AQ_F_1900015_20091202_ENF_Enf-FND

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
COUNTY OF CHATHAM FILE NO. DAQ 2009-170
IN THE MATTER OF: )
UNIBOARD USA LLC )
FOR VIOLATION OF: )
AIR PERMIT 03449T34 ) CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
TESTING REQUIREMENTS )
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.) 143-215.114A, 1, Sheila Holman, Deputy Director of
the Division of Air Quality(DAQ), make the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Uniboard USA LLC(Uniboard) operates a facility located in Moncure, Chatham County, North Carolina.
This facility has a county premise number of 1900015.
B. Uniboard was issued Air Permit No. 03449T34 on April 22, 2009, for construction and operation of air
emission sources and/or air cleaning devices. This was the permit in effect at the time of the violation.
C. Said permit contains the following pertinent stipulations 2.1.F.6.c, 2.LF.6.p, 2.LF.6.v, and 2.1.F.6.aa:
c. Under the provisions of NCGS 143-215.108,the Permittee shall demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Section
2.1 F.6.a. above by testing the particleboard dryers(ID Nos.1410,1420,and 1430)for PM10(filterable and condensible
both)in accordance with a testing protocol approved by the DAQ. Details of the emissions testing and reporting
requirements can be found in Section 3 -General Condition JJ of the permit.
Testing shall be completed and the results submitted within 180 days from the issuance date of air permit 03449T31. All
three dryers or all operational dryers shall be included in this source testing.
p. Under the provisions of NCGS 143-215.108,the Permittee shall demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Section
2.1 F.6.a.above by testing the particleboard dryers(ID Nos. 1410,1420,and 1430)for carbon monoxide in accordance with
a testing protocol approved by the DAQ. Details of the emissions testing and reporting requirements can be found in Section
3 -General Condition.1J of the permit.
Testing shall be completed and the results submitted within 180 days from the issuance date of air permit 03449T31. All
three dryers or all operational dryers shall be included in this source testing.
v. Under the provisions of NCGS 143-215.108,the Permittee shall demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Section
2.1 F.6.a. above by testing the particleboard dryers(ID Nos. 1410,1420,and 1430)for volatile organic compounds in
accordance with a testing protocol approved by the DAQ. Details of the emissions testing and reporting requirements can be
found in Section 3 -General Condition JJ of the permit.
Testing shall be completed and the results submitted within 180 days from the issuance date of air permit 03449T31. All
three dryers or all operational dryers shall be included in this source testing.
aa. Under the provisions of NCGS 143-215.108,the Permittee shall demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Section
2.1 F.6.a. above by testing the particleboard dryers(ID Nos. 1410,1420,and 1430)for nitrogen oxides in accordance with a
testing protocol approved by the DAQ. Details of the emissions testing and reporting requirements can be found in Section 3
-General Condition JJ of the permit.
Testing shall be completed and the results submitted within 180 days from the issuance date of air permit 03449T31. All
three dryers or all operational dryers shall be included in this source testing.

Uniboard USA LLC
DAQ 2009-170
Page 2 of 3
D. Air Permit No. 03449T34 also includes the following conditional requirement in stipulations 2.1.F.6.c,
2.I.F.6.p, 2.1.F.6.v, and 2.LF.6.aa:
The Pennittee shall conduct another stack test and submit the results within 90 days of start-up of particleboard
dryer(ID No. 1410), if this dryer was not operational during the stack test as required above. All three dryers
shall be in operation during this source testing.
E. The requirements to test the particle dryers as outlined in Paragraphs C and D above were first included in
Uniboard's air permit with the issuance of Permit No. 03449T31 on July 12, 2007. The required testing
was to be completed and the results submitted by January 8, 2008, which is the 1.80th day from the
issuance of this permit. The same testing requirements have been carried through each subsequent permit
revision.
F. A Notice of Continuing Violation/Notice of Recommendation for Enforcement dated August 12, 2009
was sent to Uniboard USA LLC for failing to submit the required stack testing by the due date of January
8, 2008.
G. A stack testing protocol from Uniboard USA LLC was received by the Raleigh Regional Office on
August 31, 2009. This protocol described how the requirements in stipulations 2.1.F.6.c, 2.1.F.6.p,
2.1.F.6.v, and 2.1.F.6.aa would be met by a stack test with a proposed date of October 12, 2009. The
actual stack testing occurred on October 22, 2009.
H. Prior to the current violation, the facility has been issued two (2)NOVs within the last five(5)years.
• NOV dated October 22, 2008, issued to Uniboard USA LLC for an ownership change notification
violation and reporting violations.
• NOWNRE dated May 3, 2006, issued to ATC Panels Inc. (former owner) operating particleboard
dryers without concurrent operation of associated regenerative oxidizer. The company entered into a
special order by consent(SOC) agreement to resolve violations.
1. Uniboard is currently operating out of compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDD-
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products by not
installing the required emission controls by the October 1, 2008 (extended from October- 1, 2007)
compliance deadline. Uniboard entered into a SOC agreement with DAQ on September 9, 2008 allowing
them to operate out of compliance with the requirements of Subpart DDDD until alternative emission
control technologies could be evaluated and installed.
J. The costs of investigation or inspection in this matter totaled $292.00.

Uniboard USA LLC
DAQ 2009-170
Page 3 of 3
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
11. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Air Permit No. 03449T34 is required by and issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.108.
B. Uniboard was in violation of Permit Stipulations 2.1.F.6.c, 2.I.F.6.p, 2.1.F.6.v, and 2.1.F.6.aa 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 terns, 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:
Uniboard is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$ g000 -DD for one (1) violation of Air Permit No. 03449T34 Pen-nit Stipulations 2.1.F.6.c,
2.1.F.6.p, 2.1.F.6.v, and 2.I.F.6.aa and specifically for failing perform stack testing
and submit results within 180 days from the issuance date of air permit 03449T31.
$ LiQwp.DD TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is _ o� percent of the maximum penalty
authorized by G.S. 143-215.114A.
$ 292.00 Investigation costs
$ 47'11,0V 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.
k d,- I 5;tAo, clt��=
ate heila C. Holman, eputy Director
Division of Air Quality