BOYCOTT KNAUF FIBER GLASS
Please do not buy Knauf fiberglass. - Please do not buy Knauf insulation.
(You might want to avoid their funky drywall, too.)

This webpage provides information about the Knauf Insulation factory
located in Shasta Lake, California, USA.
Here's Knauf's contact information...

Knauf Insulation
3100 Ashby Rd.
Shasta Lake, CA 96019
(530) 275-9665

PHOTO: Fire at Knauf Insulation in Shasta Lake - April 3, 2009
Update: Knauf had another similar fire in their duct work on June 5, 2009.

Knauf's not-so-great drywall of China

News searches

Google News Search for Knauf drywall

Google Blog Search for Knauf drywall


Google News Search for Chinese drywall

Google Blog Search for Chinese drywall

Latest news about defective drywall at newsinferno.com

Latest news about defective drywall at quest.law.com


Related links

NBC2 Online - Chinese drywall news and resources - nbc-2.com
(very good source of in-depth information)

Is Drywall the Next Chinese Import Scandal? - time.com

(March 30, 2009) Lawmakers seek help for homeowners with repair or replacement of Chinese-made drywall - billnelson.senate.gov

(March 30, 2009) Nelson-Landrieu Legislation Seeks to Help Homeowners Repair or Replace Tainted Chinese Drywall - landrieu.senate.gov

(March 24, 2009) Knauf Insulation's North America President tries to distance his product from the Florida drywall fiasco
Maybe he better ask Knauf in China to remove the Knauf Insulation logo from their website's "friendship links" section and to quit using the official Knauf logo.........since the two Knauf-owned operations "are not associated".

Here's a translated version of Knauf's Chinese website.

Florida Home Builders Association


Legislation and Resolutions

H.R. 1977

S. Res. 91

S. 739


Here are some websites with information about the class action lawsuits against Knauf and other China-based drywall companies.

chinesedrywallsuit.com

chinesedrywallclaims.com

chinesedrywallawsuits.com

defective-chinese-drywall-lawsuit.com

defectivechinesedrywall.net

chinesedrywallclaims.com

chinesedrywall.com

Defective Chinese Drywall Florida - Morgan & Morgan

plaintiffsadvocate.com/drywall

thechinesedrywalllawyer.com

chinesedrywallblog.com

drywallrecall.com

nationaljusticecoalition.com

yourlawyer.com

gotaclassaction.com

aboutlawsuits.com

lawyersandsettlements.com

becnellaw.com (.PDF)

Martzell & Bickford


Drywall manufacturers located in China

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. LTD.

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. LTD. (translated to English)

Other Knauf companies located in China

Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd.

Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. (translated to English)


Other related Knauf websites

Baldwin and Nikolaus Knauf - Managing partners of the Knauf Group

Knauf History

Knauf - knauf.com

Knauf Gips KG - www.knauf.de

Knauf Gips KG - www.knauf.de (translated to English)

Knauf Drywall - knaufdrywall.co.uk

Knauf drywall's Quality Policy


Government Officials

Florida Governor Charlie Crist

Florida Lt. Governor Jeff Kottkamp

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (Florida)

Florida State Rep. Martin David "Marty" Kiar

U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu, (D-La.)

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL)

Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal


Government Agencies

Florida Department of Health (main page)

Florida Department of Health (Chinese drywall page)

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Nancy A. Nord, Acting Chairman - U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

U.S. Department of Commerce

FEMA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Environmental Protection Agency

General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China


Labs

Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health - CTEH (Lab hired by Knauf)

Unified Engineering (Lab hired by Florida Department of Health)

Environ - Environmental Consulting (Lab hired by Lennar Homes)

EMSL Analytical


Toxiclogists, Doctors, Scientists & Experts

Lori A. Streit, Ph.D. (unified-eng.com)

Dr. Phillip Goad (CTEH)

KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIAN STATEMENT - Dr. Phillip Goad (CTEH)

Robert P. DeMott - environcorp.com

James L. Poole, PhD, CIH - environcorp.com

David Krause, state toxicologist (Florida)

Susan Smith - spokeswoman for Florida Department of Health

Dr. Patricia Williams - University of New Orleans

Dr. Ilan Allan Feingold (baptisthealth.net)

Thomas W. Eagar, Sc.D., P.E. (eagar.mit.edu)

Ken Haldin - spokesman for Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. LTD.


Home builders that may have used Chinese Drywall (partial list)

Lennar Homes

WCI Communities

Beazer Homes

Taylor Morrison Homes


Skunk Perfume 101

strontium sulfide - noaa.gov

Hydrogen sulfide - wikipedia.org

Sulfur dioxide - wikipedia.org

Carbonyl sulfide - wikipedia.org

Dimethyl sulfide - wikipedia.org

Iron disulfide - wikipedia.org

Carbon disulfide - wikipedia.org



"To the extent that these manufacturers have U.S. subsidiaries or U.S. assets,
the government could certainly get a judgment against them and go after those assets,"

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (Florida)


(May 31, 2007) The wonderful people of Krupka, Czech Republic aren't groovin' to Knauf's jam either...
STOP KNAUF Krupka, Czech Republic (www.stop-knauf.unas.cz)
A BIG THANK YOU to the wonderful citizens of Krupka!


VIDEO: Demonstrace STOP KNAUF Krupka u Teplic 2008
(sweet)





Clean Air Month suffers a major setback

(May 16, 2006) May is "Clean Air Month." Well, it was supposed to be. Apparently EPA Region 9 didn't get the memo. Rather than enforcing the conditions of Knauf Insulation's original air permit, EPA Region 9 officials have decided to give Knauf a new air permit with higher pollution limits. The new air permit is dated May 11, 2006 and can be downloaded at the EPA's website.

The EPA's website also contains a document called "Response to Public Comments" that attempts to justify their decision to grant a new permit. Since the EPA didn't publish all my comments I've decided to post them here on the website. (see below)

Knauf had been in violation of their original permit since November 22, 2002. The EPA allowed Knauf to break the law for 3 years, 5 months, 19 days. This is a total of 1,266 days.

Knauf polluted our air illegally for nearly three and a half years while EPA officials ignored the situation and made excuses to the public. The granting of a new permit to Knauf shows that the EPA isn't concerned with enforcing their permits or protecting the environment.

Here's a quote from the EPA's press release about the new permit...

"This permit includes stringent air pollution safeguards and reporting requirements," said Deborah Jordan, director of the EPA's Air Division at its Pacific Southwest Office. "We will continue to work closely with Knauf to ensure that the facility closely monitors and controls emissions."

Notice the wording of her comments. She never said her agency would make Knauf comply with their permit and obey the law. More weasel words from Knauf's partners in crime. And if it's such a great permit then why didn't she sign it herself?


(Excerpt from the front page of the new permit)


  • Contact info for Deborah Jordan - Director, Air Division

  • Contact info for Kerry Drake - Associate Director, Air Division

  • Date:
    March 27, 2006

    To:
    Shaheerah Kelly
    U.S. EPA, Region 9
    75 Hawthorne Street
    San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

    From:
    Eric A. Cassano
    4512 Boca St.
    Shasta Lake, CA 96019
    (530) 275-1296
    ecassano@shastalake.com

    Subject:
    Comments on the proposal to revise the
    Knauf Insulation PSD Air Quality Permit (5 pages)

    Knauf has been in violation of their original PSD air permit since November 22, 2002. That's 1,221 days that Knauf has ignored their air permit and broke the federal pollution laws. It's been 3 years, 4 months and 5 days that the EPA has allowed this company to spew illegal pollution into our air. And now what does the EPA want to do? -- They want to give Knauf an even larger permit to pollute even more.

    This insane plan makes a total mockery of the EPA's mission statement. I found a copy of the mission statement on the EPA website. The officials at EPA Region 9 should really take a moment to read it. After they read it, they may get inspired to actually fulfill it.

    The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment. Since 1970, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people.

    The EPA needs to spend less time writing new permits and more time enforcing the permits they've already issued. If the EPA won't enforce the pollution laws that Knauf is currently violating it has absolutely no business granting Knauf a new permit with even higher pollution limits.

    The EPA needs to start protecting our environment instead of sheltering Knauf from the pollution laws. The EPA should be out at the industrial park right now shutting down this arrogant polluter and padlocking their doors instead of running a blatant pro-Knauf campaign for a new permit.

    Despite numerous complaints from community members, the EPA has refused to protect our environment and enforce Knauf's original permit. The EPA should be ashamed and embarrassed to be involved in this fiasco. The EPA has been making all kinds of excuses on Knauf's behalf attempting to explain why Knauf's actual NOx emissions ended up being 226% of what their original permit allowed. I suspect that Knauf knew all along that their NOx emissions would be well above their permit but submitted a lower figure so they could get a foot in the door.

    On Sunday, February 2, 2003, Knauf ran a full page newspaper advertisement admitting to their NOx violation but attempted to cover up their particulate matter (PM10) violation with this incorrect statement: "With the exception of NOx, we have significantly beaten all permitted levels." This is simply not true. The test results plainly show that Knauf is violating their permit limit for particulate matter. Ironically, in the same full page advertisement, Knauf accused "some people" in the public of making "misleading claims about our performance." The advertisement goes on to say, "It seems that some people are willing to say just about anything to justify their actions, including stretching or even ignoring the truth." Here we have an illegal polluter attacking the public's credibility. Absolutely amazing.

    I should mention that Knauf did receive a Notice of Violation from the EPA in October of 2004 but nothing has been done to make them comply with their permit. The Notice of Violation was signed by EPA Region 9 Air Director Deborah Jordan. Recently I've made several attempts to contact Deborah Jordan about the Notice of Violation but she refuses to talk to me. The EPA's public affairs department also refuses to return my phone calls.

    The only person who's ever shown any interest in Knauf's ongoing violation was EPA Special Agent in Charge Scott West. He actually went out to the factory and took a look at it. I also gave Mr. West a large amount of information about the Knauf violations which included press clippings, test data and Knauf's full page newspaper advertisement which admitted that the NOx emissions at their Shasta Lake factory exceeded the permitted level.

    At one point, while talking on his cell phone, Mr. West even described me as a possible witness in an air case. I recently called the EPA to check up on the case and learned that Mr. West had transferred out of EPA Region 9 to another region. None of the other investigators would give me any information on the status of the case. It was like the whole matter had completely disappeared.

    After reading the proposed PSD permit I began to wonder if it had been written by Knauf's management or a paid consultant. I find it odd that Deborah Jordan's name is spelled wrong on the cover of the permit. You would think that the EPA person who drafted the permit would know how to spell the name of the Region 9 Air Director. Of course, if I were Deborah Jordan I wouldn't want my real name on this piece of rubbish either. I also noticed that Knauf's address is wrong on both the PSD permit and the Ambient Air Quality Impact Report. The jokers who wrote these documents don't even know where the factory is located let alone how Knauf's pollution will affect the surrounding area.

    There are several problems with the permit and the air report. Here are two paragraphs that really caught my eye.

    Performance tests shall be performed by an independent testing firm. Performance tests shall be at least performed at or greater than 95 percent of the maximum operating capacity of 225 tons of molten glass produced in any rolling 24-hour period. The Permittee shall furnish EPA with a written report of the results of such tests within thirty (30) days after the performance tests are conducted.

    Upon prior written request and adequate justification from the Permittee, EPA may waive the annual test and/or allow for testing to be done at less than 95 percent of the maximum operating capacity of 225 tons of molten glass produced in any rolling 24-hour period. EPA approval shall be in writing. Such request must be submitted to EPA no later than 60 days prior to the annual test date.


    Who's idea was it to give Knauf the options of testing at less than maximum operating capacity or simply eliminate testing completely? Did the EPA think that nobody was going to read their proposed permit? Did Knauf's lawyers and consultants write this thing? The testing is intended to ensure that Knauf is complying with their permit. The inclusion of these ridiculous loopholes makes the permit useless as a way to regulate Knauf's pollution.

    The EPA is using their "AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT" to justify giving Knauf a new permit. This report could have easily been written by Knauf's public relations department. Here's the way the report describes Knauf's violation of their original PSD permit.

    Knauf's emissions tests demonstrated that the original permit limits for NOx were not appropriate. (From page 9 of the AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT)

    Not appropriate? In my opinion, the report should actually read...

    Knauf's emissions tests demonstrate that the company is in violation of their original permit limits for NOx and particulate matter but has been allowed to pollute illegally for over three years with no enforcement by the EPA.

    How can the EPA simply ignore this company's violations of the law by saying the permit limits were "not appropriate?"

    For several years EPA has been making excuses for Knauf's violations claiming that an "engineering error" led to a miscalculation of the NOx emissions. The identity of this numerically-challenged engineer has never been revealed despite numerous requests to EPA officials. Now the EPA has changed their defense of Knauf's lawbreaking by simply stating that the "limits for NOx were not appropriate."

    I was told by an EPA technical expert that the ambient NOx levels used in the air report's computer modeling were measured in the town of Bella Vista, California back in the year 2000. How can this computer modeling possibly be accurate considering that the data was collected at least 5 years ago? The town of Bella Vista is close to 9 miles east of Knauf's factory and approximately 320 feet lower in elevation. An air analysis that uses data measured in Bella Vista can not possibly be accurate and should not be used by the EPA to support giving Knauf higher pollution limits. This kind of nonsense wouldn't even be acceptable in an 8th grade science class. The EPA needs to do a real air study with good local data instead of just plugging in some Knauf-friendly numbers. This is exactly what they mean by "garbage in, garbage out."

    When Knauf's NOx violations were first announced by Shasta County officials the public was told that Knauf was causing $2000 a day of environmental impact. If this is true, how can the EPA justify raising Knauf's permit limits beyond a level that has already caused impact to the environment?

    The EPA needs to take the public comment process seriously. At the end of the Ambient Air Quality Impact Report I found a paragraph suggesting that the permit would be issued despite any new information brought forth during the public comment period. I believe it was deliberately written this way to discourage public comment.

    XIV. CONCLUSION & PROPOSED ACTION Based on the information supplied by Knauf and the analyses conducted by EPA, it is the preliminary determination of EPA that the proposed modification will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any applicable PSD increment or NAAQS, and meets all of the requirements of 40 CFR ' 52.21. Therefore, EPA proposes to issue the PSD permit after soliciting public comment and conducting a public hearing. (From page 37 of the AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT)

    The enforcement authorities at EPA Region 9 need to get in gear and start doing their jobs. Knauf needs to be held to their original permit limits and forced to comply with the law even if it means shutting the place down until they do. The EPA also needs to send Knauf another Notice of Violation for their particulate matter (PM10) violations occurring at their furnace stack. Now is the time to rein in this arrogant polluter before the EPA's credibility sinks any lower.

    Knauf also needs to receive a fine from the EPA for the environmental impact they have caused to Shasta County. It was reported in the newspaper that the local air quality district had determined Knauf was causing $2000 a day in environmental impact. Since Knauf has been polluting illegally since November 22, 2002, the total fine on March 27, 2006 would be about $2,442,000.

    A company that has polluted illegally for well over three years can not be allowed to avoid punishment for their actions and continue unchecked. Knauf must be forced to comply with their original permit and punished properly according to the law.

    Knauf's request for a new permit must be denied.

    Eric A. Cassano
    4512 Boca St.
    Shasta Lake, CA 96019
    (530) 275-1296
    ecassano@shastalake.com


    PROPOSED EPA AIR PERMIT WOULD ALLOW KNAUF TO POLLUTE EVEN MORE

    Knauf Insulation has violated the conditions of their original PSD permit (with no EPA enforcement).
    Now EPA wants to give Knauf Insulation a new permit which will allow them to pollute even more.

  • Click here for info on the permit and the public hearing/meeting on Wednesday, March 8, 2006


    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9
    responds to questions from Eric Cassano about Knauf Insulation
    (February 17, 2005)

    Q: The Notice of Violation that was issued to Knauf Fiber Glass (Knauf Insulation) by the EPA back in October of 2004 suggested that after 30 days following its issuance the administrator may issue a compliance order, an administrative penalty or bring a civil action. Have any of these three options been applied to Knauf at this time?

    A: Region 9 has taken no action in addition to issuance of the NOV at this point. There are many factors that go into deciding when and how to proceed with enforcement, and Region 9 is still considering these factors and its options.
    Q: Has Knauf Insulation received a new PSD permit allowing to emit higher NOX emissions than were specified in their original PSD permit?

    A: Region 9 is still processing the PSD permit modification application. The modified permit will be proposed for public comment prior to final issuance. Region 9 hopes to issue the proposed modified PSD permit shortly.
    Q: Is Knauf Insulation currently violating the NOX limits specified in their original PSD permit?

    A: Region 9 has no additional information in regard to NOx permit exceedances other than those described in the NOV. As Shasta County is the primary regulatory agency to receive copies of source tests from source under its jurisdiction and has just concluded an enforcement action against Knauf for NOx violations, it may have more updated information.
    Q: Has the EPA ever ordered Knauf Insulation to comply with their original PSD permit? If so, what was the deadline for compliance?

    A: Region 9 has issued an information request and an NOV to Knauf for its Shasta County facility. Shasta County just recently reached a settlement with Knauf. Please contact the District to find out more information about this.
    Q: Has the EPA ever issued any fines or penalties to Knauf Insulation as punishment for air pollution violations at their Shasta Lake, CA facility?

    A: See above.
    Q: At this time is Knauf Insulation operating in violation of any local, state or federal pollution laws?

    A: Region 9 is not aware of any current violations, other than the violations cited in the NOV.
    Q: What has the EPA done so far to give Knauf incentive to comply with the law?

    A: Region 9 has been vigilant about investigating potential violations at the facility by issuing information requests and NOVs, keeping up to date on Shasta County's actions in regard to Knauf, and taking efforts to ensure that Knauf has proper permits.
    Q: What is the EPA's next step in the process to ensure that Knauf Insulation is operating legally?

    A: The next step is for Region 9 to propose a modified PSD permit. In regard to the NOV, the Region 9 enforcement program continues to monitor the various permitting processes as well as enforcement activities by Shasta County.
    Q: When does the EPA expect that Knauf will be in compliance with all air pollution laws?

    A: Region 9 expects Knauf to comply with any and all new or modified permits, whether they are PSD permits or County permits to operate, once they are issued. Region 9 will help monitor Knauf's compliance with its federally enforceable permits once they have all been issued.

    Recent Documents

  • Public Notice of Issuance of Operating Permits to Knauf Insulation GmbH (GIF 68KB)
    Shasta County issued the permits to Knauf on February 7, 2005.
    Written requests for a public hearing must be made by March 12, 2005.

  • Notice of Violation (NOV) sent to Knauf from EPA (October-2004)
    Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file, 960KB





  • Molly Wilson

    Irwin Fust

    Glenn Hawes

    Trish Clarke
    (Tuesday, September 21, 2004) The Shasta County Board of Supervisors, acting as the Shasta County Air Pollution Control Board, has approved Knauf's Supplemental EIR allowing Knauf to receive a permit to pollute even more.

    Instead of shutting down the factory, which has been polluting illegally since November 22, 2002, the board rewarded Knauf with their decision. The air board unanimously passed a resolution that certified the Knauf SEIR to be adequate, complete and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

    Board member David Kehoe recused himself from the vote because his employer, the U.S. Forest Service, sent a representative to comment on the plan.

    This is how our Shasta County government officials have chosen to address Knauf's ongoing criminal activity. Instead of shutting Knauf down and prosecuting the company under the various air pollution laws, they have instead decided to write them a new permit.

    Thank you to all who attended the Shasta County Air Pollution Control Board meeting on Tuesday!!! Even though the project was rubber-stamped like many of us expected, it was still a great anti-Knauf reunion.



    Knauf settles with Shasta County
  • Shasta County offers settlement to Knauf pg. 1 (8-18-2004)
  • Shasta County offers settlement to Knauf pg. 2 (8-18-2004)

  • Knauf's response to Shasta County pg. 1 (8-26-2004)
  • Knauf's response to Shasta County pg. 2 (8-26-2004)
  • Knauf's response to Shasta County pg. 3 (8-26-2004)

  • Knauf payment schedule


    Knauf's Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
    DOWNLOAD: Knauf Insulation Manufacturing Facility
    Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
    (108 pages in .pdf - 7.44 MB)


    DOWNLOAD: Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH Manufacturing Facility
    Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
    (91 pages in .pdf - 2.34 MB)


    Shasta County Board of Supervisors Meeting - March 16, 2004
    Public Hearing

    My name is Eric Cassano. I live in the City of Shasta Lake. I've been reading a lot in the news lately about the financial difficulties that the county is facing. I understand that several public health programs were recently cut due to a lack of money and twenty public health employees had to be laid off. I also understand that it's possible that the Mental Health Hospital may end up being closed due to budget constraints.

    Considering the serious nature of these financial problems that you're faced with, I'm assuming that the county is looking for every possible source of funding to ensure that critical services are maintained.

    There's an untapped source of revenue that you may want to look into. Currently the Knauf Fiber Glass factory in the City of Shasta Lake is violating the conditions of its air permit. The Knauf factory is exceeding both the "oxides of nitrogen" and "particulate matter" emission limits of their permit.

    According to the newspaper the county determined that Knauf is causing $2000-a-day in environmental impact. There have also been several stories printed in the newspaper about the county "fining" Knauf. But this is not true. Despite all this talk of fines you may be shocked to hear that no fines have actually been issued, billed, invoiced or sent to Knauf. In other words Knauf has never been ordered or asked to pay any fines and therefore hasn't paid a single dime.

    What I'm suggesting is that the county actually issue the fines and be compensated for Knauf's impact on the environment. As of yesterday, March 15, 2004 Knauf has racked up a whopping $960,000 dollars in total environmental impact related to their illegal pollution. Knauf has officially been out of compliance with their air permit since November 22, 2002 which is a total of 480 days.

    If Knauf does not bring its emissions into compliance by April 4, 2004, Knauf's environmental impact jackpot will reach a whopping ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

    Shasta County Air Pollution Control Officer Russ Mull has stated that he has the authority to fine Knauf under the Health and Safety code, but so far has not, claiming that it's up to his discretion. However on the Air Quality Management District's website the act of "enforcing permits" is listed under "function and responsibilities". It seems to me that a matter this serious would be better addressed by the Air Pollution Control Board or the Air Quality Management District Hearing Board.

    By actually sending the fines, instead of just talking about them, the county could give Knauf an incentive to comply with the law and also receive a much-needed financial boost.
    --
    Thank you
    Redding Record-Searchlight word games
    by Eric A. Cassano

    When you're reading stories about Knauf's air pollution violations in the Redding Record-Searchlight newspaper, please remember this...
  • Knauf is currently violating both the Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter emission limits of their PSD air permit.
    (Per my conversation with Shasta County's Air Pollution Control Officer Russ Mull on March 4. 2004)

  • The Shasta County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has never actually issued any fines to Knauf for violating conditions of their PSD air permit. In other words, these so-called "$2000-a-day fines" we've been reading about have never actually been sent or "invoiced" to Knauf. Consequently no fines related to these permit violations have ever been paid by Knauf.
    (Per my conversation with Shasta County's Air Pollution Control Officer Russ Mull on March 4. 2004)

    Record-Searchlight news articles have also stated numerous times that fines were "levied" against Knauf. They've also recently stated that the Air Quality Management District has been "charging" Knauf. But if fines were never sent to Knauf or collected from Knauf, how is this possible?

    The Record-Searchlight needs to realize that words have meanings. For example.....

    Levy
    To impose or collect (a tax, for example).

    Fine
    A sum of money required to be paid as a penalty for an offense.

    Fined, Fining, Fines
    To require the payment of a fine from; impose a fine on.

    Charging
    To lay on or impose, as a load, tax, or burden
    Here are numerous references to fines made by the Record-Searchlight in their stories about Knauf....

  • "Knauf Fiber Glass is facing fines in excess of $100,000"

  • "recent fines levied by Shasta County Air Quality District"

  • "The high NOx levels have resulted in the county fining Knauf $2,000 a day"

  • "did not result in the elimination or reduction of more than $150,000 in noncompliance fines that have been levied against the plant"

  • "The Shasta County Air Quality Management District has been levying the $2,000-a-day penalty since Nov. 22"

  • "As for the fines, Knauf asserts the sanctions are inappropriate and unwarranted"

  • "The county began assessing the fines after reviewing results of a test conducted Sept. 11"

  • "The air quality district had levied $202,000 in fines since Nov. 22"

  • "The plant, which has been operating under a permit to construct, was fined $2,000 a day by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District"

  • "referring to sanctions the county Air Quality Management District has been charging Knauf Insulation for excessive oxides of nitrogen emissions"

  • "The Shasta County Air Quality Management District fined Knauf $2,000 a day beginning Nov. 22, 2002, for exceeding its allowable oxides of nitrogen levels"


  • Here's the total amount of money Knauf has paid as a result of these so-called fines: $0.00 dollars

    FUN FACT: If Shasta County officials actually did decide to fine Knauf $2000-a-day since November 22, 2002 the fine would total $938,000 dollars (on March 4, 2004).

    ANOTHER FUN FACT: If Knauf does not bring its emissions into compliance by April 4, 2004, Knauf's environmental impact jackpot will reach a whopping ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

    And here's the kicker... Despite the EPA's recent revocation of Shasta County's PSD permit authority, Shasta County Air Pollution Control Officer Russ Mull stated that he can still fine Knauf under the Health and Safety code, but so far has not, claiming that it's up to his discretion.
    (Per my conversation with Shasta County's Air Pollution Control Officer Russ Mull on March 4. 2004)


  • BOYCOTT KNAUF FIBER GLASS

    STOP KNAUF!

  • Knauf Fiber Glass has built a large factory in the City of Shasta Lake, California.
  • The factory is a bad idea that threatens our health and environment.
  • Knauf operated illegally by violating the conditions of their air permit for over three years.
  • Corrupt government officials refused to enforce the law and make Knauf comply. Instead they granted Knauf a new permit.
  • A boycott of Knauf Fiber Glass products is being encouraged.
  • Local citizens are working hard to shut down the Knauf factory.

    "As shown in Fig 1, our oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions exceed the PSD permit limit."

    Above is an excerpt from Knauf's full-page ad that appeared in the
    Redding Record-Searchlight on Sunday, February 2, 2003
    (Seems like a strange thing to be bragging about)


    Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Fact Sheet
    Dear EPA,

    The Knauf Fiber Glass factory in Shasta Lake, California has been violating the conditions of their PSD air permit since November 22, 2002.

    Despite numerous complaints from Shasta County residents, EPA Region 9 officials have allowed Knauf's illegal activity to continue. EPA Region 9 refuses to even send an EPA inspector to the facility.

    The EPA needs to quit giving Knauf preferential treatment and start protecting our air from Knauf's illegal pollution.

    EPA Region 9 officials must enforce the law and make Knauf Fiber Glass either comply with their original PSD permit or cease operation.

    Please don't insult my intelligence by just issuing Knauf a new PSD permit with higher pollution limits.

    The EPA also needs to fine Knauf at least $2000 for each day they have been operating illegally. This fine amount was originally proposed by our local air pollution officials. Apparently it was all just a big public relations game.

    Knauf ran a full-page ad in our local newspaper on February 2, 2003 that openly admitted that they were emitting 226% of the NOx amount legally allowed by their PSD permit. The worst EPA lawyer on your staff could win this case easily. (It's like having the fish jump into the boat.)

    Why is it taking so long to see the law enforced in this no-brainer case? Is there some sort of official complaint form that I need to sign?

    Eric Cassano

    Here's a copy of a letter dated January 14, 2003 that was sent to Knauf Fiber Glass from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Region 9).

    EPA Letter page 1
    EPA Letter page 2
    EPA Letter page 3
    EPA Letter page 4

    Here are a couple letters sent to Knauf Fiber Glass from the Shasta County Air Quality Management District. The letters relate to Knauf's failure to meet the conditions of their air pollution permit. The letters are dated November 22, 2002 and January 13, 2003.

    Shasta AQMD letter Nov/22/2002 - page 1
    Shasta AQMD letter Nov/ 22/2002 - page 2

    Shasta AQMD letter Jan/13/2003 - page 1
    Shasta AQMD letter Jan/13/2003 - page 2
    Shasta AQMD letter Jan/13/2003 - page 3
    Shasta AQMD letter Jan/13/2003 - page 4




    Help Wanted

    * Shasta County's air pollution control officer has retired.
    * The Resource Management director is now serving as the air pollution control officer.
    * The county is attempting to hire an Air Quality District Manager

    Are you a team player? - Can you participate in corruption? - Can you ignore federal air permit violations by arrogant industrial polluters? - Shasta County may have a job for you!



    So what's wrong with Knauf?

  • Knauf's main smokestack would be 199 ft. tall and 22 ft. in diameter at the base. This should be a wake-up call to those who value clean air. Smokestacks of this magnitude should NOT be considered "environmentally friendly".

  • According to a local newspaper report, Knauf would have the largest releases of PM10 (microscopic dust) and Reactive Organic Gases of any "corporate air polluter" in Shasta County.

  • The air quality regulations were relaxed at the state and local levels to benefit Knauf. So much for the pro-Knaufer's "Strict California Environmental Regulations" argument. What a joke.

  • Even without Knauf, Shasta County is already exceeding California's air quality standards for Ozone and PM10. We should be reducing our pollution instead of adding to it. The air pollution regulators are collecting big pay checks, but doing absolutely nothing to protect us from Knauf.

  • If the Knauf factory is allowed to operate, other dirty industries will be attracted to our area. Do we want to become a haven for smokestack industry? Do we want to become L.A. North?

  • Knauf's smokestack would release toxic chemicals such as phenol, formaldehyde and ammonia. The factory would also release fiberglass particles which are listed as a carcinogen by the State of California.

  • Corporate welfare, anyone? Check out the Knauf info at this industrial development website

  • What will the economic benefits be in the USA? Since Knauf Fiber Glass is a foreign-owned company, it seems safe to assume that the bulk of the profits will be headed overseas. But rest assured, we'll get 100% of the pollution. What a deal!


    Knauf's government lapdogs ....

    The folks who claim to be fighting air pollution have been some of Knauf's biggest supporters. Here's a list of agencies that have allowed Knauf to build and, so far, have done nothing to make Knauf comply with the law. Shame on these agencies for failing to do their jobs.

    Shasta County Air Quality Management District
    EPA Region 9
    California EPA (air resources board)
    Environmental Appeals Board


    Knauf's stack

    Stack Size


    Links

  • How big is Knauf's stack - shastalake.com
  • FIN--the Fiberglass Information Network
  • Notable Historical Events in the fiberglass Insulation Industry

    The Knauf Fiber Glass factory is a "redevelopment project". Here's what the local media won't tell you about redevelopment....
  • Redevelopment: The Unknown Government