FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

DRAFT i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................. 1-1

2.0 REINVENTING A STRONG NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND 

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAM......................................... 2-1

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM................................. 2-1

2.2 MULTIMEDIA ENFORCEMENT.............................................. 2-4

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE................................................ 2-7

2.4 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS............................................ 2-10

2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS............................. 2-12

2.6 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION..................................... 2-15

2.7 FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES ............. 2-16

2.8 OTHER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES........ 2-18

2.8.1 Redelegation .................................................... 2-18

2.8.2 Task Forces and Work Groups...................................... 2-19

2.8.3 Training and Guidance............................................ 2-19

2.8.4 Initiatives....................................................... 2-20

2.8.5 Regulations, Rulemaking, Policy, and Interpretive Guidance.............. 2-21

2.8.6 Native American Affairs........................................... 2-22

2.8.7 International Activities............................................ 2-23

3.0 REGIONAL AND STATE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE AND 

ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES................................................... 3-1

3.1 MULTIMEDIA ENFORCEMENT.............................................. 3-1

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE................................................ 3-4

3.3 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS............................................. 3-6

3.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS............................. 3-10

3.5 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS................................................. 3-12

3.6 FEDERAL FACILITIES..................................................... 3-13

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PENALTIES................ 4-1

4.1 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT................................................. 4-2

4.2 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT..................................................... 4-4

4.3 CIVIL/REFERRALS......................................................... 4-8

4.4 CERCLA ENFORCEMENT................................................... 4-8

4.4.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution...................................... 4-9

4.5 EPA CONTRACTOR LISTING.............................................. 4-10
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

ii DRAFT

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Types of Supplemental Environmental Projects in Case Settlements ................... 3-11

Table 4-1. Number of New Investigations Opened and Referrals to DOJ by EPA's 

Criminal Enforcement Program in FY 94......................................... 4-4

Table 4-2. Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area............................. 4-5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1. EPA Civil Penalties and Criminal Fines.......................................... 4-2

Figure 4-2. Office of Criminal Enforcement................................................ 4-3

Figure 4-3. Number of Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area .................... 4-6

Figure 4-4. Total Penalties Assessed in Administrative Penalty Orders 

(by Statute/Program Area)................................................. 4-6

Figure 4-5. Number of Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area .......................... 4-7

Figure 4-6. Total Amount of Civil Judicial Penalties (by Statute/Program Area)................... 4-7
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

REGION I ........................................................................... A-1

CLEAN AIR ACT.............................................................. A-1

U.S. v. D'Addario Industries, Inc., et al. (D. Conn.) ................................ A-1

In re Syncor International Corporation ......................................... A-1

CLEAN WATER ACT.......................................................... A-1

U.S. v. L.S. Starrett Company (D. Mass.)......................................... A-1

RCRA ........................................................................ A-1

Allegro Microsystems, Inc..................................................... A-1

In re Massachusetts Highway Department....................................... A-1

U.S. v. Hanlin Group, Inc. (D. Maine)........................................... A-1

In re Hamilton-Standard ..................................................... A-2

In re Upjohn Company ....................................................... A-2

TSCA ........................................................................ A-2

U.S. v. New Waterbury, Ltd. (D. Conn.).......................................... A-2

In re City of Boston, Boston City Hospital ....................................... A-2

EPCRA ....................................................................... A-2

In re Wyman-Gordon, Inc. .................................................... A-2

CERCLA ..................................................................... A-3

U.S. v. O.K. Tool Company, et al. (D. N.H.) ...................................... A-3

U.S. v. Conductron Corporation, et al. (D. N.H.).................................. A-3

U.S. v. William Davis, et al. (D. R.I.)............................................ A-3

U.S. v. DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, et al. (D. Mass.) ............................... A-3

REGION II........................................................................... A-4

CLEAN AIR ACT.............................................................. A-4

In re Ronzoni Foods Corporation .............................................. A-4

U.S. v. Amelia Associates and Joey's Excavating, Inc. (D. N.J.) ...................... A-4

U.S. v. 179 South Street (D. N.J.)............................................... A-4

CLEAN WATER ACT.......................................................... A-4

U.S. v. PRASA .............................................................. A-4

U.S. v. City of Hoboken (D. N.J.) ............................................... A-4

In re Cheeseborough Ponds Manufacturing Corp.................................. A-4

SDWA ....................................................................... A-5

U.S. v. Kennemuth (d/b/a Moose Oil) (W.D. N.Y.)................................. A-5

U.S. v. Wasson & Regis (W.D., N.Y.)............................................ A-5

In re PRASA................................................................ A-5

U.S. v. Melvin Blum.......................................................... A-5

RCRA ........................................................................ A-5

U.S. v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. N.Y.)............................................. A-5

In the Matter of Redound Industries, Inc. d/b/a Interflo Technologies and Liqui-Mark, et al. A-6

U.S. v. BCF Corp. (E.D. N.Y.) ................................................. A-6

In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company.................................... A-6

In the Matter of PPG Industries, Inc............................................. A-6

In re Westchester County, New York, Sportsmen's Center........................... A-6

In the Matter of Gaseteria Oil Corp............................................. A-6
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-ii

TSCA ........................................................................ A-7

In the Matter of DIC Americas, Inc.............................................. A-7

In the Matter of SUNY-New Paltz............................................... A-7

In the Matter of Cray Valley Products, Inc........................................ A-7

In the Matter of Eastman Kodak Co............................................. A-7

In the Matter of Sharp Electronics Corporation................................... A-7

In the Matter of General Electric Company...................................... A-8

In the Matter of Presbyterian Homes of New Jersey Foundation...................... A-8

U.S. v. State of New York Department of Transportation (N.D. N.Y.).................. A-8

In the Matter of New York State Department of Mental Health....................... A-8

In re Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico..................................... A-8

In re Edgewater Associates ................................................... A-8

TSCA §8 Inventory Update Enforcement Initiative................................. A-9

In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation........................................ A-9

In the Matter of OCG Microelectronics Materials, Inc.............................. A-9

EPCRA ....................................................................... A-9

In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. ............................................... A-9

In the Matter of Agway Petroleum Corporation................................... A-9

In the Matter of Rich Products Corp............................................. A-9

In the Matter of NTU Circuits, Inc. ............................................. A-9

In the Matter of R&F Alloy Wires, Inc.......................................... A-10

In the Matter of Silverton Marine Corporation .................................. A-10

In re Rexon Technology Corp. ................................................ A-10

In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. ............................................ A-10

Cataño EPCRA Enforcement Settlements........................................ A-10

In the Matter of National Can Puerto Rico, Inc................................... A-10

In the Matter of Petroleum Chemical Corp...................................... A-11

In re Hess Oil Virgin Islands ................................................. A-11

In re Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc....................................... A-11

In the Matter of Freeman Industries, Inc........................................ A-11

In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.......................................... A-11

CERCLA .................................................................... A-12

The Lipari Site............................................................. A-12

U.S. v. CDMG Realty Co., et al. (D. N.J.) ....................................... A-12

U.S. v. Vineland Chemical Company, et al. (D. N.J.) .............................. A-12

U.S. v. The Carborundum Company, et al. (D. N.J.)............................... A-12

In the Matter of the Frontier Chemical Superfund Site............................ A-12

U.S. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp (D. N.Y.)............................................. A-13

In the Matter of Diamond Alkali Superfund Site.................................. A-13

In the Matter of Liberty Industrial Finishing Site................................. A-13

In re ENRX and Buffalo Warehousing Superfund Sites............................ A-13

In re York Oil Company Superfund Site......................................... A-13

In re A&Y Realty Corp....................................................... A-13

In re PVO International, Inc.................................................. A-14

Quanta/New Jersey Non-Complier Case Settlements............................... A-14
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-iii

In re Niagara County Refuse Superfund Site .................................... A-14

In re Muratti Environmental Site.............................................. A-14

U.S. v. Signo Trading International, Ltd., et al................................... A-14

U.S. v. Zaklama (D. N.J.) .................................................... A-15

U.S. v. Thiokol Corp. (D. N.J.) ................................................ A-15

U.S. v. Town of North Hempstead (E.D. N.Y.) ................................... A-15

In the Matter of Aero Haven Airport Site ....................................... A-15

U.S. v. Wheaton Industries, Inc. (D. N.J.) ....................................... A-15

MULTIMEDIA CASES........................................................ A-15

In the Matter of Brookhaven National Laboratories and Associated Universities, Inc. ..... A-15

In re American Cyanamid Company............................................ A-16

In re Broomer Research, Inc................................................... A-16

In re Abbott Laboratories .................................................... A-16

In re Picatinny Arsenal....................................................... A-17

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey..................................... A-17

Safety Kleen............................................................... A-17

REGION III......................................................................... A-18

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-18

Ohio Power Company (N.D. W.Va.)........................................... A-18

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (E.D. Penn.)....................................... A-18

U.S. v. Coors (D. Va.) ....................................................... A-18

Florida Marina and Boat Sales................................................ A-18

Hussey Copper............................................................. A-18

Manny, Moe, and Jack, Inc.- The Pep Boys...................................... A-18

U.S. v. Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.)....................................... A-19

U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.) ...................................... A-19

LTV (W. D. Pa)............................................................ A-19

U.S. v. Sun Company, Inc. (E.D. Penn.)......................................... A-19

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-19

U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.) ...................................... A-19

Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.)............................................. A-20

Sun Company (Pennsylvania)................................................. A-20

Ocean Builders Supply ...................................................... A-20

DELCORA (E.D. Pa) ....................................................... A-20

City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa.)................................................ A-20

Eastern Energy Investments................................................... A-21

SDWA ...................................................................... A-21

Consolidated Gas Transmission Corporation (1311)............................... A-21

Jiffy Lube (7538)........................................................... A-21

RCRA ....................................................................... A-21

Bethlehem Steel Corporation Steelton Plant...................................... A-21

Medusa Cement............................................................ A-21

U.S. v. National Rolling Mills (E.D. Penn.)...................................... A-21

Osram Sylvania Glass, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.................................. A-22
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-iv

Action Manufacturing Company, Atglen, Pennsylvania............................. A-22

Quaker State Corporation, Newell, West Virginia................................. A-22

Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation, Ravenswood, West Virginia .................... A-22

AT&T, Richmond, Virginia................................................... A-22

Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., Middletown, Delaware....................... A-22

ITT Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia............................................ A-22

TSCA ....................................................................... A-22

Allied Colloids............................................................. A-22

Bethlehem Steel Corporation.................................................. A-23

Reading Tube Corporation ................................................... A-23

Anzon, Inc................................................................. A-23

Columbia Gas ............................................................. A-23

VA Dept of Emergency Services............................................... A-23

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-23

T.L. Diamond, Spelter, West Virginia........................................... A-23

Premium Beverage Packers, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania............................ A-23

Steel Processing, Inc., Pottstown, Pennsylvania................................... A-24

Messer Greisheim Industries, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania....................... A-24

Diversey Corporation, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania............................. A-24

Homer Laughlin China....................................................... A-24

Action Manufacturing....................................................... A-24

FIFRA ...................................................................... A-24

DuPont ................................................................... A-24

CERCLA .................................................................... A-24

Columbia Gas ............................................................. A-24

Greenwood Chemical........................................................ A-25

Recticon/Allied Steel Site.................................................... A-25

Sackville Mills Company..................................................... A-25

United Chemical Technologies................................................ A-25

U.S. v. Lord Corporation (W.D. Penn.)......................................... A-25

U.S. v. Chromatex (3rd Cir.) .................................................. A-25

REGION IV......................................................................... A-26

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-26

U.S. v. Rohm and Haas, Inc. (W.D. Ky.) ........................................ A-26

U.S. v. Olin Corporation (E.D. Tenn.).......................................... A-26

U.S .v. Crown, Cork & Seal, Inc. (N.D. Miss.) ................................... A-26

CLEAN WATER ACT/SDWA................................................... A-26

U.S. v. Metro-Dade County, et al............................................... A-26

United States v. IMC-Agrico Company (M.D. Florida)............................. A-27

U.S. v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D. Kentucky) ........................... A-27

In the Matter of Manatee County, FL:........................................... A-27

In the Matter of IMC-Fertilizer, Bartow FL...................................... A-27

In the Matter of Jacksonville Beach, FL......................................... A-27

Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Initiative......................................... A-28
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-v

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. Polk County............................ A-28

United States v. City of Port St. Joe, Florida; et al................................ A-28

RCRA ....................................................................... A-29

Holnam, Inc................................................................ A-29

Arizona Chemical Company.................................................. A-29

Giant Cement Company...................................................... A-29

Todhunter International, Inc., d/b/a Florida Distillers............................... A-29

U.S. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (N.D. Ala.)........................................ A-29

Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. .................................... A-29

Florida Department of Transportation........................................... A-30

TSCA ....................................................................... A-30

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company/Tenneco, Inc................................... A-30

General Electric Company.................................................... A-30

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-30

Gro-Tec, Inc. .............................................................. A-30

Everwood Treatment Company, Inc............................................. A-31

North American Royalties, Inc., d/b/a Wheland Foundry............................ A-31

Ashland Petroleum Company................................................. A-31

FIFRA ...................................................................... A-31

Courtaulds Coatings, Inc. .................................................... A-31

CERCLA .................................................................... A-31

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation............................................ A-31

Parramore Fertilizer Site in Tifton, Georgia...................................... A-32

Distler Farm and Distler Brickyard Superfund Sites in Kentucky..................... A-32

Jadco/Hughes Site, Gaston County, North Carolina................................ A-32

T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. Site in Albany, Georgia........................... A-32

Helena Chemical Company for Fairfax, South Carolina Site......................... A-32

Rochester Property Site in Travelers Rest, South Carolina.......................... A-32

Jones Tire and Battery Site in Birmingham, Alabama.............................. A-33

Townsend Saw Chain Superfund Site in Pontiac, Richland County, North Carolina ....... A-33

Yellow Water Road Superfund Site, Baldwin, Duval County, Florida .................. A-33

Smith's Farm Site in Bullitt County, Kentucky.................................... A-33

Cedartown Battery Superfund Site in Polk County, Georgia......................... A-33

Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Byhalia, Mississippi ........................... A-33

The City of Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia.................................... A-34

Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site, Cabarrus County, Concord, North CarolinaA-34

Stoller Chemical Company Site in Jericho, South Carolina.......................... A-34

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Site in Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia .............. A-34

Woolfolk Chemical Works NPL Site, Fort Valley, Georgia .......................... A-35

Hercules 009 Landfill Site, Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia...................... A-35

U.S. v. Otto Skipper (E.D., N.C.) .............................................. A-35

National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site in Kentucky .......................... A-35

Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site (Prairie, Mississippi) ..................... A-35

REGION V ......................................................................... A-36
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-vi

REGION V's CONTEMPT INITIATIVE........................................... A-36

Anthony Chambers (Midland, MI)............................................. A-36

Big D Campground/Rodebaughs (Ashtabula, OH)................................. A-36

Petoskey Site (Petoskey, MI).................................................. A-36

Copperweld Steel (Mahoning, OH)............................................. A-36

Midwestern Drum Services (Venice, IL)......................................... A-36

Silvertone Plating Company (Ypsilanti, MI)...................................... A-37

GTE North (Belvedere, IL)................................................... A-37

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Burns Harbor, IN).................................. A-37

ILLINOIS CASES............................................................. A-37

OHIO CASE ................................................................. A-37

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-37

B&W Investment Properties, Inc., and Louis Wolf................................ A-37

New Boston Coke Corp. (S.D. Ohio)........................................... A-38

U.S. v. Consolidated Papers, Inc. (Wisconsin Rapids, WI).......................... A-38

Monitor Sugar Co. (E.D. Mich.)............................................... A-38

Stern Enterprises, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio/Eastern

Division) .............................................................. A-38

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-39

LTV Steel (East Chicago, IN)................................................. A-39

JMB Urban Development Company (Columbus, OH).............................. A-39

City of Middletown (OH).................................................... A-39

Wayne County-Wyandotte (MI) Wastewater Treatment Plant ........................ A-39

IBP, Inc. (Joslin, IL)......................................................... A-39

Appleton Papers (Appleton, WI)............................................... A-40

Commonwealth Edison Company, Inc. (Chicago, IL) ............................... A-40

MULTIMEDIA CASES........................................................ A-40

Taracorp Industries (Granite City, IL)........................................... A-40

Glidden Company (Strongsville, OH)........................................... A-40

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-40

Vie De France (Bensenville, IL)............................................... A-40

HRR Enterprises, Inc. (Chicago, IL)............................................ A-41

Shell Oil Company's Wood River Manufacturing Complex (Roxana, IL) ............... A-41

Consumers Power Co. (West Olive, MI)......................................... A-41

Karmazin Products Corp. (Wyandotte, MI)...................................... A-41

TSCA ....................................................................... A-42

University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, IL).................................... A-42

Wayne State University (Detroit, MI)........................................... A-42

U.S. Graphite, Inc. (Saginaw, MI).............................................. A-42

RCRA/UST .................................................................. A-42

BASF Corp. North Works (Wyandotte, MI)...................................... A-42

Hilton Davis Co. (Cincinnati, OH)............................................. A-42

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Cleveland, OH) ...................... A-43

Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Saint Paul, MN)....................................... A-43

U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (7th Cir. 1994) .................................... A-43
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-vii

U.S. v. Ekco Housewares, Inc. (Massillon, Ohio) ................................. A-43

U.S. v. Laclede Steel Company................................................ A-43

City of Columbus, Ohio and the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio............... A-43

SDWA ...................................................................... A-44

Total Petroleum (Alma, MI).................................................. A-44

George Perry (Oceana County, MI)............................................. A-44

JPT Petroleum Production Corp. (Gibson County, IN)............................. A-44

Gahanna Water Department (Gahanna, OH)..................................... A-44

CERCLA .................................................................... A-44

Circle Smelting (Beckmeyer, IL)............................................... A-44

Core Craft (Northern Township, MN).......................................... A-45

Kerr-McGee Site (Chicago, IL)................................................ A-45

Lockhart Construction (Akron, OH)............................................ A-45

National Presto (Eau Claire, WI)............................................... A-45

Olin Corporation (Ashtabula, OH)............................................. A-45

Wedzeb (Lebanon, IN)....................................................... A-46

Jackson Drop Forge (Jackson, MI)............................................. A-46

Spickler Landfill Site (Marathon County, WI).................................... A-46

REGION VI......................................................................... A-47

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-47

U.S. v. Enpro Contractors, Inc.; Train Property, Inc.; and Jimmy Patton Contractor, Inc. (E.D.

Ark.) ................................................................. A-47

In the Matter of Herd Enterprises, d/b/a Broward Factory Service................... A-47

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-47

U.S. v. City of Kenner and the State of Louisiana (E.D. La.)........................ A-47

U.S. v. City of Bossier City, and the State of Louisiana (W.D. La.)................... A-47

U.S. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company (E.D. Tex.)......................... A-47

Vulcan Chemical........................................................... A-47

In the Matter of Albert Kramer III d/b/a Kramer Development Corporation........... A-48

Citgo Pipeline Company..................................................... A-48

Hamner Inc. ............................................................... A-48

Jayhawk Pipeline Corporation................................................. A-48

Petrolite Corporation........................................................ A-48

Red River Entertainment Group............................................... A-48

RCRA ....................................................................... A-48

In the Matter of Micro Chemical Company...................................... A-48

In the Matter of Dow Chemical ............................................... A-49

In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management................................... A-49

In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management................................... A-49

In the Matter of Texas Industries.............................................. A-49

In the Matter of Aristech..................................................... A-49

In the Matter of Rexene...................................................... A-49

In the Matter of Chapparal Steel .............................................. A-49

In the Matter of Hydrocarbon Recyclers, Inc..................................... A-50
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-viii

In the Matter of REM TEX ................................................... A-50

In the Matter of Jeep Collins ................................................. A-50

In the Matter of Ranco ...................................................... A-50

In the Matter of Citgo Refining ............................................... A-50

In the Matter of Aquaness Chemical ........................................... A-50

In the Matter of Helena Chemical ............................................. A-50

In the Matter of Helena Chemical ............................................. A-51

U.S. v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (W.D. La.)................................. A-51

TSCA ....................................................................... A-51

In the Matter of Asarco, Amarillo, Texas........................................ A-51

Central Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas.......................... A-51

CERCLA .................................................................... A-51

U.S. v. David Bowen Wallace, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Bio-Ecology Systems Superfund Site, Dallas

County, Texas.......................................................... A-51

U.S. v. American National Petroleum Company, et al. (W.D. La.) Gulf Coast Vacuum Superfund Site,

Abbeville, Louisiana, and Gulf Coast Vacuum Services Superfund Site, Vermillion Parish,

Louisiana ............................................................. A-52

U.S. v. City of Jacksonville, Arkansas (E.D. Ark.) Jacksonville Municipal Landfill, Lonoke

County, Arkansas, and Rogers Road Municipal Landfill, Pulaski County, Arkansas . . A-52

U.S. v. Gulf States Utilities Company (S.D Tex.) Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site, Harris

County, Texas.......................................................... A-52

U.S. v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, et al., Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, et al. (E.D. Ark.). In the Matter of Hercules Inc.,

Uniroyal Chemical Ltd., and Vertac Chemical Corporation (Administrative) Vertac Superfund

Site, Jacksonville, Arkansas............................................... A-53

In the Matter of Amerada Hess Corporation, et al., PAB Oil Superfund Site, Abbeville, Louisiana

..................................................................... A-53

In the Matter of Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc., Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill Superfund

Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ........................................... A-53

In the Matter of Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa/Lavaca Bay Superfund Site, Point Comfort,

Texas ................................................................. A-53

In the Matter of National Zinc Site, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Salomon, Inc., Cyprus Amax Minerals

Company, and Kerramerican, Inc., National Zinc Company Superfund Site, Bartlesville,

Oklahoma ............................................................. A-54

Marco of Iota .............................................................. A-54

Pab Oil ................................................................... A-54

South 8th Street ............................................................ A-54

B.P. Chemical ............................................................. A-54

Miles Inc.................................................................. A-54

REGION VII......................................................................... A-56

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-56

U.S. v. Archer Daniels Midland (S.D. Ia.) ....................................... A-56

U.S. v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc. (W.D. Mo.)................................... A-56

In the Matter of Holnam, Inc.................................................. A-56
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-ix

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-56

In the Matter of the Boeing Company .......................................... A-56

U.S. v. Beech Aircraft Corporation (D. Kan.) .................................... A-56

RCRA ....................................................................... A-57

In the Matter of Burlington Northern Railroad .................................. A-57

In the Matter of The Dexter Company.......................................... A-57

In the Matter of Missouri Highway Transportation Department ...................... A-57

In the Matter of Iowa Army Ammunition Plant................................... A-57

In the Matter of G.E. Company................................................ A-57

In the Matter of Cuba Paint Company........................................... A-58

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-58

In the Matter of Kaw Valley, Inc............................................... A-58

In the Matter of The Iowa Packing Company.................................... A-58

CERCLA .................................................................... A-58

U.S. v. Chemical Waste Management of Kansas, Inc. (D. Kan.)..................... A-58

U.S. v. TIC Investment Corp., et al. (N.D. Ia.).................................... A-58

In the Matter of the Big River Mine Tailings Site................................. A-59

In the Matter of Lee Chemical Co. Superfund Site, Liberty, Missouri................. A-59

U.S. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, Inc. (D. Neb.) ........................ A-59

In the Matter of Renner Road Shooting Park .................................... A-59

U.S. v. City of Clinton, Iowa (S.D. Ia.).......................................... A-59

U.S. v. Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., et al. (D. Kan.) ............................ A-60

REGION VIII ....................................................................... A-61

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-61

Sinclair Oil Corporation .................................................... A-61

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-61

Dirt Merchant Construction/Sandra Tarr....................................... A-61

Lucas Western (Jamestown, North Dakota)...................................... A-61

Farmers Union Central Exchange COOP (CENEX) (Billings, Montana).............. A-61

Burlington Northern Railroad (W.D., Wisc.) .................................... A-61

Hub City, South Dakota...................................................... A-62

City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota:............................................. A-62

Star Circuits ............................................................... A-62

SDWA ...................................................................... A-62

Town of Meeteetse, Wyoming................................................. A-62

City Oil Corporation........................................................ A-62

RCRA ....................................................................... A-63

Reclaim Barrel ............................................................ A-63

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-63

Advanced Forming Technology ............................................... A-63

Accurate Plastics (now SPM/Denver).......................................... A-63

Denver Metal Finishing Company............................................. A-63

Nephi Rubber Products...................................................... A-63

Thatcher Chemical Company................................................. A-63
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-x

FIFRA ...................................................................... A-63

Biotrol International, Inc..................................................... A-63

CERCLA .................................................................... A-64

Apache Energy and Minerals Co. (D. Colo.)..................................... A-64

Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation (D. Colo.) ................................ A-64

Clear Creek/Central City Superfund Site, Western Diversified Builders.............. A-64

Whitewood Creek .......................................................... A-64

Petrochem/Ekotek Site ...................................................... A-65

Petrochem/Ekotek .......................................................... A-65

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute.................................... A-65

North American Environmental, Inc............................................ A-65

REGION IX......................................................................... A-67

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-67

U.S. v. Shell Western E&P, Inc. (E.D. Calif.)..................................... A-67

U.S. v. TABC, Inc. (C.D. Calif.) ............................................... A-67

U.S. v. Minerec, Inc. (D. Ariz.)................................................ A-67

U.S. v. All American Pipeline Company (C.D. Calif.).............................. A-67

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-67

U.S. v. American Global Line, Inc. (N.D. Calif.).................................. A-67

U.S. v. Magma Copper Co. (D. Ariz.) .......................................... A-67

U.S. v. City and County of Honolulu (D. Haw.)................................... A-68

U.S. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Corp. (E.D. Calif.) ........................ A-68

U.S. v. Teledyne, Inc. (S.D. Calif.) ............................................. A-68

U.S. v. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (S.D. Calif.)............... A-68

RCRA ....................................................................... A-69

U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, Ltd., Estate of James Campbell, Ipsco Inc. and Cominco Ltd.

(D. Hawaii)............................................................ A-69

In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California...................... A-69

U.S v. City of Los Angeles and U.S. v. Lockheed Corporation (C.D. Calif.)............ A-69

U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, et al. (D. Haw.).................................. A-69

CERCLA .................................................................... A-69

U.S. v. Peter Gull and NL Industries, Inc. (C.D. Calif.) ............................ A-69

Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Federal Facilities Agreement .......................... A-69

U.S. v. Montana Refining Co. (9th Cir.)......................................... A-70

In the Matter of Iron Mountain Mine........................................... A-70

U.S. v. Alcatel Information Systems, Inc. (D. Arizona)............................. A-70

REGION X ......................................................................... A-71

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-71

Alyeska Pipeline Services Company and ARCO Products ........................... A-71

Norma and Frank Echevarria, d/b/a Echeco Environmental Services ................... A-71

Phillips Petroleum Company and AGI, Inc....................................... A-71

Trans-AK Environmental Services & Construction Corp., Giddings Mortgage and Investment Company,

and Neeser Construction ................................................. A-71
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-xi

U.S. v. Global Travel, Jordan-Wilcomb Construction, and Allied Construction (D. Id.). . A-71

U.S. v. Zemlicka and Davis................................................... A-71

U.S. v. Martech USA, Hobbs Industries, Chugach Electric Association, Inc............ A-72

U.S. v. Hagadone Hospitality Co. ............................................. A-72

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-72

Wesley M. Sherer........................................................... A-72

U.S. v. Steve Burnett and Dean Schrader (W.D. Wash.)............................ A-72

Kenco Marine.............................................................. A-72

City of Ocean Shores, Washington............................................. A-72

Rodger Forni .............................................................. A-72

Martin Nygaard ............................................................ A-73

Rogge Mills ............................................................... A-73

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)......................... A-73

Northlake Shipyards ........................................................ A-73

City of Tacoma ............................................................ A-73

Arctic Fisheries ............................................................ A-73

U.S. v. Stanley C. Rybachek .................................................. A-73

RCRA ....................................................................... A-73

U.S. v. Robert and Geneva Stobaugh (W.D. Wash.)............................... A-73

U.S. v. R.H. Bowles, Inc. and Central Marketing, Inc. (E.D. Wash.).................. A-74

Alaska Railroad Company.................................................... A-74

Boeing Company........................................................... A-74

U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Alaska........................................... A-74

U.S. Army, Fort Richardson.................................................. A-74

CERCLA .................................................................... A-75

Commencement Bay – South Tacoma Channel................................... A-75

Bunker Hill................................................................ A-75

FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE........................................ A-76

RCRA/FFCA ................................................................. A-76

RCRA/FFCA Penalty Order–Coast Guard, Kodiak, Alaska Facility.................. A-76

Presidio of San Francisco .................................................... A-76

Schofield Barracks.......................................................... A-76

Norfolk Naval Shipyard...................................................... A-76

Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia............................. A-76

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, Virginia ................. A-76

Fort Dix, New Jersey........................................................ A-77

U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, Puerto Rico............................ A-77

OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCMENT............................................ A-78

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-78

U.S. v. Atlantic Richfield Company and Snyder Oil Corporation (D. Wyo.)............ A-78

U.S. v. W.R. Grace Company (D. Mont.) ........................................ A-78

U.S. v. ICI International, Inc.................................................. A-78

U.S. v. JBA Motorcars, Inc. and Dr. Jacob Ben-Ari (S.D. Fla.) ...................... A-78
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-xii

U.S. v. Daniel Rosendahl (S.D. Tex.)........................................... A-78

U.S. v. Ken Ball and Phil McCreery (W.D. Mo.).................................. A-78

TSCA ....................................................................... A-78

Town of Wallingford, Connecticut............................................. A-78

Cressona Aluminum Company PCB Cleanup..................................... A-79

USS Cabot/Dedalo.......................................................... A-79

Port of New Orleans ........................................................ A-79

Sunshine Mining Company................................................... A-79

Imperial Holly Corporation................................................... A-79

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-79

General Chemical Corporation................................................ A-79

Alaska Pulp Corporation..................................................... A-80

Trail Wagons .............................................................. A-80

Northwest Castings ......................................................... A-80

FIFRA ...................................................................... A-80

Pinnacle Agricultural Technologies............................................. A-80

Accuventure, Inc.: Criminal and Civil Enforcement Coordination.................... A-80

Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc.............................................. A-80

MULTIMEDIA CASES........................................................ A-81

Allied Tube & Conduit ...................................................... A-81

U.S. v. Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant................................... A-81

U.S. v. Southern Pacific ..................................................... A-81

U.S. v. Texas Eastern (S.D., Tex.) ............................................. A-81

OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT............................................... A-82

U.S. v. Hartford Associates (D. Md.) ........................................... A-82

U.S. v. Penn Hills (W.D. Penn.) ............................................... A-82

U.S. v. Reilly .............................................................. A-82

U.S. v. Wietzenhoff ......................................................... A-82

U.S. v. Laughlin, 10 F.3rd 961 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1649 (1994)...... A-82

U.S. v. Advance Plating Works, Inc., et al. (S.D. Ind.) ............................. A-83

U.S. v. Carlo Arco and Automatic Plating Company, Inc. (D. Conn.)................. A-83

U.S. v. AT&T and Harry J. Kring (E.D. Penn.) ................................... A-83

U.S. v. Richard Vernon Bates, et al. (C.D. Calif.)................................. A-83

U.S. v. Giacomo Catucci (D. R.I.) ............................................. A-83

U.S. v. Larry A. Christopherson (E.D. Wisc.).................................... A-84

U.S. v. Craven Laboratories, Inc., et al. (W.D. Texas)............................. A-84

U.S. v. Dean Foods Company and Winfred Smith (W.D. Ky.)....................... A-84

U.S. v. Doyle Crews, (N.D. Tex.) .............................................. A-84

U.S. v. Charles A. Eidson and Sandra A. Eidson (M.D. Fla.)........................ A-84

U.S. v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al. (W.D. N.C.) .............................. A-85

U.S. v. Garlick Helicopter, Inc. (D. Mont.) ...................................... A-85

U.S. v. Gaston (D. Kan.) ..................................................... A-85

U.S. v. Hedge, (S.D. Ohio); State of Ohio v. Hedge and City Bumper Exchange, Inc., (Hamilton

County Court of Common Pleas)........................................... A-85
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-xiii

U.S. v. Hofele. (W.D. Mo.) ................................................... A-85

U.S. v. Robert H. Hopkins (D. Conn.)........................................... A-85

U.S. v. George Frederick Heidgerken (W.D. Wash.) .............................. A-85

U.S. v. Gomer's Diesel and Electric Company (D. Mont.) .......................... A-86

U.S. v. Jay Jurek (W.D. Wash.) ............................................... A-86

U.S. v. MOR, Inc. (S.D. Fla.).................................................. A-86

U.S. v. Francis Morgan, et al. (D. Haw.)........................................ A-86

U.S. v. M. Tyronne Morgan and Meydenbauer Development Corp. (E. D. Wash.)....... A-86

U.S. v. Bob Murphy, et al. (D. Nev.)............................................ A-87

U.S. v. Norwood Industries, Inc., et al. (E.D. Penn.)............................... A-87

U.S. v. OEA, Inc. (D. Colo.) .................................................. A-87

U.S. v. Palm Beach Cruises (S.D. Fla.) ......................................... A-87

U.S. v. Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd. (E.D. Wash.)..................................... A-87

U.S. v. Robert Pardi (S.D. N.Y.)............................................... A-88

U.S. v. Nicholas Pasquariello (S.D. Fla.)........................................ A-88

U.S. v. Norma Phillips, et al. (W.D. Mo.) ....................................... A-88

U.S. v. Pioneer Chemical, Inc. and Gerald Butler (D. Ky.) ......................... A-88

U.S. v. John Pizzuto (S.D. Ohio)............................................... A-89

U.S. v. Nobert Efren Pohl (D. N.M.) ........................................... A-89

U.S. v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D. Ga.)................................. A-89

U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tenn.)............................. A-89

U.S. v. William C. Reichle and Reichle, Inc. (D. Ore.) ............................. A-90

U.S. v. Reilly and Dowd (D. Del.).............................................. A-90

U.S. v. Sentco Paint Manufacturing, Inc., et. al. (N.D. Ohio)........................ A-90

U.S. v. Mark Steven Stewart, et al. (D. Ariz.) .................................... A-90

U.S. v. Thermocell S. E. Inc., Douglas Kirchofer and Sherwin T. Haskell (E.D. Tenn.)... A-90

U.S. v. Weaver Electric (D. Colo.) ............................................. A-91

U.S. v. Safety Kleen......................................................... A-91

U.S. v. Steve Weinsier (S.D. Fla.).............................................. A-91

U.S. v. Larry Kenneth West (W.D. Mich.)....................................... A-92

U.S. v. William C. Whitman and Duane C. Whitman (M.D. Fla.)..................... A-92

Harry Zucker (W. D. Pa)..................................................... A-92

U.S. v. Dale Valentine et al. (D. WY) .......................................... A-92
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

APPENDIX BSTATE CASES............................................................. B-1

ALASKA ..................................................................... B-1

Anchor Forest Products....................................................... B-1

CH2M-Hill Engineering...................................................... B-1

City of Angoon, Alaska....................................................... B-1

Construction Rigging, Inc. (CRI)............................................... B-1

Echo Bay Alaska, Inc......................................................... B-1

Enstar Natural Gas Company.................................................. B-1

Kake Tribal & Kake Tribal Logging............................................. B-2

Northland Fisheries, Inc....................................................... B-2

Ronnie C. Fisheries .......................................................... B-2

William A. Wood............................................................ B-2

COLORADO .................................................................. B-2

State of Colorado v Colorado Refining........................................... B-2

State of Colorado v Conoco.................................................... B-2

State of Colorado v The City of Ft. Morgan....................................... B-3

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA...................................................... B-3

Concerned Citizens of Brentwood, et al., v. The District of Columbia, et al. .............. B-3

D.C.Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Coastline Purchasing Corporation

...................................................................... B-3

D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Kayfirst Corporation ... B-3

D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. The U.S. General Services

Administration .......................................................... B-4

District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), Environmental

Regulation Administration (ERA) v. Respondent Mr. Jerry Schaeffer ............... B-4

FLORIDA .................................................................... B-4

Boston Chicken ............................................................. B-4

Department of Environmental Protection v. Lake County............................ B-5

Department of Environmental Protection v. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners B-5

Department of Environmental Regulation v. Cabot Corporation....................... B-5

Department of Environmental Regulation v. Pilot Properties Co. and Durham Utility Service, Inc.

...................................................................... B-5

Florida Department of Corrections.............................................. B-5

Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. NRG/Recovery Group, Inc., aka Ogden Martin

Systems of Lake, Inc...................................................... B-6

Florida Gas Transmission..................................................... B-6

Florida Gas Transmission..................................................... B-6

Hazardous Waste Consultants, Inc. and Hazardous Waste Services, Inc. ................ B-6

Kissimmee Utilities.......................................................... B-7

Master Packaging............................................................ B-7

Mur-Shel, Inc. .............................................................. B-7

Ogden Martin............................................................... B-7

Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Management ............................ B-7

Polyplastex International...................................................... B-8

R.P. Scherer Corp............................................................ B-8
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-ii

South West Florida Water Management District................................... B-8

State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. United States Naval Air

Station—Jacksonville..................................................... B-8

State of Florida v. Urbano Diaz-Devillegas; Romulo Juan Delgado; German Delgado; Darwin Mesa

and Errol Woon ......................................................... B-8

Tampa Bay Center........................................................... B-8

Trend Management .......................................................... B-8

Venture Properties........................................................... B-9

Waste Management.......................................................... B-9

GEORGIA .................................................................... B-9

Oxford Industries, Greenville, Georgia........................................... B-9

U.S. Navy Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Georgia................................... B-9

Young Refining Corp., Douglasville, Georgia..................................... B-9

IDAHO....................................................................... B-9

Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc................................................ B-9

Stibnite Mining Company.................................................... B-10

St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Boise, Idaho.............................. B-10

ILLINOIS.................................................................... B-10

Pork King Packing Company.................................................. B-10

INDIANA.................................................................... B-11

Confined Feed Lot Facilities.................................................. B-11

JPT Petroleum Production Corp................................................ B-11

State of Indiana v. James E. Nichols, State of Indiana v. Custom Finishing Corp. ....... B-11

IOWA ....................................................................... B-11

In the Matter of the City of Winterset, IA........................................ B-11

KANSAS .................................................................... B-12

In the Matter of Dawson Brothers, Inc., Wichita, KS:.............................. B-12

In the Matter of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Kansas City, KS.............. B-12

In the Matter of Sunflower Manufacturing Company, Inc., Beloit and Cawker City, KS ... B-12

MICHIGAN.................................................................. B-12

Ace Finishing, Inc........................................................... B-12

MINNESOTA ................................................................ B-13

LTV Steel Mining Co........................................................ B-13

MISSOURI................................................................... B-13

In the Matter of Barton Nelson, Inc............................................ B-13

In the Matter of International Paper Company, Joplin, MO.......................... B-13

Norfolk and Western Railway Co............................................... B-14

MONTANA.................................................................. B-14

State of Montana v Continental Lime........................................... B-14

NEBRASKA ................................................................. B-14

Ash Grove Cement Company................................................. B-14

NEW JERSEY................................................................ B-14

State of New Jersey v. Patricia Nazzaro, John Martinez, Augustine Scalzitti & Frank Scalzitti

..................................................................... B-14

NORTH CAROLINA.......................................................... B-15

Carolina Mirror Company (North Wilkesboro, NC)................................ B-15

Duke University (Durham, NC)................................................ B-15

Fawn Industries (Middlesex, NC).............................................. B-15

Greer Laboratories.......................................................... B-16
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-iii

Midway Body Shop (Winston-Salem, NC)....................................... B-16

NC DOT—Ferry Division (Manns Harbor, NC).................................. B-16

Phillips Plating Company (Bridgeton, NC)....................................... B-17

Watts Regulator Co./Regtrol (Spindale, NC)..................................... B-17

OHIO ....................................................................... B-17

Andersons Management Corp................................................. B-17

PENNSYLVANIA............................................................. B-17

ARCO Chemical Company................................................... B-17

Graphic Controls ........................................................... B-18

Keystone Cement Company................................................... B-19

Mays Properties, Inc......................................................... B-19

Performax Engine Works, Inc.................................................. B-19

U.S. Steel-Carnegie Natural Gas............................................... B-19

SOUTH CAROLINA .......................................................... B-19

Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation.......................................... B-19

Green Oasis Environmental, Inc................................................ B-20

Holnam, Inc................................................................ B-20

Shakespeare Products Group.................................................. B-20

Spartanburg Steel........................................................... B-20

ThermalKEM, Incorporated................................................... B-20

TENNESSEE................................................................. B-20

Department of Energy K-25.................................................. B-20

Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc............................................. B-21

State of Tennessee v. Flavil Ray & Robert Wallace Bradford........................ B-21

State of Tennessee v. Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc. ........................... B-21

U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation & State of Tennessee v. Recticel Foam Corporation ... B-22

Wheland Foundry Division of North American Royalties, Inc. ....................... B-22

TEXAS...................................................................... B-23

State of Texas v. Gary Giles Cocke, et al. ........................................ B-23

WASHINGTON .............................................................. B-23

Fiberglass Technologies Inc.................................................. B-23

Perfection & Letz Paint Company.............................................. B-23

United States Army Base Fort Lewis, Washington................................. B-23

WISCONSIN ................................................................. B-24

Dean Foods Vegetable Company.............................................. B-24
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In Fiscal Year 1994, under the direction of Administrator Carol Browner, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) reorganized its enforcement and compliance operations to further strengthen enforcement capability and

place increased emphasis on compliance assurance. The result of this reorganization was the Office of Enforcement

andCompliance Assurance (OECA). This newly created office now provides a single voice for national enforcement and

compliance assurance policy and direction.

OECA's national policy integrates enforcement and compliance assurance into an approach that targets

noncomplyingsectors of the regulated community, as well as sensitive ecosystems and populations. This new

enforcement and compliance approach fully supports the Federal initiative of "reinventing government," which, from

the Agency's standpoint, translates into improving environmental compliance and encouraging innovative solutions to

compliance problems.

ThisFY 1994 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report documents the steps EPA has taken

in the past year to improve environmental compliance and incorporate innovative solutions into its enforcement cases.

This document reports on EPA efforts on the national and regional levels and provides information on some of the

enforcement and compliance assurance activities undertaken by some States. It also provides national, regional, and

State enforcement highlights and includes information on the cases taken, developed, and settled by EPA and the States.

The report is structured around six Agency themes:

Multimedia approaches to environmental problems

Environmental justice

Industry-specific sectors

Supplemental environmental projects

Sensitive ecosystem protection

Federal facility environmental management.

Definitions and general information on each of these themes is presented in Section 2. As expected, not all

FY 94 enforcement and compliance assurance accomplishments can be categorized under the six themes. Significant

accomplishments outside the themes are also addressed throughout the document.

Specifically, Section 2 of the report discusses reinvention efforts underway in EPA's national enforcement

program and the role EPA (Headquarters and Regions) and the States play in that reinvention. It defines national

enforcement initiatives and highlights some of specific enforcement activities conducted throughout the year. In

addition, it provides information on enforcement and compliance assurance efforts led by the primary offices within

OECA.

Section 3 focuses on regional enforcement accomplishments and region-specific initiatives. It also discusses

the relationship between the EPA Regions and the States and highlights some of the coordinated efforts between the two

partners. It also contains State-specific activities, including initiatives, penalties, and cases.

Section 4 of the report provides overview information on the enforcement activities (e.g., civil and judicial

enforcement, referrals) and penalties sought and assessed by EPA, at both Headquarters and the regional level. This

section includes graphics and tables that display the specific numbers and amounts of actions initiated and closed

by EPA. (Note: State-specific information on these topics is included in Section 3.)
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

1-2

Finally, Appendix A to this report contains significant judicial, administrative, and criminal cases settled

in FY 94 by EPA. The cases are presented by statute (multimedia cases are first, however) in alphabetical order.

Appendix B presents the cases reported by individual States. These cases are ordered by EPA Region, that is, States

from Region I are presented first, and so on.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

1-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................. 1-1

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-1

2.0 REINVENTING A STRONG NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROGRAM

When the Agency reorganized its enforcement and compliance program and created the Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance, it realized that the changes would affect all levels of its national enforcement program,

including Headquarters, the Regions, and the States. EPA knew that the national program itself would need to undergo

"reinvention." An integral part of reinventing the national program was recognizing that EPA's traditional

enforcement tools—monitoring, administrative actions, criminal sanctions, and monetary penalties—could not, in

isolation, lead to sustained compliance in the regulated community. After detailed analysis, Agency officials

determined that EPA needed to combine compliance assistance and promotion programs with the traditional aspects of

compliance monitoring and enforcement. The heart of EPA's national enforcement program now comprises the following

components:

Compliance assistance: Activities designed to assist the regulated community and encourage voluntary

compliance with regulations

Compliance monitoring: Activities designed to provide information on the compliance status of the

regulated community

Enforcement actions: Powerful sanctions designed to compel compliance by the regulated community.

These three components, together with enhanced coordination of EPA and State actions, will lead to improved

compliance with national environmental laws. When EPA Headquarters and Regional personnel join forces with individual

States, the result is a far-reaching national program fully capable of using all available compliance tools within

each of the three components.

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

One new tool in the area of compliance assistance is recognizing and rewarding facilities that exhibit

leadership in environmental management and compliance. To this end, EPA developed the Environmental Leadership

Program (ELP). The ELP is a national pilot program with a two-fold purpose:

To recognize facilities that develop and implement innovative environmental management systems and

"beyond compliance" programs

To work with these facilities and understand their systems and programs, and then share the information

gathered with the regulated community to improve environmental management and increase compliance.

Forty proposals were submitted for the ELP volunteering to demonstrate innovative approaches to environmental

management and compliance. In April 1995, EPA selected 12 facilities to participate in the pilot program.

In exchange for participants' commitment to demonstrate their innovative approaches, EPA offers the

facilities several benefits, including:

Public recognition by EPA as an environmental leader

A limited period to correct any violations identified during the pilot program

An absence of routine inspections by EPA or the State.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-2

Figure 2-1. FY 1994 Enforcement Actions

By offering these benefits, EPA has attracted the environmental leaders from all industrial sectors,

including Federal facilities. The Agency will use the ELP pilot projects to explore ways that it and the States can

encourage facilities to develop innovative auditing, compliance, and pollution prevention programs and to establish

public accountability for compliance with existing standards in environmental laws. The pilots also will help EPA

develop the elements of a full-scale Environmental Leadership Program, which will be open to all facilities willing

and able to meet the program criteria. The pilot phase of this project will run approximately 12 months.

The second component, compliance monitoring, is being reshaped to provide a holistic, facility-wide

perspective instead of the more traditional programmatic one. This multimedia concept continues to mature into a

significant method of accomplishing EPA's goals. During the past year, EPA inspectors conducted approximately 2,000

multimedia inspections at facilities nationwide. Multimedia inspections not only provide EPA and State personnel with

a comprehensive view of a facility, but also result in a more efficient allocation of resources and effective use of

personnel. In addition, these inspections are usually less time consuming and burdensome to the inspected facility.

Compliance monitoring activities are also being refocused to support specific Agency initiatives. For

example, facilities are now being targeted for inspection based on their location or specific industry type.

Environmental justice concerns are playing an increasingly more important role in targeting facilities for inspection,

as are concerns about sensitive ecosystems.

EPA's increased emphasis on compliance assistance did not signal weakening of traditional enforcement, the

third component. The Agency combined quality cases that protected the public and the environment in substantial ways

with a record level of cases to promote deterrence. As shown in Figure 2-1, the Agency brought a record 2,246

enforcement actions with sanctions, including 220 criminal cases, 1,596 administrative penalty actions, 403 new civil

referrals to the Department of Justice, and 27 additional civil referrals to enforce existing consent decrees. In
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-3

Figure 3-1. FY 1994 Monetary Breakout

addition, the States took 11,334 enforcement actions. These administrative and judicial sanctions, which surpassed

those taken last year, are the primary enforcement tools to correct violations, establish deterrence, and create

incentives for future compliance.

As shown in Figure 2-2, EPA assessed penalties for FY 94 totaling approximately $151 million combined for

civil penalties and criminal fines and another $206 million was returned to the Treasury through Superfund cost

recovery. Injunctive relief and supplemental environmental projects in non-Superfund cases exceeded $740 million.

The number of consent orders, decrees, and penalties and the vigor with which they were pursued illustrated that EPA

is serious about its enforcement commitments. The following high-profile examples illustrate EPA efforts under the

new enforcement and compliance assurance approach:

Acorporation will spend more than $3 million to eliminate the generation of hundreds of pounds of

hazardous wastes it currently disposes of through underground injection.

Another corporation will pay for an independent audit covering TSCA compliance at all of its facilities,

not just the one facility in violation. It will also disclose and correct all violations discovered as

a result of the audit.

A company will spend $1 million to develop an innovative cooling system that will reduce the amount of

water it has to withdraw from an aquifer by 259 million gallons annually.

AState highway department will conduct lead paint abatement on bridges, targeting those located in

minority and low income residential areas.

These types of settlements both significantly expand the environmental and health protection achieved through
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-4

individual enforcement actions and enhance the prospects for long-term compliance. Similarly, EPA enforcement actions

are sending a clear deterrence message to would-be violators, as illustrated by the following examples:

The manager and shop foreman of a facility whose illegal disposal of toluene in a dumpster resulted in the

death of two 9 year-old boys were sentenced to 27 months in prison.

The owner of a now-defunct electroplating facility who illegally abandoned more than 27,000 gallons of

hazardous substances within 500 feet of an elementary school received a sentence of 2 years in prison.

A laboratory that falsified pesticide residue data used by EPA to ensure the safety of the American food

supply received a $15 million fine and its owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison.

When EPA prosecutes violations and publicizes the results, it sends an unmistakable message to violators:

"If you threaten the health and safety of the public, you will be caught and you will be prosecuted." This combination

of strong, fair, and effective enforcement and compliance promotion will continue to characterize future Agency

efforts.

The remainder of this section highlights selected enforcement and compliance assurance activities

accomplished at the national level. Several of the activities involved extensive coordination among EPA Headquarters

and regional personnel and States. Sections 2.2 through 2.7 discuss national efforts in each of the six themes

identified Section 1. Section 2.8 presents information on national enforcement and compliance assurance activities

that cannot be categorized according to the themes.

2.2 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

Multimedia enforcement is a unique and effective tool for addressing environmental problems in a

comprehensive way. It encompasses a range of enforcement activities, including inspections, notices of violations,

administrativeorders, and judicial actions, using a wide-range approach to evaluate the violations, risks, and

problems and to develop remedies across multiple environmental programs and statutes in a deliberate and coordinated

manner.

Multimedia enforcement is integral to EPA's mandate to protect human health and the Nation's environment.

Because it is comprehensive, multimedia enforcement provides EPA with the opportunity to further the Agency's most

important goals, including:

Improving ecosystem health

Creating incentives for business to adopt pollution prevention and environmental auditing as a corporate

commitment

Attacking the complex problems posed by environmental justice

Creating partnerships among States, Regions, tribes, and EPA Headquarters.

Multimedia enforcement is effective and appropriate in almost any situation, from small companies to major

corporate entities. Moreover, it can be implemented on a local, regional, or State, level. Multimedia approaches also

benefit industry. Facility-wide multimedia assessments can assist corporate planners in achieving production goals,

while complying with environmental laws, in a cost-effective fashion.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-5

Inspection Types

Consolidated Inspections: Comprehensive facility evaluations not only addressing compliance in targeted program-specific

regulations, but also identifying environmental problems that might otherwise be overlooked. When regulated activities or

waste streams are identified, a compliance evaluation is made with respect to applicable requirements.

Coordinated Inspections: Concurrent and coordinated program-specific compliance investigations conducted by a team

of investigators representing two or more program offices, Regions, or States. The team conducts a detailed compliance

evaluation for each target program.

Single Media Inspections with a Multimedia Checklist: Program-specific compliance inspections that are conducted by one

or more inspectors. The inspector(s) screens for and reports on obvious key indicators of possible noncompliance with

other environmental statutes, usually using a multimedia checklist.

The consolidated multimedia design utilizes trained and experienced teams of experts to develop cases from

inspection through litigation or settlement. Potential multimedia cases are identified through multimedia

inspections, integrated targeting, coordinated case screening, and improved communication among regulatory programs.

To prepare personnel for these multimedia activities, a national multimedia enforcement workshop was held at NETIWest. Nearly 100 people attended, representing legal and program offices from OECA, nine Regions, the National

Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), Department of Justice, and four States. Panel discussions focused on key

multimedia issues, including the use of geographic initiatives; targeting multimedia enforcement for risk reduction,

ecosystem protection, environmental justice, or other factors; multimedia inspections; case development and

management; use of supplemental environmental projects and pollution prevention in multimedia cases; and State, local,

and community involvement. A primary purpose of the workshop was to provide training on the challenges presented by

multimedia enforcement and to discuss solutions developed by various Regions.

Using this training as the springboard, EPA inspectors conducted approximately 2,000 multimedia inspections

in FY 94. It should be noted that there are at least three different types of multimedia inspections: 1) consolidated,

2) coordinated, and 3) single media with multimedia checklists. Of the 2,000 inspections, 113 were consolidated, 42

were coordinated, and 1,917 were single media using multimedia checklists.

These inspections resulted in the following enforcement actions:

Nineteen multimedia civil judicial referrals to DOJ

Thirty-two multimedia administrative actions

Four multimedia administrative/judicial actions

Twenty-two single media actions with multimedia settlements.

The following list highlights some examples of these enforcement actions and the coordination among HQ,

regional, and State enforcement personnel:
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-6

In the Marine Shale multimedia trial, the District Court

divided the trial into 5 phases; the results were as

follows:

In the RCRA sham recycling issues, the jury was not

able to determine whether MSP was a legitimate

recycler or an incinerator. The jury was dismissed,

and no date was set for the retrial.

The court ruled MSP was liable for failure to obtain a

PSD permit and for failure to obtain a State

Implementation Plan permit for 29 miscellaneous

emission sources. The court assessed civil penalties

of $2.5 million and $1 million, respectively.

The court ruled that MSP had operated four water

outfalls without an NPDES permit and that it had

discharged large volumes of heated water into the

adjacent bayou in violation of its NPDES permit. A

civil penalty of $3 million was assessed.

The judge ruled in favor of the United States on a

summary judgment motion claiming that MSP was

storing certain hazardous wastes without a permit

and without meeting LDR treatment standards. The

court assessed civil penalties of $1 million for

storage violations and $500,000 for land disposal

restricted waste violations.

The Court also entered an injunction prohibiting

further violations of the CAA, CWA, and RCRA;

however, the effectiveness of the injunction was

stayed pending appeal.

U.S. v. Marine Shale: In the 1994

multimedia trial against Marine Shale

Processors (MSP), the complaint alleged

violations of RCRA, CAA, and CWA and sought

costrecovery under CERCLA. The original

complaint, filed in 1990, alleged that the

company violated RCRA by operating an

incinerator and hazardous waste storage

units without a permit or interim status,

placing on the ground incinerator ash that

exceeded land disposal restriction (LDR)

treatment standards and storing the

incinerator ash in unpermitted waste

piles. The company claimed that it

operated a RCRA-exempt recycling facility

that produced an aggregate product from

hazardous waste. The complaint was amended

in 1993 to allege violations of the CAA,

including failure to obtain a Prevention of

SignificantDeterioration (PSD) permit,

violations of the company's State minor

source air pollution permit and operating

29 unpermitted air pollution emission

sources; violations of the CWA, including

discharging water pollution without a

permit; and demanding the recovery of the

government'scosts in a cleanup action

under CERCLA. Information on the

violations was obtained from citizen

complaints and through a number of EPA and State inspections and requests for information. The results

of the trial are provided on the next page.

Allied Tube & Conduit: Region V issued a landmark multimedia administrative complaint against Allied

Tube& Conduit for alleged violations of EPCRA and RCRA. This action arose from multiple inspections to

determine the company's compliance under both statutes. As a result of the EPCRA inspection, EPA

determined that the company failed to report toxic chemical releases to the air in 1989. The RCRA

inspection revealed numerous violations, including failure to 1) properly mark containers, 2) record

weekly inspections, 3) conduct personnel training, 4) adequately maintain fire protection equipment,

aisle space, and closure of hazardous waste containers, and 5) properly prepare several hazardous waste

manifests. Corrections of these multiple statutory violations will provide benefits to the public health

and environment.

U.S.v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company: DOJ filed a civil multimedia action against the Burlington

Northern Railroad Company on behalf of Regions V and VIII. The complaint alleges that the company

discharged hazardous substances into the Nemadji River near Superior, Wisconsin, discharged oil into the

North Platte River in Guernsey, Wyoming, and discharged oil into navigable waters near the Bighorn River

in Worland, Wyoming. DOJ also sought a cost recovery claim under CERCLA for costs incurred by EPA in

response to the Nemadji River spill.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-7

U.S. v. Tenneco Settlement Finalized: After almost 3 years of negotiations, Tenneco reached a settlement

with EPA for cleanup of PCB contamination along its natural gas pipelines and payment of a TSCA civil

administrative penalty. Tenneco and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. will pay a $6.4 million

administrative TSCA penalty and cleanup under a CERCLA Removal Administrative Order on Consent (AOC).

Region IV is the lead region on this case, which covers contaminated sites in five Regions. In the AOC,

Tenneco has agreed to reimburse EPA for past costs of $357,087. Long-term cleanup costs covered by the

AOC may exceed $240 million.

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Many minority, low-income communities have raised concerns about the disproportionate burden of health

consequences they suffer from the siting of industrial plants and waste dumps, as well as from exposures to pesticides

or other toxic chemicals at home and on the job. Their primary concerns are that environmental programs do not

adequately address these disproportionate exposures.

In accordance with President Clinton's Executive Order 12898, EPA is addressing these concerns by assuming

a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives and developing an environmental justice strategy to enhance

environmental quality for all U.S. residents. The Agency looks to assure, through its policies, programs, and

activities, that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects.

To achieve the objectives of its environmental justice strategy, EPA is:

Ensuring that environmental justice is part of all Agency programs, policies, and activities

Identifying methodologies, research, and data needed to identify and evaluate populations at

disproportionately high environmental or human health risks,as well as ensuring that these needs are

considered in developing the overall Federal research program

Promoting outreach, communication, and partnerships with stakeholders to ensure sufficient stakeholder

access to training, information, and education.

Because implementation of the Agency's environmental justice policy is ongoing, the majority of its efforts

to date have been in outreach and education for both Agency employees and the public. The Agency is refining its

strategies and analyzing data to direct its compliance assurance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities

more effectively in support of this principle.

Of primary concern to OECA is the lack of capacity of some low-income and minority populations to become

involved in permit decisions and enforcement and compliance monitoring activities. To address this issue, the

EnforcementCapacity and Outreach Office (ECOO) of OECA is leading a pilot program to provide education on a variety

of environmental justice topics, including:

Citizens' rights and regulatory processes

Opportunities for community involvement in permitting decisions

Training in interpreting data and enforcement/compliance monitoring activities.

In addition to these outreach efforts, the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) developed an

approach for heightening environmental justice awareness among OECA employees and for enhancing citizen participation

in environmental compliance monitoring and enforcement functions. Several of the individual HQ and regional offices

have also developed and sponsored environmental justice training for their employees. In addition, the Office of
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-8

The Office of Criminal Enforcement has implemented an

aggressive, multimedia, cross regional enforcement

initiative that strategically targets businesses and other

violators in minority communities. In partnership with

the FBI, ATF, U.S. customs, and other Federal and State

law enforcement and regulatory officials, OCE special

agents will investigate business enterprises in these

communities using confidential informants, undercover

sting operations, aerial-infrared and electronic

surveillance, and covert sampling and monitoring. The

overall effect of this combined effort will have direct and

positive impact on the health and safety of community

residents.

Compliancesponsored the Environmental Justice Bike Tour, which educated students and communities about environmental

awareness and environmental justice issues.

At the national policy level, OECA established a process for assuring environmental justice in all OECA

programs, policies, and activities. It named a full-time Environmental Justice Coordinator and established an

Environmental Justice Coordinating Council (EJCC). The EJCC comprises representatives from each major office within

OECA and assists in developing the agency-wide strategic plan. It also provides recommendations to promote

environmental justice through enforcement activities at all levels—regional, State, and national.

To date, the EJCC has produced three major draft documents for use within the Agency:

OECA draft strategy outline, which describes the office's goals and objectives

Potential projects list, which provides a matrix of current and future activities

Draft OECA workplans, which include project descriptions, descriptions of project relationships to goals

set forth in the strategy outline, anticipated time frames for the projects, and key efforts for

completing the projects.

These documents are currently being circulated throughout the Agency for review and comment and will be the

Agency's road map for all environmental justice activities.

Several of the primary offices in OECA are developing their own strategies for including environmental justice

concepts into enforcement and compliance assurance activities. In conjunction with the Regions, ORE is developing

enforcement guidance documents concerning identification of environmental justice cases and emphasizing the need for

discussion of environmental justice concerns in litigation packages and consent decrees. It is also coordinating a

national enforcement initiative to ensure that pesticide registrants adhere to the pesticide product labeling

requirements of the agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS). In October 1994, the first civil administrative

cases under the WPS were filed against two of the Nation's largest pesticide manufacturers for misbranding or

incorrectly labeling pesticides and posing a risk to workers' health. EPA is seeking a total of $2.1 million in

penalties.

EPA is undertaking other activities to incorporate environmental justice into its enforcement and compliance

monitoring activities. For example, OC provided access to an extract of the 1990 Census data in the Integrated Data

for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) information retrieval system that allows IDEA users to identify regulated facilities

based on Census data, such as race and/or income, and then gather compliance/enforcement information about the

facilities. Environmental justice efforts under the Superfund program have involved conducting a comparative analysis

of Superfund enforcement process data for all NPL sites. OSRE also continues to coordinate with OSWER on identifying

site characteristics and environmental justice

indicators to ensure that information relevant to

environmental justice issues are incorporated with

enhancements to the Superfund information system

(CERCLIS).

In addition, EPA is meeting the White House's

call for making the Federal sector a national leader in

environmentaljustice efforts. For example, OFA

assisted with the development of an executive order on

environmental justice, analyzed environmental justice
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-9

Tifton is a small Georgia town of approximately 15,000

residents. A total of 19 CERCLA potential hazardous

waste sites are located in Tifton. Of these, one is already

on the National Priorities List (NPL) (Tifton Drums), one

is being evaluated for inclusion on the NPL, and six have

undergone waste removal or are currently undergoing

waste removal.

EPA, in conjunction with CLOUT (a citizen's group in

Tifton), the Georgia Environmental Protection Division,

and the Tift County Board of Commissioners, is

implementing the Tift County, Georgia, Environmental

Justice Geographic Initiative to address the

environmental harm from the multiple sites in Tift

County. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (ATSDR) has also been active through existing

agreements with EPA, which provide for public health

assessments in communities surrounding NPL sites. To

highlight the activities in Tift County, Region IV's senior

management officials attended several community/public

meetings to maintain open communication with local

community leaders and residents.

EPA provided a $200,000 Clean Water Act grant to the

Texas Attorney General to fund a Strike Force that

enforces State and local laws against developers of

colonias. The purpose of the money is to remedy the

colonias' current environmental situation. Colonias are

Hispanic communities concentrated near the Mexican

border in Texas and New Mexico; they usually lack

adequate infrastructure. OFA also worked with ORE,

Region VI, DOJ, the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, and the Texas and New Mexico Attorneys'

General Offices to explore additional responses to the

colonias' problem. This initial groundwork will form the

basis of an enhanced Federal and State effort in 1995.

issues and socioeconomic impacts under NEPA, and drafted preliminary guidance for assessing environmental justice

in CAA Section 309 reviews of other agency NEPA documents. EPA's Federal facilities offices also completed projects

related to environmental justice, including an extensive geographical information system (GIS) analysis at 25 Federal

facilities nationwide. This analysis was based on environmental justice parameters, as designated in Executive Order

12898. These 25 surveys will be sent to the 10 EPA Regions as models for conducting GIS analysis at the regional level.

In FY 94, the Criminal Investigations Division of OCE dedicated 27 percent of its resources to conducting

investigations in minority communities. OCE's other accomplishments in achieving environmental justice include:

Special agents in charge from all 10 Regions have submitted innovative plans for proactive strategic

targeting initiatives on environmental criminal violations in communities with environmental justice

concerns. These plans include joint investigations with other Federal and State agencies and tribal

governments to prosecute violators in environmental justice communities, as well as geographical

initiatives that target environmental criminal violations in such communities.

OCE modified its agent training course and other law enforcement personnel training to include an

environmental justice segment.

Lowincome and minority areas of Dallas,

Texas, received $6 million in remediation

projects as the result of EPA's criminal

prosecution in United States v. Robert M.

Brittingham and John J. LoMonaco (N.D.

Tex.). The former board chairman and the

former president of a large ceramic tile

manufacturer were convicted for dumping

lead-contaminated hazardous waste into a

sand and gravel pit in a Dallas suburb.

Although somewhat limited, high profile

situations have involved environmental justice and

enforcement and compliance monitoring activities. In

these situations, EPA Headquarters, Regions, States,

and municipalities have worked together to forge a

solution beneficial to all involved. The Tift County

Georgia (Region IV) Environmental Justice Geographic

Initiative is an example of this coordination. Under

this initiative, Region IV developed and is in the

process of implementing a pilot project in Tift County,

Georgia, to address waste sites located within the city

of Tifton and throughout Tift County.

Another environmental justice case involves a

majorutility company with four electric power plants in

the Catano, Puerto Rico, area. Catano is a community in

which the majority of the people are below the poverty

level and suffer from poor air and water quality. The

major thrust of the action is to improve the regional
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-10

The Common Sense Initiative, one of EPA's primary

sector-based efforts, comprises 18 industries:

Printing Ship/Rail/Car/Truc k

Cleaning

Pulp and Paper Dry Cleaning

Inorganic Chemicals Metal Mining

Organic Chemicals Non-Metallic Mining

Petroleum Refining Lumber/Wood

Iron and Steel Furniture and Fixtures

Rubber and Plastics Stone/Glass/Concrete

Non-Ferrous Metals Metal Fabrication

Auto Assembly Electronics and

Computers.

water and air quality. Section 3 provides more detail on this case.

2.4 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS

The new framework for EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance programs reorients the Agency's focus to

compliance problems that pervade certain sectors of the regulated community. This "sector approach" enables the

Agency to 1) address noncomplying sectors more effectively, 2) allow for "whole facility" approaches to enforcement

and compliance, 3) measure more specifically rates of compliance and the effectiveness of enforcement strategies,

4) augment enforcement strategies with appropriate compliance enhancement activities, and 5) develop sector

expertise, which should improve performance in all aspects of the Agency's enforcement program. During the past year,

EPA made great strides in developing sector expertise, which will allow the Agency to begin making sector-based

enforcement and compliance assurance an integral part of everyday activities.

The agency-wide Common Sense Initiative is a prime example of EPA's sector-based initiatives and effort to

extend its expertise. This program is considered the Agency's cornerstone sector-based initiative. The purpose of

this initiative is to develop and implement strategies for making environmental regulation more efficient and more

effective. Six industrial sectors were selected to participate:

Iron and steel

Electronics and computers

Metal plating and finishing

Auto assembly

Petroleum refining

Printing.

For each sector, EPA is convening a high-level team comprising industry executives, environmental leaders,

government officials, and labor and environmental justice representatives. OECA is represented on every sector team

and is the Agency lead for the printing sector. The teams will be looking at six key elements that affect the specific

sector:

Promoting pollution prevention opportunities

Conducting regulatory reviews

Undertaking innovative compliance assistance and enforcement initiatives

Simplifying and improving reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Implementing permit streamlining opportunities

Promoting innovative environmental technologies.

To further enhance the Agency's knowledge of

specific sectors, the Office of Compliance is conducting

an extensive analysis to develop a comprehensive profile

of 18 major industrial sectors. The completed profiles

will contain a variety of information, including

industrial process descriptions, multimedia regulatory

requirements, historical enforcement performance data,

pollutant release information, current public and

private sector initiatives, and an assessment of

potential pollution prevention opportunities for the

sector. These profiles will be the basis for

development of sector compliance strategies, which will
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-11

address the appropriate mix of compliance and enforcement activities, inspection priorities, regional/State roles,

and the use of enforcement actions and targeted initiatives.

In addition to these sector-based programs, several other projects focus on industrial sectors. Some of the

programs specifically target compliance assistance; others are primarily enforcement-based programs. Some of the

specific sectors and descriptions of the initiatives are described below.

Compliance assistance initiatives included:

Dry cleaning: To assist the perchloroethylene (perc) dry cleaners in complying with the various

environmental regulations, OC is developing an easy-to-read version of the environmental requirements

for dry cleaners, including a Korean language translation of the brochure. This document explains the

environmental requirements under CAA, RCRA, CWA, and SDWA and includes commonly asked questions

concerning the regulations and a quick reference checklist of activities that an owner/operator must

perform to comply with the regulations.

Auto body shops: OC is also working with auto body shops and the Department of Education to develop a new

national curriculum for auto technicians that includes environmental requirements.

Animal feeding operations: The Water Enforcement Division of ORE participated in the development of an

initiative targeting animal feeding operations. The goal is to increase protection of water resources

by promoting, encouraging, and requiring sound environmental management and practices in the animal

feeding operation community.

Pulp and paper mills: The Toxics and Pesticides Division of ORE helped develop a voluntary program to

restrict the land application of sludges containing dioxin. The American Forest and Paper Association,

as well as two pulp and paper mills, signed agreements implementing the program.

The following examples were all enforcement-based initiatives:

Municipal waste combustion facilities: The RCRA Enforcement Division of ORE, in conjunction with OC,

developed and wrote a strategy for implementing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the City of Chicago

v. Environmental Defense Fund concerning municipal waste combustion (MWC) ash. The decision held that

RCRA Section 3001(i) exempts MWC facilities from RCRA hazardous waste regulations but that MWC ash is not

exempt from RCRA's hazardous waste definition. The strategy provided the Regions with guidance in

bringing waste-to-energy facilities affected by the decision into compliance with RCRA Subtitle C as

quickly as possible.

Incinerators and boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs): EPA and DOJ announced the second Hazardous

WasteCombustion Initiative, which included filing 13 settlement agreements and 10 complaints against

owners and operators of incinerators and BIFs. The settled cases recovered $1.5 million in penalties from

4 incinerators and 9 BIFs. The 10 complaints included the first civil judicial BIF complaint; the 9

remaining administrative complaints sought $4.8 million in penalties from 7 BIFs and 2 incinerators.

Also in FY 94, OFA updated its Environmental Assessment (EA) guidance for reviewers of new source NPDES

permits. This EA guidance was completed for the following industrial sectors: mining, fossil-fueled electric steam

generating stations, pulp and paper mills, timber processing, and coal gasification facilities.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-12

Types of SEPs Used In Enforcement Cases

Cleanup/restoration projects

Disposal

Environmental audit

Outreach/public awareness projects

Training

Source reduction/pollution prevention—process

modification

Source reduction/pollution prevention—recycling

Source reduction/pollution

prevention—technological improvement

Waste minimization/pollution reduction—process

modification

Waste minimization/pollution reduction—recycling

Waste minimization/pollution

reduction—technological improvement

These strategies and other compliance assurance projects will eventually lead the Agency to sector-based

compliance monitoring and enforcement. All of this preliminary work, however, will only make those activities more

effective and efficient when they are undertaken.

2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

Historically, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took a civil administrative action against a

violating facility, it sought only monetary penalties. In the 1990s, however, EPA changed its enforcement approach

to seek not only monetary penalties but also an improvement in environmental quality. Environmental improvement is

expected to occur as a result of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). A SEP is a project that a

respondent/defendant in a case agrees to conduct as a term of settlement sometimes in exchange for partial mitigation

of a civil penalty. The purpose of these projects is to expand protection of human health and the environment beyond

that required by the specific Federal, State, or local law directly related to an enforcement action.

SEPs are an important tool in promoting the

Agency goals of pollution prevention, pollution

reduction, and environmental justice. In addition to

the continued use of SEPs in enforcement cases, the

Revised Supplemental Environmental Project Policy is

being prepared which will make it easier to incorporate

SEPs into settlement negotiations. The policy has been

revised to allow maximum flexibility to achieve

settlements that enhance environmental protection while

maintaining a strong penalty policy to promote

deterrence. As part of an enforcement settlement, the

amount of the agreed-upon penalty may be reduced to

reflect the commitment made by an alleged violator to

undertake a SEP. Two critical factors must be

considered in negotiating SEPs: 1) the assessed penalty

must reflect the gravity of the violation and the

economic benefit achieved and 2) the enforcement settlement must foster a deterrent effect. In addition, projects

undertaken in SEPs must go beyond compliance requirements with applicable laws and regulations.

During FY 94, EPA incorporated SEPs in settlements for violations under a broad range of programs. As in the

past, SEPs were applied in EPCRA, TSCA, and FIFRA cases. In FY 94, for example, 190 cases with SEP terms were negotiated

under TSCA (55), EPCRA Section 313 (49) and FIFRA (8), with an additional 78 SEPs negotiated under other sections of

EPCRA. EPA also applied SEPs in cases brought under CAA, CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA.

Many of the SEP cases in FY 94 represented landmark cases in terms of the scope of the action, the nature of

the violation, the type of environmental benefits achieved, or for other reasons. For example, the State-Federal

agreement resolving a case against the Massachusetts Highway Department represents the largest ever commitment of

public resources to address RCRA violations at State facilities anywhere in the country. In a consent agreement

resolving a RCRA administrative action, EPA-New England, the MA DEP, and the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD)

agreed that MHD will spend $20 million to investigate and remediate environmental problems at all 138 of its facilities

and will dedicate $5 million to several SEPs, including projects that will benefit environmental justice areas. The

138 State facilities are the most facilities to be addressed by a single RCRA-related agreement.

Anotherrecord setting component of this SEP is MHD's $5 million commitment, a significant portion of which

is designated for training approximately 350 local and municipal transportation and public works agency personnel and
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-13

for providing emergency response equipment to Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) affected by MHD operations,

with particular focus on low-income and minority neighborhoods.

Region IV's case against Ashland Petroleum is another notable example. EPA filed a consent agreement and

consent order (CACO) that settled alleged reporting violations under Section 304 of EPCRA. The CACO provided for a

$1.56 million penalty, for which Ashland agreed to pay $312,000 in cash to EPA, with the remainder of the penalty to

be put toward SEPs valued at more than $1,248,000. The total $1.56 million value of the settlement made this the

Agency's largest EPCRA penalty ever. This is also the first multi-State EPCRA action in Region IV's history.

The following list provides additional examples of SEP agreements and the specific activities conducted under

the SEP terms:

U.S. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (W.D.N.Y.): EPA and DOJ announced the settlement of a RCRA case against Eastman

Kodak in Rochester, New York. The consent decree included a cash penalty of $5 million, a $12 million

investment in six SEPs to reduce hazardous wastes in its 2,200 acre Kodak Park, and a compliance schedule.

The aggregate reduction in hazardous wastes as a result of the SEPs is expected to exceed 2.3 million

pounds of pollutants by the year 2001.

The major violations addressed in the complaint and consent decree involved Kodak's failure to properly

characterize waste streams, the leakage of hazardous wastes from a massive (31-mile long) industrial

sewer, and operation of an unpermitted incinerator. An NEIC-led team that conducted a 9-week,

comprehensive multimedia investigation of the Kodak facility discovered these violations.

Ina separate TSCA administrative enforcement action against Kodak, the company agreed to spend $3.6

million to remove 17 PCB transformers located at the Rochester facility. Based on this very valuable SEP,

a $17,000 penalty reduction was allowed; the final cash penalty provided for in the October 1993

settlement was $42,000.

United States v. Beech Aircraft Corporation (D. Kansas): The U.S. District Court for the District of

Kansas entered a consent decree resolving civil violations of the CWA at Beech Aircraft Corporation's

Wichita, Kansas, facility. Beech was required to pay a civil penalty of $521,000 for its violations of

Federal categorical pretreatment standards for metal finishers, failure to meet the reporting

requirements of the general pretreatment regulations, and failure to comply in a timely manner with an

administrative order issued by Region VII.

In addition to paying the civil penalty, Beech agreed to perform a supplemental environmental project

valued at approximately $200,000 that consists of installing centrifuges or equivalent systems to remove

sludge from the Wichita facility's existing water wash paint spray booths. The purpose of this pollution

prevention project is to reduce the total volume and toxicity of hazardous waste sludge generated and to

allow the recycling of paint spray booth wastewater, thereby reducing the volume and concentration of

pollutants in the wastewater ultimately discharged to the city of Wichita's POTW.

UnitedStates v. City and County of Honolulu (D. Hawaii): A consent decree was lodged resolving a CWA

enforcement action brought by the United States and the State of Hawaii against the City and County of

Honolulu. This action arose as a result of the city and county of Honolulu's poor maintenance of its sewer

system, which resulted in more than 300 spills of raw or partially treated sewage into Hawaiian waters

(including a spill of 50 million gallons of raw sewage into Pearl Harbor in 1991 that attracted national

attention). The city and county of Honolulu also failed to implement an adequate pretreatment program

to regulate the discharge of toxics from industries discharging into its sewer system.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-14

Under the consent agreement, the city and county of Honolulu will pay a civil penalty of $1.2 million and

committed to improving the operation and maintenance of its sewer system, including the renovation of

1,900 miles of sewer lines during the next 20 years, and to developing and implementing a pretreatment

program to regulate the discharge of industrial toxic wastewater. Under the decree, the city and county

also committed to spending $30 million on SEPs for treating and reusing wastewater and sludge. Honolulu

will recycle 10 tons of sewage sludge per day by 1998 and 10 million gallons of wastewater per day by the

year 2001.

2.6 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION

TheUnited States and other parts of the world are experiencing a serious loss of essential natural resources.

If this continues, this loss will result in a long-term threat to the Nation's economic prosperity, security, and the

sustainability of remaining ecological systems. The value of ecosystems can be measured in many different ways.

Living things and the ecosystems upon which they depend provide communities with food, clean air, clean water, and a

multitude of other goods and services. Native American tribes and many others believe that all life is

interconnected—that the health of one depends directly on the health of another. Consequently, the high rates of

species endangerment, loss of natural resources (e.g., timber), habitat fragmentation, and losses of recreational

opportunities pose a potential threat to the health, cultural values, lifestyle, and economic future of virtually

every American.

ManyEPA activities have helped protect ecosystems. The Agency has implemented laws to control many of the

major sources that pollute the Nation's air, water, and land. Yet, even as the more obvious problems are resolved,

scientists discover other environmental stresses that threaten ecological resources and general well-being. Evidence

of these problems can be seen in the decline of the salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest and the oyster stock

in the Chesapeake Bay, the decrease in migratory bird populations, and degraded coral reef systems.

Although many Federal, State, tribal, and local regulations address these problems, past efforts have been

as fragmented as the laws enacted to solve the problems. Because EPA concentrated on issuing permits, establishing

pollutant limits, and setting national standards, as required by environmental laws, the Agency did not pay enough

attention to the overall environmental health of specific ecosystems. In short, EPA has been "program-driven" rather

than "place-driven."

As the Agency moves increasingly to a place-driven approach, existing barriers to progress must be identified

and addressed. EPA must collaborate with other Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, as well as private

partners, to remove the barriers and achieve the ultimate goal of healthy, sustainable ecosystems. The Agency,

therefore, will act to solve integrated environmental problems through a framework of ecosystem protection in close

partnership with others. This approach will integrate environmental management with human needs, consider long-term

ecosystem health, and highlight the positive correlation between economic prosperity and environmental well-being.

EPA is currently placing high priority on developing compliance assurance and enforcement programs that focus

on sensitive ecosystem protection. However, it is still a relatively new emphasis in the Agency, and, therefore,

applicable projects are developing. To date, EPA has promoted this initiative and mandated that it become an integral

part of all Agency decision making, as well as an integral part of the compliance assurance and enforcement programs

in particular.

OECA's Office of Federal Activities (OFA) has been active in sensitive ecosystem protection and has taken the

lead in a number of important ecosystem management and protection initiatives during FY 94:

Midwest floods: OFA served as EPA's representative to the White House Task Force on levee repair and

long-term recovery and ensured a focus on the opportunities for significant long-term transformation of
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-15

floodplain management practices in the region. OFA established an overall principle for the Task Force:

the need to capitalize upon the lessons learned from this event to trigger reinvention of current Federal

programs affecting floodplain management. OFA, in conjunction with the White House, pursued a strategic

assessment of Federal activities in floodplains and issued the report entitled, Sharing the Challenge:

Floodplain Management Into the 21st Century.

Everglades: OFA represented EPA at the final negotiations and signing of the multiagency agreement on

restoration of the Everglades. OFA continues to coordinate with Region IV, the Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds, and other EPA offices to build a team of experts to participate in the technical

and scientific studies of this complex ecosystem necessary to create a plan for environmentally

sustainable development in the region.

Endangered species activities: OFA has been a lead for the Endangered Species Coordinating Committee,

which was established to describe current activities and obligations, set priorities, and establish

appropriate training, support, and liaison functions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National

Marine Fisheries Service. OFA also coordinated the Deputy Administrator's agency wide Taskforce on

Endangered Species Management within EPA.

Forest conference: The forest conference was designed to break the impasse developed over the use and

protection of the Northwest forest resources. From the beginning, OFA has been an active member of the

President's Forest Team, providing input to ecosystem protection and watershed management in particular.

OFA staff have been involved in both the review and preparation of the Draft Forest Conference

Supplemental EIS.

2.7 FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

EPA's newly reorganized enforcement and compliance program has provided the Federal facilities offices with

improved opportunities to assure compliance with environmental requirements across the Federal sector. The 1992

Federal Facility Compliance Act boosted enforcement capability by clearly establishing RCRA penalty authority against

Federal facilities. The act authorizes EPA to levy fines against other Federal agencies.

In addition to traditional enforcement measures, the Federal facilities program includes compliance

assistance activities designed to ensure full compliance without exacting severe penalties. Executive Order 12856,

Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements, committed Federal agencies to

implement pollution prevention practices across all missions and activities. EPA is taking a leadership role in

implementing the Executive Order and has issued a guide for agency-wide pollution prevention strategies, interpretive

guidance for all of the Executive Order's requirements, guidance for developing facility-specific plans, a guide for

meeting pollution reduction goals, and a user's guide to environmental cost accounting.

To further educate its employees and exchange and develop ideas, EPA held the annual Federal Facilities

Coordinator's Meeting. The meeting included Headquarters and regional personnel and covered a range of topics,

including regional impacts from the HQ reorganization, revision of the Federal compliance strategy, Federal Facility

Compliance Act implementation, implementation of Executive Order 12856, OMB A-106 revisions, and current status of

the multimedia initiative.

To help Agency personnel monitor compliance at Federal facilities, the Federal facilities office developed

a new version of the Federal Facility Tracking System (FFTS), a pilot computer system that tracks compliance activities

at Federal facility sites. The new system provides a multimedia view of activities to assist with planning, targeting

inspections, and reporting.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-16

In FY 94, EPA and participating States issued:

15 Warning Letters

27 Notices of Violation

8 Notices of Noncompliance

18 Administrative Orders

3 Field Citations

4 Federal Facility Compliance Agreements.

In FY 94, EPA and the States issued 40 administrative

orders totaling more than $6.5 million in penalties. The Federal

facilities compliance strategy will continue to include joint

EPA and State multimedia inspections at targeted Federal

facilities. EPA and participating States recently completed

first year activities associated with the FY 93/94 Federal

Facilities MultiMedia Enforcement/Compliance Initiative

(FMECI). In FY 94, EPA evaluated 31 Federal facilities using a

multimedia approach; the FY 93 inspections resulted in 75 FY 94

enforcement actions under nine statutes. Federal facilities in seven Regions were assessed a total of $2.1 million

in penalties.

EPA continued its FY 93 enforcement efforts in cleanup and environmental restoration. At the end of FY 94,

EPA had crafted 111 Interagency Agreements with Federal agencies defining the cleanup process at 121 NPL Federal

facilities. These agreements are backed by stipulated penalties, which are used to ensure compliance with the terms

of the cleanup activities.

In July 1994, for example, the Department of Energy settled a CERCLA penalty action with EPA and the State of

Colorado for $2.8 million for violations of several cleanup deadlines for the Rocky Flats facility. These violations

are resulting in the delay of the overall cleanup at this facility.

The following list highlights selected examples of the enforcement actions taken against Federal facilities

in FY 94:

Coast Guard, Kodiak, Alaska Facility: EPA Region 10 issued a complaint against the U.S. Coast Guard

Kodiak Support Center, Kodiak, Alaska, seeking $1,018,552 in penalties. The complaint resulted from two

majorviolations of RCRA: 1) failure to properly monitor ground water in an area where cleaning solvents

had been dumped and 2) the illegal storage of hazardous waste without a proper permit from EPA. The

complaint was the first action brought against a civilian Federal agency under the Federal Facility

Compliance Act of 1992.

The Presidio: Region IX filed a complaint and citations against the U.S. Army Garrison, Presidio of San

Francisco, for violating RCRA and assessed a penalty of $556,500 for the hazardous waste violations.

Region IX inspectors identified a number of violations at the Presidio, including failure to transport

hazardous waste offsite within 90 days, failure to label properly approximately 200 drums of hazardous

wastes, failure to keep 15 containers of hazardous wastes closed, and failure to make weekly inspections

of three hazardous waste storage areas.

Schofield Barracks: Region IX assessed $543,900 in penalties under RCRA against Schofield Barracks, a

U.S. Army facility located in Wahiawa, Hawaii. The facility operates numerous motorpools and maintenance

shops that generate various wastes, including waste paint, waste solvents, and contaminated waste oils,

which are listed as hazardous waste under RCRA. Region IX inspections determined that the facility was

illegally operating as a RCRA storage facility. Violations included failure to transport RCRA-regulated

waste offsite within the allowed 90-day accumulation period, failure to label waste properly, and failure

to make adequate hazardous waste determinations. In addition, the facility failed to comply with

requirements pertaining to the hazardous waste training program, the contingency plan, and preparedness

and prevention measures.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-17

EPA's Federal facility offices are also responsible for reviewing all Federal facility documentation prepared

under NEPA. In FY 94, for example, 515 environmental impact statements (EISs) were filed with OFA under its delegation

from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (278 draft and 237 final). EPA commented on 210 draft EISs and 172

final EISs. Of these, EPA rated 2 draft EISs EU (environmentally unsatisfactory), 30 draft EISs EO (environmental

objections), and the remaining draft EISs either EC (environmental concerns) or LO (lack of objections). Also during

the year, OFA approved eight Environmental Policy Agreements between EPA and other Federal agencies, including the

Department of Justice, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, Small Business

Administration, Department of Commerce, and Department of Transportation.

2.8 OTHER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES

In FY 94, enforcement and compliance assurance accomplishments occurred in arenas beyond the six theme areas.

Significant achievements were accomplished across all program areas and under each environmental statute. The

following sections document some of the more significant accomplishments throughout the year.

2.8.1 Redelegation

As an adjunct to the reorganizational changes that occurred in FY 94, OECA eliminated unnecessary or

duplicative layers of review by assessing and revising existing delegation of authority and concurrence procedures

by redelegating a substantial portion of the authority to manage and settle civil judicial and administrative

enforcement cases to the Regional Counsel. The redelegation authorizes the Regions to settle a substantial number

of enforcement cases without the formal involvement of OECA, thus eliminating a potentially redundant and timeconsuming level of review and freeing OECA to focus with the Regions on enforcement cases that present nationally

significant issues.

The Assistant Administrator redelegated to the Regional Counsel the authority to settle enforcement cases

with bottom-line penalties of less than $500,000 without formal OECA involvement, provided that the cases present no

nationally significant issues. With the agreement of OECA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, the Regional Counsel

may also settle non-nationally significant cases with penalties higher than $500,000. OECA's continued formal

involvement in nationally significant cases, regional audits, the regional Counsels' reporting relationship to the

Assistant Administrator, and numerous informal contacts between OECA and the regions will all ensure that national

policy goals will continue to be met.

Redelegation marks a real turning-point in the Headquarters/regional relationship in the enforcement and

compliance assurance arena. The new approach preserves and enhances OECA's leadership role of setting national

directions and policies on enforcement issues, while providing regional managers the flexibility to implement their

compliance and enforcement programs in a more efficient manner. To help implement the redelegation, OECA's Office

of Regulatory Enforcement produced a uniform, cross-media set of procedures that further emphasize trust, flexibility,

and common sense as the fundamental principles of the Headquarters/regional relationship.

2.8.2 Task Forces and Work Groups

In FY 94, Headquarters and regional personnel represented OECA on numerous task forces and work groups. The

Air Enforcement Division of ORE worked on an intergovernmental task force designed to coordinate the government-wide

response to the illegal importation of ozone depleting chemicals. OFA chaired a work group that examined EPA programs

and NEPA. The work group conducted a comprehensive study of EPA activities with respect to the key NEPA

criteria—environmental analysis, consideration of alternatives, and public participation. The work group also look

at program office compliance with other environmental requirements, such as the Endangered Species Act.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-18

OFA also represented EPA on the Technical Advisory Group to develop international standards for environmental

auditing by coordinating EPA comments and working on this draft report to reflect EPA's preferred positions. In

addition, OFA chaired a new group designated to develop U.S. proposed standards for environmental audits of

Environmental Management Systems.

The Enforcement Capacity and Outreach Office's Constituent Outreach Team (COT) established a framework that

assists OECA in consulting with State, local, and tribal governments on broad policy and specific issues associated

with enforcement and compliance assurance. As a result, OECA has designed an intergovernmental relations framework

that incorporates three components: a Forum of senior-level policy makers to focus on broad enforcement and compliance

policies; a network of federal, State, local, and tribal enforcement and compliance practitioners; and specific

strategies for strengthening regional and State interaction.

When fully implemented, the network will consist of 30 to 40 environmental enforcement practitioners from

EPA (Headquarters and regions) and State, local, and tribal governments. The main objectives of the network are to

enhance State/EPA communications and to develop a network of environmental enforcement and compliance assurance

managers to provide expertise on planning and priority setting process.

2.8.3 Training and Guidance

As a result of the OECA reorganization, the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) experienced

significant growth in FY 94. NETI made progress in the area of training technology by using the computer and satellite

transmission to disseminate training materials, information, and courses. NETI also emphasized its role serving as

a clearinghouse for training information, in assessing constituent needs, in continuing international training, and

developing plans for the state-of-the-art NETI Headquarters Training Center in Washington, DC. In FY 94, NETI trained

more than 7,000 enforcement professionals. NETI provided training through 180 courses conducted in all 10 regional

offices, the NETI-West facility at Lakewood, Colorado, various State locations, and Mexico. Through funding by grants

and cooperative agreements, NETI assisted the four Regional Environmental Enforcement Associations. This year, the

associations jointly sponsored the Environmental Crime Awareness Training for Law Enforcement, which was transmitted

via satellite to 2,200 local law enforcement officers.

Moreover, NETI redesigned and delivered the Basic Environmental Enforcement Course, which focuses on the

entire enforcement process, including a walk-through inspection, writing inspection reports, and a mock negotiation

simulation. NETI offered several new courses, including the Advanced RCRA Inspector Institute. Experienced EPA and

State RCRA inspectors applied their experiences in RCRA enforcement through an exchange of information, concepts, and

skills.

EPA also conducted several inspector training courses in FY 94, including the following FIFRA and EPCRA

courses: FIFRA Worker Protection Inspector Training, Pesticide Use Inspector Training, Pesticide Product Enforcement

Course, and EPCRA Section 313 Inspector Training and EPCRA Health and Safety Training.

EPA also developed and distributed several guidance documents, including:

Acid Rain Compliance/Enforcement Guidance

Waste Analysis Plan Guidance

Final guidance on ways to incorporate pollution prevention into NEPA and Clean Air Act Section 309

environmental review processes.

2.8.4 Initiatives
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-19

In addition to the accomplishments discussed according to the six themes, EPA began several other national

initiatives, as demonstrated by the examples in the following list:

Oil Pollution Act Initiative: EPA, in conjunction with DOJ and the U.S. Coast Guard, announced the

coordinated filing of 28 cases against commercial polluters who unlawfully discharged oil or other

hazardous substances into waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines and, in some cases, who

violated oil spill prevention regulations. The initiative included two judicial cases filed by DOJ on

behalf of EPA and the Coast Guard—1 civil and 1 criminal—as well as 26 EPA administrative penalty actions

in 13 States. The administrative cases collectively sought civil penalties of approximately $1 million.

One DOJ case involved the discharge of bilge water and waste oil from the cruise ship Viking Princess that

left a 2.5-mile oil slick off the Florida coast. This case resulted in a plea agreement and the payment

of a $500,000 fine. Among the administrative cases, one involved Tosco Refinery, a refiner and marketer

of wholesale petroleum products in Martinez, California, for spilling more than 2,500 gallons of oil into

a drainage ditch that emptied into U.S. waters. Another involved Burlington Asphalt Corporation in Mt.

Holly, New Jersey, which spilled more than 7,500 gallons of fuel oil onto county property and a storm

drain that emptied into a creek.

Diesel Enforcement Initiative: EPA's Mobile Source Program executed a joint initiative with the State

of Maryland and the Internal Revenue Service for enforcement of the diesel desulfurization regulations.

Upon receiving a tip from a Maryland State trooper about possible diesel misfueling, including the use

of untaxed, high-sulfur diesel in motor vehicles in violation not only of EPA's diesel desulfurization

regulationsbut of both Federal and State tax laws, a series of joint inspections were conducted,

resulting in both State and Federal enforcement actions. Eight notices of violations with proposed

penalties of $46,500 were issued. Three of the cases have been settled for penalties of $8,400.

TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Case Initiative: The IUR seeks information to update EPA's TSCA Chemical

Substance Inventory, which is EPA's baseline of information on toxic substances. To target violators and

highlight the importance of compliance with the IUR, EPA Headquarters and regional offices filed

complaints seeking approximately $2.9 million in penalties against 39 U.S. chemical manufacturers and

importers for failing to report specific chemical production and site information in a timely and

accurate manner. EPA launched the IUR case initiative to increase industry awareness of IUR reporting

requirements and of the IUR reporting cycle.

FIFRA Good Laboratory Practice Standards Case Initiative: EPA issued 12 civil complaints against

pesticide registrants proposing $183,000 in penalties for violations of the Agency's GLP standards and

FIFRA. Citing the GLP violations, the Agency also issued five warning letters to the testing facilities

that had conducted studies supporting pesticide registrations and issued one warning letter to another

registrantfor less serious violations. These enforcement actions reaffirm EPA's commitment to vigorous

enforcement of FIFRA's data quality provisions.

2.8.5 Regulations, Rulemaking, Policy, and Interpretive Guidance

In FY 94, EPA proposed and promulgated several rules and regulations that focused on various aspects of the

Clean Air Act. For instance, AED worked with the Office of Air and Radiation on numerous Title VI-related rules and

regulations, including:

A rule on the phase out of ozone depleting chemicals

A rule on the sale of nonessential products

A proposed rule concerning the labeling of products containing ozone depleting chemicals
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-20

Regulations addressing certification of individuals to service motor vehicle air conditioners.

In addition, AED contributed to a proposed rule for the Clean Air Act Field Citations Program and a proposed

rule for the Clean Air Act Citizens Awards. The Mobile Source Enforcement Branch (MSEB) of AED completed the

reformulated gasoline (RFG) and anti-dumping standards and requirements.

EPA also completed its first year of compliance monitoring and enforcement of the diesel desulfurization

regulations. These regulations, which require the removal of approximately 80 percent of the sulfur content from

unregulated diesel fuel, are a companion to other agency regulations that require substantial reductions in

particulate emissions from diesel motor vehicle engines beginning with the 1994 model year. Program office and

enforcement staff conducted extensive public outreach targeting all levels of the diesel fuel industry, including

diesel fuel users, to ensure a smooth industry transition into this new requirement and to maximize compliance. EPA

inspectors were in the field monitoring compliance on the first effective date of the regulations and completed more

than 4,000 inspections during the first year.

EPA also undertook the following regulatory and rulemaking efforts in FY 94:

Published a proposal to create a new EPCRA Section 313 reporting threshold of 1 million pounds for

facilities that release and/or transfer offsite less than 100 pounds of a regulated toxic chemical per

year.

Published in the Federal Register a final rule adding 21 chemicals and proposed another rule to add more

than 300 chemicals to the list.

Published in the Federal Register a final rule amending EPA's hexavalent chromium rule. The amendment

resulted from a petition filed by the Chrome Coalition in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. EPA negotiated

a settlement agreement under which it would propose an amendment to narrow the scope of the hexavalent

chromium rule.

Proposed several amendments to its new chemical review process under TSCA Section 5. These amendments

included an expanded exemption for polymers, an expanded low volume exemption, increased opportunities

to use the expedited process for issuing significant new use rules, and various procedural changes.

Completed the interim final amendments to the Agency's asbestos Model Accreditation Plan. This

regulation now extends the training and accreditation requirements of AHERA to asbestos inspectors and

abatement personnel in all public and commercial buildings. The new regulation also contains criteria

and standards for revoking the accreditation of persons and the approval of training courses and state

programs.

Proposed requirements for lead-based paint activities. These regulations establish a training and

accreditation program for lead abatement workers that resembles the asbestos Model Accreditation Plan.

The regulations also prescribe standards for conducting lead-based paint inspections, hazard

assessments, and abatements in target housing (housing built prior to 1978), public and commercial

buildings, and superstructures, such as bridges.

In addition to the rules and regulations, EPA issued some major policies and strategies. For example, the

Agency published the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy, which addresses pollution that occurs as a result

of combined sewer overflows. CSOs are overflows that occur when the capacity of sewer systems or treatment facilities

is exceeded due to a precipitation event. The policy is both a permitting and enforcement strategy and clarifies how
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-21

CSOs should be permitted in the future. EPA also issued its Storm Water Enforcement Strategy. The enforcement

priorities for the storm water program were designed to address covered municipalities that have not applied for a

storm water permit and to identify and enforce against covered facilities with industrial activity that have failed

to apply for a storm water permit. EPA also revised the UIC Class I Wells Significant Noncompliance (SNC) definition

in FY 94. Under the revised definition, violations with the potential to affect underground sources of drinking water

are maintained as SNC violations; minor infractions would not necessarily require SNC reporting.

2.8.6 Native American Affairs

Throughout FY 94, the Agency, specifically OFA, was involved extensively in Native American affairs and

programs. OFA held Interagency Indian Work Group meetings with numerous Federal agencies, chaired the Headquarters

Indian work group monthly meetings, and sponsored the annual national conference. In addition, OFA completed the FY

93 report entitled, Environmental Activities on Indian Lands and assisted many of the 545 tribes and Alaska Native

villages that are preparing to environmentally manage to their lands. Selected accomplishments in this area include

the following:

General Assistance Program: The Multimedia Assistance Program began in FY 90 with $151,000 for two pilot

projects. In FY 94, $8.5 million was appropriated for the program, bringing the total to $22.9 million

with 133 new and continuation grants serving more than 350 tribes under individual tribal and intertribal

consortia grants.

Treatment as a State Regulations: An intra-agency work group, chaired by OFA, drafted regulations

simplifying the procedure and making it less burdensome and offensive to tribes to apply and become

eligible for grants and program authorization.

Tribal Enforcement Report: OFA prepared the first annual report to Congress on the number of tribes

approved by the Administrator to enforce environmental laws and the effectiveness of that enforcement.

Although the Administrator had not approved any Native American tribes to enforce environmental laws,

the Agency did enter into pesticide enforcement agreements with 23 tribes and certified a number of tribal

pesticides inspectors.

2.8.7 International Activities

EPA is becoming more involved in international environmental affairs, especially with our North American

neighbors. In FY 94, EPA designed and delivered several programs to an international audience. For example, NETI

trained 56 Mexican inspectors at a 5-day Multimedia Inspection Course. This course is part of ongoing cooperative

training activities between EPA and Mexico's environmental protection agency, the Secretaria de Desarrollo Social

(Ministry of Social Development) (SEDESOL). NETI also designed and presented a 4-day Train-the-Trainers workshop in

Mexico City for 17 SEDESOL officials, who were selected as future trainers in Mexico.

OFA developed a training course for U.S. and Mexican customs and environmental officials in detecting and

inspecting hazardous waste shipments. The course will be delivered at key border crossings throughout 1995. OFA also

performed the following activities:

Trained and provided technical assistance to Mexican environmental inspectors and enforcement personnel

Promoted interagency cooperation among agencies on both sides of the border through grants to border

enforcement programs implemented by State environmental agencies
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

2-22

Initiatedefforts to promote voluntary compliance with applicable environmental laws among U.S.

operations in Mexico through environmental auditing and pollution prevention

Helped prepare subpoenas issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act to U.S. parent companies of

Maquiladoras operating in Mexicali, Mexico.

In conjunction with Regions VI and IX, OFA led EPA efforts with the U.S./Mexico Cooperative Enforcement

Strategy Work Group. EPA initiated cooperative training efforts with U.S./Mexican customs officials in compliance

monitoring for transboundary shipments of hazardous waste and began activities to encourage U.S. parent companies to

take leadership roles in promoting compliance and pollution prevention among their Mexican operations through

participation in Mexico's environmental audit program.

In addition, through cooperative activity with Federal and provincial officials, EPA worked with the Province

of Manitoba, Canada, to require pollution control for a major new facility that is equally stringent to the control

on U.S. plants. The Canadian precedent will help maintain competitiveness of U.S. industry by requiring comparable

levels of pollution control for facilities in both countries. OFA also supervised management of an environmental

project in Nizhnii Tagil, Russia, designed to target low-cost efforts to address the most serious problems in a highly

polluted provincial region. Compliance and enforcement are key elements in the institution building project

component, which also includes training and technical assistance in monitoring, risk assessment, standards, and

regulations.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

2-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.0 REINVENTING A STRONG NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

ASSURANCE PROGRAM....................................................... 2-1

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM................................. 2-1

2.2 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS............... 2-4

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE................................................ 2-7

2.4 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS............................................ 2-10

2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS............................. 2-12

2.6 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION..................................... 2-15

2.7 FEDERAL FACILITY ENFORCEMENT AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES ............. 2-16

2.8 OTHER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES........ 2-18

2.8.1 Redelegation .................................................... 2-18

2.8.2 Task Forces and Work Groups...................................... 2-19

2.8.3 Training and Guidance............................................ 2-19

2.8.4 Initiatives....................................................... 2-20

2.8.5 Regulations, Rulemaking, Policy, and Interpretive Guidance.............. 2-21

2.8.6 Native American Affairs........................................... 2-22

2.8.7 International Activities............................................ 2-23

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. FY 1994 Enforcement Actions................................................. 2-3

Figure 2-2. FY 1994 Monetary Breakout................................................... 2-3
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

3-1

3.0 REGIONAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES

As discussed in Section 2, EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program involves coordinated efforts

among EPA Headquarters and regional and State offices. This section focuses primarily on the accomplishments of the

regionsand on partnerships that exist between the regions and States in monitoring and ensuring compliance throughout

the regulated community.

Authority to implement the wide variety of environmental regulations is sometimes widely distributed across

several regional and State programs. Accordingly, several situations involving disparate program offices require

cooperation and coordination between those offices. To achieve this coordination, many of the regions have actively

promoted region/State partnerships, and FY 94 provided numerous examples of the beneficial results, including:

EPA-New England and Massachusetts have begun piloting a coordinated case initiative for CAA violations;

theregion is also working with Connecticut to direct pilot efforts at CWA violations. EPA-New England

also undertook an initiative to coordinate CAA Stage I bulk terminal vapor recovery activities with the

States. The region provided inspector training for the States, issued information requests and emission

testing requirements to subject sources, and conducted emission tests in Massachusetts, Maine, and

Connecticut.

Region II conducted consolidated inspections that were performed jointly with the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation, the first such joint Federal/State multimedia inspections in

Region II.

RegionV and the States in the region have entered into cooperative agreements with EPA for pesticide

enforcement. The States now work closely with Region V on inspections and take many enforcement actions

for pesticide misuse violation. The States still refer most of the product violations to Region V for

enforcement. Therefore, most of Region V's FIFRA enforcement actions are based on the findings of State

inspections.

Region VIII Multimedia Field Inspection Team performed several cooperative inspections that included

State and city agency personnel.

These are a few examples of the coordination that is currently occurring between regions and States. The

following sections provide more examples of these partnerships, as well as further describing regional and State

enforcement and compliance assurance accomplishments.

3.1 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

As described in Section 2, multimedia compliance monitoring and enforcement represent increasingly important

tools in EPA's efforts to enforce environmental regulations. Multimedia inspections provide a cost-efficient approach

for directing compliance monitoring resources and also increase the environmental return on enforcement investments.

During FY 94, EPA regions continued to expand their multimedia enforcement activities. Positive developments

have taken place in areas of multimedia program coordination, inspections conducted, and multimedia enforcement cases

brought and settled. Joint efforts have included: increasing the focus on multimedia issues and methods through

implementation of oversight committees, participation in multimedia enforcement training, and incorporation of

national and region-specific priorities in enforcement targeting strategies. As a result, more multimedia inspections
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

3-2

Region VIII defined an organizational plan designed to

more effectively address cross cutting, multimedia issues.

The goal of this reorganization was to place programs and

functions in organizations that will enhance multimedia

opportunities and maintain the large majority of singlemedia responsibilities. In FY 94, the region conducted 10

targeted multimedia inspections. By including census data

evaluation and the three "lifestyle clusters" suggested by

OECA into both targeting and screening activities, an

environmental justice profile was prepared for each site.

were conducted, with a corresponding increase in case referrals, administrative actions, criminal actions, and case

settlements.

Overall, regional multimedia activity for the year increased. Region II reported 12 consolidated multimedia

inspections, involving essentially all of the program offices. Region III also placed increasing importance on the

role of multimedia enforcement. During FY 94, the region undertook six major multimedia inspections. The inspections

focused on several major regional objectives, including environmental justice, State-Federal relations, and Federal

facility compliance. Region VII conducted eight consolidated multimedia inspections. These inspections, resulting

from the regional targeting mechanism, included State and local participation, and evaluated environmental justice

factors.

Region IV multimedia activities for FY 94 included 19 consolidated multimedia inspections with two or more

programs sending inspectors simultaneously. Two of the inspections were undertaken as part of the Federal Facility

Multimedia Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and the Naval Complex, Pensacola, Florida).

In addition to the 19 multimedia inspections, all of Region IV's Federal facility inspections were multimedia in

nature. The Region IV Federal Facilities Coordination (FFC) program conducted seven Federal facilities multimedia

inspections in FY 94. These FFC program inspections resulted in at least seven State or EPA Region IV enforcement

actions.

Region IV settled six cases in FY 94 resulting

from these multimedia activities. The total penalties

amounted to more than $10.3 million with several

penalties yet to be determined. The RCRA program

settled its multimedia case against Gulf States Steel

for $1.1 million. The RCRA program and the Underground

Storage Tank (UST) program participated in a major

multimedia case against Somerset Refinery and reached

settlement in principle with penalties of $2.75 million.

The TSCA/CERCLA multimedia case handled by Region IV

against Tennessee Gas Pipeline for violations in several

regions was settled for $6.4 million.

Region X multimedia efforts continued to integrate and strengthen a cross-program/multimedia perspective

and capacity into all stages of the compliance assurance and enforcement planning and decision-making process. The

regiontargets multimedia inspections using risk factors, including the toxicity and amounts of the pollutant(s)

emitted, the proximity to sensitive/disadvantaged populations, the sensitivity of the environment and history of

noncompliance. The region also continued to invest in the National Multimedia Federal Facilities Initiative, which

resulted in enhanced compliance at the Federal facilities that have been inspected. Two facilities received

comprehensive multimedia compliance inspections.

These examples reflect the increasing emphasis the regions have placed on multimedia enforcement activities

during FY 94. For some regions, the emphasis is maintained and leveraged through the development of multimedia

oversight committees responsible for coordinating multimedia enforcement activities. In Region VIII, for example,

the multimedia program is carried out by a number of offices and through several mechanisms. The Regional Enforcement

Officer and the Regional Enforcement Coordinator are responsible for coordinating the multimedia activities of the

15 separate Regional enforcement programs. The Regional Enforcement Forum represents all enforcement programs and

coordinates the review and implementation of regional, cross-program, and multimedia inspection and enforcement

activities including inspection coordination and review of selected enforcement actions.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

3-3

In addition to providing a management structure supportive of multimedia enforcement, some regions have

increased awareness of the potential for multimedia actions through training. Training has been directed at both

regional program office staff and State agency personnel. During FY 94, Region VII provided multimedia training to

the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ). This training was a result of dialogues between the region

and NDEQ management in which NDEQ identified several specific training needs. Region VII then designed, developed,

and provided training that met NDEQ's needs.

Another example of the region-State partnership at work in multimedia enforcement is provided by the

multimedia inspection of KBP Coil Coaters (Denver, Colorado) conducted in Region VIII. Six environmental programs

were interested in this facility and inspectors participated from four entities, including EPA, the State, the Denver

County Air Program, and the Denver Metro Wastewater Reclamation District. Various violations were discovered during

the inspection, including unidentified waste streams, unknown process modifications, abandoned underground storage

tanks and drums, potential PCB leaks, fire code violations, and potential OSHA violations.

Based on the coordinated inspections, Region VIII and Colorado began a coordinated enforcement response to

bring this facility into compliance and seek penalties for past violations. The response includes coordination of

additional information requested from the facility, financial status research, prioritization of compliance

activities, tracking and timed issuance of two NOVs, and two administrative complaints. A team approach involving

EPA and State personnel was taken in all these activities.

The regions have improved implementation of multimedia enforcement through oversight, training, and

State/region coordination. Equally important, however, are changes in the application of enforcement efforts. The

Regions have expanded the use of multimedia enforcement as one of many tools in support of broad regional and national

enforcement initiatives. For example, an inspection of the New Jersey Transit Bus Operations supported the national

transportation facilities initiative and South Dakota and Region VIII conducted a multimedia inspection at Merrilat

Industries in support of the National Wood Products Initiative.

Regional targeting strategies directly address national priorities. A primary example is the incorporation

of environmental justice considerations in prioritizing and targeting multimedia inspections. Regions III, IV, VIII,

and X reported consideration of environmental justice in multimedia targeting strategies. Region VIII, for example,

prepares an "environmental justice profile" for each site included in its inspection targeting and screening process,

so that environmental justice is evaluated with other criteria in determining the need for action at particular sites.

(For more information on environmental justice activities, see Sections 2.2 and 3.2.)

Multimedia enforcement in the regions has also benefitted from the consideration of priorities particular

to the individual regions. For example, Region II actively pursued several regional geographic enforcement

initiatives. The region's initiative in the Cataño region of Puerto Rico generated a number of enforcement cases in

addition to its major multimedia cases against PREPA and the Caribbean Petroleum Company. The region also pursued

geographic initiatives in the Corning, Chemung, and Cortland aquifer regions of New York, the Camden Aquifer region

of New Jersey, and the Niagara Frontier region of New York. Similarly, as part of the Puget Sound Initiative, Region

X participated in inspections in the Duwamish River watershed, an environmental justice area identified by a GIS

mapping system used for multimedia targeting. In conjunction with these inspections, Region X worked with contractors

to create a multimedia checklist designed to obtain readily available information relating to potential violations

of CWA, EPCRA, CAA, and TSCA.

Region X's experience illustrates another development in multimedia enforcement activities in the regions,

the use of multimedia checklists. Several of the regions have increased their use of this tool to broaden the scope

of program-specific investigations. Region II leads the Nation in single-media inspections performed using multimedia

checklists.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

3-4

Region IV has made environmental justice a focus of its

enforcement activities within its NPDES program by

doubling monitoring efforts at facilities located in minority

or lower income areas to ensure compliance. All of the

major industrial facilities along the Lower Mississippi

Corridor, from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, Louisiana,

are monitored closely to ensure compliance. These

facilities comply with their NPDES effluent limitations more

than 99 percent of the time. Compliance rates of

municipalities in the corridor are also closely monitored as

it became necessary to file a complaint against the City of

New Orleans in FY 1994, for long-term improper

treatment of its sewage.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

FY 94 efforts to include environmental justice in enforcement activities vary widely among regions, with some

regions explicitly including environmental justice as a criterion in targeting and others creating specific geographic

initiatives to address enforcement and compliance issues in environmental justice areas. Some regions have

incorporated environmental justice-oriented projects in SEP terms of case settlements or included equity

considerations as part of larger geographic initiatives. This section summarizes select environmental justice

activities in the regions, focusing first on compliance monitoring efforts and second on enforcement. Taken together,

these examples indicate that consideration of environmental justice is becoming a standard operating procedure in the

regions, with environmental justice activities being combined with other ongoing enforcement and compliance assurance

activities.

Region III developed two geographic initiatives

aimed at areas with environmental justice concerns. One

of these initiatives focuses on Chester, Pennsylvania,

an area in which more than 68 percent of the residents

are African-American, more than 60 percent are on public

assistance, and the average per-capita income is less

than $9,200. This area has a concentration of

industrial sources contributing to pollution, as well as

traffic and noise, which are of great concern to the

residents. The region's enforcement strategy in Chester

has two components: toxic emission reductions and

compliance.

Region III ranked facilities in Chester using

the chronic index, a system of weighing TRI emissions by their toxicity. The 10 highest scoring facilities were then

reviewed for enforcement potential and a number of multimedia and single-media inspections scheduled. Four multimedia

inspectionsand numerous single-media inspections are planned in FY 95. The goal of these actions is to reduce, either

directly through injunctions or indirectly through SEPs, emissions of toxic pollutants. A second aspect of the toxic

emission reduction strategy will grow out of a long-term risk assessment for Chester that is targeted for completion

in FY 95. Emissions estimates will be used to model exposures in order to determine which areas of the city are at the

greatest risk. Facilities with the highest emission levels will then become candidates for increased enforcement

surveillance. Region III also plans to improve compliance with environmental regulations in Chester by increasing

oversight in a number of programs.

The region's second geographic initiative focuses on the Anacostia River, Washington, DC. The Anacostia River

is among the most contaminated in the country. Fish tissue contamination is a public health concern. Economically

disadvantaged residents of the surrounding communities are exposed to risks that EPA and others are seeking to

eliminate. Recent studies of the Anacostia identified "hot spots" of sediment contamination that appear to be

associated with particular storm sewers. The sources of these contaminants, and their potential as continuing

sources, are not fully understood.

Region III's enforcement strategy is to identify the major sources of the contamination isolated in the

sediment/storm sewer studies and commence enforcement for ongoing discharges. The region will separately evaluate

the contribution of spills (especially of PCBs) in the storm drain area to the observed contamination of sediments and

fish in the Anacostia and evaluate enforcement as a means of preventing future spills. In addition, the region will

evaluate nearby Federal facilities and assess their present or historic contribution to the problem and responsibility

for participating in its solution.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

3-5

Region X is incorporating multimedia enforcement tools to

address enforcement and compliance issues in an

environmental justice area. As part of the Puget Sound

Initiative, Region X oversaw SPCC inspections in the

Duwamish River watershed, an environmental justice area

identified by the GIS mapping system used for multimedia

targeting. In conjunction with these inspections, the region

created a multimedia checklist designed to obtain readily

available information relating to potential violations of

CWA, EPCRA, CAA, and TSCA. Region X is working

cooperatively with the State of Washington and a Federal

natural resource trustee.

Inat least two cases in FY 94, EPA-New England

incorporated environmental justice projects in SEP

terms of case settlements. One such case, involving the

MassachusettsHighway Department (MHD), includes SEP

conditions for provision of hazardous materials

emergency response equipment to the local emergency

planning committees (LEPCs) in communities affected by

MHD operations, with particular focus on low-income and

minority neighborhoods. The equipment will assist the

local committees in tracking and storing information on

the identity and location of hazardous chemicals in

their districts and enhance their response action

information systems. Efforts will also be made to

remediate lots in inner city communities affected by MHD's hazardous waste practices; the plan is then to convert the

lots into beneficial areas, such as parks, green spaces, or economic development projects in the neighborhoods.

Similarly, EPA entered a consent agreement and final order in which the city of Boston agreed to pay $117,300

in civil penalties for violation of the TSCA PCB requirements at Boston City Hospital. The city also agreed to perform

a SEP as part of the settlement, which involves removal of 10 underground storage tanks located throughout the city

at a cost of more than $80,000. Boston City Hospital serves mostly a low income, minority population. The settlement

will bring this inner city hospital into compliance with environmental regulations and reduce the risk of harm to

public health and the environment in the Boston minority community.

During FY 94, Region VI developed a civil judicial enforcement action that was filled on October 27, 1994, in

the Middle District of Louisiana, against Borden Chemicals and Plastics and two related Borden entities. The case

involves alleged hazardous contaminant releases at Borden's Geismar, Louisiana facility, which is located in a highly

industrialized area on the Mississippi River with a predominantly African-American population. In addition, the case

alleges other violations, including illegal export of hazardous wastes to South Africa. In a press release issued on

October 27, 1994, EPA Administrator Carol Browner said, "The Clinton Administration is committed to making sure that

no company will realize unfair profits from pollution anywhere in the U.S., but particularly in minority and low-income

communities that already face disproportionate risks." The Administrator also noted that "environmental pollution

does not stop at U.S. borders, and we will use all of our enforcement authorities against those who engage in the

illegal international hazardous waste trade."

3.3 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS

FY 94 witnessed significant enforcement activities aimed at specific industrial sectors in the regions. Some

of the initiatives represented regional efforts to implement larger national programs, as described in Section 2;

others developed from region-specific priorities. This section highlights selected industry-specific initiatives

by region.

Several of the regions accomplished industry-specific compliance monitoring activities during FY 94. EPA-New

England, for example, developed and implemented an initiative under the CAA amendments of 1990. Under the CAA Stage

II initiative, the State of Connecticut conducted approximately 970 inspections at gasoline stations and other

facilities subject to the vapor recovery requirements and issued approximately 800 notices of violation. Also, as

part of the National Administrative Order with Automotive Service Stations project, Region III confirmed the closure

of all facilities inventoried by the major oil corporations within this region. More than 200 wells were closed as part

of the compliance and outreach effort specified in this order. The region also issued proposed orders for noncompliant

facilities that required the violators to inventory all facilities operated in this Region for additional injection

wells and to implement pollution prevention measures at all facilities.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

3-6

Region VI initiated an effort to ensure that quality data is

being submitted by laboratories. The region developed an

initiative within the NPDES Enforcement Program to

inspect and enforce, as necessary, against contract

laboratories that have been providing analytical services to

a number of major discharge facilities. The Enforcement

Program also works closely with the Regional Office of

Criminal Investigation to develop cases against individuals

for falsification of discharge monitoring report data.

Region VI provides an example of compliance monitoring under the National Combustion Initiatives. The region

and the States annually inspect 100 percent of the combustion facilities actually burning waste. During FY 94, Region

VIissued consent agreement and final orders (CAFOs) for five combustion cases. In addition, through the course of

30 inspections, Region VI discovered wide-spread noncompliance among foundries. Based on pervasive noncompliance

and the concerns over impacts to the environment and worker safety, the region targeted the foundry sector for

compliance assistance. The Region conducted inspections, gathered data, and met with industry and State agencies to

lay the groundwork for a meaningful State/EPA compliance outreach to the industry in FY 95.

Region VI's EPCRA enforcement activities included targeted compliance sweeps of facilities in a number of

industrial sectors. EPA conducted these sweeps in San Antonio and Fort Worth, Texas, targeting manufacturers, plating

shops, refineries, and warehouses. Of the 120 facilities inspected, 11 complaints were issued under EPCRA Section

312, for non-filing of inventory reports with State and local emergency response agencies.

Region VII also focused much of its efforts on

industry-specific compliance assistance activities.

For example, the region conducted the following

activities:

Conducted extensive outreach for two new

air toxics rules that were promulgated

under the CAA during FY 94. Two massive

mailings were sent to the dry cleaning

industry and the region set up a hot-line

number to allow people quick access for

answers.

Conducted outreach efforts in the chemical manufacturing industry for the new Hazardous Organic NESHAPs

regulation. A mail-out was sent to 300 potential sources subject to the new requirements. The region

emphasized education and outreach to facilities subject to new toxics rules promulgated under Section

112 of the CAA.

Implemented the Missouri Voluntary Compliance Program, which was aimed at non-metallic mineral

processing plants. This program offered a time-limited opportunity to a specific industrial sector to

disclose violations of the CAA NSPS testing/reporting requirements in exchange for reduced

administrative penalties and compliance assistance. This program brought 45 facilities into compliance,

most of which would not have been reached via traditional enforcement methods. Region VII is continuing

with the second phase of this program, which is to follow up with non-participating facilities in this

sector with strong traditional inspection and enforcement activities.

Conducted outreach meetings with the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition to assist that industry sector in

complying with the RCRA Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Rule.

Conducted extensive outreach/compliance assistance activities in the four States to alert and inform

members of the agricultural sector, Congress, State legislatures, and the public of the requirements of

the FIFRA Worker Protection Standards (WPS).

In FY 94, Region VIII conducted three major compliance and enforcement initiatives:
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

3-7

Mining Initiative: The goal of the Mining Initiative was to obtain compliance with the CWA at

approximately 300 active metal mines and metal mining exploration facilities. In South Dakota, EPA

identified and inspected all metal mines prior to delegation to the State. EPA has issued NPDES permits

to two of the mines and is pursuing an administrative enforcement action for discharge without an NPDES

permit for one of the mines. It is expected that the State will issue permits to the remaining South

Dakota mines by the end of 1994. The knowledge gained during the initiative will help identify and

develop optimum approaches for regulating mining activities. Previous RCRA inspections at about a dozen

mining facilities (including two trona mines) in Wyoming led to 8 RCRA § 3008(a) orders with FY 94

settlements totalling $506,267 and SEPs totalling $675,794.

Refinery Initiative: Under this initiative, Region VIII reviewed the issues surrounding the RCRA/CWA

interface pertaining to contaminated ground water seeps to surface water from petroleum refineries.

(This issue gained attention due to recent citizen suits against CRC and Texaco in the Region.) The

region identified approximately 40 operating and closed refineries. Of these, six have a "high" RCRA

corrective action ranking for surface water under NCAPS. In FY 94, the Court entered a consent decree

between the United States and Defendants known as the Powder River Crude Processors (Texaco Refining and

Marketing, Conoco Pipeline Company, Phillips Petroleum Company, Eighty-eight Oil Company, and True Oil

Company) which requires, among other things, payment of $300,000 in penalties and performance of work at

the Site, estimated to cost several million dollars, which addresses conditions posing imminent and

substantial endangerment to the environment. The Regional Refinery Workgroup is now completing a

comprehensive evaluation of and strategy for all the refineries in the Region.

Trona Initiative: Wyoming holds the largest deposits of soda ash in the U.S., in the form of an ore known

as "trona." As a result, five trona mines and processing plants have been built and are currently in

operation. The region of southwestern Wyoming in which these plants are congregated often has a visible

layer of air pollution hanging over it, which has prompted several citizen complaints over the past few

years. EPA and the States believe that the five trona plants are contributing significantly to this

pollution. Region VIII decided that, due to exceedances of mass particulate limits, as determined by

stack tests, condensable organic matter is being emitted and is likely a major contributor to the

pollution. Due to the grandfathering of these sources to the test methods for measuring condensable

organics,none of these "violations" has been able to go forward. The goals of the initiative are to

determine an approach for documenting the opacity violations at these plants and a strategy for

correcting this deficiency, such as a Finding of Violation pursuant to CAA Section 113(a)(2), which may

also lead to additional controls for volatile condensable organics. In FY 94, the RCRA program settled

two RCRA § 3008(a) orders with two trona mines for a total of $239,000. Additionally, the RCRA program

identifieda need for training in the management of hazardous waste at several of the plants. The Region

is also addressing acid rain and visibility issues affecting the Wind River Reservation (9,000 Arapahoe

and Shoshone) in the Rock Springs area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is looking into issues

affecting how the evaporation ponds affect migratory birds and effects on the Bridger and Fitzpatrick

Wilderness Area. Other programs participating in this initiative include: RCRA, NPDES, EPCRA §§

311/312/313, TSCA/PCB, and TSCA §§ 5 and 8. The Region is now completing a comprehensive multimedia

compliance evaluation of all trona mines and auxiliary industries in the Region.

Region VIII also contributed to other industry-specific initiatives. In response to the Data Quality

Initiative, the Region undertook targeted inspections of injection well operators' data gathering and reporting

procedures. As a result of the initiative, the region reinforced its belief that clearer UIC reporting requirements

in the UIC regulations are needed and that continued outreach is needed for operators to ensure that permit/regulatory

requirements are thoroughly understood and expectations for compliance are consistent.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

3-8

Under two separate initiatives aimed at public water

systems, Region III issued 209 NOVs to systems that failed

to comply with sampling and reporting requirements of the

Lead and Copper Rule, SDWA, and 226 NOVs to systems

that failed to comply with sampling and reporting

requirements for nitrate under the Phase II Rule, SDWA.

As part of the Federal enforcement program in Colorado and Wyoming, Region VIII specifically targeted

pesticide-producingestablishments potentially subject to the WPS, including bulk repackagers and users of aluminum

phosphide type pesticides for prairie dog control. Both initiatives documented compliance issues (i.e., bulk

repackagers are not complying with worker protection relabeling requirements and users of aluminum phosphide type

pesticides continue to violate endangered species labeling).

Region X participated in industry-specific initiatives in FY 94. One Region X air program initiative involved

rock crushing operations subject to Federal NSPS under the CAA. Region X conducted an intensive training effort to

inform the regulated community about the Federal requirements, including giving operators copies of the checklists

used by compliance inspectors, to help facilities voluntarily comply. Region X conducted several inspections in

northern Idaho, met with concerned citizens, and assisted the State of Idaho in its enforcement against several

facilities that were out of compliance. In addition, Region X reviewed more than 100 pest control advertisements that

allegedly made false or misleading safety claims. A citizen's group submitted the advertisements to EPA for review.

As a result of the review, the region issued 25 warning letters for clear violations of FIFRA and 16 letters advising

companies to make changes to their advertisements for less obvious violations.

Region X also funded an initiative by the Idaho Department of Agriculture to conduct a compliance audit of

every commercial and public pesticide applicator in the State during a 2-year period. The State inspector uses a

checklist during the site visit to evaluate recordkeeping, pesticide use, mixing/loading, storage, and disposal. The

inspector signs the checklist, which serves as a warning letter if violations were noted, and the applicator is given

time to make corrections. The initiative gives the department a chance to make contact with every applicator. More

than 400 audits were conducted in FY 94, and the program has been well received in the State.

Several regional industry-specific enforcement

actions also took place in FY 94. Region II initiated

industry-specificenforcement activities under the CAA.

The Region issued administrative penalty complaints

against the owners of six boating supply stores for

violating the ban on the sale of "non-essential"

products containing CFCs. The region issued these

penalty actions after inspections of the stores revealed

that each store was selling CFC-based propellants for marine safety horns. Region II also initiated the first

administrative penalty actions to secure compliance with the Sewage Sludge Use/Disposal Regulations (Part 503

Regulations) recently promulgated under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act. In August 1994, the Region filed five

administrative complaints against municipal wastewater treatment works under Section 309(g) of the CWA.

Region IV's RCRA program continued to lead the Nation in providing cases for the National Combustion

Initiative. Region IV and its States had 12 of the 22 cases settled and 2 of the 10 new actions announced under this

national initiative. Special emphasis was also given to the CFC initiative in the region. Region IV announced the

filing of nine administrative enforcement actions seeking $256,989 in penalties for violations of Sections 608 and

609 of the CAA. The cases involving Section 608 allege violations of disposal regulations for appliances containing

refrigerant capable of damaging the ozone layer and/or violations of prohibitions of venting refrigerant directly into

the atmosphere. The cases involving Section 609 allege failure to have certified equipment and technicians servicing

motor vehicle air conditioners.

During FY 94, Region VII issued 26 administrative complaints for violations of Section 609(c) of the CAA.

Respondents were charged with servicing or repairing motor vehicle air conditioners without proper training and

certification by an approved technician certification program and/or without proper use of approved equipment. The

complaints addressed violators in each of the States located in Region VII and the proposed penalties totaled $170,000.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

3-9

Eleven of the 28 FIFRA administrative complaints issued by Region VII in FY 94 involved cross-contamination of bulk

repackaged pesticides. These cases, which are highly complex and controversial and have no precedent, have consumed

a significant amount of regional resources to develop and litigate. They have also focused national attention on the

regulated community and the Agency on pesticide product cross-contamination and have encouraged coordination among

the members of the regulated community, States, and the Agency to try and resolve the difficult regulatory and

potential risk and food safety issues posed by cross-contamination of pesticides.

3.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS

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

cases. Nominally, SEPs are projects voluntarily undertaken by members of the regulated community in conjunction with

case settlements to provide some level of environmental benefit usually unrelated to the nature of the violations

committed. In exchange for SEP performance, the facility is granted penalty relief equaling some fraction of the total

value of the stipulated penalty. Historically applied predominantly in reporting violation cases, SEPs are maturing

into a more versatile tool, with SEPs now included in CAA, CWA, RCRA, and other program area settlements.

In FY 94, EPA-New England negotiated 21 SEPs worth approximately $7.3 million. Region II included SEPs in 28

settlements under the CAA, EPCRA, TSCA, RCRA, and CWA programs with a total dollar value of more than $18.5 million.

In most cases, the value of these SEPs substantially exceeded the value of the civil penalties that they were used to

offset; overall, penalty offsets totaled less than $4 million. Region III negotiated 10 SEPs, at a total dollar value

of approximately $10.2 million. Region VII incorporated SEPs into settlements at a value of more than $7 million.

Region V also settled several cases using SEPs with a total value of the SEPs being approximately $5.4 million.

Thirteen SEPs were worth more than $100,000. Region X negotiated 25 SEPs in FY 94. The dollar value of the SEPs was

nearly $1.3 million. Of the 25 SEPs, 20 were in the pollution reduction and pollution prevention categories.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

3-10

SEP Category Example of Project Type Included in FY 1994 SEP

Cleanup/Restoration Projects • UST removal

Abandoned oil production well plugging and site restoration

Abandoned mine land reclamation (partial)

Disposal PCB testing and removal

Asbestos abatement

Environmental Audit Facility environmental and chemical usage audits

Outreach/Enforcement-Related Environmental

Public Awareness Projects

Resource commitments (e.g., computers, other equipment, personnel) to

LEPCs

Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention—Process

Modification

Solvent substitution and other toxics reduction through product

substitution

Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention—

Technological Improvement

Installation of alternative cooling system to reduce fresh water

withdrawals

Training Compliance awareness publications in trade journals

Training for LEPCs

Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction—Process

Modification

Installation of high-efficiency lighting

Wastewater treatment facility improvements

Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction—

Recycling

Utilization of wastewater treatment sludge as fertilizer

Waste Minimization/Pollution Reduction—

Technological Improvement

Improved scrubber performance for air toxics reduction

Demonstration project for air toxics reduction

Table 3-1. Types of Supplemental Environmental Projects in Case Settlements

In FY 94, SEPs included diverse projects such as resource commitments to local emergency planning councils,

anair toxics reduction technology demonstration study, source reduction and pollution reduction programs and process

changes, energy conservation, land reclamation, and recycling. Pollution prevention projects received particular

attention, in keeping with current regional and national priorities. Table 3-1 lists some of the types of projects

included as SEPs in case settlements.

Some of the SEPs incorporated into settlements require substantial process modifications at manufacturing

facilities resulting in significant source reduction gains benefitting the environment. Region III executed a CACO,

with an associated Settlement Conditions Document, settling an EPCRA administrative action filed against the Homer

Laughlin China Company for violations of EPCRA Section 313. The settlement included a substantial SEP, exceeding $9

million, in which Laughlin converted its entire china dinner-ware production system to a lead free process.

A consent decree filed in settlement of claims against I.E. DuPont de Nemours for violations of its NPDES

permit and Section 301 of the CWA contained a pollution prevention SEP. This SEP will prevent the generation of between

60 million and 145 million pounds of RCRA hazardous waste per year currently being deep well injected in onsite

disposalwells. The information on the violations was received from self-reporting and from an EPA inspection. Under

the consent decree, DuPont agreed to pay a civil penalty of $516,430 and to perform a SEP costing an estimated $3.2

million.

The process modifications required in some SEPs may also involve the application of developing innovative

technologies, thereby serving a valuable technology demonstration function with possible attendant environmental

benefits at future sites. For example, Region IV filed a CACO against Everwood Treatment Company, Inc., resolving

Everwood's violations of Section 103 of CERCLA and Section 304 of EPCRA. The CACO settled this action for $54,500 and

required the respondent to pay $32,000. In addition, the CACO calls for Everwood to implement a SEP to construct a new

wood treatment plant 
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

3-11

In Region IV, the U.S. District Court entered a consent

decree that settled Crown, Cork & Seal Inc.'s (CC&S)

alleged violations of the CAA's prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) requirements and NSPS. The CACO

had a civil penalty of $343,000 and required CC&S to

perform three SEPs valued at more than $2 million. The

penalty represents one of the largest CAA settlements by

built specifically for the use of a wood preservative that is not a hazardous waste. This SEP will cost approximately

$225,000. If successful, Everwood's SEP could set a precedent for other wood treaters and, thus encourage the

reduction in one the Nation's most toxic hazardous wastes.

Several FY 94 SEPs required violators to

perform environmental projects at locations other than

where violations occurred. This approach directed

effort toward achieving a greater environmental benefit

than may otherwise have been practicable. In one such

case, the U.S. District Court entered a consent decree

resolving a suit brought by EPA and the State of Arizona

against Magma Copper Company in response to violations

of the CWA and related State law at three copper mining

and processing facilities operated in southeastern Arizona. The decree requires Magma to pay penalties of $385,000

to the United States and $240,000 to the State of Arizona. The decree also requires Magma to undertake compliance

measures and to complete a SEP designed to control contamination at an abandoned mine. The cost to Magma is estimated

to be $1.5 million. In addition, the decree further requires Magma to pay $50,000 to fund three additional SEPs that

the U.S. Forest Service will complete to benefit the affected watersheds.

In another multisite SEP, Region III and Anzon, Inc., a manufacturer of lead products, settled a TSCA

administrative complaint involving violations of the Inventory Update Rule (IUR) requirements of the TSCA. Anzon

failed to submit IUR reports on four chemicals manufactured at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant. Anzon agreed

to pay a $57,000 civil penalty, $43,620 of which may be remitted by EPA upon completion of SEPs in Anzon's Philadelphia

and Laredo, Texas, facilities. The Philadelphia project involves the early removal and disposal of four PCB

transformers. The Laredo project requires increased controls for the capture of antimony oxide emissions from the

facility. These projects have a combined estimated cost of $198,800. The Laredo project represents a TSCA settlement

in Region III with an "inter-regional" SEP.

In Region V, two noteworthy SEPs were negotiated in FY 94. In the first, Ohio Power agreed to remove 600 PCB

capacitors at a cost of $61,547. The second SEP, for EPCRA Section 313 violations, requires Welded Tube in Chicago,

Illinois, to replace its solvent paint with water-based paint to reduce the release of toluene and xylene by 298,610

pounds per year. The SEP is estimated at $300,000.

3.5 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS

Unlike other initiative areas discussed in this document, consideration of sensitive ecosystems in regional

enforcement activities does not relate to discrete program activities. Whereas SEPs and multimedia activities relate

to the specific category of enforcement activity conducted, and industry-specific or Federal facility initiatives

relate to identifiable sub-populations of the regulated community, sensitive ecosystem activities can include a wide

range of enforcement or compliance assurance tactics and can be aimed at any specific or mixed population of the

regulated community. As shown in Section 3.2, several environmental justice initiatives could also be categorized

as sensitive ecosystem or sensitive environment initiatives. This section presents regional efforts to protect

identified sensitive ecosystems and environments, other than those with environmental justice concerns.

During FY 94, a number of regions conducted geographic initiatives targeting identifiable ecosystems. Region

II, for example, brought a case against Broomer Research, Inc., which is located in a mixed industrial and residential

area of Islip, Long Island, New York, and is situated directly over a ground water aquifer, a source of drinking water

for the community. The plant manufactures optical lenses and uses thorium fluoride and organic solvents in the coating

and cleaning process. The Suffolk County Department of Health (SCDOH) identified organic solvents in the wastewater

sludges generated and then discharged by Broomer into its sanitary septic system. EPA, SCDOH, the U.S. Attorney for
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

3-12

the Eastern District of New York, and several other Department of Defense offices executed a search warrant to inspect

this facility. Samples taken during this inspection contained appreciable amounts of organic solvents in the

wastewater and appreciable levels of radionuclides, assumed to be thorium, in the sludge discharged to the septic

system. On June 24, 1994, Region II issued an administrative order on consent to Broomer Research, Inc. under the

"emergency" authorities of Section 7003 of RCRA and Section 1431 of SDWA. This is the first time the Region has used

its emergency authority under Section 1431 of SDWA.

The Mid-Snake River area (near Twin Falls, Idaho) has and continues to be a high-priority watershed for Region

X. The region conducted a workshop in Boise, Idaho, for State and EPA inspectors in preparation for the upcoming

inspections of feedlots and dairies in the Twin Falls and Boise areas. The workshop covered items to look for at these

operationsand information required for the inspection reports. Region X and the State inspected 74 facilities,

several of which were identified as having violated the CWA. EPA is preparing these cases for formal enforcement

actions. The inspections also identified 24 facilities with potential problems. These facilities were sent letters

notifying them of the potential problems.

Another example of ecosystem protection is Region V's new effort to protect the ecosystem of the Mississippi

River basin. In addition to its Cleveland office, the region's Criminal Investigation Division has recently announced

the opening of new offices in Minneapolis and Detroit. These offices ensure that a local workforce is available to

investigateand support prosecutions in these areas. Region V has also taken steps to protect other sensitive

ecosystems in the region, including:

21 SEPs negotiated in the Great Lakes Basin of Region V in hopes of providing added protection for that

sensitive environment

6 SEPs negotiated in the geographic region of the SEMI Initiative

SEPs in other geographic initiatives as well, including 2 under the Gateway Initiative.

3.6 FEDERAL FACILITIES

In FY 94, the regions continued to focus their enforcement and compliance assistance activities on Federal

facilities. Using the Federal Facilities Compliance Act as its basis, Regional enforcement personnel continued to

target, inspect, and take enforcement actions against Federal facilities. In several of the activities, the region

and the applicable State worked closely to ensure that the action taken would benefit both public health and the

environment. EPA-New England initiated a specific compliance assistance program in FY 94—the Multimedia Federal

Facility Program environmental management review (EMR) effort. The purpose of conducting an EMR is to review a Federal

facility's overall environmental management program (structure, staffing, training program) and assist the facility

with compliance issues. After an EMR is conducted, a brief report is prepared and provided to the facility. In FY 94,

two EMRs were conducted, and six are planned for FY 95.

Several regions also conducted compliance monitoring activities at Federal facilities. During FY 94, for

example, Region III continued its vigorous oversight of environmental regulations/statutes at Federal facilities.

This included multimedia inspections at Ft. Belvoir, Maryland, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head,

Maryland. Regions II and IV also targeted Federal facilities for multimedia inspections. Region II conducted three

Federalfacility multimedia inspections in FY 94; Region IV conducted seven Federal facility multimedia inspections.

While the majority of such actions are typically taken against military installations (i.e., Army bases, Navy

bases), some are taken against other types of Federal facilities. For example, Region III issued an emergency

administrative order under Section 1431 of the SDWA to the District of Columbia. The Government of the District of

Columbia owns and operates a public water system for the storage and distribution of piped water for human consumption
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

3-13

to the residents of the District and surrounding areas. The Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, provides the

water. In late 1993, water samples collected by the District and analyzed were total coliform positive, a violation

of the Total Coliform Rule. One repeat sample was fecal coliform positive, an acute violation that may pose a risk to

human health. The District issued a boil water advisory to the people in the vicinity of the fecal coliform positive

sample location, issued public notice of the violations, and increased its distribution system flushing program.

In response to the imminent and substantial endangerment created by the unusually high percentage of total

coliform-positive samples within the District of Columbia's public water system, EPA Region III issued an Emergency

Administrative Order to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, to determine whether the Corps

contributed to or could have helped prevent the District's violation. EPA staff from Region III, Headquarters, and

Cincinnati, inspected the treatment plants and made recommendations for further action by the Corps of Engineers.

Before the Corps had the opportunity to implement EPA's recommendations, an exceedance of the turbidity

maximum contaminant level (MCL) occurred at the Dalecarlia water treatment plant. In response to this turbidity MCL

exceedance, EPA issued a boil water notice to all users of the distribution system in Falls Church and Arlington,

Virginia, as well as in the District. EPA established a command center and hotline in the offices of the Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments and directed the Corps to conduct extensive water quality monitoring. Testing was

negative, and the boil water advisory was lifted. Following inspections of the Dalecarlia plant by EPA Headquarters,

Cincinnati, and regional personnel and a subsequent investigation by EPA's NEIC, Region III issued an Emergency Order

to the Corps that incorporated the recommendations from the inspections. In addition, the order incorporated the

recommendations from EPA's previous investigation of the coliform problem. EPA subsequently participated in two

congressional hearings on the matter conducted by the District's Representative to Congress.

EPA and the States initiated the following enforcement actions against military installations in FY 94:

Naval Construction Battalion Center (NCBC): EPA-New England reached a precedent-setting settlement with

the Navy under RCRA. The Navy agreed to pay a penalty of $57,223 for RCRA violations at the Naval

Construction Battalion Center in Davisville, Rhode Island. The penalty was the first RCRA penalty

collected by the region against a Federal facility and the first collected nationally from the Navy under

the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. The action resulted from a multimedia inspection of the

facility conducted by EPA-New England with State participation. The complaint alleged numerous

hazardous waste management and disposal violations by the Navy.

Natick Army Laboratory: EPA-New England issued its first complaint against the Army pursuant to EPA's

authority under the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. Based on an inspection at the Natick

facility, the region proposed a civil penalty of $117,000. The respondent violated a variety of RCRA base

program requirements, including failure to properly conduct hazardous waste determinations, failure to

clearly label and mark satellite accumulation containers, failure to keep containers of hazardous waste

closed during storage, and failure to label properly containers stored at the less than 90 day storage

area.

West Virginia Ordnance Works: A dispute with the U.S. Army resulted in payment of stipulated penalties

to Region III in the amount of $500,000 for violations occurring at the West Virginia Ordnance Works

Superfund Site. EPA assessed stipulated penalties in the amount of $2 million for the Army's failure to

submit documents within the established deadlines of the second IAG. The Army invoked the dispute

resolution provisions of the IAGs; the disputes were eventually elevated to the Senior Executive

Committee, which settled on a $500,000 penalty with requirements to implement an improved reporting and

tracking system.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

3-14

RCRA-Aberdeen Proving Ground Facility: EPA Region III issued a RCRA Section 3008(a) administrative

complaint to the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) facility in Aberdeen, Maryland, citing APG for

storing for more than 1 year 171 containers of hazardous waste restricted from land disposal. The

complaint also cited APG for manifest violations concerning the shipment of land disposal restricted

hazardous waste. The penalty was $115,546. This administrative complaint was the first issued by Region

III to a Federal facility pursuant to the newly enacted Federal Facility Compliance Act. In addition to

this RCRA action, the SDWA-UIC program is undertaking an inventory and remediation action at Aberdeen in

response to the identification of numerous injection wells at the facility.

In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California: Region IX signed a CACO resolving an

administrative complaint against the U.S. Naval Air Facility in El Centro, California, involving various

RCRA violations. Under the terms of the settlement, the Navy will pay a penalty of $100,000 and will

implement two SEPs relating to pollution prevention. The first SEP involves the installation of six jet

parts washers that will use high-velocity water and biodegradable detergent in lieu of the solvents

currently used to achieve a 90-percent reduction in the volume of hazardous wastes used in degreasing

operations. The second SEP involves the construction of a hazardous waste minimization center, which

will achieve a 25-percent reduction in hazardous waste generation through centralized ordering and

distribution of hazardous materials. The total cost of the two supplemental environmental projects is

approximately $250,000.

The case is significant because it was Region IX's first enforcement action under the Federal Facility

Compliance Act of 1992. In addition, the consent agreement is significant because, for the first time

in an agreement with a Federal facility, EPA was able to limit the dispute resolution process to the

regional level. Any disputes under this consent agreement will not go beyond the Deputy Director of

Region IX's Hazardous Waste Management Division.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

3-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.0 REGIONAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES 3-1

3.1 MULTIMEDIA APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS............... 3-1

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE................................................ 3-4

3.3 INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SECTORS............................................. 3-6

3.4 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS.............................. 3-9

3.5 SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS................................................. 3-12

3.6 FEDERAL FACILITIES..................................................... 3-13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Types of Supplemental Environmental Projects in Case Settlements ................... 3-11

LIST OF FIGURES
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PENALTIES

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) mandate to protect public health and safety depends on

effective enforcement. The costs of violating environmental laws, both direct litigation costs, as well as costs

resulting from remediation and the assessment of civil penalties or criminal fines and incarceration, are great.

Strong, deterrence-based enforcement—as reflected, for example, in the rapid growth of EPA's criminal enforcement

program—creates a climate that forcefully motivates innovation, prevention, and compliance by the regulated

community.

EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program operates at its peak when strong enforcement is used in

tandem with the compliance assistance programs. The tools and methods are familiar:

Criminal sanctions

Administrative actions/injunctive relief that force violators to correct their violations

Civil/Judicial referrals

Monetary penalties that are designed to punish violators and assure the recovery of the economic benefit

of noncompliance.

These tools, used in conjunction with the compliance assurance activities identified and discussed throughout

this document, will continue to play a pivotal role in increasing compliance with environmental laws and regulations,

and thus protecting human health and the environment.

During FY 94, the Agency brought a record 2,246 enforcement actions with sanctions, surpassing the previous

mark established in FY 93. This record includes 220 criminal cases, 1,596 administrative penalty actions, 403 new

civil referrals to the Department of Justice, and 27 additional civil referrals to enforce existing consent decrees.

These administrative, judicial, and criminal sanctions are the primary enforcement tools used to correct violations,

establish deterrence, and create incentives for future compliance.

The FY 94 figures also indicate that the States were active in their enforcement efforts against noncomplying

entities. These figures indicate that States took 11,334 enforcement actions. The States take the majority of

environmental enforcement actions and are primary partners with EPA in assuring national compliance with the

environmental laws and regulations.

Penalties for FY 94 totaled a record $151 million combined for civil penalties and criminal fines and another

$206 million was returned to the Treasury through Superfund cost recovery. Figure 4-1
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

4-2

Figure 4-1. EPA Civil Penalties and Criminal Fines

presents the FY 94 penalty totals compared to the totals for the last 5 years.

The Agency's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) greatly expanded the scope of its activities. In

October 1992, Congress, through the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA), clarified that EPA has RCRA order and

penalty authority against Federal agencies. Since passage of the FFCA, EPA has issued 20 compliance orders to Federal

agencies. In FY 94, it issued 10 RCRA administrative penalty orders to military facilities with proposed penalties

exceeding $5.7 million. In addition, the program negotiated 5 federal facility compliance agreements and 2 CERCLA

cleanup agreements. OFFE also continued to implement its Federal Facilities Multimedia Enforcement/Compliance

Initiative by taking follow-up enforcement actions after conducting 41 multimedia investigations at federal

facilities across the country in FY 93.

The following sections discuss some of the specific environmental enforcement activities, including criminal

enforcement, administrative enforcement, referrals, and CERCLA enforcement. There is also a general discussion of

penalties. This section concludes with several tables that contain regional-specific information pertaining to

environmental enforcement activities and penalties.

4.1 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT

EPA's criminal enforcement program set new records in several categories, including 220 referrals to the

Department of Justice (36 percent more than the record of 140 set in FY 93), criminal charges brought against 250

individual and corporate defendants (40 percent more than the record of 161 set in FY 93), and 99 years worth of jail

sentences imposed (25 percent more than the 74.3 years of incarceration imposed in FY 93). The program also assessed

$36.8 million in criminal fines (19 percent more than the $29.7 million assessed in FY 93). Figure 4-2 provides a

statistical comparison of criminal enforcement activities over the last 5 years.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

4-3

The Pollution Prosecution Act (PPA) of 1990 authorized a number of enhancements to EPA's enforcement program.

Most significantly, the Act mandated an increase in criminal investigators to 200 by FY 96. In addition, the PPA

required "increasing numbers of additional support staff (i.e., technical, legal, and administrative) to the Office

of Criminal Enforcement." By the end of FY 94, EPA had increased the number of criminal agents to 123 compared to 47

in FY 89. As shown in Figure 4-1, this 
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

4-4

Figure 4-2. Office of Criminal Enforcement

Five Year Statistical Comparison

Figure 5-1. Office of Criminal Enforcement
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

4-5

additional investment in agents has yielded significant increases in most key areas of the criminal program including

525 new investigations in FY 94.

As mentioned, OCE referred 220 criminal cases to DOJ in FY 94 and opened 525 new investigations. Table 4-1

presents information on the number of referrals and new investigations by statute.

Table 4-1. Number of New Investigations Opened and Referrals to DOJ

by EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program in FY 94

Statute/Program Area New Investigations Opened Referrals to DOJ

Clean Air Act 89 39

Clean Water Act 174 66

Wetlands 14 3

Safe Drinking Water Act 7 2

RCRA 173 74

CERCLA 21 12

TSCA 11 6

FIFRA 22 15

Other 14 3

Total 525 220

Also contributing to the increase in criminal enforcement activity is a document issued by OCE—"Guidance on

the Exercise of Investigative Discretion." This guidance was the first comprehensive guidance issued by EPA that

established discrete criteria for Agency investigators when considering whether or not to proceed with a criminal

investigation. The guidance was designed to promote consistent, but flexible application of the criminal

environmental statutes.

4.2 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT

In FY 94, the Agency took nearly 3,600 administrative enforcement actions. This number emphasizes the

importance EPA is placing on administrative enforcement mechanisms to address violations, compel regulated facilities

to achieve compliance, and assess penalties. EPA's expanded authority with administrative actions now allows the

Agency to impose injunctive relief and penalties that are comparable to those that could be imposed through civil

judicial enforcement. In FY 94, EPA issued 1,596 administrative penalty orders for more than $48 million. Table 4-2

provides information on administrative penalty orders by statute/program area.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

4-6

Table 4-2. Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area

Statute/Program No. of Cases (in dollars)

Penalties

Clean Air Act 171 3,882,550

Clean Water Act 272 5,154,892

Safe Drinking Water Act 70 393,402

RCRA 103 9,824,031

UST 102 3,760,190

TSCA 288 14,236,483

EPCRA 242 8,266,020

FIFRA 150 1,779,448

CERCLA 35 723,925

Total 1,433 48,021,941 1 1

These numbers do not include the 163 administrative penalty actions taken by EPA Headquarters under the Clean Air

1

Act. Penalty amounts were not available at the time of publication.

In addition to the administrative penalty orders, EPA issued a total of 166 civil judicial penalties totalling

more than $65 million. Table 4-3 presents a breakout of those penalties by statute/program area.

Figures 4-3 through 4-6 on the following pages are graphical representations of the administrative and civil

judicial statistics.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

4-7

Figure 6-1. Number of Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

4-8

Figure 7-1. Total Penalties Assessed in Administrative Penalty Orders

(by Statute/Program Area)

Figure 8-1. Number of Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

4-9

Figure 9-1. Total Amount of Civil Judicial Penalties (by Statute/Program Area)

Table 4-3. Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area

Statute/Program No. of Cases (in dollars)

Penalties

Clean Air Act 67 13,490,486

Clean Water Act 51 20,006,225

Safe Drinking Water Act 2 20,000

RCRA 24 12,342,760

TSCA 2 1,121,100

EPCRA 0 0

FIFRA 1 500

CERCLA 17 4,999,859

Multimedia 2 13,655,000

Total 166 65,635,930
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

4-10
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

4-11

Several regions reported information on injunctive relief. In Region II, for example, there was approximately

$350 million in non-CERCLA injunctive relief (largely driven by the Kodak settlement) and approximately $112 million

in CERCLA injunctive relief. In Region III, preliminary estimates indicate an injunctive relief/cost recovery total

of nearly $412 million. The large dollar value reported is largely attributable to the region's Superfund Enforcement

Program, especially the Removal Enforcement Program, which had a $267 million multi-regional settlement in FY 94.

In Region V, there were 63 injunctive relief cases. The value of the injunctive relief in FY 94 was $141 million.

However, there are still several cases pending that could change this number. Region VIII reported five cases with

injunctive relief.

4.3 CIVIL REFERRALS

The430 civil referrals brought in FY 94 by the regions and the regulatory enforcement office—both new and to

enforce existing consent decrees—are the highest 1-year total in EPA's history. In addition to the 403 civil

referrals,the Agency also referred 27 cases to DOJ to enforce existing consent decrees. Table 4-4 presents

information on the statute/program area of the 430 FY 94 civil referrals.

Table 4-4. Number of Civil Referrals by Statute

Statute Number of Civil Referrals

Clean Air Act 139

Clean Water Act 86

Safe Drinking Water Act 11

RCRA 35

TSCA 6

EPCRA 6

FIFRA 1

CERCLA 144

Total 4281

 This number does not include 2 civil referrals made by EPA Headquarters. 1

4.4 CERCLA ENFORCEMENT

The Superfund program secured more than $1.4 billion in private party remedial cleanup commitments in FY 94.

This was the fifth consecutive year in which private party cleanup commitments exceeded $1 billion, bringing the total

value of private party cleanups to $10 billion since the program's inception. Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)

conducted approximately 80 percent of the remedial work at National Priority List sites during FY 94, the largest

percentage to date.

Ofthis total amount, approximately $959 million was for remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA) response

work. The three types of RD/RA settlements and their associated values were:
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

4-12

35 consent decrees referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for cleanup response estimated at $585

million

35 unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) issued to PRPs and with which they have agreed to comply, for

response worth over $295 million

18 administrative orders on consent (AOCs) for remedial design estimated at close to $79 million.

The Superfund program also concluded "de minimis" settlements with over 4,000 PRPs, by far the most negotiated

in any single year since the inception of the program. The Superfund enforcement program has expanded the use of these

settlements to make negotiations more efficient and to reduce the transaction costs to parties that had been only minor

contributors of wastes to superfund sites.

In FY 94 the Agency issued a total of 110 unilateral administrative orders (versus 126 in FY-93), and signed

154 administrative orders on consent (versus 108 in FY-93) with PRPs. The Agency addressed 186 past costs cases,

including statute of limitations cases, for amounts greater than or equal to $200,000. Of these actions:

42 were cases referred to DOJ for cost recovery

34 were administrative settlements

74 were decision documents in which EPA formally decided not to pursue any further cost recovery actions.

The program achieved total cost recovery settlements worth over $205 million (compared to $199 million

achieved in FY 93).

In FY 94 approximately 75 percent of the total RD/RA starts at non-federal facility sites were initiated by

PRPs. In FY 93, the percentage of PRP initiated RD starts was 65 percent, and the percentage of PRP initiated RA starts

was 79 percent.

Since the inception of the Superfund Program in 1980, PRPs have committed to response actions estimated at

over $10 billion, and the program has achieved cost recovery settlements for over $1.4 billion.

4.4.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution

During FY 94, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Regional Offices of Regional Counsel

made substantial progress toward the Agency's stated goals of making the consideration and appropriate use of

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms standard operating procedure for all enforcement actions and

implementing the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and Executive Order on Civil Justice Reform. Significant

strides were made in every aspect of the ADR Program including case use of ADR, case support systems, training and

internal ADR services, and outreach to the regulated community.

The use of ADR mechanisms to assist resolution of enforcement negotiations were initiated by Regional offices

in 13 civil actions during FY 94. These results substantially surpassed the figures for FY 1993. In addition, at 29

sites regional offices supported PRP allocation settlement efforts through encouraging and providing ADR services

in coordination with OSRE. Regional support for the use of ADR grew substantially, with all regional offices using

or supporting PRP use of ADR to assist settlement efforts. FY 94 also heralded an increased awareness of ADR as a tool

for increasing the efficiency of resolution of future disputes, with mediation included in the dispute resolution

provisions of several judicial and administrative settlement documents.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

4-13

The scope of ADR use also expanded during FY 94, with the first significant uses of ADR beyond traditional

Superfund cost recovery and RD/RA cases. For the first time in actions of this magnitude, Region II and Region III

utilized ADR professionals to obtain agreement on major de minimis settlements involving over 1,000 parties. In

addition, a pilot in the use of arbitration to resolve Superfund cost recovery cases, conducted with the assistance

of private arbitration experts, resulted in the drafting of proposed case selection criteria and hearing procedures.

4.5 EPA CONTRACTOR LISTING

In June of 1994, the responsibility for administering the contractor listing program shifted from OECA to the

Office of Administration and Resources Management. Prior to the reorganization, 18 facilities were added to EPA's

List of Violating Facilities (List) under the authorities provided to EPA by the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 306 and

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 508. Under these sections of the CAA and CWA, Federal agencies are prohibited by

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

to be performed at facilities owned or operated by persons who are convicted of violating air standards under CAA

113(c) or water standards under CWA 309(c), effective automatically on the date of the conviction. Facilities that

are mandatorily listed remain on the List until EPA determines they have corrected the conditions that resulted in the

violations. As of June 1994, 133 total facilities were on the List. Eighteen of these were added in FY 94. Seven

facilities were removed from the List in FY 94 and an additional 13 removal requests were pending.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

4-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PENALTIES................ 4-1

4.1 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT................................................. 4-2

4.2 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT..................................................... 4-4

4.3 CIVIL REFERRALS......................................................... 4-8

4.4 CERCLA ENFORCEMENT................................................... 4-8

4.4.1 Alternative Dispute Resolution...................................... 4-9

4.5 EPA CONTRACTOR LISTING.............................................. 4-10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1. Number of New Investigations Opened and Referrals to DOJ by EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program

in FY 94 ................................................................... 4-4

Table 4-2. Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area............................. 4-5

Table 4-3. Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area................................... 4-5

Table 4-4. Number of Civil Referrals by Statute............................................ 4-8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1. EPA Civil Penalties and Criminal Fines.......................................... 4-2

Figure 4-2. Office of Criminal Enforcement................................................ 4-3

Figure 4-3. Number of Administrative Penalty Orders by Statute/Program Area .................... 4-6

Figure 4-4. Total Penalties Assessed in Administrative Penalty Orders

(by Statute/Program Area)................................................. 4-6

Figure 4-5. Number of Civil Judicial Penalties by Statute/Program Area .......................... 4-7

Figure 4-6. Total Amount of Civil Judicial Penalties (by Statute/Program Area)................... 4-7
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-1

REGION I

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S. v. D'Addario Industries, Inc., et al. (D. Conn.):

On July 5, 1994, the court approved a Stipulated

Settlement Agreement (SSA) resolving a consent decree

enforcement action in this CAA asbestos case. The SSA

requires defendants to pay the full amount of stipulated

penalties owed, plus interest, for a total payment to the

United States of over $109,000. EPA took this action for

stipulated penalties after defendants paid a portion of

the underlying penalty more than 6 months late. The

decree required payment of stipulated penalties of $500

per day for each day the penalty payment was late.

In re Syncor International Corporation: On September

26, 1994, EPA issued an administrative order to Syncor

International Corporation of Woburn, MA, for failure to

comply with the radionuclide NESHAP (Subpart I) emission

standard. The order required Syncor to comply with the

emission standard and to begin submitting monthly

reports to EPA and a compliance plan as required by

Subpart I for those facilities that report exceedances

of the radionuclide emission standard.

CLEAN WATER ACT

U.S. v. L.S. Starrett Company (D. Mass.): On May 12,

1994, the court entered a consent decree resolving

violations of CWA pretreatment requirements by the L.S.

Starrett Company, a metal finisher located in Athol, MA.

EPA had alleged that Starrett had violated §§ 307 and 308

of the Act by (1) exceeding effluent limitations, (2)

violating the pH standard, and (3) failing to comply with

reporting requirements. The consent decree requires

Starrett to maintain compliance with pretreatment

requirements and to pay a civil penalty of $325,000 for

its past violations.

RCRA

Allegro Microsystems, Inc.: On April 5, 1994, EPA-New

England issued a RCRA complaint against Allegro

Microsystems, Inc. of Worcester, MA. The complaint

alleges that since August 21, 1991, Allegro has been

burning hazardous waste in two industrial boilers

without a permit or interim status. In addition, the

complaint alleges that Allegro failed to comply with the

operating conditions for boilers contained in the boiler

and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations. These

regulations require emissions monitoring and set

emissions standards for a number of pollutants. The

complaint proposes a penalty of $102,194 and orders

Allegro to cease burning hazardous waste. This was the

first action brought by EPA pursuant to the BIF

regulations.

In re Massachusetts Highway Department: In a consent

agreement resolving a RCRA administrative action issued

on September 30, 1994, EPA, the MA DEP, and the

Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) agreed that MHD

will spend $20 million to investigate and remediate

environmental problems at all 138 of its facilities and

will dedicate $5 million to several SEPs, including

projects that will benefit environmental justice areas.

In addition, MHD will pay a civil penalty of $100,000 to

settle this action brought by EPA for the state agency's

violations of hazardous waste laws.

U.S. v. Hanlin Group, Inc. (D. Maine): On December 22,

1993, a consent decree was entered by the court against

the Hanlin Group, Inc. of Linden, NJ. Hanlin agreed to

pay a $1,152,000 penalty for violations of RCRA at its

Orrington, Maine, facility. Hanlin also agreed to

complete a site investigation and corrective measures

study prior to undertaking any necessary corrective

action at the facility. EPA determined that Hanlin had

allowed releases of mercury, carbon tetrachloride,

1,1,2-trichloroethane, and trichloroethylene into the

groundwater flowing under the facility and the Penobscot

River. A 1986 administrative consent agreement entered

into by Hanlin and EPA had required Hanlin to undertake

an RCRA facility investigation, including sampling,

analysis, monitoring, and reporting of hazardous wastes,

at the facility. The December 23, 1994 settlement

addressed the violations of the 1986 consent agreement.

In re Hamilton-Standard: On April 18, 1994, EPA and

Hamilton-Standardentered into EPA's first RCRA §3008(h)

correctiveaction order to contain Alternate Dispute

Resolution (ADR) provisions. EPA determined that a

plume of contaminated groundwater migrating from the

facility might present an imminent and substantial
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-2

endangerment to human health or the environment, This civil administrative case arose as a result of EPA's

specifically to groundwater used by residents. Further, PCBinspection of the hospital. The complaint alleged

the contaminated plume released hazardous levels of that the City violated the PCB regulations by failing to

volatileorganic compounds (VOCs) into the basements of comply with the marking and recordkeeping requirements

some residences. The consent order abates known and pertaining to PCB transformers.

potential threats through implementation of four

separate interim corrective measures, including: (1)

groundwater containment, (2) monitoring of VOC levels in

indoor air of residences above the plume, followed by any

necessary corrective measures, (3) monitoring of

residential drinking water, followed by any necessary

provision of alternate water supplies, and (4)

containment of contaminated water flowing to the wetland

area to minimize ecological impacts.

In re Upjohn Company: On June 12, 1994, EPA signed a RCRA

corrective action consent order with the UpJohn Company

for the remediation (including immediate control of the

release of hazardous wastes to groundwater) of its North

Haven, CT, facility. Upjohn's plant is now inactive, but

in the past produced more than 20 different specialty and

industrial chemicals. In 1989, EPA issued an RCRA §3013

administrative order to Upjohn, requiring the company to

conduct a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) at the

facility. Based on reports generated by that order, EPA

determined that the facility poses a threat to human

health and the environment.

TSCA

U.S. v. New Waterbury, Ltd. (D. Conn.): On May 23, 1994,

the U.S. District Court entered a civil consent decree

settling PCB violations under TSCA. The consent decree

requires defendants New Waterbury Ltd., Vanta, Inc., and

Winston Management and Investment, Inc. to remove and

properly dispose of approximately 91 tons of abandoned,

illegally stored PCBs from equipment at the former

Century Brass Products, Inc. facility in Waterbury, CT.

Pursuant to this settlement, defendants have removed and

properly disposed of all PCB equipment and PCB waste at

an estimated cost of $450,000.

In re City of Boston, Boston City Hospital: On September

30, 1994, EPA entered a consent agreement and final order

in which the City of Boston agreed to pay $117,300 in

civil penalties for violation of the TSCA PCB

requirements at Boston City Hospital. The City also

agreed to perform an SEP as part of the settlement which

involves removal of ten underground storage tanks

located throughout the city at a cost of over $80,000.

EPCRA

In re Wyman-Gordon, Inc.: In a consent agreement issued

on May 18, 1994, Wyman-Gordon, Inc., of North Grafton,

MA, agreed to pay a $137,955 penalty and implement a SEP

to reduce its use of two dangerous acids to settle a

complaint alleging that the company violated §103 of

CERCLA and §§ 312 and 313 of EPCRA. Wyman Gordon, a

forged metal components manufacturing facility, failed

to immediately notify the National Response Center of a

release of hydrofluoric acid during a fire at the

facility on September 24, 1988. The company also failed

to submit emergency and hazardous chemical inventory

forms and report various emissions of chemicals during

1987 and 1988. The company has agreed to construct a

$474,000 acid purification and recovery system to

recover 80 percent of the hydrofluoric and nitric acid

from its waste acid stream.

CERCLA

U.S. v. O.K. Tool Company, et al. (D. N.H.): On December

5, 1994, the court entered this consent decree settling

all remaining CERCLA and fraud claims in connection with

the Savage Municipal Water Supply Well Superfund Site in

Milford, NH. The cashout settlement represents the

final agreement in a global resolution of the legal

issues arising out of the contamination of a groundwater

aquifer which supplied Milford with 45 percent of its

drinking water prior to 1983. A mixed work consent

decree with two other corporate PRPs at the Site, as

further described below, was entered by the Court on June

27, 1994. The work being performed by the government is

valuedat $10 million. Under the cashout consent decree,

22 settling defendants whose liability arises out of a

relationship to O.K. Tool Company have agreed to pay the

federal government approximately $2.1 million.

U.S. v. Conductron Corporation, et al. (D. N.H.): On

June 27, 1994, the court entered a civil consent decree

in which two corporate PRPs agreed to perform the

remedial action for part of the Savage Municipal Water

Supply Well Superfund Site in Milford, NH. The consent

decree resolves claims under CERCLA for releases of
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-3

hazardous substances into the environment. Under the decree that resolves the liability of Clairol, Inc. and

terms of the decree, Conductron, d/b/a Hendrix Wire & Ciba-GeigyCorporation, defendants in the Davis Liquid

Cable and Hitchiner Manufacturing Company, will Superfund Site cost recovery litigation. Under the

undertake response actions including extraction and settlement, Clairol will pay $3 million plus interest

treatment of contaminated groundwater, long-term and Ciba-Geigy will pay $475,000 plus interest. In

monitoring, and institutional controls to protect human exchange, both settling parties will receive a covenant

health. It is estimated that the cost of the response not to sue under CERCLA §107(a) with standard reopeners.

action to be performed by the settling parties will be The decree also contains a "cost reopener" that allows

$15 million. The settling defendants have also agreed to the government to institute new proceedings against

pay approximately $1 million in past costs and oversight Clairol and Ciba-Geigy in the event that the total

costs subject to a ceiling of $3 million or 15 percent of response costs at the site exceed $68 million.

the cost of the work, whichever is greater.

U.S. v. William Davis, et al. (D. R.I.): On January 18, decree providing that Providence Journal Co., also a

1995, the court entered a consent defendant in the Davis cost recovery litigation, will

On October 31, 1994, the court entered a civil consent

pay $650,000 plus interest. In exchange, Providence

Journal obtained a covenant not to sue with standard

reopeners. Also on October 31, the District Court

entereda third consent decree providing that Pfizer,

Inc., another defendant in this cost recovery

litigation, will pay $1.5 million plus interest. The

decree also contains a cost reopener that allows the

government to institute new proceedings against Pfizer

in the event that total response costs exceed $68

million. In exchange, Pfizer received a covenant not to

sue with standard reopeners.

U.S. v. DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, et al. (D. Mass.):

On December 5, 1994, the court entered this consent

decreein connection with the Salem Acres Superfund Site

in Salem, MA. Under the terms of the settlement, DiBiase

SalemRealty Trust and Ugo DiBiase agreed to pay $80,329

in past costs, to perform remedial activities valued at

approximately $650,000 on a portion of the Site, and to

pay the future oversight costs incurred in connection

with those remedial activities, valued at approximately

$110,000. The DiBiases agreed to these terms to settle

a civil action brought under CERCLA.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-4

REGION II

CLEAN AIR ACT

In re Ronzoni Foods Corporation: On January 25, 1994,

EPA entered into a consent agreement with Hershey Foods,

the parent of Ronzoni Foods, resolving an administrative

enforcement action brought under the Clean Air Act to

address opacity violations at Ronzoni's facility located

in Queens, NY. Hershey Foods elected to close the

violating facility because it felt it could not ensure

long-term compliance, but volunteered to undertake a

supplemental environmental project (SEP) involving

another facility, its San Georgio plant located in

Philadelphia, PA (within EPA Region III). The consent

agreement included a $30,000 penalty.

U.S. v. Amelia Associates and Joey's Excavating, Inc.

(D. N.J.): On November 3, 1993, the court entered a

consent decree that settled CAA claims against a real

estate partnership and demolition contractor regarding

the defendants' demolition of a 5-story hotel building

in Atlantic City, NJ, in 1990. The complaint in the case

charged defendants with violations of the NESHAPs

pertaining to asbestos removal in demolition operations.

The settlement provides for payment of a civil penalty of

$112,000, and includes broad injunctive relief. The

consent decree requires both defendants to implement an

asbestos control program, with the goal of ensuring that

the companies' future operations are in compliance.

U.S. v. 179 South Street (D. N.J.): On July 29, 1994, the

court entered a consent decree that enjoins the

defendants from further violations of the asbestos

NESHAP. The decree also requires the defendants to

institute an Asbestos Control Program, and obligates

them to pay $74,000 in civil penalties. The case

involved several violations, including failure to notify

EPA of asbestos removal, failure to ensure that the

asbestos remained wet prior to disposal, failure to

properly dispose of the asbestos and failure to comply

with previously issued compliance orders.

CLEAN WATER ACT

U.S. v. PRASA: During FY94, EPA filed four more

quarterly Motions to Enforce in this enforcement action

against the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

(PRASA). In these motions, EPA sought a total of

$284,000 in penalties from PRASA based on violations of

provisions of the 1985 and 1988 consent decrees entered

in the action. Substantial penalties result from

PRASA's noncompliance with the "alternate power" and

"sludge handling" provisions of the 1985 Court Order.

EPA has been filing quarterly Motions to Enforce the

requirements of the consent decrees against PRASA since

January 1989, pursuant to a "preclusion order" from the

Court that violations be promptly identified. The

motions allege violations based on the Court-appointed

Monitor's quarterly compliance reports. In the 24

Motions filed to date, EPA has sought nearly $3.3 million

in noncompliance penalties from PRASA. In FY94, PRASA

paid close to $1.5 million in judicial and

administrative penalties for CWA and consent decree

violations at its various facilities.

U.S. v. City of Hoboken (D. N.J.): On September 13,

1994, the Court entered a stipulation and order in this

case. Under the stipulation, the Hoboken, Union City,

Weehawken Sewerage Authority (HUCWSA) agreed to pay

stipulated penalties in the amount of $2.8 million for

its violations of a January 1991 consent decree entered

in this action. Of this amount, $1,152,000 will be paid

to the EPA; $850,000 will be paid to the New Jersey

Departmentof Environmental Protection, and the balance

will be paid to the Interstate Sanitation Commission.

In re Cheeseborough Ponds Manufacturing Corp.: On March

31, 1994, EPA issued an administrative order on consent

against Cheeseborough Ponds, which assessed a penalty of

$105,000 in administrative penalties under CWA §309(g).

The company owns and operates a wastewater treatment

plant at its manufacturing facility in Las Piedras,

Puerto Rico, which has effluent discharges into Los

Muertos Creek. In March 1993, EPA issued an

administrative complaint alleging violations of

Respondent's NPDES permit between 1989 and 1993 and

proposing the assessment of $125,000 in administrative

penalties.

SDWA

U.S.v. Kennemuth (d/b/a Moose Oil) (W.D. N.Y.): On June

1, 1994, the court entered a Default Judgment requiring
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-5

the defendant to plug 75 injection wells in Allegheny sewers and reduce the discharge of hazardous wastes.

County, NY, in accordance with a previously approved Kodak agreed to an $8 million civil penalty, and will

plugging and abandonment plan, and the payment of spend millions of dollars more to inspect, repair and

$138,095 in civil penalties. upgrade an estimated 31 miles of industrial sewers at the

U.S. v. Wasson & Regis (W.D., N.Y.): On April 26, 1994, Kodak violated RCRA by failing to identify hazardous

a complaint was filed in the court alleging that Wasson wastes generated at the Kodak Park facility, and by

& Regis was in violation of an administrative order allowing the unlawful disposal of various hazardous

issued by EPA. The order was to enforce the financial wastes through leaks in the facility's industrial sewer.

responsibility, casing and cementing and closure Kodak will be permitted to reduce the penalty by up to $3

requirementsof the underground injection control (UIC) million by implementing six environmental projects worth

program of the Safe Drinking Water Act against Class II at least $12 million to reduce hazardous wastes in its

enhanced recovery injection wells owned and operated by 2,200 acre Kodak Park. The aggregate reduction is

defendants in Allegheny County, NY, The judicial expected to exceed 2.3 million pounds of pollutants by

complaint seeks to compel defendants' compliance with the year 2001, which should improve the water quality of

the administrative order and seeks penalties for past the Genessee River and air quality in northwestern New

violations of the substantive requirements of the UIC York.

program and the administrative order.

In re PRASA: On September 30, 1994 the EPA issued four obtain a permit for an incinerator used to treat its

CACOs that resolved four administrative penalty actions industrial wastewater sludge, and failed to disclose

against PRASA under §1414(g)(3) of the Safe Drinking both hazardous and solid waste management units that

Water Act (SDWA) for violations of the Surface Water should have been included in Kodak Park's RCRA permit.

Treatment Rule (SWTR). The four CACOs assessed a Kodak also failed to comply with several of its RCRA

collective administrative penalty of $15,000 and permit conditions, and additionally committed

established new compliance dates by which PRASA must violations of regulations covering the import and export

install filtration. PRASA had failed to comply with of hazardous wastes and the proper closure of certain

previous administrative compliance orders requiring underground storage tanks.

that it initiate filtration pursuant to the SWTR at four

of its public water supplies.

U.S. v. Melvin Blum: The President of Burlington BioMedical Corporation was found guilty on August 8, 1994 on

two counts of conspiring to obstruct an EPA

investigation and three counts of falsifying pesticide

records submitted to EPA under FIFRA. A codefendant pled

guilty on May 19, 1994 to FIFRA violations. On October

31, 1994, Melvin Blum was sentenced to 5 months

imprisonment, to be followed by 5 months of home

confinement and 2 years of probation, and fined $10,000.

Hiscodefendant, Charles Monteleone, was given 1 year of

probation and a $25 fine.

RCRA

U.S. v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. N.Y.): On October 7, 1994, requirements of RCRA §3010, of their hazardous waste

EPA lodged a consent decree with the court to resolve activities.

various RCRA violations concerning Eastman Kodak

Corporation's Rochester, NY, facility. Under the U.S. v. BCF Corp. (E.D. N.Y.): On May 4, 1994, the court

settlement, Kodak agreed to upgrade miles of industrial entered a consent decree executed by the United States

facility, and will correct a series of other violations.

In addition to its other RCRA violations, Kodak failed to

In the Matter of Redound Industries, Inc. d/b/a Interflo

Technologiesand Liqui-Mark, et al.: On June 24, 1994,

EPA issued a unilateral administrative order pursuant to

RCRA §7003 to Redound, its President Irving Wolbrom, and

Fil Realty Ltd. This order directs the Respondents to

perform numerous tasks at various facilities owned or

operated by them to abate an imminent and substantial

hazard to the environment, their employees and

surrounding areas. Respondents are engaged in the

manufacture of water-based and alcohol-based marking

pens, ballpoint pens and a variety of porous plastic

products. They conduct their business at several

facilities in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and Westbury, Long

Island. All of these facilities generate hazardous

wastes. Nevertheless, none of the Respondents had ever

notified EPA or the State of New York, pursuant to the
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-6

and BCF, a used oil refiner located in Brooklyn, NY. The In the Matter of Gaseteria Oil Corp.: On April 28, 1994,

decreeaddresses violations of RCRA requirements at the EPAsettled an administrative enforcement action against

facility, which handled waste oil contaminated with Gaseteria Oil Corporation. The 1992 complaint which

hazardouswaste although it was not authorized to do so. initiated the action alleged that Gaseteria violated

The settlement includes detailed provisions for RCRASubtitle I requirements concerning underground

operation of the facility so as to ensure that no storagetanks (USTs). Under the settlement the company

contaminated waste oil will be received in the future. agreed to the assessment of a civil penalty of $3

The decree also provides for payment of $100,000 civil million; the parties further agreed to a $339,000

penalty to resolve the past violations. settlement of this assessed penalty in the context of the

In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company: On June 14, Bankruptcy Code.

1994, EPA issued an administrative order on consent

pursuant to RCRA §3008(h) to Puerto Rico Sun Oil. The

order requires PRSO to investigate 17 solid waste

management units/areas at its facility to determine the

nature and extent of any possible contamination from

these units/areas. The PRSO refinery, formerly known as

Yabucoa Sun Oil, was the subject of a Corrective Action

order issued unilaterally by EPA in 1992.

In the Matter of PPG Industries, Inc.: On May 27, 1994,

EPA issued an administrative Modification/Amendment on

consent to a 1990 RCRA §3008(h) corrective action

consent order to PPG Industries, Inc. As a result of the

development of groundwater monitoring wells, purging and

sampling of groundwater monitoring wells and aquifer

testing at its Guayanilla, Puerto Rico facility, PPG

generated wastewater for which it needed storage. The

company requested approval of a temporary storage unit

for 1 year. Approval of the unit was published for

public notice and comment; no comments were received.

The Amendment/Modification specifies the conditions

under which the temporary storage unit is required to

operate and the contingency plan which will be

implemented in the event of a spill or discharge from the

unit.

In re Westchester County, New York, Sportsmen's Center:

OnJanuary 28, 1994, EPA issued an administrative order

on consent to the County of Westchester. The order was

issued pursuant to RCRA §7003, and requires the County to

assess the nature and extent of the contamination

(predominantly lead) from shooting activities at the

Sportsmen's Center located in the Blue Mountain

Reservation, in the town of Cortlandt, NY. The County is

further required to design and implement a plan for the

remediation of the contamination, and to design and

implement a plan to prevent the re-contamination of the

facility in the future.

company's reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the

TSCA

Inthe Matter of DIC Americas, Inc.: In December 1993,

an EPA administrative law judge issued a Decision and

order assessing the full $85,000 civil penalty sought by

EPA in an EPCRA enforcement action against DIC Americas,

Inc. DIC imports chemical substances for commercial

purposes. Based on an inspection of its Fort Lee, NJ,

facility EPA issued an administrative complaint citing

the company for failures to submit, by the December 1986

deadline, the required Inventory Update reports for five

chemical substances imported during the company's 1985

fiscal year. The judge had, in December 1991, issued an

order finding in favor of EPA on the issue of DIC's

liability. A hearing on the question of the amount of

thecivil penalty to be paid was held in March 1992. This

case is now before the Environmental Appeals Board

awaiting a decision on Respondent's appeal.

In the Matter of SUNY-New Paltz: In October 1993, EPA

entered into an administrative consent agreement and

orderwith the State University of New York at New Paltz.

The order required the University to pay a civil penalty

of $90,750 for various TSCA violations, and replace all

PCB transformers at the campus. The action arose out of

an incident in December 1991: an electrical surge

resulted in PCB transformer explosions and damage to six

separate buildings.Based on subsequent inspections EPA

determined SUNY had failed to comply with TSCA PCB

regulations; an administrative complaint was issued in

June of 1992. In addition to the penalty, the settlement

providedfor the removal and proper disposal of 10 PCB

transformers from the campus by November 31, 1994.

In the Matter of Cray Valley Products, Inc.: On

September 1, 1994, EPA entered into a CACO with Cray

Valley Products, Inc. The 1992 administrative complaint

which initiated the case charged the company with eight
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-7

counts of TSCA violations concerning its failure to Sharp's compliance programs and to undertake an internal

comply with premanufacturing notice and chemical TSCA audit of its last 5 years of operation.

importation requirements. Under the CACO the company

will pay a civil penalty of $175,000. In the Matter of General Electric Company: On December

Inthe Matter of Eastman Kodak Co.: On October 25, 1993, General Electric Company (GE) charging multiple

EPA finalized settlement of an administrative case violations of TSCA, and seeking a penalty of $139,875.

against Kodak. The complaint, filed in 1992, charged the GE operates a research and development facility in

company with ten violations of the TSCA PCB regulations. Niskayuna, NY, where for many years it conducted

Under the settlement, Kodak paid a penalty of $42,000 research on PCBs without an approval from EPA. Since

and, in addition, undertook an environmentally research on PCBs is deemed to be a form of disposal, the

beneficial expenditure by removing and properly complaint charges GE with unpermitted disposal. The

disposing of 17 PCB Transformers at a cost of complaint also charges that GE manufactured, processed,

approximately $4 million. The removal work was anddistributed PCBs without the requisite EPA permits,

completed by September 30, 1994. On March 18,1994, EPA and failed to prepare annual documents concerning the

entered into another administrative consent order with disposition of its PCB materials. The matter was settled

Kodak, which required the company to pay $13,750. The in June 1994, with GE's agreement to pay a penalty of

complaint in that case, issued on December 9, 1993, $70,000 and maintain compliance with the TSCA

charged the company with one count of unauthorized requirements.

disposal of PCBs, based on a voluntary disclosure made by

Kodak on July 1, 1993. In addition to emphasizing the

importance of pollution prevention, the settlement,

which was negotiated during FY94, emphasizes the federal

government's commitment to cleaning up aging industrial

facilities, the strong deterrent effect of a large

penalty, the efficiencies resulting from prefiline

negotiations, the ability of multimedia inspections to

serve as a catalyst for changing the ways that companies

do business, and the outstanding cooperative partnership

with New York State throughout the entire process.

In the Matter of Sharp Electronics Corporation: On

December 10, 1993, EPA issued a consent agreement and

order to Sharp Electronics Corporation resolving an

administrative TSCA enforcement action brought pursuant

toTSCA §§ 5 and 13. The complaint in this action cited

Sharp for importing chemicals which were not on the TSCA

Inventory without prior notification to EPA of its

intent to import, and for inaccurately certifying to

U.S. Customs officials that it was importing the

chemicalsin compliance with TSCA. Under the settlement

agreement, the company will pay a $685,000 penalty.

Sharp also agreed to carry out several environmentally

benefical projects at a cost in excess of $800,000.

Sharp agreed to develop and implement TSCA training

programs for its company and for the electronic trade, to

upgrade its internal compliance program, to produce a

compliance manual and a video presentation on TSCA and

30, 1993, EPA issued an administrative complaint to the

In the Matter of Presbyterian Homes of New Jersey

Foundation: On March 31, 1994, EPA issued a two count

complaint to Presbyterian Homes of New Jersey for its

failure to maintain records of quarterly inspections of

its PCB Transformer, and its failure to compile and

maintain annual documents on the disposition of PCBs and

PCB-items. The complaint proposed a penalty of

$197,000. The violations were detected during an

inspection in 1993 at the Foundation's Hightstown, NJ

facility. EPA discovered that Respondent had not

compiled any of the requisite documents for any of its

several PCB transformers.

U.S. v. State of New York Department of Transportation

(N.D. N.Y.): On March 23, 1994, the court entered a

consent decree settling an action brought by EPA under

TSCA against the New York State Department of

Transportation. The Transportation Department had

sought and received a temporary EPA approval to dispose

of the dredged material. The approval was granted, but

the Department failed to live up to its terms, as well as

the terms of a later administrative consent order

reached with EPA. The complaint filed in this case cited

the Department for violations of EPA's PCB regulations

as well as of the TSCA approval and the administrative

consent order. An injunctive order will ensure that the

Department properly maintains two disposal sites for

PCB-contaminatedmaterial dredged from the Hudson River.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-8

In the Matter of New York State Department of Mental

Health: On June 29, 1994, EPA issued an administrative

complaint to the New York State Office of Mental Health

citing violations of the TSCA PCB regulations and

proposing a civil penalty of $215,000. The Mental Health

Department owns and operates the Bronx Psychiatric

Center in New York City. During an inspection of the

Center EPA found that the Department had failed to

compile and maintain required records and logs

concerning inspections and the disposition of PCBs and

had failed to dispose of PCBs in an authorized manner.

Inre Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico: On September

27,1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint under

TSCA against the Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico

(Sugar Corporation of Puerto Rico). The complaint cited

nineteen violations of TSCA §6(e) and proposed a civil

penalty of $798,000. The violations occurred at four

different facilities owned and operated by the

Respondent in Aguada, Arecibo, Guanica and Mercedita,

Puerto Rico. Inspections of these facilities revealed

that Respondent had numerous violations of inspection,

record keeping, disposal, marking and registration

requirements concerning PCB Transformers. In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corp.: On September 29, 1994,

In re Edgewater Associates: On September 30, 1994, EPA appeal by Mobil Oil from decisions by two EPA

issued an administrative complaint under TSCA against Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). In December 1993,

Edgewater Associates for 8 violations of PCB regulations Senior ALJ Gerald Harwood ruled for EPA in this EPCRA

at its facility in Edgewater, NJ. The complaint proposes action. Judge Harwood determined that Mobil had

a civil penalty of $222,000. EPA conducted an inspection unreasonably delayed in notifying the Local Emergency

of the facility in December 1993, to determine whether Planning Commission (LEPC) of a reportable release of

Respondent was in compliance. The inspection was sulfur dioxide; that Mobil could have notified the LEPC

conductedbecause EPA had become aware that Respondent at least 3 days earlier than it did; and, accordingly,

had been engaged in PCB waste handling activities and that Mobil should pay a penalty for each of the 3 days

storing PCB contaminated oil at its facility. during which noncompliance continued. This was the first

TSCA§8 Inventory Update Enforcement Initiative: In penalty assessment in an EPCRA case.

June 1994, EPA issued eight administrative complaints as

part of a nationwide initiative targeting TSCA §8 In the Matter of Agway Petroleum Corporation: On August

Inventory Update Rule violators. The cases were filed 4, 1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint against

against: Alnor Chemical, Inc., Valley Stream, NY, with Agway Petroleum Corporation for violations of the

aproposed penalty of $85,000; Browning Chemical Corp., regulations promulgated pursuant to §312 of EPCRA. The

White Plains, NY, $136,000; Capelle, Inc., Scarsdale, complaint cited violations of EPCRA and assessed a

NY,$12,000; Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., Westville, NJ, proposed civil penalty of $1,926,600. Agway Petroleum

$374,000; Kyowa Hakko USA, Inc., New York, NY, $6,000; owns and operates numerous facilities throughout New

Magna-Kron Corp., Jackson, NJ, $17,000; Nippon Paint York and New Jersey. The complaint cites Agway for its

(America) Corp., New York, NY, $18,000; and White Cross failure to submit Tier One or Tier Two Forms for at least

Corp., Rye, NY, $51,000. The violations alleged involve one of five possible petroleum-related hazardous

either failure to submit inventory update forms or late chemicals found at each of 164 of the company's

submission of forms to EPA for chemicals these companies

manufactured or imported.

In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation: On December 17,

1993, EPA entered into an administrative consent order

with Ciba-Geigy Corporation of Ardsley, NY. The order

required the company to pay a civil penalty of $182,550

for violations of TSCA §§ 5, 8, and 13. The complaint,

which was the consequence of a voluntary disclosure of

the TSCA violations by Ciba-Geigy, was issued on

November 24, 1993.

In the Matter of OCG Microelectronics Materials, Inc.:

On December 30, 1993, EPA entered into an administrative

consent order with OCG Microelectronics Materials, Inc.

of West Paterson, NJ. The order required OCG to pay a

civil penalty of $162,900 for violations of TSCA §§ 5 and

13. The complaint, resulting from a voluntary

disclosure of the TSCA violations by OCG, was issued on

September 29, 1993.

EPCRA

EPA'sEnvironmental Appeals Board (EAB) rejected an

time EPA had sought and been awarded a multiple-day
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-9

facilities. The violations were with respect to the 1990 $25,000 plus a commitment by R&F to implement a

and 1991 reporting years. substantial SEP, valued at over $55,000.

In the Matter of Rich Products Corp.: On November 12, In the Matter of Silverton Marine Corporation: On June

1993, EPA executed an administrative consent agreement 20, 1994 EPA issued an administrative complaint against

and consent order (CACO) with Rich Products Corp. The Silverton Marine Corporation for violations of the

settlement resolved an action commenced in July 1992 regulations promulgated pursuant to §313 of EPCRA. The

citing the company for five violations of the EPCRA complaint cited six violations of EPCRA and assessed a

reporting requirements relating to the chemicals proposed civil penalty of $129,441. Silverton Marine

phosphoricacid and sodium hydroxide "otherwise used" at owns and operates a facility in Millvile, NJ. The

the company's Buffalo, NY, facility for the 1987 through complaint cites Silverton for failure to submit Toxic

1989 reporting years. Pursuant to the settlement, Rich Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms to EPA and

Products will pay a penalty of $34,425 and, in addition, the State of New Jersey for styrene and acetone which

will undertake an SEP in the form of the design, were manufactured, imported, processed, or otherwise

installation and startup of a Modified Clean-In-Place used at the facility in quantities exceeding the

system. This system, which will cost the company about applicable thresholds. The violations were with respect

$64,000, will serve to reduce phosphoric acid usage at to the 1989, 1990, and 1991 reporting years.

the facility; the project was required to be completed by

November 30, 1994. In re Rexon Technology Corp.: On September 15, 1994, EPA

In the Matter of NTU Circuits, Inc.: In February 1994, Dollars against Rexon Technology Corp., Wayne, NJ, for

EPA issued an administrative consent order to NTU violations of EPCRA §313. Specifically, the complaint

Circuits, Inc. requiring the company to pay a civil alleged that the corporation had failed to submit to EPA,

penalty of $97,500 for its violations of EPCRA §§ 311, as required by EPCRA, Toxic Chemical Release Inventory

312, and 313. NTU had stored and "otherwise used" ReportingForms (Forms R) for Methyl Chloroform and

sulfuric acid and ammonia in quantities exceeding the Freon 113 for the 1990 through 1992 reporting years.

reporting thresholds at its facility in Bayshore, NY,

since 1986. NTU had failed to submit MSDSs and emergency In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.: On September 30, 1994,

and hazardous chemical inventory forms (Tier I or Tier II EPA II issued an administrative complaint to The

forms) to the appropriate local and state agencies. NTU Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company for violations of CERCLA

also had failed to submit toxic chemical release forms §103(a) and EPCRA §304. Goodyear failed to immediately

(FormR) to EPA and the State of New York for four out of notify the appropriate officials after releases of vinyl

5 years from 1988 to 1992. chloride on three occasions from its facility in Niagara

In the Matter of R&F Alloy Wires, Inc.: In March 1994, an these violations. The company did not notify the NRC,

EPA Administrative Law Judge issued an order granting SERC, and LEPC of vinyl chloride releases on August 17,

EPA's Motion for Partial Accelerated Decision on the 1992, July 26, 1993, and August 2, 1993 until about 7-31

question of liability in an EPCRA enforcement action hours after the releases occurred. Further, the

against R&F Alloy Wires, Inc. The company was held releases contained from 2-19 times the reportable

liable for eleven violations of EPCRA. The complaint, quantities for vinyl chloride.

filed in 1993, assessed a civil penalty of $79,000. The

violations at R&F involved its failure to file a Form R Cataño EPCRA Enforcement Settlements: On September 30,

in a timely manner for chemicals manufactured, processed 1994, EPA executed a settlement resolving five

or otherwise used in amounts exceeding the threshold administrative enforcement actions brought against

reporting requirements. R&F failed to submit Forms R in facilities operating in the Cataño region of Puerto

a timely manner for ammonia, copper, and 1,1,1- Rico. These cases were part of EPA's Cataño geographic

trichloroethane in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. The case initiative carried out over the previous 2 years. The

was settled in September 1994 for a cash penalty of complaints in those five cases alleged violations of

issued a complaint proposing a penalty of $102,000

Falls, NY. EPA is seeking $165,900 in penalties for

EPCRA §§ 311, 312, and 313. The settlement provides for
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-10

the five companies to jointly pay a civil penalty of violations. The complaint alleges that Hess failed to

$90,000. Under the settlement they will also implement submit in a timely manner the required Form R for each of

SEPs valued at $210,000 in the form of training and five chemicals; and alleges that Hess failed to report a

education programs for both the regulated and the local reasonable estimate of its fugitive air emissions for

community; and provide $100,000 worth of emergency another. The complaint alleges these violations for

response equipment to the Catano Health Center. The five calendar years 1988 through 1990 and seeks a civil

companies are: American Chemical, Inc.; Easton, Inc.; penalty of $252,000. This complaint arose out of an

Goya de Puerto Rico, Inc.; Island Can Corp.; and Water earlier consolidated multimedia: inspection at the

Treatment Specialists, Inc. facility.

In the Matter of National Can Puerto Rico, Inc.: In In re Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc.: On

August 1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint September 30, 1994, EPA issued an administrative

against National Can for violations of the regulations complaint to Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc. for

promulgated pursuant to §312 of EPCRA. The complaint violations of CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §§ 304, 311, and

cited twelve violations of EPCRA and assessed a proposed 312. Statewide failed to immediately notify the

penalty of $300,000. National Can owns and operates a appropriate officials of a release that occurred at its

can manufacturing plant in the Cataño area of Puerto Rochester, NY, facility. EPA is seeking $147,120 in

Rico. The complaint cites National Can for failure to penalties for these violations. The company did not

submit Tier I or Tier II forms to the fire department, notify the NRC, SERC, and LEPC of an ammonia release that

LEPC and SERC for the extremely hazardous substance, occurred on November 12, 1993 until about 94 hours after

sulfuric acid, which was present at the facility in the release occurred. Further, the company had failed to

amounts equal to or greater than the reporting threshold submit a MSDS and annual Tier I/II forms as required by

in the years 1990 through 1993. EPCRA §§ 311 and 312.

In the Matter of Petroleum Chemical Corp.: In June 1994, In the Matter of Freeman Industries, Inc.: On September

EPA issued an administrative complaint against Petroleum 29, 1994, EPA issued an administrative complaint

Chemical Corporation for violations of the regulations proposing a penalty of $108,900 against Freeman

promulgated pursuant to EPCRA §§ 312 and 313. The Industries, Inc. of Tuckahoe, NY, for violations of

complaint cited nine violations of EPCRA §312, four EPCRA§§ 311 and 312. Specifically, the complaint

violations of §313 of EPCRA and assessed a total proposed alleges that Freeman failed to submit the MSOSs, for

penalty of $245,000. Petroleum Chemical owns and bromine,an extremely hazardous substance, to the SERC

operatesa facility in the Cataño area of Puerto Rico. for New York, the LEPC for Westchester County, and the

The complaint cites Petroleum Chemical for failure to Fire Department for the Town of Eastchester, as it was

submit Tier I or Tier II forms to the local fire required to do by January of 1991. In addition Freeman

department,LEPC and SERC for the extremely hazardous failed to submit the Emergency and Hazardous Chemical

substance, phosphorus pentoxide, and the hazardous Inventory Forms to these agencies from 1991 through

chemicals asbestos, kerosene asphalt and aluminum paste, 1994.

which were present at the facility in amounts equal to or

greater than the reporting thresholds in the years 1987 In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.: On May 17, 1994,

through 1992. In addition, the complaint cites EPA issued a seven-count civil administrative complaint

Petroleum Chemical for failure to submit Toxic Chemical against DuPont's Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ,

Release Inventory Forms to EPA and the Commonwealth of facility, alleging violations of EPCRA §313. The

Puerto Rico for friable asbestos which was processed at complaint was the result of an EPCRA §313 Data Quality

the facility in quantities exceeding applicable Assurance inspection conducted at the facility on July

thresholds for the years 1988 through 1992. 21, 1993 as part of a Regional multi-media

In re Hess Oil Virgin Islands: On June 21, 1994, EPA in a timely manner Forms R for nitrobenzene for the years

issued an eleven-count administrative complaint against 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992, and for formaldehyde

Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation citing EPCRA for 1991. The complaint sought penalties of $142,000.

investigation. It alleged that DuPont failed to submit
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-11

CERCLA

The Lipari Site: On March 16, 1994, the U.S. lodged a

proposed consent decree in partial resolution of U.S.,

et al. v. Rohm & Haas, et al., an injunctive relief and

cost recovery case arising out of EPA's work at the

Lipari Landfill site, which is the number one site on the

NPL. Under the decree, Rohm & Haas, one of the primary

responsible parties at the site, which is located in

Mantua Township, NJ, agreed to perform the ROD III remedy

at the Site. The site received hazardous industrial

wastes from 1958 through early 1971. Rohm & Haas was the

largest contributor of wastes to the Site.

On April 15, 1994, the court entered a separate consent

decree in this case, which resolved the liability of Rohm

& Haas and two other PRPs, Owens-Illinois and ManorCare,

forROD I, ROD II, and two additional components of ROD

III at the Lipari site. Because the portion of the

remedy settled in this decree had been essentially

completed by EPA, the three defendants agreed to cashoutpayments to EPA and the State of New Jersey valued at

$52,939,375. In September 1994, EPA signed a settlement

with Mr. Nick Lipari, the owner of the Lipari Site,

resolving his liability. Under this proposed

settlement, Mr. Lipari, through his insurers, has agreed

to pay to the United States and the State a total of $1.3

million.

U.S.v. CDMG Realty Co., et al. (D. N.J.): On December 2,

1994, the court entered a consent decree, in partial

resolution of this CERCLA action concerning the

Sharkey's Landfill Superfund site, located in the

Townships of Parsipanny-Troy Hills and East Hanover, NJ.

The decree involves various settling parties, including

two owner parties, twenty-nine non-owner parties and

twelve de minimis parties. The decree requires that the

settling parties design and construct the remedy and

perform the necessary operation and maintenance. This

work has an estimated present value of approximately $42

million. The settlement also provides that parties

reimburse EPA $1.75 million of its past costs and up to

$250,000 of its Supervisory Costs and reimburse the

State of New Jersey $300,000 of its past costs. The de

minimis Settling Parties have agreed to pay $1,390,034

to the other settling parties towards the cost of

implementing the remedial action.

U.S. v. Vineland Chemical Company, et al. (D. N.J.): In

March 1994, the U.S. entered a consent decree pursuant to

CERCLA and RCRA, resolving litigation between the United

States and Vineland Chemical Company and its owners/

operators, Miriam Schwerdtle and the Estate of Arthur

Schwerdtle. In the consent decree the defendants

confessed liability for $76 million under CERCLA and

agreedto surrender all but certain specified assets to

the United States for payment of an earlier RCRA penalty

judgment and for costs incurred and to be incurred by the

United States in performing all response actions

pursuant to CERCLA. The settlement included agreement

by the defendants to bring money back from two overseas

trusts which the United States alleged had been

established to prevent EPA from recovering its CERCLA

costs.

U.S.v. The Carborundum Company, et al. (D. N.J.): On

March 30, 1994, a consent decree was lodged in the court

which partially settles EPA's cost recovery claims

relating to the Caldwell Trucking Company Superfund Site

in Fairfield Township, NJ. The nine settling defendants

agreed to pay $2.46 million for EPA's past and future

costs and also agreed to perform all scheduled remedial

and natural resource restoration work at the site,

valued at an additional $32 million. Under the decree,

the State of New Jersey will also receive its first

naturalresource damage payment under CERCLA and the

U.S. Department of the Interior will receive

compensation for its assessment and monitoring costs.

In the Matter of the Frontier Chemical Superfund Site:

On July 5, 1994, EPA issued an administrative consent

order for the removal of all wastes contained in tanks at

the Frontier Chemical Superfund site located in Niagara

Falls, NY. There are approximately 45 tanks at the Site

containing over 360,000 gallons of waste. The order was

issued to 31 PRPs; the work is expected to cost about

$3.6 million.

U.S. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp(D. N.Y.): On April 21, 1994,

the court entered a consent decree settling EPA's CERCLA

claims against Ciba-Geigy Corporation. The settlement

provides for the performance, by Ciba-Geigy, of the

remedial design, the remedial action, operation &

maintenance and post-remediation monitoring for the

first operable unit (groundwater) at the Ciba-Geigy

Superfund Site in Toms River, NJ. The estimated cost of

the work is approximately $60 million. In addition to

providing that Ciba-Geigy undertake the response work,

the decree calls for the company to reimburse the United
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-12

States for $8.4 million in past response costs incurred transporting and off-site disposal of approximately 66

by the U.S. with respect to the Site, and future response drums and containers. The settling PRPs are parties who

costs, including costs to be incurred by EPA with respect generated waste which was disposed of at the two sites.

to overseeing the work to be performed by Ciba-Geigy.

In the Matter of Diamond Alkali Superfund Site: On April 1994, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order in

20, 1994, EPA issued an administrative consent order connection with the York Oil Company Superfund Site in

pursuant to which Occidental Chemical Company agrees to the Town of Moira, NY. The order requires respondent

undertake the RI/FS for the Passaic River Study Area Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), a generator PRP, to

portion of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site in Newark, undertake certain removal activities there. Because of

NJ. Remedial action on the property where the facility the deteriorated and/or unstable condition of the tanks

was located has been undertaken by Occidental pursuant and drums at this site, EPA issued the order to Alcoa

to a judicial consent decree. Because of the presence of requiring the company to undertake a removal action at

dioxin in the sediments of the Passaic River, EPA the Site pursuant to CERCLA. This removal action

determined that a RI/FS should be undertaken for areas in includes the characterization, removal, disposal and/or

the River adjacent to the site. The Passaic River Study treatment of on-Site tanks and drums and their contents,

Area identified in the RI/FS is a six-mile area up-River and is expected to cost about $200,000.

from the confluence of the Passaic and Hackensack

Rivers. The study is expected to cost $10 million. In re A&Y Realty Corp.: On September 29, 1994, EPA

In the Matter of Liberty Industrial Finishing Site: On Corporation mandating the sale of real property that

August 30, 1994, EPA issued an administrative consent constitutes part of the Radium Chemical Company (RCC)

order to 9 PRPs for the removal of, inter alia, soils Superfund Site located in New York City. The proceeds of

contaminated with PCBs at the Liberty Industrial the sale (after satisfaction of prior tax obligations

Finishing Site, Village of Farmingdale, NY. At the same and the expenses of sale) will be reimbursed to the

time, a second administrative order was issued Superfund. The settlement agreement specifies the terms

unilaterally to six non-settling PRPs requiring them to upon which the real property is to be sold.

perform the same removal action and participate and Contemporaneouslywith the administrative settlement,

coordinate with the recipients of the consent order. The the Site is being noticed in the Federal Register for

recipients of the consent order include two federal intended deletion from the National Priorities List,

agencies, the Department of Defense and the General since Site remediation has been completed. In December

Services Administration. All the PRPs are current or 1994 the property was sold under the agreement,

former owners or operators of the facility. The work is realizing some $250,000 for the Superfund, and resulting

expected to cost about $500,000. in the return of the property to full commercial use.

In re ENRX and Buffalo Warehousing Superfund Sites: On In re PVO International, Inc.: On September 30, 1994,

September30, 1994, EPA entered into an administrative EPAissued an administrative order on consent to PVO

settlement to recover over $1 million from more than 90 InternationalInc. requiring performance of a removal

PRPs at these two sites, pursuant to §122(h) of CERCLA. action at its site in Boonton Township, NJ. Under the

Beginning in September 1989 and concluding in March order PVO has agreed to sample and dispose of several

1992,EPA performed a removal action at the ENRX Site thousand containers, drums, vats and tanks off-site.

which included such activities as the securing, The estimated cost of the work is $350,000. PVO also has

segregating, sampling, transporting and off-site agreed to pay EPA approximately $63,000 in past response

disposal of 400 drums and containers, and the treatment costs, plus interest. PVO's payment obligation will be

and disposal of materials found in various tanks. secured by an EPA lien on the Site, which will continue

Starting in July 1991 and concluding in April 1992, EPA until the payment obligation is fully satisfied.

also performed a removal action at the Buffalo

Warehousing Site. The removal action at this site Quanta/New Jersey Non-Complier Case Settlements: On

consisted of the securing, segregating, sampling, March 24, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the District

In re York Oil Company Superfund Site: On September 30,

reached an administrative settlement with the A&Y Realty
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-13

of New Jersey entered seven consent decrees settling U.S. v. Signo Trading International, Ltd., et al.: On

EPA's claims against 8 PRPs at the Quanta Resources Site December 10, 1993, the court signed two partial consent

in Edgewater, NJ. The settlements provide for decrees and a default judgment in connection with the

reimbursement of past response costs totaling $940,000, Signo Trading Superfund Site in Mt. Vernon, NY. These

civil penalties and punitive damages in an amount of court orders resolve an action brought in 1987 on behalf

$800,000, and placement of $785,000 into an escrow ofEPA, seeking recovery of response costs incurred by

account to finance future removal activities at the EPAin the performance of a removal action at the Site,

Site, resulting in a total settlement value of and seeking treble damages against certain defendants

$2,525,000. The Settling Defendants are: Estate of for noncompliance with an EPA administrative cleanup

James Frola, co-owner of the property; Albert Von Dohln, order issued in 1984. Under the decrees, defendants Jack

co-owner of the property; Republic Environmental Systems and Charles Colbert and the "Colbert Companies" (Signo

(New York), Inc. (formerly Chemical Management, Inc.); Trading International, Ltd., SCI Equipment and

Petroleum Tank Cleaners; Snyder Enterprises; Texaco, Technology,Ltd., Mount Vernon Trade Group, Ltd.,

Inc.; and Total Recovery, Inc. NortheastBy-Products Recycling Corp.) agreed to pay

Inre Niagara County Refuse Superfund Site: On September order. Defendants Arnold Schwartz, Arnold Fader, New

23, 1994, EPA signed an administrative order on consent Island Investors and Lynric Associates, Inc., agreed to

with 11 de minimis parties to settle their liability with pay $71,000 in past response costs. Finally, a default

respect to the Niagara County Refuse Superfund in New judgment was entered by the court against defendant 11

York pursuant to §122(g) of CERCLA. A ROD was signed in Hartford Avenue, Inc. in the amount of $311,658.54, for

September 1993 selecting a cap and related measures as costs incurred by EPA in connection with the Site.

the remedy for the Site, with a cost presently estimated

at about $20 million. The de minimis settling parties U.S. v. Zaklama (D. N.J.): On April 25, 1994, the

each contributed less than one percent of the total District Court of New Jersey ordered the owner of a

wastes disposed of at the Site. These de minimis parties residential property within the Montclair/West Orange

have agreed to pay $793,866 to the Superfund. This Superfund Site to grant access to EPA for the purpose of

settlement was reached in conjunction with a major party conducting additional sampling and performing remedial

consent decree, which has been signed by the PRPs and by construction on the property. Esmat Zaklama, the

EPA, and is awaiting lodging with the court. Taken absentee owner of a residential property at the site,

together, the de minimis settlement and the major party refused to grant EPA access to remediate his property

settlement would require the settling parties to because the government had refused his demand that it buy

undertake the full performance of the RD/RA; the payment theproperty or compensate him because he could not lease

of EPA's future response costs; and the payment of out the contaminated property.

$866,280 of EPA's past response costs (out of total past

response costs of $1,030,000). U.S. v. Thiokol Corp. (D. N.J.): On October 26, 1994,

In re Muratti Environmental Site: On September 30, 1994, United States and Thiokol Corp. Under the settlement,

EPA entered into an administrative cost recovery which had earlier been lodged with the court, Thiokol

agreementwith 12 PRPs pursuant to §122(h)(1) of CERCLA, agreed to conduct remedial action, operation and

regardingthe Muratti Environmental Site (Site), located maintenance and post-remediation monitoring for a

in Penuelas, Puerto Rico. Under the agreement the portion of the Rockaway Borough Site in New Jersey, and

settling PRPs will pay EPA $525,000 in reimbursement of reimbursethe U.S. for all associated oversight costs.

95 percent of EPA's unreimbursed past costs for a removal Thiokol also agreed to fund the future operation and

action at the site. The settling PRPs are the generators maintenance of Rockaway Borough's water treatment

of hazardous substances that were disposed of at the system, which treats contaminated groundwater from the

site, which consists of an abandoned, approximately 2- site. The decree also provides for recovery of

acre former industrial waste disposal facility. approximately half of the $2 million in total costs

$22,500 as a penalty for failure to comply with the

the court entered a judicial consent decree between the

incurred by the United States at the Site, resulting in

a total settlement value of approximately $13 million.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-14

U.S. v. Town of North Hempstead (E.D. N.Y.): On Department of Energy. On March 29, 1994, Region II

September 18, 1994, a consent decree in this case was executed an administrative consent order with Associated

lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Universities which resolved the TSCA enforcement action.

District of New York. The decree would settle ongoing The TSCA settlement provided for a penalty of $31,875,

litigation against the Town of North Hempstead for and included injunctive provisions to insure compliance

recovery of some $2.64 million in past EPA cleanup costs with applicable TSCA requirements. On May 10, 1994

incurred at the Port Washington Landfill. The Town is RegionII and the U.S. DOE also signed a Federal Facility

already undertaking the remedial work at the landfill, Compliance Agreement which resolved a Notice of

at an estimated cost of $45 million. Noncomplianceissued under TSCA, relating to some of the

In the Matter of Aero Haven Airport Site: During FY94, Universities was penalized.

EPA entered into two administrative orders on consent

pursuant to which Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. will On April 23, 1994 Region II entered a consent order with

perform and fund private removal actions to permanently DOEand Associated Universities resolving alleged RCRA

close an asbestos containing material (ACM) landfill at violationsset forth in a Notice of Violation issued to

the Aero Haven Airport Site. The first order was signed DOE and an administrative complaint issued to

on June 27, 1994, and the second order was signed on Associated. These actions were merged into a single

September 30, 1994. In the first order Owens-Corning settlement document due to the enactment of the Federal

agreed to fund and perform an emergency removal action to Facilities Compliance Act and because of DOE's

stabilize the Site by: (1) installing high visibility indemnification agreement. Subsequent Federal

fencing around portions of the Site, (2) covering violations referred to EPA by the New York State

exposed areas of ACM with clean fill or soil, and (3) Department of Environmental Conservation, were also

posting warning signs. The second order was signed on merged into this action. The settlement included a

September 30, 1994, pursuant to which Owens-Corning has penalty of $63,250 and requires compliance with the RCRA

agreed to properly and permanently close the site by: provisions, violations of which were cited in the

(1) consolidating the current 18.5 acres of ACM and action. In addition, DOE and Associated Universities

satellite piles of ACM into a fill area (or approximately agreed to implement two supplemental environmental

122,000 cubic yards of ACM), (2) placing a cover over the projects jointly valued at $170,000. The Respondents

ACM, and (3) installing vegetation and erosion and run- will perform a wildlife management survey and, if

off system. The total cost of the work required under necessary, implement a subsequent management plan for

both orders is in excess of $1.2 million. the wetland and forested areas at the Long Island, New

U.S. v. Wheaton Industries, Inc. (D. N.J.): The court completed,Associated Universities will be required to

entered a consent decree settling EPA's complaint pay an additional penalty of $85,000.

brought under §107 of CERCLA against Wheaton Industries,

Inc. The consent decree requires Wheaton to pay $4 In re American Cyanamid Company: In April, 1994 Region

million in full settlement of the litigation. The II issued two administrative complaints to the American

complaint sought recovery of past and future response Cyanamid Company of Wayne, New Jersey for violations of

costs incurred by the United States at the Williams the EPCRA and TSCA. The complaints seek to assess a

Property Superfund site, located in Cape May County, NJ. combined civil penalty of $27,000 for violations at the

The State of New Jersey joined in this lawsuit to recover Lederle Laboratories facility in Bound Brook, New

state funds expended on this Site. Jersey. The EPCRA violations include the failure to file

MULTIMEDIA CASES

In the Matter of Brookhaven National Laboratories and

Associated Universities, Inc.: During 1994 Region II

settled a number of actions involving this Federal

research facility on Long Island, New York, and the

private contractor which operates it for the U.S.

same violations as those for which Associated

York facility. Should these projects not be timely

a Form R in a timely manner for Ammonia otherwise used in

amounts exceeding the threshold reporting requirements;

and TSCA violations include failure to compile and

maintain annual documents concerning the disposition of

PCBs and PCB Items. The complaints cover violations at

the facility for the years 1989 through 1992. The TSCA

matter was settled in May, 1994, with a penalty payment
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-15

of $10,000. The EPCRA matter resulted in a consent order The enforcement actions were: 1) an administrative

issued in September, and assessment of a $9,000 penalty. complaint citing RCRA storage and disposal violations,

Inre Broomer Research, Inc.: On June 24, 1994, Region Violation citing certain additional storage and land

II issued an administrative order on consent to Broomer disposal violations, 3) a compliance order under the

Research, Inc. and 3 Beech Realty under the "emergency" CleanAir Act arising out of violations of New Source

authorities of §7003 of RCRA and §1431 of SDWA. EPA PerformanceStandards for steam generating units, and 4)

found that these companies' handling of hazardous and a Notice of Violation under the Clean Air Act for

radioactive wastes at their facility in Islip, New York constructing equipment and control devices without first

may present an "imminent and substantial endangerment" obtaining the necessary State permit to construct.

to the health and environment. This is the first time

the Region has used its emergency authority under §1431

of SWDA. The order requires Broomer immediately to post

signs and restrict unauthorized access to the facility

and prohibits it from treating, disposing or removing

hazardouswaste from the facility without prior EPA

approval of such action. Broomer was required to submit,

within 20 days after the order, a workplan for the

Investigation of Releases at the facility, including the

implementation of a sampling plan and medical monitoring

program. After Broomer completes the Investigation, it

is required by this order to submit its findings to EPA,

and submit a workplan for the Remediation of Releases,

which it must then implement starting within ten days

after EPA approval. 

In re Abbott Laboratories: On May 18, 1994 EPA initiated

a multi-media action against Abbott Laboratories'

facility located in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico. The

action consisted of the filing of two administrative

complaints. The first complaint was issued under the

Clean Air Act, and alleged that Abbott violated the

Puerto Rico SIP by failing to operate its air pollution

controlequipment at all times. The CAA complaint seeks

a proposed civil penalty of $50,000. The second

complaint alleged that Abbott violated §313 of EPCRA by

failing to timely submit a required Toxic Chemical and

Release Inventory Reporting form. This complaint

includeda proposed penalty of $34,000. The violations

were documented as the result of a consolidated multimedia inspection in March of 1994. 

In re Picatinny Arsenal: In August, 1994 Region II

initiated enforcement actions against the U.S. Army's

Picatinny Arsenal, citing violations under RCRA, the

Clean Air Act, TSCA and the Clean Water Act. On

September 13, 1994 the Region sent to the Arsenal four

enforcement actions, and a proposed Federal Facility

Compliance Agreement (FFCA) to address these violations.

proposing a penalty of $60,150, 2) a RCRA Notice of
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-16

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: In April,

1992 Region II conducted a major consolidated multimedia inspection of Kennedy International Airport in New

York City, which is operated by the Port Authority of New

York and New Jersey. A number of violations were

documented, both at facilities operated by the Port

Authority itself, as well as at some facilities operated

by airline or service companies. In Fiscal Year 1993 a

complaint was issued to the Port Authority citing it for

TSCA violations and proposing a penalty of $289,000. On

June 28, 1994, Region II issued three additional

administrative complaints to Ogden Aviation Services,

Inc., citing that company for violations of the Federal

underground storage tank regulations, and proposing

penalties totalling $109,125. 

Safety Kleen: In Fiscal Year 1994 Region II carried out

inspections at a number of facilities operated by Safety

Kleen, Inc., a waste oil and chemical recycling and

disposal firm. Region II documented violations at

several Safety Kleen facilities. An administrative

complaint under §309(g) of the Clean Water Act was issued

on June 30 in connection with the company's Manati,

Puerto Rico facility, seeking $125,000 in penalties for

NPDESviolations. Another complaint was issued on March

31, 1994, citing RCRA violations at the company's

Linden, New Jersey facility. That case was settled in

September with the company's agreement to pay a penalty

of $35,075.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-17

REGION III

CLEAN AIR ACT

Ohio Power Company (N.D. W.Va.): On November 15, 1994,

the U.S. Department of Justice filed a CAA complaint with

the court alleging that Ohio Power Company violated

federal sulfur dioxide emission limitations at the

Kammer Power Plant in Moundsville, WV. On the same date,

theDepartment lodged a partial consent decree resolving

the United States' civil claims for injunctive relief

relating to these violations. The partial decree

requires the Defendant to operate the Kammer plant in

compliancewith applicable provisions of the CAA,

including a 2.7 lbs/mm BTU hourly SO emission standard. 2

Ohio Power is also required to install and maintain a

Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS), which will

enable EPA to monitor Defendant's compliance with the

interim and final emission limitations, and to submit

quarterly reports documenting Defendant's compliance

status.

BethlehemSteel Corporation (E.D. Penn.): On July 5,

1994, the court entered a consent decree which resolved

the United State's claims in U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel

Corporation (Civil Action No. 92-5213, a civil action

filed against Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC), for

violations of CAA and NESHAP regulating benzene emission

from coke by-product recovery plants, 40 C.F.R. Part 61,

Subpart L, at the company's coke works facilities in

Bethlehem, PA, and Sparrows Point, MD. BSC failed to

meet compliance deadlines set forth in the NESHAP, as a

result of which BSC continued to operate sources of

benzene in violation of the NESHAP. BSC also failed to

submit interim and final reports required by the NESHAP.

The decree required BSC to pay a civil penalty of

$650,000 and to comply with the requirements of the

NESHAP with respect to any and all operations at these

two facilities.

U.S. v. Coors (D. Va.): On January 31, 1994, the court

entereda consent decree with the Coors Brewing Company

(Coors) which required Coors to pay a civil penalty of

$245,000 and to not construct a brewery at its facility

in the Shenandoah Valley in Elkton, VA (Facility)

without a permit authorizing such construction. The

consent decree resolved violations of the Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations. Coors had

initiated the construction of the facility without

undergoing new BACT and modeling review, and without

obtaining a revised PSD permit to include the new

emissions sources, in violation of §165(a) of the Clean

Air Act and the Commonwealth of Virginia's State

Implementation Plan.

FloridaMarina and Boat Sales: On January 26, 1994, EPA

issued an administrative complaint against Florida

Marina and Boat Sales, Inc. (Respondent) for violations

of §610(b) of the CAA and the Nonessential Products Rule.

Respondent, a retailer of new and used boats and marine

supplies, is alleged to have sold at least six (6) noise

horns propelled by a CFC, in violation of the Rule and

the CAA. Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of

$3,000.

Hussey Copper: On April 28, 1994, EPA settled an

administrative CAA complaint with Hussey Copper for

violationsof the Pennsylvania SIP. Hussey Copper

engages in the smelting and production of secondary

copper. Specifically, EPA's complaint alleged that

Hussey violated Article XX of the Pennslylvania SIP

which established mass and visible emissions limitations

for fugitive particulate matter (PM-10). In settlement,

Hussey agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of

$135,000.

Manny, Moe, and Jack, Inc.- The Pep Boys: On March 15,

1994, EPA filed an administrative penalty action against

the Pep Boys - Manny, Moe, and Jack, Inc. for violations

of §609 of the CAA and the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part

82. Those provisions, among other things, prohibit the

sale of small containers of CFC-12 unless the sale is to

a certified technician or to a person intending to resell

the containers. The complaint alleged that PEP Boys sold

such containers in violation of the regulations on

numerous occasions, and sought a penalty of $8,726.

U.S. v. Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.): On July 27,

1994, the court entered a consent decree between EPA, Sun

Company, Inc. (R&M), and Atlantic Refining and Marketing

Corporation resolving many violations of the CAA at

Defendants' refinery located in South Philadelphia. The

violations included the expansion of the fluid catalytic
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-18

cracking unit at the refinery, resulting in increased U.S. v. Sun Company, Inc. (E.D. Penn.): On May 26, 1994,

emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. This EPA, lodged a consent decree in the court resolving many

expansion triggered the permitting and technology review violations of the CAA at the Sun Company refinery in

requirements of the prevention of significant South Philadelphia. The most environmentally

deterioration (PSD) rule, which protects air quality in significant violations were for increased emissions of

areas where the air is cleaner than mandated by national nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. As part of the

air standards for certain pollutants. Defendants also settlement, the defendants will restrict their emissions

violated limits on visible emissions and failed to meet at the cracking unit and will apply advanced control

the deadline for conducting a performance evaluation on technology to reduce their emissions, thereby

a continuous emission monitor. Additionally, Defendants contributing a benefit to the environment.

committed many violations of work practice rules

designed to minimize emissions of VOCs at the Refinery.

In addition to injunctive relief that will reduce

emissions and prevent future violations, Defendants paid

a civil penalty of $1.4 million plus interest.

U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.): During FY94,

EPA and Sun Oil negotiated a consent decree requiring Sun

Company, Inc. (R&M) ("Sun") to pay a civil penalty of

$160,230and to operate its petroleum refinery in Marcus

Hook, PA ("Facility") in compliance with EPA's Benzene

Transfer NESHAP. EPA alleged that Sun violated the

Benzene Transfer NESHAP when it failed to meet the

requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 61.302, 61.304, and 61.305

bythe February 28, 1992 deadline that was imposed under

the waiver of compliance that was granted to Sun and in

that it failed to meet certain deadlines required by the

waiver.

LTV (W. D. Pa): On April 11, 1994, the United States

lodged a consent decree between the United States,

Allegheny County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

Plaintiffs, and LTV Steel Company (LTV), Defendant, in

response to violations of the Clean Air Act by LTV at its

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania coke production facility. The

violations alleged in the initial complaint pertained to

the doors, lids, charging, offtakes, pushing and

combustion stacks emission standards. The decree

requiresLTV to pay a civil penalty of nine hundred

thousand dollars ($ 900,000). The amount to be paid in

settlement takes into account payments of over $ 150,000

previously made to Allegheny County for violations

alleged in the complaints. The decree requires LTV to

make significant improvements, at a cost of over $3

million, and implement, and make available to the

Plaintiffs and the public, the results of two studies of

coke oven door back pressure. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.): On June 6,

1994 Defendant Sun Oil (R&M) signed a proposed consent

decree that resolves a civil judicial action for Sun's

pretreatment violations of the CWA occurring at Sun's

Marcus Hook, PA, Refinery. EPA brought the case against

Sun for incidents of "pass through" by which the Marcus

Hook Refinery discharged oil and grease to the receiving

POTW, DELCORA in Chester, PA, causing DELCORA to violate

its NPDES limits for oil and grease. The case also

focused on Sun's numerous violations of national and

local pretreatment standards applicable to the Refinery

discharge, including oil and grease, ammonia, phenols,

pH, benzene and other pollutants. Under the proposed

settlement, Sun would pay the United States a penalty of

$1.058 million plus interest. For injunctive relief,

Sun would upgrade its wastewater treatment, conveyance

and operational practices to prevent further violations

of pretreatment standards and incidents of pass through.

Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.): On June 6, 1994

Defendants Sun Oil (R&M) and Atlantic Refining &

Marketing Corp. signed a proposed consent decree that

settles a civil judicial action to resolve violations of

the CWA and NPDES permit occurring at Defendants'

Philadelphia, PA, oil refinery. On numerous occasions

Defendants' Philadelphia Refinery discharged pollutants

(including oil and grease, total suspended solids, BOD,

ammonia, pH and phenols) into the Schuylkill River in

amounts exceeding the limitations set in their NPDES

permit. Defendants also violated NPDES requirements for

monitoring, sampling, reporting and bypassing. Under

the proposed settlement, Sun would pay the United States

a penalty of $1.25 million with interest. For injunctive

relief,Defendants would upgrade their Philadelphia

Refinery wastewater treatment, stormwater conveyance

and operational practices to prevent further violations

of the NPDES permit.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-19

Sun Company (Pennsylvania): On September 7, 1994, EPA City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa.): On January, 27, 1994,

and the Department of Justice announced the settlement theCourt entered a consent decree requiring the City of

of two CWA lawsuits against Sun Company, Inc., at its Philadelphia to pay $225,000 in civil penalties to the

Marcus Hook and Passyunk Avenue Refineries, U.S. and Pennsylvania, and perform injunctive relief

respectively. The settlement levied penalties exceeding necessary to prevent future violations. The complaint

$2.3 million, and will also require the improvement of filedMay 21, 1992, charged that on 19 occasions, the

poor environmental practices at both facilities. Sun City responded to backups of sewage at the House of

was alleged to have violated numerous parameters of its Corrections and the Detention Center by intentionally

NPDES permit at the Passyunk Avenue Refinery, including pumping raw sewage into the Pennypack Creek, a tributary

illegaldischarges of oil and grease, chromium, ammonia- of the Delaware River. The U.S. and the Commonwealth

nitrogen, and zinc. In addition, the refinery illegally each received 50% of the civil penalty. The City has

discharged untreated wastewater on 14 separate occasions completed the projects necessary to prevent further

to the Schuykill River between 1991 and 1994. The Marcus violations at an expenditure of over $1 million.

Hook facility illegally discharged excessive amounts of

oil and grease, which caused the Delaware County Eastern Energy Investments: On March 24, 1994, the

RegionalWater Authority's (DELCORA) sewer system to Office of Surface Mining (OSM) listed the first EPA case,

violate its NPDES permit. The improper discharges from Eastern Energy Investments, Inc., of Pinch, West

both of these refineries added to the overall Virginia, onto its Applicant Violator System (AVS).

degradation of the Schuykill and Delaware Rivers. Section 510(c) of SMCRA requires OSM to deny new mining

Ocean Builders Supply: On July 6, 1994, EPA issued a any Federal agency notifies OSM of an unresolved air or

proposed $125,000 administrative penalty to Ocean water violation resulting from surface mining by that

Builders Supply and Mr. Leonard Jester for filling a high entity. OSM will not issue a new mining permit until the

qualitywetland on Chincoteague Island, VA, despite the violator demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that the

fact that a permit for the action had previously been violation has been or is being corrected. This "permit

denied. block," through OSM's ownership and control rules,

Despite being denied a permit, Mr. Jester acquired a other mining entities with which Eastern's corporate

local building permit in June 1992 and subsequently officers, board members, and stockholders with greater

built the structures on land owned by his company, Ocean than a 10% interest are associated. On January 12, 1994,

Builders Supply. Similar unauthorized activities have EPA,Region III, issued an administrative order (AO) to

taken place on two adjacent lots to Mr. Jester's but have Eastern Energy for outstanding pH and metals violations,

not yet resulted in irreversible impacts. including discharges in violation of a permit and, after

DELCORA (E.D. Pa): On July 28, 1994, a consent decree permit. This AO formed the basis for the AVS listing.

was entered in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the case of United

States and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Delaware

County Regional Water Quality Control Authority

(DELCORA). The consent decree required DELCORA to

construct an additional secondary clarifier at its

wastewater treatment plant at a cost of approximately

$3.5 million dollars to be completed by May 1, 1997, and

to pay a civil penalty of $350,000 plus interest. The

decree also provided for stipulated penalties for NPDES

effluent violations and failure to meet construction

milestone deadlines. This facility is located in

Chester, Pa., a community of mostly poor and minority

residents. 

permits to an entity or its "owners or controllers" when

reaches not only Eastern Energy Investments, Inc., but

the NPDES permit had expired, discharges without a

SDWA

Consolidated Gas Transmission Corporation (1311):On

September26, 1994, EPA issued an administrative penalty

action against Consolidated for violating the conditions

of its permit for the operation of a brine disposal well

in Potter County, PA. Specifically, EPA found that they

had operated the well without mechanical integrity, and

numerous other provisions of the permit, in violation of

40 CFR Part 144. The action required Consolidated to pay

a penalty of $10,000 and perform corrective action to

ensure the integrity of the well.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-20

Jiffy Lube (7538): On October 4, 1993, Region III issued Osram Sylvania Glass, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania: OSRAM

an administrative penalty action against Jiffy Lube for Sylvania signed a 3008(h) consent order on October 22,

the operation of a shallow injection well which could 1993. OSRAM submitted the RFI Workplan on January 25,

cause the migration of petroleum and other harmful 1994. EPA approved the RFI Workplan for a Phase I

chemicals into underground sources of drinking water. investigationof the Osram facility on September 29,

The settlement required Jiffy Lube to inventory all of 1994. The Workplan outlines the schedule and activities

the faciliies operated in the region and determine if for the investigation of soils and groundwater at the

there were additional wells in operation. Jiffy Lube facility. The RFI will focus on the chromium

identified a total of eight facilities operating similar contamination of the groundwater and the identification

disposal wells. Jiffy Lube was required to remediate of potential human and ecological receptors.

each of the locations and institute recycling and best

management practices at each facility, and pay a penalty Action Manufacturing Company, Atglen, Pennsylvania: On

of $3,200. This administrative action was coordinated September 23, 1994, Action signed an RCRA §3008(h)

with the State of Maryland where several wells were consent order. The order was effective September 29,

located. Maryland issued its own administrative action, 1994. It requires Action to conduct an RCRA Facility

modeled after the regional action. Investigation (RFI) to define the extent of

RCRA

Bethlehem Steel Corporation Steelton Plant: On January

21, 1994, EPA and Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC)

signed an Addendum to a March 2, 1992, RCRA §3008(h)

Corrective Measures Study consent order for the

implementation of final corrective measures at BSC's

Steelton, PA, facility. BSC will install a concrete cap

inside its steel manufacturing building, modify

manufacturing procedures to limit worker exposure to

lead contaminated electric arc furnace dust and use

institutional controls to further limit possible

exposure.

Medusa Cement: On February 23, 1994, EPA signed a

consentorder resolving an administrative penalty action Virginia: On September 30, 1994 an RCRA §3008(h) consent

against Medusa Cement Company for violations of order was issued to Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation.

regulations regarding the burning of hazardous wastes in This order required Ravenswood to perform IM, an RFI, and

boilers and industrial furnaces. The complaint alleged a CMS. EPA has received Ravenswood's IM Work Plan and is

that Medusa failed to submit a revised certification of reviewing it for technical adequacy and completeness.

precompliance and failed to reduce feed rates as The IM Work Plan requires Ravenswood to install and

requiredunder 40 C.F.R. §266.103. Medusa agreed to pay operate a network of recovery wells to recover petroleum

a civil penalty of $200,000 in settlement of the action. contaminated groundwater.

U.S. v. National Rolling Mills (E.D. Penn.): On July 11, AT&T, Richmond, Virginia: On June 20, 1994, EPA issued

1994, National Rolling Mills (NRM) agreed to pay a civil an Initial RCRA §3008(h) unilateral order to AT&T to

penalty of $300,000 for RCRA violations. The civil implement corrective measures at its Richmond, VA,

charges included the storage of land disposal restricted Facility. The unilateral order was issued after AT&T

(LDR) waste for over a year, shipment of LDR waste for failed to negotiate a consent order in good faith. The

disposal to off-site facilities without notifying those unilateral order required AT&T to submit a work plan

facilities whether the waste met applicable treatment within 30 days to pump and treat chlorinated organic

standards, and various other violations of RCRA. contamination in the groundwater. AT&T appealed EPA's

environmental contamination, and a Corrective Measure

Study to evaluate clean-up alternatives. Action is an

explosives manufacturing facility with a history of

land-based disposal activities.

Quaker State Corporation, Newell, West Virginia: On

December 30, 1993 a unilateral order was issued to the

Quaker State Congo Plant in Newell, WV. This order

required Quaker State to perform Interim Measures (IM),

an RCRA RFI, and a Corrective Measures Study (CMS). EPA

has approved Quaker State's IM Work Plan. The IM Work

Plan requires Quaker State to recover free floating

petroleum product from a series of wells installed in a

portion of their facility.

Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation, Ravenswood, West

issuance of the order. As a result of the appeal, EPA and
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-21

AT&T resumed negotiations to resolve the appeal. A RTC's Leesport, PA, facility. RTC, a manufacturer of

settlement was reached between the parties and a joint coppertubing, agreed to pay a cash penalty of $75,000

stipulation was submitted to the presiding officer for and to undertake an SEP involving the replacement of 7

approval. PCBTransformers and 74 PCB Capacitors with new non-PCB

Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., Middletown,

Delaware: On March 8, 1994, an RCRA §3013 consent order

was issued to the Johnson Controls Battery Group. The

order required Johnson Controls to conduct an RFI to

determine the extent of contamination that has resulted

from activities at the facility. Johnson Controls

submitted its RFI Work Plan in a timely manner.

ITT Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia: On May 19, 1994, EPA

issued an RCRA §3008(h) administrative order on consent

to the ITT Corporation. This order required ITT to

perform an RFI to determine the extent of contamination

and to conduct a CMS to evaluate potential remedial

alternatives that might be used to mitigate releases of

hazardous wastes or constituents from their Roanoke, VA

facility.

TSCA

Allied Colloids: Allied Colloids, Inc. paid $398,000 in

stipulated penalties as a result of an audit of its

operations. The audit revealed violations of TSCA §§ 5

and 13 involving a variety of chemicals. This audit

payment is in addition to payments totalling $900,000,

plus interest, made by Allied Colloids in settlement of

TSCA violations alleged by EPA in an underlying

enforcement proceeding.

Bethlehem Steel Corporation: EPA issued a complaint

against Bethlehem Steel Corporation for violations of

the PCB Rule at its facility in Sparrows Point, Maryland.

The complaint alleged that Bethlehem Steel: (1)

improperly disposed of PCBs by allowing spills onto the

ground, (2) failed to maintain adequate records of

inspectionand maintenance history for leaking PCB

Transformers, (3) failed to conduct daily inspections

after a leak was discovered in numerous PCB

transformers, and (4) failed to repair the source of the

leak and to remediate the contaminated area within 48

hours. EPA sought a total penalty of $145,500 for these

violations.

Reading Tube Corporation: On January 21, 1994, EPA and

Reading Tube Corporation (RTC) settled an administrative

penalty action for alleged violations of the PCB Rule at

Equipment, at an estimated cost of $313,500.

Anzon, Inc.: On June 1, 1994, EPA and Anzon, Inc, a

manufacturer of lead products, settled a TSCA

administrative complaint involving violations of the

Inventory Update Rule (IUR). Anzon failed to submit IUR

reports on four chemicals manufactured at its

Philadelphia,PA, plant. Anzon agreed to pay a $57,000

civil penalty, $43,620 of which may be remitted by EPA

upon completion of SEPs to be performed in Anzon's

Philadelphia,PA, and Laredo, TX, facilities. The

Philadelphia project involves the early removal and

disposal of four PCB transformers. The Laredo project

requires increased controls for the capture of antimony

oxide emissions from the facility. These projects have

a combined estimated cost of $198,800.

Columbia Gas: On September 23, 1994, Columbia Gas

Transmission Corporation agreed to pay a civil penalty

of $4,916,472 in settlement of violations of the TSCA

dating to 1989. The settlement involved TSCA violations

in Regions III, IV, and V. Following issuance of a 1992

subpoena, Columbia offered to enter into an expedited

process to clean up the pipeline and settle TSCA civil

penalties. This settlement, along with a CERCLA

administrative order on consent, resulted from that

process. The administrative complaint alleged three

broad classes of violations: unauthorized use of PCBs in

air compressors at 29 compressor stations spread over

much of the 19,000-mile length of the pipeline system;

regular improper disposal of PCBs to the environment as

aresult of liquid blowdowns from these air compressors;

and additional improper disposals (that are not the

result of air compressor blowdown) of PCB-contaminated

liquids from pipeline and air compressors to soils and

sediments at these stations.

VA Dept of Emergency Services: On December 27, 1993, EPA

filed a consent order settling a TSCA administrative

penalty complaint against the Virginia Department of

EmergencyServices. Under the terms of the settlement,

the Commonwealth of Virginia agreed to pay a civil

penalty and to perform underground storage tank upgrade

(UST) projects, at an estimated cost of $100,000. The

UST upgrades will significantly reduce the risk of
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-22

underground storage tank contamination at Commonwealth ResponseCommission, the Local Emergency Planning

facilities, which was the major focus of EPA's concern Committee,and the Local Fire Department for reporting

about the Cheatham Annex site. years1991 and 1992, in violation of EPCRA §§ 311 and

EPCRA

T.L.Diamond, Spelter, West Virginia: On June 3, 1994,

EPAsettled an administrative enforcement action brought

against T.L. Diamond & Company for violation of §313 of

the EPCRA. T.L. Diamond and Company violated §313 by

failing to file a toxic chemical inventory release form

for zinc dust and zinc oxide in calendar years 1990

though 1992 for its operations at its Spelter, WV, plant.

The settlement provided for a cash penalty payment of

$41,477, the penalty amount proposed in the complaint.

Premium Beverage Packers, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania: On

August 1, 1994, EPA executed a consent order with Premium

BeveragePackers, Inc. settling violations of EPCRA §§

311 and 312. The violations involved the presence of two

hazardous chemicals at the facility in excess of

threshold reporting levels (ammonia and carbon dioxide)

for the years 1988 and 1989. Under the terms of the

consent order, Premium Beverage Packers, Inc. agreed to

pay a penalty of $73,011.

SteelProcessing, Inc., Pottstown, Pennsylvania: On

August 14, 1994 EPA signed a CACO settling an

administrative enforcement action brought against Steel

Processing, Inc., located in Pottstown, PA, for

violationsof EPCRA §§ 311 and 312. Steel Processing, a

carbon steel sheet manufacturer, failed to submit an

MSDS or list for hydrochloric acid to the LEPC, SERC, and

the local fire department, in violation of §311 of EPCRA

and failed to submit an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical

Inventory Form for the calendar years 1988, 1989, and

1990, in violation of §312 of EPCRA. An inspection of

the Steel Processing facility revealed that Steel

Processing utilized as much as 617,000 pounds of

hydrochloric acid during those years. The settlement

provided for the payment of a $7,500 penalty.

Messer Greisheim Industries, Inc., Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania: On September 6, 1994 EPA signed a CACO

negotiated in settlement of a nine count administrative

complaint issued against Messer Griesheim Industries,

Inc., d/b/a M.G. Industries, Inc., a Philadelphia

welding supply business, for violating the Emergency

Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). M.G.

Industries failed to report to the State Emergency

312. M.G. Industries agreed to pay a $100,000 civil

penalty. At the time, this penalty was the fifth largest

ever obtained for EPCRA §§ 311/312 violations.

DiverseyCorporation, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania:

A Pennsylvania Corp with 63 employees, Diversey is a

manufacturer of industrial cleaning compounds. On April

27, 1992 there was a non-permitted release of chorine and

the facility failed to notify the NRC, the Pennsylvania

SERC, or the Monroe County LEPC. EPA and Diversey

Corporation settled the case with an assessed penalty of

$43,750, and an agreement that Diversey would undertake

a SEP with a projected cost of $10,974. The SEP involved

the donation of computer, software, and other equipment

to the LEPC.

Homer Laughlin China: On December 9, 1993 EPA executed

a CACO, with an associated Settlement Conditions

Document, settling an EPCRA administrative action filed

against the Homer Laughlin China Company for violations

of §313 of that Act. The settlement included a

substantial SEP, exceeding $9 million in cost, in which

Laughlin converted their entire china dinner-ware

production system to a lead free process.

Action Manufacturing: On September 28, 1994, EPA

settled a penalty complaint against Action Manufacturing

in which the company agreed to pay an administrative

penalty of $37,658. The settlement also included a SEP

which required the company to spend at least $93,000 to

replaceits current 1,1,1-TCA parts-washing system with

an aqueous-based parts washing system. The new parts

washing system will allow Action to significantly reduce

its use of 1,1,1-TCA and Trichloroethylene (TCE) at its

Philadelphia facility.

FIFRA

DuPont: On September 29, 1994, EPA and E.I. DuPont de

Nemours(DuPont), Platte Chemical Company (Platte) and

Lesco, Inc. (Lesco) settled an administrative FIFRA

penalty action involving the distribution of Benlate, a

fungicide, which had been contaminated with atrazine, an

herbicide. The consent order required DuPont and Platte

to pay a total of $1 million in civil penalties.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-23

CERCLA

Columbia Gas:On September 23, 1994, EPA entered into a

multi-regional CERCLA consent order with Columbia Gas

Transmission Corporation under which the company will

characterize contamination and perform CERCLA removal

actions selected by EPA at compressor stations and other

locations along the Columbia pipeline system. Columbia

estimates that this project will require expenditures of

between $15 to 20 million a year for approximately 12

years.

GreenwoodChemical: On June 30, 1994 EPA issued an order

pursuant to §106 of CERCLA to the Greenwood Chemical

Company and the High Point Chemical Corporation to

implement EPA's Remedial Design for the excavation,

treatment (where necessary), and offsite disposal of

contaminated soils at the Greenwood Chemical Site,

located approximately 20 miles from Charlottesville, VA.

Recticon/Allied Steel Site: On March 24, 1994, EPA

issued an order pursuant to §106 of CERCLA to Highview

Gardens, Inc.; Allied Steel Products Corporation; Allied

Steel Products Corporation of Pennsylvania; and Rockwell

International Corporation for the Recticon Allied Steel

Site, located in Parker Ford, Chester County, PA. This

order requires the performance of Remedial Design and

Remedial Action as called for in EPA's June 30, 1993

Record of Decision for the Site.

Sackville Mills Company: On June 17, 1994, Sackville

Mills Company, the present and former owner/operator of

a closed textile mill in Wallingford, PA, entered into an

administrative order by consent (Order) with EPA to

conduct removal response activities at the former

textile mills facility. The order also prohibited the

PRP from disturbing or excavating areas on the Site which

are suspected to contain anthrax bacteria allegedly

disposed of during the textile operations; required

measures to be taken to identify potential anthrax

contamination in soils; and required removal of anthrax

from a part of an on-Site building.

United Chemical Technologies: On June 27, 1994, EPA

issued a unilateral removal CERCLA §106 order directing

United Chemical Technologies, Inc. ("United"), the

operator of a chemical manufacturing facility in

Bristol, PA, to stabilize and clean up hazardous

substances at a site which was the scene of a massive

explosionand fire on June 21. The order provided a

comprehensive framework for establishing site security,

site stabilization, and identification and proper

handling and disposal of hazardous substances on site.

U.S. v. Lord Corporation (W.D. Penn.): On March 15,

1994, the court entered a consent decree, settling the

United States' claims under CERCLA §§ 106 and 107 for

injunctive relief and reimbursement of costs related to

the Lord Corporation Property portion of the Saegertown

Industrial Area Superfund Site ("Site"). The consent

decree required Lord Corporation to implement the

selected remedy for the Lord Corporation Property

portion of the Site, a remedy estimated to cost $3.4

million. The consent decree also required Lord

Corporation to pay $21,928 in past response costs

incurred by the United States, and to pay certain

categories of the United States' future response costs

associated with the consent decree and Site.

U.S. v. Chromatex (3rd Cir.): On September 29, 1994, the

Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the

United States' interpretation of the statute of

limitations provision of CERCLA. The court affirmed the

district court's February 9, 1994, summary judgment

ruling under §107(a) of CERCLA finding the defendant's

liable for $682,002 in Agency response costs incurred

during a removal action at the site. On appeal, the

defendants argued that EPA had let more than 3 years pass

since completion of the removal action, at the Valmont

SuperfundSite and consequently was barred by the

statute of limitations. The Third Circuit rejected this

argument, applying a broad standard to determine when a

removal action was completed. As a result, the court

found that the United States had brought suit for removal

costs within the 3 years of completing the removal

action.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-24

REGION IV

CLEAN AIR ACT CLEAN WATER ACT/SDWA

U.S.v. Rohm and Haas, Inc. (W.D. Ky.): On August 2, U.S. v. Metro-Dade County, et al.: Concerns regarding

1994, a stipulation, settlement agreement and order the structural integrity of a sewage pipeline (cross-bay

(Stipulation) was entered by the court concluding a 1992 line) under Biscayne Bay prompted Region IV to initiate

CAA Pre-Referral judicial enforcement action against a civil enforcement action in June 1993. Rupture of the

Rohm& Haas Kentucky, Inc. and provided for the payment cross-bay line would have caused catastrophic

of a $32,500 civil penalty to the United States. Rohm environmental damage to Biscayne Bay and surrounding

and Haas operates a specialty chemical CAA processing waterbodies. In December, 1993, the government and

plantin Louisville, KY. Rohm and Haas violated §111(e) Metro-Dade County entered into a partial consent decree

of the act and its implementing regulations codified at addressing the emergency claim, contingency plans and

40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subparts A and D when it failed to short term measures. Under this First Partial consent

monitor and measure emissions of nitrogen oxides from a decree, the County has completed construction of the new

natural gas boiler located at its plant from July 1989 to cross-bay line (a year ahead of schedule) and the line is

June 1991. now operational.

U.S. v. Olin Corporation (E.D. Tenn.): On June 9, 1994, In an action filed in the United States District Court

the court entered a consent decree to resolve violations forthe Southern District of Florida on June 10, 1993,

ofthe mercury standards under the CAA NESHAP by Olin's the Region sought emergency relief from the court based

Chattanooga facility. The penalty amount was $1 on the deteriorated condition of the cross-bay line.

million. Metro-Dade had experienced some very large sewer spills

EPA filed a civil complaint alleging violations of the as the line under the bay and it was therefore feared

workpractice standards for mercury NESHAP, and issued that the cross-bay line could break at any time. Janet

an agreed order for decontamination of the workers' Reno, then the State Attorney, convened a special grand

homes under §106 of CERCLA. A second amended complaint jury to investigate pollution in the Miami River and the

in January 1992 alleged additional NESHAP mercury grand jury concluded that the aged and corroded sewer

violations, and added a count for failing to notify the system, and the cross-bay line in particular, presented

NRC of the mercury release, a violation of CERCLA §103. the greatest threat to the health of the river. 

U.S .v. Crown, Cork & Seal, Inc. (N.D. Miss.): On The action also contains four claims addressing systemJanuary 3, 1994, the court entered a consent decree which wide unpermitted discharges, improper operation and

settled Crown, Cork & Seal Inc.'s (CC&S's) alleged maintenance, and reporting violations. The Second and

violationsof the CAA's PSD requirements and New Source Final Partial consent decree, which addresses all other

Performance Standards (NSPS). The CACO required the injunctive relief and penalty, is in the last stages of

payment of a civil penalty of $343,000 and required CC&S finalization. 

to perform three SEPs valued at more than $2 million

after tax. During June 1987, Crown commenced operations

of a new two-piece can coating facility in Batesville, UnitedStates v. IMC-Agrico Company (M.D. Florida): On

MS, without first obtaining a PSD permit, or testing and April 1, 1994, Region IV submitted a referral to the

reporting commencement pursuant to requirements under Department of Justice asking that a civil judicial

NSPS. action be filed against IMC-Agrico (IMC) for the

due to breaks in lines that were of a similar age and type

company's alleged violations of Section 301(a) of the

CWA. EPA alleged IMC exceeded its permit effluent limits

for a variety of parameters as well as non-reporting and

stormwater violations.IMC owns and operates phosphate
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-25

rock mines and associated processing facilities in had periodically discharging from its wastewater

Florida and Louisiana. Eight of its mineral extraction treatment plant into the receiving stream during the

operations and its Port Sutton Phosphate Terminal were period of June through October 1992. Based on

the subject of this referral action. The subject IMC consideration of the factors identified at Section

facilities had over 1,500 permit violations since 1988. 309(g)(3), EPA, and following settlement discussions,

On October 17, 1994, IMC submitted a signed consent the parties reached a negotiated settlement of $60,000.

decree resolving this multi-facility civil referral.

The settlement provides for an up-front payment of

$835,000 and a $265,000 Supplemental Environmental In the Matter of IMC-Fertilizer, Bartow FL: On February

Project (SEP). The SEP will involve conversion IMC's 17, 994, the Regional Administrator ratified the

scrubber discharge and intake water systems into a negotiated settlement in this action, which provided for

closed loop system (greatly reducing pollution loading a $40,000 penalty. In March 1993, EPA initiated a CWA

at the Port Sutton facility). Class II Administrative Penalty Action against IMC

U.S. v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D. Kentucky): On Section 301(a) of the CWA by exceeding the permit

May 6, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern effluent limits for Dissolved Oxygen, Total Suspended

District of Kentucky required Perdue-Davidson and Solids,Fixed Suspended Solids, Unionized Ammonia, and

Charles Perdue to pay EPA stipulated penalties, pH during the period of March 1988 through February 1991

calculated at $3.8 million, and compliance with all at its Haynsworth mining facility. Based on

requested injunctive relief. Perdue-Davidson is an oil consideration of the factors identified at Section

production company which produces crude oil from two 309(g)(3), and following settlement discussions, the

stripper-well fields in eastern Kentucky. As a result of parties reached a negotiated settlement with penalty of

Perdue-Davidson's repeated violations of a prior UIC $40,000. 

administrative order on consent, as well as statutory

and regulatory environmental requirements, EPA filed In the Matter of Jacksonville Beach, FL: On May 6, 1994,

this multi-media civil referral pursuant to § 301 of the the signed consent agreement was ratified by the

CWA, § 311 of the CWA, § 1423 of the SDWA (UIC) and § 311 Regional Administrator. This case was the first

of the EPCRA. regional action against a facility for failure to comply

On March 10, 1994, the government filed a motion for In December 1993, EPA initiated a Class I administrative

partial summary judgement on five of the ten claims for penalty action against the City of Jacksonville Beach

relief in the complaint. In addition, the government under Section 309(g) of the CWA alleging violations of

requested injunctive relief and that the Defendants pay Sections 301(a) and 308 of the CWA through failure to

stipulated penalties due to violations of a UIC AOC. submit a timely and complete stormwater permit

This represents an important court decision requiring application for the City's municipal stormwater system.

payment of stipulated penalties for violation of a UIC Based on consideration of the factors identified at

administrative order on consent, as well as for Section 309(g)(3), and following settlement

corporate officer civil liability for company and discussions,EPA and the Jacksonville Beach reached a

corporate officer violations of §§ 301 and 311 (SPCC) of negotiated settlement with a penalty of $3,500. 

the CWA. 

Inthe Matter of Manatee County, FL:: On February 1, concerteddrive against contamination of the nation's

1994,the Regional Administrator ratified the negotiated waters, Region IV participated in a government

settlement in this action, which provided for payment of enforcement action announced on May 26, 1994. This

a $60,000 penalty. In September 27, 1993, EPA initiated action was filed against 28 commercial polluters who

a CWA Class II administrative penalty action against discharged oil and other hazardous substances into water

Manatee County under Section 309(g) alleging violations and adjoining shorelines. These actions reinforce the

of Section 301(a) of the CWA by exceeding the no- clearCongressional intent to punish violators of Clean

discharge requirements of its NPDES permit. The County Water Act provisions prohibiting of oil and hazardous

Fertilizer under Section 309(g) alleging violations of

with the new stormwater permit application requirements.

Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Initiative: In a
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-26

substance spills and requiring preventative measure WWTP to the City of Auburndale collection system. That

against such spills. connection has been completed and all discharges from

Region IV filed five administrative cases against two

individuals and three corporate commercial entities: United States v. City of Port St. Joe, Florida; et al.:

Alamco Inc., (Complaint seeks penalty of $123,942) NorthernDistrict of Florida entered a consent decree

located in Clairfield, TN, is an oil and gas exploration settling litigation between the United States and the

andproducing company. It spilled at least 7,300 gallons City of Port St. Joe, Florida; the St. Joe Forest

of crude oil affecting the Clearfork and the Hickory Products Company; and the State of Florida. The consent

Creeks and failed to prepare an SPCC plan. decree provides for the payment of a $25,000 civil

CumberlandLake Shell, Inc., (Complaint seeks penalty of Company,for a total civil penalty of $350,000. This

$92,387) located in Somerset, Kentucky, is a distributor case,filed as part of the National Pulp and Papermill

of gasoline and petroleum products to service stations; Enforcement Initiative, alleged that the City and the

it spilled at least 200 gallons of diesel affecting County violated the federal Clean Water Act. The City

Sinking Creek. Cumberland also failed to prepare an SPCC operates a municipal wastewater treatment facility which

plan. discharges treated wastewater into the waters of the

Texfi Industries, Inc., (Complaint seeks penalty of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

$24,672) located in Jefferson, Georgia, is a fabric program. EPA alleged that, since November 1988, the City

manufacturer. It spilled at least 1,900 gallons of repeatedly violated the discharge parameters set in its

diesel affecting an unnamed tributary of the Oconee NPDES permit. EPA alleged the Company violated the

River and failed to prepare an SPCC plan. pretreatmentprohibitions of the Clean Water Act by

WesleyGriffith, (Complaint seeks penalty of $78,287) an contributing pollutants in excessive quantities, which

independent oil producer, spilled at least 11,130 caused interference and pass through of the City

gallons of oil affecting South Fork of Coles Creek and facility and caused the City to violate its NPDES permit.

failed to prepare an SPCC plan. 

John D. Herlihy, (Complaint seeks penalty of $37,425) an

independent oil producer, spilled at least 2,100 gallons

of oil affecting Cameron and Middle Fork Creeks.

Herlihy also failed to implement an SPCC plan.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. Polk County: A

consent agreement and order assessing administrative

penalties was signed by the Regional Administrator on

February 24, 1994, settling this case for a penalty of

$100,000. Region IV issued a Class II administrative

penalty order complaint against Polk County, Florida, on

September30 1991. The complaint assessed penalties in

the amount of $125,000 for alleged discharged without a

valid NPDES permit from the Wilson Acres waste water

treatment plant since at least September 30, 1986. EPA

alleged the facility had been continuously discharging

since at least March 20, 1983. The agreement provided

that up to $15,000 in penalties to be paid the State of

Florida would be credited toward the penalty in this

case, conditioned on the connection of the Wilson Acres

Wilson Acres WWTP have stopped.

On August 13, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the

penalty by the City and a $325,000 civil penalty by the

United States, under a permit issued pursuant to the

RCRA

Holnam, Inc.: A CACO was entered on September 30, 1994,

resolving an RCRA action filed against Holnam, Inc.

addressing violations of the BIF Rule found in routine

EPA inspections in 1992 and 1993 at two cement kilns

operated in Holly Hill, SC. The company had failed to

make a hazardous waste/Bevill determination on its

cement kiln dust, failed to submit a complete and

accurate Certificate of Compliance for one kiln, and

failed to submit an adequate Waste Analysis Plan. In the

CACO, Holnam agreed to pay a penalty of $670,000, to make

required submissions, and to conduct additional

groundwater monitoring.

Arizona Chemical Company: On September 28, 1994, a CACO

was entered settling an RCRA action filed against

Arizona Chemical Company for violations of the BIF Rule.

The violations were identified by a joint EPA and state

inspection at the facility located in Panama City, FL.

The facility had failed to operate within limits

contained in its Certification of Pre-compliance and
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-27

Certification of Compliance; failed to develop an Inc., addressing TOC's commercial hazardous waste

inspection schedule, an adequate waste analysis plan, incinerator in Roebuck, SC. The order requires TOC to

and a closure plan for one boiler; and failed to conduct conduct a systems design and quality control evaluation

required air emissions monitoring. In settlement, the of the computer control system which monitors and

company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $79,000 and to controls the incinerator's emissions; and to gather

make required submissions. information to enable EPA to conduct a site-specific

Giant Cement Company: On February 15, 1994, a CACO was toperform the work required under the consent order, TOC

entered settling an RCRA administrative action filed has agreed to pay penalties in the amount of $500,000.

against Giant Cement Company. The complaint was based on

violations found during an EPA inspection of Giant's Florida Department of Transportation: A CACO was

Harleyville, SC, Portland Cement manufacturing entered on September 20, 1994, settling an

facility. The violations included BIF Rule violations, administrative action filed against the Florida

aswell the facility's failure to make a Hazardous Waste/ Department of Transportation for violations of RCRA at

Bevill determination for cement kiln dust. The CACO the Fairbanks Disposal Pit Site in Fairbanks, FL. Under

required Giant to pay a civil penalty of $520,000 and to theCACO, FDOT has agreed to pay a civil penalty of

implement a cement kiln dust sampling and analysis $2,407,550, of which $170,000 will be paid in cash and

protocol approved by the Agency. the remainder of which may be satisfied through

Todhunter International, Inc., d/b/a Florida

Distillers: A CACO was entered on September 30, 1994,

settling an action filed in 1993 that found numerous RCRA

violations at facilities in Lake Alfred and Auburndale,

FL,where the Respondent manufactures beverage alcohol

products. The CACO settles this case for $400,000,

$100,000 in cash, with up to a $300,000 reduction in the

penalty for implementation of a specified SEP. The SEP,

which will cost more than $1 million, involves

installation of cooling tower equipment, significantly Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company/Tenneco, Inc.: In FY 94,

reducing cooling water withdrawal from the Floridan Region4 negotiated two separate settlement agreements

aquifer, and the upgrade of a waste water treatment plant relating to the Tenneco natural gas pipeline system that

to significantly reduce the loading of nutrients and stretches 16,000 miles from Texas and Louisiana to

BOD. different parts of the Northeast. On August 10, 1994,

U.S. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (N.D. Ala.): On (CACO) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

September 27, 1994, the U.S. District Court entered a with respondents Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and

civil consent decree that requires Gulf States Steel Tenneco, Inc. The CACO settled an administrative

Corporation to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1.1 penalty action that alleged TSCA violations at 42

million. The consent decree also provides for a possible compressor stations along the pipeline. the multireduction in the penalty of up to $300,000 for SEPs to be Regional, multi-state settlement required the two

proposed for EPA approval, as well as extensive companies to pay a civil penalty of $6.4 million for

injunctive relief, including corrective action. This violations relating to use and disposal of

settlement was reached in pre-filing negotiations polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) dating back to 1979.

pursuant to Exec. Order No. 12778, which requires that The $6.4 million penalty is the largest administrative

the government make reasonable efforts to settle prior penalty ever recovered by the Agency for TSCA

to litigation. violations.

Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.: On On the same day, the Region also executed an

September 30, 1994, EPA entered into an RCRA §3013 order administrative order on consent (AOC) under CERCLA with

on consent with Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), the two companies for study and cleanup of PCB

multi-pathway risk assessment. In addition to agreeing

performance of 3 SEPs. Under the SEPs, FDOT will

discontinue the application of lead and high VOC content

(or solvent-borne) pavement marking paints and

thermoplastics on all roads constructed and maintained

by FDOT throughout the State. The CACO also requires

FDOT to submit and implement an adequate closure/postclosure plan.

TSCA

1994, EPA executed a consent agreement and consent order
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-28

contamination along most of the pipeline. (State emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms. The

agencies in New York and Pennsylvania are independently complaint proposed an $85,000 penalty.

addressing contamination at compressor stations within

their respective borders, although the stations in Everwood Treatment Company, Inc.: On August 29, 1994, a

Pennsylvania may be added to the AOC if the respondents CACO was filed resolving Everwood Treatment Company,

do not conduct the work appropriately.) The value of Inc.'s (Everwood's) violations of §103 of CERCLA and

this settlement is not certain since it will ultimately §304 of EPCRA. The CACO settled this action for $54,500

depend on the amount of contamination that is and required the Respondent to pay $32,000 (plus

identified. EPA expects, however, that the response interest) in cash in four installments within 1 year of

action will likely cost more than $240 million, thus the effective date of the CACO. In addition, the CACO

making this the largest administrative settlement in calls for Everwood to implement a SEP which requires it

CERCLA history. to expend approximately $225,000 to construct a new wood

The multi-media settlements reflect the Agency's first a wood preservative that is not a hazardous waste.

coordinated use of CERCLA authority for cleanup with

TSCa authority for administrative penalties. Shortly Acomplaint was filed against Everwood on January 5,

after the announcement of these two settlements, Region 1994, pursuant to §103 of CERCLA and §304 of EPCRA

3 announced the successful negotiation of two similar alleging that Everwood failed to immediately notify the

settlements for the Columbia Natural Gas Pipeline. NRCof a release of arsenic acid, failed to immediately

GeneralElectric Company: On November 1, 1993, the to provide a written follow-up emergency notice of the

Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued its Final release to the SERC and the LEPC. Everwood is located in

Decision in EPA's 1989 TSCA PCB case against General Irvington, AL, and is in the business of treating wood

Electric Company (GE). The Final Decision upheld EPA's with a copper, chromate, arsenate solution.

position that PCB solvent distillation systems used in

disposing of PCB transformers are subject to PCB NorthAmerican Royalties, Inc., d/b/a Wheland Foundry:

disposal regulations. The decision also clarified that On December 20, 1993, a CACO was filed which settled an

once PCBs are in a state of disposal, those PCBs are EPCRA administrative enforcement action against North

governed only by the PCB disposal regulations and cannot American Royalties, Inc. d/b/a Wheland Foundry

be simultaneously subject to PCB use regulations. Based (Wheland). The CACO required that Wheland pay a civil

upon its findings, the EAB assessed a $25,000 penalty penaltyof $25,724. In addition, the CACO provided that

against GE for its PCB disposal violations. The EAB's Whelandundertake, as a SEP, the purchase of an emergency

Final Decision was appealed by GE and is currently response vehicle to be donated to the Hamilton County

pending in U.S. District Court. (Tennessee) LEPC. The SEP expenditure was estimated at

EPCRA

Gro-Tec, Inc.: On April 1, 1994, a CACO was filed for the

payment by Gro-Tec, Inc. of a $12,750 penalty and the

performance of two SEPs. The SEP calls for Gro-Tec,

Inc., to donate at least $21,000 worth of equipment to

the Eatonton-Putnam County Emergency Management Agency.

Additionally, it requires the company to undertake

certain construction activities at its facility,

designed to accomplish pollution reduction. The

projected costs of these activities will equal or exceed

$60,000. The complaint, filed April 1, 1994 alleged that

Gro-Tec, Inc., a producer of agricultural products, was

in violation of EPCRA §§ 311 and 312 and charged the

company with failure to submit an MSDS, and complete

treatment plant that is built specifically for the use of

notify the SERC of a release of arsenic acid, and failed

$102,880.

Ashland Petroleum Company: On May 10, 1994, a CACO was

filed which settled alleged reporting violations under

§304 of the EPCRA. The CACO provided for a $1.56 million

penalty, for which Ashland agreed to pay $312,000 in cash

to EPA, with the remainder of the penalty to be provided

inSEPs valued at over $1,248,000 in after tax value. In

addition to the $312,000 cash penalty to the government,

Ashland will pay $45,000 to the Cabell-Wayne (WV) LEPC

for its use, and will pay $48,500 to the Kentucky SERC

for computer hardware for the SERC and for various

projects benefitting the Boyd (KY) LEPC. The SEPs

performed in-house at Ashland's Catlettsburg refinery

will total $2,382,500 in actual cost, and include
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-29

reducing hydrocarbon emissions from storage tanks,

routing relief valve discharges to a flare, and

performing asbestos abatement projects on site.

FIFRA

Courtaulds Coatings, Inc.: On November 11, 1993, EPA

filed a CACO in settlement of FIFRA violations alleged Underthe terms of the consent decree, four groups of

against Courtaulds Coatings Inc. (Courtaulds), located defendants and the owner of the Brickyard Site will pay

in Louisville, KY. The settlement required Courtaulds $6,355,000 for past costs incurred by the United States

to pay a $38,640 penalty and comply with FIFRA and the and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as well as all

pesticidal regulations. additional costs which EPA and the Commonwealth incur in

InNovember 1992, EPA filed an administrative complaint of generator defendants will be responsible for paying

against Courtauld's for selling unregistered pesticidal the costs of the remedial action as they are incurred.

products. Eight Porter Paint products in the PorterSept The three other groups and the owner of the Brickyard

product line were cited for making pesticidal claims. will contribute fixed sums in varying amounts.

PorterSept products contain Intersept, an

antimicrobial. The labels and advertising on this Jadco/Hughes Site, Gaston County, North Carolina: On

product inferred that PorterSept products had November 1, 1993, EPA executed two consent decrees, one

antimicrobialproperties. As part of the settlement, of which was previously executed by each member of the

Courtaulds agreed to disconcontinue the violative Jadco/Hughes Site Steering Committee, the other being

advertising, correct the labels, and pay a penalty of previously signed by AKZO Coatings, Inc., (AKZO) and

$38,640. Jadco, Inc., (Jadco), both of which are late-settling

CERCLA

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation: On March 14, 1994, a

CACO was filed to settle an administrative enforcement

action against Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (KerrMcGee) for violations of CERCLA 103(a). The CACO

required the payment of a $32,940 penalty and the Georgia: On October 22, 1993, four PRPs which were named

performance of a SEP. Under the SEP, Kerr-McGee is as Respondents in a UAO for Remedial Action/Remedial

required to undertake certain environmental Design (RD/RA) for Operable Unit 1 at the T.H.

improvements at its Hamilton, MS, facility which will Agriculture & Nutrition Co., Site (the Site) provided

reduce the potential for titanium tetrachloride noticeto EPA that they intended to comply with the UAO.

emissions from its control equipment. The project will

be performed at an estimated cost of $280,000. UAOs were issued to five PRPs at the Site after no PRP

ParramoreFertilizer Site in Tifton, Georgia: On notice letter. One of the PRPs, T.H. Agriculture &

December 16, 1993, EPA issued a UAO for removal response NutritionCo., Inc., (THAN) has indicated that it will

activities to Atlantic Steel Industries, Inc., Florida comply with the UAO and will undertake the work required

SteelCorporation, Georgetown Steel Corporation, Owen to implement the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1

Electric Steel Company of South Carolina, Inc., and U.S. at the Site. Three other PRPs which received UAOs have

Foundry & Manufacturing Corporation. The UAO requires indicated that they will propose a level of

these steel companies to take over clean up of the participation to THAN and enter into negotiations with

Parramore Fertilizer Site in Tifton, GA. The Site is THAN to reach agreement about an appropriate level of

contaminated with emissions control dust (EC Dust) from participation in the RD/RA, as required by participate

electric arc furnaces, a RCRA listed hazardous waste and cooperative provisions of the UAO. A fourth PRP,

(K061), which was generated by the steel companies. Phillips Electronics North America Corporation, the

Distler Farm and Distler Brickyard Superfund Sites in

Kentucky: On January 3, 1994, EPA forwarded a signed

consent decree to the Department of Justice for lodging,

reflecting the settlement of cost recovery actions

arising out of the Distler Brickyard and Distler Farm

Superfund Sites in Hardin and Jefferson Counties, KY.

performing remedial actions at the Sites. A core group

parties. The Steering Committee's decree provides that

its members will reimburse EPA past costs in the amount

of $555,000, and the AKZO and Jadco decree provides for

reimbursement of $75,534.04 (by AKZO) and $151,919.16

(by Jadco).

T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. Site in Albany,

submitted a good faith offer in response to a special
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-30

parent company of THAN which exercises pervasive control traditional consent decree, would be more appropriate as

over THAN, has indicated that it will not comply with the the enforcement document used to implement the Interim

UAO because it does not believe that it is liable under Action Remedial Action.

CERCLA.

Helena Chemical Company for Fairfax, South Carolina

Site: On Thursday, May 26, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral that the de minimis settlement for the Yellow Water Road

order for the performance of Remedial Design and Site was finalized. The public comment period for this

Remedial Action to Helena Chemical Company ordering administrative settlement expired on April 11, 1994, and

Helena to begin remediation at the above-referenced no public comments were received which caused EPA to seek

Site. modification of or to withdraw from the settlement. The

Rochester Property Site in Travelers Rest, South

Carolina: On May 17, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral

administrative order for Remedial design/remedial

action to Colonial Heights Packaging, Incorporated, to

conduct groundwater remediation at the Rochester

Property Superfund Site located in Travelers Rest,

Greenville County, SC. According to the most recent cost

documentation, EPA has expended a total of $303,446.50

throughSeptember 30, 1993. EPA will seek to recover all

past response costs and will seek a commitment from

Colonial Heights to pay all future response costs.

Jones Tire and Battery Site in Birmingham, Alabama: On

May 3, 1994, EPA formally requested DOJ to concur in a de

miminis Settlement with 79 small quantity generators at

the Jones Tire & Battery Site in Birmingham, AL. Cleanup

is underway at the Site and is being conducted by large

quantity generators under a UAO. The de miminis

Settlement offer was initially made to 219 PRPs, of which

79 indicated their desire to accept the settlement.

Townsend Saw Chain Superfund Site in Pontiac, Richland

County, North Carolina: EPA issued a unilateral

administrative order to Textron, Inc., to conduct an

Interim Action Remedial Action to contain and control

chromium contaminated groundwater at the Site. The UAO

was signed on May 4, 1994, and was issued to Textron,

Inc., the owner of the Homelite-Textron chainsaw chain

manufacturing facility at the Site.

Because unrestricted migration of the contaminated

groundwater at the Site may pose a possible threat to

private water-well users living near the Site, EPA

determinedthat an Interim Action Remedial Action was

necessary to control and contain the contaminated

groundwater plume. Due to the time-critical nature of Mississippi: On March 23, 1994, EPA executed an

the proposed action, EPA and Textron, Inc., determined administrative order on consent for de miminis

that a unilateral administrative order, instead of a settlement with 275 small quantity generators, regarding

Yellow Water Road Superfund Site, Baldwin, Duval County,

Florida: On April 21, 1994, EPA notified 102 desettlors

settlement will recover approximately $300,000 in EPA's

response costs, which currently total over $1,897,000.

In addition, the settlement will recover approximately

$1.3 million in future response costs and premium money.

Smith's Farm Site in Bullitt County, Kentucky: On April

22, 1994, EPA issued unilateral administrative orders,

requiring 10 PRPs for the Smith's Farm Superfund Site to

conduct the Remedial Design/Remedial Action for Operable

Unit Two. On October 28, 1993, special notice letters

were sent to 41 PRPs for Operable Unit Two Remedial

Design/Remedial Action at the Smith's Farm Superfund

Site. These letters envisioned a global settlement

including the remediation of both operable units at the

Site and the payment of past costs, which are currently

the subject of ongoing cost recovery litigation. Based

upon the PRPs failure to present an acceptable final

offer for settlement of the case, unilateral

administrative orders were issued to all PRPs who did not

qualify for a de minimis settlement at the Site.

Cedartown Battery Superfund Site in Polk County,

Georgia: On March 31, 1994, EPA referred to the

Department of Justice an action against nine (9)

potential owner/operator/generator Defendants to

recover approximately $1.5 million in removal response

costs for a Fund-lead removal action at the Cedartown

Battery Superfund Site (Site).

The referral requests that DOJ file suit against AmSouth

Bank, N.A., the current owner and operator at the time

the disposal occurred, together with one (1) operator

and seven (7) generators who supplied batteries to the

Site.

Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Byhalia,
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-31

liability for an ongoing removal action at the Preauthorization Mixed Funding of approximately $10.1

Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Byhalia, Marshall million under the newly promulgated regulations at 40

County, MS. The settling parties included 271 private C.F.R. Part 307, because of the large orphan share at the

Respondents and 4 settling Federal Agencies. The Site. As part of the settlement, EPA will recover 100

proposed settlement provides a release from liability percent of its outstanding past costs. Additionally,

and contribution protection for the settling parties EPAhas negotiated a unique de micromis settlement

while raising over $500,000 to assist major generators within the consent decree, which provides for a covenant

in performing the removal action projected to cost by the Settling Defendants not to sue de micromis parties

approximately $1.3 million. at the Site. This approach achieves the policy goal of

The City of Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia: On March unnecessary transactional costs with a relatively low

25, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order administrative burden on the Agency.

to the City of Cedartown, Polk County, and 12 private

companies for remedial response activities at the This settlement also includes a separate traditional de

Cedartown Municipal Landfill Site in Cedartown, GA, some miminissettlement. The de miminis settlement will be

60 miles northwest of Atlanta. The UAO requires the embodied in a separate AOC, and will follow the new HQ

Respondents to maintain the existing landfill cover, guidance and matrix approach. The de miminis settlement

repair seeps, maintain institutional controls including will also include the same covenant language in the

a ban on new drinking water wells in the area, and consent decree regarding de micromis parties, thus

monitor groundwater quality through sampling and affording these parties greater protection.

analysis.

Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site, Cabarrus

County, Concord, North Carolina: In accordance with the approximately 60 PRPs at the Stoller Chemical Company

recent Superfund Administrative Improvements Site in Jericho, SC, requiring the implementation of a

Initiatives, EPA has signed a consent decree at the removal action. EPA documented the release of hazardous

Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site, Cabarrus substances from the facility during a Site Assessment in

County, Concord, NC. Entering into a precedent setting June 1992 and determined that a removal action was

settlement which embodies $10.1 million of necessary.

Preauthorization Mixed Funding, a separate de minimis

settlement, and a unique de micromis settlement included

within the consent decree.

Through detailed records and ledgers, approximately

4,000 PRPs were identified at the Site, including

approximately 2,400 de micromis Parties. Of the non-de

micromis parties, only approximately 500 PRPs were

located, approximately 150 of which will be treated as de

minimis, and each of these parties received Special

Notice Letters in August 1993. The remedy selected for

the Site includes soil solidification and stabilization,

as well as an aggressive pump-and-treat system. The

remedy is expected to cost approximately $40 million,

but could escalate to as much as $100 million, depending

on the soil quantities to be treated. Additionally, past

costs at the Site currently total approximately $4

million.

EPA has entered into a consent decree with the Steering

Committee at the Site which provides for

protecting small parties from contribution suits and

Stoller Chemical Company Site in Jericho, South

Carolina: On January 21, 1994, UAOs were sent to

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Site in Albany, Dougherty

County, Georgia: The U.S. District Court for the Middle

District of Georgia, Albany Division, entered the

Remedial Design (RD)/Remedial Action (RA) consent decree

for the above-referenced Site on August 10, 1994.

Pursuant to the consent decree, Defendant Bridgestone/

Firestone, Inc., will perform soil and groundwater

remediation estimated to cost $2 million. In addition,

theDefendant agrees to reimburse EPA for all of its past

costs totalling $348,333 and for all of its future

oversight costs.

WoolfolkChemical Works NPL Site, Fort Valley, Georgia:

On May 23, 1994, EPA issued a CERCLA §106 UAO to three

PRPs at the Woolfolk Chemical Works Site. The order

requires the PRPs to implement the RD/RA for Operable

Unit1, which will address groundwater contamination at

the Site.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-32

OnePRP, Canadyne-Georgia Corporation (CGC), is the settlement also requires Hercules to reimburse the

former owner/operator of a pesticide formulation plant government for all past costs ($544,199) as well as 100

at the Site and current owner of a portion of the Site. percent of all future response and oversight costs.

The other two PRPs are the first and second-level parent

corporations of CGC. U.S. v. Otto Skipper (E.D., N.C.): On October 21, 1993,

CGC has submitted a notice of its intent to comply with liabilityof the McLambs and Investors Management

the UAO, which will cost approximately $4 million. Corporation (IMC) with respect to the Potter's Pits

Canadyne Corporation and Reichold, Limited have Site. EPA's past costs total $1,822,477, while

indicated that they will not comply with the UAO. projected future costs total $10 million. Within 30 days

Hercules 009 Landfill Site, Brunswick, Glynn County,

Georgia: On November 29, 1993, the U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia entered a consent

decree executed by Hercules, Incorporated, (Hercules),

the EPA, and the Department of Justice. Under the terms

of the consent decree, Hercules will conduct the final

remedial design and remedial action, and reimburse the

government for all past and future costs associated with

the Site. Under the terms of the consent decree entered

by the Court on November 29, 1993, Hercules will perform

the remedial action enumerated in the Record of Decision

designated OU#1. The remedial action will consist of a

removal action to consolidate soils, and a treatability

study followed by in-situ stabilization of toxaphenecontaminated soil. The remedy is expected to cost about Mississippi): On September 28, 1994, EPA referred to the

$10 million; the Department of Justice an action against two potential

the court entered a CERCLA consent decree resolving the

of entry of the decree, the McLambs, who are also the

sole representatives of the now defunct IMC, will pay a

lump sum of $230,000 to resolve their liability and the

liability of IMC.

National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site in Kentucky:

On April 19, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Kentucky entered a consent decree

for performance of an interim remedial action at the

NationalSouthwire Aluminum (NSA) site in Hawesville,

KY. Under the terms of the settlement, NSA will perform

interim cleanup actions and reimburse EPA $407,544 in

past response costs.

Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site (Prairie,

owner Defendants to recover approximately $1.4 million

in costs for a Fund-lead removal action conducted at the

Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site (Site) in

Prairie, MS. Beginning in 1973 and continuing until

February 1977, the Site was operated as a chromium metal

production facility. Operations at the Site resulted in

serious levels of chromium in the Site soils and surface

water. Between 1989 and 1991, EPA conducted a Fund-lead

removal action at the Site expanding approximately $1.4

million.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-33

REGION V

REGION V's CONTEMPT INITIATIVE

As part of an effort to crack down on violators of

Federal consent decrees and orders, Region V and DOJ took

eight enforcement actions in the Midwest during FY94. In

addition, Illinois EPA, the Illinois Office of the

AttorneyGeneral, Ohio EPA, and the Ohio Office of the

Attorney General also recently took separate actions to

enforce State decrees and orders. The following are

summaries of the FY94 Regional cases.

Anthony Chambers (Midland, MI): Anthony Chambers

operated two underground-injection wells in Midland

County without the permits required under the Safe

Drinking Water Act. He failed to comply with an

administrative order requiring that he pay a 48,650

civil penalty and either demonstrate the mechanical

integrity of his wells or plug and abandon them. The

United States filed an enforcement action on June 7, 1994

against Mr. Chambers in U.S. District Court, Eastern

District of Michigan. Through this action, EPA seeks to

enforce the terms of the order and to collect penalties

for noncompliance with the order and the Act.

Big D Campground/Rodebaughs (Ashtabula, OH): Joseph and

Glenna Rodebaugh failed to comply with a March 1994

accessagreement at the Big D Campground Superfund site.

The Rodebaughs refused to allow EPA access to their 170-

acre property, where EPA plans to install four

groundwater-extraction wells to intercept contaminated

groundwater leaching from the campground. After EPA

referred this matter to DOJ, the Rodebaughs agreed to

provide access to their property at the campground site.

No penalties were sought in the agreement.

Petoskey Site (Petoskey, MI): The PRP at this Superfund

site, Petoskey Manufacturing Co. (PMC), filed for

protection under bankruptcy laws. PMC agreed in

bankruptcycourt to reimburse EPA for some of the costs

the Agency incurred at the Petoskey Superfund site, but

was delinquent in its payments. On May 19, 1994, the

United States filed a motion for conversion or dismissal

in the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of

Michigan.

Copperweld Steel (Mahoning, OH): Copperweld Steel Co.

uses an electric arc furnace process to manufacture

steel and steel alloys. This process generates furnace

dust (a hazardous waste). This waste is disposed of in

a landfill at the site. In 1986, a complaint was filed in

the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio,

against Copperweld for failing to obtain either interim

status or a permit under RCRA as well as for other RCRA

violations. A May 1990 consent decree with Copperweld

required numerous compliance activities including

closure and post-closure care of the landfill. On

November 22, 1993, Copperweld filed a Chapter 11

petition for bankruptcy. In a proof of claim filed on

April 20, 1994, with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern

District of Ohio, the United States is seeking to enforce

the terms of the 1990 decree. Specifically, EPA is

seekingthe payments that Copperweld committed to make

to the site's post-closure trust fund.

Midwestern Drum Services (Venice, IL): In November

1989, EPA filed an administrative complaint against

Midwestern Drum Services, Inc., for RCRA violations. A

December 1990 administrative agreement resolved the

complaint and required that $112,125 in civil penalties

be paid in six installments. Midwestern Drum failed to

make full, timely payments for the last four

installments. It now owes approximately $74,000 (not

including interest and late payment charges). On

September 13, 1993, the company filed for Chapter 11

reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the

Southern District of Illinois. On February 4, 1994, DOJ,

on behalf of EPA, filed a proof-of-claim with the

bankruptcy court seeking payment of the amount owed

under the administrative agreement and additional

penalties for noncompliance.

Silvertone Plating Company (Ypsilanti, MI): Silvertone

generates spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions

containing chromic acid and cyanide, along with other

hazardous wastes. On October 15, 1992, the United States

filed a complaint against the company for its repeated

failure to fulfill its obligations under an April 1988

administrative agreement with EPA. Specifically,

Silvertone failed to submit and carry out a closure plan

for its facility, remove all hazardous waste in 90 days,

and comply with applicable hazardous waste regulations.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-34

Silvertone had agreed in a May 1993 consent decree to significant for environmental justice reasons. Also

comply with these obligations, to submit and carry out a targeted were sources that are subject to the many new

closure plan and to pay a $1,000 civil penalty. regulatory requirements of the Clean Air Act, and

GTE North (Belvedere, IL): Under a March 19, 1993

consent decree, GTE North was required to reimburse EPA B&W Investment Properties, Inc., and Louis Wolf: On

for $575,000 in costs related to cleanup activities at October 24, 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

the Belvedere Municipal Landfill Superfund site. Seventh Circuit upheld a February 17, 1994, District

Although the decree required GTE North to pay by April Court's decision that B&W Investment Properties Inc.,

1993, EPA did not receive payments until late July 1993. (B&W),Chicago, and Louis Wolf should pay a civil penalty

The decree carried a proviso that GTE North would pay of $1.675 million. The Appellate Court also upheld the

stipulated penalties of $1,000 a day for each day of DistrictCourt's September 30, 1992, decision to grant

violation. In response to EPA's demand, GTE North has the Government's motion for summary judgment on

tentatively agreed to pay $30,000 in stipulated liability.

penalties, in addition to another $10,500 in interest

payments. Thecase involved an improper asbestos removal project

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Burns Harbor, IN): This complex in Cicero, Illinois. The property was owned by

matter arose from U.S. EPA's discovery that Bethlehem Mr. Louis Wolf and managed by B&W. Asbestos removal

Steel Corp. was in violation of a May 1991 partial operations began at the site without the prior notice

consent decree. The violations involved visible required by U.S. EPA's asbestos NESHAP regulations. The

emissions from a coke oven battery. On December 30, work practices used in the removal also violated the

1993, EPA advised Bethlehem of the violations and NESHAP regulations. In late August 1990, EPA issued an

assessed stipulated penalties of $255,750. Bethlehem administrative order requiring compliance with the

quickly responded by paying in full the entire NESHAPregulations at the site. The buildings, at that

stipulated penalty, and the matter was resolved without time, were unsecured and located adjacent to the

litigation. terminal of a Chicago Transit Authority commuter rail

ILLINOIS CASES

Illinois EPA took action against two violators for

contempt: Robert Krilich d/b/a Lakemoor Building

Associates(Lakemoor, IL) and Enamelors & Japanners of

Chicago.

OHIO CASE

TheState of Ohio took a contempt action against Union

Cheese Co. of Holmes County.

CLEAN AIR ACT

FY94 was a highly successful year for Region V's air

enforcement program, marked by record levels of

initiated actions and administrative resolutions.

Increasingly, these accomplishments flow from efforts to

target Federal enforcement activity. In 1994, the

Region targeted sources located in specific geographic

areas that have high concentrations of industry, a

history of environmental insults, and are often

industrial categories which are technically complex.

which took place in August 1990, at a former factory

line. Transients occasionally used the buildings in the

complex for shelter.

LouisWolf and B&W argued that they were never given a

notice of violation prior to the filing of the complaint.

B&W and Louis Wolf also argued that they were not owners

or operators as those terms are defined in the

regulations. They also argued that they had no prior

knowledge of the renovation project. Both the District

Court and the Court of Appeals found the arguments

irrelevant or unpersuasive. B&W and Louis Wolf

challenged the size of the penalty awarded by the

District Court after a trial on the penalty.

The Court assessed fines of $1,675,000 against both

defendants, but reduced Mr. Wolf's liability to

$1,500,000 based on his inability to pay a higher

penalty. The penalties were assessed only for the work

practice violations of the asbestos regulations. No

penalty was assessed for failing to provide EPA prior

notice of the project because, in part, Mr. Wolf was in

the hospital at the time of the violation and the penalty
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-35

already imposed for the work practice violations had change alone is expected to eliminate the ongoing

exhausted his ability to pay additional penalties. opacity violations of the old boilers. (SIC/2063)

(SIC/N/A)

New Boston Coke Corp. (S.D. Ohio): In October 1993, more

than 3 years after the government filed a motion in

Federal Court (S.D. Ohio) to compel New Boston Coke Corp.

(New Boston) to comply with a 1986 consent order at its

New Boston, OH, a major modification to the consent

decree was entered with the court. In the settlement,

New Boston agreed to maintain compliance at its coke oven

battery, rebuild a major portion of the rest of the

plant, and install equipment to control the emission of

hazardous benzene. As a result of the rebuild, numerous

leaking process vessels and storage tanks were to be

replaced, eliminating wastewater discharges to the Ohio

River. In addition, wastewater treatment equipment is

to be installed to treat other coke plant wastewater,

which had been discharged to the atmosphere as steam.

The agreement also assesses a $250,000 civil penalty.

(SIC/3312)

U.S.v. Consolidated Papers, Inc. (Wisconsin Rapids,

WI): An October 19, 1993, consent decree (U.S. District of the facility to a civil judicial penalty. After

Court, Western District of Wisconsin) settles the Clean vigorous opposition, the defendant finally agreed to pay

Air Act case against Consolidated Papers, Inc. (CPI). the Region's second largest civil penalty for an

CPI must achieve, demonstrate and maintain compliance asbestos NESHAP case for a judicial case. Furthermore,

with the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration the defendants have agreed to remove all remaining

(PSD) regulations and pay a $510,000 civil penalty. The asbestos in the facility at a cost of $1 million.

case arose from CPI's violation of the particulate (SIC/N/A)

limits contained in the PSD permit for its lime kiln.

The case was filed in September 1992 (after a notice of

violation) as part of the Agency's pulp and paper

industry initiative. (SIC/2611)

Monitor Sugar Co. (E.D. Mich.): Monitor Sugar Co. has

agreed to pay $1.06 million to the State of Michigan and

the Federal Government after reaching a settlement with

the DOJ. The agreement ends the court case against

MonitorSugar brought by EPA for violations of a 1987

consent judgment. Specifically, on January 7, 1993, the

District Court for the Eastern District for Michigan

held Monitor Sugar in contempt for failing to comply with

the judgment and ordered the company to pay $478,500 in

stipulated penalties. Following the court decision,

Monitor agreed to settle two outstanding issues for

$581,500 and forego appealing the decision. In the past

year, Monitor Sugar replaced its three coal-fired

boilers with three new natural gas-fired boilers. This

Stern Enterprises, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for

the Northern District of Ohio/Eastern Division): Under

this July 18, 1994, consent decree with Stern

Enterprises, Inc., Elie Wrecking Co., Obie Elie, Herbert

Sugarmanand the executors of the Estate of Ernest Stern

must pay a $205,000 civil penalty for asbestos

violations at a Cleveland facility. Additionally, the

consent decree requires the owners to do what citizens,

city officials and local judges unsuccessfully demanded

for years--abate all the asbestos at the facility. The

settlement was especially significant because it

obtained relief for minority and low-income persons who

are disproportionately affected by the environmental

hazards posed by asbestos.

This case was unique because it was the first time the

Government has alleged in a Clean Air Act judicial

complaint that the stripping activities conducted by

vandals in a vacant building constitute a "renovation,"

as defined in the regulations thus subjecting the owners

CLEAN WATER ACT

LTV Steel (East Chicago, IN): On February 1, 1994, EPA

approved LTV's court-ordered, sediment remediation and

disposal plan. It outlines the removal of all of the

oil-contaminated sediment (approximately 110,000 cubic

yards) from LTV's No. 2 intake flume, located off Lake

Michigan. The remediation project which began in July

1994 consists of removing sediment (via diver-assisted

vacuuming of the sediment) and de-oiling/de-watering it

(via coagulation/flocculation in conjunction with final

sand-filtering of the discharge and belt filter pressing

of the sludges). The de-oiled/de-watered solids are

being disposed of in a special-waste landfill in Wyatt,

IN. Oils from the sediment are being recycled back into

the facility's waste oil reclamation system. The final

discharge of any waters from the remediation project are

sent through an NPDES-permitted outfall. LTV's

estimated $3 million remediation is part of the Region's
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-36

Northwest Indiana initiative. (SIC/3312/blast furnace/ Southeast Michigan Initiative area. (SIC/4952/sewerage

steel works/rolling.) systems).

JMBUrban Development Company (Columbus, OH): A January IBP, Inc. (Joslin, IL): A July 26, 1994, consent decree

1994 consent decree (U.S. District Court in Columbus, (U.S. District Court in Rock Island, IL) resolved all

OH) resolved all Clean Water Act allegations against JMB outstanding violations alleged by U.S. EPA and Illinois

Urban Development Co., Chicago. EPA alleged that the JMB EPAin their respective complaints against IBP, Inc. of

violated Sections 301 and 404 of the Act by discharging Joslin, IL. The Agencies alleged that IBP had repeatedly

dredge and fill materials into approximately 37 acres of violated the effluent limits of its NPDES permit for

wetlands adjacent to Olentangy River during the initial ammonia-nitrogen, total suspended solids, and fecal

development of a shopping mall. JMB must mitigate the coliform. IBP must pay civil penalties of $250,000 to

violation by constructing an 80-acre wetland to be the United States and $30,000 to the State, expand its

donated as an educational facility to the local school current wastewater treatment system and install

district. The total injunctive relief in excess of $1 equipment to treat ammonia-nitrogen. The case is

million, includes a civil penalty of $200,000 also paid significant because IBP was unsuccessful in its attempt

by the defendant. (SIC/1542/general contractor, non- shield itself from enforcement by adjudicating its NPDES

residential buildings.) permit limits. (SIC/2011/meat packing plants and 3111/

City of Middletown (OH): A February 1994 consent decree

(U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio/ Appleton Papers (Appleton, WI): A July 1994 consent

Eastern Division) resolves the combined NPDES, decreewith Appleton Papers, Inc. (U.S. District Court

pretreatment, and wetlands case against the City of in the Eastern District of Wisconsin) resolved this 1992

Middletown. The City's wastewater treatment plant was pretreatment case. EPA had cited the facility for

cited for past NPDES effluent limit violations (total violating bypass provisions and local limits for

suspended solids, fecal coliform, and ammonia), failure aluminum, copper, zinc and pH. Injunctive relief was not

to adequately carry out its approved pretreatment requiredbecause the company has maintained consistent

program, and filling in a river channel of the Great compliance since it installed the necessary treatment

Miami River to expand a City park. The City contracted plant and pretreatment equipment. The civil penalty

for professional services to administer its pretreatment assessed was $670,000, plus interest from the date of

program and made plant improvements costing $209,000. lodging. (SIC/2671/coated and laminated packaging.)

A total civil penalty of $288,000 was assessed—$188,000

for CWA §402 violations, and $100,000 for CWA §404 Commonwealth Edison Company, Inc. (Chicago, IL): EPA's

violations. (SIC/4952/ sewerage systems). August 1994 consent order to Commonwealth Edison Co.

WayneCounty-Wyandotte (MI) Wastewater Treatment Plant: 301 and 404 violations. ComEd had discharged dredge and

A May 1994 consent decree (U.S. District Court, Eastern fill materials into 2 acres of wetlands in South Chicago.

District of Michigan/Southern Division) resolved Wayne The consent agreement requires ComEd to pay a $10,000

County's water violations at the Wyandotte wastewater civil penalty and to contribute a minimum of $90,000 to

treatment plant and tributary sewer systems. In 1987, the Nature Conservancy for the purchase and preservation

theGovernment filed suit against Wayne County and 13 of the Indian Boundary Prairie in Markham, IL.

tributary communities for illegally discharging (SIC/4911/electrical services).

untreated wastewater into the Detroit River and Lake

Erie. The defendants paid a $413,000 civil penalty

(equally divided between the United States and the State

of Michigan). Injunctive relief will consist of sewer

system rehabilitation, plant improvements, and

construction of a tunnel storage system for overflows.

The estimated $230 million project will take about 6

years to complete. This case is located within the

leather tanning & finishing.)

(ComEd),Chicago, resolved this case involving Section

MULTIMEDIA CASES

TaracorpIndustries (Granite City, IL): On September

19, 1994, the U.S. Southern District Court of Illinois'

decision resolved a multimedia civil action filed

against Taracorp Industries, Inc., of Granite City, IL.

EPAhad alleged that Taracorp violated the Clean Water

Act (excessive discharges of lead and antimony to
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-37

Granite City's wastewater treatment plant) and RCRA SERC 43 days after the release, but never a written

(financial assurance violation). The Court awarded a follow-up report to the LEPC.

cash civil penalty of $201,850 and $199,500 for the RCRA

and CWA violations, respectively. No injunctive relief The maximum quantity of ammonia stored at the facility

was necessary since Taracorp completed installing the during each of the calendar years 1989-1991 was 5,000

required pretreatment system before the trial. pounds. Ammonia is an extremely hazardous substance

Importantly, the Court rejected Taracorp's argument that facility has never submitted Material Safety Data Sheets

its delay in installing the treatment system caused under Section 311 of EPCRA and has never filed a Tier

economic detriment (rather than benefit) due to report under Section 312 of EPCRA to the SERC, LEPC, or

inflation, higher fees and equipment costs. As the Court local fire department. (SIC/2051)

ruled these higher costs resulted directly from

defendant'snoncompliance and deemed it "inappropriate HRR Enterprises, Inc. (Chicago, IL): On March 28, 1994,

to view as mitigation a cost that the defendant incurred theRegion filed an administrative complaint seeking a

only because it did not comply with the Clean Water Act." $186,450 penalty against HRR Enterprises, Inc. (a

On September 30, 1994, Taracorp filed a motion to amend division of Kane-Miller Corp. Chicago) for failing to

the conclusions of law and judgment on the CWA count. immediately report a toxic release. In July 1992, HRR

Region V filed a motion in opposition in October 1994. Enterprises had released 200 to 300 pounds of anhydrous

To date, the Court has not ruled on EPA's motion. This ammonia but failed to notify Federal, State and Local

case is located within the Gateway (East St. Louis) emergency-response officials for more than 24 hours.

Initiative area. (SIC/3356/roll, draw & extruded EPAfurther alleges that HRR Enterprises failed to file

nonferrous). a Material Safety Data Sheet for anhydrous ammonia. HRR

Glidden Company (Strongsville, OH): In December 1993, ChemicalInventory Form from 1987-1990 and filed late

Region V settled enforcement actions under TSCA and reports 1991. (SIC/2079)

FIFRA against Glidden Co. for importing and distributing

an unregistered pesticide. Glidden had made a series of

self disclosures to EPA regarding violations of TSCA §§

5, 8, 12, and 13. This case marks the first time that

Region V has taken simultaneous actions for violations

of both TSCA and FIFRA. Glidden paid a total penalty of

$290,100. (SIC/2851)

EPCRA

Vie De France (Bensenville, IL): On February 14, 1994, releasesat various locations. EPA cited Shell for air

The Region filed an administrative complaint seeking a releases of benzene, hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan

$247,140penalty against Vie De France, Bensenville, IL, and sulfur dioxide, and a sulfuric acid release to the

for failing to report to authorities both its release of ground. The Region also cited Shell for failing to

anhydrous ammonia and its storage of ammonia. The provide emergency follow-up notices after each release.

complaint addresses Vie De France's May 1991 release of

about4,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia due to a broken Shell Oil's answer to EPA's complaint claimed that many

pipe in the refrigeration system. Employees were ofthe releases were Federally permitted. The company

evacuatedand the doors of the plant were opened to vent interpreted CERCLA 101 (10)H to mean that having a permit

the ammonia. Vie De France notified the National or being subject to a control regulation exempted it from

Response Center and the State Emergency Response CERCLA 103(a) emergency notification requirements. The

Commission (SERC) 26 days after the release but never companyalso claimed that the hazardous substances

notified the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). released were fractions of petroleum and thus exempt

Thecompany submitted a written follow-up report to the under CERCLA. EPA contended that individual chemicals

with a threshold planning quantity of 500 pounds. The

Enterprises did not file an Emergency and Hazardous

Shell Oil Company's Wood River Manufacturing Complex

(Roxana, IL): The $431,312 penalty required by this

September 1994 consent agreement with Shell Oil Co.'s

Wood River Manufacturing Complex, Roxana, IL, is the

highest to date for violations of CERCLA 103(a) and EPCRA

304. In a 1992 compliant, EPA had alleged that 57

separate violations arose from Shell's failure to

immediately notify the proper Federal, State and local

emergency authorities about a number of separate
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-38

were released. (SIC/2911, 4612, 5541,1311,2821, and constitute illegal disposal. The stringent agreement

1221) calls for the university to remove and dispose of the PCB

Consumers Power Co. (West Olive, MI): A September 1994 Laboratory and the Aeronomy Field as partial settlement.

consent agreement resolved EPA's administrative

complaintagainst Consumers Power Co., West Olive, MI, Wayne State University (Detroit, MI): EPA's March 1994

for EPCRA violations. The company agreed to carry out consent agreement with Wayne State University included

three supplemental environmental projects (SEP's) at a a $631,000 supplemental environmental project as well as

total estimated cost of $247,741.50. The projects are: a $7,150 fine. The university was cited for violating

(1) convert heat exchangers from ethylene glycol to Federal rules on PCB use and recordkeeping. As part of

propylene glycol which is 300 times less toxic; (2) send the agreement, the university did asbestos abatement

information on EPCRA requirements (via mail) to an work at several buildings on campus. Removing friable

estimated 3,000 facilities in Ingham, Kalamazoo, and asbestos from Wayne State's buildings prevents its

Ottawa Counties; and (3) conduct an outreach program on potential release into the environment.

the EPCRA 302 notification requirement to the rural

community in Ingham and Ottawa Counties. The company U.S. Graphite, Inc. (Saginaw, MI): EPA's March 1994

must also certify its compliance with EPCRA. In its consent agreement with U.S. Graphite, Inc., to resolve

complaint, EPA alleged that the company failed to notify PCB includes a $10,000 fine and removal of more than 500

Federal, State and local authorities about an accidental PCB-contaminatedtransformers and capacitors at an

release of 1,400 pounds of sodium hypochlorite. The estimated cost of $195,000. Earlier the company had

total cash penalty and estimated cost of the SEPs equals spent $32,025 to remove two PCB-contaminated

$255,769.50 or 2.5 times EPA's proposed penalty of transformers and 16 PCB capacitors. EPA had cited U.S.

$100,000. The settlement requires a $7,828 cash penalty Graphite for improper use, disposal, marking, storage,

to be paid to a Superfund account. (SIC/4911) and recordkeeping of PCB equipment. This outstanding

Karmazin Products Corp. (Wyandotte, MI): EPA's May 1994 eliminating all PCB's.

consent agreement with Karmazin Products, Corp.,

Wyandotte,MI, required a $195,560 penalty to resolve a

1993 complaint alleging that Karmazin failed to notify

the proper authorities that it stored large quantities

of hazardous chemicals. This violation contributed to

the injury of 3 Karmazin employees, 12 firefighters, and

8 police officers who responded when an employee was

overcome by vapors when using trichloroethylene to clean

an underground, sludge-filled pit. That employee later

died from exposure to trichloroethylene. (SIC/3443/

3585/3531)

TSCA

University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, IL): A BASF's North Works facility is a 230-acre site on the

January 1994 consent agreement with the University of TrentonChannel of the Detroit River. The facility has

Illinois called for a $74,500 supplemental environmental been a source of hazardous waste releases to the river in

project and a $1,000 fine to resolve PCB violations. EPA the past. EPA is concerned that hazardous wastes from

cited the university improperly storing six 55-gallon the facility may still be migrating into the river.

drums of PCB's and 524 large PCB capacitors. These drums While owned and operated by BASF, the North Works has

andcapacitors were moved from one building to another been used as a manufacturing, research, and pilot

for storage, awaiting disposal. During the move, PCB's projects site for industrial organic chemicals,

were spilled or leaked at several places between the polyether polyol resins, polyurethane plastics and

buildings. Under Federal regulations, leaks and spills

items from the Environmental Engineering Research

settlement moves Region V closer to the goal of totally

RCRA/UST

BASF Corp. North Works (Wyandotte, MI): EPA's March 1994

consent order with BASF Corp. called for an

investigation into hazardous waste at its Wyandotte

site. BASF agreed to evaluate the effectiveness of a

groundwater cleanup project already proceeding under

State consent orders and to investigate the nature and

extent of present soil and groundwater contamination at

the facility. In its order, EPA specified that the

company must perform appropriate cleanup if the

investigation shows additional dangerous contamination.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-39

castings, vitamins A and E. The site was used for the and release detection requirements. A February CAFO

manufacture of soda and coke in the late 1800s. requiring a $54,989 and compliance resolved this case.

Hilton Davis Co. (Cincinnati, OH): EPA's July 1994 U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (7th Cir. 1994): On

administrative order to Hilton Davis Co. proposed a $1.6 September 26, 1994, the court affirmed in part and

million penalty for hazardous waste violations at its vacated in part the district court's grant of summary

Cincinnati, OH, plant. EPA alleges that the company judgment in this action. The Seventh Circuit upheld the

failed to: conduct adequate waste analysis; properly district court's rejection of impossibility as a defense

monitor and record operating parameters; develop a to allegations that Bethlehem Steel failed to comply

closure plan; establish financial assurance for closure; with the corrective action requirements of its IUC

monitorequipment leaks; submit accurate precompliance permit. The corrective action claim accounted for $4.2

certification, and comply with emissions standards for million of the district court's 1993 $6 million judgment

ash, chlorine, arsenic, chromium and lead. in this case. The vacated portions of the decision

The Hilton Davis plant makes organic chemicals including had illegally disposed of F006 waste (wastewater

dyes, food colors, organic pigments, and optical treatment sludge from electroplating operations, which

brighteners. It also generates, treats, stores, and can contain such hazardous constituents as hexavalent

deposes of hazardous wastes. Until August 1992, the chromium and cyanide).

plant operated a boiler using hazardous waste from as

many as 60 different processes as fuel. As a result, it U.S. v. Ekco Housewares, Inc. (Massillon, Ohio): On

had to comply with EPA regulations for boilers and January 28, 1994, the court issued a $4.6 million

industrial furnaces, known as the BIF rule which became judgmentfor the government based on Ekco's failure to

effective in August 1991. maintain financial assurance for closure, financial

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

(Cleveland, OH): In August 1993, Region V filed an

administrative complaint against the Greater Cleveland

Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) for alleged

violations of underground storage tank (UST) regulations

at three of its facilities. EPA alleged that GCRTA

failed to meet construction, notification, release

detection, and closure requirements at its Brooklyn,

Triskett, and Hagden facilities. Violations were

uncovered during an April 1992 inspection, and a

complaint was issued when a March 1993 follow-up

inspection revealed repeated and uncorrected

violations.

On August 12, 1994, after less than a year of

negotiations, the Region and GCTRA reached a verbal

agreement that was formalized in a September CAFO. GCRTA

corrected all past violations and paid $174,718 in

penalties.

Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Saint Paul, MN): In February

1993, Region V filed an administrative complaint against

Northwest Airlines for alleged violations of UST

regulations at its Minneapolis/St. Paul airport Central Ohio: An RCRA §7003 administrative order was

facility. The complaint proposed a $115,710 penalty and issued on September 9, 1994, by EPA to the City of

alleged that Northwest failed to meet tank notification Columbus (owner) and the Solid Waste Authority of

involved the government's claims that Bethlehem Steel

assurance for post-closure, and liability coverage.

This case arose because Ekco generated waste products at

its Massillon, OH, facility which it discharged to an onsite surface impoundment. In its complaint, the United

States cited violations of both a 1987 Partial Content

Agreement and Order (PCAO), and RCRA rules (including

financial assurance and liability insurance provisions.

Ekco appealed the penalty assessment to the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

U.S. v. Laclede Steel Company: Laclede Steel entered

into a consent decree settling this civil judicial

action for violation of RCRA's land disposal

restrictions (LDR) rules. In the complaint, the United

States alleged, among other things, that Laclede had

illegally land disposed of tons of lead-bearing K061

electric arc furnace baghouse dust. The consent decree

requires Laclede to pay a $300,000 civil penalty,

complete an environmental audit, and remediate its

illegal waste piles, in accordance with the State of

Illinois-approved closure plan, using a new, $25 million

High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) unit.

City of Columbus, Ohio and the Solid Waste Authority of
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-40

Central Ohio (SWACO) (operator). The order required the its failure to complete monitoring on time. In addition,

respondents to conduct measures to abate the potentially Gahanna completed a second round of lead and copper

imminent threat to public health and the environment monitoring in June 1994, sampling twice the number of

posed by the past and present emissions of dioxins. The homes as required by SDWA regulations. Gahanna also sent

incinerator, which burns approximately 1,700 tons of an educational notice on how to avoid the hazards of lead

trash daily, was determined by a stack test in 1992 to in drinking water to selected residences. The

have among the highest MWC dioxin emissions in the nation additional monitoring and educational notice were

(i.e., an average concentrations of 13,000 ng/dscm, with considered a SEP and thus the final penalty was reduced

highest concentrations at nearly 18,000 ng/dscm). by $2,300. Gahanna paid a $1,000 penalty.

SDWA CERCLA

Total Petroleum (Alma, MI): A May 1994 consent order Circle Smelting (Beckmeyer, IL): On March 22, 1994 the

resolved EPA's case against Total Petroleum for failing Region issued a unilateral administrative order for a

to: maintain the annulus pressure differential in an on- time critical removal to potentially responsible parties

site injection well, report the violation and, sign the (PRPs) ASARCO, Inc., Federated Metals Corporation, and

monitoring report. Class I wells are the most likely to Circle Smelting Corporation at the Circle Smelting Site

endanger drinking water. The pressure differential is inBeckmeyer, Illinois. The UAO directs the PRPs to

a safeguard necessary to ensure even leaks will not stop perform an estimated $710,000 time critical removal of

the waste from flowing to its intended zone, not to an lead-contaminated materials along a water main route in

underground source of drinking water. residential areas of the Village of Beckmeyer.

(SIC/2911/petroleum refining).

George Perry (Oceana County, MI): EPA's December 1993 in the early 1900's lead-contaminated material from the

consent order resolved the case against Perry for smeltoperations was used extensively as fill throughout

failing to plug and abandon a Class II injection well the Village of Beckmeyer. On March 17, 1994 the Region

that was in disuse for more than 2 years. Not only did issued an action memorandum for the time critical

Perry plug the injection well, he agreed to a SEP to plug removal of lead-contaminated material in the path of a

three oil production wells also in disuse. EPA does not water main replacement project in the residential areas

regulate oil production wells. Perry's actions will of the village. There was concern that trenching through

eliminatefour potential sources of contamination to the contaminated material (lead concentrations ranged as

underground sources of drinking water. (SIC/1311.) high as 31,000ppm) might expose residents to the leadJPTPetroleum Production Corp. (Gibson County, IN): On with the UAO and the removal action was completed in

February 1, 1994, the Indiana Department of Natural August1994. This case demonstrated that an expediated

Resources and JPT signed an administrative agreement cleanup can be achieved at an NPL-caliber SACM site by

regarding missed deadlines for demonstrating mechanical using accelerated investigations and coordination

integrity of three Class II wells. The agreement also techniques.

addressed minor violations associated with nine oil and

gas wells in Gibson County. These violations were Core Craft (Northern Township, MN): On March 1, 1994, a

discovered through file reviews and routine inspections consent decree was entered with the U.S. District Court

conducted in 1992. JPT agreed to pay a $3,000 penalty. of Minnesota between the U.S. and Core Craft, Inc. The

This action will prevent contamination of underground consent decree provides for payments by the defendants

sources of drinking water. (SIC/1311/crude petroleum & of a total amount of approximately $5 million as

natural gas.) reimbursement for response costs incurred and to be

Gahanna Water Department (Gahanna, OH): A June 1994 Superfund Site. Additionally, the decree provides for

consent order resolved EPA's case against the Gahanna thepayment by the defendants of $22,000 to the U.S. Fish

Water Department for violating public notice andWildlife Service as reimbursement for damages to

requirements. Gahanna has agreed to notify the public of natural resources at the site.

Since the operation of the secondary zinc smelter began

contaminated material. ASARCO, Inc. agreed to comply

incurred by the U.S. EPA at the Kummer Sanitary Landfill
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-41

Kummer Sanitary Landfill was licensed to accept "mixed The NPI site was listed on the NPL in 1986. Until 1980,

municipal waste" from 1971-1984, at which time the NPI facility produced 8-inch and 105-mm shells for

groundwater contamination was detected in private wells the Department of the Army. The fogging operation at the

downgradient from the facility. The site was placed on facility pumped into on-site lagoons. Lagoon No. 1, the

the NPL in 1986. Because the largest contributor of subject of this removal action, contains approximately

waste at the site was a municipality which demonstrated 13,000 gallons of floating oil and over one million

an inability to pay, and because the evidence against the gallons of sludge. U.S. EPA has determined that the oil

other defendants presented difficult liability issues, and sludge present a potential imminent and substantial

the Agency agreed to this mixed-funding cash-out endangerment to groundwater as well as to migratory

settlement despite the lack of other viable PRPs from birds and fowl.

whom to seek full recovery.

Kerr-McGee Site (Chicago, IL): Region V, with DOJ and consent decree was lodged in the U.S. District Court for

OECA consultation, negotiated for the conduct of removal the Northern District of Ohio. Under the terms of this

actions at the West Chicago Residential Areas NPL site, consent decree, Olin Corporation, the sole PRP in this

which involves radioactive contamination of possibly action, has agreed to pay $1,542,540.82 to the U.S. EPA

hundreds of residential properties at a potential cost for past response costs incurred plus interest through

of $100,000,000. On October 31, Kerr-McGee refused September 1992, at the Big D Campground Facility. As a

EPA's final offer. EPA issued a unilateral order to result of the consent decree, U.S. EPA will be recovering

Kerr-McGeeon November 18, 1994. approximately 98% of its past costs. Olin is also

Lockhart Construction (Akron, OH): On February 24, which are anticipated to be between $500,000 and

1994, Region V executed an administrative order on $600,000. The total consent decree is worth over $2

consent with Lockhart Construction for a removal at its million.

facility. In the order, Lockhart agreed to complete a

removal at the site and pay $8.6 million for costs. The Big D Campground Superfund site is located in

The Lockhart Construction site is located in Akron, quarry used as a landfill. The facility was a sand and

Ohio. In May of 1992, during an inspection by the Army gravel quarry from 1964 to 1976. Olin delivered and

Corp of Engineers, it was discovered that illegal fill disposed of hazardous materials at the quarry during its

activities had taken place at the facility, and that operations. U.S. EPA placed the facility on the National

wetlands along the Ohio Canal had been filled in. A Priorities List in early 1983. Olin is currently

subsequent delineation of the wetland indicated that complyingwith a unilateral administrative order for the

approximately five acres of wetlands had been filled in Remedial Design/Remedial Action work.

by Lockhart. Later inspections discovered that several

leachate seeps were flowing toward the Ohio Canal and Wedzeb (Lebanon, IN): During May through July 1994, the

these leachate seeps had pH levels greater than 13 as Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division,

wellas phenol contamination. entered five separate consent decrees resolving

NationalPresto (Eau Claire, WI): On October 14, 1993 owner, William Daniels, its successor, USA

U.S. EPA issued an administrative order on consent Manufacturing, and various manufacturer defendants. The

pursuant to which National Presto Industries, Inc. (NPI) United States recovered a total of $2.14 million to

agreed to conduct a removal action at the NPI Superfund offset the costs of the removal action. In addition, a

Site in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. NPI will spend penalty of $100,000 was assessed against William Daniels

approximately $2.2 million pumping VOC contaminated and Wedzeb for violation of a Section 106 CERCLA order

sludges from a large lagoon on the NPI property. The and a penalty of $50,000 was assessed against USA

sludges will be transported off-site and burned as a Manufacturing for violations of Section 104(e) of

secondary fuel at a RCRA permitted cement kiln. CERCLA.

Olin Corporation (Ashtabula, OH): On March 3, 1994, a

agreeing to pay the Agency's future oversight costs,

Kingsville, Ohio, and consists of a former 1.5 acre

outstanding claims by the U.S. EPA against Wedzeb, its
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-42

Jackson Drop Forge (Jackson, MI): The Region's January

1994, administrative consent order required two Jackson/

Innova Corp. and Mercer Forge Corp. to remove several

thousand drums of hazardous substances and contaminants

from the Jackson Drop Forge Site and reimburse EPA for

the Agency's past costs. This site, located in a mixed

industrial and residential area, was used as both a forge

and a dump for several years. Adjacent to the Grand

River, the site is in a flood plain. The Region's

December removal action memorandum approved spending

about $2 million to address conditions at the Site.

Spickler Landfill Site (Marathon County, WI): The

Region's January 1994 unilateral order directs all the

PRP's to carry out an estimated $4.9 million remedy for

the first operable unit at the Spickler landfill in

Marathon County, WI, The remedy involves constructing an

impermeable cap over the mercury brine pit and a solid

waste cap over the rest of the landfill. In addition,

the PRP's must pump and treat contaminated leachate,

install a system to collect landfill gases, and monitor

groundwater.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-43

REGION VI

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S.v. Enpro Contractors, Inc.; Train Property, Inc.;

and Jimmy Patton Contractor, Inc. (E.D. Ark.): On

October 3, 1994, a civil consent decree was entered by

the court in which the above defendants agreed to pay

$20,000, $12,270, and $10,000, respectively. The

Government had settled in FY93 with a fourth Defendant,

Missouri Pacific Employees' Hospital Association

(MPEHA) for $62,000, bringing the total settlement

amount to $104,270. These actions arose from violation

of the CAA and the NESHAP promulgated thereunder. In

particular, the Defendants failed to keep friable

asbestos materials adequately wetted until collected for

disposalas required by the NESHAP during demolition of

the Missouri Pacific Hospital in Little Rock, AR.

In the Matter of Herd Enterprises, d/b/a Broward Factory

Service: EPA issued an administrative penalty order

(APO) on December 28, 1993, to Herd Enterprises for a

violation which occurred in Richardson, TX. Technicians

for the company were observed (one case was video taped)

venting refrigerant during service/repair of

residential air conditioning units. The source of the

information came from the people at whose homes the

violations occurred; in both cases the home owners

themselves were knowledgeable about both the regulations

and air conditioning work. In one instance a video tape

was provided of the actions of the technician. The

penalty assessed in the final order was $20,650.

CLEAN WATER ACT

U.S. v. City of Kenner and the State of Louisiana (E.D.

La.): On January 4, 1994, a consent decree was entered

by the court settling the Government's claim that the

City of Kenner, LA, had violated the CWA and assessing a

civil penalty of $215,000. The complaint alleged that

the City had violated certain conditions of its NPDES

permit, including failure to adequately implement its

approved pretreatment program and causing the

unpermitted discharge of pollutants to waters of the

United States.

U.S. v. City of Bossier City, and the State of Louisiana

(W.D. La.): A SEP which had been included in a consent

decree under the CWA with Bossier City, LA, filed on

February 4, 1993, was substantially completed in 1994.

In lieu of EPA's proposed settlement amount of $325,000,

Bossier City agreed to pay a civil penalty of $200,000

and to conduct the SEP. The project cost of the SEP was

approximately $375,000. The complaint filed in U.S.

District Court alleged that Bossier City had violated

theCWA by failing to properly operate and maintain its

POTW, failing to comply with effluent limitations in its

NPDES permit, and failing to fully implement its

industrial pretreatment program.

U.S. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company (E.D. Tex.):

Apollution prevention SEP was contained in the consent

decree filed on August 15, 1994, in U.S. District Court

in settlement of claims against DuPont for violations of

its NPDES Permit and §301 of the CWA. Under the consent

decree, DuPont agreed to pay a civil penalty in the

amount of $516,430 and to perform a SEP costing an

estimated $3.2 million. The SEP requires replacement of

existing steam-powered vacuum jets in their adiponitrile

process units with mechanical vacuum pumps. The steam,

contaminated with waste materials from the adiponitrile

process, was condensed as water and became a waste

stream.

Vulcan Chemical: EPA received information in

correspondence from Vulcan regarding NPDES permit

violations involving zinc and issued an administrative

order under the CWA to Vulcan establishing a schedule to

reduce zinc from the company's wastewater discharges.

In response, Vulcan devised and implemented an

alternative treatment technology which resulted in a

reduction of pollution created at the facility with only

a minimal delay in the compliance schedule.

In the Matter of Albert Kramer III d/b/a Kramer

Development Corporation: On January 21, 1994, a consent

agreement/final order was issued in which Mr. Kramer

agreed to pay $6,005 to resolve an administrative

penalty action. Development of the case, which was

referred to EPA from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

included an original proposed penalty of $10,000.

Kramer had initiated construction of a series of roads in

wetlands as part of an unspecified future development
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-44

project. No permit had been obtained under CWA §404, for which was referred to EPA from the Corps of Engineers,

the discharge of fill material into wetlands. included an original proposed penalty of $5,000. Red

Citgo Pipeline Company: An administrative Class II bulkhead associated with casino development on the Red

complaint was issued to Citgo Pipeline Company, Tulsa, River in Shreveport, LA, but initiated construction work

Oklahoma, on March 4, 1994, with a proposed penalty of in waters of the U.S. prior to issuance of the permit.

$124,900 for violations of §311(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the CWA. The impacts of the violation were corrected, and the

The corporation's facility discharged 200 barrels of permit was eventually issued by the Corps of Engineers.

crude oil from its onshore pipeline in Claiborne Parish,

LA, and 250 barrels of crude oil from an onshore pipeline

in Gregg County, TX. Information on the discharge was

received from the report made by Citgo to the NRC. The

discharged oil entered navigable waters of the United

States in quantities determined to be harmful under 40

C.F.R. §110.3.

Hamner Inc.: An administrative Class I complaint was

issued to Hamner, Inc., Corpus Christi, TX, on May 24,

1994, with a proposed penalty of $9,108 for violations of

§311(b)(6)(B)(ii)of the CWA. The corporation's tanker

truck overturned, discharging approximately 24 barrels

of petroleum naphtha. The petroleum naphtha entered

navigable waters of the United States in quantities

determined to be harmful under 40 C.F.R. §110.3.

Jayhawk Pipeline Corporation: A consent agreement and

final order was signed July 11, 1994, concerning Jayhawk

Pipeline Corporation's discharge of 20 barrels of crude

oil from an onshore pipeline in Kay County, Oklahoma.

The spill was reported to the NRC by the responsible

party and EPA responded to the spill. Jayhawk paid a

penalty of $3,825 to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Petrolite Corporation: A consent agreement and final

order was signed July 11, 1994, concerning the

corporation's violation of §311(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the CWA.

Petrolite Polymer Division discharged 200 barrels of wax

from its facility located in Kilgore, Gregg County, TX.

The oil entered the stormwater drainage and migrated

off-site into drainage areas and Rabbit Creek. The

discharge was reported to the NRC and EPA responded to

the spill. Petrolite paid a penalty of $5,500 to the Oil

Spill Liability Trust Fund.

RedRiver Entertainment Group: On May 19, 1994, a

consent agreement/final order was issued in which Red

River Entertainment agreed to pay $3,000 to resolve an

administrative penalty action. Development of the case,

River had applied for a CWA, §404, permit to build a

RCRA

In the Matter of Micro Chemical Company: An RCRA

administrative CAO on consent was issued to Micro

Chemical Co. on September 30, 1994. The order followed

from a citizen's complaint of releases from the

facility. The order first requires the facility to

stabilizea ground water plume of pesticides, located

3,000 feet upgradient from the city's drinking water

wells. The order then requires clean up of the soil on

the remainder of the site. Thus, the site requires

ground water and soil remediation measures. The study

phase for both media may cost $1.4 million. The ground

water remediation will be carried out over a great deal

of time (10 to 20 years) which will involve substantial

yearly costs. The soil remediation will require a much

shorter period of time to reach a conclusion but will

require a greater amount of money. A rough estimate of

the total cost of remediation of the site would be in the

area of $4 to 10 million.

In the Matter of Dow Chemical: Violations found at this

facility in Plaquemine, LA, related to RCRA BIF

requirements. They included failure to maintain the

prescribed scrubber blow down rate and liquid-to-gas

ratio and failure to maintain the operating controls and

end points for automatic waste feed cut off established

in the Certification of Compliance. The case was settled

with a consent agreement and final order, filed

September 9, 1994, in which the assessed penalty was

$26,000.

In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management: This

facility operates a hazardous waste incinerator in Port

Arthur, TX, permitted under both the RCRA (for hazardous

waste) and the TSCA (for polychlorinated biphenyls,

PCBs). The facility commingled the listed hazardous

waste F039 (leachate from landfills) with PCB's from

capacitors and transformers during incineration. The

resulting ash failed to meet the RCRA land disposal

restriction (LDR) treatment standards for PCBs in F039.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-45

Although the PCB concentrations in the ash were probably to prepare unit closure plan. A civil penalty of $21,500

derived from the PCBs in the electrical equipment, not was assessed in an order issued on August 8, 1994.

the F039, the Mixture Rule requires that the ash meet LDR

standards for F039. The facility failed to make an In the Matter of Rexene: Violations found at this

adequate waste determination and shipped the ash to a chemical plant in Odessa, TX, related to RCRA BIF

disposal facility without notifying the disposal requirements. They included failure to establish

facility that the ash did not meet LDR treatment appropriate Certification of Compliance operating

standards. The ash was subsequently placed on the land limits, failure to comply with prescribed feed rates,

withouthaving met LDR treatment standards for PCB's in failure to amend waste analysis plan, inspection

F039. (The receiving facility, Chemical Waste schedule and contingency plan, and failure to prepare

Management, Carlyss, LA, also received a penalty.) unit closure plan. A penalty of $33,750 was assessed in

Shipments occurred on several occasions during 1993. an order issued September 15, 1994.

The company self-reported the violations. An order

assessing a civil penalty of $15,000 was issued on April In the Matter of Chapparal Steel: This steel

8, 1994. manufacturing company in Midlothian, TX, exports

In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management: This production of steel in its electric arc furnaces, listed

facility is a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and hazardous waste K061, for recovery of other metals. It

disposalfacility in Carlyss, LA. Violations found at failed to provide annual reports of its hazardous waste

this facility related to disposal on the land of exporting activities for 1991 and 1992 and failed to

hazardous wastes which may be land disposed only if they properly manifest shipments during that period. On

meet LDR treatment standards. The facility in Port December 23, 1993, an order was issued assessing a civil

Arthur, TX, commingled the listed hazardous waste F039 penalty of $5,000.

(leachate from landfills) with polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) from capacitors and transformers during In the Matter of Hydrocarbon Recyclers, Inc.: This

incineration and failed to notify the receiving facility hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal

that the resulting ash failed to meet the RCRA land facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma, receives hazardous waste

disposal restriction (LDR) treatment standards for PCBs which has been imported from another country. The case

in F039. (The Port Arthur facility also received a involved violations of the RCRA requirement that

penalty.) treatment, storage and disposal facilities submit

In the Matter of Texas Industries: This facility is a anticipated receipt of foreign waste. An order

cement plant in Midlothian, TX, which burns hazardous assessing a civil penalty of $35,000 was issued on May 4,

waste as a part of its fuel. Violations found at this 1994.

facility related to RCRA BIF requirements. The facility

violated these requirements by its failure to operate In the Matter of REM TEX: This case involved violations

the kiln within feed rate limits established in the of the RCRA hazardous waste importing requirements by a

Certification of Precompliance, failure to make an manufacturer of electrical and electronic equipment in

adequate Bevil exclusion determination, and failure to DelRio, TX. Violations included failure to notify EPA

maintain unit inspection records. An order assessing a or the authorized State agency of hazardous waste

civil penalty of $26,000 was issued on June 23, 1994. activity and failure to provide foreign generator's name

In the Matter of Aristech: Violations found at this waste for its foreign maquiladora facility, located in

chemical plant in Pasadena, TX, related to RCRA BIF Tamaulipas, Mexico. REM-TEX operates a U.S. facility,

requirements. They included exceedances of waste located in Del Rio, TX, which serves as a warehouse or

storage accumulation times, failure to conduct unit transfer point for waste imported from REM-TEX's

integrity testing, failure to label waste storage tank, maquiladora facility destined for TSD facilities in the

failure to maintain unit inspection records, failure to United States. A civil penalty of $9,000 was assessed in

update waste analysis and contingency plan, and failure an order issued on May 31, 1994.

emission control dust and sludge from the primary

advance notice to EPA or the authorized State agency of

on manifest. REM-TEX acts as U.S. importer of hazardous
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-46

In the Matter of Jeep Collins: This case involved because of mislabeling the waste containers and not

violations of the RCRA hazardous waste importing inspecting the areas where the waste was stored on a

requirements by a jewelry manufacturer in regular basis. The facility also failed to adequately

Fredericksburg, TX. Violations included failure to train its personnel in the management of hazardous

notify EPA or the authorized State agency of hazardous waste. A civil penalty of $105,350 was assessed in an

waste activity and failure to provide foreign order issued on October 1, 1993.

generator's name on manifest. Jeep Collins acts as U.S.

importer of hazardous waste for its foreign maquiladora In the Matter of Helena Chemical: Helena Chemical in

facility, located in Coahuila, Mexico. Jeep Collins Delhi, LA, is a pesticide distribution warehouse for

operates a U.S. facility, located in Fredericksburg, TX, northeast Louisiana. This facility failed to notify the

which serves as a warehouse or transfer point for waste regulatory agency of hazardous waste activity and to

imported from Jeep Collins' maquiladora facility comply with hazardous waste storage requirements. The

destined for TSD facilities in the United States. A facility had been storing hazardous wastes in one of its

civil penalty of $6,300 was assessed in an order issued warehouses since it ceased its pesticide blending

on May 31, 1994. operation in 1986, without following the requirements

Inthe Matter of Ranco: The case involved violations by was assessed in an order issued on October 1, 1993.

a manufacturer in Brownsville, TX, of plastic and metal

parts for heating and air conditioning units of In the Matter of Helena Chemical: Helena Chemical in

requirements for storage and manifesting of hazardous West Helena, AR, blends technical grade pesticides and

waste. The facility imports hazardous waste from its herbicides for distribution to warehouse facilities in

maquiladora operation in Mexico, and it used an the mid-west and southern United States. The facility

incorrect RCRA ID number on its manifests. An order was also does contract blending and packaging of pesticides

issued on August 3, 1994, assessing a civil penalty of for other companies. The facility failed to notify the

$19,520. regulatory agency of hazardous waste activity and failed

In the Matter of Citgo Refining: This petroleum refinery requirements. The facility was storing 15,000 gallons

in Lake Charles, LA, failed to meet the regulatory of a mixed hazardous waste in a tank at the facility. The

deadline for retrofitting impoundments, which receive company had failed to characterize this waste as

toxicity characteristic hazardous wastes, with liners hazardous and had actually manifested similar waste from

and leak detection systems. Even after the statutory the site as non-hazardous. The company was assessed a

deadline for retrofitting impoundments or ceasing to use civil penalty of $98,125 in an order issued on December

them, Citgo continued to place hazardous wastes in the 29, 1993.

impoundments. The violations were self reported. The

facility was assessed a civil penalty of $47,500 in an U.S. v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (W.D. La.): On

order issued September 30, 1994. August 30, 1994, the court issued an opinion requiring

In the Matter of Aquaness Chemical: Aquaness Chemical, and the State of Louisiana an $8 million civil penalty

formerly an oil field chemical blending operation in for violating the RCRA, the CAA, and the CWA. The court

LaFayette, LA, was converting its facility to a also ordered Southern Wood Piedmont (SWP), a company

warehouse and distribution center for oil field that sent hazardous waste to the MSP, to pay a $25,000

chemicals. The facility failed to notify EPA or the civil penalty for sending hazardous waste to MSP was in

authorized State agency of its hazardous waste activity violation of the RCRA storage permit regulations.

and hazardous waste storage. The company was involved in Finally, the court prohibited MSP from disbursing

generating large quantities of various hazardous wastes dividends,royalties, loans, debentures and other funds

(thousands of gallons a year) without notifying the to company shareholders and officers, except amounts to

authorized State or EPA about their activity. In pay their normal current salaries and MSP's local, state

addition, wastes were being managed in a manner that and federal taxes. The MSP, SWP and the government have

presented a potential for release to the environment

for storing hazardous waste. A civil penalty of $71,482

to follow hazardous waste storage and manifesting

Marine Shale Processors (MSP) to pay the United States
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-47

appealed portions of these decisions to the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

TSCA

In the Matter of Asarco, Amarillo, Texas: An

administrative complaint under the TSCA was issued to

Asarco, Inc., Amarillo, TX, on September 29, 1993 for

failure to comply with the PCB regulations. Violations

included improper disposal of PCBs, inadequate records

ofPCBs, and failure to notify EPA of PCB waste handling

activity. The proposed penalty in this complaint was

$51,500. This complaint was settled on February 8, 1994,

through the issuance of a CACO with a final penalty of

$51,500. In addition, the CACO required that the company

conduct post-verification sampling of a PCB spill that

was the subject of a count contained in the complaint.

Central Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas:

Anadministrative complaint under the TSCA was issued to

Central Power and Light on September 30, 1994, with a

proposed penalty of $90,750. Among the violations found

were failure to properly mark PCB containers, improper

storage and disposal of PCBs, and inadequate

recordkeeping. The facility failed to cleanup three

spills for 82 days, 69 days, and 58 days respectively.

CERCLA

U.S. v. David Bowen Wallace, et al. (N.D. Tex.) BioEcology Systems Superfund Site, Dallas County, Texas:

On August 1, 1994, the United States filed a Notice of

Lodging of a consent decree for recovery of past and

future costs, as well as operation and maintenance

costs. This consent decree, if entered by the Court,

would provide for recovery of $8.34 million in U.S.

response costs and $1.14 million in State of Texas

response costs associated with implementation of a

Superfund remedy at the Bio-Ecology National Priorities

List (NPL) Site. The settlement resolves the liability

of 73 defendants, including 59 de minimis generators of

hazardous substances disposed at the site.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-48

U.S. v. American National Petroleum Company, et al.

(W.D. La.) Gulf Coast Vacuum Superfund Site, Abbeville,

Louisiana, and Gulf Coast Vacuum Services Superfund

Site, Vermillion Parish, Louisiana: In FY94, both an

administrative order on consent and a consent decree

were signed for this site where both the soil and a

shallow perched aquifer are contaminated with oil field

wastes containing barium, arsenic, mercury, cadmium,

lead, benzene, and numerous other organic compounds.

About15,000 cubic yards of sludge and 19,500 cubic yards

of site soils will be remediated. On September 28, 1994,

an administrative order on consent became effective

after a 30-day public comment period. The order, between

EPA and 54 de minimis parties, allowed the parties to

"cash out" their liability at the site by paying a

settlement based on their volumetric percentage of waste

at the site. The de minimis settlement raised $ 3.1

million for EPA expenses and contractor oversight of

clean-up activities for Operable Unit 1 at the site.

On June 14, 1994, EPA completed negotiations for a

proposed consent decree with 15 major Potentially

Responsible Parties (PRPs), including many large oil

companies. The parties signed the proposed consent

decree which calls for a change in the remedy for organic

contamination specified in the 1992 Record of Decision

from incineration to biological treatment to the same

treatment standards as incineration. The proposed

consent decree will become effective after it is lodged

and entered and after an Amended Record of Decision is

issued. On January 26, 1994, EPA received the final

close-out report from the 15 major PRPs for their work on

OperableUnit 2 (the Interim Source Action) under a

December 1992 unilateral administrative order. All

activities under the order were certified complete

except for Operation and Maintenance prior to the

initiation of Operable Unit 1 construction; therefore,

the PRPs have fulfilled their obligations under the

unilateral order.

U.S. v. City of Jacksonville, Arkansas (E.D. Ark.)

Jacksonville Municipal Landfill, Lonoke County,

Arkansas, and Rogers Road Municipal Landfill, Pulaski

County, Arkansas: On April 6, 1994, the U.S. District

Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, lodged two consent

decrees for the Jacksonville and Rogers Road Municipal

Landfill Superfund Sites which were subsequently entered

on June 20, 1994. Approximately 800 cubic yards of soil

in the two landfills are contaminated with dioxin that

was produced by a local herbicide manufacturer. The City

agreed to pay $100,000 in past costs.

U.S. v. Gulf States Utilities Company (S.D Tex.)

Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site, Harris County,

Texas: The first EPA Prospective Purchaser Agreement

was lodged with the court on November 18, 1993, for the

Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site (the Site) in

Houston, TX. The Site was the location of an electrical

transformer salvage and recycling operation conducted by

the property owner, Sol Lynn, from approximately 1965 to

1975. Contamination at the Site resulted from the

transformer salvage operations and from a chemical

manufacturing and supply company which leased property

from Sol Lynn. The principal contaminants of concern are

PCBs and TCE. Both of these substances were released

onto the ground at the Site. TCE migrated into the

ground water and PCBs remained in the first two feet of

soil. The Site was placed on the NPL in March 1989.

On April 9, 1991, the United States filed a complaint

against the Estate of Sol Lynn seeking past and future

cleanup costs pursuant to §107 of CERCLA. The settlement

wasachieved through two documents. First, the consent

decree settled the civil liability of the defendants for

cleanup costs and injunctive relief while retaining

certain "reopener" rights for previously unknown site

conditions. The United States received an up-front

payment from sale of site property, and will receive a

percentage of a future sale of other real property owned

by the Estate.

Second, the Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue, requiring

Department of Justice approval, between EPA and the

purchaser of the Estate's interest in the site required

the purchaser to establish an escrow for the purchase.

The Estate's payment under the consent decree was funded

through this escrow. In consideration for funding the

Estate's payment, the purchaser received a covenant not

to sue for civil liability and injunctive relief related

to existing contamination at the Estate property and an

adjacent tract. The agreement imposes certain use

restrictions on current and future owners of the Site and

will give EPA, the Texas Water Commission, and their

cleanup contractors irrevocable access to the property

for future remediation.

U.S. v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, et al., Arkansas

Department of Pollution Control and Ecology v. Vertac

ChemicalCorporation, et al. (E.D. Ark.). In the Matter
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-49

of Hercules Inc., Uniroyal Chemical Ltd., and Vertac

Chemical Corporation (Administrative) Vertac Superfund

Site, Jacksonville, Arkansas: Hercules, Inc., the

principal viable PRP agreed to comply with a UAO issued

in March 1994 to perform site cleanup. Under the order,

Hercules will implement a $28.5 million remedy to

dismantle the old manufacturing process plant, and treat

residual liquids and sludges left in old tanks and

vessels. The combined costs to clean up all six operable

units is expected to exceed $100 million.

Additionally, in the civil enforcement action associated

with this site, on October 12, 1993, the U.S. District

Court granted summary judgment to the United States on

the issue of Hercules' joint and several liability for

past and future costs related to remediation of the

Vertac Site. That summary judgment was an interim ruling

as part of ongoing CERCLA cost recovery action brought by

the EPA against multiple parties.

In the Matter of Amerada Hess Corporation, et al., PAB

OilSuperfund Site, Abbeville, Louisiana: In September

1994, EPA issued a UAO to approximately 30 potentially

responsible parties (PRPs) requiring them to clean up

the abandoned site. Most PRPs subsequently agreed to

comply with the order. Under the order, PRPs will

undertake a $13 million effort to bioremediate hazardous

organic wastes left in pits and lagoons at this site in

southern Louisiana. Surface water will also be treated

and discharged. In addition to the UAO, EPA offered de

minimis settlement to a large number of small volume

contributors. Most of the de minimis parties have signed

the settlement which is now being finalized. All nonsettling PRPs have been offered an opportunity for

Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR). The ADR will not

interrupt the ongoing site remediation being performed

underthe UAO, but will afford the PRPs an opportunity to

resolve allocation issues that could not be resolved

prior to the deadline for a "good faith offer" to settle.

In the Matter of Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc.,

Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site, Oklahoma

City, Oklahoma: A UAO was issued to Waste Management of

Oklahoma (WMO) on January 28, 1994. The UAO requires WMO

to conduct the Remedial Design and Remedial Action at the

site. The site was contaminated with liquid industrial

wastes which were hazardous substances and which had

been disposed of in a solid waste landfill under state

permit. The remedy selected in the Record of Decision

was the capping of the landfill, construction of a gas

recovery system, and remediation of the contaminated

ground water. A settlement in the form of an

administrative order on consent was reached with 19 de

minimis parties on March 24, 1994, for $1.2 million.

This settlement was included in the national de minimis

initiative. The de minimis settling parties included 18

generators and a transporter.

In the Matter of Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa/

Lavaca Bay Superfund Site, Point Comfort, Texas: The

site includes the Aluminum Company of America's (ALCOA)

Point Comfort Operations Plant which covers

approximately 3,500 acres and Lavaca Bay which is

approximately 68 square miles in size.

In May 1993 EPA proposed the Site for listing on the

National Priorities List (NPL), and the listing became

final on April 23, 1994. In January of 1994, EPA's site

negotiation team set a goal of 45 days to reach agreement

with ALCOA on a scope of work for a comprehensive

remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS).

This deadline was established so as to try and meet

NOAA's and the State's statute of limitations. The

result was an administrative order on consent.

In the Matter of National Zinc Site, Bartlesville,

Oklahoma; Salomon, Inc., Cyprus Amax Minerals Company,

and Kerramerican, Inc., National Zinc Company Superfund

Site, Bartlesville, Oklahoma: On February 2, 1994, EPA

issued a UAO for removal action at the National Zinc Site

in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. During operation of the

NationalZinc smelter, lead and cadmium were deposited

through air releases on surface soils within three miles

of the facility. The UAO required PRPs, Salomon,

Incorporated, and Cyprus-Amax, to remove lead

contaminatedsoil from residential properties in the

area contaminated by the smelter. In addition, this twopronged process provided for state oversight in a

separate agreement by the Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) with the PRPs to perform a

RI/FS to address a long term remedy for the site. The

RI/FS was carried out by the PRPs with a state Record of

Decision targeted for late in calendar 1994.

Marco of Iota: An Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

process has been initiated to assist in reaching a cost

recovery agreement at the Marco of Iota Superfund site in

Iota, LA. Marco of Iota was a fuels blending and

recycling facility located in Iota, LA. The Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality had repeatedly cited
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-50

the facility operators for operational violations. In unit. The projected cost of the two SEPs is $49,000. SIC

January 1992, the Louisiana State Police in conjunction code 2869.

with LDEQ closed down the facility and initiated a

criminal investigation. At closure the operators Miles Inc: A consent agreement and final order was

abandoned a large volume of hazardous substances on the signedAugust 29, 1994, concerning Miles Inc.'s late

site. WPA identified over 600 potentially responsible reporting to the NRC of a release of

parties (PRPs) and offered them the opportunity to dichlorodifluoromethane. This petrochemical plant

conduct the cleanup. The PRPs declined the opportunity should have reported the release immediately, as

andEPA began a Fund removal action in July 1992. The requiredby CERCLA §103. A penalty of $1,000 was agreed

removal was completed in June 1994, at a cost of $4.5 to by both parties. Miles, located in Baytown, TX,

million. agreed to perform certain SEPs to mitigate the penalty.

Pab Oil: In 1994, EPA initiated an Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR) process to help resolve allocation

issues among Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at

thePAB Oil NPL site in Abbeville, LA. The site includes

impoundments which were used to hold hazardous

substances from oil field truck discharges. EPA has

identified in excess of 30 PRPs. While the ADR process

is not complete, most PRPs agreed to participate in the

process and early signs are encouraging. The offer of

ADR appears to have convinced PRPs to comply with the UAO

for RD/RA and will hopefully lead to a cost recovery

agreement based on the final allocation of liability.

South 8th Street: In 1994, EPA also initiated an ADR

process to help resolve allocation issues among PRPs at

the South 8th Street NPL site in West Memphis, AR. EPA

has identified in excess of 30 PRPs. While the ADR

process is not complete, most PRPs agreed to participate

in the process and early signs are encouraging and EPA is

hopeful that the effort will lead to an allocation which

will facilitate a settlement agreement.

B.P. Chemical: This petrochemical plant in Port Lavaca,

TX, had a release to the environment of ammonia in an

amount just above the reportable quantity. A consent

agreement and final order was signed October 6, 1993,

concerning B.P. Chemical's late reporting of the release

to the NRC under CERCLA §103. B.P., located in Port

Lavaca, TX, agreed to perform certain SEPs to mitigate

the penalty, which was reduced to zero because of

uncertainty regarding the amount released. In return

for the penalty reduction, B.P. provided the LEPC in

Calhoun County with funding to purchase a weather radar

for environmental determination. Additionally, B.P.

purchased and installed a pump on the ammonia blow down

stream to reduce pressure problems on the production

The projected cost of the SEPs is $13,000.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-51

REGION VII

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S.v. Archer Daniels Midland (S.D. Ia.): In 1989, EPA

began documentation of CAA violations at the Archer

Daniels Midland (ADM) Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, Iowa,

facilities resulting in establishment of 88 violations

of PSD permit conditions, state-issued PSD permit In the Matter of the Boeing Company: The Boeing Company

conditions, and NSPS violations. The case was concluded filled approximately 1.4 acres of the Arkansas River

with a consent decree, which required ADM to hire a channel with broken concrete, dirt, reinforcing bar,

contractor to conduct a company-wide environmental conduits (metal and plastic) and miscellaneous

management audit, to document and recommend practices demolition debris. The administrative consent order

and procedures to ensure compliance with federal, state, requires the Respondents to develop, obtain approval

and local environmental laws. The consent decree also from EPA, and implement a plan for removing the fill

requires payment of a civil penalty of $700,000. material and restoring the area to its full condition.

U.S. v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc. (W.D. Mo.): A consent a complaint and consent agreement against Boeing for

decree was entered on June 30, 1994, resolving violations of EPCRA §313 reporting requirements,

notification, testing, and emission violations of NSPS conducted pre-filing negotiations, and reached

SubpartOOO at two Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc. facilities. settlement by which Boeing agreed to pay full penalty of

Hunt will pay a civil penalty of $134,800. Hunt owns two $58,500.

plants in Missouri, one in Kansas City and one in

Randolph. Hunt Midwest Mining installed a new primary U.S. v. Beech Aircraft Corporation (D. Kan.): On May 27,

crusher and a new bin with loadout at the Kansas City, 1994, the court entered a consent decree resolving civil

MO, plant, and replaced the Randolph, MO, plant in its violations of the CWA at Beech Aircraft Corporation's

entirety after the Subpart OOO applicability date of Wichita, KS, facility. Under the consent decree, Beech

August 31, 1983. Hunt failed to give the required was required to pay a civil penalty of $521,000 for its

notifications, failed to conduct the required violations of federal categorical pretreatment

performance tests at the Kansas City plant, and was 30 standards for metal finishers, failure to meet the

months late performing these same requirements at the reporting requirements of the general pretreatment

Randolph plant. There were also emissions violations at regulations, and failure to timely comply with an

the Randolph plant. administrative order issued by EPA. In addition to

In the Matter of Holnam, Inc.: EPA issued a 3008(a) under the consent decree to perform a SEP valued at

complaint in July 1993, as part of the BIF regulations approximately $200,000 that consists of installing

initiative against Holnam, Inc., which owns and operates centrifuges or equivalent systems to remove sludge from

a cement kiln in Clarksville, MO, manufactures Portland its Wichita facility's existing water wash paint spray

cement, and burns hazardous waste as fuel. The facility booths.

was unable to certify compliance with certain emissions

standards by August 21, 1992, as required under the BIF

regulations. The violations alleged in the complaint

included failure to obtain a detailed analysis of

hazardous waste before burning, inadequate waste

analysis plan, and failure to minimize releases of

hazardous waste. The consent agreement/consent order

has been executed by all parties resolving the

violations contained in the July 1993 BIF complaint.

Holnamis to pay $100,874 in penalties, and must adjust

their closure cost estimates and financial assurance for

closure.

CLEAN WATER ACT

The penalty paid was $30,000. EPA simultaneously filed

paying a civil penalty of $521,000, Beech also agreed

RCRA

In the Matter of Burlington Northern Railroad: An RCRA

§7003 consent order was issued on July 8, 1994,

addressing chlorinated solvent contamination in the

groundwater in the northeast portion of the Hobson Yard,

believed to have resulted from a leaking

perchloroethylene (PCE) tank and from historical
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-52

discharges of wastewater into unlined lagoons. order (CA/CO) settling a RCRA Section 3008(a)

BurlingtonNorthern's Hobson Yard in Lincoln, NE, has a administrativeenforcement case with the Iowa Army

history of environmental problems. A multi-media AmmunitionPlant, Middletown, IA (IAAP) (SIC 9711).

inspection of the northeast portion of the Yard was done This was the first time the Army entered into a RCRA

in the summer of 1992, and based on findings from the CA/COthat included penalties since the enactment of the

inspection, a UAO was issued to Burlington Northern in Federal Facility Compliance Act on October 6, 1992. The

the spring of 1993 citing RCRA, CERCLA, CWA, and OPA twelve count complaint alleged violations of the

authorities. The UAO required Burlington Northern to groundwatermonitoring requirements and of IAAP's

cease the discharge of oil and chlorinated solvents to operating permit conditions for storage and incineration

surface waters, including a rare inland saline wetland of hazardous wastes. The complaint assessed an initial

locatedon Burlington Northern's property. The consent penalty of $201,640. During the negotiations the

order requires Burlington Northern to characterize the penalty was reduced to the amount of $138,921.75. The

extent of contamination, define the source(s), and IAAPwill initially pay $75,704 and the balance of the

develop remedial alternatives to address the same. penalty, $63,217.75, will be deferred to allow for

In the Matter of The Dexter Company: EPA Region VII excess of $300,000. If IAAP completes the SEP in two

issued an administrative complaint to The Dexter Company years, the deferred amount will be waived. The planned

(SIC 2851) for RCRA violations at its storage facility in SEP will eliminate one of IAAP's NPDES permitted

Fairfield, IA. The complaint charged The Dexter Company discharges of explosive contaminated wastewater. 

with the following RCRA violations: violation of a May

15, 1991 consent agreement/consent order Respondent In the Matter of G.E. Company: On June 30, 1993, as part

previously entered into with EPA; storing hazardous of EPA's illegal operator initiative, a civil

wastes at its facility without having achieved interim administrative action was filed against G.E. Company

status or having a permit for storage in violation of (SIC3469) for its violations of RCRA at its facility in

Section 3005 of RCRA; and failure to label or date West Burlington, IA, for a proposed total penalty of

hazardous waste containers. The total penalty proposed $38,250. The settlement reached included the payment of

underthis complaint was $280,537. Under the terms of $10,500, plus the obligation to conduct a SEP, which

the consent agreement, Respondent is to carry out a involves the consolidation of two metal plating lines,

pollution prevention SEP valued at $776,131, pay a with an estimated 35% reduction in the amount of

$32,125 penalty, and conduct closure at the Site. The hazardous wastes generated, and an estimated 80%

SEP involves the Respondent changing the nature of its reduction in the generation of plating rinse waters. The

current painting operation to one which does not use cost of the SEP totals an estimated $225,000.

solvents, thus ceasing its generation of this waste

stream. In the Matter of Cuba Paint Company: On September 30,

In the Matter of Missouri Highway Transportation

Department: On September 30, 1994, Region VII issued a

consent agreement/consent order requiring sampling,

further clean-up if needed, and development of a plan for

future handling of sandblast residue. The case involved

RCRA violations resulting from sandblasting lead based

paint from the Chariton River bridge and the subsequent

handling of the sandblast residue. Missouri Highway

Transportation Department (SIC 9621) will pay an initial

penalty of $70,000. An additional $115,398 penalty will In the Matter of Kaw Valley, Inc.: This case arose out of

be deferred and subject to offset upon completion of SEPs an administrative complaint issued to Kaw Valley of

estimated to cost more than $350,423. Leavenworth, KS, by EPA alleging three counts of failure

In the Matter of Iowa Army Ammunition Plant: On March 8, AdministrativeLaw Judge found Kaw Valley liable for

1994, EPA Region VII filed a consent agreement/consent failure to report. Kay Valley, however, argued that

implementation of a SEP which is estimated to cost in

1992, EPA issued a complaint to Cuba Paint Company, Inc.

(SIC 2851), for violations of RCRA at its facility in

Cuba, MO. The complaint proposed a total penalty of

$257,335. On May 11, 1994, the parties reached a

settlement whereby Cuba agreed to pay a mitigated

penalty of $87,000, and to perform two SEP. The value of

the SEPs total an estimated $417,000.

EPCRA

to file reporting forms as required under EPCRA §313. An
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-53

EPA's proposed penalty of $15,000 should be reduced. Kaw with regular sampling and related activities. In this

Valley, relying on information presented in a 1987 EPA consent decree, CWMK has agreed to pay 90 percent of

seminar, believed it was exempt from reporting. The ALJ EPA'spast costs ($1,561,594.24) plus 100 percent of all

reduced the penalty to $12,750 on the grounds that the of EPA's oversight costs after the date of entry. In

seminar presented a definition of "full-time employee" return, EPA is granting CWMK a covenant not to sue and

that differed significantly from the definition later contribution protection regarding the Site.

adopted in EPA's final rule. The ALJ found that only a

small reduction was warranted because, although it was U.S. v. TIC Investment Corp., et al. (N.D. Ia.): On

informed in January 1989, by EPA officially that it was September 18, 1994, the court issued an opinion and order

required to file, Kaw Valley submitted its Form Rs at holding two parent corporations and a corporate officer/

least 6 months later, only after the EPA filed a shareholderdirectly liable on summary judgment for

complaint. Kaw Valley sought judicial review in the costs of response at the White Farm Equipment Dumpsite in

federal District of Kansas of the EPCRA §313 definition CharlesCity, Iowa. The opinion is significant for two

of "full-time employee" at 40 CFR §327.3, arguing that reasons. The decision held a parent corporation and a

EPA lacked authority to issue the definition, and that corporate officer directly liable under §107(a)(3) as

EPA'srulemaking defining "full-time employee" failed to arrangers for disposal. It also held the parent company

comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. Kaw liable on summary judgment. The court held that there

Valley also appealed the penalty assessment. The must be some actual parent/officer involvement in the

federal district court found that EPA had authority to operations of the subsidiary, but that it is not

interpret the term "full-time employee," that EPA's necessary to show involvement in waste disposal

interpretation was reasonable, that the rulemaking was activities or daily operations of the subsidiary. The

procedurally adequate, and, alternately, that issuing opinion also contains a discussion of the policy

such an interpretation was within the Agency's inherent considerations which support extending use of parent

authority and exempt from notice and comment "owner/operator" liability case law to "arranger" cases.

requirements.

In the Matter of The Iowa Packing Company: A CACO was July 7, 1994, EPA issued an AOC requiring Doe Run

entered August 8, 1994, whereby the Iowa Packing Company Resources Corporation and St. Francis County

of Des Moines, Iowa, agreed to pay $28,000 for failing to Environmental Corporation to perform a non-time critical

submit EPCRA §312 Tier II reports for ammonia to SERC and removal action designed to prevent any further releases

LEPC for 1988 and 1989, and for failing to report EPCRA oflead from the 600-acre tailings pile. The estimated

§313 use of ammonia for calendar years 1987 through 1989. cost of the work to be performed is $12 million. Under

In addition, Respondent agreed to construct and the terms of the AOC, Doe Run Resources agreed to perform

implement a wastewater pretreatment facility for a cost extensive slope stabilization, regrading, and

of $850,000, which will significantly reduce pollutants revegetation of the entire pile. The objective of the

discharged into the City of Des Moines, IA sanitary sewer removal action is to prevent any further releases of

system. Respondent also spent $11,500 for the lead-contaminated tailings from the site.

installation and implementation of an ammonia diffusion

system for its Des Moines, IA facility.

CERCLA

U.S. v. Chemical Waste Management of Kansas, Inc. (D.

Kan.): On July 21, 1994, a cost recovery consent decree

in this matter was entered with the court. The National

Industrial Environmental Services Site (the Site) is a

contaminated hazardous waste facility located near

Furley, KS. The Site has been stabilized through

remediation by Chemical Waste Management of Kansas, Inc.

(CWMK) with EPA oversight. EPA continues its oversight

In the Matter of the Big River Mine Tailings Site: On

In the Matter of Lee Chemical Co. Superfund Site,

Liberty,Missouri: A CERCLA §122(h) Agreement for

Recovery of Costs filed on May 23, 1994, recovered

$389,522 from the Department of Energy and Allied

Signal, Inc., which was 100 percent of EPA's past

response costs for the site located in Liberty, MO. The

settlement was initiated as part of a cooperative EPA/

state enforcement effort in which the State of Missouri

took the lead for ensuring completion of the remedial

action via an AOC with the site owner, a municipality,

while the EPA pursued its past costs against the federal
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-54

agency and government contractor parties who were the U.S. v. Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., et al. (D. Kan.):

site's waste generators. On July 25, 1994, Philip Buch, a former supervisor for

U.S. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, Inc. (D.

Neb.): This consent decree settled EPA's Superfund cost

recovery case against Boehringer Ingelheim Animal

Health, Inc. (BIAH) as a de minimis waste contributor

settlement. BIAH contributed about 0.495 percent of the

1,354,801 pounds of hazardous substances processed at

the Site. The total EPA costs incurred for the EPA

clean-up of the Economy Products facility amounted to

$3,812,461. BIAH's pro rata share of the response costs

is calculated at $18,872. The $100,000 settlement

includes a 400-percent premium.

In the Matter of Renner Road Shooting Park: The Renner

Road Shooting Range Site is located in Shawnee, KS. It

contains serious lead contamination from years of

operation as a shooting park. EPA issued an Action

Memorandum on March 18, 1993, for conducting a timecritical removal, which was completed in 1994. EPA

incurred approximately $1 million in clean-up costs.

In September 1994, EPA issued two AOCs to the two de

minimis parties pursuant to the authority under the de

minimis waste contributor provisions of CERCLA

§122(g)(1)(A). The de minimis settlements provide that

the parties will pay a total of $41,250. The settlement

amounts were $30,000 for one party and $11,250 for the

other, based on the amount of waste each party

contributed to the site (5 percent and 1.7 percent,

respectively).

U.S. v. City of Clinton, Iowa (S.D. Ia.): In September

1994, EPA referred to the Department of Justice a de

minimis landowner RD/RA consent decree that it is

proposing to enter into with the City of Clinton, Iowa,

pursuant to CERCLA §122(g)(1)(b). The City of Clinton

has held title to the Chemplex Superfund Site since 1967

as part of an industrial development bond sale-leaseback

arrangement. There is no evidence that the City has had

any involvement with the Site other than as a nominal

title holder who holds indicia of ownership to protect a

security interest. Thus, the EPA is entering into a de

minimis landowner settlement with the City of Clinton,

Iowa. The de minimis settlement requires the City to

provide site access to EPA and the other PRPs, and to

comply with deed restrictions. In exchange, the City

received a covenant not to sue and contribution

protection.

Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., and the company itself

were sentenced in the District Court of Kansas after

their respective guilty pleas. The pleas stemmed from

the unlawful disposal of asbestos at the site of a

related company, Midwest Metals, Inc.

Buchpled guilty to the CERCLA misdemeanor of failing to

notify EPA of the existence of a facility at which

hazardous substances had been disposed, 
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-55

a violation of 42 U.S.C. §9603(c). He was sentenced to

3 years probation and 100 hours of community service, and

was fined $25 in Special Assessments. Midwest Asbestos

Control pled guilty to the CERCLA felony charge of

failing to notify the appropriate government agency of

the release into the environment of a reportable

quantity of a hazardous substance, a violation of 42

U.S.C. §9603(b). Midwest Asbestos was sentenced to a

fine of $2,500 and a $200 special assessment.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-56

REGION VIII

CLEAN AIR ACT

Sinclair Oil Corporation: On October 15, 1993, EPA filed

a fully executed CACO for Payment of Civil Penalties,

settling a §113(d) administrative penalty order issued

May20, 1992. The violations cited involved NSPS Subpart

"J" CEM requirements, specifically the failure to

install continuous emission monitors for all affected

fuel gas combustion devices by October 2, 1991. The

original administrative action sought a penalty of

$105,187. The settlement reduced the penalty to $35,000

and gave credit of $70,187 in exchange for a SEP valued

at about $270,000, resulting in a 3.85:1 offset ratio.

The SEP required the upgrade of the existing sulfur

recovery unit.

CLEAN WATER ACT

Dirt Merchant Construction/Sandra Tarr: On April 14,

1994, EPA issued an AO against Dirt Merchant

Construction Company, Inc. and Sandra Tarr, a Delta, CO,

landowner for violations of §404 of the CWA. The

violations occurred when the company built two illegal

dikes in the Gunnison River near Delta, CO, in endangered

fish species habitat. The enforcement action

successfully abated an imminent threat to river

stability and endangered fish species. The owner of the

property is now cooperating with the Corps of Engineers

by seeking authorization for bank protection measures.

Lucas Western (Jamestown, North Dakota): On June 26,

1991, EPA referred the Department of Justice a case

citing Lucas Western for violations of federal

pretreatment regulations. Lucas Western discharges its

wastewater to the Jamestown wastewater treatment plant.

Lucas Western violated reporting requirements and

pretreatment discharge limitations for pH and chromium

and NPDES proceeded to refer the case independently. On

May 4, 1992, the complaint was filed in Federal Court.

In FY95, the Court entered a consent decree settling the

case for $250,000, plus an environmental audit.

FarmersUnion Central Exchange COOP (CENEX) (Billings,

Montana): EPA issued an NOV to the State of Montana on

November 11, 1990, for violation by CENEX of its NPDES

permit limits for Oil and Grease dating back to December

1986. The State replied on January 29, 1991, that due to

a lack of resources, the State would not pursue

enforcement against CENEX. On June 26, 1991, EPA

referred the CENEX case to the Department of Justice.

EPA agreed to settle this action with the Company for a

penalty of $316,000.

Burlington Northern Railroad (W.D., Wisc.): The case

against Burlington Northern, a registered corporation,

is being jointly pursued by Regions V and VIII. It

involves three incidents: [1] On June 30, 1992, several

cars of a freight train operated by Burlington Northern

derailed on or near a trestle over the Nemadji River in

Wisconsin. Three of the cars fell from the trestle. One

car, which contained a product called "aromatic

concentrates," ruptured and discharged approximately

21,000 gallons of its contents into the Nemadji River.

[2] On January 9, 1993, 25 cars of a freight train

operated by Burlington Northern derailed on or near a

track in the Wendover Canyon, adjacent to the North

Platte River in Guernsey, WY. Eleven cars fell from the

track. Several of these cars, which contained decant

oil, ruptured and discharged at least 100,000 gallons or

2,380 barrels of oil into the North Platte River. [3] On

May 6, 1993, nine cars of a freight train operated by

Burlington Northern derailed from a track near Worland,

Wyoming. Three of these cars, which contained clarified

oil, ruptured and discharged at least 40,000 gallons or

953 barrels of oil into drainage ditches which empty into

and are tributaries of the Bighorn River.

The spill into the Nemadji River released benzene,

toluene, isoprene, naphthalene, and styrene in excess of

their reportable quantities. The two Wyoming releases

caused a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the

surface of the North Platte River, the drainage ditches

of the Bighorn river or their adjoining shorelines, or

caused a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the

surface of those bodies of water or upon their adjoining

shoreline. Burlington Northern made proper

notifications to EPA about the Wyoming spills.

In this civil action, brought under the CWA as amended by

the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), EPA also sought $279,078 to

recover costs incurred consistent with the National

Contingency Plan under CERCLA and OPA, and natural
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-57

resource damages totalling $250,000. The CWA penalties

totaled $2.5 million.

Hub City, South Dakota: EPA issued a complaint dated

December 2, 1992 charging Hub City with violations of the

Clean Water Act and the General Pretreatment Regulations

Reporting Requirements for failing to timely submit a

BMR, a 90-day Compliance Report and Periodic Compliance

Reports. EPA Region VIII and Hub City, Inc. have signed

a consent agreement settling this administrative case.

Hub City has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $12,500 and

to undertake a SEP requiring the installation of a

coolant recycling system, to recycle spent coolant from

Hub City's machining process. The SEP will reduce

loadingsof biological oxygen demand to the City of

Aberdeen, South Dakota's sewer. It is estimated that the

cost of the SEP will be at least $68,000. The project

willbe completed by Hub City by December 31, 1994. The

cash penalty amount of $12,500 recovers economic benefit

and the cost of the SEP ($68,000) is more than two times

the gravity which was calculated at $27,000.

City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota:: EPA Region VIII and

the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota have agreed to

settle this Clean Water Act administrative case for a

civilpenalty of $26,250 and the undertaking by the City

of a SEP. The SEP is a household hazardous waste

recycling program which cost will be in the $150,000 -

$200,000 range. EPA initiated this action by issuing a

complaint to the City dated November 19, 1992 alleging

violations of the Clean Water Act, its NPDES permit and

the General Pretreatment regulations codified at 40 CFR

Part 403. Most of the violations relate to the City's

failure to properly implement the Industrial

Pretreatment requirements of 40 CFR Part 403.

Star Circuits: EPA Region VIII and Star Circuits, Inc.

have agreed to settle this Clean Water Act

administrative case for a civil penalty of $17,500 and

the undertaking by Star Circuits of two SEPs requiring

environmental audits of both the Star Circuits facility,

as well as Star Circuit's parent, Daktronics' facility,

both located in Brookings, South Dakota. The second SEP

is a waste minimization project for the Star Circuits

facility. It is estimated that the costs of the SEPs

will total approximately $30,000.

SDWA

Town of Meeteetse, Wyoming: On September 1, 1994, EPA

issued an emergency administrative order to the Town of

Meeteetse, Wyoming. The order was issued when tests

indicated the presence of Giardia in the finished

drinking water. Additional testing, performed

immediately after the emergency order was issued,

detected the presence of Cryptosporidium in the finished

drinking water.

The emergency order required the Town to provide an

alternate source of potable water; provide public notice

of the presence of microbiological contaminants in the

public water supply; issue a boil water notice to those

served by the system; perform an evaluation of the system

to determine changes necessary to bring the system into

compliancewith the filtration requirements for a system

that uses a surface water source; and submit quarterly

reports on progress made toward bringing the system into

compliance with requirements for a system that uses a

surface water source.

City Oil Corporation: A default judgment was entered

against Christopher Martin Pedersen requiring

compliance and assessing a penalty of $1.8 million. The

case against City Oil Corporation resulted in the same

judgment, including the $1.8 million penalty. There

were numerous violations of the UIC program for 19

injection wells located on or near the Blackfeet Indian

Reservation in Northwestern Montana. Violations

included: unauthorized injection, failure to maintain

gauges, monitor, report perform mechanical integrity

tests, plug and abandon, etc. City Oil Corporation filed

for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court ordered that the

wells could be abandoned from the company's liabilities.

RCRA

Reclaim Barrel: This facility is a former barrel

reconditioner located in West Jordan, Utah. Following

an inspection in FY94, it was identified as an illegal

storage and disposal facility. Three Regional programs

(RCRA, CERCLA, and NPDES) coordinated their information

requests and sampling. An initial RCRA §3008(a)

complaint and order was issued on September 14, 1994.

The proposed penalty is $488,749.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-58

EPCRA

Advanced Forming Technology: In FY94, an administrative

complaintwas issued to Advanced Forming Technology for

failure to report under EPCRA §313 for the use of 1,1,1-

Trichloroethane(TCA). As a result, EPA and Advanced

Forming Technology settled in FY94 for a penalty of

$8,110and a SEP costing approximately $20,000. The SEP

required the facility to purchase and install Vapor Trap

Freeboard Chillers and Mylar Rolling Covers on each of

the two solvent degreaser baths in order to reduce the

amount of TCA released to the environment. The outcome

of the project resulted in a 35-percent usage reduction

ofTCA, while production output increased by 45 percent.

Accurate Plastics (now SPM/Denver): On March 2, 1992, an

administrative complaint was issued to Accurate Plastics

for failure to report under EPCRA §313 for the use of

Ethyl Ketone and Toluene in 1989. EPA and Accurate Biotrol International, Inc.: EPA settled administrative

Plastics settled the case in FY94 for a penalty of $2,060 actions against Biotrol and Stepan Company

and a SEP costing approximately $89,742. The facility (subregistrant and registrant) for making unsupported

purchased and installed a Graco-Assisted Airless Paint claims for the disinfectant vacusal. EPA also finalized

Spray Unit and a Fanuc Robotics Spray Unit to reduce settlement of two previous cases against Biotrol for a

total VOCs releases to the atmosphere by as much as 10 $21,000 penalty.

percent.

Denver Metal Finishing Company: In December 1991, EPA

issued an administrative complaint against Denver Metal

Finishing Company for failure to report under EPCRA §313

chemicals that were otherwise used. In FY94, the case

was settled requiring the facility to pay a monetary

penalty of $8,900 and to undertake a SEP requiring the

purchasing and installation of a DSF 12 DynaSand Filter.

The DynaSand Filter is a continuous backwash, upflow,

deepbed granular media filter. The filter media is

continuously cleaned by recycling the sand internally

throughan airlift pipe and sand washer. The purpose of

the filter is to remove any heavy metals from waste

generated during the process conducted by the facility.

NephiRubber Products: An EPCRA §311/312 compliance

inspection was conducted at the facility in Nephi, Utah,

and $49,920 in proposed penalties were assessed as a

result of the inspection findings. In addition to the

EPCRA violations, the State of Utah issued a NOV and CO

for RCRA violations. Prior to the issuance of the

complaints, the company filed a petition for bankruptcy.

The company has little, if any, ability to pay a

penalty.TheState of Utah and EPA will negotiate with the

Respondent on which the P2 project is to be undertaken by

the facility as a SEP.

Thatcher Chemical Company: Over 100 pounds of sulfur

dioxide was released into the environment when a hose

connection failed during a transfer from rail car to

fixed tank. Notification to the proper authorities was

delayed—a violation of EPCRA §304. Proposed penalties

in this complaint were $33,250. Negotiations with the

Respondent on a SEP as partial settlement to this

complaint were successful. The SEP included the

construction of a building with scrubbing equipment for

enclosure of vehicles while loading products to prevent

future releases into the environment of hazardous

chemicals.

FIFRA

CERCLA

ApacheEnergy and Minerals Co. (D. Colo.): On December

15, 1993, the district court entered a consent decree in

which the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW)

agreedto reimburse EPA over $1,125,000 in past response

costs at the site. D&RGW also agreed to conduct a

feasibility study and implement remedies to be selected

by EPA in the future for certain portions of the site. On

August 17, 1994, the district court entered a consent

decree in which Hecla Mining Company agreed to pay

$516,000for past and future response costs. The United

States as defendant agreed to pay EPA $172,000 for

response costs to resolve claims for its potential

liability at the site. On August 26, 1994 the U.S.

District Court entered a consent decree in which Asarco,

Inc., Resurrection Mining Company, Newmont Mining

Company and the Res-Asarco Joint Venture agreed to

reimburse EPA for $7.4 million in past response costs at

the site. The Settling Defendants also agreed to

complete feasibility studies and perform remedial

actions at a majority of the site. It is estimated that

Settling Defendants commitment to perform work at the

site is in excess of $60 million.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-59

Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation(D. Colo.): On July another interest- bearing escrow account. In FY95 EPA

6, 1994, the court entered a civil consent decree in received a check for $992,204 from Homestake Mining, the

which the Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO) and the total amount in dispute. In addition to collecting

United States Department of Interior both agreed to pay $63,604 in interest that had accumulated in the Escrow

$1.6 million each for past response costs incurred at the Account, EPA during this period, discovered an

SmugglerMountain Superfund site in Aspen, CO. The additional$8,471 in expenditures that were omitted from

Department of Interior paid their portion of the original billings.

settlement from the newly established DOJ judgment fund.

In addition, EPA concluded very difficult and lengthy Petrochem/Ekotek Site: EPA's Cost Recovery Program

negotiations with both Pitkin County and MAXXAM. Two billed the Ekotek site Remediation Committee (ESRC) PRPs

civil consent decrees were completed in late FY94. The foroversight costs pursuant to AOC (CERCLA-VIII-92-21)

County decree was lodged in December 1994 and the MAXXAM for a RI/FS in the amount of $416,636.39 in August of

decree should be lodged in January 1995. The conclusion 1994. The ESRC objected to many of EPA's oversight

of negotiations with these parties in FY94 means that costs, EPA's cost accounting procedures, and the level

only one party of the original eleven parties that were of documentation that was provided. In FY95 the ESRC

sued by the United States in 1989 now remains in the paid EPA the total amount in dispute.

CERCLA§107 litigation.

Clear Creek/Central City Superfund Site, Western

Diversified Builders: EPA assessed stipulated penalties

in the amount of $44,000 for violations of an AOC for

Removal Action at the Clear Creek/Central City Superfund

site. Under the order, Respondent was obligated to

perform a removal action at the National Tunnel portion

of the site. The action included piping of discharge

from a mine and the removal and proper disposal of

contaminated soils. Despite repeated notices and

warnings, Respondent failed to submit status reports and

was substantially behind schedule. EPA imposed

penalties to ensure a return to compliance for reporting

violations and to push completion of the removal action.

After issuance of the penalties, Respondent returned to

complianceand agreed to complete the project according

to a revised schedule. EPA agreed to settle payment of

the penalties for $22,000, if Respondent completed the

project on schedule. Respondent completed the project

on schedule and made payment of $22,000 as final

resolution of the penalty action.

Whitewood Creek: EPA's Cost Recovery Program sent its

annual bill for oversight costs in the amount of $681,164

to Homestake Mining Company (Homestake) on May 14, 1992,

pursuantto a consent decree with Homestake. On June 9,

1992, Homestake invoked the dispute resolution and

placed the $681,164 in an interest-bearing escrow

account. Several letters and phone conversations

occurred during the following year with no resolution.

On March 2, 1993, EPA sent its second annual billing to

Homestake in the amount of $238,966.23. Homestake,

again, disputed this bill and placed the amount in

Petrochem/Ekotek: During FY94, EPA conducted a de

minimis settlement project resulting in settlement

proposals being offered to over 1,000 Potentially

Responsible Parties (PRPs) who were believed to have

sent waste materials to this Superfund site. Early

projections for cleanup costs at the site had been

projected at approximately $69 million. In an effort to

be fair to these smaller waste contributors, EPA moved

quickly, sending out hundreds of CERCLA 104(e)

Information Request letters, proposing settlement

offers and reviewing eligibility for de minimis

settlement. In July, 1994, the Hazardous Waste

Management Division Director signed 363 administrative

orders on consent, including 16 federal entities. This

expedited de minimis settlement is anticipated to

generate $7.8 million. The funds will be placed in a

special account to be used for site cleanup and EPA

oversight of the selected remedial action, which is

projected to occur in the Spring of 1995. EPA has also

initiated proposed de minimis settlements with two

additional groups at the site totaling 38 parties. One

of these groups include parties who have successfully

demonstrated to EPA their inability to pay the full

settlement. EPA has offered these parties reduced

settlement payments in an effort to ensure significant

but fair PRP participation in the cleanup of the site.

It is anticipated that when these additional settlement

are finalized, total de minimis settlements for the site

will total $8.3 million.

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute: Waste

materialswhich resulted from work performed by CSMRI at
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-60

the facility include low-level radioactive waste, lead, site inventory be completed prior to the start of the

arsenic,and other heavy metals. Removal actions began removal action. 

at the Site on January 25, 1992, in response to a water

main break. Negotiation for a removal AOC started almost Respondents were found to be in violation of the AOC for

immediately; however, these negotiations were not failure to notify EPA in writing seven days before

successful. A de minimis settlement was offered to 56 beginning the site inventory of 

PRPs on June 10, 1994. The offer was accepted by 47 PRPs.

Thede minimis AO was finalized in FY95, for a total of

$1,340,584. One de minimis PRP was a federal facility,

the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the remaining PRPs

were private companies or corporations.

North American Environmental, Inc.: The North American

Environmental, Inc. (NAE) Site engaged in the business

of collecting, packaging, transporting, and disposing of

waste oils and debris (transformers, capacitors, light

ballasts, etc.) containing PCBs. Other contaminants

found at the Site included solvents and cyanide. NAE

began receiving wastes at the Site in September of 1986.

In August of 1990, NAE submitted an application to EPA

for a commercial storage permit for PCB-contaminated

wastes for the Site. EPA denied NAE's application for a

permit due to the failure of NAE to provide sufficient

and/or complete information regarding a financial

assurance mechanism required for closure. On October 5,

1990, EPA notified NAE that it should not accept any more

waste at the Site, and that it should dispose of the

remaining inventory within 30 days. On December 3, 1990,

EPA notified NAE that it was denied final storage

approval and that it should close the facility. NAE

claimed financial inability to do so, and abandoned the

Site.

On February 28, 1992, EPA allowed the landowner

(Freeport Center Associates), to provide an opportunity

for the generators of the waste stored at the Site to

retrieve and dispose of their own wastes, according to

EPAprotocol, from March 1, 1992, through September 1,

1992. On September 2, 1992, approximately 700 drums and

26 transformers remained at the Site. In addition, four

railroad tanker cars, containing varying volumes of

liquid waste and one railroad boxcar containing

approximately 15 drums of waste remained at the Site.

EPA negotiated a removal AOC with Freeport Center

Associates, the current owner of the Site, and the U.S.

Defense Logistics Agency, a generator of wastes at the

Site. The AOC was issued to the two above-mentioned

Respondents on October 5, 1993. The AOC required that a
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-61

hazardous substances and for failure to submit daily,

weekly, and monthly reports as required by the AOC. EPA

assessed stipulated penalties for these violations and

sent a demand letter for $12,000 to the Respondents on

March 23, 1994. Payment was received on April 4, 1994.

ThePRP-lead removal action began on August 1, 1994 and

is scheduled to be complete by the 3rd quarter of FY95.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-62

REGION IX

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S. v. Shell Western E&P, Inc. (E.D. Calif.): On August

11, 1994, the court entered a stipulation and order of

dismissal in which Shell Western agreed to pay $337,000

in civil penalties in order to settle a civil action

brought under the CAA. This action arose from Shell

Western's violations of California SIP requirements U.S. v. American Global Line, Inc. (N.D. Calif.): On

applicable to oil recovery at the company's Belridge Oil September 20, 1994, the captain of an 800-passenger

Field in Kern County, CA. The civil complaint alleged luxury liner and two shipping company executives pled

violations relating to emissions of VOCs and breakdown guilty in federal court in San Francisco to illegally

reportingviolations. An NOV was issued to Shell Western dumping several tons of debris into the ocean. The firm,

after EPA reviewed the company's responses to American Global Inc., pleaded guilty to a felony

information requests under §114 of the CAA. violation and was fined $100,000. Lloyd R. Haugh,

U.S. v. TABC, Inc. (C.D. Calif.): On May 26, 1994, the misdemeanor offense for instructing his crew to

court entered a consent decree in which TABC agreed to illegally dump about five tons of debris into the ocean

pay $485,000 in civil penalties and to install and inMay 1992. He was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and

operate pollution control equipment in order to settle placed on probation for a year. The incidents involved

a civil action brought under the CAA. This action arose the dumping of renovation debris from the cruise ships

from TABC's violations of California SIP rule that Independenceand Constitution during trips from Honolulu

limitsthe VOC content of coatings applied to automobile to Portland and Honolulu to San Francisco.

parts at TABC's facility in Long Beach, CA. The civil

complaint alleged that TABC violated the SIP at its Two corporate officers of American Global Line, Peter

facility by using coatings with VOC contents that BianchiJr., senior vice-president for operations, and

exceeded the limits imposed by the SIP rule. Robert Elder White III, vice president of marine

U.S. v. Minerec, Inc. (D. Ariz.): On August 26, 1994, were each fined $5,000 and placed on probation for a

EPA issued an emergency order to Minerec Mining year.

Chemicals,a chemical manufacturing plant located in the

San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation in U.S. v. Magma Copper Co. (D. Ariz.): On November 8,

Arizona. EPA made a finding that operations at the 1994, the court entered a consent decree resolving a suit

Minerec facility presented an imminent and substantial brought by EPA and the State of Arizona against Magma

endangerment to the public health or welfare or the Copper Co. The suit was brought in response to

environment and issued an order requiring that Minerec violations of the CWA and related State law at three

shutdown its manufacturing operations. That order was copper mining and processing facilities operated by

subsequently amended to allow limited production at the Magma in southeastern Arizona. The decree requires

facility, and to require that Minerec install monitoring Magma to pay penalties of $385,000 to the United States

devices. This case involves the precedent setting use of and $240,000 to Arizona. The decree also requires Magma

a CAA §303 order to close down a facility based on the to undertake compliance measures and to complete a SEP

risk of uncontrolled releases of hazardous chemicals. designed to control contamination at an abandoned mine.

U.S. v. All American Pipeline Company (C.D. Calif.): On predict prior to completion of the project planning

September 19, 1994, the court entered a civil consent phase, but is estimated to be $1.5 million. The decree

decree in which All American Pipeline Company (AAP) furtherrequires Magma to pay $50,000 to fund three

agreed to pay $714,000 in civil penalties. AAP also

agreed to perform an SEP and injunctive relief. For the

SEP, AAP agreed to remove three internal combustion (IC)

engines, thereby eliminating substantial NO emissions. x

CLEAN WATER ACT

captain of the Independence, pleaded guilty to a

operations also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. They

The cost to Magma of implementing the SEP is difficult to
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-63

additional SEPs which the U.S. Forest Service will a $14 million fund to be administered by the natural

complete to benefit the affected watersheds. resource trustees, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

U.S. v. City and County of Honolulu (D. Haw.): On resource damages.

October 3, 1994, a consent decree was lodged resolving a

CWA enforcement action brought by the United States and U.S. v. Teledyne, Inc. (S.D. Calif.): On April 12, 1994

the State of Hawaii against the City and County of a consent decree was entered resolving the CWA

Honolulu. This action arose as a result of the City and enforcement action against Teledyne, Inc. for violations

County of Honolulu's poor maintenance of its sewer at its Ryan Aeronautical facility in San Diego, CA. The

system, which resulted in over 300 spills of raw or decree requires Teledyne to pay a civil penalty of

partially-treated sewage into Hawaiian waters $500,000 in settlement of the United States claims. This

(including a spill of 50 million gallons of raw sewage action was brought as a result of Teledyne's repeated

into Pearl Harbor in 1991 that attracted national violation of the federal categorical pretreatment

attention). The City and County of Honolulu also failed standards governing metal finishing point sources.

to implement an adequate pretreatment program to Teledyne had also violated the prohibition against

regulate the discharge of toxics from industries dilution as a substitute for treatment by adding

discharging into its sewer system. unnecessary quantities of water to its process

Under the consent agreement, the City and County of system.

Honolulu will pay a civil penalty of $1.2 million and has

committed to improve the operation and maintenance of

its sewer system—including the renovation of 1900 miles

of sewer lines over the next 20 years and to develop and

implement a pretreatment program to regulate the

discharge of industrial toxic wastewater. Under the

decree, the City and County of Honolulu has also

committedto spend $30 million on SEPs for treating and

reusingwastewater and sludge. Honolulu will recycle 10

tons of sewage sludge per day by 1998 and 10 million

gallons of wastewater per day by the year 2001.

U.S. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Corp. (E.D.

Calif.): On March 14, 1994, a consent decree was lodged California. The decree further requires CSDLAC to

in court resolving the remaining claims of the United completea program to promote the beneficial reuse of its

States arising from the 1991 spill of metam sodium into wastewater, and requires CSDLAC to implement a household

the Sacramento River caused by a Southern Pacific train hazardous waste collection program costing at least $1.2

derailment on July 14, 1991. million.

The settlement resolves the causes of action against

Southern Pacific Transportation Company, its parents and

subsidiaries, against the General American

Transportation Corporation and GATX Corporation (owners

of the tank car), as well as against the companies that

were lessors/lessees of the tank car. The settlement

provides for recovery of $36 million in response costs,

which provides for full payment of all EPA response

costs. The decree also requires payment of a $500,000

CWA civil penalty, equivalent to the statutory maximum

for the violations in question. In addition, the consent

decree requires that the Settling Defendants establish

Service, for use in restoration/mitigation of natural

wastewater prior to discharge into the City sewer

U.S. v. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles

County (S.D. Calif.): On June 6, 1994, a consent decree

was entered resolving the CWA enforcement action against

the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

(CSDLAC). The United States and the State of California

sued in January 1992 to compel CSDLAC to achieve

secondary treatment at the Joint Water Pollution Control

Plant located in Carson, CA, and to address additional

intermittent violations of other permit conditions.

Under the terms of the consent decree, CSDLAC was

required to pay a civil penalty of $300,000 to the United

States and a penalty of $200,000 to the State of

RCRA

U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, Ltd., Estate of James

Campbell, Ipsco Inc. and Cominco Ltd. (D. Hawaii): On

August 2, 1994, the court entered the consent decree

signed by three of the four defendants in this case. The

decree provides for payment of $700,000 in penalties by

all settling defendants jointly. The decree also

provides that HWS will implement corrective action and

closure at the facilities at issue and the Estate will

annually survey its tenants concerning their compliance

with environmental laws and organize programs educating
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-64

its tenants concerning hazardous waste laws and

pollution prevention.

In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility, El Centro,

California: On August 29, 1994, EPA signed a CACO $2,687,982 in response costs and $3,670,274 in punitive

resolving an administrative complaint against the U.S. damages for NL Industries' failure to comply with a

Naval Air Facility in El Centro, CA, involving various CERCLA §106 order to clean up lead contamination at the

violations of the RCRA. Under the terms of the B&H Battery site in Norco, CA. The only other defendant,

settlement, the Navy will pay a penalty of $100,000 and property owner Peter Gull, had previously entered a

in addition will perform at the facility two SEPs settlement with the United States. In imposing the

relating to pollution prevention. The total cost of the penalty, the court found that NL did not have a

two SEPs is approximately $250,000. sufficient cause defense to the order because it "did not

U.S v. City of Los Angeles and U.S. v. Lockheed

Corporation (C.D. Calif.): On September 14, 1994, the

United States filed settlements in five industrial

pretreatment civil cases. The settlements totaled

$750,000 in civil penalties. The defendants were

Lockheed Corporation (an aerospace manufacturer),

Chevron, U.S.A. (an oil refiner), Teledyne Industries (a

computer chip manufacturer), Stainless Steel Products,

Inc. (an aerospace manufacturer), and Zero Corporation

(an aerospace manufacturer). All of the defendants

operate facilities in the greater Los Angeles area and

discharge into the City of Los Angeles sewer system. The

defendants had numerous violations of EPA's categorical

pretreatment standards, mostly for toxic metals, which

contributed to the City of Los Angeles' discharge of

toxics into Santa Monica Bay from its Hyperion Treatment

Plant.

U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, et al. (D. Haw.):

Hawaiian Western Steel operated a secondary steel

production plant in the Campbell Industrial Park in Ewa

Beach, Oahu, HI. The plant's emission control system

collected particulate matter from the furnace, thereby

generating "baghouse dust" which is an RCRA hazardous

waste due to high concentrations of lead and cadmium.

Approximately 43,500 tons of HWS' waste filled a 4.5-

acre on-site landfill. Three of the four named

defendants, including Hawaiian Western Steel signed a

consent decree which required them to pay $700,000 in

penalties for violating RCRA's permitting requirements

for storing and treating hazardous waste, and complete

closure of the landfill and on-site and off-site

corrective action at an estimated cost of over $5

million.

CERCLA

U.S. v. Peter Gull and NL Industries, Inc. (C.D. Calif.):

On April 12, 1994, the court signed a judgment approving

have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that

EPA's order was either invalid or that EPA's order was

arbitrary and capricious."

Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Federal Facilities Agreement:

On March 17, 1994, EPA, the State of Hawaii, and the U.S.

Navy signed the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) for

the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex CERCLA site. This

agreement contains several changes over prior FFAs,

including strengthened language on splitting stipulated

penalties with the State and a modified dispute

resolution process. Under the modified dispute

resolution process, only the Secretary of the Navy may

elevate disputes to the Administrator, and the parties

state their intention that such disputes will be limited

to issues of national significance.

U.S. v. Montana Refining Co. (9th Cir.): On August 17,

1994, the Ninth Circuit granted the United States'

appeal of the district court decision in this CERCLA cost

recovery case brought against C. Michael Wilwerding,

Poly-Carb, Inc., and Montana Refining Company in

connection with a removal action conducted at the

Poly-Carb facility in Wells, NV. Montana Refining sent

two shipments of toxic spent phenolic caustic to the

Poly-Carb facility, operated by Michael Wilwerding,

allegedly as "feedstock" for an untested recycling

operation. Montana Refining paid the costs of shipment

and did not have any arrangement with Mr. Wilwerding for

payment for the feedstock. The phenolic caustic

subsequently spilled. EPA incurred response costs of

$482,410 in cleaning up the spill after Montana Refining

failed to comply with an EPA order. The United States

subsequently brought a cost recovery case, the first

such action in Nevada.

In the Matter of Iron Mountain Mine: On April 22, 1994,

EPA issued a CERCLA §106 order to the current and
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-65

operators of the Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site, T.W. currently under construction to treat the three largest

Arman and Iron Mountain Mines Inc., and the former owners sources of acid mine drainage. This acid mine drainage

and operators Rhone-Poulenc Inc., requiring that they eventually enters the Sacramento River where it has been

construct new facilities and operate facilities responsible for fish kills and chronic adverse impacts

on an important fishery population, including a

commercial run and the winter run chinook salmon, an

endangered species. Iron Mountain Mine was identified

as the largest uncontrolled toxic point source in the

nation under the CWA §304(l) program and was one of the

first sites placed on the Superfund National Priorities

List.

U.S. v. Alcatel Information Systems, Inc. (D. Arizona):

On September 2, 1994, a civil consent decree for the

remedial design and remedial action at the Hassayampa

Landfill Superfund site ("Site") was lodged in the

court. The settlement requires 12 major settling

defendants to design, construct, and operate the remedy

selected in EPA's Record of Decision for the Site and to

reimburse EPA for all of its past and future response

costs at the Site. The twelve major settling defendants

are: Honeywell Inc.; Bull HN Information Systems, Inc.;

AlcatelNetwork Systems; Digital Equipment Corp.;

General Instrument Corp.; AT&T Corp.; Shell Oil Company;

Arizona Public Service Company; American National Can

Company; Intel Corporation; Reynolds Metals Company; and

Maricopa County, AZ (all of the major settling

defendants are generators except for Maricopa County,

which owned and operated the Site). The settlement also

provides for 74 de minimis corporate generators and 3

settling federal agencies (the U.S. Air Force, the

Veterans Administration and the U.S. Forest Service) to

resolve their generator liability at the Site by cashing

out to the twelve major settling defendants.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-66

REGION X

CLEAN AIR ACT

Alyeska Pipeline Services Company and ARCO Products: On

November4, 1993, the Regional Administrator entered a

CACO resolving the three administrative complaints

issued to Alyeska. The CACO assessed a final penalty of

$135,000 and incorporated the requirements of an

alternative monitoring plan (AMP) to be used at the pump

stations in lieu of the CEMS. Under the alternative

monitoringplan, Alyeska installed H2S treatment process

to remove H2S from the fuel gas at the pump stations. The

treatment, a dry chemical bed produced by SulfaTreat AlliedConstruction (D. Id.): On October 18, 1993, a

Company, will reduce SO2 emissions to virtually zero consent decree was entered in by the court resolving a

(from the existing approximately 120 ppm). On September complaint filed against Global Travel, the building

30, 1994, the CACO was modified to allow until October 8, owner, Jordon-Wilcomb Construction, the general

1994 for the SulfaTreat systems to be installed and to contractor; and Allied Construction, the demolition

require that the topping unit at Pump Station 8 be contractor, in October 1992 for violations of the

permanently shut down no later than March 31, 1995. asbestos NESHAP. The complaint had alleged violations

Normaand Frank Echevarria, d/b/a Echeco Environmental

Services: On December 27, 1993, EPA held that

respondents were strictly liable for violations of the

CAA and asbestos NESHAP, EPA need not prove that visible

emissions of asbestos occurred to prove violation of the

wetting requirements, EPA could rely on the observations

of inspectors to establish that asbestos is inadequately

wetted and that once the asbestos material has been

collectedand contained, the wetting requirements of

61.145 no longer apply. EPA ordered Echeco to pay a

penalty of $9,500.

Phillips Petroleum Company and AGI, Inc.: EPA filed an

administrativecase against these two companies alleging

they had violated the asbestos NESHAP wetting

requirements. After obtaining affidavits from Phillips

documenting that it had hired and paid a qualified

contractor (AGI) to perform the asbestos removal

properly and an independent third party to monitor the

contractor's work, EPA entered into a settlement

ordering AGI to pay a penalty of $16,500, and a

stipulation of dismissal of the claim against Phillips Association, Inc.: In late 1993, the United States filed

(at Phillips' and AGI's request). a partial consent decree resolving its claims against

Trans-AK Environmental Services & Construction Corp.,

Giddings Mortgage and Investment Company, and Neeser

Construction: In FY94, EPA issued and resolved an

administrative complaint against Giddings Mortgage and

InvestmentCompany, Neeser Construction, and Trans-Ak

Environmental Services & Construction Corp. The

complaint alleged violations of the asbestos NESHAP

regulations during renovation of the city hall in

downtown Anchorage, Alaska. The consent agreement

assesses a penalty of $40,000. In addition, Trans-Ak

agreed to develop and implement an internal asbestos

control program.

U.S. v. Global Travel, Jordan-Wilcomb Construction, and

of the notice provision of the asbestos NESHAP and three

work practice requirements during renovation of a

building in Boise, Idaho. In the consent decree, the

Defendants agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty and to

injunctive relief.

U.S. v. Zemlicka and Davis: On October 20, 1993, two

consent decrees were entered which resolved an asbestos

NESHAPcase in Idaho. The defendants were the owner of

a building and the demolition contractor that he hired to

demolish the building. A preliminary environmental

assessment prepared for the owner showed the likelihood

of asbestos-containing material in the building, yet he

failed to point this out to the demolition contractor.

The contractor hired more than a dozen itinerant workers

who had no respiratory protection while working. The

penalties paid were $25,000 (building owner) and $1,000

(contractor),which reflect reductions for inability to

pay. The injunctive relief is valued at $4,000 to

$6,000.

U.S. v. Martech USA, Hobbs Industries, Chugach Electric

Martech USA in this asbestos NESHAP case. Martech had

previously escrowed the $85,000 penalty, which the court

then released to the United States after Martech filed

for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November 1993.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-67

The consent decree settled claims arising out of in the bringing of criminal charges which were resolved

asbestos removal work performed by Martech USA, Inc. at by the Plea Agreement.

a decommissioned power plant in Anchorage, Alaska in

1990. The first consent decree, entered in November Kenco Marine: An order was issued for removal of fill

1991, resolved claims against Martech's co-defendants, material placed in the Duwamish River at Seattle, WA.

HobbsIndustries and Chugach Electric Association, Inc. The violator, Tom Kent (d/b/a Kenco Marine), placed

U.S. v. Hagadone Hospitality Co.: On August 13, 1993, bearing river which is currently the focus of watershed

the United States filed a complaint against the Hagadone restoration efforts. EPA assumed the lead for

Hospitality Company of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, alleging enforcement from the Corps of Engineers and, following

asbestos NESHAP violations under the CAA. At the same negotiations and issuance of a removal order,

time the US lodged a consent decree in which Hagadone established compliance by fill removal and site

agreed to a penalty of $48,000 and injunctive relief. restorationincluding revegetation. Significantly, the

The violations occurred during the summer of 1990 when site is adjacent to a coastal America restoration

Hagadone was demolishing buildings to build a large project which was occurring simultaneously.

resort. The consent decree was entered on November 30,

1993. City of Ocean Shores, Washington: At the request of the

CLEAN WATER ACT

Wesley M. Sherer: An order was issued requiring removal

of fill and bulkhead from the Stehekin River at Stehekin,

WA. Fill had been put in by an individual for bank

protection of private property within the boundary of

the Stehekin National Recreation Area and in a

designated National Scenic River. This settlement

agreement provided for complete removal of the fill,

restoration of the site, provision of a buffer,

continuing negotiations for acquisition of a

conservation easement on the property, and an

understanding by the county to require future compliance

with state shoreline protection measures. Fill removal

was begun in the spring of 1994 and completed in

November.

U.S. v. Steve Burnett and Dean Schrader (W.D. Wash.): In

September 1994 a Plea Agreement and Judgment was entered

which provided for establishment of a Trust Agreement.

A Trustee was established to receive, hold, administer,

and distribute more than $150,000 "to preserve, protect

and restore wetlands in the Battle Ground area for the

benefit of the community's citizens." The plea to the

misdemeanor charge resulted from investigation of a

citizen complaint of filling of wetlands adjacent to the

Salmon River near Battle Ground, WA. Compliance was

initially established with a fill removal order. The

Defendants subsequently refilled the same area, again

without benefit of a Corps of Engineers permit.

Additional investigation by the Corps and EPA resulted

fill, including concrete rubble, in an anadromous fishCorps of Engineers, the EPA assumed the lead for

enforcement against the City of Ocean Shores for placing

fill in interdunal wetlands adjacent to the Pacific

Ocean. Following difficult negotiations, the city

removed the unauthorized fill, replanted the site, and

restored an adjacent site which had long been degraded by

vehicle traffic. The compliance action resulted in a net

gain of wetlands functions and values.

Rodger Forni: Individual (d/b/a Lighthouse Inn) entered

a settlement agreement which provided for creation and

restoration of interdunal wetlands adjacent to the

Pacific Ocean at Ocean Shores, WA. EPA assumed the lead

for enforcement at the request of the Corps of Engineers.

Negotiations coordinated with the State of Washington

resulted in wetlands creation, restoration (at a 2:1

ratio) and the deeding to the state of dunal wetlands and

beach adjacent to a public access and state park in an

accreting coastal reach. Educational signs indicating

the significance of the wetlands were also erected by the

violator.

Martin Nygaard: Repeat violator attempted to drain

approximately 15 acres of freshwater marsh near

Warrenton, OR, by ditching. EPA entered into a joint

enforcement action with the State of Oregon Division of

State Lands resulting in the complete restoration of the

wetlands as well as a state fine.

Rogge Mills: The mill in eastern Oregon was responsible

for unauthorized placement of woodwaste in approximately

five acres of wetland in violation of the CWA and two
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-68

state statutes. EPA assumed the Federal lead and in

conjunctionwith the State of Oregon obtained fill

removal from most of the wetlands as well as mitigation

for remaining fill.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT):

Unauthorized filling of several acres of wetland in

conjunctionwith a major highway project in western

Washington led to the halting of construction (at a cost

of several million dollars) and an agreement by WSDOT to

have middle and upper management undergo 404 training

sponsored by the Corps of Engineers, EPA and the

Washington State Department of Ecology.

Northlake Shipyards: EPA, DOJ and the state negotiated

a complex settlement arrangement with Northlake and the

bankruptcy trustee for Unimar for cleanup of the

contaminated site. Under that arrangement, Northlake

entered into a prospective purchaser agreement with the

state that creates a trust fund to pay for remediation of

existing sediment contamination and resolves

Northlake's liability under the state's Superfund law.

EPAagreed to terminate the existing CWA consent decree.

Northlake will pay up to $1.1 million into the trust

fund. This will pay for the cleanup contemplated by the

original CWA decree.

City of Tacoma: The United States settled a CWA judicial

action against the City of Tacoma, WA, for secondary

treatment violations. Settlement includes payment of a

$525,000 penalty and a SEP valued at $100,000 for the

sewage treatment plant hookup of low income housing

which currently discharges untreated wastewater

directly to Commencement Bay.

Arctic Fisheries: The United States settled this CWA

lawsuit (part of a Region X enforcement initiative)

against the Alaska seafood processor for $725,000 for

the unlawful discharge of fish wastes.

U.S. v. Stanley C. Rybachek: The United States settled

the government's long-standing case against two Alaska

placer miners, for a $15,000 penalty and dismissal of

outstanding litigation the Rybacheks had filed against

the government and individual employees in the Court of

Claims and Alaska District Court, requesting millions of

dollars in damages.

RCRA

U.S. v. Robert and Geneva Stobaugh(W.D. Wash.): The

State of Alaska notified EPA of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy

action filed by the Washington State owners of two

Anchorage service stations with documented petroleum

releases. The State requested EPA assistance in

obtaining funds from the bankruptcy estate to clean up

the sites. After receiving the Region's expedited

referral on December 10, 1993, DOJ filed a protective

proof of claim with the bankruptcy court for the

estimated cost of investigating and cleaning up the

contamination at the two sites ($427,000 to $779,000).

In March 1994 an agreed order was entered by the

bankruptcy court placing about $39,477, the funds

remainingafter payment of taxes and administration

fees, into an environmental cleanup trust account to be

used to remove the leaking tanks and begin investigation

of the extent of contamination and cleanup.

U.S. v. R.H. Bowles, Inc. and Central Marketing, Inc.

(E.D. Wash.): Case involved two closed service stations

on the Yakima Indian Reservation in Toppenish and

Wapato, WA. On May 27, 1994, EPA sent a referral to DOJ

to file an objection to the trustee's intent to abandon

these two properties as a part of the liquidation of

these two corporations because petroleum contamination

had been identified at the Toppenish site and the tanks

had not been properly closed at either facility. As a

result of the objection filed, the trustee withdrew his

notice of abandonment and is currently in the process of

selling the properties to a third party who has agreed to

remove the abandoned tanks, conduct site assessments,

and undertake remedial action at both properties as

needed.

Alaska Railroad Company: In a settlement reached

between EPA and the Alaska Railroad Company (ARRC) in

April 1994 ARRC agreed to three Supplemental

Environmental Projects (SEPs), which included the

following: 1) installation of three state-of-the-art

hazardous waste accumulation buildings to temporarily

store the hazardous waste and used oil ARRC generates at

its Anchorage, Alaska, repair and maintenance facility;

2) conducting an audit of ARRC's waste generation and

management practices and implementing the findings of

the audit; and 3) funding and sponsoring a series of used

oil management and compliance seminars in Alaska for the

benefit of similarly-regulated industries and the

general public. These seminars will assist the public
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-69

and the regulated community in Alaska to comply with significance of the violations and to force Fort

EPA's newly-promulgated used oil regulations codified at Wainwright to come into compliance with RCRA

40 CFR Part 279. These SEPs were proposed by ARRC during requirements.

settlement negotiations. Implementation of the SEPs

will allow ARRC to discover and implement changes in its U.S. Army, Fort Richardson: On April 29, 1994, Region X

waste management practices in order to prevent improper issuedan administrative complaint and compliance order

management of those wastes. It was improper management against the U.S. Army, Fort Richardson, Alaska, for

which led to the violations alleged in EPA's complaint. $1,337,332. In the order, EPA alleges twelve violations

When the complaint was originally issued in 1992, EPA ofthe RCRA requirements, including illegal storage of

proposed penalties of $1,829,574. The case was settled hazardous waste; failure to make hazardous waste

for a civil penalty of $685,999, with $274,400 of the determinations; inadequate closure, contingency and

penalty being suspended and deferred pending ARRC's waste analysis plans; and failure to obtain detailed

successful completion of the three SEPs mentioned above. physical and chemical analysis. As with Fort

Thesettlement also requires ARRC to pay a $411,599 cash Wainwright, Region X and the State of Alaska have

penalty, with quarterly payments over two years, plus addressed Fort Richardson's noncompliance over the past

interest. This case was one of the cases filed four years with notices of noncompliance, informal and

nationally by EPA as part of the 1992 RCRCA "Illegal formal outbriefings and through a Federal Facility

operations Initiative." Compliance Agreement. Because these past efforts have

Boeing Company: Seattle, Washington and Portland, action to force Fort Richardson to come into compliance

Oregon: In January of 1994, the Boeing Company entered with RCRA.

into two separate, very similar administrative orders on

consent, pursuant to Section 3008(h) of RCRA, to take

corrective action at its aircraft

manufacturing/assembly facilities in Seattle and

Portland. The orders obligate Boeing to implement

specified interim measures and to evaluate and assess

opportunities for additional interim measures while

implementingthe orders. Boeing will also perform RCRA

FacilityInvestigations and Corrective Measures Studies

for the facilities, and following Final EPA Corrective

Action Decision(s), Boeing will implement the selected

correctivemeasures, subject to a right to withdraw

consent for the implementation of any specific final

corrective measure(s).

U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Alaska: On April 29, 1994,

Region X issued an administrative complaint and

compliance order against the Department of the Army,

Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The order alleges six

violations of RCRA requirements, including illegal

storageof hazardous waste and failure to make hazardous

waste determinations. Region X and the state of Alaska

have tried through both informal outbriefings and

through a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement to

address Fort Wainwright's failure to achieve compliance.

The Region decided to use the enhanced enforcement

authority of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992

to assess a penalty of $659,450 both to underscore the

not been successful, Region X is taking this enforcement

CERCLA

Commencement Bay – South Tacoma Channel: Well 12A, a

municipal well in Tacoma, WA, was contaminated by

organic chemicals from property presently owned by the

Time Oil company.

Evidence uncovered in the Time Oil case indicated that

the Boeing Company and the military (Army and Air Force)

were potential generators at the site. DOJ filed U.S. v.

Boeing Company in 1992; Boeing then countersued based on

the possible 
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-70

military contribution. The parties settled in spring

1994 and a consent decree was lodged in December with the

following terms. The Boeing Company will pay EPA $2.3

million to settle claims related to its alleged

liability. Boeing has agreed to drop its claim against

the United States for reimbursement of past and future

cleanup costs which Boeing is required to pay EPA. The

military has agreed to pay EPA $7.7 million to settle

claims related to their alleged liability.

Bunker Hill: In a consent decree referred in March 1994

and entered by the court in November, EPA settled with

six companies who owned or operated mines upstream from

this 21-square-mile site in Shoshone County, Idaho. The

site, which includes five communities, was contaminated

by past mining and smelting activities. The respondents

will continue the residential soil cleanups that were

begun several years ago under an Agreement on consent

using removal authorities. The estimated value of the

work to be done by the respondents is $40 million. EPA

has more recently settled with other PRPs for this site,

and has undertaken Fund-lead cleanup actions at the

Bunker Hill smelter complex, for which the owneroperators are bankrupt.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-71

FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE

RCRA/FFCA

RCRA/FFCA Penalty Order–Coast Guard, Kodiak, Alaska

Facility: On July 14, 1994, EPA Region X issued a

complaint against the U.S. Coast Guard Kodiak Support

Center, Kodiak, Alaska, seeking $1,018,552 in penalties.

The complaint resulted from two major violations of the

RCRA: failure to properly monitor groundwater in an area

where cleaning solvents had been dumped on the ground,

and the illegal storage of hazardous waste without a

proper permit from EPA. The complaint was the first

action brought against a civilian Federal agency under

the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (FFCA), an

amendment to RCRA which allows EPA to assess civil

penalties against federal agencies in the same way that

it does against private companies.

Presidio of San Francisco: Region IX filed a complaint

and citations May 9, 1994, against the U.S. Army

Garrison, Presidio of San Francisco for violating

federal environmental laws and proposed a penalty of

$556,500 for the hazardous waste violations.

Besides paying the penalty, the complain charging

hazardous waste violations required the Army to inspect

each building on the Presidio for hazardous wastes and to

remove all such wastes currently stored there by July 1,

1994.

Schofield Barracks: Region IX assessed $543,900 in

penalties under the RCRA §3008(a), April 21, 1994,

against Schofield Barracks, a U.S. Army facility located

in Wahiawa, HI. Schofield Barracks is headquarters for

the 25th Infantry Division and 45th Support Group. The

facility operates numerous motorpools and maintenance

shops that generate wastes such as waste paint, waste

solvents, and contaminated waste oils which are listed

as hazardous waste under RCRA.

Norfolk Naval Shipyard: EPA Region III issued RCRA §7003

emergency orders March 25, 1994 (traditionally used in

thehazardous/solid waste area) requiring the Department

of the Navy and the private operator of the municipal

waste incinerator at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard to

address air emissions. The order is designed to address

the dioxin emissions in the short term.

As a result of the Navy's efforts following the order, a

June 1994 stack test indicated that dioxin emissions

have been reduced by 95 percent from one of the four

units at the municipal waste incinerator. Region III and

the Navy are moving to the other three units and hope to

accomplish similar results.

YorktownNaval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia:

EPA, the Navy, and the Commonwealth of Virginia reached

settlement on an interagency agreement (IAG) for the

NavalWeapons Station at Yorktown, VA. The Yorktown

Naval Weapons Station is a 10,624 acre installation

located in York and James City Counties and the City of

Newport News. Hazardous substances and other

contaminants of concern detected among 14 sites at

WPNSTA-Yorktown included arsenic, cadmium, chlordane,

ethylbenzene, explosives, heptachlor, hexavalent

chromium,lead, mercury, PAHS, PCBS, phenols, TCE, TCA,

1,2-DCE, thallium, toluene, and zinc. EPA conducted an

RCRASolid Waste Management Unit Investigation at the

WPNSTA, and issued a final report in December 1992. The

final report identified 94 areas at the WPNSTA that

require additional investigation under RCRA. Of the 94

identified areas, 10 areas will be deferred to the

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. The agreement

requires the Navy to determine the nature and extent of

contamination at the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station. In

addition, should any remedial action be necessary, the

Navy will perform it.

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division,

Dahlgren, Virginia: EPA Region III, the Navy, and the

Commonwealth of Virginia reached settlement on an

interagency agreement (IAG) for the Naval Surface

Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, VA. The

agreement requires the Navy to determine the nature and

extent of contamination at NSWC-Dahlgren. In addition,

should any remedial action be necessary, the Navy will

perform it.

Fort Dix, New Jersey: Region II issued a Notice of

Violation July 15, 1994, to Fort Dix, NJ, for a CWA

violation. The Army violated the interim limits on

biological oxygen demand contained in the order on

consent EPA-CWA-II-91-95 and the final limits of the
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-72

facility's NJPDES permit. Under the order, the Army will U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, Puerto Rico:

be responsible for the completion of an environmentally EPA settled a dispute with the Navy at USNS-Roosevelt

beneficial project (EBP) to offset the effects of the Roads in Puerto Rico. The dispute was over a revised

violation. The sum of the EBP due for the period in consent order under the NPDES program for violations of

question, January 1994 through March 1994, is $4,000.an existing Federal Facility Compliance Agreement

(FFCA). The CWA matter in dispute covered violations of

the effluent parameters of the facility's NPDES permit

and interim limits of an existing FFCA, as well as for

overflows of the sewage collection system. A proposed

order was originally issued on February 12, 1993. EPA

has issued approximately three NOVs to the facility

since 1990 under the CAA and the CWA (SPCC), and a

Warning Letter pursuant to Subtitle I of RCRA (UST, all

of which have been resolved or are on track to be

resolved.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-73

OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S. v. Atlantic Richfield Company and Snyder Oil

Corporation (D. Wyo.): EPA settled violations of the

provisions of Part C-PSD of Air Quality PSD of the CAA,

at the ARCO Riverton (Wyoming) Dome Gas Plant. This

consent decree provides that the defendants pay a civil

penalty of $875,000, the largest CAA settlement in

Region VIII's history.

U.S.v. W.R. Grace Company (D. Mont.): EPA resolved an

action against WR Grace for alleged violations of the

work practice standards for demolition and renovation

activities where the building contains asbestos. The

alleged violations took place during demolition

activities at Grace's vermiculite mill in Libby, MT. The

$510,000 penalty paid by Grace in settlement of this

action is the largest paid in settlement of an Asbestos

NESHAP case in the Region and second nationally. In

addition to the penalty, Grace also agreed to engage in

a specific compliance program at 29 of its facilities

across the nation as part of the settlement.

U.S. v. ICI International, Inc.: An administrative

settlement agreement was executed by EPA on April 26,

1994with the respondent, resolving numerous violations

of the CAA committed over the past several years. The

respondent is an importer of motor vehicles, who was

licensed by EPA to convert motor vehicles that do not

meet Federal emission requirements into complying

vehicles. The settlement agreement required that the

respondent lose its EPA import license for a year, hire

an EPA compliance manager, and pay $10,000 in civil

penalties. This case was the first time that an importer

lost its license to import cars under EPA's motor vehicle

imports program.

U.S. v. JBA Motorcars, Inc. and Dr. Jacob Ben-Ari (S.D.

Fla.): On December 15, 1993, judgment was entered

against the defendant by the court, resolving numerous

violations committed over the past several years. The

defendant was an importer of motor vehicles, who was

licensed by EPA to convert motor vehicles that do not

meet Federal emission requirements into complying

vehicles. The court ordered the defendant to pay

$196,000 in civil penalties. This was the largest

penalty ever assessed under EPA's motor vehicle imports

program.

U.S. v. Daniel Rosendahl (S.D. Tex.): On July 13, 1994,

judgment was entered against the defendant by the court

for $120,000. The district court found the defendant

liable for importing 12 disassembled Citroen 2CVs that

did meet Federal motor vehicle emission standards in

violation of the CAA. Because the defendant had imported

the cars as parts, instead of as whole cars, this case

helped close a potential loophole in the CAA related to

the importation of incomplete automobiles.

U.S. v. Ken Ball and Phil McCreery (W.D. Mo.): A consent

decree was formally entered October 17, 1994. Ball, a

scrap dealer, had sold McCreery, a muffler shop owner,

used, untested automobile catalytic converters to be

used as replacement parts on vehicles needing new

converters, in violation of section 203 of the CAA. An

improper or non-functioning catalytic converter can

result in 400 to 800 greater greater emissions than would

occur from the same vehicle with a proper converter. A

complaint had been filed on September 29, 1993, and

alleged up to 39 separate violations of the tampering

prohibition of section 203 of the Act. Both Defendants

made a showing of financial hardship. Based on that, the

United States settled with Ball for $12,500 and with

McCreery for $10,000.

TSCA

Townof Wallingford, Connecticut: Wallingford will test

all town-owned transformers for PCBs and, at a cost of

over a million dollars over the next 3 years, will remove

all that were previously improperly disposed and pay a

cash penalty of $40,050, pursuant to this TSCA

settlement negotiated by Tom Olivier.

Cressona Aluminum Company PCB Cleanup: The United

States settled a judicial case against the Cressona

Aluminum Company addressing the improper use, storage

and disposal of PCBs at the company's facility in

Cressona, PA. Cressona manufactures various extruded

aluminum parts at its 115 acre facility on the bank of

the west branch of the Schuylkill River and high
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-74

concentrations of PCBs were previously used in the Imperial Holly Corporation: Imperial Holly Corporation

company's hydraulic equipment. will pay a $7,490 penalty and perform a $224,700 SEP

EPA's complaint sought injunctive relief under TSCA §§ pursuant to a settlement with EPA of a TSCA case

6& 7 to address PCBs that presented an imminent hazard. involving for PCB registration, record keeping,

The settlement requires Cressona to clean up the PCB inspection and disposal violations.

contamination at the facility. The company will

decontaminate all plant equipment, including the

hydraulic and waste water treatment systems, and where

necessary, remove concrete floors up to 1.5" depth.

Plant outfalls will undergo a Toxics Reduction

Evaluation to eliminate PCB discharge into the

Schuylkill River. All PCB-contaminated debris will be

disposed of in a proper manner.

USS Cabot/Dedalo: EPA learned on June 8, 1994 that the

owners of the USS Cabot/Dedalo, a retired Navy warship,

proposed to export the ship, which contains high levels

of PCBs in its wiring. The presence of PCBs at levels

over 50 ppb makes the ship subject to TSCA §6(e).

On June 27, 1994, EPA learned that the Foundation had a

contract to sell the vessel for scrap and salvage to a

company in the Republic of India and had requested export

clearancefrom the U.S. Customs Service. EPA requested

that Customs deny clearance until the Foundation could

comply with TSCA §6(e). In response, on July 11, 1994,

the Foundation sought a TRO in the New Orleans U.S.

District Court, alleging that EPA is without statutory

or other authority to instruct Customs to restrict the

export of this vessel. EPA requested and DOJ has filed

an action seeking a TRO to halt the export. DOJ has

submitted a legal brief in opposition to the

Foundation's motion as well as a complaint on behalf of

EPA.

Port of New Orleans: The Port of New Orleans will remove

and dispose of PCB transformers, capacitors and

contaminated pads as part of a SEP under the terms of a

September12, 1994, CACO which EPA negotiated with the

Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans for

violations of the TSCA PCB requirements. The Port also

will pay a civil penalty of $8,520.

Sunshine Mining Company: EPA cited Sunshine Mining

Companyfor improper disposal of PCBs both on the surface

and underground at the Eureka Mine in Utah. Alleging 16

TSCA PCB counts, the proposed penalty is $109,500.

involving removal and replacement of PCB equipment

EPCRA

General Chemical Corporation: On July 26, 1993, there

was a release of approximately 7800 pounds of sulfur

trioxide, an EPCRA extremely hazardous substance, from

a railroad tank car located at the General Chemical

facility in Richmond, CA—an area where environmental

equity is of critical concern.

On September 29, 1993, EPA issued an administrative

complaint to the General Chemical Corporation (GCC) with

proposed penalties of $65,625 for violations of CERCLA

Section 103 and EPCRA Section 304(a) and (c). These

violations involved GCC's failure to immediately notify

the NRC and the SERC of the release and, its failure to

provide adequate written follow-up reports to the SERC

as soon as practicable. On February 11, 1994, only 61⁄2

months from the date of the release event, EPA closed the

case with an executed consent agreement and consent

order (CACO). The CACO required GCC to pay 100 percent

of the $65,625 penalty proposed in the complaint and

requiredthem to certify that it had come into compliance

with CERCLA Section 103 and all Sections of EPCRA.

Alaska Pulp Corporation: In Region X's first multimedia

settlement, reached on February 17, 1994, Alaska Pulp

Corporation (APC) will pay cash penalties of $64,600 for

TSCA violations, $45,650 for TRI violations, and $27,068

for RCRA violations. The settlement also requires APC to

spend at least $129,200 to dispose of PCB transformers at

its Sitka facility; to spend a minimum of $83,000 to

implement a "Nutrient Pollution Prevention Project" and

a "Caustic Wash Reuse Project" at its Sitka facility; and

to pay up to an additional $10,062 in cash if it does not

expend at least $40,250 more on the Nutrient Pollution

Prevention and Caustic Wash Reuse Projects (over and

above the initial $83,000).

Trail Wagons: EPA inspected Trail Wagons, a Yakima, WA,

van conversion operation, and found that it had used

1,1,1-trichloroethane and styrene in amounts exceeding

the Toxics Release Inventory reporting thresholds. EPA

filed an administrative complaint on October 22, 1992
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-75

for $51,000. The company submitted sales data Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc.: Negotiations

supporting penalty reduction because of inability to conducted during FY94 have led to settlement of EPA's

pay, and proposed two SEPs which consisted of a solvent July 8, 1993 complaint against Argent Chemical

recycling unit and high efficiency spray equipment, at Laboratories, Inc. for sale of unregistered pesticides,

a total cost of $7,872, resulting in a final penalty of sale of pesticides which compositions differed from

$7,314 which was paid in cash pursuant to a settlement those described on the product's Confidential Statement

entered on January 24, 1994. of Formula, export of products without required

Northwest Castings: Northwest Castings, Seattle, WA, a has agreed to pay a penalty of 50,000, which was reduced

manufacturer of steel castings which contain chromium, by ability-to-pay considerations, for 21 violations.

nickel and manganese, was inspected by the EPA on June

10, 1993, The inspection revealed that the company

exceededthe TRI reporting threshold for manganese. An

administrative complaint seeking penalties of $14,200

was issued. After settlement negotiations, the company

was assessed a penalty of $9,940, of which $4,970, was

paid in cash, and the balance was deferred as credit for

an SEP involving installation of a baghouse to reduce air

particulate emissions.

FIFRA

Pinnacle Agricultural Technologies: A tip and complaint equipment, failure to maintain adequate aisle space,

led EPA to ask the Arizona State Department of failure to maintain closure of hazardous waste

Agriculture to inspect two facilities suspected of containers, and failure to properly prepare several

distributing unregistered growth regulator products. hazardous waste manifests. Corrections of these

Pinnacle Agricultural Technologies was charged with multiple statutory violations will provide benefits to

three counts of distributing the unregistered product the public health and environment.

"Boost" to three companies in Mexico without obtaining

a foreign purchaser acknowledgement. The proposed civil U.S. v. Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant: In

penaltyis $13,500. Westmark Ag Group was charged with responseto an EPA administrative order and community

distributing the unregistered product "BIOBOOST" within concerns about dioxin emissions the city of Columbus

the United States and to Mexico without a foreign agreed to shut down the Columbus Solid Waste Reduction

purchaseracknowledgement. The proposed penalty for the Plant in Columbus, OH, an electricity generating

two violations of §12(a)(1)(A) is $7,000. facility for the city which operates six refuse and coalAccuventure, Inc.: Criminal and Civil Enforcement

Coordination: EPA issued an administrative complaint on

October 9, 1992, against Accuventure, Inc., alleging 13

violations for distribution of unregistered pesticides

and one violation for an unregistered establishment.

After Accuventure failed to respond to EPA's motion for

accelerated decision on the issues of liability and

penalty, or to Administrative Law Judge Frank

Vanderhayden'sorder to show cause, Vanderhayden issued

an order granting EPA's motion for accelerated decision

with regard to both liability and penalty of $70,000.

The penalty, which was due August 3, 1994, has not been

paid and EPA is filing a collection action with the

Attorney General.

bilingual labeling, and pesticide misuse. The company

MULTIMEDIA CASES

Allied Tube & Conduit: On September 30, 1994, EPA issued

a multimedia administrative complaint against Allied

Tube & Conduit for alleged violations of EPCRA and RCRA.

In the EPCRA inspection, the company failed to report

toxic chemical releases to the air in 1989. The RCRA

inspection revealed numerous violations, including

failure to properly mark containers, failure to record

weekly inspections, failure to conduct personnel

training, failure to adequately maintain fire protection

fired boilers. EPA interest began after numerous

citizen complaints about air emissions. EPA negotiated

an AOC under RCRA §7003 to require the facility to design

systems to achieve the lowest dioxin emissions due to be

required by EPA's municipal combustion regulations.

Subsequently, several circumstances arose which

affected the proposed AOC. First, citizens made

numerous comments about the AOC at a public meeting.

Second, a meeting was held between 
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-76

EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry on June 23, 1994, to discuss conducting human

health evaluations of the area surrounding the facility.

Third, two recent Supreme Court decisions may result in

the facility greatly changing its operations. Then, on

September 9, 1994, EPA issued a unilateral

administrative order pursuant to RCRA §7003 requiring

essentially the same injunctive relief as the AOC. In

response, the city decided to authorize closure of the

facility.

U.S. v. Southern Pacific: A second consent decree

resulted in a multimedia settlement that will resolve

the liability of a number of parties under a number of

statutes (including Superfund, RCRA, CWA, FIFRA, and

others) arising out of the 1991 train derailment and

spill of metam sodium into the Sacramento River in

California. The spill created a toxic plume which killed

aquatic life along a long stretch of the river.

U.S. v. Texas Eastern (S.D., Tex.): On June 16, 1994,

the Second Modification to the Texas Eastern Federal

consent decree was lodged by the court. The modification

incorporatesthe PCB and mercury cleanup provisions of

the settlement negotiated between Texas Eastern and the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania into the federal decree and

also allows the Agency to consider off-site remediation

workplans on a case-by-case basis for all Texas Eastern

sites located in 14 states. To date, 18 compressor

station sites have been remediated pursuant to the

federal consent decree. Six additional compressor

station sites will be remediated in 1994, as well as 36

Off-Site Equipment Area Locations in Pennsylvania.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-77

OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT

U.S. v. Hartford Associates (D. Md.): The court requirements of the CWA's criminal provisions. A jury

sentencedHartford Associates, a New Jersey partnership convicted the two plant managers, Weitzenhoff and

engagedin property development, on October 7, 1993, to Mariani, of six felony counts. The judge sentenced

pay a $100,000 fine and to grant a conservation easement Weitzenhoff to 21 months and Mariani to 33 months in

onmore than 100 acres of wetlands for violating the CWA. prison. On August 3, 1993, the Ninth Circuit affirmed

Hartford, a limited partnership based in Berlin, NJ, the convictions. The Court agreed with the District

pled guilty to one count of negligently discharging Court that the felony provisions of the CWA do not

dredged or fill material without a permit in wetlands require proof that the defendants knew that their

located on a 375-acre tract of land the partnership owns conduct violated the NPDES permit. The defendants then

near Elkton, Maryland. Under the sentence imposed by requested that the Ninth Circuit rehear the case en banc.

Judge Nickerson, the partnership must pay one third of On August 8, 1994, the Ninth Circuit denied the request

the $100,000 fine immediately and the remaining portion andslightly modified its original opinion. The Supreme

over a 2-year period of probation. The conservation Court denied the defendant writ of certiorari on January

easement must become effective within 30 days. The 23, 1995.

easement will effectively restrict further development

of a large portion of the property.

U.S. v. Penn Hills (W.D. Penn.): Rejecting pleas of

municipal poverty and taxpayer hardship, a federal

judge, on September 8, 1994, sentenced the Municipality

of Penn Hills, Allegheny County, PA, to 5 years probation

and a $150,000 fine for illegally disposing of sewage

sludge and other pollutants from three of its sewage

treatment plants in violation of its NPDES permit and the

CWA. On July 8, 1994, Penn Hills pled guilty to a three

count information charging it with failing to remove and

knowingly illegally disposing of sewage sludge and other

pollutants in violation of the CWA from the three plants.

U.S. v. Reilly: Defendant William P. Reilly, a shipping

company executive, was charged with a violation of the

Ocean Dumping Act, 33 U.S.C. §1411(a), for the knowing

discharge of approximately 11,000 tons of incinerator

ash from the ship Khian Sea, a bulk cargo ship, into the

Atlantic and Indian Oceans. On appeal, the convictions

of Reilly and his codefendant, John Patrick Dowd, which

included false declaration charges under 18 U.S.C.

§1623(a) were affirmed. Issues relating to defendant

Reilly's knowledge of the Ocean Dumping Act's permit

requirements were not appealed.

U.S. v. Wietzenhoff: Michael Weitzenhoff and Thomas

Mariani appealed their felony convictions for conspiracy

and knowing violations of the CWA. The decision by the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit presents a

highly favorable precedent concerning the knowledge

U.S. v. Laughlin, 10 F.3rd 961 (2d Cir. 1993), cert.

denied, 114 S.Ct. 1649 (1994): The defendant, an owner

of a railroad tie treating business, was convicted after

trial for knowingly disposing of hazardous waste without

a permit in violation of RCRA and for failing to report

the release of a hazardous substance in violation of

CERCLA. The court held that the RCRA provision

prohibiting knowing disposal of a hazardous waste

without a permit, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), requires

only that a defendant have a general awareness that he is

performing acts proscribed by the statute, and that the

trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury

that the government had to prove the defendant knew that

the waste was identified or listed under RCRA. The court

further held that under section 6928(d)(2)(A), the

governmentdoes not have to prove that the defendant was

aware of the lack of a permit to dispose of hazardous

waste. Consistent with the RCRA ruling the court also

found that section 9603(a) of CERCLA does not require

proof of knowledge of regulatory requirements, but only

that the defendant be aware of his act. Thus, the trial

court did not err when it failed to instruct the jury

that the government must prove that the defendant knew

the release of the hazardous substance violated the

provisions of CERCLA.

U.S.v. Advance Plating Works, Inc., et al. (S.D. Ind.):

Advance Plating Works, Inc., an electroplating and metal

finishing shop located in Indianapolis, IN, was fined,

and its owner and president, Eugene Doughty, was

sentencedto jail and fines, on October 8, 1993. The
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-78

defendants engaged in the tampering of samples and incarceration, 100 hours community service, and 3 years

illegal discharges of company wastes into the probation. Kenneth Allen Baber, former plant engineer,

Indianapolis sewer system under the CWA. Doughty sought was sentenced to 3 months incarceration, 3 years

to conceal his CWA violations by tampering with probation and 100 hours community service. The company

discharge samples which were being taken in order to received a $45,000 fine. Bates, Baber, and the

determine compliance. Advance Plating also illegally corporation had pleaded guilty to two counts each of

stored and disposed of hazardous wastes at its violating pretreatment standards in the discharge of

facilities without a permit to do so. Doughty was acidic wastewater into the Simi Valley Sanitation

sentenced to 12 months in jail, and ordered to pay a fine District POTW.

of$3,000 and restitution of $5,165. Advance Plating was

sentenced to 3 years probation, and was ordered to pay a U.S. v. Giacomo Catucci (D. R.I.): Giacomo Catucci,

fine of $200,000 with $100,000 suspended. former president of Post-Tron, Inc., a computer software

U.S. v. Carlo Arco and Automatic Plating Company, Inc.

(D. Conn.): Carlo Arco was sentenced to 15 months in

prison for attempting to cover up the release of sodium

cyanide from the company's Bridgeport, CT, facility.

The June 24, 1994, sentencing followed the March 16,

1994,conviction of Arco and Automatic Plating Co., Inc.

on one count of failing to report the release of a

hazardous substance under the CERCLA and one count of

knowinglyintroducing pollutants to the Bridgeport sewer

system in violation of federal CWA categorical

pretreatment standards.

U.S. v. AT&T and Harry J. Kring (E.D. Penn.): Harry J.

Kring was sentenced to 3 years probation, 6 months of

home confinement, and a $5,000 fine stemming from his

plea of guilty to one count of negligent violation of the

CWA and one count of making false statements to the EPA

and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Resources. Kring pleaded guilty to these charges on

March 3, 1994. In a related case, AT&T pleaded guilty to

a one count information charging the company with

negligently discharging pollutants in violation of its

NPDES permit limitations. The company was fined

$175,000. Although Kring knew that AT&T's internal

laboratory conducted monitoring in addition to the

outside laboratory, he failed to incorporate all the

analyticalinformation and the DMRs. Had Kring reported

all the analytical results, the effluent from the air

stripping tower would have been reported in violation of

the effluent limitations on numerous occasions.

U.S. v. Richard Vernon Bates, et al. (C.D. Calif.): On

April11, 1994, Richard Vernon Bates was sentenced for

knowing violations of the CWA's Pretreatment Standards.

Bates, former vice president and general manager of

Travelin'West Textiles (also known as Melody Knitting

Mills, Inc.), Simi Valley, CA, was sentenced to 5 months

company, was sentenced on February 15, 1994, to 27 months

in prison for the unlawful disposal of polychlorinated

biphenols (PCBs) and failing to report the release of a

hazardous substance into the environment. Catucci was

convicted on October 22, 1993, after a 2-week trial for

illegal disposal of toxics (PCBs) in violation of the

TSCA and failing to report the release of a reportable

quantity of a hazardous substance in violation of

CERCLA. The violations occurred after Catucci gave the

workers permission to scrap two PCB transformers,

knowingthat the transformers contained PCBs. At

sentencing, Senior District Court Judge Raymond Pettine

enhanced the penalty under sentencing guidelines because

substantial clean up costs had been incurred by the

government as a result of the illegal acts.

U.S.v. Larry A. Christopherson (E.D. Wisc.): On May 3,

1994, Larry Christopherson, the former owner of Nardi

Electric Company, an electric contracting firm in

Milwaukee, WI, was sentenced to 3 years probation and 100

hours of community service. Nardi Electric shut its

doors in the 1980s leaving behind 17 barrels of PCBs and

ignitable hazardous waste, principally solvents. When

the new owner of the property objected to the waste left

behind, Larry Christopherson loaded the barrels onto a

trailer and abandoned it on neighboring property.

Christopherson had been charged with and pleaded guilty

in January 1994 to the illegal storage and disposal of

hazardous waste, including PCBs and characteristic

waste, under the RCRA and for violations of the TSCA.

U.S. v. Craven Laboratories, Inc., et al. (W.D. Texas):

DonCraven and his company pleaded guilty on December 1,

1993, to various charges including FIFRA misdemeanors

and criminal conspiracy. Dale Harris and Donald Hamerly

together with twelve other defendants pleaded guilty to

similar charges. Craven, who was the owner of the
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-79

laboratory, directed his employees to use testing short previously convicted the Eidsons of one count of

cuts that resulted in the production of false data. This knowingly discharging used oil into waters of the United

data was used for pesticide residue studies, which in States without a permit, a violation of the CWA and of

turn was used for pesticide reregistration. Numerous three counts of mail fraud. The Eidson's operated a oil

employees knowingly followed Craven's instructions (and recycling and wastewater disposal business in Tampa, FL.

were often paid bonuses for doing so), and understood An investigation revealed that the company represented

that the data was false and misleading. Craven was to clients that it would dispose of the wastes in a

sentenced to a maximum 60 months imprisonment and, along lawful manner. However, they instead illegally disposed

with the company, paid $30 million in fines and ofthe wastes into storm sewers. They concealed their

restitution. Fourteen employees received sentences illegal practices by falsifying business records.

ranging from imprisonment to probation and fines Samples taken in and around the facility showed

totaling $250,000. significant contamination of the area with petroleum byU.S.v. Dean Foods Company and Winfred Smith (W.D. Ky.):

InJuly 1992, a biologist from the Kentucky Department of U.S. v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al.(W.D. N.C.): On

Fish and Wildlife investigated a massive fish kill in June29, 1994, following an 8-day trial, a jury convicted

Beargrass Creek located in Louisville. A 3.5 mile trail CherokeeResources, Inc. (Cherokee) and two corporate

of dead fish, crayfish, algae and other aquatic life led executives, Keith Eidson and Gabe Hartsell, on five

to a pipe entering an unnamed tributary of Beargrass counts of illegally discharging wastewater into the

Creekfrom a facility operated by the Dean Foods Company, municipal sewer system and one count of criminal

a manufacturer and distributor of wholesale and retail conspiracy to violate the CWA.

foods. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife

estimated the fish kill at approximately 15,000. As a U.S. v. Garlick Helicopter, Inc. (D. Mont.): Garlick

result of investigations and prosecutions for illegal Helicopter, Inc. (GHI), a Montana corporation, with

discharges in violation of the CWA, Dean Foods Company large federal government contracts and one of the

was convicted on December 30, 1993, on one count of largest employers in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana,

negligently discharging pollutants into navigable pleaded guilty January 13, 1994, to illegal storage of

waters of the United States without a permit in violation hazardous waste in violation of the RCRA. GHI is owned

of the CWA. by Ron Dean Garlick, who entered the plea on behalf of

U.S. v. Doyle Crews, (N.D. Tex.): Doyle Crews, the generated hazardous waste in connection with its

former President and owner of Crews Plating, Inc., airplane and helicopter paint and repair business.

located in Dallas, TX, was sentenced on August 3, 1994,

for a criminal violation of the CWA. Crews was sentenced U.S. v. Gaston (D. Kan.): Donald Gaston, the Highway

to 5 years probation and 6 months of home confinement Administratorfor Montgomery County, KS, pleaded guilty

after he pleaded guilty to illegally discharging to a felony CERCLA charge on July 21, 1994. The plea was

untreated chromium wastes into the Dallas sewer system. the result of an Indictment returned by a Federal Grand

The Judge declined to impose a fine or prison time Juryon March 9, 1994, which charged Gaston with three

against Crews, but instead imposed special condition of RCRAfelony violations and one CERCLA violation.

probation that requires Crews to pay the total costs of Sometime after he became the County Highway

the clean-up of the electroplating facility pursuant to Administrator, Gaston ordered the employees of both the

an EPA approved plan. county road crew and the county bridge crew to haul 11

U.S. v. Charles A. Eidson and Sandra A. Eidson (M.D.

Fla.): Sandra Eidson former owner and officer of

Cherokee Oil Company, Ltd., was sentenced on April 27,

1994, to serve 37 months in prison and her husband,

Charles Eidson, was sentenced on March 11, 1994 to serve

70 months in prison for federal crimes committed while

operating an oil recycling business. A Florida jury had

products.

thecompany. From approximately 1982 through 1992, GHI

drumsof hazardous waste to a closed Montgomery County

Landfill where trenches were dug and the drums buried

with the use of a county backhoe.

U.S. v. Hedge, (S.D. Ohio); State of Ohio v. Hedge and

City Bumper Exchange, Inc., (Hamilton County Court of

Common Pleas): Roland Hedge, the owner of City Bumper

Exchange, Inc. (City Bumper), an abandoned
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-80

electroplating facility in Cincinnati, OH, was sentenced gallon drums were stored in warehouses and outdoors in

by Federal and State courts to a total of 24 months and a Detroit, OR, where they were exposed to the elements in

$25,000fine for violations of CERCLA, and the State of an area of pristine rural land and natural hot springs.

Ohio's hazardous waste act. City Bumper, although

defunct, was also sentenced in the State court to pay a U.S. v. Gomer's Diesel and Electric Company (D. Mont.):

fine of $25,000 for violating the State's hazardous Gomer's Diesel and Electric Co., with automotive and

waste act. Hedge abandoned the facility with over 27,000 truck repair facilities located in Belgrade, Great

gallons of hazardous substances left on the site. Clean- Falls, and Missoula, MT, was sentenced on March 24, 1994,

up of the site pursuant to action by EPA cost the Federal following a plea of guilty to a one-count of the unlawful

Government $875,000. transportation of a hazardous waste in violation of the

U.S. v. Hofele. (W.D. Mo.): The owner/manager of a supervised probation for a period of 2 years and fined

Missouri car repair shop entered a guilty plea on May 11, $100,000 to $50,000 of which was suspended in

1994, for knowingly releasing freon (which contains recognition of remediation conducted at its Belgrade

CFCs) while servicing automobile air conditioners at his facility.

business in Chesterfield, MO. As many as 60 automobiles

were serviced by Hofele between January 1992 and July U.S. v. Jay Jurek (W.D. Wash.): On July 12, 1994, Jay

1993. Hofele entered a guilty plea on one count of Jurek, a production manager for Boomsnub Corporation and

violating the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §7671h, in the first Pacific Northwest Plating Company (Boomsnub), entered a

criminal prosecution involving the January 1992, CAA plea of guilty to a federal criminal information

requirements that repair shops use freon recycling charging him with attempting to harass a witness to

equipment. The requirements also mandate that employees dissuade him from assisting a criminal prosecution of

be trained and certified in the use of this equipment Boomsnub. On June 6, 1994, EPA's Criminal Investigation

before servicing motor vehicle air conditioners. Division Special Agents arrested Jurek, without

U.S. v. Robert H. Hopkins (D. Conn.): On July 20, 1994, a warrant issued by a U.S. Magistrate. On June 2, 1994,

Robert H. Hopkins, former Vice President of Jurek had threatened bodily harm to a person for

Manufacturing at Spirol International Corporation in allegedlyproviding information to EPA/CID in the course

Killingly, CT, was sentenced to serve 21 months in prison of EPA's criminal investigation into activities of

and to pay a $7,500 fine for tampering with wastewater Boomsnub. The person threatened had been named as a

samples required under the CWA. In September 1990, source of information for the EPA by a local newspaper.

Hopkins directed and conspired with others to filter,

dilute, and selectively collect samples of the discharge U.S. v. MOR, Inc. (S.D. Fla.): On May 19, 1994, MOR,

from Spirol's wastewater treatment system. Hopkins then Inc., pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging

submitted false reports to the Connecticut Department of it with knowingly violating the CAA. In March and April

Protection to conceal Spirol's discharge of heavy metal of 1991, extensive renovations were made to the Sea Isle

bearing wastewaters to the Five Mile River—a heavily Hotel (now known as the Miami Beach Ocean Resort) in

stocked trout stream in northeastern Connecticut. Miami Beach, FL, including the stripping of thermal

U.S. v. George Frederick Heidgerken (W.D. Wash.): piping and the removal of facility components, such as

George F. Heidgerken, the owner of several companies boilers, that were encased in friable asbestos. The

includingGFH Timber Products, was sentenced on December removalwas accomplished through the use of itinerant

3, 1993, to 5 months in prison, followed by 4 months of workers who were not supervised by a licensed asbestos

electronically monitored home detention. Heidgerken was contractor nor provided with respirators or protective

also sentenced to 3 years of supervised release clothing. None of the work practice standards for

subsequentto his incarceration and ordered to pay a asbestos removal were followed and clouds of asbestos

$4,000 fine. Heidgerken pleaded guilty to violation of were released as a result of the operation. The unsealed

theRCRA. Heidgerken's offenses involved approximately asbestos was transported to a solid waste landfill in

260 drums of ignitable lacquers and paints. The 55- ordinary trash dumpsters.

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6228(d)(1).The company was placed on

incident, at the Boomsnub facility in Vancouver, WA, on

insulation materials containing friable asbestos from
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-81

U.S. v. Francis Morgan, et al. (D. Haw.): On May 31, asbestos fibers. Murphy was convicted on February 3,

1994, Francis Morgan was sentenced to 1 year 1994, of knowingly violating asbestos work practice

unsupervisedprobation and a $6,000 fine for three standards, of failing to report the release of asbestos

counts of negligently discharging a pollutant into the and concealing the violations from local authorities

Pacific Ocean in violation of the CWA. The defendants under the CAA and failing to report the release of a

had been managers at the Hamakua Sugar Company from 1988 hazardous substance in violation of CERCLA. After

to 1990. The sugar company mill had an NPDES permit to pleading guilty to violations of the CAA and conspiracy,

discharge treated waste water from the processing of Devins was sentenced to 32 months incarceration on

sugar cane. The indictment charged that the defendants October 25, 1993.

conspired to violate the CWA, manipulated the treatment

system to misrepresent discharges during regulatory U.S. v. Norwood Industries, Inc., et al. (E.D. Penn.):

inspections, and falsified required discharge Norwood Industries, Inc. a southeastern Pennsylvania

monitoring reports with regard to exceedences and other adhesive tape manufacturer was fined $100,000

violations of CWA regulations and permit requirements. (suspended) and ordered to perform beneficial

In addition, the defendants had been charged with environmental projects after pleading guilty to criminal

fourteen counts of operating a secret by-pass which violations of the CAA VOC regulations. The company was

discharged untreated waste water directly into a gulch sentenced March 1, 1994, in federal court in

leading to the Pacific Ocean. These discharges of total Philadelphia for failing to install control technology

suspended solids contributed to the degradation of coral or use compliant coating at its Malvern, PA, plant from

communities off the Hamakua Coast of the island of July of 1989 to August of 1990. The plant's VOC

Hawaii. emissions are regulated by the Commonwealth of

U.S. v. M. Tyronne Morgan and Meydenbauer Development

Corp. (E. D. Wash.): On July 6, 1994, a jury returned

guilty verdicts for both Marvel Tyronne Morgan, the

Presidentof the Meydenbauer Development Co., and the

Meydenbauer Development Corporation (MDC). Morgan and

MDC were convicted under the CAA for unlawful removal of

asbestosin connection with the demolition/renovation of

the former Deaconess Hospital. The defendants were also

convicted of failing to report the release of asbestos

and PCBs. Bradley Brown, one of the defendants in this,

was sentenced on January 28, 1994, to incarceration for

a year and a $5,000 fine following his guilty plea. The

case originated in September of 1992 when CID received

reports of allegedly unlawful removal and disposal of

asbestos, and the alleged unlawful disposal of PCB fluid

andPCB transformers from the former Deaconess Hospital

located in Wenatchee, WA.

U.S. v. Bob Murphy, et al. (D. Nev.): This case involved

the removal of asbestos-containing material from

approximately 70 apartments in a 413-unit complex.

Defendants in this case were the owner of the apartment

complex, Robert Murphy, and the former manager of the

apartments,Thomas Devins. Devins hired casual laborers

for asbestos removal without following the required work

practice standards. After asbestos debris was deposited

in trash dumpsters at the complex, other residents,

including small children, were exposed to airborne

Pennsylvania's SIP.

TheCourt order included requirements that the company

develop a corporate environmental regulatory compliance

program, including development of an environmental

compliance manual within 90 days of sentencing and spend

at least $30,000 annually during the company's 5-year

period of probation on research and development to

replace solvent-based coatings with water-based

materials.

U.S. v. OEA, Inc. (D. Colo.): OEA, which manufactures 60

percent of the world supply of explosive air bag

initiators, pleaded guilty on April 28, 1994, to six

felony violations of the RCRA—illegal transportation of

hazardous waste, illegal treatment of hazardous waste

without a permit, illegal disposal, and illegal storage

of hazardous wastes. The company engaged in the practice

of on-site detonation of excess waste materials

consisting of ignitable solvents and reactive explosives

usedin the company's manufacturing process. During the

manufacturing process, waste hexane and acetone mixed

with explosive zirconium potassium perchlorate (ZPP) was

generated, in addition to flawed initiators containing

ZPP. These wastes were the subject of the charged

violations. In three separate incidents four employees

were injured, one with serious burns, during the

disposal activities.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-82

U.S. v. Palm Beach Cruises (S.D. Fla.): Palm Beach U.S.v. Nicholas Pasquariello (S.D. Fla.): On May 16,

Cruises, the corporate owner of the cruise ship MV Viking 1994, sentence was passed on Nicholas Pasquariello after

Princess, was sentenced on August 30, 1994, on two felony he was found guilty in a non-jury trial on all counts,

countsof having knowingly violated the CWA and the OPA, including six counts of violating the CWA, among other

33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(c)(2) and 1321(b)(3). The basis for criminal charges alleged in a 15-count indictment filed

the prosecution was the deliberate dumping of waste oil in 1989. Pasquariello was convicted on January 25, 1994,

from the cruise ship into the ocean off the coast of after a sporadic bench trial which began in August 1993,

Florida. The discharge created a visible sheen which was and took 33 court days. The various charges ranged from

detected during a joint operation conducted by the Coast Pasquariello having filled jurisdictional lakes and

Guard, EPA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the wetlands on property owned by him and associates in the

Department of Justice. The corporation entered its Ft. Lauderdale, FL, vicinity, to charges of violating

guilty pleas to a two count information on May 19, 1994. income tax laws, criminal conspiracy, and making a false

Palm Beach Cruises was sentenced to 5 years probation and statement to Department of Labor officials investigating

must pay a fine of $500,000. laborlaw violations. Pasquariello was sentenced to 70

U.S. v. Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd. (E.D. Wash.): On June following incarceration.

14, 1994, Gerhard Herman Zimm, Sr., the President of

Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd., was convicted by jury trial of U.S. v. Norma Phillips, et al. (W.D. Mo.): The owners

conspiracy and substantive violations of the CAA and the and operators of the A-1 Electroplating Company facility

CERCLA. Zimm and his corporation also pleaded guilty to in Kansas City, MO, were sentenced on February 11, 1994,

a CERCLA count in the indictment and entered into a to prison and probation for the illegal disposal of

detailed plea agreement with the Government which pollutants into the Kansas City sanitary sewer system in

provided for the funding of a $1 million trust fund violation of the RCRA and the CWA. During the period of

annuity for the future medical expenses of the workers their operations, Phillips and the Mammens ordered the

who were exposed to asbestos during the company's scrap discharge of hazardous waste generated by their

metal removal operations (the trust is to pay the cost of electroplating process. On February 11, 1994, Philip

medical and associated expenses of asbestosis or Mammen was sentenced to 27 months of incarceration and

asbestos-related diseases). Zimm conducted the scrap David Mammen received a sentence of 18 months of

operation at Pacific Aqua Tech's Toppenish, WA, facility incarceration. Norma Phillips was sentenced to 2 years

from 1986 through the spring of 1991. Contamination at of probation and 6 months house arrest. Hazardous waste

the facility necessitated a superfund clean-up effecting generated by A-1 Electroplating was literally swept out

the removal of 111 tons of asbestos contaminated of front and back doors into the adjoining working class

material from Pacific Aqua Tech's property. residential neighborhood. The hazardous waste was also

U.S. v. Robert Pardi (S.D. N.Y.): On May 25, 1994, Water Department noted numerous violations. The Water

RobertPardi, an architect and the former Director of the Department had sought civil fines from the business, and

Asbestos Task Force of the New York City Board of ultimatelyturned off the sewer and water connections to

Education was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment for the facility in an attempt to stop the discharges.

falsely reporting that school buildings were free of However, the defendants managed to dismantle the sewer

asbestos contamination. He pleaded guilty in federal connection plug and continued their illegal discharges

court on March 24, 1994, to making false statements and into the system. After the business was forced to shut

to criminal conspiracy to make false statements in down in early 1990, Phillips and the Mammens attempted to

violation of the criminal laws of the United States, 18 start a new plating operation in another Missouri

U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 371, and to a substantive count of community. They transported hazardous waste from the

violating the TSCA by failing to maintain required Kansas City, MO, facility to the new location and

reports concerning asbestos conditions in the public ultimately illegally disposed of some of the waste at the

schools. Pardi was responsible for reporting to the EPA new location.

concerning the inspection and testing of New York City

public schools for the presence of asbestos.

months incarceration and 36 months supervised probation

dischargedinto the sewer system where the Kansas City

U.S. v. Pioneer Chemical, Inc. and Gerald Butler (D.

Ky.): Gerald Butler and Pioneer Chemical Inc. were
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-83

sentenced August 8, 1994, in Louisville, KY, for and printing inks were used for labels. Irresponsible

violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7413, for the waste handling practices, resulting in serious

illegal removal of asbestos-containing material without contaminationof the property, were discovered after the

complying with applicable permitting and work-practice defendant ceased operation and abandoned the facility in

requirements. Pioneer Chemical Inc. (Pioneer) was also 1989.

sentencedon one count for having violated the RCRA by

storing hazardous waste without a permit. Pioneer was U.S.v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D. Ga.): Noble and

fined $37,300 per count for a total of $75,000 in Oscar Cunningham and their corporation, R&D Chemical

criminal fines and costs. In addition, Pioneer paid Company, were charged with conspiracy to transport

$25,000 in restitution to the Jefferson County Air hazardous waste from Ohio to an unpermitted facility in

Pollution Control District Air Quality Trust Fund. Georgia and with illegal disposal of hazardous waste in

Butler was sentenced to 1 year of probation. Pioneer had violation of the RCRA. R&D Chemical accumulated a

hired Butler, and a co-defendant, Jewell, to demolish quantity of hazardous waste sludge from industrial

and remove asbestos-covered components from one of operations on the company farm in Ohio. R&D Chemical

Pioneer's buildings. Pioneer's RCRA conviction resulted misrepresented the sludge as being non-hazardous and

fromits illegal storage of 100 drums of hazardous waste. made arrangements to sell it to a Georgia company,

U.S. v. John Pizzuto (S.D. Ohio): In his second Chemical leased a truck and trailer and transported

environmental prosection, Pizzuto pleaded guilty, on approximately 15 roll-off containers of the waste to a

December 16, 1993, in Huntington, WV, to a three count companyin Atlanta. The containers were abandoned in the

indictment of violating the TSCA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2614 and company's parking lot. In addition, R&D Chemical caused

2615b after his illegal storage of PCB's in Nitro, WV. a portion of the hazardous waste to be disposed of at a

On April 1, 1994, he was sentenced to 18 months non-hazardous landfill in Atlanta. Commenting that the

incarceration for his violations of TSCA. As a result of case involved "aggravating" circumstances, the court

the West Virginia crimes, which occurred during sentenced R&D Chemical on October 6, 1994, to 5 years

Pizzuto's probation in Ohio, the Ohio federal judge on probation, a $200,000 fine and $146,716 restitution to

July18, 1994, revoked Pizzuto's probation, and ordered the Atlanta company where the waste had been abandoned.

him jailed for 18 months. The judge imposed the prison

sentence consecutively, not concurrently, to the West U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tenn.):

Virginia sentence, meaning Pizzuto is required to serve On July 22, 1994, Recticel pleaded guilty to a felony

a total of 36 months imprisonment. charging that it knowingly omitted material information

U.S. v. Nobert Efren Pohl (D. N.M.): Defendant Pohl, a of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and failed to

former owner and operator of Service Circuits, Inc. keep a record of a hazardous waste determination made by

(SCI), an electroplating company that manufactured it in July 1990. Recticel also pleaded guilty to a State

printed circuit boards, pleaded guilty to knowing environmental misdemeanor in a related State

storage of hazardous waste without a permit and the prosecution. The case had begun on October 15, 1990,

knowing disposal of hazardous waste without a permit when TDEC conducted an administrative inspection of two

under the RCRA. On December 20, 1993, Pohl was sentenced manufacturing facilities located in Morristown, TN,

to 1 year and a day incarceration. Pohl generated owned by Recticel. The TDEC inspectors observed

hazardous waste at a metal plating facility in methylene chloride waste in solid waste dumpsters at the

Albuquerque from 1985 to 1989. CWA charges were also plants. Subsequent investigation revealed that Recticel

filed for the knowing discharge of lead in was burying drums containing allegedly hazardous waste

concentrations above those allowed under SCI's onproperty owned by Cansler, and dumping it in rolloff

wastewater discharge permit and the knowing failure to containers that were destined for disposal in solid

submit complete quarterly reports to the City of waste landfills in eastern Tennessee.

Albuquerque. SCI's process involved the dipping of

circuit boards into acidic solutions containing heavy U.S. v. William C. Reichle and Reichle, Inc. (D. Ore.):

metals. Solvents were used to clean and dry the boards William Chester Reichle, the President of Reichle, Inc.

calling it "RD-344" to disguise it as a product. R&D

in a record filed with EPA and the Tennessee Department
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-84

and his Portland, OR, based corporation both entered resulted in previous guilty pleas and the sentencing of

guilty pleas on May 23, 1994, in the District of Oregon RolandBrothers, President of Sentco; Rick Brothers,

to one count each of felony violations of the RCRA. The Plant Manger; and Donald Cole, a company employee

federal charges resulted from a joint investigative involved in the illegal disposal of hazardous waste.

effort by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division and the They had pleaded guilty June 1, 1992, to a 1990

U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land indictment charging them with having buried fifty-six

Management(BLM) special agents based in Portland, OR. drums of paint waste, a hazardous waste, under a cement

Reichle owns and operates a large commercial painting loading dock at the plant site. The guilty pleas

and drywall company which performs jobs in southwest resulted in sentences of 15 months incarceration of

Washington and northwest Oregon areas. Reichle Roland Brothers, 18 months incarceration for Rick

frequently participates in contract work at federal, Brothers, and 6 months home detention for Donald Cole.

state, and local construction and renovation projects.

In March 1992, an unpermitted hazardous waste disposal U.S. v. Mark Steven Stewart, et al. (D. Ariz.): Mark

site with numerous 55-gallon drums of paint and spent Steven Stewart, the president of a crop dusting company

solvents was discovered on BLM-administered public land in Pinal County, AZ, was incarcerated for a year for

in a rural area of northwest Oregon. In June 1992, illegal disposal of methyl parathion (a hazardous waste

investigative efforts led federal agents to a second from his crop dusting activities) and illegal use of a

unpermitted hazardous waste site on privately-owned pesticide in violation of the FIFRA. As part of his

land, also in northwest Oregon, which is used as a dairy guilty plea on December 13, 1993, Stewart agreed to

farm. Reichle and his company were responsible for the liquidate the assets of the company and use that money to

illegal disposal at these sites. pay for clean-up costs at the illegal disposal site. Two

U.S. v. Reilly and Dowd (D. Del.): On October 4, 1993, forfeitedto the United States Marshal under terms of the

two shipping executives were sentenced to prison terms plea agreement. Stewart transported methyl parathion

on ocean dumping, 33 U.S.C. §1411(a), and perjury and unsuccessfully attempted to incinerate the material

charges in connection with the freighter, Khian Sea. in concrete tanks. Two county zoning officials who

Reilly received a sentence of 37 months imprisonment. inspected the uncontrolled site were exposed to airborne

This case arose after approximately 15,000 tons of contaminants and became ill from the exposure.

municipal incinerator ash was loaded on the Khian Sea Stewart's illegal practices lead to a clean-up of the

vessel destined for a disposal location in the Bahamas. disposal site contaminated with methyl parathion.

After sailing the Atlantic in 1987 in an unsuccessful

effort to find a disposal location, the ship returned to

the lower Delaware Bay in March of 1988. The ship

ultimately sailed away against the orders of the Coast

Guard, and dumped its cargo in the Atlantic and Indian

Oceans. Both defendants were found guilty of lying to a

federal district court judge concerning what had

happened to the shipment of ash. Reilly was also

convicted of one count of lying to a grand jury in

Wilmington over the ash's disappearance. Evidence

presented at trial included trans-oceanic cable messages

linking the defendants with instructions to illegally

dump the ash in the ocean.

U.S.v. Sentco Paint Manufacturing, Inc., et. al. (N.D.

Ohio): On March 17, 1994, Sentco Paint Manufacturing fact pursuant of Title 18 U.S.C. §3. This case arose

Company, Inc., was sentenced to 3 years probation and an after Thermocell sold machinery and 320 drums of

$8000 fine for its part in having violated the RCRA chemicals to an Atlanta, GA, manufacturer for one

through the illegal disposal of hazardous wastes. The dollar. The Atlanta manufacturer subsequently had

sentencing of Sentco concluded an investigation which financial difficulties, and at least 35 drums were

aircraft, valued at approximately $60,000, were

U.S. v. Thermocell S. E. Inc., Douglas Kirchofer and

SherwinT. Haskell (E.D. Tenn.): Thermocell Inc. was

fined $125,000 for illegal transportation of hazardous

waste in violation of the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928

(d)(2)(A). As a condition of probation, $100,000 of this

fine was suspended on the condition that, as restitution

and compensation to the State of Tennessee, Thermocell

pay $50,000 into the State's Environmental Protection

Fund and pay cleanup cost of $38,000. Kirchofer, the

corporate secretary, was sentenced to supervised

probation for 1 year and fined $5,000. The comptroller,

Haskell, was sentenced to 1 year of supervised probation

and a $1,000 fine. Each of the men had pleaded guilty to

a misdemeanor violation of RCRA as an accessory after the
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-85

abandoned on farmland in Norcross, GA. The farmer U.S. v. Steve Weinsier (S.D. Fla.): Steve Weinsier,

contacted Haskell and requested removal of the drums. former owner of Florida Waterway Management, an aquatic

Haskell and an associate loaded the drums on a rented management company, entered a guilty plea January 18,

Ryder truck and abandoned them on unused property in an 1994, to ten counts of illegally using the pesticides

isolated area of Scott County, TN. The drums were then Direx and Karmex on aquatic areas in violation of the

discoveredby a U.S. Office of Surface Mining inspector. FIFRA. Weinsier had been indicted November 19, 1993, on

U.S. v. Weaver Electric (D. Colo.): Weaver Electric Fraud. Weinsier pleaded guilty to the illegal use of the

Company was in the business of buying, refurbishing, and pesticides Direx and Karmex on sensitive Florida aquatic

selling used electrical equipment. As part of its areas. Weinsier knew that the products Direx and Karmex,

operation, it collected, used, and stored PCBs. which contain the active ingredient diuron, were not

Indictments charged individuals with illegal storage of approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use

PCBs, in violation of the TSCA, conspiracy, and false onwater. However, he used mail solicitations to attract

statements. An individual defendant, Daniel Rodriguez, customers for his business of removing and controlling

was charged with transporting tractor trailers full of unwanted aquatic vegetation and algae growth using these

55-gallon drums containing PCB fluid for eventual chemicals. Weinsier obtained written contracts for his

illegal export to Mexico. The Weaver Electric Company services by falsely represented that he used only EPAwas convicted and sentenced to pay a $200,000 fine and approved products in his removal and control activities.

$300,000 for remedial activities. The company

participated in a scheme to illegally dispose of PCBs by U.S. v. Larry Kenneth West(W.D. Mich.): On January 14,

burial at a remote Colorado horse ranch and to illegally 1994, Larry K. West, owner of Cal-Art, a defunct

export PCBs to Mexico in order to avoid paying the costs Cassapolis, MI, plastics business, was sentenced to 4

associated with the lawful and proper disposal of PCBs in months home confinement, a $10,000 fine, $40,000

the United States. Rodriguez had agreed with Weaver to restitution, and 2 years probation for his actions in

receive three tractor trailers full of 55-gallon drums abandoning drums of chemicals at his former business

containing PCB fluid in El Paso, TX, for eventual illegal site in Cassapolis in July of 1988. West had previously

exportation into Mexico. After numerous unsuccessful pleaded guilty on November 5, 1993, to one count of

attempts by Rodriguez to pay individuals to transport violating the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6928 (d)(2)(A), and a

the three trailers full of leaking drums, the trailers second, under the CERCLA, for having knowingly and

wereeventually discovered by the local fire marshal. unlawfully failed to report an unpermitted release of a

Due to PCB contamination at two facilities, the company reportable quantity of a hazardous material. This case

agreedto spend $300,000 for environmental remediation. is related to another federal RCRA criminal case, U.S. v.

Restitution was ordered for superfund clean-up of PCB William Meyers, which resulted from the activities of

contaminated property at the facilities. the owner of the premises where Cal-Art had been located.

U.S. v. Safety Kleen: A joint Federal/State abandoned there, and the perpetrator of that violation

investigation of Safety Kleen and Booth Oil Co. relating had been ordered to reimburse EPA for its costs of the

to improper handling of hazardous waste oils at a Ohio clean-up and disposal of the waste.

Buffalo, NY, facility, resulted on August 19, 1994 in

Booth pleading guilty to a State felony count for

possessing hazardous waste (PCB-laden oil) in violation

of its State permit, and paying a fine of $100,000.

Safety Kleen and Booth Oil had been running the Booth Oil

facility jointly. Safety Kleen settled in a civil action

with the Federal government at the same time, by

forfeiting $1.9 million; agreeing to purchase the Booth

Oil facility for $2.4 million and install new

management; and accepting appointment of a State

environmental monitor to assure compliance.

ten counts of violating FIFRA and seven counts of Mail

The waste had been illegally transported to Ohio and

U.S.v. William C. Whitman and Duane C. Whitman (M.D.

Fla.): On July 28, 1994, following a 2-week jury trial

in Tampa, FL, William C. Whitman, a plant manager, and

Duane C. Whitman, a shop foreman, of Durex Industries

were found guilty of treating and storing hazardous

waste without a permit from June 1991 to June 1992. The

companythat owned Durex, William Recht Company, Inc.,

pleaded guilty to a two-count indictment which charged

the defendants with illegal treatment, storage and

disposal of hazardous waste without a permit and knowing

endangerment in violation of the RCRA. The prosecution
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

A-86

of the defendants was initiated following the deaths of Estimated cost: at least $4.5 million, perhaps

two 9-year-old boys from toluene fume asphyxiation on (depending on amount of soil requiring remediation) as

June 13, 1992. The two children had been playing in a much as $8.9 million.

dumpsterin which toluene waste had been discarded. The

company and individual defendants were sentenced in During the summer of 1994, the Agency concluded

FY95. negotiating a settlement agreement with one of the

Harry Zucker (W. D. Pa): On July 8, 1994, Harry Zucker to pay a $30,000 penalty. Settlement negotiations with

was sentenced in Federal court to eight months home the four remaining defendants continued into fiscal year

detention, one year probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 1995.

fine on his conviction for discharging brine waste water

from oil production wells into waters of the United The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming

States without a permit in violation of the Clean Water issued several favorable decisions in FY 94 during

Act. Harry Zucker plead guilty to count one of an eight litigation of this case. For example, in a decision

count indictment on February 3, 1994. The indictment dated June 1, 1994, the court granted the government's

charged the defendant for illegal discharges which motion for summary judgement on issues related to the

occurred between November 1989 until July 1992. As a presence of an imminent and substantial endangerment at

condition of the Federal criminal plea, Marley this particular site. In addition, the court held that

Industries entered a guilty plea to state criminal the administrtive orders unilaterlally issued by EPA

charges for the unpermitted discharges and paid a pursuant to RCRA section 7003 were “reasonable.” In

$40,000 fine to the Commonwealth on May 24, 1994. doing 

U.S. v. Dale Valentine et al. (D. WY): In one of the

largest RCRA setion 7003 cases ever, EPA finalzied a

series of settlement agreements during fiscal year 1994

as well as receving a number of favorable rulings. The

case arose from Regions VIII's enforcement action

relating to the Powder River Crude Processors site near

Glenrock, Wyoming.

In 1991, EPA issued UAOs under RCRA §7003 to several

parties, demanding cleanup of this former oil reprocessing facility. Surface impoundments at the site

pose a serious risk to wildlife, with birds and antelope

becoming trapped and dying in the oily wastes. In

addition, abandoned above-ground tanks, which could

fail, pose a potential risk to human health. Some of the

respondents constructed a security fence around the

facility and netted the open pits; otherwise, they

declined to clean up the site. The U.S. subsequently

filed a complaint against ten of the parties.

In March 1994, the Agency lodged a settlement with five

generator-defendants (Texaco, Conoco, Phillips

Petroleum, True Oil, Eighty-Eight Oil). Under the

consent decree, the settling defendants are obligated to

pay a $300,000 penalty and clean up the site. Cleanup

consists of the removal and treatment of materials from

the impoundments and tanks, plus contaminated soils.

former site operators, Richard Wallace, obligating him
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-87

so, the court rejected the argument of one of the

defendants that its due process rights were violated by

the lack of an opportunity for a hearing prior to

issuance of the orders. The court found that EPA had

provided the defendants a timely opportunity to confer,

subsequent to the issuance of the orders, regarding

implementation. It also noted that the defendants would

have an opportunity, during an upcoming trial, to

challenge their liability under RCRA section 7003. This

portion of the court's decision supports EPA's position

that defendants are not entitled to a judicial hearing to

reviewsuch orders prior to the government filing an

action to enforce them.
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

A-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

REGION I ........................................................................... A-1

CLEAN AIR ACT.............................................................. A-1

U.S. v. D'Addario Industries, Inc., et al. (D. Conn.) ................................ A-1

In re Syncor International Corporation ......................................... A-1

CLEAN WATER ACT.......................................................... A-1

U.S. v. L.S. Starrett Company (D. Mass.)......................................... A-1

RCRA ........................................................................ A-1

Allegro Microsystems, Inc..................................................... A-1

In re Massachusetts Highway Department....................................... A-1

U.S. v. Hanlin Group, Inc. (D. Maine)........................................... A-1

In re Hamilton-Standard ..................................................... A-2

In re Upjohn Company ....................................................... A-2

TSCA ........................................................................ A-2

U.S. v. New Waterbury, Ltd. (D. Conn.).......................................... A-2

In re City of Boston, Boston City Hospital ....................................... A-2

EPCRA ....................................................................... A-2

In re Wyman-Gordon, Inc. .................................................... A-2

CERCLA ..................................................................... A-3

U.S. v. O.K. Tool Company, et al. (D. N.H.) ...................................... A-3

U.S. v. Conductron Corporation, et al. (D. N.H.).................................. A-3

U.S. v. William Davis, et al. (D. R.I.)............................................ A-3

U.S. v. DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, et al. (D. Mass.) ............................... A-3

REGION II........................................................................... A-4

CLEAN AIR ACT.............................................................. A-4

In re Ronzoni Foods Corporation .............................................. A-4

U.S. v. Amelia Associates and Joey's Excavating, Inc. (D. N.J.) ...................... A-4

U.S. v. 179 South Street (D. N.J.)............................................... A-4

CLEAN WATER ACT.......................................................... A-4

U.S. v. PRASA .............................................................. A-4

U.S. v. City of Hoboken (D. N.J.) ............................................... A-4

In re Cheeseborough Ponds Manufacturing Corp.................................. A-4

SDWA ....................................................................... A-5

U.S. v. Kennemuth (d/b/a Moose Oil) (W.D. N.Y.)................................. A-5

U.S. v. Wasson & Regis (W.D., N.Y.)............................................ A-5

In re PRASA................................................................ A-5

U.S. v. Melvin Blum.......................................................... A-5

RCRA ........................................................................ A-5

U.S. v. Eastman Kodak (N.D. N.Y.)............................................. A-5

In the Matter of Redound Industries, Inc. d/b/a Interflo Technologies and Liqui-Mark, et al. A-6

U.S. v. BCF Corp. (E.D. N.Y.) ................................................. A-6

In the Matter of Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company.................................... A-6

In the Matter of PPG Industries, Inc............................................. A-6

In re Westchester County, New York, Sportsmen's Center........................... A-6
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-ii

In the Matter of Gaseteria Oil Corp............................................. A-6

TSCA ........................................................................ A-7

In the Matter of DIC Americas, Inc.............................................. A-7

In the Matter of SUNY-New Paltz............................................... A-7

In the Matter of Cray Valley Products, Inc........................................ A-7

In the Matter of Eastman Kodak Co............................................. A-7

In the Matter of Sharp Electronics Corporation................................... A-7

In the Matter of General Electric Company...................................... A-8

In the Matter of Presbyterian Homes of New Jersey Foundation...................... A-8

U.S. v. State of New York Department of Transportation (N.D. N.Y.).................. A-8

In the Matter of New York State Department of Mental Health....................... A-8

In re Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico..................................... A-8

In re Edgewater Associates ................................................... A-8

TSCA §8 Inventory Update Enforcement Initiative................................. A-9

In the Matter of Ciba-Geigy Corporation........................................ A-9

In the Matter of OCG Microelectronics Materials, Inc.............................. A-9

EPCRA ....................................................................... A-9

In the Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. ............................................... A-9

In the Matter of Agway Petroleum Corporation................................... A-9

In the Matter of Rich Products Corp............................................. A-9

In the Matter of NTU Circuits, Inc. ............................................. A-9

In the Matter of R&F Alloy Wires, Inc.......................................... A-10

In the Matter of Silverton Marine Corporation .................................. A-10

In re Rexon Technology Corp. ................................................ A-10

In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. ............................................ A-10

Cataño EPCRA Enforcement Settlements........................................ A-10

In the Matter of National Can Puerto Rico, Inc................................... A-10

In the Matter of Petroleum Chemical Corp...................................... A-11

In re Hess Oil Virgin Islands ................................................. A-11

In re Statewide Refrigerated Services, Inc....................................... A-11

In the Matter of Freeman Industries, Inc........................................ A-11

In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.......................................... A-11

CERCLA .................................................................... A-12

The Lipari Site............................................................. A-12

U.S. v. CDMG Realty Co., et al. (D. N.J.) ....................................... A-12

U.S. v. Vineland Chemical Company, et al. (D. N.J.) .............................. A-12

U.S. v. The Carborundum Company, et al. (D. N.J.)............................... A-12

In the Matter of the Frontier Chemical Superfund Site............................ A-12

U.S. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp (D. N.Y.)............................................. A-13

In the Matter of Diamond Alkali Superfund Site.................................. A-13

In the Matter of Liberty Industrial Finishing Site................................. A-13

In re ENRX and Buffalo Warehousing Superfund Sites............................ A-13

In re York Oil Company Superfund Site......................................... A-13

In re A&Y Realty Corp....................................................... A-13

In re PVO International, Inc.................................................. A-14
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-iii

Quanta/New Jersey Non-Complier Case Settlements............................... A-14

In re Niagara County Refuse Superfund Site .................................... A-14

In re Muratti Environmental Site.............................................. A-14

U.S. v. Signo Trading International, Ltd., et al................................... A-14

U.S. v. Zaklama (D. N.J.) .................................................... A-15

U.S. v. Thiokol Corp. (D. N.J.) ................................................ A-15

U.S. v. Town of North Hempstead (E.D. N.Y.) ................................... A-15

In the Matter of Aero Haven Airport Site ....................................... A-15

U.S. v. Wheaton Industries, Inc. (D. N.J.) ....................................... A-15

MULTIMEDIA CASES........................................................ A-15

In the Matter of Brookhaven National Laboratories and Associated Universities, Inc. ..... A-15

In re American Cyanamid Company............................................ A-16

In re Broomer Research, Inc................................................... A-16

In re Abbott Laboratories .................................................... A-16

In re Picatinny Arsenal....................................................... A-17

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey..................................... A-17

Safety Kleen............................................................... A-17

REGION III......................................................................... A-18

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-18

Ohio Power Company (N.D. W.Va.)........................................... A-18

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (E.D. Penn.)....................................... A-18

U.S. v. Coors (D. Va.) ....................................................... A-18

Florida Marina and Boat Sales................................................ A-18

Hussey Copper............................................................. A-18

Manny, Moe, and Jack, Inc.- The Pep Boys...................................... A-18

U.S. v. Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.)....................................... A-19

U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.) ...................................... A-19

LTV (W. D. Pa)............................................................ A-19

U.S. v. Sun Company, Inc. (E.D. Penn.)......................................... A-19

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-19

U.S. v. Sun Oil, Marcus Hook (E.D. Penn.) ...................................... A-19

Sun Oil, Philadelphia (E.D. Penn.)............................................. A-20

Sun Company (Pennsylvania)................................................. A-20

Ocean Builders Supply ...................................................... A-20

DELCORA (E.D. Pa) ....................................................... A-20

City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa.)................................................ A-20

Eastern Energy Investments................................................... A-21

SDWA ...................................................................... A-21

Consolidated Gas Transmission Corporation (1311)............................... A-21

Jiffy Lube (7538)........................................................... A-21

RCRA ....................................................................... A-21

Bethlehem Steel Corporation Steelton Plant...................................... A-21

Medusa Cement............................................................ A-21

U.S. v. National Rolling Mills (E.D. Penn.)...................................... A-21
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-iv

Osram Sylvania Glass, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.................................. A-22

Action Manufacturing Company, Atglen, Pennsylvania............................. A-22

Quaker State Corporation, Newell, West Virginia................................. A-22

Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation, Ravenswood, West Virginia .................... A-22

AT&T, Richmond, Virginia................................................... A-22

Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc., Middletown, Delaware....................... A-22

ITT Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia............................................ A-22

TSCA ....................................................................... A-22

Allied Colloids............................................................. A-22

Bethlehem Steel Corporation.................................................. A-23

Reading Tube Corporation ................................................... A-23

Anzon, Inc................................................................. A-23

Columbia Gas ............................................................. A-23

VA Dept of Emergency Services............................................... A-23

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-23

T.L. Diamond, Spelter, West Virginia........................................... A-23

Premium Beverage Packers, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania............................ A-23

Steel Processing, Inc., Pottstown, Pennsylvania................................... A-24

Messer Greisheim Industries, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania....................... A-24

Diversey Corporation, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania............................. A-24

Homer Laughlin China....................................................... A-24

Action Manufacturing....................................................... A-24

FIFRA ...................................................................... A-24

DuPont ................................................................... A-24

CERCLA .................................................................... A-24

Columbia Gas ............................................................. A-24

Greenwood Chemical........................................................ A-25

Recticon/Allied Steel Site.................................................... A-25

Sackville Mills Company..................................................... A-25

United Chemical Technologies................................................ A-25

U.S. v. Lord Corporation (W.D. Penn.)......................................... A-25

U.S. v. Chromatex (3rd Cir.) .................................................. A-25

REGION IV......................................................................... A-26

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-26

U.S. v. Rohm and Haas, Inc. (W.D. Ky.) ........................................ A-26

U.S. v. Olin Corporation (E.D. Tenn.).......................................... A-26

U.S .v. Crown, Cork & Seal, Inc. (N.D. Miss.) ................................... A-26

CLEAN WATER ACT/SDWA................................................... A-26

U.S. v. Metro-Dade County, et al............................................... A-26

United States v. IMC-Agrico Company (M.D. Florida)............................. A-27

U.S. v. Perdue-Davidson Oil Company (E.D. Kentucky) ........................... A-27

In the Matter of Manatee County, FL:........................................... A-27

In the Matter of IMC-Fertilizer, Bartow FL...................................... A-27

In the Matter of Jacksonville Beach, FL......................................... A-27
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-v

Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Initiative......................................... A-28

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. Polk County............................ A-28

United States v. City of Port St. Joe, Florida; et al................................ A-28

RCRA ....................................................................... A-29

Holnam, Inc................................................................ A-29

Arizona Chemical Company.................................................. A-29

Giant Cement Company...................................................... A-29

Todhunter International, Inc., d/b/a Florida Distillers............................... A-29

U.S. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (N.D. Ala.)........................................ A-29

Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. .................................... A-29

Florida Department of Transportation........................................... A-30

TSCA ....................................................................... A-30

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company/Tenneco, Inc................................... A-30

General Electric Company.................................................... A-30

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-30

Gro-Tec, Inc. .............................................................. A-30

Everwood Treatment Company, Inc............................................. A-31

North American Royalties, Inc., d/b/a Wheland Foundry............................ A-31

Ashland Petroleum Company................................................. A-31

FIFRA ...................................................................... A-31

Courtaulds Coatings, Inc. .................................................... A-31

CERCLA .................................................................... A-31

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation............................................ A-31

Parramore Fertilizer Site in Tifton, Georgia...................................... A-32

Distler Farm and Distler Brickyard Superfund Sites in Kentucky..................... A-32

Jadco/Hughes Site, Gaston County, North Carolina................................ A-32

T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. Site in Albany, Georgia........................... A-32

Helena Chemical Company for Fairfax, South Carolina Site......................... A-32

Rochester Property Site in Travelers Rest, South Carolina.......................... A-32

Jones Tire and Battery Site in Birmingham, Alabama.............................. A-33

Townsend Saw Chain Superfund Site in Pontiac, Richland County, North Carolina ....... A-33

Yellow Water Road Superfund Site, Baldwin, Duval County, Florida .................. A-33

Smith's Farm Site in Bullitt County, Kentucky.................................... A-33

Cedartown Battery Superfund Site in Polk County, Georgia......................... A-33

Enterprise Recovery Systems Site in Byhalia, Mississippi ........................... A-33

The City of Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia.................................... A-34

Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site, Cabarrus County, Concord, North CarolinaA-34

Stoller Chemical Company Site in Jericho, South Carolina.......................... A-34

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Site in Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia .............. A-34

Woolfolk Chemical Works NPL Site, Fort Valley, Georgia .......................... A-35

Hercules 009 Landfill Site, Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia...................... A-35

U.S. v. Otto Skipper (E.D., N.C.) .............................................. A-35

National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site in Kentucky .......................... A-35

Prairie Metals and Chemical Company Site (Prairie, Mississippi) ..................... A-35
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-vi

REGION V ......................................................................... A-36

REGION V's CONTEMPT INITIATIVE........................................... A-36

Anthony Chambers (Midland, MI)............................................. A-36

Big D Campground/Rodebaughs (Ashtabula, OH)................................. A-36

Petoskey Site (Petoskey, MI).................................................. A-36

Copperweld Steel (Mahoning, OH)............................................. A-36

Midwestern Drum Services (Venice, IL)......................................... A-36

Silvertone Plating Company (Ypsilanti, MI)...................................... A-37

GTE North (Belvedere, IL)................................................... A-37

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Burns Harbor, IN).................................. A-37

ILLINOIS CASES............................................................. A-37

OHIO CASE ................................................................. A-37

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-37

B&W Investment Properties, Inc., and Louis Wolf................................ A-37

New Boston Coke Corp. (S.D. Ohio)........................................... A-38

U.S. v. Consolidated Papers, Inc. (Wisconsin Rapids, WI).......................... A-38

Monitor Sugar Co. (E.D. Mich.)............................................... A-38

Stern Enterprises, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio/Eastern

Division) .............................................................. A-38

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-39

LTV Steel (East Chicago, IN)................................................. A-39

JMB Urban Development Company (Columbus, OH).............................. A-39

City of Middletown (OH).................................................... A-39

Wayne County-Wyandotte (MI) Wastewater Treatment Plant ........................ A-39

IBP, Inc. (Joslin, IL)......................................................... A-39

Appleton Papers (Appleton, WI)............................................... A-40

Commonwealth Edison Company, Inc. (Chicago, IL) ............................... A-40

MULTIMEDIA CASES........................................................ A-40

Taracorp Industries (Granite City, IL)........................................... A-40

Glidden Company (Strongsville, OH)........................................... A-40

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-40

Vie De France (Bensenville, IL)............................................... A-40

HRR Enterprises, Inc. (Chicago, IL)............................................ A-41

Shell Oil Company's Wood River Manufacturing Complex (Roxana, IL) ............... A-41

Consumers Power Co. (West Olive, MI)......................................... A-41

Karmazin Products Corp. (Wyandotte, MI)...................................... A-41

TSCA ....................................................................... A-42

University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, IL).................................... A-42

Wayne State University (Detroit, MI)........................................... A-42

U.S. Graphite, Inc. (Saginaw, MI).............................................. A-42

RCRA/UST .................................................................. A-42

BASF Corp. North Works (Wyandotte, MI)...................................... A-42

Hilton Davis Co. (Cincinnati, OH)............................................. A-42

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Cleveland, OH) ...................... A-43

Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Saint Paul, MN)....................................... A-43
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-vii

U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (7th Cir. 1994) .................................... A-43

U.S. v. Ekco Housewares, Inc. (Massillon, Ohio) ................................. A-43

U.S. v. Laclede Steel Company................................................ A-43

City of Columbus, Ohio and the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio............... A-43

SDWA ...................................................................... A-44

Total Petroleum (Alma, MI).................................................. A-44

George Perry (Oceana County, MI)............................................. A-44

JPT Petroleum Production Corp. (Gibson County, IN)............................. A-44

Gahanna Water Department (Gahanna, OH)..................................... A-44

CERCLA .................................................................... A-44

Circle Smelting (Beckmeyer, IL)............................................... A-44

Core Craft (Northern Township, MN).......................................... A-45

Kerr-McGee Site (Chicago, IL)................................................ A-45

Lockhart Construction (Akron, OH)............................................ A-45

National Presto (Eau Claire, WI)............................................... A-45

Olin Corporation (Ashtabula, OH)............................................. A-45

Wedzeb (Lebanon, IN)....................................................... A-46

Jackson Drop Forge (Jackson, MI)............................................. A-46

Spickler Landfill Site (Marathon County, WI).................................... A-46

REGION VI......................................................................... A-47

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-47

U.S. v. Enpro Contractors, Inc.; Train Property, Inc.; and Jimmy Patton Contractor, Inc. (E.D.

Ark.) ................................................................. A-47

In the Matter of Herd Enterprises, d/b/a Broward Factory Service................... A-47

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-47

U.S. v. City of Kenner and the State of Louisiana (E.D. La.)........................ A-47

U.S. v. City of Bossier City, and the State of Louisiana (W.D. La.)................... A-47

U.S. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company (E.D. Tex.)......................... A-47

Vulcan Chemical........................................................... A-47

In the Matter of Albert Kramer III d/b/a Kramer Development Corporation........... A-48

Citgo Pipeline Company..................................................... A-48

Hamner Inc. ............................................................... A-48

Jayhawk Pipeline Corporation................................................. A-48

Petrolite Corporation........................................................ A-48

Red River Entertainment Group............................................... A-48

RCRA ....................................................................... A-48

In the Matter of Micro Chemical Company...................................... A-48

In the Matter of Dow Chemical ............................................... A-49

In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management................................... A-49

In the Matter of Chemical Waste Management................................... A-49

In the Matter of Texas Industries.............................................. A-49

In the Matter of Aristech..................................................... A-49

In the Matter of Rexene...................................................... A-49

In the Matter of Chapparal Steel .............................................. A-49
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-viii

In the Matter of Hydrocarbon Recyclers, Inc..................................... A-50

In the Matter of REM TEX ................................................... A-50

In the Matter of Jeep Collins ................................................. A-50

In the Matter of Ranco ...................................................... A-50

In the Matter of Citgo Refining ............................................... A-50

In the Matter of Aquaness Chemical ........................................... A-50

In the Matter of Helena Chemical ............................................. A-50

In the Matter of Helena Chemical ............................................. A-51

U.S. v. Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (W.D. La.)................................. A-51

TSCA ....................................................................... A-51

In the Matter of Asarco, Amarillo, Texas........................................ A-51

Central Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas.......................... A-51

CERCLA .................................................................... A-51

U.S. v. David Bowen Wallace, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Bio-Ecology Systems Superfund Site, Dallas

County, Texas.......................................................... A-51

U.S. v. American National Petroleum Company, et al. (W.D. La.) Gulf Coast Vacuum Superfund Site,

Abbeville, Louisiana, and Gulf Coast Vacuum Services Superfund Site, Vermillion Parish,

Louisiana ............................................................. A-52

U.S. v. City of Jacksonville, Arkansas (E.D. Ark.) Jacksonville Municipal Landfill, Lonoke

County, Arkansas, and Rogers Road Municipal Landfill, Pulaski County, Arkansas . . A-52

U.S. v. Gulf States Utilities Company (S.D Tex.) Industrial Transformer/Sol Lynn Site, Harris

County, Texas.......................................................... A-52

U.S. v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, et al., Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, et al. (E.D. Ark.). In the Matter of Hercules Inc.,

Uniroyal Chemical Ltd., and Vertac Chemical Corporation (Administrative) Vertac Superfund

Site, Jacksonville, Arkansas............................................... A-53

In the Matter of Amerada Hess Corporation, et al., PAB Oil Superfund Site, Abbeville, Louisiana

..................................................................... A-53

In the Matter of Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc., Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill Superfund

Site, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ........................................... A-53

In the Matter of Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa/Lavaca Bay Superfund Site, Point Comfort,

Texas ................................................................. A-53

In the Matter of National Zinc Site, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Salomon, Inc., Cyprus Amax Minerals

Company, and Kerramerican, Inc., National Zinc Company Superfund Site, Bartlesville,

Oklahoma ............................................................. A-54

Marco of Iota .............................................................. A-54

Pab Oil ................................................................... A-54

South 8th Street ............................................................ A-54

B.P. Chemical ............................................................. A-54

Miles Inc.................................................................. A-54

REGION VII......................................................................... A-56

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-56

U.S. v. Archer Daniels Midland (S.D. Ia.) ....................................... A-56

U.S. v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc. (W.D. Mo.)................................... A-56
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-ix

In the Matter of Holnam, Inc.................................................. A-56

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-56

In the Matter of the Boeing Company .......................................... A-56

U.S. v. Beech Aircraft Corporation (D. Kan.) .................................... A-56

RCRA ....................................................................... A-57

In the Matter of Burlington Northern Railroad .................................. A-57

In the Matter of The Dexter Company.......................................... A-57

In the Matter of Missouri Highway Transportation Department ...................... A-57

In the Matter of Iowa Army Ammunition Plant................................... A-57

In the Matter of G.E. Company................................................ A-57

In the Matter of Cuba Paint Company........................................... A-58

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-58

In the Matter of Kaw Valley, Inc............................................... A-58

In the Matter of The Iowa Packing Company.................................... A-58

CERCLA .................................................................... A-58

U.S. v. Chemical Waste Management of Kansas, Inc. (D. Kan.)..................... A-58

U.S. v. TIC Investment Corp., et al. (N.D. Ia.).................................... A-58

In the Matter of the Big River Mine Tailings Site................................. A-59

In the Matter of Lee Chemical Co. Superfund Site, Liberty, Missouri................. A-59

U.S. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, Inc. (D. Neb.) ........................ A-59

In the Matter of Renner Road Shooting Park .................................... A-59

U.S. v. City of Clinton, Iowa (S.D. Ia.).......................................... A-59

U.S. v. Midwest Asbestos Control, Inc., et al. (D. Kan.) ............................ A-60

REGION VIII ....................................................................... A-61

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-61

Sinclair Oil Corporation .................................................... A-61

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-61

Dirt Merchant Construction/Sandra Tarr....................................... A-61

Lucas Western (Jamestown, North Dakota)...................................... A-61

Farmers Union Central Exchange COOP (CENEX) (Billings, Montana).............. A-61

Burlington Northern Railroad (W.D., Wisc.) .................................... A-61

Hub City, South Dakota...................................................... A-62

City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota:............................................. A-62

Star Circuits ............................................................... A-62

SDWA ...................................................................... A-62

Town of Meeteetse, Wyoming................................................. A-62

City Oil Corporation........................................................ A-62

RCRA ....................................................................... A-63

Reclaim Barrel ............................................................ A-63

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-63

Advanced Forming Technology ............................................... A-63

Accurate Plastics (now SPM/Denver).......................................... A-63

Denver Metal Finishing Company............................................. A-63

Nephi Rubber Products...................................................... A-63
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-x

Thatcher Chemical Company................................................. A-63

FIFRA ...................................................................... A-63

Biotrol International, Inc..................................................... A-63

CERCLA .................................................................... A-64

Apache Energy and Minerals Co. (D. Colo.)..................................... A-64

Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation (D. Colo.) ................................ A-64

Clear Creek/Central City Superfund Site, Western Diversified Builders.............. A-64

Whitewood Creek .......................................................... A-64

Petrochem/Ekotek Site ...................................................... A-65

Petrochem/Ekotek .......................................................... A-65

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute.................................... A-65

North American Environmental, Inc............................................ A-65

REGION IX......................................................................... A-67

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-67

U.S. v. Shell Western E&P, Inc. (E.D. Calif.)..................................... A-67

U.S. v. TABC, Inc. (C.D. Calif.) ............................................... A-67

U.S. v. Minerec, Inc. (D. Ariz.)................................................ A-67

U.S. v. All American Pipeline Company (C.D. Calif.).............................. A-67

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-67

U.S. v. American Global Line, Inc. (N.D. Calif.).................................. A-67

U.S. v. Magma Copper Co. (D. Ariz.) .......................................... A-67

U.S. v. City and County of Honolulu (D. Haw.)................................... A-68

U.S. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Corp. (E.D. Calif.) ........................ A-68

U.S. v. Teledyne, Inc. (S.D. Calif.) ............................................. A-68

U.S. v. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (S.D. Calif.)............... A-68

RCRA ....................................................................... A-69

U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, Ltd., Estate of James Campbell, Ipsco Inc. and Cominco Ltd.

(D. Hawaii)............................................................ A-69

In the Matter of U.S. Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California...................... A-69

U.S v. City of Los Angeles and U.S. v. Lockheed Corporation (C.D. Calif.)............ A-69

U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel, et al. (D. Haw.).................................. A-69

CERCLA .................................................................... A-69

U.S. v. Peter Gull and NL Industries, Inc. (C.D. Calif.) ............................ A-69

Pearl Harbor Naval Complex Federal Facilities Agreement .......................... A-69

U.S. v. Montana Refining Co. (9th Cir.)......................................... A-70

In the Matter of Iron Mountain Mine........................................... A-70

U.S. v. Alcatel Information Systems, Inc. (D. Arizona)............................. A-70

REGION X ......................................................................... A-71

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-71

Alyeska Pipeline Services Company and ARCO Products ........................... A-71

Norma and Frank Echevarria, d/b/a Echeco Environmental Services ................... A-71

Phillips Petroleum Company and AGI, Inc....................................... A-71
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-xi

Trans-AK Environmental Services & Construction Corp., Giddings Mortgage and Investment Company,

and Neeser Construction ................................................. A-71

U.S. v. Global Travel, Jordan-Wilcomb Construction, and Allied Construction (D. Id.). . A-71

U.S. v. Zemlicka and Davis................................................... A-71

U.S. v. Martech USA, Hobbs Industries, Chugach Electric Association, Inc............ A-72

U.S. v. Hagadone Hospitality Co. ............................................. A-72

CLEAN WATER ACT......................................................... A-72

Wesley M. Sherer........................................................... A-72

U.S. v. Steve Burnett and Dean Schrader (W.D. Wash.)............................ A-72

Kenco Marine.............................................................. A-72

City of Ocean Shores, Washington............................................. A-72

Rodger Forni .............................................................. A-72

Martin Nygaard ............................................................ A-73

Rogge Mills ............................................................... A-73

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)......................... A-73

Northlake Shipyards ........................................................ A-73

City of Tacoma ............................................................ A-73

Arctic Fisheries ............................................................ A-73

U.S. v. Stanley C. Rybachek .................................................. A-73

RCRA ....................................................................... A-73

U.S. v. Robert and Geneva Stobaugh (W.D. Wash.)............................... A-73

U.S. v. R.H. Bowles, Inc. and Central Marketing, Inc. (E.D. Wash.).................. A-74

Alaska Railroad Company.................................................... A-74

Boeing Company........................................................... A-74

U.S. Army, Fort Wainwright, Alaska........................................... A-74

U.S. Army, Fort Richardson.................................................. A-74

CERCLA .................................................................... A-75

Commencement Bay – South Tacoma Channel................................... A-75

Bunker Hill................................................................ A-75

FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE........................................ A-76

RCRA/FFCA ................................................................. A-76

RCRA/FFCA Penalty Order–Coast Guard, Kodiak, Alaska Facility.................. A-76

Presidio of San Francisco .................................................... A-76

Schofield Barracks.......................................................... A-76

Norfolk Naval Shipyard...................................................... A-76

Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia............................. A-76

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, Virginia ................. A-76

Fort Dix, New Jersey........................................................ A-77

U.S. Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Ceiba, Puerto Rico............................ A-77

OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCMENT............................................ A-78

CLEAN AIR ACT............................................................. A-78

U.S. v. Atlantic Richfield Company and Snyder Oil Corporation (D. Wyo.)............ A-78

U.S. v. W.R. Grace Company (D. Mont.) ........................................ A-78
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-xii

U.S. v. ICI International, Inc.................................................. A-78

U.S. v. JBA Motorcars, Inc. and Dr. Jacob Ben-Ari (S.D. Fla.) ...................... A-78

U.S. v. Daniel Rosendahl (S.D. Tex.)........................................... A-78

U.S. v. Ken Ball and Phil McCreery (W.D. Mo.).................................. A-78

TSCA ....................................................................... A-78

Town of Wallingford, Connecticut............................................. A-78

Cressona Aluminum Company PCB Cleanup..................................... A-79

USS Cabot/Dedalo.......................................................... A-79

Port of New Orleans ........................................................ A-79

Sunshine Mining Company................................................... A-79

Imperial Holly Corporation................................................... A-79

EPCRA ...................................................................... A-79

General Chemical Corporation................................................ A-79

Alaska Pulp Corporation..................................................... A-80

Trail Wagons .............................................................. A-80

Northwest Castings ......................................................... A-80

FIFRA ...................................................................... A-80

Pinnacle Agricultural Technologies............................................. A-80

Accuventure, Inc.: Criminal and Civil Enforcement Coordination.................... A-80

Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc.............................................. A-80

MULTIMEDIA CASES........................................................ A-81

Allied Tube & Conduit ...................................................... A-81

U.S. v. Columbus Solid Waste Reduction Plant................................... A-81

U.S. v. Southern Pacific ..................................................... A-81

U.S. v. Texas Eastern (S.D., Tex.) ............................................. A-81

OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT............................................... A-82

U.S. v. Hartford Associates (D. Md.) ........................................... A-82

U.S. v. Penn Hills (W.D. Penn.) ............................................... A-82

U.S. v. Reilly .............................................................. A-82

U.S. v. Wietzenhoff ......................................................... A-82

U.S. v. Laughlin, 10 F.3rd 961 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1649 (1994)...... A-82

U.S. v. Advance Plating Works, Inc., et al. (S.D. Ind.) ............................. A-83

U.S. v. Carlo Arco and Automatic Plating Company, Inc. (D. Conn.)................. A-83

U.S. v. AT&T and Harry J. Kring (E.D. Penn.) ................................... A-83

U.S. v. Richard Vernon Bates, et al. (C.D. Calif.)................................. A-83

U.S. v. Giacomo Catucci (D. R.I.) ............................................. A-83

U.S. v. Larry A. Christopherson (E.D. Wisc.).................................... A-84

U.S. v. Craven Laboratories, Inc., et al. (W.D. Texas)............................. A-84

U.S. v. Dean Foods Company and Winfred Smith (W.D. Ky.)....................... A-84

U.S. v. Doyle Crews, (N.D. Tex.) .............................................. A-84

U.S. v. Charles A. Eidson and Sandra A. Eidson (M.D. Fla.)........................ A-84

U.S. v. Cherokee Resources, Inc., et al. (W.D. N.C.) .............................. A-85

U.S. v. Garlick Helicopter, Inc. (D. Mont.) ...................................... A-85

U.S. v. Gaston (D. Kan.) ..................................................... A-85
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

A-xiii

U.S. v. Hedge, (S.D. Ohio); State of Ohio v. Hedge and City Bumper Exchange, Inc., (Hamilton

County Court of Common Pleas)........................................... A-85

U.S. v. Hofele. (W.D. Mo.) ................................................... A-85

U.S. v. Robert H. Hopkins (D. Conn.)........................................... A-85

U.S. v. George Frederick Heidgerken (W.D. Wash.) .............................. A-85

U.S. v. Gomer's Diesel and Electric Company (D. Mont.) .......................... A-86

U.S. v. Jay Jurek (W.D. Wash.) ............................................... A-86

U.S. v. MOR, Inc. (S.D. Fla.).................................................. A-86

U.S. v. Francis Morgan, et al. (D. Haw.)........................................ A-86

U.S. v. M. Tyronne Morgan and Meydenbauer Development Corp. (E. D. Wash.)....... A-86

U.S. v. Bob Murphy, et al. (D. Nev.)............................................ A-87

U.S. v. Norwood Industries, Inc., et al. (E.D. Penn.)............................... A-87

U.S. v. OEA, Inc. (D. Colo.) .................................................. A-87

U.S. v. Palm Beach Cruises (S.D. Fla.) ......................................... A-87

U.S. v. Pacific Aqua Tech, Ltd. (E.D. Wash.)..................................... A-87

U.S. v. Robert Pardi (S.D. N.Y.)............................................... A-88

U.S. v. Nicholas Pasquariello (S.D. Fla.)........................................ A-88

U.S. v. Norma Phillips, et al. (W.D. Mo.) ....................................... A-88

U.S. v. Pioneer Chemical, Inc. and Gerald Butler (D. Ky.) ......................... A-88

U.S. v. John Pizzuto (S.D. Ohio)............................................... A-89

U.S. v. Nobert Efren Pohl (D. N.M.) ........................................... A-89

U.S. v. R&D Chemical Company, Inc. (N.D. Ga.)................................. A-89

U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tenn.)............................. A-89

U.S. v. William C. Reichle and Reichle, Inc. (D. Ore.) ............................. A-90

U.S. v. Reilly and Dowd (D. Del.).............................................. A-90

U.S. v. Sentco Paint Manufacturing, Inc., et. al. (N.D. Ohio)........................ A-90

U.S. v. Mark Steven Stewart, et al. (D. Ariz.) .................................... A-90

U.S. v. Thermocell S. E. Inc., Douglas Kirchofer and Sherwin T. Haskell (E.D. Tenn.)... A-90

U.S. v. Weaver Electric (D. Colo.) ............................................. A-91

U.S. v. Safety Kleen......................................................... A-91

U.S. v. Steve Weinsier (S.D. Fla.).............................................. A-91

U.S. v. Larry Kenneth West (W.D. Mich.)....................................... A-92

U.S. v. William C. Whitman and Duane C. Whitman (M.D. Fla.)..................... A-92

Harry Zucker (W. D. Pa)..................................................... A-92

U.S. v. Dale Valentine et al. (D. WY) .......................................... A-92
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-1

APPENDIX B

STATE CASES

ALASKA

Anchor Forest Products: Anchor Forest Products was

convicted of three misdemeanors following a bench

trial. The convictions are for Pollution, Illegal

Discharge of a Petroleum Product, and Illegal

Dischargeof Non-domestic and Domestic Wastewater.

The court merged the first two counts, then imposed a

fine of $1,000 and 30 days in jail on each of the

remainingtwo counts, but suspended the fines and jail

on the condition that Anchor Forest Products conduct

adequate remediation over the next two years, and

comply with DEC regulations.

CH2M-Hill Engineering: CH2M-Hill Engineering agreed

to pay a $25,000 civil settlement to the state's

Hazardous Substance Mitigation Account in July 1994 in

Unalaska District Court. The agreement resulted from

a compromise on four misdemeanor charges involving the

same chlorine discharge into Icy Creek to which CRI

pleaded guilty. Magistrate Hawkins approved the

agreement following arguments by both sides in favor of

thedismissal and compromise. CH2M-Hill also agreed to

institute an in-house training program to avoid future

chlorine discharges.

City of Angoon, Alaska: The City received a $5,000

fine in August, 1994 in Juneau Superior Court following

a plea of no contest to a class A misdemeanor charge of

failing to file water treatment records in a timely

manner. The record keeping problems occurred between

1990 and 1993. Superior Court Judge Walter R.

Carpeneti suspended all of the fine and placed Angoon

on probation for a period of 3 years on the condition

that the city have no environmental violations during

that period. In addition, the court ordered Angoon to

complete a report upon consultation with DEC which

addresses how the city will supervise its water

treatment operators, verify reports, educate the

community about water treatment, maintain schedules

for supplies and equipment and fund its maintenance of

the water treatment plant.

Construction Rigging, Inc. (CRI): CRI, an Alaska

Corporation, pleaded guilty in July in Unalaska

District Court to four misdemeanor charges involving

a chlorine discharge into Icy Creek. CRI accepted

responsibility for the acts of its agent whom they had

instructed not to participate in a discharge of the

chlorine without first neutralizing it. The discharge

killed approximately 40 Dolly Varden (Char).

Magistrate Mary Hawkins sentenced CRI to pay a total

fine of $5,000 with $2,500 suspended on the condition

that CRI not have any similar violations for one year.

Echo Bay Alaska, Inc.: Echo Bay Alaska, Inc., entered

into a civil Consent Decree with the State of Alaska in

which the company agreed to pay the State a total of

$250,000 for violation of State environmental laws.

The amount includes $125,000 in civil penalties,

$50,000 for investigation cost reimbursement, and

$75,000 to offset future costs of ADEC oversight and

monitoring of the Alaska Juneau Mine. In the Consent

Decree Echo Bay Alaska, Inc., admitted liability for

violatingState laws concerning the reporting of oil

spills and disposal of materials used in oil spill

cleanup actions. The action resulted from an ADEC

investigation of a turbidity event in Gold Creek. An

investigation led ADEC to inspect operations and

discover the violations. The mine is operated in an

exploratory phase by Echo Bay Alaska.

Enstar Natural Gas Company: Enstar paid a $15,000

civil settlement to the State of Alaska in October,

l994. The agreement resulted from a compromise to

three misdemeanor charges brought by the State's

EnvironmentalCrimes Unit involving unpermitted

stream crossings near Meadow Creek in Wasilla, Alaska.

Minor damage resulted to the rearing habitat of coho

salmon during installation of a gas pipeline. The

crossings occurred in October, 1993. Enstar also

agreed as part of the settlement to conduct mitigation

efforts on the streams under the direction of the

Department of Fish and Game's Habitat Division.

Kake Tribal & Kake Tribal Logging: Kake Tribal Logging

Camp is located at Point Macartney, five miles

northwest of Kake, on Kupreanof Island in Southeast

Alaska. Respondents were charged with numerous

violations of state pollution laws, which included oil
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-2

and chemical spills, open burning of used oil and oily the fines and placed Mr. wood on probation for one

wastes, discharge of improperly treated sewage, year.

failure to notify the State of Alaska DEC of oil and

hazardous substance spills, unpermitted disposal of

solid waste, and violations of the State Drinking Water

regulations. In settlement for damages and penalties,

Respondents agreed to pay the state $125,000 with

$50,000 suspended on condition that the Respondents

complete all cleanup and remediation required by the

Compliance Order by Consent entered into by the

parties. In addition, the Respondents agreed to pay

$15,000 to the City of Kake to purchase emergency

response equipment, and an additional $15,000 to

provide spill response training to citizens of the Kake

community.

Northland Fisheries, Inc.: A Washington State based

corporation, Northland pleaded no contest to one count

of violating its NPDES permit in Akutan Harbor in the

Aleutian Islands. The violation involved discharge of

ground crab viscera and shells at a depth not allowed

by permit. The court fined Northland $20,000,

suspendingall but $17,500 of the fine on the condition

that Northland have no violations for one year.

Ronnie C. Fisheries: Ronnie C. Fisheries, an Oregon

Corporation, received a $10,000 fine in August, l994 in

Unalaska District Court following a plea of no contest

to a class A misdemeanor charge of illegally

discharging oil into Dutch Harbor. The spill occurred

inMarch of 1993 and involved approximately 50 gallons

of diesel fuel from the fishing vessel "AJ." Attempts

by the vessel owners to disperse the spill with liquid

detergent were unsuccessful and did not meet DEC

standards for oil spill cleanup. Magistrate Mary

Hawkins suspended all but $2,500 of the fine and placed

the corporation on probation for a period of one year

on the condition that Ronnie C. Fisheries have no

similar violations during that period.

William A. Wood: William A. Wood pled no contest to

three water treatment misdemeanors resulting from

development of a trailer court on Prince of Wales

Island in southeast Alaska. The convictions were for

charges of failing to obtain a plan review for his

water and wastewater system, in addition to not

conducting proper fecal coliform tests. He was

utilizing a surface water source. The court imposed a

fine of $5,000 for each count concurrently, suspended

COLORADO

State of Colorado v Colorado Refining: In coordinated

multimediaState and EPA actions, CDPHE's NPDES and

RCRA programs took enforcement actions against

Colorado Refining to clean up seeps to Sand Creek.

Colorado Refining also had effluent violations of

their NPDES permit. The State ordered injunctive

relief and has settled for $375,000 cash plus $1.4

million in SEPs. This will be the largest penalty the

State has collected. Further, the Agency got a

favorable ruling on the applicability of CWA to

discharges of pollutants reaching surface waters via

groundwater. In a related citizen's suit under the

Clean Water Act, Sierra Club v Colorado Refining

Company, 838 F. Supp. 1428 (D. Colo. 1993), where

pollutants migrated through the groundwater into

surface water, the Court concluded that the Clean Water

Act's prohibition of the discharge of any pollutant

into "navigable waters" includes such discharge which

reaches "navigable waters" through groundwater.

State of Colorado v Conoco: In coordinated multimedia

State and EPA actions, CDPHE's NPDES and RCRA programs

took enforcement actions against Conoco to clean up

seeps to Sand Creek. The State ordered injunctive

reliefand collected an NPDES penalty of $200,000. In

a related citizen's suit under the Clean Water Act, the

Sierra Club settled with Conoco for $280,000 per year

for five years for a Supplemental Environmental

Project along Sand Creek. EPA supported these

settlements as recovering Conoco's economic benefit

($200,000 cash penalty to CDH) and appropriate gravity

in the SEP negotiated by the Sierra Club.

State of Colorado v The City of Ft. Morgan: In

coordinated State and EPA actions, the Colorado

Department of Health's NPDES program and EPA's

Pretreatment program took enforcement actions against

The City of Ft. Morgan. The State addressed the

effluent violations and ordered injunctive relief

related to the effluent violations. The State

collected $115,000 for the effluent violations. This

is the largest penalty the State has collected against

a municipality. 
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-3

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Concerned Citizens of Brentwood, et al., v. The

District of Columbia, et al.: The citizen plaintiffs

initially obtained a TRO from the Court which set aside

District Government permits issued to Consolidated

Waste Industries, Inc. for the purpose of expanding a

solid waste management operation into a receiving,

sorting, and baling operation for recyclable

materials. The TRO was in effect until the Court was

satisfied that the District Government had complied

with the D.C. Environmental Policy Act, which requires

considerationof the environmental impact of proposed

activities meeting the statutory threshold criteria.

Multimedia inspections were directed by the Court and

ultimately, the Court found in favor of the government

and vacated the TRO, allowing the expansion of CWI's

operations.

Subsequently, residents complained to the Attorney

General'soffice, raising the issue again as a matter

of environmental equity and justice. Ms. Reno's office

referred the complaint to EPA's Office of

Environmental Justice and Region III requested the

D.C. ERA to conduct a Multimedia environmental justice

inspection of Consolidated Waste Industries, Inc., now

a business partner of Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.

The inspection has been completed and a report

forwarded to EPA.

D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

(DCRA) v. Coastline Purchasing Corporation:

Administrative enforcement action was initiated to

remedy contamination of soil and ground water

resulting from leaking underground storage tanks.

DCRA obtained consent agreement from owner/operator

authorizingDCRA to enter on property to perform

further site investigation and corrective action.

Respondent acknowledged that the District of Columbia

was authorized to recover costs against it and was

further authorized to file a notice of lien against the

property. DCRA agreed that after issuing a demand

letter to Respondent for the costs of remediation, that

DCRA would refrain from selling the property at a tax

sale for a period of at least one year and 30 days in

orderto provide the Respondent with an opportunity to

sell the property and pay off the lien first.

D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

(DCRA) v. Kayfirst Corporation: Administrative

enforcement action was initiated to remedy

contamination of soil and ground water resulting from

leaking underground storage tanks. Action was first

brought against current owner of the property,

Kayfirst Corporation, which had failed to comply with

agency directives. However, initial investigation

conducted by Kayfirst Corporation in response to

administrative action revealed that 6 underground

storage tanks, thought to have been previously removed

from the property, were still on-site. Thereafter,

DCRAissued discovery directives to previous owners

and operators, including Sunoco, CSX Transportation

Corporation, Inc. and Mount Clare Properties, Inc.

Through discovery responses, it was learned that

Sunoco previously leased the site and operated a gas

station, and that while 3 tanks had been removed from

the site before Kayfirst purchased in 1989, 6 remained,

out of 9 tanks shown to have been installed by Sunoco.

On July 19, 1994 a revised Stipulation was entered

among the parties. Once the remediation system is

fully installed and operational, a final stipulation

and conditional order of dismissal without prejudice

will be entered.

D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

(DCRA) v. The U.S. General Services Administration:

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)

operates two large heating plants in Washington, DC.

These plants provide steam to heat Federal buildings.

During the late 1980s, GSA began a boiler refurbishment

and replacement program at both plants. After

completing their refurbishment program, GSA planned to

burn coal as their principal fuel.

In January 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency(EPA) determined from air dispersion modelling

that violations of the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) may occur in

areas around these plants when coal is fired in plant

boilers. To resolve air quality compliance issues

associated with the plants, GSA, EPA and the District

enteredinto a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement

in the spring of 1992. The agreement required that GSA

increase the height of the smoke stacks at the heating

plants to better disperse air pollutants or develop an

alternative compliance plan. GSA was unable to secure

timely approval for taller stacks from the National

Capitol Planning Commission and other regulatory
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-4

agencies pursuant to the agreement. As a result, GSA

was forced to develop an alternative compliance plan.

In May 1993, GSA committed to burn only natural gas and

very low sulfur fuel oil at their heating plants to

ensureNAAQS were not violated. EPA and the District

accepted this alternative compliance plan. GSA failed

to adhere to commitments made in their alternative

compliance plan during the 1993/94 heating season,

however. In response to violations of their

alternative compliance plan and other air quality

violations, the District issued a Notice of NonCompliance and Proposed Order to GSA April 15, 1994.

After lengthy negotiations, GSA has agreed to strictly

adhere to their commitment to burn only natural gas and

very low sulfur oil. GSA has also agreed to improve

continuous emission monitor performance at their

facilities.

The District issued an operating permit to GSA's

heating plants September 8, 1994. The permit requires

that GSA operate in compliance with the significant

elements of their alternative compliance plan and

other air quality regulations. The operating permit,

which has been submitted to EPA as a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, is Federally

enforceable.

District of Columbia Department of Consumer and

RegulatoryAffairs (DCRA), Environmental Regulation

Administration (ERA) v. Respondent Mr. Jerry

Schaeffer: The D.C. Environmental Regulation

Administration (ERA) participated in a multimedia

inspection and coordinated the issuance of a

multimedia compliance order (under RCRA REWRITE 3013)

to the violator. The facility was used for automobile

salvage and storage operations. The investigation

revealed illegal traffic in stolen vehicles and parts

distribution was also occurring at the site. The

project site was known locally as "the Deanwood Dump."

The administrative order directed the site owner to Corporation: Cabot Corporation owned and operated a

identify the presence and extent of any soil pine tar and charcoal facility ("Facility") in Alachua

contamination. A sampling and analysis plan was County, Florida from 1945 to 1966. During the

submitted and approved by ERA. The area was found to be Facility's operation, by-products containing

free of serious toxic contamination but was greatly hazardous substances were dumped into three unlined

cleaned up as a result of this action. The D.C. City lagoons. In 1983, the Department filed a complaint

Council recognized the participants' initiative to against Cabot and other parties, seeking to require

solve a pressing community problem in a ceremony and Cabot and the others to clean up the Cabot/Kopper

Council Resolution on January 4, 1994. Superfund Site ("Site") in Alachua County. Prior to

FLORIDA

Boston Chicken: Boston Chicken was cited for no

notification, no trained on site representative and

inadequate wetting of approximately 2,400 sq. ft. of

RACM ceiling tile. Boston Chicken has signed a Consent

Order and paid a $25,000 penalty.

Departmentof Environmental Protection v. Lake County:

LakeCounty operated the Lake County Sign Shop, a road

striping facility, located in Tavares, Florida. The

operation involved the use of toluene for cleaning

machinery, and of paints containing lead and chrome.

Toluene, lead and chrome were discharged to the ground.

Hazardous waste violations were documented after a

RCRA hazardous waste compliance inspection was

conducted. In settlement of these matters, the parties

entered into a Consent Order. Lake County agreed to

pay $2,000 in costs and $22,000 in in-kind penalties.

Department of Environmental Protection v. Pinellas

County Board of County Commissioners: The violations

in this case included numerous instances of effluent

dumping in excess of amounts allowed by the operating

permitfor the South Cross Bayou wastewater treatment

plant. Treated effluent, which was pumped deep

underground, migrated into an underground source of

drinking water. In settlement of these matters, a

Consent Order was approved by the Pinellas County

Commission. Pinellas County agreed to pay $120,400 to

DEP in penalties and costs. The County is replacing

the deep-well injection systems at South Cross Bayou

and at its McKay Creek treatment plant with reclaim

water reuse systems. A report is to be prepared

concerning potential impacts of deep-well injection at

South Cross Bayou on the drinking water aquifer. The

total estimated cost for replacing the systems at the

two sites is $133 million.

Department of Environmental Regulation v. Cabot

this action, EPA had placed the Site, which included
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-5

the former Cabot Corporation property, in the standard. The Department assessed penalties against

Superfund National Priority List. Approximately six Ogden at $14,799, plus Department costs of $350,00.

years after the court case was suspended, the The Department found the company in violation of its

Department filed a motion to revive the circuit court State and Federal Prevention of Significant

action. On March 10, 1989, the Department and the Deterioration (PSD) permit conditions. The

Cabot Corporation signed a Stipulation for Settlement corporation owns and operates two 288 tons-per-day

whereby Cabot agreed to pay $650,000 to resolve the MunicipalWaste Combustors located in Okahumpa, Lake

claims between the parties. County, Florida. The Unit 1 combustor is permitted to

Department of Environmental Regulation v. Pilot

Properties Co. and Durham Utility Service, Inc.: This

case involved a wastewater treatment plant located in

Jacksonville, Florida. Pilot Properties Co. ("Pilot")

owns an apartment complex, Turtle Lake Apartments,

along with its wastewater treatment plant. Durham

UtilityService, Inc. ("Durham") operates the plant

under Pilot's direction. Violations at this plant

included the routine discharge of effluent into areas

that were accessible to the general public, thereby

creating a risk to public health. Subsequent to the

Department obtaining a temporary injunction, Pilot

connected the facility into the regional system. The

Department settled with Pilot for a penalty of $10,000.

Durham, a co-defendant in the civil action, had a

default entered against it on the issue of liability.

OnJune 1, 1994, a Final Judgment was entered against

Durham Utility Service, Inc. and the Department was

awarded $250,000 in penalties.

Florida Department of Corrections: The Department

executed a Consent Order with the Florida Department of

Corrections on May 3, 1994, concerning violations at

its Sumter Correctional Institution regarding

replacing and operating process steam boilers without

the necessary air pollution permits. The Department

discovered these violations after receiving an afterthe-fact construction permit application from FDC.

The Department agreed to waive penalties if FDC agreed

to survey its facilities statewide to identify all

potential sources of air pollution and submit permit

applications for any facility found not in compliance.

The FDC found 11 facilities out of compliance and

submitted permit applications within the timeframe

agreed to in the Consent Order.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection v.

NRG/Recovery Group, Inc., aka Ogden Martin Systems of

Lake, Inc.: On March 3, 1994, Ogden signed a Consent

Order to address its exceedance of the permitted onehour 100 ppmdv CO standard and six-hour 60 ppmdv SO2

combust 51.60 tons/day of biohazardous waste as part of

its 288 tons/day load. Ogden operated Unit 1 for three

six-hour periods on July 22, 1993 with SO2 emissions at

65,85, and 73 ppm. Ogden also operated Unit 2 on July

16 and 18, 1993 with CO emissions for three one-hour

periods of 183, 238 and 503 ppm. The violations were

found as a result of self-reporting and subsequent

Departmentinspections. Along with the assessed

penalties, the company agreed to install two

additionalSO2 analyzers to monitor the unabated

concentrations of SO2 in the flue gas prior to the

scrubbers. The company was previously operating two

SO2analyzers to monitor the stack effluent as required

by its State and PSD permit. The installation of the

additional analyzers gives Ogden an early warning to

allow for a more timely response to fuel related SO2

increases. Ogden implemented a corrective action plan

to abate the CO excess emissions. The plan involved

stepped up inspections of the material before

combustion, and avoidance of wet waste.

Florida Gas Transmission: Florida Gas Transmission

was cited for exceeding the permitted gas consumption

rate, late test report, and failure to timely apply for

a construction permit extension. Consent Orders were

signed with the penalty for Brevard's 2 units amounting

to $13,128 and Marion County's amounting to $7,068. In

another county, Florida Gas Transmission was cited for

exceeding this permitted gas consumption rate, late

test report, and failure to timely apply for a

construction permit extension. FGT signed consent

orders for all these units. Penalties received are as

follows: Gadsden, $8,400; Washington, $8,400; Santa

Rosa, $7,800. Still in another county, Florida Gas

Transmission was cited for exceeding the permitted gas

consumption rate and failure to timely apply for a

construction permit extension. FGT signed a Consent

Order and paid a $6,150 penalty.

Florida Gas Transmission: The Department has

collected a total of $575,400 from Florida Gas
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-6

Transmission(FGT) for 110 violations in construction Master Packaging: A stack test conducted at the

in the Florida Panhandle. In addition, the DEP flexographic printing facility revealed VOC emissions

executed a temporary emergency suspension of FGT's were 68.7 lbs/hr vs. the permitted limit of 48.2

construction permit, required FGT to contract with an lbs/hr. Also, the 65% minimum capture and 90% minimum

independent consulting firm to oversee their destruction efficiencies were not being met. On a

construction activities, and to submit a restoration later date, an inspection of the source revealed there

proposal. The violations included a total lack of was circumvention of the control equipment. Master

required Best Management Practices in certain Packaging signed a Consent Order and will pay a $7,000

construction areas, the creation of excessive levels penalty. In addition, they will be implementing a

of turbidity, and violations of design specifications SupplementalEnvironmental Project, with a minimum

outlined in the permit application for the project. cost of $45,000, intended to increase the overall

The violations spanned the Florida Panhandle and capture efficiency from the presses to the incinerator

included the Blackwater River State Forest, Joe Budd from the current permitted level. Also, the company is

Management Area and Outstanding Florida Waters. Of the to incur a minimum $6,000 cost for an independent

$575,400 total penalty, FGT paid a cash penalty to the environmental audit of the air pollution sources,

DEPof $375,400. The remaining $200,000 will be paid which is to result in a compliance plan for these

by the company for longleaf pine forest restoration sources.

within the Blackwater River State Forest.

Hazardous Waste Consultants, Inc. and Hazardous Waste

Services, Inc.: Two hazardous waste companies,

Hazardous Waste Consultants, Inc. and Hazardous Waste

Services, Inc., and their president, Patricia

Ricketson, were fined more than $1 million in civil

penalties on September 22, 1994 by an Orlando County

Circuit Judge. The lawsuit focused on hazardous waste

violations in Orange and Seminole Counties.

Violations included storage of hazardous waste past

the ten-day limit and improper disposal of waste.

Portionsof hazardous waste went to the Seminole County

landfill which is not a hazardous waste disposal

facility. Landfill employees were not told they were

handling hazardous waste. A dozen small bottles were

disposed of in Orange County in the Tosahatchee State

Reserve near residential areas. One bottle contained

high levels of mercury.

Kissimmee Utilities: An inspection revealed the

facility did not have a continuous monitoring system to

monitor and record the ratio of water to fuel being

fired in the turbine and had been submitting the CEM

quarterly reports without having the required system

to obtain the data. Kissimmee Utilities agreed to

purchase and install a new monitoring system to comply

with NSPS requirements. After signing the consent

order and paying a penalty of $14,758.80, the company

requested an additional meeting. The district, along

with the Division air attorney Jeanne Elias, met with

Kissimmee Utilities explaining the state's position on

the matter of enforcing the NSPS requirement.

Mur-Shel, Inc.: Larry Shelton, Lois Shelton and Melvin

Powell were arrested on November 4, 1994, by Florida

Game and Freshwater Fish Commission officers for

improper storage of a hazardous material "asbestos" in

Panama City and Fort Walton Beach, Florida and several

counts of theft. The arrests culminated a criminal

investigation initiated by DEP Air Resources

Management staff. The Sheltons operated Mur-Shel,

Inc., an asbestos abatement company. During

1990-1992, they conducted abatement projects for a

number of businesses, schools and industries in the

Florida Panhandle. The asbestos waste was placed in

rented warehouses in Fort Walton Beach and Panama City.

They declared bankruptcy in 1992 and turned all of

their assets, including the contents of the

warehouses, over to Mr. Powell. The asbestos waste is

still stored in the warehouses pending negotiations

with Powell and the Sheltons for cleanup.

Ogden Martin: Ogden Martin exceeded the permitted onehour average CO standard on July 6, 1993 and exceeded

the permitted six-hour average SO2 standard on July 22,

1993. A Consent Order was executed on March 3, 1994

with a penalty of $14,799 assessed for the violations.

Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Management:

The Department issued a Warning Letter on September 2,

1994 to the Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste

Management for excessive downtime on its Resource

Recovery Facility, Unit 3, carbon monoxide continuous

emission monitoring system during the first quarter of
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-7

1994. The Department detected the violation after violations, including the operation of a hazardous

reviewing the quarterly excess emissions report. waste storage facility without a valid permit. In

PCDSWM agreed to purchase and certify a new carbon settlementof these matters, the parties entered into

monoxide monitor, replace the existing monitor a Consent Order. The Respondent agreed to pay $1,000

control, upgrade communications between the monitor incosts, $30,000 cash penalty and $120,000 in in-kind

cabinet and the data acquisition system, purchase a penalties. This case is significant because it is

backup strip recorder, rewrite the quality assurance believed to be the first monetary settlement in Florida

plan and upgrade the data acquisition system at a total since the Navy waived its immunity under RCRA.

cost of nearly $37,000. Because of the PCDSWN's good

faith effort to achieve compliance, the Department

reduced the penalty from $7,530 to $3,830. PCDSWM will

keep the old carbon monoxide monitor as a spare to

prevent future excessive downtime problems.

Polyplastex International: The facility failed a VOC

compliance test on its incinerator. The test showed

actual emissions to be 82.21 lbs/hr vs. a permitted

limit of 12.21 lbs/hr. A retest conducted on 4/11/94

showed the facility to be in compliance. The company

signed a Consent Order and has paid a penalty of

$22,000.

R.P. Scherer Corp.: R.P. Scherer Corporation was found

in violation of its annual permitted VOC emission limit

for 1992. A Consent Order was signed and a penalty of

$18,000 was paid.

South West Florida Water Management District: SWFWMD

was cited for no notification, no survey, no wetting

during removal and improperly packaging and disposing

of 2,000 sq. ft. of asbestos containing floor tiles.

As property owner, they have completed abatement,

which totaled approximately $50,000 and have paid a

penalty through an in-kind settlement totaling $2,700.

Excluding the subcontractor, Thunder and Lighting, the

two other parties involved in the case have signed

consent orders and each has paid $1,800 in penalties.

A settlement was not reached with Thunder and Lightning

and a case report was sent to the Department's Office

of General Counsel (OGC).

State of Florida Department of Environmental

Protection v. United States Naval Air

Station—Jacksonville: The Respondent operates a without notification, failure to wet and maintain wet,

facility in Jacksonville, Florida. The facility has a andimproper disposal of approximately 5,218 sq. ft. of

large industrial complex for the repair and overhaul of spray on ceiling containing regulated asbestos

airframes and engines of naval aircraft. Hazardous containingmaterial (RACM). Trend Management has

waste management, collection and transportation completed abatement and has signed a consent order. A

manifesting activities are conducted at the facility. penalty amount of $18,000 is to be paid over a 24-month

Adepartmental inspection documented hazardous waste period.

State of Florida v. Urbano Diaz-Devillegas; Romulo

Juan Delgado; German Delgado; Darwin Mesa and Errol

Woon: During May through August, 1993, Special Agents

from EPA's Criminal Investigation Division Miami

Resident Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation,

EvergladesNational Park Service Rangers and members

of the Metro-Dade Police Department cooperatively

conducted an initiative to identify and apprehend

individuals responsible for illegal disposal of

construction debris in the wetlands of southern

Florida. This initiative was called "Operation

Sawgrass." Both aerial and ground surveillance

activities were conducted to detect and apprehend

violators. Operation Sawgrass resulted in detection of

a number of potential violations of the Federal Clean

Water Act and State of Florida environmental laws.

Five individuals were arrested on probable cause by the

agents after they were actually observed in the act of

dumping construction debris in southern Florida, near

the Everglades National Park. As a result of Operation

Sawgrass, the five individuals arrested by the

investigative team have been successfully prosecuted

and sentenced.

TampaBay Center: Tampa Bay Center, Inc. was cited for

removing 400 square feet of spray on fireproof coating

from the air conditioning duct. Samples contained

30-35% asbestos. Violations cited were failure to

notify, failure to survey, failure to wet, improper

bagging and improper disposal, and untrained

personnel. Tampa Bay Center, Inc. signed a Consent

Order and is paying a penalty totaling $8,000.

Trend Management: Violations included demolition
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-8

Venture Properties: The owner of Venture Properties correctiveaction, plus supplemental environmental

and OPC General Contractor, Inc. have settled with projects that are non-mandatory environmental

Duval County over the removal of approximately 94,000 improvements. The $400,000 penalty included $175,000

sq. ft. of RACM ceiling tile. The violations included in cash plus expenditures of not less than $225,000 on

failure to maintain adequately wet and failure to seal the supplemental environmental projects.

the material in leak tight containers. Both parties

signed a Consent Order and paid a total penalty of

$36,000.

WasteManagement: Waste Management exceeded their SO2

emission limit on their combustion turbines. Waste

Management paid a $60,000 penalty and has signed a

Consent Order. As a requirement of the Consent Order,

they will install a desulfurization control system.

GEORGIA

Oxford Industries, Greenville, Georgia: A Consent hazardous waste. Treatment processes at ESII include

Order was executed July 20, 1994 which concerned the stabilization via microencapsulation, crushing and

illegal operation and overflow of an in-ground macroencapsulationof hazardous debris. Land disposal

concrete tank that contained hazardous waste. occurs in a landfill which is constructed to meet the

Operation of this device is believed to be the source minimum technology requirements.

of contamination of the town's public water supply

well. In addition to full RCRA compliance and The State of Idaho, Division of Environmental Quality

facility-wide corrective action, the company was (DEQ), performed approximately 14 inspections and

required to pay a cash settlement of $99,000 eliminate recordreviews at the site between September 1992 and

the use of chlorinated solvents at the plant, and June 1993. As a result of these inspections, two

replace the town's well at a cost of $100,000. Noticesof Violation (NOVs) alleging 25 violations of

U.S.Navy Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Georgia: A $137,492, were issued on October 21, 1993. The

Consent Order was signed June 14, 1994 concerning the violations alleged included failure to comply with the

Navy's improper identification, storage and disposal waste analysis plan, preparedness and prevention,

of hazardous paint waste. In addition to rectification contingency plan, manifesting and LDR requirements of

of the violations, the Navy was required as a condition the permit. The NOVs also alleged improper treatment

of the settlement to construct and operate a protected of hazardous waste to meet LDR standards, inadequate

breeding habitat for an endangered species of response to a fire in the landfill trench, and improper

migratory marine bird and to conduct a breeding bird management of spent aluminum potliners.

survey for declining neotropical migratory birds. The

habitat and the population study must be done in Complex negotiations between ESII and the State of

accordance with state and federal wildlife protocols. Idaho to resolve the violations took place. On March

The agreement included a $10,000 cash settlement, plus 24, 1994, a Consent Order was signed by the parties to

a minimum of $40,000 that must be spent on the resolve the violations and return the facility to

endangered species work. compliance. A penalty of $50,000 was collected. The

Young Refining Corp., Douglasville, Georgia: A spent aluminum potliners, re-evaluate and improve the

Consent Order was executed July 8, 1994 which concerned stabilization treatment process and modify the permit

the illegal disposal of listed refinery wastes into a where necessary. Idaho's oversight of ESII's

lagoon. As a condition of the settlement, Young compliancewith the terms, conditions and schedules

Refining agreed to the required RCRA closure, set forth in the Consent Order is ongoing.

monitoring, post-closure, and facility-wide

IDAHO

Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc.: Envirosafe

Services of Idaho, Inc. (ESII) is located

approximately ten miles west of Grandview, Idaho. The

facility was originally a missile complex operated by

the U.S. Air Force until 1965, and ultimately taken

over by ESII in 1981. ESII is situated on layered

interbedded gravels and clays which overlay regional

basalt flows. ESII is a RCRA permitted facility for

the treatment, storage and disposal of regulated

the RCRA Operating Permit, proposing penalties of

Consent Order requires ESII to cease acceptance of
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-9

Stibnite Mining Company: On October 20, 1993, the required St. Alphonsus to prepare, and submit to IDEQ

Stibnite Mining Company entered into a Consent Order for approval, a comprehensive Operations and

through which Stibnite agreed to pay $15,000 in MaintenanceManual which thoroughly describes the

penalties in settlement of violations of Idaho's Water methods and procedures which St. Alphonsus will follow

Quality Standards. On July 13, 1992, Stibnite reported to ensure compliance with the Idaho Environmental

a diesel fuel leak from an above-ground storage tank at Protection and Health Act and Idaho Code Section 39-101

the company's cyanidation gold mine facility located through 39-130. Over a period of three months, IDEQ

in Valley County, Idaho. Subsequent investigations by and St. Alphonsus carried on negotiations to determine

DEQ indicated that the fuel leak, itself a violation, the scope and content needed to develop a meaningful

was caused by improper fuel storage and handling and effective Operations and Maintenance Manual.

techniques. Additional violations discovered during These negotiations produced a document that was

the investigation included elevated nitrate in ground approved by IDEQ.

water, possibly caused by leaky cyanidation ponds, and

failure to characterize and properly dispose of

hazardous wastes. Groundwater contamination at the

Stibnite Mine is of particular concern because it

discharges to the East Fork of the South Fork of the

Salmon River, a tributary to a major salmon spawning

and recreational stream in Idaho. The mine, an

unpermitted (grandfathered) cyanidation operation, is

now in the process of mitigation of groundwater

pollution according to conditions set forth in the

Consent Order, and is in the process of obtaining a

cyanidation permit through the DEQ for future

operations.

St.Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Boise, Idaho:

On December 13, 1993, a Consent Order was signed in

which St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center agreed to

pay $11,500 in civil penalties. This action arose out

of St. Alphonsus's alleged failure to adequately

control visible emissions from their medical waste

incinerator and failure to obtain a Permit to Construct

prior to construction of a boiler and back-up

electrical generator. A notice of Violation was issued

to St. Alphonsus on February 22, 1993 which included

four alleged violations (two visible emission

violations and two failure to obtain permit to

construct violations) along with a proposed total

penalty of $21,500. Settlement negotiations with St.

Alphonsus after issuance of the Notice of Violation

resulted in the reduction of the penalty to $11,500.

The issuance of a Notice of Violation to St. Alphonsus

Regional Medical Center was one of several similar

actions taken as part of a statewide initiative to

ensure the proper operation of medical waste

incinerators in Idaho. In addition to payment of the

civil penalty, the December 13, 1993 Consent Order also

ILLINOIS

Pork King Packing Company: In response to a citizen

complaint, Illinois EPA cited Pork King Packing Co., (a

slaughter/packingoperation) for the unpermitted

discharge of blood wastes and raw wastewater

(contaminated with BOD, total suspended solids, and

ammonia) through a tile field into a small stream

tributary to the Kishwaukee River. The company was

also cited for unpermitted waste storage pits. The

State's March 1994 consent decree required the company

to haul wastes off-site temporarily. Pork King has

since constructed a wastewater treatment system

utilizing an anaerobic facultative percolation threestage treatment lagoon, plus groundwater monitoring

wells installed around the percolation cell, as

confirmed by a State compliance inspection in November

1994. Estimated costs for installing the system were

up to $1 million. The facility paid a $50,000 penalty

to the State, as well as the $1,375/week cost of

hauling wastes off-site for treatment while

negotiationswere ongoing and the treatment plant was

being constructed. (SIC/2011/meat packing plants.)

INDIANA

Confined Feed Lot Facilities: Confined feed lot

operations have been found to have a significant impact

on Indiana streams. Non-point source discharges from

such facilities are not generally regulated under

NPDES permits. The State of Indiana has initiated

aggressive enforcement against a number of feed lots

for violating State discharge permits limits for:

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended

solids, ammonia-nitrogen and bacteria. The State's

settlements are summarized in the following table:
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-10

JPTPetroleum Production Corp.: On February 1, 1994, a Permit are pending against the city engineer. The

the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and JPT City also paid a $20,000 civil penalty for effluent

signed an administrative agreement regarding missed violations at its wastewater treatment facility.

deadlines for demonstrating mechanical integrity of

three Class II wells. The agreement also addressed

minor violations associated with nine oil and gas wells

in Gibson County. These violations were discovered

through file reviews and routine inspections conducted

in 1992. JPT agreed to pay a $3,000 penalty. This

action will prevent contamination of underground

sources of drinking water. (SIC/1311/crude petroleum

& natural gas.)

State of Indiana v. James E. Nichols, State of Indiana

v. Custom Finishing Corp.: James E. Nichols, the owner the trash dumpster; 2) disposed of waste Iridide powder

of Custom Finishing, Inc., located in Indianapolis, in the trash dumpster; 3) allowed plating process tanks

Indiana, was sentenced on January 19, 1994, in Marion to leak; 4) stored for over 90 days over 1,000

County Superior Court on one count of storing hazardous kilograms of hazardous waste paint thinner, paint

waste without a permit in violation of an Indiana state filters, paint-related materials, and bead blast; 5)

statute. Nichols was sentenced to eighteen (18) months had not evaluated stored wastes to determine if they

of incarceration, of which the court suspended twelve were hazardous; 6) violated reporting requirements; 7)

(12) months. The remaining six (6) will be served did not mark several drums of hazardous waste as

under a home detention program. Nichol's company, "Hazardous Waste"; 8) did not conduct weekly

Custom Finishing, Inc. was fined $250,000 on each of inspectionsof the hazardous waste storage area; 9) did

two counts of the information charging the unlawful not develop a hazardous waste training program; 10) did

storage and disposal of hazardous waste without a not develop a Contingency Plan; 11) stored ignitable

permit at the facility. Nichols and the company hazardous waste within 50 feet of the property line;

enteredguilty pleas to the State charges December 29, and 12) did not allow sufficient aisle space to allow

1993. unobstructed movement of personnel and equipment. The

IOWA

In the Matter of the City of Winterset, IA.: In a case Kansas City, KS: On April 9, 1993, the U.S. EPA issued

representing the first criminal environmental charge a Notice of Violation alleging visible emissions in

against an Iowa municipality, the City of Winterset excess of 20% opacity. Recurrent blue-colored

entered guilty pleas to: 1) Knowingly discharging a carryover from combined stack and fugitive emissions,

pollutant; 2) Knowingly constructing a disposal system periodically emanated from the plant. Owens-Corning

without a permit; and 3) Falsifying a Monitoring and KDHE entered into a Consent Agreement to resolve

Report. The City was sentenced to pay the maximum theissues raised by EPA's NOV. Owens-Corning agrees

fines on all three charges, for a total of $110,000, to establish written procedures to operate, maintain,

with fines for two of the three charges being applied and clean the control equipment. Owens-Corning agrees

to upgrade the sewage collection system. The charges to conduct visual emissions evaluations of stack

arose from an investigation that revealed that the City emissions from cooling scrubbers and smoke strippers

had installed covert automatic sewer bypass lift and prepare an emissions reduction plan.

stations, which avoided sewage backup into residential

basements by discharging onto streets or into storm

drains. In a related case, the former mayor pled

guilty to Non-felonious Misconduct in Office and

received a deferred judgment. Charges of Conspiracy

and Knowingly Constructing a Disposal System without

KANSAS 

In the Matter of Dawson Brothers, Inc., Wichita, KS::

Based on two separate inspections of the Dawson

Brothers, Inc. facility, the Kansas Department of

Health and Environment finds that the Dawson Brothers

have violated K.A.R. 28-31-1 et seq., which regulates

the generation, transportation, storage, and disposal

of hazardous waste. The inspections revealed that

Respondents 1) disposed of waste paint coated tape in

Dawson Brothers paid a penalty of $41,500. 

In the Matter of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation,

In the Matter of Sunflower Manufacturing Company,

Inc., Beloit and Cawker City, KS: On February 10,

1994, the Secretary of KDHE issued a Notice of Proposed

Penalty and Order for Corrective Action based on

results of separate inspections at the Sunflower-
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-11

Beloit, and Sunflower-Cawker City, Kansas facilities. probation. The court also ruled that AFI had 90 days to

Both facilities stored wastes over 90 days in reimburse the City and the State for court costs. The

containers not marked "Hazardous"; had not marked open total restitution to be paid was $9,228.67.

containerswith the accumulation start date and the (SIC/3471/plating and polishing.)

containers were not in good condition; had inadequate

aisle space; failed to develop a contingency plan and

failed to develop and implement a personnel training

program. Beloit received regulated quantities of

hazardous waste from the Cawker City facility without

a permit. In addition to the above violations, the

Secretary of KDHE also found that Cawker City failed to

prepare a manifest for the shipment of hazardous waste;

failed to apply for and obtain an EPA identification

number prior to generating, treating, storing,

disposing, transporting, or offering for

transportation hazardous waste; transported waste

without first registering as a transporter to a

facility which is not authorized; and failed to prepare

a land disposal restriction notice for each shipment of

hazardous waste. The Secretary assessed a penalty of

$57,600 and an order to come into compliance. 

MICHIGAN

Ace Finishing, Inc.: A July 1994 jury verdict against LTVfor violations of State environmental statutes.

AceFinishing, Inc. in Macomb County Circuit Court, MI, The stipulation agreement requires LTV to pay a $66,430

resolved an important case taken by the State of reimbursement to the MPCA for expenses related to the

Michigan. AFI is a metal finishing facility that slide and a calculated $240,000 economic benefit

discharges to the City of Warren's wastewater recovery (LTV's estimated savings for not removing the

treatment plant. The City imposed pretreatment limits ash from Lake Superior.) The State will assess the

on AFI to meet categorical limits and to prevent harm environmental damage after the Minnesota Dept. of

to the wastewater treatment works and the environment. Natural Resources conducts a detailed survey of native

After a routine inspection uncovered an ongoing sludge fish habitat along the north shore of Lake Superior.

discharge,the City began monitoring AFI's control The survey is scheduled for Summer 1995.

manhole. Discharges of zinc and chromium resulted from (SIC/1011/iron ores). 

the company's improper operation of its pretreatment

system. AFI was diverting all or part of the

wastestream around the treatment facility. Manhole

sampling confirmed numerous violations of the City's

sewer use ordinance. 

The City requested assistance from the Michigan

Department of Natural Resources and the State Attorney

General in initiating legal action. AFI was charged

with felony violations of the Michigan Water Resources

Commission Act (1929 PA 245, as amended). The jury

returned guilty verdicts against AFI for 10 felony

counts for the unlawful discharge of zinc and chromium.

AFI has 3 years to pay a $100,000 penalty ($10,000 per

count). In addition, AFI will be on a 3-year

MINNESOTA

LTV Steel Mining Co.: On July 27, 1994, the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and LTV Steel Mining

Co. Steam Electric Generating Plant (LTV) of Taconite

Harbor, MN, entered into a negotiated stipulation

agreement to address environmental problems caused by

a landslide of ash from LTV's power plant. Almost

exactly a year earlier (on July 28, 1993) a landslide

of about 400,000 cubic yards of power plant ash (mixed

with 8,000 gallons of mineral oil from a subsequent

spill)cascaded down a slope from LTV property towards

Lake Superior. LTV subsequently spent about $10

million to clean up the ash spilled on the land. MPCA

also requested that LTV conduct a dredging survey which

determined that about 400 cubic yards of contaminated

sediment ended up in Lake Superior. 

MPCA then proceeded with an enforcement action, citing

MISSOURI

In the Matter of Barton Nelson, Inc.: City and Federal

inspections established that Barton Nelson, Inc.

violated Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, and Missouri

Department of Natural Resources regulations when it

failed to obtain permits for construction presses in

1992. Barton Nelson also violated 40 CFR Subpart RR,

New Source Performance Standards for Pressure

Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations.

The City of Kansas City, Missouri and the State of

Missouri referred this matter to the EPA when

settlement negotiations between Barton Nelson and the

City/State broke down. In July, 1994, EPA, the City
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-12

and State met with Barton Nelson and reaffirmed the company also must pay an additional $500,000 to the

State's bottom line offer of $100,000. EPA gave the United States for its cost and damages.

source a specific time deadline to settle with the

State for the full $100,000, or EPA would initiate its

own action against Barton Nelson. Barton Nelson, Inc.

settled with the State of Missouri for $100,000 the day

before the deadline expired. 

In the Matter of International Paper Company, Joplin,

MO: International Paper Company will pay a $273,000 excess emissions reports, failure to install a Statepenalty as a result of its alleged failure to meet a required baghouse for control of particulate

timetable to close several hazardous waste ponds at its emissions, failure to conduct initial performance

wood treatment facility. Waste sludge from the wood tests for particulates and opacity, and failure to

treatment process, classified as a hazardous waste due conduct CEM initial performance tests. The State used

to creosote and pentachlorophenol contamination, was the EPA Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy but then

placedin nine ponds at the facility. In 1986, MDNR had reduced the calculated amount by 60%, or a factor of

approved a plan to close the ponds and treat soil 0.4 purportedly to account for its $10,000 per day per

contaminated with hazardous waste. The Company failed violation maximum penalty compared to EPA's maximum of

to comply with the original plan's timetable and did $25,000 per day per violation (i.e., $10,000/$25,000

not submit a modified closure plan in a timely fashion. = 0.4) and did not include the PSD permitting

In addition to the penalty, International Paper is also violation due to equitable defenses the source had

required to close the ponds and treat the contaminated against the State, but which it did not have against

soil under a modified plan approved by MDNR. EPA.This resulted in a State penalty assessment of

Norfolkand Western Railway Co.: The railway company to Continental Lime, but in the cover letter encouraged

has paid $700,000 in civil penalties and damages and CLto reach an appropriate settlement with the State.

will provide another $2.7 million in payments and The State and Continental Lime agreed to the penalty of

equipment to the State of Missouri to compensate for $144,000 thereby avoiding an EPA civil judicial

illegally disposing of more than 500 containers waste action. This is an example of State capacity building

paint at its Moberly railroad yard. In the civil using EPA oversight and enforcement agreements. 

settlement,Norfolk and Western agreed to: 1) pay

$350,000 in civil penalties to the Randolph County

School Fund as required by the Missouri Constitution;

2) pay $350,000 to the Natural Resources Protection

Fund; 3) take any steps necessary, including closing

the site, to bring the railroad yard into compliance

with hazardous waste management laws and regulations;

and 4) comply with the Missouri Hazardous Waste Law and

RCRA.

Under the terms of the criminal plea, Norfolk and

Western agreed to: 1) pay $1 million to the Missouri

State Parks Earnings Fund to benefit the Katy Trail

State Park, 2) buy for the state $1.7 million worth of

material and equipment used in identifying,

investigating, and prosecuting environmental

offenses, and 3) develop and implement an

organization-wide environmental awareness program.

The criminal plea also requires the company to pay a

$500,000 fine - the highest penalty allowed. The

MONTANA

State of Montana v Continental Lime: This case was

comprisedof several NSPS, SIP permit, and PSD

violations which included failure to obtain a PSD

permit for SO2 emissions, failure to submit quarterly

$60,000. On June 17, 1994, EPA issued an NOV and Order

NEBRASKA

Ash Grove Cement Company: The Ash Grove Cement

Company will pay $15,000 in accordance with a

settlement with the Nebraska Department of

Environmental Quality (NDEQ) and Nebraska Attorney

General's Office. Ash Grove Cement owns and operates

a portland cement manufacturing facility. The Company

manufactures cement by heating a mixture of limestone,

clay, sand, and mill scale in two cement kilns that are

fueled primarily by coal. The kilns use hazardous

waste as a supplemental fuel. A March, 1993 NDEQ

inspection allegedly found: recordkeeping violations

involving inspections of a hazardous waste storage

area; improperly marked containers; no independent

certification of the facility's hazardous waste

storage tank system integrity; and inadequate

information in the facility's contingency plan and

training records. 
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-13

NEW JERSEY

State of New Jersey v. Patricia Nazzaro, John Martinez,

Augustine Scalzitti & Frank Scalzitti: On October 5,

1993, Patricia Nazzaro, John Martinez, Augustine

Scalzitti,Frank Scalzitti and Paul Scalzitti pleaded

guilty to a New Jersey State Accusation for violations

of New Jersey Code § 2A(2): 17 - 2C, Reckless Release

and Abandonment of Hazardous Waste and Toxic

Pollutants. On November 18, 1993 in Passaic County

Criminal Court, John Martinez, Augustine Scalzitti,

Frank Scalzitti, and Paul Scalzitti were each

sentenced to three years probation, fined $1,000, and

directed to perform 100 hours of community service.

Patricia Nazzaro was sentenced to four years

probation, fined $85,000 and directed to perform 100

hours of community service. Martinez and the

Scalzittiswere workers hired by Nazzaro to pack up and

dispose of hazardous printing and lithographic wastes

from her property located in Fairfield, New Jersey. En

route to the dump site, the trailer caught fire due to

incompatible wastes having spilled and mixed during

transport. The smoking trailer was then abandoned.

NORTH CAROLINA

Carolina Mirror Company (North Wilkesboro, NC):

Carolina Mirror Company manufactures a variety of

mirrorproducts for commercial use which vary in shape,

size and thickness. Lead based paint is used in the

manufacturing process to coat the back of the plate

glass. Various activities produce mirror cullet which

consist of off-specification or damaged broken pieces

of mirrors, and mirror generated by cutting, polishing

and other processes. The facility disposed of mirror

cullet in a North Carolina solid waste landfill and

stockpiled cullet on-site. Some of the waste exhibits

the hazardous waste toxicity characteristic.

An Administrative Order on Consent with a $25,000

penalty pending characterization of the mirror cullet

entered on April 14, 1994, to address the

characterization and remediation of the mirror cullet

on-site and at the solid waste landfill. The agreement

was revised on December 7, 1994, to include a potential

SEP if Carolina Mirror can initiate a Household

Hazardous Waste Collection Program in Wilkes County at

a reduction in penalty of $0.50 on the dollar.

Duke University (Durham, NC): Duke University is a

private institution which generates and manages

hazardous waste from a variety of sources. This

Consent Agreement specifically addresses the

managementof hazardous waste located at the Paul M.

Gross Chemical Laboratory. During a routine

inspection as a Large Quantity Generator (Generator)

DukeUniversity was found to be storing mercury and

dioxin related waste longer than ninety (90) days.

Therefore, a Consent Agreement was entered with the

university to address the closure of the unpermitted

storage unit. The settlement was entered into February

28, 1994, and included a $10,000 administrative

penalty with a SEP in the amount of $15,000 which

called for an external environmental audit of all

environmentalprotection programs and implementation

of an inventory and risk analysis of previously

utilized hazardous waste TSD facilities.

FawnIndustries (Middlesex, NC): Fawn Industries is

located approximately 1/4 mile from the nearest

resident. The Compliance Order with Administrative

Penalty was the result of the following violations:

failure to conduct a proper waste determination;

failure to properly label and date containers of

hazardous waste; failure to maintain adequate aisle

space; and failure to properly complete land disposal

restriction forms.

Total penalty assessed against the facility was

$21,250. The settlement figure was $10,000 and

approved SEPs estimated at 295,000. Settlement date

was July 21, 1994.

SEPs consisted of:

RCRA Compliance Audit (cost $68,000).

Pollution Prevention:

- product substitutions such as water-based

paints, alternate solvents and re-tooling

manufacturing process (cost $72,000);

- purchasing in bulk to reduce paint can

residues (cost $5,000); and

- evaluate on-site wastewater treatment

(initial equipment/permit/operation cost

$150,000 with payback in 2.3 years).
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-14

Greer Laboratories: Greer Laboratories is located involved in hazardous waste management and complete

approximately 1/4 mile from the nearest resident. A annual training updates; failure to maintain training

Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty was records; and the facility was not maintained and

issued as a result of the following violations: operated to minimize releases.

operatingwithout a correct EPA identification number;

tank violations including failure to obtain a written Total penalty assessed against the facility was

certified assessment, provide secondary containment, $25,750. The settlement figure was $10,000 and

conduct daily inspections and properly label the tank; approved SEPs. Settlement date was June 6, 1994.

failure to maintain a contingency plan; and failure to

properly train personnel and maintain the required SEPs consisted of:

training documentation.

Total penalty assessed against the facility was - replace conventional oil filters with

$17,200. The settlement figure was $10,000 and an reusable oil filter screening system and use

approved SEP. The SEP consisted of development and of filtration units on coolant system (six

implementation of a acetone recovery system (Cost systems replaced at $625, expected annual

$7,290). Settlement date April 26, 1994. savings of $3,512);

Midway Body Shop (Winston-Salem, NC): Midway Body Shop - use of filter system in parts cleaning

is a small business personally owned and operated which machines to cut down on replacement of solvent

performs body shop repairs and automobile painting (initial cost $8,070 with payback in 1.06

operations. The facility transported five 55-gallon years); and

drums of spent paint thinner to a piece of property

owned by brother of the body shop owner. Two of the - implement a solvent distillation system

containers appeared to be leaking during an on-site (initial cost $14,625 with payback in 1.5

inspection. The brother contended that he was using years).

the spent solvent to clean painting equipment, though

two drums were labeled “Hazardous Waste.” Recycle Program:

The Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty was newsletter on recycled paper

issued to address the following violations:

transporting hazardous waste to a site that has not - aluminum/cardboard/plastic collection

received an EPA identification number; failure to operation at four additional ferry sites; remanifest the shipment of hazardous waste; and failure use of plastic dredge piping as chafing gear

to properly label and date containers of hazardous on piling clusters; (Cost $4,400) and

waste. The penalty was assessed at 75,000. Review of

the owner's financial documents indicated that the - public awareness through use of posters and

company was in poor financial condition and could not distributing brochures to ferry customers.

pay the penalty. A Consent Agreement was entered on

September 29, 1994, in which the owner would pay a PhillipsPlating Company (Bridgeton, NC): Phillips

$5,000 penalty and perform eight hours of community PlatingCompany was cited in the Compliance Order with

service as a volunteer at the Envirofair in Winston- Administrative Penalty for the following violations:

Salem, North Carolina. failure to properly determine what waste is a hazardous

NC DOT—Ferry Division (Manns Harbor, NC): An unit. The facility operated a wastewater treatment

Administrative Order on Consent for NC DOT - Ferry system under a Clean Water Permit. The units, however,

Divisionwas the result of the following violations: would not structurally qualify as tanks due to their

open container of waste paint thinner; failure to design, construction and evidence of cracks.

conduct weekly inspections; failure to train personnel

Waste reduction:

- further development of a ferry customer

waste; disposal of hazardous waste in a non-permitted
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-15

Therefore, the units which received wastewater

exhibiting the toxicity characteristics of hazardous

waste due to the cadmium and lead content were

considered surface impoundments subject to hazardous

waste permit standards.

The total penalty issued against the facility was

$75,000. An ABLE analysis indicated the company was in

poor financial condition. A settlement was reached

November 21, 1994, with a $5,000 administrative

penalty and a $5,000 SEP commitment to conduct one or

more SEP projects (to be initiated by December 20,

1995, and completed by November 21, 1995). In

addition, Phillips Plating will be retro-fitting its

wastewater treatment system as it undergoes extensive

site characterization and remediation to address any

contaminationresulting from the use of existing

wastewater treatment system.

Watts Regulator Co./Regtrol (Spindale, NC): Watts

Regulator is located in an industrial/business area.

The distance to the nearest residence is approximately

1/4 mile from the facility. The Compliance Order with

Administrative Penalty was the result of the following

violations: open hoppers of D008 sand and failure to

properly label and date containers/hoppers; storage

tank violations including no written assessment of the

D008hazardous waste coolant storage tank system, lack

of a leak detection mechanism, failure to remove

releasedwaste from the secondary containment system

within 24 hours and operate the facility in a manner to

minimize the potential for releases, failure to

provide overfill protection equipment, failure to

conduct daily inspections and failure to document

inspections; and failure to complete annual training

for all employees engaged in hazardous waste

management activities.

Total penalty assessed against the facility was

$85,999. The settlement was signed February 9, 1994,

with an administrative penalty of $37,000 and approved

SEPs which included an environmental

education/awareness program for all employees and

construction at the baghouse collection area to

eliminate the possibility of baghouse dust handling

problems.

OHIO

AndersonsManagement Corp.: On November 14, 1994, a

State consent order with the Andersons Ltd.

Partnership and the Andersons Management Corp. was

filed in Common Pleas Court, Lucas County, OH. At Ohio

EPA's request, the State Attorney General's Office

took action again the Toledo facility on August 14,

1992. The violations of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC)

6111 relate to the unpermitted discharge of pollutants

into the Maumee River. Stormwater and subsurface

drainage was contaminated with arsenic, lead,

phosphorus and other pollutants. The source was glass

manufacturingwaste placed in settling lagoons by

previousowners. The consent decree levied a $430,000

penalty and required the following: compliance with

the applicable sections of ORC 6111; cessation of

discharge (except in accordance with NPDES

regulations) and analytical testing of all wastewater

removed from the facility. (SIC/4221/ farm prod.

warehousing & storage.) 

PENNSYLVANIA

ARCO Chemical Company: ARCO owns and operates a

manufacturing facility known as the Beaver Valley

Plant, which is located on the south bank of the Ohio

River. Other waters that flow through or bound the

plant site include Raccoon Creek and Poorhouse Run.

When the Plant was first constructed, it produced

various commercial grade organic chemical products

which were used to make synthetic rubber. Over the

years,the focus of manufacturing at the Plant changed

awayfrom these chemicals and toward the production of

various types of polystyrene. At various times during

the operation of the Plant, certain chemicals, multicomponent chemical mixtures, and other materials

spilled, leaked or were deposited at the plant site,

some of which caused contamination of the soils at

certain locations and the ground water underlying

certain areas of the site. The contaminants found in

the soil and ground water include, among others,

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, diethylbenzene,

styrene, B/T mix, light oil, organic chemical and

polymer residues and fuel oil constituents.

OnJuly 12, 1994, the Department signed a Consent Order

and Agreement (COA) with ARCO which requires the

company to complete an agreed-upon list of preremediation work activities at three of the eight areas
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-16

of the site. The work activities are designed to groundwatercleanup standards for benzene, toluene and

refine existing data about these areas and to determine ethylbenzene of 2 ug/l (PQL); and for xylene 5 ug/l;

the design criteria for a remediation system. The COA and soil cleanup standards for BTEX of 10 ppm. The

also obligated the company to pay civil penalties of company paid $95,000 as a civil penalty for its

$300,000 for past leaks, spills or illegal disposal violations of law and agreed to a stipulated penalty of

activities, and an additional civil penalty covering $100 a day for missing any deadlines in the CO&A. The

continuing pollution resulting from these historic Department worked cooperatively with Graphic

leaks, spills and illegal disposal activities. The COA Controls. The company provided the Department with a

also includes language indicating that it is ARCO's history of its operations, various notifications under

intention to negotiate subsequent COAs with the theStorage Tank Act, and with its sample results. The

Departmentfor further investigatory work at those Department's hydrologist performed independent

areas of the site not covered by the requirements of investigative activities at the site. Although the

this COA and for remediation of the site. As a final site is only a city block in size, Graphic Controls

matter, the COA obligates the company to reimburse the agreed to perform an extensive cleanup which it is

Department for oversight costs and expenses incurred presently implementing.

in overseeing ARCO's characterization of the plant

site and development of pre-remediation work Keystone Cement Company: In the course of discovery

activities for the site. relating to appeals from plan approvals issued to

Graphic Controls: Graphic Controls owns a attorneys revealed to the Department of Environmental

manufacturingfacility which it operates from July Resources evidence that Keystone Cement had (1) burned

1981 until May 1991 as a paper coating facility. There more hazardous waste in its cement kilns than it was

were 6 underground storage tanks (USTs) which stored permitted to burn during 1989-1992 and (2) altered the

commercial grades of toluene, petroleum products and computer program measuring quantities of hazardous

sludge. In addition, Graphic Controls stored in 2 waste burned so that it would not record amounts over

USTs, in a different area of the facility, toluene the permitted amounts per day. Following an intensive

recovered from carbon adsorption beds (air pollution 4-day investigation, on March 31, 1992, the Department

control system). The company excavated the 6 USTs in suspended all air quality and waste permits and plan

1990 and found soil and groundwater contamination. The approvals relating to the storage and burning of

toluene was still present in groundwater monitoring hazardousand residual waste. Following a supersedes

wells in 1993. In 1990, as part of a closure for the 2 hearing on the suspension order, the permits and plan

USTs storing recovered toluene, the company approvals were reinstated but only after the

encountered toluene contaminated soil and groundwater installationof certain safeguards. The Department

in this area as well. The company's activities at the monitored the compliance of Keystone Cement for more

facility resulted in violations of the hazardous waste than one year and, on December 30, 1994, signed a

provisions of the Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) and Consent Assessment of Civil Penalty with Keystone

regulatory provisions pertaining to the generation and Cement which requires the company to pay $750,000 for

transportation of hazardous waste and hazardous waste these violations of its air quality operating permits

determinations; the Clean Stream Law provisions and hazardous waste storage permit.

requiring permits and prohibiting discharges of

pollutional substances; and the Storage Tank Act MaysProperties, Inc.: Per their agreement with the

provisions which impose liability for cleanup upon an Department,Beazer East, Inc. and Aristech Chemical

owner of a tank storing regulated substances. Corporation,Inc. have implemented a remedial action

The Department signed a Consent Order and Agreement Properties,Inc. in Collier Township. As part of their

(CO&A) with the company on March 21, 1994. In the CO&A, manufacture of artificial resins, the companies were

the company agreed to perform additional site generators and disposers at the site of three tank

assessment activities and to develop and implement a trucks containing creosol and petroleum hydrocarbons;

groundwater and soil cleanup program to achieve listed hazardous maelic and phthalic anhydride, and

Keystone Cement, on March 26, 1992, Keystone Cement's

work plan relative to property owned by Mays
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-17

listed hazardous benzoic lites. The remediation on January 1, 1994, which assessed a $35,000 civil

entailed purging and disposal of the tanks and the penalty and required preparation and adherence to a

excavation to non-detect standards of the listed comprehensive Operations and Maintenance Manual.

hazardous wastes.

Performax Engine Works, Inc.: PNC Bank, Inc. holds a mobile waste oil conversion facility, manufactured and

security interest in various engine maintenance operated by Green Oasis Environmental, Inc., was

equipment at an auto repair facility in Westmoreland constructed and placed into operation in Mt. Pleasant,

County. The equipment includes grinders, presses, SouthCarolina, without appropriate permits. A state

metal cutting machines, cleaning tanks and the like. enforcement action resulted from citizen complaints of

As of 1989, the company owning the facility has been in foul odors in the community. The company was also

bankruptcy (Chapter 11 later converted to Chapter 7). cited for failure to conduct source tests and for

PNC Bank has submitted, and the Department has unpermitted discharges into the ambient air and was

approved, a remedial work plan that calls for the directed to cease operation. These alleged violations

drainage of solvents and oils contained in the are addressed in a consent order dated June 27, 1994,

equipment, the wastes' proper disposal, and the which contains a $20,000 civil penalty. The company

equipment'sgeneral cleanup. The presiding bankruptcy has since applied for construction permits which have

court has approved the parties' motion to go forward been denied.

with the remedial work plan. The Bank, through its

contractor, C.E.C., Inc., should complete the cleanup Holnam, Inc.: Holnam, Inc. owns and operates a

in a matter of weeks. PortlandCement manufacturing facility in Holly Hill,

U.S. Steel-Carnegie Natural Gas: The Department has hazardouswastes as combustion fuel. As the result of

entered into a voluntary cleanup agreement with U.S. a review of company records, community complaints, and

Steel subsidiary Carnegie Natural Gas to excavate and complianceinspections, a state enforcement action was

properly dispose of characteristically hazardous coke initiated. The company had failed to conduct a

oven gas pipe line residue found in seven waste pits at required source test and to adequately control

U.S. Steel's Irvin Works in West Mifflin. The pipe fugitive emissions from the facility. A consent order

line delivers coke oven gas generated at U.S. Steel's wasissued August 28, 1994, which assessed a $40,000

coke works in Clairton to the company's Irvin plant and civil penalty and required specific corrective

to its Edgar Thompson plant in Braddock. The disposed actions.

residue is the result of U.S. Steel's historical

"pigging" (or purging) of the pipe line and contains Shakespeare Products Group:Shakespeare Products

various petroleum hydrocarbons and cyanide. The Group manufactures fiberglass products at a plant

remediation will entail excavation to non-detect located in Newberry, South Carolina. Records revealed

cleanuplevels, backfilling and regrading. that the company had installed and placed into

SOUTH CAROLINA

Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation: Gaston Copper

Recycling Corporation owns and operates a metal

recycling facility in Gaston, South Carolina. A state

enforcement action was initiated in response to

compliance inspection reports identifying

deficiencies that were alleged violations of state and

Federalregulations, specifically, failure to comply

with the approved operations and maintenance manual,

exceeding emissions standards, and failure to comply

with the conditions of the facility's operating

permit. The company consented to enter into an order

Green Oasis Environmental, Inc.: An innovative and

South Carolina, which is permitted to utilize certain

operation several treatment processes without the

proper permits. Also, the volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions had increased to above 100 tons per

year which required the company to comply with the

standardsfor a Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LEAR)

source. A consent order was issued on September 14,

1994, which specified corrective actions and assessed

a civil penalty in the amount of $75,000.

Spartanburg Steel: A company that manufactures

automotivestampings and assemblies as well as various

kinds of stainless steel containers is owned and

operated by Spartanburg Steel, located in Spartanburg,
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-18

South Carolina. Numerous deficiencies were noted of penalty included $100,000 to be paid into the

the air scrubber system in an inspection of the Environmental Protection Fund; $800,000 to be paid

facility. The monthly average ambient air quality into the State Superfund, as repayment of money that

standard for gaseous fluoride was also exceeded on had been spent at several DOE-related sites (DuPont

several occasions. the state initiated an enforcement Smith site, Witherspoon site, etc.); and $500,000 to be

action to address these alleged violations. The paid on additional work needed at the DuPont Smith

company entered into a consent order dated September 9, site, the Witherspoon site, etc. Also, there is a

1994, in which they agreed to pay a $20,000 civil $200,000 stipulated penalty which is an incentive to

penalty and to implement specific corrective actions. meet the timeframes established by the second order.

The company sought to mitigate the penalty amount by

proposing various SEPs; however, staff decided that Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc.: On May 11, 1994

either a nexus did not exist or that the proposed a memorandum of understanding was entered in the Giles

projectwas otherwise not acceptable to allow for a County Criminal Court in a global settlement resolving

penalty reduction. both criminal and civil actions brought under the

ThermalKEM, Incorporated: An Administrative Consent actions arose out of Gabriel's unpermitted discharge

Orderwas issued on June 30, 1994, against ThermalKEM, of contaminants into waters of the state and an

Incorporated, an american NuKEM company, which unpermitteddischarge of chromic acid directly into

operates an interim status hazardous waste incinerator the Pulaski TN sewer system.

in Rock Hill, South Carolina. This order represents

the settlement of a state enforcement action initiated Underthe terms of the settlement, Gabriel was placed

by a routine inspection in which the company was on pre-trial diversion for a period of two (2) years,

alleged to have primarily violated the container duringwhich time the terms of the memorandum of

management regulations, i.e., numerous containers agreement must be completed. Under the agreement,

were found to be leaking or otherwise of poor integrity Gabriel must pay the cost of removal and/or disposal of

or containers were found open or not properly labelled. contaminated sludge and waste water from the Pulaski

The company was also cited for not operating to sewer treatment facility, spend up to twenty-five

minimize the possibility of spills. Hazardous waste thousanddollars ($25,000) to restore the tributary,

spills did occur, but were confined to the containment retain an independent consultant to conduct an

area. Other alleged violations included failing to environmental audit of its facility and implement

make accurate hazardous waste determinations, storing recommendations from that audit. Gabriel will also pay

hazardous waste in unpermitted areas, and storing one forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) in civil

container in excess of its permitted storage time. A penalties to the Tennessee Department of Environment

$535,000 penalty was assessed. Corrective actions andConservation, fifty-seven thousand five hundred

were initiated, including remediation of the spill and twenty-five dollars ($57,525) investigative costs

area and incorporating steps to ensure future to the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General and

compliance. contribute fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to the

TENNESSEE

Department of Energy K-25: The Solid Waste Disposal

Control Board earlier approved an Agreed Order

relative to the illegal storage of 80,000 drums at the

Department of Energy K-25 facility. Under the terms of

the Agreed Order, DOE agreed to move those drums into Bradford: Flavil Ray and Robert Wallace Bradford of

compliance storage within certain timeframes. DOE the Piney Creek community in Lewis County received the

failed to meet the timeframes in the Board's Order; first criminal convictions under the Tennessee Air

therefore, a second Order was issued, which again set Quality Act and the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act.

timeframes and assessed a penalty valued at $1.6 Severalthousand tires were illegally dumped on the Ray

million for violating the Board's Agreed Order. This property, and hundreds of tires were illegally burned

Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977. These

City of Pulaski Environmental Committee. The case

represented a significant step forward in the

coordinated efforts of the State Environmental

Enforcement Committee to protect the state's natural

resources. 

Stateof Tennessee v. Flavil Ray & Robert Wallace
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-19

in a fire that occurred in September 1992. Each pled $250,000. Also, Recticel Foam has pleaded guilty to a

guilty to one count of creating an unpermitted solid misdemeanorin State Court. Under the terms of the

waste disposal site and to one count of polluting the settlement, Recticel Foam has agreed to pay $250,000

air by burning waste tires. Ray also pled no contest to into the Tennessee Environmental Protection Fund and

one count of environmental vandalism. Each received a an additional $97,000 into a fund to be used by the

sentence of 11 months and 29 days, which was suspended Office of the Attorney General and the District

provided that they comply with several conditions, Attorneys General Conference to prosecute similar

including repaying victims whose property was damaged cases.

by the tire fire. They must also publish an

advertisement in local newspapers alerting others that

the dumping and burning of waste tires is illegal.

Each were assessed a civil penalty of $65,000 and

Bradford also agreed to pay $2,500 to a fund to clean up

remaining waste tires at one of the dump sites.

State of Tennessee v. Gabriel Ride Control Products,

Inc.: Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc. the Wheland Foundry for discharging industrial

("Gabriel"), a manufacturer of automotive shock wastewater, oil, foundry sand and other materials into

absorbers and a major employer in Pulaski, Tennessee, Chattanooga Creek without an NPDES permit, in

pleaded guilty to a State criminal information violation of the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act.

charging five misdemeanor violations of the Tennessee

Water Quality Act of 1977, Tennessee Code Annotated Ajoint inspection of this site was conducted by the

69-3-115(b) and 69-3-108(b)(1). A joint and Federal State of Tennessee, Division of Water Pollution

investigation had revealed that in the summer and fall Control (hereinafter the "Division") and EPA.

of 1993, Gabriel negligently discharged a synthetic Division personnel discovered a number of unpermitted

metal working oil directly into waters of the State on discharges to Chattanooga Creek from the foundries and

four separate occasions. Gabriel also had discharged landfill. The material discharged included waters

chromic acid into its sewer connection, adversely heavily laden with black solids, waters with red oil on

affecting the operation of the City of Pulaski's waste the surface. Waste oil, green liquid and red aviation

water treatment plant. oil were observed entering the creek, which caused a

U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation & State of Tennessee

v. Recticel Foam Corporation: After a lengthy

investigation, indictments were brought by the U.S.

Attorney's Office against Recticel Foam Corporation

and a number of individual defendants, including one of

the Cansler brothers. One of the Cansler brothers pled

guilty, and the defense raised an issue to the Court

relative to the "mixture rule." The "mixture rule"

(which provides that any waste which is mixed with a

hazardous waste must be treated as a hazardous waste)

was found to be invalid by a Federal court in a civil

case involving Shell Oil. the defense used that

Federal court decision to say that the indictments in

the criminal case were invalid, and obtained a

favorable ruling from the Magistrate. That ruling was

appealed in the criminal case.

Eventually, Recticel Foam pled guilty to a felony in

U.S. District Court and has paid a Federal fine of

Wheland Foundry Division of North American Royalties,

Inc.: On December 13, 1994, a Consent Agreement and

Final Order was entered in the Secretary of State's

Office resolving this administrative action pending

before the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board. The

Commissioner of the Department of Environment and

Conservation issued an Order and Assessment against

condition of pollution of the waters. Samples analyses

revealed the presence of metals, including but not

limitedto, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,

mercury, nickel and zinc.

The Order and Assessment required an engineering plan

and report to eliminate all wastewater and storm water

discharges to the creek. Furthermore, the corporation

was required to verify there was no ground water

contamination; remove any identified soil

contamination on the facility site; clean up the stream

banks to the surface water level; and pay a civil

penalty which was divided into an up-front penalty with

contingent penalties triggered by the failure to

complete the directed remedial action. The

corporation responded to the order by implementing the

remedial action set forth in the Order and Assessment

and, thereby, relieving the company of the $150,000

contingent penalties.
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-20

Thus, the parties negotiated a settlement revolving

around the remaining assessed up-front penalty to

address three specific concerns: a monetary penalty to

address the economic benefit gained by this

corporation and to establish a deterrent effect on the

violator; the impact and effect on the community by the

company's industrial practices; and the protection of

the water resource, Chattanooga Creek. Therefore, the

civil penalty was divided such that $25,000 was to be

paid to the Department in a monetary penalty. Also,

the corporation must finance in an amount not less than

$32,500,00, a scholarship program for selected

students from Howard School of Academics and

Technology, Chattanooga, Tennessee to pursue

environmental sciences from an institution of higher

education. Finally, the company must expend at least

$32,500 to purchase land to provide a buffer zone to

Chattanooga Creek or obtain conservation easements on

the land adjacent to the creek to preserve and protect

the water resource. Additionally, the corporation

must implement a remedial action plan, approved by the

Division, for the upgrading of the company's facility

to handle storm water; all wastewater discharges from

production are currently funneled to the City of

Chattanooga sewer system. The company must implement

and complete the activities in the remedial plan within

24 months of approval of the plan by the Division. This

settlement is an attempt to address the multimedia

aspects of this company's production process while

providing funds to the state, the community, and the

resource.

TEXAS

State of Texas v. Gary Giles Cocke, et al.: An Ellis Ecology discovered that Perfection had disposed of

County, Texas, waste hauler was sentenced January 20, containers of paint-related material on a vacant lot in

1994, to six months in jail and to pay fines totaling Kennewick. A $24,000 penalty along with an

$100,000 after pleading guilty to a series of administrative order was issued. Perfection appealed

environmental crimes uncovered by the Texas both actions but later agreed to settle the case.

Environmental Task Force. Gary Giles Cocke, Vice- Under the terms of the settlement, Perfection paid

President and General Manager of CoBe Enterprise $2,000 to Ecology, with $10,000 of the penalty amount

(CoBe), also known as Dallas Environmental Services held in abeyance pending no further violations for a

Technology (DEST), of Waxahachie, Texas, pleaded period of twelve months. The remaining $12,000 was

guilty to four felonies and two misdemeanors involving credited for innovative projects related to public

the illegal storage and dumping of hazardous waste. awareness, recycling and pollution prevention.

The felony pleas were entered before State District

Judge Knize in Waxahachie, the misdemeanors were heard United States Army Base Fort Lewis, Washington: The

in the Ellis County Court of Judge Scoggins. Identical recently-enactedFederal Facilities Compliance Act

pleas were entered for DEST. provided clear authority for Department of Ecology,

WASHINGTON

Fiberglass Technologies Inc.: Fiberglass

Technologies Inc. (Fiber-Tech) is a Spokane company

that manufactures fiberglass truck panels and building

industry products. The company is located above the

sole source aquifer for the Spokane metropolitan area.

An inspection by Ecology staff in December 1992

revealed serious violations of the state dangerous

waste laws, including spills and discharges of

methylene chloride and acetone to the environment. A

follow-up inspection conducted in April 1993 found

that Fiber-Tech had not corrected the violations

observed during the first inspection. In response to

Fiber-Tech failure to comply voluntarily, Ecology

issued a $55,000 civil penalty and an administrative

order in July 1993. The penalty is being paid.

Perfection & Letz Paint Company: During May 1991

Ecology conducted the first of several dangerous waste

inspections at the Kennewick-based Perfection & Letz

Paint Company (Perfection). Ecology's inspection

found that Perfection was discharging waste paint

residues into a floor drain that connected to the City

of Kennewick's Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).

Perfection also stored dangerous waste without a

permit and failed to manage its drums containing

dangerous waste in accordance with state law.

Technical assistance was provided to Perfection on

several different occasions over the next two years to

help them comply with the law and some improvements

were made. However, despite Ecology's efforts,

Perfection continued to store dangerous waste without

a permit and mismanage its containers. In August 1993,

State of Washington, to issue a $70,000 penalty and
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-21

administrative order on April 21, 1994 to address numerous violations of wastewater discharge permits

violations observed during a January 1994 dangerous and State water pollution laws. Dean Foods discharged

waste inspection at Fort Lewis. Violations included, not only excessive pollutants but also wastewater at

among others, discharges of photo shop waste excessive temperatures and pH levels. The company also

containing silver to a sanitary sewer that empties to failed to sample its wastewater on hundreds of

Puget Sound, accumulating dangerous waste outside in occasions between 1987 and 1993. In addition, spills

containers without lids or labels, and failure to ship at several plants resulted in the illegal discharge of

dangerous waste to a facility authorized to treat, pollutants into State waters. The spills consisted of

store, or dispose of it within ninety days of treated/untreated process wastewater and leachate

generating it. The case was settled when Fort Lewis from sweet corn silage stacks. A total forfeiture of

agreed to pay $15,000 to Ecology, develop a "continuous $207,500 was assessed (penalty breakdown for each

inspection program" with the help of an independent facility is listed below). Wisconsin has a large food

contractor, and conduct a detailed waste streams study canning industry, and the whole industry took note of

of Madigan Army Hospital. this case. (SIC/2033/canned fruits, vegetables,

WISCONSIN

Dean Foods Vegetable Company: During FY 94, eight

judgments resolved the State of Wisconsin's case

against nine Dean Foods Vegetable Co. (formerly known

as The Larsen Company) facilities. Wisconsin had

alleged 

preserves, jam.)
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

APPENDIX BSTATE CASES............................................................. B-1

ALASKA ..................................................................... B-1

Anchor Forest Products....................................................... B-1

CH2M-Hill Engineering...................................................... B-1

City of Angoon, Alaska....................................................... B-1

Construction Rigging, Inc. (CRI)............................................... B-1

Echo Bay Alaska, Inc......................................................... B-1

Enstar Natural Gas Company.................................................. B-1

Kake Tribal & Kake Tribal Logging............................................. B-2

Northland Fisheries, Inc....................................................... B-2

Ronnie C. Fisheries .......................................................... B-2

William A. Wood............................................................ B-2

COLORADO .................................................................. B-2

State of Colorado v Colorado Refining........................................... B-2

State of Colorado v Conoco.................................................... B-2

State of Colorado v The City of Ft. Morgan....................................... B-3

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA...................................................... B-3

Concerned Citizens of Brentwood, et al., v. The District of Columbia, et al. .............. B-3

D.C.Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Coastline Purchasing Corporation

...................................................................... B-3

D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. Kayfirst Corporation ... B-3

D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) v. The U.S. General Services

Administration .......................................................... B-4

District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), Environmental

Regulation Administration (ERA) v. Respondent Mr. Jerry Schaeffer ............... B-4

FLORIDA .................................................................... B-4

Boston Chicken ............................................................. B-4

Department of Environmental Protection v. Lake County............................ B-5

Department of Environmental Protection v. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners B-5

Department of Environmental Regulation v. Cabot Corporation....................... B-5

Department of Environmental Regulation v. Pilot Properties Co. and Durham Utility Service, Inc.

...................................................................... B-5

Florida Department of Corrections.............................................. B-5

Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. NRG/Recovery Group, Inc., aka Ogden Martin

Systems of Lake, Inc...................................................... B-6

Florida Gas Transmission..................................................... B-6

Florida Gas Transmission..................................................... B-6

Hazardous Waste Consultants, Inc. and Hazardous Waste Services, Inc. ................ B-6

Kissimmee Utilities.......................................................... B-7

Master Packaging............................................................ B-7

Mur-Shel, Inc. .............................................................. B-7

Ogden Martin............................................................... B-7

Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Management ............................ B-7

Polyplastex International...................................................... B-8

R.P. Scherer Corp............................................................ B-8
 FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT

B-ii

South West Florida Water Management District................................... B-8

State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. United States Naval Air

Station—Jacksonville..................................................... B-8

State of Florida v. Urbano Diaz-Devillegas; Romulo Juan Delgado; German Delgado; Darwin Mesa

and Errol Woon ......................................................... B-8

Tampa Bay Center........................................................... B-8

Trend Management .......................................................... B-8

Venture Properties........................................................... B-9

Waste Management.......................................................... B-9

GEORGIA .................................................................... B-9

Oxford Industries, Greenville, Georgia........................................... B-9

U.S. Navy Submarine Base, Kings Bay, Georgia................................... B-9

Young Refining Corp., Douglasville, Georgia..................................... B-9

IDAHO....................................................................... B-9

Envirosafe Services of Idaho, Inc................................................ B-9

Stibnite Mining Company.................................................... B-10

St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Boise, Idaho.............................. B-10

ILLINOIS.................................................................... B-10

Pork King Packing Company.................................................. B-10

INDIANA.................................................................... B-11

Confined Feed Lot Facilities.................................................. B-11

JPT Petroleum Production Corp................................................ B-11

State of Indiana v. James E. Nichols, State of Indiana v. Custom Finishing Corp. ....... B-11

IOWA ....................................................................... B-11

In the Matter of the City of Winterset, IA........................................ B-11

KANSAS .................................................................... B-12

In the Matter of Dawson Brothers, Inc., Wichita, KS:.............................. B-12

In the Matter of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Kansas City, KS.............. B-12

In the Matter of Sunflower Manufacturing Company, Inc., Beloit and Cawker City, KS ... B-12

MICHIGAN.................................................................. B-12

Ace Finishing, Inc........................................................... B-12

MINNESOTA ................................................................ B-13

LTV Steel Mining Co........................................................ B-13

MISSOURI................................................................... B-13

In the Matter of Barton Nelson, Inc............................................ B-13

In the Matter of International Paper Company, Joplin, MO.......................... B-13

Norfolk and Western Railway Co............................................... B-14

MONTANA.................................................................. B-14

State of Montana v Continental Lime........................................... B-14

NEBRASKA ................................................................. B-14

Ash Grove Cement Company................................................. B-14

NEW JERSEY................................................................ B-14

State of New Jersey v. Patricia Nazzaro, John Martinez, Augustine Scalzitti & Frank Scalzitti

..................................................................... B-14

NORTH CAROLINA.......................................................... B-15

Carolina Mirror Company (North Wilkesboro, NC)................................ B-15

Duke University (Durham, NC)................................................ B-15

Fawn Industries (Middlesex, NC).............................................. B-15

Greer Laboratories.......................................................... B-16
FY1994 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT 

B-iii

Midway Body Shop (Winston-Salem, NC)....................................... B-16

NC DOT—Ferry Division (Manns Harbor, NC).................................. B-16

Phillips Plating Company (Bridgeton, NC)....................................... B-17

Watts Regulator Co./Regtrol (Spindale, NC)..................................... B-17

OHIO ....................................................................... B-17

Andersons Management Corp................................................. B-17

PENNSYLVANIA............................................................. B-17

ARCO Chemical Company................................................... B-17

Graphic Controls ........................................................... B-18

Keystone Cement Company................................................... B-19

Mays Properties, Inc......................................................... B-19

Performax Engine Works, Inc.................................................. B-19

U.S. Steel-Carnegie Natural Gas............................................... B-19

SOUTH CAROLINA .......................................................... B-19

Gaston Copper Recycling Corporation.......................................... B-19

Green Oasis Environmental, Inc................................................ B-20

Holnam, Inc................................................................ B-20

Shakespeare Products Group.................................................. B-20

Spartanburg Steel........................................................... B-20

ThermalKEM, Incorporated................................................... B-20

TENNESSEE................................................................. B-20

Department of Energy K-25.................................................. B-20

Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc............................................. B-21

State of Tennessee v. Flavil Ray & Robert Wallace Bradford........................ B-21

State of Tennessee v. Gabriel Ride Control Products, Inc. ........................... B-21

U.S. v. Recticel Foam Corporation & State of Tennessee v. Recticel Foam Corporation ... B-22

Wheland Foundry Division of North American Royalties, Inc. ....................... B-22

TEXAS...................................................................... B-23

State of Texas v. Gary Giles Cocke, et al. ........................................ B-23

WASHINGTON .............................................................. B-23

Fiberglass Technologies Inc.................................................. B-23

Perfection & Letz Paint Company.............................................. B-23

United States Army Base Fort Lewis, Washington................................. B-23

WISCONSIN ................................................................. B-24

Dean Foods Vegetable Company.............................................. B-24