Enforcement Focus
A look at where regulators are focusing their enforcement efforts.
Enforcement action and monetary penalties are unfortunately common in environmental programs and prove costly to companies. Beyond the penalty assessed, companies often spend even more improving processes to prevent recurrence. This section shares some of the headlines and presents takeaway lessons. What happened, and how do you avoid the same situation?
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
EPA announced a settlement with a company that makes and markets household, cleaning, and food products. The company was found to be selling and distributing two rodenticide products in the U.S. that had misleading advertising claims on their packaging. The mislabeled products were originally found for sale at a big-box store in New Jersey. Through further investigation EPA concluded these products had been sold on nearly 240 occasions. The products, designed to poison mice, were being sold with labels making “comparative claims” that had not been verified during the registration process.
Enforcement action: $458,000 civil penalty
Lessons learned:
During the pesticide registration process, EPA evaluates labeling language and verifies comparative claims. Without these, EPA cannot ensure the product will not cause unreasonable environmental harm.
The number of violations will directly impact the severity of penalties levied.
Air
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) issued a notice of violation and penalty to a facility that receives and distributes liquid asphalt and other petroleum products. The facility stores the materials in aboveground storage tanks, which were found to be the source of odorous, volatile organic compounds and sulfur compounds emissions over a multi-year period. Beginning in 2019, the facility and DEM had been working to identify, permit, and install odor control equipment on the tanks.
Enforcement action: $30,000
Lessons learned:
Evaluate all equipment for the need for pollution control equipment.
Water
A large land management and development company is on the hook for a large monetary penalty as well as an even larger dollar amount for stream restoration. The company was found to have violated multiple federal and state water laws with discharges from an industrial park site in West Virginia. EPA and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) cited the company for:
- Discharging more than two thousand feet of dredged or fill material into multiple streams, without a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit.
- Clearing and grading more than 18 acres, causing sediment-laden construction stormwater discharges without a required permit.
- Discharging odorous solvents, without authorization, resulting in the release of those chemicals into nearby streams.
Enforcement action: $125,000 penalty and more than $600,000 for stream restoration improvements
Lessons learned:
Land clearing activities require stormwater discharge permitting as well as permitted management (disposal or relocation) of all removed materials.
Hazardous waste
Washington Department of Ecology issued a large penalty to a real estate development company for illegally disposing of contaminated soil in solid waste landfills. Approximately 14,000 tons of perchloroethylene (PERC) contaminated soil were removed prior to receiving the agency’s approval, based on sample toxicity results. The waste, removed from a redevelopment project in the second half of 2020, was not sent to an approved dangerous waste landfill and did not include required paperwork (hazardous waste manifest). The company contends the allegations are not accurate and has stated they plan to appeal the penalty.
Enforcement action: $280,000
Lessons learned:
Accurate classification of waste is the most critical step in the waste management process. All subsequent management steps hinge on this determination.