EPA v. SIOUX ALFALFA MEAL CO.

Case summary

SIOUX ALFALFA MEAL COOMPANY OWNS AN ALFALFA MEAL PRO- CESSING PLANT APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE WEST OF MECKLING, SD. SOUTH DAKOTA SIP REGULATION ARSD 74:26:03:05 PROHIBITS ANY PERSON OPERATING AN ALFALFA PELLETIZING OR DEHYDRATING FACILITY FROM DISCHARGING INTO THE AMBIENT AIR ANY AIR CON- TAMINANT OF A SHADE OR DENSITY EQUAL TO OR DARKER THAN 30% OPACITY. TWO VIOLATIONS WERE OBSERVED BY THE SD DEPT. OF ENVIR. PROTECTION: JUNE 1, 1983-- 43% OPACITY JULY 18, 1983-- 44.8% OPACITY (??) REGION 8 ISSUED A SECTION 120 NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE ON 06/11/84. ON FEBRUARY 28, 1985, MIKE RISNER OF REG-VIII SENT EPA HEADQUARTERS A SAMPLE CONSENT AGREEMENT WHICH HE PROPOSED WOULD ADEQUATELY SETTLE ALL FIVE OF THE REG-VIII ALFALFA CASES: JENSEN BROS., NATIONAL ALFALFA, SIOUX ALFALFA, BARNES HAY AND FEED, AND MILBANK ALFALFA. HQ RESPONDED AT THE END OF MARCH, 1985, STATING THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO EXPLICIT WAYS OF SETTLING A SECTION-120 PROCEEDING SHORT OF OBTAINING THE FULL ECONOMIC BENEFIT PENALTY-- THROUGH EITHER WITHDRAWAL OR MODIFICATION OF THE NON (BECAUSE THE SOURCE IS NOT IN VIOLATION, OR IS ENTITLED TO AN EXEMPTIONUNDER 40CFR SECT. 66.31-66.33). HQ RESPONDED THAT THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE WAS INADEQUATE. REGION-VIII AND AED AND SSCD PARTICIPATED IN A CONFER- ENCE CALL (5/7/85) IN WHICH A RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE PROPOSED GENERIC CONSENTAGREEMENT WERE RESOLVED. PART OF THE RESOLUTION CONCERNED A THIRD METHOD OF SETTLING SECTION-120 ACTIONS WHICH, UNDER EPA POLICY GUIDANCE: . PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF...SECT/120 {ACTIONS} (03/19/85), . ALLOWS RECOVERY OF LESS THAN THE FULL ECONOMIC AMOUNT WHERE EPA'S CHANCES OF PREVAILING AT THE SECT/120 HEARING ARE LESS THAN 100%. A SUMMARY OF THE HQ/REG-VIII 5/7/85 CONFERENCE CALL WAS SENT TO THE REGION ON 7/12/85. THE REGION SUMMARIZED THEIR REASONS FOR DROPPING THE SIOUX ALFALFA CASE IN A 5/13/85 LETTER TO HQ. THE SOURCE RE- QUESTED RECONSIDERATION, CLAIMING THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE, AND UPON FURTHER TESTING, THE SOURCE WAS DETERMINED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. THE REGION BELIEVES THAT THE ORIGINAL NON WAS NOT WARRANTED AND THAT THE SOURCE IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE. NOT IN VIOLATION OR IS ENTITLED TO AN EXEMPTION UNDER 40CFR SECT'S 66.31-66.33. HQ RESPONDED THAT THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WAS INADEQUATE.

Defendants (1)

• SIOUX ALFALFA MEAL COMPANY

Statutes cited

• CAA 110 — Implementation Plan for National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards

Timeline (4 milestones)

• 1984-06-11Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1984-06-11Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 1985-05-31Compliance Achieved
• 1985-05-31Enforcement Action Closed