Court awards partial reduction in fine for asbestos violations

However, the General CAA Penalty Policy does recommend that the violator’s degree of cooperation in correcting the violation after it is discovered may be an appropriate factor. In the Policy’s view, the degree of cooperation may, in some cases, justify a reduction in the penalty and, in other cases, justify an increase in the penalty.

The General CAA Penalty Policy recommends that any mitigation not exceed 30% of the gravity component. It explains that “some mitigation may be appropriate in instances where the defendant is cooperative during EPA’s pre-filing investigation of the source’s compliance status or a particular incident.” Mitigation is also appropriate when the violator “makes extraordinary efforts to * * * come into compliance after learning of a violation.”

In the present case, we conclude that the cooperation and good faith the ALJ found warrants a 15% reduction in the amount of the penalty. We do not grant the full 30% penalty reduction allowable under the General CAA Penalty Policy’s guidance since Friedman & Schmitt did not prove “extraordinary efforts” to come into compliance after learning of the violation.

Accordingly, we reduce the $30,800 gravity-based penalty by $4,620, which produces a $26,180 adjusted gravity based penalty. We add to this the economic benefit penalty of $4,800 to arrive at the total civil administrative penalty of $30,980 for Friedman & Schmitt’s three violations of CAA § 113 and the Asbestos NESHAP.