“EPA finds Respondent violated 42 U.S.C. § 11023(g)(1)(B), and 40 C.F.R. § 372.85(b)(2) by failing to submit 2020, 2021, and 2022 TRI reporting forms for the aforementioned TRI chemicals in paragraph 17 on or before July 1, 2021; July 1, 2022, and July 1, 2023, respectively.”

💡 This quote establishes that Targa missed three consecutive annual deadlines, demonstrating a pattern rather than a one-time error.

“1,3 Butadine; Benzene; Cyclohexane; Ethylbenzene; Ethylene; Isoprene; n-Hexane; Toluene; and Xylene are toxic chemicals within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. §§ 372.3 and 372.65.”

💡 The law officially classifies all nine unreported chemicals as toxic, meaning Targa concealed information about substances recognized as hazardous to human health.

“Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11023, 40 C.F.R. §§ 372.22 and 372.30 require the owner or operator of a facility… to complete and submit a toxic chemical release inventory Form R, for each toxic chemical known by the owner or operator to be manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities exceeding the established threshold quantity, to the Administrator of EPA and to the State in which the facility is located by July 1, for the preceding calendar year.”

💡 This shows the law requires annual reporting to both federal and state authorities, yet Targa failed on both fronts for three years.

“Pursuant to Section 313(g)(1)(C)(iii) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11023(g)(1)(C)(iii), and 40 C.F.R. § 372.85(b)(16), the Form R shall include information relative to waste treatment, including the type of waste stream containing the reported chemical, the treatment method applied to the waste stream, and an estimate of the efficiency of the treatment.”

💡 Communities have a legal right to know not just that chemicals are present, but how waste is treated. Targa withheld all of this information.

“On or about January 15, 2024, an off-site investigation was initiated to determine compliance of Respondent’s Galena Park, Texas facility with Section 313 of EPCRA. During the off-site investigation, EPA alleged the facility had failed to timely report some or all of the aforementioned TRI chemicals in paragraph 17 for RY (2020), RY (2021), and RY (2022).”

💡 It took until January 2024 for EPA to investigate violations dating back to 2020, showing how long illegal conduct can continue before detection.

“Section 325(c) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11045(c), which authorizes EPA to assess a civil penalty of up to Fifty-Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Seven Dollars ($55,907) per day per violation of EPCRA.”

💡 The law allows much higher penalties than what Targa paid. With multiple years and chemicals, potential fines could have been millions.

“Upon consideration of the entire record herein, including the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law… and with respect to Respondent’s ability to pay, history of prior EPCRA Section 313 violations, the degree of culpability, economic benefit or savings (if any) resulting from the violations, and other factors as justice may require, it is ORDERED that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of two hundred thirty-six thousand dollars and no cents ($236,000.00).”

💡 The EPA explicitly considered that Targa may have saved money by not complying, meaning the penalty calculation recognized the company’s profit motive.

“For the purposes of this proceeding, Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations herein; however, Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations contained in this CAFO.”

💡 Consent agreements let companies settle without admitting they did anything wrong, reducing public accountability and reputational damage.

“Respondent hereby certifies that as of the date of the execution of this CAFO, Respondent has corrected the violations alleged in this CAFO and is now, to the best of its knowledge, in compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 313 of EPCRA.”

💡 Targa only filed the required reports after EPA investigated, showing the company would not have complied voluntarily.

“This document is a Final Order as that term is defined in the Enforcement Response Policy for Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1986) and Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (1990)… for the purpose of demonstrating a history of prior such violations.”

💡 If Targa violates again, regulators can use this case as evidence of repeat offender status and justify harsher penalties.

“Respondent owns and operates the facility at 12510 American Petroleum Rd, Galena Park, TX 77547.”

💡 The facility sits in Galena Park, part of the Houston Ship Channel industrial corridor, where communities already face heavy pollution burdens.

“Respondent agrees not to claim or attempt to claim a federal income tax deduction or credit covering all or any part of the civil penalty paid to the United States Treasurer.”

💡 While Targa cannot deduct the penalty from taxes, the company can still treat it as an ordinary business expense in its accounting.

“At the time of the violation(s), Respondent’s facility had ten (10) or more full-time employees as that term is defined by 40 C.F.R. § 372.3… Respondent’s facility is in primary NAICS code 424710 (Petrolleum Bulk Stations & Terminals), which is listed in 40 C.F.R. § 372.23(c).”

💡 Targa met all the legal criteria that trigger mandatory reporting. There was no ambiguity about whether the law applied to this facility.

“During Reporting Year (RY) 2020, 2021, and 2022, some or all of the toxic chemicals in Paragraph 17 were manufactured, processed, or otherwise used, as those terms are defined by Section 313(b) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11023(b), and 40 C.F.R. § 372.3, at Respondent’s facility.”

💡 The facility used the chemicals in quantities requiring disclosure. Targa knew or should have known it had to report but chose not to.

“EPA does not waive any rights or remedies available to EPA for any violations by Respondent of Federal or State laws, regulations, or permitting conditions… Nothing in this CAFO shall limit the power and authority of EPA or the United States to take, direct, or order all actions to protect public health, welfare, or the environment.”

💡 The settlement only resolves these specific violations. EPA can still pursue Targa for other violations or future noncompliance with full legal authority.