Document B8kJaE2BbEm75B9vXYLMg7Zvw

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION6 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR In the Matter of GEORGIA-PACIFIC CHEMICALS LLC CROSSETT, ARKANSAS ) Docket No. CAA-06-2016-3417 ) ) ADMINISTRATIVE ) COMPLIANCE ) ORDER ON CONSENT ) STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY The following Administrative Compliance Order on Consent ("Order") is issued pursuant to the authority of Section 113(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. 7413(a)(3). Section 113(a)(3) of the Act authorizes the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue an Order requiring compliance to any person whom the Administrator finds to be in violation of the Act. The authority to issue this Order has been delegated to the Regional Administrator of EPA, Region 6, and re-delegated to the Director, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division, EPA, Region 6. STATUTORY ANDREGULATORYBACKGROUND I. The Clean Air Act is designed to protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population. Section 101 (b)(I) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(l). National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Based on Maximum Achievable Control Technology 2. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act sets forth a national program for the control of hazardous air pollutants ("HAPs"). 42 U.S.C. 7412. Under Section 112(b), Congress Georgia-Pacific Che1nicals, LLC, Administrative Order Docket No. CAA-06-20 l6-34 l 7 Page 2of15 listed 188 HAPs believed to cause adverse health or environmental effects. 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(l). 3. Congress directed EPA to publish a list of all categories and subcategories of, inter alia, major sources ofHAPs. 42 U.S.C. 7412(c). 4. "Major source" was and is defined as any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, I0 tons per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs. 42 U.S.C. 7412(a)(l). 5. "Stationary source'"was and is defined as any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant. 42 U.S.C. 7412(a)(3) (stating that "stationary source" under Section l 12(a) has the same meaning as that term has under Section I I !(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 741 l(a)(3)). 6. Congress fmther directed EPA to promulgate regulations establishing emission standards for each category or subcategory of, inter alia, major sources of HAPs. 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(l). These emission standards must require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, detem1ines is achievable for the new or existing sources in the category or subcategory to which the emission standard applies. 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(2). 7. To the extent that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for the control of a HAP, Congress authorized EPA to promulgate "design, equipment, work 2 Georgia-Pacific Chemicals, LLC, Administrative Order Docket No. CAA-06-2016-3417 Page3of15 practice, or operational" standards, which are to be treated as emission standards. 42 u.s.c. 7412(h). 8. The emission standards promulgated under Section 112 of the 1990 Amendments of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412, are known as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAPs") for Source Categories or "MACT" ("maximum achievable control technology") standards. These emission standards are found in Part 63 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 9. After the effective date of any emission standard, limitation, or regulation promulgated pursuant to Section 112 of the Act, no person may operate a source in violation of such standard, limitation, or regulation. 42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3). National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing I0. Subpatt FFFF in the Code of Federal Regulations establishes NESHAPs for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing as well as requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards (commonly referred to as the "MON"). 40 C.F.R. 63.2430. 11. According to 40 C.F.R. 63 .2450(c), when organic HAP emissions from different emission types are combined (e.g., continuous process vents batch process vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, and waste management units), the owner or operator of a facility subject to the MON must comply with either 40 C.F.R. 63.2450(c)(l) or (2). 12. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 63.2450(c)(2), the applicable requirements for a combined stream are those of the highest-listed paragraph in the hierarchy that applies to any of the individual streams that make up a combined stream. 3 Georgia-Pacific Chemicals, LLC, Administrative Order Docket No. CAA-06-2016-3417 Page 4of15 13. Combined emissions streams that include a Group 1 batch process vent must meet the requirements of Table 2 in Subpart FFFF and 40 C.F.R. 2460. 40 C.F.R. 63.2450(c)(2)(i). 14. Table 2 in Subpart FFFF gives owners or operators of Group 1 batch process vents three compliance options for reducing HAP emissions. One of these compliance options allows an owner or operator to reduce uncontrolled organic HAP emissions from one or more batch process vents within the process by venting through a closed-vent system to a flare or by venting through one or more closed-vent systems to any combination of control devices (excluding a flare) that reduce organic HAP to an outlet concentration less or equal to 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as total organic compounds or total organic HAP. 15. To demonstrate compliance with the 20 ppmv standard in Table 2 of Subpart FFFF, an owner or operator must conduct a perfonnance test and establish operating limits for the control device. See 40 C.F.R. 63.2460(c)(2)(ii) and 63.2460(c)(3). 16. According to 40 C.F.R. 63.2460(c)(2)(ii), when conducting a perfonnance test for a control device used to control emissions from batch process vents, an owner or operator must establish emissions profiles and conduct the test under worst-case conditions according to 40 C.F.R. 63.1257(b)(8) instead of normal operating conditions. Further, an owner operator must establish operating limits under the conditions required for the perfonnance test. See 40 C.F.R. 63.2460(c)(3). 17. Hypothetical worst-case conditions are simulated test conditions that, at a minimum, contain the highest hourly HAP load of emissions that would be predicted to be vented to 4 Georgia-Pacific Che1nicals, LLC, Ad1ninistrative Order Docket No. CAA-06-2016-3417 Page 5 ofl5 the control device from the emissions profile described in 40 C.F.R. 63.1257(b)(8)(ii)(B) or (C). 40 C.F.R. 63.1257(b)(8)(i)(B). 18. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 1257(b)(8)(iii), three runs, at a minimum of 1 hour each and a maximum of 8 hours each, are required for performance testing. Each run must occur over the same worst-case conditions, as defined in 40 C.F.R. 63.1257(b)(8)(i). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 19. Georgia-Pacific Chemicals LLC ("GP Chemicals" or "Respondent") is a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Arkansas, and as such, is a "person" as thattetm is defined in Section 302(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(e). 20. GP Chemicals owns and operates a resin manufacturing facility located at 100 Mill Supply Road, Crossett, Arkansas 71635 (the "Facility"). 21. The Facility is a "major source" and a "stationary source" within the meaning of the Act, and is subject to the provisions of the MON. 22. As part of the tall oil processes at the Facility, GP Chemicals routes a combined emission stream, which includes vent streams from hot wells 1and2, the C-1 reactor, and the R-1 reactor, to either a complex boiler or a backup them1al oxidizer. 23. As part of the October 16, 2009 Notice of Compliance Status ("NOCS"), GP Chemicals identified the batch vent from the C-1 reactor as a Group 1 batch process vent and as the highest-listed individual stream in the hierarchy listed under 40 C.F.R. 63.2450(c). To simplify compliance requirements, GP Chemicals has chosen to follow the Group 1 batch process vent requirements for the entire combined emission stream leading to the complex boiler or the backup the1mal oxidizer, as allowed by 40 C.F.R. 63.2450(c)(2)(1). 5 Georgia-Pacific Chemicals, LLC, Administrative Order Docket No. CAA-06-2016-3417 Page 6of15 24. GP Chemicals performed Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy testing on the combined emission stream to identify hypothetical worst case conditions when the product believed to emit the most HAPs (the "Product") is processed in the C-1 reactor. 1 25. According to inf01mation provided by GP Chemicals, the C-1 reactor vents three times during a typical batch cycle for the Product. The highest HAP emissions would be expected to occur the first time material is vented to the control devices, when the C-1 reactor is receiving catalyst and heating. Lower emissions would be expected to occur the second time material is vented to the control devices, during saponification. Minimal emissions would be expected to occur the third time the material is vented, when the reaction is complete and the vent is opened to relieve pressure safely before the product is removed from the reactor. 26. In August 2009, GP Chemicals conducted performance tests of the complex boiler and thermal oxidizer. As part of the performance tests, GP Chemicals performed three onehour test runs. GP Chemicals conducted each run during a different venting period over the course of a single batch cycle. Each venting period had a different emission profile. 27. In addition to manufacturing the resin product believed to emit the most HAPs (i.e., the Product), GP Chemicals took several other measures to simulate worst-case conditions during the performance tests. First, GP Chemicals ensured that that the three other emission sources that are controlled by the complex boiler and the1mal oxidizer, hot wells 1 and 2 and the R-1 reactor, were all operating continuously during the performance tests. Second, GP Chemicals operated the two controls upstream of the complex boiler and 1 GP has not produced the product manufactured during the 2009 perfom1ance tests (i.e., the Product) since February 26, 2011. 6 Georgia-Pacific Chemicals, LLC, Administrative Order Docket No. CAA-06-2016-3417 Page 7of15 themrnl oxidizer, a three-stage scrubber and the Tank 45 condenser, in a fashion so as to .simulate worst-case emissions. Specifically, GP Chemicals operated the first stage of the scrubber at a minimum flow rate while bypassing entirely the second and third scrubber stages. Similarly, the Tank 45 condenser was operated under maximum temperature conditions during the performance tests. 28. During the three complex boiler one-hour test runs, the HAP concentration at the outlet from the boiler did not exceed 1.5 ppmv (@ 3% oxygen) and the destruction removal efficiency did not fall below 99.39 (%by weight). During the three thermal oxidizer onehour test runs, the HAP concentration at the outlet from the oxidizer did not exceed 8.81 ppmv (@ 3% oxygen) and the destruction removal efficiency did not fall below 99.86 (% by weight). 29. The highest average firebox temperature measured for the complex boiler was 1,445 F and occurred during the first test run when the highest HAP emissions from the batch cycle were expected to occur. The highest HAP emissions from the batch cycle occurred during the second test run, however, during which the average firebox temperature measured for the complex boiler was 1,299 F. GP Chemicals established the minimum operating temperature for the complex boiler at 1,150 F, based on the average firebox temperature observed during the third test run, when minimal emissions were expected. 30. EPA finds that GP Chemicals failed to conduct three perfotmance test runs tmder the same hypothetical worst-case conditions for the complex boiler and the backup thermal oxidizer as required by 40 C.F.R. 63.2460(c)(2)(ii), 1257(b)(8)(i)(B), and 1257(b)(8)(iii). In addition, GP Chemicals failed to establish operating conditions for the 7