Enforcement Action Summary FY 2006 - May

May 1, 2006

Region 5 signs Consent Agreement and Final Order with Airgas-Great Lakes, Inc., Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan On October 5, 2005, U.S. EPA filed a complaint against Airgas-Great Lakes, Inc. (Airgas) for violating Section 103(a) of CERCLA by failing to immediately notify the National Response Center of a release that was discovered at its facility in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan on September 24, 2004; for violating Section 304(a) of EPCRA by failing to immediately notify the Michigan State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) of the release; for violating Section 304(c) of EPCRA by failing to provide a written follow-up emergency notice to the Michigan SERC and the LEPC as soon as practicable after the release occurred; and for violating Section 312(a) of EPCRA by failing to submit to the Michigan SERC, LEPC and local fire department a completed Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form for the 2001-2003 calendar years by the March 1 deadline. The complaint proposed a penalty of $280,550.52. On March 29, 2006, Region 5 signed a Consent Agreement and Final Order according to which Airgas will perform a SEP by working with U.S. EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality through deployment of Airgas’ own personnel and expertise, as well as the retention of supporting contractors, as needed, in locating, identifying, and taking appropriate action with respect to industrial gas cylinders that were lost and dispersed throughout the Gulf region following the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. Specifically, Airgas will remove compressed cylinders at the 510 overpass site by April 15, 2006 and will spend at least $95,580 to remove and remediate the cylinders. In consideration of Respondent’s good faith, cooperation, and willingness to perform the SEP, in addition to certain litigation considerations, U.S. EPA agreed to mitigate the proposed penalty to $31,472.17. In addition, Airgas has voluntarily disclosed violations of Section 312(a) at approximately 1000 of its facilities nationwide under U.S. EPA’s Audit Policy.

Contact: Susan Tennenbaum, 312-886-0273; James Entzminger, 312-886-4062

Region 5 signs combined Complaint and Consent Agreement with Airgas-Great Lakes, Inc., Flint, Michigan On April 20, 2006, Region 5 signed a combined Complaint and Consent Agreement (CCCA) with Airgas-Great Lakes, Inc. (Airgas) in settlement of three violations of Section 312 of EPCRA at its Flint, Michigan facility, for failure to submit a completed Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form including chlorine to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) and the local fire department for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. The CCCA requires Airgas to perform a SEP by working with U.S. EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality through deployment of Airgas’ own personnel and expertise, as well as the retention of supporting contractors, as needed, in locating, identifying, and taking appropriate action with respect to industrial gas cylinders that were lost and dispersed throughout the Gulf region following the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. Specifically, Airgas will remove compressed cylinders at the Fort Jackson site by April 15, 2006 and will spend at least $23,225 to remove and remediate the cylinders. In addition, Airgas will pay a civil penalty of $7,749.

Contact: Susan Tennenbaum, 312-886-0273; James Entzminger, 312-886-4062

Region 5 enters an administrative Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) resolving alleged violations of the Clean Air Act NESHAPs for Equipment Leaks and Pharmaceuticals Production at a Cognis Corporation facility in Kankakee, Illinois.

On December 19, 2003, U.S. EPA issued a Finding of Violation (FOV) alleging that Cognis Corporation had violated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pharmaceuticals Production at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart GGG (the Pharma-MACT) regarding vitamin E production areas at its pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Kankakee. The FOV alleged that Cognis failed to: 1) have a startup, shutdown and malfunction plan (SSMP) developed and implemented by the Pharma-MACT compliance date; 2) have a maintenance wastewater plan (MWP) developed and implemented by the compliance date; 3) perform initial compliance demonstrations for certain condensers; and 4) have proper records for certain affected areas of the plant. On May 6, 2004, U.S. EPA issued a second FOV alleging that Cognis "failed to keep the bed regeneration temperature of the regenerative carbon adsorber associated with the pharmaceutical manufacturing operations at the plant above the minimum required temperature, as established in Cognis" Pharma-MACT Notification of Compliance Status Report, on 72 days during the period in question, and failed to have significant monitoring data on the carbon adsorber for 6 days during this period. On November 9, 2004, U.S. EPA issued a third FOV alleging that Cognis had violated various Leak Repair and Detection (LDAR) provisions of the Pharma-MACT and the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart H (the HON) by failing to: 1) timely identify equipment on the vitamin E line subject to LDAR; 2) monitor certain valves and connectors subject to LDAR; and 3) properly monitor valves and connectors per the applicable EPA Reference Method 21.

On April 18, 2006, Region 5 issued a CAFO resolving all alleged Pharma-MACT and HON violations regarding the Cognis facility. Under the terms of the CAFO, in consideration of Cognis = cooperation, the facts and circumstances of the case, and Cognis' agreement to perform two Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), Region 5 reduced the civil penalty from $265,000 to $70,000. For the first SEP, Cognis agreed to spend at least $300,000 to replace approximately 415 feet of threaded pipe charge lines and 15 pumps with seal-less pumps to reduce fugitive emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants at the facility. For the second SEP, Cognis agreed to spend at least $10,000 implement at the facility an Enhanced LDAR Program consisting of frequent LDAR monitoring of connectors, valves and pumps; a stricter leak repair threshold; an engineering analysis to determine root causes for leaks; and a corrective action program to reduce and eliminate leaks.

Contact: Reginald A. Pallesen, Associate Regional Counsel, at 312-886-0555; additional contact: Raymond Cullen at 312-886-0538

May 8, 2006

Electroplating Employee Jailed After Admitting Tampering.

On May 8, 2006 Ted Matthew Gibbons, formerly a chemist for an electroplating facility located in Fridley, Minnesota, was sentenced to 18 months in prison following his guilty plea to three felony violations of the Clean Water Act. Gibbons also received 1 year of supervised release following his imprisonment. Gibbons was one of the company officials responsible for analyzing the company’s wastewater, and for reporting analytical results to the local sewer authority, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). Gibbons admitted failing to submit to MCES laboratory reports for all wastewater monitoring conducted during each monitoring period, as required by the facility’s sewer permit, from at least January 2001 through about April 15, 2005. Additionally, Gibbons admitted that, on two occasions, while MCES was conducting its periodic sampling of the facility’s effluent with a sampler to determine the company =s compliance with its pretreatment requirements, Gibbons knowingly tampered with the sampling equipment. The first instance occurred at some point in 2004, but prior to September 2004, when Gibbons removed the top of the MCES sampler and poured out some of the effluent captured by the sampling device. He replaced the removed volume of water with tap water, with the intention to make the effluent appear cleaner than it was. Then, on or about January 5, 2005, during another MCES sampling period, the defendant again opened the sampler and removed some volume of water from the sampling device. His intention was to replace that volume of water with tap water, thereby making the effluent appear cleaner than it was. He could not replace the removed volume, however, because an MCES employee was entering the facility.

Contact: David M. Taliaferro (312) 886-0815

Region 5 Settles Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Case with Paul and Sue Uebel

On April 27, 2006, EPA signed a Complaint/Consent Agreement and Final Order with Paul and Sue Uebel of Ashland, OH. Region 5 alleged a violation of lead-based paint disclosure rules regarding property owned by the Uebels. Region 5, after a tip from a lessee, alleged that the Uebels violated the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act by failing to provide lessees of the rental property the following: (a) a lead-based paint disclosure form; (b) a lead warning statement; and (c) a list of any records or reports concerning lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards in the Respondent’s housing, or a statement that such records exist. Region 5 alleged violations of 40 C.F.R. § 745.107(a)(1) and 40 C.F.R. §§ 113(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6). Region 5 proposed a penalty of $34,100. In consideration of the Uebels’ cooperative attitude, status as a small independent owner and lessor, and window replacement Supplemental Environmental Project, Region 5 settled this case with the Respondents. The Respondents will pay a minimum penalty of $682.
Primary Contact: Mark Koller (312) 353-2591; Secondary Contact: Estrella Calvo (312) 353-8931

U.S. District Court for Western District of Michigan dismisses private CERCLA 107 claim for response costs regarding the Spies Field Expansion Site

On May 5, 2005, the court granted the defendant City of Menominee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Krygoski Construction Company’s claims for response costs under CERCLA and Michigan state law in Krygoski Construction Co. v. City of Menominee. The court simultaneously denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

In 2002, the City of Menominee, Michigan purchased a parcel of property as part of a project to expand the Spies Field Sports Complex in Menominee. The parcel is located adjacent to an office, equipment yard and storage area owned by Krygoski Construction Company. Soon after the purchase, a Krygoski representative, Mr. Pape, entered the parcel and sampled soils, and reported to the local media the presence of chromium-based paint wastes. At the City’s request, U.S. EPA performed a removal assessment in late 2003 and a time-critical removal action in April 2004 at the Site.

Also in April 2004, Krygoski brought a CERCLA 107 cost recovery action against the City, seeking to recover the costs of the sampling, certain “expert” consulting fees charged by Mr. Pape, and attorney’s fees. U.S. EPA was not named a defendant and did not intervene. During discovery, Krygoski sought to take the depositions of U.S. EPA’s On-Scene Coordinator, a U.S. EPA Office of Criminal Investigations agent, and the Hon. Bart Stupak, who is the U.S. Congressman for the relevant district. Initially, Krygoski served a subpoena for the OSC to appear in Chicago for a deposition, but the subpoena was defective, having been issued by the Western District of Michigan. Krygoski then served a second subpoena for the OSC, this time issued by the Northern District of Illinois, but this subpoena was likewise defective because it specified a non-existent date for the OSC’s appearance. In connection with both subpoenas, Krygoski’s attorney was told that he would need to comply with the Touhy regulations’ requirement of providing an explanation why providing the OSC’s testimony would be in the agency’s clear interest. See United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen , 340 U.S. 462 (1951) . Instead of complying with the regulations, Krygoski then filed a motion to compel discovery, and “served” a copy on U.S. EPA by way of “cc” of a letter to the House of Representatives’ Office of General Counsel. At this juncture, the United States appeared in the action for the limited purpose of opposing the motion. The court ultimately denied the motion, and Krygoski did not thereafter attempt to take discovery from any U.S. EPA witnesses. Instead, he developed an argument that the City had conspired with another adjacent landowner to conceal additional, more deeply-buried wastes at the Site and that there had been an attempt to murder a witness who would corroborate this theory.

The court based its decision mainly on the finding that the contamination at the Spies Field Site did not “cause” Krygoski to incur response costs, because the contamination was solely on the City’s property, and Krygoski was not subject to any state or federal order to engage in a response action. Following the decision in Key Tronic Corp. v. United States , 511 U.S. 809 (U.S. 1994), the court also held that the “expert” fees of Mr. Pape and the claimed attorney fees were generally not recoverable because they were directed to the litigation and not responding to conditions at the Site. The City had also argued that it was an “innocent landowner” and had exercised all appropriate inquiry before purchasing the property, but the court did not make a ruling on this argument. It is unknown at this time whether Krygoski will appeal the decision. Discussions with counsel for Krygoski’s individual principal regarding cleanup of another parcel in the Menominee area (see OECA Confidential Item above) are pending.

Primary contact: Tom M. Williams (312) 886-0814; additional contact: Kenneth Rhame (312) 353-6720

May 15, 2006

Region 5 signs a Combined Complaint and Consent Agreement with Ameripride Linen and Apparel Services

Region 5 initiated this enforcement action in March 2006. On April 10, 2006,Region 5 signed a combined complaint and consent agreement and final order (CAFO) with AmeriPride Linen and Apparel Services to settle violations of Section 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act for the untimely submission of Tier II reports to the State Emergency Response Commission and local fire department for the calendar years 2003 and 2004. AmeriPride is currently in compliance with Section 312 of EPCRA; the settlement will require AmeriPride to pay a penalty of $11,453. This penalty includes a reduction for cooperation and a reduction for quick settlement.

Contact: Padmavati Bending, Office of Regional Counsel, (312) 353-8917

EPA settles Aztec Producing Co., Inc. SDWA Matter
On April 28, 2006, EPA issued a Consent Agreement and Consent Order (CACO) under Section 1423(c) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. § 300h-2(c), and 40 C.F.R. §§ 22.1(a)(9), 22.18, and 22.50(a)(2) and (b), resolving a September 30, 2005 administrative complaint that alleged in four counts violations of 40 C.F.R. § 144.28 for failing to demonstrate mechanical integrity within five years of the last approved demonstration; and failing to submit annual monitoring reports covering calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2002, and submitting incomplete reports covering calendar year 2004 for the State Manistee #2-36 and #3-36 wells located in Manistee County, Michigan. The CACO requires Respondent to pay a $50,000 civil penalty and certify compliance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 144.28, and recognizes Respondent's submission of a notice of transfer of ownership, updated financial assurance and an updated plugging and abandonment plan reflecting the current ownership of the wells. The Consent Order becomes effective 30 days after issuance.

Contact: Maria Gonzalez, Office of Regional Counsel, (312) 886-6630

EPA Enters Administrative Order on Consent with Ruetgers Organics Corporation to Conduct Pre-Design Investigation and Remedial Design for Remediation at Nease Chemical Superfund Site, Columbiana County, Ohio

On May 10, 2006, Region 5 entered an administrative order on consent with the Ruetgers Organic Corporation to conduct a pre-design investigation and remedial design for purposes of planning implementation of a remedy for source area and groundwater contamination at the Nease Chemical Superfund Site in Columbiana County, Ohio. The 44-acre site is on Route 14, 2.5 miles northwest of Salem on the Columbiana-Mahoning county line. The site is on the National Priorities List. Ruetgers Organic Corporation obtained the site from Nease Chemical Corporation. Between 1961 and 1973, Nease Chemical produced household cleaning products, fire retardants and pesticides at the site. The remedy chosen in the Record of Decision for the source area and groundwater cleanup is expected to cost approximately $19 million, and includes innovative chemical removal methods for former waste ponds at the site, as well as innovative soil capping and ground water treatment methods. The pre-design investigation will involve pilot projects to ensure the efficacy of these methods. On a separate track, a record of decision will be developed later for remediation of contamination at the nearby middle fork of Little Beaver Creek.

Contact: Mark Palermo, Office of Regional Counsel, (312) 886-6082; Mary Logan, Superfund Division, (312) 886-4699)

Region 5 files Consent Agreement and Final Order with F&M Mafco Inc.

On May 12, 2006, Region 5 and F&M Mafco ("Respondent") entered into a pre-complaint Consent Agreement and Final Order ("CAFO") resolving U.S. EPA’s claims alleging that the Respondent, violated Section 312 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11022, by failing to submit a Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form (TIER II) for argon, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen by March 1, 2005 for calendar year 2004.  In consideration of the facts of this matter, including the voluntary disclosure of the violation and Respondent's cooperation, the U.S. EPA calculated a preliminary civil penalty of $3,627.00 and Respondent agreed that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $3,627.00.

Contact: Tamara Carnovsky, Office of Regional Counsel, primary contact (312) 886-2250; James Entzminger, Waste, Pesticides & Toxics Division, additional contact (312) 886-4062

U.S. EPA enters into Administrative Order on Consent with NL Industries for removal work in Collinsville, Illinois

On May 18, 2006, the U.S. EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent with NL Industries. Pursuant to the terms of the AOC, the Respondent agreed to remove contaminated sediment from Pine Lake and to pay oversight costs incurred by the U.S. EPA at the Site. The Respondent recently completed a removal action regarding contaminated soil in the surrounding residential subdivision.

Contact: Peter Felitti, Office of Regional Counsel (312) 886-5114

May 22, 2006

Region 5 files Consent Agreement and Final Order with Precision Metalsmiths, Inc.

On May 22, 2006, Region 5 and Precision Metalsmiths, Inc. (Respondent) entered into a pre-complaint Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) resolving U.S. EPA's claims alleging that Respondent’s operation of a hazardous waste storage facility without a permit or interim status is storing hazardous waste in violation of Section 3005(a) of Resource Conservation Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a), Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-50-40 to 3745-50-62 and Chapters 3745-54 to 3745-57 and 3745-65 to 3745-69 40 of the OAC and 40 CFR Part 265 and 270.

Specifically, U.S. EPA alleges that Respondent failed to satisfy conditions for maintaining its generator exemption from the requirement that it have an operating permit or interim status when it failed to: (1) place the date of accumulation on hazardous waste containers as provided in OAC 3754-52-34(A)(2) [40 CFR § 262.34(a)(2)]; (2) label or clearly mark a hazardous waste container with the words “Hazardous Waste” as provided in OAC 3754-52-34(A)(3) [40 CFR § 262.34(a)(3)]; and, (3) store hazardous waste for less than 90 days OAC 3754-52-34(A) [40 CFR § 262.34(a)]. Furthermore, U.S. EPA alleges that Respondent violated the following storage facility requirements when it failed to: (1) provide adequate training and maintain records under OAC 3745-65-16(a), (b), (c), (d) [40 CFR § 265.16(a), (b) and (c), (d)]; (2) maintain written job descriptions under OAC 3745-65-16(D)(2) [40 CFR § 265.16(d)(2)] ; and, (3) complete its contingency plan under OAC 3745-65-52(E) [40 CFR § 265.529(e)]. The Agency calculated a preliminary civil penalty of $73,400 and notified the Respondent of this amount in a pre-filing notice and opportunity to confer letter. In consideration of the facts of this matter and the statutory penalty criteria of Section 3008 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928, U.S. EPA determined, and Respondent agreed, that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $59,500.

Contact: Tamara Carnovsky, primary contact 312-886-2250; Brenda Oswald additional contact 312-353-4796.

Region 5 resolves EPCRA 313 case against Nylok Corporation (Lincolnwood, IL)

On May 18, 2006, 2006, the Acting Regional Administrator signed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) in which Nylok Corporation (Nylok) agreed to pay a penalty of $21,922 for self-disclosing violations of Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 at its Lincolnwood, Illinois, facility. Specifically, Nylok disclosed that for calendar years 2000 through 2003, Nylok failed to timely submit completed Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Form R reports for toluene that Nylok “otherwise used” at its facility. Nylok met all of the criteria of EPA’s “Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations” policy (Audit Policy) except having discovered the violations through an environmental audit or compliance management system; therefore, the facility qualified for a 75 percent reduction in the gravity-based penalty for the violations. EPA calculated an initial gravity-based penalty of $87,688 for the violations. After applying the Audit Policy, EPA reduced the penalty to $21,922. The parties agreed that settling the matter, without further litigation, was in the public interest. The CAFO became effective on May 19, 2006.

Ann Coyle, primary contact, 312-886-2248; Terence Bonace, secondary contact, 312-886-3387.

Region 5 Files a Combined Complaint and Consent Agreement with Novartis Animal Health US, Inc.

Region 5 initiated prefiling discussions on this matter in March, 2006. The proposed penalty was $6,500. On May 19, 2006Region 5 filed a combined complaint and consent agreement with the Respondent to settle violations of Section 12(a)(2)(N) of FIFRA. Specifically, the Respondent failed to file a report (a NOA) for the import shipment of a pesticide from China, as required by Section 17(c) of FIFRA and 19 C.F.R. § 12.112. Respondent has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $6,500.

Contact: Nidhi O’Meara, primary contact 312/886-0568; Joe Lukascyk 312/886-6233 additional contact.

Region 5 Files a Combined Complaint and Consent Agreement with Minntech Corporation

Region 5 initiated prefiling discussions on this matter in December, 2005. The proposed penalty was $20,800. On May 19, 2006Region 5 filed a combined complaint and consent agreement with the Respondent to settle violations of Section 12(a)(1)(E) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(E). Specifically, the Respondent distributed or sold two misbranded pesticide productsthat did not comply with Section 17 of FIFRA because the US labels that accompanied the export shipments with a destination of Japan, Taiwan, Brazil and Thailand did not translate the label to an acceptable language of the country of import and the country of final destination. During settlement discussions, the Respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $16,640. This number reflects an adjustment based Respondent’s willingness to work cooperatively in an expeditious manner to resolve the violations.

Contact: Nidhi O’Meara, primary contact 312/886-0568; Terry Bonace, additional contact 312/886-3387

EPA enters into Consent Decree with MGP Ingredients of Illinois, Inc. to resolve violations under the Clean Air Act.

On April 19, 2006, the District Court for the Central District of Illinois entered a Consent Decree resolving Clean Air Act violations by MGP Ingredients of Illinois, Inc. (MGP) at its Pekin, Illinois facility. Specifically, the complaint alleged that MGP had violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Clean Air Act when it failed to get permits for modifications made to its ethanol process and for its failure to comply with applicable provisions of the New Source Performance Standards of the Clean Air Act. The complaint alleges that the modifications to the ethanol process resulted in significant emissions of pollutants, including volatile organic compounds. Under the Consent Decree, MGP has agreed to install control technology that will reduce its air emissions and will pay a total penalty of $171,800 which will be split between the United States and the State of Illinois.

Contact: Cynthia A. King, Office of Regional Counsel, (312) 886-6831.

Owner of Septic Hauling Business Sentenced for Illegally Land Applying Domestic Septage

On May 24, 2006, Gene Shimko, doing business as Gene’s Sanitary Service, located in Exeland, Wisconsin, was sentenced to two years probation, six months home confinement and fined $5,000 dollars for illegally land applying domestic septage. On March 8, 2006, Shimko pleaded guilty to a one felony violation of the Clean Water Act for illegally land applying domestic septage. The information alleges that, on or about July 20, 2004, Shimko knowingly caused the disposal of sludge from a treatment works treating domestic sewage by knowingly applying domestic septage to agricultural land and failing to: (a) inject the domestic septage below the surface of the land; (b) incorporate the domestic septage into the soil within six hours after application to the land; or (c) raise the pH of the domestic septage to twelve or higher by alkaline addition and assure that the pH remained at twelve or higher for thirty minutes without the addition of more alkaline.

Contact: David Mucha (312) 886-9032

May 29, 2006

Region Resolves CERCLA 103/EPCRA 304 Case Against the City of Cincinnati (Cincinnati, OH).

On January 9, 2006, the Regional Administrator signed a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) in which the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, agreed to pay a penalty of $10,822 for violations of Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and Section 304(a) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act of 1986 at its Richard Miller Water Treatment Plant in Cincinnati, Ohio. Specifically, Region 5 alleged that on December 4, 2004, the City released approximately 96,557 pounds of aluminum sulfate (reportable quantity: 5,000 pounds) and that the City had knowledge of the release at approximately 6:00 p.m. The City did not notify the National Response Center of the release until 9:30 p.m. on December 8, 2004, the Ohio state emergency response commission until December 5, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., or the local emergency planning committee until December 9, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. Region 5 proposed a penalty of $66,594; however, in consideration of Respondent = s cooperation and other factors as justice may require, including significant recent safety investments protective of human health and the environment valued at $93,950, Region 5 agreed to mitigate the penalty to $10,822. The parties agreed that settling the matter, without further litigation, was in the public interest. The CAFO became effective on January 11, 2006.

Primary contact: Ann Coyle, Office of Regional Counsel (312) 886-2248; secondary contact: Ginger Jager, Superfund Division, (312) 886-0767

U.S. EPA issues Unilateral Administrative Order for removal work in Indianapolis, Indiana

The Douglas Little League Site is located in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. The Site was used for playing baseball since the late 1950s when a baseball field was constructed on the property. The construction included the import of fill material that was spread around the ballfield. Between 1946 and 1965, the American Lead facility, which is located south of the Site, conducted a lead smelting operation. In the mid-1990s, the ballfield was closed by the Marion County Health Department (MCHD) after elevated lead concentrations (above 400 milligrams per kilogram) were discovered in surface soil samples collected by the MCHD and Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). In October 2005, IDEM requested U.S. EPA assistance in assessing environmental conditions at the Site. The U.S. EPA conducted a removal assessment in November 2005 to January 2006. Based on a review of existing Site sampling results and the sampling for the removal assessment, U.S. EPA determined that the levels of lead on Site presented an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment and warranted a time critical removal. When U.S. EPA contacted the potentially responsible parties for the Site, none expressed a willingness to conduct the removal action at the Site under an Administrative Order on Consent.

On May 25, 2006, the U.S. EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to Exxon-Mobil and NL Industries. Pursuant to the terms of the UAO, the Respondents are require to sample, delineate and address lead contaminated soil at the Site and to pay oversight costs incurred by the U.S. EPA at the Site.

Primary Contact, Peter Felitti, Office of Regional Counsel, (312) 886-5114

Electroplating Firm and Company President Charged.

On May 30, 2006 Eco Finishing Company, an electroplating firm located in Fridley, Minnesota, and its chief executive officer, Keith David Rosenblum, were charged with a felony violation of the Clean Water Act. According to the charge filed, from at least May, 2001 through on or about April 15, 2005, Eco Finishing Company and Rosenblum knowingly discharged wastewater that exceeded Eco Finishing Company’s permit issued by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. They were charged with knowingly causing to be violated a requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under the Clean Water Act. If convicted, Rosenblum could be imprisoned for up to three years. In addition, if convicted, Rosenblum and the company each face fines of up to $50,000 per day of violation or $250,000, whichever is greater. The filing of criminal charges is only an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted at trial or by a plea.

Primary contact: David M. Taliaferro, Office of Regional Counsel (312) 886-0815.