![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081110135606im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
EPCRA Enforcement Results
Examples of improvements to the environmental resulting from enforcement of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) enforcement are shown in the following cases, used as examples of enforcement acheivements.
National Nitrate Compliance Initiative
Through the National Nitrate Compliance Initiative, the U.S. EPA implemented a variety of enforcement and compliance tools to improve TRI compliance rates for nitrate compound reporting. Overall, the Nitrate Initiative increased nitrate compound reporting from 60 percent to 98 percent. EPA achieved this result at a fraction of the time and cost associated with traditional inspections and enforcement actions for both EPA and the regulated community. Specifically, nearly 600 companies agreed to audit more than 1,000 facilities for all TRI regulatory obligations and to pay administrative penalties totaling more than $1.4 million. As a result, EPA, the public, and our state partners received more than 7,000 revised or original TRI reporting forms that documented the release, transfer, and other waste management of 420 million pounds of nitrates that previously had been unreported. Facility audits resulted in new or revised reports for over 100 non-nitrate chemicals, documenting an additional 106 million pounds of toxic chemical releases. EPA published a final report detailing the success of this initiative, along with pollution prevention strategies for nitrate compound emitters. (Nitrate Enforcement Alert)
Huber's Inc. dba Budget Car and Truck Rental - Region 4
In November, 2000, Region 4 filed a consent agreement/final order (CAFO) to simultaneously commence and conclude proceedings against Huber's, Inc., dba Budget Car and Truck Rental for failing to file Tier II reports for gasoline as required by EPCRA Section 312. The CAFO requires the payment of a civil penalty of $2,106 and the performance of a SEP costing $6,320. The SEP requires Huber's to purchase and donate equipment to the local emergency planning committee.
Palmetto Paving Corp. - Region 4
In February, 2001, Region 4 filed a consent agreement/final order (CAFO) against Palmetto Paving Corporation of North Conway, South Carolina for failing to submit Material Safety Data Sheets for diesel fuel, liquid asphalt and propane to the proper authorities as required by EPCRA Section 311, and for failing to submit emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms as required under EPCRA Section 312, for the years 1997-1999. Under the terms of the CAFO, Palmetto will pay a civil penalty of $3,985 and perform a SEP valued at $15,725. For the SEP, Palmetto will purchase emergency response equipment for the Horry County Local Emergency Preparedness Department within 60 days of the filing of the CAFO.
Premcor Refining Group, Inc. - Region 5
In November, 2000, Region 5 entered into a consent agreement/final order (CAFO) with the Premcor Refining Group, Inc. In the agreement Premcor agreed to pay a civil penalty of $56,250 and complete a SEP valued at more than $330,000. The agreement resolved all claims stemming from a complaint filed on June 30, 1999. The 34-count complaint alleged various EPCRA violations, including failure to submit toxic chemical reporting forms (Form Rs) and failure to maintain records. The violations were documented in a 1300-page inspection report with 2000 pages of supporting exhibits. In addition to the financial penalty, Premcor's SEP will be the installation of a waste oil centrifuge within 18 months, at a cost of $330,000.
Guide Corp. - Region 5
In June, 2001, the United States and the State of Indiana lodged a consent decree settling violations alleged against Guide Corporation for its role in a massive fish kill on the White River. The settlement calls for a total payment of $10,025,000, to be paid in the following increments: (1) $6 million into two White River Restoration Funds designed to restock the fish; (2) $2 million in civil penalty to be split equally with the State of Indiana; and (3) $2,025,000 in federal and state costs. An amended complaint filed contemporaneously with the consent decree alleged that Guide violated: (1) the hazardous waste record keeping, storage and disposal requirements of RCRA; (2) CERCLA §103, which requires notification of the national response center when a hazardous substance is released into the environment; and (3) EPCRA §304, which requires commensurate notifications of state and local response entities. The consent decree also settles state CWA, NRD, RCRA and common law claims. The United States will continue to pursue it claims against the remaining defendant, Crown EG, Inc.
Didion & Sons Foundry Co. - Region 7
In February, 2001, a CAFO was filed in the matter of Didion and Sons Foundry Company. In a 1999 TSCA inspection, Didion was cited for: (1) failure to properly mark various PCB large low voltage capacitors; (2) failure to develop and maintain annual records and document logs regarding the disposition of PCBs and PCB items for 1995-1998; and (3) failure to conduct a reduced visual inspection of PCB transformers and maintain records of inspection for 1996 and 1997. A second inspection for EPCRA revealed that Didion failed to file a chemical release inventory form ("Form R") for calendar years 1996-1998 with EPA and the State of Missouri. Didion agreed to pay a $37,488 penalty to resolve this matter.
Catalytica Bay View, Inc - Region 9
Under a CAFO dated April 6, 2001, EPA and a California pharmaceutical and pesticide manufacturer agreed to settle data quality and other alleged violations of EPCRA Section 313 for a penalty of $71,673. In the administrative Complaint, Catalytica Bay View, Inc. was cited for nine counts of failure to file complete and accurate Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms (Forms R), one count of failure to file a timely Form R, and eight counts of failure to maintain complete records supporting Forms R.
This case represents one of the first times Region 9 has brought an enforcement action against a company for data quality errors in EPCRA Form R submissions. Region IX addressed several issues of first impression relating to the data quality counts, such as what magnitude of data error should be the enforceable threshold, whether over reporting errors should be the basis of enforcement, and whether destination-specific transfer data errors should be the basis of enforcement if the error in the aggregate transfer data was not significant.
Better Baked Foods, Inc. - Region 3
In May, 2001, Region 3 issued a CAFO against Better Baked Foods Inc. of North East, Pennsylvania. The CAFO was negotiated in settlement of three Complaints brought against Better Baked Foods, Inc. in April, 2000 under CERCLA Section 103 and EPCRA Subsections 304 and 312. The investigation prompting this action was a coordinated effort between Region 3's EPCRA and Chemical Accident Prevention Programs. The CAFO included a financial penalty of $10,000 and a pollution prevention SEP that requires the Respondent to expend an additional $110,000 in order to upgrade its ammonia detection systems. This upgrade will enhance protection of the community surrounding Better Baked Foods from the hazards of accidental ammonia releases.
Note: The photographs on this page relate to topics and are not related to the described cases.