Environmental Background Information Center

Providing the practical tools and strategies people need to confront corporate power.

Return to the EBIC Homepage

Return to theWMX Profile


Posting of Criminal Case 3:CR-92-253:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC

Judgement in a Criminal Case

Warning: This is a scanned electronic representation of a collection of court documents from U.S. v Chemical Waste Management.
Care is taken to correct error in the scan. However, original copies should be obtained for purposes of accuracy in all relevant matters.

DISTRICT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
(For Offenses Committed on or after November 1, 1987)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

vs.

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC
CASE NUMBER: 3:CR-92-253

THOMAS H LEE. 11. ESQ Defendant's Attorney


     THE DEFENDANT:

     [X] pleaded guilty to count(s) 1,2,3,4,5, & 6
     was found guilty on count(s)  after a plea of not guilty.

Accordingly, the defendant is adjudged guilty of such count(s),
which involve the following offenses:
Title/Section  Nature of Offense             Date Offense   Count Number(s)
                                   Concluded            
42:9603(b)(3)  Failure to report the              November 1988  CTS I - 6
          release of a hazardous substance.       

     The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 3 of this judgment. The sentence is
imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
[ ] The defendant has been found not guilty on count(s)_______________________ and is
discharged as to such count(s).
[ ] Count(s)  (is)(xxx) dismissed on the motion of the United
States.
[X] It is ordered that the defendant shall pay a special assessment of S 1,200.00, for count(s)
1.2.3,4.5, & 6 which shall be due [ ] immediately [X] as follows: This sum shall be
payable to the Clerk of the Court.

     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for
this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence or, mailing address until all fines,
restitution, costs and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

Defendant's So. Sec. No.: N/A 
Defendant's date of Birth: N/A

Defendant's Mailing Address:
3001 BUTTERFIELD ROAD
OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521

OCTOBER 9,1992
Date of Imposition of Sentence

RICHARD P CONABOY U S DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant's Residence Address:
3001 BUTTERFIELD ROAD
OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521

FILED
SCRANTON
OCT 14 1992

Defendant: CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.   Judgment-Page  2 of 3
Case Number:3:CR-92-235
                                   FINE

The defendant shall pay a fine of $3,000,000.00. The fine
includes any costs of incarceration and/or supervision.
[X] Consisting of a line of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000) on each of Counts 1 through 6. This sum shall be
payable to the Clerk of the Court.


[]   The court has determined that the defendant does not have
the ability to pay interest. It is ordered that:

[] The interest requirement is
[]   The interest requirement is modified as follows:
This fine plus any interest required shall be paid:
[] in full immediately.
[]in full not later than____________________________________
[]in equal monthly installments over a period of _______ months.
The first payment is due on the date of this judgment. Subsequent
payments are due monthly thereafter.
[] in installments according to the following schedule of
payments:

If the line is not paid, the court may sentence the defendant to
any sentence which might have been originally imposed. See
18 U.S.C. 3614

Defendant; CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. Judgment-Page 3  of  3
Case Number;
3:CR-92-235

                        Restitution and Forfeiture
                                Restitution
     
[X] The defendant shall make restitution in the amount Two
Million Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,850,000) Payable
to the United States.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant pay Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($20,000) to the United States to cover the
costs of the criminal investigation.

Total payment amounting to Six Million One Hundred One Thousand
Two Hundred Dollars ($6,101,200) is to be made within live (5)
business days of the entry of judgment.

[ ]  the United States Attorney for transfer to the payee(s).
[ ] the payee(s).

Restitution shall be paid:

[ ]in full immediately.

[ ]in full not later than_____________

[ ]in equal monthly installments over a period of _____ months.
The first payment is due on the date of this judgment. Subsequent
payments are due monthly thereafter.

[]   in installments according to the following schedule of
payment.

Any payment shall be divided proportionately among the payees
named unless otherwise specified here.

Plea Agreement


JJW: EB aig


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

Defendant
     The following plea agreement is entered into by and between
the United States Attorney for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania and the above-captioned defendant. Any reference to
the Government in this Agreement shall mean the United States
Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  Any reference
to the defendant in this Agreement shall mean Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. (CWM).

     1.   The Government and the defendant agree that this plea
agreement is made pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. Rule ll(e)(l)(C) and the
parties agree that a specific sentence, as outlined below, is the
appropriate disposition of the case.  If the Court refuses to
accept any provisions of this plea agreement, including but not
limited to the recommended sentence, then neither party shall be
bound by any of the provisions of the plea agreement, and no
statement contained in this plea agreement or any of its
attachments will be admissible against either party in any
proceeding.  It is further agreed that if the Court rejects this
plea agreement, the Government may move to dismiss the charges
contained in the Information without prejudice and the defendant
will have no objection to such a dismissal, nor any objection, on
the basis of such dismissal of the charges, to the continuation
of the investigation or the return of an Indictment containing
additional charges, and naming additional defendants.

     2.   The defendant agrees to waive Indictment by a grand
jury and plead guilty to a felony Information which will be filed
against the defendant by the United States Attorney for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
That Information charges the defendant with six counts of
violating 42 U.S.C. ss 9603 (b)(3), failure to notify the
appropriate agency of the United States of a release of a
reportable quantity of a hazardous substance.  The maximum fine
for a violation of 42 U.S.C. ss 9603(b)(3) is a fine of
$500,000.00 per count, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 3571(c)(3), and a
special assessment of $200.00 per count, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss 3013(a)(2)(B).  The defendant and the Government agree that
the appropriate fine in this case is the total maximum possible
fine for all charges contained in the Information; that is, fines
totalling $3,000,000.00 and assessments totalling $1,200.00.

     3.   At the time the guilty plea is entered, the defendant
shall admit to the Court that the defendant is, in fact, guilty
of all the offenses charged in the Information.  The Government
and the defendant agree that the offer of proof attached hereto
as Exhibit B is an accurate statement of the material facts
underlying the charges set forth in the Information.

     4.   The defendant agrees to pay an additional $2,850,000.00
to the Government as restitution in connection with Contract No.
DACW45-87-C-0299. The Government agrees to deposit the
$2,850,000.00 into the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) Hazardous
Substance Superfund and apply $2,000,000.00 of that amount to the
contemporaneous global settlement of the CERCLA cost recovery
action in United States v. Iacavazzi, et al., MDPA Civil No.
890164, said settlement to be filed along with the Information in
this case.

     5.   The defendant agrees to reimburse the Government
$250,000.00 which represents the costs of the criminal
investigation and the Government agrees that there are no
additional unreimbursed costs of the criminal investigation.

     6.   The Government and the defendant agree that the
appropriate sentence in this case is (1) a fine of $500,000.00 on
each of the six counts contained in the Information, for a total
fine of $3,000,000.00; (2) assessments of $200.00 on each of the
six counts contained in the Information, for total assessments of
$1,200.00; (3) restitution to the Government of $2,850,000.00;
and (4) costs to the Government in the amount of $250,000.00.
Therefore, the defendant agrees that $6,101,200.00 is the total
payment due under this plea agreement and further agrees to pay
that amount in full within five business days after the entry of
the plea of guilty.

     7.   The Government agrees that upon the sentencing of the
defendant in this case, the investigation of the remediation of
the site is concluded.  The Government agrees that it will not
bring any other criminal charges against the defendant, its
subsidiaries, parents, divisions or affiliates, or any of their
present or former employees, officers, directors or agents
arising out of the investigation of the remediation at the site.
However, nothing in this agreement shall prevent, prejudice or
preclude the Government from proceeding in the future with the
investigation and prosecution of any federal criminal violations
for conduct by the defendant, its subsidiaries, parents,
divisions or affiliates, or any of their present or former
employees, officers, directors or agents occurring after the date
of this agreement, whether or not such conduct shall be similar
to or in continuation of the conduct which was the subject of the
investigation.

     8.   The Government acknowledges that the defendant has
fully cooperated with the investigation and that it has
voluntarily instituted formal management controls, including a
contracts compliance program and an enhanced environmental
compliance program to prevent its employees from engaging in
similar conduct in the future.  The Government further
acknowledges that there was no evidence uncovered during the
investigation suggesting that any personnel above the site level
had any knowledge of, or participation in, the conduct described
in the Information.

     9.   The Government acknowledges that there was no evidence
uncovered during the investigation suggesting that there was any
physical harm to the public as a result of the conduct of the
site level personnel.  The Government also acknowledges that the
objectives of the Record of Decision (ROD), i.e., to mitigate and
minimize the damage to the public health, welfare and the
environment, were accomplished at the site.

     10.  The Government agrees that if it is requested, it will
provide the Department of the Army, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and any other department or agency of federal, state or
local government, with a letter (attached hereto as Exhibit C)
summarizing Certain facts in the case.

     11.  In connection with this disposition, the Government
agrees that, as to all conduct at the site which is presently
known to the Government, the Government agrees not to sue or take
administrative action against the defendant, its subsidiaries,
parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, assigns or any of
their present or former employees, officers, directors or agents,
for civil damages, penalties or other monetary relief based upon
alleged violations of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et. seq. and the
False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et. seq., except for
claims for response actions, civil penalties, claims for
reimbursement of response costs, claims for reimbursement of
costs of assessment of injury to, destruction of, or loss of
natural resources, and claims for damages for injury to,
destruction of - or loss of - natural resources, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. ss 9606 and ss 9607, which are the subject of the consent
decree entered in the Iacavazzi case to which the defendant is a
signatory.

     12.  The Government and the defendant hereby agree to waive
the presentence investigation and report pursuant to F.R.Cr.P.
Rule 32(c)(1) and request that sentence be imposed at the time of
entry of the plea.

     13.  In the event either party believes that the other party
has failed to fulfill any obligations under this agreement, then
that party shall, in its discretion, have the option of
petitioning the Court to be relieved of its obligations or to
request specific performance.  Whether or not either party has
completely fulfilled any of the obligations under this agreement
shall be determined by the Court in an appropriate proceeding at
which the moving party shall be required to establish any breach
by a preponderance of the evidence.

     14.  The defendant and the Government agree that in the
event the Court concludes that the defendant has materially
breached the agreement:

     (a)  The defendant will not be permitted to withdraw any guilty plea 
     tendered under this agreement and agrees not to petition for withdrawal of any
     guilty plea;
     
     (b)  The Government will be free to bring any other charges or
     claims it has against the defendant, its subsidiaries, parents,
     divisions, or affiliates, or any of their present or former
     employees, officers, directors or agents.

     15.  The defendant agrees not to pursue or initiate any
civil claims or suits against the United States of America, its
agencies or employees, whether or not presently known to the
defendant, arising out of contract DACW 45-87-C-0299 (including
pending contract claims) or the investigation and prosecution of
this case.

     16.  The defendant agrees not to retaliate or otherwise
punish, either directly or indirectly, any individual who may
have cooperated with the Government during the investigation of
this case on the basis of such cooperation.  The Government
acknowledges  however, that the defendant has the right to take
disciplinary action against employees based on an employee's
conduct which violated the law or any internal company policies
or standards of conduct.

     17.  Nothing in this agreement shall restrict or limit the
nature or content of the Government's post-judgment motions or
response to any motions filed on behalf of the defendant.

     18.  The Government is entering into this plea agreement
with the defendant because this disposition of the matter fairly
and adequately addresses the gravity of the series of offenses
from which the charges are drawn, as well as the defendant's role
in such offenses, thereby serving the ends of justice.

     19.  This document states the complete and only plea
agreement between the United States Attorney for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania and the defendant in this case, and is
binding only on the parties to this agreement, supersedes all
prior understandings, if any whether written or oral, and cannot
be modified other than in writing that is signed by all parties
or on the record in Court.  No other promises or inducements have
been or will be made to the defendant in connection with this
case  nor have any predictions or threats been made in connection
with this plea.

     20.  The original of this agreement must be signed by the
defendant and defense counsel and received by the United States
Attorney's Office on or before 5:00 p.m. on  August 19, 1992,
otherwise the offer shall be deemed withdrawn.

     21.  None of the terms of this agreement shall be binding on
the Government until signed by the defendant and defense counsel
and until signed by the United States Attorney.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     I have read this agreement and carefully reviewed every part
of it with my attorney.  I fully understand it and I voluntarily
agree to it.  I have been authorized by the board of directors of
the defendant to sign this agreement on behalf of the defendant.

By: [James T. Banks]
     Vice President and General Counsel
Dated: [August 17, 1992] Chemical Waste Managemment, Inc.

     I am the defendant's counsel.  I have carefully reviewed
every part of this agreement with the defendant.  To my knowledge
my client's decision to enter into this agreement is an informed
and voluntary one.


Dated:[8-18-92]

[Thomas H. Lee, II]
Dechert, Price & Rhoads
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


FOR THE GOVERNMENT
[James J. West]
Dated: 9-23-92
United States Attorney


JJW:BB: alg


Criminal Information



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

Defendant


INFORMATION


THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CHARGES THAT:

INTRODUCTION

     At all times material to this Information:

     1.   Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM) is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
headquarters located in Oak Brook, Illinois.  CWM is responsible
for carrying out integrated site remediation services (hazardous
substances clean-up) to its customers in Pennsylvania among other
states.  Prior to 1992, CWM's remediation services in
Pennsylvania were performed by CWM's ENRAC Division-East.

     2.   The Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) is an agency
of the United States whose purpose is to permit coordinated and
effective governmental action to assure the protection of the
environment by abating and controlling pollution on a systematic
basis.

     3.   The Army Corps of Engineers (ACQE) is a branch of the
Department of the Army.  The ACOE manages design and construction
contracts, and provides technical assistance to the EPA in
connection with remedial clean-ups of hazardous waste sites.

     4.   The Lackawanna Refuse Landfill Site (site) is composed
of approximately 258 acres and is located on the border of Old
Forge Borough and Ransom Township, Lackawanna County, within the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

     5.   Five strip mine pits of five to six acres each were
excavated at the site during the last century and three pits,
pits 2, 3, and 5, were used for the disposal of municipal and
commercial refuse.  Pit 5 was used for refuse disposal and the
illegal dumping of thousands of drums containing hazardous
substances.  Various solvents, paints and thinners, sludges,
organic acids and toxic metals were contained inside the drums or
amongst the contaminated refuse in pit 5.

     6.   Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), whenever any
hazardous substance is released or there is a substantial threat
of such a release into the environment or there is a release or
substantial threat of release into the environment of any
pollutant or Contaminant which may present an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health or welfare, the
Administrator of the EPA is authorized to act, consistent with
the national contingency plan, to remove or arrange for the
removal of, and provide for remedial action relating to such
hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at any time, or
take any other response measure consistent with the national
contingency plan which the Administrator of the EPA deems
necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the
environment.  All costs incurred by the EPA in providing remedial
action are paid from the Hazardous Substance Superfund which is
administered by the EPA.

     7.   In September, 1980, the EPA conducted an investigation
at the site in which it removed approximately 200 drums, 90% of
which were found to be broken or crushed when excavated. Analysis
was performed on 20 of the drums containing liquids or sludges
and the results showed high concentrations of solvents and paint
waste material with high metal and solvent contents.
Tetrachloroethylene was one of the hazardous substances found in
the drums.

     8.   In September, 1983, the EPA included the site on its
National Priorities List (NPL) for remediation.  Inclusion on the
NPL was based upon the relative risk or danger to public health
or welfare or the environment presented at the site.

     9.   On March 22, 1985, the EPA issued a Record of Decision
(ROD) and selected a remedy to mitigate and minimize the damage
to the public health, welfare, and the environment, which was
Occurring at the site.

     10.  By virtue of the ROD, the EPA decided to excavate and
remove all drums in pit 5, along with all contaminated refuse
which surrounded them. The drums and contaminated refuse would be
removed from pit 5 and disposed of at qualifying landfill
facilities in compliance with the EPA's current off-site disposal
policy.  The EPA stated in the ROD that the major objective of
the remedial action at the site was to &liminate or at least
mitigate environmental contamination.

     11.  On June 29, 1987, the EPA, acting through the ACOE
awarded CWM Contract No. DACW45-87-C-0299 to remediate the site.
CWM asigned responsibility for carrying out this contract to its
ENRAC Division-East.

     12.  The contract specifications were drafted to Carry out
the objectives set forth in the ROD.  A Material Handling Plan
(MHP), which was prepared by ENRAC Division-East and approved by
the ACOE also was drafted to carry out the objectives set forth
in the ROD.  The Contract specifications stated that a drum was
considered empty if all wastes have been removed that can be
removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials
from the type of Container, and no more than one inch of residue
remains on the bottom of the container, or no more than 3% by
weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the
container if the container  is less than or equal to 110 gallons
in size.  Conversely, a drum was considered non-empty if it
contained more than one inch of material or more than 3% by
weight of the total capacity of the container.

     13.  According to the MHP, non-empty drums were to be
surveyed, carefully hydraulically removed from the excavation
area and staged at a predetermined location within the pit.  Non-
empty drums were to be olaced in 85 Qallon overnacks and be
disposed of at a qualifying landfill facility.  Empty drums were
to be crushed on site to reduce their volume but still had to be
disposed of off-site with the non-empty drums.  The contract
specifications stated that the contractor shall take the
necessary precautions to minimize rupturing drums in order to
protect the health and safety of the site workers, public and the
environment.

     14.  ENRAC Division-East employees began the excavation of
pit 5 in May, 1988 and completed the excavation in November,
1988.

     15.  During the course of the excavation, ENRAC
Division-East site employees knowingly and intentionally crushed
numerous nonempty drums containing hazardous substances,
including Tetrachloroethylene, which caused the hazardous
substances to leak out.  The surrounding refuse was excavated and
if found to be contaminated, was disposed of off-site in
accordance with the contract.

COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX

     16.  The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15
are realleged as if fully set forth herein.

     17.  On or about the dates specified below, in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, a quantity equal to or greater than a
reportable quantity of a hazardous substance, as defined in 42
U.S.C.    ss 9602 and 40 C.F.R. ss 302.4, namely 1 pound or more
of Tetrachloroethylene was released from a facility into the 
environment and the release was not a federally perrnitted
release.

     18.On or about the dates specified below, CWM, having
knowledge of the release identified in paragraph 17, and being a
person in charge of the facility from which the release occurred,
failed as soon as its ENRAC Division-East site level employees
had knowledge of the release to notify immediately the
appropriate agency of the United States Government of the
release.

Count     Date of Release
One       7/27/88
Two       8/1/88
Three     8/17/88
Four      8/20/88
Five      8/23/88
Six       11/9/88

     In violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section
9603(b) (3).


          JAMES J. WEST
United States Attorney

Offer of Proof


JJW:BB:alg


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

Defendant

OFFER OF PROOF
CRIMINAL NO.

     AND NOW, the United States of America, by James J. West,
United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
and Bruce Brandler, Assistant U.S. Attorney, hereby proffer the
following statement of material facts in support of the
Information and Plea Agreement in this case.  If this case were
to proceed to trial, the Government's evidence would include, but
not be limited to, testimony of present and former employees of
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM); testimony of officials
from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of
Engineers; testimony of various subcontractor personnel; and
documentary evidence in the form of contracts, bids, letters,
notes and schedules all of which would establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that:

     1.   CWM is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State 0f Delaware with its headquarters located in Oak Brook,
Illinois.  CWM is responsible for carrying out integrated site
remediation  services (hazardous substances clean-up) to its
customers in Pennsylvania among other states.  Prior to 1992,
CWM's remediation services in Pennsylvania were performed by
CWM's ENRAC Division-East.

     2.   The Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) is an agency
of the United States whose purpose is to permit coordinated and
effective governmental action to assure the protection of the
environment by abating and Controlling pollution on a systematic
basis.

     3.   The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is a branch of the
Department of the Army.  The ACOE manages design and construction
contracts, and provides technical assistance to the EPA in
connection with remedial clean-ups of hazardous waste sites.

     4.   The Lackawanna Refuse Landfill Site (site) is composed
of approximately 258 acres and is located on the border of Old
Forge Borough and Ransom Township, Lackawanna County, within the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

     5.   Five strip mine pits of five to six acres each were
excavated at the site during the last century and three pits,
pits 2, 3, and 5, were used for the disposal of municipal and
commercial refuse.  Pit 5 was used for refuse disposal and the
illegal dumping of thousands of drums containing hazardous
substances.  Various solvents, paints and thinners, sludges,
organic acids and toxic metals were contained ~nside rhe drums or
amongst the contaminated refuse in pit 5.

     6. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), whenever any
hazardous substance is released or there is a substantial threat
of such a release into the environment or there is a release or
su~stantial threat of release into the environment of any
pollutant or contaminant which may present an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health or welfare, the
Administrator of the EPA is authorized to act, consistent with
the national contingency plan, to remove or arrange for the
removal of, and provide for remedial action relating to such
hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at any time, or
take any other response measure consistent with the national
contingency plan which the Administrator of the EPA deems
necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the
environment.  All costs incurred by the EPA in providing remedial
action are paid from the Hazardous Substance Superfund which is
administered by the EPA.

     7.   In September, 1980, the EPA conducted an investigation
at the site in which it removed approximately 200 drums, 90% of
which were found to be broken or crushed when excavated. Analysis
was performed on 20 of the drums containing liquids or sludges
and the results showed high concentrations of solvents and paint
waste material with high metal and solvent contents.
Tetrachloroethylene was one of the hazardous substances found in
the drums.

     8.   In September, 1983, the EPA included the site on its
National Priorities List (NPL) for remediation.  Inclusion on the
NPL was based upon the relative risk or danger to public health
or welfare or the environment presented at the site.

     9.   On March 22, 1985, the EPA issued a Record of Decision
(ROD) and selected a remedy to mitigate and minimize the damage
to the public health, welfare, and the environment, which was
occurring at the site.

     10.  By virtue of the ROD, the EPA decided to excavate and
remove all drums in pit 5, along with all contaminated refuse
which surrounded them. The drums and contaminated refuse would be
removed from pit 5 and disposed of at qualifying landfill
facilities in compliance with the EPA's current off-site disposal
policy.  The EPA stated in the ROD that the major objective of
the remedial action at the site was to eliminate or at least
mitigate environmental contamination.

     11.  On June 29, 1987, the EPA, acting through the ACOE
awarded CWM Contract No. DACW45-87-C-0299 to remediate the site.
CWM asigned responsibility for carrying out this contract to its
ENRAC Division-East.

     12.  The contract specifications were drafted to carry out
the objectives set forth in the ROD.  A Material Handling Plan
(MHP), which was prepared by ENRAC Division-East and approved by
the ACOE also was drafted to carry out the objectives set forth
in the ROD.  The contract specifications stated that a drum was
considered empty if all wastes have been removed that can be
removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials
from the type of container, and no more than one inch of residue
remains on the bottom of the container, or no more than 3% by
weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the
container if the container  is less than or equal to 110 gallons
in size.  Conversely, a drum was considered non-empty if it
contained more than one inch of material or more than 3% by
weight of the total capacity of the container.

     13.  According to the MHP, non-empty drums were to be
surveyed, carefully hydraulically removed from the excavation
area and staged at a predetermined location within the pit. 
Nonempty drums were to be placed in 85 gallon overpacks and be
disposed of at a qualifying landfill facility.  Empty drums were
to be crushed on site to reduce their volume but still had to be
disposed of off-site with the non-empty drums.  The contract
specifications stated that the contractor shall take the
necessary precautions to minimize rupturing drums in order to
protect the health and safety of the site workers, public and the
environment.

     14.  ENRAC Division-East employees began the excavation of
pit 5 in May, 1988 and completed the excavation in November,
1988.

     15.  During the course of the excavation, ENRAC
Division-East site employees knowingly and intentionally crushed
numerous nonempty drums containing hazardous substances,
including Tetrachloroethylene, which caused the hazardous
substances to leak out.  The surrounding refuse was excavated and
if found to be contaminated, was disposed of off-site in
accordance with the contract.

     16.  As a result of the knowing and intentional crushing of
non-empty drums numerous unpermitted releases of hazardous
substances in excess of a reportable quantity occurred.  The
appropriate agency of the United States was not immediately
notified as soon as the ENRAC Division-East site employees had
knowledge of those releases.

     17.  As a result of the knowing and intentional crushing of
non-empty drums, on July 27, 1988, August 1, 1988, August 17,
1988, August 20, 1988, August 23, 1988, and November 9, 1988,
there were releases of 1 lb. or more of Tetrachloroethylene

     18.  The knowing and intentional crushing of non-empty drums
was limited to site-level personnel and there is no evidence to
suggest that any personnel above the site level had any knowledge
of or participation in that conduct.

     19.  There is no evidence to suggest that the conduct of the
site-level personnel who engaged in this activity produced any
physical harm to the public.

     20.  The defendant has fully cooperated with the
investigation and has acted responsibly once this activity was
brought to the attention of management.  CWM voluntarily agreed
to institute formal management controls, including a contracts
compliance program and an enhanced environmental compliance
program in order to prevent similar conduct in the future.


Respectfully submitted,

JAMES J. WEST
United States Attorney

BRUCE BRANDLER 
Assistant U.S. Attorney


Return to the EBIC Homepage

Return to theWMX Profile