EPA v. INLAND FOUNDRY

Case summary

7/28/82 NATURE OF THE CASE: THE INLAND FOUNDRY CO, A GREY IRON FOUNDRY IN MEAD, WA, A FEW MILES WEST OF SPOKANE, IS LOCATED IN AN ATTAIN- MENT AREA FOR PARTICULATES, THE POLLUTANT OF CONCERN, BUT IS 2 MILES FROM A PARTICULATE NONATTAINMENT AREA. IT IS ALSO 100 YDS FROM A RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE CO IS NOT CUR- RENTLY REGISTERED AS A CORP & IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT TYPE OF ORGANIZATION THE FOUNDRY OPERATES UNDER. MR. V.R. VAN DYK HOLDS HIMSELF OUT AS THE OWNER . THE FOUNDRY EMPLOYS 25 PERSONS & IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A MAXIMUM OF 10 TONS OF GREY IRON PER DAY UNDER CURRENT OPERATING SCHED'S (3 HRS/DAY). CAUSE OF ACTION: CERTIFIED VISIBLE EMISSION READERS FROM THE SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY(SCAPCA) & EPA HAVE OBSERVED NUMEROUS VIOL'S OF THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN'S(SIP) VISIBLE EMISSION STANDARDS(OPACITY) FROM THE FOUNDRY'S BAGHOUSE STACK. SCAPCA HAS ATTEMPTED TO RESOLVE THESE VIOL'S SINCE 1976, & ON 4/1/81, SCAPCA ISSUED AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE BY 10/1/81. BECAUSE THE SOURCE CONTINUED TO OPERATE OUT OF COMPLIANCE, SCAPCA SOUGHT FED INTERVENTION. EPA ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOL(NOV) ON 5/14/81 FOR 8 SEPERATE VIOL'S OCCURING BETWEEN 1/28 & 4/30/81. SCAPCA PERSONNEL OBSERVED 13 CONTINUING VIOL'S BEYOND 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE NOV & ISSUED FORMAL NOTICES OF THE PERIOD OF JUNE-DEC, '81. AFTER ALMOST A YR OF INFOR- MAL NEG'S W/EPA, INLAND INDICATED ON 2/5/82, THAT IT APP- ARENTLY HAD NO FURTHER PLANS FOR ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE W/APPLICABLE STANDARDS. ON 3/9/82, REGN 10 NOTIFIED INLAND THAT IT WAS AT THE PT OF DETERMINING FUTURE ENFOR- CEMENT ACTIONS & REQUESTED CLARIFICATION OF INLAND'S FUTURE CONTROL PLANS. ON 3/25, INLAND STATED THAT IT IS CONTINUING TO WORK TOWARD COMPLIANCE, BUT NEVERTHELESS QUESTIONED EPA'S TECH ADVICE & STATED THAT IT'S CONSULT- ANTS REJECTED EPA'S SUGGESTED TECH AS UNNECESSARY. THE CASE IS CLEARLY NOT STALE; THE LAST CONTACT W/THE SOURCE NEVERTHELESS QUESTIONED EPA'S TECHNICAL ADVICE & STATED OCCURED W/IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE: DEFENDANT CHALLENGED INTER ALIA THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE REGULATION ON WHICH THE CASE IS BASED. CASE THUS RAISES QUESTION WHETHER SUCH A DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED IN A FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING. CLEAN AIR ACT, SECTION 307(B)(2).

Defendants (2)

• INLAND FOUNDARY CO INC. - IFCONamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• V. R. VAN DYK D/B/A/ INLAND FOUNDRY CO.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• INLAND FOUNDRY INCORPORATED

  N 11200 MARKET, MEAD, WA, 99021

  Registry ID: 110001916605

Statutes cited

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

Enforcement conclusions (2)

• VR VAN DYKentered 1984-04-19

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $12,500

• VR VAN DYK/INLAND FOUNDRYentered 1985-09-30

  Primary law: CAA

Timeline (9 milestones)

• 1981-06-08Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1982-04-01Referred To Headquarters
• 1982-06-30Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1982-08-26Referred TO U.S. Attorney
• 1982-12-17Complaint Filed With Court
• 1985-09-30Final Order Lodged
• 1985-09-30Final Order Entered
• 1985-09-30Concluded
• 1986-07-03Enforcement Action Closed