United States Office of Enforcement and EPA-300-R-98-003

Environmental Protection Compliance Assurance July 1998 

Agency (2221A)

Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance

Accomplishments

Report

FY 1997

Internet Address (URL) - http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
The FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments

Report was prepared under the direction of the Targeting and Evaluation

Branch and the Planning Branch within the Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance. Information contained in the report was supplied by

the EPA regional offices and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

i July 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2. Fiscal Year 1997: The Results .............................................. 2-1

2.1 Enforcement ..................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Criminal Enforcement ............................................ 2-2

2.1.2 Civil/Administrative Actions ....................................... 2-3

2.1.3 Superfund Enforcement ........................................... 2-6

2.1.4 Impacts of Settlements ........................................... 2-6

2.2 Compliance Incentives ............................................ 2-11

2.3 Compliance Assistance ............................................ 2-12

3. Fiscal Year 1997: The Activities ............................................ 3-1

3.1 Industry Sector Priorities ........................................... 3-2

3.1.1 National Priorities .............................................. 3-2

3.1.2 Significant Sector Priorities ...................................... 3-7

3.1.3 Regional Sector Priorities ....................................... 3-16

3.2 Community-Based Environmental Protection Priorities .................... 3-22

3.2.1 Region 1 .................................................... 3-22

3.2.2 Region 2 .................................................... 3-23

3.2.3 Region 3 .................................................... 3-26

3.2.4 Region 4 .................................................... 3-27

3.2.5 Region 5 .................................................... 3-28

3.2.6 Region 6 ................................................... 3-29

3.2.7 Region 7 ................................................... 3-29

3.2.8 Region 8 .................................................... 3-30

3.2.9 Region 9 .................................................... 3-30

3.2.10 Region 10 ................................................... 3-31

3.3 Cross-cutting or Multimedia Initiatives ................................ 3-32

3.3.1 Cross-cutting or Multimedia Projects/Highlights ...................... 3-32

3.3.2 Federal Activities ............................................. 3-39

3.3.3 Criminal Program ............................................. 3-40

3.3.4 Federal Facilities .............................................. 3-41
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 ii

3.3.5 Environmental Justice .......................................... 3-47

3.3.6 Tribal ...................................................... 3-50

3.4 Media-specific Programs .......................................... 3-54

3.4.1 Air ........................................................ 3-54

3.4.2 Water ...................................................... 3-57

3.4.2.1 Drinking Water ......................................... 3-58

3.4.2.2 Industrial or Municipal Discharges to Surface Waters ............ 3-60

3.4.2.3 Wetlands .............................................. 3-61

3.4.3 Toxics ..................................................... 3-62

3.4.3.1 EPCRA ............................................... 3-62

3.4.3.2 FIFRA ............................................... 3-65

3.4.3.3 TSCA ................................................ 3-67

3.4.4 RCRA ..................................................... 3-69

3.4.5 CERCLA ................................................... 3-72

3.5 Self Disclosure ................................................. 3-75

4. Performance Partnership Agreements/Grants (PPAs/PPGs) ........................ 4-1

4.1 Measures ......................................................... 4-3

Appendix A: Current and Historical Enforcement Data

Appendix B: Significant Administrative, Judicial, and Criminal Cases
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

iii July 1998

ACRONYMS

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

AO Administrative Order

AOC Administrative Order on Consent

APO Administrative Penalty Order

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BIF Boilers and Industrial Furnaces

BMP Best Management Practice

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CAA Clean Air Act

CACO Consent Agreement/Consent Order

CAFOs Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFA Civilian Federal Agency

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

CWA Clean Water Act

DMR Discharge Monitoring Reports

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

EAB Environmental Appeals Board 

EMS Environmental Management System

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act

FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FY Fiscal Year

LDR Land Disposal Restriction

LEPC Local Emergency Planning Commission

MACT Maximum Available Control Technology

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MPRSA Marine Protection Research & Sanctuaries Act

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NETI National Enforcement Training Institute
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 iv

NOV Notice of Violation

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

NPS National Park Service

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

OC Office of Compliance

OCEFT Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training

ODBA Ocean Dumping Ban Act

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OGC Office of General Counsel

OPA Oil Pollution Act

OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works

PPA Performance Partnership Agreement

PPG Performance Partnership Grant

ppm Parts Per Million

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PWS Public Water System

RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action

RECAP Reporting Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Priorities

RI/FS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

ROD Record of Decision

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEP Supplemental Environmental Project

SERC State Emergency Response Commission

SIP State Implementation Plan

SPCC Spill, Prevention, Control and Countermeasure 

SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule 

TCR Total Coliform Rule

TRI Toxic Release Inventory

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TSS Total Suspended Solids

UAO Unilateral Administrative Order 

UIC Underground Injection Control

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

UST Underground Storage Tank

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WPS Worker Protection Standard
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

1-1 July 1998

1. INTRODUCTION

As it enters the 21st Century, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) continues to foster and refine its balanced

approach to environmental protection. This balanced approach, which has become the hallmark

of environmental protection across the world, combines enforcement with compliance assurance

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

(FY) 1997, OECA continued aggressively addressing environmental degradation by successfully

combining its three primary tools:

C Enforcement actions

C Compliance incentives

C Compliance assistance.

This accomplishments report documents the achievements of the past Fiscal Year in these three

areas. These programs and policies work in concert to bring measurable results to the American

people--cleaner and healthier air, water, and land.

Again in FY97, the Agency achieved new heights in securing compliance through enforcement

from those companies and individuals who degrade the environment and endanger public health. 

New records were established for penalties assessed against violators. The Agency also continued

systematically collecting and reporting on the qualitative impact of its enforcement efforts. 

Traditionally, EPA measured its success only against enforcement outputs, such as penalties,

fines, and cases. However, beginning in FY96, EPA began measuring the positive impact on the

environment from each case. In FY97, about one-third of all civil judicial and administrative

settlements required the defendants to perform use reduction, industrial process changes, emission

or disposal changes, remediation, or removal. As another example of the new information EPA is

collecting, for those cases that reported qualitative environmental impacts, the most commonly

reported impact was protection of human health and worker protection, followed by ecosystem

protection. EPA is working to further improve the reporting of this qualitative information in

1998. Similarly, for those cases reporting quantitative pollutant reductions, the three largest

pollutant reductions reported were for contaminated soil, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and

volatile organic compounds.

In addition, as part of its compliance assurance activities, EPA continued to offer compliance

incentives to regulated entities to encourage them voluntarily to address noncompliance. The

primary incentive--EPA’s audit policy--yielded broad results and was invoked by a large number

of facilities across the country. This type of activity not only increases compliance and prevents

future environmental degradation, but also accomplishes both goals in a more cost-effective

manner for the Agency and the regulated community. EPA also developed and implemented

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

compliance-related projects targeted to small businesses. These activities are designed to provide

facilities and municipalities with the tools and knowledge to achieve compliance on their own.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 1-2

Just as EPA measures the results of its enforcement activities, it also has begun measuring its

compliance incentive and compliance assistance activities. Information was collected on the

number of facilities who took advantage of the incentives and the resulting net environmental

benefit from that acceptance. EPA also, for the second year in a row, tracked its compliance

assistance activities through the Reporting on Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Priorities

(RECAP) forms, collecting information on the types and numbers of compliance assistance

activities conducted by the Agency, as well as the number of entities those activities reached.

This FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report is designed to

provide an overview of the significant achievements by EPA’s headquarters and regional offices

during the past Fiscal Year. Specifically, Chapter 2 presents the FY97 accomplishments from

federal enforcement activities, including data on net environmental benefits of enforcement

activity, inspections, and administrative, civil, and criminal actions. Also, for the first time, the

report includes quantitative data on compliance incentives and compliance assistance activities.

Chapter 3 presents information on the specific activities conducted during FY97, including sectorbased initiatives, community-based environmental protection, multimedia or cross-cutting

programs, media programs, and self-disclosure. This chapter primarily highlights policies,

enforcement or compliance assurance initiatives, and other activities that contributed to the

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

regional level activities. Chapter 4 presents information on the performance partnership

agreements and grants negotiated between headquarters and the regions. The appendices to this

report provide information on traditional enforcement measures over the years and describe

significant criminal, civil, and administrative actions taken in FY97.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-1 July 1998

2. FISCAL YEAR 1997: THE RESULTS

In Fiscal Year (FY) 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continued its quest

toward national environmental improvement by continuing to effectively use its three primary

tools--enforcement, compliance incentives, and compliance assistance. In its traditional role of

enforcement, EPA again achieved records in actions taken and completed, and penalties assessed

and collected. EPA also continued its new efforts to measure the impacts of these actions on the

environment. For example, for those cases reporting quantitative pollutant reductions, the three

largest reductions were for contaminated soil, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and volatile

organic compounds (VOCs).

Also in FY97, the Agency continued collecting data on its compliance incentive and compliance

assistance activities. The collection of such data is now standardized through the Reporting for

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Priorities (RECAP) process. This process allows the

Agency, at both the headquarters and regional levels to track the scope and effort of compliance

assistance activities conducted. The results are included in this document.

The following sections of this chapter highlight EPA’s enforcement programs, as well as its

compliance incentive and compliance assistance activities. Regarding enforcement, sections focus

on the criminal program, civil administrative actions, and the Superfund program. The

enforcement section concludes with a discussion of the impacts of actions on public health and the

environment. An overview of EPA’s compliance incentives and compliance assistance programs,

including a discussion of the Self-Policing Self-Disclosure Policy (Audit Policy) and the RECAP

data, follows the enforcement discussion.

2.1 Enforcement

As mentioned, FY97 was another significant year for EPA in terms of its enforcement program. 

The Agency reached new heights in the number of referrals (704) to the Department of Justice

(DOJ), as well as in fines and penalties ($264.4 million). Of the referrals to DOJ, 426 were civil

matters and the remaining 278 were criminal matters. Figure 2-1 presents the total enforcement

activities taken by EPA and the states in FY97. As shown, the states accounted for 10,894

enforcement actions.

Enforcement continues as the underpinning of EPA’s efforts to protect human health and the

environment by remedying environmental harm, promoting compliance, and determining

noncompliance with the law. Targeting helps assure that compliance monitoring efforts are

directed to areas where federal enforcement presence will obtain greater benefit. In FY97, EPA

committed significant effort to target enforcement and compliance assistance in specific industrial

sectors, as well as media-specific areas.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 2-2

EPA Criminal Referrals

EPA Civil Actions for Sanctions

EPA Formal Administrative

Actions

State Enforcement

Actions

Figure 2-1. Fiscal Year 1997 Enforcement Activities

2.1.1 Criminal Enforcement

The high level of enforcement activity by EPA’s criminal enforcement program during FY97 is

reflected in a record number of criminal referrals to DOJ. A total of 278 cases were referred to

DOJ in FY97 (the previous highest number was 262 in FY96). 

Because of its deterrent effect, incarceration is a key component of the criminal enforcement

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

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

Those who are convicted and sentenced to jail cannot pass the sentence on as another “cost of

doing business;” it must be served by the violator. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-3 July 1998

In FY97, the number of months of jail time to which defendants were sentenced totaled 2,351

months, compared to 1,116 months in FY96. A total of 322 individual and corporate defendants

were charged in criminal judicial proceedings. Over $169 million in criminal fines and restitution

were assessed in FY97, compared with $76.7 million in FY96. Figure 2-2 provides an overview

of the major outputs from the criminal enforcement program over time.

The increases witnessed in the criminal program over the years can be attributed, at least in part,

to the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990. This act authorized a number of enhancements to

EPA’s criminal enforcement program, including increases in the number of criminal investigators

to 200 and a commensurate increase in support staff. By the end of FY97, EPA had increased the

number of criminal investigators to 199 (compared to only 47 in FY89). This additional

investment in agents has yielded significant increases in most key areas of the criminal program, as

evidenced by the steady increase in enforcement numbers. 

In FY97, EPA began collecting data on the expected environmental benefits of its concluded

criminal cases. Information on pollutant reductions, for example, are included in Figure 2-10.

2.1.2 Civil/Administrative Actions

In FY97, enforcement activity in most areas increased from last year. For example, there were

426 judicial referrals, up 44 percent from FY96 (295). (The combined total of civil and criminal

referrals is the highest in EPA history.) A total of $46 million in judicial penalties was assessed,

down approximately 30 percent from the previous year. (It should be noted that last year’s

amount of $66.2 million was almost double the amount assessed in FY95.) Approximately $49.2

million in administrative penalties were assessed, which is an increase of approximately 65 percent

from FY96. As for other enforcement activities:

C Inspections increased slightly in FY97 from FY96, up to 18,706 from 18,211

(nearly 3 percent)

C Administrative penalty order (APO) complaints increased to 1,313 from 870 (51

percent)

C APO settlements increased to 1,350 from 1,004 (34.5 percent)

C Administrative non-penalty orders increased to 1,818 from 1,186 (53 percent)

C Civil judicial settlements decreased from 292 in FY96 to 274 in FY97 (6.2

percent).

Figure 2-3 illustrates EPA’s combined penalties (including criminal, civil, and administrative) over

the past three years. Figure 2-4 presents the breakdown of the FY97 formal civil enforcement

actions by statute and type of action.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 2-4

Cases

Initiated Referrals Defendants Sentences Fines

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Cases

Initiated Referrals Defendants Sentences Fines

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97

Cases Initiated Referrals Defendants Charged Sentences (Years) Fines ($ Millions)

FY 1995 562 256 245 74.0 23.2

FY 1996 548 262 221 93.0 76.7

FY 1997 551 278 322 195.9 169.3

Figure 2-2. EPA Criminal Enforcement: Major Outputs FY95 to FY97
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-5 July 1998

FY 1995 FY1996 F Y 1997

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

$ Millions

Criminal Civil Judicial Administrative

Figure 2-3. EPA’s Combined Penalties

(including criminal, civil, and administrative)

Figure 2-4. Breakdown of FY97 Formal Civil Enforcement Actions by Statute and 

Type of Action
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 2-6

2.1.3 Superfund Enforcement

In Fiscal Year 1997, the Superfund enforcement program secured potentially responsible party

(PRP) commitments exceeding $609.5 million. Of this amount, PRPs signed settlements for an

estimated $451.5 million in future response work, and settlements for more than $158 million in

past costs. Since the inception of the program, the total value of private party commitments

(future and past) is estimated at more than $14.7 billion. PRPs initiated approximately 70 percent

of the remedial work at National Priority List (NPL) sites. This remedial work stemmed from:

C 33 consent decrees referred to DOJ

C 10 unilateral administrative orders with which PRPs complied

C 16 administrative orders on consent and consent agreements for response work. 

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

Comprehensive Environmental, Response, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Superfund

enforcement program concluded 103 de minimis settlements at 29 sites with more than 1,800

parties. Through FY97, the Agency has achieved over 340 settlements with more than 15,000

settlors.

In FY97, the Agency signed a total of 171 administrative orders on consent, and issued 67

unilateral administrative orders. In addition, the Agency achieved a total of 197 new cost

recovery settlements estimated at $158.1 million, and collected more than $316 million in past

costs associated with prior years’ cost recovery settlements. To date, the program has achieved

approximately $2.3 billion in cost recovery settlements and collected more than $1.7 billion in past

costs.

2.1.4 Impacts of Settlements

For the second year, the Agency collected data on the impact of its enforcement actions in directly

addressing risks to public health and the environment. One of the principles underlying EPA’s

enforcement program is that the violators should pay for and correct the damage caused and

prevent future problems, and that the awareness of these actions will encourage others to address

their environmental responsibilities without specific detection, violations, and enforcement. In

addition to penalties, the two main elements of enforcement settlements are injunctive relief--the

actions needed to eliminate noncompliance, correct environmental damage, and restore the

environment--and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)--“extra actions” taken by the

violator to benefit the public or the environment, which are taken into account when assessing a

penalty.

The data show that as a result of EPA enforcement, violators spent a total of $1.9 billion through

injunctive relief to correct violations, take additional steps to protect the environment, and clean

up Superfund sites (see Figure 2-5). In FY97, EPA conclusion of formal actions included almost

6,200 areas of required injunctive relief. Among the most significant of these actions was a case
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-7 July 1998

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

$ Billions

Figure 2-5. Dollar Value of EPA Injunctive Relief

Enforcement Actions Concluded in FY97

Increased Public

Awareness

12%

Reductions Beyond

Compliance Requirements

1%

Increased Federal/State/

Local Gov't Knowledge

11%

Environmental

Restoration/Land Use

4%

Other Benefit

Listed

2%

Ecosystem Protection

27%

Human Health/Worker

Protection

43%

EPA concluded 3,738 formal actions in FY 1997 which

had an estimated injunctive relief value of $1.9 billion.

Figure 2-6. Environmental Impacts of FY97

EPA Injunctive Relief Enforcement Actions

against Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). EPA and the State of California secured injunctive

relief against PG&E for failing to report key environmental data under the Clean Water Act

(CWA) about the effect of its cooling water intake system on marine life near its Diablo Canyon

nuclear power station. EPA, California, and PG&E reached a settlement imposing $7.1 million in

civil penalties and injunctive relief valued at $6.19 million. The settlement requires PG&E to fund

the state’s Mussel Watch monitoring program and to implement recommendations of the Morro

Bay National Estuary Program Council that are designed to help repair the damage caused by the

cooling water intake system to aquatic ecosystems. The specific types of environmental impact of

all injunctive relief actions are presented in Figure 2-6.

In addition to the injunctive relief, EPA obtained SEPs in 266 cases in FY97 at a value of $85.4
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 2-8

Increased Public

Awareness 12%

Ecosystem

Protection

24%

Human Health /

Worker Protection

54%

Increased Federal/State/

Local Gov't Knowledge

4%

Environmental

Restoration

4%

Other Benefit

Listed

2%

EPA finalized 266 cases with Supplemental Environmental Projects

with an estimated implementation value of $85.4 million.

Figure 2-8. Environmental Impacts of SEPs in FY97 EPA Enforcement Actions

0

30

60

90

120

$ Millions

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97

Figure 2-7. Dollar Value of SEPs in EPA Enforcement

Actions Concluded in FY97

million (see Figure 2-7). The specific types of environmental impacts of the SEPs are presented in

Figure 2-8.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-9 July 1998

All totaled, in FY97, EPA concluded 3,368 enforcement actions that required some change in

behavior or the specific conduct of an activity by a violator. Figure 2-9 presents the primary

results of those enforcement actions and the specific changes or activities. Concluded EPA

enforcement actions required chemical or pollutant reductions or eliminations in almost one-third

of all cases. Figure 2-10 presents the impacts for the pollutants with the largest reductions.

The FY97 cases described below are examples of EPA’s commitment to actions that result in real

environmental gains, protect vulnerable segments of the population, such as children, and protect

sensitive ecosystems: 

C EPA entered into a settlement with the Tenneco Oil Company. Under the settlement,

valued at $3.5 million, Tenneco is resolving allegations that it polluted the ground water of

the Sac and Fox Nation (Nation) through years of faulty oil drilling and production

practices by building a new water system for the Nation in Oklahoma. This new system

will deliver a permanent supply of potable water to the Nation and includes a water

recovery system that will allow the Nation to irrigate its lands and promote a farming

economy, thereby restoring an area of tribal land damaged by years of oil and gas retrieval. 

Part of the settlement also includes Tenneco’s payment of $1.6 million to the Nation in

compensation for past contamination.

C The federal government lodged a consent decree to settle a multimedia enforcement action

against the Sherwin-Williams Company to reduce the level of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) that had been emitted for years by a Sherwin-Williams resin and paint plant in

southeast Chicago. VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, which

impairs breathing and can worsen the effects of asthma, chronic bronchitis, and

emphysema. Among other things, Sherwin-Williams agreed to retrofit its paint

manufacturing equipment to greatly reduce its VOC emissions and pay a $4.7 million

penalty.

C Under a consent agreement, Hasbro, Inc., manufacturer of Playskool toys, stopped

making false claims that toys treated with an antibacterial pesticide protect children from

infectious diseases caused by bacteria, including e-coli, salmonella, and staphylococcus

and streptococcus infections. Hasbro agreed to revoke earlier claims and take immediate

steps to inform the public by correcting the information through advertisements in printed

media and appropriate store and toy placarding, and to pay a penalty of $120,000. 

C In connection with a community of minority and low income residents of an El-Paso

County Texas border community (known as a “colonia”), the federal government used the

emergency powers provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and secured an

agreement with developers to provide an interim (and eventually permanent) supply of

fresh drinking water to the colonia residents. Colonias are low income housing projects

serving mostly Hispanic residents. They often lack basic water service and a sewage

treatment system, increasing the chances that people will become ill from drinking

contaminated water.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 2-10

Note: Complying actions were reported for 3,204 of the 3,738 FY97 settlements. Multiple complying actions were reported for some settlements.

Figure 2-9. Results of EPA Enforcement Actions Concluded in FY97
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-11 July 1998

Figure 2-10. Twenty Largest Reported Pollutant Reductions

Resulting From FY97 EPA Concluded Actions

Pollutant Reduction

(in thousands of pounds)

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and

PCB-containing material

576,585

Volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) 62,562

Tailings 28,000

Particulate matter 24,555

Carbon monoxide 21,502

Propane 20,014

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 14,400

Lead 10,297

Oil, crude oil 7,879

Benzene 7,666

Chromium 6,329

Cement kiln dust 6,000

Asbestos 1,055

Toluene 998

Tin 900

Chlordane 701

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 427

Sulfuric acid 359

Methyl ethyl ketone 277

Contaminated soils (major contaminants

are cadmium and lead)

20,084,256

There were 3,738 civil and 127 criminal settlements/conclusions in FY97. In 1,085 of these cases

(28 percent), at least one pollutant was listed as being reduced. Of the 1,085 cases that listed a

pollutant, an estimate of the amount of the pollutant reduced was reported for 411 cases (11

percent of FY97 settlements).

2.2 Compliance Incentives

In the compliance incentives arena, disclosures under EPA’s Self-Policing Policy (Audit Policy)

increased dramatically in FY97. At least 185 companies disclosed violations at more than 457

facilities under the auspices of the Agency’s Audit Policy. In FY97, EPA reached settlements

with 45 companies at 71 facilities, waiving penalties in most cases. To date, 234 companies have

disclosed environmental violations under Audit Policy at more than 750 facilities nationally; EPA

has settled with 78 companies at 423 facilities.

In the largest case under the Audit Policy, EPA and GTE resolved 600 violations of the

Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) and the Oil Pollution Act

(OPA) at 314 GTE facilities in 21 states. The EPCRA violations were for failure to notify state
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 2-12

agencies and local fire departments of sulfuric acid filled batteries present at 229 sites, and the

OPA violations were for failing to develop Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)

plans for diesel fuel, as required by the CWA. Under the terms of the settlement and the

provisions of the Audit Policy, GTE qualified for 100 percent mitigation of the gravity portion of

the penalty, paying only an economic benefit penalty of $52,264, and brought all its sites into

compliance.

2.3 Compliance Assistance

Compliance assistance consists of information and technical assistance provided to the regulated

community to help it meet environmental requirements. It is the most direct approach to ensuring

that requirements are widely known and understood within the regulated community. Compliance

assistance can also help regulated industries find cost-effective ways to comply through the use of

pollution prevention and other innovative technologies. EPA and states provide compliance

assistance services in a variety of ways. In FY97, EPA targeted a variety of initiatives at the

regulated communities: small business, metal finishers, auto services, dry cleaners, and

municipalities, as well as more generalized assistance. As mentioned, for the second year, EPA

regions measured their compliance assistance activities through the RECAP process. Regions

reported on two primary measurements: 1) number of compliance assistance activities conducted,

and 2) number of entities reached through the compliance assistance activities. Within the

“number of compliance assistance activities conducted” category, activities were further broken

down into six distinct subcategories:

C Telephone assistance

C Workshops, meetings, and training

C Compliance assistance tools

C Electronic or Internet resources

C On-site visits

C Other.

Figure 2-11 presents summary information on compliance assistance. For the purposes of this

document, compliance assistance activities have been grouped into three primary areas: 1) sectorbased compliance assistance activities, 2) statute-based activities, and 3) miscellaneous activities

(i.e., those that are neither sector- or statute-based; examples include community-based initiatives,

federal facilities, and general assistance).
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

2-13 July 1998

Figure 2-11. Compliance Assistance Activities Aggregate for Sectors, Statutes,

and Miscellaneous

Sector-based Statute-based Miscellaneous Grand Total

Telephone

Assistance

No. of Activities

Conducted

3,615 32,373 7,584 43,572

No. of Entities

Reached

3,397 34,430 5,507 43,340

Workshops,

Meetings,

Training

No. of Activities

Conducted

103 746 100 950

No. of Entities

Reached

49,518 47,630 3,270 100,410

Compliance

Assistance

Tools

No. of Activities

Conducted

420 1,530 60 1,990

No. of Entities

Reached

8,020 44,850 613 53,480

Electronic

or Internet

Resources

No. of Activities

Conducted

586 70 35 700

No. of Entities

Reached

65,260 20,670 2,110 88,020

On-Site

Visits

No. of Activities

Conducted

954 1,870 140 2,960

No. of Entities

Reached

870 1,040 215 2,120

Other*

No. of Activities

Conducted

164 1,990 83 2,230

No. of Entities

Reached

14,460 71,530 12,300 98,280

Note: The above data reflect totals of regional compliance activities. In some instances (e.g., where

workshops did not require formal registration), regional estimates are included.

* Other activities include preparation of newsletters and articles to trade publications.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-1 July 1998

3. FISCAL YEAR 1997: THE ACTIVITIES

In FY97, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offices at both the headquarters and

regional levels conducted significant enforcement and compliance assurance activities that

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

enforcement initiatives to compliance assistance to policies and voluntary incentives. This chapter

is organized into five sections that describe significant activities at both the headquarters and

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

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

resulting activities. For FY97, EPA identified three national priority sectors and ten significant

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

noncompliance rates and high-volume Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemical releases. 

Designation as an EPA priority sector means these sectors receive special emphasis, both in terms

of compliance assistance and enforcement.

Section 3.2 describes community-based environmental protection (CBEP) activities. In FY97,

EPA developed multimedia enforcement and compliance assistance strategies for environmental

and noncompliance problems associated with particular communities or places, including

ecosystems and other natural resource areas. Community-based approaches, which provide

opportunities to address environmental justice concerns, have proven effective in facilitating

collaborative planning and involvement with the people living in those communities.

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

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

Section 3.3.

Section 3.4 discusses special accomplishments and initiatives within EPA’s traditional media

programs. In FY97, EPA continued its media-based enforcement and compliance activities in

conjunction with other special initiatives to ensure the best protection of human health and the

environment. Finally, Section 3.5 presents information on facility self-disclosures under EPA’s

Audit Policy.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-2

3.1 Industry Sector Priorities

In FY97, EPA identified three industrial sectors for priority attention: dry cleaners, petroleum

refineries, and primary nonferrous metals. In addition, EPA established ten significant sectors: 1)

agricultural practices, 2) automotive service and repair shops, 3) coal-fired power plants, 4)

industrial organic chemicals, 5) iron and basic steel products, 6) mining, 7) municipalities, 8)

plastic materials/synthetics, 9) printing, and 10) pulp mills. EPA selected these sectors by

considering multiple factors, including industry compliance history, high volume TRI releases,

significant cross-regional impacts, and institutional sector-based expertise. This section highlights

both national and regional sector priorities.

To better understand the various industrial sectors, in FY97, EPA added nine new notebooks to

its Sector Notebook Series, bringing the total in the series to 27. The notebooks contain a variety

of information for a particular sector, including national distribution of facilities, process

descriptions, waste releases, pollution prevention opportunities, applicable statutes and

regulations, compliance and enforcement history, pollution prevention opportunities, and a

contact directory. The notebooks are virtually the only government publication in which all of

these cross-cutting environmental issues are presented in a single document. The notebook series

is proving especially useful to federal and state regulatory officials, small business service

providers, community groups, educators, international organizations, and foreign governments. 

The notebooks direct decision makers toward more holistic multimedia solutions to environmental

problems. Since the project’s debut in 1995, more than 110,000 documents have been distributed

in hard copy and over the Internet. 

3.1.1 National Priorities

Dry Cleaners

Dry cleaners were selected as a priority sector because they result in significant multimedia

releases to the environment and have the potential to significantly impact human health and the

environment. For example, in Region 2 the 5,000 dry cleaners emit in aggregate 62,500 tons per

year of perchloroethylene (perc), a possible carcinogen, into the air; discharge 16 tons per year of

perchloroethylene in the wastewater; and generate more than 30 tons of solid waste per year. Dry

cleaners pose additional challenges because the majority of dry cleaners are small businesses that

may not be fully aware of environmental regulations. This problem is compounded because

language barriers, in many instances, complicate outreach and educational efforts.

At the national level, EPA conducted two significant compliance assistance projects: 

C Korean Dry Cleaners Mentoring Program - EPA, Virginia, Maryland, the District of

Columbia, and the Korean Dry Cleaners Association of Greater Washington have

partnered to address the needs of the Korean perchloroethylene dry cleaning community. 

These partners have developed a mentoring program where experienced dry cleaners

(coaches), who have been trained by EPA and the states, assist less sophisticated dry
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-3 July 1998

cleaners to increase their understanding of and compliance with environmental

requirements. Dry cleaners from 400 stores have attended group multimedia inspection

demonstrations. To date, 86 dry cleaners have been inspected by coaches and have passed

these multimedia inspections by demonstrating compliance with an inspection checklist. 

Based on its experience, the trade association believes that dry cleaners who have

participated in the mentoring program have a 20 percent higher compliance rate than other

dry cleaners in the area.

C Compliance Video for Dry Cleaners - EPA developed a two-part video in both English

and Korean that covers multimedia environmental regulations for perchloroethylene dry

cleaners. EPA has partnered with states, technical assistance programs, dry cleaning trade

associations, and other assistance providers to distribute and help evaluate the

effectiveness of the video. EPA will be measuring the effectiveness of the video as a

compliance assistance tool and as a mechanism to change dry cleaners’ understanding of

environmental requirements and their behavior through a customer satisfaction survey and

through working with the other assistance providers and trade associations to evaluate the

video’s impact.

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

within EPA’s regions. As shown, the regions used a combination of traditional activities and

compliance assistance:

C Region 1’s air program conducted 27 inspections of dry cleaners in FY97. Five facilities

had violations and will be reinspected in FY98. Nineteen of the 27 inspections were

reinspection of facilities with past problems. 

C Region 2 held four multimedia seminars for the Korean dry cleaner community and

participated in six multimedia dry cleaner seminars sponsored by the states. The seminars

informed more than 1,200 dry cleaner owners/operators about the applicable federal and

state requirements, EPA’s compliance incentive policies, and other applicable programs. 

In addition to holding outreach seminars, the region provided on-site compliance

assistance at 70 dry cleaning facilities.

C Region 2 conducted 100 air compliance inspections of dry cleaning. Based on the region’s

inspections, only eight percent of the regulated facilities were in compliance with the Clean

Air Act (CAA). As a result, Region 2 issued 22 administrative orders to dry cleaning

facilities in FY97. 

C In Region 3, a total of 75 inspections by EPA and 230 inspections by the states were

completed in FY97. While many sources were not in full compliance, violations were

largely found in the areas of recordkeeping and reporting, as opposed to the lack of

pollution control devices.

C Region 3’s air program also gave presentations, assisted with the development of a video

of a mock inspection, wrote feature articles that appeared in Pennsylvania Dry Cleaners
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-4

and Launderers Association publication and the Pennsylvania Small Business Assistance

Program AIRHELP newsletter, and handled numerous calls for information.

C During FY97, Region 4 conducted 73 compliance assistance dry cleaning inspections and 

continued to utilize the Plain English Guide. . ., which is an in-depth explanation of the

regulations. Copies of the requirements were given to the regulated community during

these inspections, as well as mailed to anyone who requested them.

C Region 5’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program along with its air

program, worked with the Southeast Michigan and Chicago teams to offer compliance

assistance to dry cleaners. Illinois EPA participated and provided the region with a list of

facilities that require follow-up after they were offered compliance assistance. The region

conducted compliance inspections and found paperwork violations. 

C Region 6 conducted more than 300 inspections/compliance assistance visits in

environmental justice areas with emphasis in the Houston/Galveston and Dallas/Ft. Worth

areas. Compliance assistance tools were distributed during the visits, including a video

that was developed through a contract with a small business entity. The region has noted

an increase in submittals of registrations, an increase in conversion to dry-to-dry

equipment, and an increase in the use of drop-off sites. 

Inspections were conducted by Region 6’s air and RCRA program as part of a multimedia

enforcement effort. A total of 30 to 40 targeted dry cleaners was inspected. Three

cleaners were found to have a substantial number of RCRA violations. 

C Region 7 focused on identifying potential non-notifying facilities in the dry cleaning sector. 

In conjunction with the FY97 inspections and from on-site responses as to what type of

compliance assistance was helpful, the team developed a multimedia compliance document

to address RCRA, air, and underground injection control (UIC) programs.

C All six states within Region 8 conducted outreach activities for dry cleaners through Small

Business Assistance Programs funded from the CAA Title V fees program. Outreach has

been by workshops, mass mailers of guidance materials, and individual visits. 

C Region 9 funded the local non-profit group Ecology Action. Ecology Action will be

hosting a series of workshops for San Francisco Bay Area dry cleaners. The dry cleaners

will be introduced to alternative technologies for cleaning garments professionally and will

receive the opportunity to view wet-cleaning processes firsthand. 

C Region 9’s support for the state/local compliance assistance efforts resulted in many of its

regional dry cleaning facilities voluntarily choosing to switch from using hazardous solvent

cleaners (such as perchloroethylene) to non-hazardous solutions. 

Petroleum Refineries
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-5 July 1998

Petroleum refineries generate a wide variety of hazardous wastes, effluents, and air emissions in

large quantities. Large volumes of wastewater containing many organic chemicals are routinely

discharged from refineries, and PCB transformers commonly are found at refineries. At the

national level, EPA conducted the following significant compliance assistance project:

C Compliance Tools For the Petroleum Sector - EPA developed two compliance

assistance tools for the petroleum sector. The first, Petroleum Refining MACT Standard

Enabling Document, was developed to increase understanding of the standard and present

pertinent information regarding the Petroleum Refining National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAP) rulemaking in a simple and easy-to-understand format. 

The second document, Benzene NESHAP FAQ Handbook for Subparts FF and BB, was

developed to improve understanding of Subparts FF and BB, which cover benzene waste

and transfer operations. Both documents are available via the Internet at

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/metd/ref.html/.

The activities described below characterize compliance and enforcement efforts in EPA’s regions:

C In FY97, the largest petroleum refining facility in the nation (located in Region 2), the

Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation (HOVIC), with a processing capacity of 500,000

barrels per day, pleaded guilty to criminal violation of RCRA following a multi-year

investigation and prosecution.

C Region 3 completed multimedia inspections at two major refineries, the largest TRI

emitters. The region reached a settlement with Sun Refinery for violations, and obtained a

supplemental environmental project (SEP) to restore wetlands and purchase a hazmat

truck for the City of Philadelphia. The RCRA program conducted four Subtitle C

inspections at petroleum refining facilities. Two formal actions were issued.

C In Region 4, 27 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted

refineries were identified at the beginning of FY96, and states were encouraged to inspect

as many of these facilities as possible by the end of FY97. The states and Region 4

inspected 70 percent of the facilities, including 100 percent of the majors. As a result,

four notices of violation (NOVs) and three administrative orders (AOs) were issued.

C Region 5 conducted seven inspections of petroleum refineries during FY97, including four

inspections as part of multimedia efforts. Six NOVs / findings of violations (FOVs) were

issued to petroleum refineries and seven cases were referred to DOJ, including four as part

of multimedia enforcement actions. These cases included major emissions violations of

state implementation plans (SIPs), new source performance standards (NSPS), NESHAPs,

and prevention of significant deterioration/new source review (PSD/NSR) violations. 

C Approximately 15 refineries were inspected by Region 6 in FY97. Twelve were found to

have potential violations ranging from leaking components to failure to performance test

flares and benzene issues. All are in varying stages of enforcement action development

with four administrative penalty orders (APOs) and three civil referrals to DOJ, one AO,
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-6

three consent agreements/consent orders (CACOs), and three civil judicial conclusions

completed to date.

C Region 6 also conducted one polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) inspection and one TSCA

Sections 5 and 8 inspection. The region maintained a highly visible TSCA enforcement

presence among the refinery sector with a total of three administrative enforcement

actions at refineries. 

C Region 7 has three active refineries that are all located in the State of Kansas. During

FY97, the team placed an emphasis on the Texaco refinery, at which NEIC conducted a

multimedia inspection. In February 1997, the refinery developed a risk management plan

as a result of a SEP.

In settlement negotiations with Farmland Industries, Inc., in Coffeyville, KS, Farmland

agreed to certify compliance with all requirements of CAA, RCRA, and EPCRA in

consent agreements. Along with agreeing to resolve all violations now known to EPA,

Farmland agreed to implement several SEPs at the refinery, which will cost approximately

$2.2 million. Farmland agreed to install a new flare scrubber to reduce the likelihood of

accidental releases of hydrofluoric acid into the neighboring community and to install

several safety upgrades that result in several environmental benefits. The benefits to the

environment include the protection of human health, worker protection standards, and the

protection of the ecosystem. Farmland also agreed to install controls to reduce the

amount of solids entering the facility’s sewer system and thereby prevent the generation of

RCRA hazardous waste. The SEP involved both pollution reduction and pollution

prevention.

C Region 8 organized a petroleum refinery sector team of nine staff members representing

programs having applicable regulations at refineries. The team’s first effort was to

develop a targeting data matrix by researching risk, and to evaluate environmental justice

and community-based environmental attributes. In coordination with Region 8’s

Environmental Justice Program, an Interim Environmental Justice Inspection Protocol was

implemented for all areas surrounding refineries. 

During FY97, six different programs conducted a total of 13 EPA inspections and 32 state

inspections at petroleum refineries. In addition, the UIC Program completed Shallow

Injection Well Inventory Request Forms for refineries. The UIC program found no wells.

As part of an outreach effort, the Region 8 staff continued to meet with the Rocky

Mountain Oil and Gas Association (RMOGA) Refinery Committee. Two meetings were

held during 1997. The refining industry was introduced to EPA’s newer compliance

assurance projects and efforts including environmental justice (EJ), Project XL, and the

National Compliance Study.

C Region 9 organized an Oil Refinery Roundtable with representatives from industry, local

governments, and EPA to confer on three major categories of refinery pollution:
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-7 July 1998

hazardous air pollutants, criteria air pollutants, and wastewater sludges. Eventually, the

roundtable participants decided to focus on wastewater sludges because this is an area

where there is the greatest potential for using pollution prevention. As the result of a

second roundtable, an erosion control project which is a collaborative effort among

industry, local government, and EPA emerged from this discussion. A group of oil

refineries working with an erosion control expert conducted a study examining the use of

erosion control methods as a means of pollution prevention. The team working on this

project is now collecting data and organizing site visits to refineries.

Primary Nonferrous Metals

Production operations of primary nonferrous metals are subject to a number of regulations,

including those imposed by RCRA, CWA, and CAA. The following activities characterize EPA

regional compliance and enforcement efforts focused on primary nonferrous metal facilities:

C Region 3’s RCRA program conducted two Subtitle C inspections at primary nonferrous

metals facilities. Further enforcement action is being evaluated for any facilities with

continuing noncompliance. In addition, Region 3 investigated 15 facilities. Of these

facilities, seven were found in violation and follow up enforcement actions have been

initiated and/or finalized for all seven facilities. 

C Region 4 conducted five inspections at primary nonferrous facilities. The findings of these

inspections will or have already resulted in one formal enforcement action for significant

noncompliance (SNC) and two informal actions for significant violations (SV). 

3.1.2 Significant Sector Priorities

Agricultural Practices

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are a priority within the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). In FY97, OECA initiated development of a

CAFO Compliance and Enforcement Implementation Plan. A workgroup consisting of state,

EPA, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) representatives provided the basis for

EPA’s draft CAFO Strategy. The draft establishes a five-year CAFO inspection goal and specifies

the development of individual state CAFO Compliance and Enforcement Strategies. The final

Implementation Plan is planned for early 1998. OECA initiated a number of activities in 1997 to

support the Plan’s goals. A primary activity was a CAFO National Meeting in Kansas City, which

brought together 42 states and all ten EPA regions.

In conjunction with the OECA national activity, several regions also targeted agricultural

practices in FY97. While CAFOs were a primary focus within the agriculture sector, there were

also other agriculture-related activities:
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-8

C Region 4 focussed inspections at facilities that manufacture pesticides. The states and

Region 4 inspected 67 percent of the 129 facilities, including 100 percent of the majors,

during FY96/97. As a result, 34 NOVs, two AOs, and two penalty orders were issued.

C Region 6’s emphasis on CAFOs was on the NPDES general permit and its

implementation. Six EPA and 24 state CAFO inspections were conducted in FY97 to

determine if facilities were compliant with the CAFO general permit. Inspections were

held on a “spot check” basis in Texas and on a scheduled basis in New Mexico. 

Oklahoma inspected a select number of the major facilities and determined the compliance

status. The region continues to improve its knowledge of the numbers of facilities by the

improvement of the database in all states.

C During 1997, Region 7 states took 26 enforcement actions against feedlots for water

quality-related violations.

C Region 7’s Agriculture Sector Team partnered with the National Agriculture Compliance

Assistance Center (Ag Center) to develop a multimedia pollution prevention compendium. 

The compendium includes written materials developed or distributed by EPA that focus on

pollution prevention and agriculture. The region also produced the “Agricultural Pollution

Prevention” fact sheet, listing EPA’s available materials and formatting the fact sheet for

Internet distribution; it also developed a list of the “best” agricultural pollution prevention

sites on the Internet.

C In February 1997, Region 9 initiated a Regional Agriculture Team to complement the

Agriculture Initiative team by developing a Regional Agriculture Strategy and

incorporating agriculture pollution prevention principles into core agency programs.

Region 9’s Agriculture Initiative Team has initiated Biologically Integrated Farming

Systems projects with other high environmental priority commodities/crops for California,

including walnut, cotton, tomatoes, and wine grapes These crops use large amounts of

targeted pesticides and fertilizers with potential impacts to water quality, air quality, and

human health.

The Pesticides Program continued to use 16 cooperative agreements with states, tribes,

and territories to support enforcement programs in Region 9. Each of these 16 entities

conducted traditional pesticide use inspections and follow-up investigations to determine

compliance with local, state, tribal, and federal pesticides law. Appropriate enforcement

actions were taken and compliance assistance provided when necessary.

C Through the Region 10 CAFO Whatcom County Initiative, the region conducted NPDES

inspections at 67 targeted facilities; six were issued penalties, three were designated as

significant contributors of pollutants, six were issued certificates of merit, and 52 were

issued warning letters. Whatcom County was the first county selected for inspection

because it has approximately 280 CAFOs, the largest concentration of CAFOs in the state. 

Other activities conducted as part of this initiative included several outreach activities,

including a presentation to Appraisers and Lenders of Washington State.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-9 July 1998

This initiative succeeded in several ways. First, it was a success because of the quick

enforcement response by the Agency. Enforcement response time (from inspection date

to enforcement action issuance) was less than two months in all cases. The response time

for issuance of penalties ranged from seven days to 55 days.

Second, the initiative was determined to be a success based on anecdotal information

received regarding the numbers of facilities now seeking assistance. The National

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in Whatcom County provides technical assistance

to producers. NRCS receives an average of three requests for assistance per month. 

However, after the first week of inspections, NRCS received 83 requests for assistance.

Finally, another indicator of success is the level of awareness that the producers as well as

citizens now have about CAFO requirements and concerns. This is illustrated by the

number of articles that has been written on CAFO activities in local newspapers. This

increased level of awareness also is illustrated by an increase in the number of phone calls

received by Region 10 from citizens concerned about discharges from CAFOs.

Auto Service/Repair

The auto service/repair sector is a significant priority sector because of the number of potential

threats to the environment, including chloroflourocarbon (CFC) and volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions, petroleum releases, hazardous waste, Class V UIC wells, and PCBcontaminated oils. 

At the national level, OECA completed a multi-program, consolidated checklist for automotive

repair facilities that is being made available to both inspectors and automotive shop owners. The

checklist highlights key federal environmental requirements that affect an automotive shop owner. 

An inspector can use this as a quick screen for EPA program requirements. The automotive shop

owner can use this as a self-audit and educational tool to quickly determine if the shop is

complying with these key requirements. The checklist is available via the Internet at

http://www.ccar-greenlink.org/checklist.html/.

At the regional level: 

C Region 1’s New England Environmental Assistance Team (NEEATeam) conducted 42

on-site visits to auto repair and body shops in New England. More than 30 of these shops

agreed to test the two-page compliance checklist designed by OECA. Compliance and

pollution prevention information was provided and the visits were well received overall. 

The NEEATeam conducted three auto workshops during the past year and also wrote a

technical bulletin that provides compliance and pollution prevention information for the

industry. In addition, the NEEATeam also helped the Northeast Waste Management

Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) develop the Municipal Officials’ Practical Auto

Repair Shops Checklist. This checklist will be distributed at future workshops for

municipal officials.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-10

C In FY97, Region 2 conducted 24 multimedia and 21 sampling inspections at auto body

shops. Twenty facilities were found in violation of state requirements. Region 2 also

conducted 47 underground storage tank (UST) and 94 UIC inspections in FY97. The

region received a total of 34 UIC closure plans and issued two UIC program AOs for a

total of $19,000 in penalties. Region 2 issued 14 field citations to service station owners

for violations of UST release detection requirements. A complaint was issued against the

owner/operator of 22 service stations for $601,011 in penalties. A case involving the

owner of 30+ service stations for violations of UST release detection and closure

requirements was referred to DOJ.

Region 2’s UST program worked with New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation to conduct 11 outreach sessions in New York. A total of 1,425 members of

the regulated community attended these sessions which focused on the 1998 UST upgrade

requirements, as well as release detection. One outreach session was held in New Jersey

in concert with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Additionally,

the UST program responded to 350 inquires from the regulated community on service

station-related issues.

C Region 3 completed a telephone survey on compliance issues in the auto repair/service

sector in S/SW Philadelphia in FY97. It also continued its multimedia compliance

assistance activities, including holding an auto body environmental workshop; pulling

together contact lists for the national auto service sector compliance assistance center;

developing an overview of regulations covering auto service stations with state and EPA

contacts as appropriate; and participating with headquarters in on-site assistance visits in

Philadelphia.

C In Region 4, the activities associated with this initiative have been compliance assistance

visits (CAVs), at which inspectors conduct voluntary audits at auto repair shops. In

FY97, the region completed a total of 43 CAVs and is currently in the process of notifying

the facilities of their requirements to comply and the length of the corrections period. 

C Region 7 conducted an initiative to determine the compliance status of Kansas City, MO,

auto salvage dealers with CFC requirements. Fourteen businesses were inspected with

two receiving administrative complaince orders. By providing verbal compliance

assistance and written information to the businesses, all but one of the 14 businesses are

now in compliance.

Region 7 also implemented a region-wide investigation and compliance assistance project

to address the use of an unapproved refrigerant being used as a substitute for CFC-12 in

motor vehicle air conditioning systems (MVACS). The unapproved refrigerant being

installed in MVACS is known as HC-12a® and Duracool. Region 7 sent 20 information

request letters to individuals believed to be using this product. Based upon evidence of

violations resulting from our information request, Region 7 issued seven APOs. Also, 100

letters have been sent providing information to individuals either using, selling, or trying to
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-11 July 1998

prevent the use and sale of this product. The official EPA brochures on this product were

provided to over 150 participants at two seminars. 

In addition, Region 7 conducted an inspection of four auctioneers suspected of selling R12 refrigerant to uncertified technicians for automotive use. The sale of refrigerant to

either users in the automotive sector or users in the heating and air conditioning sector is

regulated under the CAA. Section 114 letters requiring submittal of information were sent

as follow up to the inspections. As a result, each of the four entities agreed to sell only to

certified technicians, improve their current recordkeeping practices, and to share

information on the regulations at their monthly Missouri Auctioneer’s Association

Meeting, thereby reaching hundreds of affected parties. Although no enforcement actions

were taken, compliance was achieved as well as outreach to a broader segment of this

sector.

C Region 8 participated in a partnership with industry and Front Range Community College

for the creation, maintenance, and promotion of a compliance assistance Internet

homepage. The purpose of this homepage is to translate complicated environmental laws

into everyday language that the normal business person can understand, and give that

person associated information on educational opportunities. Although the initial focus of

the information was the automotive service industry, the audience has expanded to include

several other industries and environmental information in general. During FY97, there

were 58,003 website hits, a large percentage of which has been to obtain automotive

service sector information.

C Region 8 personnel also have made presentations at trade shows and meetings during

FY97 that were attended by approximately 45,900 people, all of whom own or manage

automotive service industry businesses. The region also conducted compliance assistance

audits at auto service facilities.

C Region 9 conducted four underground storage tank compliance inspections (three state,

one on Indian lands) and 13 compliance assistance inspections, all on Indian lands. 

Seventy-eight percent (133) of the air program’s FY97 inspections were conducted as a

part of Region 9’s automotive air conditioning activities.

C Training was provided on how to do a CFC inspection by Region 10 to EPA and state

inspectors. Students were cross-trained to do both respective program and auto service

shop inspections. This training has resulted in an increased field presence. In FY96, about

80 inspections were completed, while in FY97, about 300 were completed.

Coal-fired Power Plants

Region 8’s RCRA program (EPA and states combined) performed comprehensive evaluations on

33 of the 39 coal-fired power plants identified for this sector. Other than one minor violation of

labeling requirements, none of the power plants was found to be in violation of the RCRA

requirements for their generator status. During the FY96-97 study period, either EPA or the state
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-12

air program inspected each coal-fired power plant. Review of excess emission reports showed

high monitor downtime or excess emissions at 12 of the 39 facilities. Region 8’s EPCRA

program worked with the state agencies to comprehensively evaluate 68 percent of the power

plants. Comprehensive evaluations consisted of determining whether annual inventory reports of

hazardous chemicals above designated thresholds had been submitted. 

Industrial Organic Chemicals

Facilities in this sector use and generate a wide range of chemicals though a variety of processes. 

Depending on the raw materials, processes, and equipment in use, releases may occur to all

media. For example, this industrial sector has traditionally been problematic for the EPCRA

program in the areas of non-reporting and data quality. In addition, PCBs are commonly found in

production equipment used at these facilities.

In Region 2, one RCRA NOV was issued and three enforcement actions were taken under TSCA. 

Based on the region’s two-year effort in this industrial sector, it is evident that the rate of

noncompliance is very low. In Region 4, there were four RCRA inspections targeted at industrial

organic chemical facilities that resulted in the determination of three SVs and one SNC. In

addition, ten inspections conducted in support of CBEP activities resulted in the discovery of two

SVs.

Region 5 completed a total of four inspections, three in Illinois (primarily in the Chicago metro)

and one in Ohio. The inspections were used as training tools for federal, state, and local staff to

establish methods for conducting HON inspections. The inspections investigated all aspects of

the HON including applicability, storage tanks, transfer racks, process vents, and leak detection

and repair. 

Iron and Basic Steel Products

Region 4 conducted three inspections at iron and steel facilities, and two facilities were identified

as SVs. Region 5’s activity in the iron and steel sector focused on enforcement. Seven steel mills

were inspected in FY97, resulting in four NOVs and four referrals. The inspections covered all

the major steel mill sources (coke plant, by-products recovery plant, blast furnaces, and basic

oxygen furnace [BOF] shops). The enforcement actions involved several pollutants (particulate

matter [PM10], SO2, and benzene) and several regulations (SIP, NSPS, and NESHAP). In

addition to the inspections, the daily coke battery reports submitted to the region on a monthly

basis were used to monitor compliance with the coke oven NESHAP, as well as with SIP

limitations. A major settlement with LTC Steel was achieved, resolving violations at its coke

plant. The settlement included a cash penalty of $1.25 million and a SEP worth $1.8 million. 

Reductions in pollutants from the injunctive relief and SEP include 898 tons per year PM10 and 45

tons per year VOC.

Region 5’s mini-mill initiative was very active in FY97. Out of a universe of 22 mini-mills, nine

multimedia inspections were completed, eight self-audits were received, and two self-disclosures

were received and reviewed.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-13 July 1998

Mining

The activities performed by Region 8 in FY97 for the metal mining facilities included universe

identification and comprehensive evaluation of select mining facilities. The universe identification

consisted of searching various databases to determine which facilities in Region 8 were metal

mining facilities. Each program verified the compliance status of the selected facilities through

existing data and file reviews to the extent possible for their media. Following the initial review of

existing data, the region attempted to gather further data from: 1) the states through

meetings/phone calls to discuss the facilities; 2) the facilities through phone calls and information

requests; and 3) inspections. In addition, various activities were performed related to inspections

at mines and ongoing enforcement actions against mines. 

In FY97, Region 8 referred two Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA) §107 actions and concluded ten CERCLA AO/settlement actions at

mining-related sites. The region also used alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to facilitate

resolution of technical and enforcement issues at two mining sites in Utah. 

The region’s NPDES program conducted a multimedia (drinking water, NPDES, and Oil

Pollution Act [OPA]) inspection at the TVX Mineral Hill mine. This inspection resulted in an

NPDES APO, which settled for $125,000. The NPDES program also issued an APO to the TVX

Mineral Hill mine for failure to have an SPCC plan signed by a registered professional engineer. 

This APO was settled for a $5,000 fine. The NPDES program also offered technical assistance to

TVX Mineral Hill mine to help it come into compliance with the CWA and the SDWA. 

Region 9 conducted CWA compliance evaluation inspections for a number of mines in California

and Arizona and continued work on active enforcement cases. This included referring two cases

to DOJ covering inactive mercury mines in California that were discharging metals in excess of

their NPDES permit limits and developing other enforcement actions.

Mining-related OPA compliance results in Region 9 included: 1) SPCC compliance inspections,

remediation technical assistance, and assistance with development of an SPCC training program

for Peabody Western Coal Company (PWCC) on Navajo lands; 2) inspection and follow-up work

on the P&M McKinley mine; 3) assistance to the BHP Navajo Mine; 4) participation in a multiagency meeting, including Navajo and industry; and 5) training and support for the federal Office

of Surface Mining (OSM) and Navajo minerals inspectors.

A key accomplishment for Region 9 in FY97 for NPDES mining issues has been establishment of

a mining team of technical staff dedicated to work on new source mining permits and

establishment of EPA as a cooperating agency with states on new source mining permits. 

Municipal Wastewater Treatment

Region 1’s NEEATeam provided municipal wastewater treatment plant operators with on-site

technical assistance and training. The Team also provided municipalities and certain industrial
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-14

sectors with information on how to comply with environmental requirements and how to prevent

pollution. The NEEATeam Municipal Sector conducted on-site compliance assistance visits to 19

wastewater treatment plants. In addition, the NEEATeam and Region 1’s Office of Ecosystem

Protection conducted three conferences on “How to Comply with NPDES Metals Limits.” These

conferences provided assistance to municipalities and industries for dealing with low level metal

content in wastewater discharges and related compliance issues. 

Region 1 and all six states have actively participated in the region’s wastewater treatment plant

operator on-site technical assistance. The region’s operator training program conducted more

than 1,000 on-site technical assistance visits at more than 400 wastewater treatment plants.

Recent examples of on-site technical assistance successes include:

C Vermont Dairy Pollution Prevention Program (VDPPP) - The VDPPP began in 1994

when it was discovered that five wastewater treatment plants were in significant

noncompliance with their permit limits. The violations were caused by discharges of

waste from dairy industries in the communities. Staff from the Vermont Department of

Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) and the NEEATeam Municipal Group provided

on-site technical assistance to these five treatment plants and to 33 dairy facilities. The

VDPPP identified pollution prevention opportunities, provided technology transfer, and

increased treatment plant compliance. The program also produced a pollution prevention

video for the dairy industry. The video, used to train employees at the 33 dairy facilities,

is now being used nationwide.

C Technical Assistance to Waterbury - The Waterbury wastewater treatment facility

(WWTF) had significant violations of its biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) permit limit. 

The WWTF is an aerated lagoon that is designed to handle a loading of approximately 750

pounds a day of BOD. However, it routinely handled a loading of 1,200 pounds a day. 

As part of EPA assistance efforts, the source of the high BOD was identified. With

continued assistance from EPA, Waterbury upgraded its aeration system and accumulated

sludge was removed from its primary lagoon. The industrial source of the BOD

constructed a pretreatment system, implemented pollution prevention techniques, and is

limited to discharging 200 pounds a day of BOD to the treatment facility. Waterbury is

now in full compliance with its permit requirements.

C Most Improved Wastewater Treatment Plant - Richmond has a small wastewater

treatment plant with a capacity of approximately 0.25 million gallons per day. The facility

serves approximately 249 residential, 54 commercial, and one industrial connection. The

plant had a history of effluent violations. Technical assistance efforts by EPA and the VT

DEC resulted in identifying a neighboring dairy facility as the main cause of the plant’s

problems. The dairy facility was provided with technical assistance and agreed to install

flow equalization and pH adjustment equipment that would help alleviate the operational

problems at the treatment facility. The wastewater treatment plant is now in full

compliance with its permit requirements.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-15 July 1998

Printing

Region 1’s NEEATeam published and began to distribute its multimedia compliance and pollution

prevention manual entitled Fit to Print. As of October 1997, almost 1,500 manuals were

distributed. The manual was designed to be a comprehensive resource to printers and contains

state-specific regulatory inserts. The manual has been widely praised. A series of outreach events

for lithographers was launched by the NEEATeam including five workshops in Maine and two in

Connecticut. In addition, a follow-up effort has been undertaken to solicit feedback from printers

who received the manual. The follow-up effort will help the team determine if the manual meets

printers’ needs, ways in which the manual might be improved, and any questions printers have

regarding the material in the manual.

In FY97, Region 2 inspected 22 commercial printers for compliance with RCRA requirements.

This brings the total compliance evaluations of commercial printers over the last two years to 39. 

Most of the printers inspected were found to be small quantity or conditionally exempt small

quantity generators, to have tolling agreements for removal of solvents and recycling contracts for

photographic type wastes, and to be in compliance with RCRA hazardous waste requirements. 

Region 2 continued its support in the printing sector of EPA’s Common Sense Initiative (CSI)

New York City Education Project. This support included: 1) hosting CSI planning meetings,

2) building regional capacity to plan, coordinate, and enhance outreach among New York

stakeholders, 3) serving as Project Officer for four CSI community grants awarded at the end of

FY97, and 4) bringing to completion Region 2’s idea to develop, with other CSI stakeholders, the

Environmental Compliance and Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance Directory for New

York printers.

Region 2 also provided support for state initiatives relating to printers. For example, the region

funded four NYSDEC pollution prevention/regulatory compliance workshops, provided staff to

serve as guest speakers, and assisted in the development of outreach documents (i.e., NYSDEC’s

Environmental Self-Assessment for Lithographic Printers and Environmental Compliance

Pollution Prevention Guide).

Pulp Mills

Pulp mills in Region 3 are a significant source of SOx and NOx. Moreover, there has been a

substantial production increase in the last decade that may be related to unpermitted construction. 

In FY97, Region 3 conducted eight detailed investigations of pulp mills. Of these eight, seven

were found to have substantial violations and appropriate enforcement or other responses are

under development.

3.1.3 Regional Sector Priorities

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

and compliance priorities among the nationally defined significant sectors and regionally

developed sector priorities. Regional sector targeting allows each EPA region to focus on the
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-16

environmental and health problems that are most pressing in its area. The following discussion

highlights regional sector priorities.

Region 1

During FY97, Region 1 focussed its compliance and pollution prevention assistance work with

the following sectors: metal plating and finishing, electronics, wood furniture manufacturers, and

schools. Three of these sectors were also CSI priorities. 

C Assistance to Emergency Planners and Responders - The EPCRA team completed and

signed agreements with more than 350 State Emergency Response Commissions, Tribal

Emergency Response Commissions, and Local Emergency Planning Committees to

provide Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations software, training for

emergency preparedness, and guidance for ensuring that information is made readily

available to the public.

C Metal Finishing Workshops - The NEEATeam metal finishing sector conducted several

workshops to bring information on compliance requirements, pollution prevention

opportunities, and technologies directly to metal platers and surface finishers. One

workshop was attended by approximately 75 people on the chrome electroplating

Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard. A second workshop cosponsored by a surface finishers trade association and others was attended by

approximately 100 people. NEEATeam also co-sponsored the annual meeting of the

American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers for the Rhode Island and Merrimack

Chapters.

C NEEATeam Assistance to Schools - The NEEATeam kicked off its assistance efforts

with the school sectors by hosting a roundtable with a number of school assistance

organizations and contacting all New England states to identify and support their efforts. 

Throughout the year, the NEEATeam sponsored numerous workshops and seminars for

Massachusetts school assistance providers to discuss compliance assistance issues and

concerns, strategize about how to provide better support on environmental issues, educate

providers about effective tools and assistance opportunities, and provide necessary

training for participants. The NEEATeam also established a clearinghouse of tools and

services to make the information readily available to its customers who provide assistance

to schools and conducted an environmental, health, and safety audit with other

organizations at the Dennis Yarmouth High School. 

C Public Agency Team - The Public Agency Team’s enforcement activities were primarily

focused on inspecting large municipalities in urban settings as well as transportation

agencies and state universities. In addition to inspecting the public sector, the team

expanded its efforts to include state and municipal contractors and tenants located on

publicly owned sites. Approximately 145 team-related inspections and 26 enforcement

actions took place during the Fiscal Year.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-17 July 1998

In FY97, emphasis was placed on inspecting state transportation departments and

universities in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. These inspections

identified several substantial environmental problems that will result in multimedia

enforcement actions. To date, an enforcement action has been issued to the Connecticut

Department of Transportation.

C Chlorine Initiative - One-third of the region’s APOs resulted from the region’s chlorine

initiative. The intent of this initiative was to send a strong message to the regulated

community regarding this agency’s intolerance to the discharge of extremely toxic

substances, such as chlorine. In fact, under this initiative, some of the highest penalties

($50,000-$70,000) were brought against municipalities. To underscore the message, for

facilities that have initiated steps in correcting chlorine violations, the region issued AOs

to assure the problem is taken care of in a specified time frame.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-18

Region 2

Region 2 has a high concentration of pharmaceutical facilities in the New York/New Jersey

metropolitan area and also in Puerto Rico. These facilities may potentially emit VOCs. They also

may be subject to new RCRA regulations and impending water regulations. Region 2 conducted

11 CAA, 21 CWA, and 3 multimedia inspections of pharmaceutical facilities in FY97. The states

conducted an additional 21 CWA inspections. In addition, six PCB inspections and four Core

TSCA inspections were conducted. The region also conducted 13 EPCRA §313 inspections. 

Two complaints and one consent order were issued. Based on the results of the FY96

inspections, Region 2’s RCRA program decided to focus on generators; therefore, 19 of the 27

pharmaceutical inspections completed in FY97 were conducted at generators. Inspections also

were conducted at five treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), two non-notifiers, and

one boiler and industrial furnace (BIF). Additionally, four separate incinerator inspections were

conducted at TSDFs, which were simultaneously undergoing inspection by another RCRA

inspector. 

Region 3

Chromium Electroplaters - Compliance assistance is a central activity in the chromium

electroplater sector. The region handled hundreds of calls concerning the Chrome NESHAP. 

Another major assistance activity was the redesign of the chromium electroplating website for

Region 3. A major accomplishment in the chromium electroplaters area involves a referral to

DOJ for a source with facilities in at least three different EPA regions. The case began in Region

3.

Region 4

Airport & Aircraft Maintenance Facilities - These facilities were originally targeted due to the

1996 ValuJet Airline crash which has been attributed to the mismanagement of hazardous

materials (specifically oxygen generating canisters) by airline maintenance facilities. From the

inspections conducted, the management of this type of waste does not appear to be a problem in

this industry. However, there did appear to be an overall trend in the mismanagement of other

hazardous wastes. Of the 34 inspections conducted, 22 SVs were identified. In addition, three

SNCs were identified for violations associated with the illegal treatment and storage of hazardous

waste generated from paint stripping and application operations on airplanes.

Bulk Petroleum Storage Facilities - In FY96, it was discovered that several of these facilities

were discharging benzene-contaminated wastewater onto the ground without a RCRA permit or

interim status. In FY97, the Region conducted 47 inspections at bulk petroleum storage facilities,

of which 15 resulted in the identification of SVs and the subsequent issuance of informal

enforcement actions. There were four facilities identified as SNCs, which have been addressed by

EPA formal enforcement actions.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-19 July 1998

Region 5

Chromium Electroplaters - Region 5 developed and executed a pilot project to identify nonnotifiers in the Kenosha-Racine, WI, area. This area was selected as it was small enough to do a

complete review and the state had requested an increased federal presence. The results of the

pilot project have been the refinement of the information gathering steps and the initiation of

similar efforts to identify potential non-notifiers in Cleveland and Chicago. 

Region 6

Louisiana Used Oil - Thirty-one RCRA inspections were performed in the geographical oil and

gas producing areas of southeast New Mexico and Central Coastal Louisiana. Most of the

inspected facilities are located in environmental justice areas. A total of 18 enforcement actions

was developed. Eight compliance orders with consent agreements and penalties were issued. 

Five compliance orders with penalties were issued to New Mexico facilities.

SEPs were implemented in association with four of the enforcement actions. The SEPs involved

community-based regulatory compliance promotion projects in the form of seminars about RCRA

and EPCRA regulations and the generation and disposal of household hazardous waste. Success

is measured by the FY97 RCRA inspections in the same geographic area and industry. One

compliance order was issued from eight inspections. Awareness of the requirements for the

generation and management of hazardous waste in the New Mexico oil and gas industries was

apparent during the eight inspections because four of the facilities indicated they had attended the

RCRA seminar in their community earlier in the year. 

Offshore NPDES General Permit for Oil and Gas Exploration and Production - Region 6

provided necessary reporting forms to more than 2,000 facilities for compliance monitoring and

reporting of the effluent quality of wastewater discharges from offshore platforms to the Gulf of

Mexico. As a result, the compliance rate for reporting is approximately 98 percent. Assistance

was provided through an estimated 300 telephone conversations with individual facilities,

consultants, and state and federal agencies regarding various compliance issues. General permit

coverage and reporting requirements were explained to ensure increased compliance. In addition

to accomplishing all of the planned activities for FY97, a presentation on NPDES Offshore

General Permit compliance and enforcement was given to approximately 100 permittees in Dallas.

Region 7

Region 7 developed a broad multimedia strategy for addressing the threat to human health and the

environment from charcoal kilns in the Ozark region. The region established and operated a

monitoring site to determine compliance with the ambient air quality standard for PM10 and

established a video monitor that could be accessed on the Internet to view the operation of the

kilns. Initial data from this study showed frequent exceedances of the PM10 standard and

indicated that on certain days, charcoal production emissions contributed to extraordinarily high

ambient concentrations. The magnitude of the concentrations prompted Region 7 to issue 11
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-20

information requests to similar facilities under §104(e) of CERCLA. Information submitted in

response to this request indicated that significant quantities of methanol and nitrogen oxide

emissions from many of these facilities were previously unreported, in violation of EPCRA §304

and CERCLA §103. 

As a result of these actions, the industry entered into negotiations. In response to exceedances of

the PM10 standard, and in order to mitigate potential penalties for the EPCRA/CERCLA

violations, Royal Oak Enterprises, Patio Chef, and West Plains Charcoal entered into a consent

agreement on September 26, 1997, with EPA to install controls to drastically reduce their

emissions and to pay a substantial civil penalty. In addition, other companies in this industry have

committed to reduce their emissions in the short-term and to work with the Missouri Department

of Natural Resources to develop an air rule which will regulate all Missouri charcoal kilns. This

will result in the removal of over 100 million pounds of air pollutants during the 7-year period

provided for all facilities to be in compliance.

Region 8

A nationwide pilot program initiated by Region 8 and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)

has resulted in significant environmental success regarding problem oil pits (POPs). Working

with federal and state co-regulators (e.g., Bureau of Land Management [BLM], state

environmental agencies, and state oil and gas commissions), aerial surveys and approximately 320

ground surveys on POPs were conducted in Colorado (80), Montana (120) and Wyoming (120)

during the summer of 1997. Of these, EPA, USFWS, and co-regulators estimate that

approximately 50 percent are POPs that are in noncompliance with applicable federal/state

statutes or regulations.

In light of the number of noncompliers, a coordinated multi-agency approach has been undertaken

which allows the appropriate agency(ies) to utilize either compliance assistance, informal

enforcement, or formal enforcement to gain compliance. In FY98, EPA intends to issue formal

enforcement actions under CWA, OPA, and/or RCRA authority(ies) for three to five Colorado

facilities, seven Montana facilities, and five to ten Wyoming facilities. In FY97-98, USFWS

intends to issue 105 enforcement actions. In FY98, the States of North Dakota and South Dakota

are targeted for POP team activities. In FY99, the State of Utah is targeted.

Region 9

The Merit Partnership for Pollution (Merit) is a cooperative venture of the public and private

sectors. Its mission is to develop and promote pollution prevention practices and technologies

that both protect the environment and contribute to economic growth. Current projects involve

the development of an environmental management system (EMS) template, EMS demonstration

projects based on the international ISO 14001 standard, as well as demonstration projects with

the metal finishing industry and alternative fuel vehicle proponents.

The Biologically Integrated Orchard System (BIOS) program has enjoyed continued support from

Region 9 through various grants and technical and management assistance. The mission of BIOS
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-21 July 1998

is to build a community of farmers, other agricultural professionals, and public institutions

dedicated to the voluntary adoption of whole systems approach to farm management which is

flexible, maintains long-term profitability, and relies on less chemical inputs. In FY97, the

Agricultural Initiative Team implemented Biologically Integrated Farming Systems projects along

with other higher environmental priority commodities and crops for California, many of which use

large amounts of targeted pesticides and fertilizers.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-22

3.2 Community-Based Environmental Protection Priorities

In FY97, EPA made significant progress in advancing CBEP. The Agency has actively promoted

and encouraged regions to adopt CBEP as they implement their compliance and enforcement

activities. Through policies and initiatives, EPA is giving regions and co-regulators flexibility to

allow local communities, neighborhoods, and developments to set their own environmental

priorities and to pursue environmental goals that meet their environmental needs and still meet

Agency requirements. EPA also is empowering communities by opening its compliance and

enforcement databases to the public and building new tools, including risk-based targeting

geographic information systems (GISs) to focus on problem areas, particularly in environmental

justice communities, and enforcing communities’ rights to information about toxic and hazardous

materials in their communities.

The community-based projects described in this section are achieving meaningful results. Some

take the form of traditional enforcement activities. Many of the benefits of community-based

projects consist of less tangible benefits, such as establishing relationships with marginalized

communities, bringing together stakeholders concerned with a specific resource or region, and

developing a solution that works for everyone affected. Moreover, it is important to recognize

that a significant part of these benefits will be achieved in the long-term, not the short-term. 

Many of the issues being addressed by community-based enforcement initiatives are significant

problems, which cannot be resolved overnight. Thus, many of these projects reflect the early

phases of achieving community-based solutions. The CBEP projects described in the remainder

of this section are organized by EPA region and reflect selected examples of the work the Agency

is doing in this area.

3.2.1 Region 1

Mystic River Watershed of Boston Harbor - The Sensitive Ecosystem team devoted most of its

resources to the Mystic River Watershed of Boston Harbor in FY97. There was a total of 57

inspections conducted, 17 enforcement actions, and one criminal referral. 

In response to requests from several local officials, inspectors from the region conducted a halfday seminar in January on federal environmental statutes (e.g., air, water, hazardous waste) for

many officials in the seven Mystic communities. This seminar was designed to heighten the

awareness of these front line officials so that they can incorporate environmental compliance into

their enforcement programs and notify EPA or the state when they identify an environmental

concern. 

Team members worked with the Printers Partnership Program at the Massachusetts Department

of Environmental Protection to develop a strategy to select printers to inspect. Five printers were

mutually agreed upon as inspection targets from a list of 150. These printers were inspected by

RCRA staff and some also were inspected by air and water staff. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-23 July 1998

In conjunction with the auto salvage yard team, all of the unpermitted storm water discharges that

fell in the auto salvage yards Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code were identified in the

Mystic Watershed. Twelve facilities were identified through extensive research of the yellow

pages, Internet, and trade organization sources. Seven have been inspected in FY97 and the

remaining five will be inspected in FY98. 

Lower Charles River Basin - The team continued oversight of seven municipal enforcement

actions directed at the removal of illegal sewer connections to storm drains, which have resulted

in the elimination of more than 20 million gallons of sewage per year to the river. The team

continued to negotiate combined sewer overflow (CSO) abatement facilities and investigate other

potential storm water enforcement cases. 

New Hampshire Seacoast Project - Meetings were held with over 20 state, local, academic, and

environmental groups to solicit their input and priorities for environmental concerns in the

seacoast area. From these meetings specific project goals were developed relating to: wellhead

protection, shellfish bed protection, wetland/salt marsh protection, and deterrence. Based upon

these goals, a reconnaissance was conducted to identify specific targets for outreach and

inspections. During the reconnaissance, five RCRA inspections were conducted.

Runnins River - The region provided technical and programmatic assistance to the Runnins River

Steering Committee. This committee worked to find and eliminate pollution sources including

failing septic systems, leaking sewer lines, illegal storm drain connections, and other runoff issues. 

A watershed assessment and wet weather study was initiated and public awareness of pollution

prevention within the watershed community was increased. EPA provided nonpoint pollution and

water quality funds. 

The efforts of this committee resulted in the reopening of Hundred Acre Cove, a 104-acre area in

Barrington, RI, for shellfishing in May 1997. These shellfish beds were closed in 1995 due to

nonpoint source pollution from the ten square mile Runnins River watershed area which

transcends Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The reopening of the beds is attributed to the

cumulative improvements in controlling nonpoint sources such as septic systems, better control of

municipal and commercial discharges, and greater community awareness of land use. 

3.2.2 Region 2

Region 2 has been moving toward addressing areas from a multimedia and/or place-based

perspective for some time (e.g., the Long Island Sound Initiative has been ongoing since 1985).

However, since FY95, the region has become increasingly aware of the need for stakeholder

involvement in these projects and has laid the foundation for incorporating the community-based

environmental protection approach into all of its work. CBEP requires the Agency to look at a

community’s problems holistically and to work in partnership with stakeholders to design and

implement solutions. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-24

Barceloneta/Manati, Puerto Rico - A multimedia aquifer protection project was undertaken by

the region that encourages local agencies to promote wellhead protection in their area, inventory

potential sources of contamination, and target enforcement resources on high-priority

groundwater areas. Furthermore, the Barceloneta/Manati area has the highest concentration of

TRI emitters in Puerto Rico (four reporters in Barceloneta; nine in Manati). Annual

dichloromethane releases to air are more than four million pounds.

The UIC program conducted 20 inspections that were all automotive related, including six service

stations, which were part of the leaking UST inventory. There were two training seminars

conducted in Barceloneta. One outreach seminar was directed to the community leaders,

environmental leaders, and local officials. The second seminar was directed to facilities located

within the CBEP area. There was also a direct mailing to 56 EPCRA TRI non-reporters in the

Barceloneta/Manati area.

There were seven SPCC inspections conducted (five field inspections, two plan reviews), and one

violating facility was brought into compliance. Compliance progress is being monitored at the

remaining facilities. No formal enforcement actions are anticipated at present.

South Bronx, New York - The South Bronx section of New York City is zoned for mixed

commercial and residential use. Although there are only three major pollution sources, (a sludge

pelletizing plant, a wastewater treatment plant, and a medical waste incinerator which is now

closed), the area is also subject to the emissions of a couple hundred minor sources (auto body

shops, junk yards, and dry cleaners) and to traffic (urban congestion). While no single facility is a

major problem, the cumulative impacts of these sources significantly affect the quality of life in the

local community.

The region is currently completing Phase 2 of its South Bronx CBEP project. Phase 2 close-out

activities include development of GIS maps of the area for distribution to the community and the

city and state agencies and development of a South Bronx CBEP website for linkage to the

regional CBEP webpage. Potential activities for a third phase of the project are currently under

consideration.

Region 2 held a public meeting in the Hunts Point community to notify residents of the area about

the activities of EPA and the city and state health and environmental agencies. Fact sheets on

public health, truck traffic issues, the wastewater treatment plant, the sewage sludge treatment

plant, and ambient air quality were distributed. 

Twenty-four RCRA inspections were conducted in FY97. Two EPCRA 313 complaints were

issued for failure to submit a TRI reporting Form R in a timely manner. One case was settled and

one is now proceeding with settlement negotiations.

One chemical safety audit was performed at a chemical manufacturing facility. The audit report

was issued with recommendations for the company to improve practices for safe handling,

storage, and processing of chemicals. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-25 July 1998

As part of the CBEP effort, EPA has funded projects related to asthma research, intervention, and

outreach activities through a combination of regional geographic initiative money, regional

discretionary grant money, and individual program money. Some projects are South Bronx

specific and some are more regional in nature. EPA-funded projects include:

C An integrated pest management pilot project with an associated literature and

English/Spanish video component for distribution to the community

C Cockroach movement pattern distribution research to provide information on patterns of

allergen distribution

C Co-funding of an asthma conference in New York City, which will have a community

input component

C Indoor air survey at Public School 48 in the South Bronx

C Provision of funding to a national inner-city asthma study for environmental measurement

and intervention in households in the South Bronx related to problems associated with

cockroaches, environmental tobacco smoke, pets, dust mites, mold, and rodents. 

Long Island, New York - This innovative initiative was undertaken to address an ecosystem

concern relating to contamination of a sole source aquifer that provides the drinking water for

two million people.

In FY97, the following inspections were conducted: 

C 43 RCRA compliance inspections at hazardous waste generators

C 143 air inspections

C 38 water inspections

C Eight PCB and four core TSCA inspections

C Seven EPCRA inspections

C Nine SPCC inspections (eight field inspections and one plan review). 

Middlesex County - Region 2 designated Middlesex County, NJ, as a priority area for

enforcement and compliance activities for several reasons. It has been identified as a nonattainment area for ozone. It has the highest overall TRI releases to air, water, and land in all of

New Jersey. There are a large number of indirect wastewater discharges to the Middlesex

Utilities Authority, including sources from Superfund sites. There are 1,700 major and minor air

sources, 2,551 hazardous waste handlers, and 122 TRI facilities. It is home to three townships

(Carteret, New Brunswick, and Perth Amboy) that have been identified on low income/minority

charting exercises.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-26

In FY97, the following inspections were conducted: 

C 21 RCRA inspections

C Nine UST inspections

C Eight air inspections

C Four TSCA PCB inspections

C 21 SPCC inspections (13 field inspections and eight plan reviews). 

New York/New Jersey Harbor - Toxic pollutants have affected the water, sediments, and biota of

the New York/New Jersey Harbor. Harbor Estuary Program studies have identified 17 chemicals

or classes of chemicals of concern (COC) including metals, dioxin, PCBs, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides, and VOCs. The area is highly

industrialized, with a high concentration of TRI reporters (440 reporting facilities in 1991) and

releases to water, land, and air (88 major air sources in the Harbor area). The region prioritized

the northeastern New Jersey counties of Bergen, Passaic, Hudson, Essex, and Union as an area of

focus in FY97 although activities were carried out throughout the Harbor area. Activities were

focused on those industries with the largest releases/discharges of the targeted pollutants.

During FY97, Region 2 and the states of New York and New Jersey conducted:

C CAA inspections at 22 facilities

C 515 CWA inspections of minor permittees and 215 CWA inspections of majors

C 20 SPCC inspections (11 field inspections, nine plan reviews)

C 16 PCB inspections 

C Four core TSCA inspections

C 20 EPCRA §313 inspections

C One EPCRA §313 seminar. 

3.2.3 Region 3

South/Southwest Philadelphia, PA - This section of Philadelphia is an EJ community in one of

the nation’s most densely populated industrialized areas. The primary objectives were to reduce

TRI pollutants, improve compliance, and reduce criteria pollutant emissions.

A pilot multimedia environmental health characterization was completed for Region 3 by the

Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health. This report will provide a

geographic profile of the findings which will assist Region 3 in establishing a long term strategy

for the protection of the South and Southwest Philadelphia environment.

The region conducted two RCRA Subtitle C and two Subtitle I inspections as part of a media

initiative to inspect local garages. Multimedia inspections were completed at two major

refineries, the largest TRI emitters. Region 3 worked with the state and local criminal authorities

and issued state charges against a local waste oil recycling business.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-27 July 1998

Anacostia River, Washington, DC - This area in the District of Columbia is an EJ community

containing the Anacostia River, which is among the nation’s most contaminated rivers. Fish tissue

contamination presents a serious public health threat to the economically disadvantaged residents

of the surrounding communities. EPA and others are seeking to reduce or eliminate the human

health risks posed by the contaminants of concern. There are problems associated with storm

sewers and health concerns over exposure to lead.

The region conducted eight RCRA inspections and multimedia inspections at federal facilities in

the area. The region conducted 31 UST leak detection inspections at two federal facilities. 

Region 3 continued to evaluate potential sources outside of DC, which may have contributed

toxics to the Anacostia River. The region is developing compliance assistance workshops for the

automotive repair sector in the Anacostia communities. 

 

Region 3 initiated a collaborative effort with the Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD), DC-ERA, and the DC Health Department to advance lead poisoning prevention

programs. As a result of this effort, critical attention was focused on the need for passage of lead

abatement worker protection regulations in the District. 

Chesapeake Bay - The Chesapeake Bay has been an area of regional focus for some time. The

principal focus of the work includes: 1) reduction of nutrient loadings; 2) reduction of toxic

impacts to local areas of the Bay; and 3) protection of habitats. Much of the problem arises from

nonpoint and area sources that are not well suited to traditional enforcement responses.

Region 3’s RCRA division conducted ten inspections in the watershed. The region conducted a

total of 12 UST inspections in the watershed. The region’s water division initiated an

enforcement action against Smithfield Foods. Following a trial, Smithfield was fined $12.6

million, the largest CWA penalty ever. Smithfield Foods and two of its subsidiaries violated the

CWA by discharging pollutants, in violation of their NPDES permits, for years into the Pagan

River, a tributary of the Bay.

3.2.4 Region 4

Charleston/North Charleston, South Carolina - The Charleston/North Charleston area has a

number of environmental and human health issues. A meeting was held in late August 1997 with

the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Commission (SCDHEC) to discuss

the development of a compliance strategy. Seven asbestos NESHAP inspections were also 

conducted in the Charleston CBEP area.

In July 1997, a special storm water inspection of Macalloy Corporation documented extensive

drainage of hexavalent chromium contaminated dust, slag, and ore into Shipyard Creek. Shipyard

Creek has been placed onto the CWA §303(d) list for impairment due to toxics. The sample

results from the inspection revealed hexavalent chrome, total chrome, manganese, lead, arsenic,

barium, and elevated total suspended solids (TSS) were being discharged in storm water. 

Regional permit staff will work with the state to establish more stringent limits. In the interim,
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-28

temporary controls were installed at the plant to address the violations found during the storm

water inspection. The state has required the installation of temporary controls in order to mitigate

problems identified during the storm water inspection. 

3.2.5 Region 5

Northwest Indiana - A Compliance and Enforcement Committee was maintained with EPA legal

and media representation from all media. The committee met six times in FY97 to prioritize

multimedia compliance and enforcement activities, and target multimedia inspections. Two

multimedia inspections were conducted, and a comprehensive plan for FY98 was developed. The

following activities were completed in FY97:

C An order under §3008(h) was finalized with DuPont to clean up its site in East Chicago

C Orders for the U.S. Steel Gary Works under CWA and RCRA were negotiated

C Interim measures proceeded for the USS Lead site under RCRA

C A removal action at the Gary Lagoons site was completed and the site was restored

C A consent order with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) was negotiated to remove

350,000 cubic yards of PCB and lead contaminated auto fluff from the H&H Enterprises,

Inc., site in Gary, IN

C Construction was completed by PRPs on the Waste, Inc., Landfill site in Michigan City,

IN.

Southeast Michigan (SEMI) - In addition to the routine programmatic enforcement efforts,

Region 5 initiated efforts to develop a systematic approach to targeting enforcement efforts in the

Delray area of Detroit. This is a severely impacted environmental justice community. The efforts

initiated in FY97 included meetings and discussions with representatives from the city, state,

county, and local citizens’ groups. Additionally, regional management appointed an

interdivisional team to develop a targeting plan for the area.

Greater Chicago - The primary activity undertaken in FY97 was to conduct joint, multimedia

inspections at four scrap processing facilities in the Chicago area. Efforts have been made to

involve the public in a number of specific enforcement activities in Chicago. The best example of

this is the settlement of the Sherwin-Williams case. The case settled for approximately $1 million

after several meetings with community members. 

Gateway - The region sponsored two one-day environmental law training courses for local law

enforcement. The focus of the course was the type of environmental violations that occur in the

Gateway area, and the laws the officers have to enforce against these violations. As a result of
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-29 July 1998

this training, more police are issuing warnings and tickets, and the St. Clair County State

Attorney’s Office is prosecuting twice as many environmental violations. 

3.2.6 Region 6 

Grunge River Basin - An environmental justice community has been identified in this river basin

and complaints have been received regarding the water quality of the river and potential health

risks. Five facilities (one non-ferrous metal facility, two chemical plants, a power plant, and a

municipality) were identified in this river basin. All five facilities were inspected using a

multimedia checklist. Four facilities were in compliance with all of their media-specific permits. 

It was discovered that the municipality was out of compliance with its NPDES permit due to

recent power outages experienced at the plant.

Galveston/Harris Counties, Texas City - Texas City was selected for a CBEP program based on

its ranking on the region’s Human Health Risk Index (HRI), proximity on Galveston Bay, past

enforcement record, and environmental justice ranking. A meeting with the mayor indicated a

very high interest in improving environmental compliance by working with EPA, Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and Texas City facilities.

A compliance baseline was established through a series of inspections and review of historical

enforcement actions. A series of meetings were held with the shareholders (EPA, the city,

TNRCC, and the Galveston Health Department) to develop the CBEP program and measures of

success. These measures included percent of participation by stakeholders and specific reductions

of noncompliance issues over a one-year, two- and five-year period. Increased information was

provided to the community and better working relationships were established between the

regulated community and the regulators.

Lake Pontchartrain Basin - Region 6 issued approximately ten orders to municipalities causing

effluent problems in the Basin. EPA also continued the ongoing lawsuit against the Cities of

Baton Rouge and New Orleans. LDEQ initiated more than 100 enforcement actions against

facilities within the Basin including the issuance of more than 60 orders. LDEQ also inspected

approximately one third of all permitted facilities within the Basin (nearly 300).

EPA and LDEQ are working together to bring municipalities and animal feeding operations into

compliance. These efforts will result in improvements in water quality when coupled with the

technical assistance over a five- to ten-year period.

3.2.7 Region 7 

“Connecting with the People and Places We Serve” is a new color brochure produced by the

CBEP Marketing/Skills Development workgroup within Region 7. The brochure was distributed

at the Kaw Valley “Rollin’ Down the River” festival. The brochure summarizes the major

principles of CBEP and highlights the Kansas River Watershed Enhancement Initiative as an

example of CBEP.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-30

3.2.8 Region 8

Region 8 has been actively involved in the formation of a CBEP effort to address the impacts of

historical mining operations in French Gulch near Breckenridge, CO. EPA has provided funding

for facilitation and organization of the local stakeholder group. A group consisting of various

representatives from federal, state, and local governmental organizations, private landowners,

community residents, local business interests, and others has been meeting to develop goals and

approaches for addressing the impacts of historic mining operations in this area. EPA, through

both technical and enforcement representatives, has been providing leadership and expertise in

helping the group work toward characterizing and cleaning up this site. Region 8 is using a

multimedia “toolbox” approach so the group can evaluate the most appropriate and effective

tools for remediating this site. The presence of federal, state, and local enforcement

representatives has encouraged the group to consider a variety of regulatory and funding

approaches.

3.2.9 Region 9

Oakland - Region 9 is currently investigating a full range of environmental and related issues

affecting the West Oakland community via the new urban environmental justice pilot project. 

Among the major issues of concern are contaminated soil and groundwater, air quality, and lead,

which are intertwined with local planning and zoning issues, lack of communication, and health

concerns. In partnership with residents, local and state government agencies, and other parties,

EPA is working to identify and prioritize these issues and develop means for resolving them. 

Consistent with information gathering and community networking goals, the region convened

focus group meetings to gain the community’s perspective on environmental issues. A wide

variety of issues was raised in these meetings, including concerns about zoning, contamination

from past and present industrial activities, truck traffic, and perceived impacts of the new Cypress

freeway construction.

In April 1997 in coordination with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Port of

Oakland placed two air monitors to collect data on particulate (PM-10 and PM-2.5) issues raised

by the community in regard to truck traffic.

Santa Monica Bay Project - The biennial review of accomplishments for the Santa Monica Bay

project was completed in FY97. Also, a key focus this year was seeking financing for

implementation of the comprehensive management plan. State and county funds have been made

available and technical assistance provided for storm water quality improvement projects. 

Comprehensive monitoring of bacteriology, seafood consumption, and wetlands was completed to

provide decision makers and regulatory agencies with information necessary to assess water

quality at Bay beaches, update and revise fish consumption advisories, track trends in the

condition of natural resources, and assess regional impacts of contaminants on the Bay’s

beneficial uses.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-31 July 1998

3.2.10 Region 10

In FY97, Region 10’s Air program renewed FY96 grants to four tribes and provided additional

funding to two other tribes to develop, implement, and enforce air quality management rules. 

Five additional tribes received funds focused on ambient air quality monitoring. The funding and

grant monies that EPA has made available to tribes in recent years has helped to increase the

awareness of the Air program. In addition, Region 10 has conducted inspections at five air

pollution sources on tribal land.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-32

3.3 Cross-cutting or Multimedia Initiatives

Cross-cutting or multimedia initiatives are those special projects or activities that do not target

specific areas, industry sectors, or media programs, but cut across all of these to ensure better

protection of human health and the environment. Such projects or activities may consist of

policies, data systems, voluntary programs, training, or strategic planning. The following sections

describe some of these types of programs, specifically cross-cutting or multimedia

projects/highlights, federal activities, criminal program, federal facilities, and environmental

justice/tribal activities.

3.3.1 Cross-cutting or Multimedia Projects/Highlights

In FY97, there were several cross-cutting initiatives that were national in scope. While managed

at the headquarters level, these projects incorporate ideas, concepts, and personnel from

headquarters and the regions. The following are some examples of such initiatives:

C State delegations - In the state delegations arena, OECA’s FY97 accomplishments include

working with states that have enacted audit privilege/immunity legislation to ensure that

enforcement and compliance requirements applicable to state delegation or authorization

of environmental programs are satisfied. On February 14, 1997, EPA issued the

Statement of Principles, Effect of State Audit Immunity/Privilege Laws on Enforcement

Authority for Federal Programs. This document reflects EPA’s interpretation of the

impact of state audit laws on state enforcement and information gathering authorities

required as a condition of federal program approval. 

C Compliance Information Project - OECA is undertaking the Compliance Information

Project (CIP), a new, supplementary approach to gathering and analyzing compliance

information. It was developed to address concerns that EPA’s present methods and

processes to identify and use compliance information have not captured, internalized, or

used all of the compliance information potentially available to the Agency. The CIP will

identify useful compliance information through two mechanisms: 1) a broad survey of

compliance-related literature from government agencies, non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), academic and trade journals, and the Internet; and 2) field personnel interviews

of federal and state inspectors and other compliance experts using a roundtable format. 

The information OECA gathers through the CIP will be channeled to the federal and state

personnel who design and implement information, targeting, and planning systems, to

enhance the Agency’s ability to describe where compliance exists, improve EPA

databases, or guide EPA previously unidentified compliance problems. Under the current

schedule, a final project report is to be issued toward the end of calendar year 1998.

C Small Business Compliance Assistance Centers Program - In FY97, OECA continued

supporting its four existing small business compliance assistance centers, which provide

Internet and toll-free telephone assistance to the following sectors: automotive service and

repair, printing, agriculture, and metal finishing. Also this year, OECA established four
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-33 July 1998

Compliance Assistance Centers

The Centers Program also is embarking on a

multi-level assessment to determine the impacts

of the centers in three areas: outreach, customer

satisfaction, and behavioral changes. Based on

information EPA is able to collect at this time for

existing small business assistance centers, it is

known that:

- 15 percent of the metal finishing industry

are regular users of the Metal Finishing

Resource Center and over 40 percent of the

3,200 registered users are individual plating

shops.

- The Agriculture Center has distributed more

than 2,000 copies of compliance assistance

materials to information providers within the

agriculture community.

- 80 percent of CCAR-Greenlink® (auto

center) users go beyond the websites home

page for information.

- A follow-up survey of printers that viewed

the Printers National Environmental

Assistance Center’s 1995 Green and

Baseline Profitable Printing Video

Conference showed 92 percent of the

surveyed participants improved the

environmental compliance at their shop.

new compliance assistance centers and expanded one of its existing centers. The new

centers will serve the printed wiring board manufacturing, chemical industry,

transportation, and local government sectors. The existing metal finishing center has

expanded its focus to include paints and organic coatings. In addition, the Centers

Program has begun to expand its focus to include state-specific environmental compliance

information. 

C Root Cause Analysis Projects - In

1997, OECA initiated four “root

cause” analysis studies: iron and steel

industry, nonferrous metals industry,

oil and petroleum industries, and

chemical industry. These studies are

designed to provide more detailed

accounts of inspection and

enforcement activity over time;

violations by media and by specific

pollutants released; and, where

available, causes of violations and

specific process units or equipment

involved. 

C Compliance Assistance Providers

Workshop - On July 21 and 22, 1997,

OECA sponsored the Compliance

Assistance Providers’ National

Workshop. This workshop assembled

over 100 people and organizations that

provide direct assistance on

environmental problems and represent

a community with common problems

needing cooperative solutions. 

Workshop participants engaged in a

discussion and produced a set of recommendations identifying how the community of

assistance providers can become more efficient, provide better assistance, reach more

clients, and guarantee sustainable assistance over the long term by documenting their

individual and collective cooperation and success. The findings and recommendations

resulting from the workshop are documented in a workshop report, available by

downloading from the Internet at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/oc/index.html/.

C Sector Facility Indexing Project - The Sector Facility Indexing Project (SFIP) is a pilot

data integration effort that synthesizes environmental records from several data sources

into a system that allows facility-level and sector analysis. The indexing project identifies

permits and records associated with over 600 facilities in five industrial sectors, provides
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-34

data regarding compliance history and pollutant releases for each of these facilities, and

provides information on facility size, demographics, and toxicity of released chemicals. 

Major SFIP accomplishments during 1997 included completion of an EPA/State data

quality review and an unprecedented review of data quality by the facilities within the five

profiled sectors before EPA publicly released the data. Updated information on the Sector

Facility Indexing Project can be accessed from the Internet at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/sfi/.

C Strategic Planning - OECA staff have been participating in Agency-wide efforts to

develop the long-term strategic plan required by the Government Performance and Results

Act (GPRA). Using the draft NECAP Strategic Plan as the foundation, staff coordinated

with other offices throughout OECA to prepare the numerous submissions on OECA’s

proposed goals, objectives, and sub-objectives for the EPA plan. 

C Data Management - OECA developed and distributed a Data Quality Survey to

headquarters, regions, and selected states to identify data quality issues and concerns

specific to OECA’s data systems. Survey results were summarized and recommendations

to resolve key areas of concern were presented in a final Report of Findings.

OECA has released an Internet-based SEP National Database. The SEP National

Database currently contains 318 projects included in enforcement settlements for FY94-

96. The database contains the following information: the statutory violations; a

description and technical details of the SEP; its estimated cost of implementation; and the

expected environmental impacts of the projects. The homepage also contains SEP-related

policy and guidance documents and sample settlement language. Additional SEPs will be

added to the database as information on new settlements becomes available. The SEP

Homepage, which contains the database and related information can be accessed on the

Internet at: http://es.inel.gov.oeca/sep or www.epa.gov/oeca/.

C Targeting - OECA also initiated and completed an analysis of the Miscellaneous Plastics

sector (SIC Codes 3080-3089). This sector was initially targeted after the Transportation

and Energy Branch analyzed sectors for releases of “known or suspected carcinogens” and

observed that this sector had reported over 40 million pounds of releases (mostly to air) in

each of the last several reporting years. The next highest sector total is 9.5 million

pounds. The analysis includes region-by-region facility lists, an aggregation of total

releases by corporation, identification of facilities that report to TRI (but do not have a

corresponding record in the air data system), and a region-by-region facility list for all

facilities reporting releases of carcinogens regardless of industry sector.

C Chemical Industry National Environmental Baseline Report - EPA developed the

Chemical Industry National Environmental Baseline Report (1990-1994) as a baseline

against which to measure compliance trends among the various subsectors of the chemical

manufacturing industry. Through an analysis of data related to economics, demographics,

the TRI, compliance monitoring actions, violations and enforcement actions, the baseline

provides an overview of the U.S. chemical industry sector as a whole (SIC codes in the
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-35 July 1998

2800 series) and its subsector components (SIC Codes 281-289). It is intended to be used

by regulators, states, industry, and the public as a general profile of the chemical industry

and its environmental performance from 1990 to 1994. The baseline report provides

information that may serve as a catalyst for the development of innovative compliance and

enforcement initiatives and similar profiles for this and other sectors on a state or Regional

basis and help maximize efficiency in use of resources. Through these activities, the

Agency can promote efforts to achieve and maintain compliance, and industry can attain a

higher level of environmental performance. 

Region 1 

Region 1 conducted several cross-cutting or multimedia initiatives in FY97. The following are

examples of such activities:

C Compliance Leadership Through Environmental Auditing and Negotiation (CLEAN) -

To promote pollution prevention and improved compliance for small metal finishers,

printers, and wood coaters, EPA launched the CLEAN initiative. EPA, with state

environmental agencies and trade partners, developed standard terms for pollution

prevention assessments and enforcement relief consistent with the terms of the Small

Business Policy. On-site assessments were conducted at metal platers in New Hampshire

and Maine, as well as printers in Maine. The first assessment reports are complete and

participants from all states and sectors have recommended the expansion of this useful

assistance tool. Funding and other groundwork are in place to continue and expand

CLEAN in additional states, and to provide assessments in new industrial sectors. 

The CLEAN program offers small and medium-sized businesses free, on-site compliance

and pollution prevention audits. CLEAN also offers limited enforcement discretion for

violations discovered during the process, in exchange for an agreement to correct

violations and undertake a “beyond compliance” pollution prevention project.

The Assistance and Pollution Prevention Office (A&P2) operated five assistance hotlines

during FY97 and responded to 11,349 requests for information. In FY97, A&P2 staff

gave more than 200 presentations at non-sponsored events to provide assistance or

explain EPA’s programs and role in promoting compliance, as well as actions that go

beyond compliance. These events support implementation of pollution prevention,

environmental management systems, and other beyond compliance measures.

C HADCO Project XL (eXcellence in Leadership) Agreement - The HADCO Project XL

Team in Region 1, Region 2, the State of New Hampshire, and the State of New York

culminated two years of effort by signing a final project plan (FPA) to encourage

beneficial recycling. HADCO is a printed wire board manufacturer with three facilities in

New Hampshire and New York. The company generates a metal hydroxide sludge (F006

waste), which it would like to have removed from regulation as a hazardous waste, in

order to enhance the direct recycling of metal bearing waste streams generated by
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-36

HADCO’s manufacturing processes. HADCO’s proposal was accepted as one of the

original XL pilot projects, with the goal of devising an alternative to the existing process

for delisting a waste, which has historically taken four to six years to implement. 

C ELP/StarTrack First Year Close-Out - EPA and its state partners completed the first

year pilot of the New England Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) and StarTrack.

The ELP provides incentives for businesses that develop and try new approaches to

environmental compliance and pollution prevention. The terms of the ELP agreements

were carried out by 21 participating organizations, including the completion of compliance

audits and EMS audits at eight StarTrack companies. The pilot was successful in

demonstrating a new way of ensuring compliance through use of third party audits. Other

ELP projects included a well attended open house at the United States Postal Service

(USPS) Hartford vehicle maintenance facility, hosted by USPS, Connecticut Department

of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) and EPA; the publication of a primer on Design

for Environment by Digital Equipment Corporation; and the initiation of a model green

plan for non-profit service organizations developed by Crittenton Hastings House.

C Partners for Change - The NEEATeam recognition program, Partners for Change, offers

businesses a free environmental “pocketbook” of ideas on everything from recycling and

energy efficiency to waste reduction, available to every New England business. The

program was kicked off in February and March of 1997 when thousands of Partners for

Change brochures were mailed to grocery stores, small municipalities, printing and metal

finishing industries, and others. Approximately 20,000 brochures and 1,400

“pocketbooks” containing applications have been distributed to potential participants. By

September 1997, the first companies were approved as EPA partners making a change to

protect the environment.

C Pollution Prevention and the Bottom line - The NEEATeam quarterly newsletter,

Pollution Prevention and the Bottom Line, is distributed to approximately 3,100 people. 

The newsletter includes timely information about rules and regulations that affect its

readers, details about upcoming conferences and seminars, as well as information about

national and regional EPA programs and services. Recipients of the newsletter include

facility managers, municipalities, state pollution prevention staff, metal finishers, printers,

wood coaters, as well as chairmen of LEPCs.

Region 2

From October 1996 through June 1997, Region 2 conducted 23 multimedia inspections

(consolidating 134 program inspections, or 5.8 programs participating in the average inspection). 

These inspections resulted in violations at 19 facilities (an 82 percent hit rate) and 45 violations

with enforcement actions (a 34 percent rate of violations found per program inspection). In

contrast, there were 1,876 single-media inspections, which resulted in 458 enforcement actions

issued.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-37 July 1998

In Region 2, integration of media-specific facility data and experience during targeting provided

more details of the targeted facilities for analysis, a greater chance of finding facilities in violation,

and a greater chance of identifying overall environmental management problems. 

Region 3

Business Assistance Center - Region 3’s Business Assistance Center offers assistance to

businesses through a toll free line, participation in work shops, links with business and trade

associations, and other services. Its focus is primarily on small- and medium-sized businesses. 

Exchange - Region 3 produces a monthly report on its homepage called the Environmental

Compliance and Enforcement Exchange. This report includes items on compliance assistance,

regulatory reinvention, policies such as the audit policy, small business news, workshops and

conferences, Federal Register notices, grant programs to promote compliance and/or pollution

prevention, other compliance news of interest to the regulated community, and a list of regional

enforcement actions.

Region 4

Region 4 selected 22 facilities for multimedia compliance inspections during FY97. These

inspections were led by EPA and state participation was encouraged. The FY97 facilities were

selected primarily on state nominations and on the existence of a history of multimedia

noncompliance. As a result of more state involvement in the multimedia nomination process, a

much higher rate of enforcement was observed than from previous years. Out of the 22 facilities

inspected, 17 had or anticipate an enforcement action during FY97/98. 

Region 5

Region 5 developed a multimedia tracking system to aid in the management of the region’s

multimedia cases. The region is currently working toward a new, more user-friendly version of

the system. Region 5 also participated in four multimedia, multi-agency inspections in the

Chicago area. As a result of these inspections, the region discovered violations at three of the

four facilities.

Region 5 sponsored a joint Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention Conference, which was

attended by 700 participants. The region conducted nine waste minimization opportunity

assessments at six USPS facilities, including auto service and plant maintenance sectors, two

industrial laundry facilities, and a manufacturer of footwear.

Region 5 negotiated SEPs in 17 EPCRA cases. These SEPs resulted in a reduction of the use of

toxic chemicals by 319,755 pounds per year and a reduction in the release of toxic chemicals by

403,377 pounds per year.

Region 7
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-38

Region 7 developed a multimedia screening checklist that covers all media statutes (e.g.,

wetlands, UIC, CAA, RCRA, and NPDES). The checklist provides information about potential

problem areas for all media. A pilot multimedia screening inspection program was implemented

during the second half of FY97. During this pilot, approximately 125 Level B multimedia

screening inspections were completed.

Region 7 also developed an enforcement and compliance strategy to creatively solve complex and

difficult environmental problems using a mix of compliance and enforcement tools. The targeting

strategy is a multimedia risk-weighted strategy comparing release and emission data reported

under various Agency statutes with data reported to TRI and the Accidental Release Reporting

under EPCRA and CERCLA. The intent is to identify facilities which may be releasing toxic

chemicals that could pose chronic health risks to surrounding communities. In FY97, five of the

six data quality inspections targeted resulted in administrative enforcement actions.

Region 8

Throughout the year, a team of regional technical and legal staff engaged in numerous discussions

with regional managers, headquarters, representatives from Regions 6 and 9, DOJ, and

representatives from ASARCO. This resulted in a settlement involving ASARCO facilities in

Montana and Arizona. This joint EPA-state action, which was lodged in January 1998, is enabling

the governments to achieve comprehensive water quality protection, based on the federal government’s

jurisdiction over surface waters and Arizona’s jurisdiction over groundwater. In addition, ASARCO

agreed to spend $50 million to clean up and restore the environment across the two states. The

settlement provides for Arizona to share in almost a fourth of the $6.38 million in civil penalties.

Region 9

The signing of the Intel Final Project Agreements (FPAs) last November was the cumulation of a

tremendous effort that encompassed technical, political, and local involvement issues of XL/ELP. 

Implementation of the FPA has been very smooth. The only real controversial issue was that the

facility’s VOC scrubber went down occasionally, but in accordance with the approved operations

plan.

The Bay Area Green Business Program (GBP) is a Region 9 cooperative effort with state and

local governments to test a new model that consolidates compliance and provides resource

conservation and pollution prevention information to small businesses through a recognition

program. Specifically, small businesses identified several characteristics that are important to

them: 1) better working relationships with regulators; 2) a single source to go to for all

environmental compliance information; 3) a consolidated set of environmental compliance

requirements; and 4) information on useful resources.

C Since January 1996, Region 9 has been providing hands on support to local governments

in Napa and Alameda Counties to implement the GBP model in the Bay Area. To date,

both counties have implemented the program for the first targeted industry, automotive
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-39 July 1998

repair, and are currently focusing on other small business industries. In June of 1997, both

counties conducted recognition events for the auto repair shops that achieved the program

standards. Napa County recognized four of its initial ten shop participants and Alameda

County acknowledged five shops (with another 40 expressing interest). In addition, other

counties (Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, and Sonoma) are taking the first steps toward

implementing GBPs in their communities.

The National Enforcement Training Institute - The National Enforcement Training Institute’s

(NETI’s) statutory mandate is to provide training for federal, state, local, and tribal environmental

enforcement personnel, including attorneys, inspectors, technical staff, and investigators. NETI

and its partners trained 9,986 environmental enforcement professionals in FY97. Providing

training for state, local, and tribal personnel remained a strong focus of NETI’s efforts, as 5,757

students were trained from these organizations. A total of 3,678 federal employees received

training, and international students numbered 201. Approximately 89 different courses were

offered by NETI and its partners during FY97. 

NETI piloted several new courses during FY97. NETI introduced “Environmental Enforcement

Negotiations Skills--The Basics,” a “Multimedia Inspections” course, and an updated version of

the “Basic Inspector Training.” 

3.3.2 Federal Activities

Region 2

C Throughout FY97, Region 2 worked closely with Brookhaven National Laboratory to

obtain the Puerto Rico Energy Council’s agreement to accept the MARKAL-MACRO

Energy System Model. The Puerto Rico model, which will be the first of its kind in the

U.S., will allow the integrated assessment of energy, land use, air quality, and

transportation impacts from facilities and energy usage. The results can be depicted

accurately in a GIS format. 

C Region 2 reviewed 25 environmental impact statements (EISs), including several complex

and/or controversial projects (e.g., the Newark Bay CDF, the Felts Mills Hydroelectric

Project, the Brooklyn Courthouse Project, and the Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar

Project), and over 115 other environmental review documents.

Region 10

C Region 10’s core TSCA program organized cross-training with U.S. Customs inspectors

and input specialists at five ports in Region 10. Educational efforts focused on

enforcement and compliance assistance. As a result, there has been a 40 percent increase

in telephone calls from U.S. Customs inspectors requesting technical assistance. Also,

EPA’s core TSCA inspector intercepted a shipment in violation of TSCA §13 and a notice

of noncompliance was issued.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-40

C Region 10 reviewed and commented on the Pierce County, Washington Landfill EIS

regarding §309 of the CAA. The proposed landfill was to be sited on a forested wetland,

adjacent to a creek. EPA found that alternatives presented in the EIS were not adequately

analyzed to ensure that the proposed action was the least environmentally damaging

possible alternative. EPA’s coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

provided instrumental support for the Corp’s denial of the §404 permit. Subsequently,

Pierce County sued the Corps (EPA was named in the lawsuit) and lost on all counts.

3.3.3 Criminal Program

EPA’s criminal program conducts investigations of violations of all environmental laws

administered by the EPA. The Agency’s criminal investigators also cooperate with other federal,

state, tribal, and local law enforcement organizations. 

Initiation of criminal investigations are guided by the January 12, 1994, Office of Criminal

Enforcement’s Guidance on the Exercise of Investigative Discretion, which establishes discrete

criteria for Agency investigators when considering whether or not to proceed with a criminal

investigation. The criminal case selection outlined in the guidance is based on two general

measures--“significant environmental harm” and “culpable conduct.” These measures, in turn, are

divided into nine factors that serve as indicators that a case is suitable for criminal investigation. 

The guidance is designed to promote consistent but flexible application of the criminal

environmental program. Cases that fail to meet at least one of the identified criteria may not be

appropriate for federal criminal investigation and prosecution. The guidance requires cases not

being pursued criminally to be referred to EPA’s civil enforcement arm for administrative or civil

judicial action or, where appropriate, to state, tribal, or local authorities for appropriate action. 

The Pollution Prosecution Act (PPA) of 1990 authorized a number of enhancements to EPA’s

criminal enforcement program, including increases in the number of criminal investigators to 200

and a commensurate increase in support staff. By the end of FY97, EPA had increased the

number of criminal investigators to 199 compared to 47 in FY89. This additional investment in

agents has yielded significant increases in most key areas of the criminal program including 551

cases initiated by the end of FY97.

The Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensic, and Training (OCEFT) has several areas of

primary emphasis where it has focused substantial resources during FY97. Two of these areas are

discussed below.

One of OCEFT’s priorities deals with the investigation of environmental crimes in environmental

justice communities. Each region has identified specific communities by race, ethnicity, or income

that bear disproportionate adverse impacts from pollutant sources. In the past two Fiscal Years,

more than 30 percent of the cases initiated by the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) occurred

in EJ areas or involve industries that have repeatedly committed environmental crimes in minority

or low income areas.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-41 July 1998

Another area of emphasis focuses on potential environmental violations occurring in the

Mississippi River watershed. Throughout FY97, EPA participated with DOJ, the United States

Coast Guard, and other federal and state entities in environmental task forces in that area. Using

traditional law enforcement techniques, as well as strong data and science, a number of CID

offices have opened investigations which target the elimination of illegal pollutant discharges

along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. These investigations frequently target sources

which threaten ecosystems and environmental justice communities. At the close of FY97, CID

had opened 164 investigations that involved or had a direct impact on the Mississippi watershed. 

3.3.4 Federal Facilities

The primary goal of EPA’s federal facility enforcement program is to ensure that all agencies

reach a level of compliance with environmental requirements that equal or surpass the rest of the

regulated community. To accomplish this goal, EPA uses a three-pronged approach: compliance

assistance and training, compliance oversight and enforcement, and review of federal agency

environmental plans and programs. This comprehensive approach is designed to help federal

agencies develop appropriate compliance strategies and request adequate funding to carry out

those strategies. EPA’s Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) is responsible for ensuring

that federal facilities take all necessary actions to prevent, control, and abate environmental

pollution. FFEO participates in enforcement negotiations, oversees compliance assistance and

enforcement activities undertaken by the regions, and resolves enforcement disputes between EPA

and other agencies.

During this past Fiscal Year, EPA issued under all media a total of 29 orders (including field

citations) and settled 13 penalty cases against federal agencies collecting $1,011,524 in cash and

providing for $2,824,639 in SEPs. Moreover, EPA completed two CERCLA cleanup agreements

addressing contamination at two formerly used defense sites with cleanups estimated to cost a

total of $35.4 million. 

During FY97, there were significant interpretations of some environmental statutes resulting in

increased enforcement authority for EPA against federal facilities. For example, in July 1997,

DOJ’s Office of Legal Council (OLC), in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) No. 12146,

issued a decision resolving a legal dispute between two Executive Branch Agencies--Department

of Defense (DOD) and EPA. This dispute originated from differing interpretations of the CAA

specifically, whether federal agencies would be subject to CAA field citations. The OLC

determined that EPA has penalty authority against federal agencies for violations of the CAA (not

just field citation authority) using the clear express statement standard. This decision is significant

because EPA has penalty and order authority against federal agencies provided that the statute is

clear. This occurs regardless of whether the waiver of sovereign immunity would be considered

broad enough to subject the federal agencies to penalties assessed by those outside the federal

government.

Using this clear express statement standard, EPA also has penalty authority for violations of the

UST provisions of RCRA. In February 1997, FFEO and the Office of Underground Storage

Tanks sent a memorandum to the regions encouraging them to conduct inspections and issue field
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-42

citations to federal facilities, where appropriate. Approximately 40 inspections have been

conducted nationwide in this area, resulting in 18 field citations assessing over $6,650 in penalties. 

Seven agencies have paid them including DOJ, the Army, the Navy, and the Veterans

Administration.

Historically, EPA has emphasized compliance with hazardous waste requirements at federal

facilities. Passage of the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) enhanced EPA’s enforcement

authority enabling the Agency to pursue federal agencies in the same manner it pursues private

parties. In FY97, EPA initiated 14 enforcement actions at federal facilities: nine were written

informal, one was a §7003 order at the Washington Navy Yard in the District of Columbia, and

four were §3008(a) orders totaling $442,825 in penalties against federal agencies including the

Veterans Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Navy. 

Four of these penalty cases deserve special mention as they were settled with civilian federal

agencies: the Coast Guard, the National Park Service (NPS), BIA, and the Bureau of Reclamation

(BOR). EPA has not traditionally inspected these types of facilities to the degree it has those of

DOD. EPA has seen real improvement in DOD RCRA compliance rates as a result of these DOD

inspections. For example, the number of DOD facilities with class 1 violations (the most serious

level of violation) decreased six percent since 1993. EPA’s experience shows that enforcement

works as an effective deterrent in the public sector. EPA expects this trend to continue as EPA

more systematically inspects civilian federal agencies.

In August 1996, Congress amended the SDWA to provide EPA and states with penalty authority

against federal facilities. EPA now has administrative penalty authority to assess up to $25,000

per day per violation of the SDWA against federal agencies. This broad penalty authority is

significant because EPA must go to federal district court to pursue similar penalties from private

entities. FFEO has issued a draft guidance in FY97 on this matter which became final in June

1998.

After an initial two-year emphasis on outreach, guidance, and EPCRA compliance assistance,

EPA is now examining the EPCRA compliance status of federal facilities. To facilitate this

initiative, FFEO developed a guidance to address noncompliance with EPCRA at federal facilities. 

Approximately ten EPCRA inspections were conducted at federal facilities in FY97 as part of this

initiative, with another 25 to 30 inspections expected in FY98.

During FY97, EPA placed particular emphasis on a number of key initiatives including the

issuance of the following:

C Federal Facilities Environmental Justice Enforcement Initiative (FFEJEI)

C Implementation Guide for the Code of Environmental Management Principles (CEMP)

C Federal Facility Compliance Act Enforcement: Analysis of RCRA Administrative Orders

Issued at Federal Facilities

C Underground Storage Tank Field Citation Guidance

C Improving Communication to Achieve Collaborative Decision Making at Department of

Energy Sites
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-43 July 1998

C Streamlined Oversight Guidance, which provides direction to the regions on how to

better use their limited oversight resources by streamlining where appropriate.

A nationwide total of 27 multimedia inspections was performed at federal facilities during FY97 in

a coordinated effort by EPA and state inspectors. The multimedia inspections took place at four

civilian federal agency facilities (USPS, DOJ, Veterans’ Administration, and the Department of

the Interior [DOI]/BIA), 20 DOD facilities, and three Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. 

As required by E.O. 12856, the final version of the CEMP for federal agencies was developed by

EPA and published (61 FR 54062, October 16, 1996). The CEMP has been endorsed by all 16

federal departments and agencies covered under E.O. 12856. The CEMP includes five broad

environmental management principles developed to address all areas of federal environmental

responsibility. The five principles are: 1) management commitment; 2) compliance assurance and

pollution prevention; 3) enabling systems; 4) performance and accountability; and 5) measurement

and improvement. FFEO completed the Implementation Guide for the Code of Environmental

Management Principles for Federal Agencies (EPA 315-B-97-001, March 1997), which contains

a self-assessment matrix that is proving useful for facilities evaluating where their current

management programs are and where they need to go.

In February 1997, the General Counsels of all military and civilian federal agencies received a

letter from the Assistant Administrator for OECA and the Attorney General for the Environment

& Natural Resources requesting that no federal agency invoke provisions of a state audit privilege

or immunity law. Rather, reliance on self disclosure and EPA’s Audit Policy should be

encouraged. As a result of this letter, DOD issued a national policy instructing each DOD facility

to obtain headquarters approval before relying on a state audit privilege or immunity law.

Other environmental auditing-related activities include issuing of the following auditing guidance

documents: Generic Protocol for Conducting Environmental Audits of Federal Facilities (EPA

300-B-96-012A&B, December 1996) and Environmental Audit Program Design Guidelines for

Federal Agencies (EPA 300-B-96-011, Spring 1997).
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-44

Cease Fire

EPA ordered a cease-fire effective May 19,

1997, at one of the largest National Guard

training areas in the Northeast in an effort to

protect Cape Cod’s drinking water from

contamination. Region 1 ordered Army National

Guard (NGB) to suspend all training activities at

Camp Edwards on the Massachusetts Military

Reservation (MMR) that could release

contaminants to the air, soil, and water on upper

Cape Cod. EPA also ordered NGB to

immediately begin cleanup of lead and

unexploded ordinance from firing ranges and

impact area on base. Guard officials said

publicly they would comply with the order.

The Cape Cod aquifer is the sole drinking water

source for approximately 200,000 permanent and

520,000 seasonal residents of Cape Cod. The

MMR Training Range and Impact Area is directly

above the most productive groundwater recharge

area of aquifer, the Sagamore Lens. 

Groundwater flows radially in all directions from

Training Range and Impact Area. Four towns

around MMR look to this region in northern part

of MMR to find new water supplies to replace

those already lost to groundwater pollution and to

fill the gap between supply and demand

(expected to be 11 million gallons/day in year

2020).

FFEO has been working with other federal

agencies on implementing the President’s

regulatory reinvention initiative with a

particular focus on Project XL.

EPA and DOD have initially agreed that

Vandenberg Air Force Base in California

should serve as the prototype federal facility

for Project XL. In 1996 and 1997, EPA

worked closely with the Air Force and DOD

to complete the Vandenberg Air Force Base

FPA. This prototype project will allow

Vandenberg to reduce environmental

compliance costs and apply the savings

directly to pollution prevention programs at

the facility.

EPA has completed a focused environmental

justice enforcement initiative at federal

facilities. This initiative uses the most current

TRI data reported by federal facilities coupled

with enforcement and compliance data to

target facilities in low-income and minority

populations for enforcement and compliance

actions. As a result of maps generated at

federal sites, FFEO is recommending the

regions plan and target multimedia inspections

and related enforcement activities at the

federal facilities identified in the report. The final report is entitled Federal Facilities

Environmental Justice Enforcement Initiative (FFEJEI) (EPA 315-R-97-001).

In May 1996, OECA issued an interim policy and guidance on Environmental Management

Reviews (EMRs) conducted at federal facilities. An EMR is an evaluation of an individual

facility’s program and management systems to determine the extent to which a facility has

developed and implemented specific environmental protection programs and plans which, if

properly managed, should ensure compliance and progress towards environmental excellence. 

The interim final policy lays out the definition of an EMR, the operating principles under which

EMRs are to be conducted by the EPA federal facility program, and the context in which EMRs

will be conducted by EPA for the pilot EMR program that occurred during FY97. Upon

completion of the pilot, OECA will study lessons learned for the development of a final EMR

policy in FY98.

The following are selected highlights of regional compliance monitoring and assistance activities

at federal facilities.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-45 July 1998

Region 1

With the contractor funding and assistance provided by FFEO, Region 1 was able to organize and

conduct six EMRs and prepare six comprehensive EMR reports with suggestions for

improvement. These reports have been very well received by the facilities. The region has now

conducted a total of 17 EMRs since 1994. The FY97 facilities included the two Army Corps of

Engineers facilities in Oxford and South Royalston, MA; two U.S. Coast Guard facilities in

Boston and South Weymouth, MA; Acadia National Park in Bar Harbor, ME; and the Vermont

Army National Guard facility in Colchester, VT. 

Four informational seminars were held for the New England federal facility environmental

managers throughout the year. Speakers from EPA Headquarters, DOD Army Environmental

Center, and the region discussed the XL ENVVEST program, the new SDWA, the Munitions

Rule, and the Range Rule. 

Region 2

In addition to frequently providing assistance to all types of federal facilities through routine

telephone requests, the region conducted the following compliance assistance activities in FY97:

C Region 2 and New Jersey DEP Federal Facilities Workshop - This joint EPA and

NJDEP workshop was designed to educate federal facility representatives in New Jersey

about their state environmental requirements. 

C Region 2’s 1997 Federal Facilities Conference, Federal Facility Environmental

Management Strategies Into the 21st Century - This regional conference served as

Region 2’s primary vehicle for informing federal facilities about EPA’s regulatory

developments and programmatic initiatives. 

C Region 2 and New York State DEC Federal Facilities Workshop - The goal of this

workshop was to inform federal facility representatives in New York State about their

state regulatory requirements. 

C Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment (PPOA) - This PPOA was conducted with

the USCG training facility in Cape May, NJ. It was funded by OECA, coordinated by

Region 2, and conducted by headquarters. The conclusions and reports are in the process

of being issued.

Region 3

Region 3’s RCRA office conducted inspections at ten federal facilities including seven located in

the Anacostia community-based project. Two of these inspections were multimedia inspections

awaiting final reports. Of the remaining eight facilities, complaints will be issued to five facilities

and an NOV will be issued at one facility. Two facilities were found to be in compliance with
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-46

RCRA regulations. The RCRA program also conducted 11 UST Subtitle I inspections at federal

facilities, eight of which are located in the Anacostia area.

Region 4

Region 4 conducted a federal facility multimedia inspection at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville,

AL. The inspection at Redstone Arsenal resulted in an enforcement action by the drinking water

enforcement program. The program issued an AO to Redstone Arsenal, based on violations of

the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the requirements for

public notification, and maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedances. This AO is the first one

in the nation to be issued under the 1996 SDWA Amendments using the new streamlined AO

process and incorporating language based on the federal facility provisions. This effort was the

result of numerous discussions between Region 4, the State of Alabama, and EPA Headquarters.

Region 5

Region 5 hosted the Federal Facilities Multimedia Compliance Pollution Prevention Conference in

Chicago, IL, in 1997. This annual conference provides federal facility environmental managers

with important information and updates to facilitate more effective and efficient management of

federal facilities, and to encourage interaction and exchanges with counterparts.

Region 6

Region 6 conducted two multimedia federal facility inspections. The facilities inspected were

Tinker Air Force Base, OK; Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, TX; and Corpus Christi Army

Depot, TX. The Annual Federal Facilities Conference was held in September 1997, with 139

attendees and participation from all five state agencies and a League of Women Voters member. 

Two pilot EMRs were conducted at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and USPS. Two

quarterly compliance status reports were issued. Results show eight facilities with SNC status. 

Region 7

Region 7 hosted a Federal Facilities Conference in June 1997 for federal agency environmental

managers, environmental compliance officers, administrators, and other decision makers. 

Approximately 100 people attended the conference and received information on current and

future environmental regulations, information technology, compliance assistance, and

management principles to complement federal facility environmental planning.

Region 8

Region conducted a total of seven multimedia inspections at federal facilities in FY97. The

Region 8 states participated in four of the seven inspections. Two of the multimedia inspections

were conducted at civilian federal facilities. Overall, six different media programs participated. 

Region 8 conducted 63 federal facilities inspections, which is up from the 36 reported in FY96,

and inspected facilities of ten different federal agencies, including eight civilian federal agencies.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-47 July 1998

Region 8 completed 29 technical assistance, compliance assistance, and outreach activities during

FY97. The FY97 activities reached more than seven federal agencies (some reached many at

once), including at least six civilian federal agencies. 

Region 9

Region 9 worked to ensure collaboration on reinvention projects under EPA Project XL and the

DOD’s ENVVEST. The first FPA in the nation was developed for a regulatory reinvention

project at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. Agreement for this air quality initiative was reached

between the Air Force, EPA, and the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.

The region conducted two TRI inspections at federal facilities. These inspections clearly raised

the visibility of TRI with federal facilities. In general, Region 9 found that most federal facilities

are aware of the law and have made efforts to comply. The region also learned how federal

facilities work in general and the areas where EPCRA is most likely to apply.

Region 10

The EMR conducted by EPA at Fairchild Air Force Base was successful in many ways, including:

providing training on how to perform EMRs to the regional staff; developing a good trusting

relationship between the base and EPA; and creating an interest among other bases in the EMR

process. One positive change by the Fairchild Air Force Base was to use the root cause analysis

approach in their internal audits.

3.3.5 Environmental Justice

EPA has continued policy and field work to raise awareness of environmental justice issues to

address the disproportionate burden of exposure to environmental hazards borne by residents in

minority and low-income communities. This section summarizes selected accomplishments in

Headquarters and the regions.

On April 30, 1997, the six chairpersons of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

(NEJAC) Subcommittees met with Administrator Browner to discuss the general progress of the

national EJ program and to solicit Ms. Browner’s help in dealing with other federal agencies

covered by E.O. 12898. Discussions included general strategies on how to more effectively work

with the agencies and on ideas which might be used to ensure that the Clinton Administration

reenforces its support of EJ. Rather than requesting a White House Summit on Environmental

Justice, Ms. Browner suggested that the NEJAC contact staff at the White House and arrange for

a small meeting with President Clinton.

In FY97, EPA’s Office of Regulatory Enforcement (ORE) helped to protect local communities

across the nation by assisting DOJ in preparing for the U.S. Supreme Court arguments on behalf

of citizens in the Steel Company v. Citizens For A Better Environment lawsuit. In the face of a

far-reaching challenge to a citizen’s right to bring a penalty action for filing late toxic release

reports, the federal government argued that citizens are important partners in the government’s
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-48

efforts at enforcing the law to deter violations of these critical requirements. ORE also added

support for a citizen’s right-to-know in an EPCRA §312 enforcement initiative aimed at the food

manufacturing and processing industry, which uses large quantities of hazardous chemicals such

as anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, sulfuric acid, and nitric acid. Through the initiative, more than

165 companies corrected their failure to submit information concerning the types and quantities of

hazardous chemicals stored at their facilities, which will allow state and local emergency response

agencies to respond more effectively in case of an accidental release into the community.

Initiatives such as this serve to further the goals of environmental justice in all communities throughout

the nation. 

Region 2

C Region 2 has progressed in the effort to incorporate EJ into routine activities. In selecting

CBEPs, the region focused on disproportionate environmental burdens on low-income

minority communities. In FY97, a draft interim policy was developed to help identify

potential EJ areas and implement E.O. 12898. Also, all enforcement personnel received

training which included an overview of the EJ movement, regional commitments, and

program goals for incorporating EJ initiatives into daily activities.

Region 4

C On October 3, 1996, EPA announced its decision to relocate 358 families away from a

toxic waste site the residents had dubbed “Mount Dioxin” that has been leaching dioxin,

lead, and other contaminants into the yards of a mostly black neighborhood in Pensacola,

FL. The waste site is piled nearly 60 feet high with contaminated soil and covers an area

of about four football fields. The community group, Citizens Against Toxic Exposure

(CATE), convinced EPA to relocate all 358 families, rather than just those 66 households

most affected by the site, the abandoned Escambia Wood Treating plant. The relocation

will cost an estimated $18 to $25 million, which has become more cost effective since the

site will subsequently be redeveloped for light industrial activity and rezoned nonresidential. The relocation process will be supervised by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. Once the planning has been completed, the actual relocation will take between

two and four years to accomplish.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-49 July 1998

Region 7

C Region 7’s EJ coordinator organized a presentation by a University of Missouri professor

on demographics in Region 7. This presentation introduced Region 7 to diversity and

community-based concepts and to the special needs of minority populations in the region. 

The region plans to continue to call upon this type of academic expertise to help focus EJ

and CBEP efforts to address the needs of less advantaged populations. Region 7 has

developed some pilot demographic maps of the Kansas City metropolitan area highlighting

potential EJ communities.

C Region 7 hosted its first EJ recognition day in September, allowing for interaction between

Region 7 staff and representatives of EJ and community groups. The meeting recognized

the efforts of the regional EJ members, summarized Region 7 EJ successes, and

introduced the Region 7 EJ Implementation Strategy. Two local EJ grantees participated

in the meeting and briefed Region 7 managers and staff on their community activities. 

Region 8

C Region 8’s EJ accomplishments included much activity in the public involvement area. 

The region met with external groups to discuss the impact of community involvement in

environmental decision making.

C The National Environmental Justice Workshop: The Mile High Summit was held in

Denver, CO, in June 1997. The workshop was highly attended by regional and

headquarters EJ coordinators and managers. Plenary session topics included recent EJ

legal decisions/studies, Title VI issues, identifying EJ communities and policy implications,

strategic planning and Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) activities, and state/EPA

interface on EJ. Several breakout sessions were held which included topics such as

training on EJ (internal audiences, tribal issues, EJ grants, rural issues, Geographical

Information Systems [GIS] and National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]/EJ).

C Also, the region began building an innovative training course for regional employees and

state employees and conducted an extensive outreach effort with state environmental

programs. Presentations were held for a number of state environmental directors to

discuss the basic tenets of EJ and present GIS maps.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-50

3.3.6 Tribal

EPA continued to work actively with tribal organizations and entities to ensure that compliance

and enforcement of laws and regulations are pursued within tribal lands and communities.

Region 2

C In FY97, the Region 2 UIC program witnessed twelve mechanical integrity tests (MITs) at

Class II R wells on Seneca Nation lands (New York). All wells passed the MIT. Also, a

training session was conducted on UST requirements. This training was funded by the

region, coordinated by the Seneca Nation, and open to all Indian nations in the region. 

The training included design, installation, closure, and release detection of USTs.

C The Massena area in upstate New York is populated by approximately 30,000 people,

some of whom are residents of the federally recognized St. Regis Mohawk Akwesasne

reservation. This area is also home to several large industrial sources consisting of

electrical power stations, primary and secondary non-ferrous metals production, and a

sewage treatment facility in addition to a number of gas stations, automobile service/repair

shops, and dry cleaners. Three Superfund sites (GM, Reynolds, and ALCOA) are also

located nearby. The St. Regis Mohawks have observed an increasing amount of disease,

particularly among younger age groups, which they attribute to environmental pollution. 

In response, EPA and the NYSDEC have undertaken a compliance/enforcement initiative

in the Massena area to ensure that the St. Regis Mohawks are given equal protection

under our environmental laws.

Region 4

C In partnership with the Regional Indian Program Coordinator, Region 4 conducted a

Tribal Conference with water division staff for the six tribes in the region. Compliance

status and regulatory updates were presented to the tribes along with the goals and

guiding principles for the remainder of the Fiscal Year. The program also conducted onsite workshops regarding current and upcoming SDWA regulations.

C Region 4 provided assistance to two tribes in the early stages of establishing wellhead

protection programs (WHPPs). The region conducted outreach efforts for all of the tribes

with public water systems served by groundwater sources and entered into a partnership

with the Southeastern Area Office of the Indian Health Service (IHS) to assist with

establishment of a WHPP for the tribes.

C During FY97, Region 4 conducted six on-site inspections of tribal public water systems. 

Four tribal water systems were in significant noncompliance with the lead and copper

regulations. As a part of the program’s tribal compliance initiative, Region 4 issued

bilateral compliance agreements and the four systems returned to compliance.

Region 5
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-51 July 1998

C Region 5 implements the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations at 146 active

public water supply systems on Indian lands, including 87 community, 43 nontransient

noncommunity, and 16 transient non-community water systems. A total of 897

compliance assistance activities was completed during FY97. Ninety-four compliance

activities were completed for lead and copper, 266 for the TCR, and 55 for nitrate. As a

result of this assistance, 91.5 percent of the systems required to monitor were in

compliance for lead and copper, 84.9 percent for the TCR, and 97.9 percent for nitrate

monitoring. The compliance assistance tools used included 469 phone calls, 265 notices

sent to systems reminding them to sample, 53 notices of noncompliance/public notice

requests, 41 sanitary surveys, and 69 miscellaneous activities. Seven workshops were held

for tribal operators with an average of 15 people per workshop. Four newsletters were

published and distributed to about 174 customers. 

Region 7

C On April 16-17, 1997, the Native American Water Association (NAWA), IHS, and

Region 7 sponsored the Tribal Water Utilities and Safe Drinking Water Act Workshop for

tribal councils, water boards, utility managers, and water operators. Annual compliance

awards were given to water systems that have met the monitoring and reporting

requirements and MCLs for total coliform bacteria, phases II/V chemicals, and lead and

copper. Region 7 staff answered questions on the SDWA amendments.

C In July 1997, Region 7 held a well plugging demonstration on tribal lands for tribes, BOR,

BIA, IHS, Farm Bureau, NRCS, and well plugging authorities from Missouri and

Nebraska. Twelve well sites on the Kickapoo reservation, including four that have already

been plugged, were visited. Of the remaining eight sites, most are being considered for

possible future use. At least three wells appear to be good candidates for plugging.

Region 8

C Region 8 conducted 668 inspections on Indian land in FY97. This represents an increase

of 168 inspections. The UIC and UST programs expanded their inspection work in FY97,

accounting for most of the increase.

C Marty Indian School is located on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. In

1995, oil spills occurred at the school. Although Region 8 conducted removal activities,

contamination existed at the school even after the removal work. A CBEP activity was

beginning to address these concerns in FY96. There was information that a number of

CWA, OPA, and RCRA compliance concerns existed at the school. The region

performed a multimedia inspection at Marty Indian School in October 1996. The team

also did compliance work at a tribal gaming facility near Wagner, SD. 

As a result of the compliance inspections and other concerns related to ash disposal from

the boiler heating unit, particularly at an escarpment adjacent to Mosquito Creek, a

tributary to the Missouri River, EPA undertook a major environmental assessment at the

site. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-52

Results from this investigation are still not final, but draft reports have been prepared and

shared with the tribe, the community group, the IHS, and the BIA. The findings indicate

that the ash contains high levels of lead (up to 5.9 percent) and low levels of chlorinated

furans, which are potentially toxic and carcinogenic substances. Chlorinated materials

were found in a holding tank containing septic materials. Soil samples contained high

levels of lead and tetrachloroethylene as well as petroleum hydrocarbons. 

Results from the investigation are being implemented. Boiler maintenance workers are

cognizant of the toxic nature of the ash. The BIA is discussing installing better boilers in

the school, and safety equipment was made available to maintenance staff when handling

the ash. EPA will suggest ideas for the tribe to consider regarding contaminated soil from

the storage tank facility, removing the ash, and other safety and environmental concerns. 

A meeting with the community group will be held in the winter of 1998 to discuss the final

report and next steps. 

C Region 8 provided multimedia training to the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewas in

North Dakota. The tribe received training on TSCA (PCBs mostly), NPDES, and RCRA

requirements. About 20 tribal people attended this training. Training was also given on

Emergency Planning Awareness and Introduction to Operations. Members from

Environment Canada and Canada’s First Nations (tribes) involved with emergency

planning attended the session, as did Turtle Mountain tribal representatives.

C Region 8 hosted a regional operations committee (ROC) meeting on February 13, 1997. 

The ROC represents the 27 regional tribes on environmental issues. The thrust of the

meeting focused on enforcement issues relative to tribes. About 60 tribal representatives

attended this meeting in which they posed questions regarding EPA’s inspection,

compliance, and enforcement programs. Tribal representatives also raised specific

concerns related to environmental issues on their reservations. EPA responded to or

addressed these questions and provided the ROC with written information.

Region 9

C Eleven new tribal air grants were awarded during FY97, bringing the number of Region 9

tribes with air grants to 13. The region also awarded air grants to the National Tribal

Environmental Council to facilitate tribal participation in the Western Regional Air

Partnership; to Northern Arizona University to facilitate tribal participation in the Western

Governors’ Association Air Quality Initiative; and to the Intertribal Council of Arizona to

develop air quality educational materials for tribal community members.

C Region 9 conducted a basic hazardous waste generator compliance assistance workshop in

Mesa, AZ, specifically designed for Indian lands. This workshop was attended by members

of five Arizona tribes. Since the workshop, the region has received requests from other

tribes for similar training. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-53 July 1998

C Through a cooperative agreement, the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency

(NNEPA) continues to conduct asbestos compliance monitoring inspections at all

regulated schools within the Navajo Nation and to provide compliance and technical

assistance. NNEPA also continues case development training. EPA is following up on

Notices of Noncompliance (NONs) issued to several schools inspected by NNEPA. Most

of the NONs were issued to BIA schools. 

C Region 9 provided assistance to the IHS and the following tribes: CRIT, Fallon, Campo,

Salt River, Gila River, Ak-Chin, Navajo, and Hopi. Considerable emphasis was placed on

working with the Navajo Nation and the Hopi on aboveground storage tank (AST) and oil

spill issues, resulting in 15 joint inspections on a wide range of facilities and one site

assessment. Training for Navajo and Hopi and BIA inspectors was also provided. SPCC

and OPA compliance data from the facilities were reviewed and assessments of each

facility were prepared for enforcement determinations. Three of these inspections were

conducted with the Navajo Nation AST program at the Mobil McElmo Creek &

Ratherford Units and the Texaco Aneth Unit facilities in cooperation with Region 9 Water

Division (due to the issuance of CWA AOs at these facilities). The findings of these

inspections support DOJ referrals for the Mobil and Texaco Aneth oil production field

cases mentioned above. 

C In FY97, twelve inspections were conducted on lands of seven tribes. The inspection of

the BIA (DOI) on Hoopa land resulted in an administrative complaint. The inspection of

Allen Moore Diversified on Gila tribal land led to both an administrative case and a

criminal indictment. Also, a hazardous waste generator compliance assistance workshop

was conducted specifically for tribes in Mesa, AZ. Members of five Arizona tribes were in

attendance and requests have been made to EPA by other tribes for similar training.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-54

3.4 Media-specific Programs

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

focusing on very specific segments of environmental protection (e.g., CBEP, industry sectors). 

Through its specific media programs, EPA is using all of its available tools (e.g., compliance

assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement) to ensure the overall quality of

environmental performance remains high. These programs ensure that all regulated entities

comply with their environmental requirements, regardless of their specific sector, size, or location.

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

accomplishments in each of the media-specific programs. The following sections present

information on these media-specific programs:

C Air

C Water (drinking water, NPDES program, and wetlands)

C Toxics, Pesticides, and EPCRA

C RCRA

C CERCLA.

3.4.1 Air

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

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

compliance with the CAA and its implementing regulations. In FY97, priority was placed on

obtaining compliance by permitted sources in non-attainment areas, especially for air toxics. 

Headquarters and the regions conducted inspections, initiated enforcement actions, and provided

compliance assistance under many specific programs, including:

C MACT/Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

C NSPS and new source reviews

C HONs.

All totaled, the regions conducted 2,948 inspections under the CAA; initiated, referred, or settled

608 enforcement actions; and conducted 2,303 compliance assistance activities that reached more

than 18,000 entities. 

Availability of Emissions Data For CAA Enforcement: OECA and the Office of Air Quality

Programs and Standards completed a draft of the Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) rule. 

The CAM rule will require major sources of pollution to install better monitoring systems (i.e.,

direct emissions monitors or monitors of key parameters that control emissions). OECA ensures

that data developed under the CAM rule would be fully available to enforcement agencies and the

public for detecting and prosecuting emissions violations.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-55 July 1998

Cleaner Fuels Initiative: In FY97, the Mobile Source enforcement program continued its

extensive efforts to enforce requirements for motor vehicle fuels. Those requirements, which

include reformulated gasoline, fuel volatility, and the limitation on sulfur in automotive diesel fuel,

are intended to reduce the amount of harmful pollutants, such as CO, PM, and ozone-forming

gases, discharged from motor cars and trucks. EPA estimates that together these requirements

will reduce PM emissions from cars and trucks by 25 percent and VOCs by 15 percent. EPA

conducted over 2,000 inspections of gasoline terminals, retail gasoline stations, and commercial

fleets to determine compliance with the various motor vehicle fuel requirements. As a result of

these inspections and other compliance monitoring activities, the program issued 87 NOVs. The

program also settled 56 enforcement actions for over half a million dollars in civil penalties. 

Three significant cases include: a $128,000 settlement with Amoco Corporation for producing 4.4

million gallons of gasoline at one of its refineries that did not meet the quality requirements for

reformulated gasoline; a $65,398 settlement with Murphy Oil, USA, for producing and selling 5.3

million gallons of gasoline at one of its refineries that exceeded the maximum allowable volatility

limit; and a $48,600 settlement with E-Z Serve for delivering gasoline to retail stations on 18

separate occasions that exceeded the maximum allowable volatility limit.

Urban Bus Fleet Initiatives: Particulate matter (PM) is a major health problem in urban areas

that can cause lung disease and other health problems. The CAA requires public bus fleets in

major urban areas to install pollution control equipment on rebuilt engines to reduce fine

particulate emissions. 

In FY97, the mobile sources enforcement program began an enforcement initiative to ensure that

public bus fleets installed proper pollution control equipment. Ten investigations were conducted

at bus facilities in major urban areas, including Washington, DC, Denver, Los Angeles, Chicago,

Houston, Phoenix, and New York. These investigations led to the issuance of seven NOVs. As a

result of these investigations and actions, EPA has observed a substantial increase in awareness

and compliance with the urban bus retrofit requirements by bus fleets throughout the country.

At a national level, EPA operates the Applicability Determination Index (ADI), which is a

database that contains memoranda issued by EPA on applicability and compliance issues

associated with the CAA regulations. EPA created an ADI website to provide easy access to this

information which is valuable to regulatory agency officials and environmental management

professionals. The website provides access to over 1,500 determinations that explain how

particular regulations are to be interpreted, and how they apply to specific facilities and to

industry as a whole. Regular updates to the database ensure that users will always have access to

the most current information. The ADI can be accessed on the Internet via 

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/metd/index.html/.

In a joint effort, Regions 3, 4, 5, and headquarters are working on an initiative directed to

unpermitted modifications of major power plants that may have resulted in increased NOx levels

which are of significant concern to Region 3 given its ozone problem. In a cooperative effort, the

regions and headquarters have begun an in-depth investigation of 26 facilities. Seven of these

facilities are located in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Independent information on construction
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-56

projects has been gathered from many sources including public utility commissions, DOE

databases, construction reports, and EPA databases.

Some of the specific regional accomplishments are presented below:

C Region 1’s Air Unit conducted 28 inspections in FY97. Twenty-five notifications of

noncompliance were issued. Approximately one-third of the violations were attributed to

equipment deficiencies. Due to this high rate of noncompliance, in FY98 EPA will

coordinate with the Northeast States Committee for Air Unit Management (NESCAUM)

to develop an enforcement initiative. This is aimed at promoting consistency in addressing

stage II violations and addressing the chronic failure to maintain equipment which has

significant emissions of both ozone precursors and air toxics.

C Region 2 conducted comprehensive audits of the identification and resolution of

significant air violations by New York State and New Jersey. In response to the region’s

findings, the NYSDEC completed a similar audit of the entire state air program,

identifying approximately 300 violations, of which 50 were significant violations. 

The region also developed and delivered a comprehensive air training curriculum and

transition program to transfer responsibilities for the air compliance and enforcement

program to the region’s new Caribbean Environmental Protection Division. This transfer

will enable EPA to increase the compliance monitoring frequency for Caribbean facilities

and decrease the time and cost of bringing violating sources into compliance, ultimately

reducing pollution levels.

C Region 3 worked with headquarters on a compliance video for CAA §608 and mailed an

industry specific “how-to” compliance assistance guidance document to all commercial ice

manufacturers in the region (approximately 30).

C Region 5’s FY97 ozone non-attainment area activities included compliance monitoring,

enforcement, and securing additional emission reductions through SEPs. Thirteen

finalized consent decrees and CACOs resulted in a 4,000 tons per year NOX emission

reduction and a VOC emission reduction of 292 tons per year. SEPs achieved additional

VOC and NOX reductions of 143 tons per year and 37 tons per year, respectively.

C In Region 8, one citizen received an award under the Citizen Award program. As part of

the award, which was $5,500 for providing information leading to a significant settlement

of a NESHAP asbestos case, a press release was issued to inform the public and regulated

community of the existence of the Citizen Award Program and that it is being used in the

region and across the country.

C Region 9 established a Source Test Quick Response Team to address Chrome NESHAP

compliance problems. The team developed a protocol to regulate chromium emissions

from electroplating and anodizing shops in California. The result is a more efficient means

to review source tests and to ensure compliance with the Chrome NESHAP. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-57 July 1998

C Region 9 was involved in CFC Smuggling Workshops presented to agents from U.S.

Customs, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and EPA CID. The workshops and

subsequent training video and manual inform participants about CFC smuggling and

methods to prevent the crime. The Stratospheric Ozone Team also began efforts for a

project to implement the Stratospheric Ozone Program, including the CFC smuggling and

refrigerant recycling programs in Guam. 

C Region 9’s Stratospheric Ozone Team has made it a priority to inform the public about

stratospheric ozone depletion and the harmful effects of exposure to the ultraviolet (UV)

light from the sun. Public information efforts included projects such as the UV

Index-Major League Baseball Project, in which three major league baseball teams agreed

to post scoreboard messages about the UV Index and recommended precautions provided

by EPA. 

C Region 9 Air program performed 137 inspections and took several enforcement actions. 

These actions included several ground breaking efforts: the first actions issued under the

Non-Essential Products Ban for illegal use of ozone depleting substances in production of

foam products; the first actions under the Significant New Alternatives Policy for illegal

use of a refrigerant substitute; and the revocation of several refrigerant reclaimer

certifications through a Federal Register Notice.

3.4.2 Water

Protecting our nation’s water resources has been an ongoing activity in this country for more than

100 years. Legislation to prevent pollution of the oceans, rivers, lakes, and stream was enacted

long before EPA existed. Today, protection of those same resources remains a high priority for

EPA and its state partners, who strive to maintain that protection through the implementation of

two water-related programs, one for drinking water and one for industrial or municipal discharges

to surface waters. 

Priority was placed on the TCR under SDWA, sensitive wetland ecosystem protection, and wet

weather flow problems which might cause the release of contaminated storm water. The

following sections detail some of the activities accomplished in FY97 in both of these programs.

In addition, EPA’s water program also has responsibility for enforcing against entities who

engage in activities that destroy or alter wetlands. Working in conjunction with the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, EPA uses authority granted to it in the CWA to ensure such activities do not

occur, and if they do occur, that they are addressed and mitigated. Section 3.4.2.3 discusses

EPA’s activities in FY97 related to protecting wetlands.

3.4.2.1 Drinking Water

EPA’s drinking water program is responsible for establishing mandatory and comprehensive

national drinking water quality standards. The goal of these standards is to ensure the nation’s
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-58

public health is not endangered by drinking water of unacceptable quality. EPA is responsible for

developing the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and policies and helping the state

implement and enforce the requirements.

In FY97, the drinking water program undertook several initiatives to ensure that drinking water

remained, or became, safe to consume. The following are some of the accomplishments from the

last Fiscal Year.

In FY97, three pilot projects were completed with grant money provided by OECA and the Office

of Groundwater and Drinking Water, which assisted small and very small public water systems to

improve their compliance with SDWA. These projects were implemented by: Colorado

Department of Health and the Environment; Iowa Department of Natural Resources; and the

Alaska Water and Wastewater Management Association. 

Two of the projects, Colorado and Iowa, focused on the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). The TCR

was selected because of its importance in detecting the presence of potential microbiological

contamination to drinking water. Both projects matched public water systems with excellent

compliance rates with small and very small public water systems with poor compliance rates. In

addition, Iowa used Iowa Rural Water Association (IRWA) circuit riders as mentors. The

mentors provide assistance through site visits and phone calls to identify problems and remind

operators to take samples, to assist with sampling and analysis, and to provide training. 

Approximately 60 percent of the non-compliant systems in the Colorado pilot came into

compliance. In Iowa, 280 systems received technical assistance, and 89 percent of the systems

who received assistance were in compliance for the subsequent monitoring period.

Due to the different needs of Native American villages in Alaska, the Alaska project focused on a

variety of more site-specific technical assistance needs. Systems in noncompliance were matched

with mentors who were in compliance, had more expertise in water treatment, and were located in

the same geographical area. Four remote village operators participated. Mentors visited the

villages to become familiar with their systems. Some of the mentorees went to the mentors’

communities to observe and participate in the operation of the larger, more complex systems. 

Strong mentor/mentoree relationships were established and efforts to correct specific problems

through one-on-one training were successful. Another mentor provided instruction on how to

optimize filter performance and how to conduct proper TCR sampling.

In addition, headquarters and the regions continued their compliance monitoring, enforcement,

and compliance assistance activities under SDWA. Specifically, the Agency:

C Conducted 5,490 inspections

C Initiated, referred, or concluded 564 enforcement actions

C Conducted 3,188 compliance assistance activities, reaching more than 1,742 entities.

These activities focused on the TCR, lead and copper rule, UIC, nitrates/nitrites, and Class V

wells.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-59 July 1998

The following are examples of some of the specific activities conducted by the regions:

C Region 3 worked with the states to identify those groups of systems that had not started

initial lead and copper monitoring. This led to multiple enforcement actions in each state. 

Nearly all of the systems have since started monitoring and the states have viewed the

region’s intervention as beneficial to moving cases toward compliance.

C Region 5, in coordination with the USDA, has initiated a project to study the impacts of

agricultural drainage wells within the Illinois River Basin. Contacts are being made at the

county level to identify landowners willing to participate in a program of monitoring

current discharges and testing possible alternative techniques, such as best management

practices (BMPs), to help identify better ways of protecting groundwater. The Illinois

River flows through 19 counties with a combined population of over 700,000 people.

C Efforts to address the problems in Region 6 at the colonias continued in FY97. Several

activities were undertaken during the year. A complaint and consent decree was filed

against the developers to settle the Cuna del Valle colonia case. Several trips were taken

to the colonias to identify more colonias that might be potential enforcement candidates. 

A draft report was submitted and is being reviewed by EPA. Six colonia developers were

identified as owning colonias with similar conditions as the Cuna del Valle colonia. 

Letters were drafted requesting that the developers call EPA to discuss the situation in an

effort to come to an agreement that might be beneficial to the colonia residents.

C Region 7, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and the Kansas Department

of Health and Environment implemented a voluntary program to identify contamination of

groundwater near commercial grain elevators. The goal is to identify the contamination

before it reaches nearby public wells. A brochure which describes the contamination

problem due to carbon tetrachloride and provides a brief description of the voluntary

program was mailed by the Kansas Grain and Feed Association (KGFA) to more than 500

members.

C The Region 8 Class V team planned and began implementing initiatives in Montana, South

Dakota, and Colorado to target communities for the purpose of locating and inventorying

facilities with Class V injection wells on site, and assist the regulated community in coming

into compliance with UIC Class V program requirements. Each initiative involved the

following steps:

- aquifer vulnerability assessment to locate in each state the aquifers most vulnerable to

contamination from Class V wells

- selection of target community(ies) for each state based on aquifer vulnerability

- meetings with state and local officials in target communities to explain the Class V

program and how it will be implemented during the course of each initiative

- identification of possible facilities that might have Class V wells located on site

- mailing of inventory questionnaires to collect information from each identified facility

owner/operator to determine whether a Class V well is located on site
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-60

- follow-up activities from inventory responses, which include a second mailing to nonresponses, inspections to verify responses, and sending a permit or close letter to

facilities with Class V wells.

3.4.2.2 Industrial or Municipal Discharges to Surface Waters

Through the CWA, and specifically the NPDES program, EPA regulates the discharges of

industrial and municipal wastewaters to surface waters of the United States. This program

requires that most wastewater be treated to certain levels prior to its discharge into rivers, lakes,

and streams. In FY97, the Agency:

C Conducted 3,368 inspections (majors, minors, and §311)

C Initiated, referred, or concluded 1,482 enforcement actions

C Conducted 4,727 compliance assistance activities, reaching more than 12,800 entities.

The following illustrates some of the specific accomplishments within the NPDES program in

FY97:

C Region 1’s Water Program has used the §308 authority for a variety of enforcement

activities, not purely for information gathering purposes. Some noncompliance situations

demonstrating a potential environmental risk may require swift and efficient enforcement

mechanisms. The §308 authority has enabled the region to be efficient and streamlined for

very specific enforcement needs in achieving timely compliance. For example, the ten

§308s issued for sludge violations ordered the facility to remove the illegal storage of

municipal sludge. Similarly, 14 of the 17 SPCC §308 letters ordered facilities to submit

schedules to return to compliance.

C Region 1’s Center for Environmental Industry and Technology (CEIT), in conjunction

with the U.S. NRCS, hosted storm water technologies trade shows in Ipswich and

Plymouth, MA, which were attended by more than 300 people. The trade shows featured

company presentations, as well as state-specific information on Massachusetts storm water

regulations and policy guidelines. The objective was to provide the latest information on

available and affordable technologies to local planners, engineers, and town officials. 

C Region 4’s Collection Systems Workgroup developed an Enforcement Response Guide

(ERG), which provides guidance on how the region will respond to SSO-related

unpermitted discharges and permit violations. It also completed the development of

screening criteria to aid in identification and prioritization of problem collection systems. 

The screening criteria were applied to all major facilities in Georgia.

C Region 5 implemented a CSO inspection program and developed a CSO inspection

checklist, which was shared with states and headquarters. The inspection checklist has

been adopted by several Region 5 states and will be utilized to conduct inspections in

FY98. Compliance assistance was an integral part of the CSO inspections. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-61 July 1998

C Region 6 conducted 206 inspections in FY97 to determine if facilities were compliant with

the storm water regulations. Region 6 also provided assistance through an estimated 600

telephone conversations with individual facilities, consultants, state agencies, and

concerned citizens. The region provided additional technical assistance to 600 publicly

owned treatment works (POTWs) with design flows of one million gallons per day

(MGD) or greater through distribution of reporting forms to facilitate annual submittals.

3.4.2.3 Wetlands

EPA has been heavily involved with several regulations regarding wetlands, including the Corps

of Engineers’ nationwide permits and a USDA regulation implementing the 1996 Farm Bill. The

revisions to the nationwide permits were published, as were the USDA regulations. At the

regional level, several regions have been developing and implementing wetlands strategies with

ambitious goals and objectives. In FY97, the regions conducted 529 wetland-specific inspections. 

The following are examples of other wetland-related initiatives:

C In FY97, Region 1 continued previous efforts to focus on wetlands enforcement,

particularly in the South Coastal, MA, area. Nine multimedia inspections were completed

and three enforcement actions were issued.

C In Region 4, a grant was issued to the North Carolina Department of Environment,

Health, and Natural Resources for $214,360, a portion of which is targeted for state

compliance inspections and enforcement. Specific enforcement activities to be undertaken

by the state are: defining §404/401 inspection/enforcement sites; determining appropriate

legal avenues for enforcement and coordinating with legal staff; developing

compliance/enforcement policy for the state; writing an enforcement “shell;” and taking

enforcement actions, when necessary. 

C Region 5 initiated 34 new enforcement actions seeking the removal of dredged and fill

materials and the restoration of 1,072 acres of wetlands and critical habitat.

Region 5 also completed 17 enforcement cases, which resulted in the environmental

restoration of 137 acres of wetland and other critical habitat. A majority of the concluded

enforcement cases (12 of 17) are located within the Upper Mississippi River Basin. These

cases address a total of 35 acres of environmental restoration of wetlands and other

critical habitat. In addition, a total of five compliance assistance actions was completed

with commitments to obtain §404 permits for potentially 218 acres of wetland throughout

Region 5.

3.4.3 Toxics

In FY97, EPA placed priority on enforcement and assistance to further compliance with an

expanded chemical reporting list under EPCRA §313, and emergency preparation and community

notification requirements under EPCRA §§302-312. The following sections provide the FY97
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-62

accomplishments for activities under the three statutes that comprise EPA’s toxic substances

program.

3.4.3.1 EPCRA

The purpose of EPA’s EPCRA program is to ensure that regulated facilities meet their emergency

planning and community right-to-know requirements. A large part of EPCRA involves providing

information to EPA that is then loaded onto the TRI database, which is available to the public. 

Facilities are required to report the amounts of certain extremely hazardous substances they either

manufacture, store, or use onsite, as well as how much wastes are generated, treated, or shipped

offsite.

A large part of EPA’s responsibilities includes locating non-reporters and getting them to report

the required information. Historically, this has been performed using enforcement actions, but

recently, EPA has been conducting significant outreach to the regulated community, both to get

them to report and to help them report correctly. In FY97, the Agency:

C Conducted 911 inspections (473 under §313; 438 non-§313)

C Initiated, referred, or concluded 680 enforcement actions

C Conducted 6,749 compliance assistance activities, reaching more than 16,800 entities.

At the national level, the ORE Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division completed an EPCRA

§312 industry-wide sector compliance incentives initiative. Section 312 benefits the public by

requiring the annual submission of data about hazardous chemicals stored onsite to state and local

government emergency responders who use the information to plan for and react to chemical

accidents or releases. The new initiative increased the data that state and local emergency

responders receive from food manufacturers and processors. One hundred sixty-eight companies

submitted hazardous chemical data, thus taking advantage of EPA’s time-limited offer to reduce

penalties for EPCRA violations in exchange for such information. Facilities that initially failed to

provide the information were given a second, time-limited opportunity to come into compliance

while paying a greatly reduced penalty of $2,000. Incentives such as these are crucial to local

communities in developing and implementing emergency response plans and increasing

community awareness of imminent chemical hazards.

In addition to the above compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, EPA also conducted

extensive outreach, training, and compliance assistance to the EPCRA regulated community. The

following are some examples of those efforts:

C As part of a national goal to ensure that facilities are reporting on a timely basis and that

release information is reasonable, Region 2 implemented compliance inspections with

special emphasis on data quality. Region 2 conducted 85 inspections (including 18 data

quality and two federal facilities inspections).

In accordance with priorities to advocate the use of the TRI data, Region 2 provided

information to more than 2,000 public stakeholders on how to access TRI data and their
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-63 July 1998

EPCRA Seminar Evaluations

A review of Region 2’s voluntary seminar

evaluation questionnaire, used during outreach

activities, indicated: 

C 10 percent of the participants discovered

they no longer need to report to TRI,

C 15 percent indicated they found out about

new TRI chemicals for which they will need

to report

C 19 percent indicated they learned about

newly regulated chemicals.

The response also showed that 53 percent of the

participants report for 1-5 TRI chemicals, 20

percent report for 5-10 chemicals and 15 percent

report for more than 10 chemicals.

In addition, more than 55 percent indicated they

would consider reviewing the reporting process at

the facility and 70 percent indicated they learned

of the latest regulatory changes affecting their

facility. Finally, 87 percent indicated they would

consider attending the seminar if offered again

next year.

rights to obtain information. In addition, Region 2’s program invited more than 1,600

facilities to attend ten compliance assistance seminars and a three-day EPCRA “train the

trainer” session in New York City. The compliance assistance seminars were coordinated

with state representatives in the pollution prevention programs, as well as with the

stateTRI programs. Presentations of other federal regulations that might affect the TRI

reporters were also coordinated. 

Region 2 SEPs resulted in the

reduction of over 300,000 pounds in

emissions to the environment and

provided needed chemical fire

response equipment to the local

emergency response committee in

Rockland County, NY. 

C Region 3 mailed 743 compliance

assistance letters and responded to

numerous phone calls from facilities. 

Also, 355 sector agreement packets

were mailed to facilities. As a result

of the sector agreement mailing, 12

facilities signed sector agreements. 

The program also held nine

workshops on EPCRA §313 to ensure

the regulated community is familiar

with TRI reporting procedures and is

prepared to complete form reports. 

The program also responded to about

300 phone requests for information

generated by publicizing a Region 3

TRI contact.

C Region 4 had a total of 32 SEPs negotiated with respondents under the §312 initiative. 

Most of these settlements resulted in the purchase and donation of emergency response

equipment for local fire departments.

In FY97, Region 4 continued to provide compliance assistance activities largely through

CAMEO training and software distribution at the state and local government level. There

were 23 CAMEO training sessions conducted for 438 attendees.

C Region 5 mailed 3,947 “screening” compliance packages. From the packages, the region

determined 451 facilities were in compliance; 1,798 facilities were not required to report;

and 335 packages were undeliverable. The region also mailed 1,363 “show cause letters.” 

From these letters, 49 facilities signed sector agreement for reduced penalties to come into

compliance; 614 facilities were not required to report; 72 facilities were in compliance;
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-64

and there were 155 undeliverable packages. Four hundred and four facilities did not

respond.

C Region 6 is continuing the pilot study consisting of the TRI data quality analysis

technique, which began by targeting xylene releases in Texas. This methodology has

uncovered several major violations without the necessity of an initial on-site visit. 

C During April and May, Region 7 held TRI compliance assistance workshops for 580

members of the regulated community. The workshops were primarily for the purpose of

providing training to industry in completion of the Form R, but also covered other

reporting requirements of EPCRA and CERCLA §103. Information also was provided on

pollution prevention, risk management plans, and various enforcement policies, such as the

Agency’s Policy on Voluntary Self-Policing. 

C Region 9’s EPCRA program completed a mailing to 1,800 pesticide formulators, an

industry segment that the region had not focused on previously. The region also made a

presentation at a training workshop in Arizona and worked with University of California

San Diego to present 15 training sessions throughout the region, reaching over 400

attendees. In addition, the region responded to 382 calls for technical assistance.

A key goal of the region’s TRI program in FY97 was to publicize TRI initiatives to

improve industry compliance and to inform the public of the value of TRI as a tool.

A major focus of Region 9’s operating plan for the second half of FY97 was to increase

use of TRI data by other EPA programs and by the public. The region drafted an

outreach starter kit and a public brochure directed toward communities who want to use

TRI data. Region 9 awarded a grant to Communities for a Better Environment to train

other community-based organizations in the Los Angeles area on the use of TRI data. 

The region conducted three TRI training sessions for other Region 9 offices. Region 9

made similar presentations for the local HUD office and for a delegation from Nigeria.

3.4.3.2 FIFRA

Since its inception in 1970, one of EPA’s primary areas of responsibility has been pesticides. 

Charged with protecting human health and the environment from the dangers identified in Rachel

Carson’s Silent Spring, EPA regulates the manufacturers and users of all pesticides, including

fungicides, insecticides, and rodenticides. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) and its implementing regulations are EPA’s primary tool for ensuring safe

production and use of pesticides. In addition, there is a worker protection component of FIFRA

that ensures that all workers who may be exposed to pesticides are provided the proper warnings

and precautions, as well as safety equipment. In FY97, EPA placed priority on Worker

Protection Standards (WPS) and new chemical exposure limits. The following discussion

describes accomplishments in EPA’s pesticide programs.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-65 July 1998

Specifically, in FY97, headquarters and the regions:

C Conducted 207 inspections

C Initiated, referred, or concluded 348 enforcement actions

C Conducted 2,833 compliance assistance activities, reaching more than 4,100 entities.

The Agency conducted these activities within several specific programs, including worker

protection, labeling, urban pesticide misuse, and good laboratory practices (GLPs).

Under FIFRA, the GLP standards assure the quality and integrity of data submitted under FIFRA. 

For the third year in a row, OECA conducted a record number of lab inspections (127) and audits

(480) to ensure chemical companies were in compliance with the GLPs. In addition to the

inspections, OECA completed a multi-year project with the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA), the American Chemical Society, and the Society of Quality Assurance resulting in a

televised satellite compliance assistance program on GLP field studies and analytical chemistry. 

Finally, OECA played a prominent role in revising the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD)’s Principles of Good Laboratory Practices.

In FY97, EPA addressed an issue of growing importance under FIFRA: the increased number of

household disinfectants designed to kill bacteria, fungi, and viruses. An estimated 5,000

antimicrobial pesticides have been registered thus far with approximately 3,000 making claims of

public health protection. Also, since the beginning of 1996, approximately 150 new products

have been marketed with antibacterial claims, nearly double the number launched in 1995. To

address this growing problem, the ORE Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division has taken

enforcement actions over the past year against two companies that have been selling products that

make claims that they protect against infectious bacteria and germs, and the product is not

specifically registered with EPA for that purpose. Headquarters is also working closely with the

Office of Pesticide Programs to draft a Pesticide Registration Notice to clarify the treated article

exemption language to prevent other companies from making similar claims in the future on

unregistered products.

The following are some of the highlights for FY97 from the regional FIFRA programs:

C In FY97, Region 2 issued its first civil complaint under the WPS. This complaint was for

noncompliance by a farm (Tropical Fruits, SE) in Puerto Rico, and represents the first and

only case against a farm for a use violation under the WPS.

C During FY97, Region 4 conducted numerous training courses and conferences. One of

the highlights was a conference/training course developed by Region 4 and headquarters

as part of the Urban and Residential Pesticide Control Program. This national

enforcement conference addressed the implementation of the urban program and the

response to actual incidents involving the indoor use of agricultural pesticides. The

meeting utilized mock inspections to give the participants the real-world feel for the field

activities associated with methyl parathion investigations. The training course also

included a presentation on press-related activities and communication strategies, corporate
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-66

product stewardship, health-related activities, and a database developed by the Mississippi

Department of Health.

Region 4’s work on the Florida Mosquito Control White Paper was concluded during

FY97. The white paper was initiated to capture the true nature of mosquito control

efforts in Florida and identify issues and problems associated with mosquitocide 

applications. A pesticide stewardship component was incorporated into the white paper as

a means of reducing any associated risks to human health or the environment. 

Contributors to the white paper included regulators, researchers, and applicators from

federal, state, and local entities.

C Region 5 conducted a compliance assistance/outreach initiative by sending a flyer to all

3,500 registered pesticide producing establishments in the region. The flier stated that the

annual Pesticide Production Report had to be mailed to the company’s headquarters by

March 1 to be in compliance with Section 7 of FIFRA. The region responded to

approximately 150 calls as a result of this flier. The number of pesticide establishments

who failed to comply with the March 1 deadline was lower than the previous years. The

region believes that this was largely due to the compliance assistance and follow-up

efforts. 280 notices of warning were issued to companies who failed to submit the

reports. Notices of Intent to Terminate Establishment Numbers were sent to companies

who failed to respond to the warning letters, and civil complaints were issued to those

companies that had a history of noncompliance.

C Region 5 also executed a search warrant at the residence of Ruben Brown as a part of the

urban pesticide misuse initiative. The search recovered many gallons of methyl parathion,

ledger books of Mr. Brown’s customers, and several pesticide sprayers. Since the time of

the warranted search, the region has been primarily responsible for:

- Assisting CID in the successful prosecution of Ruben Brown. (Mr. Brown plead

guilty on July 24, 1997, to two counts of using a registered pesticide in a manner

inconsistent with its labeling.)

- Creating and leading environmental sampling teams, who have sampled 859

homes.

- Contacting the people (approximately 1,000 addresses) listed in Mr. Brown’s

records.

- Coordinating/facilitating the flow of information regarding the environmental

sampling.

3.4.3.3 TSCA

TSCA is the primary statute that regulates the manufacture and sale of toxic substances in the

United States. In addition to providing such controls, it also regulates several toxic substances in

our environment, including lead and PCBs. In FY97, priority was placed on human health

protection with an emphasis on compliance assistance and enforcement for new and established

lead-based paint requirements. This section details the FY97 accomplishments in three areas:
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-67 July 1998

1) Core TSCA, which deals with the manufacture and sale of toxic substances, 2) lead, and

3) PCBs.

The Office of Regulatory Enforcement Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division completed a

national one-time TSCA Compliance Audit Program (CAP) enforcement initiative to gather

reports of substantial risks from toxic chemicals. Under TSCA §8(e) CAP, EPA received more

than 11,000 previously unreported studies or reports from 89 companies on chemicals that may

present a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. The 11,000 studies submitted

during the CAP process account for 80 percent of all submissions received throughout the §8(e)

program’s history. The Agency assessed a total of $22,764,000 in civil penalties against the 89

companies which had originally failed to adequately report certain information about the potential

hazardous nature of their products. That sum represented substantially reduced penalties as a

result of this program.

C Region 2 participated with the NY Department of Health in the making of two videos--

one geared toward the regulated community and the other targeted to the public at large--

on lead requirements, hazards, and safety. The region also participated in three

professional conventions/exhibitions directly/individually contacting over 14,000 members

of the lead-based paint regulated community (realtors, apartment owners, property

management firms) and delivered over 20 individual presentations (to 18 realtor groups,

two county bar associations, and the South Jersey State Lead Consortium). Region 2

developed and implemented the nation’s first pilot of the §1018 disclosure inspections,

conducting 33 site visits, resulting in 23 “inspections” (compliance assistance visits). 

C Negotiations with respondents and Region 2 in the PCB program produced SEPs that

resulted (or will result) in the following environmental gains: all authorized PCB

transformers at two facilities were removed and disposed of, eliminating any future risk of

fire, spills, or exposure; and an oil-fired combustion burner was replaced with a gas/oilfired combustion burner, which is more efficient and will result in reduced sulfur dioxide

and particulate emissions.

C Exposure to lead and petroleum aromatic hydrocarbons, such as those found in shot and

clay targets, respectively, is associated with a wide variety of adverse health and

environmental effects. It is estimated that there are up to 1,000 ranges with 10 million

pounds of lead in Region 2. To promote regular removal of lead shot and clay targets,

which would avoid future contamination of the site and significantly reduce potential

liability and costs, a draft manual for design and operation of ranges to collect shot for

recycling has been developed by Region 2. Much outreach to gather information for the

manual was conducted and a number of stakeholders have been a part of the region’s

manual development process. The manual is intended to provide BMPs for the entire

country.

C Region 3 participated in a workshop entitled “Living with TSCA” sponsored by EPA, the

Chemical Manufacturers Association, and other chemical industry associations. The

workshop featured more than 500 industry representatives.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-68

C Region 4 initiated a community education and outreach pilot project during FY97 to

address and help mitigate children’s exposures to pesticides, asbestos, lead, and PCBs.

C Region 5 conducted 22 PCB inspections at federal facilities, public utilities, commercial

buildings, and other industrial facilities. As a result, the region issued 17 civil complaints

under the PCB rules and closed 29 cases during the same period. Four of the closed cases

included SEPs concerning the disposal of PCBs or PCB-contaminated equipment, or an

accelerated schedule for replacement of PCB transformers.

C Region 6 has reached a broad cross section of the real estate community through three

compliance seminars, 25 on-site compliance assistance visits, and mail-outs to 600 entities.

C Region 7 reviewed records and documents to develop a list of “new” public and private

schools that may not have been in operation at the time the Asbestos Hazard Emergency

Response Act took effect. As a result, 197 letters were sent to schools that did not submit

asbestos management plans in 1987-88 to notify them of their responsibilities. 

C Region 9 conducted a pilot project of compliance visits under §1018 disclosure

regulations. The region visited 19 real estate offices, property management firms, and

independent apartment building owners in three counties. The counties were selected

based on income, older housing stock, and minority populations. 

3.4.4 RCRA

RCRA addresses the management of solid and hazardous waste, as well as Underground Storage

Tanks (UST), that contain hazardous substances or petroleum. RCRA Subtitle C regulations

provide “cradle-to-grave” regulation and control of hazardous wastes by imposing various waste

management requirements on generators, transporters, and facilities that treat, recycle, store, or

dispose of hazardous wastes. Under Subtitle D of RCRA, EPA has developed criteria applicable

to the management of solid waste, which is primarily regulated by state and local governments. 

The central Subtitle D regulation addresses municipal solid waste permitting programs. Subtitle I

of RCRA establishes rules for USTs containing petroleum or hazardous substances. These rules

focus on preventing, detecting, and correcting releases of regulated substances. In FY97, EPA

placed priority on the Universal Treatment Standards, Subpart CC, release detection requirements

for USTs and hazardous waste generators. The following illustrate some of the RCRA-related

accomplishments in FY97.

The regional RCRA programs:

C Conducted 3,586 inspections

C Initiated, referred, or concluded 644 enforcement actions
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-69 July 1998

C Conducted more than 8,969 compliance assistance activities, reaching more than 35,088

entities.

On October 20, 1997, EPA issued the Guidance on the Use of Section 7003 of RCRA. This

authority provides EPA with broad and effective enforcement tools that can be used to abate

conditions that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the

environment. The 1997 RCRA §7003 guidance addresses a variety of subjects as they relate to

the use of this authority including: case screening factors, the relationship of RCRA §7003 to

other requirements and authorities, legal requirements for initiating action, actions and restraints

that can be required, relief available, and other requirements and considerations. In addition, the

guidance discusses enforcement of unilateral administrative orders and administrative orders on

consent.

Subpart CC Compliance Assistance Project - In FY97, EPA, in partnership with the Chemical

Manufacturers Association, developed a user friendly compliance assistance tool for complying

with the RCRA Subpart CC Rule for 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 “Organic Air Emission Standards

for Hazardous Waste Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers at Hazardous Waste

Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities and Hazardous Waste Generators.” This compliance

tool is intended for personnel with environmental compliance responsibilities at both the plant and

corporate level, as well as engineers and production personnel who are responsible for design and

operation of hazardous waste units. Several workshops were conducted using this tool.

In addition to these national initiatives, the EPA regions conducted the following RCRA-related

activities in FY97.

C Region 1’s RCRA compliance unit conducted 78 multimedia inspections in FY97.

Hospitals, universities, and state departments of transportation were found to be in

significant violation of RCRA. In contrast, two municipal airports were in violation. 

However, the municipal departments of public works, transportation/highway

departments, and fire departments inspected were generally found to be in minor violation

or not in violation. The inspections identified either minor violations or none at all at

printers, wood coaters, and adhesive manufacturers. As a result, the region referred four

RCRA actions to DOJ in FY97.

C Region 2 developed and used compliance assistance tools including a series of six air

emissions seminars (with training manuals) as part of its outreach program to inform the

regulated community of the requirements imposed by the Emissions Rule. In addition, the

region developed a specialized air emissions inspection checklist and 30 specialized air

emissions inspections were performed at TSDFs and generators.

C The RCRA program in Region 2 inspected more than 370 generators. In addition, the

states inspected more than 1,600 facilities that generate hazardous waste. These

inspections resulted in the issuance of 19 EPA Administrative Complaints and almost 200

NOVs. Penalties of $1,665,610 were proposed in the 19 EPA complaints and $972,925

was assessed (collected) in 19 ACOs. In addition, the region estimates that these actions

resulted or will result in more than $11 million of compliance improvements and in the
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-70

reduction or elimination of more than 60,000 pounds per year of hazardous waste releases

to the environment.

C Region 3 developed a Subpart CC Rule outreach document and mailed it to all treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) and large quantity generators in the region.

C Training was conducted in March 1997 in Region 3 on a review of the Subtitle I and 40

CFR 280 of RCRA. The training covered the requirements for UST systems, release

detection requirements, corrosion protection requirements, closure requirements,

corrective action requirements, and financial responsibility requirements. The final stage

of the phase-in of requirements occurred on December 22, 1997, and Region 3 provided

this training to assist inspectors and the regulated community in meeting the new

challenges of UST program compliance.

C In Region 4, the Mississippi UST program has adopted a tank inspection target protocol

based on a tank’s proximity to vulnerable aquifer systems or wellhead protection areas. 

During FY97, Mississippi conducted 914 compliance inspections using the protocol as a

screening tool.

C In May 1997, Region 5’s UST section conducted 219 facility compliance visits. 

Petroleum marketers accounted for 49 percent of the facilities; the remaining 51 percent

were non-marketers. The intent of the visits was to determine facility compliance with

release detection. Of the 190 facilities operating UST systems, 42 percent were in

compliance with release detection requirements. Over a third of the marketers (35.6

percent) and half of the non-marketers were not in compliance with release detection

requirements.

Of the 190 facilities operating UST systems, 36 percent already met the 1998

requirements. Forty-six percent of the facilities indicated they plan to upgrade or replace

their UST systems before the 1998 deadline. Eighteen percent of the facilities planned to

close before the 1998 deadline.

C In Region 6, §3007 Request for Information letters were sent to 48 targeted facilities. 

Thirteen facilities were out of compliance. Warning letters were issued to four facilities

and nine APOs and CACOs were issued simultaneously to facilities requiring extensive

violation corrections. Total penalties assessed were $250,000. One of the enforcement

actions resulted in the first international SEP in the country. The SEP removed 200,000

pounds of waste from the environment and completely eliminated wastewater generation

at a Mexican manufacturing facility. 

Region 6 selected the marine industry located along the lower Mississippi as a regional

specific priority. The area of consideration was chosen for community-based protection,

ecosystem protection, EJ, and large quantity generators. The facilities had not been

inspected by either the state or EPA during the last four years. A total of 46 facilities was

inspected. Fifty percent of the facilities inspected were in noncompliance with RCRA. As
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-71 July 1998

result of the inspections, many of the facilities have changed their operating procedures to

eliminate the generation of hazardous waste.

Region 6 took a pro-active approach in encouraging early compliance with the 1998 UST

compliance deadline. The region developed an outreach/enforcement strategy where the

region and its states had a coordinated and focused effort to persuade the regulated

community to upgrade to the 1998 standards. The region also provided training on the

technical/regulatory UST issues and conducted 90 inspections. Of the 90 inspections

conducted, 14 facilities were in compliance.

C Region 7 developed a model for a condensed RCRA inspection that allows the inspector

to focus on potentially high risk environmental areas. Region 7 RCRA inspectors use a

multi-page checklist to identify those facilities with potentially serious violations, which

then receive a full compliance monitoring inspection. The screening inspections were

focused in the State of Nebraska at large quantity generators and small quantity generators

that had never been inspected. This new inspection tool enabled four Region 7 inspectors

to conduct 133 screening inspections. Of these 133, approximately 75 percent of the

inspections were found to be waste determination violations. The inspectors and RCRA

staff worked with these facilities to come into compliance by providing a copy of the

RCRA Guidance Handbook for Small Businesses and providing contacts to answer

questions on hazardous waste.

C Region 8 and all of its states participated in a national initiative for leak detection. The

purpose was to create public awareness of UST leak detection requirements and to

improve compliance of UST facilities. The region and states collectively performed 250

inspections during the month of May. Region 8 had referred 4 enforcement actions to

DOJ as a result of the initiative.

C Region 9, with assistance of California and Hawaii, developed and delivered compliance

seminars to small quantity generators and local regulatory agencies which have historically

had high levels of noncompliance. This outreach was targeted toward remote areas which

generally do not have the opportunity for such training.

3.4.5 CERCLA

In FY97, EPA significantly improved its Superfund program through continued administrative

reforms. The following are some accomplishments over the past year in administrative reform:

C General Policy on Superfund Ability to Pay Determinations - This policy explains what

is required for an acceptable ability to pay (ATP) settlement in Superfund cases. The main

text of the policy document addresses general issues that apply to the ATP process and

ATP settlements. The policy document also contains two appendices that address issues

specific to making ATP determinations for individuals and businesses. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-72

C Guidance on EPA Participation in Bankruptcy Cases - The purpose of this guidance is

to identify the factors to be considered by EPA in determining whether to participate in a

bankruptcy case, including whether to pursue collection of costs or penalties against

debtors who have liability under CERCLA or other environmental statutes.

C Interim Policy on Settlement of CERCLA §106(b)(1) Penalty Claims and §107(c)(3)

Punitive Damages Claims for Noncompliance with AOs - This policy is intended to

make calculation of civil penalties and punitive damages under CERCLA for purposes of

settlement a fair and effective process for deterring noncompliance with EPA’s

administrative orders. The policy contains an innovative approach toward penalty

calculation that takes into account factors particularly relevant to CERCLA cases by

incorporating both harm and equitable adjustment factors into a single “harmrecalcitrance” matrix. 

C Addendum to the “Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy” Issued on December 5, 1984 -

This memorandum is an addendum to the “Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy,” which

was issued by EPA and DOJ on December 5, 1984 (50 FR 5024, February 5, 1985). That

policy sets forth the general principles governing settlements with potentially responsible

parties under CERCLA. On June 3, 1996, EPA issued an “Interim Guidance on Orphan

Share Compensation for Settlors of Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) and NonTime-Critical Removals.” Because that guidance document does not apply to CERCLA

cost recovery settlements in which the parties are not agreeing to perform RD/RA work or

a non-time critical removal, EPA and DOJ are issuing the addendum to provide the

regions with direction for addressing potential compromises of CERCLA cost recovery

claims due to the existence of a significant orphan share.

C Policy on Interpreting CERCLA Provisions Addressing Lenders and Involuntary

Acquisitions by Government Entities - This policy clarifies the circumstances under

which EPA intends to apply as guidance the provisions of the CERCLA Lender Liability

Rule and its preamble in interpreting CERCLA’s secured creditor exemption as amended

by the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of

1996. This document also reminds its readers of the effects of the portion of the

CERCLA Lender Liability Rule and the sections of the preamble that address involuntary

acquisitions by government entities.

C Final Guidance on the Issuance of AOs Under §§311 (c) and (e) of the CWA - This

guidance describes how to use the authorities under §§311 (c) and (e) of the CWA to

issue administrative orders for the cleanup and prevention of discharges and threatened

discharges of oil and hazardous substances into navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, and

certain other areas. 

C Policy on the Issuance of Comfort/Status Letters - As part of the Agency’s Brownfields

Action Agenda, OECA has developed four sample “comfort” letters and a general policy

regarding their use. The policy describes the most common situations about which parties
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-73 July 1998

inquire and the type of information or comfort EPA may provide to parties to assist them

in assessing the probability of incurring liability under CERCLA.

In addition to the administrative reform activities, the headquarters and regional Superfund 

programs completed the following activities in FY97:

C ADR Training - A training in the effective use of mediation and other ADR techniques to

assist EPA enforcement actions was provided to all regional offices during FY97. 

C Outreach Efforts - Members of the ADR Specialists Network made presentations and

provided consultation services on effective ADR use for numerous professional and PRP

organizations, including: the American Bar Association, the Center for Public Resources,

the Information Network for Superfund Settlements, the Society of Professionals in

Dispute Resolution, and several federal and state agencies. 

C Contribution to Superfund Administrative Reform Initiatives - During FY97, members

of the ADR Specialists Network assisted Agency efforts to implement several of the

Superfund administrative reform initiatives. This resulted in the establishment of an ADR

implementation plan in each regional office.

C Other Training - During FY97, the policy integration team was involved with more than

12 course deliveries, training more than 530 federal and state employees in the CERCLA

and RCRA corrective action enforcement programs. 

The Agency also continued to focus efforts toward brownfields. The following are examples of

brownfields initiatives at the regional level:

C In FY97, Region 6’s brownfields team successfully completed two targeted site

assessments for the cities of Duncanville, TX, and Malvern, AR. The city of Tulsa, OK,

was awarded a $200,000 regional site assessment pilot grant. Also, a brownfields site

assessment demonstration was conducted on three properties in the City of New Orleans,

to show that brownfields site assessments with a focus on end use are faster, cheaper, and

more efficient. 

The region’s Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund was awarded to 23 of the

original 30 site assessment pilots. In Region 6, the cities of Dallas and New Orleans each

received a $300,000 grant to establish the revolving loan fund that can be used for cleanup

of brownfields property. The brownfields program was also able to provide all of the

states in Region 6 with funds for their respective voluntary cleanup programs. 

C EPA awarded Wellston, MO, a $200,000 grant under EPA’s Brownfields National Pilot

program. The proposed pilot project area in Region 7 includes light

manufacturing/warehouse distribution facilities and single-family housing near the

Wellston Metro Link Station. Wellston will conduct environmental assessments, develop
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 3-74

plans for remediation, and prepare a comprehensive redevelopment plan for a light

manufacturing technology park and residential areas.

C In Region 9, Oakland was awarded a $100,000 Regional Pilot grant. The funding will be

used to conduct Phase II assessments at two sites: one is within Oakland’s downtown

redevelopment area and the other is in East Oakland near the Coliseum. An additional

$100,000 was added to the pilot grant that will be used to encourage the redevelopment of

the Fruitvale area’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Transit Village project. 

C In August 1997, Region 9 piloted a technical training and jobs placement program for the

community surrounding the East Palo Alto brownfields site. Sixteen students received

seven weeks of extensive training from DePaul University in hazardous waste handling,

lead and asbestos abatement, and UST cleanup and removal. Funding for this program

was provided by EPA to DePaul through an existing grant the university has with the

National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. Classroom training was followed by

90 days of paid on-the-job training with several environmental cleanup firms in the area. 

3.5 Self Disclosure

Voluntary auditing programs play an important role in helping companies meet their obligations to

comply with environmental law. EPA’s Self-Policing Self-Disclosure Policy (Audit Policy),

effective in January of 1996, encourages self-policing by reducing penalties for any violations that

are discovered, disclosed, and corrected through voluntary audits or compliance management

programs. Further, EPA will not recommend criminal prosecution of regulated entities in these

circumstances, although individuals remain liable for their own criminal conduct. The Audit

Policy includes safeguards to protect the public and the environment, excluding violations that

may result in serious harm or risk, reflect repeated noncompliance or criminal conduct, or allow a

company to realize a significant economic gain from its noncompliance. 

More than 100 companies have self-disclosed violations under the Audit Policy, proving that

environmental auditing can be encouraged without blanket amnesties or audit privileges that

would excuse serious misconduct, frustrate enforcement, encourage secrecy, boost litigation,

and/or lead to public distrust.

In the biggest settlement ever reached under the Audit Policy, the Agency and GTE Corporation came

to an agreement resolving water and right-to-know 600 violations at 314 GTE facilities in 21 states. 

The GTE settlement demonstrates the policy’s broad scope in promoting compliance at facilities

nationwide and provides a good model for national companies that want to come forward and resolve

multiple federal violations. The Audit Policy’s success, however, has not been limited to large

companies. Of the 250 companies that have disclosed environmental violations at more than 790

facilities, many are small businesses as well.

The following are examples of self-disclosures within the EPA regions:

C Region 1 - In FY97, one company with less than 100 employees submitted a voluntary

self-disclosure of violations of EPCRA §313 (failure to submit a total of eight Form Rs
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

3-75 July 1998

over three years). The violations were discovered during a company environmental selfaudit, and the company disclosed the violations to EPA in writing within four days of

discovery of the violations. There was no economic benefit derived from the violations

and the facility submitted the forms within 60 days of discovery of the violations.

C Region 2 - Three enforcement actions resulted from voluntarily disclosed violations of

Core TSCA requirements. Since FY91, Core TSCA has taken and settled 23 voluntarily

disclosed cases. Most, if not all, of the cases were the result of self-audits done by the

company. The regulated community is aware of the provisions in the Core TSCA

Enforcement Response Policies, which have been in effect since 1989.

C Region 7 - During FY97, Region 7 concluded seven cases where entities voluntarily came

forward and self-disclosed violations of environmental regulations, in accordance with the

provisions of the Audit Policy. Violations were self-disclosed under EPCRA, TSCA, and

CAA. In each of the seven cases, the respondents have corrected the violations and have

entered into a consent agreement with the region certifying their satisfaction of the

conditions of the Self-Policing Policy. In return, six of the entities received 100 percent

mitigation of the gravity-based penalties that normally would have been proposed for such

violations; the seventh entity received a 75 percent reduction of the gravity-based penalty. 

None of the seven entities realized any economic benefit as a result of their violations. 

Penalty mitigation in the seven cases ranged from $15,000 to $139,042. 

C Region 8 - In FY97, Region 8 continued to actively support and defend the Agency’s

policy to encourage self-disclosure of violations discovered as a result of an environmental

audit. Discussions are continuing with state officials, legislators, and interest groups

regarding the consideration of environmental audit legislation in the State of Montana, and

several speeches have been given by regional staff regarding the Audit Policy.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

4-1 July 1998

4. PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS/GRANTS

(PPAS/PPGS)

Neither the federal government nor the states have sufficient resources alone to address every

environmental compliance problem. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states

each have capabilities and responsibilities unique or appropriate for their respective agencies. 

Therefore, integration of federal and state enforcement and compliance assurance efforts must be

achieved to provide the most effective national environmental protection program. This year was

the first full year of implementation of the National Environmental Performance Partnership

System (NEPPS) following a pilot year in 1996. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance (OECA) had previously worked with the regions and states to develop Core Program

Performance Measures to evaluate the performance of Performance Partnership Agreements

(PPAs). The enforcement and compliance staff in regional offices were involved in negotiating

the agreement to ensure adequate enforcement and compliance provisions.

In FY97, the first full year of NEPPS implementation, the enforcement and compliance programs

in the region offices participated in the performance partnership negotiations to ensure the

inclusion of adequate enforcement and compliance programs. In FY97, 34 PPAs and 22

Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) were negotiated with state environmental agencies that

cover a variety of environmental programs. The regions also entered into four PPGs with state

departments of agriculture to cover FIFRA (pesticides, enforcement, and worker protection)

grants. OECA has worked with the regional offices to review draft PPAs and to provide

guidance in the form of the Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) Guidance. OECA has also worked

with its state partners to develop enforcement and compliance Accountability Measures to be

used to evaluate the performance of PPAs and PPGs. The Accountability Measures are designed

to included both outcome and output measures.

Several cases developed by the Office of Regulatory Enforcement (ORE) demonstrate the benefits of

working with state partners in assuring compliance. At the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,

EPA and California joined efforts in developing and litigating an important water enforcement

action involving Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E’s) failure to submit accurate and complete

information concerning the adverse impacts of its operations on the adjoining coastal ecosystem. 

Recognizing the environmentally sensitive nature of this area, the state and federal governments

teamed up and obtained more than $7 million in cash penalties and more than $6 million in

injunctive measures to mitigate damage that likely occurred from withdrawing small aquatic

organisms and fish through the plant’s cooling water intake.

In FY97, several regions began the process of negotiating PPAs with their states. In Region 1,

for example, principal negotiation terms were developed for all six New England states--

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The scope of

the PPAs included the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), underground storage tank

(UST), and other programs according to individual statutes. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 4-2

The status of PPAs and PPGs in other EPA regions varies. The following attempts to highlight

the status of each region in the process:

C Region 2 has negotiated a PPA and PPG with New York for the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and drinking water programs. The region also

had PPA and PPG with New York for underground injection control (UIC), NPDES and

drinking water programs. The region’s PPG with the Virgin Islands covers all eligible

grant dollars.

C Region 3 entered into six PPGs in FY97, although only Delaware had an associated PPA. 

Those PPGs combined pesticide enforcement funds with pesticide certification and

training funds.

C Region 4 had PPAs in FY97 with Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and

Tennessee. It had PPGs with Georgia and Mississippi.

C Region 5 had agreements with Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, and Ohio. The Environmental

Performance Partnership Agreement (EnPPA) served as a workplan for Illinois, Indiana,

and Minnesota. Indiana and Illinois had PPGs as part of their EnPPAs.

C Region 7 had PPAs and PPGs with the Departments of Agriculture in Iowa, Kansas, and

Nebraska. These grants were awarded under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and covered the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), pesticide

certification, pesticide enforcement, and the endangered species program. The state of

Nebraska had a PPG, which included administrative functions only and not programmatic

activities with the air, water, and RCRA programs. Missouri is the only other state that

had a PPG for FY97. It included the air, water, and RCRA programs. 

C Each of the six states in Region 8 received a PPG. However, not every state developed a

PPA. 

C In Region 9, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the recipient of

a PPG combining four water grants. The water divisions of Region 9 and ADEQ have a

signed agreement that lays out how the agencies will continue to improve their joint

strategic plans over the next five years. The PPG itself is an experiment to see how

effective a tool it is for streamlining paperwork. 

Also in Region 9, the Hawaii Department of Health (HI DOH) is the recipient of a

multimedia PPG combining eight grants. The grant’s primary purpose is to staff HI

DOH’s development of a state strategic plan. The grant also funds HI DOH’s role in

staffing a public advisory group’s review for public acceptance of the plan.

C The FY98 PPAs represent Region 10’s first year for addressing compliance/enforcement

matters in a substantive manner. During FY98, each of the media program compliance

assurance agreements is being reviewed and revised as necessary.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

4-3 July 1998

4.1 Measures

During FY97, OECA and the regions continued to refine and add measurement of enforcement

and compliance assurance to systematically capture information, to bring measurements forward

in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and to progress in

results measurement. There are challenges in applying these themes across programs and

organizations, including states, without making measurement activities a major resource use. 

Despite this, OECA and the regions continue to make measures of success a key portion of

initiatives and regular business.

In FY97, OECA led a nationwide process which engaged stakeholders in industry, environmental,

academic, and community groups, government organizations, and the press to develop a proposed

framework for a National Performance Measures Strategy. The report establishing the measures

framework was issued on December 22, 1997, and implementation will begin in FY98.

Reporting of accomplishments for FY97, included reporting on the results and impacts of

concluded federal enforcement actions. These data were obtained via the Case Conclusion Data

Sheets. EPA coordinated all aspects of the case conclusion data reporting process in advance of

being able to use the OECA Docket for reporting. 
Appendix A

Current and Historical

Enforcement Data
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-1 July 1998

EPA Regional Inspections EPA Administrative Penalty Order Complaints New EPA Civil Referrals to DOJ

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97

CAA Stationary 1,081 2,064 2,844 CAA 102 88 126 CAA 37 70 89CAA Mob. Source NA 107 104 CERCLA 23 37 26 CERCLA 102 127 154Asbestos D & R 961 635 653 CWA 212 153 329 CWA 49 48 98NPDES Minors 558 499 784 EPCRA 244 196 293 EPCRA 3 9 11NPDES Majors 1,250 1,046 918 FIFRA 160 73 174 FIFRA 1 3 4CWA 311 NA 2,267 1,666 RCRA 91 88 139 RCRA 14 19 49CWA 404 NA 342 529 SDWA 86 57 45 SDWA 5 17 13EPCRA 313 644 571 473 TSCA 187 178 181 TSCA 3 2 8EPCRA non-313 NA 689 438 Total 1,105 870 1,313 Total 214 295 426FIFRA 587 116 207 SOURCE: Docket; all CERCLA are Section 103 SOURCE: DocketRCRA 2,112 1,829 2,165UST NA 579 1,421 EPA Adm. Penalty Settlements (Conclusions)SDWA 6,095 6,569 5,490 EPA Civil Judicial SettlementsTSCA 1,241 898 1,014 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97Total 14,529 18,211 18,706 CAA 127 103 139 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97SOURCE: program databases/IDEA, manual reports CERCLA 28 39 33 CAA 43 62 45There were also 127 GLP inspections by HQ (OC/AED/LDIB) CWA 210 169 205 CERCLA 87 121 159

EPCRA 201 184 366 CWA 24 60 35FIFRA 105 107 161 EPCRA 1 10 3

EPA Adminstrative Compliance Orders Issued RCRA 104 119 154 FIFRA 1 5 2

SDWA 55 76 44 RCRA 6 22 18

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 TSCA 239 207 248 SDWA 4 7 9

CAA 130 154 209 Total 1,114 1,004 1,350 TSCA 4 5 3CERCLA 257 197 279 SOURCE: Docket Total* 179 292 274CWA 865 504 815 FY 95 total includes 45 MM; all but one CERCLA are Section 103 SOURCE: DocketEPCRA NA 2 7 FY 95 total includes 9 MMFIFRA NA 10 7 EPA Field CitationsRCRA 1 35 44SDWA 611 284 453 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97TSCA 0 0 4 UST NA 115 240Total 1,864 1,186 1,818 SOURCE: DocketIn addition, there were 56 HQ CAA MobileSource NOVs w/ penalities

Table A-1. National Totals - FY 1997 Enforcement Activity
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 A-2

Statute

Type of Enforcement Action

Criminal

Penalties

Assessed

Civil Judicial

Penalties

Assessed

Administrativ

e Penalties

Assessed

Dollar Value

of Injunctive

Relief

Dollar Value

of SEPs

CAA $54,077,526 $13,792,299 $3,093,055 $38,245,378 $21,966,583

CERCLA $4,623,918 $314,966 $42,239 $778,912,089 $0

CWA $94,194,123 $22,142,408 $4,256,948 $949,026,967 $38,798,563

EPCRA $0 $0 $5,183,747 $2,435,393 $7,646,285

FIFRA $102,174 $66 $1,453,885 $10,346,787 $816,265

RCRA $11,683,721 $9,698,368 $8,246,082 $50,611,488 $13,001,323

SDWA $40,000 $18,500 $369,552 $38,335,856 $159,500

TSCA $2,003,824 $0 $26,501,272 $5,405,879 $3,004,053

Title 18/

MPRSA

$2,557,610 $0 $31,714 $20,004,000 $50,350

Total $169,282,896 $45,966,607 $49,178,494 $1,893,323,837 $85,442,922

Table A-2. Dollar Value of FY 1997 EPA Enforcement Actions (by Statute)
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-3 July 1998

Statute Fiscal Year

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

CAA

0

0 210 297 129 404 86 112 21 41 141 122

CWA/SDWA

0 738 915 1,128 730 506 569 562 329 781 1,644 1,031

RCRA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 159 237 436 554 327

CERCLA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 137 160

FIFRA 1,387 1,614 2,488 1,219 762 253 176 154 176 296 272 236TSCA

0

0

0

0 1 22 70 120 101 294 376 733

Totals 1,387 2,352 3,613 2,644 1,622 1,185 901 1,107 864 1,848 3,124 2,609Statute Fiscal Year

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

CAA 143 191 224 336 249 214 354 279 435 232 242 391CWA/SDWA

990 1,214 1,345 2,146 1,780 2,177 1,977 2,216 1,841 1,774 998 1,642

RCRA 235 243 309 453 366 364 291 282 115 92 238 423CERCLA 139 135 224 220 270 269 245 260 264 280 234 305FIFRA 338 360 376 443 402 300 311 233 249 160 83 181TSCA 781 1,051 607 538 531 422 355 319 333 187 178 185EPCRA

0

0

0

0 206 179 134 219 307 244 198 300

Totals 2,626 3,194 3,085 4,136 3,804 3,925 3,667 3,808 3,544 2,969 2,171 3,427

Table A-3. EPA Administrative Actions Initiated (by Statute) FY 1974 through FY 1997
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 A-4 Action Fiscal Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Referrals to DOJ 26 31 40 41 41 59 60 65 81 107 140 220 256 262 278

Defendantscharged

34 36 40 98 66 97 95 100 104 150 161 250 245 221 322

Monthssentenced

0 6 78 279 456 278 325 745 963 1,135 892 1,188 888 1,116 2,351

Table A-4. EPA Criminal Enforcement FY83 through FY97
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

A-5 July 1998

Statute Fiscal Year

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

Air 3 5 15 50 123 149 100 66 36 69 82 116Water

0 20 67 93 137 81 56 37 45 56 95 93

CERCLA

0

0

0

0 2 5 10 2 20 28 41 35

RCRA

0

0

0

0

0

4 43 12 9 5 19 13

Toxics/Pesticides

0

0

0

0

0 3 1 1 2 7 14 19

Totals

3 25 82 143 262 242 210 118 112 165 251 276

Statute

Fiscal Year

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Air 115 122 86 92 102 86 92 80 141 37 70 89Water 119 92 123 94 87 94 77 84 97 54 65 111CERCLA 41 54 114 153 157 164 137 129 144 102 127 154RCRA 43 23 29 16 18 34 40 30 35 14 19 49Toxics/Pesticides

24 13 20 9 11 15 15 15 13 7 14 23

Totals 342 304 372 364 375 393 361 338 430 214 295 426

Table A-5. EPA Civil Referrals to the Department of Justice FY74 through FY96
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 A-6 Administrative Actions Program Area Fiscal Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 FIFRA 5,922 5,078 6,698 4,145 3,245 3,095 4,172 3,528 2,486 2,333 1,101 Water 1,663 2,887 3,100 3,298 3,180 2,748 3,960 4,063 4,231 4,598 7,051 Air 907 655 1,139 1,312 1,687 1,411 2,005 2,050 1,833 1,534 1,919 RCRA 613 743 1,189 1,350 1,495 1,389 1,744 1,609 1,235 841 444 Totals 9,105 9,363 12,126 10,105 9,607 8,643 11,881 11,250 9,785 9,306 10,515

Judicial Referrals

ProgramArea

Fiscal Year

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Water 286 687 489 429 297 204 383 162 169 169 151Air 351 171 96 156 190 258 174 325 124 198 164RCRA 86 46 129 64 57 112 133 91 104 66 64Totals 723 904 714 649 544 574 690 578 397 433 379

Table A-6. State Environmental Agencies Administrative Actions 

and Judicial Referrals FY87 through FY97
Appendix B

Significant Administrative, Judicial,

and Criminal Cases
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-i July 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGION 1 ........................................................................... B-1

CERCLA ...................................................................... B-1

Bennington Landfill Superfund Site (Vermont) ...................................... B-1

Cannons Bridgewater Superfund Site (Massachusetts) ................................ B-1

Cohen Superfund Site (Massachusetts) ............................................ B-1

Industri-Plex Superfund Site (Massachusetts) ....................................... B-1

Landfill and Resource Recovery Superfund Site (Rhode Island) ......................... B-2

Norwood Superfund Site (Massachusetts) .......................................... B-2

Parker Landfill Superfund Site (Vermont) .......................................... B-2

Raymark Industries, Inc. Superfund Site (Connecticut) ................................ B-2

Clean Air Act .................................................................. B-2

Cod Oil Co., Inc., and East Coast Petroleum (Massachusetts) ........................... B-2

Regency Towers (Connecticut) .................................................. B-3

Clean Water Act ................................................................ B-3

Borough of Naugatuck (Connecticut) ............................................. B-3

The Massachusetts Department of Corrections (Massachusetts) .......................... B-3

Robert Nicoloro (Maine) ....................................................... B-3

Siegel’s Broadway Truck Parts .................................................. B-3

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

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) (Massachusetts) ................... B-3

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

Aluminum Finishing (Connecticut) ............................................... B-3

Lake Success Business Park (Connecticut) ......................................... B-4

Massachusetts Military Reservation (Massachusetts) .................................. B-4

SDWA ........................................................................ B-4

Massachusetts Military Reservation (Massachusetts) .................................. B-4

TSCA ........................................................................ B-4

Electric Boat Corp. (Electric Boat) and Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Inc. (KAPL)

(Connecticut) ............................................................ B-4

Ruggles-Klingman (Massachusetts) .............................................. B-5

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

City of Haverhill (Massachusetts) ................................................ B-5

U.S. vs. Trustees of Boston University (Massachusetts) ................................ B-5

Westford Anodizing (Massachusetts) ............................................. B-5

REGION 2 ........................................................................... B-6

CERCLA ...................................................................... B-6

U.S. v. Air Products & Chemicals, et al. (New Jersey) ................................. B-6

U.S. v. Alcan Aluminum Corp. (New York) ........................................ B-6

U.S. v. Allied Signal, et al. (New Jersey) ........................................... B-6

U.S. v. American Locker Group, Inc., et al. (New York) ............................... B-6

General Electric Company, et al. (New Jersey) ...................................... B-7

Metallurg, Inc., and Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (New Jersey) ....................... B-7

U.S. v. Jane Doe as Executrix of the Estate of Edmund Barbera (New York) ................ B-7

U.S. v. Monsanto et al. (New Jersey) .............................................. B-7

Morgan Materials Superfund Site (New York) ...................................... B-8

U.S. v. Peirce, et. al. (New York) ................................................ B-8

U.S. v. Polymer Applications, Inc. (New York) ...................................... B-8

Port Refinery Site (New York) .................................................. B-9
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-ii

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) - Palo Seco Plant Site (Puerto Rico) .......... B-9

SCP/Carlstadt Site (New Jersey) ................................................. B-9

Warwick Landfill Site (New York) ............................................... B-9

U.S. v. Wasserman (New York) ................................................ B-10

Clean Air Act ................................................................. B-10

Guardian Industries, Inc. (Puerto Rico) ........................................... B-10

U.S. v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. (New Jersey) .................................... B-10

U.S. v. Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc. (Puerto Rico) ................................. B-10

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company, Inc. (Puerto Rico) ............................. B-11

U.S. v. San Juan Cement Co. (Puerto Rico) ........................................ B-11

Clean Water Act ............................................................... B-11

Atlantic States Legal Foundation, State of New York v. Onondaga County (New York) ...... B-11

Desarrolladores del Cibuco, S.E. and Constructora Dos Bocas, Inc.; Easton, Inc.; Parques

Metropolitanos; and Tajaomar Development, S.E.(Puerto Rico) ..................... B-11

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA - Lares) (Puerto Rico) ............... B-11

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA - La Paguera) (Puerto Rico) ........... B-12

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA - Arecibo) (Puerto Rico) ............. B-12

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA - Loiza); Puerto Rico Aqueduct

and Sewer Authority (PRASA - Gurabo) (Puerto Rico) ............................ B-12

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Administration of Corrections (PRAC) (Puerto Rico) ................. B-12

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) (Puerto Rico) ............... B-12

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) (Puerto Rico) ............... B-12

U.S. v. Virgin Islands Department of Public Works (Virgin Islands) ..................... B-13

U.S. v. Warner-Lambert (Puerto Rico) ........................................... B-13

EPCRA ...................................................................... B-13

A.T. Reynolds and Sons, Inc.; Happy Ice LLC; Long Island Ice and Fuel Corporation; Queensboro

Farm Products, Inc.; and United Food Service, Inc. (New York) ..................... B-13

American Cyanamid Company (New York) ....................................... B-13

Arma Textile Printers, Inc. (New York) .......................................... B-13

Astro Electroplating, Inc. (New York) ............................................ B-13

Austin Productions, Inc. (New York) ............................................ B-14

General Electric Company (New York) ........................................... B-14

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

Givaudan-Roure, Inc. (New Jersey) .............................................. B-14

Safetec of America, Inc. (New York) ............................................. B-14

Tifa, Ltd. (New Jersey) ....................................................... B-14

ODBA & MPRSA .............................................................. B-15

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ....................................... B-15

U.S. v. Bergen County Utilities Authority (New Jersey) ............................... B-15

RCRA ....................................................................... B-15

Autoridad de Tierras de Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico) .................................. B-15

B&B Wood Treating & Processing Co., Inc. (Puerto Rico) ............................ B-15

City of New York Department of Transportation (New York) .......................... B-15

Compañia Petrolera Caribe (Puerto Rico) ......................................... B-16

Eastman Kodak Corp. (New York) .............................................. B-16

Estate Mint, Inc., Ahmad Musaitif, and Estate Mountain, Inc. (Virgin Islands) ............ B-16

Jamaica Water Supply Company and Dynamic Painting Corp. (New York) ............... B-16

New Jersey Transit Corp. (New Jersey) ........................................... B-16

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) (Puerto Rico) ..................... B-16

San Juan Cement Company, Inc. (Puerto Rico) ..................................... B-17

Universal Metal and Ore Company, Inc. (New York) ................................ B-17

U.S. v. Humberto-Escabi-Trabal, Environmental Management Services and South West Fuel, Inc

(Puerto Rico) ........................................................... B-17
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-iii July 1998

U.S. v. Mobil Oil Corp. (New York) ............................................. B-17

U.S. v. Proteccion Technica Ecologica, Inc. (Puerto Rico) ............................. B-17

SDWA ....................................................................... B-18

Town of Hempstead (New York) ................................................ B-18

U.S. v. City of New York (New York) ............................................ B-18

TSCA ....................................................................... B-18

Edgewater Associates, Inc. (New Jersey) .......................................... B-18

Glens Falls Cement Co. (New York) ............................................. B-18

Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc. (New Jersey) ........................................ B-19

Lafayette Paper (New York) ................................................... B-19

New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority and Atlantic City Convention Center Authority

(New Jersey) ........................................................... B-19

Puerto Rico Department of Education (Puerto Rico) ................................. B-19

Rhone Poulenc, Inc. (New Jersey) ............................................... B-19

Sinochem USA, Inc. (New York) ............................................... B-19

Spies Hecker, Inc. (New York) ................................................. B-19

Multimedia ................................................................... B-19

Franklin-Burlington Plastics, Inc. (New Jersey) .................................... B-19

Rhein Chemie Corp. (New Jersey) ............................................... B-20

Tishcon, Inc. (New York) ..................................................... B-20

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) (Puerto Rico) .................... B-20

U.S. v. Tropical Fruit, S.E. (Puerto Rico) ......................................... B-21

REGION 3 .......................................................................... B-22

CERCLA ..................................................................... B-22

Keystone Sanitation Landfill (Pennsylvania) ....................................... B-22

Palmerton Property Owners (Pennsylvania) ........................................ B-22

U.S. v. Chrysler, the State of Delaware, and Knotts, Inc. (Delaware) ..................... B-22

U.S. v. Fike Artel (West Virginia) ............................................... B-22

U.S. v. Olin Corp. (Virginia) .................................................. B-22

Clean Air Act ................................................................. B-22

Allegheny County Department of Aviation (Pennsylvania) ............................ B-22

Koppers Industries (Pennsylvania) .............................................. B-22

U.S. v. Camden Iron and Metal (Pennsylvania) ..................................... B-22

U.S. v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail) (Pennsylvania) ............................. B-23

U.S. v. Waste Resource Energy, Inc., Westinghouse Electric Corp., and York Resource Energy

Systems (Pennsylvania) ................................................... B-23

Clean Water Act ............................................................... B-23

U.S. v. Consolidation Coal Company (Pennsylvania) ................................ B-23

U.S. v. Erie Coke Corp. (Pennsylvania) ........................................... B-23

U.S. v. Presque Isle Plating (Pennsylvania) ........................................ B-23

U.S. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., Smithfield Packing, and Gwaltney of Smithfield Ltd. (Virginia) B-23

EPCRA ...................................................................... B-24

Forbes Steel & Wire Corp. (Delaware) ........................................... B-24

Williams Metalfinishing (Pennsylvania) .......................................... B-24

FIFRA ....................................................................... B-24

National Chemical Laboratories of PA, Inc. (Pennsylvania) ........................... B-24

RCRA ....................................................................... B-24

Colonial Metals and Columbia Reduction (Pennsylvania) ............................. B-24

Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Virginia) ............................................. B-24

SDWA ....................................................................... B-24

Cyprus Foote Mineral Company and Walmart (Pennsylvania) .......................... B-24
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-iv

State College Ford (Pennsylvania) ............................................... B-24

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) (Virginia) ........................... B-24

TSCA ....................................................................... B-25

Bill Anskis Company, Inc., and the Panther Valley School District (Pennsylvania) .......... B-25

Townsend Properties, Inc., and Halethorpe Extrusions, Inc. (Maryland) .................. B-25

U.S. v. School District of Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) ............................... B-25

Multimedia ................................................................... B-25

U.S. v. Quaker State (Pennsylvania) ............................................. B-25

U.S. v. Weirton Steel Corp. (West Virginia) ....................................... B-25

U.S. v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh (West Virginia) ...................................... B-25

REGION 4 .......................................................................... B-26

CERCLA ..................................................................... B-26

Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site (North Carolina) ................................... B-26

Agrico Chemical Co. Site (Florida) .............................................. B-26

Ashepoo Phosphate and Fertilizer Works (South Carolina) ............................ B-26

Beaunit Circular Knit & Dyeing Superfund Site (South Carolina) ....................... B-26

Bessemer Drum Site (Alabama) ................................................ B-26

Chem-4 Site (Alabama) ...................................................... B-26

Chevron Chemical Company Site (Florida) ........................................ B-27

Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Alabama) ................................................... B-27

Davie Landfill Superfund Site (Florida) .......................................... B-27

General Electric/Shepherd Farm (North Carolina) .................................. B-27

Harris Corp. Site (Florida) .................................................... B-27

Helena Chemical Company (Florida) ............................................ B-27

Hinson Superfund Site (South Carolina) .......................................... B-28

Interstate Lead Company (ILCO) Site (Alabama) ................................... B-28

Lee’s Lane Landfill (Kentucky) ................................................. B-28

Olin Corporation (Alabama) ................................................... B-28

Paramour Fertilizer Site (Georgia) .............................................. B-28

Rutledge Property Superfund Site (South Carolina) .................................. B-28

Taylor Road Landfill Site (Florida) .............................................. B-29

T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition Site (Georgia) ..................................... B-29

Townsend Saw Chain Company Site (South Carolina) ............................... B-29

Clean Air Act ................................................................. B-29

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company (Kentucky) ................................. B-29

NHP Management Company (Florida) ........................................... B-30

Powell Duffryn Terminals (Georgia) ............................................. B-30

Clean Water Act ............................................................... B-30

Anderson Columbia, Inc. (Florida) .............................................. B-30

Crook Creek Farms, Inc., City of Destin, and the Niceville, Valparaiso, Okaloosa County Regional

Sewer Board, Inc. (Florida) ................................................ B-30

Wagner Creek Watershed (Florida) .............................................. B-30

EPCRA ...................................................................... B-30

State Industries (Tennessee) ................................................... B-30

RCRA ....................................................................... B-31

Eagle Aviation (South Carolina) ................................................ B-31

Exxon Company USA, Allied Terminals, Inc. (South Carolina) ........................ B-31

Leading Edge Aircraft Painting, Inc. (Mississippi) .................................. B-31

LWD, Inc. (Kentucky) ....................................................... B-31

Safety-Kleen Corp. (Kentucky) ................................................. B-31

Somerset Refinery, Inc. (Kentucky) .............................................. B-31

Southland Oil Company (Mississippi) ............................................ B-32
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-v July 1998

TSCA ....................................................................... B-32

Southern Water Treatment, Inc. (South Carolina) ................................... B-32

Multimedia ................................................................... B-32

Trinity American Corp. (North Carolina) ......................................... B-32

REGION 5 .......................................................................... B-33

CERCLA ..................................................................... B-33

Arcanum Iron and Metal Site (Ohio) ............................................. B-33

Circle Smelting Corp. Site (Illinois) ............................................. B-33

Union Carbide Marietta Site (Ohio) ............................................. B-33

Clean Air Act ................................................................. B-33

LTV Steel Company (Illinois) .................................................. B-33

Shell Oil Company and Shell Wood River Refining (Illinois) .......................... B-34

Clean Water Act ............................................................... B-34

Hudson Foods, Inc. (Indiana) .................................................. B-34

London Aggregate (Michigan) ................................................. B-34

EPCRA ...................................................................... B-34

B.P. Chemicals, Inc. (Ohio) ................................................... B-34

Union Tank Car Company (Indiana) ............................................. B-34

United Dominican Industries (Ohio) ............................................. B-35

FIFRA ....................................................................... B-35

3M (Minnesota) ............................................................ B-35

EKCO Housewares, Inc. (Illinois) ............................................... B-35

RCRA ....................................................................... B-35

Lafarge Corporation (Ohio) .................................................... B-35

Reilly Industries, Inc. (Indiana) ................................................. B-35

SDWA ....................................................................... B-36

Gordon Tuck and Harry Stephens (Michigan) ...................................... B-36

TSCA ....................................................................... B-36

Murphy Oil Corporation (Wisconsin) ............................................ B-36

Multimedia ................................................................... B-36

American National Can Company (Northern District of Indiana) ....................... B-36

Sherwin-Williams (Illinois) ................................................... B-36

 REGION 6 .......................................................................... B-37

CERCLA ..................................................................... B-37

Bayou Bonfouca Superfund Site (Louisiana) ....................................... B-37

Dixie Oil Processors Site (Texas) ............................................... B-37

Gurley Pits NPL Site and South 8th Street Landfill NPL Site (Arkansas) ................. B-37

Odessa Chromium II North Site (Texas) .......................................... B-37

Vertac Superfund Site (Arkansas) ............................................... B-37

Clean Air Act ................................................................. B-37

U.S. v. Formosa Plastics Corp. (Texas) ........................................... B-37

U.S. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Company (Texas) ................................... B-37

Clean Water Act ............................................................... B-38

Yaffe Iron and Metal Co., Inc. (Oklahoma) ........................................ B-38

EPCRA ...................................................................... B-38

Union Carbide Corp., Taft Plant (Louisiana) ....................................... B-38

RCRA ....................................................................... B-38

Marine Shale Processors (MSP/GTX) (Louisiana) ................................... B-38

SDWA ....................................................................... B-38

Cuna Del Valle (Texas) ....................................................... B-38
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-vi

U.S. (Sac and Fox Nation) v. Tenneco Oil Company (Oklahoma) ....................... B-38

TSCA ....................................................................... B-38

Oklahoma Metal Processing Company, Inc., d/b/a Houston Metal Processing Company,

and Newell Recycling Company, Inc. (Oklahoma) ............................... B-38

Multimedia ................................................................... B-39

U.S. v. EXXON Corp. (Louisiana) .............................................. B-39

 REGION 7 .......................................................................... B-40

CERCLA ..................................................................... B-40

Des Moines TCE Site (Iowa) ................................................... B-40

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite, U.S. Cooperative Producers, Inc., and Farmland Industries, Inc. ..... B-40

City of Hastings (Nebraska) ................................................... B-40

Jasper Counter Superfund Site and Cherokee County Superfund Site (Missouri) ............ B-40

Meramec Marine Shipyard (Missouri) ............................................ B-40

Norandex Inc., and the City of Joplin (Missouri) .................................... B-41

North Ridge Homes .......................................................... B-41

Prier Brass Superfund Site (Missouri) ............................................ B-41

U.S. v. Russel Bliss, Jerry Bliss, and George Bliss (Missouri) .......................... B-41

U.S. v. TIC Investment and Stratton Georgoulis (Iowa) B-41

Clean Air Act ................................................................. B-42

Stiffler, Carl & Jean, d/b/a Southwest Wrecking Company (Shallow Water Refinery) (Kansas) . B-42

Clean Water Act ............................................................... B-42

City of Sedalia (Missouri) ..................................................... B-42

Halls Ferry Center, Inc., and Halak, Inc. (Missouri) ................................. B-42

Labarge, Inc. (Missouri) ...................................................... B-42

EPCRA ...................................................................... B-42

Crustbuster/Speed King, Inc. (Kansas) ........................................... B-42

FIFRA ....................................................................... B-43

David Redler, d/b/a Tree N’ Turf Lawnscapes (Nebraska) ............................. B-43

RCRA ....................................................................... B-43

American Microtrace Corp. (Nebraska) ........................................... B-43

Graphic Circuits Corp. and Barry Smith (Iowa) .................................... B-43

TSCA ....................................................................... B-43

LaClede Gas Company (Missouri) ............................................... B-43

Solomon Corp. (Kansas) ...................................................... B-44

Multimedia ................................................................... B-44

Brush Creek Oil Spill (Missouri) ................................................ B-44

HWH Corp. (Iowa) .......................................................... B-44

Missouri Charcoal Kilns (Missouri) ............................................. B-44

REGION 8 .......................................................................... B-45

CERCLA ..................................................................... B-45

Allied Signal, Inc., and General Chemical Corp. (Colorado) ........................... B-45

ASARCO, East Helena Facility (Montana) ........................................ B-45

Chemical Handling Corp. Site (Colorado) ......................................... B-45

Portland Cement (Utah) ...................................................... B-45

Summitville Mine Site (Colorado) ............................................... B-45

Traub Battery and Body Shop (South Dakota) ...................................... B-45

Clean Air Act ................................................................. B-46

Plum Creek Manufacturing, L.P. (Montana) ....................................... B-46

Stone Container Corp. (Montana) ............................................... B-46

Vastar Resources, Inc. (Colorado) ............................................... B-46
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-vii July 1998

Clean Water Act ............................................................... B-47

ASARCO, East Helena Facility (Montana) ........................................ B-47

City of Watertown (South Dakota) .............................................. B-47

John Morrell and Company, Inc. (South Dakota) ................................... B-47

Sheyenne Tooling & Manufacturing Co., Inc. (North Dakota) .......................... B-47

The Telluride Company (Colorado) .............................................. B-47

Trail King Industries (South Dakota) ............................................ B-47

EPCRA ...................................................................... B-48

Colorado Paint Company (Colorado) ............................................. B-48

Neoplan USA Corp. (Colorado) ................................................ B-48

RCRA ....................................................................... B-48

Envirocare (Utah) ........................................................... B-48

North American Environmental, Inc. ............................................ B-48

Reclaim Barrel Supply Co., Inc., and Allstate Container Inc. (Utah) ..................... B-48

TSCA ....................................................................... B-48

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute (Colorado) .............................. B-48

REGION 9 .......................................................................... B-49

CERCLA ..................................................................... B-49

Burbank Operable Unit (California) ............................................. B-49

Del Amo NPL Site (California) ................................................. B-49

Glendale North and South Operable Units (California) ............................... B-49

Hendler v. U.S. (California) ................................................... B-49

Industrial Waste Processing Site (California) ...................................... B-50

Lorentz Barrel & Drum (California) ............................................. B-50

Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site (California) ..................... B-50

North Hollywood Operable Unit (California) ....................................... B-50

Operating Industries, Inc. (California) ........................................... B-50

Santa Monica MTBE Groundwater Contamination (Santa Monica, California) ............. B-51

U.S. v. Fontana Wood Preserving, Inc. (California) .................................. B-51

U.S. v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. (California) ..................................... B-51

U.S. v. Montana Refining (Nevada) ............................................. B-52

South Indian Bend Wash, Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman, San Gabriel Valley, and South Bay Asbestos

Superfund Sites (Arizona and California) ...................................... B-52

Clean Air Act ................................................................. B-52

U.S. v. North American Chemical Company (California) ............................. B-52

U.S., Unitek Environmental Services, and Unitek Solvent Services v. Hawaiian Cement ...... B-53

Clean Water Act ............................................................... B-53

U.S. v. Appel (California) ..................................................... B-53

U.S. v. Berry Petroleum (California) ............................................. B-53

U.S. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (California) ..................................... B-53

U.S. v. City of San Diego (California) ............................................ B-54

U.S. v. Simpson Timber Co. and Simpson Redwood Co. (California) .................... B-54

EPCRA ...................................................................... B-54

Burns Philp Food, Inc., d/b/a Fleischmann’s Yeast; Fresh Start Bakeries, Inc.; Haleakala Dairy;

House Foods Hawaii Corporation, d/b/a Foremost Dairies-Hawaii; and Pint Size

Corporation (Hawaii) ..................................................... B-54

Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. (California) ....................................... B-55

Kraft Foods, Inc. (California) .................................................. B-55

Union Oil Company of California (California) ..................................... B-55

U.S. Valley Wood Preserving, Inc. (Turlock, California) .............................. B-55

FIFRA ....................................................................... B-55

Scotts-Sierra Crop Protection Company (Ohio) ..................................... B-55
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-viii

RCRA ....................................................................... B-56

Bureau of Indian Affairs (Ft. Defiance); Bureau of Reclamation (Yuma Desalting Plant);

and National Park Service (Hawaii Volcanoes National Park)(Arizona and Hawaii) ......... B-56

U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel (Hawaii) ......................................... B-56

REGION 10 ......................................................................... B-57

CERCLA ..................................................................... B-57

Alaska Railroad Corp. (Alaska) ................................................ B-57

Kerr-McGee (Idaho) ......................................................... B-57

Northwest Pipe and Casing (Oregon) ............................................ B-57

South Tacoma Field (Washington) .............................................. B-57

Teledyne Wah Chang Albany (Oregon) ........................................... B-58

Clean Air Act ................................................................. B-58

Alaska Pulp Corp. (Alaska) .................................................... B-58

Kalama Chemical, Inc. (Washington) ............................................ B-58

Ketchikan Pulp Corp. (Alaska) ................................................. B-59

Mapco Alaska Petroleum, Inc. (Alaska) .......................................... B-59

Clean Water Act ............................................................... B-59

BP Exploration, Inc. (Alaska) .................................................. B-59

Jerome Cheese Co. (Idaho) .................................................... B-59

FIFRA ....................................................................... B-59

Precision Helicopters, Inc. (Oregon) ............................................. B-59

RCRA ....................................................................... B-59

Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright (Alaska) ..................................... B-59

U.S. Coast Guard (Alaska) .................................................... B-60

TSCA ....................................................................... B-60

Asbestos Services International (Oregon) ......................................... B-60

NBA Environmental (Idaho) ................................................... B-60

Louisiana Pacific Corp. (Oregon) ............................................... B-60

Multimedia ................................................................... B-61

Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. (Alaska) ........................................... B-61

OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT .............................................. B-62

FIFRA ....................................................................... B-62

Hasbro, Inc. ............................................................... B-62

RCRA ....................................................................... B-62

Chief Supply Corporation, Inc. (Oklahoma) ....................................... B-62

Harmon Electronics, Inc. (Missouri) ............................................. B-62

TSCA ....................................................................... B-62

Newell Recycling Company, Inc. ............................................... B-62

Multimedia ................................................................... B-62

Marine Shale (Louisiana) ..................................................... B-62

CRIMINAL .......................................................................... B-64

U.S. v. Attique Ahmad (Southern District of Texas) ................................. B-64

U.S. v. BFI Services Group (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) ......................... B-64

U.S. v. Child Safe Products Corp. (Eastern District of New York) ....................... B-64

U.S. v. Cooper (Southern District of California) .................................... B-64

U.S. v. Noble Cunningham (Northern District of Georgia) ............................ B-64

U.S. v. Darling International, Inc. (District of Minnesota) ............................. B-65

U.S. v. Eklof Marine Corp. (District of Rhode Island) ................................ B-65

U.S. v. Raymond Feldman (Eastern District of Missouri) ............................. B-65
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-ix July 1998

U.S. v. Four Star Chemical (Southern District of California) ........................... B-65

U.S. v. Greenwood (District of South Dakota) ...................................... B-65

U.S. v. Roy Hart (District of Utah) .............................................. B-65

U.S. v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. (Southern District of New York) ................... B-66

U.S. v. Hanousek (District of Alaska) ............................................ B-66

U.S. v. Jones (Northern District of West Virginia) .................................. B-66

U.S. v. Kilgore (District of Northern Ohio) ........................................ B-66

U.S. v. Knight (Northern District of West Virginia) ................................. B-66

U.S. v. LeFave (Southern District of California) .................................... B-66

U.S. v. Mann (District of Colorado) ............................................. B-67

U.S. v. McCrary (Eastern District of Texas) ....................................... B-67

U.S. v. Ray McCune (District of Utah) ........................................... B-67

U.S. v. Midstream Holding Corp. (Middle District of Louisiana) ........................ B-67

U.S. v. Moore (Southern District of West Virginia) .................................. B-67

U.S. v. Refrigeration USA (Southern District of Florida) .............................. B-67

U.S. v. Terry Rettig (Eastern District of Virginia) ................................... B-68

U.S. v. William Ries et. al. (Northern District of Iowa) ............................... B-68

U.S. v. Royal Swift and U.S. v. J and M. Devine Corp. (District of Massachusetts) .......... B-68

U.S. v. Rudd (Eastern District of Texas) .......................................... B-68

U.S. v. James Scalise and Frey Manufacturing, Inc. (District of Connecticut) .............. B-68

U.S. v. Seawitch Salvage, Inc. (District of Maryland) ................................ B-69

U.S. v. Taylor (District of Oregon) .............................................. B-69

U.S. v. Valverde (Central District of California) .................................... B-69

U.S. v. Walls (District of Mississippi) ............................................ B-69

U.S. v. Warner Lambert (District of Puerto Rico) ................................... B-69

U.S. v. Johnnie James Williams (Western District of Tennessee) ........................ B-70

FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE .......................................... B-71

CERCLA ..................................................................... B-71

King Salmon (Alaska) ....................................................... B-71

Naval Ammunition Depot ( Nebraska) ........................................... B-71

Oak Ridge Tennessee Reservation (Tennessee) ..................................... B-71

Old Navy Dump/Manchester Laboratory (Washington) ............................... B-71

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Kentucky) ...................................... B-71

Warren Air Force Base (Wyoming) .............................................. B-71

RCRA ....................................................................... B-71

Defense Depot (Tennessee) .................................................... B-71

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Connecticut) ......................... B-72

Fort Campbell (Kentucky/Tennessee) ............................................ B-72

Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) (Connecticut) .............................. B-72

United States Coast Guard (USCG) (Alaska) ....................................... B-72

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (California) ...................... B-72

Washington Navy Yard (Washington, D.C.) ....................................... B-72

SDWA ....................................................................... B-73

Redstone Arsenal (Alabama) ................................................... B-73

TSCA ....................................................................... B-73

U.S. Navy PCB Containing Vessel .............................................. B-73

Agreement to Transfer Naval Boats, Support Craft and Industrial Equipment with PCBs to

Communities for Further Use ............................................... B-73

Navy Export Agreement ...................................................... B-73

Extension of Sinking Exercise Agreement (SINKEX) ................................ B-73

Implementation of the Minuteman II Compliance Agreement .......................... B-74

Implementation and Modification of TSCA, Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA)
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-x

for the Uranium Enrichment Operations at DOE’s Gaseous Diffusion Process Facilities: 

Portsmouth, OH; Paducah, KY; and Oak Ridge, TN and Execution of the Oak Ridge

Reservation Polychlorinated Biphenyls Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement

(ORR-PCB-FFCA) ....................................................... B-74

Museum Transfer Ships ...................................................... B-74
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-1 July 1998

REGION 1

CERCLA

Bennington Landfill Superfund Site (Vermont):

The U.S. and the State of Vermont reached a

settlement with 19 parties to perform and fund a

non-time critical removal action (NTCRA) for the

Bennington Landfill Superfund Site in Bennington,

VT, which will cost approximately $10.5 million. 

This settlement was entered by the court on August

8, 1997. The NTCRA consists of capping the site

and containing site wastes. As part of settling the

natural resource damages claim, the settlement also

requires the settlors to implement a wetlands

restoration and education project which was

approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior

(DOI) and the State of Vermont. 

The settlement consisted of two documents: an

administrative order and a consent decree. The

settlement incorporated three of the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Superfund

administrative reforms: compensation of orphan

shares, protection of small parties, and adoption of

Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) allocations. 

Because the generator of the largest volume of waste

was bankrupt, EPA and the state are performing

long term monitoring at the site valued at

approximately the allocated share of the bankrupt

party. Fourteen of the 19 settlers are resolving their

liability as de minimis parties, which provides those

small parties with final settlement of their liabilities. 

The resolution of the natural resources damage

claims and the related release from liability by the

State of Vermont are the first release of its kind ever

provided by Vermont in a Superfund settlement.

Cannons Bridgewater Superfund Site

(Massachusetts): On January 9, 1997, EPA signed a

prospective purchaser agreement with Osterman

Propane, Inc., and the Massachusetts Bay

Transportation Authority (MBTA) concerning the

Cannons Engineering Corporation Bridgewater

Superfund Site in Bridgewater, MA. The agreement

will facilitate the reuse of a portion of the site by

Osterman as a wholesale propane gas facility. This

agreement also promotes the MBTA’s plans to

extend a commuter rail to the Town of Bridgewater

as part of the Old Colony Railroad Project. In order

to facilitate a portion of the project, the MBTA took

title to Osterman’s former property located within

the town and proposes to relocate Osterman to the

property. The town, which is the current owner of

the property, will transfer title of the property to

Osterman in order to keep Osterman’s business

located within the town. Pursuant to a consent

decree, settling PRPs have completed the soil

cleanup at the site and currently are performing the

remaining cleanup work, which consists of

monitoring groundwater until cleanup levels are

achieved through natural attenuation. 

 

Cohen Superfund Site (Massachusetts): On

September 9, 1997, EPA signed a prospective

purchaser agreement with the City of Taunton, MA,

regarding the Cohen Property Superfund Site. The

Cohen site is a removal site currently undergoing a

$6-7 million removal action. The city intends to use

the site as “lay down” equipment and salt/sand

storage for its Department of Public Works (DPW)

and Building Department, and as a rail transfer point

for shipments of material for the Central Artery

reconstruction. The city agreed to: allow Region 1 to

use the Taunton Landfill for disposal of

contaminated soils; perform operation &

maintenance and environmental monitoring on the

site; purchase adjoining contaminated parcels to

consolidate ownership; pave a portion of the site;

and provide access and abide by institutional

controls. The site is located in an economic target

area designated by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and reuse of the site is part of the

city’s overall redevelopment strategy for the area. 

Industri-Plex Superfund Site (Massachusetts): On

December 31, 1996, EPA signed a prospective

purchaser agreement with three Massachusetts

transportation agencies concerning a portion of the

Industri-Plex Superfund Site in Woburn, MA. The

Industri-Plex site currently is nearing completion of

a $70 million remedy performed and funded by the

PRPs. The three transportation agencies intend to

use the property for a transportation center,

consisting of a commuter rail station, a “park and

ride” facility to downtown Boston and Logan

Airport, and a new interchange for Route 93, which

is adjacent to the site. The three agencies agreed to

construct a cover on the property that exceeds the

requirements of the remedy, to provide access, and to
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-2

abide by institutional controls being developed for

the site.

Landfill and Resource Recovery Superfund Site

(Rhode Island): A settlement was reached in

February 1997 for the Landfill and Resource

Recovery (L&RR) Superfund Site in North

Smithfield, RI, which includes one of the first

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP) in the

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

program. This settlement resolved the U.S.’s claims

for past and future costs, natural resource damages,

and penalties for alleged violations of a unilateral

administrative order (UAO). The settlement also

requires the settling parties to complete the cleanup

of the site. The L&RR site was a former landfill

where EPA estimated that more than two million

gallons of waste, including hazardous substances,

were accepted for disposal.

 

Under the terms of this settlement, the settling

parties will pay a total of $2.06 million. Of this

amount, $525,000 will be placed in escrow by the

settling parties and will be used to fund a SEP for the

acquisition of wetlands and/or conservation

easements in the Blackstone River Valley National

Heritage Corridor. The Corridor, which includes

about 380,000 acres, is a string of parks, museums,

historic buildings, and waterways. Its expansion and

preservation is one of the State of Rhode Island’s

highest environmental priorities. The DOI will

receive $200,000 for damages to natural resources at

the site and will use this money to restore wetlands

acquired pursuant to the SEP. 

Norwood Superfund Site (Massachusetts): On

September 29, 1997, EPA signed a prospective

purchaser agreement with an individual and his

corporation concerning a portion of the Norwood

PCB Superfund Site in Norwood, MA. The PRPs

currently are performing the remedy for the site. 

The prospective owner has agreed to conduct a

response action at the site by demolishing a

groundwater treatment building at the end of its

useful life, pay the U.S. $10,000, provide access, and

abide by institutional controls. The property will be

used as a wholesale automobile dealership.

Parker Landfill Superfund Site (Vermont): In July

1997, the U.S. concluded negotiations with 13 of the

14 PRPs at the Parker Landfill Superfund Site. The

site, located in Lyndon, VT, was used for the

disposal of both industrial waste and municipal solid

waste. The environmental harm at this site has a

disproportionate impact on a low-income population

located in a relatively rural area. The “Northeast

Kingdom” in Vermont, where the site is located, is

economically depressed, and has lost several key

industries in the recent past. The settling parties

have agreed to fund and perform certain components

of the remedial action, including construction of the

landfill cap. The total value of the work to be

performed is estimated at over $7.8 million (of

which $1.13 million is being paid by de minimis

parties). The settlement was negotiated over the

course of two years and is a testament to several

regional and national Superfund initiatives. Among

other efforts, the case team: 1) used mediation early

in the negotiations to help the PRPs unite; 2)

identified the de minimis settlers early in the

negotiations and obtained the agreement of all

parties to reduce the small parties’ transaction costs;

3) secured mixed funding authorization early in the

process to avoid protracted litigation involving

municipal third party defendants and de minimis

parties; and 4) funded an orphan share as outlined in

new EPA guidance.

Raymark Industries, Inc., Superfund Site

(Connecticut): On January 7, 1997, the U.S. and the

State of Connecticut filed suit against Raymark

Industries, Inc., and related entities seeking recovery

of past and future cleanup costs incurred by the U.S.

in connection with the cleanup of the Raymark

Industries, Inc., Superfund Site in Stratford, CT. 

Cleanup costs at the site are likely to reach $200

million. Raymark’s attempt to sue the individual

homeowners and the Town of Stratford has been

thwarted effectively by the government through

agreements with the homeowners, which give them

complete protection against Raymark’s actions. As

part of this litigation, the government is seeking a

holding that Raymark’s attempted transfer of the site

to a self-created trust was fraudulent. The suit also

seeks to force the judicial sale of the Raymark

property so that redevelopment efforts can be

realized at the site. 

CLEAN AIR ACT

Cod Oil Co., Inc., and East Coast Petroleum

(Massachusetts): On June 30, 1997, Region 1

initiated administrative actions against two fuel

distributors, Cod Oil Co., Inc., and East Coast

Petroleum, for violations of the Clean Air Act
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-3 July 1998

(CAA) limits on the sulfur content of diesel fuel. 

These two companies distributed noncomplying fuel

to municipalities throughout Greater Boston and

Cape Cod, resulting in misfueling of multiple trucks

and buses. The proposed penalty of $46,500 against

Cape Cod Oil included a penalty for violations of the

Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements for Spill

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)

Plans. The region sought a penalty of $57,750

against East Coast for CAA violations. 

Regency Towers (Connecticut): Region 1

successfully implemented Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR) techniques to achieve an asbestos

cleanup by a condominium association, management

company, and contractor at a high rise condominium

complex located in Hartford, CT. The region had

previously issued an administrative order against the

parties to conduct a cleanup at the apartment

complex. After the parties’ inability to delegate

cleanup responsibilities stalled the cleanup, Region

1 was able to intervene using ADR to accomplish the

cleanup. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

Borough of Naugatuck (Connecticut): On March

19, 1997, the region issued an administrative

complaint under CWA to the Borough of Naugatuck,

CT, for violations of the effluent limits contained in

its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Permit. Naugatuck operates a publicly

owned treatment plant which discharges into the

Naugatuck River. The complaint sought a $70,000

penalty. 

The Massachusetts Department of Corrections

(Massachusetts): On May 28, 1997, the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of

Corrections (DOC), agreed to pay an administrative

penalty of $52,000 for violations of CWA at the

correctional facility in Bridgewater, MA. DOC was

cited for violations of the total residual chlorine limit

in the facility’s NPDES permit. 

Robert Nicoloro (Maine): On March 18, 1997, the

region executed a consent agreement and final order

in settlement of the September 1996 administrative

penalty complaint issued to Robert Nicoloro

regarding violations of CWA §404. Nicoloro had

filled 0.1 acres of wetlands in 1992. In 1996, he

constructed a home and installed a septic system in

the fill, causing potential water quality problems for

the nearby Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. 

Pursuant to the consent order, Nicoloro agreed to pay

a $15,000 penalty. In February 1997, the region also

issued an administrative order for injunctive relief to

Nicoloro. In the administrative order, the region

required Nicoloro to replace his septic system with a

closed “tight tank” system through which septage is

captured and pumped for discharge into a publicly

owned treatment works (POTW), rather than into the

wetlands.

Siegel’s Broadway Truck Parts: On June 16, 1997,

Siegel’s Broadway Truck Parts, Inc., agreed to pay a

$20,000 penalty to settle an administrative penalty

order for failing to have a storm water NPDES

permit or a SPCC plan under CWA. This action was

part of the region’s efforts to target the automotive

salvage yard sector. Discharges from automotive

salvage yards consist of toxic contaminants such as

heavy metals and carcinogenic organic chemicals. 

This initiative also addressed environmental justice

concerns since many of these facilities are located in

low-income areas.

EPCRA

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company

(3M) (Massachusetts): On February 20, 1997,

Region 1 issued a consent agreement which required

3M to pay a penalty of $75,000 in settlement of

Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow (EPCRA) violations. EPA initiated this action

based on 3M’s failure to submit Toxic Chemical

Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting forms (Form R)

for certain EPCRA listed chemicals used at its

manufacturing facility in Chelmsford, MA, during

1992, 1993, and 1994. 

RCRA

Aluminum Finishing (Connecticut): On April 16,

1997, the region settled an administrative complaint

against Aluminum Finishing Company, Inc., for

violations of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) and Connecticut State

Regulations. Aluminum Finishing anodizes

aluminum parts. Among other violations, they failed

to provide hazardous waste training for personnel

and to maintain an adequate contingency plan. The

settlement is $26,225, of which $16,737 is for a SEP

and $9,488 is a penalty. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-4

Lake Success Business Park (Connecticut): On

September 26, 1997, Region 1 signed a major

administrative consent order modification under

RCRA §3008(h), which will require Sporting Goods

Properties, Inc. (SGP) to clean up lead-contaminated

soils at the Lake Success Business Park in

Bridgeport, CT. The 435-acre property, formerly

owned and operated by the Remington Arms

Company, was used from 1905 to 1989 for the

manufacture, testing, and disposal of ammunition. 

The reluctance of certain adjacent private

landowners to sell their property to SGP caused a

longstanding impasse on remediation activities. 

With the assistance of an in-house mediator provided

by Region 1’s ADR program, the cleanup and

redevelopment plans ultimately moved forward. 

Motivated in part by this successful use of mediation,

EPA and SPG included an ADR provision in the

dispute resolution section of the order modification. 

This is the first application of the newly developed

regional model ADR provision, which was based

largely on an approach developed for the Central

Landfill Superfund consent decree.

Massachusetts Military Reservation

(Massachusetts): In August 1997, Region 1 settled

three RCRA administrative actions against three

federal facilities located at the Massachusetts

Military Reservation (MMR) in Bourne, MA. The

settlements with the Army National Guard (Camp

Edwards), the Air National Guard (Otis Air Force

Base), and the 25th Battalion Marines each included

SEPs to fund and/or present training workshops for

base staff and local officials in handling hazardous

materials; responding to emergency spills and

explosions; and obtaining assistance from the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in

the case of catastrophic events. The RCRA cases

against the Army and Air National Guards, both

large quantity generators, cited failures or

inadequacies in the regulatory areas of waste

determinations, training, contingency planning,

container management, and land disposal restriction

notifications. The RCRA case against the Marines

facility, a small quantity generator, included failures

to make waste determinations, label and date

containers, and properly manifest hazardous waste. 

The cases were complicated by a large Superfund

site at the same location. 

SDWA

Massachusetts Military Reservation

(Massachusetts): On February 27, 1997, Region 1

issued an order under the emergency authority of

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) §1431, requiring

a full environmental study of the training ranges and

impact area at the MMR on Cape Cod. MMR is

sited directly over the Cape Cod Aquifer, the only

source of drinking water for up to 500,000 people,

which was designated by EPA as a “sole source

aquifer” under the SDWA in 1982. The military

training ranges and firing impact area at MMR lie

directly over the apex of the Sagamore Lens, the

most productive part of the aquifer. In early 1997,

extensive contamination of the aquifer had already

been documented at the southern portion of MMR. 

These plumes of contamination already had

contaminated 66 billion gallons of groundwater, and

continued to move at a rate of one to three feet per

day. Two public water supply wells and scores of

residential drinking water wells had already been

shut down under the Superfund program as a result

of activities at MMR. 

In April 1997, Region 1 issued a second SDWA

§1431 order, requiring MMR to cease training

activities which might present a substantial threat to

the drinking water supply, pending completion of a

full environmental assessment. EPA remained

concerned about the effects of ongoing use of the

training ranges and impact area, which included

firing of artillery, firing of more than one million

rounds of lead bullets annually, and maneuvers using

pyrotechnics, propellants, and other materials

containing hazardous substances. This second order

was affirmed by the Deputy Administrator of EPA in

May 1997. The National Guard Bureau is

complying with both orders, and a full investigation

of the training ranges and impact area is expected to

be completed in 1998. 

TSCA

Electric Boat Corp. (Electric Boat) and Knolls

Atomic Power Laboratory, Inc. (KAPL)

(Connecticut): On June 13, 1997, the region issued

administrative penalty complaints under the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) to Electric Boat

($20,000) and KAPL ($15,000) for Polychlorinated

Biphenyls (PCB) violations that occurred in

Windsor, CT. Electric Boat is a subcontractor to

KAPL for PCB paint removal at the U.S.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-5 July 1998

Department of Energy (DOE) facility in Windsor,

CT. The complaint alleged that Electric Boat

improperly disposed of PCBs and improperly

distributed them in commerce. KAPL was

responsible for disposing of storage tanks painted

with PCB-contaminated paint. The complaint

against KAPL alleged that KAPL violated the terms

of the EPA agreement regarding approval for the

disposal of PCB-contaminated materials.

Ruggles-Klingman (Massachusetts): On February

16, 1997, the region approved a consent agreement

consent order (CACO), settling an administrative

proceeding under TSCA §16(a) against RugglesKlingman Manufacturing Company of Salem, MA. 

Ruggles-Klingman, a valve manufacturing facility,

violated certain requirements of TSCA §6(e) and the

PCB regulations by unlawfully distributing PCBs in

commerce. Pursuant to the CACO, RugglesKlingman paid a civil penalty of $26,300 and

certified that all PCB waste had been properly

removed from its facility. This case was settled

within thirty days of filing pursuant to the region’s

expedited settlement policy. 

 

MULTIMEDIA

City of Haverhill (Massachusetts): A consent

agreement and final order was entered between the

City of Haverhill, MA, and Region 1 on June 27,

1997. This multimedia enforcement action

concerned violations of RCRA for storing or

disposing of hazardous waste without a license, as

well as land disposal restrictions, and violations of

CWA for failure to have a SPCC plan in violation of

the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations. This action

came about as a result of an inspection of Haverhill’s

Department of Public Works (DPW) facilities by the

region’s Public Agency Team. At the time of the

inspection, EPA inspectors found a waste pile of

hazardous waste containers abutting a wetland. 

Under the terms of the consent agreement, the

respondent will pay a $17,000 penalty and spend at

least $104,580 on a SEP, which includes building a

permanent household hazardous waste collection

facility and conducting quarterly household

hazardous waste collections.

U.S. vs. Trustees of Boston University

(Massachusetts): Region 1 entered a judicial consent

decree with Boston University (BU) resolving BU’s

alleged violations of CWA and RCRA. The alleged

CWA violations arose out of an oil spill at BU’s

Charles River campus, and the RCRA violations

arose out of an inspection of the BU Medical School

campus, a facility that has a high potential to release

hazardous contaminants in a populated urban

setting.

Under the agreement, BU paid a cash penalty of

$253,000 and will conduct two SEPs that will cost

an additional $518,000. BU also installed a

petroleum product recovery system around the site to

remediate the groundwater that was contaminated as

a result of the leak. The agreement was reached

after BU sought input from Boston community

groups regarding the SEPs. One of the SEPs will

help control storm water discharges to the Charles

River by identifying and constructing new storm

water control technologies around sites on BU’s

campus. Under the terms of the second SEP, BU

agreed to perform a project that will remediate and

rehabilitate a contaminated parcel of land that has

been used as a community garden in the Lower

Roxbury area of Boston, an environmental justice

community. Initial soil testing at the parcel

indicated that lead levels exceed those recommended

for growing vegetables.

Westford Anodizing (Massachusetts): On July 14,

1997, Region 1 entered into a consent agreement and

final order with Westford Anodizing in settlement of

an action under CWA and RCRA. Westford

Anodizing is a metalplating facility in Westford,

MA. Under the terms of the consent agreement, the

respondent paid a $33,625 cash penalty. In addition,

Westford will implement a $196,000 SEP that

reduces the amount of wastewater it discharges by

approximately 60 percent and achieves

recovery/recycling efficiencies of between 80 to 100

percent. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-6

REGION 2

CERCLA

U.S. v. Air Products & Chemicals, et al. (New

Jersey): On June 27, 1997, a consent decree was

entered involving the GEMS Landfill Superfund Site

located in Gloucester Township, NJ. Although the

U.S. originally sued only nine parties, the court

consolidated the case with a pending state action

resulting in an action involving over 350 parties. As

a result, the U.S. and the state entered into a global

settlement. The value of the settlement is

approximately $30 million.

The Township of Gloucester started using the GEMS

Superfund Site as a landfill in 1952. From 1969

through 1980, wastes such as solvents, paints,

asbestos, industrial waste, process wastewaters, and

waste liquids, solids, and sludge routinely were

disposed of there. The work at the site, which

includes construction of a groundwater extraction

and treatment system, will be performed by 22

“Reopener Settling Defendants,” including the

Township of Gloucester, which owns the site. The

de minimis component of the settlement is composed

of 101 municipalities, 62 transporters, and 88

generators. 

Because of the presence at the site of a federallythreatened species of plant, Helonias bullata or

Swamp Pink, the consent decree also has attached a

“Swamp Pink Monitoring Plan” as an Appendix,

which will ensure that the Swamp Pink receives only

minimal impacts from the remediation at the site.

U.S. v. Alcan Aluminum Corp. (New York): On

October 28, 1996, a memorandum decision was

issued in this precedent-setting CERCLA case. The

parties had cross-moved for summary judgment of

the issue of Alcan’s liability at the Fulton Terminals

site and the Pollution Abatement Services (PAS) site. 

Both sites are located in New York. As a result of

the decision in U.S. v. Olin, Alcan had moved to

dismiss the entire action. 

The court found that the express language of

CERCLA supported a finding of clear congressional

intent to apply CERCLA retroactively. The court

held that CERCLA was a constitutional application

of the Commerce Clause in two ways: 1) it was a

lawful regulation or protection of instrumentalities of

interstate commerce, specifically, the protection of

surface water and groundwater resources; and 2)

CERCLA regulates activities which have a

substantial effect on interstate commerce (i.e., it

regulates activities causing air or water pollution or

other environmental hazards that may affect more

than one state). The court found that Alcan did not

contest any of the four elements of liability under

CERCLA and, therefore, granted the government’s

motion for summary judgment as to liability. 

The district court distilled the Second Circuit

remand decision to five remaining issues: 1) what

hazardous substances were in the emulsion wastes

that Alcan sent to PAS and Fulton; 2) what the

background levels of these hazardous substances are

at the PAS and Fulton Sites; 3) whether the levels of

hazardous substances in the emulsion exceed

background levels at the sites; 4) if the hazardous

substances do not exceed background, whether the

hazardous substances can concentrate; and 5)

whether there is a basis for apportionment of liability

for costs. On August 20, 1997, after submission of

these further briefs, the court denied both Alcan’s

and the government’s motions for summary

judgment on the apportionment issue.

U.S. v. Allied Signal, et al. (New Jersey): On

January 17, 1997, a consent decree was entered

resolving litigation related to the Bridgeport Rental

and Oil Services (BROS) Superfund Site in Logan

Township, NJ. More than 90 companies and federal

and state agencies agreed under the consent decree to

contribute at least $221.5 million in reimbursement

of past costs and towards future groundwater and

wetlands work at the site. The settlement parties

include EPA, the State of New Jersey, 79 private

PRPs, and a number of other federal and state

agencies (named as generator defendants in

contribution claims). 

U.S. v. American Locker Group, Inc., et al. (New

York): On January 10, 1997, a consent decree was

entered between the government and American

Locker Group, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,

General Electric Company, IBM, and Pass &

Seymour. The decree provided that the settlors will

pay the U.S. $1,665,685 in reimbursement of
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-7 July 1998

response costs incurred by Region 2 at the Solvent

Savers Superfund Site, located in Lincklaen, NY. 

The decree also provided for the payment to EPA of

$125,374 by the U.S. Air Force, also a PRP at the

site. This National Priorities List (NPL) site was

formerly a chemical waste recovery facility and drum

reconditioning business. Pursuant to a 1992

stipulation and order, the court declared these

settling defendants jointly and severally liable to the

U.S. for response costs incurred or to be incurred at

the site. Under a second 1992 stipulation and order,

the settling defendants and the Air Force paid

$2,325,000 plus interest toward past response costs

incurred by EPA. 

General Electric Company, et al. (New Jersey): On

February 24, 1997, Region 2 issued a UAO to

General Electric and John Pascale, Sr., in connection

with the Grand Street Mercury Site in Hoboken, NJ. 

The site consists of a former industrial building,

which was converted into 16 condominium units, an

attached townhouse, and an adjacent parking lot. 

Assessment activities undertaken by EPA revealed

that mercury, a hazardous substance, is ubiquitous at

the site. The order required the respondents to

perform certain interim measures to maintain the

site in a safe manner until EPA decided how it

should be remediated. During spring of 1997, EPA

completed a focused feasibility study for remediation

of the site and disposition of the former residents,

who have participated in a temporary relocation

program since January 1996. In September 1997,

EPA listed the site on the NPL. The respondents are

complying with the order, which requires them to

provide site security and building maintenance; these

represent continuations of removal activities which

EPA had undertaken previously. 

Metallurg, Inc., and Shieldalloy Metallurgical

Corp. (New Jersey): On March 26, 1997, a

settlement agreement of environmental claims by

and issues between the debtors and the U.S. and the

State of New Jersey was entered in this bankruptcy

case. This settlement agreement resolves the

environmental claims brought by the U.S., including

those of Region 2 and the State of New Jersey,

pertaining inter alia to the Shieldalloy Superfund

Site. Under the terms of the agreement, Region 2

will receive $151,574 of its pre-petition costs, which

are being treated as a general unsecured claim

(including CERCLA costs and a RCRA penalty

which was originally $497,000), and $191,177 of its

post-petition costs. Region 2 also will share

approximately $25 million in financial assurance

with the State of New Jersey. This financial

assurance is being set aside by the debtors to pay for

the remediation of the site, which is contaminated

with hazardous substances. The site remediation is

being completed under an administrative consent

order between Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. and

the State of New Jersey. Operations will continue at

the site pursuant to the Reorganization Plan

approved by the bankruptcy court.

U.S. v. Jane Doe as Executrix of the Estate of

Edmund Barbera (New York): On November 14,

1996, the Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of

Region 2, filed a complaint against nine defendants

in connection with the Port Refinery Site located in

the Village of Rye Brook, Westchester County, NY. 

In February 1997, the U.S. amended the complaint to

add 39 additional defendants. The complaint seeks

recovery of approximately $4.6 million, plus interest,

in removal response costs expended by EPA in

addressing mercury contamination at the site. The

complaint was filed against the decedent estate of the

former owner and operator of the facility, the

corporate operator of the facility, an individual

owner of the facility, and 45 other parties that, EPA

believes, arranged for the disposal or treatment of

scrap mercury at the facility. Mercury was released

from operations conducted between 1970 and 1991

and contaminated that property as well as several

neighboring properties. The response action

included the removal of more than 6,300 tons of

mercury-contaminated soil and debris; demolition of

the contaminated garage building and the nearby

pool cabana building; off-site disposal of

contaminated soil and materials at regulated

landfills; and restoration of properties from which

contaminated soil and other materials were removed. 

In June 1997, a de minimis settlement was reached

with 22 of the defendants. 

U.S. v. Monsanto et al. (New Jersey): On April 3,

1997, a consent decree was entered regarding the

White Chemical Corp. Superfund Site in Newark,

NJ. Under the terms of the decree, Monsanto

Company, PPG Industries, and Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.,

paid $600,000 to EPA to resolve their CERCLA

liability in connection with the site. They also

withdrew their $2.4 million reimbursement claim,

pending before EPA’s Environmental Appeals

Board, for the cost of work performed at the site

under a UAO. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-8

On May 23, 1997, AZS Corporation, the land owner

for the site, filed a motion with the court for leave to

intervene in the case and vacate the consent decree

between EPA and the three generators. AZS

claimed that single publication of the public notice of

the proposed consent decree in the Federal Register

was inadequate, and that it only received actual

notice after the public comment period concluded. It

contended that if the public notice was given effect,

it would unconstitutionally extinguish AZS’s right of

contribution from the settling parties should EPA

seek to recover response costs from AZS. The U.S.

and the settling parties argued that: 1) AZS’s motion

was untimely; 2) post-judgment intervention is

granted in only extraordinary circumstances; 3) the

notice was all that was required by CERCLA; 4) the

U.S. and the settling parties would be substantially

prejudiced; 5) AZS was a recalcitrant PRP who

failed to comply with the UAO and had removed

itself from any discourse regarding the site; and 6)

the consent decree was reasonable given the

litigation risks. The judge denied AZS’s motion to

intervene, holding that the U.S. complied with the

notice provision, and to allow intervention after such

compliance would frustrate the intent of CERCLA to

encourage speedy settlements and minimize long,

expensive litigation. 

Morgan Materials Superfund Site (New York): On

August 6, 1997, Region 2 issued an administrative

order relating to the Morgan Materials, Inc.,

Superfund Site, located in the City of Buffalo, Erie

County, NY. The site is comprised of an aging

storage warehouse with a leaky roof and is located

directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The

warehouse contains an estimated 10,000 drums of

chemicals and other materials. The order requires

Hertel Warehouse, Inc., Morgan Materials, Inc., and

Donald Sadkin to perform a removal action. 

Respondents are the corporate owner of the site, the

corporate operator of the warehouse, and the

individual who owns and controls both of those

corporations. The removal action is to be performed

in cooperation with several chemical companies

from which drums originated. The removal action,

which is expected to cost more than $2 million, will

include the sampling, analysis, securing,

stabilization, and segregation of drums at the site,

followed by removal and off-site disposal. 

U.S. v. Peirce, et. al. (New York): On January 22,

1997, a cost recovery consent decree was entered,

settling EPA’s remainder case in this action, which

concerns the York Oil Company Superfund Site in

the Hamlet of Moira, NY. Under the consent decree,

six direct defendants and 18 third-party defendants

will pay $2,225,000 plus interest toward the

government’s first operable unit (OU-1) response

costs at the site. A separate consent decree

providing for the implementation of the response

actions selected in EPA’s 1988 OU-1 Record of

Decision (ROD) for the site was entered by the court

on August 10, 1996. After the remedial

design/remedial action (RD/RA) consent decree was

lodged, the government pursued a remainder case

under CERCLA against seven “generator”

defendants who were sued by the U.S. in 1992 and

1994, and one “operator” defendant, Kenneth Peirce. 

In turn, a number of these direct defendants filed

third-party claims against other PRPs. After this

settlement, the U.S. will have been reimbursed for

approximately 76 percent of its outstanding past

response costs, 50 percent of its mixed funding share

for OU-1, and a significant part of its future

oversight costs for the site. 

U.S. v. Polymer Applications, Inc. (New York): On

April 10, 1997, DOJ filed a civil complaint on behalf

of Region 2 against Polymer Applications, Inc., and

Kevan M. Green in connection with the Polymer

Applications Superfund Site in Tonawanda, Erie

County, NY. The complaint seeks civil penalties

under CERCLA §104(e)(5)(B) for Green’s and

Polymer’s failure to respond to a July 27, 1995, EPA

Request for Information. The complaint also seeks

reimbursement of response costs incurred by EPA in

connection with its performance of a CERCLA

removal action at the site, and a declaratory

judgment that Green and Polymer are liable under

CERCLA for future response costs incurred by EPA

at the site. To date, EPA’s site-related response

costs, for which Green and Polymer are liable,

exceed $5,762,000. 

Polymer is the current owner of the site, and Green

is the current operator of the site. Polymer and

Green also owned and/or operated the site during

times that hazardous substances were disposed of

there. Polymer manufactured phenolic resins,

plastics, and various rubber products at the site

between approximately 1972 and 1988. In July

1988, a series of explosions and fires occurred at the

site, forcing Polymer to cease its industrial

operations. In December 1996, EPA completed a

removal action at the site to address significant

quantities of hazardous substances that remained
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-9 July 1998

there after the 1988 fire, including over 2,000 55-

gallon drums of hazardous substances, 12,000

pounds of laboratory chemicals, and approximately

7,900 tons of phenolic resin compounds. 

Port Refinery Site (New York): On June 3, 1997, a

de minimis partial consent decree was entered

between the U.S. and 22 parties in the government’s

cost recovery action brought in connection with the

Port Refinery Superfund Site. The decree provides

for a “cash-out” settlement with parties alleged to

have arranged for the disposal or treatment of de

minimis amounts of scrap mercury at the site. The

de minimis cash-out payments will range from a high

of $34,220 to a low of $922 and will aggregate to

$287,644. The settlement amounts represent the

volumetric fair share of the estimated total site

response costs for the settling parties, plus a

premium of 100 percent. The settlement does not

include a remedy cost reopener. 

The site had become heavily contaminated with

mercury from the mercury refining and repackaging

business run by its now deceased owner. EPA spent

more than $4.6 million in a removal action to clean

up and restore the site. Earlier in Fiscal Year (FY)

1997, the government filed a complaint seeking

reimbursement of response costs against 48 parties,

including the settling defendants. Each de minimis

settling party was alleged to have sent less than

1,000 pounds of scrap mercury, or less than 0.37

percent of the scrap mercury sent by all of the

defendants. 

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) -

Palo Seco Plant Site (Puerto Rico): On September

29, 1997, Region 2 issued a UAO to PREPA

requiring it to carry out a remedial investigation and

feasibility study (RI/FS) for its plant site located in

the Palo Seco Ward of Toa Baja, PR. The site is not

on the NPL. Analysis of soil samples and sediment

samples collected at the site revealed the presence of

various hazardous substances at elevated

concentrations above background levels, including

PCBs, antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium,

chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, selenium,

and zinc. The RI/FS required under the order is

designed to: 1) determine the nature and extent of

contamination and any threat to the public health,

welfare, or environment caused by any release or

threatened release of hazardous substances,

pollutants, or contaminants at or from the site; and

2) determine and evaluate alternatives for the

remediation or control of the release or threatened

release. 

SCP/Carlstadt Site (New Jersey): On June 23, 1997,

Region 2 issued an administrative order on consent

(AOC) to 60 settling parties for a de minimis

settlement regarding the Scientific Chemical

Processing (SCP) Superfund Site in Carlstadt, NJ. 

The site formerly was used to operate an industrial

waste handling, treatment, and disposal enterprise. 

The respondents agreed to pay a total of $4,877,194. 

In return for these payments, each respondent will

receive a covenant not to sue from the U.S., subject

to two reopeners. The first reopener concerns

incomplete, inaccurate, new, or false information

which indicates that any respondent’s contribution to

the site was higher than the allocable share

established for the settlement and which materially

affects the terms of the settlement. The second

reopener addresses potential cost overruns associated

with any future response action at the site. EPA may

seek an additional payment by each respondent in

the event that total site response costs exceed $200

million. In addition to the reopener provisions, a

premium of approximately 60 percent is included in

each respondent’s total settlement amount. This

premium serves as a risk apportionment device,

similar to an insurance premium, under which the

risks taken by EPA for providing the respondents

with a release from liability are offset by a payment

in excess of the cost projected to complete the

remedy.

Warwick Landfill Site (New York): On November 8,

1996, a de minimis consent decree for the Warwick

Landfill Site was entered. The settling defendants

are Lightron Corporation (Lightron) and Revere

Smelting & Refining Corporation (RSR). The

landfill is a NPL site located in the Town of

Warwick, Orange County, NY. It was operated as a

municipal landfill by the Town of Warwick from the

mid-1950’s through 1977, although documented

instances of hazardous substance disposal occurred

during that time. From 1977 until closure in 1980,

the site was operated by Grace Disposal Ltd. During

that time, significant disposal of industrial wastes

containing hazardous substances occurred, including

wastes generated by Lightron and RSR. Under the

terms of the settlement, each defendant will pay its

fair share of the government’s past and future

response costs, based on the percentage of hazardous

substances they contributed to the site. Lightron will

pay $5,704 and RSR will pay $1,070. By separate
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-10

settlement, each of these defendants also will pay its

fair share of remedy costs to a group of PRPs who

are performing the site remedy. In consideration of

both payments, the settling defendants will receive a

covenant not to sue for the site and contribution

protection for all costs incurred at the site. 

U.S. v. Wasserman (New York): On August 15,

1997, the government’s summary judgment motion

was granted in this case involving the Barrier

Industries, Inc., Superfund Site located in Port

Jervis, NY. The ruling found Kurt Wasserman,

CEO and majority shareholder of Barrier Industries,

personally liable for EPA’s response costs as an

operator under CERCLA. The ruling also granted

the government’s claim under the Federal Debt

Collection Procedures Act that the defendant

fraudulently transferred property through a divorce

settlement to avoid recovery by EPA. The ruling

dismissed all defenses and counterclaims by the

defendant, including claims for EPA’s disposal of

abandoned product, and dismissed a suit against a

third party defendant whom EPA declined to name

as a PRP. A trial regarding EPA’s costs is pending. 

Barrier formulated and manufactured janitorial

chemicals at the site from 1978 until the facility was

abandoned late in December 1993. Sometime prior

to January 2, 1994, pipes in the facility burst,

flooding most of the facility’s ground floor and

basement. Many drums at the site were exposed to

freezing conditions and burst and spilled their

contents throughout the building or expanded out of

their bungs. In response to these conditions, EPA

performed a removal action at the site in 1994-95 to

stabilize, secure, and dispose of the hazardous

substances. The removal action and EPA’s

associated investigative and enforcement activities to

date have cost in excess of $3.8 million. 

CLEAN AIR ACT

Guardian Industries, Inc. (Puerto Rico): Although

initially a prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD) permit appeal, this case also resulted in an

administrative consent order resolving the

company’s enforcement liabilities for commencing

construction prior to the effective date of its PSD

permit. The case originated out of a challenge filed

by two citizen petitioners to a PSD permit issued on

April 1, 1997, by the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to

Guardian Industries. The petitioners argued that the

NOx best available control technology (BACT)

determination in the permit was incorrect. When the

matter was brought to EPA’s attention, a further

problem was identified: the permit had been issued

without a delayed effective date, as required by the

PSD rules. Guardian had started construction as the

PSD permit appeal proceeded before EPA’s

Environmental Appeals Board. 

Region 2, though not directly a party to the appeal

proceeding, ultimately crafted a settlement among

the parties. The settlement involves a revision of the

PSD permit to impose substantially more restrictive

NOx emissions limits. To achieve these, Guardian

will acquire and install state-of-the-art “3-R”

technology. Guardian also agreed to return to the

State of New York over 100 tons of NOx emission

credits given by the state as an inducement to locate

its new plant in New York. These tons would not be

needed under the revised permit. Finally, in an

August 1997 AOC, Guardian also resolved its

potential enforcement liability with EPA. The

consent order includes a SEP, in which Guardian

agreed to hold 50 tons of unused NOx emission

credits for the life of the plant, thus effectively

“retiring” those credits for 30 to 40 years.

U.S. v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. (New Jersey):

On February 10, 1997, a consent decree was entered

in this Region 2 case. This case arose in the context

of EPA’s concern over widespread failure by oil

refineries to comply with New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) emission standards for SO2 and

SO2 monitoring requirements. The Citgo facility in

West Deptford, NJ, was found to have process

heaters subject to those NSPS requirements. EPA

determined that Citgo’s process heaters were not in

compliance with the SO2 testing and monitoring

requirements, or with the SO2 emission limitations. 

This settlement resulted in a large reduction in SO2

emissions (approximately 125 tons/year). It also

provides for payment of a $1.23 million civil

penalty--one of EPA’s largest single-source CAA

penalties. 

U.S. v. Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc. (Puerto

Rico): On January 10, 1997, a stipulation and final

order was entered against Phillips Puerto Rico Core,

Inc. This was the first enforcement action

nationwide involving the CAA National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

for benzene waste operations. The complaint also

cited Phillips for violations of the NESHAP for
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-11 July 1998

equipment leaks of benzene and benzene storage

vessels. Phillips subsequently came into compliance

with these requirements. In addition, between June

1990 and August 1994, various recordkeeping and

reporting violations of the benzene NESHAP were

committed by Phillips at its petrochemical facility

located in Guayama, Puerto Rico. The stipulation

provides for payment of a civil penalty of $473,000. 

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Company, Inc. (Puerto

Rico): On June 18, 1997, a consent decree was

entered, resolving this 1996 lawsuit. The complaint

alleged that Puerto Rico Sun Oil (PRSO) violated

CAA NSPS as well as its Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico permit. The commonwealth regulation

requiring such a permit is part of Puerto Rico’s

federally-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

The settlement included injunctive relief provisions

and provided for the payment of $250,000 in civil

penalties. PRSO agreed not to burn gaseous fuel in

its affected boilers, thus rendering it no longer

subject to the NSPS in question. PRSO further

agreed that if it should recommence burning gaseous

fuel, it will comply with the applicable NSPS rule in

the affected boilers. Finally, PRSO also agreed to

pay interest on the penalty amount that had accrued

since December 30, 1996.

U.S. v. San Juan Cement Co. (Puerto Rico): On

October 17, 1996, a consent decree was entered. The

complaint alleged that the San Juan Cement

Company violated the NSPS governing the operation

of non-metallic mineral processing plants by failing

to conduct timely performance testing of air emission

sources. The complaint also alleged that the

company failed to install a required continuous

opacity monitoring system to measure emissions

from a baghouse at its Portland cement plant. The

consent decree required San Juan Cement to pay

$500,000 in penalties for the violations. In addition,

the decree contains injunctive provisions, which

require the company to complete performance testing 

of the equipment at its rock-crushing plant and to

install a continuous monitoring device at the

baghouse.

CLEAN WATER ACT

Atlantic States Legal Foundation, State of New

York v. Onondaga County (New York): On August

21, 1997, an amended consent decree was signed by

the parties resolving long standing CWA citizens

litigation involving the cleanup of Lake Onondaga. 

The litigation involved a citizens suit to require that

Onondaga County’s Metro POTW meet CWA

requirements and state water quality standards. 

Although not formally a party to this litigation, EPA

played a central role in working with the State of

New York to ensure that any plan put forward was

technically sound, cost-effective, and implementable. 

The plan, ultimately embodied in a consent decree

signed by the state, the county, and the citizens

group, calls for a 15-year plan for POTW upgrade,

combined sewer overflow (CSO) elimination, and

other measures potentially costing $300-400 million

to ensure that water quality standards ultimately are

met in the lake, which currently is one of the most

polluted lakes in the country. The amended consent

decree also requires the county to pay a cash penalty

of $50,000 to the state and undertake SEPs worth at

least $387,500 to control nonpoint source pollution

to the lake. The region also coordinated with DOJ to

ensure that any consent decree negotiated by the

parties would be acceptable to the U.S. when

presented for review under CWA §505(c)(3). 

Desarrolladores del Cibuco, S.E. and Constructora

Dos Bocas, Inc.; Easton, Inc.; Parques

Metropolitanos; and Tajaomar Development,

S.E.(Puerto Rico): In FY97, the region resolved four

CWA §309(g) Class II administrative penalty actions

involving the enforcement of NPDES storm water

permitting. In each case, a construction project

commenced without the necessary authorization

under either a general permit or individual permit. 

The cases involved the following respondents:

Tajaomar Development, S.E., where a penalty of 

$44,500 was assessed; Desarrolladores del Cibuco,

S.E. and Constructora Dos Bocas, Inc., where a total

penalty of $62,967, including interest, was assessed;

Parques Metropolitanos, where a penalty of $31,500

was assessed; and Easton, Inc., where a penalty of

$51,000 was assessed. In all four cases, the

respondents have certified full compliance with the

General Storm Water Permit requirements.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

(PRASA - Lares) (Puerto Rico): On March 31,

1997, Region 2 issued an administrative penalty

complaint under CWA §309(g) against PRASA for

its violation of effluent limits in the NPDES permit

issued for its Lares sewage treatment plant. The

complaint alleges numerous violations of permit

effluent limits for biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform,

and residual chlorine, as well as instances of
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-12

improper operation and maintenance. The

complaint seeks a penalty of $125,000.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

(PRASA - La Paguera) (Puerto Rico): On April 15,

1997, a CACO was issued in this CWA §309(g)

action assessing a cash penalty of $10,000 and

requiring the performance of a $30,000 SEP, under

which PRASA will conduct workshops for its

industrial users to better inform them of pretreatment

requirements and ways to comply.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

(PRASA - Arecibo) (Puerto Rico): On August 6,

1997, Region 2 issued an administrative penalty

complaint under CWA §309(g) against PRASA for

its violation of effluent limits in the NPDES permit

issued for its Arecibo sewage treatment plant. The

complaint alleges numerous violations of permit

effluent limits for BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, and

residual chlorine, as well as instances of improper

operation and maintenance. The complaint seeks a

penalty of $100,000.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

(PRASA - Loiza); Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer

Authority (PRASA - Gurabo) (Puerto Rico): On

September 29, 1997, CACOs were issued in these

CWA §309(g) cases. The CACOs jointly assessed

$35,000 in cash penalties and require the

performance of a $200,000 SEP. Under the SEP,

PRASA will install telemetry equipment at 20 pump

stations in the San Juan Region. The equipment,

consisting of monitoring devices and remote

computer/radio terminals, will allow PRASA to

monitor the status of equipment at the pump stations

and detect malfunctions in a more timely manner,

reducing the instances of bypasses and discharges of

inadequately treated sewage.

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Administration of Corrections

(PRAC) (Puerto Rico): On March 25, 1997, an

amended consent decree was entered in this case. 

Under the amendment, PRAC will cease the

discharge of pollutants from three of its correctional

facilities pursuant to specified schedules. In

addition, PRAC paid $625,000 in penalties resulting

from its violations of a 1992 consent decree entered

in this action. PRAC also will undertake a SEP

worth no less than $600,000 to improve the drinking

water supplies of communities neighboring some of

its facilities. Under the SEP, PRAC has arranged for

PRASA to construct new water lines in these

communities, repair holding facilities, and monitor

the quality of the potable water being supplied to

consumers.

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

(PRASA) (Puerto Rico): On April 17, 1997, an

advanced treatment stipulation was entered in this

case. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, on

May 19, 1997, PRASA submitted payment of

$375,000 to the U.S. Treasury. This amount

represents a complete settlement of uncontested and

contested dollar amounts requested as penalties and

not yet assessed by the court, as identified by the

U.S. in its 27 quarterly motions to enforce the 1985

and 1988 orders, filed between July 1989 and March

1996. During FY97, Region 2 filed three more

quarterly motions to enforce the 1985 court order

issued in this case. In these motions, EPA sought

collection of $83,800 in stipulated penalties for

various violations of the 1985 court order. In

addition, in FY97, PRASA self-assessed and paid to

the Treasury $251,400 for violations of the Pump

Station Stipulation entered in this action in 1995.

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

(PRASA) (Puerto Rico): On August 1, 1997, on

behalf of Region 2, DOJ lodged a consent decree,

which settles a case filed in December 1996 against

PRASA, alleging violations of its discharge permit at

its sewage treatment plant in Mayagüez, PR. This

facility discharges approximately ten million gallons

per day of sewage, treated only to the primary level,

into Mayagüez Bay. Under the consent decree,

PRASA will pay $150,000 in civil penalties and

contribute another $400,000 to the Mayagüez

Watershed Initiative to identify and address nonpoint

sources of pollution to the Mayagüez watershed. 

The decree also requires that PRASA construct

facilities necessary to bring its Mayagüez Regional

Wastewater Treatment Plant into compliance with its

CWA permit. 

The consent decree contains two separate

compliance tracks. The primary track requires that

the plant meet its discharge permit conditions by

December 31, 2001. The second track is available to

PRASA only if Congress passes specific legislation

which would allow it to submit an application to

EPA for a waiver from its permit limits, and EPA

tentatively approves the application. EPA previously

denied PRASA’s application based on the existing

outfall location in Mayaguez Bay near coral reefs. 

PRASA intends to modify its original waiver request
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-13 July 1998

by proposing to install a deep water outfall that

would extend its wastewater discharge beyond the

Bay and into the ocean.

On December 24, 1996, a citizens group,

Mayagüezanos por la Salud e Ambiente, Inc., moved

to intervene in this case. The citizens were

concerned that EPA would give PRASA too much

time to install secondary treatment and that the relief

being sought in the federal action does not address

17 pollutants that are being discharged in excess of

the NPDES permit limits, but will not be affected by

secondary treatment.

U.S. v. Virgin Islands Department of Public Works

(Virgin Islands): During FY97, the Virgin Islands

DPW paid $375,000 in stipulated penalties for

violations of a January 1996 amended consent decree

entered in this Region 2 NPDES enforcement case. 

The amended decree set a compliance schedule for

the Virgin Islands to construct improvements at

eleven existing POTWs and construct two new

POTWs. This injunctive relief is expected to cost

between $35 and $40 million. A court monitor was

appointed to oversee compliance with the amended

decree, which had also provided for payment of

$675,000 in stipulated penalties for violations of a

prior court order in this case. 

U.S. v. Warner-Lambert (Puerto Rico): On

September 24, 1997, a consent decree was entered in

this civil action. The decree assessed a civil penalty

of $670,000 for violations of the defendant’s NPDES

permit at its pharmaceutical manufacturing facility

in Vega Baja, PR. The violations occurred between

November 1992 and May 1995. This civil case was

a parallel proceeding to a criminal case in which a

plea agreement was entered on September 19, 1997,

under which the defendant corporation is to pay a $3

million criminal fine for conduct prior to November

1992.

 EPCRA

A.T. Reynolds and Sons, Inc.; Happy Ice LLC;

Long Island Ice and Fuel Corporation;

Queensboro Farm Products, Inc.; and United Food

Service, Inc. (New York): On September 30, 1997, 

Region 2 issued administrative consent orders to five

companies which entered into sector agreements

with the Agency pursuant to the national EPCRA

§312 Food Sector Initiative. The companies are:

A.T. Reynolds and Sons, Inc., Kiamesha Lake, NY;

Happy Ice LLC, Fairport, NY; Long Island Ice and

Fuel Corporation, Riverhead, NY; Queensboro Farm

Products, Inc., Canastota, NY; and United Food

Service, Inc., Albany, NY. Pursuant to this

initiative, companies in the food sector, which were

not in compliance with the requirements of EPCRA

§312, were given the opportunity to come into

compliance and settle their EPCRA §312 liability for

a penalty of $2,000. The respondents have since

come into compliance with these requirements by

submitting their Tier I/Tier II forms, and have each

executed a settlement agreement to pay a $2,000

penalty.

American Cyanamid Company (New York): On

May 30, 1997, Region 2 issued an administrative

CACO to the American Cyanamid Company

resolving this case involving violations of EPCRA. 

The complaint alleged 17 failures at the company’s

Pearl River, NY, facility to file Form Rs for

reporting years 1990 through 1993. In the

settlement, the company agreed to perform a SEP, in

which it would donate a foam fire truck to the

Rockland County, NY, HazMat Emergency

Response Team. Cyanamid also agreed to pay a

$129,000 civil penalty. 

Arma Textile Printers, Inc. (New York): On

January 6, 1997, Region 2 issued an administrative

CACO in settlement of a proceeding under EPCRA

against Arma Textile Printers, Inc., of Newburgh,

NY. Arma, a dyer of fabrics, violated the toxic

chemical reporting requirements of EPCRA by

failing to submit Form R reports for ammonia and

the non-aerosol form of hydrochloric acid. In the

consent agreement, Arma agreed to perform a SEP

for pollution prevention, which involves changing its

dyeing process for fabric by eliminating HCl and

substituting non-toxic water soluble solvents for

ammonia. Based on EPA’s PROJECT economic

model, implementation of this SEP is estimated to

cost over $900,000. Arma also agreed to pay a civil

penalty of $11,900. 

Astro Electroplating, Inc. (New York): On February

28, 1997, Region 2 issued an administrative CACO

to Astro Electroplating, Inc. In the settlement, Astro

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 and to spend

over $80,000 on a SEP. Astro will install an

evaporation system in its electroplating process that

will reduce both the volume and the toxicity of

hazardous waste that the respondent presently

disposes of in a landfill. The complaint in the case
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-14

alleged violations of EPCRA §311 for failure to

submit material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for

sulfuric acid to the local emergency planning

commission (LEPC), the state emergency response

commission (SERC), and the local fire department. 

In addition, the complaint alleged violations of

EPCRA §312 for failure to submit emergency and

hazardous chemical inventory form (Tier I or Tier II)

for nitric acid to the LEPC, SERC, and the local fire

department for the years 1992 through 1994. 

Finally, the complaint alleged violations of EPCRA

§313 for failure to submit Toxic Chemical Release

Inventory forms (Form Rs) to EPA for copper,

sulfuric acid, and nitric acid for the year 1989 and

for these same chemicals plus hydrochloric acid for

the years 1990 through 1992. 

Austin Productions, Inc. (New York): On January 2,

1997, Region 2 issued an administrative complaint

against Austin Productions, Inc., located in

Holbrook, NY. Austin is the owner and operator of a

facility that is subject to the annual toxic chemical

release reporting requirements under EPCRA §313. 

The complaint sought a civil penalty of $119,000 for

Austin’s failure to timely submit complete and

accurate Toxic Chemical Release Inventory

Reporting forms for the following chemicals:

toluene, acetone, and methyl ethyl ketone, for

calendar years 1992, 1993, and 1994. 

General Electric Company (New York): On June 3,

1997, Region 2 issued an administrative complaint

to the General Electric Company (GE), charging

multiple violations of EPCRA §313, and seeking a

$226,000 penalty. GE operates a major facility in

Waterford, NY, where it manufactures a wide variety

of silicone-based chemicals. The complaint charges

that GE failed to submit required, annual Toxic

Chemical Release Inventory Reporting forms for

dimethyl sulfate and ethylene glycol it manufactured

or otherwise used in the years 1991-1994. The

complaint also charges that annual Toxic Chemical

Release Inventory Reporting forms submitted by the

respondent in 1991-1994 for chlorine and 1,1,1-

trichloroethane contained significant data quality

errors. 

The complaint resulted from a multimedia inspection

of the facility by Region 2 the previous year. The

company disclosed certain violations shortly after

notification of the planned inspection and sought

penalty mitigation under EPA’s Self-Policing Policy. 

Region 2, with the assistance of the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),

determined that the policy did not apply. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-15 July 1998

FIFRA

Givaudan-Roure, Inc. (New Jersey): On June 30,

1997, Region 2 issued an administrative complaint

against Givaudan-Roure Corporation, a

manufacturer and exporter of pesticides located in

Clifton, NJ. The complaint proposes a civil penalty

of $95,200 for violations of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on 26

separate occasions Givaudan-Roure exported

misbranded pesticides in violation of FIFRA’s

requirement that certain information must appear

both in English and in the official language of the

country of import. This is to ensure that the

important safety and health information on the labels

can be understood by the likely end-users. 

Givaudan-Roure exported pesticides bearing

English-only labels, and English is not the official

language of any of the countries that received the

pesticides.

Safetec of America, Inc. (New York): On September

30, 1997, Region 2 issued an administrative

complaint proposing to assess a civil penalty of

$230,500 against Safetec of America, Inc. The

complaint alleged that the company violated FIFRA

by selling or distributing pesticide products that were

not registered. These products, which are

antimicrobial pesticides, include Easy Cleans Hard

Surface Wipe Towellettes, Safety Cleanz, Red Z, and

Yellow Z. Unregistered antimicrobial pesticides

were the subject of a national EPA enforcement

initiative in 1996. In addition, the complaint alleged

that Safetec failed to timely submit to EPA an annual

pesticide production report for 1996. Safetec

previously was issued two Stop Sale, Use, or

Removal Orders on November 26, 1996, and January

30, 1997, concerning the Easy Cleans Hard Surface

Wipe. The orders prohibited the respondent from

selling, using, or distributing all quantities of the

unregistered pesticide product. The company

appears to have complied with those orders. 

Tifa, Ltd. (New Jersey): On September 30, 1997,

Region 2 issued an administrative complaint against

Tifa, Ltd., citing 34 violations of FIFRA and

assessing a proposed civil penalty of $170,000. Tifa

owns a production and distribution facility located in

Millington, NJ, where it manufactures, repackages,

and relabels industrial organic chemicals, including

various pesticides. On November 21, 1995, and

April 15, 1996, EPA issued a Suspension Order and

a Stop Sale, Use, Or Removal Order, respectively,

which directed that Tifa could not legally distribute

and/or sell its pesticide products containing the

active ingredient Rotenone. The orders were based

on Tifa’s failure to comply with an earlier EPA

pesticide registration data call-in. Inspections were

conducted subsequently at Tifa’s facility, revealing

violations including the importation, offering for sale

and distribution, and sale and distribution of

suspended pesticide products; the offering for sale of

a registered pesticide product for a non-registered

use; and the production of pesticides in a nonregistered pesticide producing establishment. 

ODBA & MPRSA

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: On

July 31 and August 7, 1997, Region 2 issued two

administrative penalty complaints under the Marine

Protection Research & Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)

§105 against the Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey for its violations of a dredge material

disposal permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. The first complaint alleges that, on four

occasions, the Port Authority disposed of dredge

material at locations other than that specified in its

MPRSA permit. The second complaint alleges that,

on other occasions, the Port Authority disposed of

dredge material at non-permitted locations and that

it failed to report such improper disposal as required. 

These complaints seek the assessment of a total of

$125,000 in civil penalties ($50,000 and $75,000,

respectively). 

U.S. v. Bergen County Utilities Authority (New

Jersey): On March 21, 1997, a stipulation and order

was entered in this Ocean Dumping Ban Act

(ODBA) case. Under an earlier ODBA consent

decree, the Bergen County Utilities Authority

(BCUA) is to provide 100 percent of its sludge for

beneficial use by composting. However, due to its

routine operational practices, a small percentage of

BCUA’s sludge cannot be dewatered adequately to

allow for chemical stabilization and composting, and

must be disposed of as landfill cover. Under the

terms of the stipulation, BCUA will alter its

practices so that all its sludge is available for

beneficial use and will pay a stipulated penalty of

$75,000 for its violations of the consent decree.

RCRA
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-16

Autoridad de Tierras de Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico):

On May 28, 1997, Region 2 issued an administrative

complaint to the Autoridad de Tierras de Puerto Rico

(Land Authority of Puerto Rico) for violations of the

underground storage tank (UST) regulations. The

complaint alleges that the Land Authority failed to

provide leak detection for USTs at several of its

facilities and failed to permanently close a tank that

had been temporarily closed for more than 12

months. The six-count complaint seeks a total

penalty of $165,310.

B&B Wood Treating & Processing Co., Inc.

(Puerto Rico): On October 29, 1996, Region 2 won

a partial accelerated decision awarding the Agency a

civil penalty of $220,825 in this administrative case,

the full amount sought in the complaint. This case,

initiated in June 1993, was the first administrative

prosecution against a wood preserving operation for

violations of the then newly effective RCRA wood

preserving rules, 40 CFR 265, Subpart W. It was

part of the Agency’s nationwide Illegal Operator

initiative against those facilities that had not advised

EPA of their hazardous waste operations. The court

ruled that the Agency had justified its proposed civil

penalty on the basis of EPA’s RCRA Civil Penalty

Policy. The court upheld EPA’s decision not to

adjust the gravity-based penalty in light of the

respondent’s failure to come forward with any

evidence in support of a possible mitigation of the

penalty. The court also held that a summary

determination as to the penalty amount, rather than

an evidentiary hearing on the record, did not deprive

the respondent of due process. 

City of New York Department of Transportation

(New York): On June 6, 1997, Region 2 issued an

administrative CACO to the New York City

Transportation Department’s Bureau of Bridges. 

The settlement resolves a FY93 case involving the

city’s management of lead-containing paint chips

generated during bridge repainting operations. The

complaint alleged that the city generated and

transported these hazardous paint chip wastes

without a RCRA identification number and without

RCRA manifests, and had stored these wastes

without a RCRA permit or interim status

authorization. As a result of this enforcement

action, the city initiated significant new measures--

some extending beyond any existing legal

requirements--to prevent recurrence of the violations

and to improve its management of lead-based paint

removal operations. The city drafted a lead-based

paint removal protocol that will serve as the guide

for lead-based paint removal work at all city-owned

bridges. This protocol includes activities such as air

and soil monitoring during lead-based paint removal

activities. Implementation of the protocol, which

has become a national model for this kind of work,

will cost the city over $5 million. The settlement

also provides for the city to pay a civil penalty of

$145,000.

Compañia Petrolera Caribe (Puerto Rico): On

September 29, 1997, Region 2 issued an

administrative complaint seeking $601,011 in civil

penalties from Compañia Petrolera Caribe for its

failure to comply with UST leak detection

requirements for 55 USTs it owns at 26 different

facilities. EPA’s complaint also includes an order

requiring the company to comply with the UST leak

detection requirements for all USTs it owns. The

company’s main office is located in San Sebastian,

PR. Compañia Petrolera owns a chain of gas

stations, some or all of which are operated by

independent dealers. In May 1996, EPA inspected

one such gas station and found that the company was

in violation of the UST leak detection requirements. 

Eastman Kodak Corp. (New York): On February 28,

1997, Region 2 issued an administrative CACO

resolving this case against the Eastman Kodak

Company, which operates a major facility in

Rochester, NY. The region brought the

administrative case in October 1996 for multiple

violations of RCRA requirements at that facility. 

The settlement provides that Kodak will pay a civil

penalty of $90,000. The case involved eleven counts

of violations of regulations concerning hazardous

waste and/or Kodak’s RCRA Permit. This case

represents a follow-up of a number of matters which

were identified at the time the U.S. brought a major

RCRA civil judicial case against Kodak, which was

settled in 1994 through a consent decree. Under the

consent decree, Kodak at that time paid a civil

penalty of $5 million and is undertaking major SEPs

as well as a concerted improvement program in its

management of hazardous wastes.

Estate Mint, Inc., Ahmad Musaitif, and Estate

Mountain, Inc. (Virgin Islands): On May 20, 1997,

Region 2 issued an administrative complaint against

the above-named respondents, who owned and

operated USTs at two service stations, Estate Mint

Service Station and Hassan’s Service Station, in St.

Croix, VI. The complaint seeks a civil penalty of
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-17 July 1998

$147,610 against the three respondents for their

failure to comply with a number of UST

requirements, including those pertaining to release

detection, permanent closure of a tank, site

characterization, and submittal of certain reports.

Jamaica Water Supply Company and Dynamic

Painting Corp. (New York): On November 25,

1996, the respondent was found liable and fined a

penalty of $51,750. Jamaica Water Supply Company

is the owner of a municipal water tower. Repainting

operations at the tower resulted in the wide

dispersion of paint chips containing lead in a

residential neighborhood, which is in violation of

RCRA. Dynamic Painting was the painting

contractor for this job. Violations also included

failure to properly label a drum of lead-contaminated

paint chip waste. The judge found that documents

submitted by the respondent established a prima

facie case that waste was hazardous and, where the

respondent fails to present any evidence to the

contrary, such evidence suffices to establish liability. 

The regulation places the burden on the generator to

determine the nature of the waste. In addition, the

judge rejected the respondent’s arguments that EPA

failed to establish that the sampling data constituted

a “representative sample,” noting that the respondent

had stated affirmatively that the sample was

representative in response to a RCRA §3007 request

for information from EPA. 

New Jersey Transit Corp. (New Jersey): On July 3,

1997, Region 2 issued an administrative CACO to

New Jersey Transit Corporation, Inc., resolving a

case filed in 1995. New Jersey Transit agreed to pay

a civil penalty of $130,000 and perform two SEPs for

a cost of $190,000. In the complaint, EPA alleged

that the respondent failed to properly close numerous

UST systems in accordance with applicable rules;

failed to satisfy the release detection requirements

for USTs and associated piping; and failed to use

required spill and overfill equipment. The two SEPs

involve the removal and disposal of asbestos

insulation--one at a bus garage in Paterson, the other

at Penn Station in Newark, which is a conduit for

80,000 daily commuters. Both of these facilities are

located in areas that raise potential environmental

justice concerns.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

(PRASA) (Puerto Rico): On May 28, 1997, Region

2 issued an administrative complaint against PRASA

alleging UST violations at 19 facilities owned and

operated by the Authority in Puerto Rico. The

complaint seeks a civil penalty of $305,297 for

PRASA’s failure to comply with UST requirements,

including those pertaining to release detection and

permanent closure of tanks.

San Juan Cement Company, Inc. (Puerto Rico):

On April 11, 1997, Region 2 issued an

administrative CACO resolving this case. The

complaint in the action alleged that San Juan

Cement violated the RCRA rules governing the

burning of hazardous waste in an industrial furnace,

as well as specific limits in its Certificate of

Compliance (which is equivalent to a permit and

authorizes, subject to restrictions, the burning of

hazardous waste in an industrial furnace). The

settlement requires San Juan Cement to cease

burning hazardous waste in its cement kiln and to

close the kiln pursuant to an EPA-approved closure

plan. San Juan Cement agreed to pay a civil penalty

of $77,500 for its violations. 

Universal Metal and Ore Company, Inc. (New

York): A motion to dismiss Region 2’s

administrative complaint against Universal Metal

and Ore Company, Inc., of Mount Vernon, NY, was

denied on March 14, 1997. The respondent’s

motion sought dismissal of the EPA complaint, filed

in 1991, on the basis that nickel-cadmium (NiCd)

batteries held for recycling were not “discarded” and

thus not subject to RCRA. Region 2 issued its

complaint citing Universal for multiple violations of

RCRA at its Westchester County facility and

assessing a total proposed civil penalty of $853,998. 

(This case was initiated before EPA issuance of the

“Universal Waste Rule” in 1995 and before passage

by Congress of the Mercury Containing and

Rechargeable Battery Management Act in 1996. 

The region subsequently settled this case with

Universal in an agreement that provides for payment

by the company of a reduced penalty of $36,000,

which reflects the change in the law.)

U.S. v. Humberto-Escabi-Trabal, Environmental

Management Services and South West Fuel, Inc

(Puerto Rico): On April 2, 1997, a default judgment

was entered against Environmental Management

Services, Inc. (EMS) in the amount of $50,000;

against Humberto-Escabi-Trabal in the amount of

$2,273,000; and against South West Fuel, Inc.

(SWF) in the amount of $1,413,000. This default

judgment arose from a civil complaint alleging that

the Puerto Rico Sugar Corporation, Escabi-Trabal,
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-18

SWF, and EMS violated the RCRA used oil rules. 

The Sugar Corporation previously entered into a

consent decree and agreed to pay a civil fine of

$250,000 to resolve its liabilities. The default

judgments entered against SWF and Escabi-Trabal

are, to date, the largest corporate and individual civil

judicial penalties that have been obtained for

violating EPA’s used oil requirements.

Sugar Corporation now has constructed the

appropriate secondary containment around its tank

that stored the used oil and has agreed to pay for

most of the costs associated with removing and

disposing of the used oil that had remained at its

facility. Escabi-Trabal has cleaned up and has paid

for the removal and disposal of the used oil at EMS. 

U.S. v. Mobil Oil Corp. (New York): On September

11, 1997, the judge dismissed Mobil’s challenge to a

Region 2 unilateral order and struck three of Mobil’s

affirmative defenses. The March 1996 complaint in

this case sought penalties and an injunction against

Mobil’s use of two large surface impoundments,

which the government claims Mobil used, after

having lost “interim status,” to dispose of benzene in

concentrations sufficient to be labeled a hazardous

waste. The judge held that there is no preenforcement review of an order issued under RCRA

§3013 and that such orders are not “final agency

action” until EPA initiates enforcement proceedings. 

In addition, the judge held that the EPA’s

interpretation of what constitutes a “representative

sample” with regard to samples taken at the Mobil

facility was not “plainly erroneous” and, therefore,

gave deference to EPA’s interpretation of its own

regulation. 

U.S. v. Proteccion Technica Ecologica, Inc.

(Puerto Rico): On July 14, 1997, the U.S. moved to

lodge an amended consent decree regarding the

Proteccion Technica Ecologica, Inc. (Proteco)

facility located in Peneulas, PR. The amended

consent decree was signed by Proteco, the operator of

the facility, and Compania Ganadera Del Sur, Inc.,

the owner of the facility. This amended consent

decree resolves violations of the original decree

entered in October 1987 and modifies the injunctive

relief required in light of new regulations and the

fact that the facility is no longer permitted to manage

hazardous waste.

The amended decree governs Proteco’s closure of the

remaining hazardous waste units at its facility. 

Pursuant to the amended decree, Proteco must close,

at its own expense, all existing hazardous waste

units at its facility pursuant to EPA approved closure

plans. Proteco is required to establish, and make

monthly deposits into, a post closure escrow account

until the estimated cost of post closure is met,

thereby ensuring the funds necessary to implement

post closure. The amended consent decree also

requires Proteco to pay a further civil penalty of

$591,111. The total penalty paid by Proteco under

the original consent decree and this amended

consent decree will be $1.2 million. 

The penalty in the amended decree was mitigated in

consideration of Proteco’s inability to pay a larger

amount. However, if there is a sale of Proteco’s

assets or 50 percent of the corporation’s stock within

one year of the date of the public notice of the

proposed closure plan for the facility, Proteco must

pay an additional $225,671, the amount of penalty

mitigated under the original consent decree. 

SDWA

Town of Hempstead (New York): On July 31, 1997,

Region 2 issued an AOC which settles a case filed in

1995 against the Town of Hempstead, alleging

violations of unpermitted discharge into an

underground injection well and endangerment of a

Department of Highways facility. The facility is

located in Roosevelt, NY, an area identified by the

region as both a low income and minority area. 

Under the AOC, the town will implement a

compliance/closure plan at the Roosevelt facility, pay

a $5,500 penalty, perform a facility audit, and

provide employee training. In addition, the town has

agreed to inventory and, if appropriate, address all of

its facilities at which there may be Class V injection

wells. Further, the town has agreed to take actions,

such as testing for pesticides and keeping the public

informed of the status of the closure implementation

at the Roosevelt facility, through public meetings. 

U.S. v. City of New York (New York): On April 24,

1997, on behalf of EPA Region 2, DOJ filed a

complaint against the City of New York for its

violation of the SDWA Surface Water Treatment

Rule (SWTR) at the city’s Croton Water Supply. 

The Croton Water Supply is a surface water source

and provides approximately ten percent (150 million
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-19 July 1998

gallons/day) of the city’s drinking water to some

nine million people in the city and adjacent

Westchester County. Under the SWTR, the city was

required to provide filtration and disinfection of the

supply by June 1993. In 1992, the city entered into

an administrative “stipulation” with the New York

State Department of Health, which provided that the

city would construct and operate necessary filtration

facilities by 2000. It now is expected that the

construction of necessary facilities will extend well

beyond the year 2000. In this action, the

government is seeking an expeditious schedule for

the construction of the necessary filtration plant,

interim watershed protection measures, and an

appropriate penalty. The State of New York joined

the U.S. as a co-plaintiff in this action.

TSCA

Edgewater Associates, Inc. (New Jersey): On

February 28, 1997, a CACO was signed assessing a

penalty of $45,000. The company failed to notify

EPA of PCB activities; failed to correctly store

PCBs; failed to have an SPCC plan; failed to dispose

of PCBs within a year; and failed to compile and

maintain PCB annual documents and PCB Annual

Reports. As a result of this action, approximately

100,000 gallons of PCB-contaminated fluid were

removed from the site, thereby removing a

substantial threat to the Hudson River.

Glens Falls Cement Co. (New York): On February

13, 1997, Region 2 issued an administrative CACO

in settlement of an action against Glens Falls

Cement Co., Inc. The complaint charged the

company with violations of TSCA at its Glens Falls,

NY, facility for failure to maintain required PCB

equipment inspection and maintenance records and

annual documents; and failure to mark access to

PCB transformers and the transformers themselves. 

Under the settlement the company will pay a civil

penalty of $10,000 and will expend a substantial sum

on a SEP involving removal of the four remaining

PCB transformers from its facility. 

Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc. (New Jersey): On

June 27, 1997, Region 2 issued an administrative

complaint against Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc., of

Bayonne, NJ. The complaint alleges that Kenrich

failed to comply with TSCA regulations by failing to

file premanufacturing notices at least 90 days prior

to manufacturing certain chemical substances which

did not appear on the TSCA chemical inventory. 

The complaint seeks a penalty of $111,500. The

violations were established through an examination

of the company’s production records and a review of

the TSCA chemical inventory at EPA Headquarters.

Lafayette Paper (New York): On May 5, 1997,

Region 2 issued an administrative CACO resolving a

case against Lafayette Paper (a limited partnership),

Fernard Brule, and BMI, USA for failing to mark

and to register transformers with local emergency

fire response personnel. In addition to paying a civil

penalty of $4,000, Lafayette agreed to a SEP under

which it will install a new gas/oil combustion burner

with ancillary equipment to replace an oil-fired

combustion burner which has been used to heat a

70,000 lb/hr boiler. This SEP will reduce

substantially nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and

particulate emissions from the facility. 

New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority and

Atlantic City Convention Center Authority (New

Jersey): On January 10, 1997, Region 2 issued a

CACO in settlement of a TSCA administrative

proceeding against the New Jersey Sports and

Exposition Authority and the Atlantic City

Convention Center Authority. The respondents are

the owner and operator of the facility. The

complaint alleged that they failed to take the

following actions with respect to certain PCBcontaining equipment: compile annual documents;

conduct quarterly and annual inspections; register

with the fire department; mark PCB capacitors; and

store PCBs for disposal in an appropriate storage

area. Under the settlement, the respondents removed

PCBs from the Convention Center and will pay a

civil penalty of $98,000. 

Puerto Rico Department of Education (Puerto

Rico): On October 24, 1996, Region 2 issued a

CACO to the Puerto Rico Department of Education. 

The settlement resolves two administrative

complaints issued in 1988 and 1994. In these

complaints EPA alleged that the department had

violated the TSCA PCB regulations with respect to

certain PCB-containing equipment it maintained. 

The department had failed to affix the PCB mark

“ML;” mark the means of access; register the PCBs

with the fire department; maintain records of

quarterly inspections and maintenance history;

compile and maintain annual documents; and

dispose of PCBs in a proper manner. Under the

settlement the department agreed to pay a civil

penalty of $15,000. In addition, the department
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-20

agreed to perform a SEP valued at more than

$95,000. The SEP consisted of the removal of all

the PCB transformers at the two locations where the

violations occurred, eliminating any potential risk

from PCBs at these facilities. 

Rhone Poulenc, Inc. (New Jersey): On August 27,

1997, Region 2 issued an administrative consent

order resolving Rhone Poulenc’s legal liability for

certain TSCA violations that occurred at its Dayton,

NJ, manufacturing facility. Rhone Poulenc

voluntarily reported these self-identified violations to

EPA. On several dates, Rhone Poulenc

manufactured two new chemicals that did not appear

on the TSCA Chemical Inventory. While the

company’s disclosure did not qualify for a penalty

reduction under EPA’s December 1995 “Incentives

for Self-Policing; Discovery, Disclosure, Correction,

and Prevention of Violations” (sometimes referred to

as the “audit policy”), EPA reduced the penalty

assessed against the company under the terms of the

Agency’s TSCA §5 Enforcement Response Policy. 

A case, which normally would have involved the

issuance of a $300,000 penalty had the Agency

independently discovered the violations, was

resolved with a $60,000 civil penalty.

Sinochem USA, Inc. (New York): On June 30,

1997, Region 2 issued a complaint against Sinochem

USA, Inc., an importer of chemicals, located in New

York City. The complaint proposes a civil penalty of

$255,000 for violations of TSCA rules. The

complaint alleges that Sinochem failed to file a

Partial Updating of the Inventory Data Base

Production and Site Report (Form U) for each of 17

listed chemicals it imported in its fiscal year ending

August 25, 1994. 

Spies Hecker, Inc. (New York): On October 28,

1997, EPA issued an administrative CACO assessing

a $200,000 civil penalty for violations of TSCA

documented at Spies Hecker’s Farmingdale, NY,

facility. Spies Hecker is affiliated with Hoechst AG,

based in Frankfurt, Germany. The company failed to

report numerous imported chemicals in the 1994

Form U. 

MULTIMEDIA

Franklin-Burlington Plastics, Inc. (New Jersey):

On July 11, 1997, Region 2 issued a consolidated

TSCA and EPCRA CACO, assessing a cash penalty

of $80,000 against Franklin-Burlington Plastics. 

The Kearny, NJ, company is a division of Spartech

Corporation, a multi-billion dollar company

headquartered in St. Louis, MO. The settlement

resolves two administrative complaints issued to

Franklin-Burlington Plastics. The first complaint

alleged failure to submit to EPA, as required by

EPCRA §313, Form Rs for barium compounds, bis

(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,

lead compounds, butyl benzyl phthalate, and

antimony compounds for reporting years 1993-1995. 

The second complaint cited violations of the TSCA

regulations governing use, storage, and disposal of

PCBs. The two complaints resulted from a

consolidated multimedia inspection of the company’s

Kearny facility in April 1996. 

Rhein Chemie Corp. (New Jersey): On June 27,

1997, as part of a multimedia endeavor, an

administrative complaint was filed against Rhein

Chemie Corporation of Trenton, NJ, for its

violations of TSCA. Rhein Chemie, a subsidiary of

Bayer AG, failed to timely file a Notice of

Commencement of importation of a new chemical

substance. The complaint seeks a penalty of $6,000. 

The TSCA complaint followed a previous

administrative complaint that was filed on May 27,

1997, regarding Rhein Chemie’s noncompliance

with UST regulations under RCRA. The respondent

violated the UST release detection requirements by

failing to provide a method of release detection for

the UST system located at its facility. The penalty

sought in the UST matter is $15,947.

Tishcon, Inc. (New York): On June 26, 1997,

Region 2 issued an administrative complaint

proposing that a penalty of $15,000 be assessed

against the Tishcon Corporation for violations of

EPCRA reporting requirements. The complaint

alleges that Tishcon failed to submit accurate reports

of the amounts of 1,1,1-trichloroethane that were

released into the air from its Westbury, NY, facility. 

The administrative complaint is part of a multimedia

enforcement action against the company. Other

elements of the multimedia action include

administrative complaints issued under CWA based

upon the company’s failure to comply with reporting

requirements of EPA’s pretreatment regulations, and

a Notice of Violation (NOV) and administrative

compliance order issued under CAA. The NOV

cited Tishcon for installing air pollution control

equipment without first obtaining a permit from the

New York DEC. The compliance order dealt with a
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-21 July 1998

failure to label products that were manufactured with

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

U.S. v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority

(PREPA) (Puerto Rico): On January 10, 1997, on

behalf of the EPA, DOJ lodged a consent decree

against PREPA. The consent decree is meant to

resolve PREPA’s alleged violations of CAA, CWA,

UST requirements of RCRA, EPCRA, SPCC

requirements of CWA, and notice provisions of

CERCLA at each of its five major facilities located

across Puerto Rico.

The consent decree requires PREPA to pay $1.5

million in civil penalties, including interest, and

additional expenditures to undertake various

additional environmental projects in the form of a

Land Conservation Acquisition ($3.4 million) and

HazMat Training for the local fire department

($100,000). Also, PREPA is required to spend more

than $1 million on an environmental review

contractor, which is intended to oversee PREPA’s

compliance with the consent decree and act as a

clearinghouse to make documentation more readily

available to local communities. In addition to the

above-referenced projects, PREPA is required to

conduct a major overhaul of its compliance programs

in each of the areas where violations were noted. 

PREPA estimates that these programs will cost in

excess of $200 million.

U.S. v. Tropical Fruit, S.E. (Puerto Rico): Tropical

Fruit S.E., in Guayanilla, PR, operates a plantation

where it grows mangoes, bananas, and other fruits. 

The firm had been applying pesticides using a high

pressure applicator which produces a cloud that

sometimes would drift into the adjacent residential

community, which is composed of minority and low

income residents who sought Region 2 assistance. 

Prior to EPA’s involvement in this matter, Tropical

Fruit violated an administrative order issued by the

Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture, as well as a

Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Puerto

Rico Commonwealth Court.

On December 20, 1996, Region 2 issued an

administrative order under CERCLA §106(a) to

Tropical Fruit, S.E., and to the three individual

partners of that company--Avshalom Lubin, Cesar

Otero Acevedo, and Pedro Toledo Gonzalez. The

CERCLA order requires that the respondents

immediately cease and desist from spraying

pesticides, fungicides, and any other materials that

contain hazardous substances in such a manner that

these substances might drift or otherwise migrate

beyond the boundaries of the farm. 

The region also issued an administrative complaint

for violations of the Worker Protection Standard

(WPS) under FIFRA. The complaint cited Tropical

Fruit’s failure to post warning signs during and after

application, as well as its failure to maintain a

decontamination area and a central bulletin board

with pesticide safety information. 

On March 26, 1997, acting on EPA’s behalf, DOJ

filed a complaint against Tropical Fruit seeking an

injunction requiring the firm and its partners to

comply with EPA’s CERCLA order and all

applicable FIFRA requirements. Three of the

pesticides routinely used by Tropical Fruits on its

mango trees are not registered for use on mangoes;

their use in this manner is in violation of FIFRA. 

The judicial complaint also sought penalties for

violations of the CERCLA order since its issuance. 

On March 26, 1997, the court also signed an interim

consent order which requires Tropical Fruit to

modify its pesticide application procedures to

prevent these substances from drifting off of the farm

and into the adjacent residential community. The

order also requires Tropical Fruit to better protect its

workers by providing extensive training, protective

clothing, respirators, and decontamination

equipment. Subsequently, on May 21, 1997, EPA

documented further violations of the CERCLA

administrative order and the judicial interim consent

order. On August 22, 1997, Tropical Fruit paid

$10,000 in stipulated penalties for those violations. 

Region 2 also has documented additional FIFRA

violations by Tropical Fruit, which included the

illegal importation of Cultar, an unregistered

pesticide from the Middle East. The region also has

documented violations of the RCRA UST

regulations. Finally, Region 2 documented

violations of CWA §404 and the associated

regulations regarding discharge of dredged or fill

materials into wetlands. EPA anticipates that all

these violations will be the subject of further

enforcement action. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-22

REGION 3

CERCLA

Keystone Sanitation Landfill (Pennsylvania):

Region 3 has moved aggressively to settle the

Superfund liability of more than 700 third- and

fourth-party defendants dragged into the Keystone

Sanitation Landfill CERCLA cost recovery case. 

The Keystone litigation and the plight of the thirdand fourth-party defendants have received national

attention during the current debate over Superfund

reform. In the past year, the U.S. has entered into

$1.00 de micromis settlements with 187 parties,

primarily generators of minuscule quantities of

municipal solid waste (e.g., pizza and donut shops,

parks and campgrounds, duplex owners). On

October 22, 1997, the U.S. lodged a $4.25 million

consent decree settling the cleanup liability of 376

other third- and fourth-party defendants.

Palmerton Property Owners (Pennsylvania): On

April 11, 1997, EPA signed 27 AOCs with

residential property owners in Palmerton, PA. The

AOCs provide that the residential landowners will

receive contribution protection and a covenant not to

sue pursuant to CERCLA in return for granting

access to their properties to EPA and cooperating

with EPA in an ongoing removal action to remove

high levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc from their

properties. 

U.S. v. Chrysler, the State of Delaware, and Knotts,

Inc. (Delaware): The February 18, 1997, entry of a

consent decree resolved the cost recovery litigation

brought against Chrysler Corporation and Knotts,

Inc., at the Harvey and Knotts Drum Superfund Site

in New Castle County, DE. Chrysler and Knotts,

Inc., the only remaining PRPs at the site, are

required to pay $1.65 million of the U.S.’s past

response costs. This settlement represents

approximately 68 percent of the U.S.’s unreimbursed

past response costs, excluding oversight costs.

U.S. v. Fike Artel (West Virginia): On July 10,

1997, the Fike Artel RD/RA consent decree

(previously entered on February 19, 1997) was

amended to add Shell Chemical Company and Shell

Oil Company as the 55th settling defendant in this

CERCLA civil action. Shell, which disposed of

trichloropropane (TCP) waste at the site, will pay

$720,000 to be divided equally between the U.S. and

West Virginia. Shell also is required to pay the

settling defendants who filed the initial contribution

action. The amount of Shell’s contribution was filed

under seal with the court, but the consent decree

states that Shell’s payment is four times its pro rata

share. 

U.S. v. Olin Corp. (Virginia): A consent decree

entered on July 29, 1997, settled the CERCLA claim

against Olin for EPA’s response costs at two waste

ponds contaminated with mercury from one of Olin’s

former chlorine plants. Olin is required to reimburse

the U.S. $379,000 for its past response costs, and

finance and perform remedial work costing an

estimated $75 million dollars. Olin also will

reimburse the U.S. for future response costs.

CLEAN AIR ACT

Allegheny County Department of Aviation

(Pennsylvania): On March 25, 1997, Region 3 

ordered the Allegheny County Department to stop

demolition activities at the old Allegheny Airport. 

The demolition and salvage operations at the airport

facility resulted in significant disturbance of asbestos

materials, violating CAA NESHAP regulations. The

salvaging and demolition activities were halted, the

facility was cleaned up, existing risks were removed,

and a work plan was developed for the remaining

demolition work at the site. 

Koppers Industries (Pennsylvania): On April 14,

1997, EPA ordered Koppers Industries, Inc., to pay a

penalty of $73,550 for CAA violations, which

included failing to perform the daily performance

monitoring of its coke oven batteries. 

U.S. v. Camden Iron and Metal (Pennsylvania):

The first judicial action enforcing the CFC “safe

disposal” requirements under CAA was settled in

September 1997 with the entry of a consent decree

against Camden Iron and Metal, a scrap metal

recycler. The decree included a $125,000 civil

penalty and a SEP valued at $375,000--the nation’s

first SEP settlement in a CFC case. The SEP

required the defendant to establish refrigerant

recycling programs in municipalities. These

programs will allow the public to properly dispose of
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-23 July 1998

refrigerated appliances, thus decreasing the release

of ozone depleting chemicals.

U.S. v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail)

(Pennsylvania): On August 20, 1997, a consent

decree was entered resolving the 1994 enforcement

action against Consolidated Rail Corporation

(Conrail) for Asbestos NESHAP violations at a grain

elevator owned by Conrail in the Port Richmond

section of Philadelphia. The revised consent decree

requires that Conrail pay a civil penalty of $389,100

and complete two SEPs. Conrail will spend

$230,000 to plant 500 trees within the area affected

by the violation and will spend $180,850 to purchase

and install the Operation Respond Emergency

Information System (OREIS) software at the

emergency response centers in Bucks, Chester,

Delaware, and Montgomery Counties. 

U.S. v. Waste Resource Energy, Inc., Westinghouse

Electric Corp., and York Resource Energy Systems

(Pennsylvania): On May 8, 1997, a complaint and

consent decree were filed simultaneously against

Waste Resource Energy, Inc., Westinghouse Electric

Corporation, and York Resource Energy Systems for

violations at two municipal solid waste incinerators. 

The consent decree requires that the defendants

comply with the emission limits established in their

permits and to pay a civil penalty of $50,000 to the

U.S. and $50,000 to Pennsylvania. The consent

decree also includes several SEPs, including a lead

project to be conducted by Westinghouse in Chester,

PA, an environmental justice (EJ) community with

high blood lead levels in children. Other projects

include purchasing and maintaining a street sweeper

to clear debris and dust from the incinerator access

road; planting trees to provide a sound and visual

barrier to the incinerator; and relocating speed

bumps on the incinerator access road to better

control traffic. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

U.S. v. Consolidation Coal Company

(Pennsylvania): Region 3 acted to prevent a

catastrophic discharge of acid mine drainage from

the Fairmont Mine Pool into Buffalo Creek and the

Monongahela River. An underground pool of water

eight miles long and 870 feet deep formed in

abandoned mine workings and threatened to

discharge from an unused mine caisson once the

pool reached a certain level. The flow from the pool

would have been approximately 3,000 gallons per

minute and consisted of acid mine drainage and

other pollutants. An outbreak of acid mine drainage

of this magnitude would have caused severe

environmental impacts in the receiving bodies of

water, including the destruction of a large stretch of

the Monongahela River. On December 26, 1996,

EPA ordered Consolidation Coal Company to

immediately reduce the pool level, which the

company acted upon. On June 6, 1997, Region 3

signed a consent order with Consolidation Coal,

which requires the company to monitor and syphon

the mine pool and related seeps. Consolidation Coal

lowered the mine pool to an elevation where a

discharge is no longer imminent.

U.S. v. Erie Coke Corp. (Pennsylvania): The U.S.

sued the City of Erie and Erie Coke Corp., a

significant industrial user (SIU) of Erie’s sewer

system. Erie Coke violated national pretreatment

categorical standards for iron and steel and the City

of Erie local pretreatment limits, discharging very

high strength waste to the Erie POTW via the sewer

system. The December 18, 1996, consent decree

requires Erie Coke to pay a $450,000 cash penalty

and to come into compliance by installing

pretreatment technology that consistently meets local

and national discharge limits. This technology

upgrade should be operational in February 1998 at

an initial capital cost in excess of $2 million dollars.

U.S. v. Presque Isle Plating (Pennsylvania):

Presque Isle Plating, another SIU of Erie’s sewer

system, violated national pretreatment categorical

standards for electroplating point sources and local

pretreatment limits. The consent decree, entered on

December 18, 1996, requires Presque Isle to pay a

$20,000 cash penalty and certify that: 1) it will no

longer use certain materials that had caused effluent

violations; and 2) it is compliant with all applicable

sampling, analysis, and reporting requirements. 

U.S. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., Smithfield Packing,

and Gwaltney of Smithfield Ltd. (Virginia): EPA

prosecuted Smithfield Foods, Inc., and two of its

subsidiaries for approximately 6,982 CWA violations

resulting from large quantities of pollutants

discharging into the Pagan River in Virginia. High

phosphorous levels caused the Pagan River to be

closed to shellfish harvesting. Smithfield’s

violations included discharging excessive amounts of

phosphorus; submitting false and inaccurate

discharge monitoring reports; and destroying or

otherwise failing to maintain required records. On

May 30, 1997, the court found Smithfield liable for
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-24

CWA violations of its federal wastewater discharge

permit and ordered Smithfield to pay $12.6 million

in penalties. The court also held that the U.S. was

not barred from enforcing its federal permit

regardless of the agreements between the

Commonwealth of Virginia and Smithfield. The

$12.6 million judgment is the highest award

resulting from a CWA trial.

EPCRA

Forbes Steel & Wire Corp. (Delaware): Under an

August 26, 1997, consent order resolving EPCRA

§§312 and 313 violations, Forbes Steel & Wire must

pay a $12,250 penalty and complete a SEP at a cost

of $256,000. The SEP is expected to eliminate

sulfuric acid use by using a non-polluting

mechanical method.

Williams Metalfinishing (Pennsylvania): Under a

June 18, 1997, consent order resolving EPCRA §313

violations, Williams Metalfinishing must pay an

$8,000 penalty and perform a SEP at a cost of

$47,500. The SEP, which involves significant

modifications to the facility’s degreaser system, is

expected to result in significant reductions of

trichloroethylene (TCE) emissions.

FIFRA

National Chemical Laboratories of PA, Inc.

(Pennsylvania): Settlement was reached between

EPA and National Chemical Laboratories of PA,

Inc., resolving a case involving the sale and

distribution of numerous misbranded and/or

adulterated pesticide products. The pesticides

primarily were sanitizing agents used in the

janitorial industry, and many were marketed by

supplementally registered distributor companies. 

The CACO assesses a penalty of $50,000.

RCRA

Colonial Metals and Columbia Reduction

(Pennsylvania): EPA issued a CACO on June 26,

1997, to settle two complaints filed against Colonial

Metals and Columbia Reduction. The facility was a

non-notifier, which was found to be generating a

hazardous waste by producing slag from its metal

recovery process. The facility failed to determine if

the waste was hazardous. The slag failed the toxicity

characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP) for

cadmium and lead. The facility then shipped the

waste unmanifested by an unlicensed transporter to

their Columbia Reduction facility for land disposal. 

The CACO required the facility to submit a closure

plan to the Pennsylvania Department of

Environment Protection (PA DEP) for closure of the

unauthorized land-based pile; complete waste

determinations on waste streams produced at the

facility; and pay a penalty in the amount of $80,000. 

Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Virginia): In a May 19,

1997, CACO, Lucent Technologies, Inc. (successor

to respondent American Telephone and Telegraph

Company) agreed to pay a $369,000 penalty to

resolve RCRA land disposal, permit, recordkeeping,

planning, and other violations. Lucent also is

required to spend about $85,000 to conduct a pilot

study to evaluate facility wastewater recycling. 

SDWA

Cyprus Foote Mineral Company and Walmart

(Pennsylvania): Since 1960, the abandoned Cyprus

Foote facility had been used for lithium processing

and for research and development associated with

battery manufacturing. Based on site inspections

and sampling data, EPA suspected environmental

problems due to historic wastewater management at

the site. After evaluating the available enforcement

options, EPA determined that RCRA §7003 provided

the broad-based authority to require Cyprus and

Walmart (property owner) to conduct a

comprehensive environmental assessment of the

property. A RCRA §7003 order was issued in March

1997, and both Cyprus Foote and Walmart

subsequently have agreed to conduct the assessment. 

EPA currently is negotiating the terms of the study

with the two companies. 

State College Ford (Pennsylvania): For several

years, this automobile dealership operated two

injection wells that received automotive wastewater

from the service bay floor drains. The drains were

located directly upgradient from several public and

private water supplies. In October 1996, EPA issued

an order to State College Ford, requiring the proper

closure of the two injection wells, quarterly

groundwater monitoring, and payment of a $5,000

penalty. The injection wells subsequently have been

closed, the penalty payment received, and subsequent

monitoring indicates no evidence of dangerous levels

of contaminants in the groundwater. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-25 July 1998

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

(Virginia): EPA entered into a consent agreement

requiring VDOT to assess the compliance status of

all their operations and to implement corrective

measures as necessary. VDOT maintenance

facilities contained 32 shallow injection wells in

violation of the underground injection control (UIC)

program groundwater protection requirements. The

shallow injection wells involved a network of floor

drains in heavy equipment maintenance areas or

wash bays, which discharged a variety of automotive

service-related and cleaning wastes to on-lot septic

systems, seepage pits, or other shallow injection

wells. Corrective measures included sealing floor

drains, alternative wastewater management, removal

of sludge and contaminated soil, and an evaluation

of groundwater impacts.

TSCA

Bill Anskis Company, Inc., and the Panther Valley

School District (Pennsylvania): On May 13, 1977,

Region 3 settled an administrative action against Bill

Anskis Company, Inc., and the Panther Valley

School District alleging Asbestos NESHAP and

TSCA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act

(AHERA) violations during renovation work in the

school district. The settlement assessed a total

penalty of $77,000.

Townsend Properties, Inc., and Halethorpe

Extrusions, Inc. (Maryland): On December 27,

1996, EPA signed two CACOS settling a claim

against the respondents for TSCA and PCB

violations. The respondents failed to comply with

PCB storage, labeling, marking, record keeping, and

fire registration requirements and were ordered to

pay a total of $62,500 in civil penalties.

U.S. v. School District of Philadelphia

(Pennsylvania): On June 4, 1997, the U.S. 

simultaneously filed a complaint and consent decree

under TSCA against the School District of

Philadelphia for PCB violations. There are 29

transformers located at 12 schools which contain

PCBs or are PCB-contaminated. The consent decree

seeks to compel cleanup and disposal of the PCBs

and requires that the school district comply with the

PCB Rule and implement a PCB Management Plan

which provides for the repair, inspection, cleanup,

and proper disposal of PCB-contaminated materials. 

The consent decree also requires the school district

to remove or upgrade all of the PCB transformers

within three years and to submit bi-monthly progress

reports to EPA which will enable EPA to monitor

the school district’s cleanup efforts.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-26

MULTIMEDIA

U.S. v. Quaker State (Pennsylvania): A consent

decree was entered on February 11, 1997, settling an

action against Quaker State for RCRA and CAA

violations. Allegations included operating four

surface impoundments without a permit in violation

of RCRA; improperly handling listed hazardous

wastes; violating the asbestos NESHAP; and

releasing excess emissions of hydrogen sulfide into

the air in violation of the SIP. Quaker State was

ordered to pay a $2.9 million civil penalty and to

complete three SEPs. Quaker State also will perform

both RCRA and CAA injunctive relief, including

closure of the storm water and aeration basins, soil

and groundwater sampling, and improvements in the

asbestos removal program, at an estimated cost of

$4-$4.5 million.

U.S. v. Weirton Steel Corp. (West Virginia): On

December 26, 1996, a consent decree was entered for

violations of CAA, RCRA, and CWA. This

multimedia action resulted in a $1.5 million penalty,

$25 million in injunctive relief, and $6.4 million

SEPs. The consent decree requires upgrading the

wastewater treatment system and implementing

procedures to avoid violations of the NPDES permit

and CWA. The SEPs involve installing new air

pollution control technology on the blast furnace and

collecting meteorological data for air quality

planning.

U.S. v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh (West Virginia): A

consent decree was entered on January 2, 1997, to

address a multimedia civil judicial complaint for

CWA and RCRA violations. Wheeling-Pittsburgh

was ordered to pay a $200,000 penalty for spill

violations, provide necessary relief to address spills,

and implement spills management.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-27 July 1998

REGION 4

CERCLA

Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site (North Carolina):

On September 30, 1997, Region 4 issued a CERCLA

§106 RD/RA UAO to Novartis Crop Protection, Inc.,

and Olin Corporation. Region 4 selected the interim

remedy, which consists of the extraction and

treatment of contaminated groundwater from the

surficial aquifer, in an ROD dated September 16,

1997. The purpose of the interim remedy is to begin

reducing the migration of contaminants down

gradient and into lower aquifers. Under the UAO,

the interim remedy will be implemented while the

respondents finalize the feasibility study (under a

separate AOC), and EPA selects a final remedy.

Agrico Chemical Co. Site (Florida): On March 10,

1997, an amendment to the existing consent decree

for remedial action (RA) between the U.S. and

Agrico Chemical Company, a division of FreeportMcMoRan Resource Partners Limited Partnership

(Agrico), and Conoco, Inc., was entered. Agrico and

Conoco agreed to perform the RA for OU-1 (source

control) under the existing consent decree. Under

the amendment, these parties agreed to perform the

RD/RA and operation and maintenance for OU-2

(groundwater) and to pay all past and future

response costs. The remedy involves solidification/

stabilization of contaminated soils, capping, a slurry

wall, and natural attenuation of groundwater, along

with monitoring and institutional controls. The

estimated cost of the remedy for OU-2 is $1.7

million. This amount is in addition to the estimated

$10.7 million cost of the remedy for OU-1. In

addition to future oversight costs, the settling parties

agreed to pay a total of $774,030 for EPA’s past

response costs. 

Ashepoo Phosphate and Fertilizer Works (South

Carolina): On September 30, 1997, Region 4 signed

an AOC with Conoco and Freeport McMoRan, Inc.,

for an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis

(EE/CA) for a non-time critical removal at the

former Ashepoo Fertilizer and Phosphate Works in

Charleston, SC. Under this order, Conoco and

Freeport McMoRan will perform an investigation to

determine the extent of contamination at the former

fertilizer plant. The Ashepoo Site consists of about

20 acres on three parcels in the “Neck” area of

Charleston. Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing

began on the property in 1872 and continued until

the mid-1970s. High levels of lead and strongly

acidic groundwater in the area are believed to be

associated with the fertilizer manufacturing process. 

Beaunit Circular Knit & Dyeing Superfund Site

(South Carolina): On December 18, 1996, the

consent decree for RD/RA at the Beaunit Circular

Knit & Dyeing Superfund Site, Fountain Inn, SC,

was entered. Five PRPs, former and current

owner/operators, executed the consent decree, which

provides for recovery of 100 percent of past and

future costs. The site consists of an abandoned

wastewater treatment area and lagoon. EPA placed

the site on the NPL in February 1990 due to soil,

sediment, and groundwater contamination. Five

PRPs completed an RI/FS for the site in September

1994. On November 7, 1994, EPA issued the

proposed plan and announced the following remedy:

natural attenuation of groundwater; grading,

drainage control and capping of the surface soils;

monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and

associated sediments; and land use and deed

restrictions.

Bessemer Drum Site (Alabama): On February 18,

1997, a CERCLA §107 Cost Recovery consent

decree was entered in connection with the Bessemer

Drum Site in Bessemer, AL. The consent decree

provides for payment to the U.S. of $400,000 out of

the $500,000 in response costs that had been

incurred by EPA at the site. A large number of

drums and other containers of various hazardous

substances, many of them highly flammable, were

discovered in a warehouse in Bessemer, AL. The

materials were abandoned in the poorly ventilated

warehouse, posing a high risk of fire or explosion. 

Some of the drums had been leaking, and were

stacked and stored improperly.

Chem-4 Site (Alabama): On July 21, 1997, a

settlement was approved relating to a proof of claim

filed by the U.S. in the Wesley Industries Chapter 7

bankruptcy case for approximately $750,000 in

response costs incurred by EPA at the Chem-4 site. 

Wesley was an owner/operator of the site. Under the

terms of the settlement, Region 4’s claim is allowed
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-28

in full with $50,000 to be given administrative

priority status. 

Chevron Chemical Company Site (Florida): On

July 22, 1997, the acting director for the Waste

Management Division signed a UAO for RD/RA,

operation and maintenance, and performance

monitoring work at the company’s 4.39 acre former

pesticide formulation/blending facility. Between

1978 and 1994, Central Florida Mack Truck

Company owned and operated the site as a truck

servicing facility. Investigations of the site

conducted during the 1980s and 1990s by Chevron,

its consultants, and Region 4 disclosed on-site soil

and groundwater contamination involving pesticides,

organics, and metals at highly elevated levels. 

Pursuant to an AOC executed on May 15, 1990, and

a removal action conducted during 1991 and 1992,

Chevron removed site structures, remediated

groundwater, and removed a large volume of nonhazardous and hazardous soils off-site and replaced

them with clean fill material. The main components

of the remedy selected in the ROD prepared during

1993-1995 to address groundwater contamination

include: natural attenuation, groundwater

monitoring, and a contingency plan that includes the

installation of a subsurface filter wall if natural

attenuation is unsuccessful. Air stripping, hydraulic

gradient control, or additional source removal will be

implemented if necessary.

Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Alabama): On October 11, 1996,

the consent decree for RD/RA at OU-3 was entered. 

The Superfund site has been divided into four

operable units. The OU-3 addresses wetland areas. 

Consent decrees for RD/RA for Operable Units 1, 2,

and 4 already have been entered with the court. 

Instead of issuing four separate bills to recover EPA

response costs, the four consent decrees provide for

recovery of costs by sending one bill to Ciba-Geigy. 

OU-3 is the final Superfund OU to be addressed at

this site.

Davie Landfill Superfund Site (Florida): On

January 6, 1997, a CERCLA §107 consent decree

was entered, settling the case of U.S. v. Broward

County, FL. Pursuant to the terms of the consent

decree, the U.S. has recovered $66,368 in past

response costs incurred at the site. Further, the U.S.

will recover future remedial and oversight costs at

the site subject to the following caps: $65,000 for

FY95 and $25,000 for FY96 and subsequent years.

The site was used as a disposal for sludge from a

municipal wastewater treatment plant and other

wastes. On September 8, 1983, the site was placed

on the NPL due to concerns regarding groundwater

contamination. High levels of cyanides and sulfides

were found in the sludge lagoon and benzene and

vinyl chloride were found in the groundwater. Two

RODs have been issued at this site. The ROD issued

on September 30, 1985, required remediation of the

sludge lagoon portion of the site (OU-1). The ROD

issued on August 11, 1994, required remediation of

the groundwater portion of the site (OU-2). A UAO

for implementation of this remedy was entered on

October 5, 1994; Broward County has been

complying with this order.

General Electric (GE)/Shepherd Farm (North

Carolina): On December 2, 1996, a consent decree

for RD/RA and past response costs was entered

between the U.S. and GE. The agreement includes

the commitment by GE to pay $1,028,776 in past

response costs and conduct the RD/RA set out in the

ROD signed on September 29, 1995. An early draft

of the orphan share policy, part of EPA’s Superfund

administrative reforms, was utilized to reduce the

past cost amount by $204,250 based on the orphan

status of an owner/operator. The site consists of two

non-contiguous parcels with contaminants such as

PCBs, heavy metals, and volatile organic

compounds. The response action will involve

excavation and capping of contaminated soil areas

and groundwater treatment. 

Harris Corp. Site (Florida): On January 27, 1997, a

consent decree was entered between the U.S. and

Harris Corporation regarding contaminated

groundwater. The consent decree settled

enforcement activity on the final OU-2 of the Harris

Corporation/Palm Bay Facility, CERCLA Superfund

Site, Palm Bay, Brevard County, FL. Harris

manufactures electronic devices and components,

and communication and information processing

equipment on the site. The consent decree provides

for the payment of $112,000 for past costs incurred

by the U.S. at the site. Harris Corporation will fully

pay most future costs, but Harris’s obligation to pay

certain specific future costs associated with oversight

of the work will be limited to a total of $200,000. 

The conclusion of this operable unit will end

regional involvement at this site, which began in

1981.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-29 July 1998

Helena Chemical Company (Florida): On

December 10, 1996, Region 4 issued a CERCLA

§106(a) UAO for RD/RA to the Helena Chemical

Company. Helena was involved in formulating

pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other chemical

products at the site. From 1988 thru 1990, the

region investigated the site and found pesticide

contamination in soil, sediments, and the surficial

groundwater aquifer. Under the RD/RA plan,

Helena is to include plans and schedules for

implementation of all remedial design and predesign tasks identified in the Statement Of Work

(SOW). The administrative order directs Helena to

perform bioremediation of surface soils and

extraction, treatment, and disposal of surficial

groundwater to remediate the site. The remedy is

estimated to cost $2.5 million. 

Hinson Superfund Site (South Carolina): On

September 30, 1997, a consent decree was entered

and signed by W.R. Grace and Company and Collins

Aikman for the recovery of $350,000 in past costs at

the Hinson Chemical Superfund Site. This is the

second and final settlement in this past cost recovery

action. The first settlement was embodied in a

consent decree that was entered in September 1996. 

In total, EPA has recovered approximately $1.6

million dollars in past costs. All the settling

defendants are generators that contributed hazardous

waste to the site. 

The site was a former recycling and storage facility

during the mid-1970s. In November 1988, Region 4

excavated and disposed of over 200 burned drums. 

Composite samples from the excavated drums

revealed contamination from paint waste and

numerous volatiles, including benzene, toluene, and

tetrachloroethylene. Based on these findings, Region

4 selected and installed a vapor extraction system to

remove the contamination from the soil. The system

operated for approximately two years. 

Interstate Lead Company (ILCO) Site (Alabama):

On April 22, 1997, the U.S. entered a consent decree

for RD/RA for the Interstate Lead Company (ILCO)

site in Leeds, AL. Under the terms of the consent

decree, 20 settling defendants, who are collectively

responsible for approximately 6 percent of the total

waste at the site, will conduct RD/RA for the entire

site (including all seven satellite sites); will

reimburse the U.S. for $1,823,644 of $16,683,773 in

past response costs; and will reimburse the U.S. for

future oversight costs related to the consent decree in

excess of $300,000. The estimated cost of

implementing the selected remedy is $59,440,500. 

The region, with Headquarters concurrence, has

agreed to compensate the settling defendants by

giving them a credit of $14,860,125 against

outstanding past costs, which represents 25 percent

of the estimated future cleanup costs. The settling

defendants have agreed to pay the balance of

outstanding past costs ($1,823,648) incurred in

connection with the site. Proceeds from de minimis

settlements will be split 50-50 between EPA and the

settling defendants, with EPA’s share to be applied

against outstanding past costs. The consent decree

also provides that additional PRPs may join the

settlement for a limited period of time. 

Lee’s Lane Landfill (Kentucky): On March 24,

1997, a CERCLA §107 consent decree was entered

for response costs whereby the remaining nonsettling

defendants, Ben B. Hardy, J H Realty, and the

Hofgesang Foundation, Inc., have agreed to

reimburse the U.S. $2,654,634 for costs incurred in

conducting a response action completed in 1987. 

The U.S. already entered into settlements with other

parties in connection with the site several years ago. 

Pursuant to the settlements, which were embodied in

two consent decrees, the other parties have

reimbursed the U.S. a total of $3,101,230 for costs

incurred during the response action. To satisfy the

judgment, the Foundation shall pay the U.S. 90

percent of the net liquidated value of the assets of the

Foundation as set forth in the consent decree. 

Olin Corp. (Alabama): On June 3, 1997, a CERCLA

§§106 and 107 consent decree was entered for OU-1. 

The U.S. had appealed the lower court’s decision to

reject the proposed settlement part and parcel with

the court’s dismissal of the U.S.’s complaint “with

prejudice.” In the Olin decision, the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals held that, as applied,

CERCLA constituted a permissible exercise of

congressional authority, and that congressional

intent favored a retroactive application of

CERCLA’s cleanup and liability provisions.

Paramour Fertilizer Site (Georgia): On September

30, 1997, Region 4 entered into a cost recovery

agreement for reimbursement of $788,447 of

approximately $1.5 million of removal response

costs incurred by the region at the Paramour

Fertilizer Superfund Site in Tifton, GA, from two

PRPs who arranged for the disposal of waste nitric

acid at the site. The amount recovered represents the
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-30

full amount allocated by the region for cleanup of the

nitric acid at the site.

Rutledge Property Superfund Site (South

Carolina): On March 12, 1997, Region 4 approved a

prospective purchaser agreement between the region

and Cherry Street Associates. The agreement will

allow the purchase and development of a portion of

the Rutledge Property Superfund Site in Rock Hill,

SC, without incurring liability under CERCLA. 

Rock Hill Chemical Company operated a solvent

recovery facility at the Rutledge Property site from

1960 to 1965. Operations ceased in 1965 when a

fire destroyed the facility. A portion of this property

subsequently was purchased by First Federal Savings

Bank in 1972. First Federal discovered distillation

still bottoms, metal drums, and other hazardous

substances buried beneath a portion of the property. 

First Federal conducted a removal action on its

property which was completed in November 1986. 

In December 1993, the region entered into an AOC

with First Union, successor in interest to First

Federal. First Union paid EPA $150,000 as part of

that settlement. This prospective purchaser

agreement will allow the sale and development of the

property that was the subject of that settlement.

Taylor Road Landfill Site (Florida): Region 4

entered into the second of two successive AOCs with

54.9 percent of the 71 PRPs determined to be eligible

for de minimis settlement at this site for an aggregate

recovery of $343,634 of the total response costs

anticipated to be incurred at the site. In keeping

with the Agency’s de micromis policy as well as its

de minimis policy, the region determined that each of

these PRPs sent less than 1 percent, but more than

0.02 percent, of the waste identified as containing

hazardous substances that was land-filled at the site. 

Hillsborough County’s Taylor Road Landfill opened

in 1976 and closed in March 1980 when it was filled

to capacity. In October 1983, the site became one of

the first to be listed on the NPL. A RCRA consent

decree has been negotiated with all the non-de

minimis PRPs.

T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition Site (Georgia): On

May 2, 1997, Region 4 referred a CERCLA RD/RA

consent decree to DOJ for lodging and entry in

connection with OU-2 of the T.H. Agriculture and

Nutrition Site in Albany, GA. The consent decree

has been signed by four PRPs, including Air

Products and Chemicals, Inc., Boise Cascade

Corporation, and Gold Kist, Inc. (the successors to

three former owner/operators of an agricultural

chemical plant at the site). The consent decree also

has been signed by current owner Larry Jones, who

operates a welding supply store at the site. The

consent decree provides for Air Products, Boise

Cascade, and Gold Kist to conduct the RD/RA and

pay EPA’s oversight costs in overseeing

implementation of the RD/RA. The consent decree

also requires Larry Jones to provide access and

implement institutional controls required under the

ROD. The remedy for OU-2, estimated to cost $2.5

million, is to excavate and treat soils which are

contaminated above cleanup levels identified in the

ROD. Contaminated groundwater at the site and

contaminated soil at an adjacent parcel at the site are

addressed under OU-1, pursuant to a UAO issued to

PRPs connected with the adjacent property.

Townsend Saw Chain Company Site (South

Carolina): On April 14, 1997, a UAO for RD/RA

was issued to Textron, Inc., for the Townsend Saw

Chain Site. An interim remedial action UAO was

issued in May 1994. The order requires the

reimbursement of all response costs. The site was

used most recently for the manufacturing and

assembly of saw chains with wastewater and other

hazardous substances used and disposed of onsite. 

Wastes included chromium, cadmium, cyanide,

nitrite and nitrite salts, and volatile organic

compounds (VOCs). In addition to site monitoring,

the final remedy includes continued operation of a

five well pump-and-treat system, as well as the use

of an innovative, emerging technology (in situ

chromium reduction) for permanently treating

chromium-bearing soils and groundwater onsite.

CLEAN AIR ACT

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company

(Kentucky): On September 2, 1997, the U.S. filed a

civil action against E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and

Company (DuPont) for its violation of CAA §112(r)

and for its related violations of the reporting

requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA. The

violations arose out of a catastrophic release of

oleum (fuming sulfuric acid) at DuPont’s sulfuric

acid production plant near Wurtland, KY, which

resulted in the evacuation of the surrounding

community, personal injuries, and property damage. 

Region 4 contends that DuPont violated the general

duty clause (GDC) by using wholly inappropriate

piping material (cast iron) for oleum service.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-31 July 1998

The complaint seeks penalties of $25,000 for each

day of each violation and represents the Agency’s

first judicial enforcement action for violations of

CAA’s GDC. The GDC requires owners and

operators of stationary sources producing,

processing, handling, or storing hazardous

substances to design and maintain a safe facility. 

The GDC was enacted as part of CAA Amendments

of 1990 and is an important measure designed to

prevent and mitigate the consequences to the public

of potentially catastrophic releases of harmful

chemicals into the air.

NHP Management Company (Florida): Region 4

has referred a civil judicial enforcement action to

DOJ on NHP Management Company, Inc. (NHP),

the second largest multi-family apartment property

management company in the U.S., for violations of

CAA §608. Section 608 regulates the use and

disposal of CFCs and hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(HCFCs). Section 114 information request letters

and responses revealed violations of CFC regulations

concerning the maintenance and repair of air

conditioners. The violations included: failure to use

a certified technician for service or repair; failure to

use recovery equipment when performing major

repairs; and failure to inform a refrigerant supplier

of change of employment status of a certified

technician.

Powell Duffryn Terminals (Georgia): Region 4 has

referred a civil judicial enforcement action to DOJ

against Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc., for

violations of the GDC under CAA §112(r). An

industrial fire at the Savannah, GA, facility released

sodium hydrogen sulfide gas, causing the evacuation

of citizens from their homes. The release was the

result of several factors, including the improper

storage of sodium bisulfide, inadequate design of

vapor recovery systems for several turpentine tanks,

and a faulty fire protection system. This case has

national/regional significance as well as precedential

nature because the basis of the enforcement action is

CAA §112(r). 

CLEAN WATER ACT

Anderson Columbia, Inc. (Florida): Region 4

issued its first administrative penalty order (APO)

for violations of a Multi-Sector Storm Water General

Permit on August 26, 1997. The APO cited the

facility in Baghdad, FL, for unpermitted discharges;

failing to comply with conditions of the Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan in the NPDES permit; and

failing to comply with monitoring requirements of

the storm water NPDES permit.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-32

Crook Creek Farms, Inc., City of Destin, and the

Niceville, Valparaiso, Okaloosa County Regional

Sewer Board, Inc. (NVOCRSB) (Florida): As a

result of a citizen complaint, APOs were issued to

Cook Creek Farms, Inc., a land application site

operating company, and two of the municipalities

that haul their biosolids (the City of Destin and the

NVOCRSB) to the land application site for disposal. 

Each facility was cited for a variety of 40 CFR 503

violations, including vector/pathogen attraction

violations, operational standards, and record

keeping. Penalties assessed ranged from $6,000-

$16,466. 

Wagner Creek Watershed (Florida): The Miami

River Coordinating Committee was formed by the

Governor of Florida for the purpose of improving the

water quality of the Miami River. As a part of the

committee, the Storm Water Subcommittee, of which

Region 4 is a part, was formed to concentrate on

contamination in the Wagner Creek watershed since

Wagner Creek is one of Florida’s most polluted

creeks. In conjunction with other members of the

Subcommittee, 87 storm water inspections were

conducted during the week of April 21, 1997, at

metal recyclers along the Miami River, the “produce

area” of the upper Wagner Creek watershed, and

sub-basin No. 5 of upper Wagner Creek. As a result,

17 APOs were issued primarily to pallet companies

and metal recyclers along the Miami River. The

APOs cited illegal discharges without an NPDES

storm water permit. All 17 APOs were issued on

September 10, 1997, and assessed penalties ranging

from $4,000-$56,665.

EPCRA

State Industries (Tennessee): Region 4 settled a

multi-violation case with State Industries, a

manufacturer of water heaters located near

Nashville, TN. After gaining knowledge of a

sulfuric acid spill, Region 4 inspected the facility. 

Once a series of show-cause meetings was held with

State Industries, the region filed an administrative

complaint in this matter alleging 62 counts of

violations of EPCRA §§311, 312, and 313 and one

count of violations of CERCLA §103, with a

proposed penalty of $701,556. The case was settled

with a reduced penalty and a SEP involving the

purchase of over $300,000 of emergency response

equipment for the local area.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-33 July 1998

RCRA

Eagle Aviation (South Carolina): A complaint and

compliance order was filed on September 30, 1997,

citing Eagle Aviation, located in West Columbia,

SC, for violations of RCRA. Among other

violations, Eagle Aviation was treating and storing

hazardous waste in tanks without a permit or interim

status. Eagle Aviation is ordered to pay a civil

penalty of $380,050 for the violations and is required

to submit a closure plan for the tanks utilized for the

treatment and storage of hazardous waste. 

Additionally, Eagle Aviation is required to submit a

waste determination for the air filter waste stream; a

plan for the implementation and maintenance of

areas where hazardous waste is managed,

containerized, and stored; and a plan for the

implementation of a hazardous waste management

training program for facility personnel.

Exxon Company USA, Allied Terminals, Inc.

(South Carolina): The first RCRA voluntary

agreement to study the extent of contamination at a

facility was signed in September 1997 between

Exxon Company USA, Allied Terminals, Inc., EPA,

and the South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Allied

Terminals, the current owner of the facility in

Charleston, SC, and Exxon, the former owner, have

agreed to study the extent of contamination at the

site and perform corrective action, if necessary. This

facility began operations in the late 1800’s as a fuel

storage facility, was modified to a serve as a

petroleum refinery, and currently operates as a bulk

petroleum distribution terminal and asphalt plant. It

is believed that leaded gasoline storage tank bottoms

and asphalt were stored/disposed of at the facility

prior to the effective date of RCRA. This effort was

undertaken to maximize the available resources as

part of the Charleston/North Charleston Community

Based Environmental Program (CBEP).

Leading Edge Aircraft Painting, Inc. (Mississippi):

Region 4 filed a complaint and compliance order on

September 27, 1997, against Leading Edge Aircraft

Painting, Inc., of Greenville, MS, with a proposed

civil penalty of $128,810. The region alleged that

Leading Edge was operating a storage facility

without a permit; failed to make a hazardous waste

determination on numerous containers; failed to

keep containers closed; failed to mark a date of

accumulation on containers; failed to maintain the

facility to minimize any unplanned releases of

hazardous waste; and accumulated in excess of 55-

gallons of hazardous waste for a satellite

accumulation area. The compliant requires Leading

Edge to make hazardous waste determinations of its

waste streams, and submit relevant plans and permit

applications.

LWD, Inc. (Kentucky): In February 1997, the region

issued a RCRA §3013 Order to LWD Inc., in Calvert

City, KY. This facility is an unpermitted,

commercial incinerator of hazardous waste. In

conjunction with the permitting process, Region 4

and the Commonwealth of Kentucky requested that

the facility submit a trial burn plan, which when

implemented would support a site-specific risk

assessment. The site-specific risk assessment will be

used to define the emission limits to be implemented

in the permit. This approach is consistent with

EPA’s Hazardous Waste Combustion Strategy. Prior

to issuance of the order, LWD failed to submit a

requested trial burn plan. The order required LWD

to submit and implement an EPA-approved trial

burn plan, which now has been submitted and

currently is under review by the region. 

Safety-Kleen Corp. (Kentucky): Region 4 and

Safety-Kleen Corporation entered into a CACO with

a civil penalty of $62,650. The original complaint,

filed on September 30, 1996, cited the Kentucky

Safety-Kleen facility for violations of RCRA. 

Specifically, Safety-Kleen was operating three

hazardous waste treatment units without a permit. 

These units were overlooked in previous inspections

by the state and were not discovered until 1995

during an EPA-Kentucky inspection. This

settlement was very important to the national RCRA

program because it solidified the controversial issue

of defining treatment of hazardous waste. With this

CACO, Region 4 has provided the legal support for

definition of treatment as cited in the RCRA

regulations.

Somerset Refinery, Inc. (Kentucky): On July 28,

1997, DOJ filed a consent decree against Somerset

Refinery, Inc. (Somerset) in Somerset, KY. With

regard to RCRA Subtitle C, Region 4 claimed that

Somerset operated three hazardous waste

management units without a permit or interim

status. In addition, Region 4 asserted that the

facility was subject to RCRA §3008(h). In the

consent decree, Somerset agreed to pay a penalty of

$200,000 and to perform a SEP by removing 50

abandoned USTs from “Mom and Pop” owned
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-34

gasoline stations. Also, the consent decree requires

Somerset to close the RCRA regulated units pursuant

to approved closure plans, implement a groundwater

monitoring program, and conduct any corrective

action needed at the site.

Southland Oil Company (Mississippi): Consent

agreements were filed on May 22, 1997, for two

RCRA administrative cases involving the illegal

disposal of hazardous waste at two Southland

refineries in Mississippi. Southland Oil Company

illegally disposed of hazardous waste in surface

impoundments at its Lumberton and Sandersville

facilities. Southland was ordered to pay a combined

civil penalty of $338,300 for the violations at the two

facilities ($169,150 per facility), and is required to

close the impoundments pursuant to RCRA.

TSCA 

Southern Water Treatment, Inc. (South Carolina):

A TSCA civil complaint for Southern Water

Treatment, Inc., was filed on September 30, 1997. 

The complaint alleges violations of the

premanufacturing notice and inventory update rule

requirements. Consistent with the §5/8 Enforcement

Response Policy, the total penalty listed in the

complaint is $1,207,000. However, based on

financial information and use of the Ability to Pay

model, the proposed penalty was adjusted in the

complaint to $20,000. 

MULTIMEDIA

Trinity American Corp. (North Carolina): The

Trinity American Corporation, located in High

Point, NC, is a foam manufacturing facility for the

furniture industry. Region 4 issued an emergency

administrative order under SDWA §1431 to the

facility on July 1, 1997. The order was issued to the

facility for contamination of groundwater causing

contamination of private drinking water wells in the

area near the facility. The order requires the

sampling of all private drinking water wells within a

3/4 mile radius south and west of the facility

property. Trinity has filed for a stay of the order

with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Trinity

did agree to provide bottled water to a family whose

well showed contamination above the MCL for one

regulated contaminant. The first round of quarterly

sampling of private drinking water wells is

scheduled to begin on November 17, 1997.

In addition, in accordance with the CAA §303,

Region 4 issued an Imminent and Substantial

Endangerment Administrative Order on October 3,

1997, to prohibit manufacturing operations at Trinity

until EPA could determine that continued operations

would not present an imminent and substantial

endangerment to the health and welfare of nearby

residents. Trinity American Corporation owns and

operates Trinity Foam, which is located in the

Glenola Community of Randolph County. Trinity

Fibers of Carolina, Inc., owns and operates the fiber

pad manufacturing plant adjacent to the foam plant. 

The manufacturing process at both facilities has

resulted in the release of hazardous air pollutants

and toxic and extremely hazardous substances

including toluene diisocyanate, methylene chloride,

acrylamide, formaldehyde, benzene, and other

unknown VOCs and particulate matter (PM).
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-35 July 1998

REGION 5

CERCLA

Arcanum Iron and Metal Site (Ohio): The Arcanum

Iron and Metal Site located in Arcanum, OH,

functioned primarily as a battery breaking and lead

extraction facility. An ROD was issued at a cost of

approximately $19 million dollars. An ROD

amendment, finalized on June 18, 1997, was

implemented pursuant to Superfund Administrative

Reforms and significantly reduced the estimated

cleanup costs at the site to approximately $5.8

million.

Under another Superfund administrative reform,

EPA offered a reduction of past costs and future

oversight through an orphan share reduction of $1.6

million. Several PRPs at the site are insolvent or

defunct, and hence provided site eligibility for this

Superfund administrative reform. Negotiations

should conclude shortly and have been enhanced by

the availability of the orphan share compensation.

Circle Smelting Corp. Site (Illinois): EPA

conducted one of the first EE/CA under the

Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)

program in Region 5 at the Circle Smelting

Corporation Site located in Beckemeyer, IL. The

EE/CA evaluated non-time critical removal

approaches to address lead contaminated smelter

waste materials for fast-track implementation. 

Historical practices at the site resulted in transport of

the contaminated slag materials from the site to

community areas for road and sidewalk bases and fill

for construction activities. Slag also was transported

offsite into nearby streams and wetlands. 

Pursuant to an AOC, the PRP has agreed to conduct

approximately $11 million of removal activities and

to pay past costs and future EPA oversight costs. 

The site cleanup objectives include the identification

and removal of soils and sediments with lead

concentrations above the respective action levels

from the residential areas, drainage ways and pond

bottom areas, and the consolidation of excavated

materials under a protective cap. In addition, the

work performed under the AOC will provided for

future redevelopment of an area of the site,

furthering the goals of the Brownfields Initiative.

Union Carbide Marietta Site (Ohio): Region 5

approved the Union Carbide Marietta Plant Site

Action Plan in November 1997. Originally

scheduled for a seven-year cleanup time line, the site

schedule now is targeted for completion in five years

at a cost of $50 million dollars. The site is located in

a highly industrialized area in Warren Township,

OH, near the Ohio River. Contamination present on

site includes soils containing dioxins and VOCs, as

well as the presence of VOCs in groundwater.

The response actions undertaken at the site will be

conducted pursuant to an AOC. This non-time

critical removal action consists of the excavation and

consolidation of dioxin-contaminated soils; the

excavation and consolidation or in situ soil vapor

extraction of VOC-contaminated soils; the

construction of a hydraulic barrier around the waste

area considered the primary source of groundwater

contamination; the excavation and on-site

consolidation of contaminated sediments located in a

creek, as well as additional protective measures

implementing the Site Action Plan. The settlement

also provides for the payment of all EPA past costs,

payment of $100,000 per year for EPA oversight

contractor costs, and payment of other future costs

incurred by EPA. The remedy undertaken pursuant

to the AOC will provide for future redevelopment of

a portion of the site, furthering the goals articulated

in the Brownfield initiative.

CLEAN AIR ACT

LTV Steel Company (Illinois): On April 29, 1997,

the United States district court for the Northern

District of Illinois approved a consent decree signed

by LTV Steel Company, Inc. (LTV) to resolve

alleged CAA violations. Specifically, LTV’s

Chicago facility violated a permit to construct and

operate a coke battery and violated the NESHAP

applicable to emissions from coke batteries. 

According to the terms of the consent decree, LTV

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1.25 million for its

permit and NESHAP violations. Because LTV had

completed a coke battery rebuild, thereby eliminating

the source of its excess air emissions, no injunctive

relief was required to resolve the violations. As part

of this settlement, LTV agreed to a SEP to install

jumper pipes on the No. 2 coke oven battery. This
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-36

will allow for emission control with a self-contained

battery coke oven gas collection air emissions,

including approximately 45 tons per year of VOCs. 

This SEP is particularly important given LTV’s

location on the southeast side of Chicago, an EJ area

of concern to Region 5. LTV will spend

approximately $1.8 million to install this project.

Shell Oil Company and Shell Wood River Refining

(Illinois): On June 20, 1997, the United States filed

a complaint and lodged with the U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of Illinois a consent decree

resolving a CAA civil action alleging violations of

the benzene waste NESHAP. Under the terms of the

consent decree, Shell Oil Company and Shell Wood

River Refining Company (Shell) will install an

enhanced biodegradation unit to control benzene

emissions from the cooling tower makeup water. 

Shell has estimated the control device will cost

approximately $8 million. In addition, in

accordance with the NESHAP, Shell will document

its mitigation of lost benzene emissions for a total

mitigation goal of 123 mg, or submit a plan to

mitigate the lost of benzene emissions. Shell must

also pay a civil penalty of $678,000.

CLEAN WATER ACT

Hudson Foods, Inc. (Indiana): This case involved a

large Hudson Foods poultry processing plant located

in Corydon, IN. Region 5 referred this matter to

DOJ, which filed suit against Hudson Foods seeking

to make federally enforceable its commitment

resulting from previous administrative orders, to

support the improvements to the Corydon POTW

and to recover a penalty for the long period of time

during which Hudson Foods caused the downstream

POTW to violate its ammonia limits. After

significant litigation, Hudson Foods agreed in a

consent decree entered with the court on January 6,

1997, to pay a $501,000 cash penalty and to do SEPs

costing no less than $300,000 (after tax value). The

SEPs that Hudson Foods agreed to perform are

unique in that they involved controls that had not

been used previously in the poultry processing

industry. 

Hudson Foods spent approximately four times as

much on these screen systems as it was required to

spend under the consent decree. Hudson Foods

installed ten secondary screens at its plants

throughout the country, including three at the

Corydon, IN, plant, and will install one more by

February 1998. These screens filter out solid

pollutants from the waste stream that is sent to the

POTW, reducing the ammonia loading to the

POTW. Each of these screens costs between $90,000

and $100,000, making this part of the SEP worth

over $1 million. 

This technology is important because the poultry

processing industry has a history of overloading the

treatment plants to which they discharge. If Hudson

finds this technology to be cost effective, Hudson’s

publication of this finding will help other poultry

processors effectively pretreat their wastewater,

making it much less likely that toxic ammonia will

be discharged to the waters of the U.S. This

technology also may be effective in other industries.

London Aggregate (Michigan): London Aggregate

(LA) operates a limestone, sand, and clay quarry in

Monroe County, MI. It was classified as a minor

discharger, and the load limits for dissolved solids

and dissolved oxygen reflected that classification. 

However, LA expanded its operation, causing

significant violations of both dissolved solids and

dissolved oxygen and apparent corresponding

impacts on the biota in the receiving stream. A

federal administrative order was issued; to date, LA

chose to address only a portion of the actions

required under the order. 

EPCRA

B.P. Chemicals, Inc. (Ohio): On February 3, 1997,

EPA filed a CACO to settle the administrative

complaint against B.P. Chemicals, Inc., of Lima,

OH. The complaint that was filed on April 28, 1995,

alleged violations of both EPCRA §304 and

CERCLA §103. On April 19, 1992, the facility did

not notify the National Response Center or the Ohio

SERC until 13 hours after it had knowledge that the

release exceeded the reportable quantity (RQ). 

Additionally, the facility failed to provide a written

follow-up report as soon as practicable to the SERC

and the LEPC. The facility provided this report 19

days after the release. During the settlement

discussions, B.P. Chemicals advised the EPA they

wanted to perform a SEP. This project is to install

three emergency warning sirens around the facility. 

Union Tank Car Company (Indiana): Region 5

settled an enforcement action against Union Tank

Car Company of East Chicago, IN, for failing to
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-37 July 1998

timely file 26 Form Rs. Settlement terms included a

SEP that reduced the use and release of toxic

chemicals by 120,900 pounds per year. As part of

the SEP, Union Tank Car agreed to convert from

solvent-based painting operations to water based.

United Dominican Industries (Ohio): Region 5

settled an enforcement action for failing to timely

file eight Form Rs against United Dominican

Industries of Vanhert, OH. Settlement terms

included a SEP that reduced the use and release of

toxic chemicals by 126,200 pounds per year. As part

of the SEP, Union Dominican Industries agreed to

converted from using a solvent-based adhesive to a

water-based adhesive. 

FIFRA

3M (Minnesota): On March 13, 1997, Region 5

issued a “Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order,” to

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M), St.

Paul, Minnesota, to immediately stop selling and

distributing several unregistered kitchen products

with pesticidal claims. The products, which were

sold nationwide, are: O-Cel-O Sponge, O-Cel-O

Sponge Scrubber KITCHEN, O-Cel-O Sponge

Scrubber COOKWARE, and other 3M products. All

of the products made the following claims on their

labels: “Kills Germs! Like Salmonella & E. coli in

the Sponge,” “Kills germs that cause food borne

illnesses,” and “Kills Salmonella, E. coli and Staph

Bacteria in the sponge.”

On March 18, 1997, Region 5 issued an

“Amendment to Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order to

Allow Sale Under Certain Terms and Conditions.” 

This amended order allowed 3M to distribute the

violative product for 90 days if placards were placed

in stores next to the O-Cel-O sponges that read:

“Does not disinfect or kill germs on surfaces. Use

standard precautions to prevent transmission of food

borne illnesses like salmonella, E. Coli, and staph,”

and, if all advertising making the germ-killing

claims referenced above were withdrawn. 3M also

required operators of their customer service

information line to inform consumers about O-Cel-O

products that the sponges do not disinfect or kill

germs on surfaces and to use standard sanitary

precautions in the kitchen.

A complaint and CACO were filed simultaneously

by Region 5 on September 29, 1997. The actions

resolved the violations discovered in March 1997

concerning 3M’s sale of unregistered products. 3M

agreed to pay $238,000 and has also spent at least

$300,000 in corrective advertising.

EKCO Housewares, Inc. (Illinois): On April 28,

1997, Region 5 issued a Stop Sale and Removal

Order to EKCO Housewares, Inc., of Franklin Park,

Illinois, stopping the sale and distribution of

EKCO’s entire line of “Germ Away Antibacterial”

products, including kitchen sponges, brushes and

cutting boards. The products all made pesticidal

claims like “antibacterials” and “prevents germs.” 

On May 6, 1997, an amended order was issued to

EKCO allowing the distribution of violative product

that was stickered with language explaining the

products do not disinfect surfaces and warning

consumers to use standard precautions to prevent the

transmission of food-borne illnesses. An

administrative complaint and CACO were

simultaneously filed on May 28, 1997, in which

EKCO agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty.

RCRA

Lafarge Corporation (Ohio): On February 18, 1997,

a CA/FO was filed with the regional hearing clerk

for Lafarge Corporation (Lafarge), located in

Paulding, OH. The CA/FO resolves a September 27,

1993, complaint and proposed compliance order that

alleged violations of the Standards for Hazardous

Waste Burned in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces

(the boilers and industrial furnaces [BIF] rule). The

CA/FO requires Lafarge to pay a civil penalty in the

amount of $69,400 and to include malfunctions of its

BIF monitoring and recording systems as a

parameter to cause an automatic waste feed cutoff for

Kilns 1 and 2 when hazardous waste is in the

system. The CA/FO also required Lafarge to

perform a SEP. The SEP, which was implemented

in 1995, involved the construction and operation of a

cement kiln dust (CKD) recovery system. The

recovery system recycles CKD back into each of

Lafarge’s two kilns via a dust scoop system. 

Recycling the CKD reduces the amount of waste that

is land-filled by approximately 3,000 tons/month and

reduces the fugitive emissions by an estimated 8,795

pounds/year.

Reilly Industries, Inc. (Indiana): On May 29, 1997,

Region 5 executed a CA/FO resolving RCRA claims

against Reilly Industries, Inc., for violations at the

company’s facility in Indianapolis, IN. Pursuant to

the CA/FO, Reilly will pay a civil penalty of
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-38

$400,000. On February 23, 1994, Region 5 filed a

complaint pursuant to §3008(a) of RCRA against

Reilly for failure to submit required feed rate

information, failure to conduct an adequate

certification of precompliance, failure to comply with

applicable §265 standards, failure to conduct an

adequate certification of compliance, failure to

operate an adequate automatic waste feed cut-off

(AWFCO) system, failure to conduct and document

weekly inspections of the AWFCO system, failure to

adequately monitor and record feed rate limits, and

various exceedences of maximum feed rate limits. 

The complaint included a proposed penalty of

approximately $1.7 million. After the complaint was

filed, Reilly resolved outstanding RCRA compliance

issues.

SDWA

Gordon Tuck and Harry Stephens (Michigan): On

August 6, 1997, Gordon Tuck and Harry Stephens

(T&S) were ordered to comply immediately with

EPA’s final administrative order (FAO) issued to

them in September 1994. The FAO required T&S to

plug and abandon an injection well and pay a civil

penalty of $75,800 (plus interest and late fees). In

addition, the judge ordered T&S to pay an additional

$50,000 penalty for their noncompliance with the

FAO. 

TSCA

Murphy Oil Corporation (Wisconsin): Region 5

issued a TSCA civil complaint against Murphy Oil

Corporation in July 1993 for late submission of

TSCA Inventory Update Reports for 41 chemicals. 

The complaint sought $246,000 in penalties. Region

5 and Murphy settled the case through a CACO,

which was filed on September 19, 1997. Murphy

agreed to pay a penalty of $48,450. 

MULTIMEDIA

American National Can Company (Northern

District of Indiana): On July 10, 1997, the United

States District Court for the Northern District of

Indiana entered a consent decree resolving the

United States’ complaint against American National

Can Company (ANC), which alleged violations of

RCRA and EPCRA at the ANC Hammond, IN,

facility. The consent decree provides for payment of

a $400,000 civil penalty, expenditure of at least

$30,000 to evaluate a SEP, and acknowledges that,

subsequent to the complaint, ANC sold and no

longer owns or conducts any business or commercial

activities at the Hammond facility. ANC paid the

$400,000 civil penalty on August 5, 1997. This

consent decree resolves the first District Court

complaint alleging data quality errors as violations

of EPCRA §313.

Region V conducted a multimedia inspection of the

ANC Hammond facility from September 14 through

18, 1992, as part of the geographic enforcement

initiative for northwest Indiana. Although the

facility generates hazardous waste, it is not a

permitted treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD)

facility subject to the full requirements of RCRA. 

On February 8, 1995, the United States filed a

complaint against ANC for violations at its

Hammond, IN, facility of RCRA, relating to the

storage and management of solvent hazardous

wastes. The complaint also alleged violations of

EPCRA relating to the failure to report, or

accurately report, information regarding the use of

several toxic chemicals at the facility, pursuant to

§313 of EPCRA. 

Sherwin-Williams (Illinois): This multimedia

enforcement action, which was filed in July 1993,

involved allegations of violations of the CAA, CWA,

RCRA, and EPCRA at a Sherwin-Williams resin

and paint manufacturing facility on the south side of

Chicago. Following extensive document discovery

and depositions, the parties reached an agreement in

principle in December 1995, and agreement on the

terms of a consent decree in the fall of 1996. 

Administrator Browner announced the lodging of the

decree in January 1997. In addition to the $4.7

million civil penalty, full compliance with applicable

statutes and regulations, and facility-wide corrective

action pursuant to §3008(h) of RCRA, the settlement

includes two innovative SEPs: a $950,000

remediation project at a brownfield site in an

environmental justice community near the SherwinWilliams facility and a $150,000 wetland restoration

project near the facility. A local community group

objected to the consent decree, arguing that a

different location closer to the facility should have

been chosen for the brownfield SEP. However,

following a hearing on the matter, the judge in the

case noted that the alternative site in question was

being addressed by EPA in separate actions, and

concluded that the decree was lawful and fair.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-39 July 1998

 REGION 6

CERCLA

Bayou Bonfouca Superfund Site (Louisiana): On

June 23, 1997, the court entered a final judgment

approving the $20 million cost recovery consent

decree with Kerr-McGee Corporation and KerrMcGee Chemical Corporation (collectively KerrMcGee). In addition, on July 31, 1997, the court

entered final judgement approving a $3.6 million

cost recovery consent decree between the U.S. and

Fleming American Investment Trust plc (FAIT), a

British corporation. Region 6 still is pursuing

additional parties for the remaining costs associated

with the site.

Dixie Oil Processors Site (Texas): On July 31,

1997, the court ruled on U.S. v. Lowe, on appeal

from the District Court for the Southern District of

Texas, Galveston Division. The court explicitly

rejected the Third Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Rohm

& Haas and held that responsible parties are liable

for the government’s costs incurred in overseeing

private parties’ performance of removal and

remedial actions. 

Gurley Pits NPL Site and South 8th Street Landfill

NPL Site (Arkansas): On August 15, 1997, the court

ruled in the bankruptcy trial U.S. v. Gurley that

assets valued at approximately $19 million, which

the U.S. and trustee contended were transferred by

improperly William M. Gurley to his wife, will be

included as part of the bankruptcy estate. The court

ruled that Gurley was the equitable owner of the

assets and ordered that the assets will satisfy the

U.S.’s claims against Gurley at these two sites where

he is a PRP. In addition, the court refused to grant a

discharge to Gurley because of false representations

which he made in the bankruptcy proceedings. 

Odessa Chromium II North Site (Texas): On July

24, 1997, the court ruled in U.S. v. Chromalloy

American Corp. that Sequa Corporation must

reimburse Region 6 for oversight costs billed

pursuant to its RD/RA consent decree with Sequa. 

The court rejected Rohm & Haas as “incorrectly

decided” and found that EPA had provided adequate

cost documentation of Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

costs challenged by the Sequa. 

Vertac Superfund Site (Arkansas): On May 22,

1997, the court entered a memorandum opinion

adjudging Uniroyal Chemical Ltd. (Uniroyal) jointly

and severally liable to the U.S. and the Arkansas

Department of Pollution Control and Ecology

(ADPC&E) as an arranger for past and future

response costs both on and off the Vertac site. 

Additionally, the court found Uniroyal liable in

contribution to Hercules, Inc., and Hercules liable in

contribution to Uniroyal. The court previously

granted a summary judgment to the U.S. on the issue

of Hercules’ joint and several liability for past and

future response costs.

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S. v. Formosa Plastics Corp. (Texas): On May

16, 1997, a final consent decree in the civil judicial

action was entered against Formosa Plastics. This

case involved violations of the following CAA

provisions: 1) Standards of Performance for

Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic

Chemicals Manufacturing Industry found in 40 CFR

60, Subpart VV; 2) National Emission Standards for

Vinyl Chloride found in 40 CFR 61, Subpart F; 3)

National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks

from Fugitive Emission Sources found in 

40 CFR 61, Subpart V; and 4) National Emission

Standard for Benzene Waste Operations found in 40

CFR 61, Subpart FF. To settle the case, Formosa

agreed to undertake a $6.6 million SEP which, after

taking into account operational savings that will

result from the installation of newer and more

sophisticated equipment, is calculated to have an

after-tax net present value of at least $640,000. In

addition, Formosa will pay a cash penalty of

$150,000.

U.S. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Company (Texas):

On February 3, 1997, Region 6 filed a civil

complaint against Lyondell Petrochemical Company

for violating the CAA. The NESHAP violations

were identified during a September 1992 EPA

inspection of Lyondell’s petroleum refinery in

Houston, TX. The assessed penalty against Lyondell

was $158,515. The Joint Stipulation and Order of

Dismissal was entered on February 10, 1997.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-40

CLEAN WATER ACT

Yaffe Iron and Metal Co., Inc. (Oklahoma): A

consent decree was filed February 26, 1997,

requiring injunctive relief in the form of a

multimedia environmental audit, a $150,000 penalty,

and stipulated penalties for violations of the consent

decree. Yaffe owns and operates a metals recycling

facility in Muskogee, OK. On June 23, 1995, the

U.S. filed a complaint against Yaffe alleging that

Yaffe violated CWA by discharging pollutants into

waters of the U.S. without an NPDES permit.

EPCRA

Union Carbide Corp., Taft Plant (Louisiana): On

June 27, 1997, a complaint and consent agreement

and consent order were issued jointly to Union

Carbide’s Taft Plant in Hahnville, LA. The

complaint alleges that Union Carbide failed to

submit a timely, complete, and correct TRI reporting

Form R for the reporting year of 1995 for

dicyclopentadiene. The amount of the calculated

penalty in the complaint was $21,055. In

researching EPA files on this plant, it was

discovered that Taft had a previous, closely-related

violation--not reporting silver on Form Rs for

reporting years 1992 and 1993. Settlement of the

CACO was reached and a penalty of $19,000 was

paid by Union Carbide on July 30, 1997.

RCRA

Marine Shale Processors (MSP/GTX) (Louisiana):

A consent decree was filed and lodged, awarding

the U.S. $8.5 million in penalties for alleged RCRA

violations by MSP. The penalty has grown to

slightly over $9.2 million, and upon entry,

MSP/GTX will pay $2.25 million to the U.S. and

$1.75 million to the state. The remainder of the

funds in the registry may be withdrawn by the

plaintiffs anytime after the final effective date of the

consent decree ($3.5 million for the U.S., $5 million

for the state). The consent decree also requires the

following: GTX is prohibited from operating until it

receives all necessary permits under RCRA, CAA

and CWA; GTX has five years to obtain a landfill

permit including four one-year extensions; and

within 60 days of entry of the consent decree, GTX

must submit a plan for the consolidation of all ash at

the facility not located in the Solid Waste

Management Unit (SWMU). Within 90 days of

approval of the plan, GTX must remove the ash at

off-site locations in accordance with the remedial

investigation plan. All ash eventually will be

disposed of at a Subtitle C landfill. 

SDWA

Cuna Del Valle (Texas): Region 6, Headquarters,

and DOJ filed federal lawsuits against colonia

developers in an effort to address the environmental

problems under the emergency powers provision of

the SDWA. The first case, Cuna del Valle colonia in

El Paso County, TX, was referred for civil action in

September 1995, and a consent decree was filed

simultaneously with the complaint on April 16,

1997, which requires the defendants to perform

injunctive relief and stipulated penalties for violation

of the consent decree.

U.S. (Sac and Fox Nation) v. Tenneco Oil

Company (Oklahoma): A consent decree was filed

and entered on June 2, 1997, requiring Tenneco Oil

Company to provide the Sac and Fox Nation of

Oklahoma with a potable water supply of 207

sustainable gallons per minute and $1.16 million in

cash ($85,000 of which is restricted for certain

cleanup, remediation, and other purposes). As a

whole, the dollar value of the settlement agreement

is over $3.5 million. On January 31, 1996, DOJ

filed a complaint against Tenneco on behalf of EPA,

DOI, the Sac and Fox Nation. The complaint sought

punitive and exemplary damages, injunctive relief,

and an order of abatement to redress continuing

injuries related to the pollution of the surface

resources and groundwater of the Nation. Tenneco

and its predecessor companies operated oil leases on

the Sac and Fox Nation from 1924 to 1989.

TSCA

Oklahoma Metal Processing Company, Inc., d/b/a/

Houston Metal Processing Company, and Newell

Recycling Company, Inc. (Oklahoma): On October

7, 1997, the judge assessed a $1,345,000 civil

penalty against Newell Recycling Company, Inc.

(Newell). This is the largest TSCA PCB penalty

amount ever awarded by an EPA administrative law

judge (ALJ). Newell owned a scrap metal facility in

Houston, TX, from 1974 until approximately

September 1982, at which point in time it sold the

facility to Oklahoma Metal Processing Company,

Inc., d/b/a Houston Metal Processing Company

(HMPC). As part of the sales agreement between

Newell and HMPC, Newell agreed to retain liability
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-41 July 1998

for anything which arose during the course of its

ownership of the site. In 1984, HMPC discovered

lead contaminated soil at the site and contacted

Newell. During Newell’s cleanup of the lead

contaminated soil, 41 capacitors containing PCBscontaminated oil were excavated. The capacitors

were disposed of properly; however, the soil was

piled next to the excavation area for at least ten years

while Newell and HMPC argued as to who was

responsible for the disposal. Samples of the soil

taken during an EPA inspection on September 10,

1992, confirmed the presence of PCBs at

concentrations above the regulatory threshold of 50

parts per million (ppm). EPA issued a civil

administrative complaint against HMPC and Newell

in March 1994. The judge found that the improper

disposal of PCBs by the parties was a continuing

violation, and granted the full penalty amount

requested by EPA. Newell filed an appeal in the

case on October 30, 1997.

MULTIMEDIA

U.S. v. EXXON Corp. (Louisiana): On October 9,

1996, a joint stipulation and order of dismissal was

filed. Exxon Corporation paid a civil penalty of

$209,600 to the U.S. for the following violations at

its Baton Rouge refinery: failure to provide 30 days

notice of performance test under CAA; NPDES

monitoring, reporting, and effluent violations under

CWA; and unmarked, open, and leaking solvent

containers under RCRA. The penalty allocation was

$20,000 for CAA, $73,000 for RCRA, and $116,600

for CWA violations. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-42

REGION 7

CERCLA

Des Moines TCE Site (Iowa): On September 22,

1997, the Environmental Appeals Board dismissed

Dico, Inc.’s, petition for reimbursement under

CERCLA §106(b). Dico’s Des Moines facility is

located directly across the Raccoon River from the

Des Moines Water Works, which provides drinking

water to Des Moines and several surrounding

communities serving over 250,000 customers. 

Volatile organic chemical contamination from

Dico’s facility forced the Des Moines Water Works

to abandon a portion of its underground gallery

system used to obtain its water supply. In July 1986,

after attempts to negotiate a consent order failed,

Region 7 issued a UAO requiring Dico to design,

install, and operate a remedial action to prevent the

migration of VOC-contamination from Dico’s

property to the water works gallery system.

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite, U.S. Cooperative

Producers, Inc., and Farmland Industries, Inc.: In

FY97, EPA entered into a consent decree under

CERCLA §§106 and 107 with the settling

defendants. These settling defendants agreed to

perform the source control remedial action at the

FAR-MAR-CO Subsite of the Hastings Groundwater

Contamination Site (HGWCS) using soil vapor

extraction (SVE). The settling defendants agreed to

operate the SVE system for at least two years beyond

the time when performance standards are met so that

the SVE system will draw contaminants off of the

groundwater and thereby reduce the source that has

reached the groundwater. The settling defendants

also agreed to pay the U.S. $954,019 in past costs

and pay future costs which include oversight

incurred in connection with both the source control

and groundwater operable units.

City of Hastings (Nebraska): The City of Hastings,

NE, entered into a Prospective Purchaser Agreement

(PPA) with EPA on September 15, 1997. The city

sought to purchase property that was part of the

Hastings Groundwater Contamination Site

(HGWCS). The agreement provides the city

protection from a CERCLA suit by EPA or any party

when the city purchases property owned by the

Union Pacific Railroad that is part of the HGWCS. 

Presently, source control and groundwater actions

are underway at the Colorado Avenue Subsite of the

HGWCS. As consideration for the protection and

covenant not to sue, the city will provide access to

EPA or any party performing response actions at the

subsite, such as for the installation of a water line

that can be used to pump treated water from the

subsite to a disposal area. 

Jasper Counter Superfund Site and Cherokee

County Superfund Site (Missouri): These sites are

listed on the NPL; both counties are part of the TriState Mining District and are an inactive lead and

zinc mining area containing over ten million tons of

surface mining wastes. On December 12, 1996, the

court entered a $1 million settlement with FSN, the

corporate successor of a former owner/operator. In

May 1997, the court approved a settlement with

Connor Investment, a current landowner at the site

that also owned property at the time of disposal of

the mining wastes. Since Conner had no assets other

than the 250 acre parcel of land at the site, Connor

gave EPA and the state full access to the land as long

as necessary for use as the on-site repository in

exchange for a covenant not to sue. 

In July 1997, the court approved a bankruptcy

settlement with Eagle Picher (EP), one of the major

mining companies in the area. Under the terms of

the settlement, EP agreed to pay EPA significant

money in exchange for a covenant not to sue. 

Region 7 received $6,107,368 for the Jasper County

site and $2,325,042 for the Cherokee County site. In

addition, the region received $1,404,849 in past

costs for the Cherokee County site.

Meramec Marine Shipyard (Missouri): On

September 24, 1997, Meramec Marine Shipyard and

three of its officers were sentenced to pay a fine of

$125,000, as well as $30,000 restitution to EPA for

RCRA and CERCLA violations. On July 3, 1997,

Edward T. Dlubac, Edward Theordore Dlubac,

Thomas Dlubac, and Meramec Marine Shipyard,

Inc., pleaded guilty to charges including illegally

disposing of hazardous wastes and polluting the

Meramec River wetlands. These Meramec Marine

Shipyard employees occasionally pumped bilge

waters from vessels and dumped containers of waste

petroleum products into the Meramec River. 

Ignitable hazardous wastes containing toxic levels of
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-43 July 1998

benzene were buried at the shipyard along with cans

of ignitable paint waste containing toxic levels of

chromium and lead. The case was investigated

cooperatively by EPA’s Criminal Investigation

Division and the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources.

Norandex, Inc., and the City of Joplin (Missouri):

The U.S. entered into a prospective purchaser

agreement with Norandex, Inc., and the City of

Joplin, MO, regarding the purchase by Norandex of

property within the Jasper County Superfund Site. 

EPA issued an ROD for the site in 1996 for cleanup

of residential yards contaminated with lead from

inactive lead smelter operations and for a health

education program for the residents. Approximately

6,000 residences are within the areas of concern at

the site. The agreement provides that the company

pay $10,000 to the City of Joplin Health Department;

the funds will be used toward the health education

component of the ROD. Under the agreement,

Norandex receives a CERCLA covenant not to sue

for its potential liability as the owner of property

located within a Superfund NPL site. There will be

a substantial benefit to the environment by educating

residents on the dangers of lead contamination. 

North Ridge Homes: In January 1997, EPA and

North Ridge Homes entered into a prospective

purchaser agreement for the MRM Superfund Site,

under which North Ridge will pay EPA $20,000 and

implement deed restrictions in exchange for a

covenant not to sue from EPA. The site was utilized

formerly as a brass reclamation facility by MRM

Industries. MRM abandoned the facility and went

bankrupt in 1990, leaving behind significant

contamination. The property, which is located in an

industrial park and contains a 100,000 square foot

industrial building constructed in 1988, has been

vacant since that time. EPA performed a fund-led

removal action at the site in 1996, at a cost of

approximately $450,000.

Prier Brass Superfund Site (Missouri): EPA entered

into a prospective purchaser agreement on August

13, 1997, at the Prier Brass Superfund Site in

Kansas City, MO. In exchange for EPA’s standard

covenants not to sue in prospective purchaser

agreements, the purchaser paid EPA $50,000 and

filed deed restrictions requiring it to maintain the

protective cover at the site. The new purchaser also

paid the county $25,000. The foundry site formerly

was the subject of a $2.5 million EPA-funded

removal action in 1995 to address lead

contamination. The former foundry operator had

undergone bankruptcy. The property was being held

by the county land trust for the non-payment of

taxes. The new owner will operate its construction

and demolition business at the site.

U.S. v. Russel Bliss, Jerry Bliss, and George Bliss

(Missouri): A referral was initiated as a result of an

unsatisfied judgment against Russell Bliss, the

person responsible for spreading dioxin

contamination at 28 sites in Eastern Missouri in the

early 1970s. Russell Bliss has been a defendant in

numerous actions brought by the U.S. regarding the

dioxin contamination. However, he has never paid

any money to the U.S. due to his inability to pay, a

circumstance that has been investigated many times. 

The two judgments are for the amounts of $94,786

and $320,160 for the Rosalie and Callahan sites. As

a result of the two unsatisfied judgements, a

fraudulent conveyance action was filed against

Russell Bliss and his two sons, Jerry and George

Bliss, regarding the 1992 sale of a piece of property

owned by Russell, Jerry, and George Bliss for less

than value. This action was subject to mediation in

July 1997. As a result of mediation, the U.S. agreed

to accept $30,000 in settlement of the fraudulent

conveyance and the underlying collection action. 

U.S. v. TIC Investment and Stratton Georgoulis

(Iowa): On January 13, 1997, the U.S. lodged a

CERCLA consent decree providing for recovery of

$530,000 in past costs incurred at the White Farm

Equipment Dump Site in Charles City, IA, and

payment by the defendants of $100,000 in civil

penalties for violations of CERCLA §104(e). In the

settlement of this case, the Agency 1) demonstrated

resolve to pursue non-settlors; 2) established

precedent in the Eighth Circuit on novel issues of

parent corporation and corporate officer arranger

liability under CERCLA; 3) achieved PRP clean-up

of the site and recovery of nearly all of costs and

prejudgment interest; and 4) collected a substantial

penalty under §104(e), thereby sending a message to

the regulated community as to the consequences of

failing to fully and truthfully respond to CERCLA

information requests.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-44

CLEAN AIR ACT

Stiffler, Carl & Jean, d/b/a Southwest Wrecking

Company (Shallow Water Refinery) (Kansas): The

first CAA §303 administrative emergency order in

the nation under the 1990 CAA Amendments was

issued by Region 7 on June 5, 1997. The

respondents, who specialize in reclamation activities,

purchased the Shallow Water Refinery

approximately three years ago. The refinery closed

and the respondents were salvaging the metal

components from the facility. 

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment

(KDHE) had been conducting periodic inspections to

monitor compliance with the asbestos NESHAP

requirements at the demolition site. KDHE

conducted an inspection of the site in late May 1997,

and discovered that a 100 foot tall tower which was

covered with asbestos-containing insulation, had

been cut down, covering the area with dry asbestoscontaining insulation debris. The respondents’

grandchildren were playing in and around the

asbestos at the site. In response to KDHE’s request

for an immediate response to this hazard, the region

issued an emergency order under CAA §303

requiring the respondents to stop all activities at the

site, to restrict access to the site, and to prepare a

plan to come into compliance with the NESHAP for

asbestos. The respondents complied with the

emergency order.

CLEAN WATER ACT

City of Sedalia (Missouri): An administrative order

for compliance and a complaint were simultaneously

issued on November 22, 1996, to the City of Sedalia,

MO, for the city’s failure to implement and enforce

its pretreatment program. The violations first were

identified in an inspection conducted by the region

during the summer of 1995 with a written warning

by the region to the city to correct the violations and

be prepared for a follow-up inspection the following

year. In the summer of 1996, the inspector returned

to the city and found that the deficiencies had not

been corrected, resulting in the issuance of this

action. Violations included the city’s failure to

develop and implement an enforcement response

plan; failure to implement procedures to ensure

industrial users are in compliance with pretreatment

standards and requirements; failure to issue permits

or other control mechanisms containing correct

discharge limits for two industrial users; and failure

to perform local limits analyses for two of its

pretreatment plants. The parties reached an

agreement to settle the matter for a penalty of

$50,000 and correction of the violations.

Halls Ferry Center, Inc., and Halak, Inc.

(Missouri): On June 30, 1997, EPA filed an

administrative complaint and compliance order for

violations of CWA §404 in connection with the

excavation of two ditches within a forested wetland

area north of St. Louis, MO. The excavated ditches

discharged into the Missouri River and resulted in

the drainage of approximately 40-50 acres of

wetlands. The complaint proposed a penalty of

$20,000 for the violations. The parties reached an

agreement in which the respondents paid a penalty

of $15,000 and fully restored the wetlands.

Labarge, Inc. (Missouri): An ALJ awarded EPA the

statutory maximum administrative penalty of

$125,000 in this pretreatment case. The respondent,

an electroplating operation, discharged copper in

excess of its allowable permit limit and the

applicable regulations over an approximate three

year period. During this period, the respondent

exceeded the monthly average standard for copper

eleven times. Of the eleven monthly average

violations, six exceeded the standard by more than

1000 percent. One monthly average violation was

nearly 5000 percent over the legal limit.

EPCRA

Crustbuster/Speed King, Inc. (Kansas): On January

31, 1997, a CACO in this case was issued to

Crustbuster/Speed King, Inc., of Dodge City, KS,

resolving the EPCRA §313 TRI reporting violations. 

The respondent documented an inability to pay the

proposed penalty of $93,556, but also demonstrated a

willingness to implement numerous changes in its

operating practices and equipment uses to reduce

toluene and xylene in its paint spraying operations. 

The respondent paid a reduced penalty of $100 and

submitted certification of completion of two SEPs

worth $72,700. In addition to the SEPs, which

included changing high toluene and xylene usage

paint spraying equipment for low-emission

(reductions of at least 30 percent) and VOCconserving spraying equipment, the respondent

instituted numerous in-house good faith measures to

demonstrate its commitment to achieve pollution

prevention goals. These measures included:

continuing training regarding operation of
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-45 July 1998

equipment and work practices to minimize VOC

usage and emissions; instituting regular safety

committee/EPA compliance committee meetings to

discuss suggestions for and implementation of

process and operation changes to achieve further

pollution prevention; and the personal commitment

of the plant supervisor and personnel coordinator to

join and participate in the Ford County, KS, LEPC.

FIFRA

David Redler, d/b/a Tree N’ Turf Lawnscapes

(Nebraska): On September 23, 1997, a default

judgment was entered against David L. Redler, d/b/a

Tree N’ Turf Lawnscapes. The judgment is for

$1,065.75 plus interest of 5.6 percent per annum

from the date of the judgment, plus costs of $252. 

This matter was referred to DOJ for collection after

the respondent failed to pay the civil penalty assessed

by an administrative order on default. Redler

defaulted in the administrative action by failing to

comply with the prehearing exchange order issued

by the ALJ. Because the region has information that

Redler is continuing to apply pesticides in Nebraska,

EPA targeted this case for collection of the unpaid

administrative penalty.

RCRA

American Microtrace Corp. (Nebraska): On

January 29, 1997, Region 7 issued an UAO pursuant

to RCRA §7003 to American Microtrace

Corporation (AMT) in Fairbury, NE. AMT uses

sulfuric acid extraction to reclaim zinc and

manganese from zinc fume dust it receives from

brass foundries. The company makes pelletized zinc

and manganese additives for cattle feed and

fertilizers and produces commercial-grade zinc. The

order required AMT to remove all illegally stored

waste and soil; manage all incoming zinc fume dust

as hazardous, ensuring that no releases to the

environment occur; and cease receiving zinc fume

dust until it could demonstrate that its management

practices would no longer allow the dust to be

released to the environment.

EPA inspectors visited the plant in September and

October 1996 and found numerous RCRA violations. 

Analysis of samples collected during the inspections

revealed that lead and cadmium were present in the

sediments of a nearby wetland at high toxicity levels

for these metals. In addition, employee medical

monitoring records showed that many employees had

elevated blood lead readings at levels which may

cause adverse health effects. The area also is home

to at least two endangered species, including the

peregrine falcon and the fringed prairie orchid, and

also is a habitat for many native species of plants and

animals and a flyway for migratory waterfowl.

Graphic Circuits Corp. and Barry Smith (Iowa):

This action dealt with hazardous wastes generated by

Graphic Circuits Corp., which operated an electronic

circuit board manufacturing business in Cedar

Rapids and Marion, IA. The company generated

wastewater treatment sludge and corrosive hazardous

wastes as a result of its manufacturing activities. 

Approximately 43 55-gallon drums of corrosive

hazardous waste were moved from the Cedar Rapids

facility to the Marion facility. The respondent, Barry

Smith, is the president and owner of Graphic

Circuits, and personally owned the Marion, IA,

facility. Administrative complaints were issued to

both Graphic Circuits Corp. and Barry Smith,

individually as owner and operator of the Marion

facility. Alleged violations included: failure to file a

hazardous waste report for the hazardous waste;

failure to obtain a permit for the hazardous waste

storage area at the Marion facility; shipment of

hazardous waste off-site without preparing the

required hazardous waste manifest; and failure to

obtain a permit for the storage and treatment of

hazardous waste at the Cedar Rapids facility. 

Compliance orders issued concurrently with the

complaints required Graphic Circuits and Barry

Smith to comply with specific requirements for

generators of hazardous waste and to implement

RCRA closure of the hazardous waste storage and

treatment areas at both the Marion and Cedar Rapids

facilities. In addition, the region and the

respondents negotiated a settlement requiring the

payment of $191,000 in penalties and the closure of

the RCRA treatment and storage areas at both

facilities. 

TSCA

LaClede Gas Company (Missouri): Settlement of

this action brought under TSCA for violations of the

regulations which govern the disposal, storage,

marking and notification, and manifesting of PCBs

included the payment of a civil penalty as well as the

performance of significant SEPs by the respondent. 

Among the projects undertaken pursuant to the

settlement, LaClede has agreed to participate in a

program to make compressed natural gas (CNG)
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-46

available as a clean-burning transportation fuel for

the St. Louis area. It is hoped that the CNG program

will advance environmental justice objectives by

minimizing air pollution in various urban, loweconomic areas. As part of LaClede’s CNG

program, LaClede constructed a “quick-fill” CNG

fueling station at its Shrewsbury, MO, facility. This

fueling station has been constructed to be accessible

to non-LaClede CNG-powered fleets, including the

U.S. Postal Service. In addition, LaClede has

entered into a partnership to construct the first public

CNG fueling facility in Missouri. 

Solomon Corp. (Kansas): An administrative

complaint was issued on September 25, 1996,

alleging violations of TSCA §6(e) regarding the

storage, processing, use, distribution, marking, and

disposal of PCB-contaminated cable by the Solomon

Corporation. This case began in June, 1995, when

Region 7 learned that Solomon had received 1.2

million pounds of PCB-contaminated electrical

cable. The cable was tested prior to its receipt by

Solomon and shown to contain over 400 ppm PCB. 

The violations in the complaint arose out of

Solomon’s handling of the cable, which contained

copper wire that Solomon was planning to salvage

and sell.

In addition to the payment of a penalty of $63,750,

in settlement of this matter the respondent agreed to

the performance of three SEPs based on EPA’s

PROJECT model with an estimated cost of

$250,000. The first SEP involves the modification

of the paint line for its pole-mount transformer line,

which will result in an anticipated reduction in air

emissions of VOCs and will completely eliminate the

respondent’s routine use of methylene chloride. The

second SEP involves the construction of an oil

storage building at 121 West Main Street, Solomon,

KS, which will reduce the risk of release of PCBs

into the environment. The third SEP involves the

construction of a heavy security fence enclosing its

yard inventory at its First Street location. Under a

CACO issued on April 20, 1997, Solomon agreed

that it would not receive, accept, or store any PCB

oil or PCB item that was contaminated at or above

50 ppm PCB. Solomon currently is paying off the

$176,000 in payments plus interest, based on its

acceptance of the PCB-contaminated cable which

was the subject of this case.

MULTIMEDIA

Brush Creek Oil Spill (Missouri): On April 4, 1997,

a UAO was issued to Twin Oaks Associates, L.P.,

pursuant to CWA §311 and RCRA §7003. The

UAO required the respondent to take action to

remove oil seeping into a storm sewer in Kansas

City, MO, and discharging into Brush Creek. The

respondent is the owner of an apartment building

located in Kansas City. A heating oil tank at the

apartment building ruptured in December 1996,

losing 4,510 gallons of oil, 3,660 gallons of which

were never recovered. The oil first was reported to

be flowing into Brush Creek on January 31, 1997. 

EPA received reports of fish killed by the oil in the

creek.

HWH Corp. (Iowa): An administrative complaint

and compliance order was issued against HWH

Corporation on September 30, 1997. This complaint

alleged three counts against HWH Corporation: 1)

storage of hazardous waste without interim status or

a permit; 2) failure to clean up a release of used oil;

3) and failure to prepare an SPCC Plan. The

compliance order requires that respondent submit the

following to EPA: a cleanup and

disposal/management plan for cleaning up and for

the disposal or other proper management of the

released used oil and other contaminated materials to

the environment; a closure plan that meets the

requirements of 40 CFR 265, Subpart G for the

hazardous waste storage area at the facility;

certification of closure as required by 40 CFR

§265.115; and an SPCC Plan.

Missouri Charcoal Kilns (Missouri): In a

consolidated settlement of administrative complaints

filed for violations of the accidental release reporting

requirements of EPCRA §304 and CERCLA §103

and violations of the TRI reporting requirements of

EPCRA §313, three major Missouri charcoal

companies committed to spend an estimated $1.75

million to install air emission control devices on 165

active charcoal kilns in the state, or to remove these

kilns from operation within the next seven years. 

The CACO filed September 30, 1997, with Royal

Oak Enterprises, Inc., West Plains Charcoal

Company, and Patio Chef Company, LLC, requires

that controls be installed on a fixed schedule

beginning in April 1998. Emission reductions will

begin almost immediately, and several of the

facilities will be controlled fully within four years. 

EPA estimates that the installation of the control

devices and the shutdown of 64 designated kilns will

result in the prevention of over 100 million pounds
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-47 July 1998

of PM10, VOCs, and carbon monoxide emissions. In

addition, the respondents are required to pay a civil

penalty of $50,000.

REGION 8

CERCLA

Allied Signal, Inc., and General Chemical Corp.

(Colorado): On December 31, 1996, under the terms

of CERCLA §112(h)(1) Administrative Settlement

Agreement, PRPs Allied Signal, Inc., and General

Chemical Corporation paid $177,112 to settle their

CERCLA §107 liability of OU-6 of the Denver

Radium Site located in Denver, CO. In return, the

U.S. agreed to provide the settling parties with a

covenant not to sue limited to claims for civil

liability. The settlement amount represents 99.6

percent of past response costs incurred by the U.S. at

the site. The source of radium contamination

appears to have been radium-contaminated fill

brought in from one or more unknown construction

sites during the late 1960s and/or early 1970s. Lead

and other non-radiological wastes found on the

property apparently resulted from activities related to

the manufacture of sulfuric acid and other chemical

products by General Chemical and its predecessors. 

In May 1991, EPA commenced cleanup of the 135

tons of radiological and mixed wastes found at the

site and sent them to an off-site permitted disposal

facility. 

ASARCO, East Helena Facility (Montana): On

April 25, 1997, pursuant to the AOC for Removal

Action at the East Helena site, ASARCO agreed to

pay $60,000 in stipulated penalties to EPA for

failure to pay its annual billing in a timely manner. 

Another issue that culminated in September 1997

related to ASARCO’s failure to pay response costs. 

EPA entered into dispute resolution and ASARCO

agreed to pay $330,419 in settlement of this issue.

Chemical Handling Corp. Site (Colorado): On

September 8, 1997, DOJ approved EPA’s second de

minimis settlement for this site. This settlement was

entered into with previously unlocatable generators

and those generators who did not participate in the

first de minimis settlement. The site was operated as

a hazardous waste fuel blending and solvent recovery

facility from early 1988 until February 1992. The

fuel-blending operations combined hazardous wastes

from various generators into a hazardous-waste fuel

which was used in industrial furnaces and cement

kilns.

PRPs located for the second settlement were offered

the same premium (9 percent) that was used for

PRPs in the first settlement. The PRPs that simply

chose not to participate in the initial settlement were

also sent the second settlement offer, although the

premium was higher (60 percent). Of the 174

generators eligible for the second de minimis

settlement, 49 have signed the AOC. The combined

monetary total for the settlement is $131,646. This

amount, when added to the $1,097,244 agreed to be

paid by the parties to the first de minimis settlement,

represents approximately 42 percent of the

$2,948,615 in response costs incurred by the U.S.

through March 31, 1997.

Portland Cement (Utah): The Portland Cement site

is an NPL site on which most surface remediation

has been completed. The major party at the site,

Lone Star Industries, settled its liability with the U.S.

in 1992. Negotiations with minor landowner parties

have since continued. Two of these five parties have

signed consent orders and provided the U.S. with

$100,000 and institutional controls. Easement

acquisitions have been approved by the Office of

General Counsel (OGC) and the agreements have

been approved by the Region 8 Regional

Administrator.

Summitville Mine Site (Colorado): EPA will receive

$700,000 from three companies that are responsible

for contributing extremely small amounts of waste at

the Summitville Mine Superfund Site, located near

Del Norte, CO. This finalizes an agreement which

was reached in July between EPA and the ClevelandCliffs Iron Co., Union Pacific Resources Company,

and Union Pacific Resources Group. This settlement

did not become final until the public had a chance to

comment on the agreement and represents only a

small portion of the $150 million EPA expects to
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-48

spend cleaning up the abandoned open pit gold

mine. 

Traub Battery and Body Shop (South Dakota): On

October 11, 1996, EPA issued a consent decree

settling the cost recovery action associated with the

Traub Battery and Body Shop Site in Sioux Falls,

SD. The consent decree requires Exide, John

Morrell & Co., Graham Tire, J.C. Penney, Kmart,

and the South Dakota Department of Transportation

to reimburse the U.S. $313,000 for costs incurred in

performing a removal action at the former battery

cracking facility, because each of the settling parties

sent used batteries to the site.

CLEAN AIR ACT

Plum Creek Manufacturing, L.P. (Montana): Plum

Creek Manufacturing agreed to pay penalties

totaling $375,000 and complete a beneficial

environmental project for past CAA violations at its

Pablo Lumber Mill, located on the Flathead Indian

Reservation. The settlement resolved government

claims that the lumber mill’s wood-fired boiler

violated national particulate emissions limits and

opacity levels since its construction in 1990. Plum

Creek disputed EPA’s claim that these requirements

applied to its facility. Despite its contention, the

company agreed to install emission control

equipment and an air quality monitoring device.

EPA contends that emissions from the mill

negatively impacted the health and environment of

the area around the City of Pablo and the tribal

community. Therefore, in addition to its penalty,

Plum Creek will purchase high-grade road-sanding

material for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai

Tribes. The tribes will use the sanding material

during the winter months on roads in and around

Pablo. This material will cut road dust (another

source of airborne particles), while maintaining

vehicle traction during snowstorms. Without

admitting to the federal allegations, Plum Creek

agreed to pay the penalty, complete the

environmental project, and comply with all

applicable laws in the future.

Stone Container Corp. (Montana): Stone Container

Corporation agreed to meet air pollution control

requirements at its Missoula Mill and will pay

penalties of $302,500 for past violations. Stone

Container’s Frenchtown mill produces liner board

and other paper products by converting wood chips

and cardboard into pulp and then into paper. The

complaint charged that the company bypassed a

pollution measuring device to avoid recording

violations of health-based air standards. Air quality

in the Missoula Valley currently does not meet the

national health-based standard for fine airborne

particles also known as PM10. This dust is made of

solid or semi-solid particles small enough to be

suspended in the atmosphere. EPA contended that

air emissions from Stone’s mill contained fine

particles and sulfuric gasses. EPA’s complaint also

said the company did not properly monitor its smoke

opacity, which is the density or darkness of smoke

from a facility’s smokestacks. During a facility

inspection, EPA also discovered other types of

opacity violations. By measuring opacity, EPA and

the State can verify if pollution control equipment is

working properly. Without admitting to any of the

allegations, Stone Container agreed to pay the

penalty and comply with applicable laws in the

future.

Vastar Resources, Inc. (Colorado): DOJ, on EPA’s

behalf, agreed to settle its lawsuit against Vastar

Resources and Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO)

for a combined total of $657,412. EPA alleged that

both companies incurred CAA violations at their

facility on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation in La

Plata County, CO. Vastar is the current owner of the

facility; ARCO is the previous owner. The

agreement required Vastar to pay $137,949 of the

$657,412 the company saved by operating its natural

gas production engines without installing proper

pollution control equipment to limit carbon

monoxide (CO) emissions. After notifying the

Agency of the alleged violations, Vastar began

installing proper pollution control devices costing

nearly $247,000. This equipment has resulted in CO

emission reductions at the facility of 3,700 tons or 80

percent per year. Applying its self-policing policy,

EPA reduced Vastar’s penalty by several hundred

thousand dollars. In this instance, EPA applied the

policy because Vastar audited itself, identified

environmental problems, rapidly notified EPA, and

fixed the detected alleged violations. 

ARCO’s settlement of $519,463 includes money it

saved operating the gas production engines without

necessary pollution controls, as well as a penalty for

failure to initially install proper pollution control

equipment. ARCO disclosed these alleged past CAA

violations at the same time Vastar came forward. 

However, because the company failed to detect,

notify, and correct the equipment problems while it
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-49 July 1998

owned the facility, it did not meet EPA’s standards

for self-disclosure. The company did cooperate with

the investigation; therefore, EPA elected to reduce

ARCO’s penalty. Without admitting to the federal

allegations, Vastar and ARCO agreed to pay the

penalty and comply with applicable laws in the

future.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-50

CLEAN WATER ACT

ASARCO, East Helena Facility (Montana): EPA

and ASARCO met in Washington, DC, on July 14-

15, 1997, to continue negotiations on settlement of

the national initiative. Of the three components

comprising “Phase 1” of the national case, the

NPDES claim at the East Helena facility is the first,

and only, portion of the case to settle. The NPDES

case settled for $1 million economic benefit and

$36,100 gravity in cash plus two SEPs. The first

SEP is a restoration of wetlands in the disturbed area

where the violations occurred. EPA has credited

ASARCO $211,080 of the $390,000 cost to do the

project. The second SEP is ASARCO’s corporatewide environmental management system (EMS)

audit for all ASARCO facilities. The cost of the

audit is still unclear, although EPA believes its value

is between $4-5 million. This case only is offsetting

$113,820 of the cost for gravity. 

City of Watertown (South Dakota): A consent

decree was issued settling the penalty portion of the

CWA case against the City of Watertown. The

action alleged numerous violations including

allowing the discharge of pollutants above acceptable

levels from the city’s wastewater treatment plant to

the Big Sioux River. The settlement calls for the city

to pay a cash penalty of $550,000. An earlier

consent decree entered by the court in December

1995 requires the city to comply with all conditions

of its pretreatment permit by the end of 1997. The

city determined that full compliance required major

modifications to its facility. 

John Morrell and Company, Inc. (South Dakota):

A second partial consent decree has been signed by

the defendants resolving the civil CWA case against

Morrell. The first partial consent decree, entered in

April 1996, resolved injunctive relief wherein

Morrell was required to do additional monitoring, a

pollution prevention audit, and a waste minimization

audit. The second partial consent decree calls for a

$250,000 penalty, a compliance audit, and a

management audit. It also implements EPA’s SelfDisclosure Audit Policy.

Sheyenne Tooling & Manufacturing Co., Inc.

(North Dakota): On December 30, 1996, a judicial

decision was issued in the CWA case against

Sheyenne Tooling & Manufacturing Co., Inc.,

assessing a $60,150 civil penalty, for Sheyenne’s

violations of the categorical pretreatment standards

for metal finishers. The penalty amount was derived

by assessing $1 per day for each day of

noncompliance; finding an economic benefit of

$4,600 per year for ten years; assessing a general

penalty of $10,000 for failure to obey the regulations;

and requiring $500 for continuing to electroplate for

one week after receiving a compliance order from

EPA. The principle of requiring persons at fault to

be held to a level playing field was applied in this

case. The defendant operated a small-scale facility

in a sparsely-settled community.

The Telluride Company (Colorado): On April 25,

1997, a consent decree was signed calling for the

defendants to pay a civil penalty of $1.1 million and

restore approximately 11 acres of wetlands through

fill removal and approximately two acres through

hydrologic restoration. The required work also is

expected to hydrologically enhance an additional five

acres of wetlands. The consent decree also provides

for mitigation for 15 acres of wetlands impacts and

payment of $50,000 should the U.S. successfully

appeal an adverse decision by the court on the statute

of limitations.

Entry of the consent decree resolves this longstanding wetlands case involving unauthorized fills

at the Telluride Mountain Village, a major ski and

golf resort development in San Miguel County, CO,

near the town of Telluride. A prior consent decree

calling for payment of a civil penalty of $143,000

and restoration of 15.43 acres of wetlands on the site

and 26.5 acres off-site was rejected by the court in

April 1994.

Trail King Industries (South Dakota): On March 4,

1997, the U.S. lodged a consent decree settling

alleged violations of CWA pretreatment regulations

for metal finishers. Trail King Industries of

Mitchell, SD, agreed to the payment of a $400,000

civil penalty for its violations. This penalty is a

record recovery against a metal finisher in Region 8. 

Additionally, Trail King agreed to construct a

sample collection point (manhole) outside its facility

so that local authorities and EPA have unconditional

access to sample wastewater discharges. Trail King

also agreed to have an independent environmental

compliance review of its facility for any compliance

issues relating to CWA and RCRA.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-51 July 1998

EPCRA

Colorado Paint Company (Colorado): A consent

agreement was incorporated into a consent order on

May 12, 1997. In the agreement, Colorado Paint

Company (CPC) was ordered to comply with

EPCRA regulations. CPC committed to pay a

penalty of $4,000 and to complete a SEP anticipated

to cost approximately $37,400. On June 22, 1995,

an administrative complaint containing fourteen

counts was issued to CPC alleging certain violations

under EPCRA. 

Neoplan USA Corp. (Colorado): On January 7,

1997, the EPA and Neoplan USA Corporation

entered into an agreement in which Neoplan agreed

to pay a penalty of $26,239 and to expend at least

$27,000 on a SEP for violations of EPCRA §313

reporting requirements. The consent agreement was

incorporated into a consent order signed by the EPA

on January 8, 1997. The SEP will require Neoplan

over the next four years to lease spray gun cleaning

machines. These machines are expected to reduce

the amount of solvent emissions released into the air

from its Lamar, CO, facility by approximately l6,000

gallons a year.

RCRA

Envirocare (Utah): In December 1995, Utah’s

Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ)

issued Envirocare of Utah, Inc., an NOV for 31

violations of Utah rules and the RCRA permit that

governs operation of the company’s hazardous and

radioactive waste facility near Clive, UT. Envirocare

is a commercial low level radioactive waste, mixed

waste (radioactive and chemical), and

uranium/thorium mill tailings waste disposal facility. 

The facility accepts a large amount of waste from

numerous federal government generators.

In August 1997, Region 8 determined the potential

for harm was more serious than UDEQ had

concluded. The EPA proposed penalty in its

complaint was $601,503, as compared to UDEQ’s

penalty of $79,000. An agreement in principle on

EPA’s complaint was reached between EPA and

Envirocare at an October 14, 1997, meeting. The

terms of the agreement include payment of $197,000

by Envirocare to UDEQ. 

North American Environmental, Inc.: On June 16,

1997, Roy N. Hart, President and former owner of

North American Environmental, Inc., was placed on

probation for three years with a special condition of

six-month home confinement between the hours of

10 p.m. and 6 a.m. He also was ordered to pay

restitution in the amount of $1,347,922, which

represents the amount paid by Freeport Center and

generators who removed their PCBs early in the

process. On April 15, 1997, Roy N. Hart pled guilty

to one felony count for the illegal disposal of

hazardous waste in violation of RCRA. Hart was

indicted previously on one count of RCRA storage

without a permit, one count of RCRA disposal, one

count of PCBs storage without a permit, and one

count of storage of PCBs in excess of one year.

Reclaim Barrel Supply Co., Inc., and Allstate

Container Inc. (Utah): On October 7, 1996, Ray F.

McCune, owner and operator of Reclaim Barrel

Supply Company, Inc., and Allstate Container, Inc.,

was sentenced to a prison term of 18 months, a

$20,000 fine, $100,000 in restitution, and one year

of supervised probation upon completion of his jail

sentence. McCune pled guilty to two counts of

illegal storage of hazardous wastes in violation of

RCRA, one count at Reclaim Barrel Supply and one

count at Allstate Container. Reclaim Barrel Supply

was a drum reconditioning facility located in West

Jordan, UT. In 1992, McCune abandoned the

facility, leaving behind a Superfund site totaling

$875,000 in cleanup costs. McCune then opened a

new drum reconditioning facility, Allstate Container,

Inc., approximately three miles down the road from

Reclaim Barrel in West Jordan, UT. During a 1993

EPA Criminal Investigations Division search

warrant, approximately 250 drums of illegally stored

hazardous waste were found and sampled. In

addition to the RCRA violations, McCune had

directed employees to open a sealed drain and

discharge pollutants into the sewer system in

violation of McCune’s non-discharge permit.

TSCA

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute

(Colorado): On September 3, 1997, Region 8 signed

a consent order approving and incorporating a

consent agreement resolving a TSCA PCB action

against the Colorado School of Mines Research

Institute (CSMRI) in Golden, CO. CSMRI, a not-forprofit organization, agreed to conduct SEPs totaling

between $58,500 and $65,000.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-52

REGION 9

CERCLA

Burbank Operable Unit (California): In late 1996,

EPA completed negotiations for a second consent

decree that will provide for an additional 18 years of

operation and maintenance for the interim remedy at

the Burbank OU of the San Fernando NPL sites. 

Under the second consent decree, Lockheed Martin,

one of the responsible parties at the Burbank OU,

will fund substantially the remaining 18 years of

operation and maintenance for the interim remedy

and pay 100 percent of EPA’s future response costs. 

The City of Burbank will operate the system. The

other PRPs will cash out based on payments made to

Lockheed Martin as settlement of its contribution

action against them.

EPA also will recover approximately $11.8 million

in past basin-wide response costs under the second

consent decree. This amount represents a 62.5

percent share of basin-wide costs calculated through

September 30, 1995. EPA also has taken action to

reduce the costs of cleanup by $49 million, agreeing

to reduce the extraction rate and eliminate a

reinjection well field. The total costs associated with

the Burbank OU interim remedy will be

approximately $100 million. 

The Burbank OU interim remedy also is a

groundwater extraction and treatment system which

currently requires extraction and treatment of 9,000

gpm, blending to reduce nitrate concentrations, and

delivery of the water to the City of Burbank. 

Lockheed Martin currently operates the system under

a 1992 partial consent decree with Lockheed

Corporation (now Lockheed Martin), Weber

Aircraft, Inc., and the City of Burbank. The first

partial consent decree and unilateral order terms will

expire in approximately the year 2002. 

Del Amo NPL Site (California): In early 1997, the

major PRPs at the Del Amo Superfund Site reached

a mediated agreement with the neighboring

residential community to voluntarily purchase and

provide relocation assistance to families living on 65

parcels adjacent to the Del Amo NPL Site. Although

the buy out/relocation was not structured as a

CERCLA response action, EPA was a major

participant throughout the mediation process leading

to this unprecedented agreement. This mediation

was conducted on a parallel timetable with the EPA

Superfund remedial decision process for the Del

Amo Site Waste Pit OU. These waste pits are

located immediately adjacent to the residential lots

that are being purchased by the PRPs. The waste

pits contain high levels of hazardous substances such

as benzene, toulene, and other wastes from the

production of synthetic rubber. EPA issued an ROD

for the Waste Pit OU in September 1997.

Glendale North and South Operable Units

(California): At the Glendale OU of the San

Fernando NPL sites, EPA issued two unilateral

CERCLA orders in FY1997 to assure that cleanup

work continues. On November 26, 1996, after the

completion of remedial design under a 1994 AOC,

EPA required the completion of the first nine months

of pre-remedial construction. On September 30,

1997, EPA ordered the completion of the remainder

of the work required by the Glendale RODs. The

Glendale OU interim remedies are extraction and

treatment systems with separate extraction well

fields and a combined treatment plant. After

treatment and blending to reduce nitrates, the water

will be delivered to the City of Glendale. 

Hendler v. U.S. (California): On July 16, 1997, a

final judgement was issued in favor of the U.S. in the

Hendler Fifth Amendment “takings” litigation. 

Property owners had sued the U.S. for damages on

the theory that installation of groundwater

monitoring wells on their property downgradient of

the Stringfellow landfill constituted a “taking” of

their property. The Stringfellow landfill is a major

Superfund site in southern California. 

The trial court held that the U.S. did not owe any

compensation to the plaintiffs for the installation and

sampling of the 20 groundwater monitoring wells on

the plaintiffs’ property. (In 1991, the court had

found the imposition of these wells to be a “physical”

taking under the Fifth Amendment.) The basis for

the trial court’s ruling was that EPA’s activities

resulted in an increase in the value of plaintiffs’

remaining property interests that was greater than

any decrease attributable to the monitoring wells. 

Hence, while there was a taking of monitoring well

easements, no compensation was due.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-53 July 1998

Industrial Waste Processing Site (California): On

July 30, 1997, a consent decree was entered in

connection with the Industrial Waste Processing

(IWP) Superfund Site in Fresno, CA. IWP

conducted operations as an industrial waste

reclamation facility between 1966 and 1981. During

IWP’s years of operation, various types of industrial

wastes were sent to the site, including spent solvents,

lead solder wastes, and glycol waste from natural gas

production. EPA added the site to the NPL in

August 1990. 

Under the terms of the consent decree, four PRPs

agreed to perform a non-time critical removal action

for the Soils OU at the site. The response action will

involve the excavation of on-site and surrounding

offsite surface soils containing lead in excess of 400

mg/kg and volatile organic compounds in excess of 7

mg/kg, as well as the transportation of that

contaminated soil to an offsite treatment and

disposal facility. In addition to performing the

response action, the settling PRPs will pay $50,000

in past costs. (Under a prior administrative

settlement, EPA received payment of approximately

$1.3 million in past costs.) This settlement also

implemented the Orphan Share Reform at the IWP

Site by providing for a reduction of oversight costs in

the amount of $163,000.

Lorentz Barrel & Drum (California): On September

17, 1997, EPA Region 9 entered into its third de

minimis settlement for the Lorentz Barrel & Drum

Superfund Site. Lorentz Barrel & Drum is a former

barrel and drum recycling facility located in San

Jose, CA. Under the agreement, EPA will recover

$1,042,296 and the California Department of Toxic

Substances Control (DTSC) will recover $490,492. 

The agreement resolves EPA and DTSC’s claims

against 42 de minimis generators or transporters of

hazardous substances disposed of at the Site. EPA

and DTSC offered this settlement to 113 de minimis

parties, each of whom contributed no more than one

percent and no less than approximately 0.012

percent of the total number of barrels sent to the site

that may have contained hazardous substances. 

Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund

Site (California): Region 9 negotiated

approximately $5 million in source investigative

work under a voluntary agreement with the U.S.

Army in connection with the Newmark Groundwater

Contamination Superfund Site in San Bernardino,

CA. The Army will be performing the source

investigative work under the auspices of the Defense

Environmental Restoration Program for formerly

used defense sites in coordination with EPA’s

Superfund program. This investigation may provide

information regarding the source of the groundwater

contamination at the Newmark site. This source

investigation is expected to culminate in an ROD for

the final remedy. Among other likely sources for the

suspected contaminants, EPA has identified Camp

Ono, a former World War II Army depot, as a

potential source of the contamination.

This high profile Superfund case involves the release

of chlorinated solvents to a groundwater resource

that serves 600,000 southern Californians. 

Groundwater contamination at the Newmark site has

spread to over an eight-square mile area, introducing

toxic chemicals to seventeen municipal wells. In an

effort to mitigate the spread of contaminants as

quickly as possible, EPA provided approximately

$20 million in Superfund monies to construct

groundwater treatment systems as part of the interim

remedies adopted under two previous RODs. 

North Hollywood Operable Unit (California): After

two years of litigation, EPA concluded its second

settlement for costs at the North Hollywood OU of

the San Fernando NPL sites. The second consent

decree, entered on May 14, 1997, recovered $4.8

million in site costs. Together with a prior

settlement in the case, EPA has recovered $8.75

million in costs for response action at North

Hollywood.

EPA’s past costs in this case are attributable to the

construction and operation of the North Hollywood

OU interim remedy, operated through a cooperative

agreement with the State of California and the Los

Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). 

LADWP currently operates the North Hollywood OU

interim remedy groundwater extraction and

treatment system and delivers the treated water to

the public drinking water supply. The North

Hollywood OU system began 24-hour operation,

pumping approximately 2,000 gallons per minute

(gpm) in December 1989, and is scheduled to

operate through the year 2004. 

Operating Industries, Inc. (California): Region 9

took three significant enforcement actions at the

Operating Industries, Inc. (OII) Superfund Site,

including the second unilateral order for site work,

completion of the sixth cost recovery settlement, and
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-54

initiation of special notice negotiations for

implementation of the fourth ROD. 

On March 7, 1997, EPA issued its second CERCLA

§106 unilateral order for the OII site. The order

requires seven companies to perform $3.5 to $4.5

million in RD/RA work starting in May 1997. The

order assured the continuation of a portion of the

work previously performed under the first partial

consent decree, which ended on May 10, 1997. Five

of the seven respondents are in compliance.

On September 23, 1997, the sixth partial consent

decree was entered for the OII Superfund Site,

resolving the liabilities of GSF Energy, LLC (GSF),

the former owner and operator of a methane recovery

system at the OII landfill, and GSF’s former parent

company, Air Products, Inc., subject to standard

reopeners. This settlement was the first in Region 9,

and possibly the first in the country, to address the

CERCLA liabilities of a methane recovery owner or

operator. The sixth partial consent decree raised

$1.762 million for response costs at the OII Site. 

On September 30, 1997, the region issued a special

notice letter under CERCLA §122 to 270 major

generators, initiating negotiations for the

implementation of the fourth ROD. This negotiation

involves work and costs valued at approximately

$290 million, including an offer of $15 million in

orphan share compensation.

Santa Monica MTBE Groundwater Contamination

(Santa Monica, California): In June 1997, Region 9

and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control

Board issued joint enforcement letters to parties with

ownership and/or operator responsibility for

potential sources of methyl tertiary butyl ether

(MTBE) contamination at the charnock Wellfield, a

source of drinking water for Santa Monica. 

Coordination with California represents EPA’s first

enforcement action to address this new contaminant. 

MTBE is a listed CERCLA hazardous substance that

has come into increasingly high volume use as a

gasoline oxygenate pursuant to the CAA

Amendments of 1990. In 1996, MTBE

contamination forced the closure of two drinking

water well fields (Arcadia and Charnock), which

previously supplied 50 percent of the water for Santa

Monica. The state is addressing the smaller Arcadia

site in a separate action.

U.S. v. Fontana Wood Preserving, Inc.

(California): On March 26, 1997, a partial consent

decree was entered with two of the defendants in

U.S. v. Valley Wood Preserving, Inc. Under the

agreement, Fontana Wood Preserving, Inc., and

Michael Logsdon have agreed to pay a total of $1.5

million in past and future costs for cleanup of the

Valley Wood Preserving NPL site. The site is a

14.4-acre inactive wood preserving facility in

Turlock, CA. EPA has been the lead agency for

cleanup of the contaminated soils and groundwater

since 1989. Cleanup is proceeding under a site-wide

pilot study of in situ groundwater treatment. 

U.S. v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. (California):

EPA saw substantial progress at the Iron Mountain

Mine site in FY97, including a series of significant

court rulings in the cost recovery litigation, issuance

of two administrative orders, and selection of the

fourth ROD. In the first of the court’s important

rulings in December 1996, the court held that the

defendant’s counter-claims against the State of

California were limited to recoupment claims. 

In late September 1997, the court issued three very

significant substantive rulings. In the first of these

decisions, the court agreed with the U.S. that RhonePoulenc is the corporate successor to Mountain

Copper, the company that conducted virtually all of

the mining at Iron Mountain. The court also found

that Rhone-Poulenc’s predecessor, Stauffer Chemical

Co., had expressly assumed the liability of Mountain

Copper. In a separate opinion, the court agreed with

the EPA interpretation of the narrow limitation in

CERCLA §104(a)(3)(A) that the limitation does not

apply if an EPA action incidentally captures

naturally occurring substances. In addition, releases

altered by mining are not naturally occurring. It is

the PRP’s burden to show that an action was taken in

response to naturally occurring substances. In the

last of the court’s rulings in FY97, the court held

that review of EPA’s first two RODs will be limited

to the record and based on an arbitrary and

capricious standard. 

In November 1996, EPA amended an administrative

order to require the PRPs to use a more reliable and

cost effective treatment method at the treatment

plant at the site. Operation of the plant during the

1996-97 season demonstrated the effectiveness of the

new treatment technology. In September 1997,

Region 9 issued the fourth ROD for Iron Mountain

and ordered the PRPs to implement the selected
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-55 July 1998

response action. The response action will capture

and treat approximately two-thirds of the currently

untreated releases of copper from Iron Mountain,

which, combined with other response actions, will

reduce site-wide metal loads by approximately 95

percent. 

U.S. v. Montana Refining (Nevada): On August 28,

1997, the U.S. lodged a consent decree concluding

the litigation for the Poly-Carb Superfund Site. 

Pursuant to the consent decree, Montana Refining

Company, the sole generator in the case, will pay

$665,000 in past costs. The owner\operators in the

case are either bankrupt, defunct, or have no assets. 

The Poly-Carb facility was the site of a proposed

waste conversion business in a sparsely populated

area near Wells, NV. The sole generator, Montana

Refining Company, shipped 9,000 gallons of

phenolic caustic to the site, and on May 27, 1985,

approximately 8,000 gallons of the caustic spilled

from the holding tanks and contaminated 300 cubic

yards of soil. EPA conducted a CERCLA removal

action in late 1987 and later brought a civil action to

recover its costs. 

South Indian Bend Wash, Middlefield-EllisWhisman, San Gabriel Valley, and South Bay

Asbestos Superfund Sites (Arizona and California):

Region 9 completed five prospective purchaser

agreements in FY97, each of which facilitated the

redevelopment of properties at Superfund sites and

provided for added resources to the Superfund

cleanups. In the first prospective purchaser

agreement, entered into in February 1997, the

covenant not to sue will allow JPI Texas

Development, Inc., to purchase approximately 27

acres located within the South Indian Bend Wash

NPL Site for purposes of building and operating a

500-unit student dormitory near Arizona State

University. A second portion of the property will be

developed as a shopping mall, and six acres will be

dedicated as a public park. JPI will pay $75,000 to

EPA and will not abandon a monitoring well, saving

EPA an estimated $25,000 in construction costs.

In April 1997, EPA concluded a prospective

purchaser agreement for an 80-acre parcel formerly

used for computer chip manufacturing. The parcel is

the major source of groundwater contamination at

the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman NPL Site in

Mountain View, CA. The developers plan to build

and operate high-tech research and office facilities in

a campus-like setting on the property. The

prospective purchaser will pay $200,000 to EPA,

enabling the Agency to continue sampling at a

nearby monitoring well for an additional two years.

A July 1997 prospective purchaser agreement in the

San Gabriel Valley Superfund Sites (Puente Valley

OU) in Los Angeles, CA, allows the prospective

purchaser, Ekstrom Properties, and lessee, Cardinal

Industrial Finishes, to develop a vacant 11-acre

parcel that is a significant source of groundwater

contamination in the City of Industry. Cardinal

intends to lease the property from Ekstrom and

construct a low VOC-emission powder coatings

manufacturing plant. As part of the agreement,

Cardinal will pay $150,000 into a special account for

EPA response actions in the Puente Valley OU.

In September 1997, Region 9 completed two

agreements for the South Bay Asbestos NPL Site

located in Alviso, CA, a low-income Latino

community. The East Parcel agreement will allow

Lincoln Property Company No. 2233 to purchase

and develop a 17.5- acre parcel located in San Jose,

CA. In consideration, Lincoln will pay a total of

$125,000 and maintain the existing caps on the East

Parcel; any excavation on the East Parcel must

comply with the Soil Management Plan approved by

EPA. The West Parcel agreement will allow Lincoln

237 Associates Limited Partnership to purchase and

develop an adjacent 6.5-acre parcel located in San

Jose, CA. In consideration, Lincoln will pay a total

of $75,000. Lincoln plans to develop these parcels

for research and development offices, as well as

retail, light industrial, and restaurant uses, and

estimates the creation of approximately 1,000 new

jobs.

CLEAN AIR ACT

U.S. v. North American Chemical Company

(California): On April 25, 1997, a consent decree

was entered in this case for CAA violations. North

American Chemical Company (NACC) owns and

operates a nonmetallic mineral processing facility in

Trona, CA, which consists of the Argus, Trona, and

Westend plants. NACC violated PM emission limits

in the California SIP for San Bernardino County. 

NACC also failed to comply with certain NSPS

notice and testing requirements and PM limits. 

Finally, NACC constructed a modification to a gas

turbine at the Westend facility that increased NOx

emissions over applicable “significance” thresholds. 

NACC failed to obtain a prevention of significant
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-56

deterioration (PSD) permit for the modification and

continued to operate the turbine without meeting a

limit for NOx achieved through implementation of

BACT. (Alternatively, the U.S. alleged that

NACC’s gas turbine emitted NOx in excess of an

applicable SIP limit.)

The consent decree requires NACC to pay a penalty

of $320,000 and to install emissions controls on the

gas turbine to comply with the applicable SIP limit

for NOx. NACC’s installation of selective catalytic

reduction at the turbine will reduce NOx emissions

by at least 125 tons per year. The decree also

requires NACC to expend at least $140,000 on a

SEP. The SEP will reduce emissions of PM with a

less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers

(PM10) at the facility by at least 30 tons. NACC is

located in a nonattainment area for PM10.

U.S., Unitek Environmental Services, and Unitek

Solvent Services v. Hawaiian Cement: On

September 15, 1997, a consent decree was lodged in

the Hawaiian Cement case for violations of a fugitive

dust emission limit in the Hawaii SIP. Hawaiian

Cement owns and operates a Portland cement

manufacturing plant in the Campbell Industrial Park

on Oahu, HI. The conveyance, grinding, and storage

of materials in the cement manufacturing process

generate fugitive emissions of PM. Monitoring data

collected between 1994 and 1996 demonstrated that

Hawaiian Cement usually exceeded the SIP limit.

The consent decree requires Hawaiian Cement to pay

a penalty of $1.16 million and to undertake facilitywide measures to reduce fugitive emissions and

comply with the SIP. These measures include

installation of enclosures around the finish mills and

clinker storage building, engineering evaluations of

control equipment, and monitoring for fugitive

emissions. In addition, Hawaiian Cement will

evaluate any offshore impacts of its fugitive dust

emissions. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

U.S. v. Appel (California): In April 1997, DOJ tried

EPA’s case against John Appel for discharging fill

material (wastes from his tree-trimming business

and substantial cubic yardage of earthen material)

into the Ventura River in Ventura County, CA,

without a CWA §404 permit. The court ordered

Appel to implement the government’s restoration

plan and announced it would make a decision

regarding a “significant” penalty within a month. 

Appel also was convicted in state court of a felony

violation of the California Water Code for his

activities. Appel appealed this 1995 conviction, but

it was upheld by the California Court of Appeals and

the California Supreme Court. EPA provided

assistance and testimony in the state’s criminal

prosecution.

U.S. v. Berry Petroleum (California): In February

1997, a consent decree was entered in a CWA oil

spill case against Berry Petroleum Company. EPA’s

§311 enforcement action was a significant part of a

larger, multi-agency (federal and state) case that

included all claims relating to the December 1993

spill of about 2,000 barrels of crude oil from an oil

production facility into a wetland area located

adjacent to McGrath State Beach, near Oxnard, CA. 

The crude oil also reached the Pacific Ocean and

coated nearby beaches. The spill caused documented

bird kills and damaged a sensitive wetland habitat. 

The spill was caused, in large part, from Berry’s

negligent failure to implement its SPCC Plan, in

violation of EPA’s SPCC regulations.

The consent decree resolved claims brought by EPA

and several other federal and California state

agencies. The decree required Barry to pay

$800,000 in civil penalty for EPA’s CWA §311

claims and additional civil penalties of $200,000 to

the California Regional Water Quality Control Board

for Porter-Cologne Act violations as well as $25,000

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for

Endangered Species Act (ESA) violations. The

decree further required Berry to reimburse various

federal and state agencies $830,100 for response

costs and damage claims arising out of the oil spill. 

Finally, Berry was required to transfer $1,315,000 to

a trust that will be administered by the National Fish

and Wildlife Foundation and used to implement

long-term restoration measures under the

supervision of the various natural resource trustee

agencies.

U.S. v Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (California): On

May 27, 1997, EPA, DOJ, and the State of

California lodged a consent decree, settling a CWA

case against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E). 

Under the terms of the settlement, PG&E will pay

$14,040,000, including $7.1 million in civil

penalties to the state and EPA and over $6 million

for environmental enhancement and restoration. 

The violations arose out of PG&E’s incomplete and
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-57 July 1998

inaccurate reporting of data required in the mid1980s to ensure that the Diablo Canyon cooling

water intake system complied with CWA §316(b). 

PG&E owns and operates the Diablo Canyon

Nuclear Power Plant located on the central

California coast near San Luis Obispo. This plant

pulls in sea water for cooling its condensers and then

discharges the heated water to the Pacific Ocean. It

began operation in 1985 and has been regulated

under two successive NPDES permits issued by the

Regional Water Quality Control Board for the

Central District of California (Regional Board) in

1985 and 1990. The 1985 permit required

submission of a report to demonstrate compliance

with CWA §316(b) by May 1988. Although PG&E

submitted a report in April 1988 purporting to

demonstrate that the cooling water intake system

complies with §316(b), it later was learned that

PG&E omitted critical data from the report which

may have altered its conclusions. PG&E’s

employees and contractors brought the omitted data

to PG&E’s attention in January 1992, yet PG&E

failed to disclose the data to the regulating agencies

until 1994. 

The data PG&E omitted from its 1988 study called

into question the accuracy of its sampling for

entrainment. The routine entrainment sampling was

conducted only at the discharge point rather than at

the intake. This sampling may have dramatically

understated the actual entrainment impacts by not

accurately including the amount of organisms

actually entering the intake system.

U.S. v. City of San Diego (California): On June 6,

1997, a stipulated final order was entered, settling

long-standing enforcement action against the City of

San Diego to address deficiencies with the city’s

sewage treatment facilities. The parties negotiated a

consent decree lodged in January 1990, resolving

injunctive relief issues. This decree engendered

substantial controversy, and eventually was rejected

by the court in 1994. During the pendency of the

1990 consent decree, San Diego implemented

projects that resolved the pretreatment, sludge

handling, and water quality standards violations, and

partially addressed sewage spills issues. The court

assessed a $3 million civil penalty; however, it

suspended $2.5 million of this assessment on the

condition that San Diego perform a water

conservation project proposed by the Sierra Club, an

intervenor. In 1994, Congress enacted legislation

which allowed San Diego to apply for a waiver from

CWA’s secondary treatment requirements. In 1995,

EPA approved the waiver, resolving that issue.

Following rejection of the consent decree in 1994,

EPA and San Diego negotiated a stipulated final

order (which functions as a consent decree) resolving

the remaining issues in the case. The order requires

San Diego to continue work on certain infrastructure

projects called for in the 1990 consent decree. The

order also requires San Diego to replace 200 miles of

decaying concrete sewers. In addition, San Diego is

required to audit its pump stations and force mains

to identify potential problems; increase it efforts to

reduce grease loadings to its system through public

outreach and increased regulation of restaurants; and

upgrade its data collection and modelling

capabilities. The stipulated final order requires

between $60 million and $200 million in new work

(depending on the extent of concrete main

replacement required). The projects in the order will

cost the city over $1 billion. 

U.S. v. Simpson Timber Co. and Simpson Redwood

Co. (California): On April 25, 1997, a consent

decree was entered, settling EPA’s CWA §404

enforcement action against Simpson. The case

involved the deep ripping of vernal pools at

Simpson’s Tehama Fiber Farm to prepare the soil for

the planting of eucalyptus trees. The consent decree

requires Simpson to pay a civil penalty of $30,000;

perform SEPs worth $200,000; and preserve 3,690

acres of property containing extensive vernal pool

complexes, mostly on off-site land which Simpson

has purchased near the Tehama Fiber Farm. Under

the agreement, Simpson may continue planting and

harvesting trees on land that they had already deep

ripped because, once deep ripped, vernal pools

cannot be restored. The SEPs require Simpson to

give $50,000 to the Nature Conservancy to purchase

80 acres of vernal pool habitat to augment the

Conservancy’s existing Vina Plains Preserve in

Tehama County. In addition, Simpson is required to

grant a permanent easement to the City of Albany,

OR, to use a 132-acre tract of Simpson-owned

wetlands on the Willamette River for a public park

and wildlife conservation area.

EPCRA

Burns Philp Food, Inc., d/b/a Fleischmann’s Yeast;

Fresh Start Bakeries, Inc.; Haleakala Dairy;

House Foods Hawaii Corporation, d/b/a Foremost
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-58

Dairies-Hawaii; and Pint Size Corporation

(Hawaii): On July 9, 1997, Region 9 concurrently

filed five complaints and five CACOs resolving

violations of EPCRA §312. The violations

concerned five facilities in Hawaii (the Pint Size

Corporation in Aiea; Fresh Start Bakeries, Inc., in

Waipahu; House Foods Hawaii Corporation, d/b/a

Foremost Dairies-Hawaii, in Honolulu; and two

facilities in Kahului and Makawao operated by

Haleakala Dairy, a Hawaii Limited Partnership) and

the Burns Philp Food, Inc., d/b/a Fleischmann’s

Yeast, facility in Oakland, CA. 

These cases were part of EPA’s national EPCRA

§312 Food Sector Enforcement Initiative. Under the

initiative, EPA offered non-complying companies an

opportunity to pay a reduced penalty in exchange for

immediate compliance. Companies were invited to

sign a §312 sector enforcement agreement, agreeing

to immediately submit completed chemical inventory

forms and pay a stipulated penalty of $2,000 per

facility. Each of these companies signed such an

agreement with Region 9.

Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. (California): On

April 16, 1997, EPA filed a CACO, resolving

violations of EPCRA §304 and CERCLA §103 by

Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. (Dreyer). Under the

terms of the agreement, Dreyer paid $41,000 in civil

penalties. This enforcement action involved

ammonia release incidents in 1993 and 1995. In

1993, Dreyer released approximately 4,000 pounds

of anhydrous ammonia from its facility in

Commerce, CA, and failed to notify federal and state

responders for nine days. Dreyer also failed to

provide follow-up information to the state. Dreyer

had another ammonia release in 1995, and failed to

notify the authorities for approximately six hours. 

During the pendency of this action, Dreyer initiated

a new company practice for responding to ammonia

release events. Dreyer will notify immediately the

emergency response authorities concerning releases

whenever Dreyer cannot immediately confirm that

the release involves less than the reportable quantity.

Kraft Foods, Inc. (California): On March 5, 1997,

EPA filed a CACO, resolving violations of EPCRA

§304 and CERCLA §103 by Kraft Foods, Inc.

(Kraft). This case involved an ammonia release

incident at Kraft’s facility in Tulare, CA. Under the

terms of the agreement, Kraft paid a civil penalty of

$10,000 and completed a $20,000 emergency

planning and preparedness SEP.

Union Oil Company of California (California): On

May 22, 1997, EPA filed a CACO, resolving

violations of EPCRA §304 and CERCLA §103 by

Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL). This

enforcement action involved releases of

diethanolamine and hydrogen sulfide from the

UNOCAL San Francisco Refinery in Rodeo, CA. In

1994, UNOCAL had two chemical release events at

its San Francisco Refinery involving approximately

10,260 pounds of diethanolamine and 200 pounds of

hydrogen sulfide. UNOCAL did not notify federal or

state responders for several weeks. The UNOCAL

civil penalty represents the largest penalty ever

collected in EPA Region 9 for emergency release

notification violations. UNOCAL paid $100,900 in

civil penalties for the EPCRA violations and

$274,100 for the CERCLA violations.

U.S. Valley Wood Preserving, Inc. (Turlock,

California): On March 26, 1997, the Eastern

District of California entered a partial consent decree

with two of the defendants in U.S. v. Valley Wood

Preserving, Inc. Under this agreement, Fontana

Wood Preserving, Inc. and Michael Logsdon have

agreed to pay a total of $1.5 million in past and

future costs for remediation of the Valley Wood

Preserving NPL site.

FIFRA

Scotts-Sierra Crop Protection Company (Ohio): On

February 12, 1997, the judge granted EPA’s motion

for accelerated decision in this enforcement action

brought under FIFRA. In July 1987, EPA began a

Special Review, an administrative procedure used to

determine whether the use of a pesticide,

ethylenebisdithiocarbamates (EBDC), poses

unreasonable risks to human health or the

environment. EBDCs are a group of pesticides

registered to protect a wide variety of fruit and

vegetable crops against fungal pathogens. EBDCs

also have several non-food agricultural uses,

including ornamental plants, turf, and soil treatment. 

EPA began the review because it suspected ETU (a

common degradate, metabolite, and contaminant of

EBDCs) of being a potential cause of cancer, birth

defects, and thyroid problems. 

On March 2, 1992, EPA published in the Federal

Register the Notice of Intent To Cancel and

Conclusion of Special Review (hereinafter Notice)

pertaining to all registrations of pesticide products
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-59 July 1998

containing EBDCs. Grace-Sierra, the predecessor in

interest to Scotts-Sierra Crop Protection Company

(Scott-Sierra), acknowledged receipt of the Notice by

a copy of the Return Receipt dated March 13, 1992. 

Grace-Sierra, however, continued to sell its EBDC

products until May 1993. On January 29, 1996,

Region 9 issued an administrative complaint

alleging 157 violations of FIFRA for the distribution

or sale of an unregistered pesticide.

RCRA

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (Ft. Defiance);

BOR (Yuma Desalting Plant); and National Park

Service (NPS) (Hawaii Volcanoes National

Park)(Arizona and Hawaii): In September 1997,

Region 9 resolved administrative RCRA enforcement

actions against three separate bureaus and services

within DOI, including the BOR (Yuma Desalting

Plant), BIA (Ft. Defiance) and NPS (Hawaii

Volcanoes National Park). In each case, DOI agreed

to implement significant SEPs and to pay a penalty. 

All three DOI facilities had RCRA violations related

to storage of hazardous waste.

The Hawaii Volcanoes National Park agreement,

approved on September 10, 1997, provides for a cash

penalty of $41,100 and a SEP with an estimated total

cost of $519,687. Under the SEP, NPS will develop

a series of model plans for eventual use throughout

the entire national park system. The model plans

include a hazardous waste management plan and

contract; an integrated contingency plan; a shooting

range management plan; a hazardous materials

management and pollution prevention plan; and a

hazardous materials worker safety plan.

Under the terms of a September 29, 1997, consent

agreement with BIA for violations at its Fort

Defiance, AZ, facility, BIA will pay a cash penalty of

$48,423 and perform three SEPs estimated to cost

$617,699. The first SEP requires BIA to retain an

independent consultant to conduct environmental

compliance audits at approximately 100 BIA

facilities throughout the Navajo Reservation. Under

the second SEP, BIA will prepare standard operating

procedures and contingency plans for the same

facilities. The third SEP requires the BIA to provide

HAZWOPER training to maintenance staff and

faculty at schools throughout the Navajo

Reservation.

The third DOI settlement resolved RCRA violations

at the BOR Yuma Desalter in Arizona. Under this

September 30, 1997, agreement, BOR will pay a

cash penalty of $36,769 and perform two SEPs with

an estimated total cost of $768,712. The first SEP

requires BOR to retain an independent

environmental consultant to conduct environmental

compliance audits at six BOR facilities along the

lower Colorado River. Under the second SEP, BOR

will purchase equipment and work with state, local,

and tribal governments to develop a hazardous
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-60

substance spill response team for the lower Colorado

River.

U.S. v. Hawaiian Western Steel (Hawaii): In

August 1997, a consent decree was entered,

resolving EPA’s claims against Cominico Ltd., the

last defendant in the Hawaiian Western Steel case. 

The consent decree provides for payment of a

$425,000 penalty by Cominico. In addition,

Cominico has agreed to perform the obligations of

Hawaii Western Steel and the Cambell Estate under

a prior decree if those entities do not perform their

obligations properly and promptly. These

obligations include conducting a RCRA Facilities

Investigation and Corrective Measures Study and

implementing the selected corrective measures. This

settlement is particularly significant because the

defendant is a foreign corporation that was a

corporate “grandparent” of the company most

directly involved in the violations. The case also is

important in that the contamination may have

affected people who fish and endangered species that

live near the facilities. 

REGION 10

CERCLA

Alaska Railroad Corp. (Alaska): On December 11,

1996, a partial consent decree was entered in U.S. v.

Alaska Railroad Corp., et al., settling EPA’s claims

for past costs and reimbursement of oversight costs

related to cleanup at the Standard Steel & Metals

Salvage Yard Superfund site in Anchorage, AK. 

The site was owned and operated by the Federal

Railroad Administration until 1985 when the Alaska

Railroad was transferred to the State of Alaska. In

the settlement, the U.S. recovered $2.7 million of its

past costs incurred in completing an emergency

removal at the site. The partial consent decree

contained an agreement by all defendants to

reimburse Chugach Electric Association for the cost

of the RI/FS, which it agreed to perform under an

AOC with EPA in 1992, and to pay EPA’s RI/FS

oversight costs and all other response costs incurred

by EPA. The partial consent decree also contained

an agreement by the settling federal agencies and the

Alaska Railroad Corporation to pay 64 percent of all

future costs incurred at the Standard Steel site after

issuance of the ROD.

On September 28, 1997, the U.S. filed an amended

complaint and moved to lodge a RD/RA consent

decree. The complaint amends the previous cost

recovery complaint by adding a count for injunctive

relief for performance of the cleanup at the site. The

RD/RA consent decree settles the case by obtaining

the agreement of the settling defendants to perform

the RD/RA and long-term monitoring at the site at

an estimated cost of $6.5 million. The settling

defendants also agreed to reimburse EPA’s oversight

costs. EPA agreed to reduce its oversight costs by

approximately $58,000, which represents the share

of cleanup costs owed by Montgomery Ward & Co.,

a named defendant in the case, which filed for

bankruptcy in June 1997.

Kerr-McGee (Idaho): Kerr-McGee Chemical

Corporation (KMCC) agreed to perform the remedial

action set forth in the ROD issued for the Caribou

County, ID, site, and to pay all outstanding EPA past

costs associated with the site, as well as all EPA

future oversight costs associated with

implementation of the ROD. The site is

contaminated with phosphorus mining products,
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-61 July 1998

including vanadium. KMCC received the standard

covenants, contribution protection, and other

consideration granted by the model Superfund

RD/RA consent decree.

Subsequently, KMCC sought an extension of time to

eliminate its primary liquid waste stream in

accordance with the ROD. In exchange for a

deadline extension to meet the ROD-prescribed

liquid source elimination, KMCC agreed in a

stipulation to pay a civil penalty of $500,000 if the

extended deadline is not met, and to waive any

judicial review of the imposition of such civil

penalty.

Northwest Pipe and Casing (Oregon): Northwest

Pipe and Casing (NWPC) agreed to pay almost

$3.2 million toward cleanup of the 53-acre Oregon

site upon which it formerly conducted coating and

manufacturing operations, which resulted in

widespread polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), PCB,

and metal contamination of the site. The

groundwater beneath the site contains elevated levels

of vinyl chloride. Following receipt of EPA’s

Special Notice letter in 1995, NWPC filed an action

in bankruptcy court, seeking a ruling that all of

EPA’s claims had been discharged in a bankruptcy

action. Two other PRPs settled in 1997. Wayne

Hall and the State of Oregon signed consent decrees

requiring Hall to pay $1 million toward cleanup

costs and turn his real property at the site over to the

State of Oregon, which agreed to hold the property

in trust for the future benefit of EPA. Negotiations

with a fourth PRP, Northwest Development

Company, are ongoing.

This case is a major accomplishment because the

parties most liable for the contamination at the site

will pay almost $4.2 million toward site cleanup. 

The settlements took over a year and a half to

finalize, but are significant because they represent a

diligent effort by the Agency to obtain a settlement

with parties who previously claimed they possessed

no ability to pay or had no liability for the site

contamination.

South Tacoma Field (Washington): This case

resolved EPA’s claims for cost recovery and

injunctive relief under CERCLA §§106 and 107. 

Pursuant to the consent decree, the settling

defendants paid the U.S. $2 million in past response

costs, agreed to reimburse the U.S. for its future

response costs, and agreed to perform a $17.3

million cleanup. The cleanup addresses lead

contamination caused by the operation of a foundry

and railroad repair yards. There were three

important features to the settlement: 1) the

settlement recognized an orphan share of $111,774;

2) the settlement trifurcated liability among three

groups of settling defendants (within each group

liability was joint and several); and 3) the settlement

required each owner settling defendant to file an

environmental protection easement and restrictive

covenant that provided EPA with both future access

to the site and the ability to limit future land/water

uses within the site to activities consistent with the

level of protection achieved by the implemented

cleanup.

Teledyne Wah Chang Albany (Oregon): The

consent decree in this case was entered in April

1997. The settlement is significant in achieving

agreement with a PRP who consistently expressed a

preference for a UAO and refused to pay EPA

oversight costs related to an earlier UAO issued for

remediation of sludge ponds. In this settlement, the

defendant agreed to pay 100 percent of those past

UAO oversight costs ($99,687), including interest. 

The cooperative working relationship achieved by

the settlement is of great importance to the Agency

in facilitating the cleanup at this complex, actively

operating facility. Teledyne is one of only two

facilities in the U.S. that produce zirconium metal. 

Teledyne has agreed to: 1) design and implement the

remedial actions selected in the RODs at a cost of

approximately $7.5 million; 2) pay $154,000 to the

U.S. in reimbursement of past response costs

incurred at the site through September 30, 1993; and

3) reimburse the co-plaintiffs, the U.S. and the State

of Oregon for 100 percent of past and future

response costs incurred in connection with the site

from October 1, 1993, until the RD/RA is completed. 

The RODs require remediation of on-site

groundwater through extraction and treatment;

excavation and disposal of PCB-contaminated

sediments; creek bank stabilization to prevent further

sediment contamination; excavation and offsite

disposal of soil contaminated with radium; building

restrictions for radon control, and the

implementation of institutional controls, which will

ensure that future land uses of remediated properties

are consistent with the implemented cleanup. 

CLEAN AIR ACT
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-62

Alaska Pulp Corp. (Alaska): On December 28,

1995, a complaint was filed against the Alaska Pulp

Corporation (APC) alleging violations of the CAA

federally-approved provision of the Alaska SIP

limiting particulate emissions from APC’s Sitka pulp

mill. The complaint alleged that on at least 250 days

between January 1, 1991, and September 30, 1993,

average emissions from the APC Sitka pulp mill

exceeded two pounds of PM per ton of pulp

produced, in violation of the SIP. On January 17,

1997, an order was entered, settling the case for a

civil penalty of $646,759 based on an economic

benefit calculation of $634,759 and a gravity

component calculation of $12,000. No injunctive

relief was required because the pulp mill was closed

in 1993.

Kalama Chemical, Inc. (Washington): On March

28, 1997, a consent decree was entered between

EPA, Kalama Chemical (KCI), and the State of

Washington’s Southwest Air Pollution Control

Authority (SWAPCA), resolving KCI’s numerous

violations of the benzene and asbestos NESHAPs

and the NSPS under CAA. EPA alleged that KCI

failed to comply with the equipment testing, leak

monitoring and leak detection, and reporting

requirements of the benzene NESHAP from 1984 to

1995, and also failed to comply with the initial

notification, performance testing, and reporting

requirements under Subpart NNN of the NSPS from

1991 to 1995. The decree requires KCI to comply

with all applicable NESHAP and NSPS regulations

and pay a penalty of $555,000 ($185,000 to be paid

to SWAPCA). KCI also must perform six SEPs,

including: 1) a pollution prevention audit; 2) a

fugitive emissions audit; 3) installation of a

regenerative thermal oxidizer on its vent streams to

reduce CO and VOC emissions (which is expected to

cut benzene emissions by 18 tons per year, toluene

emissions by over four tons per year, and CO

emissions by over 1,050 tons per year);

4) installation of a continuous emissions monitoring

system (the compliance determination method to be

used by KCI in its Title V permit) to measure

emissions being released; 5) a tie-in of its benzene

storage tank emissions into the existing carbon

adsorption system; and 6) a tie-in of its toluene

storage tank emissions into a condenser to control

emissions. KCI’s cost to perform these SEPs is

$1,351,838.

Ketchikan Pulp Corp. (Alaska): Under the terms of

a consent decree entered on January 22, 1997, the

Ketchikan Pulp Corporation (KPC) agreed to pay a

penalty of $259,000 for its violation of an EPA

compliance order and for its failure to obtain a PSD

permit, as required by CAA §165 and 40 CFR

§52.21, before constructing a woodwaste burner at

its sawmill on Annette Island, which is within the

Metlakatla Indian Annette Island Reservation in

southeast Alaska. KPC also agreed to dismantle its

woodwaste burner.

Mapco Alaska Petroleum, Inc. (Alaska): On

November 15, 1996, a consent decree was filed,

resolving CAA violations against the Mapco Alaska

Petroleum facility in North Pole, AK, (Mapco North

Pole). A complaint was filed concurrently with the

consent decree. The complaint alleged that Mapco

North Pole violated 13 different requirements of the

NSPS between 1977 and 1996. In settlement of the

complaint, Mapco North Pole agreed to pay a civil

penalty of $425,000 and to incur at least $689,000 in

capital costs and $40,000 in annual operation and

maintenance costs for two different SEPs at the

facility. The projects are expected to reduce

anticipated VOC emissions from the facility by

approximately 18 tons per year.

CLEAN WATER ACT

BP Exploration, Inc. (Alaska): BP Exploration,

Inc., operates a remote oil exploration and

development facility located in the Beaufort Sea,

AK. From January 1992 to October 1995, the

facility violated its NPDES discharge limits for fecal

coliform bacteria, BOD, TRC, pH, and flow. A

letter notifying the facility of the violations and

providing it an opportunity to explain the violations

was sent in March 1996. In July 1996, Region 10

issued an administrative complaint proposing a

penalty of $59,500. In October 1996, the facility and

EPA settled the complaint for the full amount of the

proposed penalty.

Jerome Cheese Co. (Idaho): An administrative

complaint was filed in 1995 against Jerome Cheese

Co. for alleged violations of the pretreatment

standards. Specifically, the region alleged that

Jerome Cheese caused interference and pass-through

by discharging excessive amounts of waste whey into

the City of Jerome’s POTW, which led to an upset of

the POTW and subsequent violations by the POTW

of its NPDES permit. The upset was so significant

that it took almost two weeks for the city to regain

control of its treatment system after the company’s
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-63 July 1998

spill of whey. Jerome Cheese agreed to pay a penalty

of $40,000 after submitting to alternative dispute

resolution mediated by an EPA ALJ.

FIFRA

Precision Helicopters, Inc. (Oregon): In its April

17, 1997, complaint, EPA charged Precision

Helicopters, Inc., with three FIFRA violations based

on the respondent’s aerial application of the

herbicide Riverside 2,4-D in a manner inconsistent

with its labeling. The herbicide’s label requires

applicators to keep unprotected persons and pets out

of treated areas until sprays have dried. The area

sprayed is in a known hunting area in Eastern

Washington frequented by duck hunters, pheasant

hunters, and others. The helicopter pilot admitted

seeing hunters and dogs in the area shortly before

the aerial application. In addition, the herbicide was

applied in a much higher concentration than

prescribed by the label. 

This case originated with the Washington State

Department of Agriculture. It was referred to EPA

after the state received heavy criticism in the media

for its handling of the investigation. EPA conducted

a thorough investigation, issued a complaint, and

quickly resolved the case. EPA obtained a penalty of

$1,500, the maximum fine allowed for a first offense

by a for-hire applicator. This case has led to

increased communication between EPA and the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with respect

to FIFRA violations involving aerial application. 

RCRA

Fort Richardson and Fort Wainwright (Alaska):

On April 29, 1994, EPA issued RCRA §3008(a)

complaints and compliance orders to these two Army

bases in Alaska. The complaints were issued as a

result of inspections conducted the previous year by

EPA and the Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation (ADEC). The complaint issued to Fort

Richardson sought a civil penalty of $1,337,332 for

twelve violations and the complaint issued to Fort

Wainwright sought a civil penalty of $659,450 for

six violations. The complaints alleged improper

storage of hazardous waste, storage of hazardous

waste without a permit or interim status, failure to

maintain proper records, and violations of land

disposal restriction (LDR) requirements contained in

Subchapter III of RCRA and the regulations

promulgated thereunder.

On November 15, 1996, the Army and EPA signed a

CACO to settle the enforcement actions for both

facilities. The CACO required the Army to pay a

$200,000 civil penalty and perform two SEPs. The

SEPs required the Army to spend a total of $1.3

million to build a state-of-the-art hazardous waste

training center at Fort Richardson and to install

hazardous waste storage lockers at Fort Richardson

and Fort Wainwright.

U.S. Coast Guard (Alaska): On July 12, 1995, EPA

filed an administrative complaint against the U.S.

Coast Guard in Kodiak, AK, alleging three RCRA

violations. The first count alleged failure to comply

with an existing federal facility compliance

agreement by failing to implement a groundwater

monitoring program at the “Laundry Unit” of the

facility. The second and third counts alleged storage

of hazardous waste in two waste piles without a

permit or interim status. The penalty assessed in the

complaint was $1,018,552. After extensive

settlement discussions, on January 22, 1997, a

consent agreement was entered which required the

respondent to pay $602,260 in civil penalties. As a

result of this action, the two waste piles, with a

combined total of 359 cubic yards of leadcontaminated debris, were contained.

TSCA

Asbestos Services International (Oregon): On

August 18, 1997, EPA suspended its approval of five

Asbestos Services International (ASI) courses

because of the willfulness of the violations and the

importance of proper training for the protection of

public health, safety, and the environment. The

suspension will last until August 18, 1998, or until

ASI provides EPA with full access to all required

records, whichever is later. ASI has requested a

hearing on the suspension.

During the May 1996 audit, EPA requested and was

refused access to ASI’s records. On April 10, 1997,

and June 18, 1997, EPA requested access to these

records or copies of them. ASI either failed to

respond or inadequately responded to these requests. 

Failure to provide reasonable access to records;

failure to submit required information or

notifications in a timely manner; failure to maintain

requisite records; and failure to adhere to the

training standards and requirements of the MAP are

the violations which form the basis for suspending or
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-64

withdrawing approval from accredited training

programs. 

NBA Environmental (Idaho): On September 24,

1997, Region 10 suspended until June 1998 its

accreditation approval under the AHERA Revised

Model Accreditation Plan (MAP) for the contractor

supervisor basic course provided by Neil Allen, d/b/a

NBA Environmental in Idaho Falls, ID. The bases

for the suspension of this training course were:

1) failure to obtain EPA approval prior to using

instructors in the initial supervisor/contractor

courses and continued use of an unapproved

instructor, even after being ordered by EPA to stop

using that instructor; 2) failure to submit to EPA in

advance the name and qualifications of all

instructors to be used in the January 1997

supervisor/contractor course; 3) failure to provide

EPA with reasonable access to NBA

Environmental’s training and accreditation records;

and 4) a history of noncompliance, including failure

to revise the supervisor/contractor instructional

materials and student manual to meet the revised

MAP requirements prior to the December 1995

supervisor/contractor course, despite sending EPA a

self-certification on April 8, 1994, indicating that all

of NBA Environmental’s courses complied with the

revised MAP requirements. 

Louisiana Pacific Corp. (Oregon): On

December 16, 1996, Region 10 filed an

administrative complaint alleging that, in 1991,

Louisiana Pacific (LP) violated PCB notification,

marking, storage, disposal, and manifesting

regulations at its Harris Pine Mill facility in

Pendleton, OR. On December 16, 1996, the region

also filed a CACO, assessing a $200,000 penalty

against LP for the alleged violations. The CACO

was negotiated prior to the filing of the complaint as

part of the resolution of a criminal case against LP

and its contractor, Quin Million, in which Million

pled guilty to criminal violations of TSCA. In the

CACO, LP agreed to clean up any PCB releases

discovered as a result of the improper disposal of

LP’s PCB equipment by Million.

MULTIMEDIA

Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. (Alaska): On

September 11, 1997, the regional administrator

signed a CACO resolving an administrative

complaint brought under CWA §309(g) and RCRA

§3008(a). The complaint alleged that Tesoro

violated certain effluent limitations of its NPDES

permit and failed to report a release from its oily

water sewer system as required by its RCRA postclosure permit. Tesoro agreed to pay $100,000 to

resolve the NPDES violations and $35,000 to resolve

the RCRA claims.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-65 July 1998

OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT

FIFRA

Hasbro, Inc.: Under a consent agreement, Hasbro,

Inc., manufacturer of Playskool® toys, stopped

making false claims that toys treated with an

antibacterial pesticide protect children from

infectious diseases. The plastic toys are

manufactured with the antibacterial pesticide

Microban®, with an active ingredient, triclosan. 

Microban® is registered by EPA as a pesticide to

inhibit bacterial growth in plastic but has not been

approved for public health claims. Labels and

advertisements for the toys suggested that the

treatment protects children from health risks, when

in fact it protects only the plastic in the toy from

disintegration. Hasbro, Inc. agreed to revoke earlier

claims, correct the information through

advertisements in various print media appropriate

store and toy placarding, and pay a penalty of

$120,000. The company took immediate steps to

inform the public, including relabeling or

repackaging all affected toys, and publishing large

advertisements in national magazines. The

collective value of the actions that Hasbro will take

are estimated to be well in excess of $1 million.

RCRA

Chief Supply Corporation, Inc. (Oklahoma): EPA

issued two RCRA §7003 imminent hazard orders to

the Chief Supply Corporation, Inc., located in

Haskell, OK, following an explosion and fire that

killed one worker and caused the evacuation of

surrounding residents. The facility collects and

stores hazardous and industrial waste, blends

hazardous wastes for fuel, and recycles hazardous

wastes. The fire consumed approximately 1,450

drums of hazardous waste stored at the facility. The

first order prohibited the operation of the facility

until safety and hazardous waste management

measures were in place. The second order required

Chief to install, operate and maintain air quality

monitoring stations, and perform air emission source

testing for all active air emission sources. EPA’s

action followed the state’s unsuccessful attempt to

issue a preliminary injunction preventing Chief from

restarting operations. Collectively, the orders

ensure that Chief will operate its facility safely and

protect its workers and the surrounding community. 

Harmon Electronics, Inc. (Missouri): The

Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued a final

order to Harmon Electronics, Inc. and a $586,000

RCRA penalty for mismanagement and illegal

dumping of hazardous waste. Harmon operates a

facility in Missouri that assembles control and safety

equipment for the railroad industry. The facility

used hazardous solvents (e.g., toluene, xylene) to

remove flux from circuit boards. The State of

Missouri determined that Harmon improperly

manages hazardous waste (e.g., by periodically

dumping wastes outside the facility) and operates

without a permit. The Missouri Department of

Natural Resources entered into an agreement with

Harmon that resolved the state’s claims, but assessed

no penalty. Region 7 informed the state that EPA

considered the violations a high priority and that the

State should impose penalties. Subsequently, EPA

filed a separate RCRA administrative enforcement

action against Harmon that resulted in the favorable

initial decision for EPA. Harmon appealed the

initial decision, but the EAB found in favor of the

Agency, including holding that RCRA provides the

Agency with independent authority to take action

when warranted.

TSCA

Newell Recycling Company, Inc.: Newell Recycling

was found liable for improper disposal of

PCB-contaminated soil (containing concentrations

in excess of 50 ppm). On October 7, 1997, the ALJ

assessed the company more than $1.2 million, the

largest TSCA penalty ever awarded by an ALJ. 

MULTIMEDIA

Marine Shale (Louisiana): The U.S. and the State

of Louisiana lodged a final consent decree with

Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (MSP) and Southern

Wood Piedmont (SWP), resolving one of the largest

and most difficult multimedia cases ever brought by

the federal government. Before it was shut down by

the government, MSP was the largest hazardous

waste incinerator in the country. Beginning in 1985-

86, MSP illegally accepted hundreds of different

hazardous wastes from around the country to burn its

incinerator system. After MSP burned the waste, the
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-66

facility attempted to sell the resulting hazardous ash

to the public as a “recycled product” for $1 a ton. 

The U.S. filed the initial complaint in 1990, and

expects the consent decree to be entered during

FY98. The settlement also involves a potential

purchaser of the MSP facility, GTX Inc., which

plans to purchase the assets and liabilities of MSP. 

GTX plants to make this purchase after it obtains the

necessary permits to operate the MSP facility safely. 

Under the settlement, GTX and the defendants will

undertake injunctive relief to clean up the various

sites, an estimated cost of $10 to $15 million. In

addition, they will pay approximately $9 million in

civil penalties to the state and federal governments.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-67 July 1998

CRIMINAL

U.S. v. Attique Ahmad (Southern District of

Texas): On September 8, 1997, the court sentenced

Mr. Attique Ahmad to serve one year in prison and

pay the State of Texas $27,487 in cleanup costs for

illegally dumping 4,690 gallons of gasoline into the

Conroe, TX, storm and sewer systems on January 25,

1994. Ahmad, the former owner of the

Spin-N-Market gasoline station in Conroe, pleaded

guilty to pumping gasoline into the storm drain and

sewer systems from a leaking UST. The gasoline

created an imminent danger of explosion, forced the

evacuation of children from two schools and caused

the shutdown of the Conroe sewage treatment plant. 

The spill also contaminated Possum Creek, which

empties into Lake Houston, a major source of

drinking water for the City of Houston. 

U.S. v. BFI Services Group (Eastern District of

Pennsylvania): On July 18, 1997, the court ordered

BFI Services Group, to pay a fine of $3 million and

to pay $642,311 to four publicly-owned treatment

facilities. In addition, the company also must make

remedial restitution of $1.5 million to programs or

organizations that address environmental concerns

in southeastern Pennsylvania and northern

Delaware. The defendant previously pleaded guilty

to charges arising from the illegal disposal of

millions of gallons of a mixture of raw sewage,

grease, and treated wastewater sludge which was

sent to five POTW plants in southeastern

Pennsylvania and northern Delaware after it had

been identified falsely as containing only raw

sewage. All six defendants plead guilty to various

charges contained in the 23-count indictment for

conspiracy, mail fraud, and CWA permit violations,

and will be sentenced in FY98. BFI Services

previously paid a $1,024,546 civil penalty and

$575,454 in restitution to the fifth treatment plant.

U.S. v. Child Safe Products Corp. (Eastern District

of New York): On August 29, 1997, Child Safe

Products Corp. of Hicksville, NY; Ralph L. Guercia,

Child Safe’s President; and Joseph Guercia, a Child

Safe salesman/general manager, all pleaded guilty to

one count of illegally disposing of hazardous waste. 

Child Safe Products Corp. supplies and installs

safety surfaces for tennis courts and playgrounds. 

The defendants admitted to abandoning over 100 55-

gallon drums of waste paint materials containing

toluene, benzene, and xylene in a stolen trailer that

was discovered in New Jersey in 1994. When

sentenced, Child Safe faces a maximum of $500,000

in fines. The two other defendants each face

maximum sentences of up to five years in prison and

fines of up to $250,000.

U.S. v. Cooper (Southern District of California):

On May 23, 1997, Gordon Cooper was sentenced to

serve 51 months in prison followed by three years

supervised probation for conspiracy, CWA

violations, and wire fraud. On February 28, 1997,

Cooper, and his company, Chino Corona Farms,

Inc., were found guilty on all charges for falsely

billing the City of San Diego for services and for

dumping sludge at an unapproved location. Coowner of the company, Robert Vaughn, pleaded

guilty to one CWA count and was sentenced to six

months confinement, five years probation, and a

$50,000 fine. Cooper and Vaughn had contracted

with the city to compost its waste sludge from the

Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant on the

Torrez-Martinez Indian Reservation in Riverside

County, CA. Instead, Cooper and Vaughn

stockpiled the material on tribal land until it became

a 200,000-ton nuisance nicknamed “Mount San

Diego.” Cooper and Vaughn also shipped sludge to

Mexico for disposal and to a farm in Imperial

County, CA, for land application without the

approval of the appropriate state authorities. In

addition, they falsified billing information and overcharged the city by approximately $2 million. 

U.S. v. Noble Cunningham (Northern District of

Georgia): On September 19, 1997, Mr. Noble

Cunningham of Mansfield, OH, was sentenced to

four years and eight months in federal prison and

ordered to pay $147,716 in restitution for cleanup

costs to Thomas Mimms and $10,000 in restitution

to the Westview Sanitary Landfill in Atlanta, GA. 

Cunningham was convicted on May 15, 1997, on

four felony counts of violating RCRA. Cunningham

was the operator of R&D Chemical Company, which

illegally stored over 600,000 pounds of hazardous

barium chromate sludge on a farm near Mansfield,

OH. When the Ohio EPA undertook an

administrative action, Cunningham illegally

transported the sludge to Rose Laboratories, Inc., in

Brookhaven, GA, where most of it was abandoned
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-68

on Thomas Mimms’ property. Some sludge also

was dumped at the Westview Sanitary Landfill.

U.S. v. Darling International, Inc. (District of

Minnesota): On July 10, 1997, Darling

International, Inc., of Irving, TX, was sentenced to

pay a $4 million fine after pleading guilty to five

felony counts of violating CWA. The company

illegally discharged wastewater into the Blue Earth

River, diluted wastewater samples, and falsified

reports to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to

cover up illegal discharges from its Blue Earth

Rendering Plant in Blue Earth, MN. $1 million of

the fine potentially may be used for improvement of

the Blue Earth River, and $300,000 will be remitted

for civil penalties. Two plant employees pled guilty

to related charges and a third employee was

convicted after a jury trial.

U.S. v. Eklof Marine Corp. (District of Rhode

Island): On September 25, 1997, Eklof Marine

Corp. of Staten Island, NY; its subsidiaries Thor

Towing Corp. and Odin Marine Corp.; Leslie

Wallin, Eklof’s President; and Gregory Aitken,

captain of the tug Scandia, all pleaded guilty to

federal and Rhode Island State criminal charges. 

The charges arose from a spill of 826,000 gallons of

home heating oil from the oil barge North Cape. 

The spill occurred on January 19, 1996, when the

barge ran aground while it was being towed by the

Scandia in a storm off Matunuck, RI, causing

significant damage to marine creatures and wildlife. 

Eklof, Thor, Odin, and Wallin admitted that both the

tug and the barge were equipped improperly to safely

navigate stormy waters that day. The agreement

calls for the companies to pay a $3.5 million federal

fine, a $3.5 million state fine, $1.5 million to the

Nature Conservancy to buy land for conservation

purposes, and $1 million for remedial safety

measures. Wallin and Aitken could be sentenced to

spend up to one year in prison and fined up to twice

the cost of the losses caused by the spill. 

U.S. v. Raymond Feldman (Eastern District of

Missouri): On April 25, 1997, Raymond Feldman,

owner of Ray’s Automotive in St. Louis, MO, was

sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for his

conviction on one felony count of the unlawful

disposal of hazardous waste and one felony count of

conspiring to unlawfully transport and dispose of

hazardous waste in violation of RCRA. In addition,

Feldman must pay restitution in the amount of

$40,000 to the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources, $35,000 to the EPA, and up to an

additional $90,000 for any further cleanup

expenditures by either agency. In May and June

1996, Feldman hired Jack Delmar Dunn and Pamela

Naomi Fox, two unindicted co-conspirators, to

dispose of over 200 55-gallon drums and other

containers of ignitable, lead-bearing hazardous paint

wastes. Sixty-three of the drums, which Feldman

had stored illegally in a lot next to his facility, were

dumped along a levee road near the McKinley

Bridge over the Mississippi River. 

U.S. v. Four Star Chemical (Southern District of

California): On December 9, 1996, Four Star

Chemical Co., a Los Angeles importing firm, was

sentenced to a fine of $75,000 as a result of its

federal felony conviction for smuggling CFC-113, an

ozone layer depleting chemical, into the U.S. The

company also forfeited $100,000 in illegal profits

earned from this smuggling scheme, and the IRS

filed a civil claim of $243,000 for unpaid taxes on

the smuggled goods. The smuggling was discovered

on July 21, 1995, when U.S. Customs Service agents

seized a shipment of 49,000 pounds of CFC-113

imported into the U.S. from China. Four Star

Chemical declared that it possessed unused CAA

allowances, but EPA reported that Four Star did not

possess any allowances. 

U.S. v. Greenwood (District of South Dakota): On

November 18, 1996, Ronald E. Greenwood and

Barry M. Milbauer, the former manager and

assistant manager of John Morrell and Company’s

wastewater treatment plant located in Sioux Falls,

SD, each were sentenced to six months home

confinement, a $1,000 fine, and 100 hours of

community service. In addition, the court ordered

Greenwood to pay $5,000 in restitution and Milbauer

$3,000 in restitution to the Big Sioux River

Environmental Trust Fund. In January 1995,

Greenwood and Milbauer pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to violate CWA by illegally discharging

wastewater from the Morrell wastewater treatment

plant into the Big Sioux River in violation of

Morrell’s discharge permit; the falsification of

monitoring reports; and conspiracy to hide these

illegal acts for eight years. The Morrell Company

was fined $2 million and ordered to provide $1

million for environmental restoration.

U.S. v. Roy Hart (District of Utah): On June 16,

1997, Roy Hart, former owner of North American

Environmental (NAE), Inc., of Clearfield, UT, was
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-69 July 1998

sentenced on one count of violating RCRA. Hart

must serve six months home confinement with work

release authorization and three years probation, and

pay $1,347,922 in restitution to the private parties

who cleaned up abandoned PCB waste at the NAE

facility in Clearfield. In December 1990, Region 8

officials notified NAE that it had lost interim status

to operate as a commercial PCB storage facility. 

NAE was directed not to accept any further waste

and was told to dispose of the existing PCB waste

within 30 days. NAE continued to accept PCB waste

for storage after the 30 day period had expired and

did not dispose of the waste already stored at its

facility. Additionally, NAE claimed financial

inability to comply with EPA’s directives and

subsequently its Clearfield PCB storage site was

abandoned. In a July 1991 inspection of NAE’s

facility, EPA found an estimated one million pounds

of PCB oil and debris and hazardous wastes stored in

drums, and then conducted a cleanup operation. 

U.S. v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. (Southern

District of New York): On December 10, 1996, Hess

Oil Virgin Islands Corporation (HOVIC), the

refining arm of Amerada Hess Corporation of

Woodbridge, NJ, and New York, NY, agreed to pay

a total of $5.3 million in fines and restitution when it

entered a plea of guilty to felony charges of violating

RCRA by illegally transporting hazardous waste. 

Between December 11, 1991, and February 9, 1992,

HOVIC falsely declared that 1,402 55-gallon drums

containing 617,980 pounds of spent refinery catalyst

contained non-hazardous waste. HOVIC then

knowingly shipped the drums to Arizona, where the

catalyst was used as a source of alumina in the

manufacture of Portland cement. In reality, some of

the drums contained benzene levels of 43.4 ppm,

which is more than 85 times the regulatory limit.

U.S. v. Hanousek (District of Alaska): On May 21,

1997, Edward Hanousek, a railroad supervisor for

the White Pass & Yukon Railroad, was sentenced to

serve six months in prison, serve six months in a

half-way house, and pay a $5,000 fine for his CWA

conviction for the negligent discharge of oil from a

company pipeline in October 1994. On October 1,

1994, Hanousek was supervising the illegal removal

of rock from U.S. Forest Service land near the

pipeline when a piece of construction equipment

struck the pipeline, causing a 14-inch crack and the

subsequent discharge of oil into the Skagway River.

U.S. v. Jones (Northern District of West Virginia):

On March 12, 1997, Billy Joe Jones was sentenced

to 27 months imprisonment and two years of

supervised release following his conviction for

knowingly allowing sewage to bypass the treatment

facility; discharging approximately 65,000 gallons of

raw sewage into the Ohio River in the fall of 1992;

and falsifying wastewater analysis reports.

U.S. v. Kilgore (District of Northern Ohio): On

September 8, 1997, Lutellis Kilgore of Elyria, OH,

was sentenced to 37 months in prison and two years

of supervised release after Kilgore pleaded guilty to

violating FIFRA by illegally applying the insecticide

methyl parathion to over 60 properties in Lorain and

Elyria, OH. Kilgore was not a certified methyl

parathion applicator, and his actions led to a $20

million, publicly-funded cleanup of the affected

residences in Lorain and Elyria, OH, conducted by

the EPA, the Ohio Department of Agriculture, and

the Health Departments of the Cities of Lorain and

Elyria.

U.S. v. Knight (Northern District of West Virginia):

On January 6, 1997, Bentley Mathers Knight was

sentenced to two years probation and ordered to pay

a $500 fine pursuant to pleading guilty to a onecount federal felony indictment for knowingly

making false statements on laboratory analysis

reports required under CWA. Knight, a former

laboratory technician employed by the City of New

Martinsville, falsely reported laboratory analyses for

TSS, fecal coliform, and BOD of wastewater

discharged by the New Martinsville wastewater

treatment plant into the Ohio River.

U.S. v. LeFave (Southern District of California):

On October 25, 1996, Gene M. LeFave, former CEO

of Fluid Polymers, Inc., of Las Vegas, NV, was

sentenced to four years in prison and one year

supervised release for his conviction for illegally

dumping hazardous industrial waste in the newly

created East Mojave National Preserve and on lands

administered by the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) between April 1, 1995, and August 15, 1995. 

The court ordered LeFave and the corporation to

reimburse $25,783 to the NPS and $14,108 to the

BLM for cleanup costs. Fluid Polymers, Inc., which

manufactures chemicals, was sentenced on October

17, 1996, and fined $10,000. 

U.S. v. Mann (District of Colorado): On August 28,

1997, Robert Mann, former mill supervisor at a
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-70

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation manufacturing facility

in Olathe, CO, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate

CAA. Mann admitted to conspiring to tamper with

air emissions control equipment and conspiring to

falsify emission report data to state and federal

regulators to maximize production in 1991 and

1992. In the process, he concealed emissions of

sulfur dioxide, methlyne dioxyisocyanate, and

formaldehyde that exceeded the facility’s discharge

permit, causing health problems for numerous local

citizens. 

U.S. v. McCrary (Eastern District of Texas):

Edward W. McCrary III, of Baton Rouge, LA, was

sentenced on May 9, 1997, to serve ten months in

federal prison for violating the conditions of his

supervised release. McCrary previously served 27

months for one count of illegally discharging

pollutants in violation of CWA and one count of

conspiracy. After McCrary’s release from prison,

special agents of EPA and Special Investigators of

the Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC) reported to the court that

McCrary was engaged in the business of selling

contaminated solid waste toluene, a hazardous waste,

to gasoline blenders or manufacturers without prior

court approval. This contaminated toluene

contained approximately five percent hexamethyl

disiloxane (HMDO), which forms ash deposits in

automobile engines that make spark plugs

inoperative. Automobile owners have made more

than 400 claims for engine damage, which they

claim was the result of using gasoline made with the

contaminated toluene.

U.S. v. Ray McCune (District of Utah): On October

7, 1996, Ray McCune, president and owner of

Reclaim Barrel Supply Company and Allstate

Container Company, was sentenced to 18 months in

prison and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine and

$100,000 in restitution for the illegal storage of

hazardous waste at both facilities. His co-defendant,

Plant Manager Bruce Jones, was sentenced to 18

months probation and a fine of $2,000 on September

13, 1996. This was the first federal environmental

felony prosecution in Utah which resulted in a prison

sentence for a defendant. McCune’s business

specialized in reconditioning 55-gallon drums. 

During the reconditioning process, McCune

collected corrosive and ignitable wastes at the

Reclaim Barrel Supply Company from May 1992 to

August 1993 and at Allstate Container Company

from March 1993 to April 1994. In addition, he

illegally discharged pollutants into the sewer at

Allstate Container from May of 1993 through June

of 1993. In May 1992, McCune abandoned

thousands of drums at the Reclaim Barrel facility. A

cleanup conducted by EPA at Reclaim Barrel cost

nearly $1 million. This criminal enforcement action

represented the first case in Utah where a criminal

sentence was imposed for environmental crimes.

U.S. v. Midstream Holding Corp. (Middle District

of Louisiana): Midstream Holding Corporation of

Baton Rouge, LA, was ordered to pay a $60,000 fine

and serve two years probation on July 18, 1997, after

pleading guilty to one count of violating CWA. 

Midstream provides fueling and waste disposal

services to vessels on the Mississippi River. From

approximately 1992 to 1995, the company was

illegally dumping bilge slop containing waste oil and

other wastes into the Mississippi River. The

discharges came from the Midstream Fuel Service,

Inc., facility in Baton Rouge. 

U.S. v. Moore (Southern District of West Virginia):

On December 16, 1996, Denny Moore was sentenced

to 21 months in prison for his conviction on four

counts of violating CWA. In April 1994, Moore

abandoned the sewage treatment plant and allowed

raw sewage to be discharged from the treatment

plant at the Shady Woods subdivision near Muncy,

WV, into Pigeon Creek.

U.S. v. Refrigeration USA (Southern District of

Florida): In the largest recovery ever in a criminal

case for smuggling CFC refrigerants prosecuted

under CAA, Refrigeration USA of Miami and

Hallandale, FL; Roland Wood of North Miami, FL,

the company’s president; Diane McNally of Miami,

FL, Refrigeration’s bookkeeper, and Lisa Salazar of

Pembroke Pines, FL, an import-export clerk at

Refrigeration USA, all pleaded guilty on May 28,

1997, to various federal violations. Their crimes

arose from smuggling over 4,000 tons of the ozonedepleting refrigerant gas CFC-12. The three

individuals each pleaded guilty to conspiring with

others to import CFC-12 without consumption

allowances required by CAA. The scheme involved

filing false documents with the U.S. Customs

Service, EPA, and the IRS. The corporation pleaded

to 129 felony counts. The plea agreement requires

the immediate surrender of over $4.47 million in

cash being held in offshore accounts; the forfeiture of

real estate in Miami, FL, and London, England,

valued at over $3.4 million; forfeiture of stock in a
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-71 July 1998

domestic bank; and surrender to the government of

11,200 30-pound cylinders of CFC-12 which have a

current market value of $6.72 million. Each of the

three defendants faces maximum sentences of up to

five years in prison and/or fines of up to $250,000 or

twice the gain or loss caused by their criminal

conduct. The company faces possible fines of up to

$500,000 on each felony count, as well as restitution. 

In addition, all defendants can still be held liable for

the unpaid excise taxes on the smuggled CFC-12

which are due to the IRS. 

U.S. v. Terry Rettig (Eastern District of Virginia):

On January 16, 1997, Terry L. Rettig of Virginia

Beach, VA, was sentenced to serve 30 months in

federal prison and serve one year of supervised

release for his felony conviction for violating CWA. 

Mr. Rettig was the former wastewater treatment

plant operator for two meat-packing plants owned by

Smithfield Foods, Inc., and three other wastewater

treatment plants, all of which are located in

southeastern Virginia. In October 1996, Rettig

pleaded guilty to 23 counts of violating the CWA,

admitting he failed to perform required water

sampling and analysis, discharged wastewater in

violation of discharge permit limits, and falsified

discharge monitoring reports and laboratory data for

all five treatment plants. These acts led to the

discharge of high levels of fecal coliform bacteria

into the Pagan River, which empties into the James

River and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay. 

U.S. v. William Ries et. al. (Northern District of

Iowa): William Ries and John Hirsch of Dubuque,

IA, and Michael Sandidge of St. Paul, MN, were

each sentenced to 30 days confinement with work

release privileges, one year supervised release, and a

fine of $1,000 plus interest for their guilty pleas to

one count of violating the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

The defendants admitted to knowingly dumping

refuse including coal, fertilizer, salt, and grain into

the Mississippi River at Dubuque, IA, without a

discharge permit. All three were employees of Newt

Marine Service, Inc., a Dubuque barge cleaning

company. 

U.S. v. Royal Swift and U.S. v. J. and M. Devine

Corp. (District of Massachusetts): In 1995, Royal

Swift, the dispatcher for A-1 Sanitation (formerly

known as J. and M. Devine Corp.) in Halifax,

Massachusetts, dumped a solvent-laced load of septic

tank waste at the Wareham, MA, treatment plant

after lying to plant workers about the nature and

source of the waste. The solvents caused a major

plant upset, including killing half of the biological

population in the treatment system. The POTW staff

prevented the discharge of the solvent to the

Agawam River, but sampling and managing the

volatile pollutant posed a serious threat to plant

workers in the process. 

In January 1997, Royal Swift pleaded guilty to

providing false information to the plant. In April

1997, he was sentenced to eight months

incarceration and 36 months probation. A-1

Sanitation pleaded guilty to knowingly violating

CWA by discharging waste which created toxic

gases, vapors or fumes and threatened POTW

workers. In addition, A-1 was required to publish a

description of its conviction and an apology in two

national trade publications and a local newspaper. 

A-1 also paid approximately $10,000 in restitution to

Wareham POTW, agreed to pay a $30,000 criminal

fine, and has developed a training program and

office protocol for preventing future toxic discharges. 

U.S. v. Rudd (Eastern District of Texas): On July

10, 1997, Thomas R. Rudd, former president of

Striping Technology, Inc. (STI), was sentenced to 15

months in prison following his June 1996 guilty plea

to one count of violating RCRA. STI is the largest

pavement, road, and highway-striping contracting

business in Texas. Rudd directed his employees to

bury hundreds of barrels of paint wastes

contaminated with toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, and

waste lead in pits, which were dug deeply enough to

reach groundwater flowing into a nearby tributary of

Black Fork Creek. The investigation found that

contaminated paint wastes also were disposed of

illegally at four other locations. Rudd agreed to bear

the costs of the cleanup at all five locations, which so

far have totaled more than $400,000. He also agreed

to create a trust fund in the amount of $250,000 to

benefit the East Texas Ecological Education Center. 

U.S. v. James Scalise and Frey Manufacturing,

Inc. (District of Connecticut): A Connecticut

lawyer, James Scalise, owned an electroplating

business, Frey Manufacturing Company, Inc. In

addition to his legal practice. On May 2, 1997,

Scalise was sentenced to six months of home

confinement, three years probation, and a $15,000

fine. The company was sentenced to five years of

probation and a $25,000 fine. Two months later,

Scalise was suspended from the practice of law for

two years by the Connecticut Legal Grievance
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-72

Committee for his role in the environmental criminal

violations. The criminal charges were three CWA

felonies stemming from illegal discharges of

electroplating wastes into the New Britain, CT,

sewage system. The counts concerned discharges

without a state permit, discharges of cyanide and

acid in violation of CWA regulations, and the failure

to submit required periodic monitoring results.

Scalise and Frey were advised on numerous

occasions by state inspectors to install necessary

equipment and apply for a pretreatment permit. 

Scalise was also informed that acid and cyanide

combine to cause a deadly gas. In response, Scalise

and Frey did nothing. In addition, the company was

sent an information request under the CWA and

failed to respond when required. A subsequent EPA

administrative order concerning the failure to

respond to the information request was similarly

ignored until Scalise was visited by an EPA criminal

investigator.

U.S. v. Seawitch Salvage, Inc. (District of

Maryland): Kerry L. Ellis, Sr., president and owner

of Seawitch Salvage, Inc., and Seawitch Salvage

were convicted on seven felony counts on May 30,

1997, for violations of CAA, CWA, the Rivers and

Harbors Act, and for making a false statement to a

federal agency. The violations were committed

while Seawitch was executing a contract with the

U.S. Navy to demolish and scrap two vessels, the

USS Illusive, a minesweeper, and the USS Coral

Sea, an aircraft carrier. As a part of the contract, the

defendants were required to properly remove

asbestos and other hazardous materials from the

ships prior to dismantling them. Between May 1993

and September 1995, Ellis and Seawitch directed

their employees to remove material which contained

asbestos from the ships; however, neither Ellis nor

Seawitch was licensed to engage in asbestos

abatement and removal activities. During the

removal, workers were exposed to asbestos without

protective equipment. In addition, Ellis submitted a

false statement to the Defense Reutilization and

Marketing Agency of the Department of Defense

(DOD) concerning the removal of asbestos from the

Coral Sea. Ellis and Seawitch were convicted of

discharging oil, construction debris, paint chips,

metal fragments, insulation materials, and other

pollutants into the Patapsco River in violation of

CWA and the Refuse Act. 

U.S. v. Taylor (District of Oregon): On February 25,

1997, James Powell Taylor, the owner and operator

of Continental Plating, Inc., was sentenced to five

months in federal prison and was required to pay

EPA cleanup costs in the amount of $45,000 for his

guilty plea to felony charges for illegally

transporting and storing hazardous wastes in

violation of RCRA. Continental Plating, Inc., a

Eugene, OR, electroplating business, ceased

operations in 1984. After it closed, Taylor illegally

transported and stored his electroplating chemicals,

including two 1,000-gallon plating tanks containing

plating chemicals, (i.e., arsenic, cyanide, chromium,

and lead) at an outdoor facility in West Eugene.

U.S. v. Valverde (Central District of California):

On March 3, 1997, Michael E. Valverde of Oceano,

CA, a supervisor at the sewage treatment facility for

the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo,

CA, pleaded guilty to one count of violating CWA. 

In May 1996, Valverde discharged partially treated

sewage into Chorro Creek, a tributary of the Morro

Bay Estuary. Valverde also pleaded guilty to one

count of falsifying water pollution monitoring

records and reports that are required to be submitted

to state and federal environmental protection

agencies. Valverde faces a maximum of five years

imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $250,000

on each count.

U.S. v. Walls (District of Mississippi): Paul F.

Walls, Sr., of Moss Point, MS, was sentenced to six

years and six months in prison on July 7, 1997, for

his conviction on 45 counts of knowingly spraying

the pesticide methyl parathion without a license and

three counts of illegally distributing methyl

parathion in violation of FIFRA. This is the longest

consecutive amount of prison time ever handed down

in a case involving a strictly environmental

violation. Walls did not possess a license for

commercial pesticide application, and a Mississippi

State Court ordered him to cease his commercial

activities. A co-defendant, Dock Eatman, Sr.,

received a sentence of five years and three months

for his conviction on 21 counts of illegal pesticide

application. Trial testimony indicated that some

people required medical attention as a result of Walls

and Eatman’s acts.

U.S. v. Warner Lambert (District of Puerto Rico):

Warner Lambert, Inc., agreed to a fine of $3 million

as a result of its guilty pleas to six felony counts of

violating CWA. Warner Lambert manufactures
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-73 July 1998

pharmaceuticals and confectionary products at its

Vega Baja, PR, facility. The company admitted that

it knowingly failed to accurately report results of

tests it performed on wastewater discharged from the

Vega Baja facility’s wastewater treatment plant. The

treatment plant’s NPDES permit required

monitoring of discharged wastewater for 34

pollutants and other effluent characteristics. 

However, in its monthly discharge monitoring

reports from the mid-1980s to late 1992, Warner

Lambert regularly failed to inform the Puerto Rican

Environmental Quality Board and EPA of test results

that indicated violations of its permit limits for up to

seven pollutants each month. 

U.S. v. Johnnie James Williams (Western District

of Tennessee): On March 21, 1997, Johnnie James

Williams of South Memphis, TN, was sentenced to

41 months imprisonment and two years of

supervised release for his jury conviction on two

felony counts of violating RCRA by illegally storing

and disposing of hazardous waste in a South

Memphis EJ neighborhood. Williams owned and

operated W&R Drum, a drum recycling facility,

from 1983 until July 1994 when EPA closed the site

and began a Superfund cleanup. The cleanup, which

cost taxpayers $1.5 million, found levels of heavy

metals, acids, organic materials, and solvents that

were as much as 2,000 times the regulatory limits. 

Williams stored explosive, toxic, and corrosive

materials in over 1,000 drums and dumped an equal

amount on his property, saturating the ground. In

all, 10,000 tons of soil were replaced during the

cleanup. This is the longest prison sentence handed

down in an environmental case in Tennessee, and

equals the longest incarceration sentence in any

RCRA case in the U.S. 
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-74

FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT OFFICE

CERCLA

King Salmon (Alaska): On December 16, 1996, a

CERCLA cleanup agreement was signed by the U.S.

Air Force, the State of Alaska, and Region 10. The

Air Force entered into the agreement pursuant to

CERCLA §§104 and 120(a)(4). Alaska will be

using its state authorities to provide oversight of

activities and to enforce the agreement. EPA’s role

in the agreement is to provide technical assistance

and to consult with Alaska and the Air Force on the

implementation of the agreement. EPA has reserved

its rights to require the Air Force to perform work at

the site independent of this agreement. The purpose

of the agreement is to provide a procedural

framework and schedule for coordination and

implementation of the selected interim remedial

action at the site in accordance with CERCLA, the

national contingency plan, applicable guidance and

policy, and applicable state laws. King Salmon is an

NPL caliber site that was not listed because the

Governor of Alaska did not concur on the listing. 

Naval Ammunition Depot ( Nebraska): Ray Fatz,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,

signed the Interagency Agreement for the U.S. Army

Former Naval Ammunition Depot site located in

Hastings, NE, after a period of re-negotiating to

resolve remaining issues. The Hastings site was

listed on the NPL in June 1986 (final). Groundwater

and soil at the site have been contaminated with

VOCs, heavy metals, and PAHs. Several cleanup

actions have taken place while other long term

cleanup actions are ongoing.

Oak Ridge Tennessee Reservation (Tennessee):

Final agreement on a major modification to the

Interagency Agreement (IAG) at the DOE’s Oak

Ridge Tennessee Reservation NPL site also was

reached. The modification provides for rolling

milestones and makes specific milestones more

enforceable. 

Old Navy Dump/Manchester Laboratory

(Washington): On July 30, 1997, the CERCLA §120

IAG became effective upon signature by the regional

administrator. The Old Navy Dump (Manchester

Annex) site in Washington constitutes 39.50 acres of

uplands and an unquantified amount of tidelands

within Clam Bay. The site is a Formerly Utilized

Defense Site (FUDS) being remediated by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers under its FUDS program.

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Kentucky):

Region 4 reached agreement with DOE on cleanup

of the NPL listed Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,

in Paducah, KY. The agreement anticipates

completion of groundwater cleanup by the year 2010. 

The IAG was sent out for public comment during

FY97. Region 4 and DOE are now in the process of

finalizing the agreement. 

Warren Air Force Base (Wyoming): Pursuant to the

CERCLA Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for F.E.

Warren Air Force Base, Region 8 issued a Stop

Work Order (SWO) requesting that work being done

at OU-3, Landfill 6 be immediately stopped. The

SWO may be the first issued to a federal facility

pursuant to a FFA. The order was issued because

F.E. Warren proceeded with construction of the

compacted layer of the evapotranspiration (ET) cover

prior to finalization of the ROD amendment

changing the remedy from a RCRA Subtitle C cap to

an ET cover. Although work on the EP cover has

stopped, EPA and the State of Wyoming now are

evaluating issues regarding winterization activities

to control erosion of Landfill 6’s surface during the

winter season, and how this can be accomplished

vis-a-vis the SWO and the FFA.

RCRA

Defense Depot (Tennessee): Region 4 filed a final

order settling the RCRA case against DOD, Defense

Logistics Agency (DLA), a military supply depot

located in Memphis, TN. The order called for a

penalty payment of $12,000. This action settled a

September 1996 administrative complaint the region

filed under RCRA §3008(a) against DLA, which

alleged that the respondent stored containers of

incompatible hazardous wastes next to each other

without properly separating them in accordance with

RCRA. The complaint assessed a penalty of

$20,000, and ordered the facility to submit a plan

within 30 days insuring that incompatible wastes

were no longer stored together. The respondent

submitted the required plan and provided the region

with new information concerning the facility’s
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-75 July 1998

storage practices. Based on this new information,

the penalty was reduced to $12,000.

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center

(Connecticut): Region 1 reached settlement on

March 31, 1997, with the Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Westhaven, CT, on

a complaint and compliance order under RCRA

§3008(a). The penalty assessed in the final

complaint was $82,375 and the settlement penalty

was $61,550. The VA will pay $15,388 (25 percent)

in cash and will perform SEPs costing some

$48,000. Among the violations outlined in the

CACO was the failure to make hazardous waste

determinations. EPA inspectors found that the

facility sent hazardous wastes off-site designated as

non-hazardous wastes. The facility also failed to

minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any

unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of

hazardous waste constituents. EPA inspectors found

containers holding both acids and caustics, which

could result in heat generation and violent reaction if

mixed together. 

Fort Campbell (Kentucky/Tennessee): Region 4

settled a RCRA case, assessing a $36,000 penalty

against the Fort Campbell Army base located on the

Kentucky/Tennessee border. The Fort Campbell

violations included: failure to make hazardous waste

determination; failure to correctly label containers;

failure to remove hazardous waste from satellite

accumulation areas in a timely manner; and failure

to maintain emergency equipment. The base is now

in compliance with the order. The original penalty

proposed in the September 1996 complaint was

$48,700. 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC)

(Connecticut): On September 18, 1996, NUWC of

the Department of the Navy agreed to pay a $80,625

penalty to settle an EPA complaint alleging

violations of federal and state hazardous waste

management laws at three of its Connecticut

locations--two in New London and one in East

Lyme. NUWC researches and develops acoustic

sensing devices for the Navy.

Region 1 and the Connecticut DEP jointly inspected

the three NUWC facilities and discovered violations

of RCRA. Region 1 prenegotiated a settlement for

the RCRA violations observed at NUWC. On

September 16, 1996, a complaint was filed

simultaneously with a CACO which includes a

monetary penalty of $80,625.

NUWC failed to have a complete contingency plan

for responding to an accidental hazardous waste

spill; failed to properly train personnel; failed to

determine if wastes were hazardous and therefore

subject to federal management and handling laws;

and failed to properly label hazardous waste

containers at the facility.

United States Coast Guard (USCG) (Alaska): A

CACO was signed by the Region 10 Administrator

on January 23, 1997, for this Alaska facility, settling

a complaint issued on July 12, 1994. The complaint

sought over $1 million in penalties for violations of

RCRA, including the failure to monitor groundwater

and illegally burning waste piles of debris. A

penalty of $602,260 has been agreed to for the

specific violations alleged in the complaint. USCG

Kodiak has fixed the groundwater monitoring system

and has closed the waste piles, so no further

injunctive relief is sought in the CACO.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian

Affairs (California): In September 1997, EPA filed

an administrative complaint against DOI, BIA,

Hoopa Campus, CA, alleging RCRA hazardous

waste violations and assessing $260,650 in penalties. 

The complaint alleges the BIA stored hazardous

waste at a now-vacated campus facility without a

permit and failed to have an EPA generator

identification number. All waste has now been

disposed of properly.

Washington Navy Yard (Washington, D.C.): On

March 6, 1997, Region 3 and the Department of

Navy signed a RCRA §7003 cleanup order for the

Washington Navy Yard located at 9th and M Streets

in southeast Washington, DC. The order is for a

comprehensive hazardous waste cleanup at the

installation to implement interim measures, further

contamination investigations and corrective

measures. The Navy Yard action is part of a

continuing effort by Region 3 to conduct cleanup as

part of the Anacostia River Initiative. Region 3

released a press announcement of this enforcement

action on March 11, 1997.
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

July 1998 B-76

SDWA

Redstone Arsenal (Alabama): In June 1997, Region

4 issued at unilateral compliance order against the

U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal

Water System, located near Huntsville, AL, for

violations of SDWA and its implementing

regulations. The system provides water to 22,000

individuals. The violations included exceeding the

MCL for total coliform bacteria and failing to meet

the total coliform monitoring/reporting requirements

during all the months from January 1996 through

April 1997. In addition, the system failed to provide

notification to the public of the violations, as

required. This is the first unilateral compliance

order issued against a federal facility under

authorities contained in the August 1996 revision to

the SDWA.

TSCA

U.S. Navy PCB Containing Vessel: EPA

successfully negotiated a high profile agreement

involving the U.S. Navy, EPA, and Universal

Studios. The agreement allowed the movement and

filming of a Naval vessel known to contain PCBs,

provided the agreement’s environmental and public

health requirements were met. The provisions of the

agreement satisfied such diverse interests as EPA,

the movie studio, the Navy, and environmentalists.

Agreement to Transfer Naval Boats, Support Craft

and Industrial Equipment with PCBs to

Communities for Further Use: The Federal

Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) worked with

the Navy in the development and execution of a

compliance agreement addressing the transfer of

vessels and industrial equipment at base closure

sites. The agreement facilitates the transfer of

vessels and equipment to local redevelopment

authorities (LRAs) and local communities (LCs) for

use in the economic development of their

communities. The agreement requires the Navy to

notify the vessel and equipment recipients of

potential PCB contamination in the form of nonliquid PCBs, including a fact sheet, and requires that

the recipients maintain the suspected PCBs in their

place, except when normal maintenance requires

their removal. The agreement provides a

mechanism for LRAs and LCs to transfer vessels and

equipment to third parties while still remaining

responsible to reclaim the transferred vessels and

equipment if the third party is violating any terms or

conditions of the agreement. The agreement also

provides for the Navy to be responsible for

reclaiming vessels in the event of a third-party

breach. 

Navy Export Agreement: Following a series of

meetings with the National Economic Council, the

Office of Management and Budget, the Council on

Environmental Quality and the Department of State,

FFEO worked closely with OPPT in the negotiation

of an agreement allowing the Navy to export vessels

for scrapping overseas. These vessels may contain

non-liquid PCBs in felt gaskets, wire cabling, paint,

adhesives. The agreement requires that all

transformers and large high and low voltage

capacitors that contain dialectic fluids with PCBs in

any concentrations and all hydraulic and heat

transfer fluids containing PCBs be removed prior to

export. Solid items containing PCBs are to be

removed when these items are readily removable and

their removal doesn’t jeopardize the structural

integrity of the vessel. The agreement requires

annual notification to countries that are known to

import ships for scrapping and follow up notice to

each country in advance of receiving vessels. The

final version of the National Defense Authorization

Act for FY98 contains a reporting provision whereby

EPA, the Navy, and the Maritime Administration are

required to inform Congress regarding the

implementation of this agreement. 

Extension of Sinking Exercise Agreement

(SINKEX): In response to a request from the

Secretary of the Navy, FFEO developed conditions

under which OECA could agree to extend the

SINKEX agreement for another eight vessels. The

existing agreement provided the Navy with the target

practice and sinking of up to eight vessels, pursuant

to all existing permits issued by EPA as well as the

requirements of the agreement. Navy preparation for

SINKEX includes the removal, to the maximum

extent practicable, of all materials which may

degrade the marine environment, including the

emptying of fuel tanks, and fuel lines, flushing tanks

and lines, removing from the hulls other pollutants

and all readily detachable material capable of

creating debris or contributing to chemical pollution. 

Removal of all transformers and capacitors

containing three pounds or more of dielectric fluid is

required, as well as reasonable efforts to remove

capacitors containing less than three pounds of fluid,

and the draining and flushing of hydraulic

equipment and heat transfer equipment. Non-liquid
FY 1997 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

B-77 July 1998

PCBs which are not readily detachable or where

removal may threaten the structural integrity of the

vessel are not required to be removed. The extension

letter sets out requirements for additional milestones

regarding the Navy’s sunken vessel study, a risk

assessment of environmental effects from sunken

naval vessels. The goal is to determine if past/

continued SINKEX operations pose significant risk

to the environment or human health via the food

chain.

Implementation of the Minuteman II Compliance

Agreement: As a result of the implementation of the

EPA/U.S. Air Force (USAF) compliance agreement

addressing Minuteman II missile silo implosions in

support of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

(START), implosions have continued on track, while

environmental requirements of the agreement are

being met. Solid-matrix PCBs were a component in

the weatherproofing on missile silos and support

buildings as well as a rust-proofing agent, along with

asbestos on underground storage tanks. Under the

agreement, the implosions almost are complete and

groundwater monitoring plans have been developed

for both Whiteman and Ellsworth Air Force Base. A

Hardened Intersite Cable System (HICS) Sampling

Plan was developed, followed by the HICS Draft

Environmental Baseline Survey. Preliminary draft

Prototype Environmental Baseline Surveys (EBS)

have been developed for a launch control facility and

a launch facility. These EBS will serve as a model

for each type of facility. USTs sold to area

landowners were recovered for TSCA landfill

disposal. The State of Missouri executed their own

state annex of distinct state requirements in addition

to the provisions in the EPA/USAF compliance

agreement. 

Implementation and Modification of TSCA,

Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA)

for the Uranium Enrichment Operations at DOE’s

Gaseous Diffusion Process Facilities: Portsmouth,

OH; Paducah, KY; and Oak Ridge, TN; and

Execution of the Oak Ridge Reservation

Polychlorinated Biphenyls Federal Facilities

Compliance Agreement (ORR-PCB-FFCA): The

TSCA FFCA was modified to revise the

requirements of the PCB gasket/duct removal

program, changing the initiation date to coincide

with decontamination & decommissioning (D&D)

for Portsmouth, OH, and Paducah, KY. The D&D

cost of each plant is estimated at $3 billion; an

additional $450-600 million would be required to

remove these gaskets prior to D&D. Since the

gaskets are troughed for PCB collection and air

sampling has been within acceptable limits,

deferring this removal activity is desirable in light of

radiological and industrial risks. Deferral of

removal of the Paducah building C-340 hydraulic

systems until D&D of the building was also

approved for a $2-3 million savings and a decrease

in radiological and industrial risks. The

modification officially severed the K-25 uranium

enrichment facility from the TSCA FFCA, since K25 now falls under the December 16, 1996, Oak

Ridge, TN, agreement. Sixteen thousand troughs

have been installed at Paducah under the motor

exhaust duct gaskets. In addition, nearly 700,000

kilograms (kg) of PCB waste, including more than

6,500 capacitors, have been disposed. Portsmouth

has disposed of 487,000 kg of PCB-contaminated

lube oil and retro filled and reclassified eight PCBcontaminated lube oil systems. An additional

459,000 kg of PCB liquid waste from Portsmouth

have been disposed of at the Oak Ridge TSCA

incinerator, and more than 16,000 motor exhaust

duct flanges have been troughed. The K-25 site

disposed of over 124,000 gallons of askerel fluid. 

FFEO continues implementation of the agreement

including annual meetings in which the progress

reports are reviewed. 

Museum Transfer Ships: FFEO has been

coordinating with Region 9 concerning the

placement of the USS Hornet as a museum in

Alameda, CA. FFEO continues to provide on-going

counsel to regional PCB coordinators in jurisdictions

where former Naval aircraft carriers and similar

vessels are donated to a city for display as a museum. 

The first agreements used to transfer the USS

Lexington to Corpus Christi, TX, and continued use

of the vessel as a museum have been used as a model

by Region I in the transfer of the USS Salem. The

agreements concern the transfer, continued use and

ultimate disposal of these vessels with unauthorized

non-liquid PCBs, where removal of the PCBs would

not be feasible.