AQ_F_0900009_20090430_ENF_Enf-FND

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COUNTY OF BLADEN COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF: ) CASE NUMBER 2009-049
E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., LLC )
DBA, DUPONT COMPANY— )
FAYETTEVILLE WORKS )
FOR VIOLATION OF: ) CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT
NCGS 143-215.108 "CONTROL OF )
SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION; )
PERMITS REQUIRED" IN )
CONSTRUCTING AND/OR OPERATING )
AN AIR CONTAMINANT SOURCE )
WITHOUT A PERMIT )
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.) 143-215.114A, 1, Sheila C. Holman,
Deputy Director of the Division of Air Quality (DAQ), make the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., LLC, dba DuPont Company—Fayetteville Works, is a
chemical manufacturing facility operating at 22828 NC Highway 87 West, Duart
Township, Bladen County, North Carolina. The facility consists of six individual
manufacturing plants, a boiler house and a waste treatment operation.
B. DuPont Company—Fayetteville Works holds a Title V Air Permit. The effective permit
at the time the violations were discovered was Air Permit No. 03735T33, which was
issued on 4 August 2008 with an expiration date of 31 January 2009.
C. General Condition 3.A.6. of Air Permit No. 03735T33 states:
Any stationary source of air pollution shall not be operated, maintained, or modified without the
appropriate and valid permits issued by the DAQ, unless the source is exempted by rule. The
DAQ may issue a permit only after it receives reasonable assurance that the installation will not
cause air pollution in violation of any of the applicable requirements. A permitted installation
may only be operated, maintained, constructed, expanded, or modified in a manner that is
consistent with the terms of this permit.
D. On 8 December 2008, the Division of Air Quality Fayetteville Regional Office (DAQ
FRO) received a Title V Air Permit Modification Application from DuPont Company—
Fayetteville Works. The permit application included the addition of three product
cylinder decontamination processes that were existing sources with potential to emit
greater than five tons of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per year. These sources vent
residual product (VOC) to the atmosphere during a purging process of one-ton cylinders

E.I. du Pont de Nemours& Co., LLC
dba,DuPont Company—Fayetteville Works
DAQ Case No.2009-049
Page 2
and ISO tank containers that are returned from the customer and reused by DuPont.
These operations have always been part of the overall container process. According to
the permit application, the actual emissions from the Hexafluoropropylene oxide (HFPO)
Product Cylinder Decontamination Process were estimated to be 37.1 tons of VOC during
2008. Potential emissions from this source were calculated to be 100.3 tons of VOC per
year. Potential VOC emissions from the Vinyl Ethers North Product Cylinder
Decontamination Process and Vinyl Ethers South Product Cylinder Decontamination
Process were calculated to be 20.6 tons per year and 10.7 tons per year, respectively. The
application also requested a PSD avoidance limit be added to the air permit for the HFPO
Product Cylinder Decontamination Process.
E. A Notice of Violation/Notice of Recommendation of Enforcement (NOV/NRE) was
issued to the facility on 6 January 2009, citing the above violations. The NOV/NRE
asked for a description of pollutants being emitted from the aforementioned processes,
explanation of how the violation was discovered, start-up dates, and calculated emissions
from each source.
F. On 21 January 2009, DAQ FRO received a response to the NOV/NRE from DuPont
Company—Fayetteville Works. The response indicated that a company engineer realized
these sources were unpermitted while reviewing results of a calculation performed to
estimate annual losses from the decontamination process. An application was submitted
to DAQ following this observation. The pollutants being emitted from these processes
are VOC. The Vinyl Ethers North Decontamination process also emits a water-soluble
acid fluoride, which is reported as the molar equivalent of hydrogen fluoride.
G. According to the NOV/NRE response letter, the startup dates, potential emission
estimates, and actual emissions estimates for calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008 for
each of the applicable operations are:
Start- Potential 2006 Actual 2007 Actual 2008 Actual
Decontamination up VOC VOC VOC VOC
Unit Date Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY)
HFPO 1980 100 39.2 36.6 33.8
Vinyl Ethers North 1980 20.6 3.8 4.8 4.1
Vinyl Ethers South 1996 15.7 9.2 9.6 9.7

E.I. du Pont de Nemours&Co., LLC
dba,DuPont Company—Fayetteville Works
DAQ Case No. 2009-049
Page 3
H. Air Permit No. 03735T34, which included the HFPO and Vinyl Ethers North and South
Units, was issued on 15 January 2009 with an expiration date of 31 January 2009,
I. Air Quality Compliance and Enforcement History.
• An NOV was issued on November 30, 2007 for failure to submit a complete Part II
Title V application for a temporary boiler within twelve months of commencing
operation.
J. The costs of investigation or inspection in this matter totaled $285.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. E.I, du Pont de Nemours & Co., LLC, dba DuPont Company—Fayetteville
Works, was in violation of G.S 143-215.108 "Control of Sources of Air Pollution;
Permits Required" for constructing and/or operating three product
decontamination units without a permit, as stated in Part 1, Findings of Fact,
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 NCGS 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:

E.I. du Pont de Nemours& Co., LLC
dba,DuPont Company—Fayetteville Works
DAQ Case No. 2009-049
Page 4
III. DECISION:
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., LLC, DBA, DuPont Company—Fayetteville Works is
hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$ Mo.Do for one (1) violation of G.S. 143-215.108 in constructing
and/or operating an air contaminant sources without a permit
discovered on 8 December 2008.
$ -:�Mo-uo TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is_�percent of the
maximum penalty authorized by G.S. 143-215.114A.
$ 285 Investigation costs
cc 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. 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(s);
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.
�3D� cpt ,
Date Sheila C. Holman, Deputy Director
Division of Air Quality