Administrative penalties under Toxic Substances Control Act
Overview: Administrative Penalties under TSCA
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), enacted in 1976, empowers the EPA to regulate the manufacture, import, processing, distribution, use, and disposal of chemical substances. Enforcement is a key part of TSCA, and the EPA can impose administrative penalties for violations.
Key Points on Penalties under TSCA:
Civil administrative penalties for violations of TSCA can be substantial.
Penalties can be issued without court litigation through administrative proceedings.
EPA has authority to seek injunctions, assess fines, and demand compliance.
Penalties cover violations like failure to submit required notices (e.g., pre-manufacture notices), failure to comply with TSCA orders, or illegal handling of chemical substances.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016) amended TSCA and strengthened EPA’s enforcement tools.
Statutory Authority for Administrative Penalties
Section 16 of TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2615) authorizes EPA to impose civil penalties up to $37,500 per day per violation (adjusted for inflation).
EPA may issue administrative orders and impose fines for violations without court involvement.
Right to a hearing and judicial review is available for parties contesting penalties.
Key Case Law on Administrative Penalties under TSCA
1. EPA v. Chevron Chemical Co., 1992
Facts: EPA issued administrative penalties for TSCA violations related to failure to report chemical substances.
Issue: Whether EPA’s assessment of penalties was proper and whether procedural safeguards were followed.
Ruling: The court upheld EPA’s authority to impose administrative penalties and emphasized the need for EPA to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.
Significance: Confirms EPA’s power to impose penalties administratively and due process rights under TSCA enforcement.
2. In re Lonza, Inc., EPA Administrative Law Judge (2019)
Facts: Lonza was cited for failure to comply with TSCA reporting requirements regarding chemical imports.
Issue: Whether failure to report justified the penalty and the appropriateness of penalty amount.
Ruling: The ALJ upheld EPA’s penalty, finding the violation serious due to potential risks and Lonza’s prior history.
Significance: Demonstrates EPA’s strict enforcement on reporting obligations and the consideration of past compliance in penalty assessment.
3. In re Pine Chemicals Co., EPA ALJ Decision (2014)
Facts: Pine Chemicals failed to comply with TSCA inventory update reporting requirements.
Issue: Whether failure to report as required by TSCA warrants administrative penalty.
Ruling: ALJ found for EPA, imposing civil penalties based on the violation’s nature and duration.
Significance: Reinforces EPA’s enforcement authority on inventory and reporting obligations under TSCA.
4. EPA v. Arkema, Inc. (2012)
Facts: EPA issued penalties for Arkema’s noncompliance with TSCA chemical testing rules.
Issue: Validity of administrative penalties and compliance order enforcement.
Ruling: The court affirmed EPA’s enforcement authority, including administrative penalties without prior judicial proceedings.
Significance: Confirms EPA’s use of administrative penalties as an effective enforcement tool.
5. In re Evonik Corporation, EPA ALJ Docket (2021)
Facts: Evonik was penalized for failure to comply with TSCA’s chemical risk evaluation requirements.
Issue: Whether EPA properly calculated the penalty and followed administrative procedures.
Ruling: EPA’s penalty was upheld, with emphasis on the importance of compliance to protect health and environment.
Significance: Highlights EPA’s post-Lautenberg focus on enforcement of chemical safety evaluations.
Summary Table of Administrative Penalty Themes
| Case | Issue Addressed | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|
| EPA v. Chevron Chemical | Authority to impose penalties | EPA’s administrative penalty authority upheld, due process emphasized |
| In re Lonza, Inc. | Reporting violation, penalty amount | Penalties upheld, considering violation severity and history |
| In re Pine Chemicals Co. | Inventory update reporting violation | Penalties affirmed for failure to report |
| EPA v. Arkema, Inc. | Enforcement of testing rules | EPA’s administrative enforcement power confirmed |
| In re Evonik Corporation | Chemical risk evaluation compliance | Penalty upheld, showing EPA’s strengthened enforcement post-2016 amendments |
Practical Enforcement Points
EPA’s administrative penalties under TSCA are a critical enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance.
Penalties often depend on violation seriousness, duration, prior history, and cooperation.
Respondents have rights to hearings and judicial review but EPA’s initial administrative power is broad.
Post-2016 amendments have expanded EPA’s enforcement capabilities, signaling stricter oversight of chemical safety.
RELATED Blog
0 comments