AQ_F_0800107_20170324_ENF_Enf-FND

NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
COUNTY OF BERTIE FILE NO. DAQ 2016-035
IN THE MATTER OF: )
W. E. PARTNERS II, LLC )
FOR VIOLATION OF: )
CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
40 CFR PART 63 SUBPART JJJJJJ )
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.) 143-215.114A, I,
Michael A. Abraczinskas, Director of the Division of Air Quality(DAQ), make the
following:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. W E Partners II, LLC (the Facility—ID: 0800107) operates three identical,
clean cellulosic biomass-fired boilers (600 hp, 29.4 MMBtu/hr each) and a
steam turbine generator in Lewiston Woodville, Bertie County, that supplies
process steam to Valley Proteins - Lewiston Division, electricity to Dominion
Power, and to a lesser extent, steam to the Perdue Foods LLC - Lewiston
wastewater treatment plant.
B. On June 12, 2013, the facility was issued Air Permit No. 10126R02. The
facility submitted a permit renewal application on September 3, 2015. DAQ
Central Office Permitting Section issued a Best Available Control Technology
Determination under the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio
Standard, Session Law 2007-397, Senate Bill SB3 on November 21, 2016.
Air Permit No. 10126R03 on December 8, 2016.
C. The particulate emissions from the Facility's boilers (ID No. ESB-1, ESB-2
and ESB-3) are controlled by three multi-cyclones and one electrostatic
precipitator(ESP) (ID No. ESP-1). The boilers are subject to 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart JJJJJJ(0), "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers"
(NESHAP).
D. 40CFR 63.11211(b)(2)requires the Facility to establish a minimum ESP
secondary power input based up on the lowest one-hour average secondary
electric power measured during the most recent particulate performance test.
The Facility tested on May 10, 2012, and the lowest hour average was 3.4
kilowatts.
E. 40CFR 63.11201(c) and Table 3 of the regulation require the Facility to
demonstrate compliance with the minimum secondary power by monitoring
the secondary power and reducing the hourly average data to thirty-day rolling
averages, excluding data collected during periods of startup and shutdown,

W.E.Partners II,LLC
DAQ Case Number: 2016-035
Page 2 of 4
monitoring system malfunctions, out of control periods or monitoring system
quality assurance actions.
F. The Facility reduces hourly averages to twelve-hour block averages as an
indicator of compliance with the minimum ESP secondary power input limit.
The block averages are saved electronically and recorded each day by hand by
the boiler operators.
G. On September 29, 2016, the Division of Air Quality(DAQ) conducted a
permit compliance inspection. The inspection included records review of the
twelve-hour averages between January 1, 2016 and September 28, 2016. It
was discovered that a significant portion of the averages were below the
secondary power minimum limit. DAQ requested the secondary power hourly
averages and thirty-day rolling averages for the same period. The Facility
provided the data electronically to DAQ on November 14, 2016.
H. The thirty-day average data provided by the Facility indicates that averages
fell below the 3.4 kilowatts minimum limit during fifty-three operating days
from March 28, 2016 to May 30, 2016.
I. On November 22, 2016, a Notice of Violation/Notice of Recommended
Enforcement(NOV/NRE)was issued to the facility for violation of 40CFR
63.11201(c) and Table 3 of Subpart 6J.
J. The Facility provided an email response to the NOV/NRE on November 22,
2016.
• The Facility contacted the manufacturer(Babcock&Wilcox) on the ESP
controller, and was told that the controller is designed to operate in the
automatic mode and that the regulatory requirement for thirty-day average
monitoring against a minimum secondary power doesn't take into account
that the computer is managing the ESP to minimize emissions while
reducing electrical operating costs. As an example, the ESP works
"harder" (ie power consumption goes up)when there is a heavy particulate
load. This may be a function of the firing rate of the boilers or just the type
of fuel (bark compared to chips to sawdust). Therefore, low kilowatts are
not indicative that the ESP was not doing its job,just that the particulate
load being seen by the ESP controller was low.
• The Facility is working toward modification of the controller package to
dictate while the controller is in auto-mode the secondary power will not
be allowed to fall below the minimum established according to the
regulation.
K. Air Quality Compliance History:
• On February 20, 2013, a Notice of Deficiency(NOD) was issued to the
Facility for late submittal of the Subpart 6J (Boiler GACT) Site Specific
Monitoring Plan.

W.E.Partners II,LLC
DAQ Case Number:2016-035
Page 3 of 4
• On September 22, 2014, a NOD was issued to the Facility for deficiencies
in collection and retention of ESP secondary voltage monitoring data in
accordance with the requirements in Subpart 6J. A deadline of November
30, 2014, was set for correcting the deficiencies.
• The Facility failed to correct the deficiencies cited in September 22, 2014
NOD; therefore, on May 12, 2015, a NOW/NRE was issued to the Facility
for violation of Subpart JJJJJJ NESHAP sections 63.11225(c)(6),
63.10(b)(1), 63.1 0(b)(2)(vii) and §63.11205. The facility was assessed
under Case No. DAQ 2015-022 for$3,545 and paid in full.
L. The cost of investigation or inspection in this matter totaled $639.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. W E Partners II, LLC was in violation of 40CFR 63.11201(c) and Table 3 of
the Subpart 6J NESHAP from March 28, 2016 to May 30, 2016.
B. G.S. 143-215.114A provides that a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five
thousand dollars per violation may be assessed against a person who violates
or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a
permit required by G.S. 143-215.108 or who violates any regulation adopted
by the Environmental Management Commission.
C. G.S. 143-215.3(a)(9)provides that the costs of any investigation or inspection
may be assessed against a person who violates or fails to act in accordance
with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit required by G.S. 143-
215.108 or who violates any regulation adopted by the Environmental
Management Commission.

W.E.Partners II,LLC
DAQ Case Number: 2016-035
Page 4 of 4
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I make the following:
III. DECISION:
W E Partners II, LLC, is hereby assessed a civil penalty of.
For 53 violations of 40CFR 63.11201(c) and Table 3 of
$ '7 1 0 the Subpart 6J NESHAP
TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is 0.5 percent of
$ 0 y ` "� the maximum penalty authorized by G.S. 143-215.114A.
$ 639.00 Investigation costs.
$ —7 .-7 3q TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.114A in determining the amount of the penalty, I considered
the factors listed in G.S. 143B-282.1(b) and 15A NCAC 2J .0106, which are the
following:
1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public
health, or to private property resulting from the violation(s);
2) The duration and gravity of the violation;
3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs
over which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority;
and
8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
Date Michael A. Abraczinskas, Director
Division of Air Quality