Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Humboldt Creamery fined for 'over-reporting' chemical release (you will not believe this one)
The Times-Standard ^ | July 16, 2003 | Jennifer Morey

Posted on 07/16/2003 8:37:04 PM PDT by farmfriend

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: breakem
>>Sounds like IRS code. Even IRS agents don't understand it.

My wife is a CPA. She explains it to them all the time.
61 posted on 07/17/2003 7:39:53 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (this space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
They just don't want to be hazardous waste treaters and follow the requirements. They want to remain generators. This is micromanagement at it's finest and is extremely costly. The labeling part is the same. Improper labeling must be corrected by the packager, not the package handler. The packager(labeler) is supposed to be certified with certain training, the handler does have that training, so they can't play with the labels. The handler also doesn't really know what's in the package.

" he detoxified the dioxin--and the fur flew."

He may have generated amounts above the lab, small qty generator exemption. He'd then have to comply with the treating regs. All extreme micromanagement. Universities though have all sorts of things going on and the complexity of fed regs can become impossible to know, or end up making it impossible to handle in a simple way w/o violating the law. So they tend to remain generators, not treaters. It is a very simple matter to handle these things w/o regs and no discernable environmental consequence.

"Once it leaves our lab, I don't know what happens to it."

They either store it, until the sun burns out, or destroy it like the prof. did. They of course learned to dance properly and obtained proper EPA permission.

62 posted on 07/17/2003 8:00:02 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"It's a shame the Republicans now in charge no longer stand for fewer regulations or less government."

AGREED. Now where do we turn for relief?

63 posted on 07/17/2003 8:27:59 AM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bigfootbob
There are still some good Republicans in the House of Representatives. They played a significant role in the last tax cut, and it looks like they may be able to introduce market reforms into the prescription drug plan.
64 posted on 07/17/2003 8:36:59 AM PDT by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
"The original fine amount was around $30,000," he said. "We were not even able to negotiate directly with them, we had to hire an attorney to negotiate with their attorney. Basically the reason we settled is that we decided it's cheaper than going to court."

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

65 posted on 07/17/2003 9:13:46 AM PDT by EBUCK (FIRE!....rounds downrange! http://www.azfire.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
How utterly stupid. I guess a $5K fine is cheaper than 3 days in court but this is borders on extortion.

Lets have the EPA be audited. I'm sure there are millions of dollars missing like every other bureaucracy.

Only bad thing is the fine would be paid by taxpayers.
66 posted on 07/17/2003 9:21:24 AM PDT by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
Wasn't it stalin who said that "it doesn't matter who votes but who counts the votes"?

Well with the EPA it doesn't matter what the law says - only how they will interpret or enforce the law.

And wasn't it that middle-of-the-road conservative Nixon who started the EPA?

I SURE HOPE BUSH DOESN"T SPRING MORE GOVT ON US. It's always the do -gooder republicans that start these infernal bureaucratic nightmares.

Rush us right - Bush is to far out in left field to do anyone else much good.

67 posted on 07/17/2003 10:05:37 AM PDT by Podkayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
This really goes to show that the EPA is not concerned with the environment, but with making money!
68 posted on 07/17/2003 10:09:26 AM PDT by countrydummy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
The "right" thing for the EPA to have done was either issue the company a warning or fine them a nominal amount ($1.00). It is correct that accurate reporting is important. But these idiots have lost sight of the forest - that being a clean environment.

To the extent that we have to have policing agencies like this is for some expressed public purpose. The EPA is to make sure the environment is as clean as is possible under the circumstances of modern life. This action show that the folks handling this case have forgotten their mission and are only acting like some kind of Soviet style apparachniks. Bad cess to these types.

69 posted on 07/17/2003 11:33:26 AM PDT by Dogrobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
And the thing that really pisses me off about this is that we, the taxpayers, will pay the fine. DAMN!!!!
70 posted on 07/17/2003 3:06:32 PM PDT by upchuck (Contribute to "Republicans for Al Sharpton for President in 2004." Dial 1-800-SLAPTHADONKEY :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
if your wife understands the IRS code, you may want to clone her! LOl!
71 posted on 07/17/2003 3:26:49 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
"Companies don't often report releasing more of a chemical than is actually released."

WRONG. Most companies don't have a clue as to how much they actually released. So they tend to overreport to ensure that they don't get fined.

In fact, most of the 'reductions in emissions' that have occured in the last 5 to 10 years have been due to the companies sharpening their pencils and being more accurate on how much they are releasing. And are not due to actual redcutions in emissions.
72 posted on 07/17/2003 4:12:20 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: breakem
I wish I could; she understands it well enough to make a darned good living at it.
73 posted on 07/17/2003 4:13:59 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (this space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Good Golly Miss Molly!!! What is this country coming to? Fining people for saying they may have committed a crime but aren't sure? Good Grief!
74 posted on 07/17/2003 7:46:07 PM PDT by Kay Ludlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stboz
They are cockroaches...

My Father in Law was fined hundreds of dollars on his taxes because his payment was short, by $.03

He thought that a 10,000% fine was a bit high. He paid them and included an extra 3 cents. Lucky they did not fine him again.

Since the IRA did not return the 3 cents, with fines and interest on the fines and fines on the fines by their own standards, I guess he now owns Florida...
75 posted on 07/17/2003 10:48:11 PM PDT by American in Israel (Right beats wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
What's really funny is that this incident will have cost EPA far more than $5,000... That's what's stupid.

And that is why they need to raise taxes.

76 posted on 07/17/2003 10:50:16 PM PDT by American in Israel (Right beats wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Fraulein
Similar to the CT "Alford Doctrine" in which a sentence is nulled or reduced if the defendant agrees not to appeal the decision ever.

This is used to boost convictions to near 97% by extorting "plea bargains" in all cases, large and small, from serious felony to minor traffic charge.

When the State does not have sufficient evidence it rolls this bit of garbage out as the expense and time of appearing in a court case is monsterous for a defendant, whereas the prosecutors and judges are there every day getting paid by you the bottomless pit taxpayer and building their resumes up.

But then if you hand a certain ex-prosecutor, now prominent defense attorney, cash on the barrelhead, you will be sure that your case "goes away".
77 posted on 07/17/2003 11:00:55 PM PDT by autoresponder (. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel
Recall that the Clintons were caught by the IRS for income tax evasion in 1993 and only charged interest.

13 years later and no fine, not one single penny.

Who was Prez then?


78 posted on 07/17/2003 11:05:18 PM PDT by autoresponder (. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
A local mine had to pay 500 dollars per 55 gallon barrel to haul away empty spray paint cans. Some bright boy in the EPA decieded that since putting an empty spray pain can in a fire would cause it to pop, and if it popped just right a piece of metal could hit someone in the eye, it was then hazardous waste. The mine ended up paying far more for the empty cans than it had to pay for the full ones.

They offered to purchase a spray can puncturer from Wall Mart but the EPA said they could not disable the cans themselves as the mine had no hazardous material disposal site licence and the cost for that licence was far more than the disposal of empty spray cans would cost over the life of the mine.

A $50,000 dollar solution to a $5 problem is the EPA specialty.

One would think that the "do not dispose of in a fire" required warning on the side of the can would be enough, but not when real cash is at stake.

Extortion by any other name is Government.
79 posted on 07/17/2003 11:11:29 PM PDT by American in Israel (Right beats wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

History soon will, an Angel soon will come in the form of a king, the leader of the fallen Angels...

80 posted on 07/17/2003 11:16:11 PM PDT by American in Israel (Right beats wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson