Home : Environmental Toxins : Mesothelioma : EPA Information : FY2001 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT REPORT

FY2001 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT REPORT

TRI PROGRAM	TOXICS PROGRAM (AHERA, CORE-TSCA, LEAD (Pb), PCBs)
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM	AIR PROGRAM
RCRA PROGRAM	NPDES PROGRAM
FEDERAL FACILITIES	UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
CROSS REGIONAL/CROSS PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

The following provides a discussion of program successes and important highlights in Region 10 during FY2001 in the enforcement and compliance programs. Summaries of cases that have been concluded are included with the program highlights.

(Top)

EPCRA 313 (TRI)

Of Region 10's 20 TRI inspections, we were able to map 17 facilities to see if there were in Environmental Justice communities or not. Of these that were mapped, 11 were in EJ communities and the other 6 were potentially in EJ communities since they were within one mile of an EJ community. Two facilities in the "potentially EJ areas" were targeted because they were non-reporters (and appear to be in compliance). All of the other facilities were the result of Data Quality inspections, primarily multi-media inspections. Since most of the TRI facilities are located in EJ areas, we will be working more closely with our EJ office on better enforcement targeting and outreach of the results.

Region 10's TRI program staff worked with Superfund on the Bunker Hill Central Treatment Plant in Idaho. As a result, EPA Region 10 Office of Cleanup filed TRI Form R’s for zinc compounds and manganese compounds (next year they will probably also have to file for lead compounds) which was manufactured during the cleanup of the acid mine drainage at the site. The Bunker Hill Form R shows reporting of several chemicals. For zinc compounds: 572,000 lbs go into a surface impoundment and 3,000 lbs are released to surface waters (Bunker Creek). For manganese compounds: 424,000 lbs go into a surface impoundment and 2,260 lbs are released to surface waters (Bunker Creek). This represents a clean up efficiency of 99%.

TRI program continues to conduct many outreach and compliance workshops to industries manufacturing, processing or otherwise using TRI chemicals.

(Top)

AHERA Program

One significant activity involved presenting an AHERA case before an Administrative Law Judge early in the fiscal year (October 2000). The case involves an unaccredited inspector who conducted an AHERA inspection at the request of a private, non-profit school. The inspector believed that his status as a professional engineer was enough qualifications to conduct an asbestos inspection for a school. Though we are still awaiting the decision from the ALJ, the case is important because the final decision could be precedent-setting for EPA. Under AHERA and ASHARA, an asbestos inspector for a school or public, commercial building is required to have current AHERA accreditation.

Core TSCA Program

The Region 10 Core TSCA Program has restarted its inspection program in August and September, after refilling a staff vacancy. Five facilities were inspected in the State of Washington.

Lead Program

EPA Region 10 is reaching out to schools throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska to help protect children’s health. Regional staff have developed short fact sheets to assist administrators in protecting children from potential health threats in schools, including lead paint, indoor air quality, pesticides, asbestos, and PCBs. To date, 1,800 school districts have received the fact sheets, which include information on grant funding opportunities through EPA and other organizations. The fact sheets are also published on the EPA Region 10 web site. As a follow up to the fact sheets, Region 10 staff personally visit school districts throughout Alaska, Idaho, Washington and Oregon. Schools are applauding this effort to address a wide range of environmental hazards through face-to-face compliance assistance. School administrators have stated that they have never seen EPA so proactive. The circuit rider effort is in full swing, having already met with dozens of schools, and will continue throughout the year.

From March 2000 through October 2001, EPA Region 10 has certified over 300 individuals and over 100 firms for lead-based paint activities. The Region has also accredited over 100 courses on lead-based paint abatement, inspection, and risk assessment. The Oregon Health Division, which runs the lead certification program in the State of Oregon, certified 114 individuals and 23 firms in FY2001. The public can find lists of certified firms and professionals for hire on the Region 10 web site. In addition, lead paint professionals can visit the web site for a list of EPA-accredited training courses on the web site.

Region 10 has taken enforcement action against several contractors conducting lead paint abatement projects at child facilities in the Seattle area. Responding to tips and complaints from the community and referrals from the Washington Department of Labor and Industries, EPA inspected two lead paint abatement project sites at child facilities. Based on the investigations, EPA determined that the contractors on these projects were not properly trained and certified. In order to protect the health of the children at the school and day care facilities, EPA required that the workers get trained and certified, follow safe work practice standards, and that testing be conducted to ensure safety of the children in the class rooms.

EPA Region 10 is visiting all city and county building and planning departments in Western Washington in a pilot effort to educate contractors about lead-based paint requirements when renovating. This effort is a follow-up to the previous year’s compliance assistance mail out to 92,000 licensed contractors in the Region. All the one-on-one contacts with the building and planning department personnel have welcomed the information and displayed compliance assistance brochures and posters in their offices. In an effort to measure outcomes of the pilot project, Region 10 is documenting statistics for each building and planning department visited in order to estimate the number of renovators reached with lead-based paint compliance materials. If successful, Region 10 staff will expand this pilot throughout the Region.

The Governor of the State of Oregon proclaimed October “Lead Poisoning Awareness Month” in order to protect children’s health and support the work of the Oregon Health Division in preventing lead poisoning. In FY2001, the EPA-authorized lead program, administered by the Health Division, implemented a new rule on lead hazard standards, in addition to developing interpretive guidance on existing lead abatement regulations. In addition, the Health Division has collaborated with the Oregon Remodelers Association, HUD and EPA to develop a region-wide training effort to increase the numbers of lead-safe renovators in the Pacific Northwest.

TSCA PCB Program

The PCB program completed two cases during FY2001 which are summarized below. Following the case summaries, some other significant highlights of the year are noted.

West Linn, Wilsonville School District, Oregon
The Region 10 PCB Program settled the West Linn Wilsonville TSCA PCB Case. This case involved several schools in the West Linn Wilsonville School District with a proposed penalty of $328,300. Dr. Jane Goodall dedicated the West Linn-Wilsonville School District’s Center for Research on Environmental Sciences and Technologies (CREST) on September 19, 2001. The CREST center is a component of a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) proposal that Region 10 accepted in settling this Complaint. The CREST center is located on the grounds of the Inza Wood Middle School and the Boons Ferry Primary School. Many Oregon State and regional dignitaries attended this dedication. Dr. Roger Woehl, Ed.D, the West Linn-Wilsonville Superintendent, indicated that the center will serve the students of West Linn, Wilsonville and the surrounding community as a center for research, a catalyst for environmental learning and a beacon for responsible action. This center is indeed a Regional PCB Program success and epitomizes the results from cooperation between EPA Region 10, the West Linn-Wilsonville School District and the surrounding community.

Lockheed Martin-Idaho Technologies Company, Idaho
The Final Penalty Order was issued on March 13, 2001 to Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company with a total assessed penalty of $30,535. This was precedent setting in that this was the first time a TSCA PCB Complaint has been issued to a US Department of Energy contractor in Region 10 for TSCA PCB violations. Also related, Region 10 assisted the EPA Office of Inspector General regarding a review of the Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory (INEEL). This review is the result of a request by the Environmental Defense Institute, Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, and Idaho Falls Attorney David McCoy regarding INEEL TSCA violations.

The PCB program provided Region 10 sponsored Electrical Utility and Electrical Distribution Systems Training March 2001. The training was conducted by Professional Training Systems, Portland, Oregon. A three-day Electrical Utility System Operation Course was held and was followed by the two-day Electrical Distribution Systems Course. The course was attended by twenty-one personnel including inspectors/investigators from Regions 4, 8, 9 and 10 as well as representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, and the US Army Ft. Lewis.

The inspection program during FY2001 included four school districts and 52 schools in 2001. Region 10 inspected several schools within the Reynolds (Oregon) School District finding storage and disposal violations. In addition, leaking PCB flourescent light ballasts were also found at several of the schools. On December 12, 2000, a TSCA Compliance Agreement was sent to the school district highlighting the violations. EPA has proposed a $94,050 penalty.

The Toxics Circuit Rider program extended the PCBs in Schools Initiative through a survey to 1,700 schools in March 2001. The Region also instituted the Toxics Circuit Rider program in Idaho and Oregon in July 2001 and October 2001 with the goal of providing effective outreach to schools. The Region has begun following up on one hundred and thirty (130) school districts that responded to a PCB survey requesting compliance assistance. The Toxics Circuit Rider assisted schools in Idaho in July 2001 and with schools in Alaska in September/October 2001.

Region 10 is proposing a new PCB compliance assistance approach with Alaska federal facilities as a follow up to the February 7, 2001, Statement of Cooperation Executive Steering Committee Meeting. Region 10 recently reviewed its procedures with federal facilities in implementing its PCB program under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Region 10 has concluded that the process of issuing Federal Facility Notices of Significant Noncompliance has met with limited success. Therefore, Region 10 is proposing a new compliance assistance program, or advisory role approach, with regard to handling of the PCBs at Alaska federal facilities. Region 10 believes that the new partnership approach will achieve higher rates of sustained compliance, and encourage more dialogue and timely response to PCB issues. Region 10 will continue to work with Federal Facility environmental managers as well as the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to enhance PCB regulatory compliance.

(Top)

Drinking Water Program

In FY2001, Region 10, consistent with National priorities, focused on obtaining compliance with the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). The Program worked with the four Region 10 States to ensure all unfiltered systems which are required to filter are either on enforceable schedules of the States or have a strategy in place for addressing these systems. The Program also worked with the States to determine whether those systems determined to be Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GWUDI) need to filter. In addition, the Program worked with the States to ensure those systems required to filter were meeting the requirements for filtered systems. The Program worked with all four states to update their Compliance Assurance Agreements to ensure we both understand the roles and responsibilities of the States and EPA in regard to compliance and enforcement activities.

The State of Alaska referred several cases to us and we continue to work with Alaska on reducing their large number of Significant Non-Complier (SNC) systems. However, Alaska continues to be a challenge due to the geographic isolation and climatic conditions which make it very difficult to provide the needed assistance. The Program established a sanitary survey training center in Sitka, Alaska which conducted numerous trainings throughout Alaska. The increased number of trained individuals should assist in reducing the backlog of sanitary surveys and provide much needed compliance assistance.

The State of Oregon referred several cases to us and we continue to work with Oregon in reducing the number of SNCs in transient non-community systems. The county health districts are concentrating on these systems and substantial progress has been made. The State of Idaho addressed all their outstanding TCR and SWTR SNCs. Idaho referred two cases to us and we have been working with the State to resolve these issues. They also have substantially reduced the backlog in sanitary surveys and GWUDI determinations. The State of Washington referred over 100 cases to us for assistance with the majority of the cases related to monitoring for lead and copper. The Program will be issuing administrative orders to approximately 25 of these systems in
early FY2002. The Program have been working very closely with Tribes that are in noncompliance to provide the technical and compliance assistance needed.

The Program has provided substantial compliance assistance to all the States and Tribes. We conducted trainings for the public notification rule, the lead and copper minor revisions rule, and the radionuclides rule. In addition, we conducted four workshops on Risk Communication in conjunction with the States and the local rural water associations. Finally, we conducted one Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPEs) training for the States and plan on providing additional ones in FY2002.

(Top)

Air Program

The Air Program concluded several important cases during FY2001. The first three highlights provide information on those cases.

Clean Air Act Actions Respond to Public Concerns about Air Pollution from Cruise Ships in Southeast Alaska
EPA began its Regional Cruise Ship Initiative in summer 1999 to address the public’s concerns about the excessive smoke emissions from cruise ships in Southeast Alaska. Citizens of Juneau had registered numerous complaints about excessive smoke from the ships in recent years, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) had been unable to investigate air quality violations by cruise ships because of targeted budget cuts by the State Legislature in recent years. For this initiative, EPA observed visible emissions from cruise ships in Juneau, Seward, and Glacier Bay National Park in Southeast Alaska in 1999 and 2000, and documented a number of violations by cruise ships.

As part of the initiative, EPA issued administrative complaints to Carnival Cruise Lines and Princess Cruise Lines alleging violations of the State of Alaska’s marine vessel visible emission standards and the requirement to report excess emissions to the State. Following the EPA’s initial investigation and notification to the company of the opacity violations, each of these companies took steps to correct the cause of the opacity problems. Specifically, the companies switched the fuel used in the engines, installed opacity monitors on the engine stacks, and trained the ship engineers to impress upon them the importance of proper operation to lower opacity. Additionally, Princess Cruise Lines announced that, in 2001, four of its five cruise ships in Juneau, Alaska would use shore power rather than power generated on board to reduce opacity violations. In FY 2001, EPA resolved the complaints with the issuance of Consent Agreement and Final Orders assessing a penalty of $42,000 against Carnival and $77,000 against Princess.

Willamette, Industries (Oregon, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina)
EPA entered into a Consent Decree (November 2, 2000) with Willamette Industries, Inc. of Portland, Oregon in which Willamette agreed to pay a civil penalty of $11.2 million for failure to comply with Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality permitting procedures as required by the Federal Clean Air Act. The penalty is the largest ever assessed for factory emissions of air pollution. Willamette will spend an additional $8 million on Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). The SEPs to be performed include pollution reduction projects, alternative fuels projects, community sewer and water system improvements, and state parkland donations, concentrated in the immediate areas where Willamette facilities are located, many of which are economically disadvantaged areas.

The settlement also requires Willamette to install state-of-the-art pollution control equipment, valued at approximately $74 million, at 13 of its facilities located in four states. Installation of state-of-the-art pollution control equipment over the next 2 ? years will mean emission reductions of 17,500 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs); 8,100 tons of particulate matter (PM); and 1,020 tons of Carbon Monoxide (CO) over the life of the Consent Decree (approximately five years). The Consent Decree also requires the company to conduct multi-media audits at the facilities affected by this settlement, develop and implement parametric monitoring plans, and apply for proper air permits for the facilities currently out of compliance. This action is a natural culmination of the government’s investigation of the Wood Products Industry and a continuing effort against recalcitrant violators since a Consent Decree was first lodged against Louisiana-Pacific in 1993.

Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska
A joint inspection conducted September 8-10, 1999, by EPA and the State of Alaska revealed that Eielson Air Force Base (EAFB), located outside of Fairbanks, Alaska, had been operating three of its six coal-fired boilers at its central heating and power plant (CHPP) without emission control devices to provide optimum control of air contaminant emissions in violation of its operating permit, the Alaska State Implementation Plan and the Clean Air Act (CAA). This omission resulted in numerous violations of the State’s 20% opacity standard. The Air Force also failed to control fugitive dust emissions from the facility.

On April, 2001, Region 10, with the concurrence of the State of Alaska, entered into a Consent Agreement and Consent Order (CAFO) with the Air Force resolving the alleged violations. In addition to paying a $100,000 civil penalty, the Air Force agreed to implement Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) that will cost the Air Force at least $150,000. The SEPs consisted of numerous projects designed to reduce fugitive dust emissions EAFB, such as requiring that the Air Force prepare an Installation Fugitive Emissions Plan, and requiring that the Air Force purchase a new state-of-the-art street sweeper, in addition to retrofitting their older street sweepers.

In addition, EPA, the Air Force, and the State of Alaska entered into a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA) setting forth a plan for EAFB to bring the CHPP into compliance with the 20% opacity limit. The FFCA includes specific dates by which the Air Force must request funding for certain military construction projects (including pollution control equipment), as well as contains a specific time frame by which pollution control equipment must
be installed. The Air Force, State of Alaska and EPA worked cooperatively together in drafting the FFCA to resolve this matter.

Cruise Ship Enforcement Initiative
As a result of the Region’s cruise ship enforcement initiative, opacity violations from the cruise ship industry in Alaska have decreased and the State of Alaska has resumed its lead role for assuring compliance with these state implementation plan requirements.

Over the past several years, there have been increased smoke emissions from cruise ships touring in Southeast Alaska. The number of cruise ships visiting Alaska has substantially increased; in one recent year, there were more than 500 ship arrivals and over ? million visitors to the City of Juneau alone. Each year there are hundreds of complaints about cruise ship smoke from citizens who live in the various ports of call in Southeast Alaska. When the state was unable to expend resources on this important problem due to targeted budget cuts, EPA staff stepped in. The EPA team worked with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the National Park Service to develop and implement a strategy to address these emissions. As a result, top-level corporate officers of major cruise line companies are now aware that air pollution from ships is a significant problem; they have become familiar with the state's requirements, and are taking steps such as training their employees and changing operational practices to correct problems. EPA’s initiative also was a factor in the cruise ship industry's decision to collaborate with the State and EPA (through a the Cruise Ship Workgroup) to identify environmental impacts and to take additional measures to reduce and minimize pollution.

The team's formal enforcement work was critical to reducing emissions from cruise ships. EPA issued Notices of Violation to six companies for about a dozen different ships; in addition, to date, two administrative penalty complaints have been issued. In addition to payment of penalties, companies will take action to reduce their smoke emissions to avoid future fines. For example, one company is now using city electrical power while docked to eliminate the need to run the ship's engine.

EPA's actions in Alaska also have generated interest in improving environmental compliance in the cruise ship industry in other parts of country and provided support to broader agency civil and criminal efforts to address waste and water pollution issues from cruise ships. The State has restarted its ship compliance-checking program using contractor support and recently announced settlements with seven (7) cruise lines for $600,000 in penalties. EPA’s leadership in addressing air emissions from cruise ships provided support to the state to resume its role in ensuring the ships’ compliance with emission requirements.

Stationary Source Compliance Initiative in Indian Country Results in Compliance with NAAQS
In FY2001, the first enforceable air pollution rules for the Astaris elemental phosphorus plant in SE Idaho went into effect through promulgation of the Fort Hall Federal Implementation plan. This source, located on the Ft. Hall reservation, was a significant contributor to the area’s failure to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. Because the facility is located in Indian Country, it was the region’s responsibility to monitor and ensure compliance with all the applicable emission and operational requirements. The region made this effort a priority. As result, the region supported the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe air quality program by developing a Memorandum of Understanding which outlined the respective EPA and Tribal roles. The types of compliance activities undertaken by the region included review of test reports and monitoring data, on-site observation and review of QA/QC information and data from annual and semiannual source tests, review of other record-keeping and reporting, development of a source-specific inspection checklist and completion of a Level II inspection. Although the facility recently announced its decision to cease all production activity at this site, during the course of the last year the significant emission reductions expected from the Federal Implementation Plan were achieved as determined by source tests and there have been no exceedence of the particulate NAAQS.

Use of Enforcement to Fast-Track New Energy Capacity
By February 2001, the Northwest was hit by an energy shortage and skyrocketing prices linked in part to low water conditions in the northwest (which reduced available hydro power), rising natural gas prices, and reverberations from restructuring of the California electricity market. The Governors of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho joined California’s Governor by issuing energy supply alert orders. Numerous suppliers (commercial and industrial) responded with inquiries and requests to expedite construction and/or operation of new electricity generation projects and a natural gas pipeline.

In partnership with headquarters and state and local agencies, the region responded with vision, creativity, and speed, to allow suppliers to bring 3300 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity on line an average of nine months ahead of what would otherwise have been the normal permitting schedule, with no net degradation to air quality. Six projects resulted in formal enforcement agreements allowing expedited construction and/or operation in advance of permits. All projects are required to ultimately comply with the permitting requirements and all air emissions resulting from operation of facilities in advance of obtaining final permits will be “recaptured” from the environment through additional pollution controls on-site or in the community. These agreements provide critical environmental protection in a cost-effective way that was responsive to demands of industry and the marketplace, at a time when many were calling for relaxing environmental requirements. The team first developed a set of principles to guide decision-making which took into consideration the nature of the crisis, the importance of ultimate compliance, and protection of the environment. The team secured the important environmental protections in the agreements by adhering to those guiding principles about the required outcomes while being flexible and creative in how the outcomes are achieved.

Requests for expedited permitting and interpretation of requirements came from a variety of requesters, including investor-owned utilities, industrial users wishing to generate power on-site to free up power traditionally received from utilities, a pipeline operator, and a large market-based producer of new large production units. In some cases, the EPA air team negotiated formal agreements, while in other cases it was sufficient to provide rapid rule interpretation which allowed companies to know for certain what requirements would be triggered by a particular action. On average, all projects were completed within 30 days of receipt of the request which is very timely response given the complexity of some of the situations combined with the fact that the same staff were working on multiple requests, as well as carrying out their other duties, simultaneously.

In addition to offsetting “extra” emissions, additional environmental and public interest benefits were achieved through special projects in each of the formal agreements. These projects, paid for by the companies, range from school bus and wood stove replacement programs to reduce children’s and residents exposure to air pollutants, to financial contributions to low-income energy fund assistance programs.

(Top)

RCRA Program

Two significant cases that were concluded in FY2001 are discussed at the beginning of the RCRA program accomplishments with the other highlights following the case summaries.

EPA Region 10 AND U.S. DOE Reach Settlement on RCRA Administrative Complaint for Hanford Facility
On October 12, 2000, the Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10, signed the Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) that settled the Administrative Complaint filed by EPA in February 1998 alleging RCRA violations by DOE at the Hanford Facility located in Richland, Washington. The CAFO proposed a penalty of approximately $340,000 for two alleged violations: 1) Storage without a permit and 2) failure to make a hazardous waste determination. (A third count was withdrawn based on new information obtained during the course of the administrative process.) DOE paid a $25,000 penalty. In addition, DOE agreed to perform two supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) at a combined cost of approximately $90,000. DOE completed the first SEP in June 2001 at a cost in excess of $100,898. The second SEP is scheduled for completion in 2002. DOE also agreed to perform compliance activities, including closure of an illegal storage unit, to address the violations alleged in the Complaint.

For the first SEP, DOE performed a 100% radiological survey on 2,500 lead bricks that were previously located near waste sites at Hanford. DOE had previously intended to encapsulate and dispose of the bricks in a Hanford landfill, but was required under the CACO to conduct a complete and thorough survey to determine whether the bricks exhibited greater levels of radiation than background levels. Those bricks that passed the survey were placed in DOEs excess inventory program and were expected to be released to a community organization. The community organization planned to sell the bricks for reuse and use the funds derived from the sale for community economic development activities.

Under the second SEP, DOE has been working on a pollution prevention/reduction project to develop and implement new analytical procedures that would eliminate sodium interference for certain laboratory methods used at Hanford. The new procedures will be useful because many of the waste samples from Hanford tanks contain high concentrations of sodium which often interfere with laboratory analysis. The newly developed methods will reduce DOEs generation of mixed waste by using smaller amounts of chemical reagents.

RCRA Section 7003 Administrative Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Enforcement Order Issued to JH Baxter, Arlington, Washington
A Section 7003 Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Enforcement Order was issued to JH Baxter and Company on April 30, 2001. The Order requires the company to: 1) sample drinking water wells and provide alternate water in the event any wells are contaminated; 2) collect, treat and discharge excess storm water; 3) investigate the nature and extent of contamination in all media; prepare a corrective measures study and implement the EPA-selected corrective measure. The Order provides the company some temporary regulatory relief for its storm water management that otherwise would be required to be permitted under RCRA because the storm water contains a listed hazardous waste.

Grand Jury Indictment
On August 7, 2001 a Grand Jury Indictment was filed against Donn Herron, former owner and operator of Washington Chemical in Spokane, Washington, for illegal treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes originating from Washington Chemical’s operations. The indictment alleges that Herron stored and disposed of hazardous waste beginning in September 1997 and treated hazardous waste beginning in May 1999. EPA Region 10 RCRA program was instrumental in securing this indictment. A January 7, 2002 trial date has been set.

3008(a) Initial Penalty Order Issued
An Administrative Penalty Order was issued to Burlington Environmental Inc. in the Georgetown area of Seattle, Washington under RCRA 3008(a). The filed Administrative Complaint and Compliance Order was for violations of the RCRA corrective action permit. Under the corrective action permit, which was issued by EPA prior to Washington State’s authorization of the program, the company has been investigating the extent of groundwater contamination resulting from historical releases at the facility. Contamination at the at the site has reached an underground aquifer that drains to the Lower Duwamish waterway (a Superfund site). Among the violations of the permit identified are deficiencies in groundwater monitoring; failure to conduct and report required analyses for 40 CFR Part 264 Appendix IX constituents; failure to submit quality assured results of Appendix IX constituents; failure to maintain borehole integrity and monitoring wells; and failure to utilize appropriate chain-of-custody procedures related to environmental samples. Among other things, these failures and deficiencies contributed to inaccurate and incomplete information which may have compromised the appropriateness of cleanup decisions that relied on this inaccurate information. Burlington has also accrued economic benefit from these violations of its corrective action permit. In coordination with the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), EPA’s enforcement action against Burlington’s Georgetown facility was filed the same day as enforcement actions by WDOE against three other Burlington facilities in Renton, Kent and Tacoma, Washington. Burlington is a large commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facility with major customers in Washington State.

Inspection Program
The RCRA program substantially exceeded the number of projected inspections during FY2001. The projection was 65, however, 119 inspections were conducted. In addition, one compliance assistance evaluation was performed. EPA Region 10 is responsible for the RCRA program in Alaska and conducted a total of 37 inspections in both rural and remote areas of the State, including 10 inspections at federal facilities.

(Top)

NPDES Programs

Working with Oregon to Address State Statutory Problems with NPDES and Audit Privilege
Region 10 worked proactively with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon State legislature to implement fixes to two state statutory problems. In autumn of 2000, we first provided direct and specific feedback on the language changes that needed to occur in the Oregon state statute on audit privilege to remove barriers to program authorization. Real-time feedback on legislative language from OECA and Region 10 attorneys was effective in allowing DEQ to work effectively to get the right language passed. Second, the Region 10 Office of Water and our Oregon Operations Office teamed up in the Spring of 2001 to work directly with the State legislative leadership to identify solutions to the gap in authorities for the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to implement a NPDES Confined Animal Feedlot Operation (CAFO) program. The goal for the State was to reduce direct EPA inspection and enforcement presence in Oregon. The goal for Region 10 was to create a common understanding of the level and quality of state compliance and enforcement authority and activity that would be necessary in order for EPA to drop back to an oversight role on the CAFO program. The State was successful in passing adequte legislative fixes and in starting a process to ramp up the quality and quantity of inspection and enforcement activity. Work on this will continue into FY2002.

Confined Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFO)
Region 10 CAFO efforts were focused in Idaho and Oregon in FY2001. These activities included facility inventory development, conducting targeted inspections, and issuance of appropriate enforcement actions. While compliance assistance has continued in both states, there is a shift more to enforcement in the last several years. During FY2001, the inspection program in Oregon was conducted by either the ODA, EPA or jointly by ODA and EPA. ODA did take enforcement actions as appropriate based on findings in their inspections. EPA assumed enforcement responsibilities for facilities inspected jointly and two enforcement actions were taken. In addition, we are continuing work on two cases that were referred to Department of Justice. With the work in Oregon to legislate changes in their authority, it is expected that EPA’s role will be further reduced in FY2002.

In Idaho, both Idaho Department of Agriculture (IDA) and EPA conducted inspections. EPA’s inspections focused on non-dairy operations while IDA’s were conducted at all dairy operations and some non-dairy operations. While EPA retains authority to regulate dairies in Idaho, we have deferred to the IDA to utilize its state authority to take away milk licenses from dairies found to be violating the Clean Water Act. If such actions do not result in compliance, EPA can then step in. EPA finalized the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the IDA, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Cattlemen’s Association. The MOU allows all agencies to work smarter with the available resources to inspect and conduct enforcement against cattle feedlots in Idaho.

Storm Water
A lot of progress was made on the Storm Water program during FY2001, especially in the construction sector. Compliance assistance was a major focus, with EPA visits to the Port of Anchorage, City of Anchorage and Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry all in March, 2001. These visits were centered on determining the needs of the regulated community. EPA learned that cooperation between the Agency and the Division of Forestry would better inform the regulated community about both NPDES Storm Water and State Forest Practices Act requirements. EPA also determined based on meetings with both the Division of Forestry and the City of Anchorage that producing an informational brochure on storm water regulations and requirements would benefit the regulated community and assist local and state government in providing compliance assistance. Since March, EPA has developed such a brochure, which can be distributed by local governments to their constituents. EPA also plans to mail out the brochure early next fiscal year to about 8,000 regulated construction contractors throughout the non-delegated States of Alaska and Idaho.

EPA also spent the past year developing a relationship with the International Erosion Control Association (IECA). IECA approached EPA with an idea for providing compliance assistance training in Alaska and Idaho. The training is meant to inform construction contractors about methods of controlling erosion and sedimentation on construction sites, thus protecting water quality. EPA is providing grant money to help fund the IECA training courses, which will take place during winter, FY2002.

In April 2001, EPA Region 10 sponsored the first-ever formal Storm Water Inspection Training course geared toward informing EPA inspectors about storm water regulations and conducting storm water inspections. Instructors came from Region 6, the State of Washington and Region 10 to lead the three-day course. About half of the attendees were from EPA, and the rest were from local and state governments throughout the region.

Nine EPA storm water inspections took place this year. There was little storm water enforcement this year, as more emphasis was put on gearing up for compliance assistance and inspections in FY2002. Though Washington is a delegated state, EPA plans to work more closely with them in the coming fiscal year on storm water issues.

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO)
The main focus of the SSO strategy in FY2001 was to continue identifying SSO-related compliance problems throughout the Region. Identification was made through non-compliance reports and inspections. Several enforcement cases were also initiated based on the SSO compliance strategy.

EPA has conducted little compliance assistance aside from answering phone calls from the regulated community and appearing sporadically at informational meetings. Presentations on the proposed SSO regulations were slowed after the regulations were placed on hold for review by the new administration.

Region 10 now has a chart for tracking SSO and CSO-related problems throughout the Region. More data is added to the chart as it arrives via phone calls and letters sent to the NPDES Compliance Unit. Region 10 conducted 7 SSO inspections this year. Inspectors in the Region would like more guidance on how to conduct an SSO inspection, so the Region is requesting assistance from EPA Headquarters (OECA) to bring a CSO/SSO training course to Seattle sometime early in FY2002. Without this assistance, the Region’s ability to conduct such inspections in a satisfactory manner will be limited.

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
EPA has implemented its Response Plan on CSOs by more closely reviewing state-issued permits for inclusion of the 1994 CSO Policy requirements into permit language. The language of several state-issued permits has been altered through EPA intervention to more closely reflect the 1994 policy.

One CSO inspection was undertaken in FY2001 by EPA. A major investigation of this inspected city has been initiated for its failure to meet the CSO requirements in its NPDES permit. The only Region 10 CSO city under EPA’s direct implementation (Juneau, Alaska) received a new permit this year which is consistent with the 1994 policy.

Compliance assistance to the regulated community continues and has been accomplished predominately through phone calls.

Region 10 is planning a comprehensive and integrated approach to CSO and SSO compliance that will incorporate both compliance assistance and enforcement. The NPDES Compliance Unit, NPDES Permits Unit, OECA, and our four operations offices will meet in November/December 2001 to discuss a strategy for including the States in this endeavor.

(Top)

Federal Facilities

Region 10 conducted an Environmental Management Review (EMR) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Alaska in May 2001. This review was to assist the FWS in managing their environmental programs better and covered the FWS Regional Office in Anchorage, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and the Alaska Peninsula/Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. At the request of the FWS, the EMR focused on all five Code of Environmental Management Principles of the site’s environmental management system that include: 1) management commitment; 2) compliance assurance and pollution prevention; 3) enabling systems; 4) performance accountability; and 5) measurement and improvement. The final report was issued to FWS in early FY2002.

(Top)

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program

The Region 10 UST program worked closely with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) during the year to determine whether perceptions related to there being a compliance problem were real or not. The DEQ was interested in applying for state program approval (or delegation of UST program) but lacked an adequate compliance and enforcement program which EPA hoped to see expanded. In order to have a sound basis for judgment, Region 10 and DEQ decided to conduct a survey of regulated facilities in Oregon to document whether perceptions of there being a compliance problem were real. Each agency inspected around 50 facilities, independent of one another, using different survey methods. EPA selected a set of cities, doing all operational facilities in each, in three separate areas of the State. DEQ picked individual sites all over the State, in a random fashion, to achieve a broad geographic coverage. Both agencies came up with similar results, that there was widespread non-compliance with UST regulations.

The outcome of the results demonstrated that perceptions were accurate and there was a problem. This moved the discussions between EPA and DEQ to one of how do we correct and resolve this problem. DEQ elicited participation with the regulated industry at discussions with EPA’s presence. The industry group wanted DEQ to have lead in the program and EPA wanted to assure that DEQ had an adequate, viable program. The eventual outcome was that DEQ and the industry group agreed on a legislative package that the industry would champion in the legislature. By summer 2001, the Oregon State Legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation that would strengthen DEQ’s program (increase tank permit fees, increase UST inspectors for compliance work, start a pilot field citation program and authorized DEQ to apply for state program approval).

While DEQ is beginning to build their own inspection program, EPA presence continues in the State. Region 10 inspectors have seen some change in the regulated community, evidenced by major and mid-level distributors hiring environmental compliance staff to get their facilities in order and the penalty rate for field citations is down substantially. This demonstrates what can be accomplished when EPA, the State, and industry all work together to correct an environmental problem.

(Top)

Cross Regional/Cross Program Highlights

The overall inspection program for Region 10 surpassed projections. While 830 inspections were committed to by the media programs, the Region completed 1,089 inspections. Many of the programs exceeded their commitment, ranging from a few inspections to 100 more inspections than planned.

An initiative begun in FY2001 was to evaluate the results of individual media programs’ state oversight/program reviews over the last several years. The goal is to use these data in FY2002 to evaluate how we utilize the reviews, what and how we follow-up on identified problems or issues, and what common or isolated issues are determined as a result. We should have some very good information to report next year. Of note is that both the RCRA program and Air program have expended considerable time in either following up and monitoring from completed reviews or conducting reviews in FY2001.

The Region continues to maintain its web site with a wealth of information and enforcement and compliance data for the public to access. Previous years investment in Enforcement and Compliance (EC) On-Line continues to be very successful in allowing the public access to information commonly requested about facilities. Media programs also use the web site to provide the regulated community and the public with information about EPA’s enforcement and compliance programs.

In FY2001, the Region conducted 6 planned multimedia inspections. Each of the four states chose a facility as well as two selected by the Region. Both Oregon and Idaho inspectors participated in these inspections which led to increased communication and coordination among State and Regional staff.

Unit: Office of Compliance and Enforcement
Point of contact: Deborah Flood
Email: flood.deborah@epamail.epa.gov
Phone Number: (206) 553-2722
Last Updated: 05/18/2006 12:39:29 PM

Find a Mesothelioma Lawyer Now

This form is secure and encrypted. More information about secure forms and your privacy here.

Unable to continue due to following error Error Message Here.
PERSONAL INFORMATION
First Name:*
Last Name:*
E-mail Address:*
Home Phone:	-- ext.
Address:

City:
State:*
Zip Code:
CASE INFORMATION
Have you been diagnosed with Mesothelioma?:	Yes No
Date of Diagnosis:
Do you have a relative Diagnosed with Mesothelioma?:	Yes No
Do you have a Pathology Report?:	Yes No
Marital Status:
Number of Children:
Are you working with an Attorney?:	Yes No
In which US state or states were you exposed?:
Case Description: