Posted on 09/27/2003 4:51:00 AM PDT by snopercod
Federal environmental regulators have denied that the fine for a Penrose metal stamping plant, alleged to have violated hazardous waste rules, will reach $1.5 billion, as stated by the owner.
Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday called the enormous estimate by American Carolina Stamping owner Steve McNabb absurd and said they had not yet figured what the company's fine could be for alleged hazardous waste violations stemming from a 1999 raid on the plant off U.S. 64 West near the Transylvania County line.
McNabb said earlier this week that according to a Sept. 4 complaint and compliance order he received from the Resource and Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement and compliance branch of the EPA, he would owe $1.5 billion.
He could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.
Counts against the plant included failing to make a hazardous waste determination, receipt and storage of hazardous waste without a permit and disposal of hazardous waste without a permit.
McNabb has denied doing anything wrong with the waste in question, a solvent containing alcohol, hexane and methane called "ZEP ID Red Liquid."
The solvent, which is used to clean metal parts, is considered hazardous because it can ignite at 60 degrees Celsius or 140 degree Fahrenheit, the order said.
Some counts carried more than one violation each finable at $27,500 per day.
McNabb said the order would fine him back to 1994.
Ken Lapierre, section chief of the RCRA enforcement branch said they have not calculated the fines yet and were waiting to sit down with McNabb at an informal hearing.
"We like to have that meeting first with people to give them a chance to bring forward any information or to talk about any issues that might be related to the facts. Then we calculate a proposed settlement penalty," Lapierre said. "We find by doing it that way we come up with much better and more realistic penalties. ... so we don't just come up with this in a vacuum."
McNabb said he wants to bring members of the media and representatives from one or more elected officials to the hearing.
EPA officials, though, say the presence of media would negate the purpose of the meeting.
"We're not trying to hide anything," Lapierre said. "But the purpose is to have very frank discussions, and people just don't do that when you have people taking notes."
There are no federal statutes that say such meetings have to be open to the media, he said.
Whether or not the informal meeting occurs, an administrative hearing overseen by an administrative law judge will follow.
That hearing is not a criminal hearing.
The criminal investigations division of the EPA carried out the initial investigation against American Carolina Stamping, which makes wire forms, electrical contacts and metal stamping products.
Those agents raided the plant April 15, 1999. This is the first official response McNabb has gotten from the EPA in the four years since the raid, he said. Statutes of limitations say that charges have to be brought or the case dropped after five years.
McNabb tried to fight the investigation, enlisting the support of Brevard Republicans U.S. Rep. Charles Taylor and N.C. Rep. Trudi Walend, and spoke about alleged EPA abuses on a "60 Minutes" news program on that topic.
Lapierre said he did not know why there had been no criminal indictment in the four years.
The area supervisor for the criminal investigations division in Atlanta, Tyrone Hicks, could not be reached for comment.
Burgess can be reached at 694-7860 or by e-mail at joel.burgess@hendersonvillenews.com.
Furthermore, you are assusming that ACS is not using the proper parts-washing enclosures, containers, ventilation, etc. - a fact not in evidence.
One again, the EPA complaint has absolutely nothing to do with endangering mere human beings - only the soil out back, and a nearby stream via osmosis.
In the late 90s, Mr. McNabb hired a "recovering" alcoholic because he wanted to give him a break and help get him straightned out. The guy eventually started coming in drunk and was throwing tools at people, so Mr. McNabb fired him.
The drunk got together with some of his union buddies over at Ecusta, and figured out a plan to get even - filing a complaint of illegal dumping (and who knows what else - the complaint is sealed) against ACS.
An inspector showed up at ACS unannounced one day, and sat herself down in Mr. McNabbs office. When he came in, she told him who she was and that she wanted to inspect his plant.
He asked what she was looking for and she refused to say. After some words, her attitude apparently angered Mr. McNabb, and he ran her off.
She left, and the rest is history. The DENR is simply trying to harass him, and doing a very good job of it, it seems.
Now, as you know, if you apply for a hazardous waste permit you are agreeing to unanounced inspections at any time during normal business hours. But, since this Zep stuff simply evaporates, there is no hazardous waste.
This whole thing reminds me of the incident in John Ross's book "Unintended Consequences" when the BATF did a similar thing to the main character of the book.
This sounds possible.
If true, the drunk and his 'union buddies from Ecusta' will now have lots more time on their hands to cook up mischief!
No where have I questioned his cleaning process. None of the articles state what the process is. He has a legal right to use any number of processes or combination of processes.
I did speculate that he used the ZEP product, or possibly a combination of the ZEP and methylene chloride, such that he could stay under the state's threshold level for reporting. It is entirely legal although it costs him more money in the long run.
As long as McNabb remained below that usage level he does not have to report to the state nor expect a inspection from the state. He was in a situation where his compliance was voluntary. His obligation to the state was to keep records of purchaces and disposal. And to furnish those records upon request or allow inpection on request, should the need arise.
What would trigger a request for his records and an inpection? A complaint.
Complaints come mainly from 3 sources: the ex-employee, the business next door, and competitors who think that there is some environmental cheating going on.
The who, what, or why of a complaint makes no difference. It is written into the regs, they have to go out. It happens very frequently and most often it leads to nothing. Its just somebody trying to get even. Or they might find a minor infraction. "Your records are 6 weeks behind. Get them up to date and I'll be back in a couple of months to sign off".
So what happens when the complaint on McNabb comes in? They send out this gal, Spring Allen, who is a low level employee with very little experience. The low woman on the totem pole. All McNabb has to do is show her the records and waltz her thru the plant. She would'nt know what the hell she was looking at. She would then go back to the office and file a report that would never be seen again. When the second complaint came in it would have been easier to handle than the first one. But that is not what happened.
Allen shows up expecting what she runs into everywhere else. Instead: "McNabb agreed with Inspector Spring Allen that he cursed her loudly and personally". He threatened her, intimidated her, scared the shit out of her. And she wrote a report about it. This report would be read many, many times by many, many people.
Let me interupt here to quote a few phrases describing McNabb besides the one above.
The reporter makes two statements: "Saying the 59 year old Mcnabb doesn't like to be told what to do is an understatement" and "McNabb often turns red faced and flings strings of unprintables". The Judge stated: "considering the personal rancor directed at the search team by Steve McNabb".
McNabb is very irrational, a loose cannon. He is his own worst enemy.
So a few days later another complaint comes in and it is about dumping something else. You can be sure that no one at the state agency was willing to go out there again. But it looked like it could be series so thay turned to the feds.
Maybe EPA overreacted. I'll say this: If I had to go out there, and I had read the file, I would go loaded for bear.
You work for the government, don't you?
CD
It's my sense, though, that many in the Eastern 90% of the state don't care very much what happens out West here, as long as we give up our property and our liberty willingly.
But as you know, he had no chemical or processing problem; he had a disposal problem.
Yes, indeed! It could be series.
But one of the problems with dealing with the EPA, and other federal and state agencies, is that they like to be doing the bullying.
They bully by insisting that you devote whatever time they may deem necessary to address their concerns on their timeline, without any consideration for what other issues may be more pressing for you. This would be considered an intolerable imposition on a businessman, if it were anyone else. (Hi! I'm from the EPA and I need to speak with you. Please cancel all of your other plans and appointments for the day, while we deal with the issue that I have been assigned to address.)
Then the agency begins its bullying tactics. "Of course, if you won't see me now, I can come back with a search warrant to give me access to whatever i want to look at and with authority to speak with anyone I want. Further, any failure to abide by the regulations can cost you up to $10,000 per day that you are out fo compliance..." This is one heck of a threat to a small business man.
They love the "up to", since it gives them so much wiggle room. They can fine you a lot. They can fine you a little, or they can forgive the fine all together, at their whimsey. Also, they can characterize the incident any way they wish, regarding its potential impact on the environment, or on worker safety. Finally, they will let you know that they have the full money and power of the government to bring to bear upon you.
One of the main reasons they never want to meet with someone in a public, or semi-public forum is because it severely limits their abilities to bully, misrepresent, threaten or otherwise intimidate.
They will also threaten to simply padlock your business shut, if you fail to cooperate. And that is one heck of a threat to any business.
Lastly, isn't it ironic that the EPA sends such low level folks into the field. The EPA is a consummate bureaucracy. The managers virtually always close ranks around their underlings, no matter what egregious errors may have been committed. And in line with this, they often decide things in groups, with their collective "group think" excercises taking on far grander proportion than is warranted.
Despite the heartfelt beliefs among the EPA functionaries, a room full of 3 G-4 does not equal a G-12.
If we were to discuss the law we would certainly want to include the who-whats-whys-whens of the law. Regulatory costs/takings, infringements, etc, etc.
If we were to discuss administration of the law we would want to include subjects such as developement and implemetation of policy. Best Available Control Technology, Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonability, legal rights and obligations, etc, etc.
In regard to events at the stamping plants there are numerous subjects to to discuss/ speculate on. Who escalated the situation? Was McNabbs reputation blemished by the state agency or by his own actions. Was the state agency wrong in calling in the EPA, should they have turned to the State Bureau of Investigation? etc, etc.
The stuff just doesn't sound that bad to me. Why do you dislike it so?
I suspect it is on that secret list that the EPA has; the NCTWDL list. (Nasty Chemicals That We Don't Like)
http://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/hexane.shtml
Rather than confuse you with terms like flash point and vapor pressure let me try to put in a perspective that is more easily understood.
Hexane is a member of a class known as aliphatic hydrocarbons. It is named for the number of carbon atoms which is 6. The first 5 members of the family are gasses. Methane with 1 carbon, ethane with 2, propane with 3, butane with 4, pentane with 5. Hexane with 6 is a quasi liquid-gas. Octane(gasoline) has 8.
Hexane doesn't burn, it explodes.
Lets just ignore the exposure limits.
I sense that you have another agenda.
Even if he were dumping the material (an accusation for which there is no proof at this time) the ecological impact would be minimal and transient.
He claims that there is no hazardous waste problem. I believe him. Given the size of his factory and its annual sales, I would be surprised if he were not a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator. There is likely no "there" there.
Additionally, this is not a process that generates a lot of "sludge". He is likely removing small amounts of cutting oils from each part. He could likely operate nearly forever before he accumulated 1000 kg of hazardous sludge.
Hexane is a HAP, but the plant appears to be below reportable limits, and at best (or worst) he would be a Synthetic Minor source under Title V. And apparently his usage is small enough that he falls below TRI reporting thresholds.
As for the exposure of his workers, the PEL is 500ppm. No one is claiming that he has exceeded that level. And in any case, that is not any concern of the EPA.
As for maintaining safety from explosion, the LEL for hexane is around 12,000ppm. With a PEL of 500ppm, your concern that this man is in imminent danger of lofting his plant into low earth orbit, with all his employee inside, would seem to be a bit misplaced. The ventilation system for maintianing health would, by deninitions, also be maintaining safety.
If everyone who exposed their workers and the workplace to chemicals that had an LEL of 12,000ppm has their asses whippd and were then thrown in jail, there would be an awful lot of people in jail with whipped asses.
I don't dispute hexanes effectiveness or his rights to us it in parts cleaning. I suggest that there others products that are better, not from a performance standpoint, but because of insurance premiums and reclaimability. Reclaiming not only lowers his costs on purchasing, it lowers his disposal costs.
Anyway follow the link in reply 1. McNabb ststes that he was using it to clean machinery.
Did you read it?
The EPA's claims are long on rhetoric and short on substance.
The interesting claim is that the EPA has "found" "... traces of the solvent, which contains hexane, alcohol and methanol...outside the plant in a burn pit and in barrels."
"McNabb said the plant has no burn pit and that the barrels contained the old solvent."
The interesting thing about the hazardous waste regulations is that it ain't waste until the generator says its waste. So if he is storing solvent in barrels, and it isn't "waste", then it isn't a problem.
He is also allowed to store up to 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste prior to disposal as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator, with no limit on how long he can store it, as long as he doesn't cross the 1000kg threshold.
As far as burn pits are concerned, with the vapor pressure of this material and its flamability, one would reasonably presume that tehre would be precious little alcohol or hexane in any "burn pit", even if there was one.
And, as anyone who knows the hazardous waste rules can tell you, a drum is "empty" when it contains less than 1 inch of residual material. And, 1 inch of hexane would certainly show up as "trace" while still not being hazardous waste. (It would be an "empty" drum and one would be expected to dispose of it as ordinary waste, as "industrial waste" or "special waste", depending on state regulations.)
And if you think about, why would anyone dump or burn hexane. All you really have to do is let it evaporate, which it does quickly. It is being done by countless others thru-out the county and the country with solvents less volitile than hexane.
The case against McNabb will turn on the records. How much came in thru the front door as material and how much went out the back door as waste.
It is not likely that he will be charged criminally. Any civil fines he may have to pay will be on top of the fines that he has imposed on himself
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.