Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement Cases
1. United States v. ExxonMobil (2013) – Clean Air Act Violation
Overview:
ExxonMobil was prosecuted for violating the Clean Air Act (CAA) by failing to properly monitor and report emissions from its refinery in Torrance, California.
Facts:
The EPA found that ExxonMobil’s refinery emitted excess pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which exceeded permit limits.
The company failed to implement adequate monitoring and reporting procedures as required under the Clean Air Act.
Outcome & Case Law:
ExxonMobil agreed to pay $2 million in civil penalties and implement strict compliance programs.
The case reinforced the EPA’s authority under CAA Section 113 to impose penalties for failure to comply with emissions standards.
Significance:
Emphasized the importance of proper emissions monitoring.
Highlighted EPA’s proactive approach in holding corporations accountable for air pollution.
2. United States v. BP America, Inc. (2005) – Clean Water Act Violation
Overview:
BP was prosecuted for violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) related to oil discharges at its refinery in Texas City.
Facts:
The refinery released crude oil into the nearby waterways, violating permit limits.
Investigation revealed systemic failures in maintenance and reporting.
Outcome & Case Law:
BP paid $20 million in penalties and undertook corrective measures, including upgrading containment systems.
Legal precedent cited: CWA Section 301, prohibiting the discharge of pollutants without a permit.
Significance:
Strengthened EPA enforcement on oil spills and water contamination.
Demonstrated that corporate negligence can lead to heavy civil and administrative penalties.
3. United States v. DuPont (2001) – Toxic Substances Control Act Violation
Overview:
DuPont faced prosecution under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for improper handling and disposal of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical linked to health hazards.
Facts:
The company knowingly released PFOA into the environment without proper reporting.
The chemical posed long-term risks to local water supplies and communities.
Outcome & Case Law:
DuPont agreed to a $16.5 million settlement to fund environmental remediation and improve compliance.
Cited under TSCA Section 15(b), which requires reporting and record-keeping for toxic chemicals.
Significance:
First major EPA enforcement against PFOA contamination.
Demonstrated EPA’s authority to enforce TSCA on emerging chemical hazards.
4. United States v. General Electric (GE) – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Violation (RCRA)
Overview:
GE faced penalties under RCRA for improper disposal of hazardous waste at its facilities in New York and Pennsylvania.
Facts:
The company stored PCBs and other hazardous waste in unlined lagoons.
EPA inspections found leaks contaminating soil and groundwater.
Outcome & Case Law:
GE paid over $10 million in fines and was required to clean up contaminated sites under RCRA Section 7003.
Legal principle: Companies are strictly liable for proper management and disposal of hazardous waste.
Significance:
Reinforced RCRA’s role in preventing hazardous waste contamination.
Set precedent for corporate accountability in waste handling.
5. United States v. Volkswagen AG (2016) – Clean Air Act Fraud Case
Overview:
Volkswagen was prosecuted for installing defeat devices to bypass emissions tests on diesel engines.
Facts:
VW diesel vehicles emitted nitrogen oxides (NOx) far above legal limits.
The defeat devices allowed cars to pass EPA emissions tests while polluting in real-world driving.
Outcome & Case Law:
VW agreed to a $2.8 billion criminal fine, civil penalties, and a buyback program for affected vehicles.
Cited under CAA Section 203(a) and criminal provisions for making false statements to the EPA.
Significance:
One of the largest environmental enforcement cases in U.S. history.
Highlighted EPA’s capacity to pursue both civil and criminal remedies.
6. United States v. Southern California Edison (SCE) – Endangered Species Act Violation
Overview:
SCE was prosecuted for damaging habitats of endangered species during power line construction.
Facts:
Construction activities destroyed nesting sites of endangered birds.
Violated provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1538.
Outcome & Case Law:
SCE paid $2 million in fines and funded habitat restoration projects.
EPA coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure compliance.
Significance:
Reinforced ESA protections against industrial activities.
Demonstrated cross-agency cooperation in environmental enforcement.
7. United States v. Chevron (2011) – Clean Water Act and Oil Spill
Overview:
Chevron was prosecuted for violating the CWA after an oil spill in Richmond, California.
Facts:
An estimated 2,500 gallons of crude oil leaked from a Chevron refinery.
Investigation revealed equipment failures and lack of proper oversight.
Outcome & Case Law:
Chevron paid $1.5 million in penalties and improved monitoring systems.
Case cited CWA Section 311, governing oil spill prevention and cleanup.
Significance:
Reinforced corporate responsibility for preventing oil spills.
Showed EPA’s readiness to penalize even minor but preventable releases.
✅ Key Takeaways from EPA Enforcement Cases
Civil & Criminal Liability: Companies can face both civil fines and criminal prosecution depending on the violation’s severity.
Regulatory Frameworks Used: Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), RCRA, TSCA, and ESA are frequently invoked.
Corporate Accountability: EPA prosecutions emphasize strict monitoring, reporting, and remediation responsibilities.
Environmental Justice Impact: Many cases target pollutants affecting local communities, reinforcing EPA’s public health mandate.
RELATED Blog
comments