I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Burlington Industries LLC – Raeford
Plant, was issued Air Quality Permit No. 00242T12 on March 4, 2004, with an
expiration date of June 30, 2008 for operation of its textile plant at
B. Air Quality Permit No. 00242T12, Specific Condition and Limitations 2.1.B.3(a), as required by 15A NCAC 2D .0521, “Control of Visible Emissions”, states:
Visible
emissions from this source shall not be more than 20 percent opacity when
averaged over a six-minute period except that six minute periods averaging not
more than 87 percent opacity may occur not more than once in any hour nor more
than four times in any 24-hour period.
C. Air Quality Permit No. 00242T12, Specific Condition and Limitations 2.1.B.3(c), as required by 15A NCAC 2D .0521, “Control of Visible Emissions”, states:
To assure compliance, once a day the Permittee
shall observe the boiler for any visible emissions above normal. … The Permittee
shall establish “normal” for the source's emission point. If visible emissions from the source's
emission point are observed to be above normal, the Permittee
shall either: (a) be deemed to be in noncompliance with 15A NCAC 2D .0521 if
the abnormal opacity is not corrected by the end of the monitoring
period
or (b) demonstrate before the end of the monitoring period that the percent
opacity from the emission points of the emission source in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2D .0501(c)(8) is below the respective limit given in Section 2.1 B.3.a
above. If the demonstration in (b) above
cannot be made, the Permittee shall be deemed to be
in noncompliance with 15A NCAC 2D .0521.
D. Air Quality Permit No. 00242T12, General Conditions 3.I.A.2, as required by 15A NCAC 2D .0535, “Excess Emissions Reporting and Malfunction”, states:
If the source is not subject to NSPS (15A
NCAC 2D .0524), NESHAPS (15A NCAC 2D .1110 or .1111), or these rules do NOT
define “excess emissions,” the Permittee shall report
excess emissions in accordance with 15A NCAC 2D .0535 as follows:
a. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2D .0535, if excess
emissions last for more than four hours resulting from a malfunction, breakdown
of process or control equipment, or any other abnormal condition, the owner or
operator shall notify the Regional Supervisor or Director of any such
occurrence by 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time of the Division’s next business day of
becoming aware of the occurrence, notify the Regional Supervisor or Director
immediately when corrected measures have been accomplished, and submit, if
requested, to the Regional Supervisor or Director within 15 days after the
request a written report as described in 15A NCAC 2D .0535(f)(3).
E. On September 27, 2005, Neil Joyner of the Fayetteville Regional Office, Division of Air Quality (FRO DAQ) received a call from Sally McKinney of the FRO DAQ stating that the coal-fired boiler (ID No. ESB1) at Burlington Industries LLC– Raeford Plant appeared to be exceeding the visible emissions (VE) limit. Mr. Joyner proceeded to the facility and performed a Method 9, Visible Emissions Evaluation (VEE) for 30 minutes on the boiler stack. The average opacity at this source was calculated for five 6-minute periods giving values of 54%, 46%, 34%, 38%, and 58%, resulting in four (4) violations of 15A NCAC 2D .0521.
F. On September 27, 2005, immediately following the VEE, Mr. Joyner met with Mr. Peter Dockery, Maintenance Supervisor, and Mr. Calvin House, Plant Manager for Burlington Industries LLC – Raeford Plant. Mr. House identified the source associated with the high opacity readings to be the coal-fired boiler (ID No. ESB1). According to Mr. House, the coal grate in this system melted because the turning mechanism malfunctioned in April or May of 2005. The coal-fired boiler was repaired and restarted on August 18, 2005. Mr. Bob Kennedy of the FRO DAQ was notified of the start up. Mr. House stated that since this repair, excessive visible emissions have been a problem.
G. On September 27, 2005, Mr. House explained he intended to run the oil-fired boilers (ID Nos. ESB4 and ESB5); however, when the boiler ESB5 was started up, a component in the boiler malfunctioned. Mr. House stated that after the boiler was repaired, the fire eye monitor on that boiler malfunctioned. Mr. House explained that the coal-fired boiler (ID No. ESB1) had to be started up on Sunday, September 25, 2005, in order to keep the plant operating. He also stated that the multi-cyclones on the coal-fired boiler were operating normally and that the operating mode of the boiler was “normal.” Mr. Dockery also supplied Mr. Joyner with copies of the VE and I&M logbook.
H. Mr. Joyner reviewed copies of the copies of the VE and I&M logbook for the boilers. The logbook showed several days with abnormal visible emissions during the period between August 18, 2005 and September 26, 2005. Visible emissions from the coal-fired boiler (ID No. ESB1) were recorded as abnormal for two or more consecutive days beginning September 2, 22, 26, and 27, 2005. These four instances were determined to be in violation of 15A NCAC 2D .0521, “Control of Visible Emissions” as specified under Air Quality Permit No. 00242T12, Specific Condition and Limitations 2.1.B.3(c). Additionally, the time period to correct the abnormal opacity reading is 24 hours, and there was no demonstration that a normal reading was achieved within that time period. Therefore, the excess emissions lasted more than four (4) hours triggering the reporting requirements of 2 D .0535(f).
I. On September 28, 2005, Mr. Joyner returned to the site and performed another 30 minute Method 9, VEE on the boiler stack. The average opacity at this source was calculated for five 6-minute periods giving values of 60%, 60%, 60%, 49%, and 49%, resulting in four (4) additional violations of 15A NCAC 2D .0521.
J. On September 28, 2005, Christy Richardson of FRO DAQ and Mr. Joyner spoke with Mr. House via telephone. Mr. House stated that the coal-fired boiler (ID No. ESB1) was brought down around noon after the oil-fired boiler was repaired. Mr. House stated that the boiler would not operate until the following week when a technician could come check operating conditions and control devices. Mr. House stated that another possible cause of excess VE is the quality of coal he was burning.
K. On September 29, 2005, Mr. Joyner returned to the site and observed that the coal-fired boiler (ID No. ESB1) did not appear to be operating. The oil-fired boilers (ID No. ESB4 and ESB5) were operating at approximately 0% opacity.
L. On October 7, 2005 the Fayetteville Regional Office Division of Air Quality (FRO DAQ) issued a Notice of Violation/Notice of Recommendation for Enforcement (NOV/NRE) to Burlington Industries LLC – Raeford Plant for violating 15A NCAC 2D .0521, “Control of Visible Emissions” and 15A NCAC 2D .0535, “Excess Emissions Reporting and Malfunction.”
M. On October 20, 2005, FRO DAQ received the written response to the NOV/NRE from Burlington Industries LLC – Raeford Plant, signed by Mike Garlick, Corporate Environmental Engineer. Mr. Garlick explained the details of each day recorded as abnormal in the VE logbook. He stated that two specialists were scheduled to work on the coal-fired boiler to determine a proper setup. He also stated that Burlington Industries – Raeford Plant is investigating the effect of the newer coal on the visible emissions from the boiler.
N. On February 10, 2006, FRO DAQ determined, based on further review of facility operational records (boiler activity logbook), that the coal-fired boiler (ID No. ESB1) was in actual continuous (24-hour) operation on September 2, 23, 26, and 27, 2005. It was determined that the boiler operated on September 23, 2006 rather than September 22, 2006 based on review of the boiler activity logbook. The boiler activity logbook is unrelated to the VE and maintenance logbook that was initially used to develop the enforcement case. FRO DAQ concluded that the facility accidentally listed incorrect dates in the VE logbook and the abnormal reading was associated with September 23, 2006. On September 22, 2005, the coal-fired boiler did not operate.
O. Air Quality Enforcement History:
· On October 4, 1999, a NOV was issued to Burlington Industries LLC – Raeford Plant for violations of 15A NCAC 2D .0521, “Control of Visible Emissions.” A civil penalty in the amount of $1549, including costs, was assessed for these violations. The penalty was paid in full on April 14, 2000.
·
On February 7, 2000
·
On October 5, 2001
P. The costs of investigation or inspection in this matter totaled: $ 670
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A Air Permit No. 00242T12 is required by and issued pursuant to G.S. 143-215.108.
B. Burlington Industries LLC – Raeford Plant was in violation of 15A NCAC 2D .0521, “Control of Visible Emissions” for exceeding the 20 percent opacity limit and 15A NCAC 2D .0535(f), “Excess Emissions Reporting and Malfunction” for failure to report excess emissions for a period of more than four hours as required by the regulations and stated in Air Permit No. 00242T12.
C. G.S. 143-215.114A provides that a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) 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.
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 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.