Icis case Summary Field Examples




Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер8.44 Kb.
ICIS Case Summary Field Examples
The following three case summaries (taken from EPA press releases) provide examples of the type of information that we would like the regions to present in the ICIS Case Summary field:
Example #1 - CWA (based on Texas Pipeline Company press release, March 2010):

This enforcement case addresses violations of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), by NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership LP (NuStar). The CWA requires facilities that store large quantities of oil to develop response plans outlining procedures for addressing “worst-case” discharges of oil. During inspections in 2006, EPA discovered several NuStar facilities did not have facility response plans. Proper preparation for spills and emergencies is an important step in avoiding large-scale environmental disasters.


NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership LP, of San Antonio, Texas, operates oil storage facilities in several states. NuStar’s affected facilities include those in LeMars, Milford and Rock Rapids, Iowa; Hutchinson and Salina, Kan.; and Columbus, Geneva and Norfolk, Neb. The eight facilities have a combined storage capacity of more than 71 million gallons of oil.

In a consent decree entered on ____________in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, NuStar agreed to pay a $450,000 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it failed to prepare and maintain proper facility response plans to deal with spills and environmental accidents at eight of its oil storage terminal facilities in Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska. NuStar also agreed to spend an additional $768,000 on a supplemental environmental project to install and operate tank volume monitoring and alarm systems at several of its facilities, according to the consent decree.



Example #2 – CAA (based on Kentucky Utilities (KU) press release, February 2009):
This case addresses violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by Kentucky Utilities (KU), a coal-fired electric utility based in Lexington, Kentucky. KU owns and operates five coal-fired electrical generating stations in Kentucky. The CAA requires, among other things, that EPA control emissions from power plants. The settlement in this case applies to the largest boiler unit at the E.W. Brown Generating Station located on Lake Herrington in Mercer County, Kentucky and is part of EPA’s enforcement initiative to control harmful emissions from coal-fired power plants under the CAA’s New Source Review requirements.

In the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in March of 2007, the U.S. alleged that Kentucky Utilities (KU) modified the largest coal-fired electrical generating unit at the E. W. Brown Generating Station without installing required pollution control equipment or complying with applicable emission limits in violation of the Clean Air Act. The government discovered the violations through an information request submitted to KU.

As part of the settlement entered by the court on _______________, KU has agreed to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty and spend approximately $135 million on pollution controls to resolve these violations. KU also agreed to install new pollution control equipment that will reduce combined emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by more than 31,000 tons per year. KU will also install controls to reduce particulate matter emissions by approximately 1,000 tons per year. In addition, KU will spend approximately $3 million on projects to benefit the environment and mitigate the adverse effects of the alleged violations including:


  • Contribute $1.8 million to a pilot project on the effectiveness of storing compressed carbon dioxide gas, a by-product of coal combustion, in deep injection wells;

  • Spend $1 million to retrofit school buses with filters or other controls to reduce emissions of particulate matter; and

  • Pay $200,000 to the National Park Service to help restore Mammoth Cave National Park.

Example #3 – CERCLA (based on Walpole, Mass. Superfund Site Expedited Cleanup Settlement press release, July 28, 2010)


A settlement has been reached between four parties and the United States to expedite cleanup of the contaminated Blackburn and Union Privileges Superfund Site in Walpole, Mass. This settlement concludes an action that was initiated against the parties pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The parties involved in the settlement include W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., a former owner and operator of the site; Tyco Healthcare Group, also former owner and operator; as well as BIM Investment Corp. and Shaffer Realty Nominee Trust, the current owners.

Under the settlement, the four parties will, among other things: excavate and dredge contaminated soil and sediment; treat contaminated groundwater that poses a risk to surface waters; establish land use restrictions for the site; and perform long-term monitoring of soils, sediment and groundwater. The private parties will also be required to maintain the cap and culvert, and perform engineering studies needed to ensure the long-term integrity of the structures. The group will also reimburse the federal government for the $1.4 million in response costs associated with the site, as well as for all future oversight costs up to $2 million.



The consent decree, lodged in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and court approval.





База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка