Company Disputes EPA Fine Over Oil Spill

By David Krechevsky, Waterbury Republican-American, Conn.

Aug. 16–A Cheshire, Conn., metal processing company is contesting a proposed fine of up to $157,500 for an oil spill that federal officials say polluted nearby waterways in July 2006 but which the company says had only a minor environmental impact.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency’s New England office this week filed an enforcement complaint against Erickson Metals Corp. of 25 Knotter Drive, in the Cheshire Industrial Park. The complaint claims Erickson violated the federal Clean Water Act because it did not have an oil spill prevention plan, and proposes the company pay a penalty of up to $157,500.

According to the EPA, the lack of a plan “led to extensive pollution during an oil spill last summer, damaging wildlife and surrounding bodies of water.”

The spill occurred July 23, 2006, when the EPA said the company “illegally discharged as much as 6,000 gallons of cutting oil from its facility.”

Erickson makes aluminum products including wires, plates and tubes. In its complaint, the EPA said the spill occurred when a company water tank ruptured and a sump pump pumped the water into a reservoir tank containing cutting oil, which is used in the metal grinding process. The tank overflowed and the water and oil spilled into a nearby pond. The EPA said some of the oil also ended up in Judd Brook and the Tenmile River.

The spill killed fish. It covered swans, geese and turtles in oil, and damaged aquatic plants, the EPA said. Affected animals were captured and cleaned, and some were taken to a rehabilitation clinic before being released, the EPA said.

Erickson subsequently worked with the EPA to prepare a spill prevention plan, the EPA said.

The company issued a statement Wednesday disputing the EPA’s description of the spill.

Robert Stiles, Erickson’s vice president of operations, said in the statement that the spill involved “water mixed with a relatively small amount of oil.”

Stiles also said the company hired an oil recovery firm, which was able to “contain the oil from progressing beyond a small area in a pond adjacent to the property.” He said the oil was recovered quickly and disposed of properly.

At the time of the spill, a state DEP official said it was largely confined to the pond.

“The company believes that the complaint issued by the EPA is unwarranted and unfair, particularly in view of its total cooperation and unblemished history,” Stiles said in the statement. Dave Deegan, spokesman for the EPA’s New England office in Boston, said the company has the option to request a meeting with EPA officials to discuss the proposed penalty. A final penalty will not be determined for several weeks, he said.

—–

To see more of the Waterbury Republican-American, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.rep-am.com.

Copyright (c) 2007, Waterbury Republican-American, Conn.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.