“Carmeuse violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.7090(b) and (c) by exceeding the 15 percent average opacity limit at Tables 2 and 3 to the LMP NESHAP for the Lime Kilns #4 and #5 common stack for 7,938 minutes between April 3, 2020 and September 23, 2024.”

💡 EPA found Carmeuse violated federal opacity limits for over 130 hours across four years, indicating systematic pollution control failures.

“Carmeuse violated 40 C.F.R. § 63.7121(a) by failing to demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit in Table 3 to the LMP NESHAP according to the methods specified in Table 6 to the LMP NESHAP by failing to collect COMS data at the Lime Kilns #4 and #5 common stack for 14,592 minutes during May 1–15, 2020 and August 29–30, 2023.”

💡 The company failed to collect required emissions data for over 240 hours, preventing EPA from verifying compliance during those periods.

“The Facility is an LMP site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year from all emission sources at the plant site and is therefore a major source of HAP under 40 C.F.R. § 63.7081(a)(2).”

💡 Carmeuse’s facility emits enough hazardous air pollutants to qualify as a major source requiring the strictest federal pollution controls.

“For the purposes of this proceeding, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), Respondent: admits to the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO; neither admits nor denies the allegations stated in Section E of this CAFO.”

💡 Despite documented violations, the settlement allows Carmeuse to pay the penalty without admitting any wrongdoing.

“Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, and Respondent’s cooperation, the EPA has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $98,750.”

💡 EPA credited Carmeuse’s cooperation in setting the penalty, resulting in less than $100,000 for four years of Clean Air Act violations.

“Respondent agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $98,750 within thirty (30) days after the date the Final Order ratifying this Consent Agreement is filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk.”

💡 The entire penalty goes to the U.S. Treasury with no funds directed to affected Grand River residents or local environmental remediation.

“Under Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412, the EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Lime Manufacturing Plants (LMPs) at 40 C.F.R. §§ 7080 through 7143.”

💡 These regulations specifically target hazardous air pollutants including mercury, hydrochloric acid, and dioxins that cause cancer and neurological damage.

“The Facility includes two rotary lime kilns, designated as Lime Kilns #4 and #5, that were constructed or reconstructed before December 20, 2002. Lime Kiln #4, which is controlled by an FF, and Lime Kiln #5, which is controlled by an ESP, share a common stack equipped with a COMS.”

💡 The settlement requires no upgrades to pollution control equipment that predates modern emission standards by over two decades.

“The EPA and the United States Department of Justice have jointly determined that this matter, although it involves alleged violations that occurred more than one year before the initiation of this proceeding, is appropriate for an administrative penalty assessment.”

💡 EPA and DOJ acknowledged the multi-year delay between violations and enforcement action, yet proceeded with administrative rather than judicial penalties.

“In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(c), completion of the terms of this CAFO resolves only Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations specifically alleged in this CAFO.”

💡 The settlement only addresses past civil penalties and does not prevent future enforcement actions or require operational changes.

“Respondent waives any and all remedies, claims for relief and otherwise available rights to judicial or administrative review that Respondent may have with respect to any issue of fact or law set forth in this CAFO, including any right of judicial review under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).”

💡 Carmeuse gave up all rights to challenge the findings or penalty amount in exchange for avoiding admission of wrongdoing.

“Any violation of this CAFO may result in a civil judicial action for an injunction or civil penalties of up to $124,426 per day per violation, or both, as provided in Section 113(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b), and 40 C.F.R. § 19.4, as well as criminal sanctions as provided in Section 113(c) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c).”

💡 Future violations could trigger penalties over 1,000 times larger than this settlement, revealing how minimal the current penalty is by comparison.

“Nothing in this CAFO relieves Respondent of the duty to comply with all applicable provisions of the CAA and other federal, state, or local laws or statutes, nor does it restrict the EPA’s authority to seek compliance with any applicable laws or regulations, nor is it a ruling on, or determination of, any issue related to any federal, state, or local permit.”

💡 The settlement imposes no specific compliance measures, leaving Carmeuse free to continue current operations at the aging facility.