EPA Enforcement Roundup: Week of 4/26

Posted on 4/26/2021 by Lauren Scott

Every day, facilities across the US receive Notices of Violation from US EPA for alleged noncompliance with a wide variety of programs like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts; chemical management and reporting regulations (TSCA, EPCRA, CERCLA, etc.); hazardous waste management and disposal standards (RCRA); and much more.

Below are examples of recent EPA enforcement actions that provide insight into how and why EPA issues civil penalties to facilities for environmental noncompliance. Names of companies and individuals cited by EPA are withheld to protect their privacy.

WHO: A dairy creamery                                                                                      
WHERE: St. Albans, VT
WHAT: EPCRA violations
HOW MUCH: $58,765

According to EPA, a New England dairy processor submitted three Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports after the established due date. A 2017 TRI report for nitric acid was due by July 1, 2018 and two 2018 TRI reports for nitric acid and nitrate compounds were due by July 1, 2019. The three reports were successfully submitted in May 2020 after the company was contacted by EPA.

Under Federal TRI regulations, companies that use certain listed chemicals must report their chemical usage each year to EPA. This information serves as the basis for the Toxic Release Inventory, which is a collection of data that can be reviewed by communities as well as government and industry entities.

WHO: A fertilizer mixing facility
WHERE: Dodge City, KS
WHAT: Clean Air Act violations
HOW MUCH: $83,975

A facility that manufactures and distributes fertilizers took steps to bring the site into compliance with Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations after allegedly failing to submit and implement a risk management plan to prevent the release of aqueous ammonia. The company stores over 20,000 pounds of aqueous ammonia in concentrations over 20% at the facility, which would be subject to RMP requirements.

RMP regulations require facilities that use extremely hazardous substances to develop a risk management plan that identifies the potential effects of a chemical accident, the steps a facility is taking to prevent an accident, and the emergency response procedures should an accident occur.

WHO: A wood preservative manufacturer
WHERE: Portland, OR
WHAT: FIFRA violations
HOW MUCH: $165,000

EPA alleges that a pesticide manufacturing company mislabeled one of its wood preservatives over the course of 24 months between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. The labels allegedly did not include user safety requirements, first-aid directions, PPE use instructions. Required portions of the storage and disposal section were also allegedly not present.

The case resulted from an inspection by Oregon Department of Agriculture on March 5, 2019. Under FIFRA, a pesticide label must contain directions for use and a warning or caution statement, which may be necessary “…to protect health and the environment.”

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: Act, Air, Clean, environmental, environmental compliance, EPA, EPA Enforcement Roundup, EPCRA, FIFRA, fines, penalties

Find a Post

Compliance Archives

Lion - Quotes

I was recently offered an opportunity to take my training through another company, but I politely declined. I only attend Lion Technology workshops.

Stephanie Gilliam

Material Production/Logistics Manager

I tried other environmental training providers, but they were all sub-standard compared to Lion. I will not stray from Lion again!

Sara Sills

Environmental Specialist

You blew the doors off the competition!

Stephen Bieschke

Facilities Manager

The course is well thought out and organized in a way that leads to a clearer understanding of the total training.

David Baily

Hazmat Shipping Professional

The exercises in the DOT hazardous materials management course are especially helpful in evaluating your understanding of course information.

Morgan Bliss

Principal Industrial Hygienist

I had a positive experience utilizing this educational program. It was very informative, convenient, and rewarding from a career perspective.

John Gratacos

Logistics Manager

Lion's course was superior to others I have taken in the past. Very clear in the presentation and the examples helped to explain the content presented.

George Bersik

Hazardous Waste Professional

I have attended other training providers, but Lion is best. Lion is king of the hazmat jungle!!!

Henry Watkins

Hazardous Waste Technician

We have a very busy work schedule and using Lion enables us to take the course at our own time. It makes it easy for me to schedule my employees' training.

Timothy Mertes

Hazmat Shipping Professional

Convenient; I can train when I want, where I want.

Barry Cook

Hazmat Shipping Professional

Download Our Latest Whitepaper

Tips to identify and manage universal waste under more-stringent state regulations for generators and universal waste handlers in California.

Latest Whitepaper

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.