EPA v. CUYAHOGA EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

Case summary

ABBREVIATED REFERRAL AND CONSENT DECREE IN SETTLEMENT OF UNITED STATES V. CUYAHOGA EQUIPMENT CORPORATION NATURE OF THE CASE AND DESCRIPTION OF DEFENDANT THIS IS A NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP'S) FAILURE TO NOTIFY OF INTENTION TO DEMOLISH ACTION. CUYAHOGA EQUIPMENT CORPORATION IS A FLORIDA CORPORATION, LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. DURING THE FIRST THREE QUARTERS OF 1984, JOBS PERFORMED BY THE COMPANY GENERATED AN ESTIMATED GROSS REVENUE OF APPROXIMATELY $3 MILLION. CUYAHOGA PERFORMS DEMOLITION JOBS IN MANY STATES. CUYAHOGA CONTRACTED WITH THE U.S. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION TO DEMOLISH THE FORMER WISCONSIN STEEL DIVISION FACILITY AT 106TH STREET AND TORRENCE AVENUE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. THE COMPANY COMMENCED DEMOLITION AND FAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO EITHER U.S. EPA OR ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (IEPA) (TO WHOM ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DELEGATED). ON THE DATE OF INSPECTION, NO SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS OF THE NESHAP'S REGU- LATIONS WERE OBSERVED. VIOLATION AND EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION NEITHER THE U.S. EPA NOR THE IEPA ARE IN RECEIPT OF ANY NOTIFICATION OF INTENTION TO DEMOLISH. ON MAY 10, 1984, AN INSPECTOR FROM THE IEPA ENTERED THE DEMOLITION SITE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF FRIABLE ASBESTOS MATERIALS IN THE FACILITY BEING DEMOLISHED WAS AT LEAST 80 LINEAR METERS ON PIPES OR 15 SQUARE METERS ON OTHER FACILITY COMPONENTS. THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO 40 C.F.R. SECTION 61.146(B)(1), TEN (10) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE WAS REQUIRED. NO SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS WERE OBSERVED. PROPOSED REMEDY AND CONCLUDED SETTLEMENT IN THE DRAFT COMPLAINT ATTACHED TO THIS MEMORANDUM, REGION V SEEKS THE NORMALLY REQUESTED PRELIMINARY AND PERMA- NENT INJUNCTIONS AND THE ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES OF UP TO $25,000 PER DAY OF VIOLATION. BEGINNING WITH THE SECTION 113 CONFERENCE, HELD SHORTLY AFTER THE FINDING OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED IN THIS MATTER, SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS WERE COMMENCED. BASED UPON THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE COMPANY HAS AGREED TO ENTER A CONSENT DECREE, PERMANENTLY ENJOINING IT FROM FURTHER NESHAP'S NOTIFICATION VIOLATIONS, HAS DRAFTED A FORM FOR FUTURE USE WHEN NOTIFYING THE STATE/LOCAL AGENCY AND U.S. EPA OF IN- TENT TO DEMOLISH, AND HAS AGREED TO THE PAYMENT OF A $7,000 PENALTY. AS THE CASE WAS SETTLED IN NOVEMBER 1984, THE PENALTY CALCULATION WAS BASED UPON THE SEPTEMBER 12, 1984, STATION- ARY SOURCE PENALTY POLICY. IN TEH GRAVITY COMPONENT, CON- SIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE DEGREE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HARM, THE SIZE OF THE VIOLATOR AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLATION TO THE ENFORCEMENT SCHEME. THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY DID NOT TOTALLY PRECLUDE INSPECTION BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS ONGOING. THE VIOLATOR IS A LARGE COMPANY AND NOTIFICATION IS CONSID- ERED CENTRAL TO THE ENFORCEMENT SCHEME. THE ECONOMIC BENE- FIT TO THE VIOLATOR IS CONSIDERED TO BE ZERO. IN MITIGA- TION, CUYAHOGA RAISED THE FACT THAT IT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF NEGOTIATING A RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) CONSENT ORDER AND HAD ASSUMED THAT ALL U.S. EPA NOTIFICATION OVLIGATIONS WERE COVERED UNDER THE CONSENT ORDER. BASED UPON ALL OF THESE FACTORS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT $7,000 WAS AN APPROPRIATE PENALTY. IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT A COURT WOULD AWARD A LARGER SUM. ELLIOTT GILBERG OF HEADQUARTERS CONCURRED ON THE AMOUNT. ISSUES OF NATIONAL OR PRECEDENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE U.S. EPA SEEKS IMPOSITION OF SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES IN A NESHAP'S FAILURE-TO-NOTIFY ACTION WHERE NO SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.

Defendants (1)

• CUYAHOGA EQUIPMENT CORPORATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• WISCONSIN STEEL PLANT TRUST 48 00045 9

  2800 E 106TH ST, CHICAGO, IL, 60617

  Registry ID: 110000612276

Statutes cited

• CAA 112 — Hazardous Air Pollutants

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• CUYAHOGA EQUIPMENT CORPentered 1985-11-08

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $7,000

Timeline (9 milestones)

• 1984-11-29Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1985-03-29Referred To Headquarters
• 1985-04-18Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1985-09-23Referred TO U.S. Attorney
• 1985-10-24Complaint Filed With Court
• 1985-11-08Final Order Lodged
• 1985-11-08Final Order Entered
• 1985-11-08Concluded
• 1986-11-18Enforcement Action Closed