EPA Alleged Five Hazardous Waste Failures at Chemours. The Penalty Was $9,508

What the settlement says

• EPA resolved five alleged violations involving universal waste lamps, unpermitted drum storage, inspection records, and hazardous waste training documentation.
• The first two counts came from the same container: inspectors reported that it was open and lacked an approved waste-lamp label.
• EPA alleged that two 55-gallon drums, one containing hazardous waste and one containing solid waste, were stored in a part of the VAZO area where the permit prohibited them.
• Chemours could not provide weekly inspection records for four specified weeks between October 2021 and August 2023.
• The company also lacked documentation showing the required 2021 annual hazardous waste training review for six facility personnel.
• Chemours consented to a $9,508 civil penalty and certified that it was currently in compliance concerning the alleged violations.

The order documents failures in basic control layers, but it does not identify a release, exposure, injury, or environmental cleanup resulting from them.

On August 14, 2024, EPA inspectors reported finding used electric lamps sitting in an open container at Chemours’ chemical intermediates manufacturing facility in Belle. Lamps were not being added or removed when inspectors observed it, according to the settlement. The same container had no approved wording identifying its contents as used or waste lamps.

Elsewhere in the facility, inspectors found two 55-gallon drums in the VAZO hazardous waste storage area. One held hazardous waste and the other held solid waste. EPA alleged that neither belonged among the narrowly defined wastes the facility’s permit allowed in that unit.

The inspection also extended into the records behind the physical controls. EPA said Chemours failed to maintain inspection records for four weeks and lacked required documentation of annual refresher training for six workers whose positions involved hazardous waste management.

Why an open lamp container became an enforcement count

Used lamps fall under universal waste rules, a regulatory system for certain commonly generated hazardous wastes. The rules are less extensive than the full hazardous waste regime, but they still require safe containment and clear identification.

The settlement describes Chemours as a small quantity handler of universal waste lamps. That status required structurally sound packaging designed to prevent breakage. Containers also had to stay closed and show no damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions.

EPA said the open container violated that requirement. The agency brought a separate count because the container was not marked with one of the permitted descriptions for universal waste, used, or waste lamps.

The agreement does not state how many lamps were in the container, what kind they were, whether any were broken, or whether anything leaked. It also notes that the container was outside the areas governed by the facility’s 2024 RCRA permit. That did not remove it from regulation. West Virginia’s universal waste rules still applied.

Five counts, but not five separate incidents

The enforcement action combined physical storage issues with record-keeping failures. Two counts arose from one lamp container, while the other three addressed drums and documentation.

Inspection logs are part of the safety system

The missing paperwork was not merely administrative in the permit’s design. Chemours’ inspection schedule called for weekly reviews of the VAZO waste area. The permit required the company to look for malfunctions, deterioration, operator errors, and discharges that could release hazardous waste constituents or threaten human health.

Records make those checks auditable. Without them, regulators cannot readily verify what was examined, what conditions were found, or whether corrective work followed. In this case, the agreement says Chemours failed to maintain weekly records for four periods. It does not connect those missing records to a documented release or injury.

The training records served a similar verification role. Facility personnel in hazardous waste positions were required to review their initial training annually, while the company had to retain the documentation. EPA’s case establishes an alleged documentation failure for six people. The supplied record does not say that any worker mishandled waste because of inadequate training.

From inspection to final order

What Chemours agreed to, and what it did not admit

Chemours admitted EPA’s jurisdiction for the proceeding but neither admitted nor denied the specific factual allegations. It agreed not to contest jurisdiction, waived its right to contest the allegations or appeal the final order, and consented to the penalty.

The $9,508 payment was due within 30 days of the September 28, 2026 effective date. The agreement states that EPA considered the statutory penalty factors, but it does not provide a count-by-count calculation explaining how the agency reached that amount.

Chemours also certified, based on personal investigation and to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it was currently in compliance regarding the alleged violations. The supplied order does not describe a separate cleanup project, independent monitoring program, or quantified remediation requirement.

The settlement resolves only EPA’s civil penalty claims for the five specified violations. It does not relieve Chemours of other legal obligations, and EPA reserved its authority to address other conditions or enforce the settlement.

What the public record does not establish

• It does not identify any release, spill, broken lamp, worker exposure, off-site contamination, injury, or environmental cleanup associated with the cited conditions.
• It does not specify the number or type of lamps in the open container.
• It does not identify the contents of the drums beyond describing one as hazardous waste and the other as solid waste.
• It does not establish that the six personnel missed training. It establishes an alleged failure to maintain documentation of the required review.
• It does not itemize how much of the $9,508 penalty corresponded to each count.

Hazardous waste controls often look ordinary: a closed container, a readable label, the correct storage location, a signed inspection log, a retained training record. EPA’s final order documents alleged breakdowns across each of those layers at Belle. It also leaves an important boundary intact: the settlement establishes a payment obligation and closes the listed civil penalty claims, but it does not document that those failures caused a release or harmed anyone.