AQ_F_1900015_20130516_ENF_Enf-FND

NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
COUNTY OF CHATHAM FILE NO.DAQ 2013-016
)
IN THE MATTER OF: )
ARAUCO PANELS USA LLC )
(FORMERLY UNIBOARD USA LLC) )
FOR VIOLATION OF: ) CIVIL,PENALTY ASSESSMENT
AIR PERMIT 03449T39/T40; )
15A NCAC 2D .0521; )
15A NCAC 2D .0530; and )
40 CFR PART 63 (DDDD)
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 particleboard mill and a medium
density fiberboard (MDF) mill under one air permit 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. 03449T39 on September 27, 2011,with an
expiration date of August 31,2016, and Arauco Panels USA LLC was issued Air Permit No. 03449T40
on August 23,2012, 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 finalized where the facility officially changed its
name from Uniboard USA LLC to Arauco Pane1s.USA LLC (hereforth referred to as Arauco).
D. Said permits contain stipulation 2.1.B.2.c. (regarding the MDF Woodworking Operations)and stipulation
2.1.D.2.c. (regarding the MDF Facilities Operation)reads as follows:
a "To assure compliance, once a week the Perm ittee shall observe the emission points of this source for any
visible emissions above normal. The weekly observation must be made for each week of the calendar year
period to ensure compliance with this requirement..."
The facility missed one week of visible emission observations (August 6,2012) on fifteen individual
emission sources listed under these permit stipulations as requiring weekly visible emission monitoring.
Counting each missed week of visible emission observations for the MDF Plant as a separate violation
yields one(1)violation of the visible emission observation requirements outlined in permit stipulations
2.1.B.2.c. and 2.1.D.2.c.
E. Said permits contain stipulation 2.1.F.5.c. (regarding the Particleboard Mill)and stipulation 2.LGA.c.
(regarding the Laminating Mill). The pertinent section of the stipulation reads as follows:
C. "To ensure compliance, the Permittee shall observe, on a weekly basis ...for any visible emissions... The
weekly observation must be made for each of the calendar year period to ensure compliance with this
requirement."
The facility missed two weeks of visible emission observations(June 28, 2012,August 6, 2012)on
thirteen individual emission sources listed under these permit stipulations as requiring weekly visible
emission monitoring. Counting each missed week of visible emission observations for these emission
sources as a separate violation yields two(2)violations of the visible emission observation requirements
outlined in permit stipulations permit stipulations 2.1.F.5.c.and 2.LGA.c.

Arauco Panels USA LLC
DAQ 2013-016
Page 2 of 4
F. Said permits 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:
C. "To assure compliance, once a day the Permittee shall observe the emission points of this source Energy
System (ID No. ES-08-4)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 thispermit condition. The Permittee shall be allowed three(3)days of
absent observations per semi-annual period."
The facility missed four visible emission observations in the 2nd half of 2012. Per the permit conditions,
three missed observations can be exempted leaving the facility with one non-exempt(1)violation.
G. Said permits also contain stipulations 2.11.6.£ (regarding multicyclones—CD-1421, CD1431) and
stipulation 2.I.F.6.q. (regarding process equipment associated with the particleboard dryers—ID Nos.
1420, 1430)that requires the Permittee to record weekly the results from visual inspections. The facility
missed these inspections for one week(June 28,2012)resulting in one (1)violation of the visible
inspection requirements outlined in permit stipulations 2.1 Y.6.f. and 2.1.F.6.q.
H. Said permits also contain 2.2.A.4.e. [referencing 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)) that requires the Permittee to
operate all pollution control devices in a manner that minimizes emissions. Incidences had occurred
during the second half of 2012 when control devices CD-PB-PGT, CD02, CD 14, and CD 16 were
operated without sufficient reactant(hydrogen peroxide). Control device CD-PB-PGT operated
approximately 0.25 hours without hydrogen peroxide on November 26, 2012. Control devices CD02,
CD14, and CD16 operated approximately 2.83 hours on December 17, 2012 without hydrogen peroxide.
These incidents represents four(4)violations of their permit.
I. A Notice of Violation/Notice of Recommendation for Enforcement(NOV/NRE)was issued to Arauco on
March 12, 2013 summarizing the violations addressed in this section.
J. A response letter to the March 12, 2013 NOV/NRE was received in the RRO on April 1,2013.
K. Prior to the current violations, the following enforcement actions were taken to bring the facility into
compliance: three (3) SOCs,three (3)NOVs, and seven(7)NOV/NREs within the last seven(7)years.
• DAQ and Arauco have agreed to terms on a Special Order by Consent (SOC 2013-002) that will
allow the company to replace the existing Wet ESP (CD-PB-WESP) serving the particleboard plant
with a new Wet ESP that should help reduce both particulate and visible emissions associated with .
the particleboard dryers. This SOC is currently out to public notice.
• NOV/NRE was issued on May 3, 2012 due to monitoring and recordkeeping violations.
NOV/NRE was issued on April 12, 2012 due to visible emissions violations and bypassing a control
device during a stack test. A civil penalty of$20,774.00 was assessed for violations documented in
both the May 3, 2012 and April 12,2012 NOV/NRE's. Arauco paid this civil penalty in full.
• NOV was issued on November 14, 2011 due to a late submission of a Part II portion of an air permit
application.
• NOV was issued on April 25, 2011 for various violations of the company's Title V monitoring,
recordkeeping, and compliance certification requirements.

Uniboard USA LLC
DAQ 2013-016
Page 3 of 4
• 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
in upfront penalties. On December 5, 2008, DAQ issued a demand for payment to ATC Panels, Inc.
under SOC.2008-002. The SOC required that a semiannual progress report be submitted to the DAQ
by October 1, 2018. ATC Panels, Inc. submitted the required progress report via email on October
30, 2008, which was 29 days after the deadline. Under the terms of the SOC, the DAQ required
payment of stipulated penalties totaling$26,500 ($500 for each of the first five days and $1,000 per
day for the remaining 24 days of delay in submitting the progress 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 that included upfront civil penalties of$37,500.
L. 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. 03449T39/T40 are required by and issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.108.
B: Arauco was in violation of Permit Stipulations 2.1.B.2.c., 2.1.C.3.c., 2.1.D.2.c., 2.1.F.5.c., 2.11.61.,
2.1.F.6.q.,2.1.G.4.c.,2.2.A.4.e. 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.

Arauco Panels USA LLC
DAQ 2013-016
Page 4 of 4
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:
$ 3xo,®b for one (1) combined violation of Air Permit Nos. 03449T39 Permit Stipulations
2.1.B.2.c. and 2.1.D.2.c., specifically for not performing visible emissions monitoring.
$ (0000•W for two (2) combined violations of Air Permit No. 03449T39 Permit Stipulations
2.1.F.5.c. and 2.1.G.4.c., specifically for not performing visible emissions monitoring.
$ c� �y� for one (1) violation of Air Permit Nos. 03449T39/T40 Permit Stipulation 2.1.C.3.c.,
specifically for failing to perform one required daily VE observation.
$ 000 for one (1) combined violation of Air Permit No. 03449T39 Permit Stipulations
2.11.6.£ and 2.1.F.6.q., specifically for failing to complete required weekly visual
integrity inspections.
$ 'Wow oy for four (4) violations of Air Permit No. 03449T40 Permit Stipulations 2.2.A.4.e.,
specifically for not operating pollution control devices in a manner that minimizes
emissions.
$ 0 00-00 TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is 10. 1 percent of the maximum penalty
authorized by G.S. 143-215.114A.
$ 574.00 Investigation costs
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.
�-�
to Sheila C.Holman,Director
Division of Air Quality