EPA Enforcement Roundup: Week of 1/3
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: An aluminum manufacturer
EPA reached a settlement with two companies and the surrounding municipality to address hazardous wastes at a former aluminum manufacturing plant. The companies agreed to clean up radium, arsenic, chromium, lead and other hazardous substances detected in soils at the site and reimburse all future costs incurred by the United States in overseeing the cleanup. The 400-acre site was an operating manufacturing facility from 1903 to 1957.
WHERE: East St. Louis, IL
WHAT: CERCLA violations
HOW MUCH: $4.1 million
Each company and the municipality named in the settlement own some of the property and have agreed to remediate 180 acres by excavating approximately 40,000 cubic yards of near-surface hazardous waste material to at least two feet in depth, consolidating it with other waste from the former plant, and covering it with a minimum of two feet of clean soil. Stormwater controls also will be installed or reconfigured to protect local properties.
WHO: A chemical and materials company
Facilities in New Jersey and Kentucky that allegedly violated chemical safety and reporting regulations agreed to take steps to come into compliance with TSCA and EPCRA regulations. As part of the settlement, the companies submitted Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reports for a variety of chemicals including acids, bases, salts, solvents and metals.
WHERE: Phillipsburg, NJ and Paris, KY
WHAT: TSCA and EPCRA violations
HOW MUCH: $600,000
EPA found that the company failed to file CDR reports for 13 chemical substances that it imported for commercial purposes at its New Jersey facility and that it failed to report 16 chemical substances that it imported for commercial purposes at its Kentucky facility. These CDR reports were due between June 1, 2016 and October 31, 2016. The company also failed to report 17 chemicals for its New Jersey facility to the TRI for calendar year 2015 by the required due date of July 1, 2016.
WHO: A refrigerated foods processor
WHERE: Montague, MA
WHAT: Clean Water Act violations
HOW MUCH: $252,000
A soy-based food production plant agreed to replace its wastewater treatment system after improperly discharging acidic wastewaters to the sewer system. The facility soaks soybeans in lactic acid to prepare its products and uses acidic cleaners to sanitize its equipment. Discharge of low-pH wastewaters to sewers is prohibited under the Clean Water Act pretreatment regulations because of the potential to corrode piping.
The company’s new wastewater pretreatment system controls the pH of the wastewater that the facility discharges into the municipal sewer system. The company has also agreed to pay a $252,000 civil penalty.
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
Best instructor ever! I was going to take my DOT training w/a different provider, but based on this presentation, I will also be doing my DOT training w/Lion!
Hazardous Waste Professional
Well designed and thorough program. Excellent summary of requirements with references. Inclusion of regulations in hard copy form, as well as full electronic with state pertinent regulations included is a great bonus!
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.
Hazardous Waste Professional
The instructor took a rather drab set of topics and brought them to life with realistic real-life examples.
My experience with Lion training, both online and in the classroom, is that they are far better organized and provide a better sequential explanation of the material.
Manager, Dangerous Goods Transportation
I was recently offered an opportunity to take my training through another company, but I politely declined. I only attend Lion Technology workshops.
Material Production/Logistics Manager
I have been to other training companies, but Lion’s material is much better and easier to understand.
I like Lion's workshops the best because they really dig into the information you need to have when you leave the workshop.
Tom Bush, Jr.
The workshop covered a lot of information without being too overwhelming. Lion is much better, more comprehensive than other training providers.
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
Download Our Latest Whitepaper
The definitive 10-step guide for new hazardous materials shipping managers. Quickly reference the major considerations and details that impact hazmat shipping compliance.