AQ_F_0800107_20151005_ENF_Enf-FND

NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
COUNTY OF MARTIN FILE NO. DAQ 2015-022
IN THE MATTER OF: )
W. E. PARTNERS 11, LLC )
)
CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
FOR VIOLATION OF:
40 CFR PART 63 SUBPART JJJJJJ )
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.) 143-215.114A, 1, Sheila C.
Holman, Director of the Division of Air Quality(DAQ),make the following:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. W E Partners II, LLC (the Facility) operates three identical, clean 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.
On June 12, 2013, the facility was issued Air Permit No. 10126R02 to expire
on November 30, 2015.
B. 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 (6J), "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional
Boilers."
C. On September 22, 2014, a Notice of Deficiency(NOD)was issued to the
Facility that set a deadline of November 30, 2014, for completion of changes
in the ESP secondary power monitoring data system to record and retain all
data in conformance with requirements in Subpart 6J. The NOD also
documented an understanding that the Facility had made adjustments to the
ESP standard operating procedures as of March 2014 to be able to start up the
ESP at a lower temperature when the boilers supply a low steam load to
Valley Proteins or the Perdue wastewater treatment system.
D. On March 19, 2015, the Division of Air Quality(DAQ) conducted an annual
permit compliance inspection. During the inspection it was discovered that
the fifteen-minute and hourly average ESP secondary power data, required by
Subpart 6J,were not accessible at the Facility. Furthermore, operator logs
indicated the Facility continued after November 30, 2014, to not operate the
ESP when the boilers were supplying low process steam,particularly on
weekends when the only steam supply was to the Perdue Foods LLC -
Lewiston wastewater treatment plant.

W.E.Partners II,LLC
DAQ Case Number:2015-022
Page 2 of 4
E. On April 10, 2015, the Facility informed DAQ the corrections were made as
of April 1, 2015, to calculate and retain the ESP hourly average secondary
power. On April 23, 2015, the Facility informed DAQ it was discovered the
ESP operating system did actually retain secondary power on the ESP every
six minutes, but the six-minute data was retained each day on a rolling annual
basis. Subpart 6J requires all data be retained for five years. On May 1, 2015,
the DAQ inspector went to the Facility and confirmed the six-minute data is
electronically stored.
F. On May 12, 2015, a Notice of Violation/Notice of Recommended
Enforcement was issued to the facility for the following violations of 40CFR
Subpart 6J and 40 CFR Subpart A "General Provisions."
• Sections 63.11225(c)(6), 63.10(b)(1) and 63.1 0(b)(2)(vii) for failure to
maintain files of all information required by the subpart recorded in a form
suitable and readily available for expeditious inspection, and failure to
retain all measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with the
relevant standard.
• Section §63.11205 for failure to operate and maintain air pollution control
equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices
for minimizing emissions.
G. The Facility provided a response to the NOV/NRE on June 5, 2015.
• Following the September 22, 2014 NOD, the engineer working on the
secondary power data project took medical leave from the company. The
Facility failed to follow-up to ensure that this task was reassigned to
another engineer. As a result, changes were not completed at the Facility.
• The Facility disputes the conclusion that it is in violation of the
requirement to maintain secondary power data in conformance with
Subpart 6J requirements as it has been available since the September 22,
2014 NOD. While the Facility failed to implement a new program to
capture this data, the Facility confirmed that six-minute data was, in fact,
available. The Facility was just not aware of it at the time of DAQ
inspection. The Facility has implemented a program where this data is
downloaded on a yearly basis.
• As outlined in the NOV/NRE,prior to winter operations beginning, the
Facility will make further operational changes to allow for a higher stack
temperature such as bypassing the economizer and air preheater. This will
result in a higher gas temperature so that the ESP can begin operation
based on Manufactures recommendation of 300 degree gas temperature.
The facility will also consider other regulatory avenues and stack testing
with only the multi-cyclones in operation.
I

W.E.Partners Il,LLC
DAQ Case Number:2015-022
Page 3 of 4
• W.E. Partners II, LLC has showed good faith in trying to meet the
requirements of the permit. The Facility is a small business with only 25
employees covering 4 plants which operate on a 24/7 schedule. As such,
the Facility does not have the financial capacity to retain a full time
environmental professional on staff to ensure compliance with complex
and changing EPA regulations.
H. Air Quality Enforcement History:
• On February 20, 2013, a NOD was issued to the Facility for late submittal
of the Subpart 6J (Boiler GACT) Site Specific Monitoring Plan.
• 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.
I. The cost of investigation or inspection in this matter totaled $ 785.00.
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 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(6), 63.10(b)(1)
and 63.1 0(b)(2)(vii), as referenced in Permit 10126R02 Specific Condition
A.I I.d. (monitoring data retention and availability).
B. W E Partners II, LLC is in violation of 40 CFR §63.11205, as referenced in
Permit 10126R02 Specific Condition A.1 Lc(failure to operate ESP).
C. 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.
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 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.
I

W.E.Partners II,LLC
DAQ Case Number:2015-022
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 twenty-nine (29) violations of 40 CFR 63.11225(c)(6),
$ a 9 bo.co 63.10(b)(1) and 63.1 0(b)(2)(vii), as referenced in Permit
10126R02 Specific Condition A.I Ld.
For one (1) violation of 40 CFR §63.11205, as referenced
$ in Permit 10126R02 Specific Condition A.I Lc
TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is ON] percent of
$ �v '1 (a 0. 'LD the maximum penalty authorized by G.S. 143-215.114A.
$ 785.00 Investigation costs.
$ ;3 Cj 4 S. OU 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.I(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 Sheila C. Holman, Director
Division of Air Quality