US July imports from Asia hit 11-month high, portending year-on-year fall growth
The fresh data also showed – starkly – how the West Coast’s share of imports from Asia eroded during the 13 months of contentious contract negotiations between the ILWU and waterfront employers.
EPA proposes beneficial use of Onsite Material at portion of the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site in Montana
Butte, Mont. -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released a position paper detailing the proposed use of onsite material as general fill within the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (BPSOU) at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site. EPA will host a public meeting in Butte on Wednesday, August 30, to present details, answer questions and listen to perspectives on the use of onsite material and other topics related to cleanup progress. This announcement furthers the agency’s goal of enhanced transparency and community involvement at the site.
Onsite material is soil or other natural material which exists within a Superfund site and is often used to contribute to cleanup efforts. It is frequently used to serve important functions, including stabilizing soils and reducing erosion, containing, and immobilizing contamination, and supporting vegetation and restoration, among other beneficial purposes. As such, the use of such material is common. In fact, Superfund sites across the nation, including dozens of mining sites, involve cleanup remedies which intentionally and effectively use soils and other material onsite.
The measures proposed for onsite soils in Butte are intended to be rigorous. Under the BPSOU Consent Decree, material not exceeding established metals criteria, may be used on site only under specific conditions which minimize any movement to air, groundwater and surface water, and limit use to locations where people are unlikely be exposed. Additionally, all onsite material identified as potentially suitable for general fill will undergo extensive sampling and analysis to confirm it meet all parameters and criteria to protect human health and the environment before any use.
Using onsite material as general fill does more than assist with meeting project goals, it also provides direct local benefits such as minimizing impacts to public safety and roads from reduced transport and haul truck traffic. In addition, the unnecessary removal, transport and disposal of usable onsite material, and its replacement with fill material removed and transported from offsite locations, comes with additional potential environmental impacts in terms of fuel and energy use; air toxics and greenhouse gas emissions; erosion, runoff, and surface water degradation; and other environmental concerns. A critical aspect of developing effective onsite soil remedies is evaluating and appropriately using soil material when it contributes to cleanup goals; any material that does not meet established protectiveness criteria will be addressed.
A public meeting will be held on Wednesday August 30, 2023, from 6:00 pm to 8:00pm at the Butte Emergency Operations Center (3619 Wynne Ave, Butte, MT 59701) for the public to learn more about onsite material and to give public comments. To provide written comments, please address those to Charles Van Otten, vanotten.charles@epa.gov or by standard mail to Charles Van Otten, U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
EPA onsite material position paper for the BPSOU.
More on the BPSOU Superfund site cleanup.
Onsite material is soil or other natural material which exists within a Superfund site and is often used to contribute to cleanup efforts. It is frequently used to serve important functions, including stabilizing soils and reducing erosion, containing, and immobilizing contamination, and supporting vegetation and restoration, among other beneficial purposes. As such, the use of such material is common. In fact, Superfund sites across the nation, including dozens of mining sites, involve cleanup remedies which intentionally and effectively use soils and other material onsite.
The measures proposed for onsite soils in Butte are intended to be rigorous. Under the BPSOU Consent Decree, material not exceeding established metals criteria, may be used on site only under specific conditions which minimize any movement to air, groundwater and surface water, and limit use to locations where people are unlikely be exposed. Additionally, all onsite material identified as potentially suitable for general fill will undergo extensive sampling and analysis to confirm it meet all parameters and criteria to protect human health and the environment before any use.
Using onsite material as general fill does more than assist with meeting project goals, it also provides direct local benefits such as minimizing impacts to public safety and roads from reduced transport and haul truck traffic. In addition, the unnecessary removal, transport and disposal of usable onsite material, and its replacement with fill material removed and transported from offsite locations, comes with additional potential environmental impacts in terms of fuel and energy use; air toxics and greenhouse gas emissions; erosion, runoff, and surface water degradation; and other environmental concerns. A critical aspect of developing effective onsite soil remedies is evaluating and appropriately using soil material when it contributes to cleanup goals; any material that does not meet established protectiveness criteria will be addressed.
A public meeting will be held on Wednesday August 30, 2023, from 6:00 pm to 8:00pm at the Butte Emergency Operations Center (3619 Wynne Ave, Butte, MT 59701) for the public to learn more about onsite material and to give public comments. To provide written comments, please address those to Charles Van Otten, vanotten.charles@epa.gov or by standard mail to Charles Van Otten, U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
EPA onsite material position paper for the BPSOU.
More on the BPSOU Superfund site cleanup.
Statement from EPA Regional Administrator KC Becker on the Butte Priority Soils Superfund site
Statement from EPA Regional Administrator KC Becker on the Butte Priority Soils Superfund site
Today, in response to concerns expressed by some in the Butte community regarding the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (BPSOU) Superfund site, EPA issued a detailed position paper to clarify and detail the use of onsite material at the site. This paper, along with an upcoming August 30 community meeting, reflects an effort to engage with the community so that all can better understand this aspect of the cleanup. It is important for us to clearly communicate and share facts and information as we have discussions on these and other topics related to site progress.
As stated upfront in the paper, EPA is committed to making sure that all BPSOU cleanup decisions are and will be (1) protective of human health and the environment, (2) reflective of transparent community engagement, (3) consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and (4) the BPSOU Consent Decree (CD).
I’d like to start by addressing some misconceptions about what we mean by onsite material. Onsite material is soil (or sometimes other material) present within a Superfund site which can be used to contribute to site cleanup efforts. It can serve a wide range of important functions, including stabilizing soils and reducing erosion, containing and immobilizing contamination, and supporting vegetation and land restoration, among other beneficial purposes. As such, the use of this material is common, In fact, Superfund sites across the nation, including dozens of mining sites, involve cleanup remedies which intentionally and effectively use soils and other material onsite.
One of the most fundamental objectives of the Superfund law, and the deliberate and thorough cleanup program we use to meet the law, is to eliminate exposure to harmful levels of contaminants. Achieving this basic objective—in Butte and at the more than 1,300 Superfund priority sites across the nation—does not necessitate digging up every microgram of a metal or substance of concern and moving it to another location. Such a requirement would be practically impossible and inconsistent with the science supporting Superfund risk investigations and assessments. In the case of the BPSOU site remedy, the Consent Decree, and the technical work plans and processes that guide cleanup actions, protectiveness can be simply defined as preventing community exposures to harmful levels of metals, specifically arsenic and lead, from historic mining activities. The use of onsite material at the site is only permitted when it is consistent with that objective.
I should emphasize that the measures in place for onsite soils in Butte are rigorous. Under the Consent Decree, material that does not exceed established metals criteria may be used on site only under specific conditions which minimize any movement to air, groundwater and surface water, and limit use to locations where people are unlikely to be exposed. In addition, all onsite material identified as potentially suitable for general fill will undergo extensive sampling and analysis to confirm it meets all parameters and criteria before use.
I also would like to clarify that these determinations are not based on financial costs; they are based on science, data and risk evaluations that enable the practical and beneficial use of onsite material to advance site-specific cleanup goals and also protect offsite environmental resources. While it is true that it would take significant financial resources, time, and, potentially, new agreements, to fully remove and relocate all onsite material at the BPSOU, the most basic reason such material is used is that it is environmentally beneficial to do so. Put simply, the use of onsite material as general fill allows us to address exposure risk and restore areas efficiently and effectively.
The use of onsite material as general fill poses minimal risk to humans, groundwater, the watershed or plant and animal life. The alternative—removing, transporting and disposing the material, and replacing it with fill material removed and transported from offsite locations (all in an effort to achieve the same cleanup purposes the onsite fill was used for)—is not only impractical, it also comes with additional potential environmental impacts in terms of fuel and energy use; air toxics and greenhouse gas emissions; erosion, runoff, and surface water degradation; and other concerns.
EPA is genuinely committed to engagement in Butte, and we look forward to continuing to share information with the community on the use of onsite material in cleaning up the BPSOU. While we welcome questions, dialogue and the many differing perspectives and opinions represented across the community, we cannot disregard the carefully developed science, determinations and agreements completed in accordance with the Superfund law and the objectives of the program. We also cannot lose sight of the goal of moving the project forward to get contamination cleaned up as expeditiously as possible to protect human health and the environment in Butte. While the processes in place for monitoring and ensuring the safe use of onsite material within the BPSOU are rigorous, we are certainly open to more discussions to clarify where, when and how such material could be used. I should also assure you the agency will act quickly and decisively if any information suggests potential exposure risks associated with specific areas or uses.
I look forward to visiting Butte on August 30 to meet with the community and engage on these and other topics.
EPA News Release on BPSOU onsite material.
Today, in response to concerns expressed by some in the Butte community regarding the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (BPSOU) Superfund site, EPA issued a detailed position paper to clarify and detail the use of onsite material at the site. This paper, along with an upcoming August 30 community meeting, reflects an effort to engage with the community so that all can better understand this aspect of the cleanup. It is important for us to clearly communicate and share facts and information as we have discussions on these and other topics related to site progress.
As stated upfront in the paper, EPA is committed to making sure that all BPSOU cleanup decisions are and will be (1) protective of human health and the environment, (2) reflective of transparent community engagement, (3) consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and (4) the BPSOU Consent Decree (CD).
I’d like to start by addressing some misconceptions about what we mean by onsite material. Onsite material is soil (or sometimes other material) present within a Superfund site which can be used to contribute to site cleanup efforts. It can serve a wide range of important functions, including stabilizing soils and reducing erosion, containing and immobilizing contamination, and supporting vegetation and land restoration, among other beneficial purposes. As such, the use of this material is common, In fact, Superfund sites across the nation, including dozens of mining sites, involve cleanup remedies which intentionally and effectively use soils and other material onsite.
One of the most fundamental objectives of the Superfund law, and the deliberate and thorough cleanup program we use to meet the law, is to eliminate exposure to harmful levels of contaminants. Achieving this basic objective—in Butte and at the more than 1,300 Superfund priority sites across the nation—does not necessitate digging up every microgram of a metal or substance of concern and moving it to another location. Such a requirement would be practically impossible and inconsistent with the science supporting Superfund risk investigations and assessments. In the case of the BPSOU site remedy, the Consent Decree, and the technical work plans and processes that guide cleanup actions, protectiveness can be simply defined as preventing community exposures to harmful levels of metals, specifically arsenic and lead, from historic mining activities. The use of onsite material at the site is only permitted when it is consistent with that objective.
I should emphasize that the measures in place for onsite soils in Butte are rigorous. Under the Consent Decree, material that does not exceed established metals criteria may be used on site only under specific conditions which minimize any movement to air, groundwater and surface water, and limit use to locations where people are unlikely to be exposed. In addition, all onsite material identified as potentially suitable for general fill will undergo extensive sampling and analysis to confirm it meets all parameters and criteria before use.
I also would like to clarify that these determinations are not based on financial costs; they are based on science, data and risk evaluations that enable the practical and beneficial use of onsite material to advance site-specific cleanup goals and also protect offsite environmental resources. While it is true that it would take significant financial resources, time, and, potentially, new agreements, to fully remove and relocate all onsite material at the BPSOU, the most basic reason such material is used is that it is environmentally beneficial to do so. Put simply, the use of onsite material as general fill allows us to address exposure risk and restore areas efficiently and effectively.
The use of onsite material as general fill poses minimal risk to humans, groundwater, the watershed or plant and animal life. The alternative—removing, transporting and disposing the material, and replacing it with fill material removed and transported from offsite locations (all in an effort to achieve the same cleanup purposes the onsite fill was used for)—is not only impractical, it also comes with additional potential environmental impacts in terms of fuel and energy use; air toxics and greenhouse gas emissions; erosion, runoff, and surface water degradation; and other concerns.
EPA is genuinely committed to engagement in Butte, and we look forward to continuing to share information with the community on the use of onsite material in cleaning up the BPSOU. While we welcome questions, dialogue and the many differing perspectives and opinions represented across the community, we cannot disregard the carefully developed science, determinations and agreements completed in accordance with the Superfund law and the objectives of the program. We also cannot lose sight of the goal of moving the project forward to get contamination cleaned up as expeditiously as possible to protect human health and the environment in Butte. While the processes in place for monitoring and ensuring the safe use of onsite material within the BPSOU are rigorous, we are certainly open to more discussions to clarify where, when and how such material could be used. I should also assure you the agency will act quickly and decisively if any information suggests potential exposure risks associated with specific areas or uses.
I look forward to visiting Butte on August 30 to meet with the community and engage on these and other topics.
EPA News Release on BPSOU onsite material.
EPA fines Suncor for chemical accident prevention and reporting violations
COMMERCE CITY, Colo. (August 18, 2023) - Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a $300,030 settlement with the Suncor Energy USA Inc., Commerce City Refinery (Suncor) to resolve alleged violations of toxic chemical-related regulations.
The settlement addresses chemical accident prevention, toxic chemical release reporting and community right-to-know violations at the refinery, which EPA discovered during an inspection conducted from September 14-17, 2020. Suncor will pay $60,000 in civil penalties. It will also spend at least $240,030 on emergency response equipment as a Supplemental Environmental Project to enhance the chemical release accident response capabilities of the South Adams County Fire Department in Commerce City, Colorado.
"Facilities must properly handle hazardous substances to prevent dangerous chemical accidents and follow reporting requirements when releases occur,” said KC Becker, EPA Regional Administrator. “If they don’t, EPA will hold them accountable. We are pleased that Suncor is implementing critical safety measures to protect workers and the community."
The inspection focused on the root causes related to the catalyst release that occurred on December 11, 2019, among other areas. The EPA found that Suncor violated the following regulations:
The Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act, which is aimed at preventing accidental releases of chemicals that can have serious consequences for public health, safety, and the environment; Specifically, Suncor failed to maintain correct process safety information, complete outstanding process hazard analyses, update operating procedures and follow management of change procedures.
Toxic chemical release reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which are designed to notify the community of toxic releases from facilities to help prepare for and protect against chemical accidents. Specifically, Suncor failed to timely report two releases and failed to report sulfuric acid in their industrial batteries to the local emergency responders.
Suncor certified that it addressed these findings.
Please see Consent Agreement and Final Order for more information.
Read more information about the Risk Management Program, Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act and section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
The settlement addresses chemical accident prevention, toxic chemical release reporting and community right-to-know violations at the refinery, which EPA discovered during an inspection conducted from September 14-17, 2020. Suncor will pay $60,000 in civil penalties. It will also spend at least $240,030 on emergency response equipment as a Supplemental Environmental Project to enhance the chemical release accident response capabilities of the South Adams County Fire Department in Commerce City, Colorado.
"Facilities must properly handle hazardous substances to prevent dangerous chemical accidents and follow reporting requirements when releases occur,” said KC Becker, EPA Regional Administrator. “If they don’t, EPA will hold them accountable. We are pleased that Suncor is implementing critical safety measures to protect workers and the community."
The inspection focused on the root causes related to the catalyst release that occurred on December 11, 2019, among other areas. The EPA found that Suncor violated the following regulations:
The Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act, which is aimed at preventing accidental releases of chemicals that can have serious consequences for public health, safety, and the environment; Specifically, Suncor failed to maintain correct process safety information, complete outstanding process hazard analyses, update operating procedures and follow management of change procedures.
Toxic chemical release reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which are designed to notify the community of toxic releases from facilities to help prepare for and protect against chemical accidents. Specifically, Suncor failed to timely report two releases and failed to report sulfuric acid in their industrial batteries to the local emergency responders.
Suncor certified that it addressed these findings.
Please see Consent Agreement and Final Order for more information.
Read more information about the Risk Management Program, Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act and section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
EPA Invites Public Input on Proposed Cleanup Plan for Lehigh Valley Railroad Superfund Site in Genesee County, New York
NEW YORK - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on its proposed cleanup plan to address contaminated groundwater, soil, bedrock, soil vapor and surface water at the Lehigh Valley Railroad site located in LeRoy, New York. A 30-day public comment period for the proposed plan begins on August 18, 2023. EPA will host a public meeting at Caledonia Mumford High School auditorium, 99 North Street, Caledonia, NY on August 29, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. to explain the new cleanup proposal. EPA’s proposed plan for the Lehigh Valley Railroad site will address the remaining contamination from a historic train accident that spilled trichloroethylene (TCE) onto the ground and into the groundwater.
The site includes the location of a former train derailment that occurred on December 6, 1970, at the Gulf Road crossing in the Town of LeRoy. Two tank cars ruptured and spilled approximately 30,000 gallons of TCE onto the ground. A third car containing a crystalline form of cyanide was also reported to have partially spilled. The cyanide was recovered shortly after the derailment, however the TCE was flushed with water, and it seeped into the ground, resulting in a 4-mile-long plume of TCE contamination. EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List in 1999 and has been cleaning the site in several stages, including early removal responses, as well as remedial actions known as operable units (OUs).
The cleanup outlined in today’s proposed plan will address the groundwater, bedrock, soil, soil vapor, and surface water. For the groundwater contamination, EPA has determined that no existing treatment methods can clean up the groundwater to meet standards in a reasonable time. Therefore, EPA proposes to monitor the groundwater and use institutional controls (ICs) to limit its use and protect people’s health over the long term.
The proposed plan also includes:
Removing remaining contaminated soil and disposing of it off-site, followed by backfilling with clean fill.
In-situ treatment of contaminated surface water with streambed cover, ICs, and monitoring.
Monitoring groundwater, surface water, soil vapor and indoor air to check the levels of contaminants.
Maintaining and installing vapor mitigation systems for properties that are affected by soil vapor intrusion from the groundwater plume. These systems prevent harmful vapors from entering indoor spaces.
Connecting new homes built over the groundwater plume to the public water supply system. Existing homes over the plume were connected to the public water system in 2003.
ICs in the form of governmental controls, proprietary controls (e.g., easements in the spill area), and informational devices (e.g., notices, publications) to limit exposure to contaminated groundwater and soil vapor.
EPA also proposes changes to a 1997 cleanup plan to eliminate source control measures including bedrock vapor extraction, to update the surface water standard for TCE, and to address soil contamination beneath Gulf Road by implementing ICs to restrict access and to require proper soil management if the roadbed is disturbed in the future.
Written comments on the proposed plan may be mailed or emailed to Maria Jon, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway – 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007, Email: jon.maria@epa.gov.
For additional background and to see the proposed cleanup plan, visit the Lehigh Valley Railroad Superfund site profile page.
Follow EPA Region 2 on Twitter and visit our Facebook page. For more information about EPA Region 2, visit our website.
23-074
The site includes the location of a former train derailment that occurred on December 6, 1970, at the Gulf Road crossing in the Town of LeRoy. Two tank cars ruptured and spilled approximately 30,000 gallons of TCE onto the ground. A third car containing a crystalline form of cyanide was also reported to have partially spilled. The cyanide was recovered shortly after the derailment, however the TCE was flushed with water, and it seeped into the ground, resulting in a 4-mile-long plume of TCE contamination. EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List in 1999 and has been cleaning the site in several stages, including early removal responses, as well as remedial actions known as operable units (OUs).
The cleanup outlined in today’s proposed plan will address the groundwater, bedrock, soil, soil vapor, and surface water. For the groundwater contamination, EPA has determined that no existing treatment methods can clean up the groundwater to meet standards in a reasonable time. Therefore, EPA proposes to monitor the groundwater and use institutional controls (ICs) to limit its use and protect people’s health over the long term.
The proposed plan also includes:
Removing remaining contaminated soil and disposing of it off-site, followed by backfilling with clean fill.
In-situ treatment of contaminated surface water with streambed cover, ICs, and monitoring.
Monitoring groundwater, surface water, soil vapor and indoor air to check the levels of contaminants.
Maintaining and installing vapor mitigation systems for properties that are affected by soil vapor intrusion from the groundwater plume. These systems prevent harmful vapors from entering indoor spaces.
Connecting new homes built over the groundwater plume to the public water supply system. Existing homes over the plume were connected to the public water system in 2003.
ICs in the form of governmental controls, proprietary controls (e.g., easements in the spill area), and informational devices (e.g., notices, publications) to limit exposure to contaminated groundwater and soil vapor.
EPA also proposes changes to a 1997 cleanup plan to eliminate source control measures including bedrock vapor extraction, to update the surface water standard for TCE, and to address soil contamination beneath Gulf Road by implementing ICs to restrict access and to require proper soil management if the roadbed is disturbed in the future.
Written comments on the proposed plan may be mailed or emailed to Maria Jon, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway – 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007, Email: jon.maria@epa.gov.
For additional background and to see the proposed cleanup plan, visit the Lehigh Valley Railroad Superfund site profile page.
Follow EPA Region 2 on Twitter and visit our Facebook page. For more information about EPA Region 2, visit our website.
23-074
Tribunal ordena a empresa de Washington que cumpla con las reglamentaciones y pague USD 850 000 por almacenar de forma ilegal sustancias químicas peligrosas e infringir las leyes ambientales federales
SEATTLE – La Agencia de Protección Ambiental de EE. UU. anunció hoy que Multistar Industries Inc., de Othello, Washington, pagará USD 850 000 por haber infringido las leyes ambientales.
El 1 de agosto, el Tribunal de Distrito de EE. UU. correspondiente al Distrito Este de Washington le ordenó a Multistar el pago de una multa por haber cometido cinco infracciones al Programa de Manejo de Riesgos de la Ley de Aire Limpio y dos infracciones a la Ley de Planificación para Emergencias y Derecho a Saber de la Comunidad. Las infracciones se relacionan con el hecho de que Multistar almacenó una sustancia química peligrosa llamada trimetilamina, o TMA, en su planta de Othello, Washington.
Además de la multa, el Tribunal accedió a la solicitud de la EPA de un mandamiento judicial, que exige que Multistar cumpla inmediatamente con los requisitos de la Ley de Aire Limpio y presente informes semestrales durante los próximos cinco años que demuestren su cumplimiento continuo. En la orden judicial, el Tribunal se refirió a las infracciones de Multistar como “sumamente graves” y declaró que la conducta de la empresa “pone en riesgo la vida de los trabajadores, así como la vida de las personas de la comunidad”.
Multistar comenzó a almacenar TMA en vagones de su planta en 2017, pero tomó medidas para cumplir con los requisitos de la CAA y la EPCRA recién después de que la EPA comenzara a investigar la operación en 2019. Incluso entonces, el Tribunal determinó que Multistar no había cumplido totalmente con los requisitos de la CAA en el momento del juicio. Multistar tiene una larga historia de problemas de cumplimiento en su planta, con infracciones previas resueltas con la EPA en 2005, 2016, 2019 y 2021.
“Este fallo fue un gran logro para prevenir accidentes químicos”, expresó Ed Kowalski, director de la Oficina de Seguimiento de la Implementación y el Cumplimiento de la Ley de la Región 10 de la EPA. “Tanto el Programa de Manejo de Riesgos de la EPA como la Ley de Planificación para Emergencias y Derecho a Saber de la Comunidad se centran en planificar y prevenir la liberación accidental de sustancias peligrosas, especialmente donde hay grandes poblaciones vulnerables”.
Multistar almacenó un promedio de 696 380 libras de TMA en vagones no motorizados desde 2019. La empresa aumentó su capacidad de inventario desde un promedio de 156 988 libras en 2018.
La trimetilamina es una sustancia muy inflamable, que es corrosiva para los ojos, la piel y las vías respiratorias. Se usa con frecuencia en la fabricación de productos electrónicos, explosivos, productos farmacéuticos y papel, y como aditivo en la gasolina.
Puede encontrar más detalles en los antecedentes de hecho y conclusiones de derecho del Tribunal, así como en la orden de concesión del mandamiento judicial del Tribunal.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - United States v. Multistar Industries, Inc. (pdf)
Order Granting Injunction - United States v. Multistar Industries, Inc. (pdf)
Also available in English - Court orders Washington company to comply with regulations, pay $850k for illegally storing hazardous chemicals and violating federal environmental laws
El 1 de agosto, el Tribunal de Distrito de EE. UU. correspondiente al Distrito Este de Washington le ordenó a Multistar el pago de una multa por haber cometido cinco infracciones al Programa de Manejo de Riesgos de la Ley de Aire Limpio y dos infracciones a la Ley de Planificación para Emergencias y Derecho a Saber de la Comunidad. Las infracciones se relacionan con el hecho de que Multistar almacenó una sustancia química peligrosa llamada trimetilamina, o TMA, en su planta de Othello, Washington.
Además de la multa, el Tribunal accedió a la solicitud de la EPA de un mandamiento judicial, que exige que Multistar cumpla inmediatamente con los requisitos de la Ley de Aire Limpio y presente informes semestrales durante los próximos cinco años que demuestren su cumplimiento continuo. En la orden judicial, el Tribunal se refirió a las infracciones de Multistar como “sumamente graves” y declaró que la conducta de la empresa “pone en riesgo la vida de los trabajadores, así como la vida de las personas de la comunidad”.
Multistar comenzó a almacenar TMA en vagones de su planta en 2017, pero tomó medidas para cumplir con los requisitos de la CAA y la EPCRA recién después de que la EPA comenzara a investigar la operación en 2019. Incluso entonces, el Tribunal determinó que Multistar no había cumplido totalmente con los requisitos de la CAA en el momento del juicio. Multistar tiene una larga historia de problemas de cumplimiento en su planta, con infracciones previas resueltas con la EPA en 2005, 2016, 2019 y 2021.
“Este fallo fue un gran logro para prevenir accidentes químicos”, expresó Ed Kowalski, director de la Oficina de Seguimiento de la Implementación y el Cumplimiento de la Ley de la Región 10 de la EPA. “Tanto el Programa de Manejo de Riesgos de la EPA como la Ley de Planificación para Emergencias y Derecho a Saber de la Comunidad se centran en planificar y prevenir la liberación accidental de sustancias peligrosas, especialmente donde hay grandes poblaciones vulnerables”.
Multistar almacenó un promedio de 696 380 libras de TMA en vagones no motorizados desde 2019. La empresa aumentó su capacidad de inventario desde un promedio de 156 988 libras en 2018.
La trimetilamina es una sustancia muy inflamable, que es corrosiva para los ojos, la piel y las vías respiratorias. Se usa con frecuencia en la fabricación de productos electrónicos, explosivos, productos farmacéuticos y papel, y como aditivo en la gasolina.
Puede encontrar más detalles en los antecedentes de hecho y conclusiones de derecho del Tribunal, así como en la orden de concesión del mandamiento judicial del Tribunal.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - United States v. Multistar Industries, Inc. (pdf)
Order Granting Injunction - United States v. Multistar Industries, Inc. (pdf)
Also available in English - Court orders Washington company to comply with regulations, pay $850k for illegally storing hazardous chemicals and violating federal environmental laws
CBP agriculture specialists discover first-in-nation pest in San Diego
OTAY MESA, Calif., – U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialists assigned to the Otay Mesa cargo facility intercepted a rare pest while inspecting a cargo shipment on July 19 when a shipment containing pocket leaves arrived at the…
Statement by Secretary Vilsack Regarding USMCA Dispute Settlement Panel Request on Mexico’s Agricultural Biotechnology Measures
WASHINGTON, August 17, 2023 – U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack issued the following statement regarding today’s announcement by the Office of the U.S.