ache of http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/end.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
Sector Notebook Project: Profile of Local Government Operations Sector Notebook Project
Profile of Local Government Operations
6. R
EVIEW OF
M
AJOR
L
EGAL
A
CTIONS
This chapter summarizes major cases that have affected the local government sector and contains
information on supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) negotiated in some cases. As indicated in
EPAs Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Reports from 1992 to 1997, many
significant enforcement actions were resolved involving the local government sector. Appendix E
presents examples of environment related law violations and enforcement cases against local
governments. As shown in Appendix E, the 147 cases can be categorized as follows:
C CAA8 cases
C CERCLA31 cases
C CWA67 cases
C SDWA12 cases
C Ocean Dumping Ban Act and Marine Protective Research and Sanctuaries Act4 cases
C RCRA7 cases
C TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA14 cases
C Multimedia4 cases.
6.1 S
ELECTED
E
NFORCEMENT
C
ASES
This section features 12 examples of enforcement cases resolved between 1992 and 1997 involving the
local government sector. One case involves CAA violations, three involve CWA violations, two
involve SDWA violations, one involves a RCRA violation, three involve CERCLA violations, and two
involve TSCA violations. Nine of the 12 cases resulted in the assessment of a penalty. Penalties
ranged from $5,500 to $2.8 million. In the CWA case U.S. v. City of Hoboken, NJ (1994), the
Hoboken, Union City, Weehawken Sewerage Authority agreed to pay stipulated penalties in the
amount of $2.8 million for its violations of a January 1991 consent decree. This $2.8 million includes a
January 1999
6-1
Review of Major Legal Actions Sector Notebook Project
Profile of Local Government Operations
payment of $1,152,000 that will be made to EPA, $850,000 to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, and the remainder to the Interstate Sanitation Commission.
Some of the settlements required defendants to initiate cleanup projects for the remedial action.
In U.S. v. School District of Philadelphia, PA (1997): a complaint and consent decree was filed that
seeks the cleanup and disposal of PCBs that are in 29 transformers located at 12 schools. The school
district must also comply with the PCB rule and implement a PCB management plan. The plan would
provide for the repair, inspection, cleanup, and proper disposal of PCB-contaminated materials. The
school district must remove or upgrade all of the PCB transformers within 3 years and submit bimonthly
progress reports to EPA to facilitate monitoring of the school districts cleanup efforts.
U.S. v. Kansas Bureau of Water (1995) involved the Kansas Bureau of Water issuing 25 wastewater
treatment orders against various municipalities and trailer courts in Kansas. The consent orders to
cities, including Lawrence, Topeka, and Leavenworth, initiate projects to eliminate the discharge of
water treatment sludge to streams. The orders to trailer courts in Pittsburg, Kansas, have resulted in
ongoing efforts to form sewer districts that will be connected to the Pittsburg wastewater treatment
plant. These sewer districts will help eliminate sewage discharges into abandoned mine shafts.
In U.S. v. City and County of Denver, CO (1995), violations included an exceedence of performance
standards by air emissions from the treatment plant on two occasions, failure to notify EPA and the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, failure to recycle vapor-phase carbon units
and implement change-out procedures, and failure to submit a schedule for proposed corrective
measures. The city will pay a penalty of $79,550.
In U.S. v. City of San Diego, CA (1997), a stipulated final order settled an enforcement action that
addressed deficiencies with San Diegos sewage treatment facilities. The order calls for the city to
continue work on infrastructure projects, replace 200 miles of decaying concrete sewers, audit pump
stations and force mains, increase efforts to reduce grease loadings to the system, and upgrade its data
collection and modeling capabilities. The order also requires $60 to $200 million for projects.
In the 1996 CWA case of U.S. v. City of Blackhawk, CO, the city allowed the illegal construction of
a water supply pump station on Clear Creek (without a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA permit),
including excavation and backfilling of about 1,800 square feet of river bed on the north fork of Clear
January 1999
6-2
Review of Major Legal Actions Sector Notebook Project
Profile of Local Government Operations
Creek. The result was a temporary loss of wetlands and destruction of aquatic life. The penalty
payment was $61,515.
In U.S. v. Town of Hempstead, NY (1997), the town had two violations: an unpermitted discharge
into an underground injection well and the endangerment of a Department of Highways facility in
Roosevelt. An administrative/consent order was issued that required the town to implement a
compliance/closure plan, pay a $5,500 penalty, perform a facility audit, and provide employee training.
The town will: 1) inventory and address facilities where there may be Class V injection wells, 2) test
for pesticides, and 3) keep the public informed of the status of closure implementation at the Roosevelt
facility.
In U.S. v. City of New York Department of Transportation, NY (1995 and 1997), the city
generated hazardous paint chips during bridge repainting operations without a RCRA identification
number or manifests, and stored wastes without a permit or authorization. A joint penalty (with
contractor) of $25,000 was assessed and an administrative consent agreement/consent order (CACO)
issued. The city drafted a lead-based paint removal protocol, the implementation of which will cost the
city more than $5 million. The city must pay a civil penalty of $145,000.
In the CERCLA case U.S. v. City of Algoma, Algoma Municipal Landfill, WI, settled in 1992, a
consent decree was issued requiring the city and eight potentially responsible parties to implement the
remedy selected by the record of decision. Defendants will reimburse EPA and the state for their future
oversight costs and pay 90 percent of EPAs past oversight costs. Settlement is for $1.3 million.
Monitoring detected an exceedance of the maximum contaminant levels for cadmium, iron, and
manganese.
The case of U.S. v. City of Jacksonville, AR (1994), involved two consent decrees that were lodged
for the Jacksonville and Rogers Road Municipal Landfill Superfund Sites. Both sites have soils
contaminated with dioxin that was produced by a herbicide manufacturer. An estimated 800 cubic
yards of soil is contaminated. The city agreed to pay $100,000 in past costs.
In U.S. v. Montgomery County Solid Waste District (MCSWD), Moraine, OH (1996), excess
waste from an incinerator operated by the MCSWD was sent to a municipal landfill. Thirty-one
municipalities are members of the MCSWD. The landfilled waste included commercial or industrial
waste containing hazardous substances. The defendants will pay $60,000 for previous oversight costs
and 50 percent of remaining oversight costs.
January 1999
6-3
Review of Major Legal Actions Sector Notebook Project
Profile of Local Government Operations
U.S. v. New York City, NY Board of Education, which was settled in 1996, involved an allegation
that the head of the boards Asbestos Task Force knowingly submitted false information on 375
Asbestos Hazards Emergency Response Act (AHERA) management plans. A CACO was issued
under AHERA that requires a payment of $1.5 million, systematic reinspection of each of the 1,069
schools for asbestos, and the preparation of new management plans to ensure that all buildings are in
compliance.
6.2 S
UPPLEMENTAL
E
NVIRONMENTAL
P
ROJECTS
SEPs are compliance agreements that reduce a facilitys stipulated penalty in return for an
environmental project that exceeds the value of the reduction. Often, these projects fund pollution
prevention activities that can significantly reduce the future pollutant loadings of a facility. Exhibit 6-1
presents examples of SEPs negotiated as part of case settlements with local governments. It should be
noted that the information contained in Exhibit 6-1 is not comprehensive and provides only a sample of
the types of SEPs developed for local governments.
January 1999
6-4
Review of Major Legal Actions Sector Notebook Project
Profile of Local Government Operations
Exhibit 6-1.
Examples of Supplemental Environmental Projects

Local Government Sector
Final
Penalty
After
Mitigation
$17,708
$130,000
$750,000
$9,000
$950,000
Final
Assessed
Penalty
$176,735
$322,704