Region 5 - Office of Regional Counsel

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Apex Oil Company
Badger Meter, Inc.
Circuit Engineering L.L.C
Circuitronics LLC
Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. (February 16, 2005)
Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. (March 16, 2005)
Glidden Company d/b/a ICI Paints
Strong Steel Products, LLC
U.S. Ceramic Tile Co.
Visteon Corporation

Environmental Appeals Board to Consider Sunoco and EDS Briefs in EDS UIC Permit Appeals. On February 16, 2005, the Environmental Appeals Board (Board) granted a motion from Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. (EDS) to intervene in the appeal process of its two underground injection permits issued by the Region on October 18, 2004. The Board will consider the brief submitted by EDS with its motion, in which EDS asked the Board to deny two petitions for review filed in November of 2004. The Board granted EDS’s motion over the objection of Mr. Alfred Brock, one of the two petitioners that requested review of the Region’s permit decisions. Also on February 16, 2005, the Board granted a motion made by Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals, Inc. (SPMT), requesting leave to reply to the Region’s January 19, 2005 response to the petitions, in which the region requested that the Board deny the petitions, and to EDS’s brief. SPMT is the second petitioner that requested Board review of these permit decisions. The Board will now consider the short brief submitted by SPMT that responds to the Region and EDS and requests that the Board review the permit decisions. As a result of the appeal petitions, the final permits are stayed. EDS still needs to procure a state RCRA license, for which it has applied, to operate the facility. SPMT is currently involved in other litigation with both EDS and EPA pertaining to these wells. SPMT’s challenge in the 6th Circuit, to EPA’s March 15, 2004 RCRA land disposal restriction exemption, is on hold. A status report is due at the end of March.

Contact: Erik Olson, primary contact 312-886-6829; Maria Gonzalez, additional contact 312-886-6630

Environmental Appeals Board to Hear Oral Arguments in EDS UIC Permit Appeals. On March 16, 2005, the Environmental Appeals Board (Board) issued an order scheduling oral arguments in the appeal process of Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc.’s (EDS) two underground injection permits issued by EPA Region 5 on October 18, 2004. On May 10, 2005, the Board will hear arguments from Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals, Inc. (SPMT), the company that appealed the permits, from the Region, and from EDS. All three of these parties have briefed their positions to the Board. A separate appeal of the permits, filed by Mr. Alfred Brock, a local citizen, will not be the subject of oral arguments. Rather, the Board will decide Mr. Brock’s appeal on the parties’ written briefs and on the administrative record of the permit decision. As a result of the appeal petitions, the final permits are stayed. EDS still needs to procure a state RCRA license, for which it has applied, to operate the facility. SPMT is currently involved in other litigation with both EDS and EPA pertaining to these wells. On March 21, 2005, the Region received a petition dated March 16, 2005, from SPMT requesting EPA to stay and terminate EDS’ exemption from the RCRA land disposal restrictions. SPMT’s challenge in the 6th Circuit, to EPA’s March 15, 2004 RCRA land disposal restriction exemption, is on hold. A status report is due to the 6th Circuit at the end of March.

Contact: Erik Olson, primary contact (312) 886-6829; Maria Gonzalez, additional contact (312) 886-6630

United States Files Complaint Against Apex Oil Company. On April 5, 2005 the United States Department of Justice filed a complaint in the Southern District of Illinois against Apex Oil Company (“Apex Oil”) seeking injunctive relief under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. Apex Oil is the successor by merger to former owners and/or operators of a refinery and associated pipelines and sewers located in Hartford, Illinois from which releases of gasoline, diesel fuel, and other petroleum-based substances have occurred. Such releases contributed to a large subsurface plume of petroleum-based substances, from which oil and vapors have infiltrated certain homes in Hartford, resulting in fires, explosions and evacuations.

The complaint seeks a declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that a request for injunctive relief pursuant to RCRA Section 7003(a), 42 U.S.C. § 6973(a), is not precluded by the discharge of debts and claims provided by Bankruptcy Code Section 1141(d), 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d). The injunctive relief requested pursuant to RCRA Section 7003(a) is an order requiring Apex Oil to cooperate and participate in the investigation and clean up of the large plume of petroleum-based substances beneath Hartford. The plume is the result of commingled releases from pipelines, refineries, and other petroleum facilities in the area. Currently, three responsible parties are conducting an investigation and implementing interim measures pursuant to a RCRA 7003/CWA 311 Administrative Order on Consent.

Contact: Brian Barwick, primary contact (312) 886-6620.

Chief Judge Biro issues favorable decision in Strong Steel RCRA case.  On April 7, 2005, Chief Administrative Law Judge Susan L. Biro issued an initial decision ordering Strong Steel Products, LLC to pay a civil penalty of $269,527 and to complete closure clean-up of its hazardous waste disposal activities. This case is part of the Region’s Detroit urban area and scrap yard initiative. The Region initiated enforcement against Strong Steel as a result of a collaborative effort with the City of Detroit, Wayne County and the State of Michigan. In addition to the decision by Judge Biro the enforcement case has prompted Strong Steel to build a secondary facility for the collection of automobile fluids from scrapped vehicles prior to its shredding operations.

Strong Steel Products is located in the City of Detroit. Strong Steel Products is one of the larger scrap shredder operations in the Detroit Metropolitan area. It is affiliated with Soave Enterprises and may be one of the ten largest scrap recycling operations nationally. Strong Steel is located in an area of Detroit that is minority and low income. Automobiles are a major source of scrap metal at this facility. Over the course of a year it receives over 100,000 crushed and uncrushed automobiles. Prior to the enforcement action Strong Steel routinely would crush automobiles on the ground at its facility allowing the automobile fluids to leak onto the ground.

Chief Judge Biro imposed a penalty which was 88% of the proposed penalty of $307, 450. In her initial decision Judge Biro agreed with the Region that over the course of approximately 2 years Strong Steel had discharged onto the ground at least 8,234 gallons of gasoline and used oil. She found that this mixture of used oil and gasoline was a hazardous waste and that Strong was disposing of it (not storing) on the ground. She found that Strong Steel was operating a hazardous waste disposal facility without a permit; failed to provide a complete notification since it failed to identify all of the hazardous wastes it generated and failed to notify of its storage and disposal activities; disposed of hazardous waste without meeting the land ban treatment standards; failed to retain records of its land ban determination; and failed to adequately responded to the releases of hazardous waste. With this decision the Region has completed its multi-media enforcement action against Strong Steel. Strong Steel entered into an administrative settlement worth $500,000 for violations of the Clean Air Act, chloroflourocarbon (CFC) regulations.
Contact: Richard Clarizio 312-886-0559; Crissy Pellegrin 312-353-5263; and Jeff Gahris 312-886-6794.

U.S. Ceramic Tile Co. Agrees To Pay a $1,270,000 Civil Penalty and Implement Facility-wide Corrective Action. On April 5, 2005, Judge Gwin entered a consent decree resolving the United States’ allegations that the defendant had violated a 1988 federal consent decree by failing to comply with approved closure plan requirements and by failing to use best efforts to obtain financial assurance and liability coverage. The United States also sought corrective action at the facility pursuant to section 3008(h) of RCRA. The defendant’s former lagoon and waste piles at its East Sparta, Ohio facility were contaminated by toxic levels of barium, cadmium and lead. The consent decree requires the defendant to implement a facility-wide corrective action program, including interim measures, a RCRA facility investigation, a corrective measures study and implementation of the selected corrective measures. The defendant also agreed to pay a $1,270,000 civil penalty for the alleged violations. U.S. Ceramic or its predecessors have manufactured ceramic tile at this facility since at least 1923.

Contact: Stuart P. Hersh, primary contact, 312-886-6235; Kenneth Bardo, additional contact, 312-886-7566

Region 5 enters into a Consent Agreement and Final Order resolving RCRA Violations by Circuit Engineering, L.L.C. in Addison, Illinois. On April 27, 2005, the Director of Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region 5, signed a Consent Agreement and Final Order resolving claims against Circuit Engineering L.L.C. (Circuit) for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), its regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts 260 through 279 and the corresponding Illinois State Regulations at 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 703 et seq.
The Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) simultaneously commences and concludes the violations alleged against Circuit. Circuit produces circuit boards at its facility. U.S. EPA has alleged that Circuit failed to comply with the provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 722.134 (40 C.F.R. § 262.34) and failed to obtain a permit in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 703.121(a) and 703.123 (40 C.F.R.§ 270.1) in violation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 703.121(a) (40 C.F.R. § 270.1). Specifically, Circuit failed to take part in an annual review of its initial personnel training in violation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 725.116 (40 C.F.R. § 265.16), failed to have a contingency plan that complied with all the components set forth in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 725.152 (e) (40 C.F.R. § 265.52(e)), failed to submit copies of its contingency plan to all local police departments, fire departments, hospitals and state and local response teams that may be called upon to provide emergency services in violation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 725.153(b) (40 C.F.R. § 265.53(b)), failed to have adequate secondary containment in violation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 725.293(b)(1) (40 C.F.R. § 265.193(b)(1)), failed to file a notification stating the general location and description of activity as required by Section 3010 of RCRA, 42 USC Section 6930 and failed to send a number of manifests to the state within two working days after transporting waste off-site in violation of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 722.123(a)(4). The proposed penalty was $8,321. Region 5 initiated prefiling discussions on this matter on December 23, 2004. Respondent has agreed to pay civil penalty of $7,489.

Contact: Nidhi O’Meara, primary contact 312/886-0568; Graciela Scambiatterra, additional contact 312/353-5103.

Region 5 files Consent Agreement and Final Order with Badger Meter, Inc. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin  On September 26, 2005, Region 5 filed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) simultaneously instituting and settling an action against Badger Meter, Inc. (Badger Meter), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for alleged violations of Section 3005(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a). Badger Meter is a large quantity generator of hazardous waste who allegedly failed to meet certain conditions for an exemption from obtaining a permit for the storage of hazardous waste. Badger Meter allegedly failed to 1) include a description of emergency equipment capabilities in its contingency plan; 2) train an employee in hazardous waste management procedures; 3) keep three containers of hazardous waste stored closed; 4) label two containers; document the time of weekly hazardous waste area inspection; and 5) obtain an assessment and certification from a licensed Professional Engineer as to the integrity of a hazardous waste storage tank at Badger Meter’s facility. By violating its duty to obtain a permit, Badger Meter became subject to civil penalties under Sections 3008(a) and (g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6928(a) and (g). Under this CAFO, Badger Meter agrees to pay $105,400 in civil penalties. The penalty represents a substantial sanction against Badger Meter, and will deter future violations.

Primary Contact: Kevin Chow, (312) 353-6181; Additional Contact: Paul Atkociunas, (312) 886-7502

U.S. EPA files administrative complaint against Circuitronics LLC, located in Wheaton, Illinois.
On September 30, 2005, Region 5 filed an administrative Complaint against Circuitronics LLC. The Complaint proposes a civil penalty of $46,224 and orders Circuitronics, among other things, to add information on facility emergency equipment to its hazardous waste contingency plan, and to maintain compliance with the RCRA training requirements. In the Complaint, Region 5 alleges that Circuitronics failed to: 1) obtain a complete integrity and installation assessment of its two hazardous waste storage tank systems; 2) include the location, description, and outline of the capabilities of its emergency equipment in its contingency plan; 3) provide annual training for employees with duties involving the management of hazardous waste for a period of four years; and 4) have an emergency coordinator who is familiar with all aspects of its contingency plan. Primary Contact: Jacqueline Miller, ORC, (312) 886-7167 and Todd Brown, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division, (312) 886-6091.

RCRA Subpart BB Case against Glidden/ICI Paints, Huron, Ohio resolved with Complaint/CAFO

On September 30, 2005, Region 5 filed a combination Complaint/Consent Agreement and Final Order simultaneously initiating and resolving an administrative penalty and compliance action against Respondent, the Glidden Company d.b.a. ICI Paints (“Glidden”), at its manufacturing facility in Huron, Ohio. The Region alleged that Glidden committed violations of federal Subpart BB and CC regulations at regulated equipment at the Huron facility. At the facility, four reaction vessels, in conjunction with the solvent sink, produce organic waste solvent, made up primarily of xylene and n-butanol. The spent solvent utilized at the facility in the resin production process has a volatile organic concentration of at least 10% by weight, and contacts up to four pumps and forty-eight valves associated with the hazardous waste system. The Region alleges that Respondent failed to mark equipment, monthly monitor pumps and valves, and keep records, in violation of 40 CFR §§ 262.34(a)(1)(ii), 265.1050(c), 265.1052(a)(1), 265.1057(a), and 265.1064(b)(1), of the Part BB regulations. Another, more minor, violation alleged is that Respondent failed to determine the maximum organic vapor pressure for hazardous wastes to be managed in tanks using tank level 1 controls and to maintain associated records, in violation of 40 CFR §§ 262.34(a)(1)(ii), 265.1085(c)(1), and 265.1090(b), of the Part CC regulations. These failures were identified in an inspection of the facility by the Region and OEPA on August 6, 2003.

On April 25, 2005, the Region issued a pre-filing notice and opportunity to confer letter notifying Respondent of the Agency’s intent to file an administrative complaint seeking civil penalties for these violations. On June 23, 2005, and subsequent dates, Respondent conferred with EPA regarding the alleged violations and potential resolution of this matter. After receipt of the Region’s Notice of Violation regarding the violations, Glidden promptly and co-operatively came into and demonstrated compliance with the relevant requirements, and in the CAFO certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements at issue. Respondent also provided information to the Region that while it was out of compliance with the Part BB requirements at the Huron facility, as set forth above, it had performed visual inspections of the equipment at issue before each shift (up to 3 times daily), and had detected and repaired equipment leaks. Based on the nature and seriousness of the violations alleged, the potential harm to human health and the environment, Respondent’s willfulness/negligence or lack thereof, Respondent’s compliance history, ability to pay, and co-operation, the steps Respondent has taken to achieve and maintain compliance, and other relevant factors, EPA has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle the allegations is in the amount of $100,115, and this is the civil penalty amount assessed in the CAFO.

Contact: Andre Daugavietis, ORC, (312) 886-6663.

Region 5 files Administrative Complaint and Compliance Order against Visteon Corporation
On September 26, 2005, Region 5 filed an Administrative Complaint and Compliance Order under 40 C.F.R. Part 22 against Visteon Corporation. Visteon operates an auto parts facility in Milan, Michigan. EPA alleges that Visteon violated provisions of the approved Michigan RCRA program by failing to have an engineering integrity assessment performed on part of a hazardous waste tank system. The complaint proposes a penalty of $44,723.

Contact: Chuck Mikalian, primary contact, (312) 886-2242; Duncan Campbell, secondary contact (312) 886-4555