DuPont Settles Hazardous Waste Violations at Deepwater, New Jersey Facility
DuPont agreed to pay a $250,000 civil penalty in 2011 to resolve alleged hazardous waste violations at its Deepwater, New Jersey, wastewater treatment facility.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the agreement on December 16, 2011. In addition to the penalty, DuPont agreed to strengthen hazardous waste safeguards at the facility. (US EPA)
The case highlighted a larger environmental issue. Industrial hazardous waste does not disappear when companies ship it somewhere else. Instead, facilities must store, transport, treat, and track that material carefully.
DuPont Hazardous Waste: A Major East Coast Wastewater Facility
At the time, DuPont operated the Secured Environmental Treatment facility for hazardous waste in Deepwater under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, permit issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Moreover, this was no small operation.
The facility could treat as much as 40 million gallons of wastewater every day. According to EPA, it was then the largest RCRA-permitted wastewater treatment operation on the East Coast. (US EPA)
DuPont hazardous waste arrived by both truck and rail.
Therefore, proper storage and containment played a major role in protecting surrounding land and water from spills or accidental releases.
DuPont Hazardous Waste Railcars Raised Environmental Concerns
EPA’s investigation grew out of a separate enforcement matter involving GEO Specialty Chemicals.
GEO operated a production line in Franklin, Virginia. According to EPA, the company transported highly caustic waste slurry by rail from Virginia to DuPont’s Deepwater operation between 2001 and at least 2008.
However, some of those railcars reportedly remained on a siding outside the DuPont hazardous waste facility for as long as 45 days. (US EPA)
That created an important regulatory question.
Were those railcars simply transporting waste?
Or had they effectively become hazardous waste storage containers?
EPA alleged that the practice crossed the line into unpermitted hazardous waste storage.
EPA Alleged Several RCRA Violations from DuPont hazardous waste
The federal complaint identified several alleged violations of hazardous waste requirements.
First, EPA alleged that DuPont stored hazardous waste in railcars outside the permitted facility.
Additionally, regulators said some waste lacked adequate secondary containment. Secondary containment provides another protective barrier if a tank, container, or railcar leaks.
EPA also alleged that DuPont returned railcars to GEO’s Virginia facility without completely removing the hazardous waste inside them.
Finally, regulators raised concerns about information supplied during an EPA investigation. According to the complaint, DuPont inaccurately described how it emptied hazardous waste railcars or supplied a sample that EPA considered unrepresentative. (US EPA)
DuPont Agreed to Improve Hazardous Waste Safeguards
DuPont did not admit liability as part of the settlement.
Nevertheless, the company agreed to pay the $250,000 civil penalty.
More importantly from an environmental perspective, DuPont agreed to implement measures designed to prevent or reduce hazardous material leaks from railcars.
That matters because hazardous waste management depends heavily on prevention.
Once chemicals reach soil, groundwater, wetlands, or rivers, cleanup can become dramatically more difficult and expensive.
New Jersey Took Separate Enforcement Action
Federal regulators were not acting alone.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection also completed a separate enforcement action involving environmental violations at the Deepwater plant.
Under that agreement, DuPont agreed to pay a $725,000 penalty and improve procedures for handling hazardous substances. (US EPA)
Together, the state and federal actions put additional pressure on the company to improve environmental compliance at the sprawling industrial complex.
Deepwater’s Long Industrial History
The Deepwater industrial site has operated for well over a century.
EPA later described the broader Chambers Works complex as a 1,455-acre industrial property along the eastern shore of the Delaware River. Industrial activity there dates to 1892. Over the years, companies produced chemicals including dyes, refrigerants and other industrial materials at the site. (US EPA)
Consequently, environmental management at a property with such a long manufacturing history involves more than responding to one violation.
It requires continuous oversight.
It also requires companies to maintain equipment, follow permits, document hazardous materials, control emissions and protect surrounding waterways.
Why RCRA Enforcement Matters
Congress created RCRA to establish a system for managing hazardous waste from generation through final treatment or disposal.
In other words, companies must account for hazardous materials throughout their lifecycle.
That includes storage.
It includes transportation.
It includes treatment.
Most importantly, it includes preventing releases before they reach communities or the environment.
The Deepwater case showed why those rules matter.
Railcars filled with industrial chemicals cannot simply remain outside indefinitely without appropriate controls. Furthermore, regulators need accurate information when inspecting hazardous waste facilities.
Without those safeguards, a relatively small operational problem can become a much larger environmental cleanup.
DuPont Faced Other Environmental Actions
The Deepwater hazardous waste settlement was not DuPont’s only environmental enforcement case during this period.
For example, EPA and Delaware regulators announced another settlement in November 2011 involving water-quality violations at DuPont’s Edge Moor facility in Delaware. That agreement included a $500,000 penalty connected with permit and discharge violations. (US EPA)
Then, in 2015, EPA announced a $531,000 settlement involving alleged Clean Air Act violations at the Deepwater Chambers Works complex. (US EPA)
Therefore, the 2011 hazardous waste case fits into a broader history of regulatory scrutiny involving large chemical manufacturing operations.
Environmental Compliance Is Part of Sustainable Business
Companies often talk about sustainability through renewable energy, recycling, efficiency, or lower carbon emissions.
However, sustainability also starts with basic environmental compliance.
Hazardous chemicals must be handled correctly.
Wastewater must be treated properly.
Storage systems need safeguards.
Moreover, companies need to provide regulators with accurate information.
Those responsibilities may not receive the same attention as solar panels or electric vehicles. Yet they remain fundamental to protecting public health and the environment.
Conclusion
The 2011 DuPont Deepwater settlement sent a straightforward message.
Industrial companies must properly manage hazardous waste from the moment it arrives until treatment or disposal is complete.
DuPont paid a $250,000 federal penalty and agreed to strengthen safeguards at its New Jersey facility. Meanwhile, a separate state action added another $725,000 penalty and required additional hazardous-material handling improvements. (US EPA)
Ultimately, preventing pollution costs far less than cleaning it up later.
And for a facility capable of treating tens of millions of gallons of wastewater every day, strong environmental controls are not optional.
They are essential.
PHILADELPHIA (December 16, 2011)
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW · Washington DC 20460 · 202-564-4355
For more details on the New Jersey consent agreement, visit: http://www.nj.gov/dep/docs/dupont_aco.pdf
For more information about hazardous waste and RCRA, visit http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/index.htm
