EPA Enforcement Roundup: Week of 4/25
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 metal recycler
A metal recycler agreed to spend more than $1.7 million to prevent the release of ozone-depleting refrigerants and non-exempt substitutes from refrigerant-containing items by improving its chemical recycling and disposal processes, according to the US Justice Department. This agreement would resolve allegations that the recycler failed to recover refrigerant from small appliances and motor vehicle air conditioners before disposal or to verify from the supplier that the refrigerant had been properly recovered prior to delivery to company facilities.
WHERE: Portland, OR
WHAT: Clean Air Act violations
HOW MUCH: $1.55 million plus $1.7 million in site improvements
Under the settlement, the company must implement an EPA-approved Refrigerant Recovery Management Program (RRMP) at its 40 recycling locations. The recycler will also perform an environmental mitigation project involving the destruction of all R-12 refrigerants in scrapped appliances and automobiles that the company received. R-12 contains chlorofluorocarbons and has over 10,000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.
WHO: An electronics retailer
EPA recently announced a settlement with a national electronics retail chain for allegedly selling an unregistered and misbranded product making disinfectant claims in violation of federal law. During an inspection started on December 3, 2020, EPA found that a store had sold “Pure Mobile Sanitizing Tech Wipes” on 55 occasions beginning July 2020 through February 2021. This product was not registered as required under federal pesticide law and had misleading information on its label that caused it to be misbranded.
WHERE: Union City, CA
WHAT: FIFRA violations
HOW MUCH: $199,821
The company has agreed to pay a $199,821 civil penalty and has revised its environmental management systems to mitigate the recurrence of such violations. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), products that claim to kill or repel bacteria or germs, including disinfectants, are considered pesticides and must be registered with the EPA. Public health claims can only be made regarding products that have been properly tested and are registered with the EPA.
WHO: A residential builder
A company that builds houses in Alaska allegedly failed to obtain permit coverage under Clean Water Act Section 404 prior to discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (WOTUS). EPA claims that discharges into wetlands adjacent to Cottonwood Lake occurred while the developer was preparing lots for residential development. Discharges below the ordinary high-water mark of Wasilla Lake, and into wetlands adjacent to Wasilla Lake, also allegedly occurred while the company was designing a sloped backyard for dock access.
WHERE: Wasilla, AK
WHAT: Clean Water Act violations
HOW MUCH: $29,500
As part of a Proposed Consent Agreement and Final Order, the company would pay a civil penalty of $29,500. As part of the public notice, comments on the proposal may be submitted through May 6, 2022.
Convenient, Effective Online EHS Manager TrainingManaging site compliance with the many complex EPA programs that affect your business—from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to TSCA, EPCRA, CERCLA, 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
I attended training from another provider and learned absolutely nothing. Lion is much better. Hands down.
Lion was very responsive to my initial questions and the website was user friendly.
Supply Chain Director
I have over 26 years of environmental compliance experience, and it has been some time since I have attended an environmental regulations workshop. I attended this course as preparation for EHS Audits for my six plants, and it was exactly what I was looking for.
Director of Regulatory Affairs
The instructor was very knowledgeable and provided pertinent information above and beyond the questions that were asked.
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.
Hazmat Shipping Professional
Excellent. I learned more in two days with Lion than at a 5-day program I took with another provider.
The course was very informative and presented in a way that was easily understood and remembered. I would recommend this course.
Hazmat Shipping Professional
I will never go anywhere, but to Lion Technology.
One of the best trainings I have ever received!
This training broke down the regulations in an easy-to-understand manner and made them less overwhelming. I now feel I have the knowledge to make more informed decisions.
Download Our Latest Whitepaper
Some limited quantity reliefs are reserved for specific modes of transport. Use this guide to identify which reliefs you can capitalize on, and which do not apply to your operations.