikkel and Janet Mandt d/b/a

FiberdYNE/FluidYNE (Cedar Falls and New

Hartford, Iowa): On May 10, 1996, search warrants

were issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Iowa to allow EPA to conduct RCRA

inspections at the Fiberdyne/Fluidyne facilities in Cedar

Falls and New Hartford, Iowa. EPA had to obtain the

warrants because prior attempts at access were

unsuccessful, with the facilities’ owner denying access.

Based on information received by EPA as a result of

the inspections conducted with the assistance of the

search warrant process, EPA determined that

conditions at the facilities posed an imminent and

substantial endangerment to human health and the

environment. The facilities had waste handling

practices that included burning ignitable hazardous

waste on site, improper hazardous waste storage and

disposal, leaking hazardous waste containers, and

improper burial of drummed waste. RCRA Section

7003 Unilateral administrative orders were issued to

each of the Fiberdyne/Fluidyne facilities. The facilities

are complying with the requirements of those orders.

Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. (Centerville, Iowa): On

April 15, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa, Central Division, issued an

Administrative Search Warrant providing EPA with

authority to enter and inspect Modern Muzzleloading’s

manufacturing facility located in Centerville, Iowa. In

May of 1991, Modern Muzzleloading notified EPA that

it generated between 220-2,200 pounds per month of

ignitable hazardous wastes at the facility. During a

gallons, in storage at the facility. The inspector also

observed five barrels containing an unknown liquid

outside the facility’s backdoor. Following this

inspection, EPA sent a letter to the Modern

Muzzleloading informing it that violations of RCRA

(failure to properly manage hazardous waste

containers) were discovered during the inspection. 

EPA again attempted to conduct a RCRA inspection of

this facility in July 1995, but were denied access. The

April 15, 1996, inspection of the facility revealed

numerous violations of RCRA, including failure to

make hazardous waste determinations, improper

labeling of waste oil, and open containers of hazardous

waste. 

The RCRA violations have been corrected by the

facility. Based upon the inspection, it also appeared

that the facility was operating a wastewater treatment

lagoon without an NPDES permit. Following the

inspection, Region VII referred this information to the

state for follow-up action.

Wayne Manufacturing (Cedar Rapids, Iowa): After

negotiations which had been on-going since June,

1994, settlement of this case was achieved in one day

through the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR). The Region filed an administrative complaint

for penalties against Wayne in 1994 for illegal

treatment and storage of hazardous waste, in violation

of RCRA. Wayne, a manufacturer of circuit breakers

and hammerheads, generated cyanide wastewater

sludge in its manufacturing process. In addition to

payment of a civil penalty, through ADR Wayne agreed

to ship drums of hazardous wastes off-site to a RCRApermitted facility, perform closure of its own facility,

and to provide financial assurance that closure could be

completed. This was the first administrative case in

which the Region used ADR as a settlement tool.

TSCA

Everlast Fitness MFG. Corp. (Moberly, Missouri):

In settlement of an action for violations of Section 313

of EPCRA, Everlast Fitness has agreed to reduce its

use of toluene to less than 10,000 pounds per year, a

reduction of approximately 90% of its current toluene

usage. Everlast has also agreed to pay a civil penalty

of $7,800 for its violations, in which it failed to submit

to EPA and the state a Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)

regarding its toluene for calendar year 1993.

Farmland Industries, Inc. (Sergeant Bluff, Iowa):

Farmland Industries violated EPCRA Section 304 and
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-56

CERCLA Section 103 by failing to immediately report 1996, Arlington Plating entered a plea of guilty to the

to the National Response Center and to the State above charge. On June 27, 1996, Arlington Plating

Emergency Planning Commission a release of ammonia was sentenced to a fine of $23,000 ($18,000 was

from its facility located in Sergeant Bluff, Iowa. suspended pending completion of remediation and

In addition to payment of a penalty, Farmland make restitution of $51,119.36 to the Metropolitan

Industries agreed to the performance of a supplemental Sewer District for damages to the sewer.

environmental project in settlement of these accidental

release notification violations. Specifically, Farmland

agreed to purchase an air compressor for the Woodbury

County (Iowa) Disaster & Emergency Services

Agency, the local emergency planning committee

(LEPC) for the area where the Farmland facility is

located. This particular LEPC has provided emergency

response for several environmental releases, including

a fatal explosion at a fertilizer manufacturing plant. 

The LEPC indicated a need for an air compressor to

assist in its emergency response duties.

GEC Precision Corporation (Wellington, Kansas): needed to perform such tests. Cole eventually admitted

After a hearing on the issue of penalty, Administrative to the Special Agent conducting the investigation that

Law Judge Carl Charneski assessed a penalty of he had falsified every DMR he had prepared and signed

$51,750 against GEC, a subsidiary of General Electric since June or July 1993. These DMR's were prepared

Corporation, for its violations of Section 313 of for submission to the State of Missouri and to the EPA

EPCRA. Prior to the hearing, GEC stipulated that it pursuant to the facilities' NPDES permits. 

violated Section 313 by failing to file Toxic Release

Inventory (TRI) reports for its use of methyl ethyl On October 10, 1995, Timothy B. Cole, Owner, Cole

ketone for calendar years 1991, 1992, and 1993, and its Enterprises plead guilty to 10 counts of knowingly

use of 1,1,1 trichloroethane for calendar year 1992. making false statements on quarterly Discharge

GEC claimed, however that the penalty proposed by Monitoring Reports (DMR's) in violation of the Clean

the Agency ($68,000) was wholly unreasonable in that Water Act. Cole was sentenced on January 5, 1996 to

GEC was not aware of the reporting requirements and a fine of $2,500 and 2 years supervised probation.

that therefore the violations were unintentional. 

The ALJ rejected respondent’s arguments, holding that

GEC was charged with knowledge of the law. In

presentation of its case, Region VII supported the

calculation of its proposed penalty through witness

testimony and based upon the provisions of the statute. 

The ALJ adopted the Agency’s approach, reducing the

proposed penalty for one count of the four count

complaint for “other factors as justice may require” and

by $3000 for all counts based on GEC’s good faith and

cooperation.

MULTIMEDIA

Arlington Plating (St. Louis, Missouri): Arlington

Plating is an electroplating company located at St.

Louis, Missouri, engaged in the plating of metals using

nickel, chrome, various acids, copper and barium. The

investigation revealed that Arlington Plating was

discharging electroplating wastes without pretreatment. 

On January 9, 1996, as part of a plea agreement,

Arlington Plating was charged with violating the Clean

Water Act, 33 USC 1319 (c)(2)(A). On January 12,

compliance requirements of the plea agreement), and to

Cole Enterprises (Jefferson County, Missouri):

Timothy B. Cole, Owner, Cole Enterprises provided

sampling and analysis for industrial and wastewater

treatment facility clients in the Jefferson County,

Missouri area. Approximately 15 of these clients were

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit holders. From approximately June or

July 1993, Cole falsified the test results for Biological

Oxygen Demand (BOD) and TSS (Total Suspended

Solids) analyses which were not performed because

Cole did not have the necessary laboratory equipment

U.S. v. Commercial Equipment Company, Inc. and

Curtis Hough (Carol, Iowa): A consent decree has

been entered in this multimedia litigation addressing

violations of the CWA, RCRA, and the SDWA. The

consent decree requires the defendants to close and

remove the facility’s septic system, which has been

deemed an illegal underground injection well; conduct

a RCRA Section 3010 investigation of the property,

which includes extensive soil and groundwater

sampling; and pay a civil penalty of $150,000. The

IDNR had previously revoked the facility’s National

Pollutant Discharge Emissions System (NPDES)

permit.

Although the total environmental benefit of this action

will not be fully known until the sampling and site

characterization required pursuant to the terms of the

consent decree have been completed, the facility’s

practice of releasing solvents into a sanitary septic and

lateral field system, which eventually discharged to the

groundwater and to a nearby river, has been eliminated.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-57 May 1997

Farmland Industries, Inc. (Coffeyville, Kansas):

The Region reached agreements to settle three actions pollution reduction SEP to make available a household

pending against Farmland Industries, Inc. for violations hazardous waste program to city residents. The

of RCRA, the CAA, EPCRA, and CERCLA occurring household hazardous waste program will potentially

at Farmland’s petroleum refinery located in Coffeyville, prevent thousands of gallons of oil, automotive fluids,

Kansas. Under the terms of the agreements, Farmland and poisons from being dumped into city sewers and

has agreed to pay civil penalties totaling $1.45 million, drains. 

and to implement specific supplemental environmental

projects designed to improve the air quality in This agreement settles a three year old CWA/RCRA

Coffeyville and surrounding areas, as well as to administrative action for violations of special terms of

improve Farmland’s ability to respond to chemical the City’s NPDES permit, which allowed the City to

emergencies at the facility. The estimated cost of the accept for treatment trucked-in hazardous and other

projects is $4.2 million. wastes at its publicly-owned treatment works (POTW)

RCRA violations at the facility included repeated permit-by-rule provisions and storage of drums of

disposal of hazardous wastes on the ground; failure to hazardous wastes without a permit, and failure to have

notify EPA about RCRA-regulated units and failing to interim status for the POTW.

comply with RCRA in operating those units; failure to 

file a Part A permit, closure and post-closure plans and

financial assurances; and failure to install and operate a

proper groundwater monitoring system at the regulated

units. The EPCRA/CERCLA violations resulted from

Farmland’s failure to immediately report seven

different accidental releases of hydrogen sulfide from

the facility. Farmland’s violations of the CAA resulted

from its failure to install proper air pollution control

equipment or, in instances where such equipment had

been installed, Farmland’s failure to operate it

effectively.

Genesis Industries (Kansas): Between January 1991 April 27, 1995, Zykan, J. Z. Disposal Service and

and September 1992, Richard Hub dba Genesis James Boyle, an employee, were charged with six

Industries, Bio-Clean Industries, and Oil Recovery felony violations of the Clean Water Act. 

Technology, operated a tank farm located on property

owned by the Oklahoma-Kansas Oil Treatment On March 8, 1996, Zykan was sentenced to 12 months

Company (OK Oil) in Coffeyville, Kansas. Hub was of supervised probation to include 6 months of home

indicted on October 4, 1994, in the District of Kansas, confinement. Zykan had previously deposited

for violations of the Underground Injection Control $250,000 into a trust fund account to address

Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. He was remediation of the leachate problems at the J.Z.

indicted specifically for injecting liquids containing Demolition Landfill. 

hazardous constituents into an underground well

without a permit in violations of 42 U.S.C. Section

300h-2 (b)(2), and injecting liquid waste other than salt

water and gas plant waste into a well not classified to

receive such waste in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section

300-h (b)(2). On July 3, 1996, Hub was sentenced to

three years in federal prison without parole, one year

supervised probation, and was ordered to pay $50,000

in restitution to the Oklahoma-Kansas Oil Treatment

Company for his guilty plea on March 19, 1996, to

count one of the indictment.

City of Independence, Missouri: A consent in the composition of rocker washers produced for the

agreement and consent order (CA/CO) resolving this TVA; knowingly engaging in the hiring of unauthorized

multi-media administrative case was entered on June aliens; and knowingly providing false statements in

12, 1996. In addition to payment of a civil penalty, reference to the hiring of unauthorized aliens. Vernon

under the CA/CO the City is required to perform a

plant. RCRA violations included violations of the

J.Z. Disposal Services (Warren County, Missouri):

James R. Zykan, President, and J.Z. Disposal Services,

Inc. operated a landfill in Warren County, Missouri, the

J.Z. Demolition Landfill. In late August 1993, the

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)

ordered Zykan and J.Z. Disposal Services to cease any

and all discharges of leachate, treated or otherwise,

from the J.Z. Demolition Landfill to the Indian Camp

Creek, including any discharges from the leachate

treatment lagoon. From September 1993 onward, JZ

Disposal and Zykan did not have the required permit to

discharge leachate from its J.Z. Demolition facility. On

Midwest Alloys Foundry: Midwest Alloys Foundry

(Midwest) is a high alloy foundry which manufactures

products that have ultimately been used by the

Tennessee Valley Authority. Following a joint

investigation special agents from EPA-CID, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the

Tennessee Valley Authority, Midwest was charged

with ordering employees to dump hazardous waste on

company property, during which an employee was

injured; the unpermitted discharge of cooling water into

Buleau creek in 1995; the false reporting of alloys used
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-58

Kneib, the Plant Manager at Midwest, was charged the Mississippi River. As part of its routine barge

with illegally dumping hazardous waste, and knowingly cleaning procedures, the barges, which had contained

providing false information with regard to the hiring of various materials such as coal, fertilizer, salt and grain,

unauthorized aliens in a document required by would be towed to another location after being

immigration law. unloaded. If the barges needed to be washed, water

Midwest Alloys was sentenced for its guilty plea to the onto the barge and used to rinse the barge, and the rinse

above violations on October 4, 1996, to two years water would then allegedly be discharged directly to the

probation, ordered to pay fines and restitution in the Mississippi River. Any refuse remaining on the barge

amount of $150,000 of which $100,000 would go to would be gathered into various sized containers and

the Missouri Department of Natural Resources was allegedly dumped overboard into the Mississippi

(MDNR); $25,000 to the Tennessee Valley Authority; River.

$9,000 to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization

Service; and the remainder to the U.S. Treasury. On May 17, 1996, and subsequently on June 13, 1996,

Further, Midwest has replaced parts provided to the Dubuque Barge and Fleet dba Newt Marine, its

TVA at a initial estimated cost of $20,000. Midwest is President Gary Newt, and five other former or present

still in the process of replacing additional parts managers/supervisors in the company were charged

produced. Additionally, Midwest must complete a site with Clean Water Act or Rivers and Harbors Act

remediation to the satisfaction of MDNR and/or U.S. violations for their part in the alleged illegal activities

EPA Region VII. Vernon Kneib was sentenced to two stemming from Newt's barge cleaning operations which

years non-supervised probation and ordered to pay a resulted in pollutants allegedly being discharged to the

special assessment. Mississippi River. Four of the defendants have plead

National Manufacturing AKA Valentec-Olivette

(Olivette, Missouri): Valentec International

Corporation owned and operated a munitions plant

located at Olivette, Missouri (Valentec-Olivette). Terra Industries, Inc. (Sioux City, Iowa): At the

Valentec-Olivette was the subcontractor to Alliant request of the Chemical Emergency Prevention and

Technologies of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, which was Preparedness Office (CEPPO), and in accordance with

the prime contractor to the Army Research, Section 112(r) of the CAA, EPA released the results of

Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny its investigation into the cause of an explosion of the

Arsenal, New Jersey, for the production of M829 ammonium nitrate plant at this nitrogen fertilizer

120mm tank ammunition. Valentec's production manufacturing facility. The report released in January

process contaminated a number of waste streams with 1996 identifies numerous unsafe operating procedures

cyanide, chromium, zinc phosphate and phosphoric at the plant as contributing factors to the explosion, and

acid wastes. The investigation revealed that Valentec recommends certain standard operating procedures

was discharging toxic metal zinc in excess of which would help prevent similar occurrences at

pretreatment requirements to the Metropolitan Sewer ammonium nitrate production facilities.

District.

On February 1, 1996 Valentec was charged and plead killing four individuals and injuring 18 others. It also

guilty to a violation of 18 USC 1001, and to the resulted in the release of approximately 5,700 tons of

negligent discharge of pollutants in violation of anhydrous ammonia to the air and approximately

pretreatment standards, 33 USC 1319 (c)(1). On 25,000 gallons of nitric acid to the ground and required

March 21, 1996, Valentec was sentenced to pay a fine evacuation over a two-state area of over 2,500 persons

of $35,000, to make restitution to the Metropolitan from their homes.

Sewer District in the amount of $152,432 and an

additional $75,985 for the repair of damaged sewer In a subsequent action, an administrative civil

lines. An additional $37,500 was to be paid in complaint alleging violations of EPCRA Sections 312

restitution to the National Enforcement Investigations and 313, and Section 8(a) of TSCA, was filed citing

Center, EPA. that Terra International failed to submit Toxic Release

Newt Marine Services ( Dubuque, Iowa): Dubuque

Barge and Fleet dba Newt Marine Service at Dubuque,

Iowa, was engaged in the cleaning of barges

transporting various goods in interstate commerce on

from the Mississippi River would allegedly be pumped

guilty: The remaining defendants, Newt Marine, Gary

Newt and Robert Meana, Operations/Sales Manager,

stand trial in January 1997.

The Terra explosion occurred on December 13, 1994,

Inventory (TRI) information to EPA in a timely

manner, and data submitted to EPA by Terra failed to

include releases of more than 17 million pounds of

toxic chemicals to the environment on-site. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-59 May 1997

REGION VIII

CLEAN AIR ACT

Colorado Refining Company (Commerce City,

Colorado): Colorado Refining Company (CRC)

agreed in October 1995 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. As part of a settlement with EPA, CRC -- a

subsidiary of Total Petroleum -- will modify equipment

to prevent excessive amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO )2

from escaping into the air 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 CAA permit violations. One claimed the refinery

degraded air quality when its SO2 emissions surpassed

allowable levels several times between 1989 and 1994. 

At one point the refinery registered emissions of

16,000 parts per million (ppm). 

CRC also allegedly violated CAA emissions

monitoring rules. These rules require companies to

continuously monitor their emissions with devices that

record varying contaminates and levels. If a company

fails to constantly monitor its emissions, or if its

emissions are above permitted limits, it faces State or

federal penalties. EPA claimed CRC's monitoring

equipment had significant down times which prevented

accurate and uninterrupted readings. This is the third

action against CRC in the past five years. Previous

fines totaled about $182,000. CRC experienced a

similar emissions monitoring violation in 1992; the

company settled that complaint for $92,000. Without

admitting to the federal allegations, CRC agreed to pay

the penalty, modify pollution control equipment and

comply with all applicable laws in the future. 

U.S. v. Plum Creek Manufacturing (Kalispell,

Montana): Plum Creek Manufacturing, L.P. agreed in

October 1995 to pay $106,000 for releasing harmful

pollutants into the air at its Kalispell plywood plant. 

The settlement, lodged October 2, in U.S. District

Court in Missoula, resolves government claims that

emissions of visible air contaminants from Plum

Creek's veneer dryers violated the nation's Clean Air

Act (CAA) from at September 1989 through April

1992. Veneer dryer emissions contain a complex

mixture of fine particles and gases that have serious

health implications. In the past, the State has taken

several enforcement actions at both the Kalispell and

Columbia Falls Plum Creek facilities for air pollution

violations. The State previously took an enforcement

action for the Kalispell veneer dryer violations, and

Plum Creek agreed to pay a $7,000 penalty and install

an air pollution control device on the dryers. Because

of Plum Creek's noncompliance history, EPA launched

its own enforcement action. EPA's goals were to

support the State's enforcement program and assess a

higher penalty to remove the economic benefit that

Plum Creek enjoyed by violating the CAA

requirements. Without admitting to the federal

allegations, Plum Creek agreed to pay the penalty and

comply with all applicable laws in the future.

Public Service Company (Hayden, Colorado): 

Public Service Company (PSC) and its partners agreed

to spend some $145 million on air pollution controls,

fines and environmental projects to settle claims

involving the Hayden power station in the Yampa

Valley, west of Steamboat Springs. The agreement, in

the form of a "consent decree," was filed on EPA's

behalf by the U.S. Department of Justice in U.S.

District Court in Denver. The "global" accord will

resolve Sierra Club and EPA claims that the plant

violated air pollution limits, obscured visibility and

increased acid levels in snow at the wilderness area,

situated 19 miles downwind. A citizen lawsuit filed, in

1993, by the Sierra Club under the Clean Air Act

(CAA), coupled with EPA's enforcement action,

compelled all parties to reach an acceptable accord

within six months of face-to-face negotiations. The

settlement requires new air pollution control devices at

the plant to reduce particulate, sulfur dioxide (SO2)

and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. The utilities

also agreed to install the equipment, estimated to cost

about $140 million, by the end of 1999. Once

installed, the pollution controls will cut Hayden's SO2

emissions about 85 percent, or 14 thousand tons per

year, and NOx emissions nearly 50 percent, or 7

thousand tons per year. The utilities agreed to pay a $2

million cash penalty and undertake projects that benefit

the local environment. The penalty is the largest CAA

civil penalty in the history of EPA's six-State Region. 

It is not tax deductible, nor can it be passed on to

consumers through a rate hike. PSC and its partners

also agreed to spend $2,250,000 on beneficial

environmental projects in the Yampa Valley. 

Public Service Company is one of three owners of the

coal-fired power plant and also manages its operations. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-60

The other owners, also named in the consent decree,

are Salt River Project of Arizona and Pacificorp of

Oregon. Hayden is one of the most profitable power

plants in the country, largely because it currently has

few pollution controls that are now standard for the

industry. The facility has no emissions control

equipment to contain SO2 or NOx and ineffective

controls for small particulate pollution. Yearly

emissions from the plant include about 16 thousand

tons of SO2 and 14 thousand tons of NOx. Meanwhile,

high SO2 and NOx emissions have led to the highest

snow-pack acid levels ever recorded in the west. The

acid snow can cause severe environmental damage to

the fragile Mount Zirkel ecosystem. In 1993, the Sierra

Club sued the utilities claiming 19,727 opacity

violations at the Hayden plant from 1988 to 1993. A

U.S. District Court ruled in the Sierra Club's favor on

July 21, 1995. Earlier this year, EPA issued a violation

notice to the utilities to include an additional 10,234

violations that occurred after the Sierra Club's lawsuit. 

Without admitting to the federal allegations, the utilities

agreed to pay the penalty and comply with applicable

laws in the future.

Stone Container Corporation (Missoula, Montana): 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sought a court

order in January 1996 directing Stone Container

Corporation to meet air pollution requirements at its

Missoula mill and pay penalties for past and ongoing

violations. In 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency notified Stone that its Missoula mill violated

Clean Air Act (CAA) opacity levels and ordered the

company to abide by national limits. Stone's mill

produces liner board and other paper products by

converting wood chips and cardboard into pulp and

then into paper. According to EPA officials, the mill

failed to correct all problems and continued to impact

air quality in the surrounding area. Therefore, EPA

referred the matter to DOJ, which filed a complaint on

the Agency's behalf.

CERCLA

Bingham Creek ARCO (West Jordan, Utah): EPA

filed suit for the recovery of response costs relating the

Bingham Creek Phase I action in Salt Lake County,

Utah. EPA, DOJ and ARCO agreed to enter into nonbinding Alternative Dispute Resolution in an attempt to

resolve the litigation. A "mini-trial" (Alternate Dispute

Resolution) proceeding was conducted in April 1996. 

This first of its kind proceeding in the Region,

demonstrates the Region's willingness to use ADR in

CERCLA cost recovery actions. 

Chemical Handling Corporation (Broomfield,

Colorado): In March, administrative orders on

consent (AOCs) were issued to 758 de minimis PRPs

for recovery of $1,097,244.34 in past response costs. 

This amount represents approximately 41% of the $2.5

M in response costs EPA presently projects to spend

for this site, which is consistent with the fact that the

settling parties manifested approximately 40% of the

1,260,589.79 gallons of hazardous substances

manifested to the site by all generators, both federal and

private, de minimis and non-de minimis . An AOC for

payment of a portion of the remaining outstanding

response costs is in the final stages of preparation for

sending out to the non-de minimis PRPs. Their

settlement amount, on a per gallon basis, will not be

significantly higher than the amount paid by the de

minimis PRPs, including the premium. In addition,

EPA is pursuing a settlement with the current property

owner. The fairness of this settlement has been praised

by many of the PRPs, resulting in a better than 90%

participation rate among the eligible de minimis

parties. EPA anticipates recovery of 100% of its

response costs, less that amount apportioned to the

owner/operator of the site.

Colorado School of Mines Research Center (Golden,

Colorado): An administrative order on consent was

used to settle out de minimis parties at this site. This

reduced the amount of litigation potential this case

presented as these parties were protected from

contribution lawsuits. One lesson learned in this

settlement was to consider adjusting the premium

charged to de minimis parties when site costs are not

very high and the removal action results in a "No

Further Action" determination. Those PRPs not

eligible for the de minimis settlement are using a

private Superfund allocator to determine how to split

and pay 100% of EPA's outstanding costs.

Hansen Container (Grand Junction, Colorado):

Three administrative orders on consent was used to

settle out de minimis parties at this site. This was a

highly successful settlement which used appropriate

premiums and worked with the PRPs that were not

eligible for the settlement to achieve settlement

protocols that worked for the Agency and PRPs that

might want to adopt the Agency's allocation of waste

for this site once all of the de minimis parties were

settled out. EPA’s goal for this site is to achieve 100%

cost recovery while having reduced litigation and

addressed fairness and equity issues with PRPs.

Kennecott Utah Copper - North Facility

Soils/Wastewater Treatment Plant (Magna, Utah): 

EPA used CERCLA removal settlement authorities to

enter into an administrative order on consent to conduct

a non-time-critical response action at the Kennecott

North Facility Soils/Wastewater Treatment Plant
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-61 May 1997

facility. Use of this tool allowed for an accelerated VIII Administrator Jack McGraw, Under Secretary of

settlement so that cleanup could begin on this project Energy Tom Grumbly and site manager Jesse

with an estimated cost of over $70 million dollars. Roberson, and Lieutenant Governor Gail Schoettler and

McLaren Tailings (Cooke City, Montana): The PRP

for this site filed a section 106(b) claim for

reimbursement from the Fund. Prior to a ruling by the

Environmental Appeals Board, EPA and the PRP have

entered into a settlement agreement in principle, in the

form of a consent decree. The CD was signed by the

PRPs in December of 1996.

North Clear Creek Tails Superfund site (Central

City, Colorado): The Clear Creek/Central City

Superfund site has used EPA's administrative removal

settlement authorities to enter into settlements with

PRPs to conduct removal actions at this site. Through

the use of removal authorities, the Region has

accelerated the pace of cleanups at this site and met the

needs of commercial real estate developers seeking to

redevelop site property for beneficial reuse. In Fiscal

Year 1996, the Region entered into an administrative

order on consent for Removal Action at the North Clear

Creek Tails facility. While this is only one small

facility within the site, the use of EPA's administrative Union Pacific Railroad Company (Huron, South

settlement tools demonstrates that the Region is using Dakota): On August 21, 1996, EPA signed an AOC

the right tool for the right problem. with Union Pacific Railroad Company (successor in

Ogden Union Railway and Depot (Ogden, Utah): In

the late Fall/early Winter of 1995, the PRPs conducted

a PRP-lead removal of a historic sludge pond area

which resulted from railroad activities conducted over a

period of the past 100 years. This removal action

meets the MOA commitment of “Worst sites First,” as

removal of the sludge pond is the first of several

remedial actions that are anticipated for this area. This

removal action commenced with the issuance of an

AOC to the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific

railroads for a PRP-lead response action designed to

remove, and thus mitigate, the threat of release of

hazardous substances from a large sludge pond located

on the railroad property. The sludge pond, located

within a hundred yards of the Weber River, was

saturated with water for all but a short time span during

the year, due to the shallow water table in the area. 

EPA negotiated an AOC with the owners of the site and

the PRP-lead removal action was successfully

completed during the late Fall/Winter of 1995, during

the dry season of the year.

Rocky Flats Cleanup agreement (Colorado): EPA,

DOE, and the State of Colorado, signed the new Rocky

Flats Cleanup agreement (RFCA) in Denver, Colorado

on July 19, 1996, after nearly three years of

negotiations. The signatories to the RFCA were EPA’s

Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen and Acting Region

Tom Looby, Director of Colorado’s Office of the

Environment. The RFCA contains many innovative

provisions designed to speed up cleanup activities at

the Rocky Flats site. The RFCA streamlines the

regulatory process by dividing the site into two areas -

the industrial area, where the State is the lead regulator,

and the environmental buffer zone, where EPA is the

lead regulator.

Summitville Mine (Summitville, Colorado): The

Region reached a de minimis settlement under

122(g)(4) with the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company,

Union Pacific Resources Company, and Union Pacific

Resources Group, Inc. to settle their liabilities for

$700,000. The settlement amount was based on the

parties' contribution to surface water contamination at

the site, the amount of waste materials they left at the

site, and the area of ground they disturbed that must be

reclaimed. Finalization of this settlement is pending

EPA's response to public comments.

interest to Chicago and North Western Transportation

Company who was the former owner/operator of the

site) and Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad

Corporation (the current owner/operator of the site). 

Use of this tool allowed for an accelerated settlement so

that cleanup could begin on this project with an

estimated cost of $4,000,000. Through the use of

administrative settlement activities, the Region has

maintained a very good working relationship with the

PRPs while allowing them to perform the removal

action and having them agree to reimburse EPA for all

past and AOC-associated response costs at the site. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

Altenberg Slough (Flathead County, Montana): A

Texas landowner and a Montana businessman face a

civil penalty of $125,000 for alleged environmental

damage to a wetland in Flathead County, Montana,

according to a penalty complaint issued by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency in February 1996. 

C.P. Medore of Llano, Texas, and property managers

Terence N. and Greta Carsten of Kalispell hired an

earthmoving contractor to dredge the bottom of the

Altenberg Slough, one half mile north of Highway 82,

and to haul away the material. Instead, some of the

excavated material was placed on the ground along the

slough's perimeter and other material was mounded in

the middle of the slough, forming several islands. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-62

Unauthorized construction activities in wetlands violate Water Act permit from the Corps of Engineers that

the nation's Clean Water Act. In addition to facing addresses the impacts of using the pump station.

penalties of up to $125,000 for the illegal work,

Medore and Carsten could face as much as $25,000 per

day in civil penalties for failing to comply with a

previous compliance order filed in July 1994. Medore

and Carsten have been directed to pay the penalty and

immediately stop all discharges to the Altenberg

Slough; remove the "dredged and fill" material from the

slough; restore the area within 60 days of the receipt of

the order; and allow access to the land by any

authorized representative of the Corps, EPA or the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to oversee restoration work. 

Neighbors have complained that the work has even

caused water levels in the slough to drop, thereby

damaging their access to the water they need. This

wetland area provided habitat for migratory waterfowl

and other birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and

fish. It can be restored to its prior condition through

known engineering and scientific practices. 

Amoco Oil Company (Casper, Wyoming): Amoco

Oil Company will pay a $404,000 penalty to settle

several alleged environmental violations at its now

closed refinery in Casper, WY. The most serious

offense occurred when Amoco allegedly violated the

nation's Clean Water Act during its refining operations. 

EPA charged that between July 1990 and December

1992, the company mixed ground water with

wastewater and sent the mixture to Casper's sewage

treatment facility. The combination of materials posed

a hazard to local water resources and threatened

sewage treatment operations. The agreement also

covers additional charges concerning national

hazardous waste laws. Without admitting to the

allegations, Amoco agreed to pay the fine and comply

with all applicable laws in the future. 

City of Blackhawk (Blackhawk, Colorado): In reclamation plans submitted on behalf of Emulsified. 

September the City of Black Hawk agreed to settle On February 9, 1996, EPA approved a plan which

wetland problems created by the illegal construction of stated that Emulsified needed to address a number of

a water supply pump station on Clear Creek and will specific issues and obtain written approval from the

pay a penalty of $61,515, according to an agreement Corps before starting any reclamation work at the site.

signed by the City and EPA. Problems stemmed from On February 21, EPA learned from Emulsified's

the City's construction of a pump station without a U.S. engineering consultant that Emulsified had started work

Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act permit in in Deer Creek without the required authorization from

March 1993. The alleged violations included the Corps. During a March 1996 inspection, the Corps

excavation and back filling of about 1,800 square feet of Engineers discovered that not only did the work

of river bed on the north fork of Clear Creek. The completed need a permit from the Corps, but the work

result was temporary loss of wetlands and destruction did not conform to EPA's conditionally approved

of aquatic life in the creek. However, water quality reclamation plan. EPA ordered Emulsified to

sampling demonstrated that none of the contamination immediately stop all discharges of "dredged and fill

entered the City's treated water supply. The City of material; develop and submit to EPA, within 20 days of

Black Hawk has limited its use of the pump station and receiving the order, a plan to bring the reclamation

is currently awaiting approval of an after-the-fact Clean work at the Deer Creek site into conformity with the

Clark Equipment Company (Gwinner, North

Dakota): Clark Equipment Company agreed, in

March, to settle wastewater problems at its facility in

Gwinner, North Dakota and pay a total of $250,000 in

penalties as part of a settlement with the EPA and the

U.S. Department of Justice. Melroe Company, a unit

of the Clark Equipment Company, is a metal-finishing

operation that manufactures small construction

equipment. Melroe's discharges exceeded the

industrial limits for copper, lead and zinc.

Clark's failure to sample and analyze wastewater

discharges and submit timely reports that EPA needs to

monitor industry compliance is a violation of the

nation's Clean Water Act. The settlement does not

relieve Clark Equipment of its responsibility to achieve

and maintain complete compliance at the Gwinner

facility. 

Emulsified Asphalt (Casper, Wyoming): In April

1996 concern about environmental damage to Deer

Creek's water quality and channel stability has brought

a Federal compliance order against a Casper-based

highway construction and paving company. Emulsified

Asphalt, Inc. allegedly directed subcontractors to build

a dike in Deer Creek and mine a 300-foot long segment

of creek channel for its gravel mining operation in

1991 without authorization from the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers (Corps). The operation disturbed the

adjacent area and the floodplain of the Creek which

supports diverse plant and animal life. From April

1993 to February 1996 the Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality and EPA tried to resolve these

Clean Water Act violations through informal

negotiations and a review and comment on various

reclamation plan that EPA had agreed to conditionally;
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-63 May 1997

consult with the Corps of Engineers to see if the penalty for violating wastewater pretreatment

restoration work will require a permit and if so, get a requirements of the Clean Water Act according to a

permit before the plan is implemented; complete consent order filed in Denver. Persona, Incorporated is

reclamation and stream channel restoration of Deer a facility using metal-finishing processes. Wastewater

Creek by the end of August 1996; and re-vegetate the from the business is treated at the Watertown treatment

site by the end of March 1997. plant and is then discharged into Willow Creek which

Pegasus Gold Corporation (Phillips County,

Montana): The U.S. Department of Justice and EPA

announced in July 1996 the lodging of a consent decree

in a Federal lawsuit filed by the United States and the

State of Montana against Pegasus Gold Corporation

and Zortman Mining, Inc. for the illegal discharge of

mine waste waters from two mines in Phillips County,

Montana, into waters draining into the Missouri and

Milk Rivers. According to the settlement, Nevadabased Pegasus Gold Corporation and Zortman Mining,

Inc. will pay $2 million in penalties to the government

and the State of Montana for discharging mine

wastewaters from the Zortman and Landusky mines

located near the Ft. Belknap Indian Reservation without

a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit. Pegasus Gold Corporation and

Zortman Mining, Inc. will also be required to provide

$32.3 million in financial assurance to cover the

compliance requirements of an extensive compliance

plan. The settlement also resolves a citizen suit filed by

the Gros Ventre Tribe, the Assiniboine Tribe, the Ft.

Belknap Community Council, and Island Mountain

Protectors Association, which alleged that their

environmental, cultural, and spiritual interests were

impaired by the water quality impacts caused by the

two mines. The Tribes will also receive $1 million

under this agreement for partial settlement of their

aboriginal water rights claim. Additionally, Pegasus

Gold Corporation and Zortman Mining, Inc. have

agreed to perform the following supplemental

environmental projects (at an estimated cost of

$1,790,000) a Community Health Evaluation to

investigate the pathways and possible impacts of

environmental contaminants on residents of the Ft.

Belknap Reservation, particularly children; an Aquatic

Study to evaluate the general health of the aquatic

resources on the Ft. Belknap Reservation; and a

number of Improvement Projects to the water supply

systems for the communities of White

Cow/Hays/Mission Housing and the Lodgepole

communities of the Ft. Belknap Reservation to improve

the availability, consistency and quality of drinking

water. In addition, a fund of $300,000 will be

established to be used for maintenance and operation of

the improved water systems. 

Persona Incorporated (Watertown, South Dakota): 

In July 1996 a commercial sign manufacturer in

Watertown, South Dakota, agreed to pay a $57,000

is less than a mile away from the Big Sioux River. 

Persona also failed to submit the necessary monitoring

reports EPA needs to monitor industry compliance. 

Pretreatment rules are aimed at protecting community

sewage treatment plants by limiting the amounts of

pollutants that industrial users (like Persona) may

discharge into a sewage treatment plant. Industrial

dischargers must "pretreat" their wastes to prevent

interference with the operation of community sewage

treatment plants. 

EPCRA

Pillow Kingdom (Denver, Colorado): As part of a

settlement, the company agreed to pay a $26,960

penalty and to spend at least $255,400 to prevent or

reduce air pollution at its facilities. EPA investigated

after receiving reports that the company placed rags

soaked with a combustible lacquer-based finish in a

dumpster. The Agency's investigation concluded the

furniture maker allegedly violated the national

Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act

(EPCRA) by failing to properly report the use and

storage of toxic chemicals including xylene, methylethyl-ketone, toluene, trichloroethane and others; and

neglecting to submit information on chemicals used or

on-hand to State and local emergency preparedness

officials. 

The company is now adhering to EPCRA rules, and, as

part of the settlement, agreed to implement a pollution

prevention pilot project. The project includes changing

from solvent-based to water-based or alternative

finishing materials; converting most of its spray

equipment to high-volume, low- pressure technology;

and experimenting with environmentally friendly wood

finishing processes.

RCRA

Amoco Oil Company (Casper, Wyoming): In April,

EPA 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, WY. The order completes an

administrative process that began when EPA issued an

initial order in November 1994. Amoco requested a

hearing on that order and a hearing was held in May

1995. This final order reflects changes which were
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-64

found to be appropriate as a result of the hearing and

documents filed during the administrative process.

The order requires that Amoco's efforts 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. 

Amoco will have to provide information on past

releases, the extent and depth of contamination of

various kinds, and on any migration of wastes off the

site. Preliminary investigations over the past several

years have found high levels of lead and floating

hydrocarbons on the refinery grounds. At Soda Lake,

oil and 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-ethyl ketone.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-65 May 1997

REGION IX

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S. v. Chevron, Mobil, Ultramar, and UNOCAL

(California): In the fall of 1996 the Northern and

Central District Courts of California entered consent

decrees in cases involving five oil companies -

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chevron Pipe Line Company,

Mobil Oil Corporation, the Union Oil Company of

California, and Ultramar, Inc. - for violations of the

Clean Air Act's New Source Performance Standards

("NSPS"). These cases concern the companies’ use of

certain equipment known as “slotted guidepoles” on

petroleum liquid storage vessels. In order to minimize

the release of volatile organic compounds ("VOCs")

into the atmosphere, Subparts Ka and Kb of the NSPS

require that openings in the roofs of certain storage

vessels “be equipped with a cover, seal, or lid”

maintained in a closed position except when in use. 

The consent decrees required the five companies to the State of Arizona concluded several enforcement

install pollution control equipment on slotted actions as part of the Arizona Copper Mines Initiative. 

guidepoles in use at storage vessels subject to EPA’s The multi-year initiative was undertaken to assess the

NSPS requirements. As further injunctive relief, the impact of active, inactive and abandoned copper mines

consent decrees required the companies to install on surface water and groundwater, to develop an

pollution controls on slotted guidepoles at a total of 36 inventory of Arizona copper mines, and to ensure the

additional non-NSPS tanks. These additional controls cleanup and remediation of contaminated mine sites. A

significantly reduce VOC emissions beyond the federal/state task force was formed to implement the

minimum required by law. EPA estimates that the initiative. The U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Forest

controls obtained by these settlements will result in Service, Arizona State Mine Inspector’s Office,

VOC emission reductions of at least 140 tons per year. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and

Three of the five companies are located in an extreme EPA Region IX inventoried over 7,000 mines sites,

ozone nonattainment area. and a list of approximately 700 high potential problem

mines was developed. The initiative's objectives

Kelco Division of Merck & Co., Inc. (San Diego,

California): EPA entered into a consent decree under

the Clean Air Act with the Kelco Division of Merck &

Co., Inc. ("Kelco"), a kelp processing and biogum

production facility located in San Diego, California. 

The facility manufactures various algin products by

processing sea kelp and produces several biogums by a

process of biopolymerization. Volatile organic

compounds ("VOCs") are emitted to the atmosphere

during the manufacturing processes. The San Diego

area is a serious nonattainment area for ozone. The

Kelco facility is the largest stationary source of VOC

emissions in San Diego County, accounting for

approximately 36% of San Diego's total emissions from

stationary sources according to the 1991 emissions

inventory.

Between 1982 and 1991, Kelco modified the facility

numerous times without obtaining any authority to

construct ("ATC") or installing equipment that

complied with lowest achievable emission rate as

required by the Clean Air Act's New Source Review

("NSR") program. As a result of EPA's enforcement

action, Kelco negotiated with the San Diego Air

Pollution Control District for a revision of District Rule

67.10, which is applicable to Kelco's facility only, and

agreed to install additional controls to satisfy NSR

requirements and to implement supplemental

environmental projects. Total VOC reductions from

the facility will amount to 1,706 tons per year, a

significant decrease from Kelco's pre-enforcement

releases.

CERCLA

Arizona Copper Mines Initiative: In 1996, EPA and

include the completion of demonstration projects and

voluntary cleanup of inactive and abandoned mines

through outreach and cooperative agreements with the

mining industry. EPA and the State have, in addition,

taken enforcement action to secure compliance with

federal and State water pollution laws.

In September 1996, the U.S. District Court entered a

consent decree requiring Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp.

to pay $475,000 to the United States, and $285,000 to

Arizona, to settle violations of the federal Clean Water

Act and the Arizona Environmental Quality Act at the

company's Yavapai County copper mine. In May

1996, the District Court entered another consent decree

requiring Cyprus Miami Mining Corp. to pay penalties

totaling $295,000 to the United States and Arizona for

past violations at its Gila County mine. The decree

with Cyprus Miami further requires that the company
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-66

undertake a "supplemental environmental project" to After the enactment of RCRA, Casmalia operated in

stabilize and reclaim inactive tailings impoundments interim status, but never obtained a final RCRA

resulting from historic copper ore milling operations at operating permit because of continuing deficiencies in

the site. The project is scheduled for completion in the site's operations. In August, 1992, Region IX

1997 and will cost at least $650,000. If the latter initiated a time-critical CERCLA removal action in

project proves to be infeasible, the decree provides that response to deteriorating site conditions. The removal

Cyprus Miami shall pay additional penalties to the action kept the site under control and abated the most

United States and Arizona. Finally, in March 1996, the imminent threats while negotiations with site

Court entered a consent decree requiring that Cyprus generators proceeded. During this period, the Region

Sierrita Corp. pay penalties totaling $88,000 to the expended over $13 million in removal response

United States and Arizona for past violations at that monies. 

company's Pima County mine.

EPA Region IX also completed an administrative addressing large multi-party sites that are being cleaned

penalty action against the operators of a copper mine in up outside the traditional CERCLA framework. It

Pima County. In November 1995, Region IX filed a defines the parties responsible for performance of site

consent order finding Oracle Ridge Mining Partners work for the next ten to fifteen years and the source of

liable for Clean Water Act violations, and requiring the funds to pay for site work in the future. Under the

partners to pay a $25,000 penalty. terms of the settlement, the settling generators, who

Burbank Operable Unit (OU) (San Fernando Valley, facility, agree to pay for and implement certain cleanup

California): The Burbank OU interim remedy actions and pay certain costs associated with cleanup of

requires extraction of 12,000 gpm, blending to reduce this large hazardous waste disposal facility. 

nitrate concentrations, and delivery of the treated water Quantifiable obligations under the consent decree

to the City of Burbank water supply system for twenty exceed $30 million. In addition to the work required of

years. Under a 1992 consent decree, Lockheed Martin the Settling Defendants, the consent decree

Corporation ("Lockheed"), the City of Burbank, and contemplates offering cashout settlement opportunities

Weber Aircraft Corporation agreed to construct and/or to the remaining 10,000 to 15,000 PRPs. It is

to fund the capital portions of the remedy, and anticipated that these cashouts will help raise sufficient

Lockheed agreed to operate the remedy for two of the funds to pay for work not financed by the Settling

twenty years of required operation, to pay certain of Defendants. 

EPA's past costs, and to pay oversight costs for the

consent decree activities. EPA issued a unilateral U.S. v. Chapman (Palomino Valley, Nevada): On

administrative order ("UAO") to six other PRPs to December 8, 1996, a judge of the Northern District of

require the construction of a nitrate blending facility. California granted summary judgment in favor of the

The first phase (6000 gpm extraction capacity) of the of $235, 000 in the U.S. v. Chapman suit. EPA had

Burbank OU interim remedy began operating in previously settled penalty claims for $50,000. The

February 1996. Throughout 1996, EPA engaged in case arose as a result of EPA's removal activities at the

negotiations with Lockheed, the City of Burbank and H.B. Chapman facility in Palomino Valley, Nevada in

PRPs associated with approximately thirty-five other 1990. The 5-acre site, primarily used for the

Burbank facilities for a second consent decree. The manufacture of machined metal and acrylic products,

second decree will require the operation of the last was found to have quantities of uncontained and poorly

eighteen years of the remedy, the payment of EPA's stored hazardous substances. EPA began the removal

past basin-wide costs not recovered under the first action when the owner, Mr. Chapman, refused to

decree, and payment of EPA's future oversight costs. comply with the CERCLA Section 106 administrative

Casmalia Resources Hazardous Waste Management including noncompliance with a subsequent

Facility (Santa Barbara, California): On September information request, the United States filed the action

17, 1996, the United States lodged a consent decree even though EPA costs were relatively low. EPA past

with a group of approximately 50 hazardous waste costs for the removal at the Palomino Valley Superfund

generators to help clean up the Casmalia Resources site amounted to less than $50,000, but the court

Hazardous Waste Management Facility in Santa awarded the United States the enforcement costs

Barbara, California. During its sixteen years of incurred by EPA and the Department of Justice. The

operation from 1973 to 1989, the Casmalia hazardous DOJ costs exceeded the EPA costs because of the

waste facility accepted over 4 billion pounds of waste. 

The agreement represents an innovative approach to

represent about 47% of the waste at the Casmalia

United States for all past response costs in the amount

order. Faced with Mr. Chapman's blatant recalcitrance,
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-67 May 1997

defendant's protracted recalcitrance and continued

unwillingness to settle the case.

Glendale North and South Operable Units (OU)

(San Fernando Valley, California): The RODs for

the Glendale OUs, issued in 1993, require the

extraction of 5000 gpm from separate Glendale North

and South extraction well fields, treatment and nitrate

reduction blending at a combined treatment and

blending facility; and delivery of the treated water to

the City of Glendale water supply system for twelve

years. Under a 1994 administrative order on consent

("AOC") with EPA, twenty-five parties performed the

design for the interim remedies. The AOC parties

submitted the final design to EPA on September 30,

1996. Throughout 1996, EPA pursued negotiations

with these and other PRPs to construct, operate and

maintain the interim remedies once EPA approves the

design.

Hendler v. U.S. (California): On October 9, 1996,

the Court of Federal Claims rejected a regulatory

takings claim against EPA in Hendler v. U.S. The

plaintiffs, owners of property adjacent to the

Stringfellow Acid Pits NPL site, had sought an award

of at least $18 million against the United States for

installing groundwater monitoring wells on their

property located next to a major Superfund site. The

court's decision, rejecting the plaintiffs' regulatory

takings on all four grounds raised by the United States,

provides an important precedent in support of EPA's

ability to conduct Superfund investigations. The

plaintiffs, owners of approximately 100 acres of

undeveloped land adjacent to the Stringfellow Acid

Pits, had alleged that the installation of the monitoring

wells on their property constituted a regulatory and

physical taking of their property under the Fifth

Amendment. In 1983, EPA had issued an

administrative access order pursuant to CERCLA, and

working with the State of California subsequently

installed a total of 20 monitoring wells on plaintiffs'

property. The wells helped establish that the

groundwater plume containing Stringfellow Superfund

site ran directly through plaintiffs' property. 

A 1991 ruling of the Federal Court had previously held

that the installation of the wells constituted a physical

taking, but had not ruled on the regulatory taking issue. 

The trial court initially stated that it believed the value

of the physical taking was only $14,500. On plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration, the court agreed to a

damages phase of the trial. This was held on March 17

and 18, 1997. The United States argued that the value

of the benefit provided to the plaintiffs exceeded the

value of the well easements. The court’s decision is

expected this summer. 

Lorentz Barrel & Drum and Stringfellow: Region IX

took action to resolve the liability of small parties at

two major Superfund sites by concluding an

administrative de minimis settlement with 60 parties at

the Lorentz Barrel and Drum site and signing an

agreement with over 100 parties at the Stringfellow

site. Together the two settlements obligate the de

minimis parties to pay over $6.6 million in response

costs to EPA. The de minimis settlement for the

Stringfellow site was lodged as a consent decree on

May 9, 1996 in U.S. v. Stringfellow, et al. (Civ. No.

83-2501)(C.D.Cal.). The de minimis decree, when

entered, will be the fourth consent decree in the case. 

The decree would settle the liability of over 100 entities

who will pay a total of $4.8 million to be used for costs

incurred in the operation of the Stringfellow

pretreatment plant beginning January 1, 1996. The

waste attributable to all of the settling entities

combined is less than 1% of the total waste deposited at

the site. The Stringfellow NPL site is a former

hazardous waste disposal facility, with total cleanup

costs projected to be between $250 and $475 million. 

The de minimis settlement for the Lorentz Barrel and

Drum Superfund site became effective on September

25, 1996. This administrative settlement with 60 de

minimis parties obligates the settlers to pay a total of

$1,838,224.30 to EPA and $865,046.72 to the State of

California. Lorentz Barrel and Drum NPL site is a

former barrel and drum recycling facility located in San

Jose, California. During the forty years of operation,

over 3,000 private and public entities in California and

Nevada sent barrels and drums, many of which

contained residues of hazardous substances, to the site. 

The de minimis settlement represents the fourth

agreement for the site, including two agreements for

response action and a 1995 de minimis agreement with

88 parties.

North Hollywood Operable Unit (OU) (San

Fernando Valley, California): The North Hollywood

Record of Decision ("ROD"), issued in 1987, requires

extraction of 2000 gallons per minute ("gpm"),

treatment to remove VOCs from groundwater, and

delivery of the treated water to the City of Los Angeles'

water supply system for fifteen years. EPA fundfinanced the construction, operation and maintenance

of this interim remedy, which is operated by the Los

Angeles Department of Water and Power. On August

8, 1996, the first partial consent decree resolving

approximately half of the potentially responsible

parties' ("PRPs") liability was entered by the Central

District of California federal court. This settlement

recovered $ 4.75 million, consisting of past and

estimated future costs related to this OU and a

percentage of EPA's past basin-wide costs. EPA
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-68

settled the litigation against the remaining PRPs in June financially viable PRPs at the United Heckathorn NPL

1996, recovering an additional $ 4.8 million. site in Richmond, California. The decrees provide for

U.S. v. Omega Chemical Corporation (California): 

On September 6, 1996, the United States District Court the result of the settlements, the marine remedial action

for the Central District of California granted the United at the site (dredging and offsite disposal of 100,000

States' motion for summary judgment in a penalty tons of contaminated sediment ) was commenced in

action brought pursuant to section 104(e)(5) of August and is expected to be completed by the end of

CERCLA. The United States filed this penalty action 1996. Expediting initiation and completion of the

after the owner/operator, Omega Chemical marine remedial action is particularly significant given

Corporation, refused to grant the U.S. EPA the current direct exposure of low income minority

unconditional access to their property to conduct subsistence fishermen to DDT and dieldrin through the

necessary removal activities. EPA initially requested consumption of contaminated fish. In addition,

access to the Omega Chemical Corporation site ("site") expediting the marine remedial action will allow the

around April 10, 1995. OCC declined to provide Port of Richmond to begin its Port deepening project

access unless the U.S. agreed not to use any evidence next spring; the project is the cornerstone of the City of

found against it in subsequent proceedings. EPA Richmond's economic redevelopment plan. 

deemed this to be a denial of access and, on June 26,

1995, sought and received a 60-Day Warrant for The settlements are also significant because they

Access from the Court. EPA subsequently received an provided the basis for a contemporaneous

order in Aid of Access from the Court for the duration comprehensive settlement among the PRPs that ended

of the removal activities. a ten year old private cost recovery court case in which

EPA sought penalties for OCC's refusal to grant access expected costs of the remedial actions at the site. The

for the 78 day period from April 10, 1995, to June 26, settlements were also the first settlements to implement

1995. On August 6, 1996, the Court ruled from the the EPA Orphan Share policy resulting in EPA

bench in favor of EPA and imposed a penalty of $2,500 forgoing $1.5 million in past costs in recognition of the

per day for the entire 78-day period, for a total penalty orphan share that resulted when the former site

of $195,000. Judgment was entered on September 6, operator was determined to be a disolved and defunct

1996. Both the per day amount and the total amount corporation. 

represent the largest denial of access penalties ever

issued under CERCLA. The case thus sends an

important message to parties who refuse to cooperate

with cleanup operations.

U.S. v. Operating Industries, Inc. (OII) (California): 

On July 10, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the

Central District of California entered the Fifth Partial

consent decree for the Operating Industries, Inc. (OII)

Superfund site. This cash-out settlement between EPA,

the State of California, and 30 companies will provide

$18.7 million for ongoing operable unit cleanup actions

and other response costs at this 190-acre landfill near

Los Angeles. The decree provides for reduced

settlement payments and/or installments for a number

of parties with documented financial difficulties. Some

settling parties were required to pay premiums for their

failure to participate in prior settlements. Two of the

settlors also paid penalties for their failure to

adequately comply with a Unilateral administrative

order.

U.S. v. United Heckathorn (Richmond, California): 

In July of 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia

Wilkin entered four consent decrees worth

approximately $10,000,000 between EPA and all

implementation of all remedial actions at the site by

PRPs and substantial recovery of EPA's past costs. As

the PRPs had spent more in litigation costs than the
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-69 May 1997

REGION X

CLEAN AIR ACT

United States v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical

Corporation (Spokane, WA): A consent decree with

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation was

entered January 16, 1996, in the U.S. District Court for

the Eastern District of Washington to resolve alleged

opacity violations at the company’s Trentwood Works

Facility in Spokane, Washington. Kaiser agreed to pay

a civil penalty of $500,000 and to complete a program

of plant improvements and operational changes to

achieve and maintain compliance with the opacity

standards contained in the Washington State

Implementation Plan. These projects include

installation of an emission control system and

continuous opacity monitors on the furnace stacks. The

initial capital costs for these projects will exceed $10

million.

United States v. Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company

(Kenai, AK): A consent decree with Tesoro Alaska

Petroleum Company was entered June 4, 1996, to

resolve numerous alleged violations of the NSPS

regulations at Tesoro’s petroleum refinery in Kenai,

Alaska. Tesoro agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1.3

million and to implement a supplemental

environmental project. The SEP will reduce VOC

emissions from the facility by about 139 tons per year.

CERCLA

Hanford (Hanford, Washington): The State of

Washington, EPA and the Department of Energy--the

three parties to the Hanford Federal Facility agreement

and consent order--agreed to establish a single

regulator for each cleanup activity and milestone. This

apparently is the first order modified to incorporate the

concept of a “single regulator at federal facility sites, ”

the Superfund reform announced by Administrator

Browner in October 1995.

King Salmon Airport (Alaska): USAF King Salmon

3 Party agreement -- EPA Region X has negotiated an

agreement with the Alaska Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEC) and the USAF to

establish a framework for carrying out the selected

interim remedial action at the site according to

CERCLA. EPA’s role is to provide technical

assistance and consultation to the USAF and ADEC in

carrying out the agreement. EPA does not have a direct

enforcement role in this agreement. King Salmon

Airport was a barrel, metal and wood disposal area. 

Contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water and

sediments with PCB, TCE, Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead

and Mercury are present. Remedial action requires that

a cap be designed and installed, along with

groundwater monitoring. This agreement is unique in

that the facility would be cleaned up using CERCLA

protocol as the Governor of Alaska would not agree to

putting this facility on the NPL. The Regional

Administrator is set to sign this agreement on

November 13, 1996.

Port Hadlock Detachment (Hadlock, Washington):

On July 16, 1996 an interagency agreement between

EPA Region X, the U.S. Navy and the State of

Washington was reached in addressing remedial

actions to be conducted at the Naval Ordnance Center

Pacific Division, Port Hadlock Detachment, Hadlock,

Washington. This agreement is significant since it

provides the lead for regulatory oversight to the State of

Washington. The agreement also has unique CERCLA

109 penalty provision and dispute resolution.

Tulalip Landfill (Marysville, Washington): 186

PRPs signed a de minimis administrative order on

consent to settle as minor contributors at the Tulalip

Landfill Superfund site. These de minimis settlors

agreed to pay $8 million towards total estimated

response costs of $40 million, including paying a 100%

premium on future costs. Region X also filed its initial

brief on behalf of the United States in the Tulalip

Landfill SRA Allocation Project. The brief is the first

filed by EPA in the SRA Allocation Pilot and was

closely coordinated with DOJ, EPA Headquarters and

the Tulalip Tribes. 

United States v. Western Processing (Kent,

Washington): We received a favorable ruling in the

Western Processing Superfund litigation on the issue of

the recoverability of oversight costs. The court rejected

defendants’ request to follow the reasoning of the Third

Circuit in Rohm and Haas. This is the first case in the

Western District of Washington to address this issue.

CLEAN WATER ACT

Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Platforms (Cook Inlet,

Alaska): Marathon, Shell and Unocal agreed to pay a

combined penalty of $212,500 for allegedly

discharging pollutants in excess of the limits of their
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-70

NPDES permits for 18 offshore oil and gas platforms sell half its herd in order to allow more flexibility in

in Cook Inlet, Alaska. managing waste accumulations.

Esplin Dairy (Nehalem Bay Oregon): Esplin Dairy Port Townsend Paper Corporation (Port

allegedly discharged approximately 900,000 pounds Townsend,Washington): Port Townsend Paper

per year of animal waste to a slough discharging to Corporation, a Washington pulp and paper company,

Nehalem Bay, Oregon. In response to an EPA order, paid an administrative penalty of $5,000 for allegedly

the dairy set up a system to keep manure from violating EPA’s Facility Response Plan (FRP)

contaminating clean water and installed a 10,000 regulations, This the first case in the nation assessing a

gallon tank to collect wastewater before pumping it to penalty for FRP violations. The new regulations,

larger containment facilities. The wastewater is high in authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, require oil

fecal coliform bacteria, BOD, TSS and nutrients. facilities that pose a greater significant risk to the

Four Brothers Dairy (Shoshone, Idaho): For the

alleged unpermitted discharge of an estimated 561,000

gallons of wastewater from its Shoshone, Idaho, dairy

to a canal draining to the Snake River, the Four Veerman Dairy (St. Paul, Oregon): Veeman Dairy

Brothers Dairy paid a penalty of $7,350. EPA paid a $1,000 penalty for allegedly discharging 52 to

measured fecal coliform levels as high as 180,000 78 million gallons of wastewater to navigable waters

colonies/100 ml in the wastewater in the canal. flowing into the Willamette River, Oregon. In response

Gienger Farms, Inc. (Tillamook Bay, Oregon):

Gienger Farms allegedly discharged approximately 1.3

million gallons of manure laden wastewater to drainage

ditches flowing into Tillamook Bay, Oregon, without a

permit. In response to an EPA administrative

complaint, the farm paid a $20,000 penalty and

modified its operations to separate clean water from

contaminated material, thereby extending the holding

capacity of its wastewater storage lagoon from two to

57 days. In addition, the facility began monitoring and

managing its land application practices, thus preventing

the discharge of wastewater containing about 6,435

pounds of BOD and TSS to waters of the U.S.

Ketchikan Pulp Company (Ketchikan, Alaska): We

received a favorable ruling from the administrative law

judge on the permit-as-a-shield defense in this Clean

Water Act administrative enforcement proceeding. 

The Region had alleged that a large cooking acid spill

and a multimillion gallon flocculent release were

unpermitted discharges. Ketchikan Pulp Company

(KPC) argued that these discharges were lawful so long

as the mill’s total discharge complied with the permit’s

end-of-pipe effluent limits. The judge held that the

discharges were illegal because KPC’s permit did not

specifically authorize them and because KPC’s permit

application did not disclose the types of discharges that

occurred.

Misty Meadow Dairy (Tillamook, Oregon): For the

alleged unpermitted discharge of about 685,000

pounds of manure per year to navigable waters flowing

into Tillamook Bay, Oregon, Misty Meadow Dairy

agreed to pay a $6,000 fine. The dairy is expected to

environment, based on their storage capacity and

proximity to sensitive ecosystems, to prepare FRPs and

to submit them to EPA for approval.

to a separate compliance order, the dairy will repair

and maintain its wastewater storage ponds to eliminate

future discharges.

EPCRA

American Cabinet Concepts, Inc. (Longview,

Washington): American Cabinet Concepts, Inc., of

Longview, Washington, agreed to pay a penalty of

$6,577 and to install a Dowmar Solvent Still, valued at

$5,214, to reduce its use of xylene.

Bullseye Glass Company (Portland, Oregon):

Bullseye Glass Company of Portland, Oregon, agreed

to pay a penalty of $5,060 and to investigate and

implement ways to reduce the amount of lead used in

its manufacturing process. The project value was

$21,124.

James River Corporation (Camas, Washington):

James River Corporation of Camas, Washington,

agreed to pay a $12,750 penalty and to spend $47,650

to install two hot water parts washers to replace

existing solvent-based washers, thus eliminating its

annual use of about 34,840 pounds of solvent.

Tillamook County Creamery (Tillamook, Oregon):

Tillamook County Creamery, Oregon, agreed to pay a

$21,683 penalty and to spend $97,332 for fencing to

keep livestock away from waterways discharging to

Tillamook Bay .

RCRA

Cook Inlet Pipeline (Drift River, Alaska): Cook Inlet

Pipeline Company in Alaska signed a RCRA
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-71 May 1997

administrative order on consent agreeing to pay a civil

penalty of $344,000 for the unpermitted storage of

benzene waste in six surface impoundments. As part of

the settlement, the facility agreed to investigate other

releases of contamination at their facility.

Shemya Air Force Base (Shemya, Alaska): For

alleged RCRA violations involving the illegal storage

of hazardous waste, Shemya Air Force Base (now

Eareckson Air Force Base) in Alaska agreed to a

penalty of $270,000. Up to $150,000 will be offset by

the costs of construction of a hazardous waste transfer

facility.

TSCA

Roseburg Forest Products (Riddle, Oregon):

Roseburg Forest Products, Riddle, Oregon, agreed to

pay a $2,287 penalty and to spend at least $24,000 to

remove and dispose of two large PCB transformers and

to encapsulate PCBs at its facility.

Tanana Power Company (Tanana, Alaska): Tanana

Power Company in Alaska agreed to pay $5,500 and to

spend $36,000 for the early removal and disposal of

PCB electrical equipment.

U.S. Oil & Refining (Tacoma, Washington): U.S.

Oil & Refining, Tacoma, Washington, agreed to pay a

$18,360 penalty and to spend $200,000 to install a

crude unit gas recovery compressor to reduce the

volume of emissions from the burning of natural gas.

City of Wrangell (Wrangell, Alaska): The City of

Wrangell, Alaska, agreed to pay a penalty of $1,359

and to spend $2,258 to remove and properly dispose of

three large high voltage capacitors containing 257

pounds of PCBs.

MULTIMEDIA

V-1 Oil (Reston, Idaho): Region X issued a unilateral

administrative order to V-1 Oil Company in Preston,

Idaho, under the combined authority of CWA §§ 311©

and (e) and RCRA § 7003, requiring cleanup of oil

discharged to groundwater from underground storage

tanks. This was the Region's first cleanup order issued

under the oil spill cleanup authorities of the Clean

Water Act. This authority has been exercised in only a

few instances in other regions. The order was

prompted by recent reports of explosive levels of

petroleum vapors accumulating in residences near the

facility.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-72

OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT

Clean Air Act

U.S v. Georgia-Pacific: The largest Clean Air Act

enforcement action that EPA has undertaken to date

was against the Georgia-Pacific Corporation, which

will spend more than $35 million in injunctive relief,

penalties and supplemental projects to settle allegations

that it illegally poured tons of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) annually into the air at its wood

product factories in eight southeastern states. The

federal government alleged that the company failed to

obtain permits before modifying 18 of its wood

processing facilities, failed to accurately report the

amount of VOCs that it emitted into the air, and

neglected to install pollution control technology at 11

of its facilities. VOCs produce ozone, a component in

ground-level smog, which can cause breathing United States v. District of Columbia (Blue Plains

problems, reduced resistance to colds and other Litigation): On August 6, 1996, a Federal District

infections, and speed up aging of lung tissue, especially Court approved and entered a judicial settlement

for the young, the elderly, and people with respiratory agreement requiring the District of Columbia to

problems. It also causes damage to plant life by upgrade the Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant to

reducing crop yields and impeding plant growth. prevent illegal discharges into the Potomac River. 

The settlement affects more facilities than any other Commonwealth of Virginia, which favored a broader

case ever brought under the Clean Air Act, which is settlement. The agreement settles allegations that the

designed to ensure that air quality does not deteriorate District of Columbia failed to operate and maintain the

in areas of the country that have been deemed to have treatment facility in accordance with a permit issued by

clean air. Georgia-Pacific will spend $25 million EPA, in violation of the Clean Water. In 1995, EPA

installing “state of the art” pollution control technology inspected the plant and found that conditions at the

at the 11 facilities, pay a $6 million civil fine to the facility were deteriorating. Large amounts of user

U.S. Treasury, spend another $4.25 million on charge revenues collected by the District of Columbia

beneficial environmental projects in the southeast, and were not being made available to pay for the cost of

conduct comprehensive clean air audits at all its wood operating and maintaining the treatment plant.

product plants. The settlement will reduce ozoneforming emissions from these plants by at least 90 Under the agreement, the District of Columbia (1) will

percent, which translates into 10 million pounds of take steps to improve the way it operates and maintains

harmful air pollution per year. the facility (including the dedication of user charges to

U.S. v. General Motors: The General Motors

Corporation will spend more than $45 million to settle

government charges that it put illegal devices to defeat

pollution controls inside nearly 500,000 Cadillacs since

1991 that resulted in carbon monoxide emissions of up

to three times the legal limit -- a total of approximately

100,000 tons of excess carbon monoxide pollution.

Carbon monoxide can cause cardio-pulmonary

problems, headache, and impaired vision. The case is

the largest ever brought under the Clean Air Act for

cars and truck emissions, and the first judicial auto

recall to curb damage to the environment.

The settlement resolved federal allegations that GM

sold vehicles that did not meet the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, tampered with certain 1991-2 model

year Cadillacs, and failed to describe the use of

emission control devices to EPA. GM will pay an $11

million fine, spend more than $25 million to recall and

retrofit more than 550,000 polluting vehicles, and

spend more than $7 million on environmental projects

in areas with serious air quality problems in California,

Arizona, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and

New Hampshire. When the vehicle recall is completed,

at least 120,000 fewer tons of carbon monoxide will be

emitted into the air over the next five years.

Clean Water Act

Entry of the agreement was opposed by the

Blue Plains), (2) will launch a $20 million effort to

upgrade the facility’s water treatment equipment, and

(3) will ensure that the plant does not discharge high

concentrations of chemical pollutants and harmful

microorganisms into the Potomac River. Excess

discharges of ammonia, nitrogen, chlorine and certain

microorganisms can significantly damage aquatic life. 

Inadequately treated sewage can increase the health

risks for people who use the river for recreational uses

like boating, fishing and swimming. The District Court

found that “the terms of the agreement contribute to the

restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical,

and biological integrity of the nation’s water.” 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-73 May 1997

United States and State of Montana v. Pegasus Gold

Corp. And Zortman Mining, Inc. and Gros Ventre

Tribe, Assiniboine Tribe, Ft. Belknap Community

Council, and Island Mountain Protectors

Association v. Zortman Mining, Inc. Consolidated Beaumont matter ruled that such actions are barred,

Settlement: The Zortman and Landusky mines have even here where the State’s enforcement response was

produced between 110,000 and 113,000 ounces of severely inadequate. The ALJ ruled that EPA can file

gold per year between 1979 and 1995. The gold is such actions only where the delegated State fails to act. 

produced from low grade ore (0.010-0.040 ounces gold Although EPA only overfiles in rare circumstances, it is

per ton of ore) by cyanide heap leaching operations. important to have the authority to overfile when, for

This process produces between 400,000 to 900,000 example, the terms of a State-negotiated consent decree

ounces per year of silver as a by-product. For at least fail to protect human health and the environment

five years, Pegasus and Zortman discharged low pH, because the provisions for injunctive relief are nonmetal-laden (toxic) mine drainage, process water existent or insufficient.

(containing cyanide, nitrates, and heavy metals), and

other wastewaters without NPDES permits. Water

quality was significantly impacted by the acid mine

drainage from the facilities (pH has declined to 2.8

from 7.8), high levels of sulfate (4,090 mg/l), iron and

arsenic were found. A civil judicial action was filed

against Zortman and Pegasus on December 19, 1994.

A consent agreement settling this action was lodged on

July 23, 1996. Under the terms of that agreement, the

defendants may only discharge mine wastewater in

accordance with interim effluent limitations contained

in the decree, the Storm Management Plan contained in

the decree, the compliance plan or any legally

enforceable Montana NPDES permit. Additionally, the

defendants will conduct a ground water investigation to

determine the nature and extent of ground water

contamination and compliance with Montana’s ground

water quality standards. Whole effluent toxicity testing

will be used to monitor compliance. Defendants will

also pay a civil penalty of $2 million to be split

between the U.S. and the State, as well as perform

several supplement environmental projects valued at

approximately $1.5 million. In addition, the Tribes will

receive a cash settlement of $1 million, in partial

settlement of their aboriginal water rights claim.

The company will fund an investigation of the pathways

and possible impacts of environmental contaminants on

residents of the Ft. Belknap Reservation, particularly

children; fund a 3 year investigation of the general

health of aquatic resources on the abutting portions of

the Ft. Belknap Reservation; and make improvements

to the water supply systems of the communities of the

White Crow/Hays/Mission Housing community. This

is the largest total settlement to date for a Clean Water

Act violations in Region VIII.

 

RCRA

Harmon Electronics/Beaumont: In these

consolidated cases, EPA filed RCRA administrative

enforcement actions where the delegated States had

brought enforcement actions for some of the same

violations -- a practice referred to as “overfiling.” An

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the Region III

The EAB consolidated the Beaumont case with the

Region VII Harmon Electronics matter because both

involve issues regarding the potential limits on EPA’s

overfiling authority. The specific issues before the

EAB were: (1) whether res judicata or collateral

estoppel preclude EPA from overfiling a RCRA

administrative action when a State already has

adjudicated the same violations under its own

authorized program; (2) whether Harmon should

qualify for penalty adjustments under EPA's 1995

Audit Policy; and (3) whether Harmon's violations are

"continuing" for statute of limitations purposes and, if

so, whether the action is nevertheless barred by 28

U.S.C. § 2462 because the alleged claims first accrued

more than five years before the Region commenced its

action. At oral argument on May 1, 1996, EPA argued

that res judicata or collateral estoppel do not preclude

these actions, that the Audit Policy is intended for use

only in settlement and not in litigation (but that Harmon

failed to meet the terms of the policy anyway), and that

Harmon’s active conduct in operating a hazardous

waste land disposal facility without a permit is not

barred by the statute of limitations. A decision by the

EAB is pending.

United States and the State of Louisiana v. Marine

Shale Processors, Inc. et al.: This nationally

significant enforcement action came to a conclusion on

April 18, 1996, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

5th Circuit handed a decision strongly in favor of the

governments. MSP had appealed the August 30, 1994

order by the United States District Court for the

Western District of Louisiana which assessed an $8

million penalty against the company for violations of

the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and RCRA storage

requirements and Region VI’s denial of MSP’s

Industrial Furnace permit application. The Fifth

Circuit upheld EPA’s denial of MSP’s permit

application and vacated and remanded the United

States District Court for the Western District of

Louisiana’s ruling that the certain material processed
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-74

separately at the MSP facility produced a “product” 12(a)(1)(c), for the distribution or sale of a registered

that is not a hazardous waste under RCRA. The Fifth pesticide the composition of which differed from the

Circuit also reversed the District Court and held that composition as described in the statement required in

MSP lacked interim status to store RCRA hazardous connection with its registration under FIFRA section 3. 

wastes, and ruled that the federal government may The Agency registers pesticides based upon the

enforce MSP’s CAA permit. Finally, the Fifth Circuit accurate assessment of components used in the

upheld $4 million assessment of penalties but reversed manufacture of the product. Use of an unapproved

and remanded some of the District Court’s penalty formula can lead to production of a pesticide for which

decisions for reconsideration. no assessment of risk has been determined or result in

On June 21, 1996, EPA notified MSP that its permit negotiations, and in accordance with the FIFRA

had been denied and that any possible authority they Enforcement Response Policy , the original penalty of

may have had to operate was terminated. The company $330,000 was reduced to $118,800, based on a 20%

was ordered to cease accepting all hazardous waste; reduction to the gravity level, a 40% reduction for

burn or send off-site any hazardous waste stored at the immediate self-disclosure, mitigation, and corrective

site within two weeks; and submit a closure plan to actions, and a 15% reduction for good attitude,

EPA which would provide for closure of all hazardous cooperation, and efforts to comply with FIFRA. 

waste management units at the facility and require

removal of all ash from the facility and MSP’s sister

corporation, Recycling Park Inc. After six years of

litigation, the unpermitted incinerator operated by

Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (MSP) of Amelia,

Louisiana was shut down. Once one of the largest

burners of hazardous waste in the United States, the

facility can no longer receive or burn hazardous waste. 

The closure was the result of a determined enforcement

action brought by the United States and the State of

Louisiana to protect the citizens of South Louisiana and

ensure the integrity of the RCRA permitting program

established by Congress.

FIFRA

Pfizer/AgrEvo: Reporting of unreasonable adverse agreed to perform a voluntary TSCA audit at 28

effects information is required under FIFRA section facilities under conditions specified in the consent

6(a)(2), and failure to submit such reports has resulted agreement. 

in a $192,000 settlement involving AgrEvo

Environmental Health, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc. The case The purpose of the PMN and import certification

arose in early 1994 after an individual reported requirements is to allow EPA to assess the potential

disabling neurological symptoms and chemical health and environmental impacts of chemicals before

sensitivity after using RID products to kill lice. The they enter into commerce. The SEP will serve to lessen

ensuing EPA investigation revealed numerous public health risks, and the inclusion of an auditing

additional unreported incidents involving RID which is obligation in settling a complaint for past violations

manufactured by AgrEvo and distributed by Pfizer. (not subject to this future voluntary audit) would

EPA amended the complaint charging 24 counts promote the goal of the final audit policy "to enhance

against each company. FIFRA §6(a)(2) requires protection of human health and the environment by

pesticide registrants to submit to EPA any additional encouraging regulated entities to voluntarily discover, 

information (beyond that submitted in the pesticide disclose and correct violations of environmental

registration process) that they have regarding requirements."

unreasonable adverse effects of their pesticides on

human health or the environment. The information is

used by the Agency in the determination of risks

associated with pesticides.

Rohm and Haas Company: This complaint cited

Rohm and Haas for 66 violations under FIFRA section

unknown synergistic effects. Following settlement

TSCA

Elf Atochem North America, Inc.: An administrative

complaint, dated June 21, 1994 was issued to

respondent, Elf Atochem North America, Inc. alleging

reporting violations of Sections 5, 8, and 13 of TSCA. 

The adjusted total proposed civil penalty in the

complaint was $489,000 since the respondent

voluntarily disclosed the violations to EPA. The

parties engaged in extensive negotiations which

resulted in a consent agreement in which respondent

agreed to pay a civil penalty in the sum of $291,900, 

and to perform a pollution prevention Supplemental

Environmental Project (SEP), estimated to cost the

respondent more than $1,000,000. The company has
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-75 May 1997

CRIMINAL

United States v. John P. Sochocky dba A’Quality

Environmental Services (Eastern District of

Pennsylvania): John P. Sochocky; an owner, operator,

and project manager of A’Quality Environmental

Services of Hammonton, New Jersey, was sentenced to

6 months incarceration and 3 years of probation for

violating federal law and regulations for the safe

removal and disposal of asbestos. In the process,

workers removing the asbestos and children who lived

near the site of the illegal removal and disposal were

exposed to airborne asbestos fibers. Prolonged

exposure and inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause

cancer and asbestosis, a lung disease which can lead to United States v. Mark O. Henry, et al.(District of

breathing difficulty and death. The criminal offenses New Hampshire): Mark O. Henry, director and

began in May 1992, when Sochocky entered into a treasurer of Beede Waste Oil of Plaistow, New

contract with Consolidated Rail Corporation Hampshire, was sentenced to 37 months incarceration

(CONRAIL) to remove asbestos from a gantry next to a followed by two years of supervised release for a

grain elevator located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. February 22, 1996 jury trial conviction on two counts

Workers were exposed when asbestos was removed of wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud, and one count

from pipes inside the gantry without adequately wetting of conspiracy to violate the Resource Conservation and

it to prevent the asbestos fibers from becoming Recovery Act (RCRA) arising from shipping soil

airborne. During the removal, 500 bags of asbestos contaminated with hazardous waste to an unpermitted

material were abandoned by the defendant from June disposal facility. A co-defendant, Robert LaFlamme,

1992 through early 1993. EPA discovered the asbestos who was Beede’s manager, pleaded guilty to

violations following a citizen complaint. conspiracy to violate RCRA and was sentenced to

Neighborhood children became exposed after they twelve months in prison and twelve months of

entered the unsecured gantry area through an open gate supervised release. Henry and LaFlamme had devised

and dropped bags of asbestos through holes in the floor a scheme to defraud approximately 75 companies and

of the grain elevator to watch them splatter as they hit individuals who were trying to comply with

the ground. Conrail has since cleaned up and razed the environmental laws concerning the disposal of

site. This case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal hazardous wastes. The two defendants accepted

Investigation Division and the Philadelphia approximately 28,000 tons of soil contaminated with

Environmental Crimes Task Force. hazardous waste claiming that it would be transported

United States v. Arizona Chemical Co., Inc. 

(Southern District of Mississippi): The Arizona

Chemical Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of

International Paper Company which operates chemical

manufacturing plants in Gulfport and Picayune,

Mississippi, plead guilty and was fined $2.5 million

and ordered to pay $1.5 million in restitution to the

Pollution Emergency Fund of the Mississippi

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for

felony violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

Arizona Chemical admitted to two felony counts of

violating the CWA at its Gulfport plant. The violations

occurred as a result of manipulating the plant’s

wastewater treatment system on sampling days so that United States v. Richard Hub, et al. (District of

it could report more favorable results under the plant’s Kansas): Richard Hub of Tulsa, Oklahoma was

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

permit. The manipulation was accomplished by diluting

the wastewater stream and/or reducing the flow of

wastewater prior to and during sampling. The

company also admitted to one felony RCRA count

involving the Picayune plant which had accumulated

and stored a number of drums containing hazardous

waste and had intentionally mischaracterized some of

the drums as “cleaning oil” on inventory sheets. The

case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation

Division, the FBI, and MDEQ.

to Beede Waste Oil and recycled into asphalt. Henry

and LaFlamme knew that this hazardous waste would

not be recycled and that Beede Waste Oil could not

accept more than 3,000 tons of contaminated soil

according to its New Hampshire storage permit. Beede

Waste Oil received $1 million as a result of this

recycling fraud. The State of New Hampshire has, to

date, spent approximately $1 million and the federal

government has spent $100,000 on clean up efforts at

the Beede site. Several large piles of soil contaminated

with hazardous waste, in addition to hundreds of drums

and storage tanks containing hazardous waste remain at

the site. The case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal

Investigation Division.
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-76

sentenced to three years in federal prison and ordered

to pay $50,000 in restitution for willfully injecting

hazardous liquid waste into a disposal well in

Coffeyville, Kansas, without a license from the Kansas

Corporation Commission between September 1991

and January 24, 1992. Hub’s company, Bio-Clean (also

known as Genesis Industries and Oil Recovery

Technology) operated a waste storage and disposal

facility at the OK Oil site in Coffeyville. Hub injected

the waste into a disposal well that was not classified to

accept hazardous waste. The case was investigated by

EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division with the

assistance of the Kansas Corporation Commission.

United States v. Bruce R. Burrell (Southern District

of Florida): Bruce R. Burrell was sentenced in Miami,

FL to one year in prison (with credit for time served) a

fine of $75,000, and required to pay excise taxes owed

to the United States for conspiracy, violation of the

Clean Air Act, and tax evasion with a respect to a

scheme to illegally import the ozone-destroying

substance CFC-12, an outlawed refrigerant gas

commonly known by the trade name “freon.” Burrell

previously pleaded guilty in U. S. District Court in

Miami to conspiring to import over 19,000 thirtypound cylinders (approximately 288 tons) of CFC-12.

Casey Raja, a co-defendant, was previously sentenced

to one year in prison and $100,000 in fines in April

1996. Both men are liable for the unpaid taxes which,

with a 75% fraud penalty and other fines from the

Internal Revenue Service, could amount to $6,000,000. 

Beginning in April, 1993, Burrell, Casey Raja, and

other co-conspirators illegally imported freon into the

United States through various ports and sold it

domestically as if it had been legally imported and as if

excise taxes had been paid. The sales were made

through corporations established under fictitious

identities or the identities of people not involved in the

conspiracy. Proceeds of the sales were laundered

through bank accounts in South Florida established

under fictitious names or the names of nominee

corporations, and were also transferred to offshore

accounts as part of the laundering process. Defendants

in this case attempted to obstruct justice by trying to

persuade witnesses to lie to investigators, commit

perjury before the grand jury and alter or destroy

subpoenaed documents. Burrell was previously

extradited from Costa Rica on June 12, 1996, where he

had been imprisoned since December of 1995, after

being arrested by the Costa Rican government

subsequent to his indictment in the United States. This

is one of 19 CFC smuggling cases investigated by EPA

in cooperation with other federal government agencies

in FY 1996.

United States v. Robert Cyphers (District of Oregon):

Robert Cyphers, former owner of UST Environmental

Services, pled guilty and was sentenced to 30 months

of imprisonment for multiple counts of making false

statements. Cyphers’ company performed removal of

leaking underground storage tanks and remediation of

contaminated soil and groundwater. Cyphers submitted

over one thousand fictitious documents to the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality concerning

laboratory analysis reports regarding soil and water

taken from the contaminated sites. The analyses were

never conducted. 

United States v. Bunker Group, et. al. (District of

Puerto Rico): Pedro Rivera, General Manager of

Bunker Group Puerto Rico, and three corporate

defendants, Bunker Group Puerto Rico, Bunker Group

Incorporated, and New England Marine Services were

convicted on felony and misdemeanor charges in

Federal Court for their roles in the January 7, 1994

spill of more than 750,000 gallons of oil in the waters

off of Puerto Rico’s Escambron Beach. Mr. Rivera

was sentenced to spend six months in a half-way house;

serve two years of supervised release, the first six

months of which will be in home confinement; pay a

$10,000 fine, and perform 120 hours of community

service. Each of the three corporations was assessed a

$25 million fine, all of which are currently on appeal. 

Prior to the spill the beach was in pristine condition

and was an important source of tourist revenue. The

spill occurred when the barge Morris J. Berman, which

was carrying nearly 35,000 barrels of number 6 fuel oil

broke loose from the tugboat Emily S after an

improperly repaired tow cable broke while all but one

of the crew were asleep. Capt. Roy A McMichael, Jr.,

who was in command of the Emily S, testified. Both he

and First Mate Victor Martinez, who was supposed to

be on watch that night previously pled guilty to

violations of the Clean Water Act. The three

corporations belong to the Frank’s family of

corporations whose assets were placed under court

supervision on April 6, 1994 by the federal courts. 

These convictions were the result of close cooperation

between agents of the EPA Criminal Investigation

Division, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the FBI. 

United States v. James J. Wilson (District of

Maryland): James J. Wilson, Chairman of the Board

of Interstate General, a publicly-traded real estate

development company was sentenced in U.S. District

Court, in Greenbelt, Maryland to a fine of $1 million

and 21 months imprisonment for illegal filling of

wetlands in Charles County, Maryland. In addition,

fines of $3 million were imposed on two companies

that took part in the development of the land where the

wetlands were filled. Wilson was ordered to pay the
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-77 May 1997

personal fine of $1 million within six months. In Army Corps of Engineers, the FBI, the U.S.

addition, Interstate General Company, L.P. (IGC), Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory

which is involved primarily in real estate development Commission, the U.S. Department of Transportation,

in Puerto Rico, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.,was the New York State Public Service Commission, and

fined $2 million. The second company, St. Charles the New York Department of Environmental

Associates, L.P. (SCA), which is a closely related Conservation, with the assistance of EPA’s National

partnership that owned the land where the crimes Enforcement Investigations Center.

occurred, was fined $1 million. Both corporate fines

are to be paid within two years. IGC and SCA were

also placed on probation for a period of five years and

were ordered to implement a wetlands restoration plan. 

In addition to paying the fine during the probationary

period, IGC and SCA must also comply with other

terms of probation, including developing an effective

environmental compliance plan to prevent future

violations of the law and implementing the wetland

remediation plan. EPA’s Criminal Investigation

Division was the lead investigative agency on the case,

with assistance from the Federal Bureau of

Investigation. 

United States v. Iroquois Pipeline Operating Co., manufacturing equipment. In July 1992, state

Inc., et. al.(Northern District of New York): The inspectors discovered over 600 drums of waste-paint

Iroquois Pipeline Operating Company and four of its related materials at one of KTC’s plants. Many drums

top officials pled guilty to knowingly violating a were rusty, leaking, or open, and contained ignitable

number of environmental and safety provisions of its materials. Federal and state law prevents the storage of

construction permit while constructing a natural gas hazardous waste for more than 90 days. The wastes 

pipeline from Ontario, Canada to Long Island, New contained a variety of hazardous chemicals including

York. The total settlement paid by the company xylene, ethyl benzene, and toluene. The case was

amounted to $22 million in fines and penalties. One of investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division,

the felony counts to which the company pleaded guilty EPA’s National Enforcement Investigations Center, the

involved its failure to cleanup or otherwise restore 188 FBI, and the State of Kentucky Cabinet for Natural

streams or wetlands. After the company learned that it Resources and Environmental Protection.

was the subject of a criminal investigation, it went back

and began to restore a number of those affected streams

and wetlands. The company also pleaded guilty to

failing to construct safety devices called “trench

breakers” at regular intervals along the pipeline ditch

and at the edge of wetlands. These devices control soil

erosion and prevent weakening of the pipeline by

stopping water from migrating along the pipeline,

especially when the terrain slopes. The failure to install

them could have washed out the soil which holds the

pipeline securely in place. Under the terms of the plea,

the company will clean up 30 streams and wetlands and

pay $22 million in fines and penalties, $2.5 million of

which will be used to create additional wetlands. In

addition, due to its criminal admissions, the company

will be unable to pass on to consumers, in the form of

higher rates, another $20 million directly or indirectly

related to the construction of the pipeline. Early in FY was convicted of directing his employees to transport

1997, four additional former employees of Iroiquois and illegally dispose of the drums at Winter Auto

were indicted for alleged felony violations of the Clean Salvage, a business in Winter, Wisconsin, during 1990

Water Act as part of the ongoing investigation of the and 1992. Upon his release, Kelly must pay restitution

construction of the pipeline. This case was investigated to the owner of Winter Salvage for damage done at the

by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, the U.S. site due to the illegal waste disposal. The case was the

United States v. Kelley Technical Coatings, Inc., et 

al. (Western District of Kentucky): Arthur Sumner of

Memphis, Indiana, Vice President in Charge of

Manufacturing for Kelley Technical Coatings, Inc.

(KTC) of Louisville, Kentucky was sentenced to 21

months in prison, 2 years of supervised release, and

ordered to pay a $5,000 fine for the illegal storage and

disposal of hazardous wastes in violation of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. KTC is a

manufacturer of swimming pool paints and industrial

coatings. Sumner and KTC were found guilty by a jury

of storing and illegally disposing chemical wastes

which were used as solvents to clean paint

United States v. Leo G. Kelly (Western District of

Wisconsin): Leo G. Kelly was sentenced to four

concurrent terms of 41 months imprisonment and was

required to pay $6,242.85 in restitution as a result of a

conviction by a federal jury on four counts of violating

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

Kelly, who operated companies under the names of

Environmental Waste and Material Systems, Inc.,

Environmental Services, and Central Testing Services,

was in the business of removing underground

petroleum storage tanks, disposing of the waste

materials from those tanks, and conducting site

remediation. He was convicted of unlawfully

transporting and disposing of seventeen 55-gallon

drums containing hazardous wastes including, benzene,

lead, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. Kelly
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-78

result of a joint investigation conducted by EPA’s treasury. The company is also required to replace all

Criminal Investigation Division and Wisconsin’s defective rocker washers supplied to the TVA. 

Department of Natural Resources with the assistance of Midwest Alloys has also entered into a site remediation

EPA’s National Enforcement Investigations Center. cleanup plan agreement with EPA Region VII. The

United States v. Marman U.S.A, Inc., and Robert

Renes (Middle District of Florida): In a case relating

to the regulation of pesticide exports, Marman U.S.A.,

Inc. of Tampa, Florida was fined $350,000 and placed

on probation for two years, and Robert Renes, United States v. John Morrell and Co. (District of

Marman’s Vice President was fined $150,000 and South Dakota): Timothy J. Sinskey and Wayne

placed on probation for three years for their Kumm were convicted by a jury of polluting the Big

involvement in a scheme to forge EPA seals on false Sioux River in Sioux Falls, South Dakota by illegally

certificates of registration for pesticides which they discharging slaughterhouse waste from a meatpacking

sold abroad. EPA gold seals indicate that a document plant owned by John Morrell and Company, and for

is an official EPA document and many foreign participating in an eight-year long conspiracy, which

countries require such proof of EPA registration before included falsifying reports to the EPA. Sinskey was a

a pesticide can be imported to their nations from the Morrell Senior Vice President and until 1992, he was

United States. Marman U.S.A. used the forged seals to the head of Morrell’s Sioux Falls Division. He was

export pesticides to sixteen Central and South convicted in a Sioux Falls U. S. District Court, after a

American countries. The case was investigated by three week trial, of 12 felony counts of violating the

EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division. Clean Water Act (CWA) and of conspiracy. Kumm,

United States v. Midwest Alloys Foundry, et al.

(Eastern District of Missouri): Midwest Alloys

Foundry of O’Fallon, Missouri, and Vern Kneib, its

plant manager, pleaded guilty in St. Louis, Missouri, to

multiple felony and misdemeanor charges involving

environmental violations, violations of immigration

laws, and providing false statements to the government. 

Midwest Alloys pleaded guilty to one felony count of

illegally disposing of hazardous waste, one felony count

of violating the Clean Water Act, one misdemeanor

count of a pattern and practice of hiring unauthorized

aliens for employment, one felony count of making a

false statement to a material fact in a document

required by immigration laws, and one felony count of

willfully providing a false statement to the Tennessee

Valley Authority (TVA). The offenses which Midwest

Alloys pleaded to involved ordering employees to

dump hazardous waste on company property, during

which an employee was injured; the unpermitted

discharge of cooling water into Buleau creek in 1995;

the false reporting of alloys used in the composition of

rocker washers produced for the TVA; knowingly

engaging in the hiring of unauthorized aliens; and

knowingly providing false statements in reference to

the hiring of unauthorized aliens. Kneib admitted to

directing employees to dump two drums of hazardous

waste, and he also admitted to engaging in the practice

of hiring unauthorized aliens. Midwest Alloys has

agreed to pay fines and restitution totaling $150,000. 

Of that amount, $9,000 will go the federal Immigration

and Naturalization Service; $25,000 will go to the

TVA; $100,000 will go to the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources; and $16,000 will go to the federal

case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation

Division and the Immigration and Naturalization

Service with the support of EPA’s National

Enforcement Investigations Center. 

who was the Morrell Plant Engineer at Sioux Falls, 

was convicted of one felony count of violating the

CWA. The jury found that Sinskey deliberately

falsified monthly reports submitted to the EPA

regarding wastewater discharges from the Morrell plant

into the Big Sioux River in order to cover noncompliance with the plant’s discharge permit. Kumm

was convicted of intentionally using an inaccurate

monitoring method to help conceal the company’s

violations. Evidence also established that Kumm tried

to prevent the resignation of the assistant manager of

the company’s waste water treatment plant, Barry M.

Milbauer, by suggesting that Milbauer’s cooperation in

the conspiracy could lead to a promotion in the

company’s environmental program. Milbauer resigned

despite this suggestion. These latest convictions follow

the guilty pleas by the Morrell Company to six counts

of dumping slaughterhouse waste into the Big Sioux

River. The company pled guilty to a number of illegal

acts including: failing to disclose that it had committed

more than 100 permit violations; knowingly submitting

false reports to the EPA; deliberately rigging sampling

tests to get desired results; concealing violations; and

deliberately refusing to expend funds necessary to

correct the problems and bring the plant into

compliance. The Morrell Company was sentenced to

pay a $2 million criminal fine and pay $1 million to

establish a local environmental cleanup fund. In

addition, Ronald E. Greenwood and Barry M.

Milbauer, the former manager and assistant manager of

Morrell’s on-site wastewater treatment plant,

previously pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the

CWA. Greenwood and Milbauer testified at this trial

that between 1990 and 1992 defendants Sinskey and
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-79 May 1997

Kumm directed them to falsify discharge monitoring manufactured by seven different companies. Nowak

reports and lab records. This prosecution resulted from said he falsified the data because he suspected that the

an investigation done by EPA’s Criminal Investigation true test results would have caused these models to fail

Division with support from EPA’s National the stringent air emission standards imposed by the

Enforcement Investigation Center. State of Washington on stoves sold within that state. 

United States v. Larry Vaughan (Southern District of

California): Larry Vaughan, the co-owner of Chino

Corona Farms, Inc., a company that had contracted

with the City of San Diego to haul and process 120,000

tons of sewage sludge each year from the Point Loma

Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant, was

sentenced to six months confinement in a halfway

house, five years probation, and a $50,000 fine for

violating the Clean Water Act by improperly disposing

of the sludge. Vaughan pleaded guilty in April 1996 in

San Diego to a federal felony charge for illegally 

dumping sludge at an unapproved site. Management of

the San Diego sewage sludge is regulated by San

Diego’s CWA permit which required that sludge

disposal meet State of California water quality

standards. Originally, the City’s sludge was to be taken

to the Torres-Martinez Indian Reservation, an

environmental justice community, where it was to be

composted and used as fertilizer. However, Vaughan United States v. Ray F. McCune and Bruce L. Jones

and co-owner and co-defendant, Gordon Cooper, (District of Utah): Ray F. McCune, president and

engaged in a scheme to defraud the City by falsely owner of Reclaim Barrel Supply Company, Inc. and

billing the city and by not processing the sludge. The Allstate Container, Inc., pled guilty in U.S. District

fraud resulted in several million dollars in false invoice Court in Salt Lake City, Utah, to two felony counts of

claims to the City. In addition, the huge untreated violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

sludge pile on tribal land, estimated in size at over (RCRA) for illegally storing hazardous wastes at

200,000 tons, resulted in a major community nuisance facilities owned by his companies in West Jordan,

for tribal residents and was locally named “Mount San Utah. McCune operated Reclaim Barrel Supply

Diego.” When the defendants could no longer pile the Company from 1988 to 1992. He later abandoned that

sludge on the tribal lands, it was hauled to Mexico as facility and opened another barrel reconditioning

well as to an unapproved location in Imperial County, facility, Allstate Container, leaving behind thousands of

California. Gordon Cooper and the corporation were drums at the Reclaim Barrel site. Many of the drums

indicted for their role in this unlawful activity and are left at Reclaim Barrel contained hazardous wastes. 

awaiting trial. The investigation which led to this This action by McCune led to the initiation of a clean

successful prosecution of this environmental justice up action at the site by the EPA Region VIII

case was conducted by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Emergency Response Section. Allstate Container, Inc.

Division and the FBI. was opened in July 1992, and Ray F. McCune again

United States v. William Nowak (District of

Washington): William Nowak former owner and

manager of a wood-burning stove certification

laboratory in Kent, Washington, was sentenced to three

years probation and 240 hours of community service as

a result of being convicted on one felony count of

submitting fraudulent data to the EPA. From

December 1992 through December 1994, Nowak’s

laboratory, Energy and Environmental Systems

Performance Corp., performed certification tests, as

required by the Clean Air Act, on at least 21 models of United States v. Ray Phipps, et al. (Western District

wood-burning stoves. Of the 21, Nowak admitted to of Texas): River City Plating Co. (River City) in San

having falsified the laboratory test data on 10 models Antonio, Texas, Ray H. Phipps, owner of River City ,

Falsified test reports were provided to the EPA which

relied on the inaccurate data to grant federal

certification to the ten stove models. Once certified,

these stoves became available to the public and have

been sold nationwide. Certification is required to

demonstrate that stoves do not produce levels of 

airborne particulate matter high enough to cause

respiratory illnesses. As of September 27, 1996,

approximately 53,000 invalidly certified stoves were in

the marketplace. All of the wood stove model lines

falsely certified by Nowak have either been retested

and meet the federal standard, withdrawn from the

marketplace, or have been out of production and will

not be required to be retested. Only two models, the

Quadra Fire 4300 and the Lopi Freedom, meet 

Washington State standards, which are more stringent

than the federal standards. This case was investigated

by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division.

stored hazardous waste at the site in violation of

RCRA. In April 1994, sampling conducted under a

search warrant indicated that 297 drums of hazardous

waste were being illegally stored at Allstate Container. 

Bruce L. Jones, plant manager of Reclaim Barrel and

Allstate Container, pled guilty to one felony count of

illegal storage of hazardous wastes. This case was

investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division

with support from EPA’s National Enforcement

Investigations Center. 
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-80

his son Russell Phipps, and employee Keith Krupalla which are toxic to human beings, fish, and wildlife, had

were sentenced for felony violations of various federal been dumped at Rudd’s direction on October 10, 1994

laws. River City Plating Co. and the other defendants at an STI facility in Smith County, and on a ranch. In

discharged hazardous wastes into the city sewer addition, the investigation conducted by the joint

system in San Antonio, Texas. River City was a federal-state Texas Environmental Task Force

general plating business which electroplated a variety uncovered three other sites in Tarrant and Smith

of objects including automobile parts, bumpers, Counties where Rudd had illegally disposed of

silverware, trays, and pots. Ray Phipps and the other hazardous paint wastes. As part of the plea agreement

defendants admitted that they discharged waste metals Rudd will be personally responsible for the costs of

including nickel, chromium, copper and zinc into the environmental clean up at all five sites. In addition, he

San Antonio sewer system from 1988 to 1994. The faces up to three years in prison and a fine of up to

elder Phipps admitted that he had informed the City of $250,000. The agreement also calls for Rudd to

San Antonio Water System that River City Plating was provide $250,000 to a trust fund for the East Texas

a “zero discharger”, meaning River City claimed that it Ecological Center which is a project of the Texas Parks

discharged no industrial wastes into the sewer system. and Wildlife Department. This case was the result of a

As a result of the sentencing, Ray Phipps was barred joint investigation by EPA’s Criminal Investigation

from the plating business for life. In addition, he was Division, the FBI, and the Texas Natural Resource

also sentenced to serve fifteen months in federal prison, Conservation Commission with the assistance of EPA’s

one year supervised release, and a $5,000 fine as a National Enforcement Investigations Center. 

result of his guilty plea to one count of violating the

federal Clean Water Act. Co-defendant River City,

which also previously pled guilty to one count of

violating the Clean Water Act, was sentenced to pay a

$100,000 fine and received five years probation. 

Phipps” son, Russell Phipps, another co-defendant, had

previously pled guilty to misprision of a felony for Act and other federal statutes with respect to its

failing to inform the government of felony violations of operation of the Summitville Gold Mine in

the Clean Water Act by River City. He was sentenced Southwestern Colorado from 1984 to 1992. The

to three years of probation, 40 hours of community violations include one count of conspiracy, four counts

service, and a $500 fine. A third co-defendant, Keith of making false statements, five counts of failing to

Krupalla, previously pled guilty to one felony count of

perjury for making false statements in front of a federal

grand jury. He was sentenced to twelve months in jail

and three years supervised release. The case was

investigated by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division

and the Texas Natural Resources Conservation

Commission’s Special Investigations Division with the

assistance of the Texas Environmental Task Force. 

The case was investigated by the joint federal/state

Texas Environmental Task Force which includes

representatives from EPA’s Criminal Investigation

Division, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission’s Special Investigations Division, the San

Antonio Water System, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office

in San Antonio. 

United States v. Thomas R. Rudd (Northern District

of Texas): Thomas R. Rudd, president of Striping

Technology, Inc.(STI)-one of the largest pavement,

road and highway striping contracting businesses in

Texas, pled guilty to one felony count of violating the

Clean Water Act by ordering employees to dump

hazardous paint wastes and other pollutants into pits

dug into groundwater which flows into a tributary of

Black Fork Creek near Tyler, Texas. The wastes

containing toluene, methyl ethyl ketone and waste lead,

United States v. Summitville Consolidated Mining

Co., Inc. (District of Colorado): The Summitville

Consolidated Mining Company, Inc. (“Summitville”)

was sentenced to pay $20 million in fines based on its

guilty plea to 40 counts of violating the Clean Water

report under the Water Pollution Control Act (also

known as the Clean Water Act), and thirty counts of

knowingly violating the Clean Water Act by making

unauthorized discharges to waters of the United States.

Because of the company’s bankruptcy and the fact that

the majority of the company’s remaining assets will go

toward the costs of cleaning up the Summitville Mine,

it is likely that Summitville will only be able to pay part

of the fine. Also named in prior indictments and

charged with multiple felony counts are Samye N.

Buckner, Summitville’s general manager from March

1988 to January 1991, and Tom S Chisholm, the

company’s environmental manager from August 1988

to September 1991. The trial date of these individuals

is pending. The plea agreement does not limit the

government’s options with respect to taking

administrative or civil actions. The case was

investigated by the EPA’s Criminal Investigation

Division, EPA’s National Enforcement Investigations

Center, and the FBI.

United States v. Don Budd, et al. (Eastern District of

Texas): Don Budd of Nederland, Texas, was

convicted by a jury on one felony count of conspiring

to mail and three felony counts of mailing false reports

concerning pollution discharges to the City of
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-81 May 1997

Nederland and several companies in Southeastern

Texas. Budd, who was owner and President of Texas

Environmental Services, Inc. (TES), in Nederland,

Texas, falsely claimed that TES was following EPA

approved methods when reporting test results which

were used by the City of Nederland and the companies

to satisfy requirements of their National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System permits and Water

Quality permits from the EPA and the State of Texas.

The case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal

Investigation Division and other federal, state and local

members of the Texas Environmental Enforcement

Task Force with the assistance of EPA’s National

Enforcement Investigations Center.

United States v. Pacific and Arctic Pipelines, Inc., et of Environmental Quality estimated that approximately

al. (District of Alaska): Two Alaska corporations, 40,000 fish were killed in an eight-mile stretch of Cow

Pacific and Arctic Pipelines, Inc. (PAPI) and Pacific Creek and Union Flat Creek in the state of Idaho as a

and Arctic Railway and Navigation Company (PARN), result of the rinse water release. The terms of the plea

were sentenced in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, agreement indicate that the corporation will pay the

Alaska, to pay $1.5 million in fines and restitution costs $25,000.00 maximum fine allowed. This case was

and were placed on five years probation for criminal investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division.

violations of the Clean Water Act which occurred when

they caused a break in an oil pipeline and a subsequent

discharge of oil into the Skagway River. The two

companies also were sentenced to 5 years probation

and agreed to clean up several contaminated sites along

the historic White Pass Alaska railroad route. PARN

owns the White Pass and Yukon Route railroad that

originally ran from Skagway to Whitehorse, Yukon

Territories, Canada. PAPI owns a petroleum pipeline

that parallels the railroad right of way. The spill

occurred as a result of PARN’s illegal removal of 

rock from U.S. Forest Service land adjacent to the

pipeline six miles from Skagway. On October 1, 1994,

a piece of construction equipment struck the pipeline,

causing a 14-inch crack. The high pressure pipeline

immediately began spewing oil, and the oil ran down an

embankment into the Skagway River. PAPI was

convicted and sentenced for negligently discharging oil

into the Skagway River following the pipeline break,

failing to report the discharge in violation of the Clean

Water Act (CWA), and making false statements to U.

S. Coast Guard (USCG) investigators about the spill. 

PARN was previously convicted and sentenced for

theft of rock from U.S. Forest Service land adjacent to

the railroad, and for the illegal transportation of

hazardous waste into Canada. PARN paid $146,280

in fines and restitution for the rock and for illegally

using the railroad to transport the hazardous waste

which was dumped and burned in Canada in 1995. 

The case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal

Investigation Division, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the

FBI. 

United States v. Wilbur-Ellis, et al. (District of

Idaho): The Wilbur-Ellis Company, Inc., a fertilizer

and pesticide distribution corporation that operates on a

national and international scale, agreed to plead guilty

to a one-count federal information filed in Boise, Idaho,

charging that the company negligently violated the

Clean Water Act (CWA) when it released rinse water

that killed an estimated 40,000 fish in Idaho streams. 

The charge states that on March 19, 1992, managers of

the Wilbur-Ellis facility in Genesee, Idaho, released an

unknown quantity of fertilizer and pesticide rinse water

from a rinse water collection tank into a tributary of

Cow Creek. The Company did not have a CWA 

permit to release the rinse water. The Idaho

Department of Fish and Game and the Idaho Division
FY 1996 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

May 1997 B-82