ShareThis Page
Neville Chemical may face $13M fine |

Neville Chemical may face $13M fine

| Thursday, November 6, 2003 12:00 p.m

The state Department of Environmental Protection is seeking a $13 million fine from a Neville Island chemical company for failing to stop oil from leaching into the Ohio River.

The department, which filed a complaint Monday with the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, says Neville Chemical Co. violated clean-water laws.

“It’s a shot across the bow after 20 years of orders and enforcement actions and court decrees trying to get Neville (Chemical) to follow the law, to send a signal that we really mean it this time, guys,” said DEP Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty. “You really need to come to the table, and you really need to clean up your act.”

The oil has been seeping into the Ohio River since the spring of 2002, leaving a filmy sheen on the water. It comes from under the plant, where it has collected from spills and leaks since the company began 78 years ago.

Neville Chemical uses oil to manufacture hydrocarbon resins. The oil is laced with toxins from the chemical manufacturing process and is classified as hazardous waste.

Thomas McKnight, chief operating officer of Neville Chemical, said the company submitted a comprehensive cleanup plan to state regulators last week. He estimated it would cost $1 million to $2 million to implement.

He said state officials refused to consider it and instead told Neville Chemical to agree to the state’s own plan and pay $2 million in fines.

McKnight said the DEP caused the oil slick when it ordered Neville Chemical to shut down a well used to draw cooling water. The well also pumped oil out of the ground.

McKnight said the company has cooperated with the state by restarting the well and sinking 10 others to collect the oil and by placing booms in the river to catch whatever escapes. Although no more oil is leaking from the plant, he said, some that remains on the riverbank can be removed only by using biological agents.

Neville Chemical has 30 days to respond to the Environmental Hearing Board, a five-judge panel appointed by the governor to hear environmental cases and appeals.

Both sides told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review last month that they had worked out a tentative settlement on the long-term issue of how to remediate the company’s 67-acre site.

McGinty said the agency is being reasonable in asking only that Neville Chemical keep the contaminated oil from spreading, rather than demanding that the company excavate and clean the entire property.

“The whole point is, we want to see a fully functioning, fully operating chemical plant there,” McGinty said. “We want to keep the jobs there. We just can’t have it emitting dangerous pollutants into the neighborhood.”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.