AQ_F_1000067_20120228_ENF_Enf-FND (3)

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK ) FILE NO. DAQ 2012-005
IN THE MATTER OF: )
CPI USA NORTH CAROLINA- )
SOUTHPORT PLANT } CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
FOR VIOLATION OF AIR )
PERMIT NO. 05884TI 1 )
SPECIFIC CONDITION AND )
LIMITATION NO. 2.1.A.4.b )
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.) 143-215.114A, I, B. Sheila C.
Holman, Director of the Division of Air Quality(DAQ), make the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. CPI USA North Carolina— Southport Plant was issued Air Permit No. 05884TI I on
July 20, 2011, with the same effective date, and with an expiration date of June 30,
2016 for operation of its facility at 1281 Powerhouse Drive, Southport,Brunswick
County,North Carolina.
B. Specific Condition and Limitation No. 2.1.A.4.b of Air Permit Nos. 05884TI I reads
in part:
b. Sulfur dioxide emissionsfirom each source shall not exceed 1.47pounds per million
Btu heat input
C. On September 26, 2011, CPI USA North Carolina—Southport Plant submitted a
letter that provided notification for exceeding the S02 emission standard. Upon
review of this letter, the facility reported three 24-hour exceedances of the sulfur
dioxide (S02) emission standard from the Unit 2 Boiler(ID No. ES-2). The
exceedances occurred for three consecutive days during the period from September
20, 2011 through September 22, 2011.
D. A Notice of Violation and Recommendation for Enforcement Letter(NOV/NRE)
was issued to CPI USA North Carolina—Southport Plant on December 9, 2011 for
the violations noted in Findings of Fact"C" above. The facility responded to the
NOV/NRE on December 19, 2011.

CPI USA North Carolina—Southport Plant
DAQ 2012-005
Page 2
E. Prior Air Quality Compliance History:
• On October 11, 2011, the facility submitted a letter that reported a single
deviation of the S02 PSD emission standard. The deviation occurred on April 3,
2011 and was reported at 1.48 pounds per million Btu heat input. A prorated Fe
factor was used to recalculate the S02 instead of the normal Fc factor which
brought the S02 rate below the emission standard. A NOV was not issued.
F. The costs of investigation or inspection in this matter totaled $331.00.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
Il. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. CPI USA North Carolina—Southport Plant was in violation of Specific Condition
and Limitation No. 2.1.A.4.b of Air Permit Nos. 05884TI I as noted in Findings of
Fact "C" above.
B. 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.
C. 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.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I make the following:.
III. DECISION:
CPI USA North Carolina—Southport Plant is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$ for three (3) violations of Specific Condition and Limitation No.
2.1.A.4.b of Air Permit Nos. 05884T11 from September 20, 2011
through September 22, 2011.
TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is percent of the maximum
penalty authorized by G.S. 43-215.114A.
$ 331.00 Investigation costs.

CPI USA forth Carolina—Southport Plant
DAQ 2012-005
Page 3
$ 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.
Date Sheila C. Holman, Director
Division of Air Quality