|
STATE
OF INDIANA |
) |
|
BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT |
||
|
|
|||||
|
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT Complainant, v. SUBARU OF INDIANA AUTOMOTIVE, INC, Respondent. |
) |
|
|||
AGREED ORDER
Complainant
and Respondent desire to settle and compromise this action without hearing or
adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and consent to the entry of the
following Findings of Fact and Order.
Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, entry into the terms of this Agreed Order does
not constitute an admission of any violation contained herein. Respondent's entry into this Agreed Order
shall not constitute a waiver of any defense, legal or equitable, which
Respondent may have in any future administrative or judicial proceeding, except
a proceeding to enforce this order.
I.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
Complainant
is the Commissioner (“Complainant”) of the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (“IDEM”), a department of the State of Indiana created by Indiana
Code (“IC”) 13-13-1-1.
2.
Respondent
is Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. (“Respondent”) which owns and operates
the Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. automobile and light duty truck assembly
source with Plant ID No. 175-00050, located at 5500 State Road 38 East, in Lafayette,
Indiana (“Site”).
3.
IDEM
has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.
4.
Respondent
waives issuance of a Notice of Violation and to the settlement period of sixty
(60) days as provided for by IC 13-30-3-3.
5.
Respondent
owns and operates an automotive and light-duty truck assembly plant.
6.
During
an investigation of self-disclosures and an inspection conducted on December
15, 2011, by a representative of IDEM, the following violations were found:
a.
Pursuant
to Part 70 Minor Permit Modification No. 29395 issued to Respondent on August
31, 2010 and any subsequent amendments and modifications (“Permit”) conditions
D.6.1(a) and D.6.1(b) respectively, require the daily VOC emissions from the
Anticorrosion Coating Booth (under-floor wax application) shall not exceed three
and fifty-nine hundredths (3.59) pounds of VOC per gallon of coating solids.
Respondent used
under-floor wax coatings containing four and nine hundredths (4.09) pounds VOC
per gallon coating solids from February 1, 2011 to August 31, 2011, in
violation of 326 IAC 2-2-3, Prevention of Deterioration Best Available Control
Technology (“PSD BACT”).
b.
Pursuant
to the Permit, condition D.4.1(b) required the catalytic
incinerator used to control VOC emissions from the Topcoat #2 Booth to achieve
a minimum 90% destruction efficiency.
During informal
testing conducted by Respondent on November 15th and 16th,
2011, it was determined that the actual destruction efficiency was less than
90% in violation of condition D.4.1(b), established
pursuant to 326 IAC 2-2-3, PSD BACT.
Respondent was out of compliance from November 15, 2011 through December
18, 2011, when the catalyst was replaced and a retest of the incinerator
established that the minimum requisite destruction efficiency was being
attained.
c.
Pursuant
to the Permit, condition D.4.1(b) required the
incinerator used to control VOC emissions from the Topcoat #2 Booth to achieve
a minimum 90% destruction efficiency.
During informal testing conducted by Respondent on December 11th and
12th, 2012, it was determined that the actual destruction efficiency
of the Topcoat 2 Booth incinerator was less than 90% in violation of condition
D.4.1(b), as established pursuant to 326 IAC 2-2-3, PSD BACT. Respondent was out of compliance from
December 11, 2012 through January 13, 2013, when the catalyst was replaced and
a retest of the incinerator established that the minimum requisite destruction
efficiency was being attained.
d.
Pursuant
to the Permit, condition D.4.1(b) required the catalytic
incinerators used to control VOC emissions from the Topcoat #1 Booth and
Topcoat #3 Booth to each achieve a minimum 90% destruction efficiency.
During informal testing conducted by Respondent on December 11th and
12th, 2012, it was determined that the actual destruction efficiency
of each incinerator was less than 90% in violation of condition D.4.1(b), as
established pursuant to 326 IAC 2-2-3, PSD BACT. Respondent was out of compliance from
December 11, 2012 through January 27, 2013 when the catalyst was replaced and
an informal retest of these incinerators established that the minimum requisite
VOC destruction efficiency was being attained.
e.
Pursuant
to the Permit, condition D.4.16(b)(3) requires records of the continuous (once per minute)
inlet temperature readings for each of the catalytic incinerators identified as
B-ED, TC-1, TC-2, TUT and SUR.
Respondent failed to maintain records of the required monitoring in violation of
condition D.4.16(b)(3) of the Permit.
f.
Pursuant
to the Permit, condition D.4.16(b)(4) requires records of the duct pressure or fan amperage be
recorded at least once per day on each catalytic incinerator ( identified as B-ED,
TC-1, TC-2, TUT, and SUR).
Respondent failed to record either the duct pressure or fan amperage daily in
violation of condition D.4.16(b)(4) of the Permit.
g.
Pursuant
to Permit condition E.2.3 and Subpart MM at 40 CFR 60.395(b), if no instances of deviations have occurred
during a particular quarter, a report stating this shall be submitted to the
Administrator semiannually and if compliance is achieved through the use of a
capture system and control device, the volume-weighted average after the
control device should be reported.
Respondent failed to submit the required reports for the period of January 1,
2010 through December 15, 2011 in violation of condition E.2.3 and Subpart MM.
7.
To
achieve compliance with the PSD BACT limit for under-floor wax coating used in
the Anticorrosion Booth, Respondent , as described in
the 09-26-11 Disclosure, terminated use of the noncompliant wax coating
material immediately following its discovery on August 31, 2011, and terminated
production of the vehicle on which the underfloor wax
was applied until compliant wax coating material could be obtained.
8.
To
achieve compliance with the PSD BACT requirement of ninety percent (90%) VOC destruction
efficiencies for Topcoat Booths 1, 2 and 3 incinerators, Respondent replaced
the catalyst of all three (three) incinerators.
To assure continued, long-term compliance with this BACT limitation,
Respondent subsequently, in July 2013, pursuant to Significant Permit
Modification number 33106, replaced the three catalytic incinerators with a
regenerative thermal oxidizer.
9.
To
resolve compliance with the monitoring requirements, condition D.4.16(b) has been modified by Part 70 Significant Permit
Modification No. 33106 to no longer require recording of data from continuous
monitoring of inlet temperatures to the catalyst beds for each of the catalytic
incinerators used by Respondent. Also,
condition D.4.16(b), as modified, requires recording of three –hour averages of
data from continuous monitoring of the operating temperature of the
regenerative thermal oxidizer that replaced the catalytic incinerators for
Topcoat lines #1, 2, and 3 but does not require recording of the continuous
monitoring temperature data.
10.
To
achieve compliance with the recording requirements in condition D.4.16(b)(3),
as modified, Respondent has agreed to keep records of daily monitoring of
either the duct pressure or fan amperage until Respondent receives a permit
modification that removes this requirement from the permit.
11.
To
achieve compliance with the reporting requirements of Permit condition E.2.3
and Subpart MM, Respondent has submitted the previously required reports and
has agreed to submit future required quarterly and semiannual reports as they
become due.
12.
Respondent’s
self-disclosure submitted on or about September 26, 2011, reported the following
additional information related to disclosed violations of the Permit.
Respondent
explained that it had no knowledge of the noncompliant VOC content of the underfloor wax material until it discovered through its own
initiative on or about August 31, 2011, that the material as-supplied by its
vendor contained excessive VOC.
Respondent determined the vendor’s VOC datasheet was incorrect.
13.
Respondent’s
self-disclosure submitted on or about December 6, 2011, reported the following
additional information related to disclosed violations of the Permit
Respondent
explained that it detected noncompliant VOC destruction efficiency for the
Topcoat #2 incinerator during voluntarily initiated informal performance
testing of the incinerator conducted years ahead of the performance testing
required by Permit condition D.4.11.
Based on the informal test results, Respondent promptly investigated the
cause of the low VOC destruction and determined, with the help of its
incinerator vendor, the likelihood of contaminated catalyst. As a result, Respondent promptly replaced the
catalyst.
14.
Respondent’s
self-disclosure submitted on or about January 26, 2013, reported the following
additional information related to disclosed violations of the Permit.
a.
Respondent
explained that it detected noncompliant VOC destruction efficiency for the
Topcoat #2 incinerator during voluntarily initiated informal performance
testing of the incinerator conducted months ahead of the performance testing
required by Permit condition D.4.11.
Based on the informal test results, Respondent promptly investigated the
cause of low VOC destruction and determined contaminated catalyst to be the
likely cause. As a result, Respondent
promptly replaced the catalyst.
b.
Respondent
explained that it detected noncompliant VOC destruction efficiencies for the
Topcoat #1 and Topcoat #3 incinerators during voluntarily initiated informal
performance testing of the incinerators conducted months ahead of the
performance testing required by Permit condition D.4.11. Based on the informal test results,
Respondent promptly investigated the cause of low VOC destruction and
determined contaminated catalyst to be the likely cause. As a result, Respondent promptly replaced the
catalyst in both incinerators.
15.
In
recognition of the settlement reached, Respondent waives any right to
administrative and judicial review of this Agreed Order.
II. ORDER
1.
This
Agreed Order shall be effective (“Effective Date”) when it is approved by
Complainant or Complainant’s delegate, and has been received by
Respondent. This Agreed Order shall have
no force or effect until the Effective Date.
2.
Respondent
shall comply with 326 IAC 2-2-3, Prevention of Deterioration Best Available
Control Technology (PSD BACT) and conditions D.6.1(b),
D.4.1(b) and D.4.16(b) of the Permit.
3.
All
submittals required by this Agreed Order, unless Respondent is notified
otherwise in writing by IDEM, shall be sent to:
|
Greg
Wingstrom, Compliance and Enforcement Manager |
|
Compliance
and Enforcement Branch – Mail Code 61-53 |
|
Indiana
Department of Environmental Management |
|
100
North Senate Avenue |
|
Indianapolis,
IN 46204-2251 |
4.
Respondent
is assessed and agrees to pay a civil penalty of twenty six thousand, sixty-two
dollars and fifty cents ($26,062.50). Said penalty amount shall be due and
payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund within thirty (30) days of
the Effective Date; the 30th day being the “Due Date”.
5.
Civil
penalties are payable by check to the “Environmental Management Special Fund.” Checks shall include the Case Number of this
action and shall be mailed to:
|
Indiana
Department of Environmental Management |
|
Cashier
– Mail Code 50-10C |
|
100
North Senate Avenue |
|
Indianapolis,
IN 46204-2251 |
6.
This
Agreed Order shall apply to and be binding upon Respondent and his/her/its
successors and assigns. Respondent’s
signatories to this Agreed Order certify that they are fully authorized to
execute this Agreed Order and legally bind the party they represent. No change in ownership, corporate, or
partnership status of Respondent shall in any way alter its status or
responsibilities under this Agreed Order.
7.
In
the event that the monies due to IDEM pursuant to this Agreed Order are not
paid on or before their Due Date, Respondent shall pay interest on the unpaid
balance at the rate established by IC 24-4.6-1.
The interest shall be computed as having accrued from the Due Date until
the date that Respondent pays any unpaid balance. Such interest shall be payable to the
Environmental Management Special Fund and shall be payable to IDEM in the manner
specified in Paragraph 5, above.
8.
In
the event that any terms of this Agreed Order are found to be invalid, the
remaining terms shall remain in full force and effect and shall be construed
and enforced as if this Agreed Order did not contain the invalid terms.
9.
Respondent
shall provide a copy of this Agreed Order, if in force, to any subsequent
owners or successors before ownership rights are transferred. Respondent
shall ensure that all contractors, firms and other persons performing work
under this Agreed Order comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.
10.
This
Agreed Order is not and shall not be interpreted to be a permit or a
modification of an existing permit. This
Agreed Order, and IDEM’s review or approval of any submittal made by Respondent
pursuant to this Agreed Order, shall not in any way relieve Respondent of its
obligation to comply with the requirements of its applicable permit or any
applicable Federal or State law or regulation.
11.
Complainant
does not, by its approval of this Agreed Order, warrant or aver in any manner
that Respondent’s compliance with any aspect of this Agreed Order will result
in compliance with the provisions of any permit, order, or any applicable
Federal or State law or regulation.
Additionally, IDEM or anyone acting on its behalf shall not be held
liable for any costs or penalties Respondent may incur as a result of
Respondent’s efforts to comply with this Agreed Order.
12.
Nothing
in this Agreed Order shall prevent or limit IDEM’s rights to obtain penalties
or injunctive relief under any applicable Federal or State law or regulation,
except that IDEM may not, and hereby waives its right to, seek additional civil
penalties for the same violations specified in this Agreed Order.
13.
Nothing
in this Agreed Order shall prevent IDEM or anyone acting on its behalf from
communicating with the EPA or any other agency or entity about any matters
relating to this enforcement action.
IDEM or anyone acting on its behalf shall not be held liable for any
costs or penalties Respondent may incur as a result of such communications with
the EPA or any other agency or entity.
14.
This
Agreed Order shall remain in effect until IDEM issues a Resolution of Case
letter to Respondent.
|
TECHNICAL
RECOMMENDATION: |
|
RESPONDENT: |
|||||
|
Department
of Environmental Management |
|
Subaru of
Indiana Automotive, Inc. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
By: |
|
|
By: |
|
|||
|
|
Janusz Johnson, Chief |
|
Printed: |
|
|||
|
|
Compliance
and Enforcement Section 1 |
|
Title: |
|
|||
|
|
Office
of Air Quality |
|
|
|
|||
|
Date: |
|
|
Date: |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT: |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
By: |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Date: |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
APPROVED
AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL |
|||||||
|
MANAGEMENT THIS |
|
DAY OF |
|
,
2013. |
|||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
For
the Commissioner |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Signed
on October 22, 2013 |
||||||
|
|
Keith
Baugues, Assistant Commissioner |
||||||
|
|
Office
of Air Quality |
||||||
|
|
Indiana
Department of Environmental Management |
||||||