PCB Enforcement: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Trenton, Tennessee, Light and Water Department Enter into Consent Agreement

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

Download PDF

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Trenton Light and Water Department (“TLW”) entered into a June 19th Consent Agreement and Final Order (“CAFO”) addressing alleged violations of certain federal Polychlorinated Biphenyls (“PCBs”) regulations. See Docket No. TSCA-04-2018-2902(b).

The PCB regulations were promulgated pursuant to Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act and are found in 40 C.F.R. Part 761.

The CAFO provides that TLW is a user of PCB Items operating in the State of Tennessee and is a “person” as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 761.3.

An EPA-authorized Toxic Substances Control Act inspector from the State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation is stated to have conducted a PCB Compliance Inspection at a TLW facility on or about February 28, 2017. The inspection is stated to have determined that the PCB Storage Building had a concrete floor and walls not continuous and without curbing. Further, the CAFO states that:

. . . In lieu of curbing, TLW utilizes a universal brand stock water tank for secondary containment of leaking PCB transformers. The tank is a “PCB Container” and/or a “PCB Article Container” as those terms are defined in 40 C.F.R. § 761.3. PCB Containers and PCB Article Containers are “PCB Items” as defined 3 by 40 C.F.R. § 761..

Certain provisions of the PCB regulations are stated to require that PCB Containers and PCB Article Containers be marked with the ML PCB mark as illustrated in 40 C.F.R. § 761.45(a). The position that the mark must be placed is specified by the regulations.

The CAFO provides that the PCB Container/PCB Article Container previously described “was not marked, nor was the wall above the tank, with a ML PCB mark.” As a result, the CAFO alleges that TLW violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 761.40(a)(1) and (9) and (h).

The CAFO states that TLW neither admits nor denies the factual allegations.

A civil penalty of $661 is assessed.

A copy of the CAFO can be downloaded here.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. on:

Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.