EPA Enforcement Roundup: Week of 3/3
The EPA Enforcement Roundup gives you insight into how and why US EPA and State partners assess penalties for environmental noncompliance. All violations or claims discussed below are alleged only unless we say otherwise, and we withhold the names of organizations and individuals to protect their privacy.
Because the company promptly initiated cleanup efforts after the incident, State authorities in Massachusetts reduced the $25,000 assessed penalty by 10%.
Illinois authorities state that alleged violations include the operation of a Clean Air Act Permit Program without a permit, failure to determine volatile organic material content, and failure to timely submit complete and accurate annual emission reports.
EH&S professionals who attend can identify the regulations that apply to their facility and locate key requirements to achieve compliance with the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to EPCRA, TSCA, Superfund, and more. Prefer to train at your own pace? Try the interactive online course.
A Springfield, MA-based chemical supplier faces a $22,500 penalty for alleged violations of State environmental regulations.
According to MassDEP, the supplier’s personnel inadvertently left a valve open, releasing 3,200 gallons of 50% sodium hydroxide solution into the environment. Because of the size of the release, the company was required to notify authorities within two hours of becoming aware of the spill but allegedly failed to do so.Because the company promptly initiated cleanup efforts after the incident, State authorities in Massachusetts reduced the $25,000 assessed penalty by 10%.
A metal coating company in Lombard, IL faces a $75,000 penalty for alleged Clean Air Act permitting and reporting violations.
The metal coating company’s operations, per the Consent Order, can emit volatile organic materials such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, xylene, toluene, and methyl isobutyl ketone into the environment—the last three are also listed as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act.Illinois authorities state that alleged violations include the operation of a Clean Air Act Permit Program without a permit, failure to determine volatile organic material content, and failure to timely submit complete and accurate annual emission reports.
A metal processor in Ohio entered a $30,000 settlement with Ohio EPA to resolve alleged noncompliance related air emissions.
In March 2023, the officials from the Cleveland Division of Air Quality (CDAQ) visited the processing facility twice in response to odor complaints. CDAQ noted these compliance issues:- Failure to submit a detailed report, following a malfunction due to the combustion blower fan’s vanes broke off.
- Comply with the comply with volatile organic compound (VOC) emission limits for its emissions units when the facility’s regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) was not in use.
Complete Environmental Regulations Training
Want a clearer idea of how major EPA air, water, and chemical programs all fit together to affect your site's activities? Join in on the next Complete Environmental Regulations Webinar on March 13–14 at Lion.com.EH&S professionals who attend can identify the regulations that apply to their facility and locate key requirements to achieve compliance with the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to EPCRA, TSCA, Superfund, and more. Prefer to train at your own pace? Try the interactive online course.
Tags: EPA Enforcement Roundup
Find a Post
Recent Posts
Compliance Archives
Download Our Latest Whitepaper
Tips to identify and manage universal waste under more-stringent state regulations for generators and universal waste handlers in California.
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.