AQ_F_1900106_20151203_ENF_Enf-FND

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
COUNTY OF CHATHAM FILE NO.DAQ 2015-026
IN THE MATTER OF: )
LUCK STONE CORPORATION
FOR VIOLATION OF: )
)
CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
AIR PERMIT 09011 R02;
40 CFR PART 60 (000) )
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes(G.S.) 143-215.114A, I, Sheila Holman, Director of the
Division of Air Quality(DAQ),make the following:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Luck Stone Corporation operates a stone quarry under one air permit in Moncure, Chatham County,
North Carolina. This facility has a county premise number of 1900106.
B. Luck Stone Corporation was issued Air Permit No. 09011R02 on January 26, 2011, with an expiration
date of December 31, 2015 for the construction/operation of air emission sources and/or air cleaning
devices. This was the effective permit during the period in which the violations occurred.
C. Said permit contains Stipulation A.9., which incorporates into the permit the requirements of federal
New Source Performance Standards, 40 CFR 60, Subpart 000, including the requirement to limit
crusher operations fugitive emissions to 15%opacity.
D. During a routine air quality compliance inspection on June 10, 2015, the DAQ inspector noticed
higher than normal fugitive emissions coming from the point where the permitted jaw crusher(C145
Metso Jaw Crusher) transferred crushed material to Conveyor #1. The inspector conducted a 30-
minute VE evaluation utilizing EPA Method 9 and recorded the following five six-minute opacity
readings: 42%, 47%, 59%,20%, and 27%.
E. On June 23,2015,the DAQ Raleigh Regional Office issued a Notice of Violation/Notice of
Recommendation for Enforcement(NOV/NRE)to Luck Stone Corporation summarizing the visible
emission violation detailed in Paragraph D above.
F. On July 29,2015,the DAQ Raleigh Regional Office received Luck Stone Corporation's response letter to
the June 23, 2015 NOV/NRE.
G. Prior to the current violation, the following compliance/enforcement letters had been issued to Luck Stone
Corporation within the last five years:
• Notice of Deficiency (NOD) was issued on November 26, 2012, addressing incomplete
recordkeeping at the Moncure facility.
H. The costs of investigation or inspection in this matter totaled$445.00.

Luck Stone Corporation
DAQ 2015-026
Page 2 of 2
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Air Permit No. 09011R02 is required by and issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.108.
B. Luck Stone Corporation was in violation of Permit Stipulation A.9. as detailed in Findings of Fact above.
C. G.S. 143-215.114A provides that a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000.00) 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.
D. G.S. 143-215.3(a)(9)provides that the costs of any investigation or inspection may be assessed against a
person who violates any term or condition of any permit issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.108 or who
violates any regulation adopted by the Environmental Management Commission.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I make the following:
III. DECISION:
Luck Stone Corporation is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$ 1500,1)0 For one violation of Air Permit No. 09011R02, Stipulation A.9, specifically for
exceeding the visible emission limit for the jaw crusher(C145 Metso Jaw Crusher).
$ 1500.10 TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is
percent of the maximum penalty
authorized by G.S. 143-215.114A.
$ 445.00 Investigation costs
$ 10l q 5-OD 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.
3 S 5L&- C
ate Sheila C. Holman, Director
Division of Air Quality