EPA v. PEREZ INTERBORO ASPHALT CO INC

Case summary

NATURE OF THE CASE: THE REGION PROPOSES THE FILING OF A CIVIL ACTION PURSUANT TO CAA/113(B), 42 USC 7413(B), AGAINST PEREZ INTERBORO ASPHALT CO., INC. ( INTERBORO ) FOR VIOLATIONS OF CAA/111 & CAA/114 AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO CAA SECT. 113(A)(3). CAA/111(E) PROHIBITS THE OPERATION OF ANY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION IN VIOLATION OF ANY APPLICABLE NSPS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO SECT. 111. SECT. 114 REQUIRES ANY PERSON TO, INTER ALIA, SAMPLE EMISSIONS AT REQUEST OF EPA. INTERBORO IS THE OWNER & OPERATOR OF AN ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE NSPS FOR SUCH PLANTS. EPA IN- SPECTORS DOCUMENTED VIOLATIONS OF THE APPLICABLE VISIBLE EMISSIONS STANDARD ON 6/4/84. AFTER INSPECTION OF THE PLANT THAT SAME DAY, THE INSPECTORS CONCLUDED THAT THE REASON FOR THE VIOLATIONS WAS VERY POOR OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PRAC- TICES. EPA REGION II ISSUED AN ORDER TO INTERBORO DATED 7/20/84, REQUIRING INTERBORO TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARD & TO PERFORM A STACK TEST TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASS EMISSION STANDARD. COM- PLIANCE WITH THE ORDER WAS REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDER. COMPLIANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED ON OR BEFORE 10/15/84. INTERBORO HAS NOT COMPLETED THE REPAIRS &, CONSEQUENTLY HAS NOT PERFORMED THE STACK TEST. AN EPA INSPECTOR & CON- TRACTOR WENT TO THE SITE FOR A TEST SCHEDULED FOR 12/5/84, & FOUND THAT THE TEST COULD NOT BE PERFORMED DUE TO INADEQUATE REPAIRS. EPA REGION II REQUESTS THAT A CIVIL ACTION BE BROUGHT AGAINST INTERBORO FOR THE ORIGINAL OPACITY VIOL. & FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY W/ THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER. PROPOSED REMEDY: ADEQUATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR THIS CASE SHOULD STRESS PLANT OPERATION & MAINTENANCE. APPROPRIATE INJUNCTIVE RE- LIEF SHOULD INCLUDE THE REPAIRS & TESTING THAT EPA SOUGHT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. REGION II BELIEVES THAT A COURT ORDER SHOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR AT LEAST 2 YRS. W/ A LARGE STIPULATED PENALTY (E.G. $5,000) FOR ANY EMISSION STD. VIO- LATION DURING THAT PERIOD. THE REGION USED A POSITIVE FLEXIBILITY-ADJUSTMENT FACTOR OF 50% IN CALCULATING THE INI- TIAL MIN. SETTLEMENT AMOUNT OF THE PENALTY FOR THE INITIAL EMISSION VIOLATION. THE INITIAL MIN. SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IS $54,000. ISSUES OF NATIONAL OR PRECEDENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE: INTERBORO MAY CLAIM THAT EPA ELECTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AS THE REMEDY FOR THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION & IS THUS PRECLUDED FROM RAISING A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE SAME DOCUMENTED EMISSION STANDARD VIOLATION. ALSO, INTERBORO MAY SEEK TO HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER REVIEWED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS & TO STAY THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PENDING APPEAL. ADVERSE DECISIONS ON THESE ISSUES WOULD HAVE SERI- OUS EFFECTS ON THE ENFORCEMENT UTILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS. ************************************************************ THE ORIGINAL REFERRAL SOUGHT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ENFORCE- MENT OF AN EPA STACK TEST REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINING COM- PLIANCE WITH THE PARTICULATE MASS EMISSION LIMITATIONS OF THE NSPS FOR ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS, 40 CFR 60.92(A)(1). A TEST WAS COMPLETED BY THE DEFENDANT AND A REPORT OF THE TEST RESULTS WAS SUBMITTED TO EPA. THE TEST RESULTS SHOW MASS EMISSION VIOLATIONS OF ABOUT FOUR TIMES THE ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE. IN A REFERRAL 9/9/86, REGION II REQUESTED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THIS MATTER BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THIS VIOLATION AS AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM FOR RELIEF. * FACILITY ADDRESS: 99 PAIDGE AVE

Defendants (1)

• PEREZ INTERBORO ASPHALT CO INCNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

• INTERBORO ASPHALT

  99 PAIDGE AVENUE, BROOKLYN, NY, 11222

  Registry ID: 110001571077

• INTERBORO ASPHALT

  99 PAIDGE AVENUE, BROOKLYN, NY, 11222

  Registry ID: 110001571077

Statutes cited

• CAA 114 — Record keeping, Inspection, Information Request
• CAA 111 — New Source Performance Standards

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• PEREZ INTERBORO CO INCentered 1989-06-05

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $30,000

Timeline (7 milestones)

• 1985-02-15Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1985-03-28Referred TO U.S. Attorney
• 1985-03-28Complaint Filed With Court
• 1989-06-05Concluded
• 1989-06-05Final Order Lodged
• 1989-06-05Final Order Entered
• 1992-06-05Enforcement Action Closed