Air Pollution Beyond Permit Prosecutions
1. United States v. Duke Energy Corporation (2007)
Background:
Duke Energy, a large utility company, operated coal-fired power plants in multiple states. Investigations revealed that the company had made major modifications to plants without obtaining the required Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits under the Clean Air Act. Essentially, Duke was emitting pollutants beyond its permit limits, including sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
Legal Proceedings:
EPA and the Department of Justice filed civil and criminal charges.
Duke Energy was charged under the Clean Air Act Sections 113 and 7413, which prohibit emissions beyond permit levels.
Outcome:
Duke Energy agreed to pay $102 million in fines and penalties.
Required to implement upgraded pollution control technology across multiple plants.
The case set a precedent showing that failure to obtain proper permits or exceed emission limits can result in both civil penalties and mandatory operational changes.
2. United States v. BP Products North America (2009)
Background:
BP’s refinery in Texas City, Texas, exceeded permitted emission limits for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sulfur compounds over several years. Investigations showed that BP had failed to monitor emissions properly and did not comply with air permits.
Legal Proceedings:
BP was prosecuted under the Clean Air Act for operating in violation of its air pollution permit.
Both civil and criminal liability were pursued due to willful negligence in reporting and controlling emissions.
Outcome:
BP agreed to pay $50 million in civil penalties.
Required to implement fugitive emission monitoring systems.
This case emphasized that even large corporations cannot bypass reporting and monitoring requirements in permits.
3. United States v. Volkswagen AG (2016 – Dieselgate)
Background:
Volkswagen installed “defeat devices” in diesel vehicles to falsely report emissions. Vehicles appeared to meet Clean Air Act emission standards, but in reality, they emitted up to 40 times the permitted NOx limits during normal driving.
Legal Proceedings:
Criminal and civil charges were filed under the Clean Air Act for emission standard violations.
Allegations included fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of environmental law enforcement.
Outcome:
Volkswagen paid over $25 billion in fines, penalties, and compensation globally.
Several executives faced criminal prosecution.
The case illustrated that intentional evasion of permit limits can trigger massive civil and criminal consequences.
4. United States v. Marathon Petroleum Corporation (2018)
Background:
Marathon’s refinery in Texas was found to have emitted pollutants beyond permitted levels, particularly sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, during startup and shutdown operations.
Investigations revealed inadequate emission control practices and failure to notify regulators.
Legal Proceedings:
The case was filed under Clean Air Act Section 113 for violating permit limits.
Marathon faced both civil and administrative enforcement actions.
Outcome:
Marathon agreed to pay $1.5 million in fines.
Required to upgrade monitoring equipment and report emissions more frequently.
This case highlighted that even temporary exceedances (startup/shutdown events) can trigger enforcement if beyond permit limits.
5. United States v. Hyundai America Shipping Lines (2014)
Background:
Hyundai operated a shipping terminal with industrial boilers. EPA found that the boilers emitted particulate matter and NOx beyond permitted levels due to outdated control systems.
Legal Proceedings:
Charges were filed under CAA Section 113 for exceeding permit limits and failure to comply with Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) requirements.
Outcome:
Hyundai paid $2.5 million in penalties.
Required to install upgraded emission control technology.
Case reinforced that industries across sectors—not just energy—are liable for violating air pollution permits.
6. United States v. ExxonMobil (2019)
Background:
ExxonMobil’s Texas refinery was found to have released excess emissions of hydrogen sulfide and VOCs, violating its operating permit. Investigations showed that the company failed to maintain pollution control equipment properly, causing repeated exceedances.
Legal Proceedings:
Civil enforcement under the Clean Air Act Section 113 was initiated.
EPA demanded both fines and corrective action.
Outcome:
ExxonMobil agreed to $2 million in civil penalties.
Required extensive equipment upgrades and annual compliance audits.
Demonstrated that long-term negligence or lack of maintenance can constitute permit violations.
Key Takeaways Across Cases:
Civil and Criminal Liability: Companies can face civil fines, criminal charges, or both if they exceed permit limits.
Technology Upgrades Are Often Mandatory: Courts often require installing pollution control systems.
Monitoring & Reporting Are Crucial: Failure to maintain proper monitoring systems or submit reports can trigger prosecutions.
Any Industry Can Be Targeted: Utilities, refineries, shipping, and manufacturing sectors all face enforcement.
Intent Matters but Is Not Always Required: Even accidental exceedances, if persistent or negligent, can result in penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments