Regulatory and compliance historyRC-001

St. Marys Dixon Clean Air Act settlement

St. Marys Cement and St. Barbara Cement · Dixon Plant, Illinois, USA · 2008

Use this record when

The decision this case can inform

Use this record when checking whether kiln modifications trigger permitting and control obligations before capital approval or physical work begins.

Evidence scope

EPA/DOJ consent-decree record resolving allegations. Reduction and investment figures are settlement estimates; the page does not provide a later measured emissions series.

Source-supported facts

What the public record actually establishes

4 sourced points
  1. F1

    EPA and DOJ alleged that modifications to four Dixon kilns proceeded without required permits and controls.

  2. F2

    The settlement required control upgrades on kilns 1–3 and replacement or shutdown of kiln 4.

  3. F3

    A plant-wide NOx cap of 1,900 tons per year was included.

  4. F4

    EPA estimated approximately 2,700 tons/year of NOx reduction, about $1.9 million in controls, and an $800,000 civil penalty.

Structured interpretation

Facts and reported results are kept separate from the lesson a plant may choose to test.

01

Operating context

EPA and DOJ alleged kiln modifications without required permits and controls.

02

Intervention or finding

Settlement required control upgrades on kilns 1-3, replacement or shutdown of kiln 4, and a 1900 t/y plant-wide NOx cap.

03

Documented result

EPA estimated about 2700 t/y NOx reduction and about USD1.9 million control investment.

04

Plant interpretation

Put environmental permitting and emissions review inside capital governance and management of change.

05

Transfer boundary

Estimated consent-decree benefit; no post-control measurement series in the cited record.

Before applying the lesson

Questions to verify at your plant

These are decision checks, not operating instructions. Resolve them through local risk assessment, technical review, and authorization.

  1. 01

    Does capital governance require a documented applicability review before scope, procurement, or construction?

  2. 02

    Are cumulative, debottlenecking, like-kind, and production-capacity effects evaluated rather than only the project label?

  3. 03

    Who verifies that permit, control, monitoring, and recordkeeping obligations reach commissioning and daily work systems?

  4. 04

    Are estimated decree benefits later reconciled with certified operating and emissions data?