Skip to main content
10-1986-0010JudicialClosedFY 1986· Region 10

EPA v. ARMOUR FRESH MEATS CO & CON AGRA INC

Final Order With Penalty

Penalty assessed

$150,000

Case summary

ARMOUR FRESH MEATS CO (ARMOUR), A SUBSIDIARY OF CON AGRA INC, OPERATES A COMPLEX SLAUGHTERHOUSE AND MEAT PROCESSING FACILITY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF NAMPA, ID. ON THE MORNING OF 1/31/86, A BREACH OCCURRED IN A WASTE TREATMENT POND ADJACENT TO THE PACKING PLANT ALLOWING A DISCHARGE OF APPROXIMATELY 6.7 MILLION GALLONS OF PARTIALLY-TREATED PROCESS WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE INTO INDIAN CREEK, A SMALL WATERCOURSE. THIS DISCHARGE CAUSED SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE TO THE RESIDENT FISHERY AND OTHER BIOTA IN INDIAN CREEK FROM THE ARMOUR PLANT SITE THROUGH NAMPA AND CALDWELL, ID, TO THE BOISE RIVER, ABOUT 12 MILES DOWNSTREAM. ALTHOUGH ARMOUR WAS AWARE OF THE IMMEDIATE DAMAGE AND WAS AWARE THAT THEIR DISCHARGE WAS OF CONTINUING NATURE, COMPANY OFFICIALS POSTPONED THE CESSATION OF PRODUCTION UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 7 PM ON 1/31/86. PRODUCTION DISCHARGE CONTINUED UNTIL ABOUT 4 PM ON 2/1/86 AT WHICH TIME ARMOUR COMPLETED TEMPORARY REPAIR OF THE BREACHED DIKE. IN PART, THE DISCHARGE CONTINUED BECAUSE OF PLANT CLEAN-UP OPERATIONS REQUIRED BY USDA REGULATIONS. ARMOUR'S TREATMENT FACILITIES WERE INSPECTED 1/8, 1/9, 1/22, 1/31, 2/1, 2/2, 2/4, 2/18, 2/21, 4/3, 4/23, 4/28, 5/2/86. SAMPLES WERE TAKEN DURING THE MAJORITY OF THESE INSPECTIONS, AND REVEALED THAT VIOLATIONS OF ARMOUR'S NPDES PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS WERE OCCURRING IN THE EFFLUENT STREAM. IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE INSPECTORS, THE FACILITY WAS HYDRAULICALLY AND ORGANICALLY OVERLOADED, UNDERSTAFFED, AND INADEQUATELY OPERATED AND MAINTAINED. ON 1/9/86 AN EPA INSPECTOR OBSERVED THAT SOLIDS HAD BEEN PUMPED FROM THE CHLORINE CONTACT CHAMBER ONTO THE GROUND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AND HYDRAULICALLY CONNECTED WITH INDIAN CREEK. ALSO OBSERVED ON THIS DATE WAS THE RESIDUE FROM A SPILL OF MANURE WHICH RESULTED FROM A LINE BREAK. THE RESIDUE WAS LOCATED IN THE IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO THE CREEK, LEADING THE INSPECTOR TO BELIEVE THAT THE MANURE SPILLAGE REACHED AND ENTERED INDIAN CREEK DUE TO THE EXTREMELY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE WATER AND DUE TO THE SNOW MELT. A REPRESENTATIVE OF ARMOUR INDICATED THAT THE SPILL HAD OCCURRED ON 1/7/86. BOTH OF THESE DISCHARGES ENTERED INDIAN CREEK, YET NEITHER WAS AUTHORIZED OR REPORTED IN WRITING AS REQUIRED BY THE PERMIT. ARMOUR'S TREATMENT FACILITY DISCHARGES HAVE VIOLATED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE NPDES PERMIT IN THAT THE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY EXCEEDED. THE DIRECT DISCHARGE FROM THE BREACHED POND CONSTITUTED A VIOLA- TION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT IN THAT IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY AN NPDES PERMIT. THIS CASE SEEKS AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER SUCH DISCHARGES AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR PAST VIOLA- TIONS.

Defendants (2)

  • ARMOUR FRESH MEATS CONamed in complaintNamed in settlement
  • CON AGRA INCNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

  • SWIFT & COMPANY BEEF

    3611 E AMITY AVE, NAMPA, ID, 83653

    Registry ID: 110000468627

  • SWIFT & COMPANY BEEF

    3611 E AMITY AVE, NAMPA, ID, 83653

    Registry ID: 110000468627

Statutes cited

  • CWA 309Violation of Existing AO
  • CWA 301NPDES Discharge without a Permit

Enforcement conclusions (1)

  • ARMOUR FRESH MEATS/CON AGRAentered 1989-05-30

    Primary law: CWA

    Federal penalty: $150,000

Timeline (9 milestones)

  • 1986-03-15Enforcement Action Data Entered
  • 1986-07-22Referred To Headquarters
  • 1986-09-02Referred To Dept Of Justice
  • 1986-11-12Referred TO U.S. Attorney
  • 1986-12-05Complaint Filed With Court
  • 1989-05-30Final Order Lodged
  • 1989-05-30Final Order Entered
  • 1989-05-30Concluded
  • 1990-01-02Enforcement Action Closed

Case metadata

EPA activity ID
54028
Case number
10-1986-0010
DOJ docket
90-5-1-1-2730
Lead agency
EPA
HQ division
WAT
EPA region
10
Multimedia
No
Voluntary self-disclosure
No
Primary statute
Violation of Existing AO

Sourced verbatim from EPA ECHO Enforcement Case Report for case 10-1986-0010 . Bulk data: ICIS-FEC download summary.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.