20 July 2007 22:46 [Source: ICIS news]
However, DuPont disagrees with the federal government’s interpretation of environmental regulations governing the case.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alleged in a joint statement that DuPont made modifications to four of its
Under 1977 Clean Air Act amendments and EPA’s new source review (NSR) regulations, chemical plants and other manufacturing facilities making “major modifications” must obtain an advance permit from the agency, which specifies what construction may be done and what emissions limits the modified facility must meet.
The NSR rules do not apply to routine maintenance, but industry and EPA have differed sharply over what facility improvements constitute routine maintenance or qualify as major modifications.
Although it agreed to pay the civil penalty of $4.125m as part of a consent agreement disposing of the federal allegations, DuPont said in a statement that it disagrees with EPA’s interpretation of the new source review regulations in the case.
The company said the work it did at sulphur processing facilities in
However, DuPont said that rather than contest the EPA interpretations it “has chosen to work co-operatively with EPA to resolve the disagreement”.
The states of Louisiana, Virginia and Ohio joined in the settlement and will receive shares of the civil penalty, the Justice Department said.
($1 = €0.72)
For the latest chemical news, data and analysis that directly impacts your business sign up for a free trial to ICIS news - the breaking online news service for the global chemical industry.
Get the facts and analysis behind the headlines from our market leading weekly magazine: sign up to a free trial to ICIS Chemical Business.
|ICIS news FREE TRIAL|
|Get access to breaking chemical news as it happens.|
|ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX)|
|ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX). Download the free tabular data and a chart of the historical index|