above the law in california

7/29/2019 Above the Law in California

1/36

ABOVE THE LAWHow Californias Major Air Polluters

Get Away Wit h I t

W O R K I N G G R O U PT M

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

John CoequytZev RossBill WalkerRichard Wiles


2/36

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Molly Evans, who designed and produced the report. Thanks to Ken Cook for editing and advice, and

to Marshall Hendricks for his assistance with the data analysis ofAbove the Law. We wish to thank Neil Carman , Ed

Hop kins, Keri Powell, Velma Smith and Comm unities for a Better Environm ent for their help in de veloping, refining

and releasing the repo rt.We w ould a lso like to than k the conscientiou s s taff at the Environm ental ProtectionAgency, particularly Region 9, and the AFS and SFIP hotlines for their help with the data requirements of this report.

Abo ve the Law was m ade po ssible by grants from the Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foun dation, the Richard a nd

Rhoda Goldman Foundation, the SBF Fund of the Tides Foundation and the Joyce Foundation. The opinions ex-

pressed in this rep ort are those o f the autho rs and d o n ot ne cessarily reflect the views o f the supp orters listed

abo ve. Environm ental Working Group is respo nsible for any e rrors of fact or interpretation con tained in this rep ort.

Copyright (c) July 1999 by the Environmental Working Group/The Tides Center. All rights reserved.

Manu factured in the United States of Ame rica. Printed on recycled pap er.

Environmental W orking G roup

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington,

D.C. The Environm en tal Working Gro up is a project of the Tides Center, a Californ ia Public Ben efit Corpo ration

based in San Francisco that provides administrative and program support services to nonprofit programs and

projects.

Kenneth A. Cook, Presiden t

Richard Wiles, Vice President for Research

Mike Casey, Vice President for Public Affairs

Bill Walker, California Director

To order a cop y

Copies of this report may be ordered from the Washington office for $20.00 each (plus 6% sales tax or $1.20 for

Washington, D.C. residents) and $3.00 for postage and han dling. Payment mu st accom pan y all orders . Please m ake

checks payable to:

Environmental Working Group

1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600

Washing ton, D.C. 20009

(202) 667-6982 (phone) (202) 232-2592 (fax)

info@ew g.org (e -mail)

www.ewg.org

Environmental Working Group

P.O. Box 29201, The Presidio

San Francisco, CA 94129

(415) 561-6698 or 561-6699 (phone) (415) 561-6696 (fax)

w w w . ew g. or g

This report and many other EWG publications are available on the World Wide Web at www.ewg.org.


3/36

FO R EW O RD . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . i

EXECUTIVE SU M M A R Y . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 1

C HAPTER 1 . A B O V ETH E LA W . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 5

C HAPTER 2 . FI N D I N G S . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

C HAPTER 3 . W H A T STH E PRO BLEM ?... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 15

A PPENDIX 1 . C LEAN A IR A C T PR O G R A M SA N DEN FOR C E M E N T IN ITIATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 21

A PPENDIX 2 . M E T H O D O L O G Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 24

REFEREN CES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Contents

Above the Law in Cal i fornia


4/36


5/36

iEN V I R O N M E N T A L W O R K I N G G R O U P

Foreword

Above The Law in Cal i fornia

Like most law-abiding Califor-nians, you p robably take you rcar in for a smog test every year.If the car flunks, you have littlechoice but to pay to get it fixed.Its something all of us do tohelp k eep the air clean. Besides,

its against the law to skip aninspe ction or kee p driving a carthat failed the test. If yourecaught you risk a stiff fine one that hits your bank accounthard enou gh to make you th inktwice about doing it again.

But thats no t the w ay thesystem wo rks for some of thestates b iggest ind ustrial air

polluters like the Shell, Tosco,Exxon and Chevron refineries inthe East Bay, Texaco in LosAnge les and Bakersfield, or theLouisiana-Pacific paper mill inHum boldt Cou nty.

Fully three-fourths ofCalifornias refineries, mills andother factories surveyed havecommitted violations of federalor state clean air law s since 1996.Thats the same year a federalaudit was con ducted that blastedCalifornias air pollution enforce-ment efforts as inadequate todeter big polluters. Now anEnvironmental Working Groupanalysis of the newest federal

and state data show s that no thinghas changed: Major polluters whorepeatedly violate the law getslapp ed on the w rist with finesthat constitute a ridiculously smallfraction of their corporate parentsmu ltibillion -do llar p rofits.

Thats the sorry state of affairswe found when w e examined anew database the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency hascomp iled to determine the cleanair compliance record for variousindustries. EPAs regional auditshave found a nationwide patternof lax enforcement of the federalClean Air Act. The agency, not

surprisingly, also foun d th atpollution drops significantly whenclean air inspections are morefrequent and violators receivemeaningful fines.

This double standard for pollut-ers and the public is neither fairnor just no t to those o f us whomake sure our cars pass thetailpipe test each year, not to theman y comp anies that abide by theenvironmental rules their competi-tors violate with impunity, and notto the California communitieswh ose h ealth an d safety arethreatened by toxic industrialchemicals in the air they breathe.

Three-fou rths ofCaliforn ias refineries,m ills and otherfactories surveyedhave committedviolations of federal orstate clean air laws

since 1996.


6/36

i i A B O V ETH E LA W IN C A L I FO R N I A

For big polluters, getting offthe hook on environmental lawsis a routine part of doing busi-ness.

Nationally, EWGs analysisfound that 41 pe rcent o f U.S. oilrefineries and a third of iron andsteel plants are significant viola-tors of the Clean Air Act. Federallaw authorizes regulators topenalize air polluters up to$25,000 a day of violation(though u sually not mo re than$200,000 total).

But for the most part, the finesare n ot levied at all. EWG foun d53 ma jor U.S. po lluters o ut o fcompliance with the Clean AirAct every qu arter for tw o straightyears. Only 20 of them paidfine s, and a h and ful of firmsaccounted for nearly all thepenalties.

States have the lead responsi-

bility to en force fede ral clean airlaws, w ith the EPA pro vidingoversight. California furtherdelegates most enforcementauthority to its air quality man-agement districts, and some localair district officials argue thattheyre doing a better job thanthe data suggest. They say thelarge number of violations settled

for paltry fines is becau se the yaggressively issue notices forevery violation, no matter howinsignificant.

Clea rly, the system isntworking: Refineries and otherfacilities co ntinue to rack upviolation s, pay m inuscule fine sand return to business as usual.This pattern, clearly borne outby the d ata, casts serious d oub ton a favorite argumen t by theop po nen ts of nationa l environ-mental standards: Turn enforce-ment over to the states. Local

regulators kno w best.

Maybe. But the rest of uskno w that environm ental lawsare in p lace, and sho uld beobe yed, for good reason: toprotect the health a nd safety ofour families and our com mu ni-ties. We know we have to playby the rules, because protectingpublic health is everyones

responsibility. This EWG reportshows that Californias state andlocal regulators are letting ma jorpo lluters off the hoo k, and thefederal go vernm en t is sittingback and watching it happen.

Its something to think aboutwhile waiting in line for yournext smog test.

Kenneth A. Cook, PresidentEnvironmental Working

Group

Big polluters continueto rack u p violations,pay m inuscule finesand r eturn to bu sinessas usua l.


7/36

1EN V I R O N M E N T A L W O R K I N G G R O U P

Executive Summary


Two years after a federalinvestigation found Californiasclean air enforcemen t programsinade qua te to stop big po lluters,an Environmental WorkingGroup (EWG) an alysis show s

that many of the states largestindustrial facilities continue tobreak the law an d p ay fines toosmall to deter repeat offenses.

EWGs analysis of recentlyreleased enforcement recordsfinds a clear and persistentpattern of violations of federaland state clean air law s in fivemajor California industries oil

and chemical refineries, pulpand pap er m ills , auto plants,iron and steelmaking and m etalsmelters. Since 1996, three-fourth s o f the California facilitiesin tho se categories surveyed b ythe U.S. Environm en tal Protec-tion Agen cy (EPA) ha d at leastone violation of state or federalclean air regulations or paid afine to settle an earlier violation.

By EPAs standard, three out offour violations were significant,meaning they triggered orders totake co rrective action.

The six mo st frequ en tly citedoffend ers in th e EPAs Californiasurve y all are oil refine ries. Allare found within a 15-mile

radius in Contra Costa Cou nty orjust acro ss San Pab lo Ba y inBenicia. (Table 1.)

They include the Tosco Avonrefinery near Martinez, where a

fire in February 1999 killed fourwo rkers, and the Chevron refin-ery in Richmo nd, w here a nexplosion in March 1999 forcedhun dreds o f Contra Costa Coun tyresidents to seek emergencyhospital treatment. Two yearsearlier, also at Tosco in Martinez,an explosion killed one workerand injured 26. The Tosco facil-ity tied with the Shell refinery in

Martine z for the mo st violation sin the p eriod surveyed 115each. The Chevron refinery w asthe fourth-worst offender, with 75violations.

Since 1996 these six East Bayrefineries Shell in Martinez,Tosco in Martinez and Rodeo,Exxon and Huntway Refining inBenicia and Chevron in Rich-

mo nd we re cited for 481violation s of state and federal airquality regulations and resolved380 violations for an averagepenalty of about $699 per of-fen se. These six refine ries ac-coun ted for almo st 80 pe rcent ofstatew ide violations, bu t pa id just17 percent of statewide fines.

The most frequentlycited air p olluters inCalifornia are all oilrefin eries in the EastBay.


8/36

2 A B O V ETH E LA W IN C A L I FO R N I A

The total amo unt of fines p aid bythe six refineries over two and ahalf years, or $265,583, is less than

one pe rcent of the daily revenu eof the smallest of the parentcomp anies Tosco, with m orethan $12 billion in 1998 revenu es.

All six of these refineries areunder the jurisdiction of the BayArea Air Q uality Mana gem en tDistrict in San Francisco(BAAQ MD), to w hich the EPAdelegates most enforcement activ-

ity. The air district contends thatthe high number of violationscited and low amo un t of finespaid are evidence that it is aggres-sively doing its job, by issuing acitation for every violation, nomatter how insignificant. Butthere is a startling disparity be-twe en the BAAQ MDs en force-me nt activity and that of the SouthCoast Air Qua lity Mana gem en tDistrict in Los Angeles (SCAQMD):Bay Area refine ries co mm ittedeight time s as m any violations asL.A. County refineries, but theaverage fine per violation paid bythe Southern California refinerieswas m ore than 28 times the BayArea average.

Table 1. Cal i fornia faci l it ies w ith the most clean air violat ions, 19 96 -19 99 .

Sourc e : Env i r on m en ta l W ork ing G ro up . C om p i led f r om ID EA /SF IP /AFS da ta and c om pany An nua l R epor t s as r epo r ted to t he U .S. Sec ur i t i es Ex c hange C om m ission .

This analysis is based on com-pliance and enforcement recordsfor 32 large facilities in California.

These records, compiled for a EPAp ilot p roject called the SectorFacility Indexing Program (SFIP),have been audited by state andfederal regulators and by theregulated industries themselves.Unlike other e nvironm ental data-bases such as the federal ToxicsRelease Inventory, which the EPAadm its is riddled w ith errors, theSFIP files are tou ted by the Agen cy

as the m ost reliable en forceme ntdata available. They show:

Twe nty-fou r of the 32 facili-ties committed at least oneviolation of state or fede ralclean a ir regulation s, or pa idat least one fine to se ttle anearlier offense, over the pasttwo and a half years. These24 facilities were cited for an

average of 25 violation seach.

The fines levied w ere almostalways too small to effec-tively deter rep eat violations.During the survey period,the 32 facilities resolved 509violations for a combined

Bay Area ref ineriescomm itted eight t imesas m any violatio ns as

L.A. Cou nty refineries,but the aver age fineper violat ion paid bythe SouthernCalifornia facilit iesw as more than 28times the Bay Areaaverage.

N am e C ity CountyN ew

Violat ionsViolat ionsResolved Fines Paid

Average FinePer Violation

Total Revenues( 1998) o f

Parent Company

Sh el l O i l Co m p an y M artin ez Co n tra C o sta 1 1 5 1 1 2 $ 6 6 ,3 9 1 $ 5 9 3 $ 1 4 ,4 5 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

To sc o C o rp o rati o n M artin ez Co n tra C o sta 1 1 5 7 7 $ 4 3 ,1 2 7 $ 5 6 0 $ 1 2 ,0 2 1 ,5 2 7 ,0 0 0

Ex x o n C o rp o rati o n Ben ic ia So l an o 1 1 3 5 8 $ 5 1 ,4 2 8 $ 8 8 7 $ 1 1 7 ,7 7 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

C h ev ro n U SA In c . Ri c h m o n d Co n tra C o sta 7 5 7 4 $ 5 9 ,5 0 6 $ 8 0 4 $ 3 0 ,5 5 7 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

To sc o C o rp o rati o n Ro d eo Co n tra C o sta 4 1 3 7 $ 3 1 ,6 3 8 $ 8 5 5 $ 1 2 ,0 2 1 ,5 2 7 ,0 0 0

H u n tw ay Refin i n g C o . Ben ic ia So l an o 2 2 2 2 $ 1 3 ,4 9 3 $ 6 1 3 $ 7 9 ,0 5 0 ,0 0 0

Totals 4 8 1 3 8 0 $ 2 6 5 ,5 8 3 $ 6 9 9 $ 3 1 ,1 5 0 ,3 5 0 ,6 6 7


9/36


$1.6 million in penalties1.The average fine paidduring the survey p eriodwas about $3,000, but forthe p ublicly held comp a-

nies cited, the average1998 revenu e w as morethan $23 billion.

The heal th r isks and o therimpacts of the air pollutionfrom the se facilities falldisproportionately onpeople of color. Accordingto the EPA, 60 percent ofthe people living within

three miles of these facili-ties were non-Anglo,compared to 51 percent forthe nine counties wherethe facilities w ere located.

The EPA delegates most cleanair enforcem en t activity to theCalifornia Air Resources Board.The ARB in turn de legates day-to-day au thority to 34 local or

regional Air Qua lity Mana gem en tDistricts (AQMDs). But both theEPA and the ARB are ch argedwith oversight, and may inter-vene if a local districts enforce-men t is inade qua te. From thedata, it is clear that federal, stateand local officials share respo n-sibility for failing to consistently,effectively or fairly enforce cleanair laws in California.

Altho ugh the ma jority ofCalifornias air pollution comesfrom automo biles, me aningfulprogress toward cleane r air

could be achieved with strictenforcemen t of current laws a ndregulation s on industrial em is-sions. Instead, weak enforce-ment permits industrial facilities

to contribute to un hea lthyamounts of air pollution, even astheir owners fight against stricterstandards or lobby for rollbacksof clean air laws under the guiseof regulatory reform short-hand for p ropo sals to furtherrelax the enforcement of envi-ronmental regulations. Theregulatory record in Californiaand other states show s that

companies will rarely complywith the Clean Air Act, or anyother en vironm ental law, u nlessthe law is given teeth stepped-up enforcement, stifferpe nalties an d tou gher o versightfrom every level of government.

Conclusions andRecommendations

EWGs analysis of enforce-men t records, audited by fede raland state o fficials and the po llut-ers themselves, reveals a patternof routine disregard for federaland state clean air laws by majorcompanies in five Californiaindustries. Enforcem en t is sprea dineffectively among federal, stateand local authorities, denyingCalifornians the he alth p rotec-

tions the law is supp osed toprovide. The level both o f com-pliance an d e nforcem ent isabysmal.

Com panies w il l rarelycomply w i th the CleanAir A ct, or any otherenvironmental law ,unle ss the l aw is given

teeth.

1This excludes the fine s paid in 1998 by Sunland Refining in Bake rsfield. Sun land h as

been closed since 1995, when an explosion killed one person.


10/36


This level of illegal activitywo uld be not be to lerated u nderlaws regulating other areas ofsociety or commerce. The situa-tion continue s in p art because

mo st Ame ricans have no wa y ofkno wing ho w rou tinely the cleanair laws are violated or howpoorly they are enforced. ThisEWG study, part of a nationalanalysis of U.S. Clean Air Actcompliance, is the first in aplanne d series of environm entalenforcemen t rep orts. (The na-tion al analysis and othe r state-level rep orts are available o nline

at www.ewg.org.)

EWG recomme nds:

The Californ ia Legislaturemust limit the enforcementdiscretion of local air dis-tricts so that repeat violatorsdont escape unpunished.Pen alties for rep eat viola-tors mu st be m and atory,

should increase w ith eachnew offense, and be largeenough to curtail futureviolations: Current stateregulations limit most finesto $1,000 unless the en-forceme nt agency canprove that a comp anyintended to break the law.New Jerse ys thre e-strike slaw, which escalates mini-

mu m fines according to thenum ber and nature of repeat offenses, provides agood model for California.

Congress must not passregulatory reform legisla-tion that will slow down the

implementation and en-forcement of public healthstandards or pollutioncontro ls mand ated unde rthe Clean Air Act or any

other en vironme ntal law.

The San Francisco regiona loffice of the EPA shouldexe rcise its authority andintervene in cases w herelocal regulators d on tfollow the Agen cys guide -lines for effective enforce-me nt aga inst high-priorityviolators, and b ring the se

p ersistent offen de rs intocomp liance w ith the law.

EPA sho uld he lp Californiacommunities participate inthe developm ent andenforcement of air pollu-tion pe rmits issued u nde rTitle V of the Clean AirAct. Region 9 shouldmo nitor state imp lem enta-

tion of Title V programs toensure that information oncompliance is readilyunderstandable by andavailable to the public.

Loca l air districts, the ARBand the regional andnational EPA must worktogether to eliminate theserious d ata gaps and

inter-agency conflicts inthe states air pollutionrep orting system . Aneffective enforcement andcompliance program re-qu ires m ean ingful, reliableand pu blicly accessibledata.

Penalties for re peatviolators mu st bemandatory, shouldincrease with eachnew offense, and be

large enough to curtailfuture violations.


11/36


A series of catastrophicexplosions and fires at petro-leum refine ries in the SanFrancisco Bay Area h as raisedserious que stions a bou t thesafety of refine ries an d o ther

aging industrial facilities inCalifornia. In February 1999, aflash fire at the Tosco refinerynear Martinez killed four work-ers. On e m onth later, an explo-sion at the Che vron re fine ry innearby Richmond forced hun-dreds of Contra Costa Countyresiden ts to seek em ergencyhospital treatment. Two yearsearlier, also at Tosco in

Martine z, an exp losion killedone worker and injured 26others.

These high-profile accidentshave outraged the public andprompted local and state offi-cials to call for tougher safetystandards. But federal and statedata show that through out theUnited States, thousands of

large com pan ies l ike Tosco andChevron routinely violate the irpollution permits, exposingworkers and surrounding com-mu nities to he alth risks fromtoxic chem icals in their air andwater. For the most part, thesebusiness as usual environmen-tal offenses escape public

A bove the Law

Chapter 1

notice as w ell as pun ishme ntby environmental regulators.

It turns out to be quite difficultfor citizens to learn the co mp li-ance status of any given facility.

Public inquiries are too often metwith the bureaucratic refrain thatthe facility is in compliance withthe law . (During o ur investiga-tion, for example, EWG learnedthat facilities may be cited forrepeated violations of the sameregulation, but remain technicallyin compliance if they submit aschedule for correcting the prob -lem). If concerned citizens assert

their right to learn about indus-trial po llution u nd er the ToxicsRelease Inventory (TRI) theavailable data are, by the EPAsown admission, likely to beoutdated, incomp lete or m islead-ing.

In th e m id-1990s, EPA initiateda p ilot p roject the Agen cy saidwo uld provide a ccess to m ore

environmental information thanhas ever b efore bee n a vailable tothe pu blic in on e location. Theproject, called the Sector FacilityInde xing Program (SFIP), at-tempts to pull together varioussources of air pollution data in aneasy-to-understand format. Forthe pilot project, EPA surveyed

Federal and state datashow that thousandsof large companiesroutinely violate theirpollution permits,exposing w orkers and

surroundingcom mun it ies to healthrisks from toxicchem icals in their airand water .


12/36


facilities in five ma jor indu strialsectors that release relativelyhigh levels of chemicals pe troleum refining, pulp an dpap er, iron a nd steel, metalssmelting and refining, and auto

assembly. The agen cy asked bo ththe industries targeted and state-level regulators to review theenvironm ental enforceme nt datafor accuracy. The EPA con side rsthe SFIP data the most accurateand reliable inform ation availablefor the indu stries surveyed (EPA1999).

EWGs an alysis is based up onstate-level data used to compilethe SFIP. It covers air pollutionviolations and enforcement at 32California facilities from Jan. 1,1996 throu gh Jun e 15, 1999.

The EPA survey p eriod a lsocovers the two years since theAgen cys insp ector gen eralissued an audit of Californiasclean air enforcement efforts.The audit found that local airdistricts, which carry ou t almostall enforcement actions on major

Not Effective: EPAs Audit of California Enforcement

I n Ca l i f o rn ia , 98 pe rcen t o f a l l en fo r cemen tact ion s agains t ma jo r sta tion ary a i r po l l u t ionsou rces are taken by the state s 34 lo cal o rregional a i r d ist r ic ts. As the EPA notes, Thesucc ess o f the a i r en forcem ent p rogram inCal i fo rn i a is la rge ly depend ent on theaggressiv eness of l oc al a i r d ist ric tsp rograms.

In 19 96 , the EPA Inspector G enera l in i t ia tedan au di t to assess the aggr essiven ess an def fec t iveness o f the c l ean a i r en forcem entprogram in Ca l i fo rn ia . I ts ob jec t ives w ere to

de term i ne w he the r en fo r cem en t p rog ramsw ere designed to de ter com pan i es f romv io la t i ons and w he the r t he p rog rams w ereef fec t ive ly t rack in g en forcem ent ac t ions.

The EPA aud i t s euph em ist ic verd ic t : Th ea i r com p l iance and en fo r cemen t p rog ram. . .w as no t as e f fec t ive as i t cou ld h ave been. Bu t U .S. Rep . George M i l l e r o f M art i nez ,on e o f the lead in g env i ron m enta l ists inCon gress, w as m ore b lun t : The fines are

too l o w , t he f i nes don t ach ieve de te rrenceand the en fo r cem en t ac t i ons aren t t im e ly .

The repo r t . . . val i da tes [ com m un i t y ]conc e rns w i t h r espec t t o w he the r the [Bay

Area ] a i r boa rd i s do ing an adequa te j ob . (Kay 19 97 . )

The inspector genera l w arned tha t the fourloc a l a i r d ist r ic ts aud i ted for the BayA rea, Los An ge les, Sacram ento andM on te rey m e tropo l i t an reg ions w ere no tesca la t ing en forcem ent ac t ion s fo r repeatv io la t ions. A bo ut ha l f o f the cases exam inedinv o lv ed repeat o f fenses, bu t no ne w ereesca la ted to a m ore st r ingent en forcem ent

ac t i on o r a sign i f i can tl y h ighe r pena l t y . Theaud i t sa id the d i st r ic ts w ere no t p ropo singpena l t ies h igh en ou gh acco rd in g to EPAguide l ines; appropr ia te ly jus t i f y ingreduct io ns in p rop osed p ena l t ies; reso lv ingcases in a t im e ly m anner o r adequ atelypub l i c i z in g t he i r en fo r cemen t ac t i v i ti es.

The audi t a lso cr i t ic ized EPAs San Franciscoregion a l o f f ice as no t ef fec t ive in t rack in genforcem ent ac t ions because o f inaccu ra te

data . Six ty p ercent o f the com ple teden fo r cem en t ac ti ons by f ou r l oca l a i r


13/36


d ist ri c t s d idn t show up in t he reg iona lof f ic e s databases. I t a lso said th ati m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e p r o gr am w o u l d o n l yoccu r i f the regiona l EPA took a m oreaggressive ro l e in en forcem ent ac t ionsaga inst h igh -pro f i le v io l a to rs.

Fac i l i t i es exam in ed in t he aud i t con t i nued topo l l u te w i t h l i t t l e f ea r o f r e tr i bu t i on . Theaverage f ines am ou nted to l i t t le m ore thanpoc ke t change to f ac i l i t i es ow ned by m u l t i -b i l l i o n d o l l a r com pan ies. Ave rage f i nes i nthe sta te ranged f rom a h igh o f $2 ,792 in the

Sou th Coast A i r Q ua l i t y M anagemen tD ist ri c t i n Los An geles t o a m inuscu le $42 6assessed b y the B ay A rea Ai r Q ua l i tyM anagemen t D ist r ic t in San Franc isco .

Exam ples o f lax en forcem ent c i ted in thea u d i t i n c l u d e d :

A gl ass m a n u fac tu ri n g c o m p a n yw as issued a [v io la t ion ] fo rexcessive ly em i t t ing par t icu l a te

m at te r f rom i ts g lass mel t in g

furn ace. In respo nse . . . thec o m p a n y p a i d a p e n a l ty o f $ 1 , 0 0 0 .. . . The com pany w as c i t ed f o r thesame v i o la t i on a t o tal o f 18 t imesw i th in a tw o yea r pe r iod . In eachcase , a pena l t y o f $1 ,000 w asp ropo sed . I n add i t i on , du r ing t h i ssame pe r iod , the com pany w asissued n ine [v io l a t ions] fo r fa i lu reto repo r t ind ic ated excesses. These[v i o la t ion s] resu l ted in an averagep ropo sed pena l t y o f $64 5 . . .

T h e So u t h C o ast A i r D i st ri c t i ssu e da [v io la t ion ] aga inst an o i l re f ineryfo r c reat i ng a pub l i c nu i sancecaused b y st rong od ors f rom agaso l ine sp i l l . The pub l ic nu isancev io la t ion resu l ted in a prop osedp e n a lt y o f $ 7 ,5 0 0 . O u r r ev i e w o ft he com pany s com p l iance h i sto r yind ica ted the [a i r d ist r ic t ] hadissued 1 0 prev io us [v i o la t ion s]w i t h i n a 1 2 m o n t h p e ri o d f o r

pub l i c n u i sance v io la t i ons .

stationary sou rces of po llution,w ere no t issuing fines largeenou gh to encourage comp li-ance o r deter repeat offend ers.(See Not Effective, abo ve.)

The aud it warne d that thesituation would only improve ifEPAs Region 9 o ffice, b ase d inSan Francisco, took a moreaggressive stand in overseeing

local districts enforcement effortsand intervening in high-pro filecases. Instead, nothing haschan ged : According to theAgen cys ow n q uality-che ckeddata, Californias local air districts

continue to let big air pollutersoff the hook, and the EPA contin-ues to w atch it happ en (EPA1997b).


14/36



15/36


The California facilities in thisanalysis are all large industrialfactories. Twenty-five of the 32facilities are involved in petro-leum refining, five are pulp andpap er mills , one is an iron and

steel maker an d on e is an au toassembly plant. According to theToxics Release Inventory, thesefacilities reported combinedreleases of 100,000 pounds ofcarcino gen s into the a ir in 1996.Counting all hazardous chemi-cals released into the air orwater, the facilities emitted 13million pounds of toxins in 1996,an average of more than 400,000

pounds each .

The majority of the facilitiesconsidered here are chronicviolators of state an d fed eralclean air regulation s. Seven ty-five percent, or 24 of 32, re-ceived at least on e citation forviolation of clean a ir standa rds,or p aid at least one fine to settlean earlier o ffense, b etwee n

Janu ary 1, 1996 and Jun e 15,1999. (Table 2.) The se facilitiesw ere cited for a total of 603violations. On average, eachfacility was cited 25 times in this30-month p eriod.

There are serious and disturb-ing co nflicts betw een the e n-

Findings

Chapter 2

forcement records of the stateand the EPA. (See RegulatoryRoulette, page 11.) But of the603 Notices of Violation issuedby the states loca l districts, bythe EPAs standard 446, or 73.9

percent, were significant enoughto trigger orders for correctiveaction.

The To sco an d Shell refine riesin Martinez were the most fre-quently cited facilities in thestate, w ith 115 violation s ea ch.The Exxon re finery in Ben iciawas cited 113 times. Those threefacilities, loca ted less tha n five

miles apart on either side of theCarquinez Strait, received m orecitations than the states other 21offenders combined.

Of the seven wo rst offend ersin the state, six we re refine ries inContra Costa County or adjacentSolano County, all in the jurisdic-tion of the Bay Area Air QualityMana gem en t District. The seven

Contra Costa or Solano refine rieson the full 32-com p any list re-corde d a total of 488 violation s,compared to 58 citations for thenine refineries listed in Los Ange-les County, which are regulatedby the South Coast Air QualityMana gem en t District. The ContraCosta and Solano facilities re-

Thr ee East Bayrefin erie s, le ss thanfive m iles apart,received m orecitations for violatin gclean air laws than all

other facilit ies in thestate.


16/36

1 0 A B O V ETH E LA W IN C A L I FO R N I A

Table 2. Cal i fornia faci l it ies in the EPAs 19 96 -19 99 compliance survey.

Sourc e : Env i r on m en ta l W ork ing G roup . C om p i led f r om ID EA /SF IP /AFS da ta .

* Th i s i nc lu des tw o C h ev ron fac i l i t i es a t the s am e loc a t i on .* * Fo l l ow ing a 199 5 ex p los ion tha t k i l l ed on e pe rson , Sun l and shu t dow n opera t i ons f o r good . The f i nes l i s ted he re w ere p ai d to reso l v e a l l o u tst an d i n g ai r v i o l a ti o n s. Fo r stat i sti c a l p u rp o ses, Su n l an d to ta l s w er e n o t i n c l u d ed i n EW G c al c u l at i o n s.

solved 388 violation s and pa idtotal fines of $211,333, for an

average pe nalty of $699. The LosAnge les Cou nty refine ries re -solved 65 violations and paid atotal of more than $1.2 million,for an average pe nalty of$19,459. The average o f the totalamount of fines paid by refineriesduring the survey period w as$140,541 in the South Coast

District and $38,719 in the BayArea (Table 3.)

This marked difference incitations and fines by the statestwo largest air districts raisesquestions that can not be an-swered from the data. Either theSouthern California refinerieshave a much better compliancerecord than those in the East

Com pany C ity C ountyN ew

Violat ionsViolat ionsResolved Fines Paid

Average FinePaid PerViolat ionResolved

Sh el l O i l Co m p an y M arti n ez Co n tra C o sta 1 1 5 1 1 2 $ 6 6 ,3 9 1 $ 5 9 3To sc o Co rp o ratio n M arti n ez Co n tra C o sta 1 1 5 7 7 $ 4 3 ,1 2 7 $ 5 6 0Ex x o n Co rp o rati o n Ben ic ia So l an o 1 1 3 5 8 $ 5 1 ,4 2 8 $ 8 8 7Ch ev ro n U SA , In c . Ri c h m o n d Co n tra C o sta 7 5 7 4 $ 5 9 ,5 0 6 $ 8 0 4To sc o Co rp o ratio n Ro d eo Co n tra C o sta 4 1 3 7 $ 3 1 ,6 3 8 $ 8 5 5H u n tw ay Refi n i n g C o . Ben ic ia So l an o 2 2 2 2 $ 1 3 ,4 9 3 $ 6 1 3A rc o Pro d u c t C o . Lo s A n gel es Lo s A n gel es 2 0 2 1 $ 2 0 8 ,5 2 5 $ 9 ,9 3 0G ay l o rd Co n tai n er Co . A n ti o c h Co n tra C o sta 1 5 1 1 $ 4 ,5 0 9 $ 4 1 0M o b i l e Petro l eu m C o . In c . To rran c e Lo s A n gel es 1 5 1 8 $ 1 5 6 ,7 4 2 $ 8 ,7 0 8Kern O i l & Refi n i n g In c . Bak ersfi el d Kern 1 4 1 6 $ 6 ,2 1 0 $ 3 8 8Tex ac o Refi n i n g an d M ark eti n g Bak ersfi el d Kern 1 2 1 3 $ 1 ,1 0 0 $ 8 5Lo u isi an a Pac i fi c C o rp . Sam o a H u m b o ld t 1 0 9 $ 8 ,2 5 0 $ 9 1 7Ch ev ro n U SA , In c .* El Segu n d o Lo s A n gel es 8 8 $ 4 8 1 ,0 5 0 $ 6 0 ,1 3 1Pac i f i c Refin in g Co m p an y H erc u l es Co n tra C o sta 7 8 $ 5 ,4 5 0 $ 6 8 1San Jo aq u i n Refi n i n g C o ., In c . Bak ersfi el d Kern 5 4 $ 2 ,5 0 0 $ 6 2 5Tex ac o Refi n i n g an d M ark eti n g W i lm i n gto n Lo s A n gel es 5 6 $ 3 5 3 ,2 5 0 $ 5 8 ,8 7 5To sc o Co rp o ratio n W i lm i n gto n Lo s A n gel es 4 4 $ 1 3 ,2 5 0 $ 3 ,3 1 3

Param o u n t Petro l eu m C o rp . Param o u n t Lo s A n gel es 3 2 $ 7 ,2 5 0 $ 3 ,6 2 5Lu n d ay Th agard C o . So u th G ate Lo s A n gel es 2 4 $ 4 0 ,3 0 0 $ 1 0 ,0 7 5Po w eri n e O i l C o m p an y San te Fe Sp ri n gs Lo s A n gel es 1 1 $ 2 ,5 0 0 $ 2 ,5 0 0To sc o Co rp o ratio n A rro y o G ran d e San Lu is O b i sp o 1 3 $ 1 9 ,8 6 0 $ 6 ,6 2 0Su n lan d Refi n i n g C o rp .* * Bak ersfi el d Kern 0 2 $ 2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 ,2 5 0 ,0 0 0U l tram ar In c . W i lm i n gto n Lo s A n gel es 0 1 $ 2 ,0 0 0 $ 2 ,0 0 0H u n tw ay Refi n i n g C o . W i lm i n gto n Lo s A n gel es 0 0 $ 0 N /AN U M M I Frem o n t A l am ed a 0 0 $ 0 N /ASi m p so n Pap er Co . Po m o n a Lo s A n gel es 0 0 $ 0 N /ASi m p so n Pap er Co . A n d erso n Sh asta 0 0 $ 0 N /ASm u rfi t N ew sp r in t C o rp . o f C al . Po m o n a Lo s A n gel es 0 0 $ 0 N /ATA M CO Ran c h o C u c am o n ga San Bern ard i n o 0 0 $ 0 N /ATex ac o Refi n i n g an d M ark eti n g Lo n g Beac h Lo s A n gel es 0 0 $ 0 N /AW i tc o Co rp o rati o n O i l d ale Kern 0 0 $ 0 N /A

Totals (Excluding SunlandRefining) 6 0 3 5 0 9 $ 1 ,5 7 8 ,3 2 9 $ 3 ,1 0 1


17/36

1 1EN V I R O N M E N T A L W O R K I N G G R O U P

Regulatory Roulette: Conflicts Between State and Federal Data

To un derstand the c lean a i r en forcem entp i c tu re i n Ca l i f o rn ia , i t he lps t o kno w tha t

state and fed eral regulators keep tw odi f ferent sets of rec ord s that are c l oselyre lated b u t don t exac tl y m a tch .

W hen an a i r d ist r ic t i ssues a c i ta tion( N o t i c e o f V i o l a ti o n , o r N O V ) , i t i sr eco rded by da te , bu t no t by t he amou n t o fpena l t y . Look in g at N O Vs can p rov id e anaccu ra te i nd i ca t i on o f how m any c i t at i onsw ere i ssued , bu t g i ves no i nd i ca t i on o f h oww e l l t he ai r d i st ri c t f o l l ow ed th rough on the

c i t a t i on .

Federa l da ta sys tem s a lso reco rd V io l a t ionsReso lv ed. I t s a good in d ic a tor o f howm uch the po l l u te r s pa id i n f i nes du r ing aspec i f i ed t ime p e riod , b u t i t t oo can bemis lead ing . V io la t ions are somet imesreso lv ed on th e spo t w i th sm al l f ines or nof ine , bu t o ther c ases are no t reso lv ed fo ryears. A s a resul t , som e pen al t ies paiddu r ing t he tw o and a ha l f years exam in ed by

the EPA are fo r v io l a t ions dur in g the sam eper iod , bu t o thers m ay be fo r ear l ie rc i ta t ions. The c lo sest m atch w as betw eenv io la t ions reso lv ed and f ines pa id , and o urca lcu la t ion s o f average f ines pa id are basedon tha t assumpt ion .

As an exam p le , w e found tha t l oca l a i rd i st ri c t s i n Ca l i f o rn ia i ssued 6 03 N O Vsbe tw een Jan 1 , 19 96 and June 1 5 , 19 99 .D ur ing t ha t same t im e pe r iod t hey reso lved

a to tal o f 51 1 2 . In o ther w ords, som e o f thepena l t ies pa id w ere fo r v io l a t ions pr io r to

January 1 99 6 and som e o f the c i ta tion s hadno t been reso lv ed by Jun e 199 9.

A ccu ra te ly character iz ing the na ture o f thev io la t ions in Ca l i fo rn i a w as an exerc ise inf rust rat ion . N at iona l ly , the EPA c on siders al linc iden ts recorded i n the Sector Fac i l i t yIndex i ng Program to be sign i f ican tv io la t i ons . Bu t the w ay Ca l i f o rn ia , ascom pared to the rest o f the coun t ry , cou ntsand reco rds t he num ber o f v io la t i ons means

that statew id e SFIP data is not as good anind ica tor o f co nd i t ion s a t the fac i l i t ies as theloca l d i st ri c t da ta used to c om p i le i t .A l tho ugh the SFIP fi les usua l ly in c lu de on lythe m ore ser iou s o f fenses, the N ot ices o fV io l a t ion issued b y lo ca l d is t ric ts a re m orere l iab le gauges o f a fac i l i t y s overa l lc o m p l i a n c e .

The co nf l i c ts be tw een the sta te and federa lreco rd system s are so ser iou s that som e state

and fede ral r egu la to r s, w ho spoke on ly oncon d i t i on o f anonym i t y , m a in tain t ha t noaccu ra te conc lu sions can be d raw n f r om thestatew id e SFIP data. This is in to lerab le: Thereason suc h reco rds are kept in the f i rstp lace i s t o i n fo rm the pub l i c abou te n v i ro n m e n ta l c o m p l i a n c e i n t h e i rc o m m u n i ti es. H o w m u c h m o n e y m o n e ytha t cou ld b e used to bee f up en fo r cemen t

are th e state an d EPA sp en d in g to k eeprecords they re fuse to s tand beh i nd ?

2This total includ es tw o violations resolved by Sunland Refining of Bakersfield a fter the facility closed in 1995.


18/36


Table 3 . Enforcem ent activities against oil refineries in tw o Californ ia air districts.

Sourc e : Env i r on m en ta l W ork ing G roup , c om p i led f r om U .S. EPA SF IP /ID EA da tabases, 1999 .

The four Toscorefineries account for13 percent of the totalnum ber of faci l i t iesbut w ere responsiblefor 27 percent of theviolations.

Bay; or the South Coast district,wh ich has p ioneered and imp le-me nted the nations toughestclean air rules, is ignoring, miss-ing or failing to report violations

its Northe rn California cou nter-part is citing; or the South Coastdistricts larger fines are a moreeffective deterrent to high num-bers of violations. Bay Area airdistrict officials defend theirpe rforman ce, arguing that thehigh number of citations settledfor small fine s show s that theyare aggressively citing everyviolation, even minor ones.

Tosco, with four facilities inthe survey, had 161 citation s,more than any other company inthe state. The four Tosco refiner-ies account for 13 percent of thetotal num be r of facilities but w ereresponsible for 27 percent of theviolations. Tosco paid 121 finesduring the survey p eriod, averag-ing $1,440. The average penaltypaid by all other com pan iessurveyed was $3,600.

Statewide , the biggest fine swe re assessed against the Texacorefinery in Wilmington, LosAngeles County, which paid$363,250 to resolve six violations,

an average of $58,875 pe r viola-tion . The Texaco refine ry inBakersfield was fined the lowestam ou nt, pa ying $1,100 to se ttle13 violation s, for an average of

about $85 per citation.

The fines clearly were notenough to deter additionalviolation s. The 32 com pa nies, intotal, paid $1.6 million to resolve509 violation s, an ave rage o f$3,000 p er violation. Almo st allof the facilities are owned bypu blicly held com pan ies, who se1998 revenues averaged $23billion.

By comparison, residents ofContra Costa County, where fourof the six worst offenders arelocated, have median income ofabout $36,000 a year, second-highest in the state (FTB 1999).If a median-income Contra Costaresident were assessed a smog-violation fine equivalent to whatthe states big polluters paid, itwould be several orders ofmagn itude smaller than o necent.

The he alth risks of the airpollution from the facilitiessurveyed , p articularly the refin-

Average Fine N ew V iolat ions Total Per V io lat ion A verage Fine

D istr ict Refiner ies V iolat ions Resolved Fines Resolved Per Facil ity

B ay A rea 7 4 8 8 3 8 8 $ 2 7 1 ,0 3 3 $ 6 9 9 $ 3 8 ,7 1 9So u th C o ast 9 5 8 6 5 $ 1 ,2 6 4 ,8 6 7 $ 1 9 ,4 5 9 $ 1 4 0 ,5 4 1


19/36


0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

PercentN

on-

A

nglo

Population

W it h in t h r ee

m i les o f

fac i l i t ies

N ine coun t ies

w i t h f ac i l i t i es

State of

Ca l i f o r n ia

Figure 1. N on-Anglo populat ionis higher near big air polluters.

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p .C om p i led f r om U .S. EPA SFIP da ta and

C a l i f o rn ia D epar tm en t o f F inanc e D e m o g r a p h i c s U n i t .

*Th ese est im ates are based on U .S. Census D a ta ( 1990) . The re are m ore r ec en t c oun ty and sta tew ide est im a tes, h ow ev er , t hese est im a tes do no t p rov ide ad equa te de ta i l t o ana ly z e the popu la t i ons s u r round ing fac i l i t ies .

eries, fall dispro po rtionately onpeople of color and low-incomeCalifornians. According to theEPA, which used 1990 U.S.Census figures, 60 pe rcent o f the

people living within three milesof the surveyed facilities w erenon -Anglo, compa red to a 1990non-Anglo population of 51pe rcent in the n ine co untiesw he re the facilities are locatedand 43 percent statewide. (Fig.1.) (Curre ntly, California isestimated to b e 52 percent non -Anglo.)

Other than refineries, themost often cited Californiaoffend ers we re Gaylord Con-taine r Corp. in Antioch, w ith 15violations during the surveystime period, and the LouisianaPacific paper mill in HumboldtCounty, with 10 citations.Gaylord, w hich is unde r the

jurisd ictio n o f th e Ba y Are a airdistrict, resolved 11 citations

during the p eriod surveyed, foran average of $410 each. Lou isi-ana Pacific, which is under theNorth Coast Unified AQMD inEureka, resolved nine violationsfor an average of $917 percitation.


20/36



21/36


Nation w ide, a large m ajorityof the violations analyzed byEWG are co nsidered significant,meaning they directly impactpublic heath and air quality.EPAs guidance on significant

violators and the n ew de finitionfor high priority violations de-fines a violation for majorsources as any violation ofemissions or monitoring stan-dards, any substantial proced uralviolation, or any violation of afederal or state administrativeorde r. Minor source s mu st belisted as significant violatorswh en they are in violation of

emissions standards.

On e indicator of the nature ofthe violation s is the action thefacility must take to correct thepro blem . Violation s that requ irethe installation of pollutioncontrol equipment or changes tooperating procedures are mostoften more serious than viola-tions that require only adminis-

trative action . O ther pro ced uralviolations, like the failure toapply for a permit or monitor forexcess emissions, can also beserious, even if they dont ulti-mately require changes to op er-ating p rocedu res, becau se theymake it impossible to enforcethe law.

W hats the Problem ?

Chapter 3

In its 1997 and 1996 region alaud its, EPA analyzed en force-me nt action s. Nation w ide, infiscal year 1997, 40 percent of theaction s req uired the installationof po llution control equipm ent, a

change in operating procedures,or some other removal orreme diation . The 1996 rep ortdisclosed similar findings. Themajority of the rem aining casesrequired some form of testing,mo nitoring, or o ther major proce-dural change w ithin the plant(EPA 1996, EPA 1997a).

Big p olluters freque ntly argue

that these are on ly minor pap er-work violations, such as record-keep ing. But almo st none of theactions brough t against comp a-nies in ou r national an alysis arefor reco rd-kee p ing violation s. Inbo th 1997 and 1996, less thantwo pe rcent o f Clean Air Actviolations were resolved throughchanges in record-keeping. (EPA1996, EPA 1997a).

Adequate enforcement hasimportant short- and long-termair quality be ne fits. In the e n-forcement audits, EPA listed thepollutant reductions that resultedfrom the action s. Altho ugh EPAonly had specific pollutant datafor 11 percent of the reported

Procedural violationscan also b e serio us,because they m ake itim possible to enforcethe law .


22/36


cases, the pollutant reductionswere substantial (Table 4). Na-tionwide, in 1997 these reduc-tions included 87 million pounds

of carcinoge ns, soot and smog-forming pollutants. (EPA 1997a).

Environm ental Fines: The C ost ofD oing Business

What explains the w idesp readviolations of environmental lawsand the lack of enforcem ent?Environmental compliance is arelatively low priority at many

facilities. Busin ess es re alisticallyfigure that the eco nom ic advan-tages they gain by not complyingwith the law o utweigh the slightchance of government enforce-me nt action against them . In-deed, this calculation has beenborne out in man y cases (EPA1997b). Budge t cuts and lack of

Table 4. Enforcement of the Clean Air Act can result insubstantial pollution reductio ns.

* Th e abov e f i gu red r ep res en t r educ t i o ns a t j us t 11 pe rc en t o f f ac i l i t i es w h ere en fo r c em en t ac ti on s w ere tak en .

Sourc e : EPA 199 7 En fo r c em en t Repor t .

political will often account forthe lackluster performance o fenvironmental enforcementagen cies. And insufficien tpublic information about the

pe rform ance of facilities m ake s iteasier for the situation to con-tinue.

On e o f the main con straintsto strong enforcement is that thepublic has no easy way ofknow ing about the scope of en vironm en tal violation s, thespecific identity of local viola-tors, the conseq uen ces of the

violations, and the non-perfor-mance of state enforcementagencies. Even in federal datapu blished on the Internet, thereare still many unansweredquestions relating to the facili-ties. And w ith the pu blic in thedark, ch ron ic violation s of en vi-ronmental laws and lack ofenforcemen t rarely eme rge aspublic issues. As a result, there is

no pressure on industry orgovernme nt to imp rove comp li-ance or enforcement.

Non-comp liance in the seindu stries doe s not app ear to besolely the result of weak federalp olicy. EPA p rovide s clearguidance on the appropriatepe nalty for non -com pliance withthe Clean Air Act. EPA use s a

formula that includes the eco-nom ic be nefit incurred throu ghnon-compliance and then setsan ad ditional fine dep end ingup on the gravity of the offen seand the good-faith effort of thefacility to comply after beingno tified of the offen se. Histori-cal non-compliance is also

Reduction

(U .S. Total ,

Pollutant in pounds)

V o lat i l e O rgan i c C h em i c al s 6 2 ,5 6 2 ,0 0 0

Parti c u late M atter 2 4 ,5 5 5 ,0 0 0

C arb o n M o n o x id e 2 1 ,5 0 2 ,0 0 0

Pro p an e 2 0 ,0 1 4 ,0 0 0

Po l y n u clear A ro m ati c H yd ro c arb o ns 1 4 ,4 00 ,0 0 0

Lead 1 0 ,2 9 7 ,0 0 0

Ben z en e 7 ,6 6 6 ,0 0 0

C em en t K i l n D u st 6 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

To l u en e 9 9 8 ,0 0 0

C h lo ro f l u ro c arb o n s 4 2 7 ,0 0 0


23/36


considered in setting the app ro-priate fine (EPA 1991).

The p roblem is that federalguidelines are rarely followed.The fines that are p aid b y com-pan ies rarely adhe re to therecomm end ed formu las. TheEPA Inspe ctor Ge ne rals au ditfound that contrary to theAgencys guidance, the penalties

assessed by local air districts inCalifornia did not escalate forrepea t violators and w ere no tlarge eno ugh to de ter the viola-tors from com mitting the o f-fenses again (EPA 1997b).

As an e xamp le, the aud itcited a California case in w hich

an unnamed facility was cited fora public nuisance violation stem-ming from 30 complaints ofillness. Th e facility, wh ich islocated in a area w here a ir qual-ity fails to me et he alth standard s,wa s fined $500, even tho ugh thecorrect fine , according to theAgencys guidelines, was $15,000.The audit stated further that threeof the four California a ir districts

review ed gave no considerationto the econ om ic ben efit of non -compliance in its penalty calcula-tion in other words, thedistricts we rent even bo theringto determine if it was cheaper forthe offender to pay the fine or fixthe problem. (EPA 1997b)

Title V: One-Stop Shopping for Better Enforcemen t

The m ost am b i t i ous at temp t to im provecom p l iance w i th the C lean A i r Ac t i s t he

T i t l e V p rog ram, added in 1990 . T i t l e Vperm i ts w i l l in tegra te a l l federa l and sta tec lean a i r law s requ i rem ents in to a sing ledoc um en t . By conso l i da t i ng t he perm i trequ i rem ents, the pub l ic , regu la tors and theind ustr ies can bet ter de term ine th e fac i l i t iesco m pl i ance sta tus . Because l im i ts no ti n c l u d e d i n t h e T i tl e V p e r m i t w i l l n o t b eenfo rced , i t is essent ia l that the p erm its areco r rec tl y w r i tt en and i nc lu de a l l o f t heappropr ia te l im i ts .

Sta tes are no w deve lo p in g opera ting perm i tp rogram s to rev iew , issue, adm in i ste r, andenforce opera t ing perm i ts, and b eg inn i ng toco l lec t the fees nec essary to carry o ut theserespo ns ib i l i t ies. O nc e the T i t le V program s

are estab l ished, the fees co l lec ted f rom thepe rm i t h o lde rs w i l l f un d en fo r cem en t e ff o r ts.

I t is im po rtant , therefore, that the fees set forthese pro grams be su f fic i en t to fun dv igo rous en fo r cem en t . U nde r t h i s newar rangem ent , EPA w i l l re ta in i t s oversigh trespo ns ib i l i t y , bu t w i l l b e less ab le tonegot ia te the te rm s o f sta te en forcem ent o ft he C lean A i r A c t as a cond i t i on o f f ede ralf und ing .

U nde r T i t l e V , a l l pe rm i t s, app l i ca t i ons,pe rm i t s, mo n i to r i ng and reco rdkeep ing

repo r ts and ann ua l co m p l iance ce r t i fi ca t i onsm ust be made ava i l ab le to t he pub l i c . Thepu b l i c a lso has the r igh t to b r in gen fo r cem en t ac t i ons t o com pe l com p l iancew i th T i t l e V p e rm i t r equ i r emen ts.


24/36


It is common for facilities toreceive m ultiple no tice of viola-tion s, yet pay n o fine s. TheCalifornia aud it fou nd that largecomp anies averaged 11 Notices

of Violation s du ring the two -yearperiod examined. The InspectorGeneral used as an example anun identified o il refine ry that wa scited for 10 violations over a 12-mon th period . When the com-pany was eventually fined for thepublic nuisance, its history ofnon-compliance was not consid-ered in setting the penaltyam ou nt (EPA 1997b).

Even comp anies that pay largepe nalties ca n ga in significanteconomic advantages by notcomp lying w ith en vironme ntallaws. A goo d exam p le of this isthe Crown Central PetroleumCorporation in Pasadena, Texas.An analysis of the economicbenefit of non-compliance withTexas and federal law prep ared

for a citizens suit against Crowncalculated the companys eco-nom ic be nefit of non -com plianceat $13.9 million. The refore , eve nthough Crown has been fined $1million for emitting hundreds ofexcess tons of sulfur dioxide,they have benefited tremen-dously from the delay in enforce-ment (Kavanaugh 1998).

Ineffective communicationbetw een the states and EPA hasalso severely eroded the Agencysability to enforce the Clean AirAct. (EPA 1998a) . EPAs reg ion alaudits document widespreadun de rrepo rting of significantviolators by the states. Theprob lems that have existed in the

past with identifying significantviolators of the Clean Air Actalso con tribu ted to the inab ilityto bring facilities into compli-an ce. EPA ha s the ab ility to take

over a case if it fee ls the state o rlocal government is not actingeffectively to bring a facilityback into com pliance, bu t theAgency can only exercise thisresp on sibility e ffectively if it ha sreliable inform ation .

Improving Compliance

In December 1998, the EPAs

O ffice of Environ me ntal Comp li-ance Assurance revised its guide-lines on Timely and AppropriateEnforcem en t Resp on se to Signifi-can t Air Pollution Violators. Thisdocument outlines the responsethe Agency expects from thestates to violations of the CleanAir Act. In the new gu idance ,Significant Violators are calledHigh Priority Vio lators. State

regulators and EPA now have alittle more time to bring facilitiesinto compliance. EPA also clari-fied the system for prioritizingthe list of companies for whichenforcemen t actions m ust betaken (EPA 1998b).

In the new guidelines, EPAalso reiterates its e xpe ctationthat states will resolve all viola-

tions of the Clean Air Act in areason able time frame . It alsostates that its national goal is tohave all federal, state and localen forcem en t action s for CAAviolations assess a penalty suffi-cient to ach ieve effective d eter-rence for the source subject toenforcement and for the regu-

M ost Cal i fornia airdistric ts fail t oconsider w hether, forpolluters, paying a fineis cheaper than fixing

the problem.


25/36


lated com mu nity as a who le(EPA 1998b). In othe r w ords,the sting o f enforceme nt mu st besufficient to compel compliancewith the law.

As this process moves for-ward, it is important to focus onthe effectiveness with whichthe se significant violators arebrought back into compliance,not just the process by whichthe y are ide ntified. EPAs revi-sion of its guidan ce for theapp ropriate respo nse to clean airviolation s is a h op eful indication

that this might hap pe n. How -ever, EPA still ne ed s to ad dressthe fund ame ntal differencesbetween its posit ion and moststates view s of the role of en -forceme nt pe nalties as a me cha-nism for ensuring compliancewith environm ental laws.

EPA has initiated a few othe rprograms to increase com pliance

with environmental laws (Ap-pe ndix 1). Of these programs,the Targeted Enforcement initia-tive is the m ost p rom ising.Targeted e nforcem ent is de-signe d to bring indu stries withspecific problems back intocom p liance . By learning fromtrend s in n on-comp liance acrossstates an d regions, EPA cansolve m ajor e nvironme ntal

pro blem s in spe cific ind ustries ina manner that is fair to thatindustry and helpful to thestates.

Of the other new initiatives,the Compliance Assistance andNational Performance Measuresprograms are both common -

sense approaches that shouldhave b een instituted long ago .The Compliance Incentive Pro-grams, on the other hand, havethe p otential to und ercut clean air

goals and should be monitoredclosely to e nsure they do noterode EPAs ability to punishviolators.

Recomm endations for Im provedCompl iance

The California Legislaturemust limit the enforcementdiscretion of local air dis-

tricts so that repeat violatorsdont escape unpunished.Pen alties for re pe at violatorsmust be mandatory, shouldincrease with each newoffense, and be largeenough to curtail futureviolations: Current stateregulations limits most finesto $1,000 unless the enforce-ment agency can prove that

a comp any in tended tobreak the law. New Jerseysthree-strikes law againstrepea t po lluters provides agood model for California.

Congress must not passregulatory reform legisla-tion that will slow down theimplementation and enforce-men t of pub lic he alth stan-

dards or pollution controlsmandated under the CleanAir Act or an y othe r en viron-men tal law .

The San Francisco regiona loffice of the EPA shouldexe rcise its autho rity andintervene in cases w here

Californ ia needs athree strikes law forpolluters.


26/36


local regulators dont followthe Agencys guidelines foreffective enforcementagainst high-priority viola-tors, and bring these persis-

tent offenders into compli-ance with the law.

EPA sho uld he lp Californiacommunities participate inthe developm ent and en-forceme nt of air po llutionpermits issued under Title Vof the Clea n Air Act. Reg ion9 should monitor stateimplementation of Title V

programs to ensure that

information on comp lianceis readily understandableby and available to thepublic.

Loca l air districts, the ARBand the regional andnational EPA must worktogether to eliminate thesubstantial data gaps andinter-agency conflicts inthe states air pollutionrep orting system . Aneffective enforcement andcompliance programrequires reliable and

p ub licly accessible da ta.


27/36


The Clean Air Act includesseveral regulatory and permittingprovisions. A facility emitting airpollutants may be subject to oneor more requ irements depend ingon the nature of the facility, its

em ission s, and air quality in thearea w he re the facility is located.

State Imp lem entation Plan(SIP): The Clean Air Actgives states the respo nsibil-ity for developing a planfor achieving nationalclean air standards. Theplan de tails air p ollutioncontrol strategies for all

sources of air pollution;cars, as well as factoriesand po we r plants. The SIPis the collection of po llu-tion control rules, monitor-ing requirements, enforce-ment authorities, andfund ing m echan isms that astate intends to u se to me etclean a ir standa rds. Inareas not meeting air

quality standards, SIPsmust require permits fornew and modified majorsources of air pollution.

Nation al Emission Stand ardsfor Hazardous Air Pollut-ants: Major sou rces ofhazardous air pollutants

C lean Air A ct Program s and

Enforcem ent I ni t iat ives

Appendix 1

those with the potential toem it more than 10 tons p eryear o f ind ividual p ollutantsor 25 tons p er year of anycombination of air pollut-ants m ust comp ly with

national standards for reduc-ing these pollutants.

Preven tion of SignificantDeterioration : This p rogramapp lies in areas wh ere airqu ality is be tter than Na-tional Ambient Air QualityStandards. In order to obtaina permit, major sources those with the potential to

em it more than 100 tonsannually of any pollutant mu st dem onstrate that theyw ill not con tribu te to airqu ality violation s, and theymust install best availablecontrol technology.

New Source Review : Thisprogram requires a reviewfor facility m od ification s to

determine whether thechange warrants treating thefacility as a n ew source ,subject to n ew sourceperformance standards.

New Source PerformanceStand ard s: New facilitiesand mo dification s of exist-


28/36


ing facilities must meetstand ards for the bestavailable pollution controltechnology, determined onan industry-by-ind ustry

basis.

For many years the Gen eralAccounting Office (GAO) andEPAs Office of the InspectorGeneral have docume nted achronic lack of compliance with,and enforcemen t of, environ-me ntal laws. Witho ut ide ntifyingindividu al violators, the se age n-cies have show n that a substan-

tial m inority of facilities regu -lated under clean air, cleanwater, and hazardous wastestatutes do not comply withenvironm ental protection stan-dards.

Recently, six regional auditsby the Inspector Gen eral, includ-ing on e in California, ha vebrought to light specific prob-

lems with the process wherebystates identify significant viola-tors and the d iligence w ithwhich these violators wererep orted to EPA regiona l offices.The m ost recent report from theInspector General rep orted,fund ame ntal weakn ess withstate ide ntification and rep ortingof significant violators of theCAA (EPA 1998a).

In response to these problemsEPAs Office of Enforcement andCompliance Assurance hasinitiated several pilot program sto increase compliance withenvironm ental laws. The pro-grams fit into three categories:compliance assistance, compli-

ance incentives, and targetedenforcement.

By themselves, these pro-grams will not seriously reduce

the levels of non-compliancefound am on g facilities. Som e ofthese initiatives co uld pro videuseful m od els for larger e ffortsby EPA. The Com p lian ce Assis-tance Program, wh ich is de-signed for small business, andthe Targeted Enforcem entefforts both hold great promise.The Compliance IncentivePrograms, on the other hand,

should be viewed with greatcaution.

Compliance AssistancePrograms: EPA has set upnine Nation al Sector-BasedComp liance AssistanceCenters. Eight of the ninesectors were selected toserve an environm entallyimportant small business

secto r. EPA ha s alsoinitiated several narrow lytargeted com pliance p ro-grams. Examp les of theseinclud e a n e ffort to in-crease compliance amongdry cleaners in Washing-ton, D .C.

Compliance IncentivePrograms: These p rograms

use a combination ofcompliance assistance,en vironm en tal audits, self-disclosure of violations,and reduced or eliminatedp en alties for tho se p artici-pating in the p rogram.EPA has several com p li-ance incen tive p rograms.

A substantial m inorityof facilities regulatedunder clean air, cleanwater , and hazardouswaste statutes do not

comply wi thenvironmentalprotectio n standard s.


29/36


One example is the volun-tary agreement betweenthe Agency and the Na-tional Pork ProducersCoun cil. Und er this con -

troversial program, porkproducers that promptlydisclose and correct anyviolations will receive areduced civil penalty.

Targeted Enforceme nt: EPAis beginning to search ou tsector-based environmen-tal non-comp liance usingdemographic and industry

information as well ashistorical compliance data.Once EPA identifies aprob lem with an indu stry,or e ven a statute affectinga few industries, theagency will work with theindustry to rapidly moveinto com pliance with thethreat of enforceme nt as astick a nd assistance in

comp lying w ith the p ar-ticular statute as the carrot.Facilities that immediatelycomply are sometimesgranted a lesser fine if theywork with U.S. EPA or areallowed to pursue aSup pleme ntal Environme n-tal Project that red uce s

emissions b eyond the legalrequirement.

Targeted enforcement activitieshave uncovered w idespread

no ncom pliance. In its WoodProducts Initiative, EPA foundNew Source Review violations atapp roximately 70 to 80 pe rcentof the facilities investigated (EPA1999). Because of the success ofthis and o ther e fforts, as we ll asthe large environmental gainsfrom the New Source Review ,EPA has focused o n New SourceReview as a key element of its

targeted enforcement efforts.

The Nationa l Performan ceMeasure Program: EPA alsoinitiated the National Perfor-ma nce Measures Strategy in1997. The goa l of thisprogram is to develop validmea sures of com pliancewith environm ental laws.This initiative is still in its

ea rly stage s. It w ill like lybe som e time before EPAdevelops, collects andreleases new nationa lperformance measures, butthis program will proveessen tial to characterizingthe e ffectiven ess o f theClean Air Act.


30/36


We began this analysis withdata from EPAs new SectorFacility Ind ex Pro ject (SFIP). Weused SFIP data because EPA hasquality-checked the data for thefacilities in the se pro ject. The

five indu stries covered in theSFIP are automobile assembly,iron and steel, petroleum refin-ing, p ulp m anufacturing, andme tals sme lting and refining(aluminum, copper, lead, andzinc). The SFIP datab ase in-cludes all the facilities operatingin the above industries as of1996. EPA con tinu es to mo nitorthe five industries that are repre-

sented in the SFIP database andintends to add or remove facili-ties as appropriate.

In the cou rse o f our researchinto data from the SFIP, how-ever, EWG discovered mechani-cal errors in the presentation ofthe d ata in California. Comp a-nies w ith a h istory of po llutingwere showing up in SFIP with

no violations or no penalties.After discussions with local, stateand federal officials we deter-mined that EPA data-entry per-sonnel were uploading thewrong fields from underlyingdatabases, or that local districtswere recording violations andpenalties in the wrong field.

M ethodology

Appendix 2

We chose to continue ouranalysis using the same 32facilities, because their data at alllevels (includ ing un de rlyingdatabases) had been error-checked and audi ted by the

po lluters themselves. How ever,for the California analysis only,we used a program to extractinformation that was o ne stepcloser to the actual source ofenforcemen t data. This program,called Integrated Data for En-forcement Analysis (IDEA),provided a more accurate andcomplete record of enforcementactivities in California than SFIP.

EPA worked for three years toidentify the facilities in SFIP andto assure the accuracy andusefulness of the data. As part ofthis effort, all facilities had anop po rtunity to review the data.Sixty-two percent of the facilitiesrespon ded . EPA and the statesthen reviewed the responses andmade changes to the data as

appropriate.

Tw o-thirds of th e SFIP facili-t ies subm itted comm ents as partof the quality assurance reviewthat was open from Augustthrough October 1997. A smallnum ber of comme nts have been


31/36


received an d p rocessed sincethe O ctobe r deadline. Thereview categorized data e le-ments into two categories: majorelemen ts, w hich include linke d

permits, enforcement actionsand facility com pliance status;and minor elements, whichinclude facility name, addressand date of inspe ction.

Ap pro ximately 37,000 m ajordata elements were presented tothe facilities that submittedcomm ents. Comm ents we re

received on 3,400 data elements.Of those, EPA and the state gov-ernments agreed that changeswe re ap prop riate in 1,700 cases.Comments were received on

ap p roximately 1,000 of the 19,000minor data elements presented. Ofthose, EPA and the state govern-ments agreed that changes wereappropriate in 500 cases. Thechanges were mad e to the datasource, not just SFIP. Therefore,all data systems for these facilities,including both IDEA and SFIP,ben efited from the e rror che cking.


32/36


References


Bedford, Christop he r. Dirty Secrets: The Corpo ration s Camp aign toCreate an Environm en tal Aud it Privilege. Comm un ities Con cerne dabout Corporations. 1996.

EPA 1991. Clea n Air Act Stationa ry Source Civil Pen alty Policy. Octo -

ber 25, 1991.

EPA 1992. Issuance of Guidance on the Timely and AppropriateEnforcement Response to Significant Air Pollution Violators. February7, 1992.

EPA 1996. 1996 Enforcem en t and Comp liance Assurance Accom plish-me nts Rep ort.

EPA 1997a. 1997 Enforcem en t and Comp liance Assurance Accom -plishments Report.

EPA 1997b. Aud it of Regio n 9s Adm inistration of the California AirCompliance and Enforcement Program, EPA Office of Inspector Gen-eral. Octob er 30, 1997.

EPA 1998a. Consolidated Report on OECAs Oversight of Regional andState Air Enforceme nt Program s, EPA Office of Insp ector G en eral.Sep temb er 25, 1998.

EPA 1998b. The Time ly and App rop riate (T&A) Enforcem en t Re-spo nse to H igh Priority Violation s (HPVs). Decem be r 22, 1998.

EPA 1999. Secto r Facility Ind ex Project d atab ase . April 15, 1999. http:// e s.ep a.go v/ o eca/ sfi/ in d ex.h tm l

FTB 1999. California me dian inco m e in 1997 by cou nty. CaliforniaFranchise Tax Board we bsite, http:/ / ww w.ftb.ca.gov/p ress/ 99-36att.htm


33/36


GAO 1998. EPAs and States Efforts to Focus State Enforcement Pro-grams on Results. U.S. Congress General Accounting Office. May1998.

Kay, Jane. 1997. Bay Area polluters coddled, EPA says. San Francisco

Examiner, July 30, A1.

National Conference of State Legislatures. 1998. State EnvironmentalAudit Laws and Policies: An Evaluation. October 1998.


34/36


35/36


36/36

P.O . Box 292 01 The Presid ioSan Francisco, CA 94 12 9t el 4 1 5 5 6 1 6 6 9 8 fa x 4 1 5 5 6 1 6 6 9 6

17 18 C onnect icut Ave. , N W Sui te 60 0W ashington, D C 20 00 9

t el 2 0 2 6 6 7 6 9 8 2 f ax 2 0 2 2 3 2 2 5 9 2

W O R K I N G G R O U PT M

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

above the law in california

Documents