UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
SYMMCO, INC. ) Docket No. EPCRA-III-171
)
Respondent )
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ACCELERATED DECISION
AS TO LIABILITY, REQUIRING FILING OF STATUS REPORT,
AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO MEET INFORMALLY
By pleading received on April 23, 1997, Complainant filed a
motion for accelerated decision as to liability, with the issue of
penalty reserved for hearing. No response was received from
Respondent. By order issued June 11, 1997, the undersigned
directed Respondent to show cause, on or before July 7, 1997, why
it should not be deemed "to have waived any objection to the
granting of the motion." 40 C.F.R. § 22.16(b). By response dated
July 7, 1997, Respondent states that it agrees: (1) that the
undersigned has the authority to grant an accelerated decision in
appropriate circumstances; (2) that accelerated decision in
Complainant's favor is appropriate as to liability; and (3) that no
accelerated decision "is appropriate as to penalty or civil issues
and material fact [sic] exists with regard to mitigating factors."
Since Complainant's motion for accelerated decision as to liability
is unopposed, and is appropriately supported, it shall be granted.
DISCUSSION
This proceeding began by a complaint filed February 28, 1996
by Complainant under Section 325 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 11045, against
Respondent Symmco, Inc., located in Sykesville, Pennsylvania.
Complainant states that this case is based primarily upon evidence
obtained during a June 7, 1995 EPA inspection of Respondent's
facility to determine compliance with Section 313 of EPCRA, 42
U.S.C. § 11023. Following the Chief Administrative Law Judge's
September 24, 1996 order designating the undersigned as the
Presiding Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding, the
undersigned issued an order on October 4, 1996 setting dates for
the submission of the prehearing exchanges. Following receipt of
those items, a hearing was set for November 5, 1997 by order issued
March 25, 1997. The motion for accelerated decision as to
liability followed.
During the June 7, 1995 inspection by EPA Inspector Donald W.
Stanton, Mr. Stanton confirmed that the facility was subject to the
reporting requirements of EPCRA during the reporting years 1991,
1992, and 1993. Complainant continued as follows:
Among other things, Stanton ascertained the Facility's
Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC") Code of 3399,
its number of employees -- 96 in 1991, 97 in 1992 and 100
in 1993 -- and that the Facility processed or used
approximately 19,600 pounds of methanol, 59,000 pounds of
ammonia, and 1,015,850 pounds of copper in 1991; about
18,700 pounds of methanol, 60,200 pounds of ammonia and
1,221,900 pounds of copper in 1992; and approximately
18,300 pounds of methanol, 61,900 pounds of ammonia and
1,343,720 pounds of copper in 1993.
Although subject to the obligations of EPCRA, Respondent
failed to submit the required toxic chemical release
forms for methanol, ammonia and copper for each of the
1991, 1992 and 1993 reporting years by the reporting
deadlines of September 2, 1992, July 1, 1993 and July 1,
1994, respectively. Respondent is therefore in violation
of EPCRA § 313.
Complainant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
Accelerated Decision (Memorandum) at 2.
Section 313 of EPCRA sets forth certain requirements on owners
and operators of facilities which (1) have a primary SIC code
between 20 and 39; (2) have 10 or more employees; and (3)
manufacture, process or otherwise use a toxic chemical listed in 40
C.F.R. § 372.65, in excess of the threshold quantity established
under Section 313(f) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11023(f); 42 U.S.C §
11023(b); 40 C.F.R. § 372.22. During the calendar year for which
the form is required, the owner or operator must submit a toxic
release form (Form R) for each toxic chemical to EPA and the state
in which the facility is located, by July 1 of the next calendar
year (except the 1991 form, for which the deadline was
administratively extended to September 2, 1992). 42 U.S.C. §
11023(a); 40 C.F.R. § 372.30.
Respondent has admitted that its facility had a primary SIC
code of 33 and that it had 10 or more full-time employees in the
years 1991, 1992 and 1993. Respondent's Answer to Complaint
(Answer) ¶¶ 7, 6. The third jurisdictional factor has also been
satisfied. Respondent admits that it used more than 10,000 pounds
of methanol in 1991, 1992 and 1993 (Answer ¶¶ 11, 29, 47) and more
than 10,000 pounds of ammonia in 1991, 1992, and 1993 (Answer ¶¶
17, 35, 53). Respondent, in its Answer, also admits use of 10,000
pounds of copper during 1991, 1992, and 1993 (Answer ¶¶ 23, 41,
59). The Complaint alleged that Respondent processed amounts of
copper in excess of the statutory threshold of 25,000 pounds per
year for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. Complaint, ¶¶ 23, 41, and
59. Because Respondent's July 7 response admits that the
Complainant's accelerated decision is appropriate as to all
liability issues, this portion of Complainant's motion for
accelerated decision is also granted.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby determined that
Respondent violated Section 313 of EPCRA by:
(1) failing to file the required Form R for the 1991
reporting year for methanol, ammonia, and copper by
September 2, 1992;
(2) failing to submit the required Form R for the 1992
reporting year for methanol, ammonia, and copper by
July 1, 1993; and
(3) failing to submit the required Form R for the 1993
reporting year for methanol, ammonia, and copper by
July 1, 1994.
The remaining penalty issue shall be decided in the hearing
ordered in this proceeding. The parties are directed to meet
informally prior to October 1, 1997 to attempt to resolve this
matter informally. Complainant, after consultation with
Respondent, shall file a status report with the undersigned on or
before October 20, 1997. Should this matter not be resolved by a
consent agreement and consent order, the parties can expect a
prehearing telephone conference to be held approximately two weeks
before the hearing begins.
Charles E. Bullock
Administrative Law Judge
Issued: July 17, 1997
Washington, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF SYMMCO, INC., Respondent,
Docket No. EPCRA-III-171
Certificate of Service
I certify that the foregoing Order, dated July 17, 1997, was
sent this day in the following manner to the below addressees.
Original by Regular Mail to: Ms. Lydia A. Guy
Regional Hearing Clerk
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Copy by Regular Mail to:
Attorney for Complainant: Janet Sharke, Esquire
Sr. Assistant Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attorney for Respondent: Robin A. Read, Esquire
McNERNEY, PAGE, VANDERLIN & HALL
433 Market Street
P.O. Box 7
Williamsport, PA 17703
Marion Walzel
Legal Staff Assistant
Dated: July 17, 1997
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif)