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 take-away lessons. What happened, and how do you avoid the same situation?
Clean air
California Air Resources Board (CARB) reached a settlement with a company for their sale of more than 1,200 small engines that did not meet the state’s Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) regulation. The company was also cited for failure to submit accurate sales reports for multiple calendar years. The company self-disclosed the violations and worked with CARB to reach both the monetary settlement and compliance plan, ensuring future SORE compliance.
Enforcement action: $160,000 civil penalty
Lessons learned:
- Self-disclosure and working with regulating agencies can result in lower monetary penalties, as was the case here.
- Make sure you have properly assessed compliance for even your smallest sources. The engines in this case are used for lawnmowers and leaf blowers, below what most people realize is covered by CARB.
Hazardous waste
A Maryland manufacturer agreed to pay a penalty to settle alleged violations of federal and state hazardous waste regulations. EPA alleged that the company had violated various rules related to storage of paint-related wastes, universal waste, and contaminated propellant. Specific violations cited include proper labeling, universal waste containers not being kept closed, and waste shipping papers not being received.
Enforcement action: $36,920 civil penalty
Lesson learned:
- Small hazardous waste violations can quickly add up to large penalties. Ensure you have a system in place to maintain compliance and consider periodic internal audits.
Water quality
A lawsuit, first filed in 2018, was recently settled for a sewage disposal company in Massachusetts. The company was accused of having illegally installed and used an unauthorized septage storage tank to dispose of its waste in the municipal sewer, rather than transporting to a disposal facility. The project was implemented to cut costs from its septage transportation business, giving them what Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection claims was a significant competitive advantage.
Enforcement action: $500,000
Lesson learned:
- Business impacts from serious violations often go beyond the financial penalty. The company in this situation also had restrictions placed on their ability to bid on state or municipal work.
Pesticide management
A pesticide applicator based in Nezperce, Idaho, has reached a settlement with EPA over the illegal disposal of pesticide containers. EPA alleges that the containers were not rinsed according to labeling instructions and still contained toxic pesticide residue at the time of disposal. An inspector responded to a complaint that unrinsed pesticide containers, with odorous residue, had been improperly disposed of in public dumpsters. The company, a commercial pesticide applicator, immediately corrected the situation and agreed to pay the penalty.
Enforcement action: $5,400 civil penalty
Lesson learned:
- Pesticide product labels provide critical instructions about how to safely and legally dispose of empty containers. Pesticide labels are legally enforceable and when not followed (as in this case) result in violations.