“At the time of the CEI, Respondent failed to prepare or make available to the inspector any records of its TRI chemical activities for calendar years 2019-2021, other than for certain glycol ethers, despite hundreds of raw materials being processed, and having historically been processed, at the Facility.”

💡 This statement confirms the company had no documentation for the vast majority of chemicals it processed, preventing any verification of compliance with reporting requirements.

“At the time of the CEI, Respondent violated 40 C.F.R. § 372.10(a)(3)(ii) and 40 C.F.R. § 372.10(c), because it could not present, and therefore failed to retain for a period of 3 years from the date of the submission of its 2019 report under § 372.30, any records supporting a determination of whether a threshold under § 372.25 applies for each toxic chemical processed at the Facility.”

💡 The EPA explicitly found the company violated specific recordkeeping regulations that require three years of documentation for every toxic chemical threshold determination.

“At the time of the CEI, Respondent failed to prepare or make available to the inspector any records or data supporting applicability of the alternate threshold as specified under § 372.27(a) and, thereby, the eligibility of its 2019 submission of Form A for certain glycol ethers, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 372.10(d)(2)-(3).”

💡 Even for the one chemical category the company did report, it failed to maintain proof that it qualified to use the simplified reporting method it chose.

“Respondent processed more than 25,000 pounds of glycol ethers at the Facility during each of calendar year 2019 through 2021.”

💡 This confirms the facility processed substantial quantities of toxic chemicals that trigger federal reporting requirements designed to protect public health.

“Glycol ethers is a ‘toxic chemical’ as defined in EPCRA §§ 313(c) and 329(10), 42 U.S.C. §§ 11023(c) and 11049(10), 40 C.F.R. § 372.3, and listed as a ‘toxic chemical’ category in 40 C.F.R. § 372.65(c).”

💡 Federal law specifically classifies the primary chemical the company processed as toxic, underscoring the public health importance of accurate reporting and recordkeeping.

“EPCRA Section 313(a), 42 U.S.C. § 11023(a), requires the owner or operator of any facility that, in any calendar year, manufactures, processes or otherwise uses a toxic chemical listed under EPCRA Section 313(c), 42 U.S.C. § 11023(c), in quantities exceeding a regulatory threshold established under EPCRA Section 313(f), 42 U.S.C. § 11023(f), to complete and submit a toxic chemical release inventory report (i.e., ‘Form R’ or ‘Form A’) for each such listed toxic chemical.”

💡 This establishes that the reporting requirements exist specifically to inform communities about toxic chemical processing that could affect their health and safety.

“The civil penalty is based upon EPA’s consideration of a number of factors, including the penalty criteria (‘statutory factors’) set forth in EPCRA § 325(b)(l)(C), 42 U.S.C.§ 11045(b)(l)(C), which include the seriousness of the violation and any good faith efforts to comply with the applicable requirements.”

💡 Despite considering seriousness of violations and compliance efforts, the EPA assessed a penalty of less than $12,000 for three years of systematic recordkeeping failures.

“Except as provided in Paragraph 5, above, Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations set forth in this Consent Agreement.”

💡 The settlement allowed the company to resolve six violation counts without admitting the underlying facts, protecting its public reputation despite documented failures.

“For purposes of this proceeding only, Respondent hereby expressly waives its right to contest the allegations set forth in this Consent Agreement and Final Order and waives its right to appeal the accompanying Final Order.”

💡 The company agreed to accept the penalty without any judicial review, avoiding the public scrutiny of a contested hearing or appeals process.

“Respondent certifies to EPA, upon personal investigation and to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it currently is in compliance with regard to the violations alleged in this Consent Agreement.”

💡 The company only certified current compliance without providing evidence of systematic reforms or explaining how it corrected the recordkeeping failures that lasted three years.

“This Consent Agreement and Final Order resolves only EPA’s claims for civil penalties for the specific violations alleged against Respondent in this Consent Agreement and Final Order. EPA reserves the right to commence action against any person, including Respondent, in response to any condition which EPA determines may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, public welfare, or the environment.”

💡 While EPA reserved rights to pursue future violations, the settlement imposed no ongoing monitoring or reporting requirements to prevent recurrence of recordkeeping failures.

“Respondent agrees not to deduct for federal tax purposes the civil penalty assessed in this Consent Agreement and Final Order.”

💡 This provision prevents the company from treating the penalty as a deductible business expense, but the small penalty amount minimizes the impact of this restriction.

“During calendar years 2019 through 2021, the Facility had an SIC code of 2842, corresponding to Specialty Cleaning, Polishing, and Sanitation Preparations.”

💡 The facility’s industrial classification places it squarely within categories required to report toxic chemical usage due to the nature of chemical processing involved in cleaning product manufacturing.

“Respondent is a corporation formed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is a person as defined in Section 329(7) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11049(7).”

💡 The company’s corporate status means it has legal obligations as a person under environmental law and can be held accountable for violations.

“By signing this Consent Agreement, Respondent acknowledges that this Consent Agreement and Final Order will be available to the public and represents that, to the best of Respondent’s knowledge and belief, this Consent Agreement and Final Order does not contain any confidential business information or personally identifiable information from Respondent.”

💡 The settlement is public record, but the agreement contains no requirement for the company to proactively notify affected communities about the violations or corrective actions.