Source: http://www.epa.gov/region05/enforcement/cases/cases200909.html
Timestamp: 2014-08-21 16:07:49
Document Index: 307031876

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 52', 'art 49', '§ 11023', '§ 11023', 'art 372', 'art 264', 'art 503']

September 2009 Significant Cases | Region 5 Enforcement and Compliance | US EPA
September 2009 Significant Cases
7th Circuit Upholds U.S. EPA's Redesignation of Forest County Potawatomi Community's Reservation Lands to Class I under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program - Dismisses State Petition for Lack of Standing
On September 9, the 7th Circuit (Kane, Wood and Williams) issued a decision upholding EPA's redesignation to Class I status approximately 11,000 acres of reservation lands held by the Forest County Potawatomi (FCP) Community. The Court dismissed Michigan's petition for review on the grounds that the State had failed to demonstrate standing. The Tribe applied for Class I status in February 1995, under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 164, which allows states and tribes to seek Class I status for their lands under the CAA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program. The Administrator signed the Final FCP Class I redesignation package on April 18, 2008. This decision consisted of three elements: 1) U.S. EPA's final decision to grant the Tribe's request for Class I status of certain reservation lands, which includes a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to codify the Class I area at Part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations and U.S. EPA's response to comments received during two public comment periods held during the now 13-year span of the rulemaking process; 2) A notice acknowledging U.S. EPA's recognition of a 1998 agreement reached between the Tribe and the State of Wisconsin which resolved a dispute between the parties initiated in 1995 under Section 164(e) of the CAA; and 3) the Administrator's final decision resolving, in the Tribe's favor, a similar dispute invoked by the State of Michigan under Section 164(e) which the Tribe and State were unable to resolve despite more than a decade of U.S. EPA-sponsored and professionally mediated dispute resolution. Michigan's petition seeks judicial review of all three elements of the redesignation decision.
Michigan's main merits arguments turned not on any legal issues involving the redesignation itself (e.g. process followed by Tribe, adequacy of redesignation application, U.S. EPA's review of application), but rather focused on two main issues: (1) U.S. EPA erred in codifying the redesignated area in the PSD FIP for Indian country in Wisconsin (40 CFR 52.2581(f)) because the CAA and Tribal Authority Rule (40 CFR Part 49) preclude U.S. EPA's use of a FIP where a Tribe does not have a pre-existing Tribal Implementation Plan or TIP) and (2) Even if a FIP were an appropriate tool for codifying a class I area, the use of a FIP is so confusing and complicated that U.S. EPA cannot be said to be "directly administering" its regulations as required by the CAA.
The Court held that the State had failed to demonstrate that it had standing because Michigan had not shown a connection between its alleged procedural complaint (that EPA used a FIP rather than a TIP) and any cognizable injury to the State. The Court found unpersuasive the State's argument that a TIP would have included anything different from what was included in EPA's FIP. Additionally, the Court found unpersuasive the State's list of alleged injuries flowing from the redesignation, which included simply adhering to the national federal regulatory requirements for Class I areas (found at 40 CFR 52.21), the potential economic impact of Class I redesignation on potential future emission sources which might not locate in Michigan, and the State's potential "confusion" about its regulatory obligations to the new Class I area. In response to the State's confusion over the Class I manager associated with the newly redesignated area, the Court offered its view that EPA would perform the federal land manager functions until such time as the Tribe would apply for approval of a TIP, pursuant to which EPA could delegate land manager functions. While the Court noted that EPA has not promulgated guidance on the implementation of non-federal class I areas, the Court did not agree with the State's arguments that such guidance was a prerequisite to EPA's appropriate redesignation of the Tribe's reservation lands. The Court concluded its decision with these words:
The Community has waited over fifteen years for finality on the redesignation of its lands. Michigan's challenge to the EPA's redesignation action raises some important issues about the PSD program's regulatory structure, but Michigan has failed to allege a cognizable injury in fact and thus lacks standing to pursue this case. As a result, the Community need not wait any longer. Contacts: Barbara Wester, Office of Regional Counsel, 312-353-8514; David Coursen, Office of General Counsel, 201-664-0781; Constantine Blathras, 312-886-0671 and Benjamin Giwojna, 312-886-0247, Air & Radiation Division; Perry Rosen, Department of Justice, 202-353-7792
EPA enters into a settlement with Kenall Manufacturing Company doing business as Subtronics Assembly Company
On September 10, 2009 the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 (EPA) entered into a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) to resolve two alleged violations of Sections 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 11023, by the Kenall Manufacturing Company, doing business as, the Subtronics Assembly Company, Gurnee, Illinois (Respondent). EPA filed a Complaint in this matter on June 29, 2009 alleging that during calendar years 2003 and 2006, the Respondent processed lead at its Gurnee, Illinois facility in quantities exceeding the threshold for reporting under Section 313(f) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11023(f), and that Respondent violated Section 313 of EPCRA and 40 C.F.R. Part 372 by failing to submit Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms (Form R) to EPA and the State of Illinois for lead by July 1, 2004 for calendar year 2003 and by July 1, 2007 for calendar year 2006. EPA proposed a civil penalty of $12,769 for these alleged violations. Prior to the filing of the Complaint Respondent corrected the alleged violations by filing the required forms with EPA and the State of Illinois. Based upon Respondent's good faith and cooperation, EPA and Respondent have agreed to settle this matter for a civil penalty of $8,938. Contact: John P. Steketee, Associate Regional Counsel, 312-886-0558 Top of page
Region 5 Executes Consent Agreement and Final Order with Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc., Resolving Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste Violations at its Facility in Boscobel, Wisconsin
On September 11, 2009, the Region filed a Consent Agreement and Final Order commencing and concluding a proceeding against Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc., for four violations of federal and state regulations regarding its storage of hazardous waste at its Boscobel, Wisconsin, facility. The violations included recordkeeping violations under subparts BB and CC of 40 C.F.R. part 264 and violations of the requirements to maintain certification records regarding its hazardous waste storage tank system and to properly label a tank and other storage drums as required by federally-authorized Wisconsin regulations. The settlement requires Pechiney to pay a cash penalty of $7,200. Contact: Robert Guenther, Office of Regional Counsel, 312-886-0566; Brenda Whitney, Land and Chemicals Division, 312-353-4796 Top of page
U.S. EPA issues Consent Agreement and Final Order to Parr's Septic Service LLC for Clean Water Act 405 violations
On September 11, 2009, EPA issued a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO-#CWA-05-2009-0008) in the Parr's Septic Service, LLC (Parr's) CWA Section 405d Septage Land Application Case. Parr's will pay a $1,000.00 penalty, and return to full compliance with all relevant portions of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Parr's operates a septage land application service company in Ferryville (Vernon County), Wisconsin. Between March 2005 and July 2008, Parr's land applied approximately 50,000 gallons of septage sludge per year on open agricultural land. During the same time period, Parr's failed to follow the required record keeping provisions of 40 CFR Part 503, specifically involving development and retention of records of proof of: meeting the nitrogen requirement for the crop or vegetation growth on the land application areas, maintaining the requisite rate of septage application in gallons per acre per year, and descriptions of how Parr's complied with the vector attraction reduction requirements at 40 CFR 503.33(b)(12). U.S. EPA issued a February 2009 Notice of Violation letter, and proposed assessment of a penalty of approximately $157,000. Parr's asserted an inability to pay the penalty figure, and submitted documentation in support of its assertion. U.S. EPA performed financial analysis of the documentation. Based upon U.S. EPA's analysis, the parties negotiated a settlement for $1,000.00 in penalty, and return to full compliance with the CWA. The above mentioned settlement represents an acceptable outcome based upon the facts of the case, and fulfills the purpose of the CWA. Contact: Tom Turner, Office of Regional Counsel, 312-886-6613; Valdis Aistars, Water Division, 312-886-0264 Top of page
Superfund Sitewide Ready-For-Anticipated Use Determination for Big D Campground Site, OH
On September 4, 2009, EPA Region 5 signed a Superfund Sitewide Ready-For-Anticipated Use (SRAU) Determination for the Big D site located in Kingsville, Ohio. Under a UAO, Olin Corporation incinerated buried drums and associated soils and is monitoring low level groundwater contamination. EPA determined that the cleanup goals in the Record of Decision were met and the institutional controls are in place. Contact: Richard Nagle, Office of Regional Counsel, 312-353-8222
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois lodges cost recovery consent decree
On September 14, 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois lodged a cost recovery consent decree signed by the United States and Pharmacia, Solutia, Mobil, Cerro Copper and the Village of Sauget, as well as co-defendant Department of Defense, in which the defendants pay a total of $5.975 million in cash. This decree is a companion to the decree already entered between the United States and the co-settling defendant Estate of Paul Sauget, under which the government cost recovered over $800,000. Thus, the government has recovered over $6.775 million on Sauget Area One costs. In addition, the decree enters on behalf of the United States a stipulated money judgment of $6.5 million that will be collected by the United States to the extent ongoing insurance coverage litigation between settling defendant Vi