Source: http://wallbulling.com/govenvironenforcement.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:51:00+00:00

Document:
The EPA conducts inspections to determine compliance status with applicable laws, regulations, permits, and consent decrees, identify the need for remedial measures and enforcement actions, correct the causes of violations, evaluate a facility's production and control of pollution, self-monitoring capability, recordkeeping practices, waste minimization and pollution prevention programs and obtain samples.
Most environmental statutes grant the EPA the right to inspect the premises and the records of persons whose activities bring them within the scope of the agency's jurisdiction. See Clean Air Act ("CAA") § 114(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7414; Clean Water Act ("CWA") § 308(a)(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1318(a)(4)(B); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") §§ 3007(a), 9005(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6927(a), 6991d(a). Inspections must be conducted promptly and at reasonable times. The EPA is generally not required to give advance notice of the inspection. Under the CWA and the CAA, the EPA is not required to provide sample splits, a receipt for the samples or a return of the analytical results. Under RCRA, the EPA is required to provide sample splits, if requested, to receipt for its samples, and to promptly disclose the analytical results. The EPA inspector is required to present his credentials prior to the inspection except for one conducted pursuant to RCRA.
In Marshall v. Barlow's, 436 U.S. 307 (1978), the Court held that an OSHA inspector was not entitled to enter the non-public portions of a work site without either the owner's consent or a warrant. There the inspection did not fall within the exception to the warrant requirement for searches of pervasively regulated industries such as liquor, e.g., Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 (1970), or firearms, e.g., United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972). See also New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (vehicle dismantling business). The Court stated that an administrative warrant could issue upon probable cause to suspect a violation or pursuant to a routine policy for selecting facilities to be inspected. The EPA then issued a policy that sanctions will not be imposed upon owners who insist on a warrant before allowing inspections. EPA Memorandum on Inspection Procedures, April 11, 1979. In general, the EPA will obtain a warrant even before entry has been refused when surprise is crucial to the inspection or when a company's prior conduct make it likely that warrantless entry will be refused.
Inspections are conducted as a series of tasks which usually include the formation of an inspection team and identification of objectives, a background information review, inspection plan preparation, an on-site field inspection, report preparation and enforcement case support. During the first phase, the inspectors will identify applicable laws, determine the evidence to be obtained, and identify the level of technical expertise required to evaluate the "target". The background information review will include a review of applicable current and historic data, legal and technical information and, in some cases, a recognizance inspection of the facility. The inspection plan will include the background information, objectives, tasks and methods, quality assurance and quality control procedures, document control and chain of custody procedures, safety requirements and site safety plans and a schedule of investigation activities. After the inspection, a report will include the findings, supporting information, and recommendations. The report may be the basis for an enforcement action. The focus of this section is on the actual conduct of the inspection.
The following information is based upon the EPA's Multi-Media Investigation Manual (Rev. 1992).
If entry is denied, consent later withdrawn, or the inspection unreasonably limited, the team leader will attempt to gain entry by explaining his authority to conduct the investigation and verifying that the facility representative understands this authority. If the limitation persists, the team leader will attempt to record the name, title and phone number of the person denying entry and the circumstances of the denial. Inspectors are allowed to sign a visitor's log but not a liability waiver.
g. Arrange for document availability and copying. Inspectors will either come with their own copier or attempt to use the facility's copier. Refusal to provide documents is tantamount to a denial of entry. However, the company is NOT required to copy documents for the government even if it offers payment.
Responding to an EPA inspection requires planning. Key elements of planning include briefing employees on how to handle the inspection, providing environmental information and documents and exhibiting the proper attitude. Here are some tips from Bolstridge, "Surviving an EPA Inspection; Environmental Management," 56 Occupational Hazards 37 (Dec. 1994).
b. Make sure that the inspector's questions are understood.
c. When not sure of an answer say "I'll find out;" don't guess.
A business should take a different attitude toward the execution of a search warrant. Unlike inspections, the company should not worry about making a good impression upon the FBI or EPA agents demanding to search the facility. They believe that the company has committed a crime and are violating its privacy. The company should immediately contact counsel. Aufhauser, "Searches - What Do You Do When They Don't Bother to Knock?" 24 SONREEL News 4 (Jan./Feb. 1993).
Where the search warrant describes certain documents, the company should direct the agents to, and supervise the search for, those records. This will prevent the agents from being able to peruse all the company's records. Otherwise, offer no assistance in the search.
Administrative proceedings are brought before an administrative law judge, sometimes referred to as a presiding officer, who has authority similar to that of a Federal District Court judge in the conduct of trials. 40 C.F.R. § 22.03. They may not preside over a matter in which they have a financial interest or "any relationship with a party or with the subject matter which would make it inappropriate for them to act." 40 C.F.R. § 22.04(d). After commencement of the proceeding, they may have no ex parte discussions on the merits of the proceeding with any EPA staff member who performs a prosecutorial or investigative function in such proceeding or a related proceeding. 40 C.F.R. § 22.08. A party has the right at any time to make a motion to disqualify the presiding officer for these reasons. Id.
An administrative proceeding to assess a penalty is commenced by filing a complaint with the Regional Hearing Clerk and serving it, along with a copy of the Rules of Practice, upon the respondent, either personally, or by certified mail, return receipt requested. 40 C.F.R. § 22.13. See also 40 C.F.R. § 22.37 (administrative complaint based on continuous RCRA hazardous waste violations may not be filed until 30 days after written notice to the violator). The complaint must include (1) a statement reciting the sections of the environmental act authorizing the issuance of the complaint, (2) specific reference to each provision of the act and implementing regulations which respondent is alleged to have violated, (3) a concise statement of the factual basis for alleging the violation, (4) the amount of the proposed civil penalty, (5) the reasoning behind the proposed penalty and (6) notice of respondent's right to request a hearing. 40 C.F.R. § 22.14. The answer is due twenty days after service and should deny, admit or explain each of the allegations in the complaint (40 C.F.R. § 22.15), state any defense and request a hearing. The failure to admit, deny or explain a allegation in the complaint constitutes an admission. 40 C.F.R. § 22.15(d). Administrative pleadings are liberally construed and easily amended. Yaffe Iron & Metal Co. v. E.P.A., 774 f.2d 1008, 1012 (10th Cir. 1985).
An agency's interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations. North American Fund Management Corp. v. F.D.I.C., 991 F.2d 873, 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993). However, litigating positions forwarded by agency counsel are not entitled to deference when they are merely post hoc rationalizations attempting to explain ambiguities in the regulations. Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 156 (1991). While an agency is permitted to adopt an interpretation of a regulation for the first time in an adjudicatory proceeding, due process requires that those subject to the penalties must have fair warning of what conduct is prohibited. CWM Chemical Services, Inc., 1995 TSCA LEXIS 10 (EPA, May 15, 1995).
The federal statute of limitation provides that a proceeding for enforcement of a civil penalty must be commenced within five years from when the claim accrued. 28 U.S.C. § 2462. This statute applies to administrative penalties sought by the EPA unless brought pursuant to a statute that contains a specific limitations period. 3M Company v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The limitation commences from the date of the violation, not the date of EPA's discovery of the violation. Id.
The EPA may bring an enforcement action for violation of RCRA regulations even where the violation occurs in a state with an approval program. 42 U.S.C. § 6928(2). However, the EPA may not enforce a state's regulation when its own regulation has been invalidated. See Hardin County, 1994 RCRA LEXIS 36 (EPA, Apr. 12, 1994) (EPA may not enforce state hazardous waste mixture rule when its own has been invalidated).
The EPA must give notice to a state with an approved RCRA program before bringing its own RCRA enforcement proceeding. 42 U.S.C. § 6928(2). This notice need not be in writing, Beaumont Co., 1994 RCRA LEXIS 51 (EPA, Oct. 20, 1994) and need not be pled in the administrative complaint. Gordon Redd Lumber Co., 1994 RCRA LEXIS 29 (EPA, June 6, 1994). While the notice to the state need not detail every violation, it should specify who is being charged with a violation, where the violations occurred and the type of activities that constituted the violation. Id. Failure to give such notice could result in dismissal of the EPA's complaint.
"Overfiling" is the EPA's practice of sometimes bringing its own enforcement proceeding when it considers a state proceeding inadequate. However, any RCRA enforcement proceeding commenced by a state with an authorized RCRA program will have the same force and effect as an action by the EPA. 42 U.S.C. § 6526(d); Beaumont Co., 1994 RCRA LEXIS 51 (EPA, Oct. 20, 1994). Since collateral estoppel and res judicata apply to administrative agencies, United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966), the EPA may be barred from bringing an enforcement proceeding once a state proceeding based on the same events has been concluded. Beaumont Co., 1994 RCRA LEXIS 51 (Oct. 20, 1994). But see BKK Corp., RCRA Appeal No. 84-5 (May 10, 1985) (prior state enforcement action no bar to EPA enforcement action). Collateral estoppel and res judicata will only be applicable to the extent of the state's authorization to administer the RCRA progress. See Cypress Aviation, Inc., 1994 RCRA LEXIS 43 (EPA, Sept. 24, 1994) (collateral estoppel not applicable to HSWA violation where state's authorization does not include HSWA).
The Paperwork Reduction Act requires that the EPA must in certain circumstances obtain approval from the Federal Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") prior to making an information collection request to ten or more people 44 U.S.C. 3506(b)(6); 44 U.S.C. § 3507. The PRA governs regulatory, not statutory, requirements to provide information. Lackland Training Annex San Antonio, Texas, 1995 CWA LEXIS 2 (EPA, May 12, 1995). The EPA must include an OMB control number on any information request to ten or more people, or if the request is to less than ten, a disclaimer that one is needed. Information request is broadly defined to include a regulation or permit. 44 U.S.C. § 3502(11); TRW, Inc., 1995 RCRA LEXIS 8 (EPA, Apr. 20, 1995). Failure to include such number or the disclaimer will preclude an enforcement action for failing to comply with the request. 44 U.S.C. § 3512. TRW, Inc., supra (failure to include OMB number or disclaimer on permit approval which contained reporting requirement not explicitly contained in regulation which had OMB number resulted in dismissal of enforcement proceeding for failure to comply with request). However, a PRA violation will not prevent the EPA from recovering a penalty to conduct, as opposed to report, a violation. Id.
Additional discovery is obtained by motion and order only upon a showing that it will not unreasonably delay the proceedings and the information sought has significant probative value and is not otherwise obtainable. 40 C.F.R. § 22.19(f)(1). See E.I. duPont de Nemoursand Co., 1995 FIFRA LEXIS 13 (EPA, June 28, 1995) (Federal Rule of Evidence 401 regarding relevant evidence used to interpret "significant probative value"). Depositions may be taken only upon a showing of good cause and a finding that the information sought either cannot be obtained by alternative methods or the testimony may not otherwise be available at the hearing. 40 C.F.R. § 22.19(f)(2).
A respondent may receive an award for attorney's fees and expenses when it prevails unless the EPA's position was substantially justified. 40 C.F.R. Pt. 17. However, the request for attorneys' fees must be made in an application made within thirty days of the voluntary dismissal or final disposition. See Del Val Ink & Color, Inc., 1994 RCRA LEXIS 49 (EPA, Nov. 3, 1994) (application for attorneys' fees untimely when made after 45-day appeal delay had run because EPA's voluntary dismissal with prejudice was final, unappealable disposition).
Parties have a right to appeal to the environmental appeals board from a default order, an accelerated decision or decision to dismiss or an initial decision on all issues rendered after an evidentiary hearing. 40 C.F.R. § 22.30. The presiding officer's decision will become final within 45 days after its service unless an appeal is taken to the environmental appeals board or the board elects sua sponte to review it. 40 C.F.R. § 22.27(c).
The EPA determined that to deter violations the penalty must place the violator in a worse position than those who have complied in a timely fashion. The EPA's policy is that penalties should, at a minimum, remove any significant economic benefits resulting from noncompliance. Thus, the penalty will have a "benefit component".
There may be three economic benefits from violations: delayed costs, avoided costs, and a competitive advantage. The EPA uses the BEN computer model to determine the amount of delayed or avoided costs. The EPA's policy is not to settle an enforcement proceeding for less than the benefit amount unless it is insignificant, there are compelling public concerns (risk of adverse precedent, plant closing of a large employer, etc.) or where it is highly unlikely that the EPA will be able to recover this amount in litigation.
Before the use of BEN, the EPA's rule of thumb used to be that the economic benefit of delayed compliance was 5% per year of the delayed one-time capital cost for the period from the date the violation began until the date compliance was achieved.
The EPA's policy is to include in the penalty an amount equal to the net profits made from the improper transactions.
To promote the equitable treatment of the regulated community, the EPA adjusts the penalty by considering factors that distinguish cases, such as the degree of willfulness and/or negligence, the degree of cooperation, the history of noncompliance and the ability to pay. Normally, the adjustments will apply only to the gravity component. The EPA's general policy is that violators bear the burden of justifying mitigation adjustments. But see 33 U.S.C. § 1319(9)(3) (EPA required to consider penalty adjustment factors under Clean Water Act); 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e) (EPA required to consider penalty adjustment factors under Clean Air Act).
d. The violator's response to previous violations.
The EPA will generally not request penalties that are clearly beyond the means of the violator except in limited circumstances. The EPA will require financial information before it reduces the penalty based on this factor. The EPA will explore a delayed payment schedule and joining the violator's individual owners before reducing the penalty.
The EPA will in some circumstances accept various environmentally beneficial expenditures in settlement of a case. For instance, the EPA might reduce a penalty for a wetlands violation if the violator restores a wetland. The EPA will consider such a project where the project is not required by law, the project benefits primarily the public as opposed to the violator and the violator would not normally perform such a project as part of its normal business. The EPA limits the penalty reduction to no more than the violator's after tax cost of the project.
In administrative proceedings, the EPA will perform this calculation twice, once to determine the amount to seek in the complaint and another to document the process by which it arrived at a settlement amount. In determining the amount to seek in the administrative complaint, the EPA will resolve any doubts against the violator. RCRA requires the EPA to consider a violator's good faith efforts to comply. RCRA § 3008. See Mayline Co., 1994 RCRA LEXIS 53 (EPA, Dec. 12, 1994) (while EPA's failure to consider good faith is no basis for dismissing complaint, good faith adjustment should not be used by EPA as bargaining chip; EPA must make adjustment in penalty even if evidence of good faith discovered after proceedings commenced). However, it will ordinarily not make any other downward adjustments in arriving at the amount to seek in the complaint.
The EPA's policy is to calculate a penalty for each separate violation that results from an independent act and is substantially distinguishable from the other charges in the complaint. A charge is independent and distinguishable when it requires an element of proof not needed by the others. Different violations of the same sections can lead to separate penalties. For instance, a violation of the same requirement in different locations will lead to separate penalties.
The EPA's policy is to enhance the penalty by a factor to account for the number of days it can document that the violation persisted. Multi-day penalties are mandatory for days 2-180 of all violations with the following gravity based designations: major-major, major-moderate, moderate-major. Multi-day penalties are presumed appropriate for days 2-180 of violations with the following gravity based designations: major-minor, moderate-moderate, minor-major. Multi-day penalties are discretionary for all days of all violations with the following gravity-based designations: moderate-minor, minor-moderate, minor-minor. Multi-day penalties for days 181+ are discretionary.
(i) Impact on Human Health; or 10 - Stat. Max.
-- Penalty may be increased by up to 150 percent based upon the past and present recalcitrance of the defendant.
-- Penalty may be adjusted downward to represent the defendant's ability to pay.
-- Penalty may be adjusted downward to reflect the maximum amount which the court might assess if the case proceeds to trial.
The Clean Water Act ("CWA") provides for misdemeanor penalties of up to one year of imprisonment and a $25,000 fine for negligent violations of permit conditions or statutes and regulations regarding point source discharges, effluent limitations, water quality standards, technology requirements, recordkeeping, discharge of oil or hazardous substances, aquaculture and sewerage sludge. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(c)(1). A knowing violation of these statutes, regulations or permit conditions is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 3 years and a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2). The crime of knowing endangerment is a knowing violation where the violator knowingly placing another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and carries a penalty of imprisonment for not more than 15 years and a fine of not more than $250,000. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(3). Anyone who knowingly makes a false material statement in any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained under the CWA is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of up to $10,000. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(4). For subsequent convictions under these sections, the maximum penalty is doubled.
A knowing violation of any Clean Air Act ("CAA") provision or regulation relating to an air quality implementation plan, New Source Performance Standards, hazardous air pollutants, inspections, solid waste combustion, preconstruction requirements, emergency orders, acid rain control, ozone control or the prevention of significant deterioration is punishable by imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1). Any person who knowingly makes any false material statement or omission in, or fails to file or maintain any document required under the CAA, or who tampers with monitoring equipment, may be imprisoned for up to two years or fined up to $250,000. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(2). Negligent endangerment occurs when a person negligently releases a hazardous air pollutant and thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and a fine of up to $100,000. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(4). Knowing endangerment carries a penalty of up to fifteen years imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(5). The knowing failure to pay a fee owed to the United States under title I, III, IV or V of the CAA is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and a fine of up to $250,000. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(3). These maximum penalties are doubled for subsequent convictions.
Environmental crimes are felonies when they are committed knowingly. Thus, the meaning of the word "knowingly" is critical in the prosecution of environmental crimes. The circuits have split on what knowledge is required for a "knowing" RCRA conviction.
In United States v. Baytank (Houston), Inc., 934 F.2d 599 (5th Cir.1991), the Fifth Circuit held that "knowingly" in RCRA means that the defendant knows (a) what he is doing (e.g., storing, treating, disposing, etc.), (b) what substance is being managed, (c) the substance has the potential to harm people or the environment and (d) he has no permit. However, the court held that the defendant need not know that there is a regulation that characterizes the substance as hazardous. See also United States v. Johnson & Towers, 741 F.2d 662, 664 (3d Cir. 1984) (government must prove that defendants knew hazardous waste being treated, stored or disposed without permit and that permit required). But see United States v. Wagner, 29 F.3d (7th Cir. 1994) (government not required to prove defendant knew RCRA permit required for hazardous waste storage); United States v. Hoflin, 880 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1143 (1990) (knowledge of permit requirement or lack of permit not an element of the offense; government need only prove defendant knew material was hazardous); United States v. Hayes International Corp., 786 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1986) (knowledge of need for permit not an element of the offense). This knowledge can be established by circumstantial evidence, including a defendant's job responsibilities that would ordinarily make him aware of permit requirements.
At one time, the government contended that proof of a defendant's position of responsibility could substitute for proof of knowledge. In United States v. MacDonald & Watson Waste Oil Co., 933 F.2d 35 (1st Cir. 1991), the court reversed the RCRA conviction because the trial court charged the jury that the government could satisfy its burden of proving knowledge merely by showing that the defendant was a responsible corporate officer. The court held that while a defendant's responsibilities could be used to infer knowledge, proof of responsibilities was not tantamount to knowledge in the absence of such an inference. The Department of Justice has informally stated that it will not prosecute solely based on the responsible corporate officer doctrine. In United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, No. 94-6683, 1994 WL 649416 (U.S. Jan. 23, 1995), the court upheld a CWA conviction for the discharge of a non-toxic pollutant slightly in excess of the NPDES permit's limit. The court held that the government need only prove that defendants knew they were discharging materials, not that their acts violated the permit or the Clean Water Act. The court held that the mistaken but good faith belief that discharges were allowed under the NPDES permit was not a defense. Thus, under this decision it is not necessary for the government to prove that the defendant knew that the discharges being made were not in conformance with the law or the permit.
Federal criminal sentences are determined from a sentencing matrix, the vertical axis being an offense level depending upon the characteristics of the offense and the horizontal axis being criminal history, based upon the defendant's prior convictions. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5A. Part Q of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines establishes the offense levels for environmental crimes. The most serious environmental crimes are (1) knowing endangerment from mishandling toxic or hazardous substances and (2) mishandling of toxic or hazardous substances or falsification of related recordkeeping. U.S.S.G. §§ 2Q1.1, 2Q1.2.
The EPA publishes a list of violating facilities in the Federal Register. 40 C.F.R. § 15. Additionally, the Government Services Administration includes this list in a consolidated "List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Nonprocurement Programs" which is disseminated to all federal agencies. See also 48 C.F.R. § 52.209-5 (offeror for government contract in excess of $25,000 must certify that it is not suspended, debarred or ineligible); 48 C.F.R. § 52.209-6 (prohibition applies to subcontractors). Listing bars the involved facility from being awarded any contract, from having an existing contract renewed or from receiving federal grants, loans or loan guarantees.
The listing continues until the EPA certifies that the condition giving rise to the conviction has been corrected. 33 U.S.C. § 1368; 40 C.F.R § 15.20. The facility will be listed for some period of time even if the violation has been corrected at the time of conviction. To get off the list, either the facility's owner or the EPA official who originally did the listing must request removal. 40 C.F.R. § 15.22(a). See also 40 C.F.R. § 15.24 (owner or operator may request removal hearing upon EPA's refusal to delist).
The information will be deemed confidential if (a) the business has asserted a confidentiality claim which is not expired by its terms, waived or withdrawn; (b) the business has shown that it has taken reasonable measures, and intends to continue to take such measures, to protect the confidentiality of the information; (c) the information is not reasonably obtainable without the business' consent; (d) no statute specifically requires disclosure of the information; and (e) either (1) the business has satisfactorily shown that disclosure is likely to cause substantial harm to the business' competitive position, or (2) the information is voluntarily submitted and its disclosure would impair the government's ability to obtain the necessary information in the future. 40 C.F.R. § 2.208. Generally, emissions and effluent data are not subject to confidential treatment.
7. Where evidence of actual or potential harm to human health exists, a factor from "10" to a value which results in the statutory maximum penalty should be assessed. Where the identified impact relates only to the aquatic environment, a factor from "1" to "10" should be used.
9. The Duration of Noncompliance factor allows the Region to increase the monthly gravity component for continuing, long-term violations of the same parameter(s) or requirement(s). Generally, a "long-term" violation is one which continues for three or more consecutive months.
10. A factor ranging from "0" (good compliance record, cooperation in remedying the violation) to 150 percent of the total of the Economic Benefit and Gravity Component may be added based upon the history of recalcitrance exhibited by the violator.

References: § 114
 § 7414
 § 308
 § 1318
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2462
 v. 
 § 6928
 § 6928
 § 6526
 v. 
 § 3507
 § 3502
 § 3512
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 1319
 § 7413
 § 3008
 § 1319
 § 1319
 § 1319
 § 7413
 § 7413
 § 7413
 § 7413
 § 7413
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5
 § 15
 § 52
 § 52
 § 1368
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 2