EPA Enforcement Roundup: Week of 4/4
Industrial facilities in the United States are subject to complex, overlapping environmental regulations concerning air emissions, discharges to water, hazardous waste management and disposal, oil spills, chemical management, and more. Failure to comply with all applicable US EPA requirements can result in future liability and civil penalties as high as $100,000+ per day, per violation (and growing every year).
The EPA enforcement actions highlighted below provide insight into how and why the Agency assesses civil penalties for environmental noncompliance. All violations mentioned are alleged unless we indicate otherwise.
We withhold the names of organizations and individuals subject to enforcement to protect their privacy.
WHO: A North Atlantic energy company
A Canadian-based energy company agreed to pay a multi-million-dollar civil penalty after EPA identified alleged violations of air emissions requirements. According to EPA, the company failed to adhere to regulations related to volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from storage tanks at 30 previously owned oil and gas production facilities.
The $3 million civil penalty will be split evenly between the United States and the state of Utah. The company has agreed to deposit $1.2 million of Utah’s share into the state’s Environmental Mitigation and Response Fund for air-quality-related projects across the state.
WHO: An oil refinery
EPA recently reached a settlement with a California oil facility over alleged oil pollution prevention violations. EPA inspected the facility on March 31 and April 16, 2021 and found the company allegedly failed to implement tank and facility inspections according to the written procedures in the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan, promptly mitigate visible discharges that result in oil loss from containers, and develop an adequate Facility Response Plan (FRP) in the event of an oil spill.
The facility was a concern for EPA due to its proximity to the Rio Hondo Channel and the Los Angeles River, which flow to the Long Beach Harbor and the Pacific Ocean, as well as the Golden Shore Marine Reserve. As part of the agreement, the company agreed to develop an updated tank testing and inspection schedule, update its FRP, and revise its oil spill prevention training program.
WHO: A scrap metal dealer
A scrap metal dealer allegedly failed to comply with State and Federal regulations related to stormwater pollution prevention, resulting in regular discharges of industrial stormwater that eventually reached the Columbia River. The industrial stormwater was polluted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), fuel oil, hydraulic oil, lead acid, and lead oxides, among other substances.
EPA found that the company failed to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), implement best management practices, and conduct required sampling of discharges. To resolve these alleged violations, the scrap metal facility agreed to begin monitoring stormwater discharges, improve site conditions, and submit reports to EPA demonstrating effective implementation of the requirements of the Industrial Stormwater General Permit.
Check out the latest EPA compliance training options here:
Complete Environmental Regulations
Clean Air Act Regulations Online
TSCA Regulations Online
Clean Water Act & SDWA Regulations Online
Superfund and Right-to-Know Act Regulations Online
The EPA enforcement actions highlighted below provide insight into how and why the Agency assesses civil penalties for environmental noncompliance. All violations mentioned are alleged unless we indicate otherwise.
We withhold the names of organizations and individuals subject to enforcement to protect their privacy.
WHO: A North Atlantic energy company
WHERE: Uinta Basin, UT
WHAT: Clean Air Act violations
HOW MUCH: $3 million
A Canadian-based energy company agreed to pay a multi-million-dollar civil penalty after EPA identified alleged violations of air emissions requirements. According to EPA, the company failed to adhere to regulations related to volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from storage tanks at 30 previously owned oil and gas production facilities.The $3 million civil penalty will be split evenly between the United States and the state of Utah. The company has agreed to deposit $1.2 million of Utah’s share into the state’s Environmental Mitigation and Response Fund for air-quality-related projects across the state.
WHO: An oil refinery
WHERE: South Gate, CA
WHAT: Clean Water Act violations
HOW MUCH: $112,673
EPA recently reached a settlement with a California oil facility over alleged oil pollution prevention violations. EPA inspected the facility on March 31 and April 16, 2021 and found the company allegedly failed to implement tank and facility inspections according to the written procedures in the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan, promptly mitigate visible discharges that result in oil loss from containers, and develop an adequate Facility Response Plan (FRP) in the event of an oil spill.The facility was a concern for EPA due to its proximity to the Rio Hondo Channel and the Los Angeles River, which flow to the Long Beach Harbor and the Pacific Ocean, as well as the Golden Shore Marine Reserve. As part of the agreement, the company agreed to develop an updated tank testing and inspection schedule, update its FRP, and revise its oil spill prevention training program.
WHO: A scrap metal dealer
WHERE: Longview, WA
WHAT: Clean Water Act violations
HOW MUCH: $50,300
A scrap metal dealer allegedly failed to comply with State and Federal regulations related to stormwater pollution prevention, resulting in regular discharges of industrial stormwater that eventually reached the Columbia River. The industrial stormwater was polluted with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), fuel oil, hydraulic oil, lead acid, and lead oxides, among other substances.EPA found that the company failed to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), implement best management practices, and conduct required sampling of discharges. To resolve these alleged violations, the scrap metal facility agreed to begin monitoring stormwater discharges, improve site conditions, and submit reports to EPA demonstrating effective implementation of the requirements of the Industrial Stormwater General Permit.
Convenient, Effective Online EHS Manager Training
Managing site compliance with the many complex EPA programs that affect your business—from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to TSCA, EPCRA, CERLCA, and more—is a major challenge. If you’re new to the field or need an update on changing EPA rules, online training is a convenient way to quickly build in-depth expertise.Check out the latest EPA compliance training options here:
Complete Environmental Regulations
Clean Air Act Regulations Online
TSCA Regulations Online
Clean Water Act & SDWA Regulations Online
Superfund and Right-to-Know Act Regulations Online
Tags: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, EPA, EPA Enforcement Roundup, roundup
Find a Post
Recent Posts
Compliance Archives
Download Our Latest Whitepaper
Get to know the top 5 changes to OSHA’s revised GHS Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200 and how the updates impacts employee safety at your facility.
By submitting your phone number, you agree to receive recurring marketing and training text messages. Consent to receive text messages is not required for any purchases. Text STOP at any time to cancel. Message and data rates may apply. View our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.