EPA fines Salt Lake City chemical company

By Judy Fahys

Thatcher Chemical Co. acknowledged that it did not have proper risk management plans in place and now has reached agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to pay fines and make improvements that will reduce air emissions at its Salt Lake City plant.

The EPA said Thursday the company will settle a series of alleged violations of the Clean Air Act for $181,428 that were discovered during two compliance inspections last year. The civil penalty is $12,500. The company also will spend about $168,928 on emissions-control equipment that will cut air-pollution releases to levels below what is allowed under its permits.

In addition, Thatcher is required under the settlement to improve maintenance and internal auditing of its hazardous chemical handling. It also must do a better job of documenting the training employees get for working with the chemicals.

“Companies that use chemicals and substances which pose a potential danger are responsible for having a robust risk management program in place,” said Mike Gaydosh, head of EPA’s enforcement program in Denver. “Failure to do so places the environment, employees, and the nearby community at risk.”

EPA said risk management regulations are appropriate for Thatcher because it stores large quantities of “extremely hazardous” substances, such as ammonia, chlorine, and sulfur dioxide at the Salt Lake City plant. Without proper plans for handling this potentially dangerous material, more accidents are possible and the company is less prepared to deal with emergencies.

Calls to Thatcher for comment were not immediately returned.

EPA fines Usibelli coal mine $60,000 for CWA violations in Alaska

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Energy

The U.S. Environmental Agency says Usibelli Coal Mine (UCM) in Alaska has agreed to pay a $60,000 penalty for violations against the Clean Water Act.

According to documents associated with the case, UCM had 11 unpermitted discharges into the Nenana River, Hoseanna Creek, Sanderson Creek, and Francis Creek between April 2007 and July 2010. During that time, they also had 10 violations of their discharge permit limits.

According to Edward Kowalski, Director of EPA’s Regional Office of Compliance and Enforcement, mining responsibly means paying attention and looking ahead to prevent future problems.

“Many of these discharges could have been minimized or avoided,” said EPA’s Kowalski. “By simply using and maintaining best management practices, we believe this penalty could have been avoided. Mining responsibly means making water quality protection a top priority.”

Sanderson Creek, Hoseanna Creek, Francis Creek, and nearby gravel ponds are all classified by the State of Alaska as suitable for use as water supply, water recreation, and growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife.

UCM has 30 days from the signature date to pay the fine and settle the case.

UCM is currently the only operational coal mine in Alaska, boasting an annual output of nearly 1.5 million tons. UCM supplies coal to six interior Alaskan power plants and exports to South Korea.

Feds say Range Resources hasn't complied with EPA order

BY JACK Z. SMITH

The U.S. Justice Department filed a complaint Tuesday in a Dallas federal court against Range Resources, contending that the Fort Worth-based natural gas producer failed to comply with all of an emergency order the Environmental Protection Agency issued Dec. 7 in connection with methane contamination of two Parker County water wells.
The DOJ filing seeks enforcement of the order, which the EPA issued after investigating complaints from residents that their water wells were contaminated by methane, the chief component of natural gas. EPA maintains that Range gas wells nearby caused or contributed to the contamination, a charge Range denies. The complaint asks the Dallas court to direct Range to comply and pay a civil penalty up to $16,500 per day.
The DOJ complaint says that, "while Range offered to provide two affected residences alternative drinking water and installed explosivity meters in their homes, it has failed to comply with other requirements to conduct surveys of private and public water wells in the vicinity, to submit plans for field testing and to submit plans to study how the methane and other contaminants may have migrated from the production wells."

Expect increased regulatory enforcement under the Obama administration

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Last week, OMB Watch, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, issued a report evaluating the Obama administration’s regulatory enforcement record in three key areas: environment, worker health and safety, and consumer health and safety. This alert summarizes some of the report’s most important findings.

The Environment

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) enforcement agenda under the Obama administration has focused on clean water issues. In October 2009, the EPA released the Clean Water Act Action Plan, in which it pledged to improve enforcement and to focus on major threats and major violators. Among the new focus areas are “non-point” water pollution sources, with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) being central to the aim. The Agency has already taken action against several CAFOs by forcing them to apply for discharge permits or fining them for violating existing permits.

Though the Obama administration has opened approximately the same number of clean water enforcement actions as Bush’s early administration did, Obama’s EPA has been more aggressive. In the first 18 months of Obama taking office, the EPA closed 95% of its actions, taking on average nine days to complete each one. The EPA under Bush’s first 18 months, however, closed only 87% of its actions, taking on average 26 days to complete each one. Obama’s EPA so far has issued penalties at a slightly lower rate than Bush’s did in its first 18 months (43 % compared to $46%) but the average penalty has been significantly higher under Obama ($13,135 compared to $9,962, a 32% increase).

Clean Air Act (CAA) enforcement has been more aggressive under Obama. In the administration’s first 18 months, the EPA opened 795 actions and concluded 99% of them, taking on average only 5 days to complete each one. During the same time frame of Bush’s administration, the EPA opened 658 actions and concluded 86%, taking on average 27 days to complete each one. Obama’s EPA has issued CAA penalties in a higher percentage of actions than Bush’s EPA (65% compared to 30%) but the penalty amount has been significantly lower under Obama, at $15,688 on average compared to Bush’s $28,666.

The Obama administrations EPA has also increased enforcement under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In the first 18 months of Obama’s EPA, the Agency opened 709 enforcement cases compared to only 473 in the first 18 months of Bush’s EPA. The completion rate under Obama has also been higher (96% compared to 78%) and the time to complete each action has been shorter (6 days on average compared to 37 days on average). Penalties, however, have been lower in Obama’s first 18 months than they were under Bush’s first 18 months ($15, 769 on average compared to $17, 693).

Worker Health and Safety Enforcement

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has begun to target high-risk sectors and individual workplaces with historically poor health and safety records. In March 2010, OSHA sent letters to 15,000 workplaces with injury and illness rates above the national average. The letters offered assistance in improving workplace conditions and warned that targeted inspections may be forthcoming. OSHA also rolled out its Severe Violator Enforcement Program in April 2010, under which OSHA will increase inspections at workplaces with poor compliance records and pursue higher penalties for violators. Under the Obama administration, OSHA has placed a decreasing emphasis on voluntary compliance and compliance assistance.

The OSHA budget under Obama has grown significantly. The 2010 budget was $45 million more than the previous year, and Obama requested $14 million more for 2011. The bulk of the budget is designated for federal enforcement; the Agency expects to add 160 inspectors and other employees to its enforcement division. This increase may translate to an increased level of inspection activity, but so far Obama’s OSHA has not done significantly more inspections per year than Bush’s OSHA did. Citations, however, have increased dramatically under Obama. Between January 2009 to January 2010, federal and state OSHA programs handed out over 68,000 citations for violations, which is a 167% increase from the year prior. In the first half of 2010 alone, OSHA exceeded that number and issued 113,970.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has begun to tighten mine safety enforcement policy in the wake of the Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion earlier this year. Obama increased enforcement at mines with poor safety records and issued 2,660 violations after inspecting 111 coal, metal, and nonmetal mines.

Consumer Health and Safety

Product labeling has been a high priority at the FTC and the FDA. In September 2010, the FTC filed a complaint against Pom Wonderful for unsubstantiated and misleading health claims about its pomegranate juice. The Agency has also proposed rules that would restrict the use of “environmentally friendly” product claims. At the FDA, increased use of warning letters has become part of a heightened enforcement effort. Earlier this year, the FDA sent warning letters to 17 companies, informing them that they were violating federal law by making misleading or false health claims. Targeted foods include teas, nuts, cereals, and olive oil. The FDA warned that if the companies didn’t fix the mislabeling, further action could result.

What This Means for Industry

Given the Obama administration’s enforcement record in the past 18 months and signs of even more aggressive enforcement in the coming years, industry should stay abreast of regulatory changes and be diligent in compliance efforts.

Environmental Enforcement: Two New England Shipyards Settle EPA Claims

Two New England shipyards have agreed to pay penalties to settle claims by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that they violated federal environmental laws.

Rose’s Oil Service, a shipyard and fuel oil distributor in Gloucester, Mass., was cited for violations of federal water and oil pollution prevention laws. The company agreed to pay $130,000 to resolve EPA allegations it discharged pressure wash water and storm water without authorization under the Clean Water Act. According to the EPA, Rose’s Oil Service failed to prepare a Facility Response Plan and an adequate Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan in violation of federal oil pollution regulations.

Promet Marine Services, which builds, repairs and retrofits vessels in Providence, R.I., agreed to pay $290,000 to settle EPA claims that it violated federal clean air and clean water laws. According to the agency, Promet’s use of paints exceeded volatile organic compound and hazardous air pollutant limits of the Clean Air Act. Promet violated the Clean Water Act through the unauthorized discharge of contaminated pressure wash water into the Providence River, EPA said.

The company is now using paints that comply with regulatory limits, has applied for required air permits, and has a process water recycling system at its facility to eliminate illegal discharges of copper, lead, zinc and solids in pressure wash water, according to an EPA statement.

Both settlements include a certification by the shipyards that they are now complying with all requirements.