Hampford Research, Inc. (Board decision, July 10, 2015)

In re Hampford Research, Inc. (EAB TSCA Appeal No. 15-03C): $57,474 penalty paid and matter resolved

Decision type
Board decision
Dockets
TSCA 15-03C, TSCA-HQ-2015-5013, TSCA-HQ-2014-5013
Decided
July 10, 2015
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-21

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 2015, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2015
The EPA regulations may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Board or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final EAB decision
This Environmental Appeals Board Final Order is a final disposition of the enforcement proceeding. After Hampford Research, Inc. paid the $57,474 penalty proposed in EPA’s complaint, the Board resolved the matter under 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(a)(3). The full text below is the official EPA release, transcribed from a scanned PDF with OCR proofreading.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official EPA EAB release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: EPA EAB released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (epa.gov)

Plain-English summary

Hampford Research, Inc. of Stratford, Connecticut faced an EPA Toxic Substances Control Act enforcement complaint. EPA alleged that the company failed on nearly two dozen occasions from 2011 to 2014 to comply with TSCA requirements and implementing regulations. The complaint sought a $57,474 penalty. Hampford paid the proposed penalty in full, waiving its rights to contest the allegations and appeal the Final Order. The Environmental Appeals Board issued the Final Order under 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(a)(3) to resolve the matter civilly for the facts and violations alleged in the complaint.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authorities: 15 U.S.C. §§ 2604(a)(1)(A), 2604(h), 2614(1)(B), 2614(1)(C), and 2614(3)(B); 40 C.F.R. §§ 22.18(a)(1), 22.18(a)(3), 720.78(b), 723.50(e), and 723.250(j)
  • Outcome: Hampford paid the proposed $57,474 penalty, and the Board issued a Final Order resolving the matter.
  • Key point: Payment of the proposed penalty under the EPA’s quick-resolution rule resolved the enforcement proceeding and waived the respondent’s right to contest the allegations or appeal.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

              BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON, D.C.

In re: )
)
) Appeal No. TSCA-15-03C
Hampford Research, Inc. )
)
Docket No. TSCA-HQ-2014-5013 )

                                     FINAL ORDER

     On June 25, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Civil

Enforcement, Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division, filed a complaint against Hampford Research, Inc. ("HRI") of Stratford, Connecticut. The complaint alleged that on nearly two dozen occasions in 2011 to 2014, HRI failed to comply with subsections 5(a)(1)(A) and 5(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), 15 U.S.C. § 2604(a)(1)(A), (h), and with regulations implementing those subsections at 40 C.F.R. §§ 720.78(b), 723.50(e), and 723.250(j), in violation of TSCA § 15(1)(B), (1)(C), and 3(B), 15 U.S.C. § 2614(1)(B), (1)(C), (3)(B). The complaint sought a penalty of $57,474.

     Under the Consolidated Rules of Practice that govern this administrative enforcement

proceeding, a respondent may opt for a “quick resolution” of an enforcement proceeding at any time by paying the penalty proposed in the complaint. 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(a)(1). The rules further provide that, in cases initiated at EPA Headquarters (such as this one), and upon payment in full of the proposed penalty, the Environmental Appeals Board ("Board") shall issue a final order to resolve the matter. Id. § 22.18(a)(3).

     On July 7, 2015, EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement informed the Board that it had

received full payment of the penalty ($57,474) from HRI to resolve the above-captioned matter.

Such payment by HRI constitutes a waiver of HRI’s rights to contest the allegations in the complaint and to appeal this Final Order. See id.

   In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(a)(3), the Board hereby issues this Final Order

resolving the above-captioned matter civilly for the facts and violations alleged in the complaint.

   So ordered.¹


                         Date: 7/10/2015             By: [illegible]
                                                           Mary Beth Ward
                                                 Judge, Environmental Appeals Board


   ¹
    The three-member panel that decided this matter is composed of Environmental Appeals

Judges Mary Kay Lynch, Kathie A. Stein, and Mary Beth Ward.

                                            -2-

                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Final Order in In re Hampford Research,

Inc., TSCA Appeal No. 15-03C, were sent to the following persons in the manners indicated:

By First Class U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested:

Kate Hampford Donahue, President
Hampford Research, Inc.
54 Veterans Boulevard
Stratford, Connecticut 06615

By Facsimile and EPA Pouch Mail:

Geraldine Gardner, Esq.
Office of Civil Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Mail Code 2249A
Washington, D.C. 20460
facsimile: (202) 564-0022

                                               July 10, 2015
                                                       [illegible]
                                                           Annette Duncan
                                                               Secretary

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace