The Renewable Fuels Association comments about this story as distorted; the story misses telling that the EPA diminished the requirements by 90% to account for the lack of the fuel. However, in their next breath they say that the fines are such a small percentage of the company profits it is not a big deal. Really!? It is okay to fine someone for not using something that does not exist because they make a lot of money? That is called theft!
How about a company getting fined $18,000 because they filed their paperwork incorrectly? Not environmental violation but PAPERWORK!
It sounds like the EPA is all about the money.
Went to the search engines and looked up "EPA fine" and got more from just this week only. Is this coincidence, or could I do this once a week and create an absurd EPA blog post once a week?
A housing provider is facing potential fines of $150,000 dollars for improperly alerting residents of lead paint. That is improperly alerting, not failing to alert. Residents were alerted to lead paint, they just were not given building history documents.
Another story complains about fines that have not been collected. These are a few cases that leave questions:
- Calise Bakery in Lincoln installed and operated three natural gas ovens without applying for or receiving a minor source. What is a "minor source?" Why is a bakery being fined for installing ovens?
- Richard J. DiSano of Cranston is the owner of a property that was storing hazardous waste without a permit for over 90 days. This sounds bad but leaves a lot of questions. Was this an appropriate function of the property and this was an administrative snafu? What was the hazardous waste? Considering what has been labeled as hazardous lately, I must remain skeptical.
- American Plating Company in Cranston was found to have committed several violations, ranging from a failure to label hazardous waste materials to a variety of administrative infractions. Sounds like getting fined for paperwork mistakes.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment