Skip to content

EPA To Boost Air Enforcement at Scrap Metal Recycling Facilities

August 18, 2021

The expectation that the Biden Administration would ramp up environmental enforcement has quickly been realized in the scrap metal handling industry.

EPA Publishes Enforcement Alert and Takes New Enforcement Actions Against Scrap Metal Shredders/Recyclers

In late July, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an Enforcement Alert identifying emission violations at facilities that shred cars and appliances. There are more than 250 metal shredding operations across the country, and both EPA and state agencies have found emission violations at several of these facilities, many of which are located “in densely populated areas” which “can have an impact on overburdened communities.”

The Alert notifies scrap shredder facility operators of Clean Air Act permitting requirements that may apply, depending on the level of emissions of VOC’s and other pollutants being emitted from the facility. Shredder operators should be aware that VOC’s (or other regulated New Source Review [NSR] pollutant thresholds) may exceed permitting limits and require the installation of emissions controls.

What Does the Alert Recommend?

Although metal recyclers are typically not major industrial facilities, they are often located in scrap yards, which use very large engines to shred automobiles. Those engines emit VOCs. In addition, older cars contain mercury switches, which can emit hazardous air pollutants. EPA’s Alert recommends that scrap metal facility operators “depollute” materials such as gasoline, oil, and other liquids (such as devices that contain mercury) from vehicles before they enter the shredder, accurately estimate VOC emissions and if near major source thresholds, conduct a performance test to measure actual emission levels. If the actual emissions are over major source thresholds, the facility must obtain appropriate permits.

What does this mean for Scrap Metal Shredder owners and operators?

Failure to comply with air permitting regulations is a violation of the Clean Air Act and would subject a facility to enforcement by the state and by EPA and require them to fulfill air permitting requirements as soon as practicable. This could also entail payment of substantial penalties, as states and EPA have already brought actions under this enforcement initiative. For example, a Rhode Island facility was assessed a $2 million state penalty and a $250,000 federal penalty. A New England Company was found to be a major source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and required to install the best available control technology (BACT) for VOCs as well as controls for particulate matter (PM) and acid gas scrubbers. The company entered into a settlement with the state and paid $900,000 in penalties. In addition, an Oakland, CA facility settled a state action by payment of a $4.1 million penalty and agreed to make significant changes to its operations.

If you have any questions about air permitting requirements and compliance with air permitting regulations, please contact us to discuss your specific needs.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Event

Clark Hill's 2026 Annual Healthcare Industry Symposium

Join Clark Hill’s Healthcare industry attorneys for a complimentary dinner and program focusing on the latest challenges and top trends in the healthcare industry. There will be plenty of time to catch up with old friends and make new connections before and after the presentations.

Explore more
Legal Updates

A Deep-Dive into the EU Deforestation Regulation: Implications for U.S. Businesses

Further delays and simplification measures related to the EU Deforestation Regulation 2023/1115 (“EUDR”) are once again imminent, following a provisional political agreement on targeted revisions reached between the European Council and European Parliament on Dec. 4, 2025.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Poteat v. Asteak: Pennsylvania Court Effectively Extends the Statute of Limitations for Legal Malpractice Claims

On Dec. 11th, the Superior Court released its long-awaited opinion in Poteat v. Asteak regarding the applicability of the gist of the action doctrine in legal malpractice matters, holding it does not apply and essentially rendering the two-year statute of limitations for such claims obsolete. In a short opinion, the Majority found that the retention of an attorney creates an “implied contractual provision requiring a lawyer to provide competent legal services” irrespective of any actual contractual provision promising to do so. The Majority therefore concluded the plaintiff’s claim that would have otherwise been barred by the statute of limitations applicable to torts can proceed as a breach of contract action.

Explore more