Blogs

Pennsylvania court orders $9.2 million penalty for exceeding water pollution limits

8/7/26

By: Joshua Ferguson, Kevin Ringel, Margo Wright

The owner of a private landfill in York County, PA was ordered by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to pay $9.2 million in civil penalties based on Clean Water Act (CWA) violations which allegedly took place between 2019 and 2023.

Republic Services of Pennsylvania, LLC operates a solid-waste disposal facility which generates wastewater, for which it operates an on-site wastewater treatment facility. The byproducts of said facility discharge into Kreutz Kreek, a tributary of the Susquehanna River. The discharge is governed by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES) issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) under the CWA and Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law.

Republic self-reported initial violations of water quality-based effluent emissions standards for boron and osmotic pressure in 2017. Following a period of review and engagement with consultants, Republic decided to install a reverse osmosis system to bring its facility into compliance with environmental standards. Republic entered into a consent order with the PADEP in 2020, and PADEP approved the reverse osmosis system in September 2021. The reverse osmosis system became operational by April 25, 2023.

The Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association brought a citizen’s suit against Republic Services over the 2017 violations, alleging that Republic discharged per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or “PFAS,” into Kreutz Creek. The Riverkeeper Association subsequently dismissed their PFAS-related claims, instead focusing on claims based on boron and osmotic pressure. A bench trial took place in February 2026, where the parties stipulated that Republic was liable for 419 NPDES permit exceedances taking place between July 2019 and April 2023.

The Hon. Jennifer P. Wilson issued a Memorandum Opinion on July 27, 2026, in which the court held that Republic derived more than $4 million in economic benefit from delaying installation of the reverse osmosis system by avoiding annual recurring costs associated with reverse osmosis system.

The court reasoned that Republic committed violations which were “numerous, frequent, severe, involved toxic substances, and created a real threat of harm to Kreutz Creek and those who use it,” warranting a “meaningful penalty,” noting that Republic violated its 2017 NPDES permit for nearly six uninterrupted years and was slow to respond to the violations. Furthermore, despite concluding that a reverse osmotic system was “the only long-term remedy” for its noncompliance in 2018, the court held that Republic did not definitively decide to install the system until 2020 or approve it until 2022. The court also held that Republic took no interim mitigation measures, where internal documents allegedly suggested Republic thought they might be possible. While Republic did not violate the 2020 consent order, the court held that Republic could have moved towards installing a reverse osmosis system before it entered into the consent order. As such, it held that a penalty worth roughly double Republic’s economic benefit from its delay was warranted.

The court, however, rejected the Riverkeeper Association’s request for the establishment of a remedial fund, holding that it failed to show how the projects suggested were designed to treat harm caused by high osmotic pressure or boron.

The order indicates that, where concerns regarding violations of environmental standards exist, courts may look to parties to self-regulate not only by self-reporting, but by not waiting for regulatory or legal deadlines to take steps towards mitigation. Courts, furthermore, may not view compliance with agreements entered into with regulators as sufficient compliance with environmental standards to avert the imposition of penalties. Businesses looking to avoid penalties based on violations of environmental statutes and/or regulations should take a proactive approach and anticipate claims based not only on violations of environmental standards, but on delayed efforts to mitigate violations or bring business practices into compliance.

For more information contact Joshua Ferguson, Kevin Ringel, Margo Wright or your local FMG Law attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.