EPA enforcement results for 2013 showed how federal environmental enforcement focused on large violations with direct effects on public health, water and air quality.
The agency highlighted major settlements, cleanup commitments and penalties tied to hazardous waste, refinery emissions, sewage discharges and Superfund contamination.
EPA Enforcement Results for 2013 Focused on High-Impact Violations
EPA Enforcement Results 2013: Billions in Penalties Target Major Polluters
WASHINGTON — February 7, 2014 — Environmental laws only matter when someone enforces them.
That was the message behind the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s fiscal year 2013 enforcement and compliance results. The EPA said it focused its resources on violations that posed some of the greatest risks to public health and the environment.
Rather than simply counting enforcement actions, the agency emphasized major cases involving air pollution, hazardous waste, contaminated water and industrial pollution.
As a result, several cases produced billions of dollars in penalties, restitution, environmental projects and cleanup commitments.
Billions of Dollars From Environmental Enforcement Actions for 2013
EPA enforcement actions during fiscal year 2013 produced substantial financial consequences.
Criminal cases resulted in more than $4.5 billion in fines, restitution and court-ordered environmental projects, according to the agency. Meanwhile, civil enforcement actions generated more than $1.1 billion in penalties.
Those numbers tell only part of the story.
Enforcement can also force companies to change operating practices, install pollution controls and clean contaminated property. Therefore, the environmental impact can continue long after a settlement gets signed.
Deepwater Horizon Remained a Major Focus
The Deepwater Horizon disaster remained one of the largest environmental enforcement efforts facing the federal government.
EPA reported that enforcement connected with the disaster resulted in more than $3.7 billion directed toward Gulf Coast states and communities affected by the spill.
That money mattered because the environmental damage stretched far beyond the original accident. Coastal ecosystems, wildlife, fisheries and local economies all faced consequences.
Moreover, the case demonstrated the enormous financial liability that can follow a major industrial environmental disaster.
Walmart Case Changed Hazardous Waste Practices
Another major enforcement action involved Walmart.
The company agreed to strengthen hazardous-waste management systems and expand compliance and employee-training programs. In addition, Walmart paid more than $80 million in fines and penalties related to allegations involving improper handling of pesticides and hazardous waste.
The significance went beyond one company or one location.
Because Walmart operated thousands of stores, stronger waste-management procedures had the potential to influence environmental practices across a massive national retail network.
Cleaning Up Toxic Pollution
EPA also targeted contaminated industrial sites.
One of the largest examples involved AVX Corporation and New Bedford Harbor in Massachusetts. Under a landmark settlement, AVX committed more than $366 million toward cleaning contamination in the harbor.
At the time, EPA described it as the largest single-site cash settlement in Superfund history.
Consequently, the case showed another important side of environmental enforcement. Penalties can punish violations. However, cleanup agreements can directly address pollution that communities may have lived with for decades.
Cutting Toxic Air Pollution
Air pollution remained another major enforcement priority.
EPA pursued refineries and chemical plants over emissions from industrial flares and other operations. Those settlements required companies to install or improve pollution-control technology.
For example, a Clean Air Act settlement involving Shell’s Deer Park facility in Texas required continuous monitoring for benzene. The agreement also included vehicle retrofits designed to reduce diesel emissions.
That matters because benzene is a hazardous air pollutant linked to serious health risks.
Meanwhile, better monitoring can help regulators and communities understand what industrial facilities are actually releasing into surrounding air.
Reducing Pollution From Coal-Fired Power Plants
Coal-fired electricity generation also received significant attention.
EPA settlements required several power companies to reduce harmful emissions and undertake environmental mitigation projects. Some projects promoted energy efficiency, while others targeted local air-quality improvements.
Cases included facilities associated with Wisconsin Power and Light, Dominion Energy and Louisiana Generating.
These actions reflected a broader reality. Power plants can operate for decades. Therefore, pollution-control improvements at a single large facility can influence emissions for years.
Tackling Sewage and Stormwater Pollution
EPA enforcement did not stop with factories and power plants.
Cities also faced pressure to address raw sewage and contaminated stormwater entering rivers, streams and other waterways.
Instead of relying exclusively on conventional infrastructure, some settlements encouraged integrated planning and green infrastructure. Those approaches can include rain gardens, permeable surfaces, improved drainage systems and other methods that keep stormwater from overwhelming sewer networks.
Settlements involving Seattle and King County, Washington, and Wyandotte County, Kansas, included measures aimed at communities heavily affected by sewage discharges. Additional agreements involved San Antonio, Texas, and Jackson, Mississippi.
Better stormwater management can deliver benefits beyond cleaner water. Green infrastructure can reduce flooding, improve neighborhoods and help cities manage increasingly intense rainfall.
Environmental Enforcement Creates Accountability
EPA’s 2013 results demonstrated why enforcement remains an essential part of environmental policy.
Writing environmental standards is only the beginning.
Companies and governments must also follow them. When violations occur, regulators need the ability to investigate, require corrective action and impose consequences.
Furthermore, effective enforcement can create a more level playing field. Businesses investing in pollution controls should not have to compete against companies cutting costs by ignoring environmental requirements.
Conclusion: EPA Enforcement Gives Environmental Rules Meaning
Environmental rules have limited value without enforcement.
EPA’s fiscal year 2013 cases showed how enforcement could produce several results at once. Polluters paid penalties. Contaminated areas received cleanup funding. Industrial facilities installed pollution controls. Meanwhile, communities received resources to address environmental damage.
Most importantly, these cases demonstrated that environmental enforcement isn’t only about collecting fines.
It is about reducing pollution at its source, restoring damaged communities and making companies responsible for the environmental consequences of their operations.
Source
U.S. EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 7, 2014
