What Happened
Brenntag Great Lakes, LLC operates two chemical distribution facilities. One is at 14765 W. Bobolink Avenue, Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. The other is at 4801 S. Austin Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Both facilities process industrial chemicals and are required by federal law to file annual reports disclosing the types and quantities of toxic substances they handle.
Between 2019 and 2022, the company failed to file 63 separate toxic chemical release reports on time. Some reports were filed days late. Others were filed over two years late. Some were never filed until the EPA demanded them during the enforcement investigation.
The law that requires these reports is called the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), specifically Section 313. It was passed in 1986 after the Bhopal disaster killed thousands of people in India when a pesticide plant leaked methyl isocyanate gas into a residential neighborhood. Congress decided that communities in the United States had the right to know what chemicals were being stored, processed, and released near their homes.
EPCRA requires facilities with ten or more full-time employees that manufacture, process, or otherwise use certain toxic chemicals above threshold quantities to file Form R or Form A with the EPA and the state by July 1 of each year for the preceding calendar year. The reports must list the chemical name, the amount processed, and any releases to air, water, or land.
Brenntag missed the deadline for all four years at both facilities. The chemicals involved were not trace contaminants. They were core business inventory.
The Chemicals
The consent agreement lists every chemical by name and CAS registry number. Here is a partial summary of what was processed and not reported on time:
- Methanol (CAS No. 67-56-1): Over 10 million pounds processed at the Wisconsin facility in 2019 alone. Methanol is a solvent and fuel additive. Exposure causes blindness and death.
- Xylene (mixed isomers) (CAS No. 1330-20-7): Over 18 million pounds processed at the Wisconsin facility in 2019. Xylene is a nervous system toxin used in paints and coatings.
- Toluene (CAS No. 108-88-3): Over 4 million pounds processed at the Wisconsin facility in 2019. Toluene damages the brain and kidneys.
- Ethylene Glycol (CAS No. 107-21-1): Over 1.4 million pounds processed at both facilities combined in 2019. Ethylene glycol is antifreeze. It is sweet-tasting and lethal if ingested.
- Formaldehyde (CAS No. 50-00-0): 156,909 pounds processed at the Chicago facility in 2019. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen.
- Lead Compounds (CAS No. N420): 4,469 pounds processed at the Wisconsin facility in 2019. Lead has no safe exposure level and causes permanent neurological damage in children.
- Ammonia (CAS No. 7664-41-7): 294,686 pounds processed at the Chicago facility in 2021. Ammonia is a respiratory toxin and explosion hazard.
- Dichloromethane (CAS No. 75-09-2): 762,545 pounds processed at the Wisconsin facility in 2022. Dichloromethane is a probable carcinogen and central nervous system depressant.
- Styrene (CAS No. 100-42-5): 1,880,139 pounds processed at the Wisconsin facility in 2022. Styrene is classified as a possible human carcinogen.
- Trichloroethylene (CAS No. 79-01-6): 35,803 pounds processed at the Chicago facility in 2022. Trichloroethylene is a confirmed carcinogen linked to kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The full list includes Certain Glycol Ethers, Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Diisocyanates, Diethanolamine, Ethylbenzene, Formic Acid, n-Hexane, Naphthalene, N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone, Triethylamine, and multiple isomers of toluene diisocyanate. The consent agreement specifies the exact poundage for each chemical at each facility for each year.
These are not specialty research chemicals used in milligram quantities. These are industrial solvents, reagents, and raw materials moved in bulk tanker trucks. The Menomonee Falls facility alone processed over 6 million pounds of Certain Glycol Ethers in 2019 and failed to report it on time.
The Violations
The EPA documented 63 separate counts of late or missing reports. Each count corresponds to a specific chemical at a specific facility for a specific calendar year. The pattern is consistent across all four years:
- 2019: 16 counts (Counts 1-16)
- 2020: 10 counts (Counts 17-26)
- 2021: 14 counts (Counts 27-40)
- 2022: 23 counts (Counts 41-63)
For example, Count 1 alleges that during calendar year 2019, the Chicago facility processed 103,357 pounds of ammonia. The company was required to file a Form A by July 1, 2020. The company did not file the form by that deadline. The company eventually filed the form on July 8, 2020, seven days late.
Count 28 alleges that during calendar year 2021, both the Chicago facility and the Menomonee Falls facility processed quantities of Certain Glycol Ethers exceeding the threshold. The Chicago facility processed 2,640,251 pounds. The Menomonee Falls facility processed 5,816,657 pounds. Forms were due July 1, 2022. The company did not file the forms by that deadline. The Chicago form was eventually filed on April 10, 2024. The Wisconsin form was filed on the same date. Both were filed almost two years late.
The delays were not isolated to one chemical or one year. They were systematic.
The Settlement
The EPA and Brenntag entered into a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) on June 29, 2026. The agreement was signed by Brenntag President John T. Hill and EPA Region 5 Division Director Carolyn Persoon. It was ratified by Regional Judicial Officer Ann L. Coyle on July 14, 2026.
Brenntag agreed to pay a civil penalty of $995,000 within 30 days of the filing date. The penalty was calculated using EPA’s Enforcement Response Policy for Section 313 of EPCRA, which considers the gravity of the violation, the violator’s ability to pay, prior history of violations, degree of cooperation, and any other factors justice may require.
The maximum statutory penalty for EPCRA Section 313 violations is $69,733 per day per violation for violations occurring after November 2, 2015. The EPA could have sought penalties in the tens of millions of dollars. The settlement amount reflects a negotiated resolution.
Brenntag “admits the jurisdictional allegations… and neither admits nor denies the factual allegations” in the consent agreement. This is standard settlement language. It allows the company to resolve the matter without a formal admission of guilt while still accepting the penalty and the terms of the agreement.
The agreement also requires Brenntag to certify that its facilities are currently in compliance with EPCRA Section 313. The company waived its right to a hearing, to contest the allegations, and to appeal the final order. The company also waived any right to resolve the matter in federal court, including the right to a jury trial.
The Non-Financial Ledger
The $995,000 penalty is a line item in a corporate budget. The real cost is carried by people who will never see a dollar of that money.
Emergency responders in Menomonee Falls and Chicago did not have access to the toxic chemical data they are legally entitled to review. When a hazmat team responds to a fire, a spill, or a transportation accident involving a chemical facility, they rely on EPCRA reports to understand what substances might be involved, what protective equipment is required, and what evacuation zones should be established. Brenntag’s failure to file those reports on time meant that for four years, first responders were operating with incomplete information.
Workers at the facilities were exposed to these chemicals daily. While OSHA regulations require employers to maintain Safety Data Sheets and provide training, EPCRA reporting serves a different function. It creates a public record. It allows workers to verify independently what chemicals are present in their workplace and in what quantities. It allows unions to cross-check employer claims. It allows community health advocates to track cumulative exposure risks across multiple facilities in the same neighborhood. Brenntag’s non-compliance erased that transparency.
Families living near the facilities had no access to the data. EPCRA reports are published in the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database, which is publicly searchable. Parents, teachers, daycare operators, and homeowners use TRI data to understand what hazards exist in their community. Real estate agents and property buyers use TRI data to assess environmental risks. Public health researchers use TRI data to study the relationship between industrial chemical exposure and disease clusters. Brenntag’s late filings meant that for years, none of that data was available.
The concept of informed consent was violated. People cannot consent to living near a chemical facility if they do not know what chemicals are there. They cannot participate meaningfully in local zoning decisions, emergency preparedness planning, or environmental health advocacy if the data is hidden. EPCRA exists because Congress decided that democracy requires transparency. Brenntag treated that principle as optional.
Legal Receipts
The following passages are taken verbatim from the consent agreement, Docket No. EPCRA-05-2026-0002, filed with the EPA Region 5 Regional Hearing Clerk on July 14, 2026.
“Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11023, and 40 C.F.R. §§ 372.22 and 372.30 require the owner or operator of a facility that has 10 or more full-time employees; is covered by certain Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) codes; meets one of the criteria set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 372.22(b)(1)-(3); and manufactured, processed, or otherwise used a toxic chemical, as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 372.3, in an amount exceeding an applicable threshold quantity of that chemical listed under Section 313(f) of EPCRA and 40 C.F.R. § 372.25, during the calendar year, to complete and submit a toxic chemical release inventory form (Form R or Form A) to the Administrator of EPA and to the state in which the subject facility is located by July 1 for each toxic chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities exceeding the established threshold during the preceding calendar year.”
“During calendar year 2019, Respondent’s Menomonee Falls facility processed, as that term is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 372.3, Xylene (mixed isomers), a chemical [CAS No. 1330-20-7] listed under 40 C.F.R. § 372.65, in the amount of 18,611,065 pounds, which is greater than 25,000 pounds, the threshold for reporting as set forth in Section 313(f) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11023(f), and 40 C.F.R. § 372.25.”
“Respondent did not submit to the Administrator of EPA and to Wisconsin a Form R or Form A for Xylene (mixed isomers) for calendar year 2019 by July 1, 2020.”
“Respondent submitted a Form R for Xylene (mixed isomers) to the Administrator of EPA and to Wisconsin on July 7, 2020, for calendar year 2019.”
“Respondent’s failure to submit timely a Form R for Xylene (mixed isomers) to the Administrator of EPA and to Wisconsin for calendar year 2019 violated Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11023, and 40 C.F.R. § 372.30.”
“Pursuant to Section 325 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11045, Complainant determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $995,000. In determining the penalty amount, Complainant considered the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to Respondent, its ability to pay, prior history of violations, cooperation, and any other matters as justice may require.”
“Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO and neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in this CAFO.”
The consent agreement does not explain why the reports were filed late. It does not indicate whether the delays were due to understaffing, software failures, deliberate concealment, or simple negligence. It does not explain why some reports were filed only days late while others were filed nearly two years late. The agreement is a legal settlement, not an investigative report.
Societal Impact Mapping
Environmental Degradation
The chemicals listed in the consent agreement are not benign. Many of them are persistent, meaning they do not break down quickly in the environment. Others are bioaccumulative, meaning they concentrate in the tissues of living organisms and move up the food chain. EPCRA reporting is supposed to create a public record of where these chemicals are used, stored, and released so that regulators, researchers, and communities can track contamination over time.
Brenntag’s failure to file reports on time disrupted that tracking system. If a waterway downstream from the Menomonee Falls facility showed elevated levels of xylene or toluene, investigators would need to know which facilities in the watershed were using those chemicals. If air quality monitors near the Chicago facility detected spikes in ammonia or formaldehyde, regulators would need to know which facilities were processing those substances. The late filings created data gaps.
The consent agreement does not allege that Brenntag released any of these chemicals into the environment in violation of emissions limits or discharge permits. It alleges only that the company failed to file the required disclosure forms on time. But the purpose of EPCRA is not to regulate releases directly. It is to create transparency so that communities and regulators can hold polluters accountable through other laws and through public pressure.
Public Health
Several of the chemicals listed in the consent agreement are confirmed or probable human carcinogens. Formaldehyde, styrene, dichloromethane, and trichloroethylene are all classified by national and international health agencies as cancer risks. Lead compounds cause permanent neurological damage. Methanol causes blindness. Ammonia causes severe respiratory injury.
EPCRA reporting is part of the public health infrastructure. Epidemiologists studying cancer clusters, birth defects, or respiratory disease in communities near industrial facilities use TRI data to identify potential exposure pathways. If the data is missing or late, those studies are compromised.
The consent agreement does not allege that anyone was injured or sickened by exposure to chemicals at Brenntag’s facilities. It alleges only that the company failed to provide the public with timely information. But the right to know is a precondition for the right to health. You cannot protect yourself from a hazard you do not know exists.
Economic Inequality
Chemical facilities are not distributed evenly across the economic landscape. They are disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color. This is not an accident. Industrial zoning laws, property values, and political power all play a role. People with wealth and political connections can prevent polluting facilities from being built in their neighborhoods. People without those resources cannot.
EPCRA was designed to level the playing field by giving all communities, regardless of income or political power, access to the same information about chemical hazards. But access to information is only meaningful if the information exists. Brenntag’s failure to file reports on time meant that the communities most likely to be harmed by chemical exposure were also the communities most likely to be denied the data they needed to protect themselves.
The $995,000 fine will not be paid to those communities. It will be paid to the U.S. Treasury. The consent agreement explicitly states that “Penalties, interest, and other charges paid pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deductible for purposes of federal taxes.” The money will not fund community health clinics, water testing, or legal aid for residents seeking to challenge facility permits. It will simply disappear into the federal budget.
What Now?
The consent agreement names John T. Hill as President of Brenntag Great Lakes, LLC. The agreement was signed by Carolyn Persoon, Division Director of EPA Region 5’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, and ratified by Regional Judicial Officer Ann L. Coyle.
The EPA contact for this matter is Shawn Cole, Land Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch, EPA Region 5. Email: cole.shawn@epa.gov.
Legal counsel for Brenntag during the settlement negotiations was represented by Clark Hill law firm. The consent agreement lists cclare@clarkhill.com as counsel’s email.
Watchlist
The following agencies have jurisdiction over chemical reporting, worker safety, and environmental compliance issues related to the facts in this case:
- EPA Region 5 (Great Lakes Region): Enforces EPCRA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and RCRA. Covers Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Website: www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-region-5-great-lakes
- Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: State environmental regulator. Receives EPCRA reports and enforces state hazardous waste laws. Website: dnr.wisconsin.gov
- Illinois Environmental Protection Agency: State environmental regulator. Receives EPCRA reports and enforces state pollution laws. Website: www2.illinois.gov/epa
- OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration): Federal agency responsible for workplace safety, including chemical exposure. Website: www.osha.gov
- EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program: Public database of toxic chemical releases. Search by facility, chemical, or ZIP code. Website: www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program
Organize
If you live near a chemical facility and want to know what toxins are being processed in your neighborhood, you have the legal right to that information. Start by searching the TRI database. Enter your ZIP code or the name of the facility. The database will show all reported chemicals, quantities, and releases for the past decade.
If data is missing or incomplete, file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the EPA and your state environmental agency. Ask for copies of all EPCRA reports, inspection records, and enforcement correspondence related to the facility.
If you want to organize your community, form a local environmental justice committee. Attend city council meetings and zoning hearings. Demand that your local government adopt stricter notification requirements and buffer zones for hazardous facilities. Push for community benefit agreements that require companies to fund health monitoring and emergency preparedness training.
If you are a worker at a chemical facility, talk to your union. If you do not have a union, talk to your coworkers about forming one. OSHA law protects your right to request Safety Data Sheets and to refuse unsafe work. EPCRA law gives you the right to see the toxic chemical reports your employer files with the government. If those reports are missing or inaccurate, you have the right to blow the whistle.
The Brenntag settlement proves that federal enforcement works, but it also proves that enforcement is reactive. The EPA only investigates after someone complains. Be the person who complains.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →
