EPA Enforcement Roundup: Week of 9/2

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.

Your EPA Enforcement Roundup for this week:

An energy company settled with US EPA to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at its power plant in Puerto Rico.

EPA claims that the company did not properly monitor for mercury, particulate matter and hydrochloric acid emissions, and that it did not properly report mercury emissions as required. As part of the settlement, the company will pay a civil penalty of $3.1 million and address alleged violations of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).

Specifically, the company failed to:

• Properly operate a mercury monitoring system at all times.
• Comply with the applicable mercury emission limit on two occasions, specifically during the periods of March 17-21, 2022, and April 5-12, 2022.
• Comply with calibration, installation, maintenance, and reporting requirements under the MATS and the facility’s air permits.

Any fossil fuel-fired combustion unit exceeding 25 megawatts that produces electricity for sale must comply with the MATS, which include specific emission and operating limits.

A steel fabricator will pay $248,396 in penalties to resolve alleged violations related to its basic oxygen furnace shop.

The company’s Burns Harbor, Indiana facility was found by EPA to be emitting excessive amounts of particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from its furnace while loading the furnace with molten iron, and when molten material overflowed the furnaces.

The company will implement new process controls to ensure the furnaces are loaded slowly, ensure the pollution control system is running at an acceptably high rate during furnace operations, react to problems before overflows occur, and keep liquid metal ladles under pollution control device hoods.

The facility must also increase the monitoring of its basic oxygen furnace shop, report its activities to EPA in more detail, install a video camera to record the emissions from the shop, and follow an optimization plan that better specifies the workings of the shop.

Two companies face civil penalties due to the alleged distribution and sale of unregistered pesticide products.

A well-known retailer and a pet product manufacturer face penalties of $17,078 and $11,955 respectively for allegedly violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Per EPA, the companies distributed and offered for sale cat flea and tick collars that were not registered with EPA and had labels entirely in Spanish. On pesticide products, an EPA-approved English version of the label is required, and the translation must be true and accurate.

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 September 5–6 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