![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081110135726im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
TSCA Enforcement Environmental Results
Examples of improvements to the environment resulting from enforcement of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are shown in the following cases, used as examples of enforcement achievements. Case names link to additional information when it is available.
Apartment Investment and Management Company (AIMCO)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entered into the broadest lead disclosure settlement ever with one of the nation's largest property management firms, the Denver-based Apartment Investment and Management Co. (AIMCO). Residents living in more than 130,000 apartments in 47 states and Washington, D.C., will live in lead-safe units as a result of this landmark settlement.
"Protecting our nation's children from the dangers of lead-based paint is of paramount concern. Eliminating lead-based paint hazards in older low-income housing is essential if childhood lead poisoning is to be eradicated," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "AIMCO is to be commended for its voluntary disclosure and other efforts to make its housing lead-safe. We urge other landlords to take their cue from this responsible action."
"This agreement goes a long way in making certain parents can raise their children in safe and healthy homes," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez. "Not only are more than 130,000 apartments going to be certified lead safe, but today's settlement demonstrates the value of management companies and landlords working closely with HUD to prevent our kids from being poisoned."
AIMCO allegedly failed to warn its tenants that their homes may contain lead-based paint hazards in violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. Under the settlement, AIMCO has agreed to test and clean up lead-based paint hazards in more than 130,000 apartments nationwide and pay a $129,580 penalty. The penalty and the number of units being tested and cleaned are the largest ever in a lead disclosure settlement. (Additional Settlement Information)
8TH Circuit Declines Review of EPA's Order on Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Requirements
On January 24, 2002, the 8th Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by Billy Yee on June 28, 2001. The court never reached the merits of the appeal as the dismissal was based on EPA's jurisdictional argument. EPA contended, and the Court accepted, that Billy Yee filed his appeal with the 8th Circuit one day late, that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On May 29, 2001, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board handed down its final decision in the matter of Billy Yee, a case involving a St. Louis landlord's violations of the TSCA Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Rule. In the decision, the EAB upheld Chief Judge Biro's initial decision in its entirety, including the Chief Judge's findings regarding liability and the assessment of a $29,700 penalty.
The case involved Mr. Yee's failure to provide lead-based paint disclosure information to a tenant prior to her becoming obligated under lease, in violation of the Lead-Based Paint Real Estate Notification and Disclosure Rule. After moving into the low income property the tenant discovered that five of her young children had become severely lead poisoned. As a result, the children were hospitalized on several occasions to undergo blood chelation therapy to reduce the impacts of the lead poisoning, from which the children will continue to suffer harmful effects for the remainder of their lives. The home had been inspected and was found to contain several lead-based paint hazards accessible to the children.
Hewlett-Packard
A civil administrative complaint filed in 1998 against Hewlett-Packard (HP) charged that HP had violated Sections 5, 8, 12 and 13 of TSCA. HP paid $112,750 in fines for failure to submit a Pre-Manufacturing Notice (PMN) for a new chemical and committed to audit other HP facilities. The settlement stipulated the liability for each type of violation, and further limited the liability of the entire audit in the aggregate to $600,000. As a result of violations found in the audit in 2001, HP paid an $600,000, bringing the total penalties paid to $712,750.
The Hewlett-Packard case brought attention to TSCA Section 12(b), under which companies must 1) notify EPA of its exports and 2) notify countries to which products are exported that the shipment complies with TSCA. Many of HP's Section 12(b) violations were not penalized due to language in the enforcement response policy. Therefore, the enforcement response policy was modified to enable future enforcement actions against these types of violations. The combination of the HP case and the enforcement policy amendment motivated the Chemical Manufacturer's Association to request a coordinated effort with EPA that resulted in over 10,000 voluntarily self-disclosed violations of Section 12(b). In addition, HP submitted nine reports constituting TSCA Section 8(e), "substantial risk of injury." Each of these reports would have been million dollar enforcement actions if not for the liability limits in the settlement.
Newell Recycling - Region 6
In 1995, EPA issued a complaint against Newell Recycling for improper disposal of PCB-contaminated soil that had been excavated and stockpiled during a 1985 disposal of capacitors. The Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) issued a Final Decision in 1999 upholding the Agency's ruling that Newell had improperly disposed of PCB-contaminated soil. A civil penalty of $1,345,000, less the settlement amount paid by Newell's Co-Respondent Oklahoma Metal Processing Company, Inc., d/b/a Houston Metal Processing Company, Inc., was assessed against Newell. The decision and penalty were appealed to the 5th Circuit in November 2000 where both were affirmed.
At issue in this case was the Federal five-year statute of limitations. Newell argued that the statute of limitations should run from 1985 when the first act of improper disposal occurred, and therefore enforcement action could not be taken. The Agency successfully argued that it should begin when the first act of proper disposal occurred in 1995. The Court held that an enforcement action could be initiated during the period of continuing violations and up to five years after the violations have ceased. This ruling is of significance to future enforcement proceedings.
Rogers Corporation - Region 1
EPA filed a Complaint against Rogers Corporation in September, 1994. The Complaint charged that Rogers violated the disposal requirements of the PCB regulations and TSCA Section 15 by allowing a release of heat transfer oil containing PCBs at regulated levels to remain in a concrete containment berm from June, 1993 to March, 1994. Rogers was found liable and a penalty of $281,400 was assessed. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals on November 8, 2001. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the EAB for further proceedings.
Chicago Lead Paint Settlements - Region 5
The U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development settled in cases against three landlords in Chicago for failure to warn their tenants that their homes may contain lead-based paint hazards. The consent decrees in the Chicago include over $90,000 in civil penalties and agreements to test for and abate lead-based paint in over 10,000 apartments across the country. The settlements involved violations of the disclosure requirements of the Lead Hazard Reduction Act by multifamily apartment owners and management companies. The settlements were the result of a joint initiative by DOJ, EPA and HUD, as well as city and state health officials.
The United States Department of Justice filed complaints and lodged consent decrees on behalf of EPA and HUD with three companies in Chicago: Wolin Levin, Inc., East Lake Management & Development Corporation and Oak Park Real Estate, Inc., et al.. The State of Illinois joined in the action against Oak Park Real Estate, and the City of Chicago, Cook County and the State of Illinois joined in the actions against Wolin Levin and East Lake. Together, over 10,350 units in Chicago and suburban Chicago are subject to the terms of these three consent decrees. Under the consent decrees lodged in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, the defendants agreed to test for lead-based paint in their properties and abate any lead-based paint that is found. The companies are also required to pay $90,000 in penalties to the U.S. Treasury; in addition, Wolin Levin agreed to pay $100,000 to the City of Chicago Department of Health lead abatement program as a Child Health Improvement Project and East Lake agreed to give $77,000 to certain community-based health centers to provide free blood lead testing for children living in Chicago and South Chicago.
Frankland P. Babonis - Region 3
In April, 2001, Frankland P. Babonis was sentenced in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria, for felony violations in connection with Babonis' sale of false asbestos and lead training certificates, including false statements and mail fraud. Babonis's company, F&M Environmental Technology, Inc., was also sentenced for violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 & 2 in conjunction with the sales.
The Court imposed on Babonis fifteen months incarceration in the Federal Penitentiary on each of the two counts, to run concurrent. Each count carries a three-year supervised probationary period, to run concurrent, a $ 4,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment.
In sentencing F&M, Ellis imposed a $30,000 fine, a $400 special assessment and two years of supervised probation. In addition, Ellis ordered that F&M not engage in any environmental training for a period of two years.
Collins Mechanical, Inc. and MedStar Health - Region 3
In June, 2001, Region 3 issued a Final Order against three different parties for violations of federal asbestos requirements. The violations occurred at the Boiler Plant of the Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C. and involved the improper handling of asbestos-containing material in October 1999. Respondents in the complaint, issued in September, 2000 were Collins Mechanical, Inc. (mechanical contractor), the Washington Hospital Center, and the Hospital Center's corporate parent, MedStar Health, Inc. Under the terms of the settlement, total civil penalties of $39,160 will be paid (CAA - $28,160, TSCA - $11,000), $29,160 by the Washington Hospital Center and $10,000 by Collins Mechanical, Inc.
Enterprise Investment Company - Region 3
In May, 2001, Region 3 filed a global settlement agreement with the Regional Hearing Clerk settling three cases involving a number of violations of the TSCA Lead Paint Disclosure Rule by Enterprise Investment Company. With respect to at least three leases involving two targeted housing units in York, Pennsylvania, the Respondent failed to comply with requirements of the Disclosure Rule. As part of the global settlement of all three cases, Respondent agreed to pay a penalty of $22,000, based in part on financial information submitted by the company, and to ensure future compliance with the Disclosure Rule.
Nordic Synthesis - Region 4In June, 2001, Region 4 issued a CAFO against Nordic Synthesis, Inc. Nordic Synthesis, Inc., a chemical importer and distributor, is a Delaware corporation with a facility in Charleston, South Carolina. The company was found to have violated Section 8 of TSCA, by reporting false/misleading/incorrect information on the 1998 Inventory Update Report for two imported chemical substances. The company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $33,660.
UCB Chemicals Corporation - Region 4
In June, 2001, Region 4 filed a CAFO against UCB Chemicals Corporation. UCB Chemicals Corporation is a manufacturer, importer and exporter of chemical substances, with headquarters in Smryna, Georgia. The company violated Section 5(a) of TSCA in its failure to properly and timely submit the required notice of commencement for two nonexempt commercial shipments of imported chemical substances. The corporation agreed to pay a civil penalty of $6,824.
University of California - Region 9
In April, 2001, Region 9 filed a CAFO settling its case against the Regents of the University of California for violations of TSCA and the PCB regulations at UC's campuses in Los Angeles and San Diego, California.
The Region issued a civil complaint to UC on September 19, 2000 for failure to register the PCB transformers at both campuses with EPA's National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics on or before December 28, 1998 as required by the regulations. Under the terms of the CAFO, UC agreed to pay a civil penalty of $9,350 and perform a SEP involving removal and replacement of three PCB transformers from the two campuses.