Environmental enforcement | Delta, Ohio
Company-submitted stack tests recorded hydrochloric acid, chlorine and particulate averages above limits in a federally enforceable permit. The settlement resolves EPA penalty claims without an adjudication of the allegations.
What the order says
- ReMuriate submitted a February 2022 particulate test averaging 5.891 pounds per hour, compared with a permit limit of 2.57 pounds per hour.
- All three submitted HCl test averages exceeded the 25 parts-per-million concentration limit. Two of three submitted chlorine test averages exceeded the 6 ppm limit.
- EPA also alleged that required daily checks for visible emissions were not performed and recorded from March 9, 2020, through June 8, 2022.
- ReMuriate agreed to pay a $302,109.20 civil penalty within 30 days after the final order was filed.
- The company neither admitted nor denied the factual statements and allegations, but waived its right to contest them in this proceeding or appeal the order.
- The document does not establish off-site pollution levels, injuries or other specific harm to nearby residents.
The numbers document test results above permit limits. They do not, by themselves, establish continuous emissions at those levels throughout EPA’s full alleged violation period.
One chlorine test submitted by ReMuriate averaged 80.27 parts per million. The company’s federally enforceable air permit capped chlorine at 6 ppm. That is more than 13 times the permitted concentration.
The February 11, 2022, result was not the only number above a permit limit at ReMuriate’s hydrochloric acid and iron oxide regeneration plant at 6191 County Road 10 in Delta, Ohio. According to a final EPA settlement, submitted tests also recorded HCl and particulate averages above their respective limits.
EPA turned those results, along with an alleged breakdown in daily visible-emissions checks, into five Clean Air Act allegations. ReMuriate did not admit the allegations, but it accepted a six-figure penalty, waived its right to contest them and agreed not to appeal.
The submitted averages were sometimes far above the limits
ReMuriate’s 2014 permit set three relevant emission limits for its acid regeneration system: HCl could not exceed an outlet concentration of 25 ppm, chlorine could not exceed 6 ppm, and particulate emissions could not exceed 2.57 pounds per hour.
| Pollutant and date | Permit limit | Submitted average | Ratio to limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Particulate, Feb. 11, 2022 | 2.57 lb/hr | 5.891 lb/hr | 2.29 times |
| HCl, Feb. 11, 2022 | 25 ppm | 50.87 ppm | 2.03 times |
| HCl, March 17, 2022 | 25 ppm | 54.70 ppm | 2.19 times |
| HCl, May 12, 2022 | 25 ppm | 58.22 ppm | 2.33 times |
| Chlorine, Feb. 11, 2022 | 6 ppm | 80.27 ppm | 13.38 times |
| Chlorine, March 17, 2022 | 6 ppm | 23.80 ppm | 3.97 times |
| Chlorine, May 12, 2022 | 6 ppm | 0.15 ppm | Below limit |
Ratios are calculated from figures in the order and rounded to two decimal places. Parts per million is abbreviated as ppm. The particulate result came from a Method 5 test, while the HCl and chlorine figures came from Method 26A tests.
What the tests establish, and what they do not
The settlement says ReMuriate supplied these test results after EPA’s June 8, 2022, inspection and records request. The figures can be compared directly with the permit limits listed in the same order.
But the listed tests are snapshots. The order does not provide daily emissions data showing that the facility continuously emitted at those averages. EPA nevertheless alleged failures to limit all three pollutants from February 11, 2022, through July 23, 2023. The supplied settlement does not detail the complete evidentiary basis for that entire period.
EPA asked for daily-check records. ReMuriate said it had none to provide.
The permit did not rely only on occasional stack testing. When its iron oxide material-handling operation was running, ReMuriate was required to check every day for visible particulate emissions from associated baghouse stacks and for fugitive particulate emissions from egress points. The presence or absence of visible emissions had to be entered in an operations log.
During its June 2022 inspection, EPA requested opacity or visible-emissions records and other operating records. According to the settlement, ReMuriate responded that it had no responsive documents.
EPA alleged that the company failed to perform and record both categories of daily checks from March 9, 2020, through June 8, 2022. Because the matter settled without adjudication, the final order records that claim as an allegation, not as a litigated factual finding.
- The baghouse-stack checks concerned visible particulate emissions.
- The egress-point checks concerned visible fugitive particulate emissions.
- Both checks were required on operating days and had to be documented.
- The absence of responsive records does not itself establish how much particulate pollution, if any, left the facility on a particular day.
Testing in 2022 led to a final settlement four years later
Ohio EPA issued the operating permit containing the daily-check duties and emission limits cited in the federal case.
This is the start date EPA used for its allegations concerning the required daily visible-emissions checks.
The submitted particulate, HCl and chlorine tests listed in the settlement were conducted during this period.
EPA inspected the Delta facility and requested emissions tests, visible-emissions records and other operating records.
EPA issued a notice of violation. Representatives of EPA and ReMuriate later conferred on October 12.
EPA’s three allegations involving the HCl, chlorine and particulate limits run through this date.
Ohio EPA issued a renewed permit with provisions the settlement describes as generally equivalent to the 2014 permit.
The consent agreement and final order was filed, making the $302,109.20 settlement effective.
No admission, no trial, and no appeal
The settlement was entered without adjudication of any issue of law or fact. For this proceeding, ReMuriate admitted EPA’s jurisdiction but neither admitted nor denied the factual statements or alleged violations.
βneither admits nor denies any statement of fact, including the allegations stated in Section EβReMuriate’s stipulated position in the consent agreement
At the same time, the company agreed that the order stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. It waived a hearing, waived the right to contest the allegations, waived judicial or administrative review and waived an appeal.
EPA said it calculated the penalty using Clean Air Act factors, its stationary-source civil penalty policy, the facts of the case and ReMuriate’s cooperation. The order does not break down how much of the penalty corresponds to each allegation.
Payment is due within 30 days of the filing date. The document describes interest and additional collection measures if payment is late, but it does not establish that payment has already been made.
The permit was enforceable. The order does not quantify community exposure.
Ohio’s air-permit program is part of a federally enforceable state plan designed to implement and maintain national ambient air-quality standards. That made ReMuriate’s permit conditions enforceable by EPA under the Clean Air Act.
The permit’s daily checks and numerical limits were compliance controls. The checks were meant to create a regular record of whether visible emissions appeared, while the stack tests measured particular pollutants under test conditions.
The supplied order does not report ambient air measurements around the facility. It does not identify injuries, illnesses, property damage or a specific off-site exposure caused by ReMuriate’s emissions. It also does not quantify how much pollution was released across EPA’s alleged violation periods.
Those limits matter. They prevent the test results from being turned into unsupported claims about continuous emissions or demonstrated harm to nearby people.
The penalty closes a defined case, not every compliance question
Once ReMuriate completes the settlement terms, the agreement resolves only its federal civil-penalty liability for the violations specifically alleged in the document. It does not relieve the company of its duty to comply with federal, state or local law, and it does not prevent EPA from pursuing other violations.
The settlement also references an administrative compliance order issued concurrently under the same docket number. That document was not included in the supplied material, so this record does not show what corrective work, testing, reporting or operating changes it may require.
Unresolved in the supplied record
- Whether ReMuriate’s current emissions comply with the renewed 2024 permit.
- What evidence supports EPA’s alleged emissions-limit violations through July 23, 2023, beyond the listed 2022 tests.
- What corrective measures are required by the separate compliance order.
- Whether the assessed penalty has been paid.
The settlement establishes a penalty and ends the administrative proceeding. It leaves the most practical question outside the supplied record: whether the plant’s present-day emissions and monitoring now meet the limits that generated the case.
Explore by category
Antitrust
Monopolies and anti-competition tactics used to crush rivals.
View Cases →Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Environmental Violations
Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
View Cases →Labor Exploitation
Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
View Cases →Data Breaches & Privacy
Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →Intellectual Property
IP theft that punishes originality and rewards copying.
View Cases →Misleading Marketing
False claims that waste money and bury critical safety info.
View Cases →


