The Department of Justice recently published in the Federal Register a notice concerning a consent decree and settlement agreement to be lodged in the GM bankruptcy case, In re: Motors Liquidation Corp, et al., f/k/a General Motors Corp., et al., Jointly Administered Case No. 09–50026 (REG). The settlement agreement resolves claims and causes of action of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act with respect to 89 sites, including the GMPT—Danville Landfill Site in Illinois.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, a environmental response trust will be set up in the amount of $499,434,945 to clean up these 89 sites. An additional payment of $142 million will be made and certain personalty and title of 88 real properties will be transferred to the environmental response trust to fund administrative expenses.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Showing posts with label Hazardous Waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hazardous Waste. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
In Disjointed Opinion, IL Appellate Court Affirms Grant of Petition to Delist Residue as Hazardous Waste
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, recently issued an opinion in Sierra Club v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, Case No. 3-09-0120, which concerned Peoria Disposal Company's ("PDC") permit to operate a waste stabilization facility near Peoria, Illinois, for the storage and treatment of hazardous and nonhazardous waste. PDC filed a petition with the Illinois Pollution Control Board to delist residue resulting from the treatment of electric arc furnace dust ("EAFD") as a hazardous waste for disposal purposes, after the EAFD is treated and stabilized.
The Pollution Control Board issued an order granting PDC's petition, subject to several conditions. Two groups, Sierra Club and Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste, filed an appeal seeking reversal of the Board's order, arguing that the Board erred in (1) failing to consider the factors set forth in the relevant statute, (2) not requiring PDC to address future permit modifications; (3) finding that local citing approval was not required; and (4) not requiring reopener language. PDC and the Board argued that the opposition groups did not have standing to appeal the Board’s order.
Each appellate court justice on the three-justice panel came to a different conclusion concerning this appeal:
(1) Justice Lytton (delivering the "opinion of the court") found that the opposition groups had standing because they were persons "adversely affected or threatened" by the delisting. However, Justice Lytton affirmed the Board's order on the merits of the case, finding that the Board properly granted PDC's petition.
(2) Justice Carter specially concurred in the judgment, reasoning that the opposition groups did not have standing to bring the appeal.
(3) Justice Wright concurred in part and dissented in part, reasoning that the opposition groups did have standing, but concluding that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious because the Board did not make required factual findings.
The opinions of Justices Lytton and Carter combined to dismiss the appeal. However, it will be interesting to see what will happen with the standing issue if this case gets decided by the Illinois Supreme Court.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The Pollution Control Board issued an order granting PDC's petition, subject to several conditions. Two groups, Sierra Club and Peoria Families Against Toxic Waste, filed an appeal seeking reversal of the Board's order, arguing that the Board erred in (1) failing to consider the factors set forth in the relevant statute, (2) not requiring PDC to address future permit modifications; (3) finding that local citing approval was not required; and (4) not requiring reopener language. PDC and the Board argued that the opposition groups did not have standing to appeal the Board’s order.
Each appellate court justice on the three-justice panel came to a different conclusion concerning this appeal:
(1) Justice Lytton (delivering the "opinion of the court") found that the opposition groups had standing because they were persons "adversely affected or threatened" by the delisting. However, Justice Lytton affirmed the Board's order on the merits of the case, finding that the Board properly granted PDC's petition.
(2) Justice Carter specially concurred in the judgment, reasoning that the opposition groups did not have standing to bring the appeal.
(3) Justice Wright concurred in part and dissented in part, reasoning that the opposition groups did have standing, but concluding that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious because the Board did not make required factual findings.
The opinions of Justices Lytton and Carter combined to dismiss the appeal. However, it will be interesting to see what will happen with the standing issue if this case gets decided by the Illinois Supreme Court.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
U.S. EPA Proposes $743,293 Penalty for Hazardous Waste Violations
On May 6th, U.S. EPA Region 5 announced that it filed an administrative complaint and compliance order against Mercury Vapor Processing Technologies Inc., also known as River Shannon Recycling, for alleged violations of hazardous waste regulations at the facility located at 13605 Halsted Street, Riverdale, Illinois. A $743,293 penalty is proposed.
According to EPA, the defendant was cited for violating Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") requirements for managing hazardous waste. Specifically, the defendant failed to have a permit for hazardous waste treatment and storage. The defendant treated large quantities of waste lamps including spent fluorescent tubes. Often, these waste lamps contain mercury and are regulated as hazardous waste.
EPA has also ordered the defendant to immediately stop transporting, treating and storing hazardous waste at its facility unless it fully complies with RCRA requirements, and to conduct RCRA closure activities at the Riverdale facility.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
According to EPA, the defendant was cited for violating Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") requirements for managing hazardous waste. Specifically, the defendant failed to have a permit for hazardous waste treatment and storage. The defendant treated large quantities of waste lamps including spent fluorescent tubes. Often, these waste lamps contain mercury and are regulated as hazardous waste.
EPA has also ordered the defendant to immediately stop transporting, treating and storing hazardous waste at its facility unless it fully complies with RCRA requirements, and to conduct RCRA closure activities at the Riverdale facility.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
U.S. Adds Two Illinois Sites to National Priorities List
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that two sites in Illinois--the Chemetco site in Hartford and the Lake Calumet Cluster site in Chicago--to the Superfund National Priorities List ("NPL"). The National Priorities List is a list of the most serious sites identified for possible long-term cleanup.
Here's how U.S. EPA described the two sites:
"The Chemetco site is on Illinois Route 3 in Madison County, about two miles south of Hartford. It was a secondary copper smelter from 1969 to 2001 before filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy. More than 500,000 cubic yards of processing slag, sludge and other hazardous materials were left on portions of the 41-acre site. Elevated levels of the heavy metals copper, cadmium, lead and zinc have been found in adjacent wetlands and in the sediment of nearby Long Lake. Chemetco was proposed for addition to the NPL in September 2009. Now that the site is on the list, Chemetco is eligible for further analysis and development of cleanup options by EPA in partnership with Illinois EPA.
"The 87-acre Lake Calumet Cluster site, on Chicago’s southeast side, is composed of four separate parcels. The Cluster site is bounded by the Land and Lakes Landfill to the west, 122nd Street to the south, the Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way and Indian Ridge Marsh to the east, and the Paxton I & II Landfills to the north. The site was originally a wetland that was used for disposal of steel mill slag and industrial, chemical and municipal waste from the 1940s to 1970s. Environmental concerns include contaminated soil and contaminated surface water runoff from the site into the adjacent wetland areas. These wetlands are used by at least 14 federal or state endangered or threatened species. From 1983 to 1985, and in 1990, EPA performed limited-scope cleanups including drum removals. The Cluster site was proposed for addition to the NPL in September 2005. In 2007 – 2008, Illinois EPA began construction of a landfill cap. Now that the Cluster site is on the NPL, Illinois EPA can use federal money to complete the cap and investigate the full extent of contaminated groundwater at the site."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Here's how U.S. EPA described the two sites:
"The Chemetco site is on Illinois Route 3 in Madison County, about two miles south of Hartford. It was a secondary copper smelter from 1969 to 2001 before filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy. More than 500,000 cubic yards of processing slag, sludge and other hazardous materials were left on portions of the 41-acre site. Elevated levels of the heavy metals copper, cadmium, lead and zinc have been found in adjacent wetlands and in the sediment of nearby Long Lake. Chemetco was proposed for addition to the NPL in September 2009. Now that the site is on the list, Chemetco is eligible for further analysis and development of cleanup options by EPA in partnership with Illinois EPA.
"The 87-acre Lake Calumet Cluster site, on Chicago’s southeast side, is composed of four separate parcels. The Cluster site is bounded by the Land and Lakes Landfill to the west, 122nd Street to the south, the Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way and Indian Ridge Marsh to the east, and the Paxton I & II Landfills to the north. The site was originally a wetland that was used for disposal of steel mill slag and industrial, chemical and municipal waste from the 1940s to 1970s. Environmental concerns include contaminated soil and contaminated surface water runoff from the site into the adjacent wetland areas. These wetlands are used by at least 14 federal or state endangered or threatened species. From 1983 to 1985, and in 1990, EPA performed limited-scope cleanups including drum removals. The Cluster site was proposed for addition to the NPL in September 2005. In 2007 – 2008, Illinois EPA began construction of a landfill cap. Now that the Cluster site is on the NPL, Illinois EPA can use federal money to complete the cap and investigate the full extent of contaminated groundwater at the site."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Court Finds Owner of Facility's Equipment Liable in Cost-Recovery Case
In United States v. Saporito, Case No. 07 C 3169, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently ruled that the federal government could recover its environmental cleanup costs against the current owner of a facility's equipment.
Beginning in the 1970s, Crescent Plating operated a facility on the northwest side of Chicago that plated steel and brass objects with various metals such as zinc, chromium, and copper. In addition to those metals, the plating process also used, among other potentially hazardous chemicals, sodium cyanide, hexavalent chromium, and trichloroethene. Very simply explained, the electroplating process involved dipping the item to be plated into a series of chemical baths through which electrical current is run.
In December 2003, U.S. EPA began removal activities at the site and in February 2004, the EPA authorized funding for the removal action based on its determination that the conditions at Crescent Plating presented “an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, and the environment.” The first EPA site assessment found 58 vats and tanks and 464 containers holding various liquids and sludges as well as a 20-cubic-yard box filled with plating sludge. Some containers had deteriorated and spilled, the building and equipment were coated with plating sludge, and the building had no heat or electricity. During the cleanup, the government found two large areas of concrete floor that had corroded to expose the soil below. In all, the EPA spent more than $1.5 million to clean up tens of thousands of gallons of hazardous liquids and sludge. After cleaning up the site, the government sued to recover the costs incurred.
The Court agreed with the government’s motion for summary judgment, which relied on the theory that Saporito was a facility owner at the time of the cleanup based on his undisputed ownership of equipment used in the plating process. In so doing, the Court held that the government did not need to present evidence showing that any specific piece of equipment he owned was responsible for specific releases of hazardous chemicals or specific cleanup costs.
This is another example of the government, with approval of the courts, going after individuals to recover environmental cleanup costs.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Beginning in the 1970s, Crescent Plating operated a facility on the northwest side of Chicago that plated steel and brass objects with various metals such as zinc, chromium, and copper. In addition to those metals, the plating process also used, among other potentially hazardous chemicals, sodium cyanide, hexavalent chromium, and trichloroethene. Very simply explained, the electroplating process involved dipping the item to be plated into a series of chemical baths through which electrical current is run.
In December 2003, U.S. EPA began removal activities at the site and in February 2004, the EPA authorized funding for the removal action based on its determination that the conditions at Crescent Plating presented “an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, and the environment.” The first EPA site assessment found 58 vats and tanks and 464 containers holding various liquids and sludges as well as a 20-cubic-yard box filled with plating sludge. Some containers had deteriorated and spilled, the building and equipment were coated with plating sludge, and the building had no heat or electricity. During the cleanup, the government found two large areas of concrete floor that had corroded to expose the soil below. In all, the EPA spent more than $1.5 million to clean up tens of thousands of gallons of hazardous liquids and sludge. After cleaning up the site, the government sued to recover the costs incurred.
The Court agreed with the government’s motion for summary judgment, which relied on the theory that Saporito was a facility owner at the time of the cleanup based on his undisputed ownership of equipment used in the plating process. In so doing, the Court held that the government did not need to present evidence showing that any specific piece of equipment he owned was responsible for specific releases of hazardous chemicals or specific cleanup costs.
This is another example of the government, with approval of the courts, going after individuals to recover environmental cleanup costs.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Monday, February 1, 2010
President Obama Requests $10 Billion for EPA for 2011
Today, the Obama administration issued its 2011 budget proposal, which included $10.020 billion in discretionary budget authority for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Highlights of EPA's budget include:
--$1.3 billion "to address Superfund sites that may be releasing harmful or toxic substances into the surrounding community."
--$215 million "to clean up abandoned or underused industrial and commercial sites that are available for alternative uses but where redevelopment may be complicated by the presence of environmental contaminants."
--$27 million for EPA’s new Healthy Communities Initiative, which "will address community water priorities; promote clean, green, and healthy schools; improve air toxics monitoring in at-risk communities; and encourage sustainability by helping to ensure that policies and spending at the national level do not adversely affect the environment and public health or disproportionally harm disadvantaged communities."
--$60 million "to support state efforts to implement updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)."
--$1.3 billion for state and tribal grants to help "implement new and expanded requirements under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act."
--"$43 million for additional efforts to address climate change and work toward a clean energy future. EPA will implement the greenhouse gas reporting rule; provide technical assistance to ensure that any permitting under the Clean Air Act will be manageable; perform regulatory work for the largest stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions; develop standards for mobile sources such as cars and trucks; and continue research of carbon capture and sequestration technologies."
--$300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative "for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem."
--$3.3 billion "to maintain and improve outdated water infrastructure and keep our wastewater and drinking water clean and safe."
--$56 million "for chemical assessment and risk review to ensure that no unreasonable risks are posed by new or existing chemicals."
--$8 million "for environmental justice programs. It targets increased brownfields investments to under-served and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, and proposes $9 million for community water priorities in the Healthy Communities Initiative, funds that will help under-served communities restore urban waterways and address water quality challenges."
EPA's $10.020 billion request for 2011 is down from the $10.5 billion requested for 2010. Congress enacted a $10.3 billion budget for EPA for FY2010.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
--$1.3 billion "to address Superfund sites that may be releasing harmful or toxic substances into the surrounding community."
--$215 million "to clean up abandoned or underused industrial and commercial sites that are available for alternative uses but where redevelopment may be complicated by the presence of environmental contaminants."
--$27 million for EPA’s new Healthy Communities Initiative, which "will address community water priorities; promote clean, green, and healthy schools; improve air toxics monitoring in at-risk communities; and encourage sustainability by helping to ensure that policies and spending at the national level do not adversely affect the environment and public health or disproportionally harm disadvantaged communities."
--$60 million "to support state efforts to implement updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)."
--$1.3 billion for state and tribal grants to help "implement new and expanded requirements under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act."
--"$43 million for additional efforts to address climate change and work toward a clean energy future. EPA will implement the greenhouse gas reporting rule; provide technical assistance to ensure that any permitting under the Clean Air Act will be manageable; perform regulatory work for the largest stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions; develop standards for mobile sources such as cars and trucks; and continue research of carbon capture and sequestration technologies."
--$300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative "for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem."
--$3.3 billion "to maintain and improve outdated water infrastructure and keep our wastewater and drinking water clean and safe."
--$56 million "for chemical assessment and risk review to ensure that no unreasonable risks are posed by new or existing chemicals."
--$8 million "for environmental justice programs. It targets increased brownfields investments to under-served and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, and proposes $9 million for community water priorities in the Healthy Communities Initiative, funds that will help under-served communities restore urban waterways and address water quality challenges."
EPA's $10.020 billion request for 2011 is down from the $10.5 billion requested for 2010. Congress enacted a $10.3 billion budget for EPA for FY2010.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Manufacturer of Aerosol Packaged Chemical Products Settles Federal Enforcement Action Alleging Hazardous Waste Violations
U.S. EPA announced that it settled an enforcement action against Claire Manufacturing Co. for alleged hazardous waste violations. The company manufactures aerosol packaged chemical products at its facility located at 500 Vista Ave. in Addison, Illinois.
EPA alleged multiple violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, including failing to "obtain a hazardous waste storage permit, update its emergency plan, train personnel, label containers, get assessments/certifications, maintain records and meet inspection requirements for its tank systems."
Claire Manufacturing will pay a $44,200 penalty to settle the action.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
EPA alleged multiple violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, including failing to "obtain a hazardous waste storage permit, update its emergency plan, train personnel, label containers, get assessments/certifications, maintain records and meet inspection requirements for its tank systems."
Claire Manufacturing will pay a $44,200 penalty to settle the action.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Packaging Materials Manufacturer Settles Federal Enforcement Action Alleging Hazardous Waste Violations
On December 22, 2009, U.S. EPA announced that it settled an enforcement action against Clear Lam Packaging, an Elk Grove, Illinois manufacturer of flexible and rigid packaging materials.
U.S. EPA alleged that Clear Lam "failed to have a hazardous waste storage permit, maintain aisle space in the hazardous waste storage area, keep hazardous waste containers closed, provide annual employee training and keep records about it, and have a complete contingency plan."
Clear Lam will pay a $20,750 penalty and perform an environmental project costing at least $221,000. It will "help protect the environment and public health by purchasing, installing and operating a solvent recovery system that will recycle approximately 100,000 gallons of hazardous waste annually."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
U.S. EPA alleged that Clear Lam "failed to have a hazardous waste storage permit, maintain aisle space in the hazardous waste storage area, keep hazardous waste containers closed, provide annual employee training and keep records about it, and have a complete contingency plan."
Clear Lam will pay a $20,750 penalty and perform an environmental project costing at least $221,000. It will "help protect the environment and public health by purchasing, installing and operating a solvent recovery system that will recycle approximately 100,000 gallons of hazardous waste annually."
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
U.S. EPA's New Risk Analysis for Solvent-Contaminated Wipes Rule
Yesterday, U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Data Availability inviting comments on a revised risk analysis for proposed revisions to regulations governing solvent-contaminated wipes.
A wide variety of industries use wipes (including rags, shop towels, disposable wipes and paper towels) for cleaning and degreasing. Those wipes are handled in various ways. For example, wipes may be used once or several times before they are thrown away, while other wipes are used, laundered, and reused multiple times. During cleaning and degreasing operations, these wipes may become contaminated with solvents, as well as with other materials. When those wipes are discarded, they can, under certain circumstances, be considered hazardous waste under the federal hazardous waste regulations.
In 2003, U.S. EPA proposed exclusions from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") definition of solid waste for solvent-contaminated wipes sent to a laundry or dry cleaner, and from the definition of hazardous waste for solvent-contaminated wipes sent to a landfill or combustion facility, provided certain conditions were met. Industry argued for this proposed change because, they argued, when small amounts of solvent are used on each wipe, minimal risk occurs when they are ultimately disposed.
After U.S. EPA proposed the exclusions, it decided to conduct a "more robust risk analysis" to determine the risk to the public and the environment by these wipes. U.S. EPA issued yesterday's Notice of Data Availability to request comments on the new risk analysis and to inform the public of potential changes to the solvent-contaminated wipe rule.
The first change would allow the disposal of solvents not showing a risk in any municipal landfill or nonhazardous waste landfill whether lined or unlined. The solvents that indicated a potential risk if disposed of in an unlined landfill could only be disposed in a lined municipal landfill or lined non-hazardous waste landfill.
The second change would establish conditions that allow all solvent-contaminated wipes, no matter which solvent they contain, except perhaps tetrachloroethylene, to be sent to a municipal or industrial landfill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, certain other requirements.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
A wide variety of industries use wipes (including rags, shop towels, disposable wipes and paper towels) for cleaning and degreasing. Those wipes are handled in various ways. For example, wipes may be used once or several times before they are thrown away, while other wipes are used, laundered, and reused multiple times. During cleaning and degreasing operations, these wipes may become contaminated with solvents, as well as with other materials. When those wipes are discarded, they can, under certain circumstances, be considered hazardous waste under the federal hazardous waste regulations.
In 2003, U.S. EPA proposed exclusions from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") definition of solid waste for solvent-contaminated wipes sent to a laundry or dry cleaner, and from the definition of hazardous waste for solvent-contaminated wipes sent to a landfill or combustion facility, provided certain conditions were met. Industry argued for this proposed change because, they argued, when small amounts of solvent are used on each wipe, minimal risk occurs when they are ultimately disposed.
After U.S. EPA proposed the exclusions, it decided to conduct a "more robust risk analysis" to determine the risk to the public and the environment by these wipes. U.S. EPA issued yesterday's Notice of Data Availability to request comments on the new risk analysis and to inform the public of potential changes to the solvent-contaminated wipe rule.
The first change would allow the disposal of solvents not showing a risk in any municipal landfill or nonhazardous waste landfill whether lined or unlined. The solvents that indicated a potential risk if disposed of in an unlined landfill could only be disposed in a lined municipal landfill or lined non-hazardous waste landfill.
The second change would establish conditions that allow all solvent-contaminated wipes, no matter which solvent they contain, except perhaps tetrachloroethylene, to be sent to a municipal or industrial landfill unit subject to, or otherwise meeting, certain other requirements.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
U.S. EPA Announces Settlement of Two Enforcement Actions
Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 announced the settlement of two enforcement actions. Region 5 includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
First, EPA reached an agreement with an Elk Grove testing and metal coating business for alleged violations of federal hazardous waste rules. The company will pay a $62,031 penalty. EPA alleged that the company failed to label a tank and container, keep a container closed, train personnel and keep records, document daily tank inspections, install a leak detection system for its storage tank, have its storage tank assessed for structure integrity and maintain an adequate contingency plan. Please click here for the news release of the settlement.
Second, EPA reached an agreement with a Zion scrap metal recycling company for alleged violations of federal clean air rules governing safe disposal of chloroflurocarbons ("CFCs") and hydrochloroflurocarbons ("HCFCs") from small applicances. EPA alleged that the company accepted small appliances without recovering refrigerants and did not obtain proper verification statements showing that refrigerant was properly recovered. Instead of paying a penalty, the company agreed to participate in a compliance program, including providing notice to customers that the company will not accept small appliances unless the suppliers can certify that the refrigerants were properly removed. Please click here for the news release of the settlement, and click here for the Administrative Consent Order.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
First, EPA reached an agreement with an Elk Grove testing and metal coating business for alleged violations of federal hazardous waste rules. The company will pay a $62,031 penalty. EPA alleged that the company failed to label a tank and container, keep a container closed, train personnel and keep records, document daily tank inspections, install a leak detection system for its storage tank, have its storage tank assessed for structure integrity and maintain an adequate contingency plan. Please click here for the news release of the settlement.
Second, EPA reached an agreement with a Zion scrap metal recycling company for alleged violations of federal clean air rules governing safe disposal of chloroflurocarbons ("CFCs") and hydrochloroflurocarbons ("HCFCs") from small applicances. EPA alleged that the company accepted small appliances without recovering refrigerants and did not obtain proper verification statements showing that refrigerant was properly recovered. Instead of paying a penalty, the company agreed to participate in a compliance program, including providing notice to customers that the company will not accept small appliances unless the suppliers can certify that the refrigerants were properly removed. Please click here for the news release of the settlement, and click here for the Administrative Consent Order.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
