2014 EPCRA Enforcement Roundup

2014 EPCRA Enforcement Roundup

 
What do a wood door manufacturer, an organic food company, a wire manufacturer, a cheese manufacturer, and an oil sands crude refinery have in common? On the surface, it would appear they are pretty different, but when it comes to compliance with EPCRA, all reached settlements with the EPA during 2014 for alleged violations. In fact, it is just this diversity that should prompt all facility owners and operators to review EPCRA requirements for their operations to ensure they are in compliance.

Take a look at how these companies were found lacking under EPCRA by the EPA during the past year:

In January, an Oregon-based door manufacturer agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty to correct violations “associated with the company’s emissions and reporting of toluene.” According to EPA’s investigation, between 2005 and 2009, “the company repeatedly exceeded emissions of toluene as allowed by state and federal air regulations. The company emitted more than 18,000 pounds (lb) of toluene per year, exceeding the limit set by its air contaminant discharge permit.” In addition, according to the EPA, the company also failed to report toluene emissions to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in 2008.

Join us for our Tier II Reporting webinar on January 21 to learn how to ensure that you’re Tier II reports are accurate and submitted on time! Learn more.

 
Also in January, a Minnesota-based organic food company agreed to pay a $19,049 penalty for allegedly failing to report a September 12, 2012, ammonia release at its facility in Allentown, Pennsylvania. According to the EPA, “at least 450 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, a hazardous chemical,” was released to the air during the event. The company evacuated employees, called 911, and reported the release to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; however, the company violated EPCRA by not immediately reporting the release to “two other state and local emergency response agencies: the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency and the Lehigh County Emergency Services office.”

In March 2014, a manufacturer of shaped coil and wire in Southington, Connecticut, agreed to pay a penalty of $5,626 to settle EPA’s claims that they violated EPCRA by “failing to submit timely chemical reporting forms for ammonia, chromium, nickel and copper during the annual reporting of the Toxics Release Inventory.” In addition to the penalty, the company agreed to purchase and install a state-of-the-art ammonia detection alarm system at a cost of $26,625 at the facility and “to conduct a formal analysis to identify hazards arising from its use of anhydrous ammonia, as required by the Clean Air Act’s [CAA] General Duty Clause….”

Tier II Reporting: Winning Strategies for Preparing Your March 2015 Filings on Time

Our knowledgeable environmental engineer will show you what data you’ll need to collect and what tools you’ll need to use to complete Tier II reporting by the March 1 deadline. Space is limited, so register now.

 
In September 2014, a Heuvelton, New York, cheese manufacturer agreed to pay a penalty of $4,525 in a settlement with the EPA for alleged violations of EPCRA for failing to “timely report the amount of nitric acid and nitrates it was discharging over a three-year period.” According to the EPA, the company failed to submit the reports during 2011, 2012, and 2013, and also agreed to upgrade its manufacturing equipment, which would result in a 16 percent reduction (about 4,500 lb) in the amount of nitrate compounds and a 50 percent reduction in the amount of wastewater, both of which are released to a local wastewater treatment plant.

Also in September, the EPA reached a settlement with a Canadian energy company that agreed to pay a $230,000 penalty for alleged EPCRA and CAA violations at its Colorado oil sands crude refinery. According to the EPA, the alleged EPCRA violations included failure to report several releases of sulfur dioxide in 2010 and 2011, as well as failure to file reports to EPA’s TRI for cobalt compounds and tetrachloroethylene handled on the site. The alleged violations also included not adequately implementing risk management planning requirements for “flammable substances and hydrogen sulfide over the 10,000-pound threshold levels.”