EPA v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, KANSAS CITY, KS

Case summary

DEFENDANT PRODUCES SEVERAL LINES OF INSULATION PRO- DUCTS. THE KANSAS CITY, KANSAS/WYANDOTTE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. (KCK-WCH) FOUND OPACITY VIOLATIONS AT A TIME WHEN ONE OF THOSE LINES (THE K-10 LINE, PRODUCING METAL BUILDING INSUL- ATION, OR MBI --FIBERGLASS--) WAS OPERATING. THE LINE HAD AN ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR (ESP) ON IT, WHICH WAS AP- PARENTLY NOT CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE EMISSIONS. THE KANSAS REGULATION, SECTION 2A-19, REQUIRED THAT OPACITY BE LESS THAN 20%, WHEREAS THE AVERAGE OF THE OPACITY READINGS WAS 34%. THE SOURCE IS IN A NON-ATTAINMENT AREA FOR HYDRO- CARBONS. THE OPACITY READINGS DONE BY KCK-WCH WHICH UNCOVERED VIOLATION OCCURED ON 7/19/84, AND KCK-WCH ISSUED AN NOV ON 7/20/85. THE STATE OF KANSAS (KANSAS DEPT. OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT--KDHE) ISSUED AN NOV, BASED ON THE SAME READINGS , ON 7/27/84. ON 8/15/84, KCK-WCH AND KDHE MET WITH DEF- FENDANT TO DISCUSS THE VIOLATION. ON 11/29/84 EPA/REG-VII ISSUED A SECTION 114 LETTER, ASKING FOR PRODUCTION FIGURES, DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED ON 12/13/84. ON 1/15/85, KDHE ISSUED A CORRECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING INSTALLATION OF A NEW ESP, WITH A FINAL COMPLIANCE DATE OF 2/1/86; THE ORDER DID NOT ASSESS ANY PENALTIES. REGION-VII ISSUED ITS NON ON 3/4/85. IN RESPONSE TO THE NON, DEFENDANT SUBMITTED A TIMELY PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON 4/25/85. THE PETITION WAS STYLED AS REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM NON, OR IN THE ALTER- NATIVE, PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION. IN THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF SECTION, DEFENDANT CLAIMED THAT THE NON WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WASN'T ISSUED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF DISCOVERY OF THE VIOLATION, AND THAT THE ACTION WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF LEG- ISLATIVE INTENT BECAUSE THE FACILITY HAD NOT BENEFITTED ECONOMICALLY FROM DELAYING INSTALLATION OF CONTROLS, AND THAT EPA POLICY WAS TO PROCEED FIRST AGAINST SOURCES THAT HAD NEVER COMPLIED. IN THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION SEC- TION, DEFENDANT CLAIMED IT HAD BEEN IN COMPLIANCE SINCE THE SINCE THE DATE OF THE NON, EXCEPT FOR LIMITED PERIODS WHEN THIN GUAGE MBI WAS PRODUCED,AND THAT ANY EMISSION VIOLATIONS WERE DE MINIMUS. IN ITS 05/24/85 DECISION ON THE PETITION, REGION-VII DENIED THE PETITION ON THE DE MINIMUS CLAIM, BUT GRANTED A HEARING ON THE CLAIM OF BEING IN COMPLIANCE. AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1985, THE HEARING HAS NOT BEEN HELD, AND THE CASE APPEARS TO BE SETTLED. THE REGION SENT DE- FENDANT A CONSENT AGREEMENT ON 9/20/85, WITH A PENALTY OF $45,528.

Defendants (1)

• CERTAINTEED CORPORATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• CEERTAINTEED

  3000 CHRYSLER RD, KANSAS CITY, KS, 66115

  Registry ID: 110010662381

Statutes cited

• CAA 120 — Clean Air Act

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, KANSAS CITY, KSentered 1985-11-29

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $45,528

Timeline (5 milestones)

• 1985-03-04Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1985-03-04Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 1985-11-29Final Order Issued
• 1986-01-17Compliance Achieved
• 1986-01-17Enforcement Action Closed