Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Enforcement and Assistance in New England

2010 Region 1 Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results

Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results
Federal Data by State: Click on each state to find federal data. Federal Data for Maine Federal Data for New Hampshire Federal Data for Vermont Federal Data for Connecticut Federal Data for Rhode Island Federal Data for Massachusetts Federal Data for Connecticut Federal Data for Maine Federal Data for Massachusetts Federal Data for New Hampshire Federal Data for Rhode Island Federal Data for Vermont

Region 1 puts significant effort into protecting people's health and the environment in the six New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont) by ensuring compliance with environmental laws. As a result of enforcement actions completed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 (October 1, 2009 – September 30, 2010), approximately 126.8 million pounds of pollutants will be reduced or treated. Further, approximately 53 million cubic yards of contaminated water and soil will be cleaned.

Injunctive Relief (work required to bring facilities into compliance) – The estimated dollar value of cleanup or corrective action required by Region 1 in FY2010 will total more than $175 million.

Penalties - In FY2010, Region 1 assessed over$4.5 million in penalties as the result of administrative and judicial actions.

Supplemental Environmental Projects – As part of a settlement, a violator may voluntarily agree to undertake an environmentally beneficial project, also known as a supplemental environmental project, related to the violation in exchange for mitigation of the penalty to be paid. In FY2010, supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) were included in 14 settlements with a total value of more than $695,000.

Inspections – Region 1 completed more than 900 on-site inspections. These inspections were spread geographically throughout New England and covered a wide range of federal programs, including storm water, wetlands, oil pollution prevention, asbestos demolition and renovation, hazardous waste management, community right-to-know, stationary air sources and disclosure of lead paint hazards.

Administrative Penalty Complaints – In FY2010, we issued 44 administrative compliance orders, 63 administrative penalty complaints, and 67 final administrative penalty orders.

Civil Judicial Enforcement – In FY2010, we referred 20 enforcement cases to the U.S. Department of Justice and had 27 judicial case conclusions.

Superfund Cleanup Enforcement - In FY2010, Region 1 received commitments from liable parties to pay almost $36 million to clean up Superfund sites, to pay over $6.6 million for Government oversight of Superfund cleanups and to reimburse the Government over $21 million for money it spent cleaning up Superfund sites.

Compliance Assistance Activities – The Region continues to develop compliance assistance tools and provide expert compliance assistance to the regulated community. Over the past year, the Region reached more than 183,000 entities through 274 facility visits, 111 assistance workshops, dozens of presentations at meetings and events, and individualized assistance.

Significant compliance assistance conducted in FY10 included:

  • Outreach to auto body shops and other sources impacted by the CAA Paint Stripping and Misc Surface Coating Rule in order to train these facilities and encourage them to take actions that will reduce emissions of targeted heavy metals prior to the Rule's January 2011 compliance date;
  • Outreach to thousands of contractors, real estate organizations, municipalities etc, on the Lead Renovation & Repair Rule;
  • EPCRA and TRI outreach to support local emergency planning efforts, emphasizing chemical safety and toxics use reductions; and
  • Outreach to municipalities and operators of waste water treatment plants and collection systems to improve NPDES permit compliance including conducting CMOM training, asset management training, use of technology including GPS units and pole camera demonstrations to enable DPWs/system operators to inventory and assess conditions of their buried infrastructure.

FY2006-FY2010 Compliance Assistance Trends

Top of Page


Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results
Numbers at a Glance
Region 1

Results Obtained from EPA Civil Enforcement Actions
Estimated Environmental Benefit Commitments:  
  Direct Environmental Benefits  
 
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
126,774,419
 
  • Hazardous WastesTreated, Minimized or Properly Disposed Of (Pounds) (1)
33
 
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
233,833
 
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
52,649,268
 
  • Stream Miles Protected or Restored (Linear Feet)
72,909
 
  • Wetlands Protected or Restored (Acres)
32
 
  • People Protected by Safe Drinking Water Act Enforcement (# of People)
1,000
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $175,578,594
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $695,862
Civil Penalties Assessed  
  Administrative Penalties Assessed $1,165,837
  Judicial Penalties Assessed $3,338,222
  State/Local Judicial Penalties Asses From Joint Federal-State/Local Enforcement Actions (2) $100,000
  Stipulated Penalties Assessed $0
   
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Referrals of Civil Judicial Enforcement Cases to Department of Justice (DOJ) 20
Supplemental Referrals of Civil Judicial Enforcement Cases to DOJ 1
Civil Judicial Complaints Filed with Court 29
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 27
Administrative Penalty Order Complaints 63
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 67
Administrative Compliance Orders 44
Cases with Supplemental Environmental Projects 14
   
Compliance Monitoring Activities
Inspections/Evaluations 919
Civil Investigations 5
Number of Regulated Entities Taking Complying Actions as a Direct Results of On-Site EPA Inspections/Evaluations 108
 
Superfund Cleanup Enforcement
Amount Committed by Liable Parties to Clean up Superfund Sites $35,819,290
Amount Committed by Liable Parties to Pay for Government Oversight of Superfund Cleanups $6,691,777
Amount Committed by Liable Parties to Reimburse the Government for Money Spent Cleaning up Superfund Sites $21,184,104
   
Voluntary Disclosure Program
Commitments to Reduce, Treat or Eliminate Pollution as a Result of Voluntary Disclosures (pounds) 62,000
Voluntary Disclosures Initiated (Facilities) 67
Voluntary Disclosures Resolved (Facilities) 392
Voluntary Disclosures Initiated (Companies) 67
Voluntary Disclosures Resolved (Companies) 184
   
Compliance Assistance
Assistance Tools (3) 6
Workshops and Training 111
Facility Visits, Re-visits and Ongoing Facility Specific Work 274

Sources for Data displayed for Numbers at a Glance:  Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), Criminal Case Reporting System, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Information System (CERCLIS), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), Air Facility System (AFS), and Permit Compliance System (PCS) October 13, 2010.

Footnotes:

(1)Projected reductions to be achieved during the one year period after all actions required to attain full compliance have been completed.

(2)This measure reports on penalties assessed in federal civil judicial enforcement cases that are awarded to a state or local government co-plaintiff in the case.

(3)EPA provides assistance using a variety of tools including workshops, facility visits, posting web-based information, responding to specific calls about regulations, etc.

Top of Page


Federal Data Presented State-by-state

EPA works in partnership with states in targeting federal enforcement where it produces the most environmental benefit. The data below shows EPA's activities and achievements.

Caveat - A single enforcement case that addresses facilities located in more than one state will be counted in the total for each state with a facility.  The results achieved from this enforcement action will also be counted in each state with a facility. 

Connecticut

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits – Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:  
  Direct Environmental Benefits  
 
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
651,930
 
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
3,640
 
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
0
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $6,736,164
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $0
Civil Penalties Assesssed $367,866
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 8
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 15
Administrative Compliance Orders 3

Top of Page

Maine

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits – Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:  
  Direct Environmental Benefits  
 
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
0
 
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
30,936
 
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
12,600
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $14,507,080
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $0
Civil Penalties Assesssed $1,300
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 1
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 3
Administrative Compliance Orders 4

Top of Page

Massachusetts

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits – Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:  
  Direct Environmental Benefits  
 
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
126,650,061
 
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
103,527
 
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
35,561,148
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $133,985,747
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $399,519
Civil Penalties Assesssed $3,367,430
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 12
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 33
Administrative Compliance Orders 23

Top of Page

New Hampshire

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits – Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:  
  Direct Environmental Benefits  
 
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
548,472
 
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
29,000
 
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
17,075,520
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $22,062,300
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $12,562
Civil Penalties Assesssed $2,830,100
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 5
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 5
Administrative Compliance Orders 7

Top of Page

Rhode Island

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits – Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:  
  Direct Environmental Benefits  
 
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
86,643
 
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
67,000
 
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
0
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $4,144,401
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $212,375
Civil Penalties Assesssed $206,793
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 3
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 6
Administrative Compliance Orders 4

Top of Page

Vermont

Civil Enforcement
Estimated Environmental Benefits – Commitments to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment:  
  Direct Environmental Benefits  
 
  • Pollution Reduced, Treated or Eliminated (Pounds) (1)
0
 
  • Contaminated Soil to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
0
 
  • Contaminated Water to be Cleaned Up (Cubic Yards)
0
Investments in Actions & Equipment to Reduce Pollution & Protect the Environment (Injunctive Relief) $549,025
Investments in Projects that Benefit the Environment & Public Health (Supplemental Environmental Projects) $0
Civil Penalties Assesssed $48,650
Civil Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Civil Judicial Enforcement Case Conclusions 0
Final Administrative Penalty Orders 5
Administrative Compliance Orders 5

Footnotes:

Sources for Data displayed for Federal Data Presented State-by-State:  Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)

(1) Projected reductions to be achieved during the one year period after all actions required to attain full compliance have been completed.

Top of Page


Federal Case Highlights Presented State-by-state

Connecticut

AES Thames, Montville, CT: In March 2010, a Consent Decree with AES Thames, LLC, the owner and operator of a coal-fired power plant in Montville, Connecticut, was lodged in U.S. Federal District court.  The Decree resolves alleged Clean Water Act, CERCLA and EPCRA violations arising from releases of chlorine to the Thames River in 2006 as well as violations of federally-enforceable steam production limits contained in AES Thames’ Clean Air Act permit.  The Decree requires payment of a $140,000 penalty and establishes injunctive relief designed to prevent repeat violations.  The company will train its employees annually in spill prevention and response measures and update its spill response procedures to comply with applicable reporting requirements.

Carabetta Management Company, New Haven, CT: In February 2010, Region 1 settled an enforcement action against Carabetta Management Company for violations of TSCA, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazardous Reduction Act and the Disclosure Rule.  Carabetta failed to provide disclosure regarding the risks of lead-based paint when it entered into 20 leases with tenants of target housing in Meriden, Connecticut.  The company manages approximately 17,000 residential apartment units in Connecticut and Massachusetts.  To settle this action, Carabetta will pay a penalty of $276,000, the largest cash penalty to date under this program in Region 1.  In addition to the civil action, on December 11, 2009, the supervisor of leasing agents for Carabetta pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly and willfully failing to provide Lead Disclosure information, in violation of TSCA.

University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT: In December 2009, Region 1 settled an enforcement action against the University of Bridgeport for violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the federal regulations regarding polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  Under the terms of the CAFO, UB has agreed to pay a $12,900 penalty for the alleged violations and to spend at least $56,000 in performance of a supplemental environmental project (SEP).  For the SEP, UB will take an inventory of all of the electrical transformers on its campus, determining the PCB content of each transformer, and either retrofill or dispose of all transformers with PCB content equal to or greater than 50 ppm.  Region 1 had alleged that UB violated TSCA and the PCB Regulations as a result of spilled/leaked PCB-contaminated oil from two electrical transformers located on campus.

Select another state.

Top of Page

Maine

Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME: In September 2010, Region 1 ordered the University of Maine to restore wetlands on its campus in Orono Maine. The wetlands were filled between 1984 and 2009 during the construction of buildings, roads, and parking areas; installation of culverts; expansion of a landfill; and disposal of snow and associated debris.  The University violated the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) by failing to obtain the required federal permit from the Army Corps of Engineers before filling the wetlands.

Region 1’s order requires removal of approximately 2 acres of a landfill and snow dump and restoration of the underlying wetland. It also requires restoration of approximately one acre of forested wetland that the University had converted to a livestock paddock. To compensate for some fill that cannot be removed, the University will restore and enhance 3.66 acres of a currently farmed area that includes wetlands and an upland buffer.

The University has worked cooperatively with Region 1 once the violations were brought to its attention and has agreed to the terms of the order. The University has indicated that it will involve students and faculty in the restoration effort to maximize its benefit as a learning experience.

GSA Land Agreement, Sandy Bay Township, ME:  In September 2010, Region 1 signed a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement with the General Services Administration (GSA) to address the unpermitted fill and destruction of 1.38 acres of wetlands undertaken in 2008-2009 as part of the expansion of the U.S.-Canada border crossing station in Sandy Bay Township, Maine.  Because the location of the station was fixed along a highway crossing the border, and because the buildings and associated areas had already been constructed, Region 1 agreed to a compensatory mitigation project at the nearby Moose River #5 Mountain Preserve, which will be undertaken by the Nature Conservancy.  The $36,000 cost of mitigation will be funded by GSA.  The compensatory mitigation project requires removal of fill and culverts and re-establishing connections between wetlands which had been separated by logging roads.  Approximately 23.5 acres of degraded wetlands and 3.6 miles of stream connectivity will be restored.

PropSys Inc., Lewiston, ME: On June 10, 2010, Region 1 settled an administrative action against PropSys Inc. for violations of the TSCA, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (the Act), and the federal regulations regarding the disclosure of lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards during real estate lease transactions.  PropSys manages multiple apartment buildings/complexes in Maine.  Under the terms of the CAFO, PropSys will pay a penalty of $39,162 (plus interest).  Region 1 had alleged that PropSys violated TSCA, the Act, and the Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Rule during 10 lease transactions from 2006-2007 for properties located in Lewiston, Maine.

West Site/How’s Corner Superfund Site, Plymouth, ME: In November 2009, Region 1 finalized a Consent Decree for the West Site/How's Corner Superfund Site located in Plymouth, Maine, a low-income community.  The agreement is between the United States, the State of Maine and 83 potentially responsible parties.  The largest volume PRPs, General Electric and Central Maine Power, agreed to perform the Remedial Action for the Site, which has an estimated cost of $11.2 million.  Settling Federal PRPs for the Site agreed to fund a large portion of the cleanup work.  The remaining PRPs agreed to make one-time payments to resolve their liability.  The creative use of $2.875 million in mixed funding provided by EPA Headquarters was an important incentive for settlement.

Select another state.

Top of Page

Massachusetts

Cashman Dredging and Contracting, Beverly Harbor, MA: In September 2010, Region 1 settled an administrative penalty case against Cashman Dredging and Contracting Co., LLC for violations of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).  The company "short-dumped" dredged material destined for ocean disposal into Beverly Harbor, Massachusetts, and allegedly overdredged a portion of the Porter River, taking unauthorized materials to the ocean disposal site.  This action results from an investigation by EPA, the U.S. Army Corps, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management.  Cashman has agreed to pay $12,500 to resolve EPA’s MPRSA claims and to undertake a $37,500 supplemental environmental project involving the installation of low-impact moorings.

Low Impact Development SEPs: As part of an initiative aimed at reducing urban stormwater runoff, Region 1 settled enforcement actions throughout FY2010 against eight Massachusetts municipalities (Canton, Concord, Dennis, Eastham, Fall River, Gardner, Peabody, and Winthrop) and one New Hampshire municipality (Plaistow) for violations of the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) requirements of the Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Storm Water Permit.  The IDDE provisions are aimed at eliminating discharges of raw sewage through illicit connections to stormwater systems.  Six of these settlements included innovative SEPs through which the municipalities will reduce stormwater runoff by implementing Low Impact Development measures such as porous pavement projects and rainwater harvesting system distribution programs.  The settlements provide that the municipalities will pay cash penalties ranging from $2,000 to $17,450.  The SEPs range in value from $10,000 to $35,000.

FirstLight Power Resources, Northfield, MA: In August 2010, Region 1 issued a CWA Administrative Order to FirstLight Power Resources, the owner and operator of a hydroelectric facility in Northfield, MA.  The facility provides power during peak demand using water from a man-made reservoir.  On May 1, 2010, FirstLight began to draw down the water levels in the reservoir in order to perform maintenance on the facility.  The reservoir had not been drained since 1990.  Within days, a very large volume of sediments in the reservoir became dislodged and clogged tailrace tunnels and holding tanks, impacting the operations of the facility.  In the process of removing the sediments, the facility mixed the accumulated sediments with river water prior to pumping them to the Connecticut River. 

Region 1 inspected the facility on July 15, 2010 in response to a citizen complaint.  The August administrative order required the facility to immediately cease its cleaning activities and the discharge of sediments to the Connecticut River pending the implementation of a sediment reduction alternative that would reduce the impacts of the discharge on the Connecticut River, and to take other steps to prevent the discharge of sediments in the future.  FirstLight removed approximately 15,700 cubic yards of silt from the River and retained approximately 54,300 cubic yards of silt in its facility, thereby addressing a total of approximately 124,000,000 pounds.

Fafard Real Estate Development, Eastern MA: In July 2010, the Fafard Real Estate and Development Corporation agreed to pay a civil penalty of $150,000 and to perform a SEP estimated to cost $300,000 in a CWA consent decree resolving stormwater violations at 13 construction sites in eastern Massachusetts.  The SEP consists of donating land to the Town of Uxbridge, Massachusetts, with a permanent conservation restriction on it, and constructing two water quality basins and associated stormwater management infrastructure on the site.

New Bedford, MA: In April 2010, Region 1 entered into a $13 million settlement with AVX Corporation which will ensure that a vacant PCB-contaminated mill building in an environmental justice community, known as the Aerovox mill facility, is demolished and turned over to the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts for redevelopment.  In addition to the settlement with EPA, AVX also reached separate agreements with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of New Bedford to ensure that the site is further evaluated and remediated under the state cleanup program before being turned over to the City.  These complex, interrelated settlements were a result of joint negotiations between the Region, the Commonwealth, the City of New Bedford, and the potentially responsible party AVX Corporation.  In addition, at the Parker Street waste site in New Bedford, Region 1 responded to concerns raised by community members about the possibility of contamination on residential properties as a result of a historic "burn dump" in the area.  Region 1 obtained access to approximately 60 separate residential parcels, including a low-income housing development, in order to facilitate performance of soil sampling.

Aggregate-NE, MA and NH: In November 2009, a Consent Decree was entered by the United States District Court for Massachusetts resolving a CWA enforcement action against Aggregate-NE, a fully owned subsidiary of Aggregate Industries, Inc., for stormwater and other violations at 23 of its facilities in New England.  Under the terms of the settlement, the company has eliminated all of its process water discharges and will implement pollution control measures to eliminate discharges into surface waters.  These measures will require expenditures of over $6 million and will result in the annual elimination of approximately 158,854 pounds of total suspended solids, 2,195 pounds of oil and grease, 1,143 pounds of iron, and 495 pounds of nitrate and nitrogen from the environment.  In addition, the company will pay a penalty of $2.75 million, one of the largest penalties ever obtained in a Region 1 civil case.

Select another state.

Top of Page

New Hampshire

Draper Energy/Energy North, Milford, NH: In July 2010, Region 1 resolved an administrative complaint against Draper Energy Co., Inc. of Wilton, New Hampshire and Energy North Incorporated of Tewksbury, Massachusetts alleging that they violated Section 311 of the CWA and the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 112.  Region 1 had alleged that the companies failed to fully maintain and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan under the CWA at its Milford, NH facility and illegally discharged oil into waters of the United States in violation of the CWA.  On or about March 5, 2009, diesel oil was discharged from a break in a pipe at the Milford, NH facility, a gas station.  About 1,500 gallons of that oil flowed into the soil beneath the pump, into a granite culvert that runs beneath the facility and then discharged into the nearby Souhegan River, which flows into to the Merrimack River and eventually the Atlantic Ocean. The parties agreed to pay a fine of $49,000 for their violations.

Anibio USA, LLC, Hampton, NH: In July 2010, Region 1 issued three Stop Sale, Use, and Removal Orders under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to prevent further distribution and sale of violative pesticide products.  The companies included in the orders were: (1) Anibio USA, LLC of Hampton, NH, which is alleged to have misbranding and reporting violations associated with a magnetic device (called "tic-clip") that repels ticks, fleas, lice and other pests on dogs and cats; (2) CED-O-PRODUCTS CORP. of Lawton, OK (but whose products are offered for sale at Griffin Greenhouse & Nursery Supplies located in Tewksbury, MA), which is alleged to have registration and misbranding violations associated with two plant sprays; and (3) Hockey Hands, Inc. of Pepperell, MA, which is alleged to have registration and misbranding violations associated with an anti-bacterial odor remover used on hockey equipment.

Select another state.

Top of Page

Rhode Island

Cardi Materials, LLC, Warwick, RI: In July 2010, Region 1 entered into a consent decree with a concrete manufacturing company, Cardi Materials, LLC, for stormwater and process water violations of the CWA.  The company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $55,000 and perform an SEP estimated to cost $168,500, in which the company will replace a 1,800 foot long impervious park road in East Providence, Rhode Island, with porous pavement.

Rhode Island Airport Corporation, Warwick, RI: In July 2010, Region 1 settled an enforcement action against Rhode Island Airport Corporation, O.R. Colan Associates of Florida, LLC, and The Jones Payne Group, Inc. for violations of Asbestos NESHAP regulations of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The Respondents agreed to pay a penalty of $25,000 prior to the filing of a complaint for failing to notify EPA in advance of commencing demolition activities.  From September 2004 to December 2008, Respondents demolished 146 residences, during five phases of a noise abatement land acquisition program at T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, RI without providing the required notice to EPA.

Green Hill Superfund Site, Johnston, RI: In February 2010, the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island entered a Consent Decree resolving United States v. Louis Vinagro, litigation pertaining to the Green Hill Superfund Site in Johnston, Rhode Island.  Through this Consent Decree, the Defendant, Louis Vinagro, agrees to pay $1,975,000 to the United States, with proceeds to be funded entirely by the sale or lease of the Site as well as another parcel of land.  In addition, Vinagro agrees to record a consent judgment lien on both the Site and the other parcel that is to be sold to satisfy the consent judgment.  In turn, the United States grants Vinagro covenants not to sue for recovery of past costs pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA.

Select another state.

Top of Page

Vermont

Jay Peak, Jay, VT: In September 2010, Region 1 ordered Jay Peak Resort, Inc. in Jay, VT to restore wetlands and streams that were harmed when the resort discharged dredged and fill material into the waters during construction of its golf course in violation of the CWA.  The damage was done between 2004 and 2006 when it was building its golf course and discharged material without a required permit.  According to Region 1, the construction company working for Jay Peak Resort placed dirt, sand and rocks into numerous wetlands and streams, affecting a total of 2.15 acres.  The affected streams on the site flow into Jay Branch Brook, which flows into the Missisiquoi River, and then into Lake Champlain.  The resort was ordered to restore the wetlands and streams in order to restore wildlife habitat, sediment trapping, and nutrient removal and transport functions.  Jay Peak agreed to the terms of Region 1’s order and recently completed all restoration work prior to the order’s October 2010 deadline.

Safety Kleen, Barre, VT: In September 2010, Region 1 simultaneously initiated and resolved a TSCA administrative enforcement action against Safety-Kleen Systems, Incorporated (Safety-Kleen).  Region 1 had alleged that Safety-Kleen violated Section 6 of TSCA, as well as the regulations governing the waste disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 761, Subpart K, at its facilities located in Marlborough, Massachusetts, Barre, Vermont, and Portland, Connecticut.  The CAFO requires Safety-Kleen to pay a civil penalty of $80,000 for its violations.

JIDDU/SITTU Trust & CRC Excavating LLC, Colchester, VT: On February 8, 2010, Region 1 settled a Clean Air Act enforcement action against the JIDDU/SITTU Trust of Colchester, Vermont, a real estate trust, and CRC Excavating LLC, their demolition contractor.  The Region’s administrative complaint against JIDDU/SITTU and CRC, alleged violations of Section 112 of the CAA and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos, 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart M (Asbestos NESHAP).  The alleged violations occurred during a demolition conducted in March 2008 when the companies cleared two residential lots owned by JIDDU/SITTU in Essex Junction, Vermont, to develop a three-story, 35-unit apartment building.  The companies failed to report their demolition plans to EPA and failed to inspect the buildings for asbestos prior to the demolition, in violation of the NESHAP.  A total of 75,106 pounds (approximately 120 cubic yards) of demolition debris was removed from the site and disposed of at a waste transfer station as non-asbestos containing waste (although never tested).  Under the settlement agreement JIDDU/SITTU will pay a penalty of $10,000, plus interest, and CRC a penalty of $5,000, plus interest.

Select another state.

Top of Page


Serving Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, & 10 Tribal Nations

Jump to main content.