Y 
.. Evaluation Branch within the Office of Enforcement. Information contained in the 

report was supplied by the EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters program 

offices . 

Printed on r&ycled paper 

~~~~~~ ~ 

.. , .. . . . . . . . ... . ,. . ,, .. ~~ 
FY 1990 Egorcement Accomplishments Report 

Table of Contents 

Subject 

I. Message from William K. Reilly, Administrator, and 

James M. Strock, Assistant Administrator 

11. FY 1990: Developing the "Blueprint" for Enhanced 

Enforcement 

111. Environmental Enforcement Activity 

FY1990 levels of Federal civil and criminal judicial case referrals, 

administrative actions, penalty assessments, and State enforcement. 

N. Major Enforcement Litigation and Key Legal Precedents 

An alphabetized summary of important civil and criminal judicial 

case settlements, administrative actions, and key court decisions on 

points of law that occurred during the year. 

Building and Maintaining a Strong National 

Enforcement Program 

V 

Summaries of major enforcement program strategies, initiatives, 

guidance, and management studies. 

VI. Media Specific Enforcement Performance and 

Regional Accomplishments 

Brief summaries of the Strategic Targeted Activities for Results 

System definitions of Significant Noncompliance and highlights 

of Regional accomplishments. , 

Page 

1-1 

2-1 

3-1 

4-1 

5-1 

6-1 

Appendix: Historical Enforcement Data and List-of EPA Headquarters 

and Regional Enforcement Information Contacts 

-i 
A Message from the Administrator and Assistant Administrator 

I 

I 

1990 was the 20th anniversary of both Earth Day and the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. It also was a record year for the Agency's 

enforcement of environmental laws. We are pleased by the symbolism - but not 

surprised by the coincidence - of these events. It reflects the growth and 

maturation of EPA's enforcement program and the high priority given to it by 

President Bush, the Agency and the American people. 

, 

By the end of the 1980's, the enforcement program had received a 

comprehensive range of administrative, civil and criminal enforcement authorities. 

As this Report illustrates in detail, the Programs and Regions employed them all 

with record frequency in 1990 to ensure compliance with environmental laws. 

During 1990, the Agency also developed a long-term strategy to make sure that 

Federal, State, and local enforcement programs will have the capacity to identify and 

resolve both media-specific and multi-media violations which present serious 

risks to the environment and public health. The Report also highlights the 

innovdtive enforcement activity in these new areas, such as geographic risk-based 

targeting and pollution prevention - areas which will be hallmarks of the 

Agencks enforcement focus throughout the decade. 

We believe that this Report will play a useful role in describing'our 

enforcement program to the public. We trust it also will serve an important 

ancilldry purpose by sending the appropriate deterrent message to potential 

violatdrs. That message is straightforward and demonstrable: This Administration 

is com itted to a forceful and successful environmental enforcement progran: both 

now aqtd in the future. In. . 

Administrator 

Assistant Administrator ~ 

for Enforcement 

1-1 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

11. ~ 1990 Developing the Blueprint for Enhanced Enforcement 

FY 1990 was another record year for enforcement, continuing the trend of the last three years. 

All-time highs were set for the number of civil (375) and criminal (65) referrals, as well as for the total 

level of assessed penalties. The foremost example of this record activity is the $15 million civil penalty 

assessed in the Texas Eastern Piwlinecase, the single largest penalty assessment in the Agency's history. 

But good "numbers" are not the only reason that FY 1990 was a watershed year for the Agency's 

enforcement program. It also was the year the Agency defined and took the first steps to implement a 

new approach in environmental enforcement by the federal, state and local governments. 

This approach is the result of two separate, interrelated, EPA FY 1990 initiatives: the 

Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan and the Enforcement in the 1990s Project. I/ The former is a 

comprehensive statement of the major goals and objectives of futureoriented enforcement program which 

will drive the Agency's enforcement efforts. The latter is a set of analyses of, and specific 

recommendations to improve, six components of the enforcement process which will be integrated into the 

Agency's long-term planning process. 2/ Together, the Strategic Plan and the 1990s Project represent the 

Agency's blueprint for a successful enforcement program for the future. 

' ' 

The.assumption underlying both the Strategic Plan and the 1990s Project is that as the regulated 

universe becomes larger and more complex, more sophisticated approaches are needed to obtain the 

maximum effect from each enforcement action to help meet the Agency's environmental goals and 

objectives. These approaches, which include more sophisticated decision making in developing 

regulations, setting enforcement priorities, using enforcement tools, and settling enforcement actions, will 

be flexible and will heavily rely upon the EPA Regions and States for effective implementation. 

This enhanced enforcement approach envisions a greater emphasis over the next five years on 

the explicit selection of cases based on health and ecological risk. It will have both media-specificand 

crossmedia components. The majority of enforcement efforts will continue to consist of the 

medium-specific priorities (Le., air, water, toxics, etc.) which are identified annually and for which the 

programs undertake "timely and appropriate" enforcement response to resolve significant noncompliance. 

However, these program-specific priorities will also serve as the foundation for the development of 

targeted "special initiatives" to resolve environmental problems caused by specific pollutants or 

industries, or to protect sensitive geographic areas and ecological systems. 

The enforcement approach arising out of the 4-Year Strateeic Plan and the 1990s Proiect will be 

fully implemented over the next several years. However, a number of the specific elements either have 

previously been undertaken on a pilot basis (e.g., Regional multi-media enforiement pilots initiated in 

FY 1989) or involve the expanded and more systematic use of existing tools (e.& environmental auditing, 

contractor listing). Therefore, the following sections, which summarize the major elements of the 

Agency's enhanced enforcement program, also will include examples of their use by the programs and 

Regions during FY 1990. 

k Strengthening the Institutional Voice 

1. The Focal Point for Enforcement 

.. 

Specific enforcement responsibilities will continue to be located in both the Regions and 

Headquarters program offices. However, the Office of Enforcement will serve as the Agency's national 

voice regarding the enforcement of environmental laws. Three specific management decisions were made 

in FY 1990 in support of this approach. First, the director of the criminal agent program of EPA's 

National Enforcement Investieations - Center (NEIC), will move from Denver to Washington, D.C. in order 

2-1 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

to coordinate more closely with EPAs other program offices. Second, the Offices of Federal Facilities 

Enforcement and the Office of Federal Activities were integrated in the Office of Enforcement. Third, a 

direct reporting relationship was established between the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

the Agency's Regional Counsels. 

2. The Enforceability of Regulations .. 

Successful enforcement depends on regulations whose definitions, standards, and applicability to 

particular violations are clear. Enforcement becomes much more difficult where a regulation is vague in 

scope or content. The Office of Enforcement and the media compliance programs will play a greater role 

in the regulatory development process so as to ensure that regulations are enforceable from both a legal 

and practical perspective. 

Enforceability assessments which describe how enforcement-related technical, logistical and 

legal concerns should be addressed in a proposed regulation and its implementation, will be developed 

for selected rules. The Agency also will identify a subset of proposed regulations for each program for 

pilot "field tests" to be conducted prior to final promulgation in order to identify potential weaknesses 

that could render the rule unenforceable if not corrected. a/ 

B. Targeting - - Enforcement for Maximum Environmental Benefits 

Targeted enforcement initiatives will focus enforcement action against specific areas with 

environmental problems. Targeting may involve either single media cases or cross media cases which cut 

across the traditional media-specific approach drivcn by regulations and federal statutory authorities. 

Some of the targeting criteria identified in the Strategic - Plan include industries wiih poor compliance 

histories, and specific pollutants or sensitive geographic areas of concern, including ones which cross more 

than one Region or State. 

Under a geographic approabh, for example, Regions may identify all polluting facilities in a 

specific geographic area, inspect the facilities to determine their compliance with regulation or permit 

conditions, and take any necessary enforcement action to resolve noncompliance. In FY 1990, for example, 

Region V simultaneously filed lawsuits against Inland Steel Corp., Bethlehem Steel Corp., and 

Federated Metals Corp. in a coordinated effort to clean up pollution along the Grand Calumet River. The 

three suits involve violations'of Federal water, hazardous waste, and clean air laws. Indeed, the Inland 

Steel complaint alleged violations in all thrw' media and is the largest multi-media enforcement action 

ever undertaken by the Agency. &/ 

Targeted initiatives also can be used to combat the risk associated with particular pollutants or 

categories of pollutants. In FY 1990, for example, five chloroflorocarbon (CFC) enforcement actions were 

filed as part of the agency's 'ozone layer protection initiative. 5/ Similarly, the Agency began to 

develop a lead tnforcement strategy which will be fully implemented during FY 1991. Finally, the 

RCRA Enforcement Program formed an enforcement targeting committee to advise on enforcement 

initiatives. EPA announced the first such initiative on February 22, 1991; the filing of 28 actions to 

enforce the land disposal restrictions of RCRA. 

In ordcr to facilitate targeting, the Agency began work in FY 1990 on a project to establish 

automated linkages among its various compliance and enforcement data bases. When completed next 

year, the Agency will be able to associate compliance and enforcement data from these systems according 

to corporate structure, industrial sector, pollutants, and/or geographic areas. In addition to the national 

databases containing compliance and enforcement information, the Agency's Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI) and other ambient databases, once integrated, will further aid risk assessment and targeting. 

. 

2 -2 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

C. Screening - Violations and Potential Cases for 

Appropriate Enforcement Response .. . 

In M 1990, as in previous years, the large majority of enforcement actions were handled administratively. This trend will continue in the future. However, the Agency must be able to consider the 

best enforcement response to violations - administrative, civil judicial, or criminal - especially when 

they pose significant health or environmental risk. This capability, which will facilitate more uniform 

case-handling across the Regions, also is needed when violations require complex technical. or 

multi-media response, or involve potential precedents or large penalties. 

During the last quarter of FY 1990, the Agency developed guidance by which each Region will 

develop a screenine DrOcess to review violations for strategic value and their multi-media, innovative 

enforcement, and civil judicial and criminal enforcement potential. Not every violation will warrant 

&tiny. Each program will determine what classes of violations should be subject to a screening process 

and each Region, working with the Office of Enforcement, will have the flexibility to develop its own 

specific screening mechanism. The “bottom line”.for the use of these screening‘procedures is that the 

decision on the nature of the respons’e and whether and how multi-media enforcement can be brought to 

bear on the nature of the injunctive relief should not rest solely with the program that conducted the 

inspection and identified the violation. 

D. Creative Use of Enforcement Authorities 

Over the several ycars, the Agency has used a number of techniques to expedite or enhance 

compliance. The 1990s Project has identified opportunities to use.a number of techniques such as 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and environmental auditing to expedite or enhance compliance. 

These techniques as well as other enforcement tools, will be used by the Regions.and programs in order to 

“leverage” the environmental and deterrent effect of individual enforcement actions. 6/ Two approaches 

received special attention in FY 1990 ’. 

1. i Pollution Prevention 

Pollution prcvention/waste minimization is at the top of the list of innovative approaches being 

pursued by EPA, and enforcement will be a major tool to encourage efforts in this area. A strong 

enforcement program in and of itself encourages pollution prevention by providing incentives for industry 

‘to find ways to reduce its potential liabilities and response costs. In addition to fostering an overall 

climate, the enforcement process can be used directlv against noncompliers to promote pollution 

prevention. 

’ 

In FY 1990, the Office of Enforcement developed a draft interim policy on including pollution 

prevention conditions in Agency settlements (the final interim policy will be issued early in FY 1991). 

When conducting negotiations, the Federal litigation team may consider whether there are 

opportunities to correct the violation through single or multi-media source reduction, activities (e.g., 

reducing the source of emissions through changes in the industrial process or by production process input 

substitutions). Settlements can also be used to’encourage the respondent to undertake additional pollution 

prevention activities not as directly related to the original violation (e.g., a commitment to phase out 

the use of a specific pollutant over an agreed-upon period). 

A number of cases with cross-media pollution prevention conditions were negotiated in FY 1990. 

Three are illustrative as part of a TSCA consent order, Scherine Berlin Polvmers (formerly Sherex 

.Polymers, Inc.) agreed to install a new filter system to reduce by 500,000 lbs. annually the amount of 

RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste that’would otherwise have to be disposed of offsite. The 3-v 

Chemical Corp., also as part of a TSCA consent order, agreed to install a solvent recycling system that is 

2-3 
FY I990 Enforcemen! Accomplishments Report 

expected to reduce by 50 percent the pint source emissions of l,l,l-trichloroethane (an unregulated 

ozone-depleting substance) and dichloromethane (a suspected carcinogen). The Seekonk Lace Comoany 

agreed to a EPCRA consent order which included a provision to eliminate emissions by substituting a 

mechanical-based separation system for an acetone-based solvent one. Z/ These cases were in the 

vanguard of the Agency's strategy to use the enforcement process to enhance pollution prevention. ', 

2. Contractor Listing 

Contractor'Listhg authorities under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act bar facilities 

that violate those statutes from receiving federally-funded contracts, loans or grants. Listing is 

mandatorv for criminal violations and discretionary for civil violations of either Act. The Federal 

Acquisition Rule provides procedures for barring contractors from participating in Federal procurement 

based on offenses such as fraud or lack of performance integrity. Both sanctions are powerful deterrent 

tools to reinforce environmental compliance. 

In FY 1990, the Agency conducted a comprehensive review of, and developed an action plan~-for, 

the contractor listing program in order to make it one of the centerpieces of an effective deterrence and 

enforcement program.. Particular emphasis was placed on screening of cases to identify candidates for 

discretionary listing. 8/ The Agency also will make more use of suspension/debarment for violators of 

- a I1 environmental statutes, repeat violators, and multi-media violators. 

E. Immovinz - Relationships With Other Units of Government 

The Agency must work more closely with governmental bodies in the federal and 

international system - localities, States, other Federal regulatory agencies, and other nations - in 

order to successfully carry out its environmental goals and 'mission. The Agency's future enforcement 

program will include expanded joint planning and cooperation, both within the different levels of our 

own Federal system and with foreign governments, to more'efficiently tackle persistent environmental 

problems. ' 

I 1. Federal Regulatory Agencies 

Other Federal regulatory agencies oversee many of the same types of industries and facilities as 

EPA. Working from the assumption that violations in one regulatory area may indicate the potential for 

violations in others, EPA will look for opportunities for cooperation with other federal agencies to 

advance mutual compliance objectives. 

Safe& and Health Administration (OSHA) covering the periodic exchange of information from each 

Agency's national compliance docket, cross-notification about possible violations discovered during 

either an OSHA or EPA facility inspection, and joint inspection activity in areas of mutual priority, =., 

petrochemical facilities and lead smelting operations. 9/ 

During FY 1990, EPA negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOW with the Occupational ' 

- 

I Also in FY' 1990, EPA began supplying compliance information to the Securities and ;Exchange 

Commission (SEC) including PRI' lists, respondent/defendant program docket information, and civil 

penalty data in support of SEC's review of Material Liabilities Disclosure Forms (10K forms). The SEC 

may, in turn, send EPA disclosure, information that may help us focus on environmental liabilities 

reported to the SEC. The fact that EPA and the SEC are working in concert has been publicized 

throughout the regulated community, ,and should. help ensure complete and accurate descriptions of 

environmental liabilities in the 10K submissions to the SEC. 
+@ ”.% 

FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report (&] .‘ ru** 

2. States 

The States play a fundamental role in the overall enforcement effort, and the necessity for close 

cooperation has never been more evident. EPA will involve the States even more fully in its strategy 

development and priority setting efforts, and work with them to enhance their own crossmedia 

targeting, case screening, and criminal enforcement capabilities. This will require additional technical 

assistance, data sharing, and compliance training to States. EPA made its Basic Insuector Training 

Manual available to States during FY 1990, and several Regions have invited State inspectors to 

participate in the course. The Agency intends to do more information sharing with the States in the 

future. 

Also required are the joint development of more sophisticated mechanisms for Regional and 

State oversight. Better oversight and evaluations depend on better quantitative and qualitative 

information about State enforcement activities as well as a stronger consensus on the appropriate 

Federal/State roles. During the last half of FY 1990, the Office of Enforcement and the Environmental 

Law Institute (ELI) conducted planning for a FederaVState Enforcement Colloquium, which was held 

November 29 - 30,1990. The Colloquium brought together about 50 officials from EPA Congress, States, 

and environmental/citizens groups. The participants explored way to enhance enforcement activities 

among the various interests, and to build consensus around the 1990s Proiect recommendations. 

, 

3. Other Nations 

- 

As the world community comes to realize that pollution does not respect geographic boundaries, 

work must be coordinated to resolve the problems posed by issues such as global warming and the illegal 

importing and exporting of hazardous wastes and chemicals. 

In FY 1990, EPA helped organize an International Enforcement WorkShop, which was held in 

Utrecht, the Netherlands. The workshop included representatives from 14 countries and international 

organizations, and expanded on activities which the U.S. and Dutch environmental organizations have 

been conducting since 1985. The Workshop brought together government environmental enforcement 

officials from around the world to exchange ideas and strategies on improving domestic enforcement 

programs and enforcement of trans-boundary environmental accords. lJ/ 

F. Effective Communications About the Enforcement Prozram 

EPA must communicate effectively with the Congress, the media, the public, and the regulated 

community about our overall enforcement effort. This involves developing better ways of explaining 

environmental improvement and publicizing individual enforcement actions to enhance deterrence. 

1. Measuring Enforcement Effectiveness 

No single quantitative and qualitative measure of program performance can provide a 

comprehensive assessment of the enforcement program. Accurate measurement and assessment will 

require consideration of whether a suitable existing data collection system exists with established 

supportinng baseline data; whether it is feasible to quantify deterrence benefits resulting from each 

discrete enforcement case; and whether it is practicable to capture the preventive impact of enforcement 

activities. 

During FY 1990, EPA took initial steps to quantify the impact of enforcement initiatives. 

Working with the Office of Water and the Office of Mobile Sources, the Office of Enforcement developed 

final enforcement effectiveness case studies for the Clean Water Act National Municipal Policy and the 

Clean Air Act Lead Phasedown Program. The studies presented the environmental and economic benefits 

related to enforcement activities and other measures of effectiveness. II/ 

2 -5 
\. I 

FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

This method of effectiveness analysis, while not without difficulties, is the type of 

results-oriented analysis envisioned by both the -and the which, with refinement, 

will produce useful information about the impact of the Agency's enforcement efforts. As next steps, the 

Agency plans to develop useful indicators of compliance within targeted industries, the deterrent impact 

of penalties, and the use of pollution prevention activities. 

2 .. 2. Publicizing Enforcement Actions 

Publicizing enforcement actions taken 'against violators magnifies the impact of the 

environmental gains achieved through those actions, and the Agency will develop an overall 

communications strategy to promote deterrence within the regulated community. This will involve 

disseminating information about sDecific enforcement actions, including the environmental benefits 

derived from that particular action. It will also involve communicating with both attentive publics and 

the public at large about the Agency's total enforcement program, processes and procedures. .. 

During N 1990, for example, The Agency produced and distributed two general descriptions of its 

enforcement efforts: Environmental Enforcement: A Citizen's Guide . and The Public's Role in 

Environmental Enforcement. The former provided an overview of the enforcement process, while the 

latter publication encouraged citizen involvement by giving examples and illustrations of potentially 

non-compliant behavior which the general public can report to State and/or Federal officials: Both 

represent the type of communications outreach activity which the Agency will emphasize in the future. 

G. Enforcement Trainin5 

Effective enforcement of environmental laws requires highly qualified legal and technical 

personnel, and the Agency's already substantial training effort, which includes the civil, criminal, and 

appellate twc-week courses presented by the Attorney General's Advocacy Institute, the two-week 

criminal enforcement training program conducted at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in 

Glynco, Georgia, and the general and program-specific basis and advanced inspector training program, 

will continue to grow. All enforcement personnel will receive appropriate training to increase their 

effectiveness in the enforcement process. Over the next five years, the Agency will systematically train 

inspectors, technical case development officers, investigators, and prosecutors in all phases of enforce 

ment, including introductory training in overall multi-media, multi4isciplinary enforcement. 

During FY 1990, planning continued for the creation and development of the National 

Enforcement Training Institute as authorized by the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990. The Agency began 

developing implementation options for the Institute concept, including curriculum development, the 

involvement of (and training opportunities afforded to) State and local government personnel, funding, 

faculty, facilities, and management. Q/ 

Conclusion 

Vigorous environmental law enforcement is one of the nation's highest priorities.. In some aspects, 

implementing the new approach will require establishing new mindsets and ways of conducting business, 

not only on the part of EPA and the States, but on the part of Congress, regulated industries, and the 

public as well. The result, however, will be a comprehensive risk-based approach to both 

media-specific and cross-media enforcement which will serve the overall environmental goals of the 

United States. 

- 1/ For a discussion of these two initiatives, see James M. Strock, "EPAs Enforcement in the 1990s." 

Environmental Law Reporter, Volume XX, No 8, August 1990, pps. 10327 - 10332. The final Strateeic Plan 

2-6 I. 
#..-.us 

%L.ulc 

FY 1990 Enforce'~ntAccomp1ishmenls Report . [a,) 

was issued on October 17,1990 and is available upon request. The 1990s Project is undergoing final review 

and will be available in February, 1991. 

2/'The six analyses of the 1990s Proiect are: Enhancine Enforceability Considerations in Environmental 

Rulemakine; ComDliance Incentives/LeveraEe; Innovative Enforcement; The Local Government's Role in 

Environmental Enforcement: Environment Manaeement - and Measures: and Strenethenine . the State/EPA 

Relationshin for Environmental Enforcement. 

3/ cf. the 1990s Proiect report on Enhancine - Enforceabilitv Considerations in Environmental Rulemaking 

for a complete analysis of this subject. .. 

4/ cf. chapter IV for a summary of these cases and other FY 1990 cases. 

- 5/ cf. chapter IV for a description of these cases 

- 6/ cf. the individual reports on Innovative Enforcement, and Compliance Incentives/Leveraging for a 

comprehensive discussion of constraints, opportunities and benefits in the use of innovative enforcement 

tools, including: contractor listing, criminal enforcement, environmental auditing, pollution prevention, 

field citations, alternative dispute resolution, field citations, cooperation with citizens' and other 

non-governmental environmental organizations,'environniental awards, and environmental education 

and technology transfer. 

2/ cf. chapter IV for a more complete description of the original violations and the pollution prevention 

settlement conditions of these three cases 

S/ cf. chapter IV for a'summary of key M 1990 listing cases suspension/debarment for violators of all 

environmental statutes, repeat violators, and multi-media violators. 

L 

9/ The EPA/OSHA MOU was formally signed by Administrator Reilly and former Labor Secretary Dole 

on November 26,1990. Cf. Chapter V for a detailed discussion of the substance of the MOU. 

lo/ Cf. chapter V for a complete account of the substantive issues discussed at the Workshop. The 

Workshop is a model of the kind of international dialogue and cooperation on world environmental issues 

that will expand significantly in the future. 

- ll/ Cf. Chapter V for a complete summary of the National Municipal Policy and Lead Phasedown 

Effectiveness Studies. 

- 12/ Cf. Chapter V for a discussion of Agency training efforts. 

2-7 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

- 111. Environmental Enforcement Activity 

Federal Tudicial and Administrative Enforcement Activity 

Judicial Enforcement - Civil 

During FY 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a new all-time record, 

for civil judicial enforcement by referring 375 cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ), surpassing the 

previous Agency record of 372 which was set in FY 1988, and the 364 cases that were referred to DOJ in N 

1989. Since FY 1988,1,111 cases have been referred to DOJ, nearly one third of all civil cases referred since 

the Agency's creation (historical data are contained in the Appendix to this report). The federal 

Superfund program established a new high-water mark in FY 1990 with 157 civil judicial cases referred 

to Do). 

EPA Civil Referrals to DOJ 

FY 1977 to FY 1990 ' 

', 

350 

r 3w 

f 250 

I 200 

e 

e 

1 150 

I 

s 100 

50 

0 

FY77 FY78 FY79 FY8O FY8l FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 

TOXICSl WATER 0 RCRA H SUPERFUND AIR 1 

I PESTICIDES 

Illustration 1 

Monitoring'Judicial Consent Decrees 

At the end of FY 1990, the Agency reported that 646 judicial consent decrees were in place and 

being monitored to cnsure compliance with the provisions of the decrees, more than three times the 

number of five years ago. Where noncompliance with the terms and conditions of a decree is found, EPA 

may initiate proceedings with the court to compcl the facility to live up to its agreement and seek 

penalties for such noncompliance. EPA initiated 32 actions to enforce consent decrees during FY 1990, 

twice the number that were initiated in FY 1989. 

3-1 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Judicial Enforcement - Criminal 

In FY 1990, EPA's criminal enforcement program established new records by referring 65 cases to 

GOJ (the previous record was 60 in FY 1989), bringing charges against 100 defendants (the previous record 

was 98 in FY 1986), and the number of months of jail time to which defendants were sentenced with 745 

months (the previous record was 456 months in M 1987). FY 1990 saw continued integration of the 

criminal enforcement program into the Agency's 'regulatory programs, as well as greater recognition in 

the regulated community of EPAs willingness to pursue violations utilizing criminal enforcement 

authorities. As the follwing illustration indicates, criminal case referrals, numbers of defendants 

charged, and numbers of defendants convicted have increased over time. Since 1982, individuals have 

received prison sentences for committing environmental crimes totaling 181 years, and 643 years of 

probation have been imposed. Imposition of probation is an extremely effective part of the criminal 

program because in the event that an individual commits another crime (not limited to environmental, 

crimes), the provisions of the probation normally call for the automatic imposition of a prison sentence 

that was suspended in lieu of probation. 

During FY 1990, the President signed into law the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990. The Act 

provides for a quadrupling by FY 1995 of the number of criminal program Special Agents and support 

personnel. The Act also authorized the creation of EPA's National Enforcement Training Institute which 

will provide support to'the growing criminal program. Also during FY 1990, a number of management 

studies of the criminal program were completed, and work has begun to implement a program 

reorganization that calls for more centralized supervision of investigatory personnel. 

100 

w 

80 

70 

:a 

myl b 

e40 

M 

20 

10 

0 

EPA Criminal Enforcement Program 

FY 1982 to FY 1990 

FY82 FY83 FY81 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 

88 Refends toDOJ 0 Gro successfully 61 Defendants charged I Defendants m$ded 

omsccuted & aentmcld 

Illustration 2 

Administrative Enforcement 

EPA posted its second highest annual total for administrative enforcement activities in FY 1990 

with 3,804 actions. The Agency record of 4,136 was set in FY 1989. The totals for FY 1990 demonstrate 

that although judicial actions (both civil and criminal) are crucial to EPAs overall success, and are 

3-2 

~~ 
FY 1990 ElJorcemenl Accomplishmenls Report 

generally looked to as the chief indicator of the vitality of Agency enforcement efforts, other indicators 

need to be evaluated to assess EPA's effectiveness in enforcing environmental laws and regulations. 

Congress has given EPA expanded authority in recently enacted or reauthorized statutes to use 

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

The FY 1990 figures indicate that EPA programs continue to fiake greater use of these effective and less 

resource intensive tools. 

EPA Administrative Actions 

FY 1977 to FY 1990 

FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY8S FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 

I EPCRA 88 TSCA a FlFRA 0 CERCLA 

RCRA CWAlSDWA 0 CAA 

Illustration 3 

Contractor Listing 

In FY 1990, a record number of facilities were added to the EPA's List of Violating Facilities 

under the authorities provided to EPA by Clean Air Act Section 306 and Clean Water Act Section 508 to 

bar facilities that violate the clean air or clean water standards from receiving Federally funded 

contracts, grants or loans. Facilities owned or operated by persons who are convicted of Ciolating Clean 

Air Act Section l13W or Clean Water Act Section 309W (and involved in the violations) are subject to 

automatic listing effective the date of the conviction (this is referred to as mandatory listing). 

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

corrcctcd the conditions which led to the violations. Twenty facilities were listed in N 1990 based on 

criminal convictions - twice as many facilities as in any previous year. Four facilities were removed 

from the list in FY 1990, one after a removal hearing before a Case Examiner. Since FY 1986,55 facilities 

have bccn placed on the mandatory list. 

Facilities may also be listed at EPA's discretion upon the recommendation of certain EPA 

officials, a State Governor, or a member of the public based on continuing or recurring violations of the 

Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act (this is 'referred to as discretionary listing). Facilities 

recommended for discretionary listing have a right to an informal administrative proceeding. Facilities 

listed under discretionary listing are removed after one year; or earlier if the Assistant Administrator 

determines that the conditions which gave rise to the discretionary listing have been corrected, or that 

the facility is on a plan that will result in compliance.. In FY 1990, EPA propqsed to list one facility 

3-3 
FY 1990 Enforcemenf Accomplishments Reporl 

under its discretionary listing authority. Three pending discretionary listing actions were withdrawn by 

EPA after consent agreements were entered in the underlying civil enforcement cases. 

Federal Penalty Assessments 

In FY 1990, over $61.3 million in civil penalties were assessed, an all-time record ($38.5 million 

in civil judicial penalties and $22.8 million in' administrative penalties, both all-time records). 

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

annual pollution control operating expenditures, can allow undeserved economic benefits to accrue to a 

regulated cntity. As part of the effort to deter noncompliance, EPAs enforcement programs have 

developed penalty policies designed to assess penalties which recover any economic benefit that a 

noncomplying facility has realized, and assess additional penalties commensurate with the gravity of 

the violation(s). It should be noted that the FY 1990 record totals would still set a record without 

including the,$l5 million penalty in the Texas Eastern Pipeline consent decree, the largest environmental 

penalty evcr assessed. Since its creation, EPA has imposed over $247.3 million in civil penalties ($167.3 

million with civil judicial actions and $80 million with administrative actions). 

In FY 1990, over $8.8 million in Clean Air Act penalties were assessed ($5.9 million for 

stationary source violations and $2.9 million for mobile source violations); $16.9 million in Clean Water 

Act penalties were assessed ($12.4 million in civil judicial penalties and $4.5 million in administrative 

penalties); over $25.4 million in Toxic Substances Control Act penalties were assessed ($15 million in 

civil judicial penalties and $10.4 million in administrative penalties); and '$6.8 million in Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act penalties were assessed ($3.9 million in civil judicial penalties and $2.9 

million in administrative penalties). In FY 1990 there were at least three multi-media cases with RCRA 

counts for which penalties were assessed and credited to other media, and are not included in the RCRA 

total. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and Safe Drinking Water Act programs 

are largely delegated to the States; however, EPA assessed over $587,000 and $578,000 respectively, 

under these statutes. The Toxic Release Inventory program assessed nearly $1.6 million. Over $441,000 

in Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) sections 302-312 and CERCLA 

Section 104 penalties wereassessed. 

Federal Judicial and Administrative 

Penalty Assessments 

FY 1977 to FY 1990 

70,000,000 

60,000,000 

50,000,000 

$ 40p00p00 

30,000,000 

20,000,000 

10,000,000 

0 

FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY8l FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 

rn ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL 

Illustration 4 

3-4 
FY 1990 ElJorcement Accomplishmetqs Report 

.I 

State Tudicial and Administrative Enforcement Activity 

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

ensuring compliance and taking action to correct instances of noncompliance with federal laws is 

entrusted both to EPA and to the States through delegated or approved State programs. EPA and the 

States must rely on a partnership to get the job done, with State environmental agencies shouldering a 

significant share of the nation's environmental enforcement workload. In FY 1990, the States referred 

649 civil cases to State Attorneys General and issued 10,105 administrative actions to violating facilities 

(in addition to the 4,145 adminstrative actions taken by States under FIFRA, 3,149 warning letters were 

issued). 

State Judicial Referrals 

FY 1985 to FY 1990 

FYW 

FY89 

FY88 

FY87 

FY86 

FY85 

O 100 m ya Ua xa Mo! m Bm 5w 

UCRA 0 AIR WATER 

State. Administrative Orders 

.FY 1985 to FY 1990 

r/- 

FY90 

FY89 

FYBB 

FY87 

FY86 

Illustrations 5&6 

3 -5 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

IV. Maior Enforcement 

Litipation and Key L@ 

Precedents - Protectine Public 

Health and the En vironment 

throueh Enforcement , 

During FY 1990, EPA's strong base 

enforcement program continued to obtain 

injunctive relief and significant penalties to 

correct priority violations in all media. In 

addition, the compliance programs undertook a 

number of targeted actions and used the 

settlement process to obtain additional 

environmental relief. The special initiatives 

undertaken in FY 1990 are indicative of the type 

of enforcement activity which will become the 

hallmark of the Agency's enforcement program in 

FY 1991 and beyond. This chapter provides 

highlights of major FY 1990 litigation which 

support media enforcement priorities and 

demonstrate innovative approaches in the 

enforcement process. 

Clean Air Act Enforcement 

The Clean Air Act program regulates the 

emission of both toxic and criteria pollutants from 

both stationary (factories, plants, utilities) and 

mobile (auto) sources. Stationary source ajr toxics 

litigation centered upon violations of the 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

'Pollutants (NESHAPS), especially those 

involving asbestos and benzene, while mobile 

source air toxics litigation emphasized violations 

of the lead phasedown rules, as well those 

involving fuel switching, volatility, and 

additives requirements. Enforcement of the 

National Ambient Air Oualitv Standards 

(NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants involved 

violations of regulations for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). sulfur dioxide and 

particulates. 

Stationary Source Program 

Y.S. v. 1.Y. -on 

December 22,1989, a consent decree resolved this 

Region IV Clean Air Act C'CAA") civil 

enforcement action against J.Y. Arnold and 

Associates, Inc. ("J.Y. Arnold") for alleged 

violations of the National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos 

("Asbestos NESHAP") during an asbestos 

4-1 

renovation project at the Adeth Jeshurun 

Synagogue in Louisville, Kentucky. In conjunction 

with the civil enforcement action brought against 

J.Y. Arnold, Region IV initiated proceedings to 

list J.Y. Arnold as a violating facility,pursuant to 

5 306 of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. Part 15. A hearing 

on the listing was held on May 2, 1989, which 

resulted in the presiding officer recommending 

listing J.Y. Arnold. 

The consent decree requires J.Y. Arnold to 

train all of its asbestos abatement personnel in 

EPA-approved training courses. The consent 

decree further requires J.Y. Arnold to pay. a civil 

penalty of $17,500 and stipulated penalties for 

any violation of the consent decree. In addition, 

J.Y. Arnold must report directly to the Region on 

all demolition/renovation projects the company 

bids so the region can reference compliance by 

other contractors in the area. 

As a result of J.Y. Arnoldkperformance of 

the conditions specified in the decree, Region IV 

has agreed to withdraw the listing 

recommendation for J.Y. Arnold. This is believed 

to be.the first case in which an asbestos contractor 

was determined to be a violating facility 

pursuant to a listing hearing. Furthermore, under 

the terms of the Consent Decree, if J.Y. Arnold 

should violate the Decree, EPA can list J.Y. 

Arnold as a violating facility without needing to 

pursue any additional administrative 

proceedings. 

In the Matter of Bethenergv Co ruoration: In 

March, 1989, Region I1 issued a 5120 Notice'of 

Non compliance against Bethenergy Corporation 

(owner-Bethlehem Steel Corp.) for visible 

emissions violations at the waste heat stacks of 

its coke oven battery.' The violations were 

documented using EPA's LIDAR system. During 

1990, the company requested an accelerated 

decision seeking dismissal of this administrative 

case on thegrounds that the state coke oven 

regulation was not part of the SIP. The 

Administrative Law Judge in a March, 1990 ruling 

denied Bethenergy's motion and granted EPA's 

cross-motion for accelerated decision. The 

decision was based narrowly on the facts of EPA's 

approval of the regulation in question. 

Bethenergy appealed the decision to the 

Administrator, who issued a ruling in June 

upholding EPA's interpretation, though with 

different reasoning. Bethenergy has appealed 

the decision to ask for reconsideration by the 

Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 
..>., ... FY 1990~'Enforc~ment~Accdmplishmenrs~~Report > 

, " '.. ' : ' lengthy negotiations;-thc-ca~c'.wiis:Isettlca-bn .), .. ; <,.. , ..,-.I .~.. I .~.. . 

'I Deferidan-t January 10, 199p+:f0r,~.$69,9 ! civil :penalty:. A 

i-action'agreed to 'pay'a~ CivilT~nalty'of~$184;000, consent decree was',entered. the. US: , ,...~ District 

''.'onelof?he .largest:penalties)ever othained'in a Court fop the .We'scehLDistrict. of-Oklahomhx'on 

'!I base~involving:~the'N&ional~Emissioh Standard August 9,1990, andlthe p&al 

Zr:for:'lHazardoug .'%r )Pollutants -:fo;' 'Asbesfos on September 7,1990: ,, .; ,. , .: 

>rehiera :~=~'2~~1990,'r~1Ving' this enforcement 

action alleging violations of tiie'iiotice and iwork *iccy 

practice standards of the Asbestos NESHAP '"R~gion';VIII~~the!~epartm~~~o~ -E&r&'(DOE), 

Qtd&ing\r&ovationlof.. the :Widener; Building in "'Da~dta'Ga,ifi~ati~n~Co~panj;'~(DG~:);''fOrmcrly 

'~'Fhila~elphia,'~Penn~sylvariia: ,.-''In., aadition, " known& AmericazNatuFal Gas'~(ANGj, '$'$d;the 

:frdefendari& a@d to implement!s@veral'measures -. State of'NortWDakotaiSach'Zd'~a ,/. ., '., S'e'ttlcm6nt 

1; :designed:-tbt.pre'v~nt\'v'iOlations. offthe: Asbestos ? agr+ment'ste~ing from violations'of -:rpitid 

0: specifigs tFit ~.Gc will'+ay'O5j;qkfor 

. _-.._I__ .~ 

-. I( (/&&Gi NESHAp): ! *bcfigny;d&c& Gas .. . 

I., ,,.., 

. 4- , 

, .-- 5 ., , -. : 

11'NESHAP:ini tfie 'fut"re)>s"ck &TGdu&ti&al'and ES &issib& '&q'*psp '&fjNspsi'$~i&n 

.. :t&ining+rog+iio& and tiesigiiation'of a;i.Asbestos 2': n;& . . C&&~t'Agr&@&,,sigii&I .+ . . -7 on ?"+st 

r:cProgra'm.Manager~r~sponsible: for ensuring the 

'ry ~ company.^ - !co.m~pli.e~ rwith! < the' .NE'sHAAF ',at' ;all "r'failin^g'", io 1: 'comply ..Gi (@;an& th~ep~onsen 

'(cfuture:pro~ts~:~~l~~' .'i II ;.. rI:l;-' '-'d;&ement .signed on Apripz7; 'i-g89:,,hblch 

,,i(,) ,:if,! -.-!.. ': required"s'ubmittaI.'of, "'.'- a PSD.$ermii applicaticm 

. b,,. ?rr/,.." ,.., 7.: il....,,..'.'~. ',,CII-..' 5!{1 t:,' c'!:;, 

. .. <,?:! ' .? <, Y.S. v. Boise ' 

: Underscoring : and a'"Compliance schfdule. Th2;;Cdnsent 

'%fore the 3tartiup bf o~~ations;'a'June~28: 1990, '- ~$1,000;000~ whi&h5 will'be"&i<pended2 , -\ . , ; . , . 

2:consknt decreercsdl&d.EPA's cakagainst .Boise milestones are met. Furtfier,"if"the cost of 

:;-Ca&a'de fo<Clea'n:Air Act .violatiok'at,its pulp . specified control equipment is less than the 

'i:'andipaper.'mill' iniInteiriational1:FaIIs,'Minnesota. original cost of $65,183,000:pro@s(?d ina,pie$ious 

,:'T~e.aecr~~requires Boise to.pay a.$350~OOO'civil BACT analysis, DGC agrees to pay the State the 

' IPSd/NSii'permit:-'~e.case:stemmedfrom Boise ;... 

.','Ca?&de!s, f;iil"reCt(j i'&tai$i a.:pSDf &d#r&n- y.S. .v:. Fehr. B .- Th-e, largest 

"$attainment 'New Source ;Review (NSR);,permit . settlcment. yet:.in=(>of,:the .r.ules: to 

.d:before'.beginning Const&ction on modifications'to .>.prot<ct .stratospher.ic . ozone,,! jnvolving:; the 

its mill. The alleged violations were-dkoveied -: payment;of, a.$lOl 2 935.civil. .- . . .. penalty,.,w.as; ~~ filed 

by a Region V inspector who observed the &June 29;:1990.-'!%e Department,of Justice,lodged 

' :existence'of~dilirigs:f~r.atn~~.pa-~r~.mach~neand the consent decree on behalf ,of.,ErA:with, Judge 

'11 bIeach''+lEi,t,. ;: ,I ,.,i '1 ,7r,'- 'i ,I,,<> ,t. ~. ',; ,. J.0hn.F. KWM~ of-the Unitcd;States Dystnct Court 

,.,:,.:n:n. , u-- .,,. .:I,>;: '7 ,!;- i. L ~ j,,',!,!'. : !C, ,.for the Nuthern.District .of:New:Yo~k,! , I: $:: 

:..',',<*'; EPA issuedyia 'notice of:violation:to Boise :,,I, %.;i;i: ,i,,., >, .; >j,.;+,: ,I,,: ,>f;. ,I<,, :,< 

)f"&cade:on November: 1$31988!: L4Ithough:the .,j; :,, 'The,defcndGnt, ,Fehr..Brothers,;Inc.;icured 

': "companyfstopped construction 'activities: by'the . 6 its -alleged, wrongfu1:impprtation of.' 153,600 

:;!'end.of-Novem~r,~EPA made: it';clear'-thaP, this . .kilograms of ozonedeplcting :Ch!oiq?@o.carbon 

rL:&ouldhot abdiie :Boise Castade' from, liibility. .).by I purchasing -consumption ,allowan.ces ! from 

2, EPA'caeminded: .that :,Boise> C?ascadcl:obtain: a L,.companies, which ?had (ge~eratcd,,allo,yvances 

f! co-nstfuction.' peimifi 'before- continuing--the through proper exportation. .~rl .>iti;fW,,! 

',''modif<6ation'$ and pay a;'civil .'penalty. ",Boise ' : A court for the.first 

,:"~f~i&~tg &iJUfie;i2;,1989;.:; , (*.'flf*,': +'$''<!> time ruled that' the contractor at a Government 

Owned - Contractor Operated C'GOCO) facility . y's !v I.: ._ i ., .'On-behalf of .EP&'on '::(General ~ Dynamics .Corpi:i Fort Wortli;-TX)I is 

. ..Februam-States sued Conoco e- considered- the.roperator -as'la-'matterr'of,!law. 

:~.'Pipeline,:,Inc.,;o;ijf_ 0l;lafioma City, 0klahomas:for BecauG eni;ironmental'statutes.usually. provikle 

'.. -vio,ati(jns:" ,of the. ,New ;Source;.Peiformhke .L the!"Administrator.,.with :authority rto'apursue 

''!Standards iega7di~g'volatile.oiganic.c~mpound . either owners,or operatdrs'bf violating- facilities, 

storage tanks::.:The-facility;~ada_d'fail~ to'provide ' '.G&eral'DynamicS and other contractors "mahg 

notification ' of .co?istruCtion:',sfrtup~~arid refill: ".use n of., government-owned ~facilities: often argue 

The caw was fif6don Februar9-28, '.1989b:jAfier * { that','they:. are .not. opeiato?sLandJ:tha't: +Key 

1:1EPA'scommieement heasures r i.. r~l 3.. Agreemenf*also contain'5 stipulated' pe 

'.'penalty,'the,largest'ever 'foiifailing'torobtain a ... differen~ejn costs.,.,7 ,.,: .,, :, c-:...., _. , .!,I- .-, .. 

,,. :,, .i:. . , ;7.:':-f? ;,., ,; 1 ,:, .,., <,, ;,,,: ..i.- '-3 

,.I.. . , .... i 

. ., , 

, ~. ,,. . ..?$.>.,, ,-. -- <P r. i 

VCasLaae obtained a valiaipeimit.from:the~Siate V 

, ,.? 

I r !.j;..i ,'):. :.e?:. ,,;:..yr2 , 

_a 

;, -1 . .~... . L.. . - 

. . . . . :.. 

412' 
.. . 

FY 1990. Enforcemenr~Accomplishmenls Repon( ': 

exercise no independent judgment or rkponsibility 

(they' claim they can only :do what, tlie 

.government 'expressly :orders them to do ,-.L. an 

i argumentiusually at: odds,,with their. contracts). 

* ,Therefore,.the argument.goes, thegovernment is 

.both.the owner, and the operator, and EPA should 

: seekr'to. .resolve . the ..violations through 

adminisfrative;proces.scs Mause the.governnient 

cannot sue8itself:- !The .US. District'Court for .the 

Northern District of Texas'issued an order. on 

February 6, 1990, stating that General Dynamics 

is the operator. of .Air Force.Plant No. 4, the only 

faci1ity:at whichtthe F-16 fighter.plane,is made. 

'In'iits onerpage topinion, th: court ~ held' that::the 

U.S..was entitlid to;judgment,as a.matter:df law 

regarding: the'defendant's status as.operator of 

the facility, $and entered partial judgment 

holding that'Genera1 .Dynamics was the.operator 

,of Plant Nor.4. Them General' Dynamics ,order 

represents the first' time a court has specifically 

sruled that thc:co'ntractor.at, a-GOCO facility is 

the operator 'and may,hold significance for caSes 

involving GOCO faciliticsiwhere the contractor 

has claimed that it is an alter ego of the 

i.@ve&ent exercising no independent judgmrmt or 

' authority. The. case, filed in- 1987, alleges that 

-:General .Dynamics violated :the ,Texas SIP. VOC 

. standards, at three 'coating .lines at. Air Force 

.Plant No'. 4, where ttie*company applies surface 

coatings to the F-16fighter plane. ' -. :' . I;. 

General Motors COID:~. U.S. : ,The Supreme Court 

e ruled that EPA can enforce air pollution control 

regulations evenewhen a proposil!to relax them is 

I pending with EPA for.approv^al;. 'In a June 14, 

I decision,'thc Court ruled :that the. four-month 

.to::.approve :,State 

;Implementation P!ans (SIPS) 1does:not apply 'to 

7 EPAs review , of. revisions:,to such,. plans. 

Moreover, . EPA's ,failure to.:act on proposed 

'rc+isions within a "reasonable time" does not.bar 

enforcement of the existing SIP. ,The. appropriate 

remedy .for unreasonable dela'y , by EPA in 

reviewingra proposed :revision is a lawsuit to 

' compel EPA:to act on the revision, or a request by 

the defendant in.an,enforcement action to reduce 

,.". ;..-I ..,.'. I . 

deadline : for ':EPA 

penalties. ,. . , . 

..i -This decision.arose out of.an enforcement 

action.brought by EPA against General Motors,for 

emissions of volatile organic compounds;:a 

precursor of ground-level ozone, at its automobile 

.assembly plant in Framingham, Massachusetts. 

Justice ' Blackmun wrote' the opinion for a 

, unanimous court.. *. . : 

, :,, . .;. , ,.-:, .I ,., 

, ,. ... : .., , 

, .. '. .. '. . 

Power -PSD.,Permit 

-,. Region:lII .filed a .Petition for Review 

::requesting review of a ,PSD permit issued .by,the 

:Commonweakhiof Virginia.to-Hadson.Powerlll, 

Southampton Plant, Ultrasystems ;Development 

,.Corporation for,tlie construction of a.cogeneration 

plant consisting of two spreader-stoker coal-fird 

4 boilers. .Hadson Power. had, filed threexother 

:,applications for' cogeneration :plants~.similarly 

designed and expected to emit,the:same?Ievelibf 

emissions in tons per year (TPY). Region Ill's 

opinion was that.&lective noncatalytic.reduction 

I processes.involving,.the injection .of.ammonia or 

urea were economically:.feasible, arid: thabthe 

technology .(thermal idc-NOx) had been applied 

.to other fuel types of stoker boilcrsrand to coalfired circulating fluidized bed.boilers. Region 111 

'believed that transfer. of this' technology was 

'appropriate.to coal-fired spreader stokers; I that 

additional sulfur .dioxide emission reductions 

were possible and more appropriate as a form,of 

BACT;';and that the. control: efficiency'.of~ the 

scrubber could be improved and the sulfur level in 

,the,coalreduced.,-,,., >,, L' 'I: ;,,., I. :; '. .t!i,' , .. ... - '1 

Agreement was reached in February, 1990 

between Hadson Power, the Commonwealth of 

Virginia and .EPA:.The agreement .enabled.-.the 

;Region to withdraw the appeal.in February.1990 

and .resulted in. ab 276 TPY. reduction~flin..S02 

:emissions, which, over the 30-year life of this 

plant, ,.mean< 8;280. tons: ;less S02. in:ithe 

atmosphere.' .The.agreement also required a more 

-.complete BACT:analysis in future Hadson Power 

applications and at least a 50% reduction in NOx 

emissions from the proposed plants. . i " ., > 

.. . ,I Ij 

p: 

, , 8. -~ < .. -. ' ! .,' , .t . . 1, . ,. 

On Febfuary 8, 

:,1990,'an.order.was issued to Instant Web;Inc:of 

Ciianhasscn, Minnesota,' pursuant'to 5,167.0f. the 

Clean Air Act. .This was the first such order to be 

issued in Region V and required that Instant Web 

:immediately cease .construction ,which was 

:proceeding in' violation of. PSD. regulations. 

Again; this. action underscores the Region's 

resolve to insist that new or-modified sources in 

attainment"areaS .be equipped : with the best 

pollution controls. !. L, 

: On June 4,1990, Judge 

Ramirez. of, the Eastern District of California 

approved 'a Consent Decree .which, imposed :a 

civil..penalty. on. three defend ants'^ who.:had 

violated the asbestos NESHAP.8 The defendants, 

Lyon. and! Associates, Fred.'B. Curtis, .Inc., and 

.George E:King Construction, were responsibkfor 

. . .. dJ.S. v. Lvon 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishmenfs Report 

the improper removal of friable asbestos roofing 

material from' a building in Sacramento 

California. The violations had been discovered 

by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District ("the district"), but because 

the District .was having difficulty obtaining a 

penalty from the defendants, it asked EPA for 

assistance. EPA and the District brought a joint 

enforcement action and shared the. resulting 

$65,000 civil penalty. 

Loulslana-Pacific: These cases involved a 

national investigation into NS,R/PSD Practices 

I by Louisiana-Pacific Corporation for construction 

and operation without a.PSD pcrmit. As a result 

of Region VI11 initiatives, SSCD has initiated an 

investigation into the New Source Review (NSR) 

practices of Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LP). 

LP's Northern Waferboard Division, 

headquartered in Hayward, Wisconsin, has been 

operating two waferboard plants, .both major 

stationary sources for CO and VOC, without 

obtaining required PSD permits in Colorado since 

1984. 

.. 

On June 26, 1990, Region VIIl referred the 

two LP plants to DOJ for the PSD violations. In 

March 1990, Georgia reported' that LP had 

recently constructed a waferboard plant that was 

permitted as a minor source by 'of Georgia, but 

was operating as a major source. This information, 

in light of the similar way the Colorado plants 

were constructed and permitted, has raised the 

question. of the existence of a corporate 

NSR/PSD permitting review for new LP plants. 

Region VI11 contacted SSCD and suggested that 

SSCD coordinate and conduct a nationwide 

investigation into LP's permitting practices at 

the company's other VI11 submitted to SSCD a 

memo which recommended a national strategy for 

evaluating LP's compliance new source review. 

The strate'gy includes a recommendation to 

develop Control Technique Guidance (CTG) for 

waferboard plants, and for the development of a 

standard multi-operational parameter matrix 

stack test protocol to be used at all waferboard 

plants. 

ys. v. oc- : Aconsent 

decree was entered by the court on August 14,1990, 

under which Occidental Chemical Corp. agreed 

to pay $687,223 to resolve the firm's violations of 

the vinyl chloride NESHAP at their Pottstown, 

PA., facility, the largest penalty to date in a 

single vinyl chloride case. The decree, filed in 

the US. District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, marks the first federal 

enforcement action in which a polyvinyl chloride 

manufacturer has agreed to install an enhanced 

recovery system and is also the first air case to 

require periodic environmental audits. In 

addition to the penalty, the decree specifies over 

$3 million worth of injunctive relief including the 

periodic audits, the additional control 

equipment, and training. 

I!5sIt- -v.* ". 

In early November, 1989, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the First. Circuit upheld EPA's 

method of determining applicability under the 

PSD regulations. The case was the first to 

,consider -the netting o'f emissions, and EPA's 

requirement for comparison of actual emissions 

prior to modification with proposed allowable 

emissions after modification, for PSD 

applicability purposes. Although this was a 

defensive litigation, it has great significance for 

EPKs enforcement 

p: 

program. 

Sid 

Richardson Carbon and Gasoline operates a 

carbon black plant in Addis, Louisiana, which 

manufactures carbon black by burning natural gas 

or fuel oil with reduced oxygen. Waste gas 

streams from the carbon black reactors contain 

large amounts of acetylene, which is a volatile 

organic.compound (VOC). Studies have shown 

VOCs contribute to the formation of ozone in the 

lower atmosphere. Louisiana submitted a 

revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

that would exempt carbon black plants from 

controlling acetylene, which was finally 

disapproved by EPA in early 1990. Region VI 

forwarded a litigation report to the Department 

of Justice on December 31,1986. A consent decree 

became effective on September 1, 1990, which 

ordered Sid Richardson to control the VOC 

emissions and pay a $77,ooO penalty, which was 

paid September 17,1990. Region VI also assisted 

the State in issuing,a PSD permit for construction 

of a flare system to destroy at least 90% of the 

acetylene. 

y.s. v. : Santa Fe 

Energy Company (SFEC) owns and operates an oil 

recovery facility near Bakersfield in Kern 

County, California. On March 22, 1990, EPA filed 

a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of California alleging that SFEC 

had violated the Clean Air Act and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations by 

.. 
FY 1990 Enforeemem Accomplishmenrs Report 

failing to install continuous emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS) for nikogen oxides and oxygen on 

its steam generators. The CEMS'were required by 

a PSD permit issued to the company by EPA. In a 

consent decree entered July IO, 1990, SFEC agreed 

to pay a civil penalty of $201,000 and to comply 

with certain injunctive provisions. The penalty is 

among the largest EPA has collected nationwide 

for violations of PSD permitting requirements. 

-: AConsent 

Decree, filed August 28, 1990, in the United 

States District Court for the District of Arizona, 

resolved EPAs lawsuit citing Stone Container 

Corporation ("Stone") with violations of the 

Clean Air Act. Stone manufactures newsprint and 

kraft linerboard at its paper mill in Snowflake, 

Arizona. A. coal-fired boiler provides the mill's 

power. In its action, EPA alleged that Stone had 

violated New Source Performance Standards by 

failing to send quarterly excess emission reports to 

EPA over a 48 month period. Second, EPA alleged 

that Stone violated the sulfur dioxide (502) 

emission limit contained in the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan. To resolve the matter, 

Stone agreed to pay a civil penalty of $200,000. 

Stone also agreed to a Consent Decree which 

&lled for Stone to install a new scrubber for sulfur 

dioxide. 

(a division 

of Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company): On 

August 1, 1990, the US. District Court for the 

District of Montana filed a consent decree 

mncluding EPAs civil enforcement action against 

this elemental phosphorus plant in Silver Bow, 

Montana. EPA overfiled a State action which 

would have allowed the source to obtain a 

variance because the Region believed additional 

controls were necessary to protect the 

environment. After prolonged negotiations with 

the defendant, EPA was able to achieve a consent 

decree in accordance with which the defendant 

paid a penalty of $100,000 and was required to 

install extensive controls. 

us. v. p : This 

case resulted in the imposition of a total of 

$555,000 in civil penalties, the largest amount 

ever assessed in a Clean Air Act enforcement 

action involving the National Emission Standard 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos 

(Asbestos NESHAP), 40 C.F.R. Part 61,Subpart M. 

The government alleged violations of both the 

notice and work practice standards of the asbestos 

NESHAP while defendants were renovating the 

former Military Park Hotel in Newark, New 

Jersey. On July 25, 1990 a consent decree was 

entered as to defendants Tzavah Urban Renewal , ' 

Corp., Harry K.Hampel, Datsun Investments, 

Pinros dr Gar, Henry Roth, and Sol Mayer. These , 

$330,000. In addition, they agreed, with respect 

to all future demolition or renovation operations 

in which they are an owner or operator, to have 

an inspector with EPA-approved training do a 

complete building inventory for asbestos. On June 

21; 1990 Judge Alfred J. Lechner, Jr. awarded thc 

government $225,000, the maximum civil penalty 

allowed under the Clean Air Act, as to the two 

remaining defendants, William Creer and Crecr 

Industrial Corp., which had default judgments 

entered against them. In his Letter-Opinion, 

Judge Lechner determined the statutory maximum 

was appropriate because the defendants had 

acted in bad faith by'refusing to respond to any 

actions filed in the case and their allegcd 

violations "provided an enormous potential for 

danger and unknown injury to the public." The 

opinion was published at 696 F. Supp. 1013 

(D.N;J. 1988), and the consent decree also 

received national recognition by being written up 

in the Wall Street Journal as a warning to real 

estate developers in dealing with renovations 

and demolitions, even when they contract out the 

actual work. 

US. v. Wh 

EPA brought an action against. WheelingPittsburgh Steel Corporation for 'emissions of 

particulate matter at its steel galvanizing plant 

in Martins Ferry, Ohio. Under the terms of a 

consent decree entered on February 21, 1990, 

resolving the case, Wheeling-Pittsburgh must 

replace scrubbers on three galvanizing'lines with 

one or more baghouses. The company must 

demonstrate compliance with the emission limits 

by April 15, 1991. In addition, the company is 

required to pay a civil.penalty of $220,000. 

Clean' Air Act Enforcement 

Mobile Source Program 

defendants agreed to pay a civil penalty of \ 

yS. v. C0as.P ' : This 

case involves illegal lead rights. Coastal 

Refining and Marketing imported gasoline and 

claimed 29 million grams of lead rights. EPA 

issued a Notice of Violation on February 3, 1987, 

with a proposed penalty of $1.1 million, alleging 

that the respondent could not make a claim for 

lead rights-because the imported product was not 

.. 

4 -5 
FY I990.:Enforce~nr'Accoti1plishmen~s Repbit! .: 1 

, . ., , ., ,: .,.. ,i.... ., ... ,, "Ke canneries beganyinstiiu!ion' of ,high- I /I. ..,.' I, ,' , .,,, !',: 

strength waste segrega!ion;an_d',o~,n, di!co*,! 'of 

their fish processing .wastes which -are high in 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

,MGD treatment plant,that had'a severe^ impact 'G. '"' . City . of ' El P &: t 0ri.August 21,; 1990, a 

'.on aquatic organisms in the OW River as well as consent decree wasmtered byrthe 'US'District 

causing discoloration, foa'm, and solids. The City 'Court for-the Westem District of Texas resolving 

improperly operated/maintained the. plant and EPA's enforcement,action against the' City ,of. El 

' improperly handledydisposed of sludge:' The '. Paso, Texas: EPA's action'was brought under the 

Wity failed to enforce'its pretreatment permits, . Clean Water,: Acth'dfor E1"PaSo's- failure, to 

resulting in; a severe'impact 'from .Toulene, Zinc, ., implement its approvd' pretreatment program. 

' Biological -Oxygen .Demand; Tota1;Suspended It was one of four major actions filed in'early'FY 

Solids, Fecal : Coliform, 'Chlorine; Ammonia, 1990 as part of the Pretreatment Enforcement .' Settleable Solids, Dissolved Oxygen, arid ~ pH. ' Initiative. That .Initiative- 'congisted of 

' The City had, bypassed raw'&wage;and,the approximately'' .'61,1 Federal. 'land' ?State, 

plant' was'hydraulica1ly'overloaded::The:Order ' administrativet and I judicial .actions",against 

,required stream' remediation, collection system mUnicipalities:-for~ failing to comply :,with 

"upgrade, and enforcement. of the pretreatment . pheatment.implementation requirements: The 

program. The Orderasksseil a'civil penalty of - consent decree -requires' the'city; of EITasd to 

$58,000. 'identify its industrial users; issue per-mits' to all 

-. /,:- :,r: :~,:.~,~~;.~cl,<>,~~ c-;. .. , significant and categorical: inaustrial':use?s,' 

In the matter- of' CSX ;:Tr : An ' 'adequately; monitor and "inspect .Significant 

ad-3,.1989, ::industrial.users,'-modify the City's 'pretieatm2nt 

to CSX Railrdad's'Radnor Yard in Tennessce . program to 'address insufficiencies, provide 

which generated oily'wastewater from,surf&e . regular ' reports .to. EPA on . the" City's 

runoff and a subsurfaces drainage system. <.This implementation . effo-rts 'andq,'enforc-e7'its 

' 2 wastewater impacted aquatic oiganisms in pretreatment program. In addition, the decree 

.Brown's Creek: and'+'aused,' groundwater required. the City 'to'.pay a' civil.-penalty' of 

.'contamination: p the Order required CSX:to apply $395;000 for its' past pretreatment violations. 

for an'NPDES'.permit, ana remediate the ',This 'is. the',largest penalty 'paid. by a 

contamination. The .Order: assessed a. civil -municipality, -to 'date; . for . pretreatment 

penal@ of $65,000. violations. .. The' enforcement "action 'and 

,compliance agi&ment,with the'City of El Pasd (a 

Y.S. v. Ea- : .EPA and the '. City of'480,000 people 'and:~nUmerous industrial 

: Department of Justice entered into the settlement .users; which.discharges. 50 'million gallons: of 

of a'Clean Water Act 5 301 'NPDES enforcement 'wastewater to'the.Rio River Basin per day) will 

action against Eagle-Picher Industries; .Inc., a result, in a significant reduction,'of' bhemic'al 

battery and,chemicals manufacturer located.in discharges to the Rio Grande River Basin. '. 

settlement, Eagle-Picher agreed to pay a civil Ho ffman G~UD v. EpA : A federal appeals court 

penalty of $1.5 million for its past violations. In for the first time May 14 held that EPA may not 

addition to the penalty, ythe.settlement .requires ' be sued to obtain acourt's opinion of the validity 

'Eagle-Picher to meet stringent interim-'discharge of a CWA Administrative Compliance Order or to 

limitations; and, to attain- full compliance. with ,'enjoin EPAs enforcement of suchan order. 'The 

its permit I limitations and pretreatment US. Court of Appeals for the Seventh:Circuit 

requirements by 'December 15,' 1990, or'! pay held that CWA Administrative. Compliance 

'additional ' significant Stipulated penalties. Orders are not'subjet to preenforcement review. 

Eagle-Picher is also required to conduct a The appeals court concluded that Congress in the 

comprehensive environmental audit of the CWA intended that no judicial review of ACOs be 

company's compliance 'with federal,' state, and available. ' 11 

.. 

... 

,.. _I 

.. .~ .. 

'., ,.. '.,,',' ', , ,, . . 

-, 

.,I .. .,,'? 

. -, 

.. Joplin; Missouri. .Under athe .terms of the . I .. , , -i-,:, c:t , ., :, r ,. 

L.. .,.,I' : .I '. 4. ,: i. ':-I' I. .. local .environmental'Ii+s, and t,-.co&ct:ahj, ;!< :*II:.?L . ' . . .'-I, I , i; *' 1 ,L,< ': 

' . ..a - . ..a, . . . . , .. ' violations and certify compliance, within..a L& r!:v . - 

specified time period. ' The complaint filed: in . -- vc .. 

October'of 1987, alleged discharges' of heavy Corljbration C'L-P")'and Simp& PaprCompany 

metals and other pollutants..in violation of . ("Simpson") own and 'operate two pulp 'mills,in 

NPDES permit limits and .violations 'of northern California. On October 2, 1989'and July 

pretreatment requirements fordischarges into the 3, 1990, the United States filed complaints 

municipahewer systein., :, against '.L-P and Simpson, respectively, for 

: i. .j( :5, discharging poilutarits from their pulp'mills in 

., .. ,: '.. .'. violation' of' numerous conditions'in their 

, I ' ,., _i 

t' . 8, 

, .! 1 

.. 

4-7 
\ 

FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits issued under the Clean 

Water Act, in particular those related to chronic 

toxicity limits. These limits require that the 

mills' effluents have no toxic effect in a sea 

urchin fertilization test when the effluents are 

diluted to predicted receiving .water 

concentrations. 

L-P and Simpson's mills are unique in that 

they have no treatment for their effluents. Under 

, EPA effluent guidelines, pulp mills are normally 

required to install biological treatment systems to 

meet Be'st Practicable Control Technology (BPT) 

effluent limitations. EPA issued .waivers of this 

requirement to L-P and Simpson pursuant to 

§301(m) of the Clean Water Act. EPA issued 

these waivers'based on assurances from the mills 

that they would reduce and control effluent 

toxicity without biological treatment. EPA has 

filed these actions, in part, to remedy L-P and 

Simpson's failure to control effluent toxicity. 

-: In July 1990, 

Menominee Paper Co. of Menominee, MI, pled 

guilty .to a 10-count indictment on criminal 

misdemeanors under ' the Clean Water Act. 

Menomi.nee Paper admitted that it knowingly 

underreported the amount of total suspended 

solids and other pollutants discharged in 1985 

and 1986. In addition to the plea, the company 

agreed to make a public apology for its 

infractions in the .form of a full-page 

advertisement in the local newspaper and' to pay 

a $100,000 criminal fine. 

A related civil case .was resolved 

simultaneously by a consent decree that requires 

Menomince P.aper Co. and its parent company, 

Bell Packaging Corp., of Marion, IN, to pay the 

second highest civil penalty ever levied under 

the Clean Water Act -- $2.1 million. Should thc 

company fail to make the payment, John Bell Jr., 

chairman and chief stockholder of Menominee 

Paper Co., will be held personally liable. The 

decree also specifies that Menominee Paper must 

perform a comprehensive audit under all 

applicable environmental statutes including 

RCRA and EPCRA. EPA will choose the auditing 

firm, review and approve the audit report, and 

will require the company to remedy any problems 

identified. 

-An 

administrative order was issued by the Tennessee 

State Commissioner on March 30, 1990, to 

Nashville Metro which operates three 

treatment plants with a total average design 

capacity exceeding 137 MGD. The collection 

system has over 400 miles of combined storm and 

sanitary sewers, and 154 bypass points. In 1989 

and 1990 Metro bypassed sewage in excess of 28 

billion gallons, causing several fish kills. Metro 

had chronic violations of its NPDES permits for 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended 

Solids, Fecal Coliform, Chlorine, Ammonia, 

Settleable Solids, Copper, and Nickel. The 

Order required expansion of the plant, abatement 

of the combined sewer problem, and remediation 

of effluent violations. The Order assessed a civil 

penalty in excess of 5200,000. 

In FY.1989 .Region 11 finalized consent decrees 

with nine municipalities which dump sludge in 

the ocean, setting compliance schedules for such 

dumping to cease pursuant to the Ocean Dumping 

Ban Act of 1988. In FY 1990, four of these 

municipalities were found to be violating the 

decrees. Starting in May, at the Region's request, 

DOJ issued several demand letters to Nassau 

County, New York, requesting payment of 

stipulated penalties for such violations. During 

FY 1990, Nassau paid a total of $1.8 million in 

such penalties of which half -- $900,850 -- was 

paid to the U.S. and half to the State. Most 

importantly, the district court has affirmed the 

government's right to these penalties. 

Additional demand letters have been sent .to 

Bcrgen County, Middlesex County and the 

Rahway Valley Utilities Authority for their 

violations. 

Penntech Papers, Inc. owns and operates an 

integrated kraft pulp and paper mill located in 

Johnsonburg, Elk County, Pennsylvania.. The 

complaint filed by the United States in this 

matter alleges that Penntech violated the Clean 

Water Act (CWA), by discharging pollutants 

from its mill into the Clairion River (a tributary 

of the' Allegheny and Ohio Rivers) in excess of 

the limitations established in Penntech's 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit. The illegal discharges 

from Penntechs mill have presented a potential 

for environmental harm and, because drinking 

water supplies are drawn downstream from the 

facility, potential harm to human health. The 

complaint also alleges that Penntech violated 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) by discharging corrosive hazardous 

' 4-8 
wastes into a 240-acre surface impoundment 

without obtaining a RCRA permit or submitting 

the reports related to these discharges. The 

consent decree requires Penntech to. pay an up 

front penalty of $1,170,000 to the United States 

and Pennsylvania for its past violations of the 

CWA and RCRA. Penntech is also required to 

construct a wastewater treatment plant, to close 

the surface impoundment, and to pay stipulated 

penalties for future violations of its NPDES 

permit. Finally, the United States has obtained 

from Willamette Industries, Inc., the parent 

corporation of Penntech, a guarantee of 

performance of the consent decree. This is the 

first instance in which such a guarantee has been 

obtained in a CWA or. RCRA enforcement action. 

m. 

Philadelphia 

and Pennsvlvania 

owns and 

v. City 

operates 

of: 

a sewage 

treatment facility located in southwest 

Philadelphia ("the Southwest Plant")' that 

discharges pollutants, pursuant to an NPDES 

Permit, into the Delaware River. The Southwest 

Plant treats approximately 200 million gallons of 

sewage per day, and provides service to 

approxim,ately one million people. In its 

complaint- the United States alleged that 

Philadelphia has violated the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), since 1984, and in particular the 

limitations established in its NPDES permit for 

the discharge of pollutants from the Southwest 

Plant. The water quality standards established 

for the segment of the Delaware River into 

which the Southwest Plant discharges have not 

been met, in part due to the illegal discharges 

from the Southwest Plant. The consent decree 

resolving this enforcement action requires 

Philadelphia to pay an up-front civil penalty of 

$1.5 million. This is the largest civil penalty 

that the United States has collected from a 

'municipality for violations of the CWA. The 

penalty is to be paid over a period of two years, 

67% to the United States and 33% to 

Pennsylvania. The consent decree also requires 

Philadelphia to 1) rehabilitate five major 

components of theSouthwest Plant; 2) retain an 

independent consultant to review the City's 

rehabilitation program and its operation and 

maintenance practices, and then develop an 

enforceable schedule of measures that the City 

will implement to insure long term compliance 

with its NPDES permit by January 1,1991. 

, 

' 

.. 

ell Oil Company: On March 26,1990, 

the United States.District Court for the Northern 

District of California approved a consent decree 

4 -9 

valued at over $20 million. This consent decree 

settled claims arising out of a 1988 oil spill into a 

marsh and slough system and eventually into the 

San Francisco Bay Delta (the northern end of the 

San Francisco Bay system) from Shell's oil 

refining complex in Martinez, California. The 

settlement includes the largest recovery to date 

for natural resource damages from an oil spill 

(over $12 million) and the largest penalty ever 

for violations of EPAs SPCC regulations ($2 

million). The settlement was the result of 

landmark cooperation between 16 public entities 

including federal, state and local parties. 

G On April 22 and 23, 1988, Shell spilled over 

440,OOO gallons of crude oil onto lands and into 

waters, including wetlands, when a pipe 

connection in an oil holding tank broke and oil 

escaped through a drainage valve that had been 

left open in violation of EPAs SPCC regulations. 

In an aggressive approach to SPCC enforcement, 

the Region alleged penalties of $5,000 for each 

day that the drain was left open and for other 

SPCC violations. With the assistance of NEIC, 

the Region developed a case for several years of 

such violations and ultimately recovered a $2 

million penalty. The settlement also included 

$50,000 in penalties for violations of Shell's 

NPDES permit. 

The spilled oil caused substantial damage 

to the environment and natural resources of the 

San Francisco Bay Delta, killing many birds and 

mammals and destroying important wetlands 

habitat. As a result of the Region's efforts to 

bring the many public plaintiffs together in a 

joint enforcement action, the settlement was able 

to address these damages through a Memorandum 

of Agreement between the various trustee 

agencies. The consent decree also provided that 

between the time the decree was lodged and the 

time it was entered, all interest on the entire 

settlement amount of $19,750,000 would be added 

to the trustee's fund to be used for natural resource 

restoration. The trustee agencies are now charged 

with using the trustees fund of over $12 million to 

restore the damaged natural resources. 

The settlement also included $2,100,ooO for 

penalties to the State of California, $500,000 for 

local counties penalties, and $3,512,000 for 

studies, damages, and cost recovery. 

USX Co,r.~, - Gary Wujss The successful 

settlement of this case marks a turning point in 

the history of northwest Indiana's Grand 
~Calumet~~River.~,~'ihe:.Julyil990 ,consent .decree 

L.comniits, USX, I to ::a'r$34.l~~million~:package.~of 

-environmental:improvements andcivi1,penal ties. 

''It is.the.sccond'decr& in whichLSediment cleanup 

'.has.E&nobtainediunder. the CTieanWater.Act and 

.;it? is xalready7 influencing' negotiations ;!With 

'+siinilaryindustries*througIiout :the> Nation: ~I USX, 

iilorain, OH,.was:the:.first. decree:of this type.: :It 

?.provides a:: :f ra me.w'o rk i?. foihsigni f ican t 

?environmental imprcvements and cleanupdat, the 

1 USX plant. and:in.the.river.:, ~b. rr:T 

-.~iiii;.:~; ?il,!~.: 3J i>'x,,<:';c! i-,<'iI~'.?qo~? 2 

In:Octo~r.~l988; the Government ,filed .suit 

against USX Gary Works-alleging numerous 

?-violations of (its Lwastewater discharge.:permit. 

uRegion Xnfurther ialleged, thatT.USX ill6gally 

.;discharged .:improperly. treated,;.wastewater 

! directly.! info fkake.. Michigan7:and rtheGrand 

rRalumet !River.rlln Septemljer:1989,rthere. was. the 

...p otenti,$ ifof,? tKer Gary'Worksrto ibe ;!'listed':: r: If 

.~listed;rlGary.~Works' would ibe banned,fromi any 

ngrants; loans,:or contracts. with :!lieLJnit+.States. 

dnstead: :the company negotiated ia'tprecedent- 

.'setting.#agreement withi tlie Government.' :,The 

. .consent:. decree:(outlines 'more:, thani.100 major 

Lcompliance 1 steps. : Twenty'five ?million vdollars 

bwilli,be spent; toiupgrade;wastewater.; treatment 

i. equipment rand:, related'facilities-.:; Anotfier '$25 

million will go towards investigating about!U 

miles of contaminated sediments; and up to $5 

jmillidn Imore'may be.used ~ toLactually.,tlean up 

*.approximately 500,000 cubic:yardsiofisediments 

4ocated:int a,.5-mile.stretcti'near NUSXrproperty. 

;:iUSX also.will,pay a ;$li6;millionicivil- @nalty.rr 

,;> >+y,:'i,, G'(:..jT:3z 1,') :,$ :' <.e.; ,; ..i. ;,f.i!J,.*? 

, r,i :Glearl~~ther~SX:~ttlement :demonstrates 

,;thatfcorporationsrmust bear:responsibility.for:the 

!recological,;damage-causedTby, :past :violations. 

-,This., message .,was':communicatediithrough the 

matiorial.media!coverage the:case,garnered.i The 

.isettlement.:;i also i,ireceived.,.~:pra'ise >.from 

.environmentalists: concerned :about- the: much- 

!abused-GrandCalumetRiver. 1 ..:s.~j::,. i-lr.. .?? 

r:-,T:joz:i .u~:,j.~r,:e: i;,,;~, ,SI , .riit '3.. :,..IC. i"! 

v;. . 1 

. .. 

.U%.v,A.;B: io .. .. . ' :vA- civil ;complaint,!was 

c filed.i~,u.~.,D"rt in pmston; Texas,,on 

.,September ,26:. 1990,; against.irA.B:i.Gharpiot, 

-.David \Charpiot;tandCharp,iot Marina; seeking 

i. injunCtiv&relief. and:civilipenalties.:!Allegations 

jinclude.tcontinued.unauthorizedifi!lingrof-salt . omarsh ;., for,.;?ioad iiconstructiori;i' parkingNlot 

7 expansionl:.-.creationmof *xninnow: ponds;:cand 

!:disposal of ,excavated: materiaI?.-Four,lseparate 

?.locations i wereii involved: .in'Lthis t:ac tivi ty Ton 

!.Bolivar Peninsula inlGalvestonl County,::Texas. 

;:This1 case ..supports;.,thel regionali ;wetlarid 

2 .enforcement;prioritiesJbecause iit involvesi high 

iquality ;wetlands:.currentwiolations:by:a:repe@ 

i, violator;.and providesi support tto-.the.iCOrps iof 

Engineers? wetland2enforcemeiit teffort.,itJThe 

publicity generated by this case (a press 

:,;conference'.~w~asrheld.. wi thr,tIie: Qepaitmeritlof 

2Justice :when ;it;:was- filed) ;will i+'\;eslas':a 

:.deterrent~.to twetlandsjviolationstin anrareakwith 

a ~higli'concentration~of;unauthorized Cactivity3'1 

;,-: ii.c 

,s. r! t.-;;i:a ,r; .::PG!L,I~~ :.yt:i;,:-,~i5 

."y. sit:, v: :,io; Jnrr. the 

i.Construction:iIndust[ies, ease,it!he Garabedian 

*>Brothers: of-Salem, New <.Hampshire:zwere 

':alleged tolrhave iillegally.! filled~6:7i~acres~of 

i.fOrested,:and ,shr.ulj wetlands <aajac/ent"to (.the 

j:Spickef,' River? .rUnder::Jthe~.settlement,!,;the 

:,defendants LrestOre'd!; 6.l,&icies'.of :,shruK:and 

I einergent wetland and .paid-a$50,000pa1alty.qil 

oy.rri.,: ,< ::rk ,~:i.i :!,, ,':vilr~; It, r.;ti:.:*:c~u XI

~,In'.tlie.matter.of.~i~ of ,Dover.-Newc-: 

[,Region 1;focused its ;wetland enforcement kfforts 

:,on ,,geographici.aieas.of :concern$'paiticularly 

psoutheaStern.+iMassachusetts; .:the: Merrimack 

.iRiver ;.watershed in,iiNew;,,Hampshirer:and 

;Massachusetts, andri.metropolitan ?,Hartford, 

*.Connec!icut: .:T;c i:Fpr .:;example:!k,'t hrough 

.,;administrative'enfoicemcnt theRegion'addresSd 

r,the<tillegal ,:fill.,of:..wetlandsi-adja'cent Lto .the 

9EiScataqua'River'during c0nstruction:of .the Dover, 

,;New Hampshire:Wastewater8,Treatment Plant:'.:A 

rcomp1iance;order rauired removal of lfill .and 

:restoration. of the wetland:: ;A Class il. penalty 

.,complaint) proposed !ai $25;000; penalty'for., tlie 

..unpermittedi.activities!f rrThe'*partiesF including 

2the'City; ofjDover, itsconsultants.and*conshuction 

i cbntractors;c.agreed,.tor pay!-:ther, full ii$25,OOO 

!.penalty and completed the.restoration...J This.was 

.,the first. time the:RegioniasSessed:a .+%nalV'in.a 

wetlands,case against :a consulting engi.neer.'and 

construction to.ntractors in:addition(.toithc ow.ner/ 

developer of the project. 

...; - .~ -. 

.. ,. 

-. . ... 

>;,hi *>i ri .;..E., ,:(J 'yr ~-.,: 1. !,;f..:j::L<l-..> ? .' I 

qi%.,ri!~rb' ,!lil rr.: J?,.'? i .i7.,3+ .t e3:r.k' ,I.., I: '11': 

;*n:,d !I, ._ I.-, G i,.;,r,,q:;~, ..j,r,*.-*~i:-' (8. i:':z'.. Z 

4-10'. 
FY 1990 Enforcemenl Accomplishmenrs Report 

. -~ ., A civil complaint 

' was filed in U.S. -District, Court imBeaumont, 

Texas;on Septembeit26, 1990,. against Charles 

' .Hansen seeking ,injunctive .relief .and .,civil 

,construction .of..a- rock!..-jetty *and., repeated 

I unpermitted fil1ing;;activities. in wetlands, 

failure to comply with a Clean Water..~Act 

restoration order, and failure to pay penalties 

L. assessed in that,order:; The:wetlands'involved 

'. were located neai Keith Lake, ,Jefferson County, 

5 Texas. ...T his .case' supports. the regional .wetland 

.: enforcement priorities,because it,involves' high 

: iquility.wetlands, current violations.by: a repeat 

.:violator;.and provides support. to the corps':of 

..Engineers:..wetland enforcement effort. -.;The 

publicity Igenerated:.by this case (a ,press 

conference was .held;twith: the.iDcpartmenf of 

i Justice when .it 9 was filed) ,will serve as a 

deterrent, to wetlands .violations in an .area.with 

a high concentration of.,unauthorized activity;; 

penalties. ..Allegations include . unauthorized 

:. On January 26, 

. .1990;following.a two week, liability trial, a jury 

found ..S. Paul and'.l?hilip\ Hobbs liable on 

. numerous counts of violatingsthe CWA. :The 

', activities ,conducted by: the 'Hobbses involved 

' .draining, clearing and grading of approximately 

q 400 acres of: forested:wetlands,in the.Chesapeake 

.-'Bay Watershed for conversion to agricultural use. 

#.The loss of wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay is a 

widely recogiiized environmental.problem and an 

enforcement priority for EPA. Following a 

separate penalty trial on May 21, 1.990, District 

Court Judge Rebecca Smith ordered the Hobbses to 

implement an extensive:wetland restoration. plan 

priced at over $233,000 and 'required the Hobbses 

to apply for permitsprior to conducting any 

further work on any of their wetland properties. 

' .This was a-.significant .decision: for the 'wetlands 

program." 'It was widely publicized.and sent a 

J strong deterrent signal in the Southeast Virginia 

.. area':' IC .... +.. 

~. !sr:,'., ' 

0. c- 

'7;On.October 18,'~1989, U.Sf:District Court .Judge 

JoFh P: ,Wilson ordered Kebert Construction'Co. 

,' to' restore;aa-five' acre:.wetland. site and pay a 

$5;000 penalty after Kebert: Construction-was 

found liable .6yiy' jury for. CWA,-violations. The 

Kebert liability trial was the first jury trial ever 

in an environmental civil court action. 

ILS. v.Top: In the 

Town of Manchester case, the government had 

filed a civil action to address the unpermitted 

........ .. 

~.i I, I' -. _,;.. 1 

, .. ~ 

,. 

..'filling ,of,.approximately 4.5 acres;of wetla-nds to 

:,construct, a secondary wastewater ,treatment 

facility. Under the consent decree, the Tom 

agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty and restore 

approximately .l.S;,acres .of .forested.-wetland. 

'.This is one of the~.highest penalties:ever,obtained 

$by EPA in a. wetland3 case..: :c+ .. ; :, .... :,:. 

. ,,'. "I' r,;j ,;. ". . ... I... .. I:. .. 

(1,- : ;A ;civil, complaint 

was.filed in.U.S. District Court in Houston, Texas, 

) on September 26;. 1990, against.,Marinus Van 

, Leuzen and Ronald Hornbeck. seeking:injunctive 

relief and civil ,penalties. l.Allegations. include 

."unauthorized filling of,an,acre..of.salt.marsh and 

./residential improvements and.-.violation.of, a 

, .Clean Water,.-Act cease and, desist .order. ,The 

,:wetlands. involvedi. were located !on-.Bolivar 

..Peninsula. in Galveston County, Texas. This case 

, supports -the , regional; wetland ,,enforcement 

T .p ri0rities:ibecause .. it ... invplves, high quality 

'...wetlands, ,current vio!ations,by a repeat violator, 

3,and provides-support to, the Corps of Engineers' 

:,,.wetland. .enforcement: effort: The .publicity 

generated by this case (a press .conference was 

held with the Department of Justice when it was 

:, filed), will serve as a >deterrent .to wetlands 

,..violations in an area with,a high concentration-of 

' unauthor,ized activity., , .. ' . , . J I'. ._ , '_ :.;: ',i ,'.j >.,:.: I >.". I. .' . ;:, : ,?.! r.: 1> :. .:, 

'-.Safe !Drinking. Water., Act '(SDWA).: 7:::. 

Enforcement ,, ' , p,. . ,. , .. 

, (P 

I. 

. . , ,._ ... ; . . , . , , ,. i, 

a,: * Under the,,P,WSS ,program, ETA.' has 

.?1 established8 drinking water standards ,(Maximum 

Contaminant Levels, or MCLS), ,for a ,vari'ety, of 

pollutants. FY. 1990 Enforcement' efforts 

:..emphasize violations .of, microbiological, 

,turbidity,, VOCs, and, ,,Total. Trihalomethane .~ 

. CITHM) standards::; ..... . , .. ... -.*- 

, ii Underground.Injection',Control , .,I: ,A' 

';' Program (UIC) . ... 

....... The' UIC. program establishes a .regulatory 

,_ ,. . 3, '. . 1 I 

., .I - I1 

..( ,,. ~ #:. 

, _. ,., * !* . i , . c (. .. ... 

program for underground injection practices.for 

: five .classes of, wells. Enforcement priorities 

::include violations at' deep hazardous waste and 

commercial disposal.wells (Class I);,violations at 

'oil and gas wells.(Clas<II);.lising banned shallow 

disposal wells .'(Class 1V);. enforcing. the 

hazardous waste restrictions promulgated under 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA); 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

and enforcing against violations at injection wells 

for other than .hazardous waste, mining, or oil 

and gas (Class V). 

: A Final 

-negotiated 

with Aerojet. General .Gorp., Rancho Cordova, 

CA, and became effective on July 26,1990. Under 

the terms of this order, Aerojet paid a $30,000 

penalty and will conduct an estimated $2,000,000 

waste' migration assessment study. The 

negotiations were coriducted in cooperation with 

the California Department of Health Services, 

which also issued a parallel State order, without 

penalty, to Aerojet. Aerojet operated two class IV 

injection wells to dispose of over 83 million 

gallons of hazardous waste and by-products 

generated from the production of rocket fuels. 

The wells were drilled to a depth of 1,564 feet 

and 1,703 feet, about 500 feet beneath an aquifer 

used for drinking water by some residents near the 

facility. The drinking water wells are being 

monitored and there has not been any indication 

of contamination. .. 

V A record-civil. 

penalty of $200,000 in an underground injection 

control case will be paid by an independent oil 

and gas production company under the terms of a 

consent decree lodged June 8 in a federal district 

court in Montana. 

The Agency agreed to settle the case, filed 

in 1988 for violations of regulations governing 

underground injection control under The Safe 

Drinking Water Act. The case was brought 

against Pioneer Exploration Co. and the 

corporation's sole officer, director and 

shareholder, Younas Chaudhary. 

The violations of the SDWA involve oil 

and gas production related activities in 

northeastern Montana. Under the terms of the 

decree, Pioneer agrees to cease underground 

injection activity, to plug and abandon five 

injection wells within two years of the entry of 

the decree, to plug and abandon four production 

wells within two years of entry of the decree 

unless the wells are returned to production, to pay 

stipulated penalties for violations of the decree, 

to report to EPA on a regular basis, as required by 

the applicable UIC regulations, and to pay a 

civil penalty of $159,812 within 18 months of the 

entry. of the decree, or -$200,000. plus.interest at 

10% annually over five years. 

The settlement achieved in this case by the 

United States is based on the defendant's 

consistent violations of the SDWA over several 

years, including the use of wells that had failed 

to pass mechanical integrity tests, thereby 

potentially contaminating underground sources of 

drinking water, and conducting unlawful injection 

activities. 

Pioneer is a small, independent, privately 

held oil and gas production company 

headquartered in Houston, Texas. The United 

States filed a civil complaint on December 12, 

1988 against Pioneer, Delta Petroleum and State 

Energy for violations of the EPA administered 

UIC program for Montana. On January 29, the 

United States filed an amended complaint 

alleging additional claims against Pioneer and 

adding the company's sole officer, director and 

shareholder, Mr. Younas Chaudhary, as a 

defendant on an alter ego theory. 

In the matte I of Mobil Oil: On August 27, the 

Regional Administrator issued a final order on 

consent against Mobil Oil Corporation under the 

SDWAs UIC program. The order assessed a 

penalty of $35,000, and requires Mobil to properly 

close and clean Class V wells at all service 

stations Mobil owns and operates in Nassau 

County, New York. The case arose out of 

violations documented at five such stations, but 

the consent order covers some 35 - 50 stations. 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) 

Enforcement (Superfund) 

N 1990 Superfund enforcement reflected 

the strategy laid out in the 1989 Superfund 

Manaeement - Review. The program used 

aggressive litigation and settlement negotiation 

efforts to secure site response by potentially 

responsible parties (PRI's) and to recapture 

previously expended Trust Fund revenues. As part 

of this approach, the program also increased its 

use of unilateral administrative orders, 

particularly for information and access, and for 

remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA). 

4-12 
,- * FY I990 EIJorcemenl' Accomplish~nfs Report 6 

In The 

Iowa (-: 

These administrative cases and the civil case 

represent a coordinated, multi-media effort to 

address the contamination at this Site. This 

CERCLA settlement relates to the groundwater 

operable unit at the Chemplex Site located in 

Clinton, Iowa. By the terms of the settlement, 

the settling defendants are required to remediate 

groundwater at the Site to health-based 

performance standards and to reimburse the 

United States for all past costs associated with 

the Site (approximately $600,000) and all 

oversight costs associated with this Consent 

Decree. The settling defendants are ACC 

Chemical Company, Getty Chemical Company, 

Getty Oil, Skelly Oil, and Primerica Holdings, 

Inc. The property owner defendants are Quantum 

Chemical Company, the present lessor, and the 

city of Clinton, the present owner. The property 

owner defendants are included in the Decree for 

purposes of access. In addition, in December 1989, 

an Administrative Order on Consent pursuant to 

5104 and 5122 of CERCLA was issued to ACC 

Chemical Company and Getty Chemical 

Company for an RI/R for a second operable unit 

at the Site. In addition, a RCRA §3008(h) 

Corrective Action Order on Consent was issued to 

Quantum Chemical Company (the present lessor) 

covering the operating portion of the Site. 

In the matter of Aerirultural Supp lv. . Inr. : This 

case supports EPA's efforts to take prompt 

enforcement action to gain access and information 

at Superfund sites. In June 1990, U.S. Magistrate 

Ayers approved EPA's warrant application to 

perform response actions at the Agricultural 

Supply, Inc., site in Marsing, Idaho. The site was 

formerly operated by an agricultural supplier. As 

a result of this operation, several types of 

agricultural products, including acids, fertilizers, 

pesticides and other hazardous substances, were 

left on site. When an exhaustive search failed to 

locate the site owner/operator, EPA obtained the 

warrant which provided for further 

investigation of the site and performance of 

required removal action, including spilled 

product, contaminated soil and the recycling of 

agricultural product. 

0: An Administrative Order on Consent 

(AOC) pursuant to CERCLA § 106 was issued by 

EPA to ALCOA on July 19, 1990. The.Ordcr 

addressed several separate environmental 

problems at and near ALCOA's Riverdale, Iowa,' 

facility. The AOC calls for a sediment/soil 

investigation and feasibility study for on-site 

drainage ways and for PCB contamination in 

sediments in Mississippi River Pool #15. ALCOA 

will also be required to conduct fish sampling and 

analysis in Mississippi River Pool #15 to 

determine the need to continue the current fish 

advisories and to evaluate the risk to public 

health and the environment. ALCOA will also 

be required to carry out an investigation in regard 

to the contamination by PCBs and other VOCs in 

the vicinity of the 86" CHT line. If EPA 

determines that response actions are necessary 

after such investigation, ALCOA is required to 

submit a Removal Action'Work Plan and, upon 

approval, implement such actions. In addition, 

for the purpose of identifying past releases of 

hazardous substances at the facility and the 

extent of contamination by such releases, ALCOA 

isrequired to perform a Facility Site Assessment. 

ALCOA is also required to perform an 

investigation into contamination caused by. 

release from a perchloroethylene storage tank 

and must submit a Work Plan to implement 

removal actions relating to those releases. The 

dispute resolution section of the AOC includes an 

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism 

for specific issues, if a dispute arises which 

cannot be resolved at the Superfund Branch Chief, 

level. This ADR mechanism involves nonbinding mediation to attempt to resolve disputed 

matters. The mediator is to be a nonEPA/ALCOA employee whose sole purpose is to 

facilitate negotiations between EPA and ALCOA. 

Costs of mediation are to be shared equally by 

EPA and ALCOA.. This AOC is an example of 

EPA using its administrative enforcement power 

to strengthen enforcement and increase 

responsible party work at Superfund sites. 

Y.S. v. Al-- : On May 18, 1990, 

Allied-Signal agreed to clean up the Bendix 

Superfund site in Bridgewater Township, 

Pennsylvania.The consent decree requires the 

responsible parties to undertake remedia1,actions 

at the site, pay EPA'its oversight costs, and uses 

innovative technologies in the remedial action. 

The settlement supports our preference for having 

responsible parties initiate.cleanup activities. 

Allied will pay the EPA $750,000 in 

oversight costs and $92,000 in past response cum. 

Bendix Flight Systems was a division of Allied 

4-13 
FY 1990 Enforcemenr Accomplishmenis Reporli 

and had disposed of its industrial-wastes at the 

site from the 1950s to' the late 1970s. Volatile 

organic compounds had contaminated the soil'and 

..ground water in the area. The remedial 

activities at 'the site'include soil extraction and 

acration:.on-site. ground water pumping and 

treating, and treatment .at; .each .off-site 

residential wellhead. - .., , 

I. . . .. I.,. ,, 

In 1990, EPA issued.an order to 

ARC0:and :Harvard.Industries .to remove soils 

,andj'sludge from the Alsco, Anaconda. site, in 

southern Ohio at an estimated cost of $4. million. 

The wastcs;.contaminated with PCBs and FO19, 

.are in surface impoundments,ta sludge. pit and 

lowland adjacent to the Tuscarawas River. The 

order is important because it'requires Harvard 

Industries, a company claiming .immunity due to 

bankruptcy, to assist in the cleanup. . : - 

In the ma&r of Arne rican crossarm-& co nduit: 

On June 1, ,1990, Region X issued its first unilateral 

administrative order pursuant to §104(e) of 

' CERCLA, rquiring compliance with a request for 

entry in connection with.the American Crossarm 

& Conduit site in .Chehalis, Washington. EPA 

was undertaking a 'remedial .investigation and 

feasibility study under CERCLA. When it was 

suspected that. previous flooding at the site may 

have caused contaminants to migrate to adjacent 

property, EPA planned' to-,perform soil and 

' groundwater .sampling on: approximately 90 

parcels of adjacent property. All-but one property 

owner agrd on consent to EPA access. @e owner 

refused to provide unconditional access to his 

property, insisting upon compensation. As a 

result, EPA issued the unilateral order, with 

which the owner complied. This case supports 

EPA efforts to take prompt enforcement action to 

gain access to conduct response activities. 

-. Two 

settlements involving the Pristine Superfund Site 

in Reading, OH, one involving 39 settling .PRPs 

,and the other involving 72 de minimis PRPs were 

, ' proposed for federal murt approval on December 

The.decision allowing, entry of the 

settlement is important because it-does not further 

delay cleanup of the Pristine SuperfundAte. The 

39 PRPs would finance and complete a cleanup at 

' -the site estimated to cost $13.5 million dollars 

while. the de minimis parties would pay $3.048 

million dollars into a trust fund for past and 

future, cleanup costs. The decrees would also 

require payment of 90% of EPA's past costs, or 

about $1.8 million dollars. . ' . ', 

<, ., .I I 

_' .. 

. .,'18, 1989.. 

. . .The 39 PRPs-are required '.to perform 

remedial activities that include fencing ,off the 

.site, decontaminating and demolishing site 

structures, conducting I soil excavation and 

incineration, investigating the, .lower. aquifer, 

constructing a protective :.cap, .and treating 

discharges prior- to .off.-site :; migration. 

Innovative technology isbeing used to remove the 

volatile organics in the soil and.groundwater. ':) 

. , 

!, . .. ' ., ;! . 1, I : :~ ::: 

The state of :Ohio .objected to the entry of 

j the Consent Decree between. the-.United States 

' and the Pristine defendants. Ohio claimed..the 

decree did not expressly memorialize its rights as 

,,expressed in CERCLA 5121.. A hearing was held 

on September 9, .1990, at which- time.,the court 

, statec'that CERCLA .clearly~ provided for Ohio's 

rights in regard to the settlement between the 

United States and. Pristine; therefore the decree 

itself need not have, explicit language regarding ,. I . .. . the state's rights. i ,q 

.. ,, , , ,:. I. 

In the Matter of Arkla 'Pioeline 'Statim 

, Atconsent .Order was signed 

with Arkla, Inc;, operator of .a gas pipeline 

system, providing for, carrying out a removal 

action at a former. pit at., the. Hunnew,ell 

Compressor Station.site which-was contaminated 

with volatile. organics and,!.to -a lesser degree, 

+CBs (the latter in the range of 25-30 ppm). The 

;Order also provides ,.for .investigation and 

-characterization of the entire compressor station 

facility by Arkla after the remoyal.at the pit is 

completed. This case is part of the Region VI1 

pipeline. enforcement- initiative.. i 

Y.S. v. AVX : A press conference was held 

September 4, 1990, in Region I' to announce a 

settlement-in principle for 566 million between 

plaintiffs EPA; the Commonwealth of 

'Massachusetts, .and NOAA and defendant AVX 

Corp., one of '.the five defendants. in. the 

government's suit for natural resource damages 

and response costs at the New Bedford harbor 

Superfund site in New -Bedford;Massachusetts. 

,.The settlement is one of the'largest.by a single 

defendant in ,the history, of the. Superfund 

program. ,. . 7\,. '. '. '. 

,, - .. 

AVX Corp. owned and operated a capacitor 

manufacturing plant on the harbor for 26'years 

and is responsible for a majority of. the PCB 

contamination that the plaintiffs seek to remedy. 

EPA and DOJ hope-to make the settlement final 

in tlie next. month. : In' December 1990, the 

plaintiffs lodged a settlement. with two oiher 

4-14 
FY 1990 E@urcemen! Accomplishments Report 

defendants, Aerovox Inc. and Belleville 

Industries Inc: for $12.6. million. The plaintiffs 

continue to pursue negotiations with the two 

remaining defendants, Cornell-Dubilier 

Electronics Corp. and its former parent, Federal 

5 

Pacific Electric Co. 

Suoerfund: This case is important because it 

supports EPA's effort to increase responsible party 

work at Superfund sites and uses innovative 

technology to clean-up pollution at the site. This 

site was originally a wood preserving facility. 

EPA and Beazer East, lnc., signed a Consent 

Decree, lodged in Federal District Court on July 

30, 1990, to remediate contamination problems at 

the South Cavalcade Site in Houston, Texas. The 

agreement under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA 

requires remediation of creosote contaminated 

soil through the use of soil washing. 

Additionally, the agreement restores ninety-six - 

percent of the Superfund monies expended at the 

Site to the Fund with &minimissettlements still 

pending for the remainder. Remediation of soil 

contamination will reduce the risk of exposure by 

contact to approximately 150 persons employed at 

businesses operating at the Site. 

US. v. Bell I!- . : This decision is 

significant because it strengthens EPA's ability to 

make remedial decisions that EPA deems will 

ensure the protection of human health and the' 

environment. On March 8, 1990, the United 

States District Court for the Western District of 

Texas granted the United State's motion for 

summary judgment for response costs incurred at 

the Chromium 1 Superfund Site in Odessa, Texas. 

The court found that alternative water 

supplies were not inconsistent with the NCP nor 

did it find EPA's indirect costs or legal fees were 

inconsistent. In doing so, the court stated EPA's 

decision to use an alternative water supply was 

not arbitrary or capricious. The court also rejected 

the argument that EPA could not recover 'its 

response costs because it had not sufficiently 

documented the costs. The court held that the cost 

regulations required only that the costs be 

documented by activity (e.g., RI/FS) and not by. 

specific tasks within each activity. 

In the matter of Bie D CamDe round: On March 27, 

1990, a unilateral order was issued to Olin 

Chemical Co. for the Big D Campground in 

Ashtabula County, OH, which will cost the 

company an estimated $39 million. The order 

supports EPA's efforts under its UAO initiative 

issued in February 1990 to compel responsible 

party action at Superfund sites. The order 

requires that Olin, the only generator, clean up 

halogenated solvents, caustics, bulk toluene diisocyanate and oily substances that were 

disposed of in a gravel quarry near the 

campground 2.5 miles from Lake Erie. 

EPA estimates as many as 5,000 drums are 

buried in the landfill. The remedy involves 

incineration of the contents of a 1.2 acre landfill 

and a groundwater removal system. The 

unilateral order is significant because Olin was 

allowed to use a total contaminant, risk-based 

cleanup level instead of the traditional 

contaminant concentration based cleanup levels. 

The order allows flexibility for cleanup to a total 

risk exposure of 10 to the minus 6 for any number of 

chemicals found at a given sampling location 

within the landfill, and is specific enough to 

make the tasks enforceable. The order is being 

complied with and preliminary field work 

w: 

started in Fall of 1990. 

V This settlement is 

the largest mixed work agreement in the Agency's 

history. The. case involves 28 dioxin sites in 

eastern Missouri which became contaminated as a 

result of application of dioxin-contaminated 

waste oil to parking lots, roads and horse arenas 

in the early 1970s. This case has been in 

litigation for several years and partial summary 

judgment was obtained against Independent 

Petrochemical Corporation, Russell Martin Bliss, 

Jerry-Russell Bliss, Inc., Northeastern 

Pharmaceutical Company, Edwin Michaels and 

John Lee in 1985. In 1988, the government filed a 

motion for partial summary judgment against two 

of the Syntex defendants, Syntex Agribusiness 

and Syntex (USA). Settlement negotiations with 

the Syntex defendants have been ongoing for quite 

some time on a dual track with very aggressive 

litigation. 

A Consent Decree with the Syntex 

defendants, the State of Missouri and the federal 

government was entered with the Court on 

December 31, 1990. The Consent Decree calls for 

Syntex to construct an incinerator capable of 

burning dioxin-contaminated soils from all the 

sites in the litigation. The incinerator will be 

located at the Times Beach Site. In addition, 

Syntex must cleanup the Times Beach Site. 

Syntex must also accept and burn all the 

contaminated soil from the other 27 sites in the 

4-15 
\ 

FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishmenrs Report 

litigation. Syntex must also pay the government 

$10 million in past costs. The State of Missouri 

will provide access to Syntex since the state will 

be the property owner. The state will also 

reimburse the United States for its cost share at 

the four NPL sites. The federal government is 

required to arrange for the transportation of the 

dioxin-contaminated soils from the other sites to 

the 'limes Beach Site. Region VI1 is presently in 

the process of initiating negotiations with 

several parties who are owners/operators of the 

sites where soil and other dioxin-contaminated 

material have not been previously excavated. 

Agreements will either require the property 

owner to excavate the materials themselves and 

store it until such time as it can be burned in the 

incinerator or to pay the government for the 

excavation and transportation to the limes Beach 

Site. 

L .During the Public Comment Period on the 

Consent Decree, many comments were received; In 

addition, the cities of Eureka and Fenton, 

Missouri, attempted to prevent the execution of 

the Consent Decree by filing a Motion for 

Intervention in the. six year old case shortly 

before the Decree was lodged with the Court: 

The Motion for Intervention was disposed of by 

the Court in a timely manner with the Court 

stating that the cities of Eureka and Fenton had 

adequate opportunity to comment on the actions 

required by the Consent Decree and that their 

Motion to Intervene was too late. The cities of 

Eureka and. Fenton have also filed a Citizens'. 

Suit regarding the actions to be undertaken by all 

parties to the Decree. This Consent Decree 

represents a comprehensive settlement to the 

dioxin problem in eastern Missouri using a 

permanent destruction,technology, and it is the 

.largest mixed work agreement in the Agency's 

history. The estimated costs of this cleanup are 

$190-210 million. 

Y.S. v. Bo- ': This case is significant in 

being the first case brought by the United States 

which ,alleges that dental wastes are hazardous 

substances under CERCLA. It was brought in an 

effort to ensure that .such substances are handled 

properly in the future. On July 12,1990, the court 

entered a consent decree in United States v. 

Bourdeaudhui, representing settlement with all 

remaining defendants in the amount of $2OO,ooO. 

Bourdeaudhui involved a removal action at two 

related sites in , Willington, Connecticut, 

contaminated by the improper handling of waste 

dental amalgam. The settling parties included 

site owners/operators .and generators (dental 

supply companies). In total, EPA will .have 

recovered $429,000 of its $710,000 in response costs 

through both administrative and civil 

settlements. ; 

.. of the 

Idah On May 3,1990, EPA initiated a judicial 

action.for penalties and injunctive relief against 

one of this site's .Potentially Responsible Parties 

(PRPs), Bunker Hill Limited -Partnership, for 

that company's failure to respond to an 

information request pursuant to §104(e) of 

CERCLA. The Bunker Limited Partnership is a 

potentially responsible party at the Bunker Hill 

Superfund Site, one of the largest Superfund'sites 

in the country and measuring 21 square miles 

within the Silver Valley of northern Idaho. The 

complaint seeks an injunction ordering Bunker 

Limited to submit the information and documents 

EPA requested.. It also seeks to have-the court 

impose civil penalties for Bunker Limited's 

failure.to respond to the,information request. On 

June 1,1990, EPA entered into an administrative 

order on consent with eight of the Bunker Hill 

PRPs, whereby they agreed to pay EPA $3.18 

million to conduct a residential area removal 

action, involving removal and replacement of 

lead contaminated .soil from residential yards. 

The removal is required to limit children's 

exposure 'to lead, a well-known neurotoxin 

harmful to children. .The lead contamination was 

caused by the Bunker Hill mining and smelting 

complex and covers some 21 square miles. EPA had 

earlier issued a unilateral order to the PRPs 

ordering them to do the work, with the option of 

entering into a settlement agreement to pay EPA's 

costs of performing the work. The agreement was 

the first Superfund "cashout" by Region X and is 

significant because it is the first time parties 

have agreed to pay EPA for removal work before 

it was performed. The final payment under the 

agreement was received by EPA in August 1990. 

m: The First Circuit 

affirmed the District Court's entry of two consent 

decrees. This case se'nds a message to the PRP 

community that challenges to Superfund 

settlements will not be favored by the courts. In 

recent months, challenges to the entry of CERCLA 

settlements by non-settlers have become more 

numerous and have resulted in the delayed 

implementation of site cleanups. This significant 

victory in the United States Court of Appeals 

should help discourage future challenges at other 

Superfundsites. Prior to proposing these decrees, 

4-16 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

EPA had entered into administrative &minimis 

settlements with 300 PRPs. EPA.then entered into 

the Major Party Decree (MP) and the De Minimis 

Contribution Decree (DMC) at issue in this case. 

Under the MP Decree, 47 major PRPs agreed to 

perform the remedy at three of the four Cannons 

Engineering Corporation Superfund Sites, and to 

pay. approximately $16 million in past costs. 

Under the DMC Decree, 12 de minimis PRPs 

agreed to settle their claims, plus pay a penalty 

of 100% of. their volumetric shares that was 

imposed, for refusing to join the original 

administrative ,de minimis settlements. Six nonsettling PRPs objected to entry of the Decrees. 

These non-settlers had been eligible to join the 

administrative de minimis settlements and the 

DMC Decree, but had rejected the government's 

offers. I 

In affirming the District Court's. decision 

entering both decrees, the First Circuit held, inter 

alia. that: (1) PRPs identified by EPA as de 

minimis were not entitled to participate in the 

major party decree and thus could not"'pick and 

choose which settlements they might prefer to 

join;" (2) .the government's use of escalating 

settlement offers, which rewarded PRPs who 

settled sooner rather than later, was fair and 

consistent with CERCLA's goal ,of expediting 

hazardous waste cleanups; (3) EPA could use 

waste volume to determine comparative fault and 

exercise flexibility in allocating liability; and 

(4) the decrees did not favor the major parties 

over the de minimis parties because the major 

parties assumed the open-ended risk of 

performing the cleanup at three of the Sites. 

In this case, the 

defendants failed without sufficient cause to 

comply with an EPA administrative order issued 

under CERCLA 5 106. The court held that the 

defendants were responsible for three times EPA's 

past and future,response costs. As with the 

Parsons decision, the case is an 'important 

indicator of EPA's enforcement effort and its 

willingness to seek stiff penalties against 

responsible parties who do not adequately 

respond to an administrative order. On NoveAber 

13, 1989, The U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina found the defendants 

liable for treble damages under CERCLA 

§107(c)(3) for failure to comply with the terms of 

an Administrative Order issued to the defendants 

pursuant to CERCLA 5106. 

The Carolina Transformer PCB site encompasses 

about five acres of land in Cumberland County 

near the headwaters of an unnamed tributary of 

the Cape Fear River. The defendants, who were 

in the business of repairing electrical 

eansformers and selling rebuilt transformers from 

about 1959 to 1984, caused PCB contamination at 

the site. EPA issued the 5106 order in 1984, and 

after the defendants refused to comply, EPA 

initiated its removal action. The Agency filed 

later filed its complaint seeking recovery of costs 

incurred by the United States in responding to the 

site and treble damages for failure to comply 

with the 106 order. The court found the 

defendants jointly and severally liable for three 

times EPAs response costs, including those costs 

incurred and those to be incurred by the 

government during clean up. 

Y.S. v. Chr-- et aL 

-: This site was formerly 

a tool manufacturing facility in Odessa, Texas. 

On June 28, 1990, a Consent Decree was signed 

under 5 106 of CERCLA requiring the responsible 

parties to perform remedial design and remedial 

action. Hexavalent chromium has been detected 

in groundwater used as a source of drinking water. 

The concentration of chromium in the 

groundwater exceeds drinking water standards. 

Remediation under the Consent Decree will result 

in provision of an alternate water supply and I 

source remediation by electrochemical treatment. 

The Site is characterized by two plumes of 

groundwater contamination. Divisible harm was 

established and applied for liability purposes. 

Savings toothe Fund as a result of establishing 

divisible liability are expected to total $4.7 

million. 

City Industries Si* The City Industries site is 

located on approximately one acre of land in 

Winter Park, Florida. In 1977, City Industries, 

Inc. developed into a recycling and transfer 

facility for hazardous wastes. Due to inadequate 

plant practices and intentional dumping, soil and 

groundwater at the site became contaminated. In 

May 1984, EPA conducted a removal action in 

which it heat treated 1,670 tons of contaminated 

soil and removed an additional 190 cubic yards 

for contaminated soil. 

The selected remedy was to pump and treat 

contaminated groundwater on-site and then 

discharge the groundwater to a publicly-owned 

treatment works (POW). The ROD also selected 

a contingency alternative in the event that 

4-17 
P 

FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

POW does'not agree to accept the discharge. 

The alternative would require on-site treatment 

of the groundwater and a surface didharge into a 

nearby drainage canal. Special Notice Letters for 

RD/RA were issued to approximately 200 PRPs 

for the purpose of negotiating a settlement for the 

' PRPs to finance or perform the RD/RA at. the 

City Industries site. Because of the prior history 

of negotiations with these PRPs to reimburse EPA 

for past costs'from a removal action the site, the 

-PRPs were readily .able to organize a steering 

committee that represents approximately 175 of 

the PRPs. EPA has manifests showing the volume 

of 'wastes disposed of at the site by each PRP. 

None of the PRPs are responsible for a substantial 

amount for the contamination. 

As a result of the number of PRPs, and the 

volumetric contribution breakdown, the strong 

consensus of the PRPs was that they were willing 

to finance.rather than perform the RD/RA: The 

Region agreed that under the circumstances of 

this case it would be more cost effective and 

efficient if EPA performed the RD/RA. This is 

.the first "RD/RA" Consent Decree in the country 

wherein the Defendants will fund rather than 

-. perform the cleanup of the site. The consent 

Decree was structured so that EPA was assured 

for 100% non-interrupted funding of the RA. Tim 

of the vehicles for accomplishing this purpose 

were a private "Custody Account" set up and 

funded by the Defendants and an EPA "Special 

Account" which will be funded by the "Custody 

Account." The Consent Decree also contains 

provisions and formulas which allow over one 

hundred Defendants to elect to "c%hout" 'as de 

minimis Defendants or to share the continued 

liabilities and obligations of the Non-DeMimimis Defendants. 

U. v. Clwors of Natick: This decision 

reinforces EPA's ability to take swift enforcement 

action under CERCLA and precludes PRPs from 

delaying compliance with an EPA order. On July 

12, 1990, the Defendants' Motion'for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 

seeking to enjoin ~ enforcement of EPA's 

. administrative order issued under 5106(a) of 

',CERCLA was denied in the United States 

District Court 'for the District of New 

Hampshire. The United States had previously 

filed a CERCLA 5107 action against defendants 

Interex Corporation and Ethan Allen for the 

Keefe Environmental Services Site in Epping, 

New Hampshire. Following an unsuccessful 

negotiations period, 'the U.S. issued the §106(a) 

order on June 12,1990. The Magistrate found that 

granting the motion for injunctive relief would 

result in pre-enforcement review, which is not 

appropriate in the CERCLA context. The 

Magistrate stated that the movant can attack 

the §106(a) order in a later judicial proceeding (if 

brought to enforce the order) and if "the movants' 

basis for attacking the §106(a) order are valid 

p: 

mw, they will be valid then." 

The Superfund 

law does not create an explicit right to injunctive 

relief for the States, a federal appeals court 

ruled October 11,1990. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion 

which vacated two injunctions granted to the 

State of Colorado for activities on the Idarado 

mining site, located between the towns of 

Telluride and Ouray in southwestern Colorado. 

These injunctions, granted by 'Judge Carrigan in 

the District Court for the District of Colorado on 

Feb. 22, 1989, imposed a modified State cleanup 

plan on the defendants and required them to pay 

the permanent relocation costs of tenants on the 

property. 

.. 

The United States filed a 

friend+f-thecourt brief seeking to overturn the 

District Court's ruling. The court agreed with the 

United States' argument that the State was not 

entitled to injunctive relief under CERCLA 

5121(e)(2). 

y.s. v. 

I2E: Fourteen defendants agreed to reimburse the 

government $1.3 million for past response costs as 

part of a consent decree entered Jan. 30, 1990, by 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Delaware. EPA retains the right under the decree 

to bring suit against any and all the PRPs for 

recovery of any and all costs incurred after Dec. 

31, 1988. The settling defendants include: The 

Washington Post Co., Globe Newspaper Co., The 

limes Journal Co./Army limes, Conrail, 

Philadelphia Gas Works, and the Public Service 

Electric and Gas Co. I 

dova Cw A unilateral 

administrative order was issued on March 12, 

1990, to begin site remediation at the 

Ott/Story/Cordova Facility in North Muskegon, 

Michigan. The order, which applies to all 

defendants jointly and severally, is for 

implementation of an operable unit to intercept 

and treat contaminated groundwater discharging 

into a nearby creek. The point of discharge into 
the creek is within 2/10ths of a mile from a 

residential area. The operable unit will abate 

some of the, principal threats of contaminations 

via contact with the contaminated surface water 

and inhalation of volatile organics. 

-: The Custom 

Industrial Services Site in Shelby County, 

Kentucky is comprised of three distinct parcels of 

property. The now-defunct operator of .the Site 

used the three properties in its solvent 

reclamation business from 1974 until 1988, when 

the Site was abandoned with approximately 

Zoo0 drums of hazardous waste. At the request of 

the Commonwealth of Kentucky, EPA conducted 

an- emergency removal action at the Site 

beginning in January 1989. EPA identified 236 

PRPs at the Site from documentation recovered 

from the operator, from state RCRA records, from 

responses to EPA information request letters, and 

from interviews. From such records, EPA 

prepared a volumetric ranking of hazardous 

waste sent to the Site by generators since 1975. In 

January 1990, EPA entered into an Administrative 

order. on Consent with the landowner' of the 

Simpsonville Warehouse (one of the three 

parcels of property comprising the Site), the 

landowner's lessee and one generator, for the 

conduct of the removal action at the portion of 

the Site, thereby' saving -the Agency 

approximately $2OO,ooO. The remaining case was 

referred to the Department of Justice in March 

1990 for collection of the 1.6 million in costs 

incurred by the United States at the Site. In 

January 1991, EPA executed a de minimis 

Administrative Order on Consent with all 199 

eligible de minimis generators at the Site. Under 

this administrative settlement, the United 

States will recover $418,945 or 26% of the total 

costs. Approval of the de minimis settlement is 

currently before the Department of Justice, as 

required in CERCLA Section 122(q)(4). In January 

1991, after several months of negotiation between 

the remaining PRPs and EPA, EPA also executed a 

Consent Decree with 34 parties, including large 

generators, operators, landowners, a broker and a 

transporter, for the recovery of $821,550 

(including interest) or approximately 50% of the 

costs incurred at the Site., EPA simultaneously 

executed a Consent Decree with the three parties 

associated with the Simpsonville Warehouse 

portion of the Site for the collection of $223,481 

(including interest) or approximately 14% of the 

total costs. The two Consent Decrees are currently 

before the Department of Justice for review and 

filing. EPA and the Department of Justice intend 

to pursue the only two recalcitrant PRPs for the 

remaining 10% of the costs incurred at the Site. 

In the mer of the Denver Toluene: 

Severely contaminated groundwater and soil 

underlay the surface at the Unocal Petrochemical 

Distribution Center facility in Denver, as well as 

the land to the north and west of the facility. A 

Unilateral Administrative Order was issued to 

Unocal Corporation in December 1988, to install 

recovery wells designed to recover the 

contaminated groundwater for treatment, and 

construct an on-site treatment plant designed to 

treat and clean the ground water to EPA Drinking 

Water Standards. Unocal Corporation continues 

to recover and treat contaminated groundwater 

from the Site under oversight of EPA. Plans are 

currently underway to address the contaminated 

soils at the Unocal facility in the near future. It 

is estimated that it will cost the PRPs 

approximately 510 million to complete cleanup of 

the site. On June 12,1990, EPA issued a demand 

for a portion of the past costs incurred, in the 

amount of 5265,687.18. On August 6, 1990, EPA 

received full payment from the PRPs. August 22, 

1990, EPA issued a serond demand letter for the 

remainder of the past costs in the amount of 

598,007.69. EPA has yet to hear from the PRPs 

regarding the second demand for payment. 

US. v. Disw . ' In this case, a successor 

corporation that had acquired substantially all 

of its predecessor's assets was held liable for the 

predecessor's improper disposal of hazardous 

substances. The case supports our overall strategy 

to recover our response costs from liable and 

viable parties. Based on the decision, similarly 

positioned responsible parties may be more 

inclined to settle rather than to litigate their 

I ia bi I i t y. 

EPA brought a CERCLA 5107 action against 

the successor corporation for response costs 

incurred in cleaning up two hazardous waste sites 

in Jefferson County and Hardin County, Kentucky. 

The district court held that CERCLA's remedial 

purpose required that responsible parties, not the 

taxpayer, pay for hazardous waste cleanups. It 

noted that CERCLA requires the development of 

a federal common law to supplement CERCLA 

liability for successor corporations. The case is 

significant because the court found the successor 

liable under CERCLA based on the substantial 

continuity theory which is a less rigorous 

/ 

4-19 
- 

FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

standard of corporate liability. It is the second 

CERCLA case to use this theory. .. ,. 

An important point is the way the court 

framed the issue of liability: "The issue is ... one 

of [CEKCLA law]:- does a manufacturer's 

.responsibility for its [hazardous waste] survive a, 

change in ownership, where the manufacturing 

business, as such, maintains its identity and 

continues to operate as before...:" Under this 

broad liability scheme, the court had no 

difficulty in finding the successor corporation 

liable in this instance because the successor had 

operated'out of the same physical facilities as its 

predecessor, had produced the same product line, 

had held itself out toythe public as the same 

company, had retained the same operating assets 

and had succeeded to all liabilities necessary for 

a smooth transition of ownership.: . . 

US. vs. Duuont. et.a 1. (Lore ntz Barrel & Druml: 

On July 6, i990, the United States District'Court 

for the. District of California approved a 

settlement valued at $6 million with eleven (11) 

companies for the Lorentz Barrel and Drum 

Superfund site. The settlement was jointly 

negotiated by EPA and the Department of Justice 

and requires the companies to design, construct 

,and operate a ground -water extraction and 

"treatment system to clean up contaminated ground 

water at the site. Lorentz Barrel and Drum was a 

drum recycling facility that operated for 

approximately forty years until 1987 when it was 

closed .permanently by the State of Califomia. 

Drums containing chemical residues were sent to 

the site for refurbishing and resale. Operations 

at the site resulted in the contamination of. soil 

and ground. water with industrial solvents, 

pesticides, PCBs, and other hazardous substances. 

The potentially responsible. parties (PRPs) who 

participated in the- settlement are generators of 

hazardous wastes who shipped drums to the site. 

Y.S.V. F- : Fairchild 

Industries and Cumberland Cement &Supply Co. 

agreed to pay $1.7 million under the terms of a 

consent decree for the Limestone Road Site in 

Cumberland, Md. entered February 28, -1990, by 

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

Maryland: The decree settles certain of the 

government's claims under ,3106 and 5107. of 

CERCLA. The State of. Maryland is also a party 

,to. this. decree: Maryland had successfully 

opposed enhy of an earlier consent decree between 

the U.S. and Fairchild and .Cumberland Cement 

on the grounds that the decree did not explicitly 

., 

. .. 

provide the state with the review and comment 

authority provided in CERCLA §121(f). The 

United States and the StXte retain actions 

against Fairchild, Cumberland' and four other 

PRPs for the recovery of costs incurred prior to the 

entry of the consent decree. 

US. v. Fleet: .In this case, a secured 

creditor was held liable under CERCLA because 

it participated in the financial and operational 

management of the facility. The case supports 

EPA's priority of recovering costs from responsible 

parties and notifies lenders that they should act 

prudently in the first instance when making loans 

to third. parties and also upon discovering 

contamination of the collateral. 

.. . 

In the case, a factoring arrangement was set 

up between the 'defendant creditor and 

Swainsboro Print Works (SPW), a print clothing 

facility. Fleet 'Factors advanced funds while 

retaining a security interest in SPWs accounts 

receivable. It stopped the' advances when SPWs 

debt exceeded its collateral, but continued to 

collect funds under the accounts and eventually 

foreclosed on some of SPWs inventory and 

equipment. Fleet required SPW to seek approval 

before shipping goods, determined when 

employees should be laid off, established prices 

for excess inventory, received and processed- tax 

forms and Supervised the:activity of the office 

administrator. .., , 

The court found Fleet liable under CERCLA' 

5107(a')(2) as an owner or operator of the'facility 

at, the time. the hazardous substances were 

disposed. In doing so, the court stated a secured 

creditor is liable "if its involvement with the 

management of the facility is-sufficiently broad 

to support the inference that it could affect 

hazardous waste disposal decisions if it so 

chose." Although the courts holding-was broad, 

on the facts of the case it'was clear that Fleet 

Factors was participating in the management of 

the facility. 

The court's holding is significant because it 

has expanded . EPA's ability to seek 

reimbursement for response costs. The case 

notifies secured creditors. that they must be 

prudent ' and responsible in their lending 

activities with third parties. 

site: This site was formerly a commercial waste 

disposal facility. A Consent Decree under 55106 

4-20 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

and 107 of CERCLA was entered into Federal 

Court on March 7,' 1990. However, so as not to 

wait for the long term remedy to alleviate the 

primary threats posed by the site, actions were 

taken under an Administrative Order on Consent 

to build a floodwall and move offsite 

contamination back on, site. These actions 

eliminated the threat of exposure to some 250 

families living in the Riverdale subdivision of 

Cmsby, Texas. 

In September Region I1 and 59 

PRPs for this New York site signed a consent 

decree pursuant to' which the PRPs will 

implement EPAs selected remedy for the Site and 

reimburse EPA $500,000, a portion of EPA's past 

costs. The settlors are also obliged to pay EPA's 

oversight costs up to and including the first two 

years of operation of the groundwater pump-andtreat system specified in the ROD. EPA may, in 

the future, seek the unreimbursed portion of its 

past costs from the non-settling PRPs, and may 

also seek any RD/RA oversight costs not covered 

by the consent decree from the non-settlors or 

certain of the settling defendants. This is 

another exampleof Region II's application of the 

Agency's Settlement Incentives/Disincentives, 

guidance. This case is also noteworthy for the 

speed with which the consent decree was 

negotiated. The decree was signed by the PRPs 

only three months after issuance of'the notice 

letter for the RD/RA, and only three weeks after 

the broad terms of the settlement were agreed 

upon 

In the Matter of Gene ral Electric (CE RCLAl 

EP.SE&: In June 1990, EPA issued an EPCRA/ 

CERCLA penalty policy. The following case was 

based on the policy and supports our national 

priority of ensuring that failure to report releases 

of toxic or hazardous substances will result in 

swift and harsh penalties against the 

non-notifier. 

The case is significant for a number of 

reasons. First, it is the first major case from our 

June "coast to coast" EPCRA-CERCLA filing 

initiative to be settled. Second, it represents a 

very modest.reduction in the proposed $100,000 

penalty. Third, given the small quantity of 

material released, the penalty helps to 

underscore the importance of timely reporting of 

toxic or hazardous chemical releases and spills to 

EPA and our state and local response agencies. 

On August 9,1990, the EPA signed a consent 

agreement and final order with General Electric 

Company. The company was cited for failure to 

report to federal, state, and local agencies the 

release of hazardous substances into the 

environment. Under CERCLA 5103 and EPCRA 

5304, facilities that accidentally release 

hazardous substances into the environment above 

a certain quantity must report the release. 

General Electric had released between 5-8 pounds 

of PCWased cooling liquid and failed to report 

its occurrence. This failure resulted in General 

Electric paying a penalty of $90,000. 

pial: This litigation demonstrated that Region I 

will pursue removal cost recovery cases to closure 

and will pursue parties who fail to respond to 

discovery in CERCLA cases. The Region also 

obtained a precedential ruling that a trustee of a 

real estate trust may be personally liable for the 

actions of the trust if state law provides no 

limitation on the liability of such trustees. In 

August, 1990, EPA and the Department of Justice 

conducted a trial seeking recovery of costs 

expended at the Gonic Drum Dump Site in Gonic, 

New Hampshire. Aggressive prosecution of the 

government's liability claims had previously 

resulted in findings of liability against all 

defendants. In June, 1990, the government 

obtained a default judgment against William 

Burns, the operator of the Site, for his refusal to 

cooperate with discovery and his failure to 

appear at the hearing on the motion for default ' 

judgment. In August, 1990, the government won a 

motion for summary judgment establishing 

liability for the remaining two PRPs, the Gonic 

Realty Trust and its trustee. The Region expects a 

ruling on costs at any time. 

/ 

site: This was the site of a waste oil refining 

facility. EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative 

Order under 5106 of CERCLA to responsible 

parties for the Gurley Pits Site in West Memphis, 

Arkansas. The Order, effective January 5, 1990 

requires the responsible parties to implement a 

remedy solidifying refinery wastes and 

redepositing it into a RCRA vault and treating 

surface water. Litigation is proceeding on a prior 

complaint filed under 5107 for cost recovery, and 

the responsible parties have failed to comply 

with the Order. Issuance of the Order follows 

EPA policy for aggressive enforcement to expedite 

action and establish liability. 

4-21 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

On April 9, 1990, RhonePoulenc Basic Chemicals agreed to comply with 

Region IV's March 25, 1990 unilateral 

Administrative order (UAO) to construct the $5 

million Upper Spring Creek Diversion component 

of the Iron Mountain Mine interim remedial 

action. EPA issued the UAO to Rhone-Poulenc 

and other PRPs at Iron Mountain after EPA failed 

to receive a good faith offer to its January 26,1990 

General Notice and draft consent decree. IC1 

Americas, Inc. under an agreement with RhonePoulenc, commenced construction of the diversion 

in July of this year, and is expected to be 

completed by December 31, 1990, weather 

permitting. 

. On August 31,1990, EPA issued a letter to RhonePoulenc which activated provisions of EPAs 

order 89-18, issued on August 15,1989, requiring 

treatment of acid mine drainage releases from 

portions of the Iron Mountain site during the 

upcoming critical fishery conditions of the 1990 

91 wet season. IC1 Americas, Inc., on behalf of 

Rhone-Poulenc, agreed to comply with the order. 

Reactivation of the treatment plant .and 

operation of the plant in compliance with the 

order is expected to cost approximately $1 

million this year. 

- . : The 

-n this 

settlement informs the regulated community that 

the Agency does not ignore consent decree 

violations, and will make the PRPs reimburse the 

Government's for the costs incurred in prosecution. 

On September 13,1990, a US. district court judge 

signed a stipulation and order of dismissal that 

resolved the United States' first lawsuit against 

a PRP for violating a consent decree under 

CERCLA §109(c). The United States alleged that 

Manville was liable for a civil penalty because it 

violated the RD/RA consent decree. The action 

also contained a CERCLA claim for 

reimbursement of the costs of enforcing the consent 

decree. According to the terms of the settlement, 

Manville was required to pay a $95,000 civil 

penalty and $70,000 in response costs, totaling 

$165,000. 

ln the matter of I, lones Recycline Site: On 

October 25, 1989, EPA signed a de minimis 

administrative settlement under which 139 PRPs 

at the I. Jones' Clinton Street site in Fort Wayne, 

IN, paid more than $2.17 million into Superfund. 

This is EPAs first settlement that recovers money 

to resolve potential liability for statutory 

penalties for noncompliance with a unilateral 

removal order. Of the total, $1,888,326 

reimbursed EPA for a portion of its $3.3 million 

response costs and $283,712 was the settlement of 

potential liability for penalties. EPA had 

performed the first phases of removal activity at 

the site in 1986 and 1987 while it analyzed site 

records to identify generator PRPs at the 

abandoned RCRA facility. 

In July 1988, EPA issued a unilateral order 

for completion of the removal to about 300 PRPs. 

Among other things, this order required removal 

of contaminated soil and tank sludge and 

decontamination of buildings and debris. More 

than 125 PRPs complied with the order and 

completed the removal in August 1989 at a cost of 

more than $5 million. Some who settled had not 

initially complied with the unilateral order, 

requiring them to resolve their potential penalty 

liability before settlement. EPA is about to 

propose another administrative settlement to, 

nonde minimis parties to try to recover more of 

its response costs. EPA also signed an 

administrative consent order with 31 PRPs in 

November 1989 for a smaller removal action at a 

related 1. Jones facility on Covington Road in Fort 

Wayne. At that site, EPA brought suit and won 

w: 

access in December 1989. 

- In this case, a parent 

corporation that had exerted practical total 

influence and control over its subsidiary was held 

liable as an operator for the subsidiary's release 

of hazardous substances. This case is important 

not only because it supports our enforcement effort, 

but because it requires parent corporations to 

ensure that an actively controlled subsidiary is 

operating in an environmentally responsible 

manner. Otherwise, the parent will also be 

responsible for the subsidiary's actions. 

' 

In October, 1989, Region I won a judgment in 

district court for all past and future remedial 

costs against Kayser-Roth based on its ownership 

and control of Stamina Mills. The First Circuit on 

August 2, 1990 affirmed the district court's 

decision that Kayser-Roth Corporation exercised 

almost total control over its wholly owned 

subsidiary, and therefore was an "operator" under 

5 CERCLA 107(a)(4) at the time of a 1979 spill of 

trichloroethylene (TCE) at the Stamina Mills 

textile plant in Forrestdale, Rhode Island. 

. 

The court rejected Kayser-Roth's argument 

that a parent corporation cannot be held liable as 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishmenfs Report 

an operator under CERCLA, and held that 

Kayser-Roth was liable based on a direct 

liability theory under CERCLA. The Court 

stated that mere complete ownership and a 

general authority or ability to control were 

insufficient to hold a parent liable, requiring 

instead active participation in the activities of 

the subsidiary. Moreover, the Court noted that 

even though indicia of ability to control decisions 

about hazardous waste are indicative of the type 

of control necessary to hold a parent liable, they 

are not essential assuming other indicia of 

pervasive control are present. The court also 

pointed out Kayser-Roth could not use a third 

party defense because: (1) Kayser-Roth was an 

operator at the time of the spill; and (2) the 

third party was in contractual relationship with 

the corporation. In addition, the court stated 

that CERCLA is a strict liability statute and 

therefore Kayser-Roth's assertion of 

blamelessness in causing the TCE spill was 

irrelevant. 

The First Circuit's decision bolsters EPAs 

enforcement effort by finding Kayser Corporation 

directly liable as an operator under CERCLA in a 

precedent setting case on parent liability. 

Deerine Site Sett lement: Region I 

negotiated a consent decree for remedial design 

and remedial action and the payment of past and 

future oversight costs with four potentially 

responsible parties at the Kellogg Deering Well 

Field Site in Norwalk, Connecticut. Under the 

terms of the agreement, the parties will 

implement the second operable unit Record of 

Decision for the Site which calls for a source 

control remedy consisting of soil vapor extraction 

and a management of migration remedy that 

requires pumping and treating groundwater until 

it reaches drinking water standards. The dollar 

value of the agreement is estimated to be 

$1 0,800,000. 

-: In this instance, a responsible 

party was penalized for not complying in a 

timely manner with an Administrative Order on 

Conscnt issued in 1986. The consent decree was one 

of the first CERCLA settlements incorporating 

penalties for noncompliance with a 5106 consent 

order. The penalties support our national 

enforcement effort by showing EPAs diligence in 

ensuring that responsible parties comply with 

the terms of our agreements. The Koppers 

Company, Inc. agreed to pay $1,050,000 in 

response and oversight costs, and $50,000 in 

stipulated penalties, in a CERCLA 5106 and 5107 

consent decree entered August 16,1990 in the U.S. 

District Court for the .Eastern District of 

California. 

The decree resolves costs incurred at the 

Koppers4roville, California NPL site through 

March 31,1988,'but preserves EPAs right to seek 

response and oversight costs incurred after that 

date. Koppers also agreed to pay $50,000 

stipulated penalties for reports not timely 

submitted under a 5106 administrative order on 

mmt. 

The United States filed its motion 

for entry of a consent decree in the second of three 

'cases concerning the Laskin/Poplar Oil NPL site 

in Jefferson, Ohio. The settlement provides 

reimbursement of $1.38 million in past response 

costs, the first $350,000 in future oversight costs to 

be incurred by EPA, and oversight costs that 

exceed $1.75 million. A complaint to recover 

amounts not included under the consent decree was 

filed October 19,1990 against about 50 PRPs. 

"Laskin II" was filed on March 19, with the 

lodging of a Consent Decree for RD/RA with 158 

settling I'RPs. Public comment was noticed in the 

Federal Register on April 2. Twenty-seven of the 

settling parties agreed to implement RD/RA and 

pay a portion of past and future response costs. 

The site remedy consists of construction of a 

ground water diversion trench, thermal treatment 

of certain materials, and consolidation and 

capping of other contaminated soils. Site 

maintenance costs estimated to be as much as $2.4 

million will also be the responsibility of the 

settling defendants. 129 of the settling parties 

are de minimis generators who are "cashing out" 

by paying a volumetric share of cleanup costs, 

plus a premium to the United States and to 

settling defendants. 

The site owners, Mr. and Mrs. Alvin Laskin, 

are settling by agreeing to provide access to the 

site and to place certain restrictions on alienation 

of their property, the Laskin/Poplar Oil NPL 

site. The settling parties are funding relocation 

of the Laskins, who have agreed to the 

demolition of their home located on the site. 

y.s. v. -: A December 1989 

consent decree required 41 settling defendants to 

carry out an estimated $22.4 million cleanup at 

the Liquid Disposal Inc. (LDI) Site in Utica, MI 

.. . 

4-23 
(in the U.S. v. BASF civil action). In addition, 

the consent decree requires establishment of a 

$1.5 million trust fund for future remedial work. 

The defendants also must pay EPAs oversight 

costs, and reimburse the Government for a portion 

of its past costs. The consent decree also includes a 

settlement with 495 de minimis defendants. 

Under the terms of the BASF consent 

decree, the United States recovered $1.96 

million, which is only part of the LDI site costs. 

In December 1989, EPA offered a second de 

minimis settlement to eligible potentially 

responsible parties (PRPs). Approximately 115 

PRPs signed this $1.1 million consent decree (u 

v. A N Reitzloff. et al.) to be applied to costs 

incurred at the LDI Site. The Reitzloff consent 

decree was entered by the court on August 30,1990. 

In U.S. v. Ivey, the United States took 

further action to recover costs and filed a 

complaint against the former LDI president, a 

Canadian resident; the vice president of LDI; two 

Canadian corporations as owners and operators; 

and nine corporations who were 

generator/transporters of waste. On September 9, 

1990, a partial consent decree resolving the 

liability of three de minimis generator 

defendants was lodged with about $600,000 to be 

applied to past costs. The Canadian defendants 

filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction, which was denied by the court on 

August 12 1990. The court held that although 

CERCLA docs not expressly provide for service of 

payment of $4.4 million. 

U. v.MW et al. :. This settlement has 

precedential value since the insurers for one of 

the defendants agreed to pay.more in settlement 

costs that the stated policy limits of that 

defendant's general liability insurance coverage. 

On September 28, 1990, EPA referred a consent 

decree settling this case. The case arose out of a 

1982 spill of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK): 'EPA 

had issued administrative removal orders to five 

PWs, none of which complied with them. EPA 

performed the removal, incurring nearly $1 

million in costs. The settlement, which followed 

some two years of extensive discovery and motion 

practice, provides that the PRPs. will pay $1.7 

million. Of this, about $1.35 million is cost 

recovery (the figure includes interest), and a 

further $350,000 in penalties. 

y. S. v. S-: In this instance, 

property owners refused access to EPA or its 

designated representative and precluded the 

completion of planned response activities ,at a 

hazardous waste site. The court granted the 

EPAs request for access. The decision supports our 

initiative to take prompt enforcement action 

against recalcitrant parties and provides an 

example of EPA taking immediate. action to 

initiate response activities. On December 29, 

1989, the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Georgia granted the government's 

Motion for an Immediate Order in Aid of Access, 

pursuant to CERCLA 5 104(e)(5). 

ihe defendants had sufficient conta'ck with the 

State of Michigan to confer jurisdiction under the 

Michigan long-am statute. . . 

process over defendants fiom a foreim country, 

The defendants arc property owners of part 

of the South Marble Top Road Landfill Site in 

Lone Pine: On March 5, 1990, the New Jersey 

District Court entered the $40 million Lone Pine 

remedial consent decree which had been lodged 

in August, 1989. Seventeen PRP non-settlors had 

opposed the settlement when it was lodged by 

commenting, then by moving the court for 

intervention (granted over the govcrnment's 

opposition), and by briefs and oral arguments 

attempting to persuade the court that the 

settlement was "unfair" to them and should be 

rejected. The court found their claims 

"meritless." Because they failed to settle, EPA 

sued these 17 companies in October, 1989, for 

approximately $4.9 million in response costs not 

recovered in the settlement. By the end of 

FY1990,16 of those firms had concluded a second 

round settlement in principle, providing for 

Walker County, Georgia. They repeatedly 

refused attempts by EPA's designated 

representative to negotiate access agreements and 

refused to respond to EPAs subsequent attempts to 

negotiate. After the attempts failed, the 

government filed its motion. The order gave EPA 

and its representative unimpeded access to the 

defendants' property to conduct a Remedial 

Investigation and Feasibility Study and any 

subsequent remedial measures. The order also 

enjoins the defendants from obstructing or 

interfering with EPAs activities at the site. 

WAeyfxA~ The case supports EPA's 

effort to recover all response costs from 

responsible parties. The decision should 

encourage PRPs to undertake remedial activities 

at more Superfund sites because of EPAs succcss in 

recovering all its response costs from PRPs. 

4-24 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

On November 20, 1989, the Sixth Circuit 

affirmed the district court's grant of summary 

judgment in favor of the United States on the 

issue of costs in thecase of United States v. 

Northernaire Platine ComDany. The appellant, 

R.W. Meyer, challenged the decision on four 

grounds: (1) indirect costs of the government are 

not recoverable under CERCLA; (2) prejudgment 

interest should not apply retroactively; (3) the 

defendants were not jointly and severally liable 

under CERCLA; and (4) .numerous issues of 

material fact remained. 

The appeals court stated that "indirect 

costs are part and parcel of all costs of the 

removal action [and] ... are attributable to [a] 

cleanup site in that they represent the portion of 

EPAs overhead expenses that supported the 

government's response action on Meyer's 

property." The court also stated that no manifest 

injustice would result by applying SARA 

retroactively in this instance, that the hrm was 

indivisible and therefore joint and several 

liability was appropriate, and that the 

appellant had failed to raise any genuine issues 

of material fact. 

On March. 3, 1990, the Supreme Court 

denied R.W.Meyer's petition for certiorari, and 

stated it would not consider a dispute concerning 

the federal government's right to recover the 

"indirect costs" of running a Superfund site when 

it sues responsible parties. 

In the matter o f Midwest Sol vent Recoverv. et-& 

In December 1989 administrative orders were 

issued to PRPs for the Midco I and the Midco 11 

sites in Gary, IN, mandating compliance with 

RODS, which required groundwater and soil clean 

up at the former solvent recycling and disposal 

sites. Because the PRPs did not comply with the 

orders, EPA filed an amended complaint in 

January 1990. An October 1990 court ruling 

enhances the likelihood that the orders will be 

upheld. If. the case goes to trial as scheduled in 

May 1991, it will be one of the Nation's first to 

test EPAs interpretation of issues such as record 

review, liability and costs. 

Mid-State DisDosa I. Inc.: A March 1990 consent 

decree required PRPs to perform the Remedial 

Design/Remedial Action, estimated to cost $19 

million, and to pay EPA and the State of 

Wisconsin for oversight costs. The cleanup work 

will be performed by generators Weyerhaeuser 

Co., Felker Brothers Corp., Steel-King Industries, 

.. 

' 

Inc., and owner/ operator Mid-State Disposal, 

Inc. at the Mid-State Disposal NPL Site. A May 

1990 court decision reaffirmed the decree by 

denying Wick Building Systems, Inc., and the 

Central Wisconsin Communities motions to 

intervene, vacate, and reconsider the decree. The 

decision is favorable to EPA because it limits 

challenges to negotiated consent decrees and 

postponement of cleanup. The 4 settling 

defendants will install soil and clay caps over 3 

waste disposal units, construct an alternate water 

supply for residents surrounding the site, collect 

leachate, monitor ground- and surface water, and 

collect, vent, monitor and flare landfill gas. Past 

costs of $1.25 million were not resolved in this 

decree; the Agency reserves the right to seek 

these past costs from non-settling parties. 

In the matter of Mo nsanto. et al., Motco Suoe rfund 

site: This .site was originally a purported 

recycling facility for styrene tars and where large 

quantities of hazardous substances were placed in 

impoundments. After negotiations with the 

Potentially Responsible Parties stalled on issues 

concerning' apportionment of liability for the 

groundwater operable unit, the EPA issued a 

Unilateral Administrative Order under §]&(a) 

of CERCLA to responsible parties. The order 

required that an engineering design for the sourcecontrol remedy be formulated. The responsible 

parties are complying with the order,. thereby 

avoiding further delays to implement the 

remedy. Implementation of the remedy will 

result in the recovery of contaminated 

groundwater and ,treatment. Contaminated 

groundwater beneath the site poses a threat of 

contamination to a drinking water source. 

Contamination at this site near La Marque, Texas, 

results from'twenty years of recycling and storage 

operations contributing to releases of organic 

pollutants, metals and PCBs. 

U.S. v. . The consent decree, 

which was lodged with the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Connecticut on February 20. 

1990, supports EPAs effort to have responsible 

parties either perform or pay for response actions. 

In this instance, EPA will be reimbuked for'past 

costs and the agreement.wil1 also fund remedial 

activities. This Consent Decree requires' the 

defendants. to pay $5.375 million as 

reimbursement for past and future costs at the 

Beacon Heights Landfill Superfund Site, Beacon 

Falls, Connecticut, and Laurel Park, Inc. 

Superfund Site, Naugatuck, Connecticut.. . 

4-25 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

The settlement involves a payment by the 

,Murtha entities of half their combined total net 

worth, estimated to be approximately $10.8 

million. The settlement also includes a number of 

non-monetary obligations on the part of the 

defendants, including providing full and 

unrestricted access to both sites, cooperating in 

obtaining all permits necessary for the 

performance of remedial actions, and a dismissal 

of claims against the United States Government 

entities. The prima+ environmental problem at 

the sites are contamination of groundwater and 

surface 'water by leachate flow. The phnned 

remedial actions consist generally of constructing 

an impermeable cap and collecting and treating 

the leachate. 

In the matte r of National Pin Service: 01 

September 14, 1990, EPA issued a Unilateral 

Administrative Order under 5106 (a) of CERCLA 

to the former operators and the current owner of 

the National Pin Service Site in Wilson County, 

North Carolina. The Order requires the 

Respondents will conduct the emergency removal 

action at the site. The removal action will entail 

restricting access to the site, conducting an 

inventory and disposing of all drummed 

hazardous material, and sampling and 

excavating surrounding soils. 

National Pin Service was a business which 

manufactured blowing equipment on the site. The 

facility closed in November 1989. -The site 

contains two lagoons of unknown purpose and 

numerous drums and container labeled as 

containing various chemicals, most of which are 

believed by the On-Scene Coordinator to be 

solvents. The North Carolina Department of 

Health and Natural Resources attempted over a 

period of two yearsto have the operator and 

owner of the property assess the contamination at 

the site and perform drum disposal and soil 

remediation. After failure to obtain compliance 

with its Orders, the State requested EPA 

assistance in August 1990. EPA and the State 

conducted a site inspection on August 29,1990, and 

observed that the site was unsecured, abandoned, 

and contained numerous potentially 'explosive, 

highly flammable and otherwise dangerous 

.hazardous materials. \ 

In the Matter of Natural Gas Piueline Comuany 

Region VIl began an enforcement 

initiative in FY 1990 to address PCB 

contamination at natural gas pipeline compressor 

stations. Nearly all major natural gas pipelines 

in the United States cross Region VII. The Region 

has developed a multi-media approach to 

addressing contamination at natural gas pipeline 

compressor stations. The TSCA, RCRA, and 

CERCLA programs have all been involved in 

review of investigations and recommending 

appropriate responses. In the case of Natural Gas 

Pipeline Company of America (NGPCA), Region 

VI1 entered a CERCLA ,Consent Order with the 

company to do site investigations at all 17 of 

their compressor stations in Region VII. As a 

result of the investigations PCB contamination 

was discovered at four of the compressor stations. 

With the help of.the TSCA program, clean-up 

plans were developed to address the 

Contamination, and to date four CERCLA,removal 

consent orders have been agreed to by the 

company. 

Y.S. v. No -: This case is' 

the first judicial action under CERCLA 5122 

enforcing an adminisbative subpoena. In the case, 

EPA issued an information'request through the use 

of its administrative subpoena power in 5122 of 

CERCLA. The defendants refused to comply and 

EPA brought a judicial action to compel 

compliance. The decision supports EPA's 

initiative to enforce information requests when 

responsible parties do not respond or 

inadequately respond to EPA requests for 

information. Information gathering is one of most 

important aspects of initiating an enforcement 

action. 

. On January 29,1990, the court adopted the 

magistrate's recommendation in this CERCLA 

5122 subpoena enforcement action to enforce a 

subpoena seeking financial information from the 

Bankerts, owners of the Northside Sanitary 

Landfill, a 160 acre site. The magistrate had 

recommended that the subpoena be upheld and 

that the owners turn over the requested 

information. The court ordered the parties to 

comply within ten days. The court also agreed 

with the United States' position that since the 

original subpoena was issued in 1986, the parties 

should be required to furnish up-to-date 

information, not to stop with the actual dates on 

the subpoena. 

US. v. occ-: - On September 12, 1990, EPA Region I1 lodged 

with the court a Stipulation that would amend 

the 1985 Judgment for the $Area. Besides being 

a very large settlement, the agreement includes 

the use of innovative technology to enhance the 

4-26 
- 

FY 1990 E$orcement Accomplishments Report 

remedial measures. The settlement provides for 

environmental benefits of the contaminated area 

through the use of remedial technology. The new 

drinking water plant is an example of the 

benefits the impact this decision will have on 

the local community. 

The Stipulation implements the Judgment's 

provisions for the selection of remedies using 

Requisite Remedial Technology (RRT) to address 

contamination from the S-area landfill. The 

Sarea landfill site is approximately eight acres 

in size and is located on the Occidental Chemical 

Corporation (OCC) main plant property in 

Niagara Falls, New York. The Earea is adjacent 

to both the Niagara River and the City of 

Niagara Falls Drinking Water Treatment Plant. 

OCC disposed of approximately 63,M)O tons of 

hazardous chemical processing wastes into the 

!%area from 1947-1961; other wastes were 

disposed there by OCC until 1975. 

The RRT remedies in this Stipulation and 

its Appendices will expand the planned 

Containment System for the historic landfill, 

institute Overburden and Bedrock RRT systems 

using hydraulic controls and extraction wells that 

will contain and collect non-aqueous phase 

liquids and aqueous phase liquids (NAPL and 

APL) for incineration and treatment, and construct 

a new Drinking Water Plant. 

This settlement will result in the 

remediation of the dioxin and other 

contamination in the vicinity of the Earea and 

the City Drinking Water Plant in Niagara Falls 

to levels which satisfy the requirements of both 

governmental entities. The total cost of the 

entire remediation is approximately $117 

million. 

-: In July of 1990, 

Central Maine Power Company (CMP) entered 

into a settlement valued at upwards of 

$16,000,000 involving the cleanup of the 

OConnor Co. Superfund Site in Augusta, Maine. 

Pursuant to the consent decree embodying the 

settlement, CMP, one of four potentially 

responsible parties identified in connection with 

the Site, has agreed to conduct the entire 

remedial design and remedial action at the Site 

and to reimburse 100% of the United States' 

future oversight costs. The settlement thus 

provides for recovery from a single party of 

approximately 94% of the United States' total 

past and estimated future costs. Moreover, under 

the terms of the consent decree, CMP has agreed 

to initiate remedial design activities upon 

lodging, rather than entry, of the decree. The 

PCB-contaminated site had been operated since 

the early 1950s as a salvage yard for irreparable 

transformers, capacitators and other electrical 

equipment. The selected remedy called for in the 

September 1989 Record of Decision involves the 

treatment of PCBs by an innovative solvent 

extraction technology. 

y5. v Ottati WAS Federal courts may reject an 

EPA-chosen remedy for cleaning up a Superfund 

site and can impose their own choice of remedy 

under some circumstances, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the First Circuit held April 4, 1990, 

in a narrow ruling. The court's holding applies 

where the United States seeks an injunction based 

on equitable standard to impose the Agency's 

selection of a remedy without having first issued 

a formal Agency remedial decision or unilateral 

administrative order to require responsible 

parties to clean up. Federal courts are not limited 

to the administrative record in reviewing the 

remedy selection under such circumstances, the 

court held. This ruling applies to only a few 

pending cases in the county and should not affect 

record review in most cases. 

. 

The court's opinion affirmed in part, 

vacated in part and remanded for further 

proceedings the district court's 1988 injunctive 

orders in U.S. v. Ottati & Goss, See, U.S. v. 

Ottati & Goss, 694 F. Supp. 977 (D.N.H. 1988). 

The court declined to change most of the 

components of the judicially-ordered remedy in 

Ottati because a review of the record in the court 

below showed the district court-fashioned 

remedial action was not "clearly erroneous." 

The First Circuit ruled for the first time 

that ordinarily EPA should be awarded indirect 

costs. The court also held that district courts may 

impose sanctions in instances of governmental 

misconduct. The appellate court stated it 

"simply could not determine" in the Ottati record 

what the United States may have done to 

warrant sanctions and remanded the sanctions 

matter for reconsideration. 

In this case, the defendants 

failed without sufficient cause to comply with an 

EPA administrative order issued under CERCLA 

5106. The court upheld the imposition of 

punitive damages in 1989 and recently awarded a 

-specific dollar amount. The case is important 

4-27 
\ 

FY 1990 Egorcemeni Accomplrshmenis Report 

because of its impact on responsible parties. 

. Parties will be much more willing to adequately 

respond to an EPA administrative order rather 

than face potential treble damages. 

:On March .6; 1990, the United States 

District Court in the,Northem District of Georgia 

: granted ,plaintiff's motion for partial summary 

judgment for response costs in the amount of 

$753,391. The court also found seven of the eight 

defendants jointly and severally liable for three 

times .that amount, or $2,260,173 for failing to 

comply with a CERCLA 5106 Administrative 

Order. This is the first case in which a court has 

awarded the government a specific dollar amount 

for treble damages. . . 

*: 

In a related case and the first jury trial of 

its type, the purchaser of a building holding 

drums containing hazardous waste was held 

. liable May 15 for punitive treble damages under 

the Superfund law by a federal district court in 

Georgia. ' Judge Harold Murphy of the US. 

District Court for the Northern District of 

Georgia directed a verdict against P. Douglas 

Morrison, holding that the defendant had 

insufficient reason to fail 'to comply with. an 

administrative cleanup order, issued by the 

Environmental Protection Agency under'§106 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. Morrison, 

along with other defendants previously found 

liable, must pay three times what the 

government spent in cleanup costs. EPA and DO] 

have appealed the'judge's ruling in the matter of 

what constitutes treble damages. The judge held 

that EPA's response costs .are included as onethird of the total amount. The Government 's 

position is that the treble damages are in 

addition to the response costs. 

This is a 

cost recovery case relating to. the Cherokee 

County, Kansas Mining Site which arose as a 

.I result of the dissolution.of Peru Mining Company 

in a Delaware Chance6 Court. EPA .had filed a 

proof of claim against Peru Mining Company in 

the Chancery Court of Newcastle County, 

Delaware for its costs relating to the Galena subsite of the Cherokee County, Kansas Sites. On 

September 6, 1990, EPA received a check for 

$242,410 which.was the: payment to EPA in 

distribution of the remaining corporate assets of 

Peru Mining Company. This amount is in excess of 

95% of the company's assets. No release was 

given other than for the amount received. 

.. 

4-28 

.. 

*e 

United States won a motion'for summary judgment 

establishing liabilityd based on collateral 

estoppel in the CERCLA cost recovery case 

regarding the Picillo Superfund Site in Rhode 

Island. On May 31, 1990, the federal district 

court in. Rhode Island held that -American 

. Cyanamid Company and Rohm & Haas Company 

were liable for approximately $3,500,000 in past 

costsplusfuhuecleanupcosts. . ' ' 

The Region believes this .was the first 

Superfund case establishing liability on a theory 

of offensive collateral estoppel. The court 

accepted the government's argument that 

liability could be established without trial 

based on the fact that defendants had been found 

liable in an earlier CERCLA lawsuit filed by the 

State of Rhode Island for its costs incurred at the 

Site. The court noted that its ruling wasnot 

unfair to the defendants, as they had every 

opportunity and incentive to fully and fairly 

defend their liability under CERCLA in the prior 

suit, and.that precluding the US. from relying on 

collateral estoppel would defeat the public 

policies EPA serves in allocating its -limited 

resources to pursue Superfund cases .. 

. , As Superfund litigation brought by states, 

PRPs, and insurance companies increases, the 

Picillo decision establishes an important 

precedent for, EPA to pursue judgments based on 

CERCLA cases filed by states and private 

parties. 

in : This 

administrative settlement concerned the Putnam 

Fire and Chemical Spill Site in Putnam, 

Connecticut. The Region entered a CERCLA 

5122(h) agreement that required the Priority 

Finishing Corporation to pay $920,000 into the 

Fund. Priority was an owner and operator of the 

Site at the time of disposal of hazardous 

substances. Coupled with an earlier payment of 

$30,000 from Dimension Sailcloth, Inc., another 

operator at the Site, EPA recovered 83% of the 

total response costs of approximately $1,100,000, 

including prejudgment interest. 

-: The settlement in this 

case sends an important signal to the regulated 

community that the United States will 

compromise little if any of its recoverable costs 

where defendants choose not to negotiate until 

the eleventh hour, thereby making it much more 

-w .. In 
FY 1990 Enforcemenl Accomplishments Report 

costly for PRPs to litigate than to settle. On 

March 26, 1990, the day trial was to begin, the 

government reached a settlement with all 

defendants in United States v. The Providencc 

w. The 'United States will receive $374,000 

from the Providence Journal Company and $20,000 

from two other defendants. This represents an 

aggregate recovery of 100% of actual response 

costs, and represents recovery of approximately 

95% of total costs inclusive of interest ($415,000). 

The original cost of performing the removal 

action was approximately $175,000. The 

remainder of the response costs represent 

enforcement and litigation costs. 

ILS. v. A.N. Beitzloff Co.. etpL: This case 

provides a good incentive to responsible parties to 

enter into settlement early with EPA. Parties 

who waited to settle this case received less 

favorable terms than those responsible parties 

who came forward early. The result supports 

EPA's national effort to recover response costs 

hom de minimigparties. 

.On August 30,1990, Judge Friedman of the 

US. District Court 'for the Eastern District of 

Michigan entered the second de minimis consent 

decree addressing the liability of 115 additional 

- de minimis defendants for the cleanup of 

contamination at the Liquid Disposal Superfund 

Site in Utica, Michigan. i In addition to the 200% 

premium payment required of all & .minimis 

settlors, an additional payment of 100% of their 

volumetric share was required from those settlors 

who elected not to join in first round settlement. 

In 

w: 

the matter of Resource Conse rvation and 

An administrative 

settlement was signed April 3 at the Department 

of Justice for the Davis Farm site, located in 

Chatsworth, Georgia. Under the settlement, the 

Army, the Navy, the Department of Energy, and 

the Tennessee Valley Authority will reimburse 

the Superfund for a total of $164,605.92 in costs 

incud by EPA in conducting a removal action at 

the Davis Farm site. The United States is 

pursuing private parties for the balance of the 

response costs and has already settled with 

several of the private parties. Under the various 

settlements, EPA will have recovered 

approximately 82 per cent of the $799,195 

incurred in the removal action and associated 

enforcement costs. 

: The case 

supports the Superfund Management Review 

4-29 

recommendations to encourage responsible parties 

to enter into settlements and allows EPA to 

partially recover response costs. The decision 

provides a clear incentive to responsible parties 

to enter into settlements because of the protection 

against third party claims they can receive under 

SARA. 

On September 14, 1990 a the United States 

District Judge of the District of New Jersey 

dismissed all cross-claims and counter-claims 

against ten PRPs who entered into a $3 million 

dollar de minimis consent decree with EPA 

regarding the Lipari Landfill. The judge ruled 

that the ten settling parties are protected from 

further third-party claims of contribution by 5 

122(g) of CERCLA. 

. 

The Lipari Landfill, a six acre landfill in 

Gloucester County, New Jersey, is the number one 

site on the National Priorities List. The & 

minimis settlement required the settlors to pay 

the United States approkimately $2,586,000 to 

partially reimburse the federal government's 

response costs. Two nonsettlors requested that the 

New Jersey District Court reject the & minimis 

settlement. On September 29, 1989, the court 

entered the decree, determining the settlement 

was fair, adequate, and reasonable, and consistent 

with the Constitution and the mandate of 

Congress. The court reasoned that the settlors 

were protected from contribution claims for those 

"covered matters" in the settlement. 

Y.S. v. Roval €&&age. et al.. Edage 

SuDerfund: This case involves a former 

commercial disposal site in Oklahoma. Phase I1 

of the trial resulted in a ruling by the U.S. 

District Judge reinforcing the Agency's authority 

to hold transporters arranging for disposal of 

waste liable under CERCLA. Also affirmed by 

the Judge's ruling was authority to recover all 

costs, including indirect costs, incurred by the EPA 

for response actions. Finally, the Judge ruled in 

favor of the Potentially Responsible Party 

remedy requiring partial removal followed by 

off-site incineration of the extracted wastes and 

groundwater remedial action to prevent the 

influx of contaminated groundwater to a nearby 

stream. The site, located in Criner, Oklahoma is 

contaminated by pesticides, chlorinated solvents, 

metals and PCB oils as result of waste disposal at 

the site. 

Schalk v. ReQ: Based on the decision in this 

case, PRPs are more likely to enter into a consent 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

decree requiring potentially controversial 

remedial measures. The result in this case also 

'supports SARA'S , codification 'of no 

pre-implementation judicial review for selected 

remedial measures at Superfund sites. . .. .. . 

,-.On April 24, 1990, the Seventh Circuit 

affirmed the district court's dismissal of two 

citizen suits that challenged remedies selected 

for six Superfund sites in Indiana. The district 

court had approved a.consent decree in August 

1985 for the remedies, finding that numerous 

public, meetings were held prior to the decree's 

approval and that the decree was fair, adequate, 

reasonable, and appropriate. The decree required 

remedial measures be taken in two steps: (1) a 

removal action involving surface excavation and 

capping of abandoned dump sites, and (2) the 

burning of hazardous wastes in a trash-fired 

incinerator. . , 

Schalk filed a lawsuit in December of 1987 

and Frey filed a lawsuit in February 1988: Both 

parties sought judicial review of the decree 

entered between the U.S. and Westinghouse, 

specifically the proposed remedial action 

involving the incineration of PCBs. The 

plaintiffs argued .that §113(h) of SARA was not 

retroactive to a consent decree entered in 1985, 

and that they were not challenging the decree, 

but merely asking for procedural requirements. 

In rejecting their arguments, the Seventh 

Circuit stated that: (1) their lawsuits. were filed 

after SARA'S enactment;.(2) SARA codified an 

established rule of no pre-implementation 

review; and (3) the plaintiffs were challenging 

the proposed remedy. The court pointed to 

CERCLA 113(h) which states that "No Federal 

court shall have jurisdiction ... to review any 

challenges to removal or remedial 

action ... except" in certain circumstances. The 

citizen suit exception allows an action alleging 

that the removal or remedial action taken under 

[§lo41 or secured under [§lo61 violated a 

requirement'of the chapter. .. 

The settlement supports the 

Superfund Management Review recommendation 

to have responsible parties undertake remedial 

activities at Superfund sites and.to have EPA 

recover its response costs from responsible parties. 

On August 21,1990, EPA and Sharon Steel 

entered into the largest bankruptcy settlement 

ever at a Superfund Site. Sharon Steel agreed to 

pay at least $22 million, toward the cleanup of 

two sites near Salt Lake City. Sharon Steel is the 

current owner of a milling facility at the Sharon 

Steel Midvale. Tailing Superfund site. EPA has 

already expended about $5 million for cleanup of 

the Tailings site. Under, the agreement, EPA has 

permanent access to the. site. Additionally, 

Sharon Steel agreed to dismiss claims against 

any government parties. 

The remedial action plan for the milling 

facility is scheduled for. completion in October 

1990, and a final cleanup plan for. residential 

areas was due by September 1990. The soils 

surrounding the residences .have been 

contaminated with arsenic, lead, and cadmium. 

Arsenic has also contaminated the ground water in the area. : 

y.s. v. p : In 

August 1990, the court lodged a consent decree 

signed by 41 PRPs for the Auto Ion, Inc. Superfund 

site in Kalamazoo, MI. .The decree requires the 

PRPs to carry out soil remediation .at an 

estimated cost of $3.4 million. The,PRPs also must 

pay for response and other costs in connection 

with the cleanup., The facility, formerly ,an 

electrical power plant used by the City of. 

Kalamazoo and Consumers Power, Inc., was used 

primarily by Auto Ion, Inc. to remove heavy 

metals from chrome and cyanide plating waste. 

About 120,000 gallons of liquid plating wastes 

and sludge, in.addition to arsenic, were left the? 

when Auto Ion ceased operations. 

Y.S. v. E.H. Son. : This is the 

first Superfund remedy case in the country ever 

nominated for ADR. An October 1990 consent 

decree outlined an estimated $11 million 

remedial action to be performed at the E.H. 

Schilling Landfill near Ironton, OH. The 

agreement calls for PRPs Ashland Chemical Co., 

Aristech Chemical Corp., and Dow Chemical Co. 

to install a slurry wall around.the perimeter of 

the landfill, place of a cap on its surface, 

reinforce the earthen dam and install an onsite 

liquid and leachate extraction and treatment 

system. The PRPs agreed to pay all past costs, all 

costs of implementing the clean up, and all 

oversight costs in excess of the first $2%,OOO. 

.. 

Between 1969 and 1980, the landfill 

accepted commercial and industrial solids, 

liquids and sludge, including polystyrene, 

polyurethane, polyethylene, phenol, acetone, '~ 

ceramic foam, oil and petroleum pitch, which 

4-30 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishmenfs Report 

eventually contaminated the soil., Contaminants 

identified at the site include arsenic, benzene, 

benzol (a) pyrene and 1,Z-dichlorethane. The 

case was nominated for alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR) in 1989 after a cost allocation 

controversy arose between the PRPs. A cost 

recovery action against two nonsettling PRPs for 

the initial oversight costs is being evaluated. 

On August 10,19w, EPA 

referred to the Department of Justice for lodging a 

Consent Decree for Remedial Design/Remedial 

Action at the Solid State Circuits Site in 

Republic, MO. The Site consists of a former 

printed circuit board plant where waste 

trichloroethylene contaminates groundwater 

that is the source of the municipal water supply. 

The remedy calls for pumping and treating 

contaminated groundwater, then discharging to a 

publicly-owned treatment works for further 

treatment and discharge pursuant to a NPDES 

permit. The State of Missouri is a party to the 

Consent Decree. Submittals from and oversight of 

the PRP will ,be handled primarily by the 

Missouri Deparhnent of Natural Resources, as the 

lead agency. Also, the Consent Decree provides a 

unique financing mechanism for the estimated 

$7.4 million remedy in which the sole PRP, not 

otherwise able to pay for the remedy, can arrange 

.private financing to meet its liabilities. The 

PRP, with a net worth estimated at $3 million 

with environmental liabilities and $6 million 

without, is allowed to sell its assets to an 

unrelated third party with such purchaser not 

becoming bound to the Consent Decree, provided a 

trust for performance of the remedy is funded in 

the amount of $8.8 million. The PRP does not own 

any Site property. The PRP's parent corporation, 

not a party to the Consent Decree,' will fund the 

trust with loans to be paid from proceeds from the 

asset sale, and the PRP will cease all business 

except to perform its obligations under the 

p: 

Consent Decree. 

.1 In September, 

1990, the Region obtained agreement to a consent 

decree from 14 PRPs for RD/RA performance and 

reimbursement of past costs and oversight costs 

regarding the First Operable Unit at the 

Sullivan's Ledge Site in New Bedford, 

Massachusetts. Under the consent decree, the 

settling PRPs are required to implement the 

remedial design and remedial action, with the 

limitation that the settling PRPs' obligations 

will terminate after thirty years of operation 

and maintenance. The present worth value of 

.. 

< 

these. activities is estimated at $10,500,000. In 

addition, the settling PRPs agreed to reimburse 

100% of the United States' oversight costs for the 

first five years of the remedy and 50% thereafter, 

up to a cap of $1,500,000, and to reimburse the 

United States for $620,000 in past costs. In total, 

the package represents recovery of $12,370,000, or 

77.8% of total site response costs. The Region 

anticipates filing a cost recovery action against 

nine non-settlors for the remaining response costs. 

This case filed in Federal District 

court in January 1988 involved an action for cost 

recovery for removal activities under CERCLA. 

The defendants included site owners Gloria F. 

Rasmussen and Clara C. Rasmussen; Homer S. 

Rasmussen, the operator during its period as a 

landfill; Alfred E. Pearson, who disposed of 

hazardous substances at the site; and the 

companies that arranged for hazardous waste 

disposal, which included Chrysler Corp., Ford 

Motor Co., and Hoover Universal, Inc. EPA 

incurred the costs performing an immediate 

removal. 

Because of the environmental threat, the 

Rasmussen site was placed on the National 

Priorities List on September 8, 1983. EPAbegan 

removal at the site on October 31, 1984, using 

Supfund money. About 3poO drums and 250 cubic 

yards of contaminated soils from the Rasmussen 

landfill were taken to an approved hazardous 

waste landfill. This response action ended in 

January 1985. The 1990 consent decree required 

Ford and Chrysler to reimburse the United States 

for $530,000; Hoover settled. for $295,838 

November 18, 1989. Other settlements should be 

completed in the near future. 

In December 1988, EPA determined another 

removal action would expedite site clean-up and 

the development of options for the feasibility 

study. On July 12,1989,ll PRPs signed a consent 

order specifying the work to be done to complete 

the cleanup. The PRPs removed waste, 

contaminated soil, and about 650 drums from the 

site from December 1989 through February 1990. 

The proposed final remediation plan was 

released for public comment August 31,1990. 

p: 

TP 

OnSeptember 

In the matter of 

20,. 1990, EPA and Boliden Intergrade, A.C., 

signed a prospective purchaser agreement for the 

bankrupt Tennessee Chemical Company (TCC) 

4-31 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishnients Report . 

facility in 'Copperhill, TN. ,Boliden IAtergrade, 

A.G:; a Swedish company, will spend some $21 

million over .the next IO' ye'ars'on environmental 

and plant improvements; me company agri to 

continue .operation. of 'the two ' wastewater 

treatment plants protecting the Ocoek river'from 

contaminated ' water runoff. 'The 1 firm .. will 

' :implement an: environmGnta1 improvement 

program at an'estikted cost of $8'million, which 

would include'' reforestation,. wastewater 

treatment plant upgrades, installation of new 

sedimentation traps, and'- remediation of 

contaminated soil. 1n.addition; the company will 

construct a-new sulfur burner at the facility at an ,. 

, .,..,; : 

esti&ted.'cost.of $13 million. . .. ,. 

.. The September 20; agreement was"required 

because a sixmonth interim agreement negotiated 

in March of 1990 was about to expire. The U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court had approved the interim 

agreement, 'which was in 'the, nature of a 

prospective .purchaser agreement. Under that 

agreement, 'Boliden agreed, among other things, 

to operate all environmental control equipment; 

comply with all environmental 'statutes, 

regulations, permits, ' and orders; conduct an 

abbreviated .environmental site inGestigatio,?; 

and'to @ liable for all violations of law, and for 

all 'environmental harm it causes during its 

period of operations: Most notable was Boliden's 

agreement to operate the facility's wastewater 

treatment plant, thus'avoiding &me 4.5' million 

. gallons per day of uncontrolled 'inactive mine 

runoff discharge if TCC were to abandon'the 

facility. TCC was on the.verge of shutdown in 

March 1990, and the interim agr&ment 'averted 

., an:exbcted plant shutdown by the Bankruptcy 

court. 

L . .. 

. , .,j! 

The September 1990 agreement also 

pioovides for: reimbursement to EPA of $180,000 for 

past response costs, compliance. with all 

applicable' state, and federal environmental 

requirements, cleanup of several existing 

chemical and fuel. oil. spills; and voluntary 

reforestation on unpurchased land. Boliden will 

not be held liable .for contamination'at. the 

Copperhill site that occurred before the company 

assumed operation of the facility on March 20, 

1990. The company will be liable for any 

contamination resulting from their operation of 

the facility. i ,. 

Recent releases of ' sulfur' dioxide by 

Tennessee Chemical Company" are being 

addressed by EPA - in separate enforcement 

proceedings: One SUC~ release, which occurred on 

.'August 16,19w during the negotiations period for 

the SepQmber 1990 agreement, necessitated the 

issuance ' of a CERCLA.' 106 Unilateral 

Administrative' Order%' ;eSp&nse to 'significant 

off-site harm caused to human ,health' and the 

environment by releases of sulfur dioxide and 

sulfur' trioxide :from the plant. This marks 'the 

first time that Regi0n.N has used a CERCLA 106 

'Unilateral Administrative Order to cease 

' significant releases of hazardous substances 

during Tennessee Chemical's operations.' 'In 

response to the August 16, 1990, releak, within a 

very 'short timeframe,"the Region conducted a 

Air Act compliance inspection of the plant. The 

area was also surveyed for vegetative and 

health effects by the Environmental' Services 

Divisioni (ESD)' and the, Agency .for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registj (ATSDR). These 

'produced recommendations that were.invaluable 

to the successful negotiation of 'the prospective 

' purchaser agreement. The,combined Audit and 

Inspection allowed the Agency to determine a 

,complete outline' of plant. and process 

improvements, that are needed to mininiize future 

relea'ks of hazardous sulistances. '' . 

Tennessee Chemical prospective 

purchaser agreement is an example' of EPA's 

.ability to enter into agreements with private 

parties for ' site- remediation. Wlthout this 

;agreement; the' responsible .party would have 

' potentially slipped .into" bankruptcy and EPA 

would have been reqtiired to remediate the site; 

y.s. v. : ,The cas6 is supports our 

enforcement effort and is nationally significant 

for two reasons. .First; the court upheld 'EPA's 

r+est for recovery of all response costs. Se'cond, 

'the.court found that EPAs' actions at the'site 

Would be reviewd based on'the administrative 

record using an arbitrary and capricious standard. 

On September 24, 1990, the..U.S.'District 

Court for the Western District. of' Michigan 

granted the government's motion for partial 

summary judgment on response costs:' The case 

involves'actions'by EPA and the stat,e of 

hazardous substances discovered in. the Verona 

Well Field and surrounding areas. The substinces 

had allegedly 'been -released by defendants on 

three nearby prope'rties and had penetrated the 

soil, entered the ground water, and contaminat4 

a number of 'wells at the Verona Well Field. 

: 

' Che&cal Process Safety Audit and a Clean " ~ 

'I .. .. 

.' ' The 

.. *. , .. ,. 

Michigan, to clean up and contain the spread.of I 

4-32 
FY 1990 E$orcemenr Accomplishments Report 

-The Well Field .serves as a public water 

supply for about 35,000 residents and businesses of 

Battle Creek, Michigan. EPAs costs at the time 

of trial exceeded $4.5 million dollars. The court 

granted EPAs request for summary judgment on 

certain response costs valued at $877,704.78. 

In holding- for the United States,.the court 

.determined that the government does not have to 

prove the reasonableness of its response action. 

Instead, it is up to the defendants to prove' that 

the action was arbitrary and capricious. The 

court when on to say that the fact that the 

selected response was not effective does not imply 

that its selection was arbitrary and capricious. 

The court also held that EPA could recover its 

indirect costs at the site for those expenses 

attributable to overhead. . 

. In a related matter, the court granted the 

government's motion for a ruling as to'the 

appropriate standard and scope of review of 

agency action. The court determined that 5113 of 

CERCLA applies to response actions taken by the 

agency as opposed to the argument that it applies 

only to the selected response action. In addition, 

the court held that any response action should be 

reviewed on the basis of the administrative 

.record under an arbitrary and capricious 

standard, .and absent a showing ,of manifest 

injustice, 5113 of SARA will apply retroactively. 

In the Matte I of 3M Comoanv, Columbia. 

3M Company (3M) entered into a 

53008(h) Administrative Order on Consent 

(AX) with EPA on September 26,1990. Pursuant 

to the AX, 3M .has agreed to perforin a RCRA 

Facility Investigation and a .Corrective Measures 

Study for its facility located in Columbia, 

Missouri. In addition to traditional requirements 

in a, §3008(h) Order, EPA negotiated to have 3M 

model VOC air releases which emanated from 

.facility manufacturing .process units. 3M 

voluntarily agreed (outside of AOC) to reduce 

VOC emissions by approximately 90% by the 

summer of 1992. 3M also agreed to provide EPA 

with annual progress/status reports setting forth 

the progress it made during the reporting period, 

and what steps it intends to take during each 

following reporting, period in reducing air 

emissions. 

-: The 

government pursued.two separate Tri-State Mint 

enforcement actions that involved the dumping, 

by the Tri-State Mint, of hazardous chemicals in 

4 

an industrial park in Sioux Falls. This posed an 

acute threat to the inhabitants of Sioux Falls due 

to the potential impact on the city's drinking 

water supply. This case was also pursued under 

EPCRA. 

Tri-State Mint A Avenue - civil 

administrative order. This site involved the 

dumping of cyanide solutions with heavy metals 

onto soils behind a facility known as Tri-State 

Mint A Avenue, which is located in Sioux Falls, 

South Dakota. The contamination posed a threat 

to the Big Sioux aquifer, the drinking water 

source for the City of Sioux Falls. The PRPs 

completed clean-up of the site pursuant to a 

Unilateral Order issued on January 3, 1990. The 

PRPs will be billed in the 1st quarter of FY 91 for 

costs incurred pursuant to the Unilateral Order. 

Tri-State Mint, Fire - civil, administrative 

order. This site involved plating solutions, acids, 

and oxidizers from the Tri-State Mint A Avenue 

facility. The incident took place on September 2, 

1989. .The contamination'was contained within 

the facility. Clean-up at the .site was 

accomplished. by the PRP pursuant to an 

Administrative Order on Consent issued on 

November 7,1989. The PRPs will be billed in the 

1st quarter of FY 91 for costs incurred pursuant to 

the Administrative Order. 

Y. s. v. : TG Union 

Research decision notifies PRPSthat it is in their 

best interest to settle with EPA now rather than 

later withstand a time consuming and costly 

judicial action. Og October 9, 1990 the United 

States District Court for the District of Maine 

affirmed a magistrate's decision limiting 

discovery in a CERCLA cost recovery action. In 

the case, EPA was seeking response costs from two 

non-settling defendants after settlements were 

reached with other defendants. 

. The defendants, Union and Esposito, sought 

to discover information relating to .the 

reasonableness of certain response costs that the 

government received as the result of the prior 

consent decrees. On September 6, 1990, court 

denied their discovery request. The court stated 

that the nonsettling parties should have brought 

to the court's attention any concerns about the 

consent decree's fairness during the thirty day 

public comment period. In forgoing this 

opportunity, the defendants lost their chance to 

contest the fairness of the decree. 

-33 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

The court also ruled that if a settlor pays 

less than its fair share of liability, a nonsettlor 

is liable for the difference. Therefore, the 

non-settlor's liability is reduced by the amount of 

settlement and not by the equitable shares. The 

court reasoned that to hold otherwise would 

require the government to litigate with the 

non-settlors matters the government thought 

resolved in the settlement process. The holding is 

significant because it highlights the benefits of a 

PRP/EPA settlement and encourages recalcitrant 

PRPs to settle. 

On April 24, 

1990, EPA suspended U.S. Testing Inc., a major 

participant in EPA's Contract Laboratory 

Program with 22 branch laboratories nationwide, 

from receiving future federal contracts and EPA 

assistance awards. The complaint initiated by 

Region Xs Suspension and Debarment team 

alleged that US. Testing's laboratories in 

Richland, WA and Hoboken, NJ submitted 

unreliable and falsified data to EPA. Some of the 

practices alleged to have taken place included: 

Analyzing samples after the holding times were 

exceeded and then back dating -the tests; pH 

readings and PCB/pesticide standards and 

analyses were reported as having been analyzed 

using automated equipment which the laboratory 

did not have; improper sample movement and 

chain of custody records resulting in the inability 

to accurately trace .samples; and improper 

calibration of equipment resulting in inaccurate 

data being reported as valid. 

In the matter o f v- : On March 5, 

1990, an administrative subpoena under CERCLA 

was used for the first time to, determine if a PRPs 

remedial investigation and feasibility study 

(RI/FS) met the terms of an administrative 

consent order or should be discontinued. 

Activities by the. PRPs and their contractor 

indicated a pattern of failing to comply with 

substantive requirements of the 1987 order, failing 

to complete tasks on time, and endangering 

workers and EPA representatives. Although the 

PRPs objected, a deposition was taken on April 26, 

1990. Deposition information supported EPA's 

determination to discontinue the PRPs' authority 

to conduct the RI/FS, effective August 16,1990. 

Wells G & H Site. InSeptember 1990. 

Region I finalized a settlement for the Wells G & 

H Superfund site in Wobum, Massachusetts. The 

settlement requires four potentially responsible 

parties identified in connection with four 

contaminated properties within the Site to 

conduct the entire RD/RA at these properties for 

the first operable unit and pay a large portion of 

the government's past costs at the Site and 

reimburse all future oversight costs. A smaller set 

of the settling parties has also agreed to perform 

a remedial investigation/feasibility study for 

the next phase of the Site cleanup. The total 

value of this settlement is approximately 

$69,450,000. 

This complex settlement is noteworthy in 

several respects: it involved agreement by a 

small number of PRPs to a very large settlement, 

utilized a Non-binding Preliminary Allocation of 

Responsibility (NBAR) to allocate 

responsibilities among landowners, provides for 

initiation of the remedy as well as the N/FS at 

the time of lodging of the Decree, and was 

negotiated in a very short time frame given the 

complexities of the case. ,I., 

The settlement provides for the first phase 

of cleanup of one of the most publicly visible sites 

on the National Priorities List. This Site has 

experienced intense public scrutiny over the last 

decade because of the'. high incidence of 

childhood leukemia in the area surrounding 

Wells G & H which involved the public drinking 

water' supply for the City of Wobum, 

Massachusetts. 

York In 

September 1990, EPA forwarded to DOJ a signed 

consent decree for RD/RA at the York Oil site in 

New York. The decree is the Region's first mixed 

funding settlement under §122(b)(l) of CERCLA. 

It provides for the RD/RA work to be carrid out 

by the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa); 

for reimbursement by Alcoa of $795,000 in EPA 

past costs; and for payment by the U.S. Army and 

' Air Force of $1,875,000 towards the cost of future 

work and $636,846 for past costs. Alcoa has been 

pre-authorized to apply for reimbursement of 

48% of its RD/RA costs from EPA, among the 

highest pre-authorization levels yet approved 

by the Agency. EPA intends to seek recovery of its 

share of the costs from other PRPs. 

Superfund Information Request 

Enforcement Initiative 

.. 

Enforcement of information requests, to 

ensure prompt and accurate reporting of essential 

data, is important to the integrity of EPA's 

.. 4-34 
enforcement programs. Several cases were filed 

as a part of a national CERCLA 5104(e) 

information request initiative. 

Y. S. v. p: Ina 

case reported in FY 1989's Enforcement 

Accomplishments Report, a federal court in New 

Jersey assessed a penalty of $142,000 against 

Crown Roll Leaf Co., Inc. for failing to respond to 

an information request. The court awarded 

$63,000 for the CERCLA 5104(e) violation, and 

$79,000 for the RCRA 53007 violation. The.Third 

Circuit affirmed without a written .opinion on 

October 12,1989 and the U.S. Supreme Court on 

January 22, 1990 denied the petitioner's request 

for certiorari to overturn that judgment. The case 

is important because it upholds EPA ability to 

seek stiff penalties against responsible parties 

who fail to respond, or inadequately respond to 

information requests. .. 

Y. S. v:D-r X - Ray Chi The 

complaint yeks an injunction ordering Defendant 

Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Co., Inc., to supply the 

requested information, and civil penalties for the 

company's failure to respond to EPAs request. 

The defendant failed to comply with Region II's 

request for information at the Lone Pine Landfill 

and at the Denzer & Schafer site, both of which 

are on the NPL. 

': The complaint in this case 

seeks to compel compliance with Region 11's 

request for information and seeks penalties for 

noncompliance with the Request. Lesofski is 

believed to have handled, transported, and 

disposed of hazardous substances at the Lang 

property NPL site in New Jersey. 

Y. S. v. M- The 

complaint in this case seeks an injunction ordering 

Madison Disposal Service, Inc. to supply the 

requested information and civil penalties 'for the 

Defendant's failure to respond to a 5104(e) letter. 

Madison Disposal is a garbage hauler that is 

believed to have information regarding the 

transportation to and disposal of hazardous 

substances at the Lone Pine Landfill site in New 

Jersey. 

Access Litigation 

On February 5, 1990, the 

U.S. District Court for the Western District of 

New York issued an Order granting EPA accessto 

the Andor Chemical site in Bradford, New York, 

4 -35 

to allow the Agency to carry out a removal action. 

The Order also excluded the owner and operator 

of the site from the property until EPAs response 

actions are finished. The complaint was filed 

against the owner and operator of the chemical 

repackaging company, Roman Dreywood. Mr. 

Dreywood also 

p: 

used the site as a residence. 

On September 28, 

1990, EPA issued a unilateral order to the White 

Chemical Corp. of Newark, New Jersey, and its 

om, James White, requiring them to. provide 

access to the site, and cease work at-and.vacate 

the premises immediately. This was a chemical 

manufacturing facility with some 9000 drums on 

site, many containing hazardous and reactive 

materials, and many of which were leaking or in 

unacceptable condition. Anticipating noncompliance, EPA made a referral to DOJ for a 

civil action seeking a temporary restraining order 

(TRO). Before such an action could be filed, 

White, which was in bankruptcy, challenged 

EPA's order in the bankruptcy court. The 

bankruptcy judge issued an order, pending the 

district court's review, requiring White to comply 

with EPAs administrative order. .The district 

court, on October 23,1990, ratified the bankruptcy 

court's action and issued a preliminary injunction. 

White has since vacated the premises, and the 

removal action is underway. It is estimated to 

cost $18 million. 

Genazale Platine Site: On October 13, 1989, the 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court 

of New York granted EPA a preliminary injunction 

.in the Genazale Plating case directing the site 

owner to grant access to EPA and its 

representatives. The decision, issued after a 

hearing, is very favorable regarding EPAs access 

authority. 

Federal Facilities - Superfund/RCRA 

. .. 

%_ 

Site US. Dep&mmi of Defense: On June 20. 

1990, EPA issued a Notice of Potential Liability 

to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and 

requested that the .Department of Defense (WD) 

assume responsibility for removal response 

actions at the Bucks War Surplus site. The 

Bucks War Surplus site is a privately-run 

military surplus operation located in Las Vegas, 

Nevada. EPA initiated a removal action at the 

request of state and county agencies. The site 

contained almost 4000 highly corroded containers 

of military reagents. Estimated cleanup costs 
FY 1990 E@orcement Accomplishments Report 

were'$l million. On September 26; '1990, EPA 

successfully negotiated an Administrative 

Consent Order with DLA: As part of the order, 

'- DLA transported and disposed of drums from the 

site. In October 1990, DLA reimbursed EPA..for 

' over $600,000 in response costs incurred at. the 

site. ' To date, Region IX has had ,I1 CERCLA 

removal actions involving hazardous substances 

that originated as militarysurplus items sold at 

' Defense Department auctions; ' Ove'r' the past 

three and a half years, Region IX has responded 

-to nine hazardous military surplus sites at a cost 

of over $1.6 million. .. 

A' B :A 

1nder 

the Underground Storage Tank requirements was 

issued to Dyess'.Air Force Base, Abilene, Texas. 

The' facility was discovenng failed (leaking) 

tanks,! but it. was not conducting. further 

investigations of the extent of contamination and 

. possible corrective actions. The contaminants 

consist primarily of used oils, fuels, solvents, and 

pesticides. Discussions are underway to'attempt 

to obtain a Federal Facility Compliance 

Agreement. 

_I 

. .. I. . .. 

On September 20. 1990; the Department of the 

Army and EPA completed negotiations on a 

Federal Facility Compliance Agreement for 

Removal Actions, Remedial Investigation/ 

Feasibility Studies' (RI/FS),. Remedial Action 

I selection and Remedial'Design/Remedial 'Actions 

for .all releases at the 'lowa Army Ammunition 

Site, near Middleton, IA. ~ ,The 19,ooO acre site ,has 

soil. and.groundwater contaminated with .RDX, 

TNB, DNT, and TNT, among other hazardous 

substances. The propctcosts are to be fully funded 

by the Department of the Army, but.wil1 not be 

known until completion of the RI/FS. 

In the matter of NASA - White Sa nds Test 

This facility, located near .Las Cruces, 

,New Mexico, had releases of .hazardous wastes. 

A corrective action order under RCRA was 

successfully negotiated and issued to,this facility 

., on December 12,1989,.and was the first such order 

in the nation issued to NASA. The action will 

require the .facility to investigate the extent of 

,contamination at .the facility, with special 

, emphasis on identifying the preferred pathways 

I .of migration and extent of groundwater 

contamination.,within the fractured bed rock 

beneath, acting as .the uppermost saturated zone 

in the vicinity of the facility: Upon completion 

3. . .. .. ,, .. .. 

. 

of the RCRA Facility Investigation and 

Corrective Measures Studies, the appropriate 

corrective measures will be implemented. 

er of Air F- A 

Complaint'.and Notice of Non-Compliance under 

the Underground Storage Tank requirements was 

issued to Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma. In the process-of a joint. inspection 

with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, it 

was learned .that. when the .Base discovered a 

failed iank through a tank tightness test, Tinker 

failed to .conduct further investigations to 

.determine the extent of the. contamination. and 

possible corrective actions. Discussions. are 

' underivay-to attempt to obtain a Federal Facility 

.. 

Compliance Agreement.' ... '~r: .. 

In the matter of the U.S. Coast Guard. Kodiak: 

EPA negotiated a comprehensive I §3008(h) 

corrective action order with this facility. This is 

the first such order signed by..the Coast Guard in 

the nation and it has been used as a model by the 

Office of Federal Activities .for other Coast 

Guard facilities across the United States. 

Contamination ,problems at. this 'large base 

involve numerous locations where hazardous 

waste constituents have been released from, past 

waste handling practices. These releases 

threaten nearby salmon streams. . . 

Letterkennev Armv DeDot: Region 1111s Federal 

Facility Superfund Program successfully assessed 

a $10,000 penalty against Letterkenney Army 

depot for violations-of the ,terms of their. 

Superfund Interagency Agreement.. This fine for 

failure to submit certain primary documents under 

the agreement is the first penalty ever assessed 

against another federal agency by EPA. . -. .. 

, - On September 28, 

1990, four Marine Corps bases 'in 'Southern 

California~ signed Federal Facility Compliance 

Agreements (FFCAs) with EPA Region IX. The 

four facilities are. the Marine Corps .Logistics 

Base, Yermo and.Nebo Annexes, located in 'S+n 

Bernardino County, .and the Tustin and El Tom 

Marine: Corps Air -Stations located ,in Orange 

Counv. The actions were taken to remedy 

violations of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) that resulted from the 

facilities' long-standing failure to properly treat, 

store and dispose of their hazardous wastes. .The 

agreements resolved Notices of Noncompliance 

(NONS) issued during the spring and summer of 

1990 which listed multiple violations of RCRA 

4-36 
p.' 

.- n'**l ~ FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report [Wj 

.< -n" 

noted during the 1990 inspections. Many were 

repeat violations that had been cited during 

inspections in 1988 and 1989. 

In accordance with the compliance 

schedules established under the (agreements, the 

facilities will correct all outstanding violations 

of RCRA, conduct inventories td identify all the 

hazardous wastes they generatd, and develop a 

waste minimization plan to ldetermine the 

procedures needed to reduce the volume and 

toxicity of those wastes. Since these facilities 

had a history of noncompliance'with the RCRA 

hazardous waste regulations, Region 9 was 

pleased to have the full cooperation of the 

Marine Corps in negotiating these FFCAs. When 

fully implemented, they will contribute 

significantly to the protection of the health and 

environment of all who live and work on and in 

the vicinity of the four bases. 

-: On January 29,1990, the U.S. 

Navy, the Washington State Department of 

Ecology, and the EPA entered into a CERCLA 5120 

Agreement to perform comprehensive studies and 

remedial actions to address public health and 

environmental threats from the base, in 

accordance with the procedures speeified in the 

National Contingency Plan. This is the first such 

Agreement with the Department of Defense in 

this region to include hazardous sites not listed on 

the National Priorities List and is the first such 

Agreement with the U.S. Navy in Region X. In 

keeping with EPA's "bias for action," the 

Agreement calls for completing 10 Remedial 

Investigations and Feasibility Studies within 48 

months after the January 29th effective date of 

the Agreement. 

Reeion IX Avreements: In FY 1990, Region IX 

negotiated an unprecedented 12 Federal Facility 

Agreements under CERCLA with various DOD 

installations listed on the National' Priorities 

List. Agreements were signed with Riverbank 

Army Ammunition Depot, March.Air Force Base, 

Edwards Air Force Base, Fort Ord (Army), George 

Air Force Base,'Travis Air Force Base, Treasure 

Island Naval Station (Hunters Point Annex), 

Camp Pendlcton Marine Corps Base, El Tom 

Marine Corps Air Station, Luke Air Force Base, 

Williams Air Force Base, and Barstow Marine 

Corps Base. These agreements extend the reach 

of EPA oversight, particularly in the area of 

removal response, and include as signatories the 

California Department of Health Services and 

Regional Water Quality Control Boirds for 

California installations and the Arizona 

Department, of Environmental Quality and the 

Arizona Department of Water Resources for 

Arizona installations. 

7 

US. DepxbnmI of the 

In April 1990, the Department 

of the Army, the State of Nebraska, and EPA 

completed negotiation of a CERCLA 5 120 

Federal Facility Compliance. Agreement for the 

Comhusker Army &nmunition ,Plant (CAAP). 

CAAP was constructed in 1942, and was used for 

the production of conventional 'munitions and 

ammonium nitrate fertilizer. The facility has 

been in inactive status since 1973 and currently no 

explosives are produced or stored at CAAP. In 

1987 and 1988, approximately 40,000 tons of 

explosives-contaminated soils from site surface 

impoundments were incinerated on-site, pursuant 

to an earlier Federal Facility Compliance 

Agreement. Groundwater contamination 

originating on-site adversely affected residential 

drinking water supply wells in Grand Island, 

Nebraska. CAAP .was listed on the National 

Priorities List in 1987. The Federal Facility 

Compliance Agreement requires the Army to 

conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility 

study, including possible identificati.on of 

operable units, pertaining to soil, surface water 

and ground water contamination, and to conduct 

the remedial actiods) selected for the site. The 

project costs are currently estimated at $14.8 

million. 

er of U.S. Department of the Annu, 

Hsk! c- . OnAugust7, 

1990, the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, the Department of the Army, and EPA 

completed negotiation of the Federal Facility 

Compliance Agreement for Removal Actions, 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies, 

Remedial Action selection and Remedial 

DesigdRemedial Actions for ail releases at^ the 

Weldon Springs Ordnance Works Site, St. Charles 

County, MO. The 17,000 acre site has soil and 

groundwater contaminated with TNT, DNT and 

lead, among other hazardous substances. The 

project costs, currently estimated at $26.5 million, 

are to be fully funded by Department of the Army 

In the matter of U.S. Deoartment of Enere- 

-: InJune 

1990, the Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA 

completed negotiation of a CERCLA 5120 Federal 

Facility Compliance Agreement for various sites, 

.. 

4-37 
FY 1990 Eqorcemenl Accomplishmetus Report 

which are collectively referred to as the St. Louis 

Airport Sites. These sites are generally located 

near Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, in 

St. Louis, MO. The sites are contaminated with 

wastes related to uranium ore processing 

activities conducted for the Manhattan Engineer 

District, and subsequently the Atomic Energy 

Commission. The Federal Facility Compliance 

Agreement requires DOE to conduct a Remedial 

Investigation and feasibility study for these sites 

and to conduct the 'selected remedial action(s). 

The estimated project costs are $800 million. 

In August 1990, EPA and DOE 

entered into a two-party Federal Facility 

Agreement under CERCLA 5 120 for DOES Mound 

Plant in Miamisburg, OH. The costs of cleaning 

up the Mound site may reach $800 million. 

Mound produced detonators for the nuclear 

weapons program. Environmental hazards 

discovered at the site include a leaking landfill 

'. and the migration of plutonium wastes off-site. 

The terms of the agreement specify that 

DOE will conduct an RI/FS and will implement 

the RD/RA.following the selection of a remedy. 

As in other Federal facility cases, EPA 

successfully concluded a Superfund agreement at 

Mound well before the statutory deadline of 180 

days after the completion of an RI/FS. 

In the matter of U.S. DeDartment . o f Enerev. EeeB 

-: An 

interagency agreement with the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) for the cleanup of the Feed 

Materials Production Center (FMPC) in Fcrnald, 

OH, became effective June 29, 1990. DOES fiveyear cleanup plan projects $2 billion in 

expenditures through. 1996. DOE permanently 

stopped production at FMPC October 1, 1990, but 

750 production workers are being retrained as 

field technicians for the cleanup. The 1,250-acre 

FMPC is primarily a uranium metals processing 

facility that makes products for the U.S. nuclear 

weapons program. The Hanford, WA, plant and 

Fernald will be models for the cleanup of 17 other 

DOE nuclear installations and other government 

and privately owned nuclear activity sites. 

. 

The agreement requires M3E to conduct four 

removal actions more quickly address critical 

areas before a final comprehensive cleanup is 

performed. EPA will oversee removal actions 

that DOE must perform, specifically: removing 

contaminated ground water from under FMPC 

4-38 

buildings; stabilizing and reducing radon 

emissions tanks containing radioactive residues 

from the Manhattan Project; collecting 

contaminated storm-water runoff from the waste 

pit areas; and intercepting the contaminated 

ground-water plume in the off-site Paddy's Run 

area before it reaches the Great Miami River. 

To simplify this comprehensive cleanup, 

the site has been divided into five separate units. 

For each unit, DOE will complete the 

investigation and the study of contamination and 

implement the selected remedy according to the 

schedule set by the five separate decision 

documents. 

The agreement ensures that DOE will 

quickly clean up the facility in a way that is 

most protective of human health and the 

environment. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) Enforcement 

The RCRA enforcement program supports a 

comprehensive regulatory and corrective action 

program to ensure the safe treatment, storage, and 

disposal of hazard.ous wastes. In FY 1990 the 

program reflected the continued transition from 

enforcing interim status requirements to enforcing 

requirements in permits and closure plans, 

requiring and enforcing corrective action in 

permits and orders, and enforcing the hazardous 

waste export and land disposal restriction 

regulations. In particular, the RCRA enforcement 

program launched a major initiative to enforce 

the land disposal restrictions (LDR) provisions 

under RCRA. The LDR initiative resulted in 

eight judicial cases filed by EPA and the 

p: 

Department of Justice. 

In a decision 

.upholding EPAs jurisdiction under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, a federal 

appeals court held July 10,1990, that EPA did not 

exceed its statutory authority in regulating 

ceitain metal smelting residues as "solid wastes" 

under RCRA even where such residues "may at 

some time in the future be reclaimed via return 

to the original process generating those residues. 

.. 

The.decision, by the US. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit, clearly supports EPA's 

position that recyclable materials may be 

"discarded" and thus within RCRA's jurisdiction. 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

The Court explicitly stated that "potential 

reuse" of a material does not preclude Subtitle C 

regulation as a "solid waste." 

The decision extends the D.C. Circuit's June 

26 decision in API v. EPA, which also upheld 

EPAS authority to regulate recyclable material 

under RCRA, signaling an important clarification 

in the court's approach to recycling issues. 

of AVCO- Inone 

of the first export cases under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, Region I filed an 

administrative complaint'Apri1 4, 1990, against 

AVCO Corp. Textron Lycoming. The complaint, 

involving one of the larger administrative 

penalties sought under RCRA, alleged a number 

of violations of the RCRA export rules. EPA seeks 

a penalty of $254,000. The export regulations 

require prior consent from the receiving country 

before hazardous wastes are exported. EPA 

claims that AVCO failed to get consent for 

exports that exceeded quantities specified in an 

original consent, thereby exporting several 

hundred shipments without consent. 

Additionally, EPA alleges that several other 

> 

export and manifest requirements were violated. 

rv 

-: A consent decree was 

entered in the U.S. District Court for the Western 

District of Louisiana, on August 16,1990 involving 

these Browning-Ferris subsidiaries which 

operate a facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana 

that handles hazardous wastes. A number of 

violations and environmental problems were 

discovered as a result of .a joint 

EPA/NEIC/LaDEQ inspection in 1987. In 

addition to paying $1.55 million in civil 

penalties for the violations, the settlement 

included an environmental audit of the facility's 

operating procedures and interim measures to 

address environmental releases at the facility. 

The civil penalties will be equally divided with 

the State of Louisiana. Also included was 

withdrawal of the RCRA permit appeal, subject 

to agreed modifications.. 

-: V In September 

1990, Region I1 concluded a settlement with 

Browning Ferris Industries (BFU providing for 

payment of $600,000 in penalties and treble 

damages, plus approximately $60,000 in past 

costs, for its violation of an administrative ordcr 

requiring it to install stainless steel cased 

monitoring wells at the South Brunswick Landfill 

site in New Jersey. BF1 had challenged the order 

in District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit, claiming that EPA's'choice 

of stainless steel (as opposed to PVC plastic) was 

arbitrary and capricious, and that EPA was 

precluded from issuing the order at all since the 

remedial work at the site was carried out 

pursuant fo an earlier RCRA 57003 consent order. 

BFI lost that challenge, and will comply with 

EPA'S CERCLA monitoring order in addition to 

paying penalties, treble damages and past costs. 

This will be one of the first treble damage 

settlements. 

r of Ca: This 

action addresses a severe violation of land 

disposal ban and significant deviation from the 

regulations. Cannon Craft Company in Sulphur 

Springs, Texas, manufactures finished wooden 

louver blinds. An administrative civil complaint 

was filed on September 28, 1990, under RCRA 

with a proposed penalty of $818,700, demanding 

compliance with regulations. Allegations 

included disposal and storage of hazardous waste 

without a permit, land disposal of restricted 

hazardous waste, failure to make a hazardous 

waste determination, no contingency plan, no 

personnel training, and poor container 

management. EPA alleges that the facility was 

generating hazardous wastes, including spent 

solvents, and was disposing of it by pouring it on 

the ground. 

Me matte r of Cardell Cab inets. Inc.: Cardell 

Cabinets in San Antonio, Texas, manufactures 

wooden cabinets. An administrative civil 

complaint was issued on September 28,1990, under 

RCRA with a proposed penalty of $774,065, 

demanding compliance with regulations. 

Allegations included violations of requirements 

for generators of hazardous waste (including 

spent solvents), storage of hazardous wastes 

without a permit, and disposal of hazardous 

wastes by allowing open drainage from the 

facility onto the ground in violation of the land 

disposal restrictions. 

ys. v. c -: A 

consent decree lodged in September, 1990 and 

approved by the Co% in November, 1990, 

provides that Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 

(CWM) must pay a $750,000 penalty for RCRA 

violations at its Vickery.. OH, facility. ,EPA sired 

CWM in 1988 for failure to .either'apply'for a 

permit or submit a closure plan for five surface 

4-39 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

impoundments by November 8,1985, the statutory 

loss of interim status (LOIS) deadline. EPAs 

lawsuit also sought stipulated penalties for two 

failures.by CWM to submit timely and adequate 

ground water monitoring reports under a prior 

agreement. In addition ,to the penalty, the 

settlement dismisses CWMs counterclaim and 

establishes deadlines for submitting closure plans 

for the surface impoundments. EPA and CWM 

also agreed to a deadline by which CWM must 

close an enormous sludge pile. 

The United States obtained summary judgment on 

liability and favorable rulings in all other 

pending motions in this RCRA LOIS case, one of 

.the first such cases filed (in 1986). The 

Government named the corporation and the 

president/chief stockholder as defendants. 

Summary judgment was previously. granted 

against the president, who was involved in the 

facilitv's oDerations and a 90 Dercent 

Moreover, the consent decreeprovides for conduct 

of environmentally beneficial projects, .including 

a favorable injunctive settlement .requiring 

remedial work including a broad array of 

sampling and analysis activities ,at the entire 

facility. If these activities result in detection of 

certain levels of contamination, cleanup of soil 

and groundwater are required. Defendant's 

obligations to conduct investigations and, where 

necessary, perform remedial work, include areas 

of the site and hazardous constituents unrelated 

to the chromic acid spill. (1, 

-: Copperweld Steel 

Co..will pay a $110,000 RCRA civil penalty and 

perform a RCRA closure of its surface 

impoundmqnt, waste. pile, and landfills under a 

consent decree entered May 14, 1990, in Federal 

District court in Ohio. Copperweld's Warren, 

Ohio, plant manufactures steel and steel alloys 

through the electric arc furnace (EAF) process. 

The consent:decree reauires correction of .RCRA 

share6older.' The court found that.the company --violations in Copperweld's treatment; storage 

.: and disposal of EAF dust and other hazardous 

, wastes. ' The iovernment claims that these 

president was also liable as the "operator." 

The court reaffirmed EPAs authority to 

enforce RCRA in authorized states and ruled that 

earlier activities may be included in RCRA 

liability. Finally, the court ruled that CCCI had 

lost interim status by admittedly failing to 

certify compliance with groundwater monitoring 

and financial responsibility requirements. 

occurred in the Warren plant's container storage 

area, EAF baghouse, unpermitted waste pile, and 

land disposal facilities. Copperweld further is 

required to establish- financial assurance for 

post-closurecare. ' . .. 

In the matte r of CP Chew 1 : EPA issued an 

Administrative Order to CP Chemicals for the 

continued use of. its hazardous waste surface 

impoundments (Lagoons 1-3) for a limited time 

beyond .the statutory date for Loss of Interim 

Status. , The Administrative Order also cited 

numerous violations revealed during an EPA 

inspection. A Consent Agreement and'Final Order 

has been agreed to between EPA and CP 

Chemicals that .includes. $242,500. in penalties, 

which is the largest administrative settlement to 

date in Region IV. ',' 

. .~ ~ .. 

: In August, 

'. 1990, an action was filed against Clean Harbors 

of Cleveland, Inc. (formerly. Chem Clear.'Inc.), 

which owns and operates a. facility for the 

' treatment of industrial wastewater and sludge. 

The complaint filed in this matter cited 

violations of interim status standards applicable 

to hazardous waste treatment, storage and 

disposal facilities, and non-compliance. with a 

consent decree and final order issued against 

, Chem Clear on March 4, 1965 for violations of 

interim status. standards. The complaint also 

. . included a .claim for corrective action at .the 

,s .~ 

-: on 

December 20, 1990, the United States .District 

facility. ; Court for the Northern District of Florida entered 

a partial consent decree in the Escambia Treating 

1 . As a result of'this action, a consent decree Company case. This RCRA civil action initiated 

was entered into by the parties. The consent by Region" concerns an alleged scheme to 

decree required payment of a civil penalty of insulate the assets of a regional wood treating 

$Kl,ooO and corrective action regarding release of enterprise from its environmental liabilities, 

approximately 2, 500-3,000 gallons of chromic carried out by the controlling shareholder 

acid from a tank on the facility. The penalty through a .. corporate reorganization and 

agreed to in the consent decree is in addition to an leveraged buy-out using an employee stock 

.earlier .administrative penalty of $45,000. r ownership plan. . The complaint alleged 

440 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

violations at each of the four Escambia Treating 

facilities related to closure, post-closure care, 

groundwater monitoring and assessment, and loss 

of interim status,'as well as claim for corrective 

action and claims under the Florida Fraudulent 

Conveyances Statute. The defendants included 

Escambia Treating Company, Inc. and its parent 

and successor corporations, the individual. 

shareholder who initiated the scheme (Soule Jr.) 

and his parents. . ' 

* 

The consent decree settles. all claims 

against the corporate defendants, now under new 

management, and it requires them to undertake 

'corrective action .and .compliance with the 

regulatory. requirements. The Soule Srs. were 

recently dismissed without prejudice. EPA is 

pursuing its claims for penalties and other relief 

against Soule'Jr. The authorized RCRA programs 

of three non-party states will participate in the 

review and approval of plans and permit 

applications submitted under the decree: As part 

of the consent decree negotiations, EPA entered 

into Memoranda of Understanding with the 

.states of Florida, Georgia and Mississippi, 

detailing the roles of the states and EPA in 

review of documents, dispute resolution and 

enforcement. 

In a related action filed in 1987, the present 

ESOP trustees sued Soule Jr.; alleging that he had 

fraudulently overvalued the stock sold to the 

ESOP by failing to factor into its price the 

environmental cleanup liabilities of the business. 

On September 7, 1990, after a four week trial, a 

jury found that Soule Jr. had 

committed fraud under the federal securities laws 

and state law and had breached his fiduciary 

duties as a trustee of the ESOP. The jury ordered 

Soule Jr. to pay $2.29 million in compensatory 

damages and $1OO,ooO in punitive damages. By 

year-end, the trial judge had not yet ruled on 

pending opposing motions to enter and to set aside 

the verdict. Under the EPA consent decree, any 

funds recovered by the companies from Soule Jr. 

will be placed in escrow accounts set aside for the 

RCRA cleanups. Following an investigation in 

which EPA cooperated, on September 21, 1990, 

the Department of Labor filed suit against Soule 

Jr. for violations of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act, based on his actions as a 

trustee of the ESOP in connection with the 

leveraged buy-out and corporate reorganization. 

It is alleged that Soule Jr. breached his fiduciary 

duties and defrauded the ESOP by failing to 

disclose RCRA liabilities in the buy-out and by 

, 

441 

acting to insulate himself from environmental 

liability at the expense of the ESOP. .. . ., 

OnOctober 

31, 1990, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Seventh Circuit affirmed in all 'respects the 

district court's order assessing $2.778 million in 

civil penalties, the highest RCRA civil judicial 

penalty ever assessed by a court. This case was 

originally filed as part of the Agency's loss of 

.interim status initiative to enforce the 

groundwater monitoring and financial 

responsibility provisions of RCRA. In affirming 

the district court, the Seventh Circuit also 

permanently' enjoined operation of the landfill 

and ordered .corrective action, rejected the 

company's "good faith" defense, and rejected its 

claim of .reliance on allegedly erroneous 

statements by the RCRA hotline. 

la the matter of General Electric Comoany: 

General Electric Company's West Burlington, 

Iowa, operations include painting and degreasing 

processes which generated halogenated and nonhalogenated spent solvents. In September 1990, 

EPA's Region VI1 office and GE entered an 

Administrative Order on Consent pursuant to 5 

3008(h) of RCRA requiring GE to conduct a RCRA 

Facility Investigation (RFI) and Corrective 

Measures Study (CMS). This Order. is 

particularly significant because it is one of the I 

first in the Nation to provide for third-party 

mediation pursuant to EPA "Final Guidance on 

Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques 

in Enforcement Actions" (August 14, 1987) to 

resolve additional work disputes. Virgin solvents 

were stored in 55-gallon drums and a 350-gallon 

above-ground tank; spent solvents were stored in 

55-gallon drums. Operations at the facility 

resulted in releases of hazardous wastes or 

hazardous waste constituents to the soil and 

groundwater at its former West.Burlington, Iowa 

switchboard and switch-gear manufacturing 

facility. Sampling and soil excavation was 

conducted during closure of the hazardous waste 

container storage area in 1986. Further soil and 

hydrogeologic investigations were conducted in 

late 1986 and in 1987. A phase Ill hydrogeologic 

investigation is currently in progress. 

ert&BComoanv: In July, 1990, Region I filed an 

administrative enforcement action against the 

Gilbert and Bennett Manufacturing Company of 

Georgetown, Connecticut. This administrative 

action includes one of the largest RCRA penalty 
FY 1990 EMorcement Accomplishments Repori 

assessments in the Region. The complaint seeks a 

penalty of $587,114 for the operation of 

hazardous waste surface impoundments between 

November 1985 and August 1987 without a permit 

or interim status, the operation of a hazardous 

waste container storage facility from October 

1989 until January 1990 without a permit or 

interim status; the failure to implement a 

groundwater monitoring program from November 

1981 until January 1989, the failure to determine 

the groundwater concentrations of all of. the 

required parameters for each quarter of required 

groundwater monitoring during 1989, and several 

additional base RCRA program violations. The 

Gilbert and Bennett Company manufactured 

-metal wire fence from November 1980 until July 

1989 when the company ceased all manufacturing 

operations and commenced a facility wide 

cleanup. During operation, Gilbert and Bennett 

generated several RCRA hazardous wastes, 

including waste acids, waste alkalis, solvent 

waste, lead skimming waste,' and metal 

hydroxide sludge. 

* 

On March 1, 1989, EPA and IBM entered into a 

Consent. Order pursuant to §3008(h) of RCRA. 

Under the terms of this Consent Order, IBM was 

required to complete an onsite and offsite 

investigation of the nature and extent of the 

contamination emanating from its facility and to 

conduct a study which evaluated various cleanup 

alternatives. IBM completed this investigation 

and submitted to EPA for approval a Corrective 

' Measure Study (CMS) which evaluated four 

Corrective Measure Alternatives (CMAs) for 

contaminant remediation. Based on the final EPA 

approved CMS, EPA prepared a RCRA Record of 

Decision (ROD), signed. by the Regional 

Administrator in July, 1990, that provides EPAs 

rationale'for the selection of the CMA. The 

selected CMA, addresses onsite and offsite 

groundwater contamination as well as onsite 

source remediation. This isthe first RCRA ROD 

written-in the country. 

In the matter of Walt D- : As part.of an 

administrative enforcement initiative aimed at a 

group of California generators who improperly 

.shipped hazardous wastes to facilities in 

Wyoming and Utah, Region VI11 initiated an 

administrative enforcement action. against the 

Walt Disney Company for improper disposal of 

spent solvents and other hazardous wastes. This 

action'resulted in a settlement that included a 

civil penalty of $550,000, plus an environmental 

audit of all domestic facilities of the corporation, 

and an environmental training program. The 

penalty obtained as a result of this action is eight 

times larger than any previous administrative 

penalty collected by Region VI11 under any 

statute. 

-: On December 10,1990, more 

than two years after the case went to trial, the 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

Alabama issued its decision in United States v. 

ILCO, et al. This action includes claims under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

the Clean Water Act' (CWA), and the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

against ILCO (a.k.a. Interstate Lead Company) a 

secondary lead smelter located in Leeds, 

Alabama. The court found .that ILCO had 

violated numerous provisions of RCRA. 

Significantly, the court found that the furnace 

blast slag generated by ILCO is EP toxic for lead, 

and therefore a hazardous waste under RCRA. 

The court also found that the sampling method 

employed by .lLCO to test the slag is not 

appropriate under the RCRA regulations. 

.. 

The court also found that ILCO had 

discharged pollutants in violation of its NPDES 

permit on at least 340 occasions, and that ILCO 

had discharged pollutants without a permit on at 

least 194 occasions. Accordingly, the court found 

ILCO, as well as its president Diego Maffei, 

liable for civil penalties and injunctive relief. 

However, the court has not yet ruled on .the 

penalties. The court also found ILCO and Maffei 

liable under CERCLA for response costs incurred 

by the United States in responding to an ILCO 

disposal site. ,, 

A federal court in 

M-ichigan ordered an electroplater to pay 

$250,000 in civil penalties and ' implement a 

closure plan under RCRA for the firm's seepage 

lagoons. The June 22 decision by the U.S. District 

Court for the Western District of Michigan 

involved Lacks Industries, lnc., an electroplater 

that plated. plastic automobile parts at its 

Saranac, Michigan, facility. 

Judge Gibson found that Lacks disposed of 

metal hydroxides rinse water in unlined seepage 

lagoons throughout the 1970s and 'continuing 

through February 1982. Lacks failed to ,notify 

EPA as a hazardous waste handler in 1980 or 

submit a Part A permit application for its 

4-42 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

facility under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act. The firm never received interim 

status, failed to comply with the ground water 

monitoring and financial responsibility 

requirements of RCRA, and did not submit a Part 

B application. Finally, Lacks’ discharges to the 

seepage lagoon, violated the terms of its NPDES 

permit, which prohibited discharge of rinse 

water into ground water after February 1981. 

In July, 1990, the 

complaint was filed in this RCRA section 3008(a) 

action. . This action concerns the LaClede Steel 

facility in Alton, Illinois which generates KO61 

electric arc furnace (baghouse) dust from its steel 

production. Although this case is the third civil 

judicial case seeking to enforce the land disposal 

restrictions requirements, it is the first case to 

involve primarily LDR violations. The alleged 

LDR violations include failure ‘to perform 

adequate waste analysis, failure to keep proper 

records, and unlawful land disposal. 

- 

y.s. v. . In June, 1990, 

the United States filed a multimedia civil 

judicial action against Marine Shale Processors, 

Inc. (MSP) of St. Mary’s Parish, Louisiana 

pursuant to RCRA and the Clean Water Act. In 

this action, the United States alleges that MSP 

is a ”sham recycler” that has been improperly 

operating without a RCRA permit. In addition, 

the United States alleges that MSP violated the 

Land Disposal Restrictions requirements by 

placing waste that exceeded treatment standards 

on the ground at its facility in Louisiana. MSP, 

the largest burner of hazardous waste in the 

county, claims not to operate an incinerator but to 

run an exempt recycling operation that burns 

hazardous waste in order to recover the fuel 

value in the waste and produce a product that it 

claims to market as “aggregate” or fill material. 

US. v. Ma- : A consent decree 

requiring Master Metals, Inc. to close specified 

treatment, storage, and disposal units was 

entered in January 1990. EPA alleged that Master 

Metals had lost its interim status (temporary 

authority) to legally operate all units except for 

certain container storage areas that were not 

subject to loss-of-interim-status provisions. The 

settlement also required Master Metals (which 

emerged from bankruptcy in 1988) to pay a 

$20,000 civil penalty, comply with RCRA 

operating and management requirements, prepare 

closure plans for the entire facility, maintain 

financial assurance and obtain financial liability 

coverage. The decree also required Master Metals 

to stop using all operating hazardous waste units, 

to remove all waste from the units and to close 

them if proper financial liability coverage was 

not obtained within 180 days. 

On July 9, 1990, Master Metals filed a 

motion requesting an additional six months to 

comply, claiming it was impossible to obtain 

coverage. On August 29,1990, EPA petitioned the 

court to enforce the decree and hold Master 

Metals in contempt. The Government supported 

its motion with. affidavits about the 

availability of liability coverage and 

documentation of continuing violations of the 

decree. Master Metals opposed the Government’s 

motion on October 5,1990. Additional pleadings 

were filed by both parties. Following a status 

conference on February 4,1991, the Court agreed to 

issue an order requiring the defendant to obtain 

the required liability coverage or close. 

Stipulated penalties. for the consent decree 

violations are still being evaluated. 

In the miUte1 of 

International.: On June 7,1990, EPA obtained 

an administrative warrant for entry into the 

Penberthy Electromelt International, Inc. facility 

in Seattle, Washington, for the ,purpose of 

determining the need for corrective action at the 

facility. The owner/operator had submitted a 

RCRA Part B permit application for the storage 

and treatment of hazardous waste. The 

treatment involved thermal treatment units that 

use electric current to raise temperatures to the 

desired level, with the purported effect of 

destroying hazardous wastes. A warrant was 

required because of the owner’s refusal to allow 

access to the building housing the thermal 

treatment units during routine inspection. 

: On October 18, 

-inst Sanders Lead 

Company, a secondary lead smelter located in 

Troy, Alabama. The Complaint seeks civil 

penalties and injunctive relief for numerous 

violations of RCRA, as well as corrective action. 

The alleged violations include illegal operation 

of at least seven land disposal units for up to two 

years after the facility had lost interim status to 

operate those units. Alleged violations also 

include discharge of acidic waste into a surface 

impoundment in violation of the RCRA land 

disposal restrictions, and other miscellaneous 

regulatory violations. The action also seeks 

corrective action to address the release of lead 

4 -43 
FY 1990 Etforcemnt Accomplrshments Report 

and other 'heavy metals into the environment 

from the facility. The case is currently in 

discovery, and;is set for trial on September 3, 

1991.. .. I.. , .. . ' .,.. 

In July, 1990, a civil 

judicial- action was ' filed, against Solvents 

Recovery Service of New England, Inc. (SRSNE) 

'for..,.violations of SRSNE's. hazardous waste 

permits, for violations of RCRAs Land Disposal 

a Restrictions, and for cost recovery for EPA-funded 

cleanup activities being performed under 

CERCLA authority. I At the same time, the 

,United States fi1ed.a motion to enforce a consent 

decree entered between SRSNE and the United 

'States inL1983..:.SRSNE is -a.RCRA-permitted 

hazardous waste treatmenti and storage facility 

- located in Sduthington, Connecticut. Since 1955, it 

. has< accepted waste' solvents from numerous 

generators;at ,first. distilling them and reselling 

them to.generators, later blending them into a 

hazardous waste fuel for resale. The Complaint 

seeks civil penalties for the RCRA violations; $m,W in past response costs under CERCLA; 

the recovery of all future Costs to be incurred in 

cleaning up, the site; .the revocation of SRSNEs 

authority to 'operate ' a hazardous .waste 

management facility; and ,the closure of the 

. facility in accordance with an approved. closure 

plan. The motion to enforce the consent decree 

seeks penalties for.violations of the decree and 

the rebuilding of a groundwater'recovery system 

which SRSNE was required to build and operate. 

Discovery is presently underway. 

u. s. .v. . : ,In 

September, 1990, a civil .judicial suit was filed 

against United .Technologies Corporation (UTC), 

a major government,.-'contractor which 

manufactures aircraft engines and parts. The suit 

alleges over one hundred 'violations of RCRA at 

six different UTC facilities in Connecticut. The 

government is seeking injunctive relief and a did 

penalty. Despite numerous EPA administrative 

actions in recent years, the government alleges 

the company has failed'to comply with RCRAs 

requirements. for storage and handling' of 

hazardous wastes. The case is notable in that it 

combines RCRA .violations at various facilities 

into a single lawsuit. The environmental benefit 

to be achieved by .proceeding in this manner is 

that, rather than simply curing isolated 

violations at a particular plant, a major 

corporation.is being forced: to improve its overall 

.environmental management practices across a 

wider spectrum of its facilities. As part of any 

settlement, .the government will .be seeking .a 

multi-facility, multi-media ,audit. The audit 

would, seek to detect. .any, additional 

environmental compliance, problems and suggest 

improvements in operatjng procedures to prevent 

.. future compliance ,problems;., .. ... I..."' ' I../ .. 

In the Fond 

largest penalty award of its kind, a federal 

district court in New Jersey April 30 ordered !he 

,Vineland ,Chemical Co. and its pwners to pay 

$1,223,000. in civil penalties for violating federal 

hazardous waste management.laws. .Criticizing 

the bad, faith of the defendants, Judge John F. 

Gerry of the US. Dispict Court for the District of 

: New Jersey 0rdered:penalties pf.$1,000 per day 

for each of the,1,233 days of violations of, the Loss 

of Interim Status .provis.ions .of the Resqurce 

Conservation and Recovery Act. . . . j. 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) Enforcement 

., . ,. , ::; ,-, ._ . 

. .I .. I 

. .I.. . .~. 

TSCA enforcement.responds to violations of 

regulations for :both new (pie-manufacturing 

notification) and existing chemicals.' In FY 1990, 

asbestos enforcement emphasized. compliance 

:with the recently enacted Asbestos Hazardous 

and Emereencv ResDOnse Act -(AHERA): PCB 

enforcement centered upon violations 'inyolving 

permitted disposal sites or intermediate 

hFndlers and brokers. Significant atteition also 

was devoted to'ensuring the proper cleanup of 

PCB-contaminated natural gas pipelines (e.g., 

the landmark Texas Eastern case, see below). 

U,S.:' A final decision of the 

Administrator affi,med convincinkly the Initial 

Decision of the' Administrative Law .Judge that 

Boliden had a duty to assure that material and 

oil containing PCBs did not enter the 

environment. Significant defenses raised by 

Boliden were also rejected, ,including the 

contention that government inspectors illegally 

searched. the perimeter of the Boliden property 

in violation of ,the 29th Amendment to-the 

Constitution "right to. privacy" and that EPA 

needed to"collect "statistically representative" 

samples in order to prove violations of the PCB 

storage and disposal violations. The' final 

decisioy holds that EPA evid,ence of 

contamination in a number of scrap metal piles 

was suffiFient evidence to prove that illegal PCB 

aisposal had taken place.' A $32,000 fine' was 

. .. . ,. 

,. 

444 
s.** 

FY 1990 Etforcemenr Accomplishments Report (@] j, 

imposed. priority of the PCB enforcem'ent program and 

maximum penalties will be sought. 

: Region 11 has 

To obtain full site decontamination, a 

complaint was filed in Federal District Court. 

The Region aggressively pursued settlement of continued its active enforcement of TSCA Import 

.the judicial action against Boliden Metech during and PMN requirements: In September the Region 

N 1990, and by the end of the fiscal year reached issued an administrative complaint to DSM 

a settlement in principle. This case is significant Resins, Inc., citing violations of §5 and 513, and 

because of its technical complexities concerning proposing a penalty of $2.3 million. DSM is a 

shredder. fluff and analytical methodologies. subsidiary of a large Dutch-based chemical 

Successful settlement of this complex case will conglomerate. After Region I1 inspected the 

result in a comprehensive environmental cleanup firm's import operations, the company "selfof PCB contamination at Boliden Metechs Rhode confessed" to many violations including failure to 

Island site. The terms of the settlement raise a 'file' pre-manufacturing notifications priori to 

complicated international export issue which .importation and failure to submit. notices of 

required coordination with foreign contacts and commencement of import immediately after 

the Agency's International Affairs Office. import. The complaint also cites instances..of 

failure to certify or improper certifications to the 

In the Matter o f Ce lx ote Corp, : In a strong Customs Service at the times of importation. 

precedent for increasing penalties for prior 

knowledge of regulatory requirements and bad In the matter o f Gene ral Electric: Regions Ill, V, 

attitude, Administrative Law Judge Yost April 12 VI, and X issued five administrative complaints 

fined Celotex COT. $31,900 for PCB violations at against General .Electric for violating the 

their Peoria,. Illinois, facility. Region V disposal requirements for PC.Bs under TSCA. EPA 

successfully presented a prima facia case proposed to assess a total civil penalty of 

concerning the failure of Cclotex to maintain $4,057,275 for operating a solvent distillation 

annual inventory records, visual inspections of system without a permit in the above regions. 

transformers for leaks and improper marking and These cases are significant because they involve 

storage of PCBs. A total penalty of $45,550 was violations of the PCB disposal and permit 

proposed. requirements of the regulations. Settlement 

discussions and motions are'pending. Violations 

While Judge Yost rejected EPAs attempt to of these requirements by commercial storage or 

-use -a prior PCB settlement as evidence of 'a disposal operators are the highest priority of the 

"history of prior violations: to increase 'the PCB enforcement program and maximum 

penalty by 50 percent, he did agree with Region' penalties will be sought. 

V to raise the fine by 10 percent because Celotex 

had knowledge of the PCB regulations, failed to kthe Matter of Ge nil e a Wstr ial Insu 

provide certain documents the inspector requested, Inc.: In July 1990, EPA and General 

and failed to correct certain violations identified Industrial Insulation, Inc. (GII), an asbestos 

by the inspector. contractor in Benicia, California agreed on an 

$8500'settlement of an enforcement action that 

and Chemical Waste Management (CWM) was brought against GI1 under the Toxic 

Chemical Services, Inc. signed a consent ' Substances Control Act's asbestos-in-schools rule, 

agreement and consent order calling for payment the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 

of a $3.75 million civil penalty for violating the (AHERA). The complaint charged GI1 with 

PCB disposal requirements of TSCA. The $3.75 failure to properly collect sufficient air clearance 

Million penalty is the largest administrative samples after an asbestos removal project at a 

penalty ever imposed on a single facility in EPA's sch'ool district. Under AHERA, asbestos 

history. The complaint was based on a review of contractors are required to follow prescribed 

CWM's operating records, the company's own abatement procedures designed to protect the 

internal investigation, and inspections by NEIC environment and the health and well-being of 

and Region V. This case is significant because it school occupants and abatement workers. 

involves violations of the PCB disposal and 

permit requirements of the regulations. : This 

Violations of these requirements by commercial administrative enforcement action was brought 

storage or disposal operators are the highest pursuant to. the Toxic Substances Control Act 

' 

. .. 

., ,. 

Region V 

4-45 ,/ 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 am. In March of 1989, 

EPA filed an administrative complaint against 

the P. D. George Company. The Complaint stated 

that EPA had reason to believe that PDG 

violated TSCA by: manufacturing nine chemical 

substances prior to submitting a premanufacture 

notification (PMN) to EPA, and by failing to 

properly report a Notice of Commencement 

(NOC) for a chemical substance in accordance 

with the applicable regulations. 

TSCA 55 and, regulations promulgated 

thereunder require a person intending to 

manufacture a new chemical substance for 

commercial purposes to submit to EPA a 

premanufacture notice (PMN) at least 90 days 

prior to the first such manufacture. The failure to 

comply with these requirements is a violation of 

TSCA 515(1)(8). 

The Respondent has filed the appropriate 

TSCA 55 notices (premanufacture notices (PMNs), 

polymer exemption applications, etc.) for all 9 

substances. All chemicals completed the TSCA 

review without imposition of a §5(e) or 5(f) order. 

Further, the Respondent has corrected all of the 

notices of commencement for these 9 substances. 

The March 16, 1989, administrative complaint 

proposed a gravity based penalty of $1,909,000 

for these violations. During the course of 

negotiations PDG was able to demonstrate to 

EPAs satisfaction that 8 of the 9 chemicals were 

eligible for application of the polymer exemption 

rule. Therefore, the proposed gravity-based 

penalty was revised to equal $1,261,000. 

On October 2, 1990 the Chief Judicial 

Officer ratified a Consent Agreement that 

requires P.D. George to: pay a $527,850 penalty; 

recover and incinerate buried drums of paint 

wastes and resins; and conduct a TSCA 5 and 8 

Audit to identify and correct reporting violations 

under these statutory provisions. P.D. George 

intends to spend more than $2OO,OOO to recover 

and incinerate the buried drums of paint wastes 

and resins, and an additional $21O,OOO to conduct 

the TSCA 55 and 58 Audit. Stipulated penalties 

will accrue for those violations identified, 

reported, and corrected under the Audit. 

-: This 

administrative complaint was filed for over $1 

million. The company failed to properly conduct 

inspections and write asbestos management plans 

for Local Education Agencies. Since HallKimbrell is one of the largest companies in this 

business, this action should send a clear message 

to other contractors that EPA is serious about 

enforcing the AHERA. Hall-Kimbrell has 

offered the Region a proposed settlement which 

would be on a global basis for all ten regions. 

Region ,VI11 is currently working -with 

headquarters and the other nine regions to reach 

an agreement for a national settlement. 

-: The 

first TSCA administrative complaint has been 

filed involving a known fatality.from a chemical 

release subject to the substantial risk reporting 

provision of the statute.. An administrative 

complaint was filed seeking a penalty of $175,000 

against Halocarbon Pro ducts Corporation of 

Hackensack, NJ. 

The. complaint charges Halocarbon with 

violating the substantial risk reporting provision 

of 58(e) of TSCA. Halocarbon failed to submit 

information to EPA regarding the human health 

effects of a .chemical mixture that killed one 

employee and seriously injured another as the 

result of an accidental release of the substance in 

February 1989: 

. . EPA read about the death and inspected 

the company in March 1989 and discovered that 

Halocarbon had never submitted the required 

substantial risk information on the 

chemical mixture to the Agency. EPA is seeking 

the statutory maximum of $25,000 per day for 

each business day that Halocarbon failed to file 

the @(e) report. 

UQQ : This administrative 

enforcement action was brought pursuant to the 

Toxic Substances Control .Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 

2601 a s. .On or about October-15, 1981, 

Monsanto obtained a copy of a draft report of a 

two-year chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity 

study of Santogard PVI in the rat (hereinafter 

referred to as the "study"). The information 

contained in the draft study indicated a 

doserelated increase in the number of female 

rats with benign liver tumors. On July 1, 1986, 

Monsanto submitted the final report of the study 

to EPA as a "For Your Information" submission. 

On August 4,1989, the Office of Compliance 

Monitoring filed a $ 253,200 complaint against 

the Monsanto Company alleging that Monsanto 

had failed to report the study in a timely 

manner. EPA alleged that the study was TSCA 

-8(e) toxicological data and the Respondent was 

446 
FY 1990 Enforcemen1 Accomplishmenis Report 

1 required to have submitted the study within 15 

working days of its receipt. On January 3, 1990 

the Chief Judicial Officer approved a Consent 

Agreement in which Monsanto was required to 

pay $196,230 and conduct an extensive TSCA 

#(e) audit. Studies submitted under the audit 

were subject to stipulated penalties. In August of 

1990, Monsanto completed its TSCA 8(e) audit 

and paid an additional $648,000 in stipulated 

penalties. 

and PPG Industries.: EPA issued a civil 

administrative Complaint charging Nippon 

Paint (America) Corporation and PPG Industries 

with import and/or domestic manufacture of 

seventeen chemicals not on the TSCA inventory of 

existing chemical substances. On July 24, 1990, 

the Chief Judicial Officer approved a Consent 

Agreement and Consent Order settling the TSCA 

55 and 513 administrative enforcement action 

against Nippon Paint. (America) Corporation and 

PPG Industries. Under terms of ,the settlement, 

Nippon and PM; are jointly and severally liable 

for a civil penalty of $360,000 for import and 

domestic manufacture of 17 chemical substances 

before completion of the PMN review period or 

without timely submission of a notice of 

mmmencemt. 

-: In 1988, Region 11 issued 

an administrative complaint to Rollins 

Environmental Services, Inc., for violation of the 

regulations governing PCB disposal. The 

complaint sought a penalty of $25,OOO for Rollins‘ 

failure to properly incinerate PCB-contaminated 

rinsate. Rollins declined to settle, and in 1989 the 

Region filed a motion for accelerated decision on 

the issue of liability, which was granted by the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). 

Tlie parties were .ordered to confer to 

attempt a penalty settlement, but when this 

proved unsuccessful, the ALJ took briefs and 

heard oral argument on the penalty issue. In July 

the ALJ issued a decision awarding no penalty, 

finding the regulations and the penalty policy 

ambiguous. The ,Region appealed this decision, 

and the Agency’s Judicial Officer ruled in 

September essentially reversing the earlier ALJ 

decision, and awarded a $2O,OOO penalty, which 

he increased to $25,000 in light of Rollins’ 

history of past violations. 

-a 

January 5.1990, EPA filed a civil administrative 

Complaint against Sherex Polymers, Inc. 

(Sherex). The Complaint charged Sherex with 

failing to submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) 

to EPA at least 90 days prior to manufacturing, on 

84 separate occasions, a new chemical substance, 

as required by TSCA §5(a)(l)(A) and 40 CFR Part 

720. EPA proposed, in the Complaint, a 

Gravity-Based Penalty (GBP) of $840,000. On 

January 30, 1990, the Chief Judicial Offic5r 

signed the Consent Order assessing a civil 

peM1ty Of $252.000. > 

The GBP was adjusted downward by 50% to 

reflect Sherex’s prompt self-confession of the 

violations to EPA. This resulted in an adjustcd 

proposed penalty of $420,000. For purposes of 

settlement, consistent with other similar TSCA 

55 settlements, EPA further reduced the adjusted 

proposed penalty by 15% for taking all steps 

reasonably expected by EPA to mitigate the 

violations. EPA reduced the civil penalty in this 

case by an additional 5% ($42,000), to $252,OOO, 

in consideration of Respondent implementing a 

pollution prevention project at its Lakeland, 

Florida facility. Respondent agreed to complete 

all design and construction work within 12 months 

of receipt of the executed Consent Agreement, and 

that it would replace the existing filtration and 

recycling system by the end of this period. The 

pollution prevention project generally consists of 

replacing an existing filter system on a dimer 

fatty acid production unit at the Sherex Polymers 

Lakeland, Florida facility. The project shall 

result in waste reduction of at least 500,000 

pounds of filter cake annually and increase the 

recovery of reusable fatty acid material by over 

250,000 pounds annually (based on current 

production volumes and laboratory studies of the 

equipment). Respondent stipulated that the 

total cost of the pollution prevention project 

would exceed $SU,OOO. Respondent submitted to 

EPA a written interim status report within six 

months of its receipt of the executed Consent 

Order. The latest cost estimate is that the project 

would cost approximately $700,000. Respondent 

shall submit a final status report within one 

month of the commencement of active operations 

of the new filtration system, that is, no more than 

13 months after receipt of the executed Consent 

p

Order. 

A 

recent decision’involving Region V’s case against 

Standard Scrap Metal, Inc. strengthens EPAs 

enforcement capability concerning PCB spills. 

Prior to February 17, 1978, PCBs spills were 

considered”’in ervice,”, and not regulated unless 

4-47 
FY 1990 Enforfement Accomplishments Report 

they were removed from the site. Based on this 

interpretation, Region V lost its case against 

Standard Scrap Metal, who claimed that PCBs 

found in soil on its property were spilled prior to 

1978. Region V appealed the case. On August 2, 

1990, the Chief Judicial Officer ruled that the 

prior interpretation of the regulations was 

applicable solely to landfills or disposal sites, 

and that a facility does not become a disposal 

site or landfill merely because PCBs have been 

spilled on it. Thus, the disposal site exemption 

for PCB spills which occurred prior to 1978 was 

not available to Standard Scrap Metal. Under 

this ruling, respondents can no longer rely on the 

occurrence date of PCB spills to avoid PCB 

cleanup responsibility. 

n 

Washineton. Administrative Law Judge Greene 

issued an Order on October 31, 1989, which 

assessed a penalty of $103,500 against the 

respondent, Leonard Strandley. The Order 

resulted from a Complaint dated November 15, 

1984 - and amended January 19, 1988 -- which 

had been before the ALJ for several years. This 

case alleged PCB disposal, storage, marking, and 

recordkeeping violations associated with Mr. 

Strandley’s (now defunct) scrapping and oil 

recycling operations at the Purdy, Washington 

site. The Order acknowledged EPA’s desire to 

structure the penalty assessment to support the 

cleanup of the Purdy, Washington site, which is 

currently king cleaned up under CERCLA, and 

permanently remitted all but $5,000 of the 

assessed penalty on the condition that the 

Respondent document that an amount equaling at 

least the remitted amount had been expended 

towards cleanup of the site. 

> 

r of 3-V C-: This 

administrative enforcement action was brought 

pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 & m. Beginning in 

TSCA 55 and regulations promulgated 

thereunder require a person intending to 

manufacture (includes import) a new chemical 

substance for commercial purposes to submit to 

EPA a premanufacture notice (PMN) at least 90 

days prior to the first such manufacture. EPA 

alleged in its complaint that 3-V had failed to 

submit a PMN in compliance with TSCA 55. The 

failure to comply yith these requirements is a 

violation of TSCA 515(1)(8). Regulations 

implementing TSCA 513 requires that importers 

certify whether the imported substances are 

subject to, and are in compliance with, TSCA or 

that the imported substance is not subject to 

TSCA. EPA alleged in its complaint that 3-V 

had failed to properly certify the TSCA status of 

its importations. The failure to comply with the 

import certification requirements is a violation of 

TSCA 515(3)(B). 

After self-disclosing these violations to 

EPA, the Respondent took all steps reasonably 

expected to mitigate and correct the violations. 

On July 21, 1989, EPA issued an administrative 

complaint which calculated a gravity based 

penalty of $150,000. 

On August 7th the Chief Judicial Officer 

approved a Consent Agreement in the Matter of 

3-V Chemical Company. The Consent Agreement 

requires the Respondent to pay a $30,000 penalty 

and implement an environmentally beneficial 

program. Although the enforcement action 

against 3-V was for violations of TSCA $I, 5, and 

13, 3-V has agreed to purchase and install a 

solvent recycling system that is intended to 

reduce by more than 50 percent it’s emissions of an 

unregulated ozone depleting substance U,l,Itrichloroethane) and a probable human 

carcinogen (dichloromethane). Emissions of these 

substances are not prohibited or restricted by 

current . ~~~ Federal law. Further. 3-V has arrreed 

., 

to 

implement a leak and detection program for 

fugitive emissions of these two solvents, and will 

August of 1987, 3-V Chemical. v<lunta<iIL .report annually on their pollution prevention 

self-disclosed the violations which wye-the efforts. 

subject of the complaint. The Rsspondent had 

‘discovered that they 

imported a chemical 

had: 

s-ubstance 

oynultiple 

in violation 

occasions, 

of 

s: 

In October 1989, the District Court for.the Eastern 

TSCA 555 and 13;,failed to submit a letter of District of Texas,entered-a Consent Decree in 

intent to test,a’&bstance as required by two settlement of a civil action by the United States 

separate 54,regulations; and failed to supply a charging Texas Eastern with the illegal disposal 

notice.of’6xport under TSCA 512(b) for an export of PCBs and other hazardous wastes at 89 natural 

of.a’&bstance that was the subject of a TSCA gas pipeline compressor sites in 14 states. The 

violations involve TSCA, CERCLA and RCRA. In 

the settlement, Texas Eastern agreed to pay a 

.. 

., 

I 

., rule. _, 0 

448 
FY 1990 Erforcemenl Accomplishmenls Report 

civil penalty of $15,000,000 dollars. This is the 

largest fine ever collected by the United States 

for any environmental violation. In addition, 

Texas Eastern agreed to decontaminate the 

spilled PCBs and chemicals at a cost estimated to 

exceed $500,000,000 dollars. Texas Eastern will 

also pay EPA more than $18,000,000 for oversight 

costs including the services of a contractor who 

will work for EPA to supervise site operations and 

and sampling data. The cleanup program is 

expected to take more than 7 years. 

Following entry of the Consent Decree, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appealed the 

settlcrnent to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

charging that state interests in ensuring cleanup 

were not adequately considered and that they 

were entitled to intervene in the suit, as a matter 

of right. This contention was rejected by the 

Court on February 13,1991. 

-: This company 

operates a number of compressor stations on an 

interstate pipeline. Region VI has successfully 

negotiated with the company for the first 

regional consent decree under TSCA to address 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination 

of a natural gas pipeline and associated 

compressor stations. The consent decree was filed 

June 13, 1990, in the U.S. District Court in New 

Mexico. The consent decree provides for 

assessment, of the extent of the PCB 

contamination and cleanup standards for soil and 

equipment contamination. The cleanup costs are 

estimated at $60 million. The consent decree 

requires that the company provide an oversight 

contractor for use by EPA to determine compliance 

with the consent decree. Additionally, a penalty 

of $375,000 was collected. 

.. 

The consent decree was negotiated so that 

the interests of the State of New Mexico were 

protected. The New Mexico Environmental 

Improvement Division, the US. Bureau of Land 

Management, and the New Mexico State Land 

Office were involved in the negotiations as much 

as possible, and they were kept informed of all 

progress toward the completion of the 

negotiations. The Navajo and Laguna Indians 

were informed of the results of the negotiations. 

The consent decree reserves the rights of all other 

environmental statutes so that if violations of 

other laws are found during the cleanup, that 

program may take any action necessary. This has 

been important for the RCRA program, in that 

RCRA constituents have been found in the ground 

water at one of the sites. The TSCA program has 

been keeping the RCRA program informed of all 

information concerning the contamination. 

-: on 

December 5, 1989, EPA filed a civil 

administrative Complaint against. Union Camp 

Corporation alleging violations of the TSCA 55 

premanufacture notification (PMN) 'regulations 

and proposing a penalty of $285,000. The case 

was settled on May 29, 1990, by Consent 

Agreement and Consent Order the terms of which 

provided for payment of a $106,000 penalty, 

submission of revised company policy and 

procedures for PMN compliance, and development 

and implementation of a five-year program of 

annual day-long TSCA New Chemical 

Compliance Meetings for employees having 

responsibility for compliance with the PMN 

requirements of TSCA. 

-: This 

case is an example of how Region VI1 used 

administrative enforcement under TSCA to obtain 

environmentally beneficial expenditures to 

dispose of PCBs. In 1983, EPA Region VI1 issued 

an approval to the Union Electric Company WE), 

St. Louis, Missouri, to dispose of its own PCB oils 

in a high efficiency boiler. .In 1988 and 1989, 

Region VI1 inspected the boiler facility and 

discovered violations of the UE approval. Two 

administrative complaints were issued. The 

upfront civil penalty obtained was $79,500. In 

the settlement, UE agrees to disposal of its 173 

remaining askerol transformers containing 22,000 

gallons of askerol oil'by March 1992. UE 

provided financial assurance for the closure of its 

Labadie'PCB burn facility in accordance with a 

closure plan submitted. 

In addition, the approval granted UE in 

1983, which contained no expiration date was 

modified to include, among other things, an 

expiration date of March 1995. By the time the 

approval. expires, UE will have incinerated 

750,000 gallons of PCB oil in addition to the 

amounts already destroyed. This would include 

oil from 25,000, PCB and PCB-contaminated 

transformers at an estimated cost of $45 million. 

The deferred portion of the penalty was $150.000. 

-: A complaint was issued 

against the Upjohn Company of Kalamazoo, 

Michigan on July 10, 1989, alleging one count of 

submitting a chemical to the original TSCA 

inventory, even though. the company never 

449 
FY 1990 Enforcemenl Accomplishments Reporl 

manufactured the chemical, and four counts of 

manufacturing new chemical substances without 

going through the PMN process. The proposed 

penalty was $771,000. Upjohn voluntarily 

disclosed' the alleged violations in a meeting 

held at Upjohn's request. EPA and Upphn agreed 

to settle the case with Upjohn paying a $400,000 

penalty. 

er of VelsicP1: EPA initiated an 

administrative enforcement action against 

Velsicol on July 17, 1990. EPA alleged that 

Velsicol failed to maintain all of .the records 

required under 40 CFR Part 720.78 to support the 

PMN that was submitted for one chemical, 

manufactured another chemical on two separate 

occasions prior to the end of the PMN review 

period, and used and distributed the last 

chemical on one occasion prior to the end of the 

PMN review period. The complaint proposed 

$51,000 and collected the full amount. Although 

this company is headquartered in Region V, 

Velsicol's corporate officials contacted EPAs 

Headquarters directly in order to process their 

concerns about the manufacture of the chemicals. 

EPAs Headquarters conferred with the Regional 

staff and jointly processed the case which 

resulted in a collection of the full penalty. 

In the matter of W- :ch 

December 10, 1986, an EPA/NEIC.inspector 

lawfully inspected Respondent's Nashua, New 

Hampshire facility to review Respondent's 

compliance with TSCA 55 and5 8. On March 16, 

1989, EPA filed a civil administrative complaint 

against Worthen Industries, Inc. seeking a civil 

penalty in the amount of $3,429,500 for failing to 

properly submit PMNs and NOCs for the 

chemical substances. Based upon records and 

information submitted by Worthen subsequent to 

the issuance of the Complaint, EPA concluded 

that certain chemical substances were 

manufactured, processed and distributed in 

.commerce as indirect food additives for the time 

period alleged in the Complaint. Thus, these 

chemical substances were not subject to the PMN 

requirements of TSCA 55. The Agency amended 

the complaint and reduced the total proposed 

penalty to $175,000. 'During settlement 

negotiations EPA agre-ed to reduce the proposed 

civil penalty by 15% to $148,750. The 15% 

reduction reflected the cooperation and good 

faith demonstrated by Worthen in addressing the 

alleged violations and in negotiating this 

Consent Agreement, and Worthen's good faith 

willingness to conduct an annual educational 

program on the TSCA 55 and 58 requirements. On 

May 14, 1990, the Chief Judicial Officer signed 

the Consent Order assessing the $148,750 civil 

penalty and providing for the TSCA educational 

program. 

Federal Facilities - TSCA 

Bonneville Power Adm inistratian: A 

Memorandum of Agreement was signed on March 

22, 1990, between EPA Region X and the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Oregon, to address 

extensive PCB contamination at four major 

substations along the Pacific Northwest/Pacific 

Southwest Electric Intertie in Oregon. All PCB 

equipment at the substations will be disposed of 

and PCB contamination at the substations will be 

characterized and cleaned up. The Agreement 

will result in the disposal of approximately onefourth of all PCB Capacitors in the BPA system. 

, Naval Werwatex 

-b.laJ& i I' 

Washineton : A Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) was signed on December 1,1989, between 

EPA Region X and the US. Department of the 

Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, to bring the 

Navy into compliance at the Naval Undersea 

Warfare Engineering Station, Indian Island, 

Washington. The MOA arose from an enforcement 

action against the Navy concerning the illegal 

use of PCB-contaminated mine cable. (This cable 

is used to tether undersea mines; however, such 

use is not currently authorized under the PCB 

Regulations and provides direct introduction of 

PCBs into the environment.) The Agreement 

provided for the .elimination of all PCBcontaminated mine cable at the Indian Island 

facility and documentation of the disposal of the 

mine cable. In addition, the Department of the 

Navy agreed to enter into discussions with EPAHeadquarters to develop a program to identify 

all PCB-contaminated mine cable presently in use 

by the Navy throughout the world and to bring 

the use of such cable into compliance with the 

p: 

PCB Regulations. 

A - 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed on 

November 27, 1989, between EPA Region X and 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, IJNted 

States Coast Guard. The MOA resolved two 

enforcement actions which alleged that the 

4-50 
I 

,- 

FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplrshments Report 

Coast Guard illegally distributed PCBs in 

commerce and improperly disposed of PCBs by 

allowing PCBs to leak from in-service equipment. 

The Agreement provides for total remediation of 

extensive PCB contamination throughout the US. 

Coast Guard Support Center Kodiak in Kodiak, 

Alaska. The contamination occurred primarily as 

a result of equipment leakage in the electrical 

distribution system at the Support Center. The 

distribution system has been sold to the local 

electrical utility, Kodiak Electric Association. 

The Agreement provides for the proper disposal 

of all electrical equipment regulated under TSCA. 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 

Enforcement 

Under EPCRA 5 313 (Toxic Release 

Inventory), subject manufacturing facilities must 

provide EPA with annual data on &tal emissions 

pf toxic chemicals bv environmental media. FY 

1990 Enforcement efforts were taken against 

nonreporters, as well as late and incorrect 

reporters. Other provisions of EPCRA require the 

reporting of accidental releases of toxic chemicals 

to State and local emergency response offices. 

The Administrative Law Judge's decision in this 

case supports EPA's prompt enforcement for 

violations of CERCLA 5103 and EPCRA 5304 

reporting requirements. The case is significant 

because it is the first time a penalty has been 

assessed for failure to report a release of a 

chemical under both CERCLA and EPCRA. 

On December 1, 1989, Administrative Law 

Judge Henry B. Frazier assessed the first 

CERCLA 5103 and EPCRA 304 penalty for failure 

to report the accidental release of hazardous 

substances into the environment. An Interlocutory 

Order granting Complainant's Motion for Partial 

Accelerated Decision was issued in this case on 

May 3, 1989. The ALJ stated that the notification 

requirements of CERCLA 5 103 and EPCRA 5304, 

while similar in their purpose to protect the 

public and the environment in the event of 

hazardous chemical releases, are separate and 

independent requirements. Therefore, each 

notification requirement must be met by the 

responsible party. 

The ALJ noted that the defendant had 

failed to notify the National Response Center 

immediately upon the release or the Local 

Emergency Planning Committee and the State 

Emergency Response Commission as soon as 

practicable after the release and provide written 

follow-up emergency notice.. The fact that the 

local fire department was on the scene soon after 

the release in no way diminished the requirement 

that the person in charge at the site notify the 

NRC. The ALJ assessed the defendant $20,000 

under CERCLA 5103 and $69,840 under EPCRA 

5304. On July 2, 1990, Chief Judicial Officer 

Ronald McCallum affirmed the decision of the 

presiding officer assessing civil penalties of 

$89,840 against All Regions Chemical Labs. 

Washineton: The Boeing Company Plant 2 

facility in Seattle, Washington, was selected for 

an EPCRA inspection based upon discrepancies in 

Toxic Release Inventory reporting. The company 

had reported to the local air pollution control 

agency for releases of trichloroethylene but did 

not apparently report that chemical to EPA. The 

inspection revealed that the company had filed 

a corrected Form R reporting for 

trichloroethylene, but that the company had not 

reported for five other chemicals. The records 

which the company utilized in preparing the 

reporting were not sufficient or comprehensive 

enough to firmly establish that other chemicals 

should have been reported. A Civil Complaint 

proposing a penalty of $85,000 was issued to the 

company on August 6,1990. The company did not 

generally contest the facts of the complaint and 

proposed as part of the settlement three projects 

as Environmentally Beneficial Expenditures 

(EBEs): solvent recovery, de-ionization and 

decontamination of chromium wastewater, and 

reduction of paint booth sludge and waste 

disposal. The final assessed penalty was $72,250 

with $29,750 of that amount to be suspended 

conditional on successful completion of the EBEs. 

In the Matter of BP Oil Comoany : In April 1990, 

Region I1 completed a consent order with the BP 

Oil company for release notification violations at 

its Paulsboro, New Jersey facility. The agreement 

provided for payment of $102,000 in penalties, a 

record at that time. 

In the MaLtsr of rhCortloration: Through a coordinated effort of the 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 

the Maine State Emergency Response 

Commission, and Region I, an EPCRA 

administrative complaint was issued against 

4-51 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Champion International ' Corporation of 

Bucksport, Maine for failing to make timely 

- notifications following' a. chlorine release. 

Information provided by the Maine agencies was 

used to establish the violations alleged in the 

complaint. In settlement of the action, Champion 

agreed to pay a $12,000 penalty and provide 

$5,000 worth of computer hardware'and software 

enhancements to the Hancock County Emergency 

Management Agency's computerized response and 

contingency planning capabilities. 

EL: Region IV issued an administrative 

complaint in response to a spill which was not 

properly reported and exceeded the reportable 

quantity (RQ) for ammonia. The case was part of 

a headquarters initiative to emphasize the 

importance of timely and accurate reporting under 

5103 of CERCLA and 55304(a), (b) and (c) of the 

Emergency Planning .and Community Right to 

Know Act (EPCRA). The RQ for ammonia is 100 

Ibs. and the quantity reportedly spilled by Citrus 

Hill was 300 lbs. There was no known negative 

impact to the offsite population or environment. 

The parties have discussed a settlement 

which considers numerous mitigating factors, eg., 

Citrus Hill's demonstration. of responsible 

corporate involvement with its sur'rounding 

community through educational seminars and 

outreach programs. A penalty of $15,000 was 

paid along with several environmentally 

beneficial expenditures, (e.g., donation of a 

chlorine repair kit to the local emergency 

response team). 

B: 

er of CColumbia Corrugated Box is 

the corporate parent of Packaging Resources, a 

manufacturer of foam insulation and packaging 

material. An analysis of information providkl 

by the company revealed that the facility failed 

to file required Toxic Release Inventory reports 

' for Dichloromethane for reporting years 1987 and 

1988 and for an isocyanate resin for 1987. A Civil 

Complaint proposing a penalty ,of $51,000 was 

issued to Columbia Corrugated on May 5, 1990. 

,Following receipt of. the complaint, Columbia 

Corrugated produced additional documentation 

which was not available during the inspection. 

This new information indicated that, contrary to 

the information produced at the inspection, the 

company did not meet the reporting thresholds 

. for two of the three counts listed in the 

complaint. In mitigation of the penalty.for the 

remaining violation, the company proposed 

Environmentally- Beneficial Expenditures (EBEs) 

in the form'of equipment and process chemical 

changes to avoid use of CFC materials. Further, 

the company made another equipment change 

which greatly reduced the amount of solvent used 

in the manufacture of the foam packaging. A 

settlement agreement was signed on August 22, 

1990, providing an assessed penalty of $14,450 but 

with a further reduction to $10,200 on completion 

of the EBEs. 

A fire at a 

gold recovery facility located in Roanoke, Texas 

necessitated the evacuation of nearby residents, 

and triggered an investigation. It was found that 

the facility had not given proper inventory 

reports under EPCRA. The facility settled the 

case for payments of a $30,000 penalty to EPA, 

and payments of $4,000 each to the Denton 

County and Tarrant County Local Emergency 

Planning Committees and a payment of $2,000 to 

a local fire department for use in local EPCRA 

programs. 

In the Matter o f Hercu les. Inc. Brunswick .GA: 

The complaint assesses a $15,000 penalty for 

failure of the facility to properly report a spill 

event in accordance with the requirements of 

5103 of CERCLA. This case is part of a 

headquarters initiative to bolster the importance 

of timely and accurate reporting of spills. The 

facility failed to timely and accurately report a 

spill involving 1220 Ibs. of sodium hydroxide, a 

"hazardous substance" as defined under Section 

lOI(14) of CERCLA. 

' 

(EPCRAICWAICAA): A complaint.was filed 

seeking to enforce against this facility's long 

history of failure to submit material safety data 

sheets (MSDSs) on propane and No. 2 fuel or to 

include propane and No. 2 fuel on the list of 

chemicals stored at the facility.. In accordance 

with EPCRA regulations, the facility should 

have begun reporting in October 1987 and continue 

submissions each March 1 for every year 

thereafter. The,facility's first MSDS report was 

submitted in March 1990. 

An investigation also revealed other 

violations under EPCRA 5304 and were combined 

with previous CERCLA 5103 violations,' 

resulting in one of' the highest penalties 

($355,000) assessed by Region IV to any single 

facility. The complaint will cite Clean Water 

4-52 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishmenls Repon 

and Air violations and represents another 

example of the Region's multimedia enforcement 

initiative. 

Seekonk Lace was 

the Region I's first ,EPCRA settlement providing 

for environmentally beneficial expenditures by a 

company. As part of the $15,000 settlement of 

this $25,000 § 313 case, the respondent agreed to 

spend approximately $95,000 to convert an 

acetone-based solvent system used in lace 

production at its Rhode Island facility to a 

mechanical system which used no solvents. The 

use of the toxic chemical acetone was completely 

eliminated. 

' 

r of W-: 

On September 28, 1990, Region I initiated one of 

the largest enforcement actions brought to date 

under EPCRA. This action, which combined for 

the first time in the Region both the 5313 and 

302-312 components of the program, proposed 

total penalties of $478,000 against the WymanGordon Company of North Grafton, 

Massachusetts. The Region coordinated 

inspections between the two EPCRA programs, 

resulting in the development of a joint complaint 

which comprehensively addressed all violations 

of EPCRA at this facility, including failure to 

file Toxic Release Inventory forms and failure to 

submit chemical inventory information to local 

and state authorities. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Enforcement 

FIFRA establishes a federal registration 

program for new and existing pesticides and gives 

the States enforcement primacy for violations 

involving pesticide misuse. FY. 1990 enforcement 

efforts centered upon violations of 

suspension/cancellation requirements; product 

mislabcling; sale of unregistered pesticides; and 

violations of import-export requirements; The 

pesticide program also took enforcement action 

against significant violations involving pesticide 

misuse upon referral from States. 

-: Region I 

issued a major administrative complaint in FY 

1990 against Gotham Chemical of Stamford, 

Connecticut for sale and distribution of 

disinfectants which were misbranded and 

adultcrated and about which the company made 

claims that substantially differed from those 

accepted as part of the pesticides' registration. 

This case was referred to the Region from the 

State of Connecticut. Proposed penalties in this 

w: 

action are $45,400. 

Region I successfully 

settled its case against Safer, Inc. of Wellesley, 

MA in FY 1990. For several years, Safer has 

made safety claims for its products in violation of 

the FIFRA regulations, despite a notice of 

warning issued by EPA Headquarters. The final 

assessed penalty was $10,000. The settlement 

included an environmentally beneficial 

expenditure of $70,000 for production. and 

'distribution of a pamphlet about the safe use of 

pesticides by homeowners. 

Pesticide Exoort Enforcement Initiative: EPA 

issued complaints charging nine companies with 

unlawful export of pesticides. The charges 

included export of pesticides labeled only in 

English to foreign countries in which English is 

not an official language, failure to obtain a 

statement from the foreign purchaser 

acknowledging that the pesticide was not 

registered for use in the United States, and 

failure to label pesticides "Not Registered for 

Use in the United States of America". 

The companies charged in these complaints 

are Dow Chemical Company, Shield-Brite 

Corporation, Mobay Corporation, Exxon 

Chemical Americas, Rohm and Haas Bayport, 

Inc., Chevron Chemical Company, NL Industries, 

Inc., Sandoz Crop Protection, and Monsanto 

Chemical Corporation. Following is the outcome 

for 5 of the 9 cases: 

In the Matter of Chevron Chemical Comoanv: On 

July 16,1990, a Consent Agreement and Consent 

Order was issued settling the pesticide export 

case against Chevron. Based on evidence 

presented by EPA of violations not alleged in the 

civil administrative Complaint, Chevron paid a 

penalty of $72,000, representing 100% of the 

proposed penalty for the original counts, in 

addition to counts discovered after the filing of 

the Complaint. Chevron also revised its internal 

operating procedures for pesticide exports after 

review by its Label Task Force formed as a result 

of his case. 

In the'Matter of Dow Chemical Company: On 

May 15,1990, a Consent Agrkment and Consent 

Order was issued by which Dow agreed to pay 

100% of the prop/osed penalty of $22,400. 

4-53 

/ 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishmerus Report 9 y. "., w. 

poll 

May 14,1990, a Consent Agreement and Consent ' 

Order was issued by which Exxon agreed to pay 

p: 

100% of the proposed penalty of $36,400. 

On July 25, 

1990, a Consent Agreement and Consent Order was 

issued settling the pesticide export case filed 

against Mobay Corporation. Mobay paid a civil 

administrative penalty of $97,840 to settle the 

case. 

On 

September 11, 1990, the Chief Judicial Officer 

issued a Consent order settling the civil 

administrative proceeding filed against Rohm & 

Haas for violations of the pesticide export 

regulations. Both Rohm & Haas Company and 

BASF Corporation were parties to the settlement 

agreement as a result of the contractual 

arrangement bctween the companies. BASF was 

the exporter of rccord for most of the shipments 

noted in the complaint, and so, took an active role 

in the settlement negotiations. The companies 

agreed to pay $19,200 in settlement. 

Criminal Enforcement - All Statutes 

U.S. v. Auten (CWA): The owner of a Florida 

used tire business was sentenced July 25 to a three 

year period of probation for unlawfully dumping 

thousands.of tires into the West Palm Beach 

Canal. John C. Auten of West Palm Beach, 

Florida was also ordered"to pay the South 

Florida Water Management District restitution in 

the amount of $16,829.88 for the cost of removing 

tires from the canal. In addition, as a conSequence 

of Auten's conviction for violating the CWA, 

Auten's business, Caroline 'lires, Inc., is on the List 

of.'Violating Facilities and is ineligible for 

federally funded contracts, grants, or loans. 

As.further punishment, Auten was ordered 

to perform 300 hours of environmentally-related 

community service. As part of his community 

service, the court ordered Auten to assist the 

Water Management District in removing the' 

illegally dumped tires from.cana1 banks. This 

was a joint FBI-EPA Criminal Investigation. The 

Palm Beach County Sheriff's Dcpartmegt also 

assisted in the investigation. 

U. S. v. 1- and B ' 

-1nc. trwiu:m 

federal jury convicted Borjohn Optical 

Technology, Inc. and its president, John Borowski, 

,. 

of illegally discharging toxic metals and 

dangerous chemicals into the sewer system.and 

endangering company employees in the process. 

At the sentencing on October 7,1990, Mr. Borowski 

received 26 months in prison, to be followed by 

two years of probation, and a $400,000 fine. 

Borjohn Optical was fined $50,000 and was 

ordered to make a lump sum payment of $15,500 

for medical bills for two employees. As a 

consequence of the conviction, Borjohn Optical is 

on the List of Violating Facilities and is 

ineligible for federally funded contracts; grants, 

or loans. This is the first time that an individual 

or a corporation has been convicted of knowing 

endangerment under the Clean Water Act. The 

defendants ordered workers to discharge nickel 

plating and nitric acid solutions containing 

illegal concentrations of nickel and illegally low 

pH into the sewer. system in Burlington, 

Massachusetts which. is tied into the 

Massachusetts Water Resource Authority's 

treatment plant, which in turn discharges into 

Boston Harbor. 

During the illegal disposals, the 

employees were exposed to toxic levels of nickel, 

nitric acid, and nitrogen dioxide. Exposure to 

nitric acid and its fumes may result in serious 

burns and life-threatening respiratory tract 

damage. Exposure to nickel may result in.severe 

skin disease, asthma, and an increased risk of 

cancer. The illegal discharges stemmed from 

Borjohn's metal finishing operation, in which the 

company plated. various metals, including nickel, 

onto Bradley Fighting Vehicle elevation mirrors, 

M-1 tank mirrors, and Cruise Missile folding 

mirrors. '' 

Y.S. 

w: A former water pollution plant 

supervisor was sentenced March 27, 1990 to a 

5-year term of imprisonment, with all but 4 

months suspended; and was placed on 5 years 

probation. Robert Coble pled guilty on January 24 

to one felony false statement count for filing false 

discharge monitoring reports and one 

misdemeanor count under the Water Act for 

discharges in violation of a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System permit. 

.. v. 

Coble, former Water Pollution Control 

Plant Supervisor of the City of Enid, Oklahoma, 

and Raymond T. Brittain, former Superintendent 

of Public Utilities (and Coble's supervisor) were 

charged on December 12, 1989, by a 48-count 

indictment with falsifying discharge monitoring 
FY 1990 Enforcemenl Accomphshmenls Report 

reports .and illegal bypassing of the sewage 

treatment plant. Brittain was convicted by a jury 

on 18 counts of false statements and two counts of 

CWA violations. He was sentenced on March 31, 

1990 to one year imprisonment on each of the 20 

counts, to be served concurrently, and ordered to 

pay a special assessment on each count totaling 

$950. 

The violations occurred before amendments 

to the Clean Water Act made these violations 

felonies, and prior to th'e applicability of the 

Federal Sentencing Guidelines for individuals. 

- 

: On December 

-trial, the jury 

returned guilty verdicts against Capozziello and 

his company, Bridgeport Wrecking, for violating 

federal NESHAPs standards relating to the 

removal and handling of asbestos from buildings 

that are being demolished. The case stemmed 

from a citizen's complaint in connection with the 

fall 1986 demolition of the Knudsen Dairy in 

North Haven, Connecticut. 

On March 16, 1990, Thomas Capozziello, 

president of Bridgeport Wrecking Company, Inc., 

was sentenced to one year in prispn, all but three 

months suspended, three years probation, and a 

$10,000 fine. His company was sentenced to pay a 

$40,000 fine. The three months to be served by 

Capozziello represented the longest prison term 

in New England for a violation of the Clean Air 

Act. As a consequence of the conviction, 

Bridgeport Wrecking Company of Bridgeport, 

Connecticut, is on the List of Violating Facilities 

and is ineligible for federally funded contracts, 

'i grants, or loans. 

YS. v. Ch- :(hr 

January 5, 1990, Chemical Commodities, Inc. 

(CCI), a Kansas corporation which is in the 

chemical brokering business, entered a plea of 

guilty to unlawfully disposing of a hazardous 

waste in violation of 42 U.S.C. S 6928(d)(Z)(A) 

(RCRA). On May 18,1990, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Kansas imposed a sentence of 

five years probation and special conditions, 

including liquidation, cessation of business except 

to the extent necessary to liquidate, and 

completion of clean-up operations at three CCI 

 locations in compliance with an approved closure 

plan. Clean-up of the sites, including disposal of 

all hazardous and radioactive wastes, is to be 

performed under the direction and supervision of 

an independent supervising contractor to be 

selected by EPA. The company also was sentenced 

.. 

' 

to pay a $500,000 fine, which was suspended upon 

condition that ,the company fulfills its 

obligations under the sentencing order. 

The conviction of the company was a result 

of a criminal investigation which revealed that 

in the fall of 1988, Jerald Gershon, President and 

owner of Chemical Commodities, Inc., ordered 

several employees to destroy 40,000 ampules of 

methyl bromide. The employees destroyed the 

ampules by grinding them in a small peanut 

grinder. The liquid methyl bromide volatilized 

into gas and escaped into the air and the crushed 

glass ampules were placed in a local landfill. 

as. v. 

IBCBLU: On March 20,1990, an information and a' 

plea agreement was filed .in U.S. District Court, 

Seattle, Washington, charging the Crittenden 

Conversion'corporation with a one-count RCRA 

felony violation (transporting hazardous waste 

without a manifest). As part of the plea 

agreement, Crittenden agreed to .enter a guilty 

plea to the charge and pay a .fine of $25,000, plus 

full restitution to the Washington State 

Department of Ecology for the clean-up, storage, 

and disposal of 21 drums of material that had 

been abandoned by the company in a wooded area 

of Preston, Washington. This cost is estimated to 

be approximately $18,000. On March 20, 1990, 

Crittenden pled guilty to the one count and was 

sentenced on May 3,1990 to the agreed penalties 

.under the plea agreement. 

Y.S. v. FiP 

-: On February 8,1990, in 

Portland, Oregon, Rodney R. Fisher was sentenced 

to 3 months of imprisonment, 3 years probation 

and fined $2,500 by US. District Court Judge 

Malcolm F. March. Fisher pled guilty on 

December 4, 1989, to one count of unlawful 

disposal of motor cleaning solvents into an 

adjacent stream, a, misdemeanor under the Clean 

Water Act. This plea was the result of a plea 

bargain agreement which stipulated that all 

remaining felony counts against Rodney R. Fisher 

and Fisher RPM would be dismissed after 

sentencing. As a consequence of the conviction, . 

Fisher RPM Electric Motors, Inc., of Portland, 

Oregon, is on the List of Violating Facilities and 

is ineligible, for federally funded contracts, 

grants, or loans. 

s (SDWAk In the first 

criminal case brought under the underground 

injection well provisions of the Safe Drinking 

4-55 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Water Act, a federal court Aug. 27, 1990, 

sentenced a Michigan partnership to pay a fine of 

$13,429. J & J Investments pled guilty to one count 

of submitting false information to the 

govemment. 

-: U.S. District 

Court Judge Hayden W. Head, in the Southern 

District of Texas, fined a South Carolina firm and 

a former employee for failure to report a spill of 

polychlorinated biphenyls and illegal disposal. 

Inman & Associates, Inc., a South Carolina firm, 

was sentenced to three years probation and fined 

$80,000 for failure to report the spill, caused by 

its former employee, John McMichen. McMichen, 

the former Inman employee, received a $5,000 

fine. 

The court suspended $40,000 of the fine 

against the company, but said that the firm's 

failure to make any of three'installment 

payments could be grounds for revocation of 

probation and execution of the entire fine. Inman 

& Associates pleaded guilty January 25,1990 to a 

.violation of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act for its 

failure to notify the appropriate U.S. agency of 

the .spill. On the same date, McMichen .also 

pleaded guilty to the 1987 disposal of PCBs at 

the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station in 

violation of the ,Toxics Substances Control Act, 

The sentencing guidelines were inapplicable as 

the violation occurred prior to November 1,1987. 

and CInvestmentInr.(CWA): In December 1988, the 

Federal Grand Jury impaneled for the United 

States District Court for the Western District of 

Missouri indicted Stephen L. Johnson, a local 

Springfield, Missouri, developer, and Johnson's 

companies, Country Estates Investment, Inc. doing 

business as Colony Cove Mobile Home Park for 

0n.e felony count violation of the Clean Water 

Act. Johnson was charged with the knowing 

discharge of pollutants from a point source into 

navigable waters of the United States in 

violation of the National Pollution. Discharge 

Elimination System as a result of a November 2, 

1988, incident in which the mobile home park 

built and operated by Johnson and his companies 

had a spill from the mobile home park's sewage 

lagoon, located in southeast Springfield, 

Missouri. The spill, consisting of an estimated 

.750,000 gallons of' effluent from the sewage 

lagoon, resulted when Johnson used a bulldozer to 

,~ cut'a beam holding the lagoon and allowing the 

sewage to flow into a stream leading into Lake 

Springfield. 

On April 11, 1989, following the January 3 

entry of a plea of guilty to the felony charge, a 

United States Magistrate applied the Sentencing 

Guidelines for the first time to a conviction under 

the Clean Water Act, and sentenced Stephen L. 

Johnson to serve five months in prison and to pay 

a fine of $2,500; the corporation was sentenced to 

pay a fine of $35,000. Johnson subsequently 

appealed his conviction and sentence under 

application of the Guidelines. The United States 

Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 

entered its order September 21, 1990, rejecting 

Johnson's appeal and sustaining the sentence of 

the United States District Court. In November, 

1991, Johnson began serving his sentence of 

confinement at the Fort Scott, Kansas, Southeast 

Regional Correction Center. 

, 

-elones (CWM A Wall..Street trader 

pleaded guilty on May 25, 1990 to-violating the 

CWA and was sentenced to pay $2 million, the 

largest monetary penalty ever assessed against 

an individual in an environmental case. Paul 

Tudor Jones I1 was charged by a one-count 

information. with negligent discharge of 

pollutants in a case that involved the illegal 

filling of 86 acres of wetlands on the Eastern 

Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. William B. Ellin, 

Jones's project manager for development of the 

site, also was charged with six counts of 

knowingly violating the CWA, and one count of 

violating the Rivers and Harbors Act. Mr. Ellin 

was convicted on January 5, 1991, of'five felony 

charges (4 counts of filling without a permit and 

one count of violating the Rivers and Harbors 

Act). He will be sentenced on April 15,1991. 

The size of the filled wetlands makes this 

the largest area ever. involved, in a Federal 

criminal environmental enforcement case. Jones 

was sentenced to 18 months probation, to pay a 

$1,ooO,ooO fine, to pay $I,ooO,ooO in restitution, to 

completely restore the damage to his property, 

and to record a conservation easement to protect 

2,500 acres of his property from future 

development. As a consequence of the conviction, 

'hdor Investment Corporation of New York, NY, is 

on the List of Violating Facilities and is 

ineligible for federally funded contracts, grants, 

or loans. 

The case is also notable because the 

Department of Justice agreed with Mr. Jones to 

4-56 
**.O.* 

n 'P 

FY 1990 ElJorcemenr Accomplishments Report 

the payment of the $1 million for restitution to be 

held in trust by the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, to be used in the acquisition, 

restoration, and management of neighboring 

wetlands and endangered species habitat in the 

nearby Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is a 

private conservation organization established by 

Congress in 1984 to benefit the programs of the 

US. Fish and Wlldlife Service. 

On April IO, 

1990, Konstandt Laboratories, Inc., and its owner, 

Felix Konstandt, were sentenced for knowingly 

providing false and fictitious test results to 

Sigma Coatings, Inc., which had been required by 

EPA to provide data about its marine coating 

products. The lab falsified 19 separate results-ofanalysis reports. The company was fined 

$100.000 under the Alternative Fines Act, for a 

violation of 18 U.S.C. 5 1001. Felix Konstadt was 

fined $1,000, sentenced to one year probation, and 

given a 30-day prison term, to be served under 

house arrest or in a "halfway house," for 

violation of FIFRA. 

In 1987, EPA issued a "data call-in" to 

Sigma Coatings, Inc., manufacturer of marine 

coating products containing anti-foulants, which 

are pesticides registered by EPA under FIFRA. 

Sigma entered into a contract with Konstandt 

Labs to perform the studies required by the data 

call-in. During September 1987, Konstandt Labs 

and its owner knowingly provided false and 

fictitious test results to Sigma, which in turn 

provided the false information to EPA. 

w: 

v. DaTwo former owners of a Baltimore 

precious metal recycler were sentenced February 

28, 1990 to prison terms of three years and 33 

months, respectively, for violating the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. The site also has 

been subject to a Superfund cleanup financed by a 

potentially responsible party. 

John Meighan, who received a three-year 

sentence, was former owner of Capitol Assay 

Laboratories, and pled guilty on December 11, 

1989, to one count of illegal treatment, storage, 

and disposal of hazardous waste. David Cohen 

was sentenced to 33 months for an identical 

charge, to which he had pled guilty.on December 

14, 1989. Cohen had owned the facility prior to 

selling it to Meighan. Neither defendant was 

sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines, as the 

4-57 

violations to which they pled guilty occurred 

prior to November 1,1987. 

ys. 

w: 

v. 

On Oct. 3, 1990 two owners of private 

carting companies were sentenced in the Southern 

District of New York to 12 years and seven months 

in prison for dumping thousands of tons of medical 

waste, asbestos and other hazardous materials in 

an illegal landfill on Staten Island. Judge 

Constance Baker Mot1ey;called the case "one of 

the largest and most serious frauds ever 

prosecuted in the United States involving 

environmental damage." 

The defendants, Angelo Paccione and 

Anthony Vulpis, were convicted on June 8,1989, 

after a threemonth trial, of RICO violations for 

running an illegal landfill on more than 70 acres. 

Evidence at the trial showed that the land was 

used as a dump for 500,000 tons of waste materials 

that included garbage, asbestos and medical and 

infectious waste. The land fill bordered housing 

and wetlands, including a state-designated 

white heron rookery. Cleanup has been 

estimated at $15 million. 

'Judge Motley 'said she increased the 

sentences because of the size of the fraud and 

becauseMr. Paccione and Mr. Vulpis had not 

fulfilled an agreement to pay $22 million in fines, 

forfeitures and penalties within 90 days of their 

convictions. A third defendant, John McDonald, 

who was convicted with Mr. Paccione of having 

unlawfully collected, transported and stored 

infectious medical waste, was sentenced to one 

year in prison. These convictions resulted from a 

joint investigation of the New York Office of 

Criminal Investigations, New York Department 

of Sanitation, and the FBI. 

US. v. Miutba C. 

ITSCA/CWA): In October of 1989, five corporate 

officers and/or employees of the now defunct 

Martha C. Rose Chemicals Co. in Holden, 

Missouri, entered pleas of guilty to conspiracy to 

defraud the EPA and other charges. They were 

sentenced in the District of Missouri in the spring 

of 1990. Sentencing ranged from probation to two 

years imprisonment and a $1O,OOO fine for this 

pre-sentencing guidelines case. 

These five defendants joined a sixth 

defendant who had previously pled guilty to 

conspiracy and to falsifying records. The six 

defendants were indicted after a lengthy 
investigation into the treatment, transportation, 

handling and storage of PCBs at the Martha C. 

Rose Chemicals Co. The defendants were 

indicted for conspiracy to defraud the EPA, 

falsifying records required by TSCA, falsifying 

NPDES records and improper storage of PCB 

transformers. The Martha C. Rose Chemicals Co. 

went bankrupt and abandoned the site, requiring 

a $20 to $30 million Superfund cleanup. These 

convictions were a result of an exhaustive EPA 

and FBI criminal investigation. 

On January 2, 

1990, Sherman Smith was sentenced to 30 days 

imprisonment, one year probation and a $2,000 

fine as a consequence of his August 18,1989 guilty 

plea to one misdemeanor count for violating the 

Rivers and Harbor Act. Smith is the owner of 

Seawall Construction Company of Seattle. The 

case arose out of Smiths practice of engaging in 

the unpermitted pumping of oil contaminated 

wastewaters into Puget Sound from the tow 

tugboats and barges operated by his company. 

Smith had been issued repeated warnings and 

citations by the U.S. Coast Guard and State of 

Washington Department of Ecology concerning 

this unlawful activity. Smiths refusal to comply 

prompted the U.S. Attorneys Office to file a 

complaint and to obtain an arrest warrant, in lieu 

of proceeding by way of a summons for Smith, 

when he repeated the wrongdoing on March 31, 

1989. 

FY 1990 Enforcen$nt Accomplishments Report I 

us. V. SDe- : On September 27,1990 

the former president of a California company 

that operated mobile wastewater treatment units 

was convicted by a federal jury in Los Angeles of 

four counts of illegal transportation of a 

hazardous waste and eleven counts of illegal 

storage of hazardous wastes. Michael Robert 

Speach had been president of ENV, Inc., at 

Rancho Dominguez, California from 1973 to 1988. 

He operated mobile wastewater freatment units 

which generated FOO6 sludges at electroplating 

shops in Southern California. 'In 1986, Speach 

entered into an agreement with the operators of 

Monarch Milling, an incomplete silver smelter at 

Austin, Nevada to recover chromium from the 

wastes. 

The defendant began shipping drums of 

F006 waste and corrosive waste to Monarch 

Milling in September 1986, thereby saving 

himself the costs of disposal while violating 

RCRA. 

Speach and his vice president for 

operations, Charles E. Welch, were indicted on 

June 21,1990. Welch pleaded guilty in July 1990 

to one RCRA count of illegal storage and one 

RCRA count of illegal transportation. Welch was 

sentenced on October 15, 1990 to three years 

probation and a'. $15,000 fine; Speach was 

sentenced on December 3, 1990 to 6 months 

imprisonment, 3 years probation, a $28,000 fine, 

and 300 hours of community service. ... 

yS. v. Wells -: The 

owner of a Lowell, MA, metal-finishing firm was 

sentenced to 15 months in prison March 22,1990 

for dumping cyanide and zinc into Lowell's sewer 

system. It was the longest jail term ever handed 

out in for a pretreatment violation. John Wells, of 

Dunstable, the owner of Wells Metal Finishing, 

Inc., was found guilty in December 1989 of 19 

counts of violating the CWA, dumping wastes 

between 1987 and Februaj of 1989. The city of 

Lowell reportedly spent $60,000 on cleanup. Judge 

David Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts fined Wells $60,000, 

saying: "This is not just another white-collar 

crime, but rather this is an extremely serious case 

which could have had devastating 

environmental consequences." Assistant U.S. 

Attorney Richard Welch tried the case. As a 

consequence of the conviction, Wells Metal 

Finishing, Inc., of Lowell, MA, was placed on the 

List of Violating Facilities and is ineligible for 

federally funded contracts, grants, or loans. 

.. . 

US. v. BP : OnJuly 

31, 1990, Bert Willard entered a guilty plea to one 

count of violating CERCLA notification 

requirements (42 U.S.C. 9603(b)) as a result of an 

investigation into the dumping of hazardous 

waste, asbestos, and electrical devises 

(capacitors) containing polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs), at a site in Maple Valley, 

Washington. The dump site along a dirt road was 

discovered on May 18, 1990 by an off-duty police 

officer. Among the items found at the site were a 

number of large capacitors containing PCBs, 

numerous bottles of flammable or corrosive 

chemicals, and what has been estimated to be 

over one thousand pounds of asbestos including 

pipe wrappings, ropes, gaskets, and paper-like 

sheets. On January ,16, 1991, Mr. Willard was 

sentenced to 5 years probation, 6 months of "home 

detention," 200 hours community service, and 

$15,000 in restitution. 

4-58 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Contractor Listing 

Under the'clean Air Act (CAA) 306 and 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) 508, EPA has 

authority to prevent facilities that violate 

Federal water pollution and air pollution 

standards from receiving Federally funded 

contracts, grants or loans, by placing the facility 

on the List of Violating Facilities. Facilities 

owned or operated by persons who are convicted 

of violating air standards under CAA 113(c) or 

water standards under CWA 309(c) (and involved 

in the violations) are "automatically" listed, 

effective the date of the conviction (referred to as 

mandatory listing). Facilities which are 

mandatorily listed remain on the List until EPA 

determines that they have corrected the 

conditions which led to the violations. 

Facilities may also be listed, at the 

discretion of the Assistant Administrator (OE), 

upon the recommendation of certain EPA officials, 

a State Governor, or a member of the public 

(referred to as discretionary listing). A facility 

may be recommended for listing if there are 

continuing or recumng violations of the CAA or 

the Clean Water Act after one or more 

enforcement actions have been brought against 

the facility by EPA or a state enforcement agency. 

Facilities recommended for discretionary listing 

have a right to an informal administrative 

proceeding. Facilities listed under discretionary 

listing may be removed from the List 

automatically after one year, unless the basis for 

listing was a criminal conviction in a state court 

or a court order in a civil enforcement action. 

They may be removed from the List at any time if 

the Assistant Administrator determines that the 

facility has corrected the conditions which gave 

rise to the listing or that the facility is on a plan 

that will result in compliance. 

Two significant Contractor Listing cases in 

N 1990 were Valmont Industries Inc. and B& 

Apple Wrecking Coruoration. The Assistant 

Administrator's decision in the Valmont removal 

case established the principle that the 

company's poor attitude toward compliance with 

environmental standards can be the condition 

which led to a criminal conviction and therefore 

the condition which needs to be corrected before a 

facility will be removed from the List. @g Apple Wreckine Corporation was the first 

discretionary listing action brought against a 

construction and demolition company. In this case 

the Agency applied its interpretation of the 

definition of "facility", ie. that the facility of a 

construction company is the business address of 

the company - not the building or demolition 

site where the violation occurred. 

5-J 

Dle wr In a 

discretionary listing action against Big Apple 

Wrecking Corporation of Bronx, New York, Big 

Apple filed a motion in the United States 

District Court (D.Conn.) to enjoin the EPA from 

introducing evidence in the listing proceeding of 

alleged violations of the Asbestos NESHAP by 

Big Apple at Naugatuck, Connecticut in 1986. 

The same violations had been alleged in a civil 

complaint filed in the District Court and the 

civil action had been settled by a consent decree 

entered by Judge Burns. 

Big Apple argued that the consent decree 

prohibits EPA from using the circumstances of the 

Naugatuck demolition project as evidence of a 

record of continuing or recurring noncompliance in 

the subsequent listing proceeding. Judge Burns 

denied Big Apple's motion on two grounds: (1) 

She found that Big Apple had failed to establish 

that introduction of evidence of the Naugatuck 

violations in the listing proceeding would cause 

irreparable harm or that Big Apple did not have 

an adequate remedy at law for the alleged harm 

that would occur if the case examiner were to rule 

against Big Apple in the listing proceeding. 

-, Civ.No. 

N-86218EBB, slip opinion at 4 (D.Conn., Oct. 20, 

1989). (2) Judge Bums further found that "Even if 

Big Apple could demonstrate irreparable harm, 

it has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on 

the merits." m. She agreed with the findings 

and logic of the case examiner's ruling on Big 

Apple's motion to dismiss, finding that the new 

violations, alleged to have occurred in New York 

following the lodging of the consent decree in the 

District Court for Connecticut, gave EPA cause to 

initiate a listing proceeding and that the alleged 

violations underlying the earlier consent decree 

are admissible in the listing proceeding. Slip 

opinion at 6. Following a hearing on October 24 - 

25, 1989, the case examiner issued a decision on 

January 1, 1990, that Big Apple should be listed. 

Big Apple has appealed this decision to the EPA 

General Counsel. 

-: When EPA did not issue I 

a determination on Valmont's request to remove it 

from the EPA List of Violating Facilities within 

the forty-five day period prescribed by the 

regulations, the company filed suit against EPA 

4-59 
in the US. District Court for Nebraska, seeking a 

temporary restraining order, a preliminary 

injunction and a permanent injunction. On January 

9, 1990, the District Court ordered EPA to remove 

Valmont from the' List immediately, pending 

further order of the court following the 

completion of the removal proceeding and EPAs 

final order. The Agency issued the Assistant 

Administrator's initial decision in this matter on 

January 12, 1990. The Assistant Administrator 

determined that the condition requiring 

correction was both the company's noncompliance 

with permit requirements and the ,"corporate 

attitude, culture and organization" which 

supported concealment of violations. He further 

determined that Valmont had not demonstrated 

that it had corrected the corporate attitude and 

therefore denied its removal nrquest. 

The case examiner's decision, issued on June 

5, 1990, adopted the principles set forth in the 

Assistant Administrator's determination, as 

follows: 

"[Tlhe condition giving rise to the conviction in this 

matter was Valmont's attitude toward its. 

environmental obligations, which elevated the 

importance of the appearance of compliance over the 

importance of accurate and truthful environmental 

monitoring, and reporting .... Valmont intentionally 

tampercd with pollutant monitoring mcthods ... and 

knowingly made a material false shtemcnt in at least one Dischargc Monitoring Report ... These were 

crimes of deception.. Valmont's corporate attitude led 

to the tampering and falsification, and was the 

condition giving rise to the conviction." 

Case Examiner's Decision, at 15-16. Thus, this 

case establishcd the principle that the corporate 

attitude toward environmental obligations may 

be all or part of the condition which led to 

violations and therefore the condition which 

needs to be corrected. Nevertheless, the case 

examiner concluded, on the facts in this case, that 

the condition had been corrected.-'that Valmont 

had demonstrated by the preponderance of 

evidence introduced at the removal hearing that, 

since its criminal conviction, Valmont had 

changed its. corporate attitude toward ,its 

environmental obligations. 

4-60 

Update 

An update is necessary10 Page 30 of the EPA 

Enforcement Accomplishments Report: FY 1989, 

which references the seltlement of a civil 

judicial enforcement action filed in May 1989, 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act against Envirite Corporation of Thomaston, 

CT. in a Magistrate's recornmended ruling, sent 

to the US. District Court for the District of 

Connecticut on April 4, 1991, the Magistrate 

recommended vacating the consent decree 

betweenthe United States and Envirite. ordering 

the United States lo reimburse the penalty 

assessed under the agreement. and further 

recommended directing EPA to correct the FY 

1989 Accomplishments Report. At press time. 

the Agency is planning to file objections lo this 

ruling. 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

U Building and Maintaining a Strong .National Enforcement Program 

Proera m Development 

National Enforcement Training Institute 

On February 26, 1990, Senate Bill 2176, the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990, was introduced in 

Congress. Section 204 of the Act mandates that the Administrator shall, as soon as practicable but no 

later .than September 30, 1991, establish within the Office of Enforcement the National Enforcement 

Training Institute to train Federal, State, 'and local personnel in the enforcement of the Nation's 

environmental laws. The Act was signed into law by President Bush on November 16,1990, as Title 11 of 

H.R. 3338. 

The Program Development and Training Branch (PDTB) in the Office of Enforcement has begun 

work to comply with the Act, and to that end has been working with the National Enforcement 

Investigations Center (NEIC) concerning major aspects of the Institute including: curriculum 

development; the relationship of this training to employees' career paths; the development of State and 

local government training delivery systems; funding; faculty; and management. (For further information 

contact the Office of Enforcement's Office of Compliance Analysis and Pmgrain Operations) 

Inspector Training and Development 

The Agency evaluated progress and developed two reports on implementation of the inspector 

training requirements under EPA Order 3500.1. This assessment came midway in the phased, three-year 

(FY 1989 to FY 1991) implementation plan for the Order. The next deadline for training experienced 

inspectors (those hired prior to June 1988) is October 1,1991. The first report, Buildine the Enforcement 

Infrastructure: Compliance Inspector Trainins analyzed accomplishments from the perspective of the 

Compliance Programs. A second report, Report on RePional Status of Comuliance Inspector 'Raininp 

analyzed the data from a Regional perspective. The reports revealed important accomplishments such 

as the one-year natiokl effort (4/894/90) by the Regions to deliver Basic Inspector Training to hundreds 

of inspectors and supervisors: (For further information contact OCAPO) 

Basic Negotiations Skills Training 

During FY 1990, the Basic Negotiations Skills course became mandatory for all new attorneys 

within one year of their arrival at EPA. Because of the new requirement, and a large number of new 

program enforcement personnel, the course was offered 12 times and approximately 390 students were 

trained. Negotiations training was also provided to the States of Oregon and Montana and will be 

offered in early 1991 in Alaska and Connecticut. In an effort to expand the instructor base, the Program 

Development and Training Branch (PDTB) developed and presented a "train the trainers" course which 

will be offered at least once each year. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

Penalty Calculation Model Training (BEN and ABEL) 

The Program Development and Training Branch (PDTB) presented training on the BEN and 

ABEL computer model for calculating penalties to six Regions and the State of Connecticut. The seven 

courses trained a total of 204 enforcement personnel from EPA, the Department of.Justice (DOJ), and 14 

States. In addition to training, PDTB responded to over 600 inquiries regarding the BEN and ABEL 

models and penalty issues. Inquiries were received from enforcement personnel at EPA, DOJ, other 

Federal agencies, 20 States, and the.United Kingdom. (For further information contact OCAPO) 
FY 1990 Erforcement Accomplishments Report 

National Reports on FY 1990 EPA and State Performance 

Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response 

The Xmely and Appropriate Enforcement Response concept seeks to establish predictable 

enforcement responses by both EPA and the States, with each media program defining target timeframes 

for the timely escalation of enforcement responses.. Tracking of timeframes comniences on the date the 

violation is detected through to the date when formal enforcement action is initiated. The programs 

have also defined what constitutes an appropriate formal enforcement response based on the liature of 

the violation, including defining when the imposition of penalties or other sanctions is appropriate. 

Each year OE compiles an end-of-year report which summarizes the performance by each of the media 

programs. The report for 1990 will be available in March 1991. 

Management improvements planned for each of the programs and new legislative authorities 

(g& the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) should help the programs make further gains this year and 

next. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

Federal Penalty Practices 

Each year, EPA produces a comprehensive analysis of the financial penalties EPA obtained from 

violators of environmental laws. The report contains an Agency-wide overview for each program and 

compares annual performance with' historical trends. The N 1990 report will be available in March 

1991. (For further information contact OCAPO) r 

Summary of State-by-State Enforcement Activity for EPA and the States 

Each year, EPA assembles an end-of-year report which summarizes quantitative indicators of 

EPA and State enforcement activities on a State-by-State basis. The FY 1990 report is scheduled for 

publication in March 1991. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

Enforcement Effectiveness Case Studies 

The Office of Enforcement, working with the Surface Water and Air Mobile Sources Programs, 

developed a summary report of the health and environmental benefits of EPA and State enforcement 

strategies over-a 24 year period for: 1) the Mobile Source Lead Phasedown Program - a program to 

reduce lead in gasoline; and 2) the National Municipal Policy (NMP) - an enforcement initiative to 

improve compliance by publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants. The NMP report reveals that a 

strong enforcement program achieved significant environmental benefits, and the Lead Phasedown Study 

suggests that a strong enforcement program created deterrence, reflected-by a sharp decline in the 

frequency of new violations, after EPA began carefully auditing company records. .. . 

The Lead Phasedown study included as a measure of results the quantification of health effects 

and monetary benefits associated with the reduction in lead levels resulting from the Agency's 

enforcement actions. Estimated benefits include the removal of 150 million grams of lead from gasoline 

production in the form of lead rights retired by the end of 1987. This reduction represents $40 million 

worth of direct health benefits (1983 .dollars). 

In the case of the National Municipal Policy, measures included estimates of the reduction in 

toxic and conventional pollutant loadings associated with the shift of facilities in the NMP universe to 

secondary and/or advanced wastewater, treatment. Based on these shifts, EPA estimates removal of an 

additional 2.325 million Ibs/day of conventional pollutants and removal of an additional 15,000 Ibs/day 

of toxic pollutants. (For further information contact 0CAPO;the Office of Mobile Sources'for Lead 

Phasedown, and the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits for NhQ) 

5-2 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report (+) 

Intergovernmental/International - Enforcement Activities 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Memorandum of 

' Understanding (MOU) 

During the last half of FY 1990, EPA and' the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA), negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was formally signed by 

Administrator William Reilly and former Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole on November 23, 1990. The 

purpose of the MOU was to enhance the protection of the public, workers, and the environment from 

violations at facilities subject to both EPA and OSHA jurisdiction. The MOU provides for coordinated 

action in three areas: detecting violations, exchanging compliance information, and enforcement training. 

EPA and OSHA will develop an annual workplan to implement the MOU and to identify specific areas 

of coordinated activity for each fiscal year. 

First, OSHA and EPA inspectors will cross-refer potential violations discovered during the 

course of routine compliance inspections. The two agencies will also look for opportunities to target for 

joint inspections in, mutual priority categories of facilities, such as petrochemical plants or secondary 

lead smelters, which may be in violation of both workplace and environmental standards. Any resulting 

enforcement actions may incorporate both EPA and OSHA counts. 

Second, EPA will provide OSHA with information from its national compliance/enforcement 

data bases past violations, enforcement actions, penalty assessments) and the Toxic Release 

Inventory (TRI) which may help OSHA with its own compliance targeting strategies. In return, OSHA 

will provide EPA with compliance and worker exposure data from its data base in support of specific EPA 

enforcement actions or targeting strategies.. 

Third, EPA and OSHA inspectors and other compliance personnel will be given the opportunity 

to participate in relevant components of each Agency's enforcement training program. The personnel from 

both agencies will benefit from receiving a general understanding of, and familiarity with, each others' 

programs and also receive training in specific areas of mutual enforcement activity. (For further 

information contact OCAPO) 

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)/EPA Cooperative Arrangement 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and EPA have enhanced cooperative efforts to 

ensure accurate company disclosure of environmental liabilities to investors. In FY 1990, EPA expanded 

the information exchanged and began to implement a system of quarterly reports to the SEC. The 

quarterly reports now include: Potentially Responsible Parties at Superfund sites; pending and concluded 

cases for RCRA and CERCLA enforcement; enforcement penalties from civil judicial cases; concluded 

criminal cases; and companies barred under contractor listing. The SEC has been using the data for 

targeting their reviews. In addition, based upon this information as well as selected cooperative 

reviews of disclosure statements with EPA, the SEC has sent comment letters to companies requesting 

that filings be amended. (For further information contact OCAPO) 

The First International Enforcement Workshop on the Environment 

On May 8-10, 1990 the first International Enforcement Workshop was held in Utrecht, the 

Netherlands, jointly sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Netherlands 

Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment. It has heralded a new era of international 

cooperation in environmental enforcement. The Workshop participants, which included senior 

government environmental policy and enforcement officials from fourteen nations and two international 

organizations, uniformly recommended that there be a follow up conference with broader sponsorship 

and participation. Further, these leaders, coming from each region of the globe came away with a 

5 -3 
,y. 'I 

FY 1990 E@orcement Acco~&lishmenfs Report i+ a' rn 

commitment to strengthen local resolve to improve domestic and international enforcement programs in 

regional as well as global exchanges. 

The Workshop was designed to share experiences in environmental enforcement, to gain new 

insights into how current programs can be improved, to create an international network of experts who 

can continue to share and learn from each other's experiences, to raise the level of interest in 

environmental enforcement, both within and among nations, and to explore ways to enhance 

international cooperation in enforcement. 

It addressed four themes: 1) domestic enforcement strategies and management. systems, 2) 

intergovernmental relationships, 3) international transboundary enforcement concerns related to import 

and export.of hazardous wastes and pesticides, and 4) implementation of intemational accords such as 

the Montreal Protocol and Ocean Dumping Conventions. 

Published Workshop Proceedings include papers from over thirty distinguished authors, from 

over ten nations on the elements of a successful enforcement program, both on domestic and international 

issues. Copies of the Proceedings were widely disseminated throughout the U.S. to State and local 

environmental and law enforcement officials and also to other nations. (For further information contact 

OCAPO) 1 CleanAir Ad 

I Clarification of EPA NESHAP Policy - Nonfriable ACM 

On February 23,1990,OE-Air, and the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) issued a 

reference memorandum clarifying the requirements of the Asbestos NESHAP regarding nonfriable 

asbestos containing material (ACM), such as floor tile, roofing materials, packing and gaskets. The 

memorandum states that these normally nonfriable ACM should be removed before demolition only if 

they are in poor condition and are friable. If 'these materials are subjected to sanding, grinding, or 

abrading as part of demolition or renovation, then they must be handled in accordance with NESHAP. 

If a building is demolished by burning, all ACM must be removed prior to demolition. (For further 

information contact the Office of Air and Radiation's Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD)) 

A Guide To the'Asbestos NESHAP As Revised October 1990 ' 

' 

Revigions to the Asbestos NESHAP were promulgated in October 1990. This document 

incorporates the revisions to the existing Asbestos NESHAP in an easy to read format which promotes 

understanding of the regulation by the States ind the regulated community. I (For further information 

contact SSCD) 

Field Guide: Reporting And Recording Requirements For Waste Disposal 

This is a guide to help the regulated' community comply with the new reporting and. 

recordkeeping requirements of the asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP). The specific responsibilities of waste generators, transporters and waste disposal site 

operators are addressed, as well as detailed explanations of how to complete the new forms accurately 

and efficiently. (For further information contact SSCD) 

' 

I Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program Compliance Actions 

-. 

The first enforcement actions for violations of the Stratospheric Ozone Rule were taken during 

1990. The Stratospheric Ozone Rule implements the provisions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Stratospheric Ozone Layer. Enforcement actions were completed in five caws involving 

firms which imported chlorofluorocarbons without the required allowances. In addition to paying 

I 5-4 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

penalties for the violations, all violators obtained allowances that they should have had prior to 

making their illegal importations. (For further information contact SSCD) 

Asbestos NESHAP Compilation 

In September 1990, a compilation of all effective NESHAP applicability determinations was 

completed by SSCD. The draft “blue book” has been sent to all EPA Regional NESHAP coordinators for 

their use in planning and enforcing the asbestos regulations at demolition and renovation sites. The final 

computer diskettes containing the contents of each blue book is also being transmitted to each Regional 

office, and will be used to update the compilation on a quarterly basis. (For further information contact 

SSCD) 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy for Radionuclide NESHAPs 

On July 31,1990, SSCD issued this document which designed to introduce the Regional Offices to 

these new.NESHAPs, and to establish the roles of Headquarters and the Regions in implementing and 

monitoring compliance with these standards. The strategy also outlines the Agency’s targets for 

inspection. (For further information contact SSCD) 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

SSCD issued this guidance on March 31, 1988. Based on Regional and State concerns, the 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) is being revised in FY 19901991 for implementation in FY 1992. 

The revised CMS provides at once a more flexible and systematic approach for determining State 

inspection commitments. This strategy recommends the development of a comprehensive inspection plan 

that identifies all sources committed to be inspected by the State agency during their fiscal year, and 

the subsequent evaluation of the commitments by the Regional Office at the end of the year. 

The first year of CMS implementation has demonstrated that a closer coordination and exchange 

between the Region and State is possible by encouraging flexibility in determining the Inspection Plan 

for the following year. This and other lessons learned from the implementation of CMS have been used 

to revise and subsequently strengthen the Strategy. This coordination and open negotiation is encouraged 

and strengthened under the revised CMS. 

The revised CMS will require additional reporting activities and responsibilities. However it is 

justified in the interest of developing the most environmentally effective inspection program in a given 

State, and as a basis for more open and informal planning and negotiation between the State and EPA. 

This will in turn build a stronger State-Federal partnership. (For further information contact SSCD) 

Air Toxic Initiative Status Report 

Administrator Reilly’s meeting with the CEOs from nine companies in August 1989, marked the 

beginning of the Air Toxic Initiative in which EPA worked with companies to reduce emissions from toxic 

air sources. On one level EPA has worked in cooperation with CEO companies to develop individual 

voluntary emission reduction plans on which they will submit annual progress reports to EPA. In October 

1990, the companies submitted their first annual progress report on the voluntary reduction plans to 

OAQPS. 

On another level of the Air Toxic Initiative, EPA contacted companies, other than CEO 

companies to update their toxic emissions information. From these additional companies, two facilities 

were visited by the National Enforcement Investigation Center for a multi-media investigation. 

Modeled after the National Air Toxic Initiative with CEO companies, Region I1 and Region VI 

have begun air toxic reduction programs. The Regional program targeted facilities other than those 

addressed by the National Initiative. Region VI, in cooperation with the Texas Air Control Board, and 

5-5 
 I 

2."" ."* 

FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Repon t$y 

the Texas Water Commission is working with five Texas facilities to develop voluntary toxic reduction 

plans for their particular facilities. In addition, the Region is working with the Louisiana Department 

of Environmental Quality to develop voluntary toxic reduction plans for two companies in Louisiana. 

(For further information contact SSCD) 

CFC Enforcement Initiative 

On June 28 and 29, 1990, the United States filed five civil judicial enforcement actions under the 

authority of the Rule to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone, 40 C.F.R. Part 82 (the Rule). These actions, the 

first to enforce provisions of the Rule, which went into effect on July 1, 1989, all alleged importation of 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by persons who did not hold the consumption allowances the Rule requires 

importers to obtain prior to importing specified ozone-depleting chemicals. All five defendants were 

able to obtain unexpended consumption allowances before June 30,1990, thereby averting any damage to 

the stratospheric ozone layer that could have resulted from their actions, and insuring that thellnited 

States complied with its national annual CFC consumption limit as established by an international 

agreement;the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. (For further information 

contact SSCD) 

I Guidance on Non-friable Asbestos 

EPAs air enforcement and policy offices issued a guidance in February 1990 which clarified an. 

issue that had been dividing the regulated community and the enforcement staff across the nation. The 

decision stated that asbestos fibers in four types of non-friable asbestos, floor tile, roofing felt, packings 

and gaskets, are so well bound in the vinyl, bituminous or asphaltic binder, that, under normal conditions, 

they need not be removed from buildings before demolition or renovation operations. This is not the case 

with friable (crumbly) and other forms of non-friable asbestos that readily become friable during 

demolition, like cement-asbestos. The policy further stated that occasionally these four types of 

asbestos must be handled in accordance with.the asbestos NESHAP regulations when the floor tile or 

other material has become fnable due to age or weathering, or when these materials are sand+, ground, 

burned or otherwise. abraded during removal. It is asserted that these removal techniques will 

definitely render friable the materials and will cause' dangerous levels of asbestos fibers to become 

airborne. (For further information contact SSCD) 

I Guidance on Inclusion of CERCLA §103(a) Counts in Asbestos NESHAP Cases 

On June 5,1990, the Air Enforcement Division and the Superfund Enforcement Division jointly issued 

guidance on adding CERCLA counts to asbestos NESHAP cases. Regions are encouraged to scrutinize cases 

alleging violations of the NESHAP disposal requirements for determination of whether CERCLA 

reporting violations also exist. The guidance underscores the growing commitment to cross-media 

enforcement. (For further information contact SSCD) 

I '. Stratospheric Ozone Civil Penalty Policy 

On November 24, 1989, the Air'Enforcement Division (AED) issued Appendix VI11 to the Clean 

Air Act.Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy, the Stratospheric Ozone Penalty Policy. AED amended 

this policy on April 2, 1990, to insure the assessment of a significant penalty even against defendants 

who manufacture or import small amounts in violation. 

Unique aspects of the Rule to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone, 40 C.F.R. Part 82 (the Rule), 

prompted AED to adopt a unique approach to assessing penalties. The Rule allocated annual production 

and consumption allowances to persons who manufactured or imported chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in 1986 

in amounts equal to the kilograms of their activities in that year. Allowance holders are free to trade 

their allowances to other persons, but such transfers are valid only if authorized by EPA. The 

manufacture of each kilogram of CFC requires the expenditure of one kilogram of production allowances 

56 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

and one kilogram of consumption allowances that the manufacturer must possess at the time of 

manufacture. The importation of each kilogram of CFC requires the expenditure of one kilogram of 

consumption allowances that the importer must have in his possession at the time of importation. 

Allowances left unexpended at the end of each twelve-month control period do not cany over to the next. 

Each kilogram of CFCyanufactured or imported in excess of allowances held is a separate violation, 

exposing the violator to potential statutory maximum penalties of $25,000 for each kilogram. 

AED established a flexible economic benefit rule of thumb which the Agency linked to the 

actual cost of an allowance on the open market. The gravity component reflects AEDs desire both to 

protect the integrity of the Rule and to encourage violators to act quickly to remove the potential 

environmental harm resulting from their violations. (For further information contact OE-Air or SSCD) 

Documenting Penalty Calculations and Justifications in EPA Settlement Agreements 

On August 9, 1990, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement James M. Strock issued a 

memorandum initiating a unifdrm system for documenting penalty calculations and explaining how they 

are consistent with the applicable penalty policy in all EPA enforcement actions. The memorandum 

requires EPA attorneys to document how the proposed penalty is calculated and how it is consistent with 

the applicable penalty policy in the document initiating the enforcement action, the memorandum 

recommending EFA management concurrence in a proposed settlement, and any time during the course of 

the enforcement action that the bottom line penalty changes due to new information or circumstances. 

This required documentation must be kept in both the OE case file and the Office of Regional Counsel 

case file. (For further information contact OE-Air) 

Us'e of Stipulated Penalties in EPA Settlement Agreements 

On January 24, 1990, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement James M. Strock issued a 

memorandum on the use of stipulated penalties in EPA settlement agreements. The memorandum 

discusses the types of consent agreement requirements which should have stipulated'penalties, the 

appropriate level of those stipulated penalties, and the enforcement and collection of stipulated 

penalties provisions. Significant stipulated penalties helps to assure that companies meet the 

important environmental obligations which they assume in settlement of EPA enforcement actions. (For 

further information contact OE-Air) 

Wood-Fired Boiler Initiative 

During FY 1990, Region I completed a survey of wood-fired boilers used to generate electricity in 

New Hampshire. In total, seven facilities were inspected. Each facility was found to be in violation'of 

its Temporary Permit issued by the State of New Hampshire for the purpose of limiting each facility to 

minor source status. These violations led the Region to issue six Notices of Violation and a Notice of 

Noncompliance. In addition, as a result of this effort, the Region initiated and settled in principle a 

civil judicial referral against one of the facilities for a penalty of $99,999. 

This effort raised awareness in two areas. One, both industry and the state agency will focus 

more attention on emission limits contained in permits. A minor source permit will not be issued to a 

facility unless it can truly comply with the permit limits. Second, each facility has increased its efforts 

towards controlling air emissions. One source spent nearly $700,000 to modify its small boilers in order to 

lower carbon monoxide emissions. (For further information contact Region I-Air) 

Connecticut Rule Effectiveness Study 

In FY 1990, Region I concluded its rule effectiveness study in the State of Connecticut on the 

miscellaneous metal parts and products (MMP&P) source category. The study evaluated the present 

compliance of sources subject to the MMP&P regulation, identified specific implementation problems 

5 -7 
FY 1990 Enforcement Acconplishments Report 

with the regulation, and addressed specific state agency program activities which affected how well 

the MMPdrP regulation was enforced. 

. - The.major features of the study included a preliminary review of 290 source files, the issuance of 

235 EPA Section 114 Reporting Requirements, compliance inspections of 37 sources which revealed.22 

violating sources, various EPA and state enforcement actions taken against the violators, and a post file 

review. 

~ 

-. 

Of the 22 sources found.in violation, eight have been classified as "Significant Wolators." EPA 

issued NOVs to six of these "Significant Violators," while the State issued NOVs to the other two.. Six 

of the "Significant Violators" are now in compliance with the MMPM regulation; the other two sources 

are under review by the State for-SIP Revisions. The State issued NOVs to most of the other violating 

,sources as well. In addition to the NOVs issued, EPA issued eight Addnistrative Orders to sources that 

did not respond to EPA's Section 114 Reporting Requirements. 

EPA conducteda post file review at the State. The post file review revealed that there was a 

difference of interpretation between EPA and the State regarding applicability determinations. The 

State's,less stringent interpretation resulted in the State determining several sources not to be subject to 

the MMP&P regulation which should have been.. The post file review also indicated that the State 

inspectors were not getting maximum coating usage data from many sources, but rather average coating 

usage, data which resulted in erroneous applicability determinations. Lastly, !he post file review 

revealed that the State did not inspect minor (Class B) sources frequently enough to update compliance 

statuses and classification changes. 

The adoption of a new MMPsLP regulation by the State of Connecticut on November 1, 1989 

corrected the applicability determination problems that the State was having. In addition, the State 

promised to devise an inspection targeting program in FY.1991 to ensure frequent inspections of minor 

(Class B) sources. These two corrective actions should improve the effectiveness of., the MMPdrP 

The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation Asbestos Cleanup Cooperative Effort 

This effort involved a unique cooperative effort for remediation resulting from an innovative and 

non-traditional approach to remediation problems on reservations where there are limited resources. In 

a meeting at the Pine Ridge Reservation with EPA,,BIA, and the tribe regarding the Red Shirt Table 

asbestos site, it was decided that the tribe and BIA would put together a plan to collectively clean-up 

the site. Actual BIA and tribal costs are well below standard contractor costs.. BIA agreed to provide the 

cleanup personnel, on-site training for these personnel, and equipment. The tribe agreed to provide 

additional cleanup personnel and 'equipment, In addition, ' the' tribal. environmental program will 

provide trained personnel to supervise the project: The Indian Health Service (IHS) will conduct 

medical monitoring for the BIA and tribal cleanup personnel. (For further information contact Region 

VIIIIAir) 

.. ,. 

regulation appreciatively. (For further inforpation contact Region I-Air) .. . 

.. . ': 

!- . 

.. . . .. .. I .. 

.. , California .. South Coast Air Quality Management. District Settlement 

, . ' ... with Lockheed Aerospace 

One of most newsworthy and significant state/local air enforcement actions, was announced in 

March 1990 by.the South Coast Air Quality Management District.. This concerned a *ttlement with 

Lockheed Aerospace which involved a cash penalty of $1,000,000 plus a commitment from the 

corporation to spend additional large sums to.upgrade their air.po1lution control program in order to 

resolve numerous VOC emissions and permitting violations and to meet District requirements. Lockheed 

was one of several companies.which had been included in the cooperative aerospace rule effectiveness 

study conducted jointly b9 local air pollution control agencies, the California Air Resources Board,.and by 

Region IX. Most of the violations involved failures by the company to maintain required records as well 

as utilize compliant coatings and solvents. The amount of the penalty, however, was not the only) 

I 5 -8 
FY 1990 Enforcemenr Accomplishments Repon 

significant feature of the settlement. Lockheed also agreed to consolidate and centralize all coating and 

solvent dispensing functions into state-of-the-art central dispensing stations at each of their affected 

plants in the South Coast. Implementation of this agreement has resulted in a program to computerize 

all recordkeeping functions, and to include bar-codes on each container of coating or solvents brought into 

their facilities. 

The Lockheed case provides a very visible example of progress being made in the assessment of 

meaningful penalties by local agencies as a deterrent to violations as well as in the incorporation of 

state-of-the-art requirements as settlement conditions. (For further information contact Region IX-Air) 

Clean Air Act - Mobile Sources 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Recalls - 

EPAs recall testing program continued effectively to enforce Federal emission requirements in FY 

1990. Since the beginning of recall activity, a total of 40 million vehicles have been recalled. Thirty 

million of those vehicles were recalled as a direct result of EPA investigations conducted at laboratories 

in Springfield, VA, and Ann Arbor, MI. The motor vehicle emission mall program continues to play an 

important role in EPAs enforcement efforts. During FY 1990, EPA investigations resulted in 12 recalls 

involving four manufacturers and a total of 1.6 million recalled vehicles. In addition, 480,000 vehicles 

were recalled voluntarily by manufacturers prior to EPA testing. 

For the first time, EPA conducted motor vehicle enforcement testing in a high altitude arca 

(Denver, Colorado). This high-altitude program conducted by EPA, in coordination with the Colorado 

Department of Health (CDH), was initiated to ensure vehicles in high altitude areas comply with 

Federal emission standards. Under EPAs direction, CDH tested 22 engine families representing 3.6 

million vehicles. The new testing program resulted in 1 of the above 12 recalls and we expect 5 more 

recalls are expected as a result of this program. (For further information contact the Office of Mobile 

sourced 

Mobile Source Selective Enforcement Auditing 

EPAs Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA) program consists of production-line emission testing 

of new light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines. Less than 200 individual vehicle tests conducted 

during SEAS induced manufacturers to voluntarily perform over 20,000 vehicle emission tests in order to 

assure that their product conformed with standards and avoid enforcement sanctions. 

EPA heavy-duty engine audits focused on engines that manufacturers claimed achieve family 

emission limits (FELs) below the standard, and as a result emission credits for future use under tighter 

standards were generated. Also as a result of these audits, the agency revoked a manufacturer's 

certificate of conformity for an engine family because the engine configuration would not meet emission 

standards. The certificate was reissued when modifications to the engine were completed by the 

manufacturer and the newly-configured engines demonstrated conformance with standards. The 

manufacturer agreed to recall all previously-produced engines of the configuration that failed the audit. 

(Fm further information contact the Office of Mobile Sources) 

Mobile Source Imports Program 

In FY 1990, EPA continued implementation and enforcement of the new lmports program under 

Xtle 11 of the Clean Air Act. This program, implemented on July 1, 1988, permits only independent 

commercial importers that possess an appropriate certificate of conformity from EPA to import 

nonconforming vehicles. The importers are responsible for meeting EPA emission requirements for all 

nonconforming vehicles which are imported, and EPA's policy calls for will pursue civil penalties 

against importers found in violation. (For further information contact the Office of Mobile Sources) 

5 -9 
(&J FY 1990 Enforcement AccomplishmentsReport 

Clean Water Act 

NPDES Pretreatment Workshops 

The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) developed and implemented two series of 

workshops in M 1990 for individuals responsible for ,enforcing the requirements related to the 

wastewater Pretreatment Program. These workshops were designed to familiarize the pretreatment 

personnel with existing statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as with current Agency policies 

and guidance regarding the PFtreatment Program. They include the City Attorney’s and Enforcement 

Response Plan workshops. The City Attorney’s workshop is designed to encourage and facilitate the 

participation by the local municipal attorney in enforcing the requirements mandated by the federal 

regulations and State or local laws, by outlining attorney’s role in the process. In addition, attorneys are 

briefed on effective enforcement strategies and given examples of actual administrative and judicial 

proceedings. In FY 1990, City Attorney Workshops were conducted in Annapolis, MD, Mahwah, NJ, 

Salem, MA, Madison, WI, Boulder, CO, and Park City UT, with over 200 participating city attorneys. 

The Enforcement Response Plan’workshop was designed to familiarize pretreatment personnel 

with the ‘requirements established in the Domestic Sewage Study regulation for developing an 

enforcement response plan. During the workshop, the current regulatory requirements are explained and 

the Agency’s guidance is discussed in detail. In FY 1990, Enforcement Response Plan workshops were 

conducted in Portland, ME, Salt Lake City, UT, San -Jose, CA, Nashville, TN, Parsippany, NJ, 

Philadelphia, ’ PA, and Columbus, OH, with over 300 pretreatment officials participating. (For further 

information contact OWEP) 

,Initiation of Municipal Water Pollution Prevention (MWPP) Program 

EPA and the ,States are la,unching a new national program aimed at identifying potential 

problems at POTWs and applying pollution prevention strategies. The program applies the Agency’s 

pollution prevention “hierarchy” to municipalities. Thus, the focus of the program is to provide an early 

warning system to prompt activities to r.educe flow and loadings, .ensure environmentally sensitive 

treatment and the beneficial reuse of sludge, and to expand facilities if necessary. The Office of Water 

has involved EPA’s Regional office and States in developing a fully cooperative program. (For further 

information contact OWEPI 

.’ Coastal Texas Wetlands Initiative 

’ On September 26, 1990, the Department of Justice filed, on behalf of EPA Region VI, three suits 

against (1) Marinus Van Leuzen and Ronald Neal Hornbeck of Galveston, Texas; (2) A. B. Charpiot and 

David Charpiot of Crystal Beach, Texas, and (3) Charles Hanson, In of Port Arthur, Texas, for violating 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The suits, filed in’the Southern and Eastern’Districts of 

Texas, allege that each of the individuals filled or instructed employe& to fill federally protected 

wetlands without receiving a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as kquired by the CWA. 

In each case, the wetlands filled were coastal salt marsh wetlands which buffer coastlines,during 

storms, are among the most valuable wetland systems (serving as spawning areas for variety of fish and 

wildlife), and are located in an area in which the potential for filling is substantial. The filing of these 

suit was announced by the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources as 

indicative of the major environmental priority the United States placed on the protection of wetlands in 

coastal Texas and nationwide. (For further information contact OE-Water) 

Publication of Final Rule for APA Administrative Penalties 

On June 12,1990, EPA published in the Federal Reeister the final rule for assessing Class II 

administrative penalties under the Clean Water Act. The final rule was developed in response to the 

new administrative enforcement authorities under the 1987 Clean Water Act amendments. The CWA 

amendments provided for Class I administrative penalties not to exceed $25,000 and Class I1 penalties 

5-10 
..e .... FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Reporl 

.- 

not to exceed $125,000. The Agency must follow the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when assessing 

Class I1 civil penalties. Promulgation of the final rule provides procedures to ensure effective use of 

Regional resources for administrative hearings on proposed Class I1 administrative penalties. (For 

further information contact OE-Water) 

Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Initiative 

In December 1989 EPA Administrator Reilly assumed the Chair of the Chesapeake Executive 

Council, a creation of the Chesapeake Bay agreement of 1987. Administrator Reilly announced two goals 

on this occasion: 1) to reduce by half the number of Clean Water Act significant nonlcompliers that 

discharge to the.Bay watershed by the lend of 1990 and 2) to completely eliminate non-compliance by 

federal facilities that discharge in the Bay watershed. 

To attain these goals, EPA hunched the "Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement 

Initiative". A major component of the Initiative has been increased enforcement against dischargers in 

the Bay watershed. Through Septem$r 1990, the Bay States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia 

and EPA Region 111 had taken fifty enforcement actions as part of the Initiative. Two of those actions 

were U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Sparrows Point, Maryland, and U.S. v. District of Columbia. 

In the suit against Bethlehem Steel tee United States alleges that Bethlehem discharged reportable 

quantities of hazardous substances (sulfuric acid and ferric chloride) to the Patapsco River on three 

occasions. In its enforcement action lagainst D.C., the United States has alleged that the District 

violated its NPDES permit on numerous occasions. These alleged violations include several instances of 

discharges of untreated sewage to the Potomac River. 

*I 

I. .. At the end of FY 1990, NPDES sigmficant noncompliance was reduced from 8.3% at the start of 

the initiative to 4.6%, and the number of federal facilities in noncompliance with at least, one 

environmental program was reduced from 37 to 13. (For further information contact Region HI-Water) 

Development-of Oil Pollution Act Enforcement Provisions 

The Water Division of the Office of Enforcement was closely involved with advising 

congressional staff and other Agency offices on the enforcement provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990, which was signed into law on Augirst 18, 1990. The new bill revamps Section 311 of the Clean Water 

Act -- the oil spill provision - by.dramatically increasing penalties, giving EPA new authority to assess 

civil penalties administratively, and broadening the Agency's authority to issue and enforce clean-up 

orders. Elsewhere the law establishes the government's right to seek damages for harm occurring to 

natural resources, and significantly improves the United States' financial ability to clean up a spill 

itself. The Office of Enforcement is heading an Agency workgroup that is developing enforcement 

policies and procedures to implement the new law during FY 1991. (For further information contact OEWater) 

Outreach on Clean Water Act Citizens Suits 

The Office of Enforcement, together with the Department of Justice, began meeting with outside 

attorneys involved in citizen enforcement suits under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act in an effort to 

better communicate regarding our respective efforts against non-compliers. The CWA provides both EPA 

and DOJ with a role in reviewing proposed citizen settlements, and the agencies have actively 

participated in a number of citizen enforcement cases before the courts. 

As a result of this interaction, a number of significant legal and policy issues have arisen between 

the government and citizen litigants. As a means of improving communication and cooperation between 

the agencies and the citizens suit bar, the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and the Assistant 

Attorney General for Environment and Natural Resources met with representatives of leading citizen 

plaintiff groups, such as the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group and the Natural Resources 

Defense Council, as well as defense counsel. 

5-11 1 
FY 1990 Egorcement Accomplishments Report 

EPA and the Department will continue to meet with the citizen suit bar in FY 1991 to advance the 

goals of the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws, such as the Community-Right-To-Know Act 

(EPCRA), which have important citizen suit provisions. (For further information contact OE-Water) 

Administrative Order Tracking Guidance for UIC and PWSS Program 

on' August 23, 1990, the Office of Drinking Water (ODW) and the Office of Enforcement (OE) 

issued guidance entitled "Tracking Compliance. wjth Administrative Orders 'in the PWSS and UIC 

Programs." TheRegional.Drinking Water/Groundwater Protection Branches are responsible for tracking 

compliance-with all Federal administrative orders. The guidance is designed to supplement existing 

PWSS and UIC guidance on administrative order tracking and follow up activities: Tracking active 

orders, Regional response to violations of administrative orders, and closing out administrative orders 

are the three issues addressed by the guidance. (For further information contact OE-Water) 

I: . OceanPollution Enforcement Conference . ,. 

.. .. 

The Office of Enforcement and the National Association of Attorneys- General (NAAG) cosponsored a National Coastal Pollution Enforcement Conference on October 16-18 in Newport, Rhode 

Island. The conference brought together representatives from state environmental regulatory agencies, 

Bureau of Investigation, and the National 0ceanographic.and Atmospheric Administration. twenty-nine attorneys general offices, EPA, the Department of Justice, the Coast Guard, the Federal -. 

. .. .. . As a result of the conference, three specific.needsswere identified and commitments made to 

address those needs:. 1) the publication and distribution of a directory of federal, state, and local coastal 

enforcement officials,-2) the sharing'of .information,(including decisions, briefs, complaints, etc.), and 3) 

the. development of generic manuals .to assist attorneys general and their. key staff and 'federal 

prosecutors in,prepanng for and in responding to oil spill incidents in a coastal environment. Each of 

these projects were completed during the fiscal year. (For further information contact OE-Water) 

Boston Harbor Cleanup . . I. .. . I 

EPA's six-year enforcement case effort to clean up Boston Harbor continued during FY 1990 with a 

focus on the two major portions of the cleanup which remain to be fully addressed; long-term sludge 

management and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). After.a four- year process of facilities playing and 

environmental review, in November, 1989, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (Authority) 

sited the various sludge management facilities needed for .the harbor cleanup. ' These facilities.are 

needed to ensure that the current environmentally damaging practice.of dumping sludge into Boston 

Harbor is ended. However, in the face of local opposition to the propod residuals landfill, political 

obstacles have been.placed in the Authority's path in its attempts to acquire the landfill site. EPA has 

sought the assistance of the federal court. to help ensure that the Authority is able to acquire all sites 

needed for its cleanup programs. .. .. 

With respect to the CSOs, the Authority's finel facilities plan was issued in September, 1990. It 

adopts the approach of eliminating most CSCoverflows by constructing extensive deep tunnel and near 

surface storage-systems. This plan will be a significant step in addressing the raw sewage.discharges 

now occurring whenever it rains in and around Boston Harbor. (For further information contact Region IWater) .. ,. '. .. ,' .. I 

.. 

.).II 

South Essex Sewerage District .. .. 

Local political efforts and leadership this past year avoided the.n&d for a trial in EPAs Clean 

Water Act enforcement case against the South Essex Sewerage Districf in Salem, Massachusetts. -A state 

law limiting fees and taxes was preventing the District from constructing a federally required secondary 

treatment plant. Rather than' try the issue whether the. federal'court could. order .treatment plant 

construction notwithstanding the state law restrictions, local .officials -agreed'to seek legislative 

5-12 

, 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

overrides of the limitations. They were successful in doing so, and construction of the secondary 

treatment plant now can move forward. The plant will help to address the longstanding serious 

pollution problems in Salem Harbor. (For further information contact Region I-Water) 

Casco Bay, Maine 

EPA and the State of Maine began joint enforcement efforts to restore Cascb Bay. The State and 

Region I coordinated their resources and efforts to bring both state and federal action against 

communities discharging pollutants from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) into Casco Bay. The State 

took the lead against the City of Portland, while EPA filed a civil action against the City of South 

Portland for discharging untreated contaminants from its CSO discharges. Increased significance was 

added to these enforcement actions as the President this past spring designated Casco Bay to the 

National Estuary Program because of the importance of this ecological resource. The South Portland case 

was the first case ever brought by EPA against a community where the relief sought is primarily the 

correction of combined sewer overflows. Portland and South Portland will be required to coordinate their 

planning efforts to insure a geographic solution is recommended and implemented. The long term benefits 

of these actions will be the restoration and preservation of Casco Bay. (For further information contact 

Region I-Water) 

Region I1 Enforcement Leveraging Initiative ,, 

Region I1 has initiated a pilot program to provide unidentified Categorical Users (CIUs) of 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) having flows of less than 5 MGD, with a window of 

opportunity to voluntarily report their noncompliance. The window closed on June 20,1990, after having 

been open for 60 days. During the 60 day pilot period, many POTWs and industries contacted the Region 

I1 office to determine whether they were subject to the leveraging mechanism. Of those, 20 previously 

unregulated industrial facilities identified themselves as being (or potentially being) subject to 

categorical standards. File reviews and inspections of these 20 facilities are now in process. 

In return for their cooperation during the 60 day grace period, these newly identified CIUs will 

be assessed only economic benefit penalties and a standard $ZOO0 gravity penalty. In addition to paying 

such penalties, they will also commit to Consent Decrees specifying schedules and reporting 

requirements for reaching compliance with Categorical Standards. In addition, based on responses to the 

letter informing POTWs of the pilot period, the Region is also issuing S308 letters to two POTWs 

suspected of concealing the true status of the industries in their respective jurisdictions. (For further 

information contact Region II-Water) 

Region IX Innovative Pretreatment Performance Evaluation (PPEI) 

The Region has developed an innovative and expanded Pretreatment Compliance Inspection 

(PCI) evaluation which the Region Calls Pretreatment Performance Evaluation Inspection (PPEI) which 

may be more effective in determining the compliance status of industrial users and POTWs, facilitating 

enforcement action. The Region has already used the PPEI in the City of Los Angels, Burbank, Orange 

County, San Diego, Phoenix, Livermore, Milbrae, Central Marin, Burlingame, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, 

Watonssville, Monterey, Serra, Encina, Aliso, and Yuma., This is a creative concept which may continue 

to generate additional enforcement action from PPEIs conducted in FY 1990. (For further information 

contact Region IX-Water) 

Wetlands Enforcement 

Region 111 Wetlands Program Interagency Agreements 

To address concerns about the large number of wetlands violators in Region 111, the Region 

entered into Interagency Agreements (IAGs) with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) field offices in 

5-13 
 I 

FY 1990 EF,forcemenf Accomplishments Report 

State College, PA, Annapolis, MD and White Marsh, VA. EPA funds each FWS field office with a 

$50,W allotment to provide an increased level of technical staffing and case development support. 

.L 

The staff assistance provided through the FWS IAGs has further enabled Region I11 to enter into 

Field Level Memoranda of Agreement (FLMOAs) with the Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts of the 

Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Under the FLMOAs, which are burden sharing agreements, EPA and the 

COE agree that one of the two agencies will serve as the 1ead.enforcement agency in certain specified 

counties within their jointly administered jurisdictional areas. The procedural framework established 

by the FLMOAs strengthens existing wetland enforcement capabilities by reducing each agency's 

geographic coverage area and eliminating duplication of effort. (For further information contact Region 

111-Water) . . . ., 

- Region X Wetlands Cooperative Enforcement Procedures with the Corps of Engineers 

1990, the Region X Wetlands Protection Program developed cooperative enforcement 

procedures with all Corps of Engineer District Offices. These procedures center on quarterly enforcement 

meetings with each District to review progress toward resolution of cases and to select the lead agency 

for newly discovered cases. The Region has clearly communicated the types of cases for which EPA 

would like to assume the lead, pursuant to the EPA/Army MOA on 904 Enforcement. The Districts have 

been referring cases and sharing information on those cases. (For further information contact Region XWater) 

In 

,. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act .. .. 

State Hazardous Waste Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Requirements 

OWPE is revising the enforcement and compliance monitoring requirements States must meet in 

order to maintain or become authorized under RCRA. At the end of FY 1989 EPA met with state 

representatives to obtain their input ,into the development of this rule. ' During M 1990, OWPE 

considered state comments received during those meetings and internal comments received during Red, 

Border review and completed the preamble and proposed regulatory language. OWPE expects publish 

the proposed rule in the near future. (For further information contact the Office of Waste Programs 

Enforcement - RCRA Enforcement Division (OWPERED)) .. 

RCRA 3008(h) Case Development Workshop 

In February 1990, OWPE completed presentation of the RCRA 3008(h) Case Development 

Workshop, (Administrative Records Course) in all Regions. The workshop focused on the development of 

the administrative record for consent and unilateral 3008(h) orders. This workshop will .. be presented 

again upon request. (For further information contact OWPE-RED) 

I 

. ' ' Land Disposal Restrictions Third-Third Training 

In the summer of 1'990, OWPE sponsored enforcement training in the LDR Third-third 

requirements to all Regions. This training initiative was a joint effort with the office of solid waste. 

(For further information contact OWPE-RED) 

Land Disposal Restrictions DOE Satellite Training ~ 

In July 1990, OWPE +sponsored a Satellite Teleconference with,DOE on the LDR requirements 

and implementation. Over lo00 people attended the teleconference. (For further information contact 

OWPE-RED) 

5-14 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

LDR Interactive Video 

OWPE began the production of the first Interactive Wd& in the Agency. This Interactive Video 

is designed to coverall LDR requirements and provides the audience an opportunity to interact with the 

computer during the course. This project is scheduled to be completed in early FY 1991. (For further 

information contact OWPE-RED) 

Hazardous Waste Incinerator Enforcement Strategy 

In April 1990, OWPE issued an Enforcement. Strategy to the Regions and States on how to conduct 

an inspection at an incinerator facility and how the violations should be classified. (For further 

information contact OWPE-RED) 

Air Emission - Accelerate Rule Training 

On June 21,1990, EPA published the First Phase of the Air Emission Rule. OWPE, OSW and 

OAQPS started the training initiative on this rule in August 1990. This training covers the requirements 

of the new RCRA rule and the Benzene rule. This training will be provided to all Regions and it is 

scheduled to be completed in March 1991. (For further information contact OWPE-RED) 

Mining Waste Guidance Document ' 

The Mining Waste Guidance was issued March 26,1990. The purpose of the guidance was to assist 

Regions in planning enforcement activity related to two final rules; September 1, 1989, and January 23, 

1990. These rules subjected most mineral processing waste that was previously excluded pursuant to the 

Bevill amendments to Subtitle C management. This guidance provides background material on mining 

wastes under RCRA and a discussion of potential generators, and identifies enforcement activities in both 

unauthorized and authorized States. (For further information contact OWPE-RED) 

RCRA Implementation Study 

During FY 1990, OSWER, in conjunction with OE, formed a subcommittee as part of the RCRA 

Implementation Study (RIS) to evaluate the RCRA Subtitle C Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 

Program. A primary recommendation in the RIS regarding compliance and enforcement emphasizes 

undertaking more targeted enforcement and enhancing deterrence efforts. In order to achieve those goals 

EPA (in conjunction with the States and DOJ) has begun or plans to initiate the following: (1) targeting 

compliance monitoring and'enforcement efforts; (2) greater emphasis on hazardous waste generators and 

non-notifiers; (3) seeking higher judicial and administrative penalties and strengthening criminal 

enforcement; and (4) working with the media to spotlight enforcement actions in order to strengthen 

deterrence. (For further information contact OWE-RED or OE-RCRA) 

Model'Order Development 

An OWPE-led workgroup is in the process of revising the model order for Section 3008(h) and 

developing a model 3008(a) order to streamline EPA and'State initiated actions. A workgroup for 

developing the Section 3008(h) model order has been established. Suggested revisions to the 3008(h) 

order include the following sections: 

penalties,financial responsibility, and dispute resolution. (For further information contact OWPE-RED 

Enforcement Training for Regulation Writers 

public involvement, closure/post-closure, stipulated. ' 

01 OE-RCRA) 

OWPE has developed course materials for training for regulation writers. A pilot training course 

will be offered in early 1991. The purpose of the training is to increase the regulation writers' awareness 

5-15 
.,a@"*. - 

(&) +.< m 

.FY 1990 Etforcement Accomplishments Report 

of the enforceability and implementability of new regulations during the development process. (For 

further information contact OWE-RED) 

Revised Civil Penalty Policy ,. 

One of the primary recommendations in the RIS is to seek higher penalties in enforcement 

actions. During FY 1990, OWPE in conjunction with OE drafted a revised civil penalty policy. In October 

1990, OSWER/OE issued the revised civil penalty policy which .establishes a .multi-day penalty 

OWPE, in conjunction with OE, is developing a. training courk for the Regions. on the revised 

RCRA Civil Penalty Policy. The training courses will begin being offered to the Regions by the end of 

January 1991. (For further information contact OWE-RED or OE-RCRA) 

\ 

requirement. - 

'.b 

RIP-Flex Initiatives .. ,. , 

The RIP-Flex process was initiated in FY 1989. It.is designed to allow trade-offs from the 

national RCRA priorities in order to address Region and State-specific environmental priorities. During 

FY 1990, Regions I, 111, VI, IX and X participated in the RIP-Flex process. The types of Regional/State 

investments and initiatives included a broad range of activities. Some of the major initiatives included 

increased corrective action; enforcement at generators and non-notifiers; land ban enforcement; hazardous 

waste exports; pollution prevention and inspections at closed or non-regulated facilities. The areas of 

disinvestments primarily focused on deletion of inspections at environmentally non-significant TSDFs. 

In general the, RIP-Flex process has been successfully implemented by the Regions. Benefits have been 

gained in the areas of compliance monitoring, enforcement and corrective. .(For further information 

contact OWPE-RED) 

West Virginia .. Field Citations - RCRA I .. , .. 

The Field Citation Program implemented.by the West Virginia,Department of Natural Resources 

in cooperation with EPA Region I11 resulted in the collection of $58,872 from 28 companies in FY 1990. 

The Field Citation Program,stems from a 1989 Region I11 Merit project which received seed money from 

EPA Headquarters. The program is designed as follows; a RCRA inspector identifies a violation and 

prepares a Notice of Violation which is forwarded to the State Assessment Officer who reviews it and 

sends a penalty ,assessment based on a published penalty matrix to the alleged violator: The alleged 

violator. has 30 days to pay the fine or request an :informal hearing. (For further information contact 

Region In- RCRA) , .. 

I ., 

.. .' Region I11 UST Leak Detection Enforcement Compliance. Initiative ; 

.~ 

The Office of Underground Storage Tanks began a national initiative to build State enforcemen;' 

capabilities to provide state and EPA programs with increased enforcement- activities and visibility 

among the regulated community. Region I11 provided the District of Columbia UST program leak 

detection enforcement compliance initiative. The, District has completed enforcement of EPAs leak 

detection requirements for the oldest tanks in D.C.'s regulated community. .This initiative improved 

D.C.'s UST enforcement process and provided EPA with enforcement referrals which were developedinto the first in the nation Federal lead actions under RCRA Section 9006.. This initiative will be 

expanded to all Region Ill states for phase-in of leak detection requirements over, the next four years. 

(For further information contact Region III) 

Region I11 UST Corrective Action Pilot Project 

In FY 1990, Region I11 initiated a project to improve the state LUST corrective action process. 

Under. this pilot project, the Region worked with Maryland and Delaware to understand their 

procedures for evaluating and approving corrective action proposals and overseeing their 

J~ 5-16 

~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ 
FY 

I 

1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

implementation. Based on the information collected, a number of process improvements were proposed 

and implemented in each state. Examples of these projects include: file review to streamline the filing 

process and accurately assess the status of sites in the enforcement and corrective action process, and 

development of a Consultant's Day to provide all the state requirements for corrective action to 

consultants working in their states. Because of the success of this pilot project, the Agency has decided to 

implement corrective action improvement projects in at least one state in each Region and to encourage as 

many states as possible to hold Consultant's Day during FY 1991. (For further information contact 

Region Ill) 

Superfund / 

FY 1990 was a year of significant progress in the Superfund enforcement program. The Agency 

built on the successes of previous years and the significant accomplishments of FY 1990 strengthened the 

infrastructure of EPA's CERCLA enforcement program. EPA directed a strong enforcement effort by 

maximizing private party response actions; targeting efforts through enforcement iniiiatives, clearly 

articulating program goals, and developing enforcement polic$ 

Much of EPA's direction in Superfund enforcement came from EPA Administrator William K. 

Reilly's review of the Superfund program.. The review, commonly referred to as the "90-Day Study" . emphasized an "enforcement first" strategy and-makes 10 recommendations for Superfund enforcement; 

The Superfund enforcement program has followed through on all recommendations and EPA's effort in ' 

this program has produced a large number of quality documents designed to establish and implement 

Agency policy for Superfund enforcement. These documents focus on streamlining the enforcement process 

and promoting national consistency. The substantial output has resulted in a more effective, fair, and 

efficient Superfund enforcement program. 

Section 106 of CERCLA Strategy, Model Orders, and Guidance 

The 90-Day Study recommends that EPA increase its use of unilateral orders under.5106 of 

CERCLA.' EPA has worked hard to implement this recommendation. On Februaly 14,1990, EPA issued a 

strategy for promoting the use of unilateral orders under 5106 of CERCLA. The strategy encourages EPA's 

Regional offices to use unilateral orders in the absence of a timely settlement. The strategy also 

established the Agency's numerical and program goals for unilateral orders. The strategy promoted a 

uniform and consistent use of unilateral orders and implemented the Administrators recommendation 

that EPA encourage the timely, routine, and predictable use of unilateral orders. (For more information 

contact OWE CERCLA Enforcement Division (CED).) 

On March 30,1990, EPA issued a model unilateral order for remedial design and remedial action 

(RD/RA). The model assists EPA's Regional offices when they seek to compel private party response. 

Unilateral administrative orders are a powerful enforcement tool available to EPA. When settlement 

negotiations break down, a unilateral order to compel the response action can expedite private party 

cleanup. The model order of March 30,1990 gives EPA's Regional office a standard order that encourages 

swift response actions for RD/RA and promotes a uniform approach among the Regional offices. (For 

more information contact OE Superfund or OWE - CED) 

On March 3, 1990, EPA issued a guidance on the.use of unilateral orders under 5106 of CERCLA. 

The guidance established EPA's policy on unilateral orders for RD/RA and encourages EPA's Regional 

offices to issue UAOs in cases where EPA is unable to reach a timely settlement with PRPs. The guidance 

answers many technical questions about compelling PRPs to perform RD/DA and promotes a nationally 

consistent approach for securing private party cleanups. (For more information contact OE Superfund or 

OWPE - CED.) 

5-17 
@."rn.% 

FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report \$y 

- 

Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies: Model Orders, Oversight Guidance, 

and Program Evaluations 

The 90-Day Study encourages the enforcement program to 'strengthen its efforts to effectively 

oversee PRP-lead RI/FS. EPA has fully implemented this recommendation. In FY 1989 EPA issued the 

Model Statement of Work for a Remedial Investigation' and Feasibility Study and then followed 

through on this document with the Model Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial Investigation 

and Feasibility Study, issued on January 30, 1990. The model order assists the Regional office_s.in 

reaching settlements with PRPs for this phase of the remedial process and promotes national consistency 

in EPA's efforts to secure high quality, timely records of decision. 

EPA also compared PRP-lead and Fund-lead remedial investigations and feasibility studies. 

EPA presented the findings of the comparative analysis to,Congress in June of 1990.. EPA is in the process 

of implementing several steps t,hat will strengthen the RI/FS program. (For more information contact OE 

Superfund or OWE ,. . - CEIJ.) . .> , 

.. 

Searches for Potentially Responsible Parties, and Information Requests . - 

The 90-Day Study emphasizes effective. information collection and information exchange to 

promote PRP participation in the CERCLA settlement process. . EPA followed through on this 

recommendation by training Regional personnel, contractor support staff and state enforcement personnel 

in PRP search procedures. ' 

To encoura&PRPs to respond to EPA's information requests under §l&(e) of CERCLA in a timely 

and thorough manner,,EPA issued the model consent decree for information requests under §104(e) and also 

issued guidance on March 1,1990 on releasing information to PRPs. ,The model consent decree supports 

EPA's §104(e) enforcement initiative and assists EPA's Regional offices in enforcing requests for 

information under §104(e). ,The guidance encourages the Regional offices, to share information with 

PRPs, where the exchange of information would promote settlement. (For more information contact OE 

.. 

Superfund 01 OWE - CED.) 

Specialized Categories of Potentially Responsible Parties -, 

.. On December 12,1989, EPA published the "Interim Municipal Settlement Policy." The policy 

establishes EPA's enforcement approach in cases where a city may have obligations under CERCLA. 

During the process of developing the policy, EPA held ,three large public meetings and solicited the. 

views of all interested groups. The polky recognizes .the unique circumstances that cities often face 

while at the same time reinforcing the obligations of cities under Superfund. The polify exemplifies the 

substantial benefits of full coordination and cooperation of all ,interested parties in the development of 

Agency.,policy. . . 

On December 20, 1.989, .EPA issued "Methodologies for Implementation of CERCLA Section 

122(g)(l)(A) De-Minimis Waste Contributor Settlements." This guidance explains how to develop and 

evaluate &minimis settlement proposals and agreements. The guidance will assist the Agency as well. 

as private parties in developing settlements for persons who have made only a minimal contribution cby 

amount and toxicity) of hazardous substances at a site. (For more information contact OE Superfund or 

. .. 

OWPE - CED.) .. .. 

.. .. .. 

Program Integration . . . .. 

.I.. . .. .. 

A major theme of the 90-Day Study is an aggressive, well planned and tightly coordinated 

system for moving sites to completed remediation. The integrated timeline, issued on June 11, 1990, 

identifies the key decision points in the cleanup process and EPA's goal for the amount of time required 

for each phase of a cleanup. The integrated timeline identifies potential points in the cleanup process 

5-18 \ 
FY 1990 Enjorcement Accomplishments Report 

that are vulnerable to delays and encourages an aggressive use of deadline management for speeding the 

cleanup process. 

' . On October 12, 1990, EPA issued the "Pre-Referral Negotiation Procedures for Superfund. 

Enforcement Cases." ' This guidance promotes a nationally consistent process for pre-referral settlement 

negotiations under CERCLA. The purpose of the document is to quicken the pace of achieving settlements 

and to establish, a consistent settlement decision-making process. (For more information contact OE 

Superfund.) ,_ 

EPCRAKERCLA 5103 Enforcement Accomplishments 

OSWER has responsibility for enforcing the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know 

§Act (EPCRA), and section 103 of CERCLA. In FY 1990, the CERCLA/EPCRA enforcement program made 

many significant new strides. In early FY 1990, EPA held the first nationwide EPCRA enforcement 

planning meeting in Denver. This meeting brought together staff from both the program offices and their 

attorney counterparts to discuss the direction of the enforcement program. 

During FY 1990, the Regions issued 31 administrative complaints with proposed penalties in 

excess of $2.7 million. The number of complaints issued in FY 1990 represents a 180% increase over the. 

output of the previoris year. FY 1990 also saw the EPCRA/CERCLA 103 program conduct a nationwide 

enforcement initiative in which every Region participated. Four Regions issued their. first 

administrative complaints during this initiative. During the June 25-28th initiative,. EPA issued 

administrative complaints against 23 companies for penalties totaling $1,974,880. 

EPA finalized seven settlements under this program, including the first $1W,000+ settlement and 

another for $90,000. Anumber of other FY 1990 cases are settled in principle, but consent agreements and 

final orders have not yet'been issued. Of the $351,550 collected during FY1990, $137,000 was deposited 

into the Superfund and $214,550 into the U.S. Treasury. 

. 

- j. 

The EPCRA/CERCLA 5103 enforcement program received a number of favorable'decisions from 

Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). In All'Reeions Labs, Inc. the ALJ levied a penalty of $89,840 for All 

Regions' failure to provide emergency notification as required under CERCLA 5103 and EPCRA 304. The 

company appealed to the U.S. District Court. This will be the program's first judicial action. ' 

In FY 1990 EPA developed a number of enforcement support documents including model 

enforcement pleadings, a penalty policy, inspection targeting data, and an enforcement reference manual. 

(For further information contact OWPE - CED.) 

Model Enforcement Pleadinvs 

The Agency developed this set of documents to aid the Regional enforcement efforts by supplying 

a model administrative complaint for violations of CERCLA 5103 and EPCRA 55302-312. Other models 

included in the package were a model consent agreement and final order, a model subpoena, and a model 

transmittal letter. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWE - CED.) 

Final Penalty Policy for §302,303,304,311, and 312 of the EPCRA and . 5103 of the CERCLA 

Thc policy governs penalty calculations in administrative enforcement actions for violations of 

EPCRA 55302-312 and CERCLA 5103. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWE - CED.) 

5-19 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Enforcement Reference Manual for EPCRA 5302-313 and CERCLA §lo3 

This document provides a consolidated source of information and previously issued guidance 

materials to assist Agency enforcement personnel in their efforts to enforce the provisions of EPCRA and 

CERCLA 103. (For more information contact OE Superfund or OWPE - CED.) 

Interim Municipal Settlement Policy 

On December 6, 1989, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response issued this settlement 

policy for municipalities or municipal wastes under 5122 of CERCLA. The purpose of the policy is to 

provide a consistent Agency-wide approach for addressing municipahties and municipal wastes in the 

Superfund process. It also addresses how private parties and certain kinds of commercial, institutional, 

or industrial wastes will be handled in the settlement process as well. (For more information contact OE 

Superfund or OWE - 'CED.) 

Methodologies for Implementation of CERCLA §122(g)(l)(A) 

De-Minimis Waste Contributor Settlements 

, 

. 

. ., 

This directive was finalized on December 20, 1989 and is designed to provide practical assistance' 

in'the evaluation and development of de minimiscontributor settlements. The purpose of the directive is 

to increase the use and effectiveness of such settlements. The document reviews. the definition of a & 

minimis waste contributor, eligibility and characteristics, the objectives of a settlement, and evaluation 

of the proposals. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWE - CED) 

Model Administrative Order on Consent 

for Remedial InvestigatiodFeasibility Study 

,$ 

In January 1990, EPA developed this model order to improve the quality of the RI/FS conducted 

by potentially responsible~parties by laying out in detail what is expected during the RI/FS process.. The 

model is intended to promote consistency among EPA Regions and cut down on the time involved. in 

preparing for settlement negotiations. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWE - CED.) 

Multi-Media Settlements of Enforcement, Claims 

On February 6, 1990, EPA.distributed this 'guidance that supports EPAs policy disfavoring 

judicial and administrative settlements of enforcement cases involving, multi-media releases. The 

guidance details the "diligent inquiry" which must be performed at the Regional level prior to a referral 

of the proposed settlement to Headquarters. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWPE - 

CED.) 

Releasing Information to PRPs at CERCLA .Sites 

&.March 13, 1990, EPA provided guidance on the release of information to PRPs at CERCLA 

sites. The goal of the dir&tivewas to facilitate settlements between EPA and PRPs. For PRPs to coalesce 

into a negotiating group and to participate in settlement negotiations, they must have information about 

the site and other PRPs. This can help the agency achieve goals of expediting cleanups, encourage PRPs ' 

to undertake or finance cleanups, and avoid unnecessary litigation. (For further information contact OE 

Superfund or OWE - CED.) 

- 

. 

Guidance on CERCLA §106(a) Unilateral Administrative Orders 

for Remedial DesigdRemedial Actions 

On March 7, 1990 EPA set out in a memorandum general principles governing the Agency's 

unilateral administrative order authority for remedial designs and remedial actions under Section 106 of 

5-20 

I 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishmenls Report 

CERCLA. The guidance is a comprehensive document detailing among other things, the legal aspects of 

an order, the potential. recipients of an order, and the procedures for issuing an order. (For further 

information contact OE Superfund or OWE - CED.) 

Integrated Timeline for Superfund Site Management 

On June 11,1990, EPA developed a strategy to conduct an aggressive, well planned, and tightly 

coordinated system for moving Superfund sites to completed remediation. The timeline identifies the 

critical decision points and sets goals for the amount of time it should take to get from one step to the 

next. This integrated site management framework should enhance EPA's ability to cleanup Superfund 

sites. (Far further information contact OE Superfund or OWE - CED.) 

Pre-Referral Negotiation Procedures for Superfund EnfGcement Cases 

On October 12,1990, EPA set forth procedures governing the pre-referral settlement negotiation 

process for CERCLA. The objectives of the developed procedures are to quicken the pace of achieving 

settlements, improve the quality of settlements, and establish a regular settlement decision making 

process nationwide. (For further information contact OE Superfund or OWE - CED.) 

Model Consent Decree for CERCLA §104(e) 

i Information Request Enforcement Actions 

- 

To further support EPAs 5104 enforcement initiative the Agency developed this model consent 

decree on August 29,1990. The model should strengthen the Agency priority of obtaining infonnation 

from responsible parties and help to streamline the enforcement process. (For further information contact 

OE Superfund 01 OWE - CED.) 

Superfund Federal Facilities Agreements I 

In M 1990 the Superfund Federal Facilities program completed negotiations and signed 

Interagency Agreements (IAGs) with the remainder of their federal facilities. Five IAGs were signed by 

year's end. The facilities were Aberdeen Proving Ground, Tobyhanna Army Depot, Defense General 

Supply Center, and Naval Air Development Center. Region 111 is now the first Region in the nation to 

have signed IAGs with all their federal facilities on the NPL. This represents a significant first step in 

the NPL clean- up process. These facilities now have the formal mechanism in place to move through 

the federal clean-up process. (For further information contact Region 111-CERCLA) 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

Revised Enforcement Response Policy for the TSCA §6 

Polychlorinated-Biphenyls (PCBs) Rule 

In 1980, EPA issued interim guidance for determining penalties for violating the KB rules. In the 

10 years that the Agency operated under that guidance, numerous rules were issued, and amendments, 

interpretations, and revisions to the original guidance were developed. Enforcement policies were 

updated. On April 9, the Agency issued a new penalty policy which substantially revised the old one. 

The new policy (1) raises the circumstance levels for certain types of violations based on environmental 

risk, (2) reduces the threshold levels of PCBs in the extent matrix for disposal violations, (3) assesses 

penalties for each violation of the 40 CFR part 761 instead of for the broader violation of its subparts, 

and (4) defines "separate location" for purposes of determining separate violations. The new policy 

generally increases penalties to deter violations, but also includes a reduction for voluntary disclosure. 

(For further information contact the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Office of Compliance 

Monitoring (OCM)) 

5-21 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

!. Cqmpliance Monitoring Strategy.for the TSCA §6 Hexavalent Chromium Rule ' ': 

EPA issued a compliance monitoring strategy to ensure compliance .with the.kCA S.6 .rule 

prohibiting the distribution and use of hexavalent chromium in comfort cooling towers. The rule also 

specifies labeling and :recordkeeping requirements for Cr+&based water treatment chemicals. The 

Compliance monitoring strategy focuses EPAs enforcement efforts on identifying: 1) distribution 

violations;,2) labeling violations; 3) reporting .failures; 4) recordkeeping violations 5) use violations and 

6).export. notification violations. Additionally, the strategy instructs Regional Offices,how-to identify 

potential non-reporters and distributors. (For further information contact OCM) 

. ..... . ?,.: ..... ., . A:' , '' '' ' 

I ..... .. , ,. ., 

Enforcement Response.Policy for Asbestos Abatement Projects 

. Worker Protection Rule .. .. ... ~, ,I 

EPA issued an enforcement response policy to establish the enforcement procedures and civil 

penalty schedules,that EPA will use in response to violations ofthe Asbestos Abdtement Projects Worker 

Protection Rule by public employees.subject to it. The 'policy addresses violations of the monitoring, 

regulated areas,' work practices,: personal protection, communication of hazards, and notification 

provisions of the Rule. In keeping with the Agency's increasingemphasison risk-based approaches to 

enforcement, the policy is structured to encourage early disclosure. .(For further information contact 

OCM) 

TSCA #(e) Initiative 

1 

... .. '. ., b.. '. 

.. 

i I' . , .. ... ......... 

I ,, 1,. . 

: In December, 1989, EPA launched the TSCA 58(e) Outreach and Enforcement lnitiative consisting 

of letters to individual companies emphasizing the importance EPA places on TSCA 58(e) substantial 

risk information and urging the companies to review compliance with section 8(e)'s reporting.provisions. 

The Initiatives also involves field inspections and TSCA 511 subpoenas issued to targeted companies to 

investigate section 8(e) compliance, the issuance.of Notices of Noncompliance to companies for certain 

first-time section 8(e) violations, and the filing of civil administrative complaints for late reporting and 

failure of civil administrative complaints for late reporting and failure to report substantial risk 

information under TSCA @?(e). Many of the activities and investigations involved in the lnitiative are 

still ongoing and will continue throughout the next Fiscal Year. (For further information contact OCM) 

,. -. 

..... .... 

' . Region VI11 State Coordination on the Toxics Release Inventory 

On September.27, 1990, EPA awarded Colorado .a grant for $96,620 for FY 1991 to improve the 

quality of the'Toxic Release Inventory database for Colorado. The State Health Department will 

develop a multimedia workgroup to review TRI submissions by county. They will involve RCRA, 

NPDES, UST and Emergency Planning permit writers and inspectors.. The goal will be to identify 

companies which failed to report under TRI, as well as additional chemicals omitted by companies 

which did report. -.This information will be shared with EPA Region VI11 and will be used to select 

inspection targets from among the& potential non-reporters. EPA and' the State will determine what. 

followup actions are appropriate for the remaining -potential non-reporters. (For further information 

contact Region WI Air and Toxics Division) 

., .,, ~ .. 

,. 

'' 

... 

... ., . 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act' 

.. i.. , .,: : , ., .... 

.. :. . .Compliance Monitoring Strategies ... ... ,i ... 

EPA issued. compliance monitoring. strategies to ensure compliance' with, pesticide cancellations 

and. conditional .registrations that, became effective in FY 1990. These included strategies for the 

cancellation of non-wood uses of inorganic arsenicals, aldicarb, mercury, and EBDC.- In addition, EPA' 

also issued a compliance monitoring strategy to ensure compliance with pesticide cancellations due to the 

5-22 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

non-payment of fees. (For further information, contact OCM.) 

FIFRA Enforcement Response Policy 

On July 24,1990, EPA published a notice of availability in, the Federal Reeister (55 FR 30032) for 

the revised Enforcement Response Policy for the Federal Insecticide;Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA EW), which was issued on July 2, 1990. The FIFRA ERP supersedes the previous FIFRA Civil 

Penalty Assessment Guidelines published in the Federal Reeister - on July 31,1974 (39 FR 27711); the 1983 

. Level of Action Policy published as section 2 of Chapter 5 of the FIFRA Compliance/Enforcement 

Guidance Manual; the June 8, 1981 Guidance for the Enforcement of the Child-Resistant Packaging 

Regulation; the June 11, 1981 FIFRA Enforcement Policy - Interim Penalty Guidelines; and the civil 

assessment matrix of the February 10, 1986 FIFRA Section 7(c) Enforcement Response Policy (the rest of 

this policy remains in effect). The FIFRA ERP sets forth the procedures and criteria that will be used to 

determine the appropriate enforcement response for violations of FIFRA. It is designed to provide fair 

and equitable treatment of the regulated community by ensuring that similar enforcement responses and 

comparable penalty assessments will be made for comparable violations, and to provide for swift 

resolution of environmental problems by deterring future violations of FIFRA by the respondent, as well 

as other members of the regulated community. (For further information, contact OCM.) 

FIFRA Compliance Program Policy Compendium 

EPA issued two compliance program policies.during FY 1990. FIFRA Compliance Program Policy 

No. 12.6, entitled "Enclosed Cab Use for Pesticide Application", was issued on October 8, 1990, and the 

expiration date for the FIFRA Compliance Program Policy No. 12.7, entitled "Interim Enforcement of the 

Label Improvement Program for Pesticides Applied Through Irrigation Systems (Chemigation)!', was 

extended on 06/20/90. (For further information, contact OCM.) 

Laboratory Data Integrity Program 

During FY 1990; the Laboratory Data Integrity Assurance Division conducted 79 laboratory 

inspections and 338 studies were audited for compliance with the EPAs Good Laboratory Practice 

regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and Toxic Substances Control 

Act. (For further information contact OCM) .. 

FIFRA Export Enforcement Initiative 

During FY 1990 EPA initiated a compliance monitoring program for the enforcement of the export 

provisions of FIFRA and EPAs Export Policy. Twenty-six establishments were targeted for inspection to 

determine their compliance with FIFRA and the Export Policy. The inspections revealed substantial 

noncompliance with FIFRA and the Export Policy. As a result, EPA issued civil administrative 

complaints against nine companies. The companies were charged with violating the provisions of 

FIFRA, including the exportation of unregistered pesticides without first obtaining a statement from the 

foreign purchaser acknowledging that the pesticide was not registered for use in the United States, lack 

of the required bilingual labeling when exporting products to a country whose principal language does not 

include English, and lack of the statement "Not Registered for Use in the United States of America" on 

the labels. (For further information contact OCM) 

Pollution Prevention Settlement Initiative 

In recent years, the Agency has made a concerted effort to incorporate pollution prevention activities 

into enforcement-related activities. After a civil administrative action (complaint) has been issued 

against a company, a company may be able to mitigate the proposed penalty through the 

implementation of pollution prevention projects, or "environmentally beneficial expenditures". For 

example, a pollution prevention project could take one or more of the following forms: (1) an internal 

environmental audit of the company's compliance status with TSCA, which includes finding and 
p -4 (9 FY 1990 Enforeemem Accomplishmenls Report 

promptly correcting violations; (2) expenditures to reduce the emission of an EPCRA section 313 chemical 

and (3) TSCA training courses for,company employees and/or TSCA compliance seminars for customers. 

Both Headquarters and the Regions believe that pollution prevention projects are an important 

approach in settlement of cases. Companies are encouraged to explore and maximize innovative 

pollution prevention projects with EPA and to identify andprofit from opportunities for prevention. (For 

further information contact OCM) I .. '. ,, 

.. ., 

. .. ~ 

. ': 

,I 

.. .- " .. 

.. .. .. .. 

. ' I' 

I 

I 

5 

5-24 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishmertls Report 

VL Media Specific Enforcement Performance and 

Regional Accomplishments 

A. The Strategic TarPeted Activities for Results Svstem (STARS) 

EPA uses the Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS), to ensure that EPAand 

State managers identify the highest priority environmental problems and establish accountability for 

resolving those-problems. For enforcement, EPA and the States have identified a core group of 

management indicators to track progress in each media including inspections, compliance rates, 

identifying and resolving significant noncompliance (SNC), and numbers of civil and criminal case 

referrals and administrative orders. During the Agency's annual operating guidance development 

process, media compliance and enforcement programs identify categories of violations determined to be 

the most environmentally significant (i.e.. SNC), and at the beginning of each fiscal year, EPA and the 

States establish joint commitments to address the SNC's during the year. The following program 

summaries indicate EPA and state progress in resolving SNC over the past several years. 

, 

Clean Air Act - Stationary Sources 

The air enforcement program has defined SNC as a violation of SIP requirements in areas not 

attaining primary ambient air quality for. the pollutant for which the source is .in violation, violations 

of NSPS regardless of location, and violations of NESHAPs. Also included are violations of PSD and 

nonattainment new source review requirements. Beginning in FY 1990, the air enforcement program 

implemented a new method of tracking SNC's which puts greater focus on Timely and Appropriate 

enforcement response and on resolving SNC's discovered throughout the year. 

At the start of FY1990, EPA and the States identified 458 violating facilities as SNC's, and 

throughout the year an additional 537 SNCs were identified. At years end, 584 SNC's were either 

brought into compliance, .. subject to an enforceable compliance schedule, or were subject to a formal 

enforcement action. . 

Clean Air Act - Mobile Sources 

The Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) enforces the fuels, anti-tampering, emissions warranty and 

related provisions of Title I1 of the Clean Air Act. OMS also enforces the provisions of the Clean Air Act 

related to new and in-use motor vehicles to assure conformity with Federal emission requirements. FY 

1990 marked the implementation of innovative methods and equipment to streamline EPA's inspection 

procedures for the fuel volatility program, further establishing EPA's enforcement presence in this area. 

In addition, enforcement against lead Phasedown violations continued to require significant attention by 

EPA. 

EPA enforcement also focused in a new area of tampering - high performance modifications to 

vehicles. EPA also concentrates its enforcement efforts on testing new motor vehicles and engines on the 

production line, testing and recall of in-use motor vehicles, and monitoring the importation and 

modification of nonconforming motor vehicles.' 

In FY 1990, EPA issued 276 Notices of Violation (NOW with proposed penalties of over $21 

million. Of these, the largest number of NOV's were issued for aftermarket catalytic converter cases 

where 129 NOV's were issued involving proposed penalties of $1,584,000. The largest proposed 

penalties were generated by the issuance of 13 NOV's for lead Phasedown cases that proposed penalties 

of over $17 million. EPA issued 87 NOV's for fuel volatility violations with $653,712 in proposed 

penalties. The fuel volatility program's impact is distributed across all gasoline-powered vehicles, 

including the higher-emitting older vehicles. While all of the data from the 1990 summer season have 

not yet been analyzed, it is likely the program has effected a 14% reduction in the levels of VOC 

6-1 
FY 1990 Erforcement Accomplishments Report 

emissions from mobile sources, representing approximately 400,000 tons of hydrocarbons that would 

otherwise have been emitted. 

The motor vehicle emission recall program continues to play an important role in EPA's 

enforcement efforts. During FY 1990, EPA investigations resulted in 12 recalls involving 4 manufacturers 

and a total of 1.6 million recalled passenger cars and light-duty trucks. In addition, 480,000 vehicles 

were recalled voluntarily by manufacturers prior to EPA testing. Also in FY 1990, in cooperation with the 

state of Colorado, EPA initiated vehicle compliance testing at high altitudes." Approximately 200 tests 

were conducted resulting in six engine families identified as recall candidates. 

Clean Water Act Enforcement - NPDES Exceptions Report 

The "DES enforcement program has defined SNC to include violations of effluent limits, 

reporting requirements, and/or violations of formal enforcement actions. Unlike the other Agency 

enforcement programs, the NPDES program does not track SNC against a "fixed base" of SNC that is 

established at the beginning of the year, rather, the program tracks SNCs on a quarterly "exceptions 

list" that identifies those facilities that have been in SNC for two or more quarters without returning to 

compliance or being addressed by a formal enforcement action. 

During FY 1990, 448 facilities were reported on the SNC exceptions list including,201 facilities 

that were unaddressed from the previous year and 247 facilities that appeared on the list .for' the first 

time during the year. of the 448 facilities on the exceptions list, 256 retumed to compliance by the end of 

the year, 134 were subject to a formal enforcement action, and-58 facilities remained to be addressed 

during the upcoming year. 

Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement 

The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program identifies systems in significant 

noncompliance for violations of the microbiological, turbidity, and total hihalomethane requirements on 

a quarterly basis and tracks the actions taken against them. Those not returned to compliance or 

addressed within six months are placed on the,headquarters-maintained exceptions list and State and 

federal action against these is tracked. In FY 1990,472 new SNCs were identified of which 173 returned 

to compliance, 97 had enforcement actions taken against them, and 186 became new exceptions. Of these 

new exceptions and the 411 carried over from FY 1989, Regions and States addressed a total of 251. 

The Underground Injection Control program tracks on an exceptions basis Class I, 11,111, and V 

wells that failed mechanical integrity, exceeded injection pressure, or received. unpermitted injection 

material.' The exceptions list tracks wells that have been in SNC for more than hyo consecutive quarters 

without being addressed by a formal enforcement action. 

.. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Enforcement 

SNes identified-during FY 1990 were tho& TSD facilities that were classified as High Priority 

Violators according to .the revised Enforcement Response Policy. In FY 1990, the program tracked a- 

"snapshot" of SNC's in STARS. This data may not be directly comparable to, previous years when the 

significant noncompliance measure tracked the number of SNCs pending at the end-of-year, the number 

with initial action, those on acceptable schedules, and the number of SNC's returned to compliance. In 

M'1990, the program identified 817 TSDFs as SNCs, and at the end of.the year.677 had been addressed 

by a forma'l enforcement action. ., I. 

.. .. 

.. ., .. 

*.. >- 

.. 

.. - e.:. , 

6-2 
FY 1990 Er$orcement Accomplishments Report 

Superfund Enforcement 

FY 1990 was an exceptional year for the Superfund enforcement program. The estimated work 

value of the 283 settlements reached in FY 1990 for all types of response activities totaled $1.3 billion - 

the largest dollar value of cleanup work in enforcement settlements since the passage of SARA in FY 1987 

and more than double the value of settlements reached in FY 1988. Furthermore, more than 50% of 

remedial response actions initiated in M 1990 were conducted by PRPs. The Agency increased the level 

of Superfund judicial enforcement activity in FY 1990 with 157 civil cases referred to DOJ primarily 

seeking injunctive relief for hazardous waste cleanup by responsible parties, recovery from responsible 

parties of public money spent on site cleanup, or site access to perform investigation or cleanup work. 

Remedial Action Consent Decrees were completed for 60 sites with a total value of $730.6 million 

compared to 49 sites valued at $620.5 million in FY 1989. Under Section 107, the Agency referred 79 cases 

seeking recovery of past costs valued at $184.5 million. In FY 1990, the program also substantially 

increased the level of administrative enforcement activity by issuing 270 administrative orders 

including 44 Remedial Unilateral Administrative Orders with which PRPs have complied valued at 

$357 million, compared to 23 such actions for a total of $181.6 million in FY 1989. 

Value of PRP Response Settlements 

(All Activities) 

N87 Fyyss Fy89 Fy90 

0 Other Response SeHlementa 61 RDlRA Settlements 

Superfund Program Accomplishments 

(All Actions) 

w 200 I 1,L 

0 160 

120 

f 140 

a 100 C 

t 

i 60 

, -40 

n 20 

so 

FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 

EPA Selected Remedy 0 Fund-Lud Response PRP-Lead Response 

Illustration 7 &8 

6-3 
"% \ 

FY 1990 Erforcement Accomplishments Report 

Toxic Substances Control Ad Enforcement 

Significant noncompliance under TSCA is defined as any administrative civil complaint (or 

equivalent) with a proposed penalty of at least $25,000 (new for FY 1990). The TSCA violations include 

PCB disposal, manufacturing, processing, distribution, storage, record-keeping or marking; Asbestos-inschools; AHERA; import certification and recordkeeping; testing and premanufacturing notification. 

Of the 960 potentially SNC cases in the Beginning of Year (BOY) inventory, 768 were pending 

issuance and 192 were open. Five hundred thirty-eight (70% of the 768 pending cases had enforcement 

actions issued during the fiscal year, with 147 (27%) meeting the new SNC criteria. Of the 339 SNC 

cases on the inventory, 155 (46%) were closed by the end of the year. (Note: The numbers in the BOY are 

inflated in comparison to last year due to introduction of automated STARS reporting through the FITS 

system. The information that can rule out non-SNC violations is not available at the BOY for most cases 

that have not been issued. Therefore, we choose to collect all possible SNCs at the BOY. The reporting 

method for FY 1991 will eliminate the BOY in favor of tracking all SNCs in current fiscal year and 

previous fiscal year categories.) 

During FY 1990, the Regions identified 90 and issued 73 new SNC violations for the subset of 

TSCA violations targeted for issuance within 180 days of inspection (PCB, AHERA and Asbestos-inschools violations). Of these, 64% were issued within the I8Oday timeframe, against a 75% target. 

For FY 1991 and beyond,,all SNC administrative complaints, regardless of the inspection date 

will be considered for the purposes of timeliness. Prior to FY 1991, only SNCs from current year 

inspections were considered. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Enforcement 

Significant noncompliance under FIFFL4 is defined to include-pesticide misuse violations and 

suspension/cancellation actions. Enforcement of pesticide use violations of FIFRA is delegated to 48 

States. Sections 26 and 27 of FIFRA establish standard procedures for giving States primacy and 

authorize the Administrator to ovemde or rescind 'a grant of primacy in certain situations. Since EPA is 

not in a position to monitor State responses to each allegation of pesticide misuse referred to the Agency, 

the regional pesticides programs focus oversight activities on evaluating the overall success of State 

pesticide enforcement actions. The programs track, on a case by case basis, only those allegations 

involving the most serious violation of uses. These categories of significant violations are agreed to in 

advance by the Region and State. Categories vary among the States, based on patterns of pesticide use 

characteristic to the State. 

Any allegation of misuse is formally referred to a State and tracked by the Region in two stages; 

investigation and enforcement response. During investigation, the Region contacts the State regarding 

planned enforcement action. The State has 30 days after completing the investigation, then, to taken an 

appropriate response action. (This timeframe can be extended by the Region if circumstances warrant.) 

In FY 1990, EPA and the States addressed 157 SNCs, while 19 SNCs awaited action at the end of the 

year. 

For FY 1991 and beyond, a new definition of SNC will be applied for FIFRA federal violations. 

FIFRA federal SNCs will be any administrative complaint where a violation has an associated gravity 

level of "1". according to the new FIFRA enforcement Response Policy. The above set of SNCs will also, 

for the first time, be tracked for adherence to the 180-day case issuance standard applied to TSCA.and 

EPCRA SNC cases. 

6-4 
FY 1990 Enforcemenl Accomplishments Report 

Emergency PlanningKommunity Right to Know Act Enforcement 

Significant noncompliance for EPCRA is defined as violations for non-reporting/failure to report 

or falsified reporting. Of the 237 potentially SNC cases in the Beginning 'of Year inventory, 145 were 

pending issuance and 92 were open. One hundred eleven (77%) of the 145 pending cases had enforcement 

actions issued during the fiscal year, with 104(94%) meeting the SNC criteria. Of the 196 SNC cases 

identified from the BOY, 80 (41%) were closed by the end of the year. [Note: In M 1991, the reporting 

based upon the BOY will be eliminated in favor of tracking all SNCs in current fiscal year and previous 

fiscal year categories.] During M 1990, the Regions identified 145 and issued 75 new SNC violations. 0 f 

these, 47% were issued within 180 days of inspection. 

For FY 1991, all SNC administrative complaints, regardless of the inspection date .will be 

considered for the purposes of timeliness. Prior to FY 1991, only SNCs from current year inspections were 

considered. 

Federal Facilities Enforcement 

During FY 1990, the Federal Government continued to make a substantial commitment to the 

environment. In April, 1990, EPA created the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE), a unique 

multi-media enforcement office, to serve as the central agency point of contact for all Federal 

environmental programs. Developed in response to increasingly complex conditions at Federal facilities 

nationwide, OFFE provides a centralized point of focus for Federal facility compliance with all 

environmental laws and requirements. 

The Federal Government manages a vast array of industrial activities at its 27,000 installations. 

At nearly 5,000 of these facilities, the Government has budgeted approximately $1.74 billion for 

environmental programs. This record amount was 19% higher than the previous record in FY 1989 of 

$1.46 billion. In FY 1990, this amount included plans for the following program areas; $156 million for 

the Clean Air, $517 million for CERCLA, $195 million for 'Clean Water, $2 million for Endangered 

Species Act, $ 1 million for FIFRA, $593 million for RCRA, $38 million for TSCA, and $234 million for 

other projects. These amounts are an indication of the Government's ongoing commitment to 

environmental compliance. 

. , 

EPA has continued to encourage compliance at all Federal Facilities through a vigorous 

enforcement and outreach program. Nationwide,. over 930 inspections were conducted. In spite of 

significant interaction between EPA and Federal agencies, overall compliance rates for unaddressed 

significant violations remained somewhat constant at 65%. For Department of Defense (DOD) facilities, 

overall compliance remained relatively constant at 50%, for DOE overall compliance also remained 

constant at 80%. Within each media, the Government's compliance rate was: 90% for CAA, 41% RCRA, 

91% for "DES, 66% for TSCA, and 69% for multi-media inspections. 

Nationwide, a record number of enforcement agreements were executed to respond to the complex 

conditions at Government facilities. For violations under RCRA, EPA issued notices or entered into 

Federal Facility Compliance Agreements at 46 facilities. Within each final agreement, provisions were 

made ,for citizen enforceability. Considerable efforts were also made in each environmental statute to 

address instances of noncompliance with an enforceable agreement. 

Beyond assuring compliance, EPA worked closely with other Federal agencies performing 

environmental restoration at the 116 Federal facilities which are on the National Priorities List. 

Working closely with state regulators a record 45 Interagency Agreements were developed to focus 

Federal cleanup efforts at most significant threats through expedited response actions (ERA'S) and 

strategic targeting response priorities. 

6-5 
FY 1990 Egorcemenl Accomplistyenu Report 

A common commitment at DOES Hanford Facility, Washington, led to record funding of their 

environmental restoration activities at $89 million. EPA alsb worked closely with DOE to identify ERA 

opportunities. This culminated in the execution of an Agrement in Principle in October, 1990, to initiate 

three ERA'S at an FY 1991 cost of $10 million. 

' ., .. . , 

.# 

B. Regional Office Accomulishments 

Region I - Boston 

(Connecticut, Maine, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont) 

Region 1's enforcement efforts during FY 1990 set several records and established new directions. 

The Region issued an all-time record of 229 administrative orders to violators in New England during FY 

1990 (not including actions taken at Superfund sites), and referred 32 civil and six criminal cases for 

prosecution by the Department of Justice. By comparison, ,in FY 1989 the Region issued 177 

administrative orders and referred 29 civil and eight criminal cases. 

Region I piloted a new approach to enforcement through use of cross-media procedures designed 

to facilitate decision-making about the potential for multi-media enforcement at violating facilities. 

The Region made it standard practice to perform a multi-media compliance/enforcement status check for 

a facility slated for enforcement action and to obtain a Toxics Release Inventory Report for the facility. 

The results of the database searches for those facilities with some multi-media enforcement potential 

were summarized on a Multi-Media Compliance Check form and discussed at managers' enforcement 

meetings in the Office of Regional Counsel, with program representation as appropriate. Based on the 

discussions at the enforcement meetings, decisions, were made to develop -some actions as multi-media 

enforcement cases, to plan for further cross-media coordination, or to take other follow-up action. 

The heightened emphasis in he Region on multi-media enforcement led the Region in FY 1990 to 

make two rna'jor multi-media civil referrals and to coordinate issuance of administrative complaints 

when developed against the same violating facility. . 

In another new direction for the'enfortement program, the Region made increased"effork in FY 

1990 to encourage innovative forms of relief in settling enforcement actions: As examples, the Region 

began to consider the potential for pollution prevention projects and environmental audits as components 

of settlements.. In addition, during the latter part of the' year, the Region made a major commitment to 

developing a strategic plan for its enforcement program. 

The overall objective of these program directions is to maximize the envikonmental benefit from 

enforcement actions through effective case screening and targeting and creative use of the tools available 

to the Region for case resolution. These initiatives begun in FY 1990 are'certain to tiecome cOrnerStoneS of 

Region I's enforcement program in the future. 

. Region I1 - New York 

(New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands) 

Region II's record for FY 1990 displays a continued strong commitment to an aggressive, targeted 

enforcement enforcement program 

Multi-Media Enforcement Pilot Project - A workgroup was created to identify candidates for 

multi-media inspections, and plan a concerted enforcement response to documented violations. Two such 

inspections were performed during FY 1990, and five or more are scheduled for FY 1991. Both FY 1990 

inspections resulted in multi-media enforcement actions. The major case concerns Caribbean Petroleum, a 

Puerto Rico oil refinery, against which four concurrent administrative actions were filed (under RCRA, 

66 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

emissions from mobile sources, representing approximately 400,000 tons of hydrocarbons that would 

otherwise have been emitted. 

The motor vehicle emission recall program continues to play an important role in EPAs 

enforcement efforts. During FY 1990, EPA investigations resulted in 12 recalls involving 4 manufacturers 

and a total of 1.6 million recalled passenger cars and light-duty trucks. In addition, 480,000 vehicles 

were recalled voluntarily by manufacturers prior to EPA testing. Also in FY 1990, in cooperation with the 

state of-Colorado, EPA initiated vehicle compliance testing at high altitudes. Approximately 200 tests 

were conducted resulting in six engine families identified as recall candidates. 

Clean Water Act Enforcement - NPDES Exceptions Report 

The NPDES enforcement program has defined SNC to include violations of effluent limits, 

reporting requirements, and/or violations of formal enforcement actions. Unlike the other Agency 

enforcement programs, the-NPDES program does not track SNC against a "fixed base" of SNC that is 

established at the beginning of the year, rather, the program tracks SNCs on a quarterly "exceptions 

list" that identifies those facilities that have been in SNC for two or more quarters without returning to 

compliance or being addressed by a formal enforcement action. 

During N 1990,448 facilities were reported on the SNC exceptions list including.201 facilities 

that were unaddressed from the previous year and 247 facilities that appeared on the list'.for the first 

time during the year. Of the 448 facilities on the exceptions list, 256 returned to compliance by the end of 

the year, 134 were subject to a formal enforcement action, and.58 facilities remained to be addressed 

during the upcoming year. 

Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement 

The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program identifies systems in significant 

noncompliance for violations of the microbiological, turbidity, and total trihalomethane requirements on 

a quarterly basis and tracks the actions taken against them. Those not returned to compliance or 

addressed within six months are placed on the headquarters-maintained exceptions list and State and 

federal action against these is tracked. In FY 1990,472 new SNCs were identified of which 173 returned 

to compliance, 97 had enforcement actions taken against them, and 186 became new exceptions. Of these 

new exceptions and the 411 carried over from M 1989, Regions and States addressed a total of 251. 

'. The Underground Injection Control program tracks on an exceptions basis Class I, 11,111, and V 

wells that failed mechanical integrity, exceeded injection pressure, or received unpermitted injection 

material. The exceptions list tracks wells that have been in SNC for more than two consecutive quarters 

without being addressed by a formal enforcement action. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Enforcement 

SNC's identified-during FY 1990 were those TSD facilities that were classified as High Priority 

Violators according to the revised Enforcement Response Policy. In FY 1990, the program tracked a. 

"snapshot" of SNC's in STARS. This data may not be directly comparable to previous years when the 

significant noncompliance measure tracked the number of SNCs pending at the end-of-year, the number 

with initial action, those on acceptable schedules, and the number of SNC's returned to compliance. In 

FY 1990, the program identified 817 TSDFs as SNCs, and at the end of.the year 677 had been addressed 

by a formal enforcement action. 

.. 

6-2 
p "4% 

@,, FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

*' d 

consent decree to settleCWA/RCRA violations at a.pulp and paper mill (Penntech Papers, Johnsonburg, 

PA), and the development of joint SDWA/CERCLA orders to remedy drinking water threats near nonNPL sites. In response to Administrator Reilly's goals for the Chesapeake Bay, the Region embarked on 

a multi-media objective to reduce significant non-compliance (SNC). NPDESSNC was reduced from 

8.3% at the start of the initiative to 4.6%, and the number of federal facilities in non-compliance with at 

least one environmental program was reduced from 37 to 13. 

Review of the site assessments completed in M 1990 by the RCRA contractor demonstrates the need 

to address potentially significant risks posed by non-regulated and .regulated releases. In FY 1991, the 

work group will develop a strategy for each.facility and may include using a risk- based approach under 

Superfund authorities or utilizing several different authorities in one enforcement action. The facilities 

will be prioritized according to the risk they pose to human health and the environment. The work 

group and EPA upper management will then evaluate the implementation of the cross-media enforcement 

project and determine its applicability on a wider scale. \ 

Negotiations were completed with federal facilities for the remaining Interagency Agreements 

for Superfund clean-ups. Region 111 is the first-Region to have signed IAG's with all their federal 

facilities on the NPL. , 

The Region obtained a guilty plea in a criminal case involving illegal filling of wetlands that 

resulted in the largest monetary penalty assessed against an individual in an environmental case - $1 

million in fines and $1 million in restitution (US v. Paul Tudor Jones). 

Several additional national/Regional firsts were also achieved: 

1. first national RCRA ROD (IBM Manassas, VA); 

' . 2. first penalty assessed against another federal agency by EPA (Letterkenney Army Depot); 

3. first national SDWA Section 1431 order against a private company for remediation of a 

drinking water supply (Foote Mineral); 

4. attained the highest penalty in a vinyl chloride NESHAP case and reached agreement for a 

precedent-setting audit program to ensure compliance (Occidentd Chemical Corp.). 

Region IV - Atlanta 

(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee) 

Region IV's programs achieved strong levels of performance and set national precedents in 

several.' cases. In addition, as the Agency's Icad region for enforcement in FY 1990, Region IV was 

instrumental in setting an agenda for a more integrated, effective enforcement program in the 1990s. 

Regional organizational changes were made in FY 1990 to facilitate enforcement'efforts. Region 

IV began a pilot reorganization of the Office of Regional Counsel to add a branch that.exclusively 

focuses on multi-media, and the Policy, Planning and Evaluation Branch designated staff to ensure that 

four-year strategic enforcement themes, including multi-media enforcement, are institutionalized in 

Region IV. . I/ 

, 

Region IV began coordinating with the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) to 

identify multi-media noncompliers. This effort utilizes NEIC's Corporate Cross-Regional Identification 

Program (CCRIP). Based upon retrieval criteria defined by Region IV's Air, NPDES, and' RCRA 

programs, a list is generated of facilities that have violations in at least two of the three programs. The 

listalso indicates whether the facility is on the National Priorities List, or if it reported emissions for 

the Toxics Release Inventory. The list is updated on a quarterly basis. The multi-media noncomplier list 

is useful for inspection targeting, identification of multi-media noncompliers, and case screening. Region 

IV is also investigating the use of this list in enforcement negotiations. 

I 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

A second product of NEIC's Corporate Cross-Regional Identification Program is the corporate 

profile retrieval. For each facility showing a violation in the Air, NPDES or RCRA programs, CCRIP 

searches data bases in all EPA Regions to determine if the facility has corporate affiliates which also 

have violations. This retrieval is an indication of corporate noncompliance patterns. It is primarily 

useful for enforcement negotiations and case screening; however, it may have utility in targeting 

corporate affiliates with compliance problems. Region IV led the nation in the number of criminal 

referrals. In addition, this year the Region criminal enforcement program tops the nation in number of 

defendants charged and the total number of cases in which charges were filed. These successes are 

largely due to the Region's specific emphasis on criminal enforcement. 

Traditional enforcement activities also continued to be a high priority in FY 1990. EPA-lead 

actions included 366 administrative orders and 35 civil referrals to DOJ. Region Iv's Superfund Cost 

Recovery program had the first and only treble damage award at the Naomi/Walker County site ($1 

million) and was very successful in de minimis settlements, including a case with over 200 PRPs. In 

RCRA, State penalty amounts increased from $3.1 million in FY 1989 to $6.1 million in M 1990. The 

Water Division emphasized Wetlands enforcement, resulting in 35 administrative actions. A highlight 

for the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division was Hoechst Celanese, who was found in violation of the 

NESHAP for equipment leaks of benzene based on a review of litle 313 emissions release data. Region IV 

responded with a civil referral. 

Region V - Chicago 

(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin) 

During Fiscal 1990, Region V entered into several multi-million dollar settlements with an 

emphasis on multimedia enforcement and enforcement at Federal facilities. The filing of a consent 

decree with USX Gary Works is one of the nation's major environmental accomplishments for the year. 

Under terms of the decree, USX will undertake environmental improvements estimated at $32.5 million, 

which includes a $7.5 million sediment characterization and remediation and a $1.6 million penalty for 

Clean Water Act (CWA) viotations. 

Five criminal cases involving violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act or CWA were filed. A 

significant settlement of one of those cases involved Menominee Paper Co., where the company pleaded 

guilty to falsifying 11 discharge monitoring reports and was fined $lOO,MW) in addition to a $2.1 million 

civil penalty settlement. A notable part of the case was a judicial order that Menominee Paper take out a 

full-page newspaper advertisement disclosing its offenses and the penalty. , 

Region V entered into an important consent agreement with the US. Department of Energy 

(DOE) involving cleanup of the Feed Materials Production Center at Fernald, OH. The result was a $2 

billion, five-year plan that, along with a similar facility at Hanford, WA, will serve as models for 

cleanup of other government and privately owned nuclear sites. Contamination from the Femald center 

was affecting air, land, and water on site and in the community adjacent to the plant. Hazard studies 

were scrutinized to assure DOE, the public, and the news media that cleanup would be carried out to 

protect human health and the environment. Major impacts of this agreement are that it firmly 

established EPAs authority to exercise its authority at facilities operated by other Federal agencies 

and that it made the U.S. EPA Administrator the final arbiter of disputes, moving that function from the 

Office of Management and Budget. Other Region V Federal facilities affected during the year were 

DOES Mound Plant in Miamisburg, OH, and Hicks Air Force Base at MinneapoWSt. Paul. The Mound 

Plant cleanup is estimated at $800 million. 

Under Superfund, enforcement was outstanding with Region V accounting for almost one quarter of 

the national referrals to the Department of Justice and 29 Records of Decision signed. A consent decree at 

the Liquid Disposal Inc. site in Utica, MI, requires 41 settling defendants to carry out a $22.4 million 

cleanup. The Region also settled one of its oldest cases against Alvin Laskin and about 140 other 

potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The PRPs agreed to pay $1.47 million of a $5 million cleanup, the 

6-9 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Reporr ' ' 

first $350,000 in oversight costs, and any future oversight costs exceeding a $1.75 million estimate. 

Ti,' ?:. Under,RcRK, :the .Region set a ,precedent.in-the.Master, Metals,: Inc: consen 

required the-company.todose allits^ treatment; storage, and.disposal.unitS b&Suse'of.its.loss of ;interim! 

status (LOIS). Only certain specified container storage areassnot subject to' LOIS we-re exempted: This: 

decree,is,the first settlement providing a compliance schedule for non-LOIS'container storage,unit's while, 

requiring closure of LOIS units at the same:facility. Another important consent dGee required Chemical: 

Waste:Management,.InC. to pay-a-$750,W penalty.and close an enormous sludgepile at itsWickery,:OH; 

facility. ' Additionally,, the Region resolved ,a six-count !Toxic Substance~and'Control~.Act'(TSCA)-case~ 

with Chemical Waste for operations 'at its Chicago! incinerator: This action..resulted:in #a $3.75'million. 

.. ,j..!, :.;; y, ,, r. 1.' v:'.l ,3#':.;,,:.,;.$ , i ,A>..: :. ,i,,:. , 01,: ,it ' ,. i<. ..,', C. 

.- >vi ->rt*t.,:,o- .:,.pi- >;;.:2 .A*.: :%! 

:d,,,,.,-.The Region, VI e.nforce.ment. progra-m's goal is- to ,achieve compliance .thro.ugh-fully,conside.Fd,; 

d,&isive,and effective.enforcement. Enforcement efforts. are directd,.on-a priority2basis,, at the most, 

serious threats to human health and _the environment. Our enforcement program.s&s they objectives;: :fl 

,It., _, .: ,.. . , ;:,..,. .!::,...t-:I+q! 

. ' (' , c \'I, ,. , f,;. '.I I ' ', L.' '.; .a. 1,~ ,(, , . ,,__ .. ,.,, .. ,.:, ., , . .#.,_...I .. 

~. 

1. Emphasis on environmentally significant and precedent-setting cases. 

2. Greater penalties aimed at removing -nomic benefits of non-compliance and at deterrence; 

3. Use of leading-edge enforcement techniques to' complement traditional activities; and 

4. Leveraging environmental protection capability through' state enforcement and capacity 

building. 

techniques such as targeting, risk-based decision making, and screening. It included,meetings between.the, 

Regional, Ad.ministrator and,F,nior,-executives of corporations that.,owned.,.targetedtfacilities. ..;me. 

meetings focused the attention of these .senior, executives .on ?he serious interest of Regional:management, 

in reducing toxic releases from their facilities. . ,. ;-J! i:,'. ,A?'. ' ..d., 

,J .::,. ..ne, pilot .project; the Toxic. Release.:Reduction..Project,. is,;a .two ,phasediapproach:that will 

attempt-to obtain reduction of risk from toxic chemicals emitted from industrial. sources: Phase I-.consists-. 

of a, review of selected 'sources with a recalculated individual risk of 10-2 or greatwin. the Air Toxic ~ 

Exposure.and Risk.Ihformation System (ATERIS) data. The purposes. are .to explore ihe possibility :of 

reducing toxic emissions, to insure compliance with all regulatory provisions, and to conduct a complete 

multi-media risk assessment. A key feature of this effort is meetings between.'the Regional 

Administrator, State .offici.als, and, company .execu.tive officers, which have already, roccurred. 

:'i, ' I.:!?. ' ._ I . ::.: :,: ,I !I I, 

r. Enforcementractions will:follow as appropriate.,:,,.., '. ', , . ,. ::. .' J...: ~ ,. , , ,o j:,-~,$l I )11,, "I 

. . :,, 9' ..I ' , , ."I:, ,;,, :.: i/,,!j '.%,'L, .,;:> . Phase 11. consists of a, multi-media..compliance investigation and ,subsequent' m-ulti-medi .. .. . 

- . .., assessment of selcted sources,in a target area.to explore the.potentia1 for risk reduction,. The-target area 

selected:was the.heavily, industrialiied.area between.Ne.w Orleans, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana,:on the 

Mississippi River. Risk screenings we? performed on facilities reporting under the Emergency-Planning 

and .Community Right-to-Know Act Section. 313 (Toxic Release.lnventory, or TRl data) which considered 

the relative toxicities ofthe, chemical emissions as. well as the.quantity ,of emissions..:,. .,55c.,-l 1, ;rr~, hq. .. ,,f..~ ~,.,.,', .I' ,<Ti ;i ;,I- ,_;., ~ ,, ** ,'A '. . ; ,:,., :. !',.' ,, ,, , ,.., >, P ,, :,,... .-.: 3, .I 1: :'l ;!<- 

~. . .In, ,Bqth phases,are focused ,on reductions,of toxic .emissions with demqnstrable or predictable effects. 

on public health and the environment, and they will seek. facility,alterations. throiwh. .-~.. the fnllr -_..>wing I 

mechanisms: (1) formal enforcement actions, (2) review of existing permits, (3) non-traditional methods, 

such as discussions between the Regional .Administrator:and ,facility, executivps ,to-obtain-,voluntary 

plant-wide .e$ssion .reductions, (4)pnvironmental awards for faci1iti.G which'are in. compliance with 

all regulations in an exemplary manner, (5),create incentives to encourage facilities to, reErt,and corrqct 

.. ,. .:.:, ,<#. ~A&~.. . . .,, ',.7; ...I r. .r-! a., 

violations. 1. . , , . : ,, ,:,. , . ,. . I. > '1, :', , .. ' ,,,,'.,.'? ,.:, + q'~*jr<:qp, ,. .. .I ,, 1, ,, .> ,, ,, ..,.,*l.$,j. I , '!I , 

6-10 
\ 

17Y 1990, .EIJorce~ni,Accoinplishmenls Rep6rf .: ' 

,:,?'-lI/; ' i- %ti?&ugh;'th?e 'Regionsxa,wardd~pfogrhn,cmembers of :the 'r6gulate^d'$ommunitj( :that: achieve 

ex&plaryi:co'mpliahi5e'in' all-'media:aie'r+ognized .by' the R%ional Xdministrator:; iThis'.progam ha4 

been well meived in the regulated co&unity'~~ ~~gni~.o~.a-natio~al.l~"e:i;el!. .:* .) .ii+c-. . :J w 

The Region collected over $1.3 million in.administrative penalties for violations of the Clean 

Water Act, more thaa any. other Regia;;, while^. i'ssuing:over 900 administrative, orders. Under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery.Ait,'the Reson cull&ted over $1'.7 &ilIi&in 'de;;alties. Under the 

criminal enforcement program, about one third of the total national amount of sentenced jail time was 

assessed against violators'in Region 'VI? (. Finally,!amorig'the adhinistiative ehforcement.actionsi Region 

VI iealised =,civil p&ialty:of $375,000 a$i,i comniit+entX*me $60'iiiiIlid.n'in cbiaiwp'cost outlays froin' 

TrahswestemT'ipeeline . ~. Company fo? remediation of-PCB'6onta'minated~natirral'gaS'~ompress6r stations'in: 

Newiexico< , , -1;' ~ .'I ; ;<,T" .i' *7..,j,:, 

<;,T-,>x,n,,2*, 1, : ,f :,;.,. "i 'Yj, ./,. ,- h.:, Ctt.'? .'!,I(( : I-,, ?. , ~ .,, . , ,':.,.::,'.': ,' 3,. ,I .:.i .,,:,-''a' 

. ,.'"'::.Region VI .haslworked 'clokl~ with- MCx 's Secretariat of :Urban. Development and' E&olo& 

(SEDUE). EPA and SEDUE have institutionalized inspections of maquiladorasin Mexicod'and theiisister. 

-. <-,,,e:, 2r.i <;, ;;', ,!I :,: .,, : .I fir,..;i".:. w-: ,; i. ' .,,? I< 

.?/" 

I.. ~. 

.7,,.j . i,,r ; . . ,, .!. , . ., - -r' .,i .. . . , , .. L: .-! ; !!,.>,, (.:." ,, :,. < 'I ',; ... 

.,=:I -. ..Region GII's eniorcement program goals for FYl9W included:,;workingw/th +e Statcs to, initiate 

timely and aggressive enforcement actions .for environmentally significant v~olations;,increasing;the, p~, 

of pollution prevention conditions and environmental audits in settlements; obtaining enforceable 

agreementsfor ,compliance, and.rem+iation at Federal Facility sites; co_ntinui,ng.to ,build and ,maintain a 

coqrd/nated jeam-approach among, all prograF,-the Office of. Regional Counsel: a,nd~ the ,Office. .?fCrimina!jInvestigations;;,and,inFease . .. . .~ .mu1ti;media en,foxcement astiviti&, ':,. .,~, ,:,,I; .,,<,, 

,. 

1 7;.:,r: I I. ,: 8: ,.; ,; i ,I> ,.,: :. ., , , ,_. .,' , 

The following are highlights of the many enforcement,accomplishments . ...,.. . achieved .. . by Region.+, 

.. i' .~ ,. . , *,-, ., -I *- *... ., : 

including its four states, in FY1990 

:;>c,,k,r# :.:&;,(.'-. :!r.'.' ,. 5, :.; i ,%I: .,':;~.'.,~, 

referrals to.the State Pttomey,General Offices. The 57 referrakin the Water Program ra+ed. - 

first among all regions nationally. .The Sta!es (and. !he Region) achieved a substantial .$nprovernent:in, 

State Enforcement: The Region VI1 states issued 398 administrative orders and initiated 100 

the timeliness ." ,,. .. . of, the .. enforcementpction<agai$st .- high, priority.vi,olators in the. .~ RCRA Fogram. ! I .., 2. .' 

< -. .-I .. ,.!., .? , ',.. .. &i 

._.~ '. " . - :.,-. ' ' . 'I ., , .,- It ,,<, , > :* , 

,.,. - . 1.. Federal j.. Enforcement: . Signi nt.lncrease ,in Administrative Penaities: .The Region.V!l-office. 

assessed over $1 million'in admini ve penalties, an increase of 70% over FY' 1989. This inclu8es a, 

222% increase in TSCA penalties, a 61% increase in FIFRA; a50%;increase in Water, and a 20% increase 

.~. I 

., ~ . ,, . , . .., .. .. ....'~ JL ! : .'I ' . " . ,:, '. . , I . . , , .' , , . .~ inRCRA. -. . . . . , .I . , . . .I 

, . I,, ~ , .1 , , .. 

' I. .. , .. -. CI ;*. , ,., *'P.l . ..: >,'.* :, 'I ' '*. "I<..:, . , I. , a 

~~. . ,. Majo,r Judicial, ,Settlement; .~ The .Region pbtaine i.5 mi!li.on penalty settlement i< a: 

Water-Act judicia!. ac,tion, against Eaglehcher, in.addition .. to an'.agreement . to.conduct .. -. a multi-mmjia ' . 

.,' - . , ,.~ ' ' . ' . , , ') , _I I.. . ,, ,I.. , ;, , I, ' ,' 

a'udit. .. 

I,, .I, :.Increase " .... in..Sup.erfund . ., 4. .a..- Enforcement . Superfund. issued 27 ,administr,ative orders, including 8 

upi!ateral ,I .. orders. ~ .. .I, I, his .I.. represented , > .,.. an increase Of 59% from FY .. 1989: 

Aggressive Federal Facility Enforcement Programs: Of the $1 billion in PRP-lead clean-ups 

obtained, through Superfund ,enforcement agreements, $&I1 million is attributable to, environmental 

, -,- ,.; r. I; :3,. .... (1 .i I - . I, , .., >.. , . , . ;.:, . ,.,,-'r, .,, ,.jitl. ; 

Pollution Prevention S&tlements: The Region obkined I.. ~ agreement through TsCA, settlements,to. ,.. 

voluntary removal and proper disposal of PCB transformers, oil, capacitors and soil,.with an estimated 

cost of over $6.1 million. 

_. .. ,/ .. 

.. , ,..I ,. , j ., ,, ..<"\.,. . ,II L :.,; ; .. 

;, .. .. , ..I.,', 'l"','.i ..,, - ' 

., .,I . '- I. -. , .. ' 4 ,, ,,##e 

,- :, ,. .*-, ~.., ,' . , ~ 

.. . .,i,,!, .:I '!, 'i.., ., , , '..I. ,a .. ;, t 

c1ean;ups to be completed by Federal FaciGties under Section .. 106 Interagency : Agreements. .:.. ,: d?,'.' 

.. , -. t,. ;I,., _1 .... I: , , .': , ,,., .. . 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

.. 

In Region VIII, enforcement tools are used in appropriate and innovative ways to correct 

environmental and health problems, to remove economic benefits accrued by polluters as a result of 

noncompliance, to encourage environmental stewardship by all, and to help preserve the unique and 

largely unspoiled environments in its States for future generations to enjoy. The States of Colorado, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming, and many county and local governments, 

often have lead roles through delegated program responsibilities or their own individual environmental 

program requirements. 

During 1990, the Region added focus to its enforcement efforts by providing a. forum for its 

enforcement branch chiefs to work closely with the Deputy Regional Administrator to bring a crossprogram focus to environmental enforcement. A rotational position was established for enforcement 

program branch chiefs to enhance their knowledge of both the individual enforcement programs and 

natiqnal environmental enforcement directions, and to help assure that implementation of new agency 

initiatives reflect the views of Regional enforcement staff. Important first steps were taken to formalize 

institutional relationships needed to support these new initiatives. 

~ ' 

During FY 1990, the Region emphasized its judicial enforcement program and increased the 

numbers of new civil'cases referred to DOJ to 24 (up from 11 in FY 1989). For this same period of time, the 

number of administrative enforcement actions remained relatively stable at 230 actions (versus 228 in 

1989). And, substantial resources were used for criminal investigations at the Department of Energy's 

Rocky Flats Facility near metropolitan Denver. 

Specific noteworthy accomplishments included:. 

The Region began implementing the national Enforcement 4-Year Strategic Plan with a 

comprehensive participatory approach to enforcement planning, multi-media targeting, strategic value 

case review, and enforcement communications. ' New activities during FY 1990 included a process for 

screening and strategic value case review; active work groups for developing a regional enforcement 

strategic plan, for targeting and screening, and for communications; and a geographic enforcement 

initiative. 

Under the CWA 404 Program, the Region met its commitment for Class I penalty complaint 

reviews by the Office of Wetlands Protection and the Office of Enforcement; thereby setting the stage for 

assessment of penalties for wetlands enforcement. The Region is publicizing each enforcement action in a 

planned and targeted manner to obtain the maximum deterrent value from each action. The UIC Program 

settled the civil case against Pioneer Exploration, Inc. for the largest dollar penalty collected to date in 

the UIC program nationally. The case resulted in substantial environmental benefit when the operator 

agreed to properly plug and abandon several injection wells that had failed mechanical integrity tests. 

Region VI11 led the Nation in having all of its major permittees in compliance with secondary treatment 

standards. A key case in this program was a civil judicial referral against Western Sugar which 

resulted in the largest environmental penalty ever collected in the State of Montana. 

Emphasis under the UST Program involved a leak detection enforcement initiative on Indian 

lands. Several phases were completed including tank surveys, training of Indian environmental 

coordinators, information request letters and follow-up enforcement. In FY 1990, this initiative resulted 

in two actions against the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

r 

limes Beach Settlement: The Region reached a settlement agreement with Syntex Agribusiness 

and Syntex (USA) for clean-up a incineration of dioxin-contaminated soil and debris from 28 dioxin sites 

in Eastern Missouri, with an estimated project cost of over $200 million. 

Region VI11 - Denver 

(Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming) 

6-12 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

Region IX - San Francisco 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Trust Territories ) 

Region IXs enforcement goals are to achieve and maintain compliance, enhance state capability, 

establish deterrence, and prevent pollution. The Region's approach balances these five goals in 

determining the most effective and efficient means to achieve high rates of compliance in all 

environmental programs. Throughout the year, the Region emphasized risk reduction, toxic loadings 

reduction, pollution prevention and habitat protection. 

The Region prepared 38 new referrals during FY 1990, 21 of which were forwarded to the 

Department of Justice during the year. Two criminal referrals were forwarded to DOJ for prosecution. 

Sixteen referrals were concluded during the year, resulting in penalties of $2,733,000 and awarded cost 

recoveries of $3,512,120. A total of 147 Administrative enforcement actions were issued. 

Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAO) under CERCLA were utilized at seven NPL sites. The 

UAO at Koppers requires $70 million in remediation work. The total estimated Remedial 

Design/Remedial Action work being performed by potentially responsible parties is $1.33.2 million. 

CERCLA Federal Facility Agreements were successfully negotiated with the Army, Air Force, Navy and 

Marine Corps, at 12 NPL sites. 

An Enforcement Pilot Project was initiated in cooperation with the State of California Regional 

Water Quality Control Board and the US. Army Corps of Engineers to address pretreatment, above 

ground oil storage facilities and wetlands preservation in the San Francisco Bay area. The pilot has ~ 

resulted in both judicial and administrative enforcement cases and provided a focus for shared 

environmental concerns in three regulatory areas that impact the vital resources of the bay. , Supporting State and local agency program development is a continuing priority. The South 

Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in California successfully negotiated a $1,000,000 

cash penalty in addition to a schedule to achieve compliance by Lockheed Aerospace Corporation. The 

case was identified as part of the cooperative EPA, State Air Resources Board, and SCAQMD aerospace 

rule effectiveness study. 

.. 

Establishing significant legal precedent is also a part of the Region's enforcement agenda. With 

the Shell Oil case, Region IX established Clean Water Act Spill Prevention, Control and 

Countermeasure penalties on a PER DAY basis. Shell agreed to a $20 million settlement including 

penalties and resource damage payments to the 16 federal, state and local agencies cooperating in this 

enforcement action addressing a 1988 crude oil spill to San Francisco Bay. - 

Region X - Seattle 

(Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington) 

Region X experienced several substantial changes during Fiscal Year 1990 which have 

strengthened emphasis on enforcement issues. The.new management team in Region X is working to 

implement Administrator Reilly's emphasis on EPA's enforcement program. Key to maintaining this 

emphasis has been the Deputy Regional Administrator's taking the lead in focusing Regional attention 

on enforcement activities. 

One specific area of attention is multi-media enforcement. Programs are now coordinating to 

identify candidates for multi-media enforcement action; multi-media inspections have started and will 

continue through F(91 as a step in this process. 

Within Region X, waste emissions from pulp) and paper mills are proving to be one of the most 

6-13 

i I ! 

I 

I. 
I 

FY 1990 Enforcemenf Accomplishmenfs Repori 

w 

rpooooIpy .7. 

W 

0 0.0 0 w 2 

lb 

I 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

00 

I 

2 00. 

0 gomooooy 

N 

~O-OOOOy 2 

22 w 

gogoooo 2 

vv 2 

~o~oowoy vz 

sow0orr O!2 

CICI 

c1CI 

h,r 

h,rp Q1ul 

Ulo- ww QI 

I 


FY 1990 Er$orcement Accomplishments Reporl 

EPA Headquarters Enforcement Offices 

Office of Enforcement (OE) 

Assistant Administrator 

Deputy Assistant Administrator 

Deputy Assistant Administrator-Federal Facilities 

Director of Civil Enforcement 

Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air Enforcement 

Associate Enforcement Counsel for Water Enforcement 

Associate Enforcement Counsel for Superfund Enforcement 

Associate Enforcement Counsel for RCRA Enforcement 

Associate Enforcement Counsel for Pesticides and Toxic Substances 

Office of Criminal Enforcement 

Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations (OCAPO) 

Office of Federal Activities (OFA) 

Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement 

Contractor Listing Program 

National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC - Denver) 

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 

Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) 

Field Operations and Support Division (FOSD) 

Manufacturers Operations Division (MOD) 

Office of Water (OW) 

Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) 

Office of Drinking Water (ODW) 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE - CERCLA) 

Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE - RCRA) 

Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances 

Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM) 

202-382-4134 

202-382-4137 

202-382-4543 

202-382-4140 

202-382-2820 

202-475-8180 

202-382-3050 

202-382-4326 

202-475-8690 

202-475-9660 

202-382-4140 

202-382-5053 

202-475-9801 

202-475-8777 

303-236-5100 

703-308-8672 

202-382-2633 

202-382-2479 

202-475-8304 

202-382-5543 

703-382-4810 

202-382-4808 

202-382-7835 
FY 1990 Enforcement Accomplishments Report 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices 

Enforcement Information Contacts 

Region I - Boston 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont 

Region I1 - New York 

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, 

Virgin Islands 

Region Ill - Philadelphia 

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia 

Region IV - Atlanta 

Alabama,' Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee 

Region V - Chicago 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota 

Ohio, Wmnsin 

Region VI - Dallas 

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, Texas 

Region VI1 - Kansas City 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska 

' Region VI11 - Denver 

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming 

Region IX - San Francisco 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, 

Trust Territories 

Region X - Seattle 

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 

Office of Public Affairs 

JFK Federal Building 

Boston,MA 02203 

617-56-3424 FIS: 8-835-3417 

Office of External Programs 

Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building 

26 Federal Plaza 

New York, NY 10278 

212-264-2515 FTS: 8-264-2515 

Office of Public Affairs 

841 Chestnut Building 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

215-597-9370 FTS: 8-597-9370 

Office of Public Affairs 

345 Courtland Street, N.E. 

Atlanta, CA ,30365 

404-347-3004 FB 8-257-3004 

Office of Public Affairs 

230 South Dearborn Street 

Chicago,IL 60604 

312-353-2072 FTS: 8-353-2072 

Office of External Affairs 

First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place 

1445 Ross Ave. 12th Floor Suite 1200 

Dallas TX 75202 

214-655-2200 FIS: 8-255-2200 

Office of Public Affairs 

726 Minnesota Avenue 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

91 3551-7003 FIS: 8-276-7003 

Office of External Affairs 

999 18th Street Suite 500 

Denver, CO 80202-2405 

303-293-1692 FTS: 8-330-1692 

Office of External Affairs 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

4 15-744-1020 FTS: 8-484-1585 

Office of the Deputy Regional Administrator 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

206-442-5810 FTS: 8-399-5810