Clarios Agrees to Pay $87,041 After EPA Alleged Inaccurate Lead Release Reports for Four Reporting Years

Four reports in five years were challenged

Clarios operates a lead-acid battery manufacturing facility at 800 NW 3rd Avenue in Canby. EPA alleged that the facility processed lead and lead compounds above the federal reporting threshold during each year from 2020 through 2024.

The plant did file the required Toxic Chemical Release Inventory forms. According to EPA, however, four of those annual reports failed to accurately and completely report releases of lead and lead compounds to the environment.

“Respondent failed to accurately and completely report the releases of lead and lead compounds from the Facility to the environment.”

EPA allegation, Consent Agreement paragraph 3.12

That sentence is the factual core of the enforcement action. It is also where the public detail stops. The agreement does not identify the incorrect fields, provide the original and corrected quantities, or explain how large the reporting errors were.

How the right-to-know system was supposed to work

Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires covered facilities to submit a Form R for listed toxic chemicals processed or used above applicable thresholds. Reports are generally due by July 1 for the previous calendar year.

An inspection preceded the settlement

EPA Region 10 inspected the Canby facility for compliance with Section 313 on September 28, 2023. The consent agreement does not describe the inspection findings in detail or explain when each reporting problem was identified.

The penalty resolves the reporting case without an admission

Clarios agreed that EPA had jurisdiction and accepted an $87,041 civil penalty. It did not admit the specific allegations or legal conclusions. For this proceeding, the company waived affirmative defenses, the right to contest the allegations and the right to appeal the final order.

The final order also says the settlement does not prevent EPA or the United States from pursuing appropriate equitable relief or criminal sanctions for violations of law. The supplied record does not indicate that any such action was pending in this matter.

The documented consequence is a damaged data record, not proven exposure

Lead is regulated as a toxic chemical under the reporting system at issue. Still, this agreement is about disclosure accuracy. It does not establish that the reporting failures caused an unauthorized release, increased emissions or exposed workers or nearby residents.

The supported public consequence is narrower but important: when annual release data is inaccurate or incomplete, people and institutions relying on that data may be working from a faulty record. The agreement does not provide enough information to measure the practical effect in Canby.

Correction closed the violation, but not the information gap

Clarios’s representative certified that the alleged violations had been corrected. The agreement does not reproduce the corrected reports, identify revised totals or describe any internal control changes intended to prevent another error.

The settlement puts a dollar figure on the reporting violations EPA alleged. It does not put numbers on the underlying data errors. For a law built around the public’s ability to know what toxic chemicals facilities release, that missing comparison is the most consequential fact the order leaves out.