## Facts

- Trident Seafoods Corporation (Trident) purchased an abandoned fish-cannery site in Anacortes, Washington and began renovating the facility.
- During renovation, asbestos-containing material was removed from the site over five days in August and September 1988.
- A state official learned of the asbestos work, inspected the site, and cited Trident for failing to give advance notice of its intent to remove asbestos; Trident paid a $250 state fine.
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) later learned of the violation and notified Trident that it would pursue Clean Air Act penalties unless Trident paid a proposed $346,000 administrative penalty.
- Trident refused to pay, and the United States filed a civil enforcement action alleging (1) a violation of the asbestos NESHAP notice requirement and (2) four additional substantive asbestos work-practice violations.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the United States on the notice claim; the four substantive claims were tried to a jury, which found for Trident.
- For penalty purposes, the district court treated the notice violation as continuing for 44 days, yielding a statutory maximum calculation of $1,100,000, then reduced the penalty to $64,750 based on mitigating factors.
- Trident appealed, challenging the district court’s continuing-violation approach and the resulting penalty calculation.

## Issues

1. Whether failure to provide written asbestos-renovation notice “as early as possible” under the asbestos NESHAP is a one-time violation or a continuing violation for purposes of per-day civil penalties under the Clean Air Act.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that Trident’s failure to provide the required written notice was a one-time violation, not a continuing violation.
- The court reversed the district court’s ruling that the notice violation continued for 44 days for penalty purposes.
- The court remanded for recalculation of the civil penalty consistent with a single violation, subject to the Clean Air Act’s one-day maximum (then $25,000).

## Legal Principles

- When a statute or regulation does not clearly state that a reporting/notice duty continues day-to-day after the deadline, courts should not treat late notice as a continuing violation for stacking daily penalties.
- Per-day civil penalties require clear statutory or regulatory authorization as to how a violation accrues over time.
- Regulated parties must have clear notice of penalty exposure; ambiguity about whether a notice requirement creates daily liability weighs against a continuing-violation theory.
- An agency that seeks daily penalties for late notice must clearly state in its regulations either (a) that there is an ongoing duty to notify after the deadline or (b) that penalty accrual is tied to the period of noncompliance.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Trident’s failure to provide timely written notice under the asbestos NESHAP occurred when the notice should have been given and did not continue accruing daily violations until notice was filed; it therefore reversed the district court’s 44-day penalty theory and remanded for imposition of a penalty consistent with a single-day maximum.


United States v. Trident Seafoods Corporation, 60 F.3d 556 (1995)