AQ_F_1900015_20120829_ENF_Enf-FND

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
COUNTY OF CHATHAM FILE NO. DAQ 2012-022
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
ARAUCO PANELS USA LLC )
(FORMERLY UNIBOARD USA LLC) )
FOR VIOLATION OF: ) CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
AIR PERMIT 03449T3 7/T3 8/T3 9; )
15A NCAC 2D .0521; )
15A NCAC 2D .0530; . )
40 CFR PART 63 (DDDD)AND )
GENERAL CONDITION P; )
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:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Arauco Panels USA LLC (formally Uniboard USA LLC)operates a facility located in Moncure, Chatham
County,North Carolina. This facility has a county premise number of 1900015.
B. Uniboard Panels USA LLC was issued Air Permit Nos. 03449T37 on May 20,2011, 03449T38 on July 7,
2011, with an expiration date of April 30, 2016, and issued Air Permit No. 03449T39 on September 27,
2011, with an expiration date of August 31, 2016, for the construction/operation of air emission sources
and/or air cleaning devices. These were the effective permits during the period in which the violations
occurred.
C. On January 24, 2012, a facility ownership change was fmalized where the facility officially changed its
name from Uniboard USA LLC to Arauco Panels USA LLC(hereforth referred to as Arauco).
D. Said permits contain stipulation 2.1.F.5.a. (regarding the Particleboard Mill)that reads as follows:
As required by 15A NCAC 2D.0521(d) "Control of Visible Emissions,"visible emissions from the units in the
particleboard mill(ID No. PB)manufactured after July 1, 1971, shall not be more than 20 percent opacity when
averaged over a six-minute period[15A NCAC 2D.0521(d)]. However, six minute averaging periods may
exceed 20 percent opacity f
i. No six-minute period exceeds 87 percent opacity;
ii. No more than one six-minute period exceeds 20 percent opacity in any hour; and
iii. No more than four six-minute periods exceed 20 percent opacity in any 24-hour period"
On March 15, 2012,Mr. Steve Carr from the Raleigh Regional Office(RRO) observed excess visible
emissions from the Particleboard Plant Dryer/Press exhaust stack. Mr. Carr conducted a 30-minute EPA
Reference Method 9 visible emissions test and determined that the five six-minute average opacity
readings were 39%, 37%, 36%, 35% and 34%,respectively. After excusing one six-minute average per
the regulation, four(4)violations of stipulation 2.11.5.a. and 15A NCAC 2D .0521 were documented
during the test period.
E. Said permits also contain stipulation 2.2.A.4.e., which refers to 40 CFR Part 63.6(e)(1)(i). The relevant
portion of 40 CFR Part 63.6(e)(1)(i)reads as follows:

Arauco Panels USA LLC
DAQ 2012-022
Page 2 of 5
"At all times, including periods ofstartup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator must operate and
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment,
in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions."
There have been two occasions(January 12,2012 and March 16, 2012)where the subject facility directly
released emissions from the Particleboard Plant Press(DEF-2010)bypassing the installed control devices
(CD-PB-WESP, CD-PB-PGT). Due to the applicability of the Plywood and Composite Wood Products
MACT(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDD),the subject facility was required1b install an"add-on control
system"to the Particleboard Dryer/Press exhaust system. Facility personnel claimed that bypassing the
control device on these two occasions was necessary to obtain certain performance test data on the
affected sources. However, doing so resulted in two(2)violations of permit stipulation 2.2.A.4.e. and 40
CFR Part 63.6(e)(1)(i).
F. Permits 03449T38 and 03449T39 also contain stipulation 2.l.C.3.c. (regarding the Energy System—ES-
02-A)with the relevant portion of the stipulation reading as follows:
"To assure compliance, once a day the Permittee shall observe the emission points of this source Energy System
(ID No.ES-08-A)for any visible emissions above normal. The daily observation must be made for each day of the
calendar year period that this emission source is in operation to ensure compliance with this requirement. For
days when this emission source is not operating, the client shall document "not operating"in the recordkeeping
associated with this permit condition. The Permittee shall be allowed three(3)days of absent observations per
semi-annual period."
Sixty-four(64)visible emission observations(related to the Energy System at the MDF plant)were not
conducted. These missed observations spanned two semiannual periods(July 23, 2011 —March 25,
2012). Per the permit conditions, six missed observations can be exempted leaving the facility with fifty-
eight(58)violations.
G. Said permits also contain stipulations 2.1.F.5.c.,2.1.F.61i.,2.1.F.6.q.i., and 2.1.G.4.c. (regarding the
Particleboard Mill and the Laminating Mill)that require the Permittee to record weekly the results from
visible emissions observations and visual integrity inspections on sixteen(16) sources.These sources
include specific emission points, dryer burners and multicyclones. No records were available
documenting these weekly monitoring events during the week of November 13, 2011, resulting in one(1)
violation of the monitoring requirements.
H. Said permits also contain stipulation 2.2.A.Le.that requires the Permittee to record the results from
monthly visual inspections of operations that potentially produce volatile organic compound(VOC)
emissions. The facility operates two parts washers that require these monthly visual inspections. There
were no records of these parts washers being visually inspected during the month of June 2011,resulting
in one (1)violation of permit stipulation 2.2.A.1.c.
I. Said permits also contain stipulations 2.1.F.6.g. and 2.1.G.2.c.requiring the Permittee to perform annual.
internal inspections of bagfilters. It appears that Bagfilters CD-3585 and CD-3593 were not internally
inspected during calendar year 2011,resulting in two(2)violations of the permits and 15A NCAC 2D
.0530.
J. Said permits also contain General Condition P. This stipulation requires the Permittee to report through
an Annual Compliance Certification(ACC)the compliance status of federally-enforceable terms and
conditions within the permit. The above-mentioned violations were not included in the facility's 2011
ACC,resulting in one(1)violation of General Condition P.
K. Two separate Notices of Violation/Notices of.Recommendation for Enforcement (NOV/NREs) dated
April 12, 2.012 and May 3, 2012 were issued to Arauco summarizing all violations addressed in these
Findings of Fact.

Arauco Panels USA LLC
DAQ 2012-022
Page 3 of 5
L. A response letter to the April 12ffi, 2012 NOV/NRE was received in the RRO on May 2, 2012. A
response letter to the May P, 2012 NOV/NRE was received by the RRO on June 1, 2012.
M. Prior to the current violations, the following actions were taken to bring the facility into compliance: two
(2) SOCs,two(2)NOVs, and five(5)NOV/NREs within the last six(6)years.
• NOV was issued on November 14, 2011 due to a late submission of a Part H portion of an air permit
application.
• NOV was issued on April 25, 2011 due to multiple record keeping violations and an incomplete 2010
Annual Compliance Certification. No civil penalty was assessed.
• NOV/NRE was issued on February 17, 2011 for missing stack test deadlines and operating equipment
with compromised or inoperative control equipment. Civil penalties totaling $42,571 were assessed
for these violations and these were paid in full.
• NOV/NRE dated May 4, 2010 for failure to develop a Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan for
the particleboard and MDF plant by the deadline. No civil penalty was assessed.
• NOV/NRE dated March 4, 2010 for failure to submit a second half of 2009 compliance report by
January 30,2010. A civil penalty of$1228.00 was assessed and paid in full.
• NOV/NRE dated August 12, 2009 for not performing a performance test by the due date. A civil
penalty of$4292.00 was assessed and paid in full.
• NOV dated October 22, 2008, issued to Uniboard USA LLC for the failure to submit an ownership
change permit application, second quarter 2008 and first half 2008 compliance reports.
• Special Order by Consent (SOC 2008-002) was issued on September 9, 2008 to grant ATC Panels
Inc. (former owner) additional time beyond the regulatory deadline to bring their facility into
compliance with MACT Subpart DDDD requirements. Under the SOC, the facility had to pay
$7,500. On December 5, 2008, the DAQ issued a demand for payment to ACT Panels, Inc. under
SOC 2008-002. The SOC required that a semi-annual progress report be submitted to the DAQ by
October 1, 2008. ACT Panels, Inc. submitted the required progress report via email on October 30,
2008, which was 29 days after the required deadline. Under the terms of the SOC, the DAQ required
payment of the stipulated penalty of$26,500 ($500 for the first five days and $1,000 per day for the
remaining 24 days of delay in submitting the progress report)for the late report.
• NOV/NRE dated May 3, 2006, issued to ATC Panels Inc. for operating particleboard dryers without
concurrent operation of associated regenerative oxidizer. To resolve these violations the company
entered an SOC (2006-004)that included civil penalties of$37,500.
N. The costs of investigation or inspection in this matter totaled$574.00.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
H. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Air Permit Nos. 03449T37/T38/T39 are required by and issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.108.
B. Arauco was in violation of Permit Stipulations 2.11.5.a., 2.2.A.4.e., 2.1.C.3.c. (only T38/T39), 2.1.F.5.c.,
2.1.F.6.£1, 2.11.6.q.i., 2.1.G.4.c., 2.2.A.l.c., 2.11.6.g., 2.1.G.2.c., and General Condition P as detailed
in Findings of Fact above.

Arauco Panels USA LLC
DAQ 2012-022
Page 4 of 5
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:
Arauco is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$ 1 f-, GJ O O i D D for four (4) violations of Air Permit Nos. 03449T37/T38/T39 Permit Stipulation
2.1.17.5.a. and specifically for exceeding a 20% opacity standard as noted in Findings
of Fact paragraph D.
$ for two (2) violations of Air Permit Nos. 03449T37/T38/T39 Permit Stipulation
2.2.A.4.e. and specifically for bypassing required emission control devices as noted in
Findings of Fact paragraph E.
$ d 0 0 for fifty-eight (58) violations of Air Permit Nos. 03449T38/T39 Permit Stipulation
2.1.C.3.c. and specifically for failing to conduct and record required VE observations
as noted in Findings of Fact paragraph F.
$ 1 0 y D for one (1) violation of Air Permit Nos. 03449T37/T38/T39 Permit Stipulations
2.1.F.5.c., 2.1.F.6.£1, 2.11.6.q.i., 2.1.G.4.c and specifically for failing to record
required weekly visible emission/integrity monitoring for one week as noted in
Findings of Fact paragraph G.
$ 1000 , V for one (1) violation of Air Permit Nos. 03449T37/T38/T39 Permit Stipulation
2.2.A.l.c. and specifically for failing to record required monthly visual inspections of
VOC-potential emitting sources as noted in Findings of Fact paragraph H.
$ 0(D for two (2) violations of Air Permit Nos. 03449T37/T38/T39 Permit Stipulations
f 2.1.F.6.g. and 2.1.G.2.c. and specifically for failing to conduct and record annual
internal inspections of bagfilters as noted in Findings of Fact paragraph I.
$ for one (1) violation of Air Permit No. 03449T37/T38/T39 General Condition P. and
specifically for submitting an inaccurate 2011 ACC that did not list the previously
indicated violations as noted in Findings of Fact paragraph J.
$ � �� 00 TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is �� percent of the maximum penalty
authorized by G.S. 143-215.114A.
$ 574.00 Investigation costs
$ 7 D TOTAL AMOUNT DUE

Arauco Panels USA LLC
DAQ 2012-022
Page 5 of 5
Pursuant to G.S. 143-215.114A in determining the amount of the penalty, I considered the factors listed in G.S.
14313-282.1(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.
a-cL I ,-;,- Sly:(2q- CY-�Q�
Date Sheila C. Holman,Director
Division of Air Quality