What the EPA Found When They Showed Up Unannounced

On December 14, 2022, EPA investigators conducted an on-site inspection of the CertainTeed LLC wool fiberglass manufacturing facility at 103 Funston Road, Kansas City, Kansas. What they discovered was not a single accident or isolated incident. It was a pattern of operational failures stretching back years, documented in the company’s own missing records and inadequate maintenance plans.

The facility operates multiple glass-melting furnaces and fiberglass production lines, all of which generate emissions containing chromium compounds. These compounds are not incidental byproducts. They are designated hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under federal law because of their known harm to human respiratory systems and their classification as carcinogens.

Federal regulations require companies like CertainTeed to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate monitoring devices that continuously measure pollution control equipment performance. These devices must be checked quarterly. Records must be kept. When equipment operates outside established safety parameters, corrective action must begin within one hour. When problems persist, formal Quality Improvement Plans must be implemented.

CertainTeed did none of this consistently. For years.

The Non-Financial Ledger

Kansas City sits at the confluence of the Kansas and Missouri rivers. The neighborhood surrounding 103 Funston Road is industrial but residential streets are blocks away. People live here. Children attend schools within a mile of the facility. The air does not respect property lines.

When an electrostatic precipitator fails to operate within its tested performance limits, particulate matter escapes. When wet scrubbers run without proper monitoring of gas pressure drop and liquid flow rate, the system cannot confirm that hazardous compounds are being captured. When calibration records are missing for an entire year, there is no way to verify that the equipment measuring pollution was accurate in the first place.

The consent agreement filed March 16, 2026 uses clinical regulatory language. It does not describe what chromium exposure feels like. It does not name the families who live downwind. It does not calculate the cumulative dose absorbed by a child walking to school every day for four years while CertainTeed operated this facility without maintaining the required safety systems.

“The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1 hour when any 3-hour block average of the monitored ESP parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test.” — 40 C.F.R. § 63.1382(c)(2)(i)

According to the EPA’s findings, CertainTeed did not maintain records of corrective actions taken during emission exceedances. The company’s own response to the 2023 Request for Information confirmed it: the records do not exist. Either the corrective actions were never taken, or the company chose not to document them. Both scenarios are violations. Both scenarios mean the community had no way to know what was happening inside that facility when alarms should have been going off.

Legal Receipts

“EPA alleges that CertainTeed violated the following requirements of Subpart NNN and CertainTeed’s Permit for the K11 Forming Line wet electrostatic precipitator (WEP), K11 Oven WEP, K21 Forming Line WEP2, K21 Forming Line WEP3, K21 Oven WEP, K1 Furnace dry electrostatic precipitator (DEP), and the K2 Furnace DEP from at least January 1, 2020, through at least December 31, 2023, in the following manner: Failure to operate the ESPs such that the monitored ESP parameter is not outside the limits established during the performance test for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1382(c)(2)(iii).”

— EPA Consent Agreement, Docket No. CAA-07-2025-0030, Paragraph 50(a)

“According to the Facility’s response to the 2023 Request for Information, the Facility does not have records of corrective actions taken on electrostatic precipitators that were operated outside the limits established during the performance test, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1386(d)(2)(ii).”

— EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 50(b)

“The Facility’s QIPs do not contain adequate procedures for improved preventative maintenance practices, process operation changes, and improvement to control methods as required by 40 C.F.R. § 64.8(b)(2).”

— EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 50(c)

“CertainTeed did not maintain records of quarterly calibrations for the K1 and K2 DEP for all four quarters of 2020, Quarter 3 and Quarter 4 of 2021, Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 of 2022, and was missing calibration data for Quarter 3 and Quarter 4 of 2022 and Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 of 2023.”

— EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 53(b)

“The Facility’s 2023 Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 calibration reports identify issues that could have catastrophic consequences relating to bypassed and/or removed locks and electrical problems that demonstrate that the Facility failed to monitor ESPs in accordance with procedures in the Facility’s O&M Plan.”

— EPA Consent Agreement, Paragraph 57

Societal Impact Mapping

Environmental Degradation

Chromium compounds released into the atmosphere do not simply disappear. Hexavalent chromium, in particular, is a known human carcinogen. It settles on surfaces. It enters soil. It accumulates. The EPA’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) exist because the science on long-term, low-level exposure to these substances is unambiguous: they cause harm.

CertainTeed’s facility is located in an industrial corridor, but air pollution does not respect zoning designations. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) issued the facility a Class I Operating Permit, which imposes specific monitoring and reporting requirements precisely because this facility has the potential to emit significant quantities of hazardous pollutants. The permit is not a suggestion. It is a legally binding document with federal enforceability under Section 113 of the Clean Air Act.

When a facility operates pollution control equipment outside tested performance limits for more than 10 percent of a six-month period, it is not a minor deviation. It is a systemic failure. The consent agreement identifies multiple pieces of equipment across multiple production lines that exceeded this threshold. For years.

Public Health

The World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services classify hexavalent chromium as a Group 1 carcinogen. Occupational exposure limits exist for workers inside facilities like CertainTeed’s plant, but those limits do not apply to the surrounding community. Residents do not wear respirators. They do not clock out at the end of a shift.

The EPA’s enforcement action does not include a public health study. It does not measure ambient air quality in the neighborhoods surrounding the facility. It does not test soil samples from schoolyards or playgrounds. The consent agreement is a regulatory compliance document. It calculates liability in terms of violation days and penalty dollars. It does not calculate the health burden imposed on a community that had no knowledge of these failures until the EPA investigation became public.

There is no mechanism in this settlement to compensate individuals for exposure. There is no medical monitoring program. There is no long-term epidemiological study. The settlement does not provide for any of that. It requires CertainTeed to pay a fine, develop a plan, and submit revised permit paperwork. That is the extent of the remedy.

Economic Inequality

CertainTeed LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Saint-Gobain Corporation, a French multinational building materials company with annual revenues exceeding $50 billion. The $781,175 settlement represents approximately 0.0016 percent of the parent company’s annual revenue. For context, if an individual earning $50,000 per year committed a violation and was fined on the same proportional scale, the penalty would be 78 cents.

The community surrounding the facility does not have $50 billion in resources. It does not have in-house environmental compliance teams or corporate legal departments. When residents of this neighborhood breathe air that contains pollutants released because a Fortune 500 subsidiary failed to calibrate its monitoring equipment, they do not get to negotiate a consent agreement. They absorb the exposure. They carry the risk.

This is the economics of environmental injustice. The costs are externalized. The harm is socialized. The profits remain private. CertainTeed’s fiberglass insulation is in homes across the country. The marketing emphasizes energy efficiency and sustainability. The consent agreement tells a different story about what sustainability means when no one is watching the monitoring equipment.

What the Missing Records Mean

The consent agreement is meticulous in its documentation of what CertainTeed did not do. The absence of records is, in many ways, more damning than the presence of evidence of malfunction. A missing calibration record means there is no way to verify that the equipment measuring pollution was functioning correctly. A missing corrective action report means there is no documentation of what the company did when its own monitoring systems detected a problem.

Federal regulations require quarterly calibration of monitoring devices “according to the manufacturer’s instructions” (40 C.F.R. § 63.1383(a)(2)). CertainTeed’s own Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan specified these requirements. The company agreed to them when it obtained its operating permit. Then it failed to produce records showing it had complied with those requirements for all four quarters of 2020, Q3 and Q4 of 2021, Q1 and Q2 of 2022, and had missing or incomplete data for Q3 and Q4 of 2022 and Q1 and Q2 of 2023.

This is not a paperwork error. This is a compliance system that was either never implemented or was deliberately abandoned.

The Quality Improvement Plan That Wasn’t

Federal regulations require that when monitored equipment parameters remain outside tested limits for more than 5 percent of operating time in a six-month period, the facility must implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) consistent with Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) provisions under 40 C.F.R. Part 64, Subpart D.

A QIP is not a suggestion. It is a formal, written plan that must include specific procedures for improved preventative maintenance, process operation changes, and improvements to control methods. The EPA’s findings state plainly: “The Facility’s QIPs do not contain adequate procedures for improved preventative maintenance practices, process operation changes, and improvement to control methods as required by 40 C.F.R. § 64.8(b)(2).”

CertainTeed submitted Quality Improvement Plans. The EPA reviewed them. The plans were inadequate. The company knew it had a recurring problem. It documented the problem. It submitted paperwork acknowledging the problem. And then it continued operating the facility with inadequate corrective measures for years.

The Permit Shell Game

On January 11, 2016, CertainTeed obtained a facility-wide Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. That permit imposed a specific restriction: the facility must emit less than 10 tons of any individual hazardous air pollutant in any 12-month period, and less than 25 tons of combined HAPs in any 12-month period.

These numbers are not arbitrary. They represent the regulatory threshold between an “area source” and a “major source” of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Major sources are subject to more stringent monitoring, reporting, and compliance requirements under Subpart NNN of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Area sources are subject to Subpart NN, which has somewhat less demanding requirements.

CertainTeed structured its permit to stay just below the major source threshold. This is legal. It is also strategic. By maintaining area source status, the company reduced its regulatory burden. The consent agreement, however, reveals uncertainty about the facility’s actual status. Paragraph 51 states: “If CertainTeed were permitted as an area source of HAPs, the alleged violations listed in Paragraph 50 related to the K1 Furnace DEP and the K2 Furnace DEP are alleged violations of Subpart NN… rather than alleged violations of the Subpart NNN provisions.”

This ambiguity appears multiple times in the consent agreement. The settlement requires CertainTeed to submit, within 60 days, a revised Class I Operating Permit renewal application that clearly identifies which equipment and processes are subject to Subpart NNN versus Subpart NN. In other words, after years of operation, the EPA is requiring the company to clarify what regulations actually apply to its facility.

This is not a technical detail. The applicable regulatory framework determines the stringency of monitoring requirements, the frequency of performance tests, and the thresholds for what constitutes a violation. The fact that there is ambiguity about which framework applies suggests that CertainTeed’s permit applications may have obscured the facility’s actual emissions profile.

What Now?

The consent agreement imposes several requirements on CertainTeed beyond the $781,175 penalty:

• Within 60 days, develop and submit an Emission Reduction Plan for the K1 and K2 dry electrostatic precipitators, including identification of preventative maintenance activities, updated operating procedures, and notification procedures for bypass events.
• Within 60 days, submit a revised and complete Class I Operating Permit renewal application clearly identifying which equipment is subject to Subpart NNN versus Subpart NN requirements.
• For one year following the effective date, provide enhanced reporting to the EPA and permitting authority for each bypass event, including date, length, root cause, estimated excess emissions, and corrective steps taken.

These requirements are enforced by stipulated penalties. Failure to submit required reports triggers a penalty of $250 per day for the first 15 days, escalating to $500 per day thereafter. Failure to complete any substantive requirement triggers $750 per day for the first 15 days, escalating to $1,500 per day thereafter.

There is no requirement for community notification. There is no requirement for public health monitoring. There is no mechanism for affected residents to participate in oversight of the Emission Reduction Plan or the revised permit application. The consent agreement is a transaction between the EPA and CertainTeed. The public is not party to it.

Watchlist: Regulatory Bodies

• EPA Region 7 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division: Responsible for monitoring CertainTeed’s compliance with the settlement terms and any future violations.
• Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Bureau of Air and Radiation: State-level permitting authority; will review CertainTeed’s revised permit application.
• Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas Health Department: Local authority that issued the original PSD permit; responsible for local air quality enforcement.

What You Can Do

If you live in the Kansas City area, you have a right to know what is being released into the air you breathe. The EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database provides public access to facility inspection reports, violation records, and enforcement actions. You can look up any facility by name or location.

Kansas state law provides for public participation in permitting processes. When CertainTeed submits its revised permit application, there will be a public comment period. You can submit written comments. You can request a public hearing. Your voice matters in this process, even if the consent agreement did not include you.

Local organizing matters. Mutual aid networks matter. Community air monitoring projects exist in many cities. You do not need to wait for a government agency to tell you what is in your air. You can measure it. You can document it. You can demand accountability.

The consent agreement gives CertainTeed one year of enhanced reporting requirements for bypass events. After that year, the obligation disappears. That means the window for public scrutiny is limited. Use it.