Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

FY98 Accomplishments Report

June 1999
2 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Foreword

May 1, 1999

This past year has witnessed notable progress in making EPA’s enforcement and compliance

programs more effective in protecting public health and the environment. Since the

reorganization of OECA in 1994, we have been striving to build EPA’s capacity for effective

enforcement action at the same time that we develop new approaches to achieving compliance.

The principal building blocks of an integrated enforcement and compliance assurance strategy

are now in place and the results are encouraging. As an introduction to our Fiscal Year 1998

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report, I would like to highlight just

a few of our diverse accomplishments over the past year.

EPA maintained a strong and fair enforcement program in FY98. We expanded our efforts to

give industry incentives to voluntarily disclose and correct violations. We also worked hard to

give small businesses the information and assistance they need to maintain compliance with the

law. This three-pronged approach — enforcement, compliance incentives, and compliance

assistance — is reaping great dividends in terms of protecting the public and the environment.

Our FY98 record of referrals — 677 criminal and civil cases, with over $180 million assessed

in penalties and fines — represents the second highest combined totals in EPA’s history. Perhaps

more importantly, the settlements we achieve are bringing about significant environmental

improvements. Settlements in FY98 alone have contributed to the reduction of five million

pounds of ozone-depleting CFCs, seven million pounds of asbestos, 188 million pounds of

carbon monoxide, and 23.6 million pounds of nitrogen oxide in the environment.

EPA’s extensive set of compliance assistance tools helps businesses and communities all across

the country comply with environmental requirements by offering “plain English” guides to

environmental requirements, translations of requirements into several languages, sector

notebooks, and national Compliance Assistance Centers. EPA added five new centers, bringing

to a total of nine industry-specific, Internet-based Compliance Assistance Centers that are up

and running.

These are but a few of the noteworthy accomplishments we realized in FY98. We look back

with pride on these activities and with gratitude to our dedicated staff. In this last year of the

20th century, we look forward to a renewed effort to provide the best possible living

environment to all Americans.

Sincerely,

Steven A. Herman

Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report 3

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

1. Introductory Summary ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Overview of FY98 Accomplishments ............................................................ 1

1.2 Guide to This Report .................................................................................... 6

2. Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals .............................................................................. 7

2.1 Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater

Compliance with the Law ............................................................................ 7

2.2 Goal 7: Expansion of Americans’ Right to

Know About Their Environment ................................................................. 18

2.3 Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of

Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response ................................ 22

3. Priority Industry Sectors ..................................................................................... 27

3.1 The Sector Approach ................................................................................. 27

3.2 Petroleum Refining .................................................................................... 27

3.3 Primary Nonferrous Metals ........................................................................ 30

3.4 Inorganic Chemicals and Chemical Preparations ........................................ 32

3.5 Agricultural Practices/CAFOs ...................................................................... 37

3.6 Automotive Service and Repair Shops ........................................................ 39

3.7 Dry Cleaning ............................................................................................. 42

3.8 Other Sectors ............................................................................................ 45

4. Media-Specific Priorities .................................................................................... 49

4.1 Clean Air Act.............................................................................................. 49

4.2 Clean Water Act ......................................................................................... 51

4.3 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know ................................ 53

4.4 FIFRA ......................................................................................................... 54

4.5 RCRA ......................................................................................................... 55

4.6 Safe Drinking Water Act ............................................................................. 57

5. Highlights: Enforcement Cases .......................................................................... 59

5.1 Civil Cases ................................................................................................. 59

5.2 Criminal Cases ........................................................................................... 73

6. Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs .................................................... 81

6.1 Compliance Assistance Activities ................................................................ 81

6.2 Compliance Monitoring Activities .............................................................. 84

6.3 New Policies .............................................................................................. 87

Appendix: Historical Enforcement Data................................................................. 89
4 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

List of Acronyms

CAA Clean Air Act

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CFC Chlorofluorocarbons

CWA Clean Water Act

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report

DOJ Department of Justice

EJ Environmental Justice

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FY Fiscal Year

IDEA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis

NEIC National Enforcement Investigation Center

NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NOV Notice of Violation

OCEFT Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PRP Potentially Responsible Party

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEP Supplemental Environmental Project

SNC Significant Noncompliance

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

UAO Unilateral Administrative Order

UST Underground Storage Tank
Executive Summary 1

CHAPTER 1

Executive Summary

1.1 Overview of FY98 Accomplishments

Fiscal year 1998 (FY98) saw a strong record of enforcement and compliance assurance activity,

close to the previous year’s record level of achievements. Some categories of activity — such as

inspections, administrative penalty order complaints, and numbers of criminal cases initiated —

logged a substantial increase. The numbers of civil cases settled or referred, on the other hand,

recorded slight declines. Compliance assistance activity is tracked less formally than enforcement,

but also recorded significant accomplishments in FY98. Following are highlights of the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance’s (OECA) activities and accomplishments.

Environmental Results

E Pollutant Reductions: For the third year, EPA is reporting performance measure data

on pollution reductions achieved when enforcement actions are taken. For the FY98

cases reporting pollutant reductions, total suspended solids (TSS) and fecal coliform

were the two pollutants most frequently reduced through an EPA enforcement settlement.

E Most Common Chemicals Reduced: For the FY98 civil cases reporting amounts

of pollutant reduction, the three largest pollutant reductions were for contaminated

soil, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and wetlands fill material. During FY98,

chlorofluorocarbons were reduced by over five million pounds, asbestos by more than

seven million pounds, carbon monoxide by 188 million pounds, and nitrogen oxide

by 23.6 million pounds. The top 10 amounts of pollutant reductions reported are shown

in Exhibit 1-1.

E Qualitative Environmental Impacts: Qualitative impacts were reported for 64% of

FY98 civil settlements. The most frequent benefits reported were human health protection

(42%) and ecosystem protection (31%). At the statute level, Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) settlements had the highest proportion protecting human health benefits (72%

of SDWA cases), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) settlements had the highest

proportion of worker protection benefits (35% of TSCA cases), and Clean Water Act (CWA)

settlements showed the greatest ecosystem protection (73% of CWA cases).
2 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

E Changes in Facility Operations: About 46 percent of civil enforcement settlements

required violators to change the way they manage their facilities or reduce emissions or

discharges into the environment, while another 54 percent required violators to improve

their environmental management systems, take preventive action to avoid future noncompliance, or enhance the public’s right-to-know. See Exhibits 1-2 and 1-3 for details

on complying actions.

E Criminal Case Outcomes: For the first time, there is information on the qualitative

environmental impacts of criminal cases. Of the criminal investigations/cases concluded

in FY98 that reported an environmental benefit, the most frequently reported benefit

was human health protection (28%), followed by ecosystem protection (18%).

Enforcement Cases and Penalties

E Civil and Administrative Settlements: Overall, EPA concluded 3,479 formal actions

or settlements in FY98, EPA’s second highest level.

E Civil Referrals: EPA submitted 411 civil case referrals to the Department of Justice

(DOJ) in FY98; $91.8 million in civil penalties was assessed. The number of cases

represents a 4% drop from FY97 but a 40% increase over FY96 cases. (Exhibit 1-4)

E Criminal Program: In FY98, 266 criminal cases were referred to DOJ and $92.8 million

in criminal fines was assessed. The criminal program set annual records for defendants

charged (350) and investigations initiated (636).

E Administrative Orders Initiated: EPA increased its use of administrative penalty

orders in FY98, issuing 1,400 complaints — a 7% increase over FY97 levels and the second

highest total in this decade.

Exhibit 1-1: Top 10 Pollutants

Reduced, FY98

Contaminated soils

BOD

Wetlands fill material

Carbon monoxide

Battery casing chips

Explosives

Total suspended solids

Sludge

Wood tar

 Used oil/waste/spills

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

16,341

611

344

188

112

96

64 

53

50

46

Millions of pounds reduced

Exhibit 1-2: Types of Compliance

Activity, FY98 Civil Cases

Use reduction

Industrial process change

Emissions/discharge change

Storage/disposal change

Remediation/restoration

Remedial design/action

Monitoring/sampling

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Training

Permit application

3%

5%

10% 

9%

13%

10%

2%

25%

22%

25%

7%

8%

Removal

Note: Based on 3,103 of the 3,479 settlements for

which complying actions were reported. Many

settlements reported multiple complying actions.
Executive Summary 3

E Making Polluters Pay: Polluters spent more than $2 billion to

correct violations, take additional steps to protect the environment,

and clean up Superfund sites — over $85 million more than was

collectively spent the previous year. The FY98 estimated value of

injunctive relief ($2 billion) was at its highest total since EPA began to

estimate the value in 1995; it was 38% higher than in FY96 and 4%

higher than FY97 (see Exhibit 1-5). Clean Water Act settlements were

responsible for the highest amount of injunctive relief ($860 million

or 43% of the total) and supplemental environmental project (SEP)

value ($42 million, or 46% of the total).

E Penalties: Since 1974, EPA has assessed fines and penalties

amounting to over $1.5 billion. In FY98, the Clean Air Act (CAA)

was responsible for 53% of criminal penalties ($49 million) and

44% of civil judicial penalties ($28 million). The Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) garnered the most

administrative penalties (20%) at $5.5 million.

E Federal Facilities: FY98 was a watershed year for enforcement at

federal facilities, with EPA’s exercise of newly-clarified enforcement

authorities under the SDWA, CAA, and the lead-based paint notice

provisions of the TSCA, as well as an innovative compliance

initiative with the Department of the Interior. Nationwide, 30

multi-media inspections were performed at federal facilities during

FY98 in a coordinated effort with EPA Regions and state/local

inspectors. Twenty-two of the inspections were conducted at

Defense Department facilities.

Supplemental Environmental Projects

SEPs are environmentally beneficial projects that may be proposed by a

violator during the settlement of an enforcement action. EPA examines

whether a violater is committed to, and has the ability to, perform a

SEP when determining the appropriate settlement penalty. Although

violaters are not legally required to perform a SEP, their cash penalty

may be lowered if they choose to perform an acceptable SEP. An

acceptable SEP must reduce risks to, improve, or protect public health

or the environment.

E Numbers of SEPs: SEPs continue to be included as part of the

settlement of administrative penalty actions and, to a lesser extent,

judicial settlements. In FY98, EPA settlements produced 221 SEPs,

lower in number than in FY97 but higher in monetary value ($90.8

million). Over the last three years, 20% of all judicial and

administrative penalty orders included a SEP. In FY98, 14% of such

actions included a SEP. (See Exhibit 1-6.)

Exhibit 1-3: Types of Compliance Activity,

FY98 Criminal Cases

Permit application

Cleanup

Audit

Use reduction

Recordkeeping

Process change

Monitoring

Remediation

Removal

Emission/discharge change

Storage/disposal change

16%

18%

11%

12%

10%

9%

7%

5%

4%

4%

3%

Note: Based on 417 criminal investigations/cases concluded in FY98

Exhibit 1-5: Value of

Injunctive Relief, FY96-98

FY96 FY97 FY98

$1.4B

$1.9B $2B

FY98 figures are the second highest in OECA’s history. EPA referred

677 civil and criminal cases to the Department of Justice and assessed

$184.6 million in fines and penalties.

Exhibit 1-4: Referrals, Fines,

& Penalties, FY96-98

FY96 FY97 FY98

0

200

400

600

800

Civil Criminal Total

Number of Referrals

557 referrals 

$172.8 million

704 referrals 

$264.4 million

677 referrals 

$184.6 million
4 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

E Types of Cases Producing SEPs: The use of SEPs is most prevalent

in the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

(EPCRA) and RCRA programs. In FY98, 36% of EPCRA and 23% of

RCRA penalty actions included a SEP. While only 10% of CWA

enforcement actions included a SEP, CWA cases continue to obtain

the highest dollar value SEPs of any one program, and were responsible

for 46% of the FY98 total SEP value and 36% over the last three years.

E Environmental Benefits: Pollution prevention continues to be the

most frequent category of SEPs. EPA estimates that 60% of SEPs

offered human health or worker protection benefits, while 52%

offered ecosystem protection.

Inspections and Noncompliance Rates

E Inspections: In FY98, EPA’s Regional staff conducted 23,237

inspections under the various environmental statutes, a 19% increase

over FY97 levels. (See Exhibit 1-7.)

E Significant Noncompliance: This report includes tentative data

on noncompliance with major statutes. Significant noncompliance

(SNC) rates are given in Chapter 2 for the pilot sectors included in

the Sector Facility Indexing Project. Beginning in FY99, OECA will

be implementing new measurement systems as part of the National

Performance Measures Strategy (see box on next page), and will

report on SNC duration and recidivism in the FY99 Annual

Accomplishments Report.

Compliance Incentives

E Audit Policy: As a part of EPA’s compliance incentive policies and

strategies in FY98, at least 200 companies disclosed potential violations

at 950 facilities under the auspices of the Agency’s self-disclosure (audit)

policy and 63 companies have settled those cases by correcting

violations at 390 facilities and taking steps to prevent their recurrence.

Since the inception of the audit policy, a total of 430 companies have

disclosed violations at 1,788 facilities and relief was granted to 164

companies at 540 facilities that returned to compliance.

E Targeted Initiatives: EPA has undertaken several initiatives

targeted to specific industries, that combine the audit policy with

incentives such as reduced penalties or penalty caps. FY98 efforts

were targeted at the food products, industrial organic chemicals, and

telecommunications industries.

J

J

J

J

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

20

40

60

80

100

$120

# of SEPs

J $ Value of SEPs ($ millions)

Exhibit 1-6: EPA’s Use of SEPs in

Settlement of Formal Enforcement

Actions, FY95-98

Exhibit 1-7: Inspections

Up Sharply in FY98

FY96 FY97 FY98

18,210 18,706

23,237

2,285 tools were distributed 

to 177,382 entities

Telephone 

hotlines reached 

39,510 entities

529 workshops & 

training courses 

reached 27,026 entities

Exhibit 1-8: Regional Compliance

Assistance Activities, FY98
Executive Summary 5

Future Improvements in Measurement:

National Performance Measures Strategy

In FY98, OECA proceeded with the initial stages of implementing the National Performance

Measures Strategy (NPMS) as a way of measuring the results of EPA’s enforcement and

compliance assurance activity. Among the enhanced measures are compliance rates for

selected regulated populations, pollutant reductions and other outcomes from

enforcement actions, behavioral changes resulting from compliance assistance, and average

time for significant violators to return to compliance. These measures will foster analysis

of program performance and improve effectiveness by identifying activities and strategies

that achieve the best results.

NPMS will also help meet the goals of the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA), which requires federal agencies to report on performance using outcomebased measures.

In December 1997, EPA issued a report summarizing over 20 public meetings with

stakeholders and a set of 12 measures known as the Performance Profile. (Both the Profile

and the report can be found on the OECA website at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/perfmeas/.)

During 1998 and now into 1999, EPA has been developing definitions, designing

information collection and reporting processes, modifying existing data systems, and

conducting pilots projects to test the measures. Several NPMS measures are discussed in

Chapter 2; future Annual Accomplishments Reports will use the full set of measures to

provide a more comprehensive assessment. Below are listed the NPMS measures and the

timeframe in which they will be activated.

Performance Profile: NPMS Implementation Timetable

Measures Already Being Used (Possible Refinements in FY2000)

Set 2 Environmental and human health improvements from enforcement

Set 5 Number of self-policing efforts from using compliance incentive policies

Set 10 Facilities/entities reached through compliance assistance

PHASE I - April 1, 1999 Implementation for FY99 Reporting (3rd & 4th Quarters)

Set 6 Average duration of time for significant violators to return to compliance

Set 7 Percentage of significant violators with recurrent significant noncompliance

within a 2-year period

Set 8 Number of investigations conducted

Set 9 Number of notices of violation by media

Set 11 Capacity-building efforts provided to state, local, or tribal programs

PHASE II - October 1, 1999 Implementation for FY2000 Reporting

Set 1 Statistically valid compliance rates for selected regulated populations

Set 3 Improvements resulting from compliance assistance

Set 4 Improvements resulting from integrated initiatives

Set 8 Number of records reviews

Set 9 Number of self-policing settlements concluded
6 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Compliance Assistance

E Numbers of Facilities Reached: In FY98, EPA’s Regional offices collectively reached

approximately 250,000 regulated entities through compliance assistance outreach in

priority industry sectors and environmental media. The highest amount of compliance

assistance activity occurred through the distribution of compliance assistance tools, which

reached over 175,000 facilities. (Exhibit 1-8.)

E Compliance Assistance Centers: Working in partnership with businesses and

municipalities, EPA created five new National Compliance Assistance Centers for

chemical manufacturing, local governments, paints and coatings, printed wiring board,

and transportation sectors. This increased the total number of compliance assistance

centers to nine. In FY98, the six centers that were in operation most of the year logged

over 190,000 visits to their websites by small businesses, assistance providers, government,

and the public, and responded to over 3,600 calls and questions via e-mail and telephone

assistance lines. See Chapter 2 for more details.

E Sector Notebooks: EPA published nine new Sector Notebooks — a series of industryspecific multimedia profiles that help owners and operators of regulated industries

understand their regulatory obligations and identify ways to run their businesses more

economically and efficiently. There are now a total of 27 Sector Notebooks. To date, over

300,000 Notebooks have been distributed in printed and electronic formats to audiences

in the United States and abroad.

Public Access

E Sector Facility Indexing Project: During FY98, EPA completed the pilot phase of

the Sector Facility Indexing Project, which compiles and makes environmental data

publicly available on 653 facilities in five key industrial sectors — automobile assembly,

pulp manufacturing, petroleum refining, iron and steel production, and primary smelting.

Guide to This Report

Chapter 2 of this report presents the key accomplishments and activities of OECA in FY98,

using as a framework the goals of EPA’s strategic plan and the concepts embodied in the

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Chapter 3 discusses priority industry

sectors; Chapter 4 discusses priorities within specific environmental media.

Chapter 5 highlights major enforcement cases and achievements during the year, and Chapter

6 concludes with a presentation of key program achievements in compliance assistance. An

appendix contains historical data for EPA’s enforcement program.

1.2 
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 7

CHAPTER 2

Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals

EPA’s Strategic Plan charts a course for protecting human health and the environment. To

transform this ambitious mandate into concrete actions with measurable results, EPA has

identified 10 goals, each of which is a high priority for all Agency offices. One of the goals —

Goal 9, which mandates compliance with environmental laws — is the responsibility of OECA

and relates almost exclusively to OECA’s mission. Two other goals also represent important

parts of OECA’s mission: Goal 7 expands public involvement in environmental protection by

giving citizens easy access to information about their local environment, and Goal 5 ensures

that wastes will be managed in an environmentally protective manner and that polluted sites

will be restored. This chapter briefly highlights each of these goals and discusses OECA’s

accomplishments in FY98 that support them.

Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and

Greater Compliance with the Law

As its basic mission, OECA seeks to ensure full compliance with laws intended to protect

human health and the environment. OECA staff work to identify and reduce noncompliance,

maintain a strong enforcement presence, and increase the use of compliance assistance tools

and incentives policies.

Over the past five years, EPA has developed new tools such as compliance assistance (i.e.,

providing information and guidance about environmental requirements to regulated entities)

and compliance incentives (i.e., policies to encourage self-policing through identification,

correction, and disclosure of violations by regulated facilities). These new tools join a strong

program of compliance monitoring (through inspections and investigations) and civil and

criminal enforcement actions, to form a national program which applies the appropriate tool

2.1 
8 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

or combination of tools to address environmental problems and patterns of noncompliance.

A strong enforcement effort is the foundation of the national program, providing a deterrent

effect which motivates regulated entities to seek assistance and use incentive policies, and

providing fairness in the marketplace to ensure that noncomplying facilities do not gain an

unfair competitive advantage over facilities that have dedicated resources to compliance.

The FY98 record of accomplishments illustrates how both traditional and innovative

approaches are being used to achieve the compliance necessary to protect public health and

the environment. The following sections discuss some of these FY98 accomplishments in

terms of the two objectives that support Goal 9. In light of the vital role states play in

implementing programs, one of our most important efforts has been establishing more effective

partnerships with states to improve our collective compliance and enforcement capacity.

OECA’s first objective envisions a targeted effort to reduce significant noncompliance (SNC) in

high priority areas while simultaneously maintaining the necessary strong enforcement presence

across the board. Significant noncompliance refers to the most egregious violations under

each program or statute. The priority areas focus on environmental and noncompliance

problems which might be based on a geographic location, an industry sector, or a specific set

of statutory requirements. Perhaps more than any other single objective, Objective 1 embodies

the essence of OECA’s mission. The components of this objective are discussed separately below.

Reducing Significant Noncompliance in High Priority Areas

OECA concentrates on two types of high priorities — industry sectors and environmental

media. Chapters 3 and 4 provide more detail on activities in each of these priority sectors.

Although overall compliance rates or SNC rates are not yet available for each of the priority

industry sectors, in FY98 OECA completed a pilot project — the Sector Facility Indexing

Project — to compile two-year SNC rates for five key industries. A large part of the success of

this project rests on EPA’s concerted efforts to identify the universe of facilities in each sector.

The compliance information, which is available online (http://www.epa.gov/oeca/sfi) and

updated regularly, is summarized in Exhibit 2-1, which shows the wide variability in SNC

rates in FY98 as well as historically in these sectors.

For environmental media, EPA’s traditional databases on permits and enforcement actions

provide rough compliance rates, some of which are of particular cause for concern. In FY98:

E NPDES-Permitted Major Sources: 27% of facilities classified as major National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) sources were in significant

noncompliance with their water permits in at least one quarter in FY98; another 27%

were in a less severe category of reportable noncompliance.

Objective 1: Identify and reduce significant noncompliance in high priority areas

while maintaining a strong enforcement presence in all regulatory program areas.
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 9

E CAA Majors: EPA data suggest that 7% of air sources were significant violators in FY98.

However, review by the Inspector General suggests that violations are underreported.

OECA’s targeted initiatives also suggest much higher rates of noncompliance with the

Clean Air Act’s crucial New Source Review requirements.

E RCRA: Approximately 20% of combusters and land disposal facilities are in

significant noncompliance. About a third of tank owners and operators do not meet

Underground Storage Tank (UST) program requirements.

E SDWA: One quarter of drinking water systems are not in compliance with public health

standards.

Over the next two years, EPA will be using several new measures to provide a more sophisticated

understanding of significant noncompliance of high priority facilities. The measures will show

the length of time it takes for companies in significant noncompliance to make environmental

improvements that return them to compliance, as well as recidivism rates. In addition, OECA

will be developing statistically significant compliance rates for sectors and media priorities,

drawing on data in the media-based data systems supplemented by random inspection data.

The data will be critical for establishing baseline performance rates for priority areas and for

determining progress over time.

Note: SNC data are based on inspected facilities. *Average number of quarterly periods, June 1996-June 1998, with one or more violations or noncompliance events.

Exhibit 2-1: SNC Rates for Five Priority Sectors, Sector Facility Indexing Project

Number of Percentage of Facilities in

Industry Facilities Significant Noncompliance Historical Noncompliance*

as of June 1998

Air Water RCRA Air Water RCRA Total

AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLY 58 11.8% 0.0% 1.7% 0.9 3.0 2.3 4.0

IRON AND STEEL MILLS

Integrated Mills 23 72.7% 39.1% 30.4% 5.0 5.4 5.7 7.9

Mini Mills 91 21.2% 2.7% 4.5% 1.5 2.7 1.7 3.9

NONFERROUS METALS

Aluminum Smelting/Refining 23 26.1% 4.3% 4.3% 1.1 2.3 1.6 4.1

Copper Smelting/Refining 14 27.3% 12.5% 9.1% 1.0 2.0 3.2 3.4

PETROLEUM REFINING 179 45.0% 11.8% 14.1% 2.1 2.4 3.4 4.8

PULP MANUFACTURING 244 19.0% 4.7% 0.0% 1.1 1.9 0.6 2.7
10 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Maintaining a Strong Enforcement Presence

Maintaining a strong enforcement presence is a joint imperative for EPA and the states. States

carry out the vast majority of environmental inspections. This report tracks only EPA data. In

FY98, EPA significantly increased the number of inspections by 19%; nevertheless, the 23,000

inspections carried out are a small fraction of the universe of regulated facilities. Exhibits 2-2

and 2-3 provide a rough picture of the universe of facilities that need to comply with

environmental statutes and the statutes under which they typically fall.

OECA has begun tracking investigations as a significant and separate type of intervention,

usually more technically detailed and systematic than inspections. Another important measure

of enforcement presence is how EPA responds to citizen complaints. In FY98, EPA began

implementing two pilot programs in Regions 2 and 5 to collect data on the number of informal

enforcement actions taken. Such actions are defined as notices of violation or noncompliance

or deficiency warning letters (see box on next page). These actions contribute significantly to

compliance when followed by formal enforcement actions if response is inadequate. Informal

enforcement actions and responses to citizen complaints will both be reported in next year’s

annual report.

Exhibit 2-3: Other Regulated Entities That

Need to Comply with Environmental Statutes

CAA (7%)

CWA (3%)

FIFRA (48%) RCRA (15%)

TSCA (27%)

(excludes 12.8 million lead sites under TSCA)

CAA (3%) CWA (8%)

EPCRA (1%)

FIFRA (1%)

RCRA (38%) SDWA (37%)

TSCA (12%)

Exhibit 2-2: Core Regulated Facilities That

Need to Comply with Environmental Statutes

CAA Stationary sources 39,961

CWA NPDES 89,455

Pretreatment Users 30,000

EPCRA TRI Reporters 22,085

FIFRA Producers/Registrants 16,124

RCRA Haz. Waste Management 429,080

SDWA Drinking Water Systems 173,272

Underground Inj. Wells 405,657

TSCA Core TSCA 183,000

TOTAL CORE FACILITIES 1,366,634

Core Regulated Facilities

Other Regulated Entities

CAA Mobile Sources Program 360,585

Asbestos Demolition 94,885

Dry Cleaners 33,863

CWA Stormwater 200,000

CAFOs/AFOs 6,600/?

Wetlands —

FIRFA Farms/Applicators 3,080,740

RCRA Underground Storage Tanks 969,652

TSCA Asbestos 1,300,000

PCBs 500,230

TOTAL OTHER REGULATED ENTITIES 6,546,555+
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 11

Beyond the initial response and inspection stage, EPA’s enforcement program as a whole is

intended to maintain a strong presence in the regulated community — first, by insisting that

violators pay for and correct the damage they caused and prevent future problems, and second,

by deterring others from violating environmental laws. Continuing the momentum from last

year’s record level of enforcement, EPA referred the second largest number of civil and criminal

enforcement cases in its history to DOJ and assessed the second largest total amount of civil

and criminal penalties in any one-year period in its history.

Exhibit 2-4 shows the number of referrals of civil cases to DOJ over the last 10 years; Exhibit

2-5 shows the sustained growth of the criminal program, in terms of numbers of cases and

penalties assessed, over the last 10 years as well. In FY98, EPA referred 266 criminal cases and

assessed $92.8 million in criminal fines. On the civil side, EPA referred 411 cases — the third

highest one-year total in history — and assessed $91.8 million in civil penalties. Included

among these actions are the first-ever penalty orders at federal facilities using new and clarified

enforcement authorities under four different environmental statutes.

Exhibit 2-5: EPA Criminal Program Shows

Sustained Growth in Key Outputs Over

10-Year Period

J J

J

J

J J

J

J

J

J

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

J Criminal Penalties ($ Millions)

Number of New Criminal Referrals Each Year

Fiscal Year

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Air CERCLA Water RCRA Toxics/Pesticides/EPCRA

Fiscal Year

Number of Referrals

Exhibit 2-4: EPA Civil Referrals to

DOJ, FY89-98

Number of Informal Enforcement Actions Taken by Region 2 in FY98 (by Statute)

CAA: 8 notices of violation; 124 notices of deficiency

CWA: 187 warning letters

TSCA: 91 notices of noncompliance

FIFRA: 2 warning letters; 1 stop sale, use, or removal order

RCRA: 90 warning letters
12 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Tallying the Environmental Effects of Enforcement

Data collected by EPA indicate that the enforcement actions settled in FY98 helped protect human

health and the environment. EPA’s criminal enforcement agents, working with the U.S. Customs

Service, reduced ozone-depleting CFCs by more than five million pounds, a tenfold reduction

over the previous year. Asbestos, a known carcinogen, was reduced by more than seven million

pounds. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide, both pollutants which can cause severe respiratory

problems, especially among the young, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems,

were reduced by 188 million pounds and 23.6 million pounds, respectively. Exhibit 2-6 shows the

pollutants most frequently reported reduced through an EPA enforcement settlement.

As a result of EPA enforcement, polluters spent just over $2 billion to correct violations, take

additional steps to protect the environment, and clean up Superfund sites — more than $85

million dollars over what was spent the previous year. Exhibits 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9 show the

environmental impacts of FY98 civil enforcement actions, SEPs, and criminal cases, respectively.

Exhibit 2-7: Environmental Impacts of FY98

Civil Enforcement Actions

Human Health/ 

Worker 

Protection (42%)

Reductions Beyond 

Requirements (1%)

Ecosystem 

Protection (31%)

Increased 

Government 

Knowledge (13%)

Other Benefit (1%)

Increased Public

Awareness (8%) Environmental 

Restoration (4%)

TSS

Fecal coliform

Produced water

BOD

Lead

Sewage

PCBs

Asbestos

Oil (oil and grease)

Particulate matter

VOCs

DDFO

CFCs

Chromium

MFO

Ammonia

Toluene

TCE

Copper

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

119

93

64

79

91

58

55

55

40

48

37

37

27

33

35

32

32

27

27

Number of Settlements with Reported Pollutant Reductions

Industrial stormwater 25

Exhibit 2-6: Pollutants Most

Frequently Reduced

Note: Based on 2,214 cases for which benefits were reported.

Objective 2: Promote the regulated community’s voluntary compliance with

environmental requirements through compliance incentives and assistance programs.

While enforcement cases often take the limelight, compliance incentives and assistance

programs can be equally important in educating and motivating the regulated community

to comply with the law and shoulder their environmental responsibilities.
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 13

Promoting Voluntary Compliance

Through Compliance Incentives

Audit Policy: EPA’s Audit/Self-Policing Policy was developed in 1994-95 to encourage

voluntary auditing and self-disclosure of environmental violations, to provide penalty

mitigation for responsible environmental behavior, and to set forth a positive alternative to

state audit privilege and/or immunity laws, which undermine law enforcement and the public’s

right-to-know. Under the Audit Policy, if companies voluntarily discover, promptly disclose,

and expeditiously correct violations found through voluntary environmental audits or a

compliance management system, EPA does not seek gravity-based penalties and generally

does not recommend corporate criminal prosecution.

Approximately 430 regulated entities have identified and disclosed violations at 1,788 facilities

under the Audit Policy, leading to numerous environmental improvements (reduced pollution,

reduced likelihood of spills, safer management of PCBs and other hazardous wastes). EPA has

settled 141 cases under the Audit Policy, including 124 cases resulting in no penalty.

In FY98, OECA initiated an evaluation of the Audit Policy to study its effectiveness and to

recommend appropriate revisions. Results of the evaluation to date have been positive. For example:

E Disclosure rates — both in terms of the number of entities reporting and the number of

violations disclosed — have increased every year since the effective date of the policy.

E In some instances, voluntary disclosure by one company has alerted EPA to potential

industry-wide problems. For example, following GTE’s disclosure of EPCRA and CWA

violations at 314 of its facilities, EPA undertook to heighten awareness of environmental

requirements across the telecommunications industry.

E In a voluntary, anonymous survey of 252 disclosing entities, 44 of the 50 entities

responding (88%) stated that they would use the Audit Policy again; 84% would

recommend the Audit Policy to clients/counterparts.

Human Health/ 

Worker Protection (48%)

Ecosystem 

Protection (24%)

Increased 

Government 

Knowledge (8%)

Other Benefits (4%)

Increased Public 

Awareness (12%) Environmental 

Restoration (3%)

Exhibit 2-8: Environmental Impacts of FY98 EPA SEPs

Human Health 

Protection (28%)

Ecosystem 

Protection (19%)

Increased Fed./State/

Local Knowledge (18%)

Increased Public 

Awareness (14%)

Worker 

Protection (14%)

Reductions Beyond 

Compliance 

Requirements (4%)

Environmental 

Restoration (2%)

Exhibit 2-9: Environmental Impacts of FY98 Criminal Cases

Note: Based on 474 benefits reported for 189 SEPs.

Note: Based on 542 benefits reported for 420 investigations/cases

concluded during FY98.
14 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

EPA is making improvements to the text of the policy, including broadening the prompt

disclosure period, and clarifying that a facility may satisfy the “independent discovery”

condition even where inspections or investigations have commenced at, or information requests

have been issued to, other facilities owned by the same parent corporation. EPA also encourages

the use of disclosure checklists in order to reduce the time needed to process Audit Policy

cases. EPA is particularly interested in encouraging use of the Audit Policy by companies with

multiple facilities. Such disclosures leverage goverment resources, allow regulated entities to

review their operations holistically, and benefit the environment. For the same reasons, sectorbased enforcement initiatives involving the Audit Policy may figure prominently in EPA’s future

enforcement and compliance efforts.

Targeted Incentives: EPA has undertaken several incentives initiatives targeted to

specific industries. Often, these efforts combine the audit policy with other incentives

such as reduced penalties or penalty caps. Examples include:

E Telecommunications: As follow-up to the GTE settlement, EPA sent letters in FY98

to a number of large telecommunications corporations inviting them to consider the

audit policy to resolve potential environmental concerns, and heightening their awareness

of their enviornmental responsibilities. Several companies have come forward and agreed

to disclose and correct violations.

The Audit Policy in Action: U.S. v. GTE Corporation

In January 1998, the largest settlement under EPA’s Audit Policy was reached when

GTE Corporation agreed to resolve 600 violations at 314 facilities in 21 states.

GTE disclosed 511 violations of EPCRA, for failing to notify state agencies and

local fire departments of sulfuric acid filled batteries at 229 GTE telecommunications

sites across the country. This information is needed by state and local response

authorities to protect communities and firefighters in case of a chemical spill or release.

Another 89 violations were noted for failure to develop required spill prevention

plans under the Clean Water Act for diesel fuel stored at the facilities. Such plans are

required to help prevent or mitigate spills and keep hazardous chemicals from polluting

streams, rivers and other bodies of water.

After discovering noncompliance at several facilities, GTE promptly notified EPA

of the violations pursuant to EPA’s self-disclosure policy and undertook a companywide audit at 10,000 sites nationwide. After self-disclosure, GTE worked closely with

EPA to ensure that all the violations were corrected. Under the terms of the settlement,

GTE filed the required EPCRA reports with the appropriate state and local agencies,

and is implementing spill prevention plans at the facilities. The company paid a $52,264

penalty, which is equal to the amount of money saved by the company during its

period of non-compliance. Since the company voluntarily disclosed and corrected

the violations, EPA waived another $2.38 million in potential penalties.

“EPA’s Audit

Policy creates an

incentive for

comprehensive

self-auditing.”

— Audit Policy

Survey

“It enhances

compliance,

environmental

performance

and depolarization of

regulators and

the regulated

community.”

— Audit Policy

Survey
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 15

E Organic chemicals: In August 1998, EPA launched a Compliance Incentive Program

for the Industrial Organic Chemical sector (SIC Code 2869). Facilities were informed

that they had six months to perform voluntary environmental audits of their operations

and identify to EPA potential areas of noncompliance uncovered by the audit. In

accordance with EPA’s audit policy, participating facilities may receive substantially

reduced penalties for disclosed violations.

E Food Products: Under a special time-limited EPA initiative targeted to the food products

industry, nearly 200 companies submitted hazardous chemical information required

under EPCRA and were able to receive reduced penalties for reporting their violations.

As of Feb. 1, 1998, 170 food products companies had paid individual fines of $2,000

(totaling $340,000), which is significantly lower than they would have paid had they not

participated in the initiative.

Reaching the Regulated Community with Compliance Assistance

OECA implemented several pilot projects in FY98 to collect more comprehensive and outcomeoriented data on the effects of its compliance assurance activities. Exhibit 2-10 on the following

page summarizes information currently available on FY98 activities in priority industry and

media sectors. Among the highlights:

E Distribution of tools to the regulated community accounted for the largest number of

regulated entities reached by compliance assistance activities, with over 177,000 tools

distributed, including over 18,000 to the auto service and repair sector alone.

E TRI reporting and other requirements of EPCRA Section 313, as well as stormwater

requirements, generated the largest number of calls to EPA Headquarters and Regional

hotlines — over 22,000 for those two programs, and close to 40,000 for the FY98 total.

At the present time, EPA has only limited data on the effects of compliance assistance activities

on environmental results. As part of NPMS implementation, OECA is developing a consistent

method for tracking outcomes of compliance assistance. As a result, future reports will contain

information in the following categories:

E Changes in awareness or understanding, which reflect an increased knowledge of

regulatory or nonregulatory environmental issues, including reporting and monitoring

requirements, regulatory schedules, and pollution prevention opportunities.

E Behavioral changes, which include improvements in compliance and other actual changes

that a regulated entity undertakes as a result of compliance assistance.

E Environmental and human health improvements, which represent specific environmental

and human health improvements at specific facilities resulting from compliance assistance

activities. An example would be the number of pounds of pollutant emission reductions at

a facility resulting from the adoption of a control technology explained in a training video.
16 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Exhibit 2-10: Compliance Assistance Summary Data (includes all EPA Regions)

Area Telephone Workshops/ Tools Tools On-site

Hotlines Meetings/Training Developed Distributed Visits

In-House

No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of

Entities Activities Entities Activities Activities Entities

Reached Reached Reached Reached

SECTOR-BASED

Agricultural Practices 175 26 199 3 3833 0

Auto Service & Repair 1550 11 348 9 18460 192

Chemical Preparation * 100 15 280 29 1775 1

DOI Facilities 3 6 31 1 544 5

Dry Cleaning 220 16 816 12 1451 192

Industrial Organics * 135 13 509 7 1905 0

Municipalities 75 12 1595 9 425 87

Sector-based Totals 2258 99 3778 70 28393 477

MEDIA-BASED

CFC Regulation 1975 4 200 6 2065 0

New Air Toxics Regulations 410 3 400 3 2020 0

EPCRA Section 313 12564 79 4396 20 62813 6

EPCRA Section 301-312 2182 15 570 5 4378 0

TSCA Section 1018 2848 53 5920 6 11771 46

TSCA Section 402/404 269 11 500 7 2645 0

CWA CAFOs 100 48 2620 2 6010 97

CWA Urban Wet Weather 10200 38 1315 12 47876 5

SDWA Amendments of 1996 125 75 1735 2 3 108

SDWA-PWSS for Microbials 74 14 1820 1675 996 164

SDWA-UIC 1705 20 448 10 2105 1579

RCRA Generators 4751 47 2319 124 919 202

RCRA Combustion/Fuel Blenders 0 3 125 0 0 0

RCRA Organic Air Emissions Rule 49 20 880 343 5388 0

Media-based Totals 37252 430 23248 2215 148,989 2207

COMBINED TOTALS 39510 529 27026 2285 177382 2684

*Chemical Preparation and Industrial Organics were combined by one region, so activities in these sectors may be double counted.
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 17

Compliance Assistance Centers: EPA’s nine national Compliance Assistance Centers are

intended to help small businesses and small governmental entities understand and comply

with their regulatory obligations. The centers’ Internet sites and toll-free assistance lines provide

comprehensive environmental regulatory and technical information in convenient and userfriendly forms. Designed and operated by cooperative partnerships of public and private

organizations, the centers offer “plain English” summaries of regulations, access to state

regulations, emission calculation tools, vendor directories, and numerous technical resources.

EPA created five new Compliance Assistance Centers in FY98, serving the chemical industry,

local government, paints and coating, printed writing boards, and transportation. See box for

information on all nine centers.

“Use of the

centers

appears to

influence

action.”

Compliance Assistance Centers: How to Reach Them

CCAR-Greenlink®: the Automotive Compliance

Information Assistance Center

http://www.ccar-greenlink.org

1-888-GRN-LINK (476-5465)

ChemAlliance

http://www.chemalliance.org

1-800-672-6048

Local Government Environmental Assistance Network

http://www.lgean.org

877-TO-LGEAN (877-865-4326)

National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ag

1-888-663-2155 or 913-551-7207

National Metal Finishing Resource Center

http://www.nmfrc.org

1-800-AT-NMFRC

Paints and Coatings Resource Center

http://www.paintcenter.org

Printed Wiring Board Resource Center

http://www.pwbrc.org

Printer’s National Compliance Assistance Center

http://www.pneac.org

1-888-US PNEAC (1-888-877-6322)

Transportation Compliance Assistance Center

http://www.transource.org

1-888-459-0656
18 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

2.2 

Six centers that were in operation through most of the year logged over 190,000 visits to their

websites by small businesses, assistance providers, government, and the public. These visits

generated over 1.9 million hits and over 450,000 separate page views, including compliance

documents. The centers also responded to over 3,600 calls and questions via e-mail and

telephone assistance lines. The most popular features of the websites were the technical data

bases, fact sheets, and compliance documents.

Use of the centers appears to influence action. In an online survey of users, 83% reported

taking one or more of the following actions as a result of using a Compliance Assistance

Center: contacting a vendor; requesting technical assistance; contacting a regulatory agency;

changing a process; obtaining a permit; or changing the handling of a waste. Of those using

the centers to help understand federal regulations, 72% of respondents rated the centers either

as useful or very useful. Over 85% of surveyed users visit a center at least once a month.

Nearly one-third of those surveyed visit at least once per week.

Goal 7: Expansion of Americans’ Right

to Know About Their Environment

Goal 7 is based on the premise that all U.S. citizens have a “right to know” about pollutants in

their environment. Enabling citizens to become involved and informed decision makers is an

important part of OECA’s comprehensive approach to protecting the environment. This

approach is particularly important for minority, low-income, and Native American

communities that suffer a disproportionate burden of health consequences from poor

environmental conditions.

Objective: Increase the quality and quantity of education, outreach, and

data availability.

Information is only valuable and useful if the people who need it have access to it. Until

recently, compliance and enforcement information was generally available only through a

Freedom of Information Act request or through commercial information retrieval services.

Too often, this resulted in the requestor receiving boxes of computer printouts and reports

which were difficult and time-consuming to understand and synthesize. Of late, EPA has

embarked on many innovative Internet-based initiatives that are designed to provide useful

information to the public in a form that is easily accessible and user friendly.
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 19

Enhancing Public Access

Sector Facility Indexing Project: In FY98, EPA completed the pilot phase of the Sector

Facility Indexing Project (SFIP), which makes it easier for the public to access a wide range of

environmental information about regulated facilities. SFIP currently contains records for five

industry sectors (automobile assembly, pulp manufacturing, petroleum refining, iron and steel

production, and primary smelting and refining of nonferrous metals) that comprise a total of

about 650 facilities. These records had been publicly available but were difficult for government

and public users to access because they were spread across many different databases. SFIP

integrates the information in one place, so that it can be used to better understand overall facility

environmental performance. The data include information on past inspections and enforcement

actions, the size of facilities, annual releases of chemicals into the environment, compliance with

federal regulations, and spill incidents. Background information on the location of facilities and

demographic data about communities near the facilities are also included.

The SFIP database has multiple uses. While SFIP does not rank or order the information,

users can view and sort the data in a number of ways. Users can select standardized report

formats or create their own analyses. Government agencies can use the information as a

planning tool. Facilities can benchmark their data against those of other similar facilities, or

simply monitor their own regulatory performance. Environmental and community groups

now have usable information on the environmental performance of individual facilities. SFIP

has proven to be a valuable tool for sector-level analysis. SFIP has been used by EPA, state

agency staff, and public interest groups to undertake a wide variety of sector analyses and

facility comparisons that were not formerly possible due to inconsistent definitions of facilities,

inadequate identification of permits, inability to access the most current compliance

information, or lack of confidence in the compliance data.

EPA publicly released the SFIP data on May 1, 1998, via the Internet (http://www.epa.gov/oeca/

sfi) and made hard copy reports available in September 1998. In its first 11 months, the website

logged approximately 52,000 user sessions and 305,000 hits. Since its release, the data have been

updated regularly. These frequent updates keep the information current and maintain the high

quality of data. Prior to the public release of SFIP, EPA worked for three years to identify the

facilities in SFIP and to assure the accuracy and usefulness of the data. Also, EPA conducted an

unprecedented data quality assurance review, in which each facility included in the project’s

database was invited to review and comment on its data; 62% of the facilities responded. EPA

and the states then reviewed the responses and made changes to the data as appropriate.

Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking

(EMPACT): The President’s EMPACT Initiative focuses on improving data collection and

data quality and on deploying new technologies for real time and automated measurement,

monitoring, and information delivery.
20 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

EMPACT aims to provide timely, accurate, and understandable environmental information

to the public. By 2001, Americans in the largest metropolitan areas in the country will have an

easy way to answer questions like:

E “What is the ozone level in my city this morning?”

E “ What is the water quality at my beach today?”

E “How high is the ultra violet radiation in my metropolitan area today?”

E “What is the level of contamination in the groundwater at the hazardous waste site in my

community”?

In FY98, OECA began work on an EMPACT project related to wastewater discharges. The

goal is to notify the public of any 24-hour noncompliance with the NPDES permitting program

of the Clean Water Act and explain the environmental and heath significance of this

noncompliance so that community residents can make educated decisions on the use of local

water resources.

OECA’s EMPACT project will automate the noncompliance reporting process and provide

timely information to communities through the Internet. A key feature of the project is

development of a ranking system similar to the “ozone alerts” given in most metropolitan

areas during the summer. All of the FY98 project plans were accomplished, including: (1)

developing procedures for receipt, storage, and reporting of the 24-hour noncompliance events,

(2) developing a Noncompliance Event Database, (3) evaluating the environmental and public

health risk assessment of sample noncompliance events and developing an approach for

communicating the risk to the public, and (4) developing a Web page to communicate the

information. A pilot project was conducted in Houston, and will be expanded to other

metropolitan areas in FY99.

IDEA Win: The Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis system (IDEA) is the most

comprehensive single-source of environmental performance on regulated facilities within EPA.

IDEA offers comprehensive historical profiles of inspections, enforcement actions, penalties

assessed, toxic chemicals released, and emergency hazardous spills for each EPA regulated

facility. This single point of access provides information from EPA’s air, water, hazardous waste,

TRI, and emergency response notification systems. In addition to usage by EPA staff and

contractors, 16 government agencies and private companies accessed the IDEA database,

running 917 queries. During FY98, EPA staff prepared Version 2.0 of the IDEAWin software

for Windows-based computers. Formally released on November 12, 1998, the software includes

various enhancements, including a category for facilities that have never been inspected, new

options for creating user-specified reports, plain English report names, and additional standard

report formats.
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 21

Tackling Environmental Justice

Through Enforcement Cases

Dumping of Asbestos-Contaminated Construction Debris Near Middle

School (U.S. v. Philadelphia Construction and Equipment, Inc. et al.): On

December 11, 1997, Howard Parsons, General Manager of Grant Paper Company,

was found guilty of charges stemming from the illegal disposal of construction debris

contaminated with asbestos at a dumpsite located less than a mile from Cobbs Creek

Turner Middle School (approximately 900 pupils). Families with young children reside

in and participate in recreational activities in the affected African-American

neighborhood. It was determined that Grant Paper Company was responsible for the

dumping and was aware that its factory contained over 7,000 feet of asbestos prior to

its demolition. The Grant Paper Company, a subsidiary of BUNZL, USA, subsequently

pled guilty to Clean Air Act violations and remediated the dump site at a cost of $1.5

million as part of their probation. On July 21, 1998, Parsons was sentenced to 15

months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release, and ordered to pay $42,000 in

restitution. During his release he is required to restore the residential property he

used as the disposal site to acceptable use and to pay each of the families living in the

area $2,000.

Illegal Methyl Parathion Sprayer Jailed: In 1996, EPA and the state lead

agencies for pesticides enforcement identified a disturbing pattern of pesticide misuse

incidents across many states. Restricted use pesticides — primarily ethyl and methyl

parathion — were being diverted from the agricultural sector into urban, low-income

neighborhoods for control of pests such as spiders, rats, and roaches. When sprayed

indoors, these pesticides retain their toxicity for long periods. This illegal use was the

suspected cause of several deaths and injuries. In FY98, Ruben Brown was sentenced

to two years in federal prison as a result of his illegal spraying of methyl parathion in

thousands of homes in Chicago. Brown, an unlicensed exterminator, pled guilty to

two counts of using methyl parathion to kill roaches in residences. Several thousand

homes were inspected by EPA and state and local agency staff, and dozens of homes

were identified as requiring clean-up. Residents were temporarily relocated during

the clean-up work.

New Orleans SEP: As part of a $200 million settlement reached in April 1998

addressing spills of raw sewage from its antiquated sewage collection system into

nearby waters, the City of New Orleans will spend $2 million on a supplemental

environmental project to improve water quality along Lincoln Beach. This park was

created to serve African-Americans who were barred by law in the 1960s from

admission to the then white-only Pontchartrain Beach amusement park.
22 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Promoting Environmental Justice

Environmental justice means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of

the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial or government operations

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. OECA maintains an active presence in

environmental justice efforts, through grants, initiatives, and casework. Several cases with a

strong environmental justice component are highlighted on the previous page.

In outreach efforts, OECA developed an “EJ Quarterly” newsletter during FY98 to serve as a

conduit for the exchange of information between EPA and environmental stakeholders. The

newsletter has a current circulation of over 3,000 subscribers, and features articles, news items

covering the full range of environmental justice issues, meeting information, biographical

sketches, and more. A Spanish-language brochure on SEPs is being prepared to help inform

the Hispanic community of how to become involved in these projects.

One current area of emphasis focuses on potential environmental violations occurring in the

Mississippi River Basin. Throughout FY98, EPA participated with the Department of Justice,

the U.S. Coast Guard, and other federal and state entities in environmental task forces located

within the Basin. Using traditional law enforcement techniques, as well as scientific and data

intelligence, EPA opened investigations focusing on the elimination of illegal pollutant

discharges along the Mississippi River and its tributaries. These investigations frequently target

sources that threaten ecosystems and environmental justice communities.

EPA’s State and Tribal Environmental Justice Grants Program is intended to help states and

tribes comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and promote environmental justice

in the development and implementation of their environmental programs. In FY98, EPA

awarded five grants of $100,000 each to four states (Vermont, New Jersey, Tennessee, and

Texas) and an Indian tribe (Kalispel in Washington State).

Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of

Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response

Goal 5 tasks EPA with ensuring that wastes are stored, treated, and disposed of in ways that

prevent harm to people and to the natural environment. It also delegates to EPA’s enforcement

program part of the responsibility for cleaning up previously polluted sites, restoring them to

uses appropriate for surrounding communities, and responding to and preventing wasterelated or industrial accidents. The enforcement program addresses this goal by applying the

fastest, most effective waste management and cleanup methods available, while involving

affected communities in the decision-making process.

Superfund Enforcement: Surpassing Last Year’s Performance

The Superfund enforcement program achieved results in FY98 that surpassed the previous

year’s performance. Significant cases are reported on in Chapters 4 and 5. Statistics on cases

and settlements are as follows:

2.3 
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 23

E PRP Commitments: In FY98, OECA secured commitments from potentially

responsible parties (PRPs — parties that can be held responsible for response costs under

section 107 of CERCLA) exceeding $1 billion. Of this amount, PRPs signed settlements

for more than $806 million in future cleanup work, and approximately $230 million in

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

commitments (future and past) is approximately $15.5 billion ($13.1 billion in response

settlements, and $2.4 billion in cost recovery settlements).

E PRP Actions: In FY98, PRPs continued to initiate approximately 72% of new remedial

actions at National Priorities List sites. PRP commitments for remedial design and

remedial action response work exceeded $618 million during FY98. Remedial response

settlements in FY98 consisted of: 37 cases referred to DOJ, 26 unilateral administrative

orders with PRP compliance, and 8 other administrative orders on consent or consent

agreements for response work.

E De Minimis Settlements: To promote enforcement fairness and resolve small party

contributors’ potential liability under Section 122(g) of CERCLA, the Superfund

enforcement program concluded 34 de minimis settlements at 26 sites with over 2,200

parties in FY98. Through the end of FY98, EPA has achieved over 400 de minimis

settlements with more than 18,000 parties.

E Prospective Purchaser Agreements: EPA’s “Guidance on Agreements with Prospective

Purchasers of Contaminated Property” has stimulated the development of sites where parties

otherwise might have been reluctant to take action. With prospective purchaser agreements

(PPA), bona fide prospective purchasers are not held responsible for cleaning up sites

where they did not contribute to or worsen contamination. In FY98, 24 PPAs were signed,

bringing the total to over 90 agreements reached in the program to date.

E Orphan Share Reform: EPA made orphan share offers at all eligible remedial and

removal sites in FY 98. (These are shares of Superfund liability attributable to non-viable

or defunct parties.) The reform was expanded to allow for orphan share compensation

offers during cost recovery negotiations. During the past three fiscal years (FY96-98),

EPA has offered approximately $145 million in orphan share compensation at 72 sites.

E Administrative Orders: In FY98, EPA signed a total of 125 administrative orders on

consent, and issued 88 unilateral administrative orders. Also in FY 98, the enforcement

program reached 18 ability to pay settlements.

E Past Cost Cases: The Agency addressed 194 “past cost” cases (cases for recovery of

EPA’s past cleanup costs), including statute of limitation cases, all valued at more than

$200,000 each. Of these cost recovery actions, 61 were CERCLA Section107 referrals to

DOJ, 25 were administrative settlements, 34 were consent decrees, 3 bankruptcy referrals,

and 71 were decision documents to write-off past costs.

E Cost Recovery: During FY98, EPA achieved a total of 187 cost recovery settlements

estimated at $230 million, and collected approximately $320 million in past costs. To

date the program has achieved approximately $2.4 billion in cost recovery settlements

and collected over $2.1 billion in past costs.
24 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Using ADR to Settle Long-Standing Cases:

General Electric in Pittsfield, Massachusetts

In September 1998, EPA and the Department of Justice announced an agreement in

principle with the General Electric Company (GE) for cleanup and environmental

restoration of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts and associated areas, cleanup

of the approximately 254-acre GE plant facility, brownfields redevelopment of a

portion of the site, compensation for natural resource damages, and government

recovery of past and future response costs. The mediated agreement involved EPA

Region 1, EPA Headquarters, the Department of Justice, federal and state natural

resource trustees, environmental agencies from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

and State of Connecticut, and the City of Pittsfield.

The GE Pittsfield/Housatonic River Site has been subject to numerous

investigations dating back to the early 1980s. Since 1990, GE has been engaged in

cleanup activities at the site and associated areas under a Massachusetts consent order.

Since 1994, cleanup has been conducted under an EPA RCRA corrective action

permit. Cleanup under this RCRA permit was slow and laborious, and the Region’s

ability to oversee GE’s activities was limited by funding constraints in the RCRA

program. The slow pace of remediation increased the human health and ecological

risks resulting from extensive PCB contamination in the area. In September 1997

EPA proposed the site for inclusion on the Superfund National Priorities List. The

site received a score of 70.71 on the Hazard Ranking System where the minimum

score for inclusion on the list is 28.5.

Negotiations with GE began in October 1997. With the assistance of two mediators,

the government met its goal of obtaining a settlement which would restore the

Housatonic River, remediate areas contaminated with PCBs, and allow for

redevelopment of part of the GE plant site under a brownfields agreement with the

City of Pittsfield. At the request of Region 1, the Massachusetts Office of Dispute

Resolution facilitated establishment of a Citizen’s Coordinating Council to serve as a

focal point for community participation in the cleanup. The Council includes leaders

from Berkshire County’s political, environmental, community and business sectors.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Becomes

Standard Operating Procedure

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has become standard operating procedure not only at

EPA, but at other federal agencies and in the court system as well. ADR includes mediation,

arbitration, and a wide range of techniques involving the use of neutral parties to resolve

disputes and obtain community participation. Significant strides were made in FY98 in

incorporating ADR mechanisms into EPA’s enforcement program, through case use of ADR,

case support systems, training, provision of ADR services, and outreach to the regulated

community. The ADR Specialists Network offers ADR-experienced staff as consultants to

other EPA and DOJ staff on the effective use of ADR in enforcement actions.
Meeting EPA’s Strategic Goals 25

U.S. v. ASARCO, Inc.

In December 1997, EPA reached a historic agreement with ASARCO, Inc., an

international mining and smelting company. This innovative agreement successfully

combines settlement of three enforcement actions brought under two different

environmental statutes to leverage multimedia environmental change throughout

the corporation’s national operations. The synergy created through this agreement

is resulting in far greater protections to human health and the environment than

could have been achieved through litigation of the three claims separately.

The agreement requires ASARCO to institute a very structured, detailed and courtenforceable environmental management system (EMS) at each of its 32 operating

facilities, affecting over 6,000 ASARCO employees in seven states. The EMS should

significantly reduce the chances of future environmental violations and reduce

ASARCO’s environmental releases. ASARCO currently ranks third nationally among

parent companies in total air, water, and land contaminant releases. The agreement

is also unique because it calls for the company to treat certain materials at various

facilities as hazardous, despite their equivocal status under the law. Finally, as in

other environmental settlements, ASARCO is required to correct violations,

remediate environmental harms related to those violations, and to pay a penalty;

the company will also restore a wetlands as a supplemental environmental project.

Under the settlement, the company will pay a $6.38 million penalty, spend up to

$250,000 to establish an environmental project, and spend up to several hundred

thousands of dollars for injunctive relief. The final costs of the injunctive relief,

particularly the corrective action required at ASARCO’s East Helena smelter, will not

be known until the investigative stage of the process is complete; the EMS is estimated

to cost $20 million over the five year life of the decree. The EPA ASARCO team came

from Headquarters, EPA Regions 8 and 9, and from the Department of Justice.

During FY98, EPA Regional offices supported PRP allocation settlement efforts through ADR

at more than 40 sites. Regional support for the use of ADR continues to grow substantially,

with all EPA Regional offices using or supporting PRP use of ADR to assist settlement efforts.

Awareness of ADR as a tool for increasing the efficiency of future disputes also continued to

increase during FY98, with mediation included in the dispute resolution provisions of many

judicial and administrative settlement documents.

Multimedia Enforcement Strategies

OECA’s multimedia enforcement program evaluates violations, risks and remedies across all

of the environmental programs in a deliberate and coordinated manner. Multimedia

enforcement allows EPA to leverage its resources to obtain broader environmental results

than a single-media approach would permit, and is particularly effective in dealing with

industry sectors, ecosystems, facilities with multiple statutory violations, and companies with

multiple locations in different states and Regions.
26 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

EPA’s National Enforcement Screening Strategy (NESS) is intended to identify and remedy

significant violations by large corporations of multiple environmental statutes at multiple

facilities across the country. NESS is designed to complement, but not duplicate, the individual

enforcement efforts of EPA Regions, states and local governments. Through this effort, EPA

seeks to effect change at a corporate level that will result in improved compliance across all of

a company’s facilities. One of the major cases settled in FY98 through the NESS strategy is

described in the box on page 25.
Priority Industry Sectors 27

CHAPTER 3

Priority Industry Sectors

The Sector Approach

Over the past few years, OECA has identified a number of industry sectors that require special

attention. A sector-based approach allows EPA to think broadly about the nature of the

compliance problems facing a particular industry, and to identify an appropriate mix of tools

to address the problems. Selecting priority sectors also conforms to the directives of the

Government Performance and Results Act and is a prime element of EPA’s Memorandum of

Agreement between OECA and the Regional offices.

Factors considered in selecting sectors include: compliance history, Regional and state concerns,

size of the sector, and potential environmental and human health risk posed by releases.

For FY98-99, 11 sectors were selected as priorities, as shown in the sidebar. Seven of the sectors

are discussed in this chapter in detail, with shorter write-ups on the other four. Most of these

sectors became a priority in FY96 with work continuing through 1999. In FY 2000 only petroleum

refining will continue as a priority sector; some of the other sectors will continue with ongoing

projects, and the rest will enter a maintenance phase. OECA has reduced the number of sectors

it will focus on in FY 2000 in order to concentrate national resources on a few key areas to

allow the Regions and states greater flexibility in addressing their priority areas.

Petroleum Refining

Petroleum refining is one of the leading manufacturing industries in the U.S. in terms of

commercial transactions ($158 billion in 1996). The sector was selected as a priority because

of the magnitude of its air pollution problems and its high record of noncompliance. Between

1996 and 1998, the sector had a significant noncompliance (SNC) rate of 45% for air; 12% for

water; and 14% for RCRA. During 1996 and 1997, 96% of petroleum refineries were inspected,

resulting in enforcement actions at 49% of the facilities.

3.1 

Priority

Industry

Sectors

Agricultural practices/

Concentrated animal

feeding operations

(CAFOs)

Automotive service

and repair shops

Coal-fired power

plants

Dry cleaning

Industrial organics

Chemical

preparations

Iron and steel

Municipalities

Petroleum refining

Primary nonferrous

metals

Pulp mills

3.2 
28 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Facilities Profile: There are relatively few facilities in this sector, but each facility tends to be

large, handling approximately 105,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Currently, 169 operable

domestic refineries are spread among nine of the 10 EPA Regions, down from over 320 in the

early 1980s. Facilities tend to be more concentrated along the Gulf Coast and near heavily

industrialized areas of the east and west coasts. Seventy-six refineries are within three miles of

population centers containing over 25,000 people and 44 are within three miles of centers

containing 50,000 or more people.

Fuel products account for over 87% of the refining sector’s output. Refineries also produce

chemical feedstocks and finished nonfuel products (solvents, waxes, asphalt, etc.). Refinery

input is primarily crude oil (162 of the refineries have crude distillation capacity).

Pollutants Profile: The vast majority of refinery releases are air emissions (75%). In a

comparison of 496 other industry categories included in EPA’s AIRS database, petroleum refining

ranked first in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), second for sulfur dioxide,

third in nitrogen dioxide emissions, and fifth for carbon monoxide. Releases reported on the

1996 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) averaged 493,162 pounds released per facility, and over 88

million pounds for the sector as a whole.

Compliance Profile: Refineries are routinely and regularly inspected and many of the

inspected facilities have had multiple enforcement actions taken against them. Roughly 80%

of refineries are inspected on an annual basis for air, 65% for water, and 62% for RCRA. The

rate of significant noncompliance has increased for air and water over the last five years, while

decreasing for RCRA over the same period.

Activities and Accomplishments

Inspections and Enforcement: The refining sector has been a priority sector for the

national compliance and enforcement program since 1996. During 1996 and 1997, most field

efforts focused on traditional inspections followed by enforcement as necessary. In FY98,

there were 698 inspections at petroleum refining facilities, 5 referrals, 11 administrative penalty

orders, 36 concluded cases, and penalties assessed in the amount of $2.42 million. Other

enforcement data for the last three fiscal years are summarized in Exhibit 3-1.

Injunctive Relief (Value

of activities to return

company to compliance)

Number of Facilities with

Compliance Actions Required

Number and Value of SEPs

Exhibit 3-1: Petroleum Refineries, FY96-98 Federal Enforcement Data

Actions 1996 1997 1998 kj

$.12 million

12

3 SEPs/$0.15

million

$8.08 million

38

7 SEPs/$2.68

million

$5.81 million

28

6 SEPs/$1.07

million
Priority Industry Sectors 29

The administrative and judicial settlements EPA reaches with the major

petroleum refining facilities require non-complying facilities to correct

their underlying operational and permit violations in addition to paying

their penalty assessments and fulfilling their supplemental

environmental projects (SEPs). Exhibit 3-2 lists the types of complying

actions required of refineries in FY98.

Significant Cases: Recent significant cases included a multimedia

action against Texaco Refining for violations at its Bakersfield, CA

refinery; a $1.1 million settlement with Coastal Eagle Point Oil

Company, Eagle Point Cogeneration Partnership and Coastal

Technology, Inc. (New Jersey); a complaint filed against Phillips

Petroleum for violating its sulfur dioxide emission limit since 1994 at

its Woods Cross, Utah, refinery; the largest-ever EPCRA 313

enforcement case for Region 6, settled in May 1998 against Sinclair Oil Corporation, Tulsa

Refinery, Oklahoma; and a criminal indictment against M&S Petroleum which dumped

hazardous wastes at a closed refinery and then abandoned it, leaving more than 1.5 million

gallons of waste onsite. That investigation was handled cooperatively by the Mississippi

Department of Environmental Quality, EPA, the FBI, and the U.S. Department of

Transportation.

Strategic Approach: A sector strategy was developed in FY98 which focuses EPA’s efforts

on specific problems at refineries. The overall goals of the sector strategy are to:

E Reduce emissions from refineries

E Bring the refineries into long-term compliance (with the issues investigated)

E Ensure more consistent interpretations and enforcement of regulations.

As part of a more strategic approach, EPA is concentrating on air pollution problems, but is

shifting away from inspections towards more targeted, and more resource-intensive, air

investigations. As a result of this shift, there were fewer referrals in 1998, but indications are

that they may increase again in 1999 as the results of investigations are developed into referrals.

Following are the key compliance problems in this sector and the strategic approach that is

expected to lead to pollution reduction and long-term compliance. The first four elements

involve investigations by the Regions; the last is a compliance assistance program that will be

directed from Headquarters.

1. NSR/PSD Compliance and Permitting: Although average refinery size has increased

by 58 percent in the last two decades, relatively few petroleum refineries have applied for

and obtained pre-construction and operating permits for physical expansions under EPA’s

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) program.

Investigations are focusing on noncompliance with the permitting process, particularly

for fluidized catalytic cracking units, the single largest air emission source at petroleum

refineries. In FY98, 21 investigations were initiated.

Exhibit 3-2: Actions Required of Noncomplying Petroleum Refineries, FY98

Removal action

Labeling/manifesting

Training

Audits

Process changes

Remediation

Storage and disposal

Emissions teductions

Facility testing

Monitoring

Recordkeeping

Reporting

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

28

15

14

12

11

8

8

6

4

4

4

4
30 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

2. Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR): Leak detection and repair requirements under

various air regulations require facilities to identify equipment and components subject

to monitoring, ensure that open-ended lines are capped, and monitor the equipment for

leaks. However, monitoring by EPA typically identifies leak rates that are 2 to 10 times

higher than rates identified by the refinery.

3. Refinery Fuel Gas Combustion Devices: These devices represent a significant source

of refinery emissions of sulfur dioxide. In FY98, 23 reviews of excess emissions reports

were initiated.

4. Benzene Waste: Enforcement experience has found widespread refinery noncompliance

and erroneous calculations of total annual benzene in wastestreams, resulting in

uncontrolled and unaccounted-for benzene emissions. EPA will distribute a compliance

assistance package to refiners, establish a baseline, and conduct detailed investigations,

including sampling, to determine refinery compliance.

5. Slotted guide poles: Significant emissions reductions could be gained through the

installation of controls that reduce or eliminate the use of slotted guidepoles for product

sampling and other purposes, which permit vapors to be emitted to the atmosphere.

Primary Nonferrous Metals

The primary nonferrous metals sector is comprised of 51 smelting and refining facilities

operating throughout the United States. This sector has been identified as a national priority

since FY96 because of the volume of pollutants released by its facilities and its high rate of

noncompliance. Some areas of the country are unable to meet national ambient air standards

because of releases from smelters. Some of the smelters are individually responsible for not

meeting lead and sulfur dioxide standards in their regions. The sector ranked seventh in overall

noncompliance during FY97 and FY98. About 70% of primary nonferrous metal facilities

inspected during this time frame were out of compliance with at least one of their permits,

and approximately 30% of inspected facilities were in significant noncompliance.

Facilities Profile: Most of the smelters and refineries in this sector are owned by fewer than

20 large companies. Of the 51 facilities, 23 are aluminum, 21 copper, 3 lead, and 4 zinc.

Aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc are also the four most widely used nonferrous metals in the

U.S. Over half the facilities in this sector are found in Regions 6, 9, and 10.

Pollutants Profile: Categorization as a “primary” nonferrous facility refers to the source material.

Primary smelting and refining produces metals directly from source material that is more than 50

percent ore. Secondary smelting and refining produces metals from scrap and process waste. The

pollution resulting from these operations varies depending upon the metal and the type of recovery

technology used. The two metal recovery technologies generally used to produce refined metals

are pyrometallurgy, which uses heat, and hydrometallurgy, which uses aqueous solutions. Air and

water are affected most by these processes. Air pollutants include sulphur dioxide, fluoride, and

particulate matter containing lead, copper, zinc, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium. Water pollution

results primarily from wastewater containing sulfuric acid and caustic. Other wastes requiring

treatment, storage, and/or disposal include spent aluminum potliners, waste slurry/sludge, slags,

and tailings, which are regulated by RCRA as hazardous waste.

3.3 
Priority Industry Sectors 31

Compliance Profile: Since 1996, approximately 89 percent of

primary nonferrous metals facilities have been inspected annually

for compliance with either air, water, or hazardous waste laws —

averaging four inspections per facility each year. Most of the

inspections monitored compliance with the Clean Air Act, followed

by inspections for the Clean Water Act and RCRA. As Exhibit 3-3

shows, SNC rates have improved since FY97, but as of the end of

FY98, about 33% of facilities were in significant noncompliance with

the Clean Water Act, and over a quarter were in significant

noncompliance with the Clean Air Act .

Primary copper smelters and refineries had the highest average

pollutant release of any facility reporting to the 1996 TRI. The sector

as a whole ranked second for air pollutant and TRI air releases.

To help uncover the root causes of noncompliance, OECA conducted

a “root-cause” analysis of ten primary and secondary nonferrous

metal facilities. The study focused on surface water, RCRA, and air

compliance problems; the processes involved; the types of

enforcement actions taken by regulators; and probable causes for the noncompliance. The

study is being expanded to address additional facilities, and findings will be used to identify

and address specific environmental compliance problems.

Activities and Accomplishments

Strategic Approach: In 1998, OECA and the EPA Regions began developing a strategy for

improving this sector’s compliance rates and reducing its total emissions, discharges, and

releases. The initial approach is to ensure that all primary smelters are accurately classified;

that applicable regulatory provisions for each smelter are clearly identified; and that timely

enforcement action is pursued when significant violations remain unresolved. Five specific

problem areas have been identified:

E Proper identification of facilities: Regions and Headquarters staff have worked on

identifying all facilities in this sector through SIC code verification efforts and TRI analysis

since 1996. The sector is being tracked in the Sector Facility Indexing Project.

E Potential misapplication of the Bevill Exclusion: Some facilities may be combining

an array of non-metallic industrial waste with their Bevill-excluded wastes generated by

mining/smelting operations. The goal of this activity is to ensure that RCRA inspectors

and the regulatory community fully understand the Bevill exclusion as it applies to this

industry and ensure that all wastes not covered under Bevill are managed appropriately.

E Permit coverage: Regions and states will be asked to ensure that each facility has a

complete permit, accurately reflecting the source’s size, regulatory requirements, and

full range of activities.

E SNC rate: The strategy identifies a goal of decreasing SNC in this sector from 30% to

10% nationwide.

B

B

B B

J

J

J

J

J

H

H

H

H H

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

B CAA J CWA H RCRA

Exhibit 3-3: Rates of Significant

Noncompliance Among Primary

Nonferrous Facilities

Note: Based on facilities inspected during the current or previous year.
32 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

E Use of imminent and substantial endangerment authorities: Where appropriate,

EPA will consider using imminent and substantial endangerment authorities to address

unacceptable risks to human health and the environment.

Inspections and Enforcement: During FY98, EPA and the states conducted 223 inspections

and took 21 enforcement actions at primary nonferrous metal facilities. From FY96 to FY98,

EPA and the states concluded 37 enforcement actions against facilities in this sector, assessing

just over $4 million in federal penalties and $1.65 million in SEPs. Four facilities — ALCOA

and Reynolds in New York, Asarco in Nebraska, and Kennecott in Colorado — are part of

state or federal Superfund cleanup actions.

Compliance Assistance: Some compliance assistance efforts were initiated during the course

of the year. Training was developed on Bevill requirements pertinent to RCRA waste at these

facilities, and courses open to industry representatives began in FY99. EPA Region 4 has begun

developing a pollution prevention strategy for this sector now that the overall noncompliance

rate for facilities in this Region has dropped below the target level.

Industrial Organics and Chemical Preparations

Industrial organic facilities (SIC 2869) manufacture more than 166 different chemicals

(usually carbon compounds derived from petroleum and natural gas sources) used for

intermediate or end products; shipments in 1996 totaled $75.67 billion. The sector has the

second highest noncompliance rate among priority sectors and the largest number of accidental

chemical releases.

Chemical preparation facilities (SIC 2869) comprise 106 distinct industries primarily

engaged in manufacturing miscellaneous chemical formulas for sale. Within the chemical

industry, this sector had the greatest number of facilities with TRI releases in 1994. Between

1990 and 1995, EPA and states inspected just over 3% of the facilities, finding 505 violations

across 77 facilities.

Facilities Profile: Estimates of the total number of facilities in each of these sectors are

based on “known” facilities with an EPA ID number and facilities located from commercial

sources. The industrial organics industry has an estimated 1,400 known facilities; the chemical

preparations industry has about 2,700 known facilities. Facilities are located in almost every

EPA Region, but primarily in Regions 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9, and are significantly represented in

environmental justice communities. Although chemical plants are commonly thought of as

large operations, more than 60% of the facilities have nine or fewer employees.

Pollutants Profile: The abundance of petrochemicals and other chemicals used and the

diversity of products and processes means that no one pattern of pollution or waste

management characterizes these sectors. In the industrial organics sector, close to half of the

waste released to the environment is injected into underground (Class I) injection wells, with

3.4 
Priority Industry Sectors 33

another third released to the air. This sector is the largest source of chemical releases reported

to TRI within the chemical industry, and ranked fourth highest nationally in the amount of

releases of TRI chemicals. In the chemical preparations sector, facilities often use such items

as heavy metals (e.g., barium, lead, mercury, chromium, and oxides of these metals), ethylene

and propylene glycols, and strong acids and caustics.

Compliance Profile: A 1996 study1

 indicated that compliance monitoring remained fairly

constant between 1990 and 1994 across all statutes. However, EPA and state inspectors are not

reaching the entire universe. Facilities that were inspected showed repeat violations, particularly

of RCRA, CWA, and CAA.

Because many facilities in these two sectors have fewer than 10 employees, they are exempt

from TRI reporting and are not usually targeted for EPA inspections. Prior to 1996, both

sectors had low rates of inspections (3% for chemical preparation facilities, 12% for industrial

organics between 1990 and 1995). Since 1996, inspections for both industrial organics and

chemical preparations manufacturing facilities have increased substantially. For the

industrial organics facilities listed in EPA databases, inspections have covered about half

the facilities, with an average of just over two inspections per facility. For the chemical

preparation facilities in EPA databases, inspections have covered about 30% of the field,

with an average of one inspection per facility.

1

U.S. EPA. Chemical Industry National Environmental Baseline Report, 1990-1994 (EPA 305-R-96-002).

Activities and Accomplishments

Inspections and Enforcement: In FY98, 2,500 EPA inspections were conducted at industrial

organics facilities, and 900 at chemical preparation facilities. (The majority of inspections,

however, are conducted by states.) Thirty-two civil actions were settled with industrial organics

companies, yielding $1.3 million in penalties; 21 civil actions against chemical preparation

facilities were settled, with $198,285 in penalties. Since 1996, 97 civil actions have been settled

in the industrial organics industry, totaling over $5 million in penalties. Activities to return to

Exhibit 3-4: Industrial Organics and Chemical Preparation —

FY98 Enforcement Data

Activity Industrial Organics Chemical Preparation kj

$177,070

40

$684,700

Injunctive Relief

 (Value of activities to return

company to compliance)

Number of Facilities with

Compliance Actions Required

Value of SEPs

$2,956,800

82

$23,500
34 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

compliance were valued at $60 million, with another $7 million invested in SEPs. In the

chemical preparation industry, 49 civil actions have been settled since 1996, totaling over

$495,407 in penalties, $575,570 in injunctive relief, and SEPs of just under $700,000. Data for

FY98 are reported in Exhibit 3-4 on the previous page. Exhibit 3-5 shows the types of actions

to correct underlying operational and permit violations that chemical facilities were required

to undertake in FY98.

Compliance Assistance: Through a multimedia integrated sector strategy, many compliance

assistance tools were developed and distributed to help facilities comply with regulations.

These include audit protocols, the CAA Hazardous Organic NESHAP Tool, Chemical Industry

Compliance Improvement Tool, and the Industrial Organic Process-Based Self Assessment

Tool. Results from compliance assistance, combined with a targeted outreach program to

encourage use of the Audit Policy, yielded over 57 self-disclosures from facilities.

In FY98, the EPA Regions responded to over 135 hotline inquiries from this sector, sent out

compliance assistance mailings to over 2,400 facilities; held workshops that reached over 500

entities; and developed and distributed over 30 different tools to an estimated 2,000 entities.

The opening of ChemAlliance, a “virtual” compliance assistance center for the chemical

industry, has brought free compliance assistance and regulatory information to any chemical

company with Internet access.

Exhibit 3-5: Actions Required of Noncomplying

Chemical Industry Facilities, FY98

Reporting 

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Facility testing

Emissions reductions

Storage and disposal

Labeling/manifesting

Removal action

Process changes

Remediation

Permit application

Training

Audits

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

 Industrial Organics

Chemical Preparation

1

1

1

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

4

4

8

11

11

17 9

20 28

12

15

4

5
Priority Industry Sectors 35

Strategic Approach: During 1996-1997, EPA developed a multimedia sector strategy to

improve compliance in these sectors through a mix of traditional and innovative tools. Activities

included: identifying and verifying all potentially regulated facilities; using a mix of compliance

assistance, monitoring, incentive, and enforcement projects; developing compliance assistance

tools to help regulators and the regulated community; and maximizing use of EPA and state

resources to achieve higher enforcement efficiency.

Below are highlights of the five projects included in the strategy that began in FY98 and

that will continue in FY99/2000. (Note: Documents mentioned are available through the

National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 and electronically

at http://www.EPA.gov/oeca/ccsmd/ogp/oga.html.)

E Compliance Incentive Program: This multimedia project is marketing EPA’s audit policy

to approximately 960 industrial organic facilities across nine EPA Regions. In August 1998,

EPA mailed letters with compliance assistance and audit policy information encouraging

facilities to self-disclose violations to EPA by January 31, 1999. Twenty companies, representing

45 facilities, disclosed violations covering most major statutes. To help facilities conduct audits

to determine compliance with regulations, 13 media specific audit protocols are being

developed. Four protocols (covering RCRA generators, RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities, CERCLA, and EPCRA) have been completed, with over 2,000 copies distributed.

The remaining audit protocols will be completed in FY99.

National Compliance Initiative for the

Organic Chemical Industry

Region 5 is participating in the national Compliance Incentive Program to help

facilities in the industrial organics sector determine whether they are in compliance

with federal environmental requirements and to resolve any discovered violations.

Under the Compliance Incentive Program, facilities will have six months to perform

voluntary environmental audits of their operations and identify to EPA potential

areas of noncompliance uncovered by the audit. In accordance with EPA’s audit

policy, participating facilities may receive substantially reduced penalties for disclosed

violations. Beginning in January 1999, EPA and/or the states will initiate increased

inspections in this sector.

As part of Region 5’s multi-media strategy for this sector, a concerted effort was

made in FY98 to identify and evaluate a large number of sources identified in

commercial databases but not in EPA’s databases. Visual verification surveys were

conducted at 140 sites, of which 25 were identified as high priority sites. Multi-media

screening inspections were conducted at 14 sites in FY98 with regional staff from the

air, hazardous waste, and EPCRA programs; the remainder will be conducted in FY99.

Letters were then sent to 186 facilities in the industrial organic chemicals sector to

promote compliance; targeted facilities received compliance assistance materials, plus

an invitation to participate in a compliance incentive program under EPA’s audit policy.
36 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

E Universe Verification Project: The purpose of this project is twofold: (1) to help

EPA and states expand their presence in the regulated community by focusing on facilities

in high priority areas that would not otherwise be reached; and (2) to improve national

and local database information through a systematic verification process. Once facilities

are confirmed by Regions and states as a chemical sector facility, EPA determines the

appropriate activities to help these facilities improve compliance. To date, follow-up

activities have included single and multimedia inspections, compliance assistance, and

enforcement. To help Regions and the regulated community locate resources that may

help in improving compliance, EPA developed the Chemical Industry Compliance

Improvement Tool (EPA #305-B-98-101). In FY99, EPA will update its database based

on the Regions’ work on this project.

E EPCRA 312 Project: Section 312 of EPCRA requires that facilities that store hazardous

chemicals in the community report the identity and quantity of those chemical to the

State Emergency Planning Commission (SERC) and the Local Emergency Planning

Committee (LEPC) so that contingency plans for accidental releases may be developed.

This project focuses on three priority areas. First, in the past year, EPA notified 2,005

facilities in the industrial organic sector of their obligation to submit reporting forms to

their LEPCs and SERCs. EPA also made these facilities aware, through compliance

assistance outreach efforts, of similar obligations under Section 112(r) of the CAA, which

requires facilities to develop risk management plans for chemicals used on-site. Finally,

EPA verified facility affiliations through a series of mass mailings in March, June, and

August 1998. This effort resulted in the proper identification of 1,573 facilities confirmed

to have received materials. In FY99, EPA will confirm with the states whether facilities

have in fact submitted the required reporting forms to determine the impact of the

compliance assistance efforts.

E Air Toxics (HON) Inspection Tool and Training: This national project provided

training to 350 federal and state inspectors in Regions 2-7 to support inspections at 250

HON sources. A HON Inspection Tool (EPA #305-B-97-006) was also published and

450 copies were distributed to industry and government users.

E Root Cause Analysis Pilot Project: EPA and the Chemical Manufacturers

Association (CMA) developed this project to identify and evaluate the root causes of

noncompliance with regulations, recommendations for improving compliance, and

the effect of environmental management systems on compliance. An EPA/CMA report

presents an overview of responses to a survey of chemical industry representatives

about the root and contributing causes of noncompliance that were identified in federal

civil judicial or administrative actions. The findings will be useful for both industry

officials and regulating agencies. Regions 1, 2, 5, and 6 provided input on the evaluation

of the survey responses and the development of the report. The report will be

completed in FY99.
Priority Industry Sectors 37

Agricultural Practices/CAFOs

Agricultural practices are the most widespread source of pollution in the nation’s surveyed

rivers, and rank as the number one cause of impaired rivers, streams, and lakes. Within the

agricultural sector, the 450,000 animal feeding operations (AFOs) represent one of the largest

sources of polluted runoff. AFOs are livestock-raising operations where animals such as beef

cattle, hogs, chickens, and turkeys are kept and raised in confined places. AFOs are a priority

under the President’s Clean Water Action Plan issued in February 1998 and the Unified National

Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations issued in March 1999 by USDA and EPA.

At least 6,600 and possibly up to 10,000 of these facilities are considered to be Concentrated

Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) because of the large number of animals present at the

facility or the method of discharge from the facility. In recent years, as the livestock industry has

consolidated into fewer and larger operations (particularly in the case of poultry and hogs), the

effects of polluted runoff from CAFOs on water quality have assumed increasing importance.

Over the years, EPA relied on the zero discharge effluent limitation of the CAFO effluent guideline

and general permits to address potential environmental risks. Recent events (such as massive spills

of hog manure in North Carolina and the Pfiesteria outbreaks in Mid-Atlantic estuaries) suggest

that current regulatory and voluntary efforts have failed to adequately address the environmental

and health problems associated with AFOs. These environmental and human health problems

persist and, in some areas of the country, have intensified as the size and density of AFOs have

increased with changes in the industry, yet little is known about the universe of facilities that fall

under the definition of AFO and CAFO. The Vice President’s Clean Water Action Plan specifically

calls for a strategy to address pollution resulting from animal feeding operations.

Facilities Profile: Most CAFOs are small operations with no more than a handful of

employees. Revenues may range from $500,000 to several million dollars for the larger

operations. CAFOs are distributed across the United States (primarily in Regions 2-10),

with a heavier concentration in the mid-plains, eastern seaboard, and western coastal

regions. Although regulations have been in place covering CAFOs for 20 years, EPA does

not have a comprehensive listing of all these facilities. Because many of the facilities that

have a discharge do not apply for permits, historically few permits have been issued.

Because there are few permitted facilities, there are few inspections of the facilities that

fall into the regulated universe.

Pollutants Profile: AFOs can pose a number of risks to water quality and public health,

mainly because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they generate. Manure and

wastewater from AFOs can contribute nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), sediment,

pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia to the environment. Excess

nutrients in water overstimulate the growth of aquatic weeds and algae, which then clog the

waters and deplete the water of dissolved oxygen needed by other living organisms. The result

can be harmful algal blooms, fish kills, and contaminated drinking water from nitrates and

pathogens. Excess nutrients in water also may result in outbreaks of microbes such as Pfiesteria

piscicida found in the Chesapeake Bay and in North Carolina.

3.5 
38 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

CAFOs produce quantities of manure that are a risk to water quality and public health whether

the facilities are well managed or not. Because the amount of manure stored is so large, a spill

while handling manure or a breach of a storage system can release large quantities of manure

and wastewater into the environment, causing catastrophic water quality impacts and

threatening public health.

Compliance Profile: CAFOs are considered to be “point sources” under the Clean Water

Act, subject to NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit

requirements if they cause pollutants to be discharged to waters. Currently, only about 2,000

CAFOs have NPDES permits (often supplemented by state permits). At the majority of

non-permitted facilities, the typical violations found by inspectors are discharges without a

permit; however, because discharges often occur only when it rains, the inspector may only

be able to note that the facility has the potential to discharge (e.g., lagoons are too full,

inadequate storage, etc.).

Activities and Accomplishments

Compliance Assistance: The National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center awarded

a $300,000 grant to a consortium of land grant universities to develop and implement a livestock

environmental issues curriculum and implementation project.

Inspections and Enforcement: In FY98, EPA Regions conducted 339 compliance inspections.

EPA has concluded a total of 93 enforcement cases against this sector in the last three years.

Significant Cases: In May 1998, Region 7 reached settlement on an administrative penalty

order that had been issued to DeCoster Farms of Iowa in late FY97. The violation involved

application of 2.5 million gallons of manure to a field drained by an agricultural drainage

well. The state ordered the well temporarily plugged on the same day the manure was being

applied, but sample results showed that some of the manure had entered the drainage well

prior to plugging. The settlement requires DeCoster Farms to pay a $7000 fine, implement

best management practices at this well and 13 other agricultural drainage wells owned by the

company, and close all 14 wells within three years.

Strategic Approach: OECA’s CAFO sector strategy calls for:

E Consistent compliance/enforcement across Regions and states: The strategy

calls for state development and implementation of compliance/enforcement strategies

and inspections of priority CAFOs by 2001 and all others by 2003. In 1998 OECA

supported this goal by conducting NPDES CAFO inspector training for approximately

92 Regional and state staff in Regions 3, 4, and 5. Each EPA Region is working with its

NPDES states to develop and implement state-specific CAFO strategies. To date, 12 states

have developed CAFO compliance/enforcement strategies.
Priority Industry Sectors 39

E Improved risk assessment, information, and environmental indicators: OECA

initiated projects (e.g., $95,000 grant to the Environmental Law Institute to identify state

databases which contain CAFOs) to identify the CAFO universe and develop information

and data to assist Regional and state efforts to target compliance assistance, inspection,

and permitting activities. OECA also developed a CAFO model administrative order.

Automotive Service and Repair Shops

The automotive service and repair sector comprises the largest number of conditionally exempt

and small quantity generators of any industrial/commercial sector. The types of pollutants,

the widespread location of these shops, and the sheer number of automotive repair shops led

to designating this sector as a priority sector in 1996. According to an industry survey conducted

in FY97, noncompliance is likely to be found in up to 74% of the industry.

Facilities Profile: By EPA and industry estimates, there are roughly 500,000 shops located

throughout the United States. These shops are located in every part of the country, from

urban and suburban communities to rural locales.

Pollutants Profile: Pollutants generated include petroleum and ethyl-based liquids,

halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Potential

impacts to the environment and human health occur when these materials are mishandled,

either during the repair process or in final disposal. Improper repair results in CFCs being

emitted into the atmosphere, reducing the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful

ultraviolet radiation. Improper handling and disposal of petroleum, solvents, and ethyl

liquids can contaminate water supplies and release VOCs into the atmosphere, contributing

to ground level ozone.

Activities and Accomplishments

Compliance Assistance: Since the total number of automotive service and repair shops

is very large, and the typical shop is quite small, EPA is unlikely to reach the vast majority of

auto service and repair shops with traditional inspections and enforcement action. Instead,

the Agency’s primary focus is on compliance assistance. A key element in that effort is the

continuing presence of CCAR-GreenLink®, the Automotive Compliance Assistance Center,

which reaches an unlimited number of shops over the Internet with plain language

explanations of environmental rules.

One compliance assistance effort launched by the Office of Compliance focused on the

franchise shops of national/regional chains (e.g., Sears, Goodyear, Pep Boys, Midas) where

one would have expected compliance to be higher than at the smaller, independent shops. OC

staff met to discuss the survey results with the Automotive Maintenance and Repair Association

(AMRA) whose members include the national/regional chain shops. Many of the members of

the AMRA have notified their respective stores about maintaining compliance with

environmental regulations.

3.6 
40 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

In FY98, compliance assistance staff in the 10 EPA Regions handled 1,550 telephone assistance

calls, reached 348 automotive shops through workshops and meetings, distributed compliance

assistance tools to 18,460 entities, and made 192 on-site visits. Regional compliance assistance

activities during FY98 included:

E Region 1 launched a newsletter, Details, distributed to over 14,000 auto body and repair

shops in New England. The New England Environmental Assistance Team (NEEATeam)

made 108 on-site visits in connection with a geographic priority, the Lower Charles River

watershed; responded to 250 hotline requests; and reached 300 entities with workshops

and conferences. Tools developed included a checklist for auditing and a plain-language,

comprehensive compliance manual, entitled Collision Repair Auto Shop Help (CRASH)

Course, distributed to 1,500 auto shops in partnership with the Massachusetts Office of

Technical Assistance.

E Region 2 participated in two seminars with the Greater New York Dealers Association

providing federal compliance information on hazardous waste, water and air regulations.

EPA’s small business and audit policies were discussed as well as other assistance tools

Baseline Compliance Survey of

Automotive Service and Repair Shops

In conjunction with the Coordinating Committee for Automotive Repair, OECA

sponsored a baseline survey of compliance levels in the automotive service and auto

body repair industry. This project used statistical sampling techniques and evaluated

auto shops on all applicable environmental statutes rather than individual

environmental programs. Five community colleges assisted in the survey of 440 shops,

using a questionnaire based on the Consolidated Screening Checklist for Automotive

Repair Facilities that OECA completed in FY97. The questionnaire covered most,

but not all, applicable federal requirements and no state-specific requirements.

Using a rough analogy to educational grades, of the 440 shops participating in

the survey, 26% would receive at least a B grade for compliance (scoring above 80%

on their answers to the questionnaire); 58% would receive a C or D grade (scoring

between 51% and 80%); and 16% would fail, with scores of 50% or less.

The survey indicated no difference in levels of compliance for auto repair shops

based on their location (urban/suburban vs. rural). Contrary to expectations, no

significant differences were found in compliance levels across three different types

of auto shops surveyed: franchise, independent auto, and independent collision/

paint shops. (New car dealers did appear to be more compliant with regulatory

requirements — 61% scored at an A or B level — but the sample size of new car

dealers was not large enough to make statistically valid inferences.)

A follow-up national survey will be conducted in FY99 to determine if levels of

compliance have changed from the baseline survey. EPA will use the baseline and followup studies to measure the effectiveness of its compliance assistance programs (including

CCAR-GreenLink®), and to identify areas within the industry that require improvement.
Priority Industry Sectors 41

Region 9’s Green Business Program

Since January 1996, Region 9 has been providing support to local governments in

several San Francisco Bay Area counties to implement the Green Business Program.

The program is testing a new inspection and compliance model which consolidates

compliance requirements and provides resource conservation and pollution

prevention information to small businesses. Businesses that pass this unique

compliance inspection program are rewarded through a local recognition program.

Four California counties — Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa and Sonoma — have

implemented the program, starting with automotive service and repair shops. Contra

Costa was the most recent county to join, in FY98, with 23 auto repair shops

participating in the program. OECA has provided funding to develop a program

guidance manual for other interested communities and to create a national “Road

Show” through the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities (a partnership of the

U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties). The “Road

Show” will include the Green Business Program as one of several local models which

will be marketed to other communities across the U.S.

available to the participants. Twenty-five seminars were held throughout the Region

discussing the December 1998 UST upgrade deadline. Additionally, the Region mailed

reminders to all regulated facilities in New York and the US Virgin Islands. New Jersey

and Puerto Rico mailed reminders to facilities within their respective borders.

Inspections and Enforcement: Headquarters and many of the Regions monitor

automotive shops through the underground injection control, chlorofluorocarbons, fuels,

RCRA, and UST programs. In FY98, the Regions conducted more than 2,300 inspections in

these program areas. Some of these inspections were conducted at automotive service and

repair shops. Also, 192 enforcement actions were concluded in FY98 with more than $500,000

in assessed penalties.

Significant Cases: In FY98, in one of the largest environmental actions ever taken against

the state of Connecticut, EPA settled its complaint against the Connecticut Department of

Transportation (CT-DOT) for a penalty of $334,548 for hazardous waste violations at

Bradley Airport in Windsor Locks and two other repair and maintenance facilities in

Wethersfield and Rocky Hill. The consent agreement also required CT-DOT to properly

label its hazardous waste containers; conduct hazardous waste management training for

appropriate personnel; conduct weekly inspections of the facility for malfunctions and

deterioration, operator errors, and discharges; conduct proper hazardous waste

determinations for all wastes generated at the facility; take precautions to prevent accidental

ignition or reaction of ignitable waste; and notify receiving facilities of the land disposal

restrictions for waste shipped offsite.
42 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Dry Cleaning

The dry cleaning sector was one of the first sectors identified as a national priority by OECA.

The cumulative environmental impact from thousands of dry cleaning facilities located in

population centers can be significant. Dominated by “mom and pop” businesses and with a

heavy concentration of owners/operators who do not speak English as their first language,

dry cleaners may not fully understand the environmental regulations impacting their business.

After five years of implementing a 1993 EPA air toxics rule, including providing compliance

assistance and conducting inspections, EPA believes that the dry cleaning sector has improved

its awareness and understanding of its environmental regulatory responsibilities as well as its

level of compliance. As a result, this sector will not be considered a national priority sector in

the FY 2000/01 Memorandum of Agreement. Based on Regional inspection findings, most of

the requirements related to emissions control equipment installation and retrofitting have

been addressed, although additional compliance improvements for recordkeeping and

reporting requirements need to be achieved.

Facilities Profile: Most of the 25,000-35,000 facilities in this sector are small businesses

which ordinarily do not have the resources to obtain, read, and interpret the numerous

environmental regulations that apply to them under RCRA, CWA, SDWA, and CAA. A large

percentage of the owners/operators do not speak English as their first language. Thirty percent

of the cleaners are owned/operated by Korean Americans. Commercial dry cleaners are

distributed in a six to one ratio of urban to rural locations. Industrial laundries (that primarily

clean uniforms) tend to be located in medium to small cities; and the small number of coinoperated dry cleaning units in laundromats tend to be found in rural areas.

Pollutants Profile: The most commonly used cleaning solvent in this sector is

percholorethylene (perc), which is a carcinogen that readily volatilizes in the air and can

contaminate soil and water if improperly handled. Perc dominates in commercial dry cleaning

establishments, while petroleum solvents are used in the majority of industrial machines. The

1993 EPA air toxics standard for perc dry cleaners requires both existing and new facilities to

use designated vapor control technologies and undertake leak detection and equipment repair

to prevent fugitive emissions.

Compliance Profile: Dry cleaners, which are categorized as service industry

establishments, are not required to report to TRI. Moreover, most dry cleaners are not

traditionally tracked by EPA compliance and enforcement databases. As part of the FY98/

99 MOA, each Region was asked to evaluate the baseline compliance status of 1% of the dry

cleaning sector in the Region. All Regions have already met or exceeded this inspection

goal. Generally, the Regions found high rates of compliance for air toxics requirements

such as proper installation of control equipment (usually in the 80% to 90% range). Lower

rates of compliance — at times as low as 30% — were found for recordkeeping and

monitoring requirements. The high percentages of compliance were usually determined to

result from compliance assistance visits and inspections.

3.7 
Priority Industry Sectors 43

Activities and Accomplishments

Compliance Assistance: Once dry cleaners were identified as a national priority sector,

OC developed and distributed various compliance assistance projects to heighten dry

cleaners’ awareness of environmental regulations. This included a Plain English Guide, Plain

Korean Guide, and a Dry Cleaners Compliance Videotape. To assist the Regions and states

in providing front-line assistance and inspections, OC developed a Dry Cleaning Compliance

Strategy, a Compendium of Educational Materials, and a Multimedia Inspection Manual

for Dry Cleaners.

Regional and state compliance assistance has been offered to the dry cleaning sector, usually

through the Clean Air Act Section 507 Small Business Technical Assistance Programs. Outreach

included mailings of plain language materials explaining the regulations, seminars, training

courses, trade shows, on-site compliance assistance visits, and promotion of hotlines and web

sites. Partnerships were developed with trade associations to increase the effectiveness of

outreach efforts. EPA has distributed over 7,000 materials. All ten EPA Regions and many

states have held multiple seminars for dry cleaners. One Region televised its outreach program

to an audience of over 2,000 dry cleaners.

Region 2 Dry Cleaners Initiative

With approximately 4,500 dry cleaners in Region 2, and with an estimated 70,000

residents in New York City living in apartment buildings which also house dry

cleaners, a major effort to enhance dry cleaner compliance remained a top priority

in Region 2 in FY98. The full range of compliance and enforcement tools has been

applied to this sector, beginning with seminars for dry cleaners given in cooperation

with trade groups, environmental organizations, and the state and local regulatory

and compliance assistance agencies. The seminars provide information, both in

English and in Korean, on the applicable regulations, pollution prevention

opportunities, alternative technologies, and Region 2’s Small Business Compliance

Incentive Program for dry cleaners. The region also visited 130 dry cleaners to

offer on-site compliance assistance in FY98. Only 25 facilities (less than 20%)

agreed to participate in this voluntary program, which includes a full compliance

review using the multimedia checklist from the Multimedia Inspection Guidance

for Dry Cleaning Facilities, with the allowance of a correction period if violations

are detected. Three facilities which accepted the offer of compliance assistance in

FY98 were found to be in complete compliance. Enforcement activities are an

essential complement to compliance assistance and compliance monitoring. In

FY98 Region 2 issued 28 administrative orders under the Clean Air Act, and 33

RCRA notices of violation.
44 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

In FY98 alone, the EPA Regions responded to 220 hotline inquiries from dry cleaning

establishments, held 16 workshops that reached over 800 entities; conducted 192 on-site visits;

and developed and distributed 12 tools to 1,450 entities.

Inspections and Enforcement: The emphasis on outreach and compliance assistance

followed by inspection and enforcement has produced useful results. Most of the violations

found more recently are for failure to comply with recordkeeping and monitoring

requirements. For example, after several years of conducting outreach and one-on-one audits

with 260 dry cleaners, Region 8 found a 42% increase in their compliance rate. Region 8

estimated that compliance with Clean Air Act air toxics regulations and initial outreach

activities would result in a 44% annual reduction of perc emissions from process vents and

fugitive sources in the Region’s 685 dry cleaners, and a further 1.5% reduction after Region

8’s audit outreach and enforcement.

Significant Cases: Dudley Laundry Co. is a dry cleaning establishment located in downtown

Norfolk, Nebraska, which generates several waste streams in its dry cleaning processes.

Approximately 25 years ago, Dudley used Stoddard Solvent as its cleaning agent, but switched

to tetrachloroethylene. In the past, Dudley stored the Stoddard Solvent and kerosene in storage

tanks which were removed in 1989. The groundwater, which is used for drinking water in

Norfolk, recently has been found to be contaminated with benzene, trichloroethylene, Stoddard

Solvent, and other contaminants that have been traced to past and current disposal practices

of Dudley. The Region has issued an order pursuant to Section 7003 of RCRA which requires

Working in Partnership with States

on Compliance Assistance

Region 4 established a partnership with the State of Georgia to conduct a compliance

assistance initiative for perc dry cleaners, consisting of inspections and a series of

workshops throughout the state. The initiative was publicized through a press release

and a joint letter from Region 4 and Georgia that was distributed to all the identified

perc dry cleaners. Voluntary compliance assistance audits were offered by the Small

Business Assistance Program and both agencies participated in the annual conference

of the Southeastern Fabricare Association.

Region 4 and Georgia conducted 249 inspections of facilities that were possibly

subject to the dry cleaning regulation. Of the 249 inspections, 165 were perc dry

cleaners, 65 were pick-up stores and 19 used alternate cleaning processes. Of the

perc facilities inspected, 16% were in full compliance, 12% had one violation, and

72% had multiple violations. Georgia distributed self-certification forms to facilities

in violation and requested that they return the form upon reaching compliance.

Forms were received from 56% of the 138 dry cleaners, indicating that they have

corrected deficiencies observed during the inspections. The state conducted followup inspections on the dry cleaners that did not submit the self certifications to ensure

compliance. All were eventually returned to compliance.
Priority Industry Sectors 45

Dudley to take certain interim and final remedial actions to identify the nature and extent of

the contamination and then to abate the groundwater contamination.

Other Sectors

Iron and Steel

There are currently 117 iron and steel mills operating in the U.S., including 27 integrated

mills (coke-making and basic oxygen furnaces) and 90 mini-mills (electric arc furnaces).

Most of the plants are located in the Great Lakes area, corresponding to EPA Regions 3 and

5. The industry has a very high rate of noncompliance. Of the integrated mills inspected in

FY96 and 97, 96% were out of compliance with one or more statutes, and 65% were in

significant noncompliance.

During FY98, OECA addressed two main areas for this sector. First, the Office of Compliance

continued work on the root cause analysis of compliance and enforcement data gathered on a

representative sample of 34 steel mills located in Region 5 (including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio

and Indiana) and in Pennsylvania. Second, OECA developed a sector strategy for iron and steel,

in conjunction with Regions 3, 5, and 6. The strategy identifies the most relevant compliance

and environmental problems that need attention and actions that can be taken by Headquarters

and the Regions. Nine key compliance and environmental problems are identified in the strategy:

E Groundwater contamination from slag disposal

E Contaminated sediments from steel making

E Electric arc furnace dust (K061)

E Unregulated sources

E SNCs resulting from reoccurring and single peaks violations

E Mini-mills not conducting baseline testing

E Lost knowledge of facility infrastructure

E Inadequate contractor management

E Violations of RCRA administrative procedures.

The three Regions continued to implement their commitments under the MOA process during

the course of the year.

Pulp Mills

Currently, 283 pulp mills are operating in the United States, with a heavy concentration in

Regions 4 and 5. Of the 90% of facilities inspected in FY96 and 97, 61% were out of compliance

with one or more statutes and 12% were in significant noncompliance. Over the last two

years, however, SNC rates have risen to 19% for air and 4.7% for water.

3.8 
46 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

FY98 saw the completion of a final draft of the Kraft Pulp Mill Compliance Assessment

Guide. This process-based, multimedia inspection manual will assist federal and state

inspectors, compliance assistance providers, auditors, and industry personnel in evaluating

a pulp mill’s compliance with major environmental regulations. By explaining the various

processes found at these facilities, applicable regulations, and appropriate inspection

techniques, the guide enables users to more easily target potential compliance problems

and identify the underlying causes.

Region 3 investigated nine pulp mills for Clean Air Act violations stemming from un-permitted

facility expansion. These investigations, which followed extensive research into the production

maximization trend in the pulp industry, revealed significant compliance problems at 8 of the

9 mills. The Region has prepared civil cases against the facilities which will prevent the release

into the atmosphere of thousands of tons per year of sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and

total reduced sulfur. In order to capitalize on the work done by the Region, a seminar is being

jointly conducted by OECA and Region 3 for other EPA Regions and states. The seminar will

provide technical training on the pulp manufacturing process, emissions, applicable

regulations, and successful investigation methods.

Coal-Fired Power Plants

The Coal-Fired Power Plants Sector Strategy is a joint effort of OECA and Regions 3, 4, and 5,

and has a primary goal to achieve significant NOx emission reductions at targeted power

plants in these three Regions by raising the rate of compliance with Clean Air Act requirements.

Under OECA’s leadership, the sector strategy was finalized in FY98 and several key activities

were completed by OECA and the three Regions. These include: (1) a review of state

environmental and public service commission files for all targeted plants; (2) issuance of

extensive information requests to some plants and boiler manufacturers; and (3) field

inspections at four plants in Region 3, and two plants each in Regions 4 and 5.

Region 8 also worked on this sector in FY98, trying to identify any deficiencies in assessing air

pollution control equipment and continuous emission monitoring performance for all coalfired power plants in the Region by reviewing recent state air inspection reports and excess

emission report data. Most of the state inspection reports and some of the excess emission

reports were reviewed, and some significant deficiencies have been identified. Follow-up work

with the states has begun to correct the deficiencies.

Municipalities

There are approximately 39,000 local general-purpose governments in the United States.

Analysis of air, water, and waste data as of October 1996 shows that the municipalities (sanitary

services including municipal operations, SIC Code 4950) were fourth in noncompliance.

Municipal governments face a host of environmental requirements, often with limited

resources, and new regulations (stormwater, MACT standards for POTWs, etc.) will require

even greater efforts. Three major compliance assistance activities were undertaken in FY98

for this sector:
Priority Industry Sectors 47

E The Local Government Environmental Assistance Network: LGEAN is designed

to help local government officials stay on top of the latest environmental requirements

and technologies. Opened in October 1998, LGEAN (http://www.lgean.org) is coordinated

by the International City/County Management Association in partnership with Water

Environment Federation, Air & Waste Management Association, American Water Works

Association, Solid Waste Association of North America, Environmental Council of States,

and the National Association of Counties. LGEAN is one of EPA’s nine Compliance

Assistance Centers and offers an efficient and user-friendly contact point for

environmental compliance and assistance information for state and local officials,

inspectors, and regulators.

E Profile of Local Government Operations: This profile presents information

operation- by-operation, rather than rule by rule, making it easier for local governments

to understand applicable environmental regulations, develop a comprehensive compliance

plan, and identify pollution prevention opportunities. The profile also provides other

useful information such as a compliance baseline, summary of enforcement actions, and

an overview of local government management and financial structures. The profile is

available via LGEAN.

E Implementing ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems at the

Municipal Level: Seven municipalities, a county, and a state prison system have

said yes to the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System (EMS) under a twoyear project to assist small and medium-sized public sector organizations to develop

and implement an ISO 14001 EMS. Each participating municipality has selected a

facility/organization (a “fenceline”) in its community to implement the EMS.

Municipalities and fencelines include:

City/County Facility Implementing EMS

 Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire

 City of Lowell, Massachusetts

Wayne County, Michigan

 City of Indianapolis, Indiana

Massachusetts Dept. of Corrections

City of Gaithersburg, Maryland

Lansing Board of Water & Light, Michigan

City of Scottsdale, Arizona

New York City, New York

Public Works

Wastewater Treatment Facility

Wastewater Treatment Facility

Public Works

Corrections Facility

Public Works

Electric Generating Facility

Municipal Government

Transit Authority
48 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

This pilot project is intended to demonstrate that the EMS approach for managing

environmental activities is equally applicable to local government operations as to private

sector entities. The municipalities have participated in two intensive implementation

workshops and are now working through the planning phase of the ISO 14001 standard (section

4.3). Some of the activities in this phase include: developing procedures for identifying aspects

and impacts associated with the organizations activities, products, and services; developing a

procedure for setting objectives and targets; providing training and awareness at each relevant

level and function; implementing the EMS procedures; and developing environmental

management programs.
 Media-Specific Priorities 49

CHAPTER 4

Media-Specific Priorities

In FY98, EPA made progress in addressing priority problems related to specific environmental

media under EPA’s statutory mandates. The 25 priority areas that were slated for special attention

in FY98-99 are shown in the sidebar. This chapter reviews highlights in selected priority areas.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act (CAA) protects and enhances the quality of the nation’s air by regulating

stationary sources of air emissions, which include manufacturers, processors, refiners and

utilities. Major sources are required to install pollution control equipment and to meet specific

emissions limitations. In addition, the CAA mandates controls on air pollution from mobile

sources by regulating the composition of fuels and emission-control components on motor

vehicles. In FY98, EPA announced two major settlements with the Ford Motor Company and

American Honda to settle allegations that the companies installed illegal defeat devices in

certain vehicles in violation of the Clean Air Act. (See Chapter 5 for details.)

Title V Permits

In FY98, EPA Regions continued their review of Title V permit applications to identify

noncomplying facilities and the submission of required compliance schedules. In contrast to

previous years, the Title V permit program now consolidates all major sources’ Clean Air Act

requirements into a single document and requires sources to certify compliance annually.

Title V is expected to provide the main focus of the air enforcement program for the future.

NSR/PSD and Synthetic Minors

In FY98, EPA placed special emphasis on violations of the New Source Review/Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) regulation to prevent further air quality degradation.

As an example, in September, Region 2 announced a settlement with Esso Virgin Islands, Inc.,

for violating requirements of the New Source Performance Standards for bulk gasoline

4.1 

Media-Specific

Priorities

Clean Air Act

Title V permits

Synthetic minors

Air toxics

CFCs

Clean Water Act

Wet weather

CAFOs

Emergency Planning

and Community

Right-to-Know

Section 313 TRI

expansion

Section 313 TRI data

quality

Industrial organic

chemicals initiative

Federal facilities

enforcement

FIFRA (pesticides)

Antimicrobials

Urban pesticides

Adverse effects

RCRA (hazardous

waste)

Generators

Organic air emissions

rule

Combustion/fuel

blenders

USTs

Transportation issues

Safe Drinking

Water Act

Public water system

microbials

Safe drinking water

information system

SDWA amendments

UIC Class V wells

— continued on the

following page
50 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Superfund

Reduction of

transaction costs

Construction

completion

Federal facilities

compliance

TSCA (toxic

substances)

Asbestos

Lead-based paint

PCBs

terminals. The settlement requires the company to carry out a compliance plan that includes

new operating procedures and the installation of a mechanical/electronic system to limit the

fuel loaded at any time to ensure compliance with the standard for total organic compounds.

EPA also addressed synthetic minor permit violations in many sectors. Targeting of the refinery

and power generation industries resulted in several case referrals to DOJ (see Chapter 3).

Region 3 has also been active in investigating the pulp and paper industry, which also has led

to several referrals to DOJ.

Air Toxics

In FY98, air enforcement focused on inspecting sources of air toxics (often referred to as

HON sources), and compliance assistance to states and sources for newly-promulgated air

toxics regulations. The HON sources were specifically targeted for enforcement action due to

the high toxicity of their pollutants. EPA Regions also continued to identify other high-risk

air toxic sources using risk and exposure criteria, and conducted investigations and inspections

of those sources. Compliance assistance activities reached over 2800 entities, including 410

telephone calls and distribution of tools to 2,020 entities.

In FY98, EPA Region 3 brought the first judicial case against a HON source, Standard Chlorine,

which was settled successfully by a penalty of $349,500. In addition, numerous administrative

penalty actions were brought against chrome-plating sources because of the high

noncompliance rate in this sector. EPA Region 5’s case against Diamond Chrome Plating for

alleged violations of the chrome plating standard at its facility in Howell, MI, resulted in the

company replacing two emission control systems at a capital cost of at least $300,000.

CFCs

Chlorofluorocarbons have been used as refrigerants in cars, homes, and offices, and as foam

blowing agents and cleaning/degreasing substances by commercial/industrial facilities. The

Clean Air Act requires that use of these chemicals be phased out and not imported. Meanwhile,

users of these chemicals must recycle CFCs extracted from refrigerators/air conditioners and

label their products to identify them as being manufactured with stratospheric ozone depleters,

among other requirements. EPA has focused on areas of greatest potential harm, such as

violations of the importation restrictions. Inspections at auto shops continued to be

coordinated by EPA’s mobile source enforcement branch, which allows for fuel requirements

and CFC recycling to be checked at the same time. As a result of EPA enforcement settlements,

CFCs were reduced by more than five million pounds during FY98.

Enforcement of regulations phasing out CFCs and other ozone-depleters is important to ensure

that the United States meets its obligations under the Montreal Protocol — the international

treaty to protect the ozone layer. Enforcement focuses on ensuring deterrence through targeted,

highly publicized enforcement actions. For example, in FY98 EPA Region 4 filed administrative
 Media-Specific Priorities 51

complaints against seven companies for CFC violations. The complaints sought a total of

more than $100,000 in civil penalties for violations ranging from the failure to use certified

technicians while servicing refrigerated appliances and auto and residential air conditioners

to the use of unacceptable substitute refrigerants.

Compliance assistance activities in FY98 reached 4,240 entities with information on CFC regulations,

including telephone assistance to 1,975 callers and tools distributed to 2,065 recipients.

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act prohibits any discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States,

except in compliance with specific sections of the law. The National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement program targets those entities discharging

pollutants without permits or in violation of their permits. Historically, the program has

focused its attention on the approximately 6,900 major facilities (‘majors’). However, increased

attention is being placed on other aspects of the CWA program, including wet weather sources

and minor facilities that are or could be causing significant water quality impacts.

Wet Weather

Run-off from wet weather (i.e., overflows from combined sewers, sanitary sewers, discharges

and run-off from concentrated agricultural feeding operations (CAFOs), and storm water

run-off) is a leading cause of water quality impairment and represents a significant threat

to public health. Sewer overflows contain bacteria and other pathogens which cause illnesses

and lead to beach and shellfish bed closures. CAFOs pose a number of risks to water quality

and public health because of the amount of animal manure discharges and run-off generated,

particularly as a result of storm events. Efforts to control wet weather flows have been

underway for several years.

Two major wet weather flow cases were settled in FY98 with the City of Atlanta (see box on

page 53) and the City of New Orleans (see Chapter 5 for details), in support of EPA’s sanitary

sewer overflow (SSO) and combined sewer overflow (CSO) enforcement priorities.

In compliance assistance activities, the Regions have reached close to 60,000 entities regarding

CWA urba wet weather issues, including 10,200 telephone assistance calls, workshops involving

1,315 attendees, and tools distributed to over 47,000 recipients.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

See Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of this priority sector.

4.2 
52 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

The “Clean Charles” Initiative in Region 1

Working with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the

Charles River Watershed Association, Region 1’s “Clean Charles” initiative combines

enforcement and compliance assistance with the goal of restoring fishable/swimmable

conditions in the Lower Charles River by Earth Day 2005. In FY98, Region 1 sent a

letter and supplemental compliance assistance information to 3,100 businesses/

institutions located in the Lower Charles River watershed to educate them on storm

water permitting requirements and to encourage those not subject to the requirements

to make voluntary efforts to lessen storm water impacts. The mailing included a

cover letter outlining EPA’s Clean Charles 2005 program, monitoring activities,

permitting requirements, examples of voluntary measures, and a description of the

Region’s Partners for Change recognition program. The letters also described

opportunities for compliance assistance which EPA had developed specifically for

Charles River facilities. These included customized assistance materials for auto-related

facilities, creation of a “report-a-sheen” oil spill reporting hotline, and development

of a innovative storm water technology trade show.

Many facilities took advantage of compliance assistance opportunities

provided by the Region. Some environmental consulting firms developed compliance

seminars specifically targeted to Charles River facilities. The advertisements for these

seminars (“Urgent!! Are you ready? EPA’s Charles River Initiative Enforcement

Inspections begin May 1, 1998") provided repeated reminders to the regulated

community of EPA’s field presence, and of the need to ensure compliance. When EPA

conducted inspections in May, inspectors observed that the Charles River facilities

had taken significant steps to review their operations and ensure that they were in

compliance with environmental requirements. Anecdotal evidence indicates that

similar activities took place in many of the facilities EPA did not inspect — i.e., that

the deterrent effect of EPA’s inspections was multiplied by the early alert to the entire

regulated community. In a few cases, significant violations were found, and

enforcement actions are being developed. A second round of inspections is planned

to ensure a sustained commitment to compliance.

Water quality in the Charles has improved dramatically as a result of both

the enforcement and compliance assistance efforts. When EPA’s initiative began in

1995, the Lower Charles failed standards for recreational boating an average of 223

days per year. That figure has since been reduced by two-thirds, to 77 days per year.

The number of days that the Lower Charles meets swimming standards has more

than doubled, from 69 to 164 days per year. The Lower Charles, once home to the

most popular swimming beach in Greater Boston, is on the road to recovery.
 Media-Specific Priorities 53

4.3 EPCRA

EPA and the public rely on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) mandated by the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) for information on chemicals

entering the environment. EPA must ensure that companies report data accurately and within

required timeframes. Priorities include providing compliance assistance for additional

industries that have recently been brought into the TRI reporting framework, and a

compliance monitoring/enforcement bulletin on TRI data quality. In FY98, EPA launched

a combined Headquarters/Regional initiative aimed at industrial organic chemical facilities

(SIC Code 2869) regarding their requirements under EPCRA (Sections 311, 312, and 313)

and Section 112(r) of the CAA. In this two-year initiative, the first year focuses on compliance

assistance, and the second year on enforcement of EPCRA Sections 311 and 312

City of Atlanta, Georgia

The City of Atlanta owns and operates three wastewater treatment plants, eight combined

sewer overflow (CSO) facilities (two additional facilities are reported by the City as

separated), and a 2,100 mile collection system (21 square miles of which are combined).

Additionally, Atlanta accepts wastewater from surrounding municipalities.

In April 1997, EPA and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)

announced the commencement of a joint enforcement effort against the City of

Atlanta. A full evaluation of all wastewater programs was undertaken by EPA and

EPD beginning in May 1997 (wastewater treatment facilities, laboratory, sludge

handling and disposal, pretreatment, collection system, CSO facilities, and storm

water). EPA and EPD uncovered numerous and systematic violations of the CWA,

the NPDES permits, and violations of Georgia laws and regulations.

On September 24, 1998, consent decrees were entered resolving violations of federal

and state laws at all of the City’s CSOs. This represents the combined enforcement

efforts of EPA, DOJ, EPD, the State Attorney General’s Office, and citizen plaintiffs

representing the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., the Chattahoochee

Riverkeeper, Inc., and W. Robert Hancock, Jr. Under the terms of the settlement

agreement, the City has agreed to pay a $2.5 million civil penalty, to implement a

corrective remedial action plan to bring its CSOs into compliance with the CWA and

state law, and to implement a $25 million “Greenways” and stream cleanup

supplemental environmental project. The City has agreed to complete all remedial

action necessary to bring its CSOs into compliance with the CWA and state law by

July 1, 2007, unless EPD and EPA agree to an extension.

EPA, DOJ, and EPD are currently involved in negotiations with the City of Atlanta

regarding a final remedy for the wastewater treatment facilities and collection

system. A supplemental consent decree encompassing remedial relief for the

wastewater treatment facilities and collection system will be filed with the court

once negotiations are complete.
54 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

4.4 

requirements. FY98 Regional compliance assistance activities reached over 86,000 entities

on EPCRA requirements — fielding over 14,000 telephone calls, involving close to 5,000

attendees at workshops and meetings, and distributing 25 different compliance assistance

tools to over 67,000 recipients.

In June 1998, EPA Region 4 announced a settlement with the Coca-Cola Bottling

Company in Kentucky to resolve alleged violations of EPCRA Sections 311, 312 and 313.

The company paid a civil penalty of $14,838, and agreed to provide $44,000 worth of

equipment to the Hardin County Emergency Planning Committee to enhance emergency

response capabilities.

FIFRA

Key areas of priority for the pesticide enforcement program under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in FY98 were promoting compliance with

antimicrobial product registration requirements and timely reporting of adverse effects.

Antimicrobial Enforcement

EPA and the public rely on pesticide manufacturers to provide accurate information about

pesticides and their associated risks. EPA enforcement efforts include monitoring unregistered

and ineffective antimicrobial products (disinfectants, tuberculicides, virucides, fungicides, and

sanitizers), as well as products making false or misleading public health protection claims,

since they pose a potential public health threat when the public is given inaccurate or misleading

information. Pursuant to FIFRA, these products must be registered by EPA before they may

be sold, held for sale, or distributed in commerce. Of the 5,000 or more registered antimicrobial

products, approximately 3,000 make claims of public health protection.

EPA took enforcement actions in FY98 against several companies that sold products that

claimed to protect against infectious bacteria and germs, where the product was not specifically

registered with EPA for that purpose. Enforcement actions against companies making illegal

pesticidal claims in FY98 included:

E Lifetime Hoan: EPA issued a stop sale order to the company and fined it $66,000

for selling unregistered kitchen gadgets making claims of built-in antibacterial

protection along with promotional material citing use in hospitals, restaurants, and

commercial kitchens.

E Snow River Wood Products: EPA issued a stop sale order to Snow River and

fined it $26,400 for selling an unregistered cutting board claiming to fight salmonella

and E. coli.

E McNeil-PPC: The company was fined $100,000 for selling unregistered toothbrushes

making antibacterial claims and claims to inhibit the growth of germs.
 Media-Specific Priorities 55

‘Adverse Effects’ Enforcement

EPA enforces FIFRA Section 6(a)(2), which requires pesticide registrants to report to EPA any

adverse effects from use of their pesticide products. This information allows EPA to update

pesticide registration information with information from real-life exposure incidents and

studies that were not available at the time of the registration decision. This information can

alert EPA if there is reason to believe that a registered pesticide is having unreasonably adverse

effects on human health and the environment. In such a case, EPA would need to reassess

whether continued registration of the pesticide is warranted or adjustments to the conditions

of registration are necessary.

On July 31, 1998, EPA reached a $180,000 settlement with Novartis Corporation (formerly

Ciba-Geigy) for violations of FIFRA section 6(a)(2). Some of the more serious late-reported

incidents involved adverse effects of the insecticide Diazinon. Diazinon’s adverse effects include

cancer, neurological symptoms, and respiratory impediments.

RCRA

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C Program regulates the

generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. With

authorized state programs and through compliance and enforcement activities, EPA is

responsible for ensuring that the regulated community complies with standards designed to

ensure the safe management of wastes that are toxic, explosive, ignitable, corrosive, or otherwise

dangerous to human health and the environment.

EPA continues to find serious violations both at facilities that are subject to regulatory or

compliance monitoring scrutiny (such as mineral processing facilities and smaller generators),

and at facilities that operate in the ‘grayer’ areas of regulation, such as recycling operations.

Industries with higher than average rates of noncompliance include petroleum refineries,

ship building, industrial organics, primary and secondary non-ferrous metals, blast furnaces,

and metal products and finishing.

Generators

The RCRA enforcement program has not traditionally focused on the generator universe.

However, beginning in FY 1996, increased emphasis was placed on these facilities, which

includes more than 20,000 large quantity generators (i.e., facilities that generate more

than 100 kg of hazardous waste per month or more than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste

per month). Because many of these facilities are small businesses, EPA used a mix of

enforcement tools and provided compliance assistance to specific industry groups. For

example, Region 6 held an outreach workshop for the maritime industry where

approximately one-third of the facilities were out of compliance. Overall, the Regions

reached over 8,000 generators, through telephone calls (4,751), workshops (2,319), and

124 tools distributed to 919 recipients.

4.5 
56 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Organic Air Emissions (Subpart CC rule)

Compliance Assistance Tool for RCRA Organic Air Emissions Standards: This

compliance assistance tool, developed in partnership with the Chemical Manufacturers

Association, provides a user-friendly explanation of the requirements of the RCRA organic

air emissions standards contained in 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart CC. When the rule was

issued, EPA estimated that organic air emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage

and disposal facilities exceeded 2 million tons per year. Full compliance with Subpart CC

standards should reduce the level of organic air emissions to approximately 150,000 tons per

year and ultimately reduce cancer and other adverse health effects.

Requirements for Organic Air Emissions (Subpart CC rule) became effective Dec. 6, 1996.

Because a very large part of the RCRA universe is potentially subject to Subpart CC, the

enforcement program focused on identifying those facilities most likely to be regulated by

these requirements and that posed high risks. Regional compliance assistance activities in

FY98 reached over 6,000 recipients, including distributing 343 compliance assistance tools

(brochures, fact sheets, etc.) to 5,388 entities. Compliance assistance efforts were followed up

with inspections and at least one case has been referred to DOJ for violations of the Subpart

CC air emission regulations.

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

The principal focus of the UST program has been the approximately one million petroleum

tanks at gas stations and other automotive fuel storage and distribution centers around the

country. Designed to protect groundwater from contamination, UST regulations ensure the

proper construction and operation of tanks, and ensure the closure of old tanks to reduce the

chance of leaks into the surrounding soil and groundwater.

With the Dec. 22, 1998, deadline by which all existing tanks had to be upgraded or begin

closure, increased enforcement attention in FY98 was focused on ensuring that underground

storage tanks were in compliance with maintaining adequate leak detection and other current

regulatory requirements. Although the UST program primarily relied on field citations, the

increased enforcement attention resulted in numerous actions taken through the formal

administrative enforcement process, including actions at the Puerto Rico Land Authority,

several actions at public works facilities in the District of Columbia, and at petroleum

wholesalers in Houston, TX. In addition, a judicial action was taken against Fahri Mustafa

for violation of the UST regulations. (See Chapter 5 for details on several of these cases.)

The Regions and states also continued their compliance assistance efforts to ensure that the

regulated community was aware of the December 1998 deadline requirements. In EPA

Regions with tribal populations, much attention was directed to USTs on tribal lands. As an

example, Region 9 focused on training tribal inspectors, conducting tank inventories, and

recruiting state UST inspectors to serve as technical resources for the tribes and territories.
 Media-Specific Priorities 57

Safe Drinking Water Act

The drinking water enforcement program seeks to ensure that the public water systems in the

United States comply with all health-based standards, including all monitoring and reporting

requirements. The program generally focuses on community water systems (those serving

year-round populations) and nontransient noncommunity systems. This program is

particularly important because there are direct public health effects from drinking water that

does not meet safety standards.

Public Water System Microbials

The effects of contaminated drinking water can be severe, especially on children, the elderly,

and persons with compromised immune systems. Adverse health effects of microbial

contamination include gastrointestinal distress, fever, pneumonia, dehydration (which can

be life-threatening), or death. Serious effects were seen in the Milwaukee outbreak of

cryptosporidium responsible for symptoms in over 400,000 persons, 4,000 hospitalizations,

and more than 100 deaths. In the summer of 1998, in Austin, Texas, contamination of

drinking water wells infected more than 1,300 persons. Region 8 issued two emergency

orders under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act to address serious threats to

public health in the Town of Alpine, Wyoming and the McGee Mobile Home Park, Gillette,

Wyoming . The use of the emergency powers of the SDWA has provided valuable information

to persons served by these systems and helped to avoid further endangerment to the health

of persons served by these systems.

The drinking water regulations that deal with microbial contamination are the Total Coliform

Rule and the Surface Water Treatment Rule. These rules have been in effect for many years.

EPA’s priority for this program continues to include substantial outreach and assistance as

well as enforcement activity. In FY98, EPA Regions reached over 3,000 entities on SDWA/

PWS microbial issues, including holding 14 workshops or training involving 1,820 attendees.

Due to the high level of noncompliance and the direct public health effects of violations,

enforcement of microbial regulation remains a high priority for EPA.

Also in FY98, the government settled with the City of New York for violations of SDWA (see

Chapter 5). Region 6 continued its efforts to address drinking water problems in the Colonias

along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V Wells

The Regions continued to work on identifying Class V wells and closing potentially

endangering wells. In addition, through outreach activities, the Regions have entered into

partnerships with states and local authorities to identify Class V wells. Region 7 is also

conducting outreach to trade organizations and other potential Class V well owners/

operators, particularly those related to the automotive and dry-cleaning sectors. These

4.6 
58 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

activities have helped the Region to bolster the injection well inventory and target ‘problem

wells’ for compliance assistance and/or enforcement action. In May 1998, Region 7 reached

settlement on a penalty administrative order against DeCoster Farms of Iowa to close several

Class V agricultural drainage wells due to potential nitrate and bacteriological contamination.

EPA Region 5 has undertaken an extensive outreach effort to make county health/

environmental officials aware of the UIC program, Class V wells, and the risk that these wells

pose to underground sources of drinking water. As a result of this outreach, five counties in

Michigan have entered into partnerships with EPA to identify Class V wells. The counties

visited about 475 sites to identify approximately 129 wells, which resulted in the closure of an

unknown number of endangering Class IV/V wells. In Indiana, the UIC program continued

to support the environmental “Circuit Rider” program — an environmental specialist who

provides cities and towns with free, confidential assistance to address environmental problems.

The program promotes local implementation of the Wellhead Protection and UIC Class V

programs and provides outreach to small businesses.
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 59

Civil Cases

Clean Air Act

American Honda

Ford Motor Company

Block Island Power

Company

Esso Virgin Islands, Inc.

Trinity America

Corporation

Borden Chemicals

and Plastics, Inc.

Plum Creek

Manufacturing,

Union Oil Company

of California

Clean Water Act

Hudson Foods

City of New Orleans

Puerto Rico Aqueduct

and Sewer Authority

Gulf Park Water

Company, Johnson

Properties

ConAgra

Cominco

EPCRA

Royster-Clark, Inc.

Sinclair Oil

Weyerhauser

FIFRA

DuPont

Microban Products

Company

Atlantic Mills

Safetec of America

CHAPTER 5

Highlights: Enforcement Cases

This chapter presents summary descriptions of selected major civil and criminal cases settled

or concluded in FY98.

Civil Cases

Clean Air Act

American Honda: EPA, DOJ, and the California Air Resources Board settled a case against

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Honda will spend $267 million to settle allegations that it violated

the Clean Air Act (CAA) by selling vehicles with disabled emission control diagnostic systems. The

United States alleged that Honda disabled the misfire monitoring device on 1.6 million 1996 and

1997 model year Accords, Civics, Preludes, Odysseys, and Acuras, as well as 1995 Honda Civics.

The complaint also alleged that Honda failed to report this fact when applying for Certificates of

Conformity, which allow for vehicles to be legally sold if they meet federal emission standards.

The misfire monitoring device is part of an enhanced computer system, known as the OnBoard Diagnostic System, which checks a vehicle’s emission performance when the vehicle

is in use. When the misfire device is disabled during an engine misfire, the system’s

malfunction indicator light will not operate. Because the vehicle’s owner is unaware that

the engine needs to be serviced, increased exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and damage

to the vehicle’s catalyst may occur.

Under two related agreements with the U.S. government and with California, Honda will

extend the emissions warranty for all affected models to 14 years/150,000 miles, provide an

engine check and any emissions-related repairs needed between 50,000 and 75,000 miles of

use, and provide a free tune-up between 75,000 and 150,000 miles of use, at a cost to Honda

of at least $250 million. In addition, Honda will spend, under the federal and state agreements,

$17.1 million, including $12.6 million in civil penalties and $4.5 million to implement

environmental projects to reduce pollution.

5.1 

— continued on the

following page
60 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

RCRA

Handy & Harman

Electronics Material

Corp.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct

& Sewer Authority

United States Steel

Petroleum Wholesale

Inc.

Mr. Louis Wyman

Conoco Refinery

Safe Drinking

Water Act

New York City

Superfund

Gould Superfund Site

Talache Mine

Sapp Battery Site

Industri-Plex

Sangamo Weston/

Twelve Mile

Creek/Lake

Hartwell PCB

Contamination

Interstate Lead

Company

LCP ChemicalsGeorgia

ICG Iselin Railroad

Yard

Murray Smelter

Libby Groundwater

TSCA

New Jersey Dept. of

Corrections

Safety-Kleen

East Ohio Gas

Ford Motor Company: EPA, DOJ, and the California Air Resource Board reached an

agreement whereby Ford Motor Company will spend $7.8 million to settle allegations that it

violated the Clean Air Act by illegally installing a device which defeats the emissions control

system in 1997 Ford Econoline vans. About 60,000 vans are affected.

The government’s claims against the automaker involve the illegal use of a defeat device, in

this case a sophisticated electronic control strategy designed to enhance fuel economy.

According to EPA, the system caused smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions to increase well

beyond the limits of the Clean Air Act emission standards when the vans are driven at highway

speeds. The consent decree entered on June 8, 1998, requires Ford to recall all of the affected

Econolines in order to deactivate the strategy at an estimated cost of $1.3 million, pay $2.5

million in civil penalties, purchase 2,500 tons of nitrogen oxide credits valued roughly at $2.5

million to offset the excess emissions, and spend $1.5 million on projects designed to reduce

future harmful pollutants in the air. The company also voluntarily implemented a special

service instruction to dealers to deactivate the strategy in the vans and cooperated with EPA

and DOJ during the investigation. About 25 percent of the 60,000 Econoline vans equipped

with the strategy have been captured through Ford’s special service instruction to date. The

remainder of the vans will be recalled.

Block Island Power Company (Rhode Island): To correct long- standing Clean Air Act

violations, Rhode Island’s Block Island Power Co. (BIPCO) agreed in a federal enforcement

settlement to eliminate its diesel generators or install state-of-the-art pollution control

equipment on them, thereby reducing the company’s smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions

to virtually zero. BIPCO also agreed to pay a $90,000 fine. Like much of New England, Rhode

Island is not meeting national standards for healthy air quality regarding ozone or smog, and

BIPCO’s pollution reductions will help improve the state’s air quality.

BIPCO is the sole utility company on Block Island, about 15 miles off the Rhode Island coast.

EPA alleged that BIPCO failed to obtain Clean Air Act New Source Review (NSR) permits for

eight electricity-generating diesel generators that BIPCO installed and operated between

approximately 1981 and 1993, which caused NOx emissions above NSR statutory and

regulatory thresholds. Under a federal court-approved settlement filed in 1998, BIPCO will

either install an underwater electric power cable from the mainland that will eliminate the

need for the diesel generators, or will retrofit the generators with lowest achievable pollution

control technology.

Esso Virgin Islands, Inc. (U.S. Virgin Islands): EPA alleged that Esso Virgin Islands

violated Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards for bulk gasoline terminals. In a

settlement entered in federal court on September 25, 1998, the defendant agreed to pay a cash

penalty of $294,200 and to follow a compliance plan that will avoid further violations. The

compliance plan includes new operating procedures as well as a requirement that Esso install

a mechanical/electronic system to limit the amount of fuel loaded at any given time in order

to ensure compliance with the standard for total organic compounds.
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 61

Trinity America Corporation, d/b/a Trinity Foam of Carolina, and Trinity Fibers

of Carolina, Inc. (North Carolina): EPA Region 4 issued an imminent and substantial

endangerment administrative order on October 7, 1997 in accordance with Section 303 of the

CAA to prohibit manufacturing operations at Trinity American Corporation, doing business

as Trinity Foam of Carolina, and Trinity Fibers of Carolina, Inc. of High Point, NC. EPA

confirmed that air emissions of toluene diisocyanate (TDI) and other chemical irritants from

the facilities have caused or contributed to adverse health effects experienced by residents

living nearby. The two plants closed as a result of the order and the company has elected to

relocate. This was the first Section 303 CAA action taken by the Region.

In addition, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order (UAO) to Trinity on June 27, 1997,

pursuant to the imminent and substantial endangerment authority provided by Section 1431

of the SDWA. The UAO requires Trinity to sample groundwater wells used for drinking water

within a 3/4 mile downgradient and cross-gradient radius from the facility.

On August 11, 1997, Trinity American Corporation filed a notice of the filing of a Petition of

Appeal of the UAO. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision dated August 4, 1998,

upheld in every respect EPA’s issuance of the UAO pursuant to Section 1431 of the SDWA.

The decision is one of only three nationwide addressing Section 1431, and contains precedential

language regarding EPA’s authorities and thresholds for finding an imminent and substantial

endangerment. The Fourth Circuit held that EPA need not demonstrate that individuals are

drinking contaminated water to justify issuing an emergency order, that the Agency’s authority

to take action to protect public health is very broad, and that EPA’s requirements for quarterly

sampling and provision of safe water are reasonable.

Plum Creek Manufacturing (Montana): On October 22, 1997, a consent decree was

entered settling the pending litigation concerning Clean Air Act New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) violations at Plum Creek Manufacturing’s facility in Pablo, MT. In the decree,

Plum Creek agreed to pay $300,000 in civil penalties to the United States and to spend an

additional $75,000 on the purchase and delivery of clean, washed, sieved road sanding materials

to be treated as a SEP. The sand will be distributed to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai

Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, and to state and local entities which maintain roads within

the vicinity of the Pablo facility. These entities will use the sand on iced-over roads in winter,

reducing the typically high concentrations of particulate matter (PM) emissions into the

ambient air in the Pablo area during that time of year. This is expected to result in a decrease

in PM concentrations of between 27% and 74% during the time the sanding material is utilized.

Plum Creek has also agreed to comply with all applicable NSPS requirements for the life of

the Wellons boiler. Plum Creek has accomplished this by means of a new electrostatic

precipitator installed at a cost of approximately $1 million. It has also installed a new continuous

monitoring system. Furthermore, Plum Creek will replace an old oil-fired boiler which was

used very infrequently with a gas-fired boiler. The gas-fired boiler will emit less than 40 tons

of sulfur dioxide per year.

Criminal Cases

U.S. v. H & J Auto Inc.

U.S. v. Louisiana

Pacific Corporation

U.S. v. Safewaste Inc.

U.S. v. Saybolt, Inc.

U.S. v. Hess

Environmental

Laboratories Inc.

U.S. v. Barry Shurelds

U.S. v. Ruben Brown

U.S. v. Frank V.

Carlow

U.S. v. WarnerLambert, Company

Inc.

U.S. v. Royal

Caribbean Cruise

Lines, Ltd.

U.S. v. BFI Medical

Waste Systems, Inc.

U.S. v. City Sales Ltd.

U.S. v. American

Scientific Technology,

Inc.

U.S. v. Neptune

Fireworks, Inc.

U.S. v. Holland

American Cruise Line

U.S. v. Lam Pine, Inc.

U.S. v. T.T. Barge

U.S. v. T&T Fuels, Inc.

U.S. v. Surpass

Chemical Company,

Inc.
62 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Union Oil Company of California (Alaska): This case involves Clean Air Act violations

at UNOCAL’s urea and ammonia plant in Kenai, Alaska. The company operated its facility

contrary to procedures resulting in excess emissions of at least 1,200 tons of hydrocarbons in

1995 and 6,600 tons of carbon monoxide between 1987 and 1992. An unpermitted change to

the facility also caused a significant increase in particulate emissions. To settle the case,

UNOCAL agreed to pay a civil penalty of $550,000 and to perform two SEPs costing over $6.6

million. The projects include development and implementation of an operations and

maintenance program to monitor combustion efficiency and substantially reduce hydrocarbon

and carbon monoxide emissions. UNOCAL also agreed to reduce ammonia emissions by

about 1,200 tons per year at a cost in excess of $6.6 million and to reduce substantially the risk

of catastrophic emissions caused by major process upsets.

Clean Water Act

Hudson Foods: On May 8, 1998, Hudson Foods, a subsidiary of the Arkansas-based food

processing company Tyson Foods Inc., agreed to a $6 million settlement to resolve allegations

it polluted Maryland waters that flow into the Chincoteague Bay. According to the government,

Hudson’s Berlin plant discharged wastewater with illegal amounts of fecal coliform,

phosporous, nitrogen, ammonia and other pollutants into Kitts Branch, which flows into

Trappe Creek, Newport Bay, and Chincoteague Bay. The government’s lawsuit also alleged

that Hudson violated pollution monitoring, sampling and notification requirements in its

Clean Water Act permit. These requirements include ensuring that testing equipment is

accurate, lab tests are performed properly, and sampling records are up to date.

Under the settlement, the company will pay a $4 million civil penalty and spend $2 million to

stem the flow of water-polluting agricultural run-off from Hudson’s and Tyson’s processing

plants and farms in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Pennsylvania. The $2 million Hudson

will spend on environmental projects will reduce nitrate discharges from Tyson and Hudson

Food facilities and reduce phosphorous runoff into local waterways. The settlement also

requires the food processing companies to assist their poultry growers across the Delmarva

Peninsula to develop and implement site-specific nutrient management plans that will help

prevent pollution and protect the environmental health of waterbodies throughout the Region.

City of New Orleans (Louisiana): On April 8, 1998, the City of New Orleans agreed to a

settlement worth more than $200 million to address allegations that its sewage collection

system spilled raw sewage into nearby waters, as a result of the city Sewerage and Water Board’s

failure to properly maintain its treatment and collection system, and in violation of the federal

Clean Water Act. Under the settlement, the Sewerage and Water Board will renovate its

antiquated sewage collection system to prevent future sewage discharges into the Mississippi

River and other nearby waters. It also will pay $1.5 million in civil penalties and spend $2

million improving water quality along Lincoln Beach, a park that was created to serve AfricanAmericans who were barred by law in the 1960’s from admission to the then white-only

Pontchartrain Beach amusement park.
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 63

City of Atlanta (Georgia): On April 13, 1998, EPA, DOJ, the State of Georgia, and City of

Atlanta agreed to a settlement to upgrade Atlanta’s sewer system, which regulators and a citizens

group have alleged has been spilling partially treated sewage into nearby waters throughout

the city for several years. Under the proposed agreement announced at a U.S. District Court

hearing, Atlanta will pay a $2.5 million penalty to resolve alleged federal Clean Water Act

violations, spend $27.5 million cleaning the city’s rivers and streams and preserving riverbank

property, and replace part of the city’s antiquated sewer system at an estimated cost of several

hundred million dollars.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (Puerto Rico): On October 16, 1997,

Region 2 issued seven §309 (g) Class II administrative penalty complaints proposing the

assessment of a total of $683,500 in Clean Water Act penalties in cases involving the Puerto

Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA). PRASA is a public corporation and an

autonomous governmental instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico created for

the purpose of providing water and sanitary sewer service to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico.

The administrative complaints allege PRASA’s failure to implement its industrial pretreatment

program by failing to develop plant-specific local limits applicable to industrial users at the

seven plants and to place such limits in its industrial user permits. On August 26, 1998, Region

2 entered into a consent order with PRASA settling the cases against the seven wastewater

treatment plants. The aggregate penalty amount for all seven plants is $65,000. In addition,

PRASA is required to spend at least $210,000 on three SEPs which will reduce the possibility

of sewer system by-passes, thus reducing the amounts of pollutants which may reach the

waters without receiving adequate treatment.

Gulf Park Water Company, Inc., Johnson Properties, Inc., and Glenn and Michael

Johnson (Mississippi): On December 30, 1993, DOJ filed a complaint against Gulf Park

Water Company, Inc., Johnson Properties, Inc., and Glenn and Michael Johnson for violations

of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act. The defendants own and operate a wastewater treatment

facility in Gulf Park Estates, Jackson County, MS. Since 1985, the defendants had been violating

the CWA by discharging treated wastewater to the Mississippi Sound without the authorization

of an NPDES permit.

On April 20, 1997, the U.S. District Judge found all defendants liable for violating the CWA.

Therefore, the only issues that remained for trial were the assessment of the penalty and

injunctive relief. The trial was held in May 1997. The defendants claimed that they were

unable to pay the penalty and presented a financial expert at trial that testified accordingly.

The court found that there was conflicting financial information and appointed a special

master to evaluate the financial experts’ testimony.

On March 11, 1998, the court concluded that although Johnson Properties had a cash flow

problem, Johnson Properties and Glenn Johnson had substantial assets and could pay a penalty

of $1.5 million. Since the filing of the complaint, Gulf Park had been physically connected to

a Regional wastewater system, but could not discharge to it until it paid the Regional Authority

$44,000. Gulf Park finally paid the fee during the summer of 1997 and began discharging to

the Regional wastewater system.
64 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

ConAgra (Idaho): After three years of intensive litigation, ConAgra agreed to settle a

judicial action EPA brought against the company for Clean Water Act violations at its

Armour Meat slaughterhouse in Nampa, ID. The settlement requires payment of a civil

penalty of $1 million. In addition, ConAgra agreed to cease all land application of its

wastewater on-site, to build new wastewater treatment ponds costing about $1.5 million,

and to move its cattle feedlot off-site at a cost of about $1,032,000. The total value of the

settlement, including the penalty, injunctive relief, and supplemental environmental

project, exceeds $3.5 million.

Cominco (Alaska): A consent decree was entered on November 25, 1997, resolving Clean

Water Act violations that occurred at Cominco’s lead-zinc mine in Alaska. It requires payment

of a $1.7 million penalty, and includes several supplemental environmental projects (SEPs)

with an aggregate cost exceeding $3 million. The SEPs include an extensive groundwater

monitoring study of the effects of the mine’s large tailings pond on the surrounding permafrost,

the risks of eventual contamination of ground or surface waters, and the long-term structural

integrity of the pond. Smaller SEPs will study the impacts on and protect aquatic life from

wastewater discharges.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act

Royster-Clark, Inc. (Wisconsin): Royster-Clark agreed to pay a $12,000 EPCRA §313

penalty on February 23, 1998 and to perform a SEP costing at least $219,777. The SEP

will involve installation of a new process for manufacturing agricultural fertilizer. The

new process will eliminate the use of 1,480,000 pounds per year of sulfuric acid, 3,466,000

pounds per year of phosphoric acid, and 750,000 pounds per year of ammonia. RoysterClark’s market for fertilizer is largely in the southeastern U.S., in areas with sandy soil. In

the new manufacturing process, the fertilizer will be attached to a molecule of clay, and

will therefore be less likely to be washed out by rain and contribute to enrichment of

streams. Although the releases of sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and ammonia at the

Madison, WI, facility were very small, the potential for reduction in water pollution from

fertilizer runoff is considerable.

Sinclair Oil Corporation, Tulsa Refinery (Oklahoma): The largest ever EPCRA

313 enforcement case for Region 6 was settled on May 19, 1998. Discovered violations

included 10 counts for non-reporting EPCRA 313 chemicals and 28 counts for data quality

errors on emissions from Form R. In the consent agreement Sinclair agreed to pay a

$201,968 penalty and implement a $350,000 supplemental environmental project. The

project involves the construction of a 70,000 barrel external floating roof tank to store

waste water prior to treatment. Fugitive emissions of VOCs are expected to be reduced by

as much as 8000 pounds per year.

Weyerhaeuser Company (Washington): A consent agreement and consent order

resolving CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 violations against Weyerhaeuser Company was

filed on March 17, 1998. The underlying complaint charged the company with failure to

immediately notify the National Response Center of the accidental release of crude sulfate

turpentine, a hazardous substance, and to provide written followup notice to state emergency
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 65

response commissions and local emergency planning committees. The release occurred at

Weyerhaeuser’s Longview, WA, facility. Weyerhaeuser had a prior history of similar violations

at the same facility. In the settlement, the company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $400,000

and to complete a supplemental environmental project at a cost of $305,710. The supplemental

environmental projects requires the provision of emergency response equipment to local

emergency response centers and development and operation of an Internet site with current

meteorological data from the facility to enable emergency response centers to more rapidly

and accurately project the likely spread of any future chemical release. In addition,

Weyerhaeuser undertook $6 million of environmental improvements at the facility in response

to EPA’s concerns about the repeat notice violations.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act:

DuPont: On April 30, 1998, an administrative law judge imposed the largest administrative

penalty in EPA’s history — $1.89 million — against DuPont for ignoring EPA orders to stop

shipping pesticides with inadequate labels. The labels failed to state that protective eyewear is

required when using the product to protect against the risk of accident or injury. DuPont

shipped pesticides on about 380 occasions with labels that omitted the protective eyewear

warnings required by the Worker Protection Standard rule, which was enacted under FIFRA

in August 1992. This is the first case to be tried under the rule. EPA charged DuPont with

improperly labeling four herbicides sold and distributed under DuPont’s Bladex and Extrazine

II product lines. Based on information obtained from DuPont, EPA calculated that the company

made more than $9.4 million from the sale of its mislabelled pesticides.

The Worker Protection Standard requires that all pesticide products sold and distributed after

April 21, 1994 display proper warning labels. The rule, which covers more than 3.5 million

farm workers and other pesticide handlers, is designed to limit workers’ exposure to pesticides,

reduce adverse health effects when exposure occurs, and inform and educate workers about

hazards associated with occupational pesticide use.

Microban Products Company: On September 18, 1998, an administrative law judge issued

a decision finding Microban Products Company liable for making unlawful public health

claims in the sale and distribution of its antimicrobial pesticide, Microban Plastic Additive

“B” to Hasbro Inc. for use in toys. In its sales promotion material, the company unlawfully

claimed that the pesticide would reduce the growth of many common and harmful bacteria

by 99.9 percent. A hearing will be scheduled later to decide the appropriate penalty. The ruling

ensures that unsubstantiated claims by companies, such as those made by Microban, do not

put the public health at risk.

Atlantic Mills (New Jersey): Region 2 issued an administrative consent order in July

1998 resolving a FIFRA enforcement action against Atlantic Mills, Inc. of Lakewood, NJ.

The settlement contains two SEPs with a combined worth of more than $150,000, and assesses

a penalty of $15,000. The Region had filed a complaint against Atlantic Mills, a manufacturer

and exporter of pesticides, alleging that on 11 separate occasions in 1997 Atlantic Mills

distributed or sold unregistered pesticides in violation of FIFRA. Additionally, Atlantic Mills

was charged with two counts of producing a pesticide in an unregistered establishment.
66 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

The settlement requires Atlantic Mills to develop and present two different educational

programs regarding antimicrobial pesticides. One program, directed to manufacturers and

distributors of food service products for which antimicrobial pesticidal claims are made, is

intended to increase compliance with FIFRA. The second program, directed to food service

operators, is intended to promote and improve sanitation and hygiene in the food service

industry.

Safetec of America (New York): In September 1998, Region 2 issued a consent order to

Safetec of America, Inc. of Buffalo, NY, in settlement of an administrative penalty action

under FIFRA. The consent order requires the company to pay a civil penalty of $100,500.

Safetec violated FIFRA by selling certain products which were not registered by EPA for sale

as pesticides. The company made numerous claims — in the labels on the products and in

advertising catalogues — of antimicrobial, disinfectant properties for these products, which

included surface wipes and towelettes for use in health-care facilities and elsewhere, as well

as spill control products, or “encapsulators,” which are used to clean up human bodily fluids

in health-care facilities. FIFRA prohibits making such claims for products which have not

undergone EPA review for effectiveness and safety. This was one of the first actions by EPA

to classify such “encapsulators” as unregistered pesticidal products. In addition, Safetec

violated FIFRA by failing to submit in a timely manner an annual report on its pesticide

production for 1996.

Pursuant to the consent order, Safetec will comply with FIFRA by removing pesticidal claims

from its product labels and catalogue descriptions. The company will also send letters to its

distributors which advise them that the label and catalogue changes were made to inform the

public that the products are not sanitizers, disinfectants or alternative medical waste treatments.

In addition, the company will remove its name and products from state lists of alternative medical

waste treatment technologies, since such lists bear evidence of pesticidal intent for those products.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Handy and Harman Electronics Material Corporation (Massachusetts): On March

27, 1998, EPA reached agreement with Handy and Harman Electronic Materials Corporation

for the payment of a $132,125 penalty for hazardous waste and community reporting violations

at the company’s facilities in North Attleboro, MA and East Providence, RI. These two facilities

manufacture specialty electronic components by electroplating metal with precious metal

and non-precious metal solutions. EPA cited the company for the following RCRA violations:

improper hazardous waste container management practices; failure to segregate incompatible

hazardous waste; failure to properly classify wastes as hazardous; failure to conduct inspections

where hazardous waste is stored; failure to provide training to employees who handle hazardous

waste; and failure to maintain a current contingency plan to respond to hazardous waste

spills. EPA also settled its claims against Handy and Harman under EPCRA. In 1993 and 1994,

Handy and Harman failed to maintain complete records for copper, nickel, hydrochloric acid,

and sulfuric acid. Additionally, the company failed to accurately report the amount of copper

and nickel transferred off-site.
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 67

Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority (Puerto Rico): On May 21, 1998, Region 2

issued a consent order in settlement of an administrative proceeding under RCRA §9006

against PRASA for underground storage tank violations at 19 of its facilities in Puerto Rico.

PRASA violated the UST regulations by failing to comply with leak detection and permanent

closure requirements. As part of the settlement, PRASA complied with leak detection

requirements at two facilities and was ordered to permanently close USTs at the remaining

facilities. PRASA also agreed to pay a civil penalty of $95,000 and perform two SEPs valued at

$105,000. The first SEP involves a site assessment and use of innovative technology in an

attempt to cleanup a contaminated well located in Juana Diaz, PR. The second SEP involves

the installation of telemetric measuring devices in wastewater pump stations at PRASA’s sewage

treatment systems in Trujillo Alto (Bridge) and Sabana, Llana pump stations in Puerto Rico.

The telemetric measuring devices detect pump station malfunctions and thereby reduce the

threat of undetected bypasses at these pump stations which could result in thousands of gallons

of untreated sewage being discharged.

United States Steel (Alabama):On February 13, 1998, a consent decree was entered settling

RCRA violations against United States Steel (USX) in Fairfield, AL, and requiring facility-wide

cleanup of contamination. USX had continuously failed to make hazardous waste determinations

on its wastestreams, and illegally disposed of hazardous waste without a permit or interim status.

In addition, groundwater monitoring at the facility indicated the presence of groundwater

contamination from hazardous constituents. The terms of the settlement are that USX will pay

a $1 million civil penalty and perform two SEPs (a PCB-transformer replacement and a

brownfields economic redevelopment ), the combined values of which will be at least $1.2 million.

For injunctive relief, USX must perform corrective action at the facility; stop the practice of

reinserting flush solvent waste from the pipe mill varnish operation back into the varnish

operation; stop the practice of disposing of its flush solvent waste from the pipe mill at Exum

landfill, a solid waste landfill; isolate the wastes from the pipe mill practice that were disposed of

at Exum landfill and fence in the entire landfill; perform an investigation and, if necessary,

corrective action at Exum landfill; and perform RCRA closure at the coke plant.

Petroleum Wholesale, Inc. (Texas): On August 26, 1993, and September 9, 1993, EPA and

the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission jointly inspected facilities owned by

Petroleum Wholesale, Inc. (PWI) located at seven facilities in Houston, Texas. Twenty-seven

USTs were found to be out of compliance with federal UST regulations, resulting in a total of 80

violations. A consent agreement and consent order was issued on May 15, 1998, to PWI which

included a penalty of $274,000, primarily for failure to conduct adequate release detection for

UST systems. Release detection systems are necessary to enable owners and operators to detect

releases from USTs in sufficient time to prevent major releases of product into the environment.

Mr. Louis Wyman (Colorado): Region 8 issued a unilateral administrative order under

RCRA §7003 to the oil pit operator, Mr. Lou Wyman, who has a commercial oil field waste

disposal operations known as Williams Fork Waste Systems located south of Hayden, CO.

The entire surface of one pond, which is approximately 1.2 acres in size, is covered with oil.

The second pond is also over two thirds covered with oil. The ponds are also filled to capacity
68 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

which is in violation of the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations requiring at least two feet of

“freeboard.” The facility has no security and inadequate fencing which results in uncontrolled

access to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and wildlife. The facility has received many notices

of violations by the state; and has been the subject of local government inquiries, hearings,

and abatement actions since the 1980s. The Region has coordinated its action with the Fish

and Wildlife Service, the State of Colorado, and Routt County. The UAO requires the operator

to clean the ponds and assure that the ponds will be permanently kept clean, address the

security and access issues in a variety of ways, and a develop a permanent method for

maintaining two feet of freeboard.

Conoco Refinery (Colorado):On March 18, 1998, Region 8 filed a complaint against Conoco’s

Denver Refinery seeking a penalty for failure to comply with numerous RCRA generator

requirements from 1992 to 1995. On August 7, 1998, the parties finalized a consent agreement

which requires Conoco to pay a cash penalty of $112,500 and perform a SEP valued at $627,500.

The SEP — a reduction of sulfur emissions by 200 tons/year — will alleviate citizen concerns

regarding odors and minor respiratory problems alleged in a citizen’s suit brought by Colorado

Public Interest Research Group. This case represents the coordination of EPA, Conoco, the State

of Colorado Air Program, the citizen group, and the community at large.

Safe Drinking Water Act

New York City: On May 20, 1998, New York City agreed to build a filtration plant for its

Croton Drinking Water System to reduce the risk of cryptosporidium and other contaminants

for its nearly one million residents, including the elderly and young. Under the settlement

filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, the City will build the filtration plant no later than

September 2006, spend $5 million primarily on projects to protect the Croton watershed, and

pay a $1 million penalty to resolve an April 1997 lawsuit brought by the federal government.

The suit alleged that the City violated the federal Safe Drinking Water Act by failing to filter

the Croton water supply. New York State intervened as a plaintiff in the lawsuit and also was a

party to the settlement. New York City will monitor the quality and safety of its Croton Drinking

Water System until the filtration system is in full operation. The watershed protection measures

the City will implement include, purchasing land and replacing faulty septic tanks with sewers,

and preventing storm water runoff from contaminating the watershed.

Superfund

Gould Superfund Site (Oregon): On May 14, 1998, a consent decree was entered for

cleanup of the Gould Superfund Site in Portland, Oregon. The settling defendants include NL

Industries, Gould Electronics, Johnson Controls, Exide Inc., Lucent Technologies, RhonePoulenc, Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway Co., ESCO Corp., and Schnitzer Investment

Corp. The decree requires the defendants to implement a $15 million remedial action and to

reimburse EPA for oversight and response costs totaling more than $100,000.

Talache Mine Superfund Site (Idaho): On June 22, 1998, EPA issued a CERCLA unilateral

administrative order to Monarch Greenback directing time-critical removal activities designed

to stabilize waste at the Talache Mine Superfund Site in Atlanta, ID. These interim activities
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 69

have been completed. EPA has since directed Monarch Greenback to perform preliminary

work on a non-time critical removal. This site consists of two large piles containing tailings

from historic gold mining operations, and areas where tailings have been released in the past

(for instance, in May 1997, at least 35,000 cubic yards of contaminated tailings were discharged

into an adjacent wetland, and then into tributaries of the North Fork of the Boise River). The

tailings contain significant concentrations of arsenic and other hazardous substances.

Sapp Battery Site (Florida): On October 2, 1997, a summary judgment was entered in

favor of the United States in the case of U.S. v. Ben Shemper & Sons, Inc.; M. Bernstein Metal

Co.; Dynamic Metals, Inc.; Gulf Coast Recycling, Inc.; Southern Scrap Metals; and Taracorp, Inc.

Defendants were held jointly and severally liable for response costs incurred at the Sapp Battery

Superfund Site, as well as prejudgment interest totaling almost $4 million. The defendants

were also held liable under CERCLA for all future response costs at the site. In addition,

defendant Ben Shemper & Sons, Inc. was found liable for failure to comply with an

administrative order directing cleanup of the site.

The Sapp Battery Site is a former battery-cracking facility near Cottondale, FL. From 1970 to

1980, tens of thousands of spent batteries were cut open to recover lead for resale. Over the

years, severe acid and heavy metals contamination occurred at the site. The site was listed on

the NPL in 1982. In 1991, after 10 years of study, cleanup, and settlement negotiations, EPA

issued a CERCLA §106 order to some 225 PRPs. As a result, several dozen major PRPs entered

into a consent decree with the United States to fund and undertake the cleanup at the site.

Many others entered into de minimis settlements. Six of the PRPs that did not enter into the

consent decree became the subject of this case.

Industri-Plex Superfund Site (Massachusetts): This site is a successful example of

EPA’s effort to achieve both the remediation and the reuse of a Superfund site. The site includes

approximately 245 acres, of which about 110 acres contain heavy metals (lead, arsenic, and

chromium) in the soils. Additionally, benzene and toluene hotspots exist in a portion of the

groundwater. The remedy for the site is construction of a variety of covers over the

contaminated soils, measures to address the groundwater contamination, and institutional

controls. A group of responsible private parties is performing and paying for the remedy.

Construction of the covers was completed in 1998. Groundwater cleanup is ongoing, and

institutional controls to ensure the long term protectiveness of the remedy are being completed.

At the same time that remediation has been proceeding, significant portions of the site are

being developed or redeveloped for economic reuse. As part of the consent decree, EPA, the

responsible parties, and the City of Woburn formed a custodial trust to hold title to, manage

and develop about 120 acres of the site contributed by the prior owner as “payment” of his

share of the remediation costs. The trustee has worked actively to promote development of

that property. EPA has entered into prospective purchaser agreements with purchasers of

three different parcels of the site that protect those parties from Superfund liability. One

agreement is with a private company that is operating a recycling center. A second is with

three state agencies who are constructing and operating a Regional transportation center (RTC)

consisting of a commuter rail station, a commuter express bus facility with service to Logan

Airport and downtown Boston, and a new interchange from the adjacent Interstate highway
70 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

onto the site. The third is with a private company that will be constructing and operating a

large retail store. A fourth agreement with a private company to develop an office park on yet

another parcel of the site is currently being negotiated. In addition, the City of Woburn is

upgrading and extending the main road that runs through the site.

Reuse offers considerable environmental benefits. In constructing the RTC, the three state

agencies will be installing a cap three feet thicker than required by EPA. The RTC also will

remove 2400 vehicles daily from entering Boston, reducing traffic and helping the state comply

with the Clean Air Act. Additionally, keeping viable companies and state agencies operating

on the site helps ensure that the protective covers will be properly maintained and repaired.

Sangamo Weston/Twelve Mile Creek/Lake Hartwell PCB Contamination (South

Carolina): This site comprises Lake Hartwell, certain tributaries, and seven properties in

Pickens County, SC. The Sangamo Plant manufactured capacitors containing PCBs. PCBs

and other hazardous substances were disposed of on the Sangamo plant and at the satellite

properties. Effluents containing PCBs were also discharged into surface waters. Two significant

actions were taken at this site in FY98:

E A complaint was filed in District Court in May 1998 seeking recovery of all past costs

incurred at the site through FY97. A consent decree entered on September 23, 1998

requires the defendant to pay the United States $5,635,286 for past response costs

incurred for the site plus interest.

E A unilateral administrative order was issued for Operable Unit Two, which comprises

the sediment, surface water, and biological migration routes downstream from the

Sangamo Plant and satellite disposal areas that have site-related PCB-contamination. A

Record of Decision had been issued for this site in 1994. The respondent, Schlumberger

Resource Management Services, Inc., began to voluntarily perform work at the site with

EPA oversight but a formal agreement could not be reached. Upon resolution of

outstanding cost issues at the site, Region 4 issued the UAO on September 25, 1998 which

requires Schlumberger to implement a fish consumption advisory and a public education

program, to perform annual aquatic biota and sediment monitoring to determine PCB

levels in fish and other aquatic life, and to pass sediments through three impoundments

to facilitate burial of PCB-impacted sediments further downstream. The estimated cost

of this remedy is approximately $55 million.

Interstate Lead Company Superfund Site (Alabama): In an April 1997 consent decree,

a group of large quantity generators — the ILCO Site Remediation Group — agreed to perform

and fund the complete design/remedial action for the site, at an estimated cost of $59,440,500.

The ILCO Site Remediation Group received orphan share compensation in the form of a $14

million credit against outstanding past response costs and agreed to reimburse the government

for the balance of $1.82 million. The consent decree also provided that proceeds from de

minimis settlements would be split evenly between EPA and the ILCO Site Remediation Group

with EPA’s share to be applied against outstanding past costs.
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 71

On April 4, 1998, EPA Region 4 entered into an AOC with 210 de minimis parties at the site.

Under the terms of the settlement, approximately $2.14 million will be collected toward past

cleanup activities at the site and future response costs. This amount will be split equally between

EPA and the ILCO Site Remediation Group. EPA’s share will be used to reimburse the Superfund

for outstanding past costs and the ILCO Site Remediation Group’s share will go into a special

account to fund future work at the site.

A CERCLA §122(h) ability-to-pay settlement for recovery of response costs was entered into

between EPA and the City of Leeds and the ILCO Site Remediation Group on September 2,

1998, which includes an agreement to reimburse EPA and the City of Leeds $25,000 each.

LCP Chemicals-Georgia Site (Georgia): On March 23, 1998, an agreement and

administrative order on consent for removal action under CERCLA Sections 104, 106, and

122 with three PRPs at the site was deemed final following expiration of the requisite period

of notice and comment. Under the terms, EPA preauthorized $1.7 million in mixed funding

for the final stage of removal action to be performed at the site by the respondents; the

agreement and administrative order also comprised $4.6 million in past costs incurred by

EPA during prior removal activities at the site.

The site consists of about 500 acres of tidal saltwater marsh and about 50 acres of upland.

Following the February 1994 shutdown of the chemical plant, EPA issued unilateral

administrative orders for removal to the PRPs at the site. Three of the PRPs receiving a unilateral

order thereafter undertook extensive removal activities in the upland portion of the site, and

performed focused studies and general investigations site-wide. These same three PRPs are

the respondents to the 1998 agreement and administrative order; it is estimated that their

overall removal response costs could eventually total $40 million.

ICG Iselin Railroad Yard Site, Jackson (Tennessee): On November 20,1997, EPA entered

into a prospective purchaser agreement (PPA) with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

(TWRA) to facilitate the purchase and preservation of wetlands and bottomland hardwood

forests adjacent to the ICG Iselin Railroad Superfund Site. The site was paced on the NPL on

December 16, 1994 and is a non-Fund financed state enforcement lead project under a 1994

agreement between EPA and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

TWRA is purchasing the 355-acre property lying south/southwest of the site to manage in

perpetuity solely in conformance with state law which includes uses for complimentary

educational and recreational purposes which are passive and noncommercial. EPA believes

that this PPA (which provides a covenant not to sue) will benefit the citizens of Tennessee.

Murray Smelter (Utah): The site, located immediately to the south of Salt Lake City, in

Murray, UT, is the location of the former Murray and Germania Smelter facilities. The smelters,

which operated from the late 1800s until 1949, caused soil and ground water contamination

through stack emissions and poor handling and storage of flue dust and arsenic trioxide. The

former owner and operator of the facility, Asarco Inc., performed a site investigation and

feasibility study under a 1995 administrative order. These studies, which were approved by

EPA, were the foundation for a Record of Decision for the site, which was issued on April 1,
72 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

1998. The ROD calls for excavation and off-site disposal of extremely high level arsenic bearing

soils, excavation and disposal of lower level arsenic bearing soils in an on-site repository,

excavation and replacement of high lead level soils in specific residential areas, and natural

attenuation (including institutional controls) of ground water.

EPA worked with Asarco, the City of Murray, the State of Utah, current landowners, and

prospective purchasers to develop a settlement strategy that would result in full cleanup

and redevelopment of this blighted area. As a result of this process, all parties signed the

consent decree, and the prospective purchasers, through a PPA, will build a medical campus,

movie theaters, and other commercial-retail establishments. The consent decree, entered

on August 19, 1998, provides that Asarco will perform full cleanup on the site and reimburse

all response costs. Two federal agencies considered by EPA to be Section 107(a)(3) arrangers

during World War II will also be resolving their potential liability to Asarco in the decree.

Pursuant to the consent decree, the City of Murray commits to implement and enforce

institutional controls along with Asarco. The current landowners are required to provide

access and comply with all institutional controls, some of which are dedicated property

interests granted by those parties to Asarco and the City. The approximate total of all response

costs at the site is $16.5 million.

Libby Groundwater Superfund Site (Montana): The site is located in northwestern

Montana in and adjacent to the City of Libby. The site was originally part of a lumber and

plywood mill complex which produced timbers and poles that were treated with creosote and

pentachlorophenol, along with carrier oils. Groundwater contamination was first detected in

domestic wells within the City of Libby in 1979 and the site was placed on the National Priorities

List in 1983. As of August 1998, the remedy is complete except for ongoing long-term

groundwater biotreatment. Approximately 13 acres in size, the property contains a park, several

buildings formerly utilized as a motel, a convenience store, and a chiropractor’s office. The

site owner, Stimson Timber Company, received a proposal to sell part of the site to a new

developer to build a shopping center. The new companies, P.O.B. Montgomery and Albertsons,

requested a Prospective Purchaser Agreement prior to accepting title.

The companies were willing to pay for the costs associated with obtaining a PPA as well as to

conduct the remaining work needed at the property, including the abandonment of one

monitoring well and the modification of four monitoring wells to protect against damage

from surface activities at the property. The new development — approximately 60,000 square

feet of retail development occupied, in part, by national level chain stores — is expected to

generate approximately 100 permanent jobs for the community, a $4.8 million increase in the

local tax base, and $17 million annually in sales. The PPA was signed in August 1998.

Toxic Substances Control Act

New Jersey Department of Corrections: On November 13, 1997, Region 2 issued a

consent order to the New Jersey State Department of Corrections under which that agency

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $476,196 and spend over $2.2 million for SEPs. The settlement

resolved an administrative complaint under TSCA for violations of PCB regulations. The

complaint had cited 16 violations of TSCA that occurred at two different facilities owned and
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 73

operated by the Department in Yardville and Avenel. EPA inspections of these facilities revealed

numerous violations of inspection, record-keeping, disposal, marking, and registration

requirements concerning PCB transformers. The SEPs will include the removal and disposal

of PCB transformers, electrical upgrades, and environmental assessments at the Department’s

facilities throughout New Jersey.

Safety-Kleen Corporation: On July 31, 1998, EPA Region 5 signed a consent agreement and

consent order resolving allegations that Safety-Kleen had violated Sections 5 and 13 of TSCA .

The company will pay cash penalty of $141,500 and undertake an innovative SEP to treat PCBs

worth $667,000. The SEP targets treatment of PCB oil in environmental justice communities

and at not-for-profit entities that might otherwise go untreated. In a 1996 complaint, EPA had

alleged that Safety-Kleen manufactured and imported “Luwa Bottoms” without proper

premanufacture notice.

East Ohio Gas Company: On July 13, 1998, Region 5 filed a consent agreement and consent

order resolving 161 alleged violations of PCB regulations under TSCA which had been selfdisclosed to the Agency by the East Ohio Gas Company (EOG). Pursuant to EPA’s SelfDisclosure Policy, EPA reduced the gravity portion of the proposed civil penalty of $1,247,460

by 100% and required EOG to pay a penalty of $193,260, which represented the economic

benefit to EOG of the disclosed violations. As part of the settlement, EOG also certified that it

is currently in compliance with TSCA.

On June 8, 1995, EOG voluntarily disclosed violations at its facilities located near Cleveland,

OH. As part of the self-disclosure, EOG also notified EPA that similar violations of TSCA may

have existed elsewhere in its multi-facility gas distribution system and that EOG intended to

immediately conduct a company-wide audit of all of its facilities to determine its compliance

with TSCA. The company disclosed additional violations of TSCA on four occasions in 1995

and 1996. On April 6, 1998, EOG completed a lengthy and extensive audit of its facilities, and

submitted those findings to the Agency.

Criminal Cases

U.S. v. H & J Auto Inc., et al. (Oklahoma): Carl E. Hines ran a salvage yard as a cover for

an interstate methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution network. His efforts to dispose

of trailer loads of 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste, which had accumulated at his salvage

yard over the years, prompted Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality interest, a

subsequent investigative referral to EPA’s criminal division, and a series of false explanations

to law enforcement officers concerning the disappearance of the drums. Of the five defendants

in the case, three pled guilty prior to trial. Jack Hensley pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture

and distribute methamphetamine; former Marshall County Sheriff Decco Bazter pled guilty

to conspiring to manufacture, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,

possession of methamphetamine, intimidating a federal witness, aiding and abetting the

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and conspiracy to illegally transport hazardous

waste; and Bill Orange, pled guilty to conspiring to illegally transport hazardous waste. On

February 12, 1998, Carl Hines and Daniel R. Martin were convicted by a federal jury in

5.2 
74 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Oklahoma. Hines was convicted of conspiring to manufacture, possession with intent to

distribute and distribution methamphetamine; attempt to manufacture methamphetamine;

possession of a firearm after a felony conviction; intimidating a federal witness; causing the

illegal transportation of hazardous waste without a manifest; and conspiring to illegally

transport hazardous waste.

On June 23, 1998, all five defendants were sentenced. Hines was sentenced to a non-pardonable

prison term of 420 months and to 120 months of supervised release. Martin was sentenced to

two non-parolable prison terms of 240 months and a 120-month term of supervised release.

Baxter was sentenced to concurrent terms of 102 months imprisonment and a 120-month

term of supervised release. Hensley was sentenced to a 76-month prison term and a 60-month

term of supervised release. Orange was sentenced to a 27-month prison term and a 36 month

term of supervised release.

U.S. v. Louisiana Pacific Corporation, et al. (Colorado): Louisiana Pacific Corporation

operates a wood products plant at Olathe, CO. An indictment alleged that plant mill manager

Dana Dulohery and plant superintendent Robert Mann conspired to violate the Clean Air

Act, filed false reports with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and

EPA, and committed mail and wire fraud. The defendants were indicted on 50 felony counts.

On February 18, 1998, Robert Mann was sentenced to six months incarceration, five years of

supervised probation, and fined $10, 000. On April 3, 1998, Dana Dulohery was sentenced to

10 months incarceration, three years supervised probation, and fined $15,000. On May 28,

1998, Louisiana Pacific Corporation pled guilty to 14 felony counts for violating the CAA and

four felony counts for consumer fraud. The company was fined $36.5 million and ordered to

pay $500,000 in restitution. This was the largest fine ever collected under the Clean Air Act.

U.S. v. Safewaste Inc., et al. (California): In 1993, the Sacramento Fire Department

inspected a warehouse leased by Frank Fiorillo, Jr. and Art Krueger which led to the discovery

of illegally stored hazardous wastes. A subsequent search warrant by the Sacramento County

Environmental Crimes Task Force revealed more wastes illegally stored in a concealed room,

rocket motors, warheads, 17,000 artillery shells, and 7,500 pounds of explosives. The

investigation disclosed that Fiorillo and Krueger operated Safewaste and West Coast Industries,

Inc. They had contracted with Diversey Inc., a national manufacturer of cleaning chemicals

based in Michigan, to handle its off-specification material as a hazardous waste. The material

was taken to their Sacramento warehouse where much of it was hidden in the concealed

room. Fiorillo and Krueger provided Diversey with false certificates of disposal for the waste

and fraudulently billed them over $250,000 for waste disposal services that were never

performed. On July 2, 1997, Fiorillo and Krueger were convicted for the illegal storage and

transportation of hazardous wastes to an unpermitted facility, as well as wire fraud. Fiorillo

was also convicted of federal firearms and explosives regulations. On December 12, 1997,

Frank Fiorillo, Jr. was sentenced to 51 months incarceration, a $75,000 fine and ordered to

pay $14,000 in restitution to Sacramento Fire Department. On December 19, 1997, Art Krueger

was sentenced to 21 months incarceration and a $450 special assessment.
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 75

U.S. v. Saybolt, Inc., el al. (Massachusetts): On April 17, 1998, David H. Mead, President

and CEO of Saybolt, and Frerik Pluimers, of The Netherlands, formerly President and

Chairman of the Board of Saybolt North America Inc. and Chairman of the Board of Saybolt

Inc., were charged in a five-count indictment. The indictment charged violations of the Foreign

Corrupt Practices Act, interstate travel in aid of a racketeering enterprise, conspiracy, and

aiding and abetting. Mead and Pluimers were also charged with bribing Panamanian officials.

Mead and Pluimers are alleged to have conspired with others to pay a $50,000 bribe in

December 1995 to officials of the Republic of Panama, in hopes of obtaining contracts from

the government of Panama for an affiliated company, Saybolt de Panama, S.A. As a result of

this payment, Saybolt de Panama was expected to receive expedited tax benefits and a

commercially-attractive operating location along the Panama Canal. On August 18, 1998,

Saybolt, Inc., pled guilty to violations of the Clean Air Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices

Act. Under the plea agreement, the company will pay a $4.9 million fine and serve five years

probation. As a condition of its probation, Saybolt is required to establish and maintain an

effective compliance program regarding the operation of its qualitative inspection and testing

services, subject to the review and approval of EPA. Saybolt also agreed to fully cooperate in

the investigation of individuals responsible for its criminal conduct. A separate provision of

the plea agreement requires Saybolt to purchase display advertising in petroleum industry

trade publications, announcing the terms of its guilty plea to data falsification charges.

U.S. v. Hess Environmental Laboratories Inc., et al. (Pennsylvania): Hess Labs was

engaged in the business of providing analysis of environmental samples to various customers.

Michael Klusaritz was the Laboratory Director at Hess Labs until June 1995 when he left to

start his own environmental laboratory, Phase II Labs. Klusaritz operated Phase II through

November 1996. Investigation revealed that both Hess Labs and Phase II were providing

fraudulent analysis to many customers. Hess Labs provided false and fraudulent environmental

testing results to customers over a nine-year period. The company did not have the proper

equipment to conduct the requisite analysis and failed to conduct the analysis in accordance

with EPA methods. False lab results were provided to schools, hospitals, local governments

and businesses and were relied upon by the EPA, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection and the U.S. Department of the Army. On November 10, 1997, Hess Labs pled

guilty to a total of nine felony counts including conspiracy, mail fraud, false statements, false

claims and Clean Water Act violations, including knowingly aiding, abetting or causing

violations of Tobyhanna Army Depot’s CWA permit.

On April 9, 1998, Hess Labs was sentenced to five years probation and ordered to pay $5,553,634

in restitution. Michael Klusaritz and Phase II each pled guilty to false statements, false claims

and mail fraud violations and were sentenced October 28, 1997. Michael Klusaritz is currently

serving a sentence of 12-months incarceration. Both Klusaritz and Phase II were held jointly

and severally liable for restitution in the amount of $40,000. Judith McCoy, former Technical

Director at Hess Labs pled guilty to conspiracy, false statements, and mail fraud. McCoy was

sentenced on September 21, 1998, to three years probation and ordered to pay a $10,000 fine

and restitution of $27,000. William L. Hopkins, former President of Hess Labs, pled guilty to

four felony counts including conspiracy, mail fraud, false statements and CWA violations. On

May 30, 1997, Hess Labs closed and terminated its business as a result of the investigation.

Phase II was also closed as a result of the investigation.
76 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

U.S. v. Barry Shurelds, et al. (Kentucky): On October 3, Barry Shurelds of Philadelphia;

Sam Robinson of Philadelphia; Sean Shurelds of Camden, NJ; Hosea Eusebio of Jersey City,

NJ; the IES Lead Paint Division and its parent corporation, IEMC Environmental Group,

Inc., were sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington

for violating the Clean Air Act. Barry Shurelds, project manager, was sentenced to 51 months

in prison. Robinson, the on-site supervisor, received a 10-month sentence. The two other

individual defendants received probation. The companies were not fined, as they are out of

business. The defendants were convicted of removing asbestos-containing material from the

Hess Department Store in Louisville in early 1993 without following federal regulations that

prevent exposure to workers and the general public. When inhaled, asbestos fibers can become

trapped in the lungs. This can lead to lung cancer and asbestosis. As a result of the improper

asbestos removal, the owner of the store, Crown American Corporation, was ordered by the

Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection on March 10, 1993 to conduct an

emergency cleanup. The cleanup cost to Crown American approximately $1 million. The case

was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI, and the Kentucky

Department of Environmental Protection.

U.S. v. Ruben Brown (Illinois): Ruben Brown, doing business as Ruben Brown

Extermination and J. D. McKinley Extermination, operated a pest extermination business

without state certification in the Chicago area for several years. Brown admitted spraying

Chicago residences with methyl parathion between 1991 and 1996. He also admitted to selling

bottles of methyl parathion to individuals for spraying. The spraying occurred in predominantly

low income, African American communities. Many of the residences had young children

residing in them. Exposure to methyl parathion can produce convulsions, coma, and death.

On June 20, 1997, Brown was charged with misusing a restricted use pesticide. On July 24,

1997, Brown pled guilty, admitting that he sprayed methyl parathion in 1,000 homes in Chicago,

and sold the chemical in concentrated form to his clients. On December 9, 1997, Brown was

sentenced to two years imprisonment and one year supervised release. EPA Region 5 completed

its cleanup of 90 Chicago area homes in May 1998. Some 900 homes were sampled for the

presence of the toxic pesticide. Total cleanup costs exceeded $10 million.

U.S. v. Frank V. Carlow (Pennsylvania): On February 3, 1998, Frank V. Carlow of

Uniontown, PA, owner of several coal mining and demolition companies, was sentenced to

serve 87 months in federal prison and pay $4,591,027 in restitution. Carlow was convicted on

November 3, 1997 of illegally storing hazardous wastes, tax evasion, mail fraud, pension

fraud, and obstruction of justice. Carlow admitted that he illegally stored over 170 55-gallon

drums of hazardous wastes at the former Beaumont Glass Company in Morgantown, WV,

from 1992 to 1997. Many of the drums contained hydrofluoric acid which can cause severe

chemical burns. In addition, Carlow evaded over $10 million in federal taxes and $2.5 million

in state worker insurance payments by under-reporting the hours worked by approximately

400 miners whom he employed. The case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation

Division, the FBI, the IRS, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Secret Service.
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 77

U.S. v. Warner-Lambert, Company Inc. (Puerto Rico): On September 19, 1998, WarnerLambert Company, Inc., pled guilty to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act, and agreed

to pay a $3 million criminal fine. The guilty plea was for falsifying discharge monitoring

reports (DMRs) on the levels of pollutants it was releasing from its Vega Bajo, PR,

pharmaceutical plant into a drainage channel that feeds into the Cibuco River. The receiving

waters and the river are used by poor area residents for both drinking water and recreational

purposes. The company will also pay a civil penalty of $670,000 for routinely releasing excess

levels of pollutants between 1992 and 1995. The plant manager, Juan Ruiz Orengo, pled guilty

the same date to false reporting under the CWA. On March 5, 1998, he was sentenced to 21

months imprisonment.

U.S. v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd. (Puerto Rico): In October 1994, the cruise

ship, Sovereign of the Seas, was observed by a Coast Guard plane emitting a visible oil sheen

into ocean waters off the coast of Puerto Rico. When the Coast Guard boarded and inspected

the vessel, it was presented with a false logbook that omitted some oil discharges and

misrepresented others. Additionally, under orders of a senior officer, the bypass pipe that

circumvented the oil-water separator (thereby resulting in the sheen observed by the Coast

Guard) was removed between the first Coast Guard inspection in San Juan after the incident

and the second inspection in Miami, and was cut up in pieces and disposed of in a dumpster.

The appearance/disappearance of this pipe was documented in a Coast Guard videotape.

During the ensuing investigation, it was established that the discharge of oily bilge water was

not an isolated occurrence; rather it was endemic to the fleet of Royal Caribbean cruise ships.

Likewise, the maintaining of false logbooks was endemic.

Royal Caribbean pled guilty in Puerto Rico on June 3, 1998, to seven counts of a ten count

indictment and agreed to pay a fine of $8 million. Violations included discharge of oil from

the Sovereign of the Seas off the coast of Puerto Rico, and failure to report same, both in

violation of the Clean Water Act, conspiracy, witness tampering, obstruction of justice

(destruction of evidence), and false statements. On the same day, Royal Caribbean also pled

guilty in Miami to one count for presenting a false oil record book for the Nordic Empress,

and agreed to pay a $1 million fine.

U.S. v. BFI Medical Waste Systems, Inc. (Washington, D.C.): On September 18,

1998, a $1.5 million fine was imposed on a subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., for

1995 and 1996 criminal violations of the Clean Water Act at a now-closed medical waste

treatment facility in the District of Columbia. BFI-Maryland owned and operated a facility

which treated medical wastes using an “autoclave” steam processing system. In a 1991

application to the District of Columbia, the company stated that the wastewater would be

pre-treated prior to discharge to the sewer system. As a result of facility design changes, BFIMaryland began accumulating rainwater, snow melt, and other liquids in a loading area used

to load treated medical waste for shipment to a permitted landfill. This “trailer pit” also

accumulated treated medical waste, untreated wastewater from the autoclave system, and, in

the government’s view, untreated medical waste. Gregory Ryan Smith, the local plant manager,

and others had employees pump wastewater from the trailer pit onto the facility’s parking lot

and into a drain leading to the sanitary sewer. BFI-Maryland, along with Smith, pled guilty in
78 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

June to knowingly failing to notify District of Columbia authorities of a substantial change in

the nature of the wastewater the facility was discharging into sewers leading to the Blue Plains

waste water treatment plant. In addition to the $1.5 million criminal fine, BFI-Maryland was

sentenced to two years probation and community service, in the form of a $100,000 payment

to the Conservation Fund to advance land and water conservation activities at the community

level. Also, the parent company, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., of Houston, TX, will execute

an environmental audit and develop and maintain an environmental compliance program at

each of its autoclave facilities in the United States.

U.S. v. City Sales Ltd., et al. (Maine): Between March 1993 and July 1994, City Sales,

Ltd., a Canadian automobile parts dealership, illegally imported 246 tons of CFC-12 into the

United States through the port of Houlton, ME. During this period, City Sales made thirty

separate imports of CFC-12 to more than a dozen United States companies, accounting for

eight percent of all CFC imports to the United States during 1993. These transactions netted

City Sales over $2.4 million in gross revenues and over $650,000 in profits. City Sales never

possessed the Clean Air Act (CAA) “consumption allowances” required for these imports and

the company made false declarations on import invoices, in violation of the CAA and Customs

laws, respectively. In addition, City Sales failed to pay the United States $1.6 million in excise

taxes owed on these transactions.

On May 29, 1998, City Sales owner Larry LeBlanc pled guilty and was sentenced to 15 months

imprisonment and a $28,000 fine. His wife, Anne LeBlanc, pled guilty and received a sentence

of a $1,500 fine. Former sales manager Scott Campion entered a guilty plea in April 1997 to

tax evasion and was sentenced on October 7, 1997, to a $2,500 fine. On July 16, 1998, Michael

Cormier entered a guilty plea to tax charges. The corporations, City Sales, Ltd., Trans Canada

Autohous Ltd., and 051544N.B. Inc, have been charged and sentenced in Canada, to a $20,000

(CDN) fine.

U.S. v. American Scientific Technology, Inc: American Scientific Technology (AST), located

in Little Rock, AK, conducted tank tightness tests on underground storage tanks and associated

pipes. Federal regulations require that owners and operators of underground storage tanks test the

tightness of these tanks to determine whether they are leaking. Mark Smith was employed as a tank

tester by AST and several related companies between 1993 and 1997, including American

Underground Storage Tank Testing, located in Austin, TX, and American Southern Technology,

Inc. located in Little Rock, AK. Smith conspired to provide fraudulent test results to customers in

numerous states including Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

Tennessee, and West Virginia. These test results were fraudulent because the data was falsified, the

proper method of testing the tanks was not followed, and/or the names of the tester were falsified.

The United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, filed a Criminal Information

against Smith on June 10, 1998, charging him with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud,

and false statement violations by providing false and fraudulent underground storage tank tightness

test results from October 1993 to April 30, 1997. Smith pled guilty the same day.
 Highlights: Enforcement Cases 79

U.S. v. Neptune Fireworks, Inc., et al. (Florida): On October 22, 1997, Neptune Fireworks,

Inc., of Dania, FL; Neptune’s president Itzhak Dickstein; its former vice-president for operations,

Leslie Grimes; and Neptune’s warehouse manager, Mark Williams, all pled guilty to federal charges

that resulted from a fire caused by the illegal disposal of hazardous fireworks waste. The defendants

admitted to causing the February 17, 1997 fire at the V. Ponte & Sons recycling facility in Pembroke

Park, FL, by illegally concealing thousands of pounds of damaged and otherwise unsaleable

fireworks in 12 cardboard bales after the fireworks had been soaked in water. One of the bales

ignited and started a blaze that took six hours to bring under control. Neptune agreed to pay

fines and restitution totalling $500,000. Dickstein, Grimes and Williams all pled guilty to one

count of illegal treatment of a hazardous waste under RCRA. The case was investigated by EPA’s

Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI, the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, and the Broward

County Sheriff’s Office, with the assistance of EPA’s National Enforcement Investigations Center.

U.S. v. Holland American Cruise Line (Alaska): The Holland America Cruise Line, a

subsidiary of the Dutch company HAL Beheer BV, agreed to pay a $1 million fine and provide

$1 million to the National Park Foundation to benefit marine ecosystems at a hearing on June

19, 1998 in U.S. District Court in Anchorage. The company admitted to violating the Act to

Prevent Pollution from Ships during the summer of 1994, when oily water was illegally

discharged from the bilge of the cruise ship SS Rotterdam while it was sailing within Alaska’s

Inside Passage. In addition to the $2 million payment, Holland America agreed to establish a

company environmental compliance plan, to add pollution reduction equipment on each of

its vessels, and to serve five years probation. The case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal

Investigation Division, the Marine Safety Office and the Investigative Service of the U.S. Coast

Guard, and the FBI.

U.S. v. Lam Pine, Inc., et al. (Idaho): On May 18, George E. Betts, president of Lam Pine,

Inc., of LaGrande, OR, was sentenced to pay $163,177.34 in restitution to the EPA Superfund

program. Betts had previously been convicted of being involved in the illegal transportation

of more than 230 55-gallon drums of paint and solvent wastes to the North Point Milling

(NPM) facility which Betts owned in Payette, ID. In August 1996, EPA conducted a cleanup

of a total of 452 55-gallon drums of paint and solvent wastes which had been stored at the

NPM facility. Betts was also sentenced to serve six months in prison. The case was investigated

by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, the Oregon State Police, the Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

U.S. v. T.T. Barge Cleaning, Inc. (Louisiana): T.T. Barge Cleaning has three marine facilities

along an 80-mile stretch of the Mississippi River and provides barge cleaning and repair services

to the marine industry. The barge cleaning process involves the stripping, steaming, and washing

of customer barges with water and/or chemical cleaners. The cleaning process also includes the

removal of rust, scale, mud, and sludge from inside cargo tanks within the customer barges.

Allegations stated that from 1986 to February 1997, TT and its employees routinely discharged

untreated wash waters directly from customer barges and vacuum tanks into the Mississippi

River in contravention of LDEQ permits. TT cleaned a wide variety of commercial vessels
80 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

including petroleum barges that carried gas, diesel, benzene, toluene, and chemical compounds

such as acid, calcium chloride, methanol, chlorine, glycol, and ethanol. The untreated wash

water discharged into the river containing the above mentioned substances as well as cleaning

solvents and chemicals used in the cleaning process. On August 20, 1997, TT pled guilty to

violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants over an eleven year period. On October

29, 1997, TT was ordered to pay a fine of $300,000 and placed on five years probation. In addition,

the company must conduct environmental audits and retrieve and remove the drums pushed

into the Mississippi River.

U.S. v. T&T Fuels, Inc., et al. (West Virginia): On March 9, 1998, Paul Thomas of

Morgantown, WV, president and co-owner of T&T Fuels, Inc., was sentenced for violating the

Clean Water Act by discharging millions of gallons of acid mine drainage in violation of state

and federal permits. Thomas was ordered to pay $273,000 in back civil penalties and $170,400

in land reclamation costs to the State of West Virginia, plus serve six months home detention

and five years probation. Thomas also must pay two-thirds of the monthly cost of nearly

$36,000 for treating discharges from T&T mines for as long as they discharge.

U.S. v. Surpass Chemical Company, Inc. (New York): This case resulted in the first

conviction nationwide for negligent endangerment under the Clean Air Act. Surpass Chemical

Company, Inc. had a spill of hydrochloric acid on April 8, 1997. A 5,700 gallon storage tank

ruptured suddenly and a portion of the contents surged over a secondary containment wall.

The rupture brought the acid into contact with a drum of sodium hydroxide, and the resultant

mixture generated chlorine gas. Green clouds of this gas were observed in and near the facility.

Eight workers and about 32 others were taken to hospitals for observation and treatment.

EPA, OSHA, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC),

and the City of Albany Fire Department and Police Department all participated in the

investigation. It was determined that the tank had been designed to work at atmospheric

pressure only, i.e., it would not withstand pressure changes associated with filling or emptying

the tank if its vents were blocked. Due to odor problems associated with the tank, Surpass had

bolted down the large vent on the tank and replaced it with a small vent and piping that

directed any gases into a drum of soda ash and later, sodium hydroxide. The sodium hydroxide

in time clogged the line. As a result, the tank burst during filling operations. The negligent

operation of the tank, including both the inadequate substitute vent and the failure to ensure

that the vent remained free from blockage, caused the spill and resultant release into the ambient

air of the chlorine gas.

On August 7, 1998, Surpass pled guilty to a negligent endangerment charge under the CAA

and to illegally discharging a substance into a sewer system. Additionally, it entered into

administrative settlements with OSHA and a civil consent order with NYSDEC. Under the

plea agreement and civil settlements, Surpass will pay $30,000 in fines to the U.S. and to the

State of New York, $30,000 in civil penalties to OSHA, and $15,000 to NYSDEC and the City

of Albany for reimbursement of cleanup costs.
 Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs 81

CHAPTER 6

Highlights:

Compliance Assistance Programs

This chapter reviews FY98 highlights of OECA’s efforts in compliance assistance and

compliance monitoring, as well as new policies issued during the year.

Compliance Assistance Activities

Tool Development

One of OECA’s primary compliance assistance activities is the development of compliance

assistance tools such as plain language guides, videos, websites, and more. Importantly, these

tools are shared with Regions and states which deliver hands-on compliance assistance.

Sector Notebook Series: EPA added nine new sector notebooks to the industry Sector

Notebook series, bringing the total to 27 at the end of FY98:

E Profile of the Metal Casting Industry

E Profile of the Ship Building and Repair Industry

E Profile of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry

E Profile of the Plastic Resin and Man-made Fiber Industry

E Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry

E Profile of the Textile Industry

E Profile of the Ground Transportation Industry — Trucking, Railroad and Pipeline

E Profile of the Water Transportation Industry

E Profile of the Air Transportation Industry.

6.1 

Compliance

Assistance

Programs

Compliance

Assistance Activities

Compliance

Monitoring Activities

New Policies
82 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Each notebook provides a basic explanation of the major environmental issues relating to the

subject industry and includes information on industry background; size and national

distribution; economic trends; common manufacturing processes; wastes released; pollution

prevention opportunities; summaries of applicable federal statutes and regulations; compliance

and enforcement history; and resources for further research. In response to user demands,

EPA also prepared and published the Sector Notebook Data Refresh-1997, which revised the

Toxics Release Inventory and compliance and enforcement data presented in the first cluster

of 18 notebooks published in 1995. Over 300,000 notebooks have been distributed in printed

and electronic formats to audiences in the United States and abroad. (See the Sector Notebook

Web page at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/sector/index.html.)

Environmental Management Systems Primer for Federal Facilities: In 1998, EPA’s

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, in partnership with the Department of Energy’s Office of

Environmental Policy and Assistance, developed the Environmental Management Systems Primer

for Federal Facilities. The Primer is designed to help federal managers who are considering adopting

an environmental management system (EMS). The Primer is not intended to be a technical or

detailed manual on EMS implementation. Rather, its goal is to help federal managers understand

EMSs and how they can improve environmental management at their facilities.

Environmental Compliance Guide for Rural Electric Cooperatives: The guide helps

rural electric cooperatives better understand their obligations under federal environmental

regulations, and improve their level of compliance. The guide explains how to comply with the

federal environmental regulations. It covers 13 environmental topics applicable to non-power

generating activities at the cooperatives: PCBs; waste management; hazardous waste/material

transport; storage tanks; hazardous products management; spills/releases; wastewater/storm

water; drinking water; wetlands and endangered species; herbicides/pesticides; air; and asbestos.

The guide also provides information on pollution prevention options that are available and

where additional help can be obtained. The primary users of the guide are intended to be

maintenance and other staff of rural electric cooperatives, with other potential users being local,

state, and federal government environmental professionals, especially compliance inspectors.

Self-Audit and Inspection Guide for Organic Coating of Metal Parts: This useful

audio-visual compliance assistance tool consists of a CD-ROM and written guidance that

lead the user through a virtual organic coating facility. The guide provides a video or animated

presentation of 17 processes in metal parts cleaning, coating, and curing. For each process

area, information is provided on: federal environmental statutes and regulatory requirements;

hot links to the full text of federal environmental statutes and regulatory requirements; selfaudit and inspection questions; sources of pollution; common causes of violations; pollution

prevention alternatives; and hot links to other Internet resources. This tool will help

environmental professionals identify activities and requirements necessary to complete an

audit of production processes, equipment, and management systems.

Lead-Based Paint Tool Kit: OECA prepared and distributed to the Regional Lead

Coordinators a Lead-Based Paint Tool Kit for Enforcement and Compliance of the Real Estate

Notification and Disclosure Rule. The package contains tools such as an Investigation Guidance

Manual, Inspection Checklist, Targeting Strategy, Enforcement Response Policy, and sample

subpoenas and complaints. The tool kit aids EPA Regional inspectors in determining
 Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs 83

Integrating Compliance Assistance and Enforcement

In March 1998, EPA Region 1 undertook a landmark action against the Rhode Island

Department of Transportation for improper handling and illegal storage of large

amounts of hazardous waste, seeking a penalty of $796,492. The violations were

discovered during a multimedia inspection of RI-DOT’s vehicle maintenance complex.

EPA inspectors found 938 containers filled with various ignitable hazardous materials,

including waste paints, solvents, and thinners, some of which were open or leaking.

The building had no fire extinguisher nearby nor a fire alarm system.

In an effort to maximize the deterrent effect of the enforcement action and provide

much-needed compliance assistance to public agencies, EPA mailed out 1,700 letters

to state, federal, and municipal officials in each of the six New England states informing

them of the new regulation and offering a compliance workshop. The response was

so positive that people had to be turned away from the workshop.

compliance with the Disclosure Rule and in taking appropriate enforcement response against

violators. Compliance with the Disclosure Rule is important in lowering the incidence of

childhood lead poisoning.

DOI Compliance Initiative

During FY98, EPA initiated a joint effort with the Department of the Interior (DOI) to increase

compliance at DOI facilities, which had increasingly become a matter of concern for both federal

agencies. EPA and DOI agreed to work jointly to enhance compliance assistance across DOI

Bureaus and facilities with the overall goal of raising the level of regulatory awareness and

compliance at all DOI facilities. This was the first time that EPA pledged to provide compliance

assistance across an entire federal agency. Senior management at each of the five major DOI

Bureaus (National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau

of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs) distributed a memorandum to Regional and

field-level personnel affirming Bureau policy regarding compliance with environmental

regulations and urging cooperation with EPA in compliance assistance activities.

One of the most innovative and far-reaching efforts in the EPA/DOI compliance initiative is an

analysis of current environmental management systems within the National Park Service (NPS),

including an analysis of support relationships between the field-level facilities and NPS and DOI

Headquarters environmental offices. This review is based on the Code of Environmental

Management Principles (CEMP) for all federal agencies developed by an interagency committee

in response to Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution

Prevention Requirements. The five primary CEMP principles address: 1) management commitment;

2) compliance assurance and pollution prevention; 3) enabling systems; 4) performance and

accountability; and 5) measurement and improvement. With an estimated 1000 facilities covered

by EPA regulations, DOI has a significant opportunity to benefit from this effort by improving

compliance throughout the various DOI Bureaus. Moreover, the DOI/EPA effort will result in

compliance assistance tools that can be used by other agencies, particularly civilian federal agencies.
84 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Region 2 Federal Facility

Environmental Management Reviews

In FY98, the EPA Region 2 Federal Facilities Program continued several pilot

Environmental Management Reviews (EMRs) — with the US Postal Service (USPS)

New York Metro Area, and the US Military Academy, West Point — in accordance

with EPA’s Interim Final Policy for Conducting EMRs at Federal Facilities. These

pilot EMRs are intended to help the Postal Service and the Military Academy evaluate,

and ultimately improve, their environmental management systems, and help EPA

test the Interim EMR Policy.

The Postal Service EMR project differs from a traditional EMR in its scope.

EMRs were originally designed to evaluate the environmental management system

(EMS) at a specific facility or site. The USPS EMR, however, is taking this concept

a step further by reviewing the EMS of an entire Postal Service Area, the New

York Metro Area, which can be compared to an EPA Region. The USPS Metro

Area consists of: 7 districts (New York City; Triboro; Long Island; Westchester;

Central NJ; Northern NJ; and the Caribbean); 1700 facilities; 18 vehicle

maintenance facilities; 30 plants (distribution operations); 14,000 vehicles; and

85,000 employees. Once the actual reviews are completed, EPA and USPS will

extend the EMR project to other USPS Areas.

Compliance Monitoring Activities

Enforcement Alerts

EPA has long recognized that publicity surrounding enforcement actions can deter

noncompliance by others. In August 1998, the Office of Regulatory Enforcement published its

first issue of Enforcement Alert to inform and educate the public and regulated community of

important environmental enforcement issues, recent trends, and significant enforcement actions.

Issues of Enforcement Alert are intended to help the regulated community anticipate and prevent

violations of federal environmental law that could otherwise lead to enforcement action. By

raising awareness and explaining how compliance pitfalls can be avoided, EPA is helping the

regulated community stay in compliance and minimize the risk of an enforcement action.

Enforcement Alert topics in 1998 focused on the illegal use of engine control “defeat devices,”

the Clean Air Act’s “General Duty Clause,” the Worker Protection Standard, and the Real

Estate Notification and Disclosure Rule.

Hazardous Waste Import/Export Activities

In calendar year 1998, the Import/Export Program tracked a record number of export notices

(807) for hazardous wastes and, more significantly, a record total of 5,350 waste streams (both

import and export). These hazardous wastes were subject to review by EPA and were allowed

6.2 
 Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs 85

to move across international borders only with the consent of the government of the receiving

country. EPA also consented to the first import notice received under the new bilateral

agreement between the United States and Costa Rica. (The notice concerned imports of waste

solder paste, lead sludge and other items.)

The Import/Export Program continued its efforts to identify and refer for appropriate enforcement

action any violations, including apparent failures to notify wastes for export prior to shipping. The

Program referred eight matters for appropriate enforcement action. A publication, “International

Trade in Hazardous Waste: An Overview,” was issued to promote compliance assistance and public

outreach. The program also developed a system of reminder and warning letters to encourage the

timely filing of annual reports by exporters; 250 reminder letters and 124 warning letters were sent.

U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program

In FY98, OECA continued to strengthen its environmental partnership with Mexico by

implementing and developing programs along the border and within border states. Both countries

contributed to sustained progress in numerous areas, including enforcement cooperation,

training, and compliance assistance. Following are examples of some progress in FY98:

E EPA worked with the border states, the Western States Project, the Southern

Environmental Enforcement Network, and Mexican environmental officials to help deliver

training for environmental officials in the United States and Mexico on pretreatment

inspections for waste water systems, field investigations and sampling techniques,

principles of environmental enforcement and compliance, hazardous waste inspections,

and pesticide handling.

E EPA officials received training from Mexican officials on Mexico’s environmental laws

and participated in a workshop in which U.S. and Mexican legal structures, laws, and

regulations were comparatively analyzed.

E EPA Region 9 hosted a U.S.-Mexico workshop on the legal challenges in transboundary

environmental enforcement. In attendance for the first time were non-governmental

organizations from the U.S. and Mexico that focus on maquiladora issues.

E EPA created a pollution prevention video geared toward border industries and provided

three hazardous waste compliance seminars to encourage pollution prevention practices

and voluntary compliance.

Inspector Training

The Office of Compliance (OC) prepared inspector training materials and conducted

numerous inspector training courses during FY98. Training was provided to over

1300 inspectors (540 federal, 667 state, 28 tribal, 83 local, 5 other). Specific training

highlights include:

E CAA Title VI Inspector’s Manual and Training: In cooperation with EPA’s

Stratospheric Protection Division, OC developed an Inspector’s Manual on stratospheric

ozone protection. The manual includes a Title VI Compliance/Enforcement Strategy,
86 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

copies of all applicable FR notices, applicability determinations, sector-specific profiles,

and an inspection checklist. Additionally, OC and SPD staff conducted Title VI training

in FY98 in three Regions.

E CAFO Inspector Training: One of the first action items under the Agency’s CAFO

implementation plan was CAFO inspector training for federal and state inspectors. OC

developed and conducted the first three of these courses, which involve classroom work

and mock inspections at cooperating private feedlot facilities. To facilitate better

understanding among EPA/state CAFO inspectors, the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(which has primary federal technical assistance responsibilities), and farmers, the courses

generally include USDA personnel and meetings with interested farmers and farm groups

in the area of the training. OC developed a CAFO inspection manual for the course.

E FIFRA Inspector Training: OC organized and led two FIFRA state inspector training

courses which brought together over 100 inspectors from states, territories, and tribes.

The courses covered pesticide product and use enforcement.

Superfund Training

During FY98, OECA’s Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) taught more than ten

courses, and trained more than 300 federal and state employees for the CERCLA enforcement

and RCRA corrective action programs. In FY98, OSRE:

E Trained 90 new Superfund attorneys from all ten EPA Regions, EPA Headquarters, the

Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture,

on their roles and responsibilities in the Superfund process.

E Trained 130 state and Regional Remedial Project Managers, and more than 120 technical

and legal staff in three Regions and Headquarters, in the use of tools available to

determine the shares of insolvent, and defunct PRPs at CERCLA sites. (The remaining

seven Regions will receive the training in FY99.)

Case Officer Training

In FY98, the Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division conducted two sessions of “Case

Development Training Course.” The sessions were conducted in Washington, D.C. in October

1997 and Seattle, Washington in May 1998. Courses included both federal and state personnel

involved in the enforcement of environmental laws regulating pesticides, toxic substances

such as lead, asbestos, PCBs, and the release of toxic chemicals. The course covers the civil

administrative case development process from the point of evidence collection to settlement

or final decision in the proceeding.

Inspector Dialogue

In FY98, OECA conducted inspector dialogues in each Region, as a means of establishing

better communications within EPA and identifying ways of enhancing the effectiveness of

inspection programs. The dialogues each lasted up to a day and a half with approximately

500 compliance inspectors, supervisors, and other staff actively participating. The dialogues
 Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs 87

responded to concerns about the increasing complexity of regulated facilities, the expanded

base of information necessary for compliance inspectors to do an effective job, and the

wider variety of tools now available to inspectors.

The dialogues led to a series of action items on improving training and communications.

OECA has focused on providing advanced training courses on petroleum refining, pulp mills,

animal feeding operations, and lead paint, and has also developed multimedia inspector guides

for metal finishing, auto service and repair, and dry cleaners. Computer-based training guides

are being developed for basic inspectors and RCRA inspections.

Other Inspection Activities

Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) Inspections and Audits: OC conducted 95

inspections and 273 data audits in FY98. Based upon these inspections, ORE has issued six

actions against three labs and three sponsors, requesting $30,000 in penalties. OC unveiled

the GLP homepage in April 1998, providing the public direct access to our standard operating

procedures for conducting inspections and to the complete library of GLP advisories that

provide applicability determinations concerning the GLP regulations.

First Multi-Media Laboratory Inspection Conducted: OC staff organized and led EPA’s

first civil multi-media laboratory inspection. The team, composed of members from OECA,

OAR, and Regions 1 and 2, looked at the laboratory performance in analyzing compliance

data in the air, water, waste, and Superfund programs.

New Policies

EPA’s MSW CERCLA Settlement Policy

Signed in February 1998, the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Policy is intended to provide a

fair, consistent, and efficient settlement methodology for resolving the liability of municipalities

that disposed of municipal solid waste at sites on the National Priorities List. The policy

reaffirms EPA’s practice of not identifying generators and transporters of MSW as potentially

responsible parties at NPL sites. However, in recognition of the strong public interest in

reducing the burden of contribution litigation, EPA will offer settlements to any MSW

generators and transporters that wish to resolve their potential Superfund liability. In addition,

the policy sets a presumptive settlement range for municipal owners and operators of codisposal sites on the NPL who desire to settle their liability. The policy potentially applies to

the estimated one quarter of NPL sites that accepted both MSW and other wastes, such as

industrial wastes, containing hazardous substances.

Memorandum on CERCLA Section 106

In addition to EPA and the Coast Guard, other federal agencies have significant responsibilities

and substantial programs for responding, or requiring others to respond, to releases and

threatened releases of hazardous substances. Under Section 106 of CERCLA, these Federal

6.3 
88 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Resource Managers have the authority to issue administrative orders or seek judicial relief

with respect to a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance affecting either natural

resources under their trusteeship, or a vessel or facility subject to their control. This

Memorandum of Understanding among EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Departments of

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Justice, is intended to ensure that the

signatories exercise their authority in a cooperative and integrated fashion, and in a manner

that ensures interagency coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Enforcement Y2K Policy

Although EPA has encouraged companies to test their computers for Y2K problems, the testing

process could result in environmental violations. OECA issued an enforcement policy in late

1998 to alleviate this concern, and also to encourage the prompt testing of computer-related

equipment to ensure that environmental compliance is not impaired by computer glitches

related to the year 2000. EPA intends to waive civil penalties and recommend against criminal

prosecution for any environmental violations caused during specific tests that are designed to

identify and eliminate Y2K-related malfunctions. This policy is limited to testing-related

violations disclosed to EPA by February 1, 2000, that also meet nine specified criteria.

Administrative Cashout Settlements, CERCLA Section 122(h)

EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly issued the CERCLA Section 122(h) guidance,

and five model settlement documents. The guidance announces a new type of expedited

“cashout” settlement for “peripheral parties.” Peripheral parties are those parties who, although

not technically de minimis or de micromis are not the focus of CERCLA enforcement activities.

They include ability to pay parties, parties for whom unresolved CERCLA liability is an “extreme

burden,” and other parties as defined on a case-by-case basis. For qualifying peripheral parties,

a cashout settlement that resolves the settlor’s liability at the site is possible under the terms

outlined in the guidance. The guidance and model agreements offer the possibility of increasing

the efficacy and consistency of CERCLA administrative settlements nationally.

Guidance for Implementing Superfund

Reform Initiative 9a: Risk Sharing

Estimates of the eventual cost of cleaning up the nation’s hazardous waste sites highlight the

need to support the development of more cost-effective cleanup technologies. Potentially

responsible parties are sometimes reluctant to implement new technologies due to concerns

about having to “pay twice” if the innovative approach fails to achieve the required levels of

cleanup. As part of the Superfund Reform Initiatives, EPA’s guidance identifies a program

designed to share the risk of using selected innovative technologies. The purposes of this

initiative are: 1) to encourage the demonstration and use of innovative technologies with the

potential to lower costs and/or improve performance at a particular site and at other Superfund

sites, and to document these early applications to assist future selection of response actions;

2) to support developers of promising technologies, especially small businesses, by enhancing

contracting opportunities with PRPs; and 3) to encourage PRPs to assume a more active role

in the development of new technologies for site remediation.
 Highlights: Compliance Assistance Programs 89

APPENDIX

Historical Enforcement Data
90 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Exhibit A-1: National Totals, FY96-FY98 Enforcement Activity

EPA Regional Inspections

FY96 FY97 FY98

CAA Stationary 2,064 2,844 2,722

CAA Mobile Source 107 104 64

Asbestos 635 653 806

NPDES Minors 499 784 1,116

NPDES Majors 1,046 918 1,019

CWA 311 2,267 1,666 1,344

CWA 404 342 529 968

EPCRA 313 571 473 584

EPRA non-313 689 438 804

FIFRA 116 207 264

RCRA 1,829 2,165 2,727

UST 579 1,421 1,253

SDWA 6,568 5,490 7,983

TSCA 898 1,014 1,537

TOTAL 18,210 18,706 23,237

SOURCE: program databases/IDEA, manual reports. There were also 96 GLP inspections and 277 data audits by HQ (OC/AED/LDIB).

FY98 total includes 46 other inspections.

EPA Administrative Compliance Orders Issued

FY96 FY97 FY98

CAA 154 209 277

CERCLA 197 279 233

CWA 504 815 849

EPCRA 2 7 4

FIFRA 10 7 18

RCRA 35 44 49

SDWA 284 453 287

TSCA 0 4 4

TOTAL 1,186 1,818 1,721

In addition, there were 66 HQ CAA Mobile Source NOVs w/ penalties. SOURCE: Docket
 Appendix 91

EPA Field Citations

FY96 FY97 FY98

UST 115 240 194

EPA Administrative Penalty Settlements

FY96 FY97 FY98

CAA 103 139 127

CERCLA 39 33 3

CWA 169 205 324

EPCRA 184 366 259

FIFRA 107 161 173

RCRA 119 154 149

SDWA 76 44 43

TSCA 207 248 167

TOTAL 1,004 1,350 1,245

EPA Administrative Penalty Order Complaints

FY96 FY97 FY98

CAA 88 126 156

CERCLA 37 26 1

CWA 153 329 389

EPCRA 196 293 233

FIFRA 73 174 187

RCRA 88 139 155

SDWA 57 45 65

TSCA 178 181 214

TOTAL 870 1,313 1,400

Starting FY98-CERCLA 103 actions included under EPCRA. SOURCE: Docket

SOURCE: Docket

SOURCE: Docket
92 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

EPA Civil Judicial Settlements

FY96 FY97 FY98

CAA 62 45 46

CERCLA 121 159 148

CWA 60 35 33

EPCRA 10 3 3

FIFRA 5 2 4

RCRA 22 18 14

SDWA 7 9 2

TSCA 5 3 3

TOTAL 292 274 253

SOURCE: Docket

New EPA Civil Referrals to DOJ

FY96 FY97 FY98

CAA 70 89 113

CERCLA 127 154 138

CWA 48 98 81

EPCRA 9 11 11

FIFRA 3 4 4

RCRA 19 49 49

SDWA 17 13 15

TSCA 2 8 0

TOTAL 295 426 411

SOURCE: Docket
 Appendix 93

Exhibit A-2: Dollar Value of FY98 EPA Enforcement Actions by Statute

Criminal Civil Judicial Administrative $ Value of $ Value of

Penalties Penalties Penalties Injunctive SEPs

Assessed Assessed Assessed Relief

CAA $49,019,653 $27,758,838 $3,407,644 $305,659,541 $26,262,598

CERCLA $509,400 $1,032,573 $446,450 $731,507,566 $525,100

CWA $36,171,595 $18,582,253 $4,822,104 $859,639,752 $41,982,830

EPCRA $0 $524,084 $4,640,551 $4,822,104 $26,262,598

FIFRA $2,973,582 $24,400 $3,877,190 $48,100 $393,872

RCRA $2,838,381 $15,465,383 $5,540,874 $33,457,366 $8,663,203

SDWA $5,100 $118,700 $513,455 $38,162,507 $43,240

TSCA $30,000 $25,500 $3,748,494 $3,462,117 $3,720,065

Title 18/MPRSA $1,250,000 $0 $1,267,000 $0 $0

TOTAL $92,797,711 $63,531,731 $28,263,762 $1,976,759, 053 $107,853,506

Statute FY75 FY76 FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86

CAA 0 210 297 129 404 86 112 21 41 141 122 143

CWA/SDWA 738 915 1,128 730 506 569 562 329 781 1,644 1,031 990

RCRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 237 436 554 327 235

CERCLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 160 139

FIFRA 1,614 2,488 1,219 762 253 176 154 176 296 272 236 338

TSCA 0 0 0 1 22 70 120 101 294 376 733 781

EPCRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 2,352 3,613 2,644 1,622 1,185 901 1,107 864 1,848 3,124 2,609 2,626

Statute FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98

CAA 191 224 336 249 214 354 279 435 232 242 391 499

CWA/ SDWA 1,214 1,345 2,146 1,780 2,177 1,977 2,216 1,841 1,774 998 1,642 1,590

RCRA 243 309 453 366 364 291 282 115 92 238 423 398

CERCLA 135 224 220 270 269 245 260 264 280 234 305 234

FIFRA 360 376 443 402 300 311 233 249 160 83 181 205

TSCA 1,051 607 538 531 422 355 319 333 187 178 185 218

EPCRA 0 0 0 206 179 134 219 307 244 198 300 237

Totals 3,194 3,085 4,136 3,804 3,925 3,667 3,808 3,544 2,969 2,171 3,427 3,381

Exhibit A-3: EPA Administrative Actions Initiated by Statute, FY75-FY98
94 FY98 OECA Accomplishments Report

Statute FY75 FY76 FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86

CAA 5 15 50 123 149 100 66 36 69 82 116 115

CWA 20 67 93 137 81 56 37 45 56 95 93 119

CERCLA 0 0 0 2 5 10 2 20 28 41 35 41

RCRA 0 0 0 0 4 43 12 9 5 19 13 43

TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 7 14 19 24

Totals 25 82 143 262 242 210 118 112 165 251 276 342

Statute FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98

CAA 122 86 92 102 86 92 80 141 37 70 89 113

CWA/SDWA 92 123 94 87 94 77 84 97 54 65 111 96

CERCLA 54 114 153 157 164 137 129 144 102 127 154 138

RCRA 23 29 16 18 34 40 30 35 14 19 49 49

TSCA/ FIFRA/EPCRA 13 20 9 11 15 15 15 13 7 14 23 15

Totals 304 372 364 375 393 361 338 430 214 295 426 411

Exhibit A-5: EPA Civil Referrals to the Department of Justice, FY75-FY98

Action FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98

Referral to DOJ 31 40 41 41 59 60 65 83 107 140 220 256 262 228 266

Defendants Charged 36 40 98 66 97 95 100 104 150 161 250 245 221 322 350

Months sentenced 6 78 279 456 278 325 745 963 1,135 892 1,188 888 1,116 2,351 2,075

Exhibit A-4: EPA Criminal Enforcement Actions, FY84-FY98
 Appendix 95

Statute FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98

FIFRA 5,078 6,698 4,145 3,245 3,095 4,172 3,528 2,486 2,333 1,101 1,163

SDWA/ CWA 2,887 3,100 3,298 3,180 2,748 3,960 4,063 4,231 4,598 7,051 6,960

CAA 655 1,139 1,312 1,687 1,411 2,005 2,050 1,833 1,534 1,919 2,410

RCRA 743 1,189 1,350 1,495 1,389 1,744 1,609 1,235 841 444 727

Totals 9,363 12,126 10,105 9,607 8,643 11,881 11,250 9,785 9,306 10,515 11,260

Statute FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98

SDWA/ CWA 687 489 429 297 204 383 162 169 169 151 146

CAA 171 96 156 190 258 174 325 124 198 164 146

RCRA 46 129 64 57 112 133 91 104 66 64 60

Totals 904 714 649 544 574 690 578 397 433 379 352

Exhibit A-6: State Environmental Agencies Administrative Actions

and Judicial Referrals, FY88-FY98

Judicial Referrals

Cases 

Initiated

Referrals Defendants

Charged

Sentences 

(Years)

Fines 

($ millions)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

FY 96 FY 97 FY 98

548 551

636

278 266

221

322

350

93

196

173

77

169

93

262

Exhibit A-7: EPA Criminal Enforcement: Major Outputs, FY96-FY98

Administrative Actions