July 22, 2019
Large quantity generators of hazardous waste have always been required to have a contingency plan for hazardous waste spills, fires, and emergencies. The plan must be made available to local hospitals, fire departments, police departments, and state and local emergency response teams that might be called upon to provide emergency services. Because so much detailed information is required in the plan, it can be cumbersome to quickly find when it is needed in the event of an emergency.
Under this requirement, large quantity generators of hazardous waste must prepare a quick reference guide for the site contingency plan and submit this guide to local emergency responders.
The quick reference guide must include:
- The types/names of hazardous wastes in layman’s terms and the associated hazard associated with each hazardous waste present at any one time (for example, flammable paint waste, toxic electroplating waste, corrosive nitric acid waste);
- The estimated maximum amount of each hazardous waste that may be present at any one time;
- The identification of any hazardous wastes where exposure would require unique or special treatment by medical or hospital staff;
- A map of the facility showing where hazardous wastes are generated, accumulated and treated, and routes for accessing these wastes;
- A street map of the facility in relation to surrounding businesses, schools and residential areas to understand how best to get to the facility and also evacuate citizens and workers;
- The locations of water supply (for example, fire hydrant and its flow rate);
- The identification of on-site notification systems (for example, a fire alarm that rings off-site, smoke alarms); and
- The name of the emergency coordinator(s) and 24/7 emergency telephone number(s) or, in the case of a facility where an emergency coordinator is continuously on duty, the emergency telephone number for the emergency coordinator.
Now would be a good time for you to update your contingency plan to reflect not only the changes in the regulations, but also to update any other outdated or incomplete aspects of the plan. For example, is your emergency equipment list up to date? Does the equipment list include the locations and capabilities of equipment that you would use in the event of a hazardous waste incident? Does your plan identify the correct names and phone numbers of organizations that you would call upon in the event of an emergency? Do you have written emergency assistance agreements with these emergency organizations? Are your emergency response procedures adequate and effective for the types and volumes of hazardous waste on-site? Have your personnel been trained in implementing your emergency procedures? If you need assistance in updating your plan or training your employees, contact Environmental Resource Center
Free Amazon HD 10 Tablet with RCRA and DOT Training
Annual hazardous waste training is required for anyone who generates, accumulates, stores, transports, or treats hazardous waste. Learn how to manage your hazardous waste in accordance with the latest state and federal regulations. Learn how to complete EPA’s new electronic hazardous waste manifest, and the more than 60 changes in EPA’s new Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule. Environmental Resource Center’s Hazardous Waste Training
is available at nationwide locations, and via live webcasts. If you plan to also attend DOT hazardous materials training
, call 800-537-2372 to find out how can get your course materials on a new Amazon Fire HD 10 tablet at no extra charge.
DEP Emergency Number Currently Unavailable
The Pennsylvania Emergency Number (1-800-541-2050) is currently unavailable. See this link
for reporting to the appropriate regional office during business hours. For emergencies outside DEP office hours, please call your DEP regional office directly
to be directed to the after-hours emergency line.
Florida DEP Environmental Crimes Unit Makes First Arrest
Investigator Steve Hough with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP’s) Southwest District Environmental Crimes Unit arrested Tampa resident Christopher Hughes, who was charged with felony dumping for commercial purposes.
On Tuesday, July 2, 2019, DEP received a notification through the State Watch Office that a potential environmental crime occurred in Seminole Heights on July 1. Investigator Hough, with assistance from DEP Southwest District Office Investigator Chad Paul, conducted an investigation and found video evidence of the suspect dumping two drums of acrylic cure seal, a corrosive material, into a Tampa alley. The cleanup is estimated at over $10,000, making it a felony offense.
On July 10, 2019, Investigator Hough conducted a traffic stop after observing the vehicle approximately four blocks away from the scene of the crime. After a brief interview, the suspect confessed to the dumping and the arrest was made.
“Governor DeSantis has made it clear that enforcement of the state’s environmental laws is expected. The Department is committed to implementing this direction. With the official transfer of the Environment Crimes Unit to DEP becoming effective less than two weeks ago, we are not wasting any time using this new key enforcement tool,” said DEP Secretary Noah Valenstein.
DEP will hire a contactor to perform the cleanup, and will pursue recovery of these cleanup costs through the legal process. These funds come from and are reallocated to the Inland Protection Trust fund, which provides financial resources for prevention of, and cleanup and rehabilitation after, a pollutant discharge, to prevent further damage by the pollutant, and to pay for damages. Hughes also was charged with driving without a valid license and driving a car with a registration not assigned to him, both misdemeanor offenses.
“This arrest is an example of how DEP’s new crime unit will coordinate with our compliance staff and Office of Emergency Response, resulting in more environmental crimes being identified and addressed through appropriate enforcement, as well as ensuring any necessary cleanup will occur,” said DEP Southwest District Director Mary Yeargan.
On January 10, 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order 19-12, Achieving More Now for Florida’s Environment which directed the transfer of the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Unit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission back to DEP to better align resources focused on environmental protection and ensure strong enforcement of Florida’s environmental laws.
This transfer, effective July 1, 2019, provides DEP with 19 new law enforcement positions, 16 of which are dedicated law enforcement investigators that will be housed in regulatory offices statewide.
Anheuser Busch to Pay $500,000 for Air Quality Violations
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) launched an investigation in March 2015 and discovered that the St. Louis-based brewing company had failed to properly self-inspect 19 diesel trucks, as required by the Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP), to ensure they met state smoke emission standards. In addition, CARB staff discovered that Anheuser Busch was not in compliance with the State’s Truck and Bus Regulation because they failed to meet required compliance deadlines.
The company’s fleet headquarters is in San Diego.
“No business large or small has the right to shirk responsibility when it comes to proper maintenance of the trucks it uses,” said CARB Enforcement Division Chief Todd Sax. “California has some of the country’s poorest air quality and because of this, our laws are tough to protect public health. All businesses must do their part to ensure their fleets are fully compliant with California’s anti-pollution regulations that are designed to clean our air and protect our children.”
Anheuser Busch agreed to pay a $500,000 fine and to comply with all applicable CARB programs. The company also agreed to instruct its vehicle operators to comply with California’s anti-idling regulations, ensure that staff responsible for compliance with smoke-inspection program attend training classes, and provide documentation to CARB that the smoke inspection requirements are being met for the next two years.
Of the total, $250,000 will go to the Air Pollution Control Fund to support air pollution research. The remaining $250,000 will go to the South LA Urban Greening and Community Forestry Project, where it will fund the planting of 300 trees over a five-year period in the public parkways of disadvantaged communities in South Los Angeles County. To facilitate the project, and to ensure community engagement and participation, California Greenworks will host 15 neighborhood outreach events and 10 South Los Angeles Community Forestry Workshops featuring certified arborists.
Biodiesel Firm Fined for Falsifying Water Monitoring Data
On July 8, 2019, United States District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller sentenced the corporation known as American Biodiesel, Inc. for violations of the Clean Water Act, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
American Biodiesel, Inc., registered in San Joaquin County as Community Fuels, manufactured biodiesel fuel on property leased from the Port of Stockton. According to court documents, American Biodiesel, Inc. admitted to allowing the discharge of industrial wastewater into the City of Stockton sewer system in violation of Stockton permitting regulations and the federal Clean Water Act. American Biodiesel, Inc. also admitted to tampering with monitoring devices and methods designed to detect such violations. Specifically, employees tampered with pH recordings and flow meters for the purpose of underreporting acid and pollutant levels and volumes that would have exceeded the figures allowed under the City’s regulations.
Judge Mueller imposed a three-year term of probation on American Biodiesel, Inc., including various reporting and monitoring conditions. Judge Mueller also fined American Biodiesel, Inc. $401,000 and ordered restitution to the Port of Stockton and the City of Stockton in the amount of $256,206. Judge Mueller further ordered the company to develop and implement an effective compliance and ethics program, which will be submitted to the court for review.
The indictment in the case also charges Christopher Young, 41, of El Dorado Hills, with conspiracy, 12 counts of tampering with monitoring equipment, two counts of unlawful discharge of industrial wastewater, one count of false statements, and one count of witness tampering. Christopher Young was the Director of Operations at the Stockton plant. The same indictment charges his brother Jeremiah Young, 38, of El Dorado, with conspiracy, eight counts of tampering with monitoring equipment, and two counts of unlawful discharge of industrial wastewater. Jeremiah Young was Assistant Operator for Community Fuels from 2014 to 2016. The Youngs’ cases remain pending before the court. The charges are only allegations; each defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case is the product of an investigation by the EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office, City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department, San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, Port of Stockton, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Assistant United States Attorneys Samuel Wong, Philip A. Scarborough, and Paul Hemesath prosecuted the case.
Water Gremlin Must Pay $500 per Day for TCE Releases
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) announced it denied granting Water Gremlin an extension to test its pollution control equipment. As a result, Water Gremlin is subject to a $500 per day fine until it has completed its testing.
“Water Gremlin has had more than enough time to get its pollution control equipment fully operational and tested,” said MPCA Commissioner Laura Bishop. “Water Gremlin promised in its agreement with the MPCA that its pollution control equipment would be operational and tested within 30 days after installation. Almost 75 days later, the MPCA and the residents of White Bear Lake and Gem Lake are still waiting.”
In January 2019, the MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Health investigated community exposures to an industrial solvent called trichloroethylene (TCE) used by Water Gremlin, a manufacturer in White Bear Township. MPCA’s investigation showed that Water Gremlin failed to report accurate emission data for more than 15 years. In addition, Water Gremlin exceeded permitted TCE limits and exposed the surrounding neighborhoods to TCE levels above MDH’s health benchmark of 2 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
In the March 1, 2019 Stipulation Agreement, Water Gremlin agreed to complete required testing within 30 days of starting up its pollution control equipment. That equipment started operating on May 1, 2019, therefore the test was due by May 31, 2019. On May 20, 2019, Water Gremlin requested an extension to that deadline, and the MPCA granted the extension. On June 19, 2019, Water Gremlin again requested an extension to the testing deadline, and the MPCA granted the extension.
Vigo Cited for Non-Compliant Showerheads
A California Energy Commission investigation and testing process determined that from July 2015 to February 2018, Vigo Industries sold or offered for sale through retailers or distributors 2301 showerhead panels in California. Some of the showerhead panels were not listed in Energy Commission’s Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System (MAEDbS), did not meet the applicable efficiency standard when tested using the appropriate test method, violated the test method, and/or were not marked as required. Some of the showerhead panels were sold in California packaged with alternative flow restrictors that permit the showerhead panels to achieve flow rates in excess of the applicable efficiency standards, and with instructions on how to install them.
To settle this matter, Vigo executed a Settlement Agreement with the Energy Commission on July 3, 2019, for $86,287.00. The penalty monies are deposited into the Appliance Efficiency Enforcement Subaccount established by SB 454 of 2011 (Pavley). Vigo has also agreed to a compliance plan to redesign the noncompliant model to meet the efficiency standard, add the appropriate marking, and test and certify all models to MAEDbS before continuing to offer for sale in California.
Two New Platforms Offer the Latest Knowledge on Green Finance and Green Business
A global partnership of some of the world’s largest organizations have launched two new knowledge platforms – the Green Industry Platform and the Green Finance Platform – at the High-level Political Forum for Sustainable Development in New York. These platforms provide the financial and private sectors with the latest research, data, guidance, and tools from leading experts and institutions to help green their operations.
The need for practical and targeted knowledge to support the transition to inclusive green economies is more urgent than ever, with recent reports showing the global decline of nature
and calling for unprecedented action to reach climate targets
set out in the Paris agreement.
The Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) hosts a wealth of existing knowledge to support greener business, finance, and policy, from the return on investment on renewable energy investments to green bonds, sustainable infrastructure, green standards and regulations, etc. The platforms offer everything from global-scale assessments on flows of sustainable finance to highly specialized guidance notes on “turning waste into gold” in the bio-energy sector in Africa.
Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary-General of the United Nations and current President and Chair of the Global Green Growth Institute welcomed the launch of the two new platforms. He said, “these are especially exciting times for the Green Growth Knowledge Partnership (GGKP), already the world’s largest dedicated repository of green growth resources, case studies, and national documents.”
The Green Industry Platform and the Green Finance Platform will build on the existing Green Growth Knowledge Platform
, which offers the latest know-how to support green policymaking at the national level. Users can browse by sector, country, region, or cross-cutting theme, including gender, jobs, climate change, circular economy, and natural capital.
“The green economy offers tremendous opportunity for businesses, financial institutions, governments, and people – it is the economy of the future,” Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UN Environment, said. “Quick and easy access to the latest knowledge and innovation is critical to ensuring we are able to build on good practices that already exist and ensure even greater benefits for nature and people.”
The Green Industry Platform will empower small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with technical knowledge to green their input materials, end products, and operations, as well as evidence that this will improve their bottom lines.
Welcoming the launch of the two new platforms, Li Yong, Director General of United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), said, “UNIDO welcomes the expansion of the Green Growth Knowledge Partnership to its new focus on industry through the Green Industry Platform, introduced in parallel with the Green Finance Platform. The Green Industry Platform is evolving to become a critical tool SMEs to engage in global efforts towards inclusive and sustainable industrial development.”
“As SMEs employ up to 60% of the global workforce; their full involvement in the transition to an inclusive green economy is essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals,” he added. “The new Green Industry Platform will equip SMEs with sector- and region-specific information, guidance, and tools to grow their businesses by greening their operations or explore new green business models in emerging green industries.”
The Green Finance Platform will provide banks, insurance, and investment firms with a one-stop shop for the latest financial sector innovations to start, scale, and measure their contribution to a green economic transition. It will feature new tools for businesses and investors to assess natural capital risks and opportunities; guiding principles on responsible banking, insurance, and finance; and global reports on aligning the financial system with sustainable development.
“Combating climate change and encouraging green growth requires all communities and sectors to work together based on sound research and timely information and data,” Ángel Gurría, Secretary-General of the OECD, said. “We are pleased to partner in the launch of the two new platforms to expand the impact of the GGKP to the industry and finance communities.”
Moving forward, the partnership will work to connect the policy, finance, and business communities together in a neutral space to incentivize, finance, and put into operation green and inclusive practices.
The Green Growth Knowledge Partnership is led by the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), UNIDO and the World Bank.
The GGKP benefits from strategic funding from Switzerland, Germany, the Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE) initiative, the MAVA Foundation, and GGGI as well as programmatic funding from the Netherlands.
Recent Oregon DEQ Penalties for Environmental Violations
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality issued 13 penalties totaling $294,099 in June for various environmental violations. A detailed list of violations and resulting penalties is at https://go.usa.gov/xEQJn.
Fines ranged from $450 to $116,230. Alleged violations included failing to comply with stormwater permits, failing to properly train employees on hazardous waste management, submitting required documentation late, polluting waters of the state, conducting unlicensed asbestos abatement and more.
DEQ issued civil penalties against the following organizations and individuals:
- CFMW, LLC, $14,747, Portland (water quality)
- Chen, Frankie, $7,600, La Grande (air quality)
- City of Albany, $5,400, Albany (water quality)
- City of Newport, $13,480, Newport (water quality)
- Conrad and Bischoff, Inc., $688, Pacific City (water quality)
- Eastern Oregon University, $9,000, La Grande (water quality)
- Isovolta, Inc., $23,136, Harrisburg (hazardous waste)
- NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., $825, Statewide (materials management)
- North River Homes, LLC, $50,543, Warrenton (water quality)
- NRC Environmental Services, Inc., $9,600, Sherwood (solid waste)
- Rose City Contracting, Inc., $42,400, Wilsonville (air quality)
- Rotschy, Inc., $116,230, Portland (water quality)
- Vision Computers, Inc., $450, Statewide (materials management)
Organizations or individuals must either pay the fines or file an appeal within 20 days of receiving notice of the penalty. They may be able to offset a portion of a penalty by funding a supplemental environmental project that improves Oregon’s environment.
Penalties may also include orders requiring specific tasks to prevent ongoing violations or additional environmental harm.
Allegro MicroSystems Fined for Hazardous Waste Disposal Violations
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed a $9,503 penalty to Allegro MicroSystems, LLC for violating the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste regulations at its former facility located at 115 Northeast Cutoff in Worcester.
During an inspection of the company’s former microchip manufacturing plant on December 17, 2018, MassDEP personnel confirmed a report from the company to MassDEP’s Emergency Response hotline number stating that it had emptied containers of surplus acids down the drain to the municipal sewer system. The company was in the process of closing the facility and was inventorying and disposing of chemicals through various means.
During the inspection, MassDEP personnel also observed other noncompliance with the hazardous waste regulations, including: discharging hazardous process wastewaters down the drain, failure to post complete emergency response postings in waste generation areas, failure to characterize wastes and properly label a waste oil container, and failure to properly manage universal fluorescent lamps and batteries. The company has corrected the violations and implemented measures to prevent their reoccurrence at a new facility in Marlborough.
“The proper handling and disposal of hazardous waste is one of the tenets of environmental protection” said Mary Jude Pigsley, director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office in Worcester. “It is fortunate that there were no impacts to the sewer system or personnel as a result of this episode. The company self-reported the illegal disposal and has implemented measures to ensure similar violations do not occur again.”
Scientists Calculate Impact of China’s Ban on Plastic Waste Imports
While recycling is often touted as the solution to the large-scale production of plastic waste, upwards of half of the plastic waste intended for recycling is exported from higher income countries to other nations, with China historically taking the largest share.
But in 2017, China passed the “National Sword” policy, which permanently bans the import of non-industrial plastic waste as of January 2018. Now, scientists from the University of Georgia have calculated the potential global impact of this legislation and how it might affect efforts to reduce the amount of plastic waste entering the world’s landfills and natural environment. They published their findings in the journal Science Advances.
“We know from our previous studies that only 9 percent of all plastic ever produced has been recycled, and the majority of it ends up in landfills or the natural environment,” said Jenna Jambeck, associate professor in UGA’s College of engineering and co-author of the study. “About 111 million metric tons of plastic waste is going to be displaced because of the import ban through 2030, so we’re going to have to develop more robust recycling programs domestically and rethink the use and design of plastic products if we want to deal with this waste responsibly.”
Global annual imports and exports of plastic waste skyrocketed in 1993, growing by about 800 percent through 2016.
Since reporting began in 1992, China has accepted about 106 million metric tons of plastic waste, which accounts for nearly half of the world’s plastic waste imports. China and Hong Kong have imported more than 72 percent of all plastic waste, but most of the waste that enters Hong Kong—about 63 percent—is exported to China.
High income countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas account for more than 85 percent of all global plastic waste exports. Taken collectively, the European Union is the top exporter.
“Plastic waste was once a fairly profitable business for China, because they could use or resell the recycled plastic waste,” said Amy Brooks, a doctoral student in UGA’s College of Engineering and lead author of the paper. “But a lot of the plastic China received in recent years was poor quality, and it became difficult to turn a profit. China is also producing more plastic waste domestically, so it doesn’t have to rely on other nations for waste.”
For exporters, cheap processing fees in China meant that shipping waste overseas was less expensive than transporting the materials domestically via truck or rail, said Brooks.
“It’s hard to predict what will happen to the plastic waste that was once destined for Chinese processing facilities,” said Jambeck. “Some of it could be diverted to other countries, but most of them lack the infrastructure to manage their own waste let alone the waste produced by the rest of the world.”
The import of plastic waste to China contributed an additional 10 to 13 percent of plastic waste on top of what they were already having a difficult time managing because of rapid economic growth before the import ban took effect, Jambeck said.
“Without bold new ideas and system-wide changes, even the relatively low current recycling rates will no longer be met, and our previously recycled materials could now end up in landfills,” Jambeck said.
U.S. Lubricants Inc. Cited for SPCC Violations
EPA reached a settlement for civil penalties with U.S. Lubricants Inc. for Clean Water Act violations. Under the agreement, U.S. Lubricants will pay a $196,314 penalty. EPA recently entered into a separate agreement with the company to take steps to reduce the risk of oil spills from their petroleum storage facility in Commerce, California, to the Los Angeles River.
“It is essential that companies operating near our waterways develop and follow a spill prevention plan,” said EPA Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Mike Stoker. “Our action will help prevent oil spills to the Los Angeles River.”
The facility is located near the Los Angeles River, which flows to Long Beach Harbor and the Pacific Ocean. An EPA inspection in May 2017 found that the company had violated the Clean Water Act's oil pollution prevention regulations by failing to:
- Inspect tanks and perform tank integrity testing.
- Provide adequate secondary containment around tanks to keep potential spills from leaving the site and entering waterways.
- Develop and implement a Facility Response Plan (FRP) to respond to major oil spills.
- Develop a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) certified by a professional engineer.
The requirement to develop an FRP Plan applies to facilities that store more than 1 million gallons of oil. The plan helps staff prevent and respond to an oil spill on-site. FRPs also help local and regional response authorities better understand potential hazards and response capabilities in their area.
EPA's oil pollution prevention regulations aim to prevent oil from reaching navigable waters and adjoining shorelines and to ensure containment of oil discharges in the event of a spill. Specific prevention measures include developing and implementing spill prevention plans, training staff, and installing physical controls to contain and clean up oil spills.
Sheet Metal Fabricator to Pay over $1 Million in Cleanup Costs
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Peter D. Lopez, EPA Regional Administrator, announced that the United States has filed and simultaneously entered into two consent decrees settling a civil lawsuit against Hopewell Precision, Inc. and John B. Budd. The lawsuit, brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) – commonly known as the Superfund statute – seeks to collect costs that EPA has incurred since March 2003 in connection with its cleanup of trichloroethene and other hazardous substances at the Hopewell Precision Superfund Site in the Town of East Fishkill, Dutchess County, New York.
The two consent decrees (one against each Defendant) provide for a combined payment of $1,247,700 by the Defendants.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Polluters must pay for the costs they have imposed on the community. Together, these defendants released toxic chemicals into the environment, which then contaminated the nearby groundwater and adversely affected the surrounding neighborhoods. Today’s lawsuit and consent decrees demonstrate that we will hold polluters responsible for their conduct.”
Regional Administrator Peter D. Lopez said: “The Superfund program operates on the principle that polluters pay for cleanups, and this settlement allows EPA to recover some of the taxpayer money that was spent at this site to address the contamination. Defendants’ actions led directly to contamination of groundwater, which migrated to people’s wells and caused hazardous vapors to seep into their homes. EPA stepped in and took the necessary actions to protect residents in the area, initially by installing treatment systems at homes, and now we are working toward a permanent remedy through the creation and extension of a new public water supply system in the community. This settlement, however, reimburses only a portion of the money EPA is spending at the site because of the limitations of the Defendants’ financial resources.”
As alleged in the complaint, since 1972, Hopewell has been engaged in the business of custom sheet metal and machining fabrication at two properties that, together with the surrounding area into which contamination has migrated, make up the Site. Budd owns one of the two properties and was the president and sole shareholder of Hopewell from 1972 until 1985, as well as the 80 percent owner from 1985 until 1991.
In connection with its operations, until approximately 1998, Hopewell used chemical solvents, including trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), to clean and degrease machine parts, generating a hazardous solvent waste that was at times disposed into the ground behind the facility. Additionally, during certain years, Hopewell employees poured paints and other chemicals into the ground behind the facility. As a result of these operations, solvents including TCE and 1,1,1-TCA were released into the environment, including the structures and soils at the Hopewell properties, and they leached into the groundwater and migrated beyond the properties, affecting drinking wells and homes in an area extending approximately one-and-a-half miles from the properties.
EPA has incurred millions of dollars of costs in connection with cleaning up the Site. Work continues at the Site, including restoration of the contaminated groundwater aquifer and construction of an alternative water supply to serve properties with private drinking water wells that have been or may be affected by the groundwater contamination.
In the consent decrees, the Defendants admit and accept responsibility for the following:
- In connection with its operations, until 1998, Hopewell used a vapor degreasing machine to clean and degrease parts, and, until at least 1991, used TCE and 1,1,1-TCA in that machine.
- As a result of HOPEWELL’s operations while BUDD was its owner and president, solvents including TCE and 1,1,1 TCA were released into the environment, including the structures and soils at the Hopewell properties.
- Contamination from the Hopewell properties has migrated beyond the properties into the area’s groundwater, contaminating approximately 66 private drinking water wells in the neighborhood as well as ponds in the path of the contaminated groundwater.
Pursuant to the consent decrees, the Defendants will pay a total of $1,247,700 in costs incurred by EPA, consisting of $963,750 to be paid by BUDD and $283,950 to be paid by Hopewell. These settlement amounts were based on a financial analysis of what the Defendants were capable of paying.
Environmental News Links
Trivia Question of the Week