We want to hear from you If you have any questions about impacts from the accident on July 13. Call us at 1.800.343.1984 If an associate is talking with other neighbors when you call, please leave a message and we will return your call as soon as we can. The center Is staffed from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. We apologize for disturbing your summer afternoon on Saturday. We are working hard to make sure it doesn't happen again. Your neighbors at Heritage Thermal Services. D"'" Herita e DATE: 07'" . . W .f n 0". Legend y- ' :: // Heritage Thermal Services Property Boundary . At - Affected Area _,.. ,...2.4", -, .,-, .. .. .. '3,,.:;'\ .::. .4 , , • [ \ 1P, -_. ,- - – . , r . 2 r ''' r- _ — Source of aerial photography: Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2006/2007 - Ca, ce o 0 3 a) .+4 cn . 1-`` /r -e - ---- '. . Wind Speed (mph) . . . 0' n 1-2 2-3 • 3-4 4-5 n 5-6 n 6-7 300' 600' 1200' n Ohio River . Seale n 0-1 --s, - - - t n 7 -8 - .;:',;\.-, ,-- <7 _,! -,0- ..k. a. f 04%6 2a-3560c ' 0 f. ---, 5-- 0 o y. otirimr: / -. „f_, ,....l „..., .„...,, I . WA 'it VAti ,t_., a k• k. Wind Rose Data from July 13, 2013 from 1:00pm to 1:30 pm d ill% E N COX — COlVin Iltn .7.:' .". a ASSOCIATES, INC. • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES lr Site Location Map, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio e / Ail 4,114,‘-,.._., A* :_..., -4,.. A alli:4# ,;,.- ..4 00., ∎ Figure 1 (7) Hi I TAG E THERMAL SERVICES 7-13-13 INCIDENT RELEASE SUMMARY OF POST INCIDENT EVENTS HERITAGE THERMAL SERVICES EPA ID NO. OHD980613541 EAST LIVERPOOL, OH n (7)HERITAGE 1HFRYA; SFU'JICFS The dust plume travelled in a south westerly path per the wind direction at that time. Immediately after the release, a total of 12 samples were collected within the facility as part of the incident investigation. Splits of the samples were also provided to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). HIS had the samples analyzed at the Heritage Environmental Services NELAP Certified Commercial Laboratory in Indianapolis, Indiana. The following report provides summaries of the responses taken by HTS for each of the days since the incident. Saturday (7/13) HTS's immediate response was to ensure that the fire was extinguished, verify that automatic shut downs of equipment engaged as designed and clean up the ash and slag at the facility. In addition, one HTS employee was sent to walk the affected areas outside the fence to get a preliminary view of the release zone. A second HTS employee performed air monitoring within the facility. Sunday (7/14) General facility site clean-up occurred on Sunday. This cleanup included incinerator washing, as well as two (2) vac-trucks being used to collect debris around the spray dryer. Monday (7/151 A public call center was set up through HIS to allow residents to contact the facility if they had any questions or concerns about the release. A team of four HTS employees walked the neighborhoods from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm to distribute information on the call center and engage with neighbors about the incident. The calls received by the public call center are summarized in Appendix D – Residential Inspection Forms. Residents were also encouraged to bring their vehicles to the facility for a free rinse and car wash voucher. A total of 103 car wash vouchers were purchased by HTS from the local car washing business, Uptown, located at 215 W. Sixth Street in East Liverpool. All of the car wash vouchers were given to local residents over the next few days. All car wash vouchers that had been used were tracked and are included Appendix C – Data. The East Liverpool Reporter also placed an article in the newspaper informing residents about the situation (see Appendix A Press Release Information). Eight (8) additional samples were collected by both HTS and OEPA personnel for additional metal testing. Samples were taken from the affected community (i.e. basketball hoops, mailboxes, vehicles). These samples were tested for 23 elements (i.e. aluminum, arsenic, lead, mercury, etc.), Tuesday (7/161 A response team from Heritage Environmental Services (HES) in Indianapolis, as well as several HTS employees and assistance from decontamination crews from Environmental Remediation Services (ERS) assembled on site Tuesday (7/16) morning to discuss and prepare an action plan for additional cleanup procedures. During this time, standard operating procedures (SOP), as well as a health and safety plan, were created for the crews (see Appendix B – Plans and Procedures). 1 21 Page (‘)HERITAnr Ith-, Images 4 and 5 – Before and after images of creek crossing on Virginia Avenue During downtime, ERS crews with HES and KS personnel removed trash and debris from the creek bed along Virginia Avenue. The removal of trash and debris from the creek bed was unrelated to the ash incident. A total of three (3) trash bags were filled with debris from the previous flooding the community had experienced due to heavy rainfall. Thursday (7/18k The street sweeper was in operation in the morning to complete street cleaning activities with HIS employees. A total of 50,260 lbs. of street mud and debris were collected during the cleaning operations and this material was received at HTS for processing. See Appendix C - Data for load weights received. Crews cleaned one (1) above-ground swimming pool, six (6) houses, six (6) porches, and two (2) garages. Approximately 6,720 gallons of pool water were drained with the vac-truck and emptied in to the sump at the HTS facility. HTS with HES personnel also took two (2) pool water samples per the request of homeowners. These samples were taken back to the FITS laboratory for analysis (both samples came back with normal pool water characteristics). HES personnel also purchased eight (8) 50-lb bags of play sand from Tractor Supply Company in order to replace sand in a child's play box. The original sand in the play box was disposed of. A HTS Press Release was submitted to the public (see Appendix A – Press Release Information). Images 6 and 7– Crews cleaning children's swimming pool on Ohio Street Wage (') HERITAGE SERVICES IHEW-AAL Images 9 through 14 — HTS personnel passing out produce baskets on Saturday, July 20 th. U (j YIN, im 1-1 h THER1,21,4' 1_ SERV'( Individuals who are likely to be most affected by a short-term exposure event are those with pre-existing respiratory conditions who might experience temporary discomfort from exposure to any kind of particulate. Such individuals may have experienced brief coughing as the ash fell, but we believe no adverse effects are expected from exposure to the concentrations of compounds detected in the worst-case samples taken right after the ash release. Indeed, coughing is one of the body's primary means of clearing the respiratory passages of foreign materials. In addition to the concentrations measured, the other considerations in assessing the potential for adverse health effects include: how much was released (dose), how often the compounds were released (frequency), and how long the release lasted (duration). The bulk of the scientific literature about adverse effects of the relevant compounds focuses on the impacts from long-term, frequent exposure to a range of doses. Infrequent exposures of short duration to small quantities of elevated concentrations of materials -- such as occurred in this release of ash – are generally of less potential health concern than lower doses experienced daily for many years. This document describes each compound and the range of concentrations of that compound found during the initial sampling. Higher concentrations were detected onsite or close to the facility fence line, in the area of greatest deposition where most of the ash fell. These higher concentrations were evidenced by a sample of ash taken from the surface of a nearby vehicle just downwind of the site. It also attempts to put some of this information into context by describing how much one would have to be exposed to over time to approach thresholds of health concern. In the next few weeks, HIS is also taking more samples at areas where most of the ash fell to characterize the amount of ash that may still be present at the soil's surface. HIS will continue to cooperate and work closely with Ohio EPA and local authorities. What was in the dust? The ash in the residential surface samples collected right after the release was tested for 23 compounds that are typically found in the facility ash. These compounds are found in the earth's crust and are generated by other sources, notably manufacturing and transportation. We describe some of these sources below, as well as the range of effects known to be associated with inhaling or ingesting these compounds. Some of the measured compounds are essential nutrients; we know a great deal about their health benefits when ingested. As with any compound, however, excessive amounts can be associated with adverse health effects. Beneficial versus harmful levels of these compounds are discussed generally below. Dietary Reference Intakes and other values for compounds with known recommended daily intakes are given where relevant. Aluminum is the most abundant element in the earth's crust and is familiar to all of us in such everyday items as aluminum foil and bake ware. Concentrations of aluminum in HTS incinerator ash range from 12.3-59.9 grams of aluminum per kilogram of ash (g/kg). Dust on nearby vehicles range from concentrations too low to detect (i.e., below 50 mg aluminum per kg of ash, or mg/kg) to 7.8 g/kg ash. All other sample results were between those values. Antimony is commonly combined with other metals to form alloys for use in batteries and electronics. It is less toxic than many other metals; the EPA requires that spills of antimony over 5,000 pounds be reported. Average daily intake of antimony from all sources is about 5 micrograms, and the World Health Organization has 2 25 July 2013 F (Th }-1ERITAG E TH F IRMAL SERVICES Offsite concentrations of calcium range from undetectable (<50 mg calcium per kg ash) to 34 g/kg ash, measured on the surface of the car near the facility property line. Chromium is present in the earth's soil at concentrations averaging 200 mg/kg. The Dietary Reference Intake is 0.2 to 45 micrograms (ug) per day depending on age and gender, values that are significantly exceeded through ingestion of common dietary supplements such as chromium picolinate. Concentrations measured in local surface samples range from below detection level (<5 mg/kg ash) to 37 mg chromium per kg of ash. Copper is commonly used in pennies, wiring and electronics. It is also an essential nutrient with a daily Dietary Reference Intake of intake of 220-1,300 micrograms (depending on age and gender) and a Tolerable Upper Intake Level of 10 mg. Offsite concentrations near HTS range from non-detectable (<50 mg/kg) to 2,137 mg/kg ash measured on the car near the HTS property boundary. Iron is the most common element making up our planet and an essential element for human life. Iron has a Dietary Reference Intake of 0.27 to 27 mg per day (depending on age and gender) and a Tolerable Upper Intake Level of 45 mg per day. Concentrations of iron in surface samples range from not detectable (<50 mg/kg ash) to 7.6 g iron per kg ash taken from the playground slide at St. George & Mulberry. Lead has no known biological function and is naturally present in soils in concentrations of 20-400 mg per kg soil. It has been commonly used in construction, batteries, solder, bullets, and many other applications for thousands of years. Ingesting lead paint is the most common source of exposure for children now that leaded gasoline has been eliminated. Chronic exposure at high levels can cause blood and brain disorders, primarily affecting the nervous system, Lead is the one substance measured in a nearby offsite surface concentration that would approach levels of potential health concern if ingested in quantity over time. Concentrations of lead range from not detected (<5 mg/kg ash) to 10 g lead per kg ash on the vehicle close to the facility property line. Subsequent sampling is being conducted to ensure that no lead contamination from the July 13, 2013, incident is still available in a form and location where it might be ingested frequently over time. Lithium and its compounds have several industrial applications, including heat-resistant glass and ceramics, high strength alloys used in aircraft, electronics, and batteries. Trace amounts of lithium are present in all organisms, and a Recommended Dietary Allowance of 1 milligram per day has recently been proposed. There were no detectable concentrations of lithium measured offsite (<50 mg/kg), except for one sample taken from the surface of the vehicle near the property fence line containing 243 mg per kilogram of ash. Magnesium ions are essential to all living cells, and it is an abundant element on earth. Magnesium is used to produce the white light of fireworks, the distinctive taste of mineral water, and the antacid properties of Milk of Magnesia. Magnesium is the third most common structural metal following iron and aluminum, and is commonly used in electronic devices because of its strength and light weight. Common sources of ingested magnesium include spices, nuts, cereals, coffee, cocoa, tea, and vegetables, and its daily Dietary Reference Intake is 30-420 mg. 4 25 July 2013 (*) I-1 ER ITAG F THERMAL SERVICES Sodium is an essential element that is also of critical importance in the manufacture of glass, paper, soap and textiles. Its Dietary Reference Intake is 0.12 to 1.5 grams per day, with a Tolerable Upper Intake Level of 1.5 to 2.3 grams per day. In contrast, average US daily consumption is 3.4 grams per day through ingesting excess salt. The hypertension associated with excess sodium intake is believed to result in 7.6 million premature deaths worldwide each year. Concentrations in local surface samples range from non-detectable (<50 mg/kg ash) to 16.4 grams per kg ash, in ash taken from the surface of the vehicle near the facility property line. Thallium is primarily used in the manufacture of electronics, pharmaceuticals and glass. It occurs naturally in soil at a concentration of about 0.6 mg/kg soil. While soluble thallium salts are toxic at higher doses, no measurable concentrations of thallium were detected (<50 mg/kg ash) in any surface samples near the facility. Zinc has been used as far back as the 10 th century BC. Various zinc compounds are commonly used today in cosmetics, sunscreens, dietary supplements, deodorants, and anti-dandruff shampoos. It is an essential element, with zinc deficiency affecting two billion people throughout the world. The Dietary Reference Intake is 2-13 mg/day depending on age and gender, with a Tolerable Upper Intake Level of 4-40 mg/day. The level of zinc occurring naturally in soil is 132 mg/kg soil. Soils contaminated with zinc, primarily through mining, can contain several grams of zinc per kilogram of dry soil. Levels of zinc in excess of 500 mg/kg in soil interfere with the ability of plants to absorb other essential metals, such as iron and manganese. According to a UK study, zinc levels of 2-180 g/kg soil (0.2-18%) have been recorded in some soil samples. Concentrations in local surface samples near the facility range from non-detectable (<50 mg/kg ash) to 26.1 g/kg sampled at the vehicle at the facility fence line. What is KS doing to prevent an ash release like this from happening in the future? HTS is undergoing an in-depth investigation into the incident. Once completed, corrective and preventive actions will be taken to minimize the possibility of reoccurrence, as necessary. HTS is considering adding new laboratory equipment for additional testing of materials; planning more frequently scheduled incinerator cleanings and outages to remove residue; and installing additional ash removal equipment. Additional surveillance monitoring is being considered. Conclusion Based on the results of initial surface samples taken in the neighborhood right after the ash release, HTS believes that no adverse health effects would be expected from short-term exposure to the ash, except possibly to those with pre-existing respiratory conditions who might be bothered by brief exposure to particulate matter of any kind (vehicle exhaust, dust, barbecues, etc.). These individuals may have experienced brief discomfort, notably coughing. Other individuals may have briefly experienced stinging eyes from the warm, alkaline ash. Likewise, HTS does not believe there would be any impacts through eating vegetables from gardens which may be affected by the ash. We concur with OEPA's recommendation that residents wash fruits and vegetables from their gardens and replace food and water for pets and farm animals as a standard precaution. Who can I contact if I have questions? Please call us at 1.800.343.1984. 6 25 July 2013 C Y ..‘ 113 Io c 0 ... 2 YYY 8 .-1 .. C .... a, la 2 2 u 0. r• = 3 o = 6, nn••• a. .co 1! C o 6.1 CC 10 O2 0 0 CO ,,,i. n1 el 0 La en rsi NI CI: . 10 ' ,... .-• . n ..1 ''' r:' • .1n1., ad 4 -0., 0 t- a) VI 0 0 0. .c Le1 ro . W 0 ro '1-' 5) 13 0 t 0 r0 .0 .0 E ..: 2 al. 0 ro .._, _ = ar 2 ,4 10 -4; ).2 Jin en o z .-1 o N n u3 9n1 n N u-1. CO rn 9 •1 0 N n 9W=1 n N ..:. VI Ill > a > cu W E4 < < r...;. -. co 41L.2 g 0 .0o 011) .= :E . 0 o C7, -1 re, en rn eel en r.1 wt •-I .-1 ,1 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 w N ..... .s. n cMi ..... in '''' ul .u3 I.n ....". in .n1 .•1 r1 II .-1 n n n 44.. n NI--1--1--N L.47.i4. 2 4. m aE 8 •-• .0 cn se .... V ao X NC 0 .r. u re4 .... z 00000 ti t zzzzz -s- Z02=t. .1f/ _To ea ill so ad > E cu E as u aea w as XI ea -o m .i,,e 4 .0 0 L' El 0 0 0. 0. ill 1: 12 P c c & c ea eLl ciJ > c 0.1 &la 0 g 0 S a .1 "CI 0 0 0 1, 1-. .0 .0 .0 3 01 as41 -cral -0a, -0Cu C 1-i ..c''' .c ,n .c ..,, .= ..., ; ,.. re 01 m 2 3 3 3 N ).2 [121 ›22 o N Eli c0 GO Tr 0 4Ji 4 11 9..1 ...: 0/ W ....., ad IF o V) en en en rn en M 91 9n1 9-1 4-1 I. 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N n 17 n ,..17 n 0 n n L0 n 1-0 44•1 ,1 4•41 1-1 1.13 1-4 1-4 n n n n n n NNNNNN a:, 6 a", W 9C ..C. .0 -C 0000 o o 0 o > 7 < < 4 < M .-I 0 N n W 9.4 n N cu:1 N..:.a, w ...4. al u., .1 ;3111 ,4313 0 0 D ,_,...,,,..zzzi_. o z di .0 ela 1..1 O. ,_ ,uc C• ...ar cQC cc J en /1 13 N r, N. 1-1 n N ...; Li a, ad3 8 CU 1. L.: 14 E 8 -0c re .,. cc J 8 .c w -0'8 .... 3 -p..-11 6 9-1 0 N "... l's 4-1 n N E apo > z 0 '8 14- en - M ,1 0 N rr. N ,1 .... N ti > < ea :a I'S 5 E 8 U. 0 z U. 0 z >-w 0 ad )- ..,, g '0 0' ..7 o so e .0 0 m .C. 0.1 E0. - 4.1 ,2 co. 5 m - L., 8-ueu o x w ' c lc -0,1 a si .0 g P > 13 ' C ,_ -,.. c -., ra>. ,„ .. co . c I: E 0 03 -1c = 6 o- re tJ •n•6-6 ...1 .. -D .e., E.3 ›- 2. -c 0 . E scc 10 m 4 . 1 a d '-› .. .0 - E 10. 7- .-... ... es 9.n 0 - r° T11 - 2 '''' co 13. It u 1- is ,12. ,i 4-.- di -or c -0 .0c -a 0 -0 .0._. CIJ a/ a V 0) Cli _c '0 .c c .c .. c 17 0 f'a "j' 107. E-3 a3 3 t 3 f., C.-/ . 66 8 en r-1 0 N .., r-144 -..., N 2 a, .o -6 10 = ea .: V/ 2, a' r1) w 4-: cel 13 c 0 0 , SO >4 03 0. .63 >. 3 11 a. a., 3 c 8 .,_, 0 °E 0 ro 4, 2 C ro CL 70 s- n-. Ct..= , -Cad 13 8 - -o u - di 2 8 =10 13 O. 0) C '0 0 01 a17i E -5, c 7. ro ref 0 X3 o )2 .., a/ al E0., -5 00. t.0 `.0 0. ..-. 0 •-• .c 11) c L./ 3 ad 0 .c w .c .... _ cad .oo. e 1/1 10 na LO 0.1, O. 0 X 4., 0./ C 13 0 C '..., 0 • r, Eo 7- a. re w ec 13 * CU .0 , = .... C .c03 0 c .13 = 'o c . g,.., u CO co E C . ro e2 .0 Irj .7.. a/ al ul Mt 0 _C CJ ;Et o 03 O. 4 ›2 2 >. 2 = iri .-I 2 2 r-) ›- 4 f-1 er el 4 1-1 .-4 0 N N n -6 0 N rl 4-1 4.., n ...: ..: J.n ad CO en cr fel 'A 1.91 1.11 63 a; 0 ,4 _1 0 N N 4-1 n n en en el 0 N-e-4-4 n n el 0 N '-.... N. ,1 -4... n en 0 N .... I, 41 n - 9..1 0 N "..r. N 4-1 ..... N 0 r ., ^-r N .-4 --N ... re .6 ... 0, ILD a, w dr cu 0 0CU e ° 001 ...: V1 fa N 0u ru 1- > < :c0 N 4441 ad p.- CO < 0 0 " -c . o 1.0 4, ,r, e-a 0 •-1 4-1 ,1 0 z 0 0.n ,.. rn Cr 611 Ul al 0 0 z z C 111 .ac ea I-. C c 0 7/ cri -•-• < W -, -0 .0 - IA n a C 0 1 I; in › a ei) ..1 ra z vn ro cf) '... '... n n n ,l 0 IN1 '•-... N N '... on rro rn rn .o rn fl, on en un in in C.; V. 2 a. v) CO c0 CO > 2 z .... . eli 4.n a o ct e.i3 : c c, o o o _ - ID CFI ... re MC Li1 07 .0 t.1 i cov 'CI C re §.._t rj E0 u 0/4-, .., — ua j c„„... 'a eu 4- « :43 0. 3 ,, 2 ,,,, 0 c, '0 0 .0 .=''' E 0, - = .0 E ... - =0.1 Ei i) . kr) 0 v) • -C 4 ,u". ,,,, '0 ,. re 0) .-1 ..., e . c CE .-1 n, 0.1 0/ n ., •C •C v , ..?.. R ..., ..... e ke 13 1M 01 0J ,n-• C re CIJ• o c K 14 g co u ao 3c o t 0/ ..a t ° vi -5 L_. a :12 = ' 0 u a) = Ja ---., ' — § 4.1 ,.. ./.. 4 1 ---.. .cu n ,,, a ea A .. = ,,,, W CL1 '0 • — = g .:11 ,,. C Z - 0 0., -7. — ..1 = CI L.r1. no .-o % Ln Ai •,-* fa 0 co CC .1+ 1.0 -. fa N 1,1 0 N M ",-. N rro ,1 0 N '.... en N '... N ..; VI 1. e 'a CC en VI cl- N V 0/ r. IA ep c n Ci .-n .0. er 00 V/ o o o Zo 7, U 0 Li/ Z v., ...,, ...no 01 .r.ZZZZ 3 .:... cr .... Address: Community Playground (St. George and Mulberry) Contact: N/A Before Photographs After Photographs After Photographs Before Photographs Before Photographs .1 u, gar-jg} I. x: A . Before Photographs ?in: . - _uiul- n-n r- I- I After Photographs Before Photographs Before Photographs I.. .. hi1; Incident Viewer Page I of3 Heritage-WTI, Inc. Incident Report !JAMS! 2011.1537 To be completed by the employee and supervisor before the end of the sh1ft. I. Incident Information: Date: Type: Location: 12/12/2011 Time: 12:00 Other Administration Building Steve Lorah Frank Murray John Avdellas Zambia Logero Scott Shultz lnvestigator(s): Investigators - Manager: Investigators -Safety Technician: Investigators • Employee: Investigators - Others: Attachments: II. Employee Information: Name: Department: Supervisor (GM) on Duty: Job Title: Other Overtime: I 0 I If other than Heritage·WTI Company Name: Company Address: Was Company Notified?: Company Phone: 0 Ill. Incident Scene Information: Specific Location: PSM Location: 0 Describe How the Incident Occured: On June 10, 2011, a profile (96406-14) was created for petroleum refinery sludge from Sunoco. This material contains aluminum silicate catalyst which similar to material that had been determined to be responsible for the donut formation. Because of this concern , the approval of this material was set up to limit the shipment of this material to no more than 3 toads I week. There have been 13 loads of this material shipped since it was approved. There were three shipments in June, one in August, and then 9 the week of 12/12. This exceeds the restriction for shipping this material. Type of Machinery/Equipment/Materials/Waste Involved: Waste Stream Profile: Container Number: 96406-14 http:/II 72.19.1.46/JAMS/JAMS/Sheet_Incidents.asp?0=20 11 .1537 4/22/2014 Page 2 of3 Incident Viewer Machinery I Equipment Placed: Out of Service Repairs Required JAMS Work Order Number(s): IV. Events Causing the Incident: Describe the events and conditions that contributed to the incident. Include information on the worker, machinery and equipment, environment and management. The quote that was approved on 6/11/11 and sent to the customer lists the shipping restriction. When this material is scheduled there is no clear indication of a scheduling restriction. as the quote is not accessed during this process. Also, the CS coordinator responsible for this stream was not working this week. V. Corrective Actions: Identify the factors listed above that can be corrected to prevent a reoccurrence of this type of accident. Indicate the person responsible for making the change and project a target date for completion of the task• .. Initial - Corrective Actions: Analysis is being performed on the samples of the 9 most reacent loads to determine what the concentration of aluminum silicate was in these loads. The kiln is being monitored for donut formation. •• Long Term - Corrective Actions: Develop a means to limit scheduling of waste streams that have a restriction such as this. Determine the total accetpable amount of aluminum silcate that may be processed. CPAR Generated: 0 Responsible Person: Target Completion Date: Method of verification of Corrective Action. 12:00:00 AM Verification Date: 12:00:00 AM V. Incident Report Prepared by: Name: Steve Lorah Title: Signature: Steve Lorah Date: 12/16/201110:35:26 AM VI. Summary: Include comments that would promote a safe workplace environment and reduce an accidents potential in the future based on review of the events causing the Incident and implementation of Corrective Actions. bttp://172.19. 1.46/JAMS/JAMS/Sheet_Incidents.asp?0=20 11 .1537 4122/2014 Incident Viewer Risk Rating: Category: Page 3 of3 High VII. Injury Information: Name of Injured person: Nature of Injury: Body Part: Work Start Time: 12:00.00AM Employee's Specific Task and Activity at Time of Injury: Injury Treatment (Click all that are applicable): Fatality Onsite First Aid Offsite Treatment Other, Specify: Drug and Alcohol Testing Done: Date and Time: 0 12:00:00 AM For Safety Manager: First Aid IJAMSI Recordable Restricted Duty Hentage-WTI, Inc. Incident Report http://172.19.1.46/JAMS/JAMS/Sheet_lncidents.asp?0=20 11 .1537 Loss Work Days 2011.1537 4/22/2014 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 IN THE MATTER OF: Heritage-WTI. Inc. (d/b/a Heritage Thermal Services) 1250 Saint George Street East Liverpool, Ohio 43920-3400 ATTENTION: Mr. Stewart Fletcher General Manager Request to Provide Information Pursuant to the Clean Air Act The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requiring Heritage-WTI, Inc. (d/b/a Heritage Thermal Services) to submit certain information about its facility at 1250 Saint George Street, East Liverpool, Ohio. Appendix A provides the instructions needed to answer this information request, including instructions for electronic submissions. Appendix B specifies the information that you must submit. You must send this information to us within fourteen (14) calendar days after you receive this request. We are issuing this information request under Section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act (the CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a). Section 114(a) authorizes the Administrator of EPA to require the submission of information. The Administrator has delegated this authority to the Director of the Air and Radiation Division, Region 5. Heritage-WTI, Inc. (HTS) owns and operates an emission source at the East Liverpool, Ohio facility. We are requesting this information to determine whether your emission source is complying with the Ohio State Implementation Plan and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. I-ITS must send all required information to: Attn: Compliance Tracker, AE-17J Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 W. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 HIS must submit all required information under an authorized signature with the following certification: I certify under penalty of law that I have examined and am familiar with the information in the enclosed documents, including all attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for knowingly submitting false statements and information, including the possibility of fines or imprisonment pursuant to Section 113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act and IS U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1341. As explained more fully in Appendix C, you may assert a claim of business confidentiality under 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B for any part of the information you submit to us. Information subject to a business confidentiality claim is available to the public only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B. If you do not assert a business confidentiality claim when you submit the information, EPA may make this information available to the public without further notice. You should be aware, moreover, that pursuant to Section 114(c) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a) and (f), emissions data, standards and limitations are not entitled to confidential treatment and shall be made available to the public notwithstanding any assertion of a business confidentiality claim. Appendix C provides additional information regarding the meaning and scope of the term "emissions data." This information request is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq., because it seeks collection of information from specific individuals or entities as part of an administrative action or investigation. 2 We may use any information submitted in response to this request in an administrative, civil or criminal action. Failure to comply fully with this information request may subject HTS to an enforcement action under Section 113 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413. You should direct any questions about this information request to Linda H. Rosen, at (312) 886-6810, or Charles Hall, at (312) 353-3443. 1 Date George T. Cz Director Air and 3 iak nDi Appendix A When providing the information requested in Appendix B, use the following instructions and definitions. Instructions 1. Provide a separate narrative response to each question and subpart of a question set forth in Appendix B. ". Precede each answer with the number of the question to which it corresponds and at the end of each answer, identify the person(s) who provided information used or considered in responding to that question, as well as each person consulted in the preparation of that response. 3. Indicate on each document produced, or in some other reasonable manner, the number of the question to which it corresponds. 4. When a response is provided in the form of a number, specify the units of measure of the number in a precise manner. 5. Where information or documents necessary for a response are neither in your possession nor available to you, indicate in your response why the information or documents are not available or in your possession, and identify any source that either possesses or is likely to possess the documents or information. 6. If information not known or not available to you as of the date of submission later becomes known or available to you, you must supplement your response. Moreover, should you find at any time after the submission of your response that any portion of the submitted information is false or incorrect, you must notify EPA as soon as possible. Electronic Submissions To aid in our electronic recordkeeping efforts, we request that you provide all documents responsive to this information request in an electronic format according to paragraphs I through 6, below. These submissions are in lieu of hard copy. I. Provide all responsive documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) or similar format, unless otherwise requested in specific questions. If the PDFs are scanned images, perform at least Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for "image over text" to allow the document to be searchable. Submitters providing secured PDFs should also provide unsecured versions for EPA use in repurposing text. I 2. When specific questions request data in electronic spreadsheet form, provide the data and corresponding information in editable Excel or Lotus format, and not in image format. If Excel or Lotus formats are not available, then the format should allow for data to be used in calculations by a standard spreadsheet program such as Excel or Lotus. 3. Provide submission on physical media such as compact disk, flash drive or other similar item. 4. Provide a table of contents for each compact disk or flash drive containing electronic documents submitted in response to our request so that each document can be accurately identified in relation to your response to a specific question. We recommend the use of electronic file folders organLed by question number. In addition, each compact disk or flash drive should be labeled appropriately (e.g., Company Name, Disk I of 4 for Information Request Response, Date of Response). 5. Documents claimed as confidential business information (CBI) must be submitted on separate disks/drives apart from the non-confidential information. This will facilitate appropriate records management and appropriate handling and protection of the CBI. Please follow the instructions in Appendix C for designating information as CBI. 6. Certify that the attached files have been scanned for viruses and indicate what program was used. Definitions All terms used in this information request have their ordinary meaning unless such terms are defined in the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 740I et seq., or the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE or the General Provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 63. 1. The terms "document" and "documents" shall mean any object that records, stores, or presents information, and includes writings, memoranda, records, or information of any kind, formal or informal, whether wholly or partially handwritten or typed, whether in computer format, memory, or storage device, or in hardcopy, including any form or format of these. If in computer format or memory, each such document shall be provided in translation to a form useable and readable by EPA, with all necessary documentation and support. All documents in hard copy should also include attachments to or enclosures with any documents. 2. The terms "relate to" or "pertain to" (or any form thereof) shall mean constituting, reflecting, representing, supporting, contradicting, referring to, stating, describing, recording, noting, embodying, containing, mentioning, studying, analyzing, discussing, evaluating or relevant to. 2 3. The term "hazardous waste incinerator" means a device defined as an incinerator in 40 C.F.R, Part 260.10 and that burns hazardous waste at any time. For purposes of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE, the hazardous waste incinerator includes all associated firing systems and air pollution control devices, as well as the combustion chamber equipment. 3 Appendix B Information You Are Required to Submit to EPA Heritage-WTI, Inc. (d/b/a Heritage Thermal Services) must submit the following information pursuant to Section 114(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a), within fourteen (14) calendar days after you receive this request. The requested information relates to the incident that occurred on Saturday, July 13, 2013 at the Heritage-WTI, Inc. (HIS) hazardous waste incinerator located in East Liverpool, Ohio (Facility). 1. Describe in detail the incident that occurred at approximately 12:59 pm on July 13, 2013 (the Incident), that interrupted hazardous waste incineration operations at the Facility. Include, but do not limit your description to the following: the sequence of events leading up to, during and after the Incident; the cause(s) of the Incident; the type and extent of damage to equipment, operations and areas inside and outside the Facility; the effect on Facility operations and air emissions; and the Facility's response. Submit diagrams showing the items of equipment (including ductwork) involved and indicate the damage on the diagrams. Submit copies of any and all photographs taken of the equipment, damage and resulting emissions. 2. Specify the time on July 13, 2013 when HTS initiated shutdown of the hazardous waste incinerator at the Facility and describe in detail the shutdown procedures used at that time. In addition: (a) Provide a spreadsheet showing the date, time, waste profile numbers, waste profile descriptions, and container numbers for all wastes that were being processed in the hazardous waste incinerator combustion chambers within an hour before and up to the time of the Incident. Also provide a spreadsheet showing the date, time, waste profile numbers, waste profile descriptions, and container numbers for waste containers that had previously been processed in the combustion chambers (for at least 2 weeks prior to the Incident) but might still be in the system (e.g., as slag or ash). (b) Specify the time that the hazardous waste feed was cut off to the hazardous waste incinerator following the Incident; (c) Specify what auxiliary fuels were being fired into the hazardous waste incinerator at the time of the Incident; (d) Specify the time when the auxiliary fuel feed(s) were cut off to the hazardous waste incinerator following the Incident; (e) Specify the day and time when there was no longer any hazardous waste present in the combustion chamber following the Incident; and (1) Submit I-minute total and pumpable hazardous waste feedrate data and 1-minute auxiliary fuel feedrate data starting on July 13, 2013 at 6:00 a.m. until the date of this information request. 4 HTS may submit the monitoring data on a compact disk or thumb drive in comma separated value (CSV) or Plain Text format. 3. List all the dates that HIS exceeded Operating Parameter Limits (OPL) and/or emission limits for the Facility on July 13 and afterwards until the hazardous waste residence time had transpired. For each day of exceedance, specify: the OPL and emission limit exceeded, the time period of exceedance, and the highest values of the exceeded OPLs and emission limits. Submit copies of HTS's operating parameter and emission monitoring data from July 6, 2013, to the present. The monitoring data should include: (a) all 1-hour and 12-hour rolling average data, as applicable to the particular OPL or emission limit being measured; and (b) all instantaneous readings of secondary combustion chamber (SCC) pressure, ambient pressure, pressure in the inlet and outlet shrouds, and feed lance atomization pressure. HIS may submit the monitoring data on a compact disk or thumb drive in comma separated value (CSV) or Plain Text format. 4. In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(3)(ii), state and explain whether all combustion gases during and after the Incident were ducted to the air pollution control system at the Facility while hazardous waste remained in the combustion chambers (i.e., the hazardous waste residence time had not transpired since the hazardous waste feed cutoff system was activated). Provide copies of the 1-minute flue gas flow rate data for the period beginning July 12, 2013 to the date of this information request. Describe and also indicate on the diagram submitted in response to item 1 above, the location of the flue gas flow rate measurement device for the air pollution control system at the Facility . 5. Submit copies of any and all analyses related to the amount of combustion gases, ash, and any other pollutants released from any breach(es) that occurred in the hazardous waste incineration system at the Facility on July 13, 2013. Explain all calculations and assumptions related to each analysis. 6. Provide the results of all investigations into the cause of the Incident, the appropriate measures that could have been taken to prevent the Incident from occurring, and the steps HTS has taken and/or will take to prevent future occurrences. Provide copies of all your findings, conclusions and corrective measures taken or planned for the Facility by HTS, its agents, contractors, or others. 7. Provide copies of all reports, documents, and electronic mail messages HTS sent to the Ohio EPA and/or the National Response Center regarding the Incident. 5 8. As defined in 40 C.F.R. § 63.2, "malfunction" means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an applicable standard to be exceeded. Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. For each exceedance identified in response to item 3, above: (a) Identify whether HTS claims that the exceedance was caused by a malfunction, as that term is defined by 40 C.F.R. § 63.2; (b) Explain how the claimed malfunction fits the definition of malfunction at 40 C.F.R. § 63.2; (c) Identify the malfunction that HIS claims caused the exceedance; (d) Identify whether, and if so where, the claimed malfunction is addressed in the applicable Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Plan (SSMP) for the Facility; and (e) To the extent not provided in response to question No. 6, above, provide copies of all documents referencing the investigation of the cause of the exceedance; the corrective actions taken to correct the exceedance; and any evaluations of approaches to minimize the frequency, duration, and severity of the exceedance. 9. On June 12, 2009, December 9, 2010, May 1, 2011 and July 5, 2012, FITS made revisions to its SSMP for the Facility. Submit copies of these revisions (Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11) and all other revisions to the SSMP made during the time period from June 12, 2009 to the present 10. Submit copies of all correspondence between HTS and Ohio EPA regarding SSMP Revisions 8, 9, 10, and 11 and all subsequent SSMP revisions for which HTS submitted information in response to item number 9 above. II. Identify all periods of startup and shutdown of the Facility between July 12, 2013 to the present. 12. Submit a copy of the latest version of the Operation and Maintenance Plan for the Facility prepared in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(7). 13. Regarding the Facility's ash (or slag) removal system, answer the following questions: (a) Describe the ash/slag removal system and include diagrams and photographs of the system; (b) Describe the procedures used for the removal of ash/slag from the interior surfaces of the combustion chambers, the handling of the ash/slag and the disposal of it; 6 (c) Specify the amount of ash that the ash quench system is designed to safely handle, specify the amount of ash that dropped into the quench system on July 13, and explain the reason that the amount of ash that fell from the interior walls of the combustion chambers on July 13, 2013 was greater than the amount the ash system could safely handle. Submit and explain all calculations and submit copies of all supporting documentation; (d) In the weeks prior to the Incident, explain whether HTS personnel or HTS contractors made any observations regarding the amounts of ash being collected in the quench tank or otherwise being removed from the combustion chambers. Submit copies of all relevant documents; (e) Have there been previous incidents when ash or slag fell into the quench bath, resulting in the Facility exceeding one or more of an applicable OPL? Explain each such incident. Provide copies of all documents referencing the investigation of the cause of the exceedance(s); the corrective actions taken to correct the exceedance(s); and the evaluation of approaches to minimize the frequency, duration, and severity of the exceedance(s), and submit all supporting documentation; and (f) Submit copies of all manufacturers' instructions and facility instructions related to the removal, or the handling of ash/slag from the combustion chambers at the Facility. 14. Regarding HIS' maintenance plans for the hazardous waste incinerator: (a) Explain how HIS determines when the Facility should shutdown for planned maintenance, and what particular maintenance should be done; and (b) Provide copies of all documents that describe the Facility's internal procedures and decision making process relative to planned maintenance on the hazardous waste incinerator. 15. Provide copies of the results and reports of the following types of testing and evaluations conducted on and after July 13, 2013 (whether or not such testing or evaluations were submitted to any regulatory agency): (a) Sampling and analysis (for metals or other contaminants) of the ash deposited at the Facility and throughout the community. Include in HTS' submittal any and all assessments of the amount of ash deposited (explain calculations and assumptions). Include any and all photographs of the ash deposits resulting from the Incident, whether at the Facility, or any other location; (b) Ambient air quality test results in or around the Facility for the period from July 13, 2013 to the date of the information request; and (c) Stack testing of emissions from the hazardous waste incinerator. 7 16. In a July 16, 2013 electronic mail message to the Ohio EPA, Vince Waggle of HTS states: "...visible emissions were observed from the facility at the time of the event and for several minutes following." Explain how long visible emissions were observed from the Facility, who observed them and the range of opacity of the emissions. Submit copies of any and all visible emission observations taken on July 13, 2013. 8 3v; era . -- seetszaa September 11, 2013 . . - an answer-i Via Overnight Mail Us?. EPA HEGON 5 Attn: Compliance Tracker, AE-l7l Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 . 77 W. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Res Response to EPA?S'Request for Information Pursuant to the Clean Air Act To Whom It May Concern, Enclosed are responses Heritage Thermal Services to the United States Environmental Protection Agency?s Request for information Pursuant to the Clean Air Act. To the extent additional information is needed, please contact me. HTS has made a good faith effort to fully respond to request for information in the limited amount of time that was provided to it. HTS has a number of objections to requests. HTS objects to requests to the extent that EPA is seeking information or documents that are subject to the attorney- client privilege or work product doctrine, and/or vague, ambiguous unduly burdensome, overbroa-d, irrelevant, or otherwiseunreasonable. These objections are applicable to, and included in, all of speci?c responses to individual questions and information requests. HTS further reserves the right to supplement its responses should additional information become available. HTS does not waive any of its objections to the extent it provides documents or information in response to a request. HTS expressly reserves all rights and defenses at law and equity that may apply. Where a request was vague or ambiguous, HTS has attempted to ciarify through its response how it has interpreted the request. Per request, HTS has identified the primary authors of each of its response to the information requests in its answers. HTS notes that it prepared each response following 1 The letter was addressed to HeritageWTI, Inc., d/b/a Heritage Thermal Services. However, Heritage Thermal Services is the correct iegal entity for inquiries regarding the July 13, 2013 event. group discussions with the HTS individuals listed in the responses, and after consultation with outside counsel. i certify under penaity of law that have examined and am familiar with this inquiry and have requested individuals compile information responsive to it; Based on my inquiry of-those individuals with primary responsibility for obtaining the information, i certify that the statements and information are, to the best of my knowledge and belief as the result of reasonable inquiry, true and complete as of the date of this response. 1 am aware that there are significant penalties for knowingly submitting false statements and information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment pursuant to Section 113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act and 18 use 1001 and 1341. Sincerely, ire ?rte; Stewart Fletcher Vice President General Manager Heritage Thermal Services Enclosures (2) Heritage Thermal Services, inc. Response to United State Environmental Protection .1 .. 1' Question 1: Describe in detail the incident that occurred at approximately 12': 59 pm on July 13, 2013,- {the incident), that interrupted hazardous waste incineration operations at the Facility 0130331103 do not limit your description to the foilowing: the seqUence of events leading up to, during and after the} 1 1 1 Incident; the cause(s] of the Incident; the type and extent of damage to equipment,? operations and areas inside and outside the the effect on Facility operations and air emissions; and the . . Facility' 5 response. Submit diagrams showing the items of equipment (including ductwork} Involved 1 and indicate the damage on' the diagrams. Submit copies of any and all photographs taken of the equipment damage and reSuiting emissions. .. If?mi? . 1 1' 07337201312303?; 0771312013 13: 04: 40 . 0113/2013 52 - On July 13, 2013 at 12:59 pm a pressure event within the incineration system generated 's?i?cient- energy to damage the heat recovery boiler (H88) and cause failure at the expansion joint forthe 1_ ductingjoming the HRB to the-Spray Dryer {the Incident). The dusting itseif was damaged and required complete replacement. This Incident resulted in the release of boiler ash and steam from-1 the failed duct cennection and a release of this material onto the surrounding equipment, the I I 1 concrete'below and a cloud of steam and ash that deposited outside the Facility fence line. Process exception data was gathered from the Bailey DCS before, during, and after the lncident and I is presented in Table 1, below. This tabie includes data recorded by several instruments in the 1 1 1 incineration train and solids removal equipment, as well as quench tank water level data. elinches} 1si??de'?ri?i'c?ii?i'" :50: Pressure A SECPressurel 5 BotlerOurJet Pressure SprayDryerDutlet .. 55120011111: PnrnaryAIr 11111-120] Pressure 'Pressure Pressure 1i'H20l . i390) . 0.219" 07(131?2013 1253-32-2 . .. _(0125) .. 1.21113.me 1335152 1 1 57721 1 13.11- . 0711372013123333 .s 10.45917 . {0.063} (0.126] .. . 5.11.3321 . .. 35717327. . 0771312013un 3279 12327): (3.310] 2' 07137201312594: 1 631136.31 . 5591 55455.5 4.9131311913335943 537.33.! 2.3.375_1_ . 95115211151555.5557. . . 3355.5. . 1547 5.5551 . 51.55 . . .. . "1'555515 . 1555.51 57.52} . 3.5555 0.5.5.5 3351.2-._ . "33032 03351 0.331% {3.331). . 10115123312335 44.231 .071132013 12594 - 411117131 1 1 .. 33579 .1 j_ {1737) 07131201312531. 33951 1 1 ..571531'50.15. 52555551 .. 5.55501] 9-1151 5.15.2 {5553' 1253.55 35.924 2 .- 07713712131312.5956; 3311954"? :3 01523 59: 58 07113120313333} 32095 i 0.117 .. . 07113720131330.0115 31.174; - . .. . 30271 .. .. 07113720131311240 29.371: - "min/2013130052 {0.00911 0.0011 555511 - . 0711372013 13:02-40 29533 i 031311201313 13199 3 11:1'1Eve1nt1Pr'e55ureand L1e11e Data Heritage Thermal Servites, Inc. ResponSe Ito-United State Environmental Protection Agency Request Forlnformation The total amount of ash and slag that fail from the Secondary Combustion Chamber walls as a result of the Incident was captured on the slag scale as that material was transferred from the slag - quench tank to a slag trailer. Based on weight change during this effort, it is believed that 21,421 :jpounds of material came down into the slag quench tank during this event. The data su?gests ash was. released within the SCC. This ash was of sufficient volume to effectively draw flue gas back against the Induced Draft (ID) fan draw of the system, resuiting' In reduced boiler - outiet negative static pressure and a temporary increase in ne?atiVe static pressure in the SCC. The - I level of water in the siag quench tank was observed to increase by 1. 5? at the time of the Incident I Increase by 6. 6? over the next 3 seconds The tank level then dropped 28. 35? over the next 29 I .7 seconds.? At the time of the incident, peeple working In the Direct Drum Pump of?ce heard a I i' - :5 isustained rumbling noise for 5 8 seconds that sounded Iike the skip hoist was returning a skip box I {from the feed unit. This sound was likely the rapid steam generation occurring in the slag quench tank, Which subsequently created the positive pressure in the SCC, HRB, and solids ._removal equipment. Based In the physical attributes of the equipment, Heritage Thermal Services (HTS) believes that the steam generated was restricted at the boiler housing, water tubes, and I ducting that connect the I-IRB to the spray dryer. HTS believes that the thrust generated by the I'V'steam Was sufficient to bend boiler sections and tubes and push the ducting, tearing the expansion -Ijoint and causing the duct to pivot into the adjaCent Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) unit 2 psig .. overpressure] The pivot of this duct Iikeiy reduced the amount of ash that was released offsite by directing the bulk of the discharge to the ground beneath The ID fan aiso continued to draw air after the breach, collecting some of the ash particles. A priority 1 alarm was transmitted to East Liverpool Fire Department (ELFD). "Once the water seal on the slag quench tank was compromised by the water vaporiiation, steam g-{contInued to evolve In this tank, generating outward thrust with corresponding displacement of . I lsdlids?, ash and steam up the slag conveyor and out of the top of the tank This resulted in materials - being prejected and landing on the surfaces to the north of this area. The heat of some of these ash and slag particles Was sufficient to ignite paper packaging materiais approximately 30 feet to the "north of the Slag Quench tank, creating small incipient fires between the boiler house and the slag canopy These fires were extinguished by the East Liverpool Fire Department on their arrival. Operators attempted to maintain OPLs after the breach In the ducting had occurred "__.FaCIlIty response followmg the Incident included accounting for ail personnei, completion of stabilizing the situation, and pursuing cleandp activities. Following the Incident, the I 'Faczlity proceeded immediateiy into a previnUSIY planned outage I In the days following the Incident, HTS compieted an offesite sampling effort to evaluate the extent? of the impacts from the Incident and the level of response necessary. HTS also canvassed the .- neighborhood to assess the range of impacts based on visual observations. Based on the I observations ciean up and response efforts were initiated. For further information on Heritage- Thermal 'Semees; inc; negating": to United State Ema-Haas: Protection Ageniji'Raquest' responSe actions please see the Jilly 26 2013 7-13-13 incident Release Report included_' In response to Question 7. This report Was submitted to the Chip EnVIronmental Protection Agency on 1 .Based Ion the research and evaluations undertaken toedate, believes it has identi?ed the root :causle of the Incident Investigation is Ongoing, however and it reserves the right to supplement or amend this answer to the extent new information Is discovered After its initial Investigation HTS believes the root cause of. the incident was the presence of high - '3 melt pOint fine particulate Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) in the SCC These materials are. typically composed of zeolite compounds- Zeolites are alumina silicates that have an 'open- three dimensional structure containing certain cations. These cations are needed within the structure ofthe to balance the electrostatic charge en the framewOrk of the silica and alumina tetra hed ra As cata these materials are engineered to utilize specific. cations to I produee the desired reaction within the refining precess. The tetrahedra Structure and small I particle size give these materials a very high sarface area for rapid heat exchange The Silica and alumina components also have a relatively high speCIfc heat 1. 4 Kloules/Kg and higher When these materials are received in re?nery wastes they are Tine particulate hound in an organic matrix. HTS believes that When these materials are incinerated the fine particulate becomes '_entraine_d' In the flue- gas and accumulates on the surface of the nose of the SCC and below The: FCC I catalyst materials have _a very high melting point as well so the abcumulated material is. never able I I to melt into. a slag, hut rather, retains its structure, When same of this material falls. Iirito I I and the rapid heat exchange caused by the particles high surface area HTS estimates that as little as 224 of this material would contain suffICIent heat to generate enough steam to take the IvoliJme of the kiln, SCC and Boiler to 1 psigI of pressure. ThiS' Iis conSIstent with what occurred during the lncident. At the very beginhing of. the Incident, there was an InItIal pressure drop from 43.1chch to 4591nwc This drop. was followed by a dramatic rise in I 'pressu re- seen almost Instantaneously throughout the systIem.I HTS theorizes that this initial, - pressure drop Was caused by the initial fall. of material from the nose. Approxirnateiy 42 cd ft of "material evacuating the SCC would eause this pressure dtopr At the measured spec'i?c gravity of The} 7 I ash that fell Initially during the incident _42 cu ft weuld equate to approximately 1800 of ash or more than; enough mass to cause: this pressure eyeht._ The sudden unexpected release of these materials from the SCC Walls to la water-filled slag quench tank caused a flash steam explosmn eveht, which HTS believes Ito he the root ca use of the event lease see the response to Question 6 for more detail InCIdent description was prepared by Stewart Fletcher With asinstahCe from _Bob Buchheit and - I.Stev'e Loraeh The attached diagrams were added by Stewart Fletcher The photographs were taken. 'l by Zachary Davis."- Heritage 'I?herma] Services, inc. Response to United State Environmental Protection Agency Request For Information "match 2: Specify the time on .luiy 13, 2013 When initiated shutdown of the hazardous waste l' "incinerator at the Facility and de?crib8.i.n.det.ai theihutdown Procedures ?sad at "hattlme' The extreme pressure event on July 13, 2013 triggered an automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) at 12:59:56 pm. Waste feeds ceased at this time and a Shutdown Of the incinerator was initiated. Waste feeds were halted automatically and immediately by the Bailey Distributed Control System. The over?pressurization of the incineration system triggered an exceedance ofthe operating parameter for SCC pressure This parameter exceedance engaged the AWFCO system that sends a computerized signal to the control mechanisms that "permit? the unit to feed Bulk Solids Containerized Solids, and Liquid Lance Feeds to the incineration Unit. All waste feeds were halted at that point with the exception ofthe purging of the liquid lances which initiates on lance shutdown This purge period lasted approximately 30 seconds and any remaining material In the feed lances were purged into the combustion zone. In addition to thehalt of waste feeds, the pressure exceedance also initiated an immediate shutdown of the Front Wall Burner Combustion Air Fan, Front Wall Bdrner Cooling Air Fan, Primary- Air Fan, and closed the Primary Air Fan Inlet Damper. These are safety and pollution prevention features that occur during pressure exceedances. I This response was prepared by Vince Waggle and Gary Jones. Question 2a: Provide a spreadsheet showing the date, time, waste profile numbers, waste pro?le descriptions and sontainer numbers for all wastes that were being processed in the hazardous waste combustion chambers within an hour before and up to the time of the Incident. Also. provide a spreadsheet showing the date, time, waste profile numbers, waste pro?le descriptions, and "contalner numbers for Waste containers that had previously been processed in the combustion chambers (for at least 2 prior to the incident) bot might still be in the system g. ., as slag or Ii'fash) HTS has two distinct feed rdechanisms for introducing containers of waste into the incineration "system. They are the container feed mechanism and the skip hoist feed. The container feed mechanism accepts containers up to an 85? gal over pack that are delivered to the front Wall of the [rotary kiin via a conveyc'Ir system. The skip hoist feed system 1. cubic yard boxes through a eievator Which delivers Smaller containers into the bulk feed hopper. Attached are two .- ilspreadsheets that list all containers and skip hoist feeds to the incinerator 1 hour and 2 weeks prior .to the. InCIdent respectively The second part of Question 23 requests a spreadsheet of waste . containers that had previously been processed In the hazardous waste incinerator, but might still be . present in the: system as slag or ash HTS cannot determine With certainty the wastes for Which - -. some portion of the ash generated from their incineration may still have been present in the _Incmeration system at the time of the lncident All wastes generate ash, and some quantity ofthat though very. smaii, may still be present even weeks later. Because of this all ofthe container and skiphoist feeds from-the two week period preceding July 13, 2013 have been inciuded In the eritage Thermal Semces Response to United State Enwronmental Protection Agency ReJqII'est as}. Informanon JJ spreadsheet However providing this information Is admitting JoJr representing that ash .JJ or siagfrorn any. specrfic Waste container remained the system at the time. Of the. release . Please see attached spreadsheets forJ this data; -- ,This response was prepared StevJeJ Lorah Question 2sz speeiny the time that the hazardous waste feed was Jofi?J to the hazardous waste -, J. Jincmerator following the Insident The extreme pressure July 13 J2QJ1J3 triggered an: automatic waste feed cutoff at J12: 59: 56 . Waste feeds ceased at this time and a shutdown ofthe lncmeration System Was Initiated This response was prepared by Vince Waggle -J Question Specify. what auxiliary _queisJJ Were being ?red into the hazardous Jwaste Incmerator Jat. the time of the insident J.J HTS. sometimes JfJeJJeds deemed as non hazardous to JtheJJ incinerator JJdLIrinJg periods of startup and thotdoWn There Were no fuel feeds to the incmerator prior Jto or foliowmg the pressure event . 13, 2013 .- "This respo Jn'se was prepared by Vince Waggle J- Question 2d: .JSpeciiyJ the tirne thJeJrJi the aumliary fdei feedileJ were cut to the hazardous waste JJ jalncmerator followmg the Insident HTS sometlmes fuJJeJle deemed as non? Jh-azarJdoquJ to the Incanerator during periods of stariup-J and shutdown There Were no fuJeiJJ feeds to the Incmerator prior; to or foliowing'. the pressure avianjt July 13, 2013 Thus, no fuel feeds? were out off to: the hazardous waste incineratOr following th? ineident - - . . J. response was prepared Waggle Question 2e: SpJeJciny thJeJJ and tirne there inas no. longer any hazardous Jwaste present in the combustion chamber followmg the Innident - - - The Hazardous Waste ReSIdence TirnJeJ expired JaJt. 57. 25 PMJ on 13, 2013 . .J- residence time was calculated In accordance Jwith the JcaicoiatJion-J specifiedJ In JJthe most recent 3. Notice; of. Compliance JJw-ith JMAQT Subpart submitted to the Ohio EPA and US EPA HTS on JJ'_'OctoberS 2012 - . . . . .. . . ThisJ response was prepared Waggle . . Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. Response to United State Environmental Protection Agency Request For information Questioh 21?: Submit 1 minute total and pu'mpable hazardous waste feedrate data and 1 minute auxiliary fuel fe'edrate data starting on July -,13 2013 at 6:00 01. until the date of this information request - ?There-quested 1?minute totai and pumpable hazardous waste feed data for the period ofJuIy 13, 2013 at 6:00 am to August 2,2013 is attached. This data also includes the auxiliary fuel feedrate' -. data for the same time period This response was prepared by Vince Waggie. QuestiwonS List all the dates that HTS exceeded Operating Parameter Limits (CPL) and/or'emission limits for the Facility on July 13 and afterwards until the hazardous waste residence time had transpired. For each day of exceedance, specify: the 0P1 and emission limit. exceeded, the time period of exceedance, and the highest values of the exceeded OPLs and emission limits. Submit copies of operating parameter and emission monitoring data from July 6, 2013, to the present. The Operating parameter exceedances that occurred on July 13, 2013 from the time of the Incident until the HWRT expired at 3: 57: 25 PM on july 13,2013 are listed in the following table: MACT Operating Parameter Limit Exceedances for 7/13/2013 OPL 'Start Time End Time Max/min MACT Value OPL Pressure 7/13/2013 7/13/20 0 in. Usin-gSeals 12:59:25 13 - . 13:00:23 - 7/13/2013 7/13/20 20.8 <10 13:03:37 13 .. .. 14:03:34 7/13/2013 7/13/20 725 deg. >1747- - II _Temperat'ure 13:07:46 13 deg. 15:57:25 - Kiln?.9" 7/13/2013 7/13/20 775 deg. >1718 13:18:38 13 deg. . 15:57:24 - _jrj.j ProxiessGas. - - 7/13/2013 7/13/20 74,132 ?57,50- 14:02:36 13 5 15:57:25 - - THC 7/13/2013 7/13/20 11.14:57:23'_ -. .- ScrubberECIS 7/13/20 0 psi >3 psi Pressere 3 14:25:49 13 - - -- 15:57:25 Heritage'flheftnal: _S'efvices,_ l?ciiRIespoIise to United State Environ-mental Pr?bt?at?on Agency Request Question 3a: Include all 1? how. and 12?hour aherage data as applicable to. I_thIe particular or I ltml'l: being measured - .. . . .. . . .15-51Pleass-Se? the attached . Wain-the- manner-sun t'hel'e'nd'of the HWRT savers; blj't'i's'sueislocc'uwrred there We re _tWo sI?eIpa rate- THC events as noted' In the response to Question 3 above The SCC Temperature event began WIthIn I10 Initiates of the Incident This Was followed by the Kiln I 5 Temperature event within the next 10 minutes A process floIW event began aIIbIout 40 mlnutes later, This response Was prepared by Gan/Jones Question 3h include all Instantaneous readmgs of secondary combustlon chamber (SCC) pressure, Iambient pressure presIIsIurIIeI in the inlet and outIlIet shrouds, and feed lance atomlzatton IpressureI I ;i see the attached Excel spreadsheet for the requested data. The spreadsheet Iists. one minute 1 readings for- each. parameter except ambient. air pressure. HTS does not rIneasIuIre arInIbientI air .pressure Please'noteEtheLatta chIIeId; data Iis'IIsu brnittedIWitIh _thIIe IIfo'lIloWing comments} -'All pressure IIrea'diIngsII are reported as Inches WCI.II does not record Instantaneous data "AllI. data logged as one minute averages Although the data. Is logged as one minute averages, ItheII OPLII IIforI SCC pressure is monltored and. ControlledII - . _mstantaneously _-'Regardmg the lance atomlzatlon pressures the QPL for this parameter Is 30 psi .HTS does not. i'nieasure and log lance atomizatlon Iijesswe instead each lance- I_s equipped With a loW pressure switch. Should the atomization pressure. drop beIloW the required 30 ps1. then that lance. Is. f-automatically shit off. Since l-lTS utilizes a loWI pressure switch the data attached can he .. I {Interpreted as follows A (IO) Indicates that the lance atomlzatlon pressure is or greater and a Indlcates that the lance atomization pressure is less than 3?3 1 . ?This Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. Response to United State Environmental Protection Agency Request For Information Question 4: in accordance with 40 C.F.R. state and explain whether all Combustion gases during and after the incident were ducted to the air pollution ccintrol system at the Fatility'Whiie hazardous waste remained in the combustion chambers the hazardous waste residence time had not transpired since the hazardous waste feed cutoff system was activated). Provide copies of the 1- minute flue gas flow rate data for the period beginning July 12, 2013 Itothe date of this information request. Describe and alsoindicate on the diagram submitted in response to item 1 above, the iocation of the flue gas flow rate measurement device for the air pollution control system at the I Facility. I I I I I Facilityprocess data reveals a loss of negative draft through the incineration system for 1 minute and 3 Seconds following the July 13 2013 incident. During this'l minUte and 3 second period a portion ofthe combUStion gases were not routed to the air pellution control devices. HTS has no Way to quantify the amount of combustion gas that escaped Video evidence and SCC pressure data indicate that the incineration system's Induced Draft (lD) fan provided sufficient negative draw to overcome the breach In the system and prevent further combustion gas release after this 1 minute and 3 second period. 'The 1~rninute fliJe gas flow rate process data forthe period beginning July 12, 2013 through the date of this information request accompanies this response. I The locations of the flow monitdring devices a re indicated on the attached diagram. - This response was prepared by Vince Waggle and Kevin Lloyd. Question 5: Submit copies of any and all analyses. related to the amount of combustion gases, ash, and - any other pollutants released from any breachles) that occurred in the hazardous waste incineration system at the Facility on'July 13, 2013. Explain ail calculations and assumptions related to each analysis. HTS does not possess the ability to determine the amount of combustion gases that _Were released through the breach in the boiler outlet duct during the 1 minute and 3 second over-pressurization I event that occurred at the outset ofthle incident. During the over-pressurization event, some of the combustion gases were still being routed through the incineration system and some'combustion I gases escaped through the damaged outlet duct. Since some of the combustion gases were still being routed through the incineration system, IS unable to estimate the amount of combustion gases that escaped the incineration system. . Heritage Thermal Services estimates that 761 pounds of boiler ash was released beyond the I fence line as a result of the 7/13/13 Incident. Below are the faCts and operational knowledge 7-3 assumptions that HTS used to arrive at the 761 pound estimate. Heritage Thermal Siarvihes, loo-'Respohseto Unitedstate Enhitonmental Protection?gencyReddest For Information I. I I Iii-f} if_' .2 i I - The boiler has three banks Of bOIier tubes - - - - Manufacturer?s manual prdvides the surfaI'Ice area. Tori each bank of boiler tribes I . 15stbankottubes41.851%2 - 3" i 2M bank of tubes I715 it2 3rd bank of tubes BI, 375 it2 - -. ll- HTS Was processing a waste stream Which acts as a cleanlng agent-Boiiet vv'as with-in normal operating range based on pressure and temperature Indicators I - - Based on operational experience: - The 15t bank of: tubes touects more partIculate than the 2Ind or 3Ird I The bank of. tubes bUilds more p_articul_ate__ than the 3rd bank Results frIdrnI lab analyse of boiler ash for Was 0. 693 Ig/mlI I - - fan was a negatlve pressure on system after the initial exploslon(v1deo} OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE AssUIvIPnons Boiler Would not have an excessive build IIup due to waste stream that acts as a cieanmg agent I I I I bank oftdbes had 14" scale which convert bank bf tubes had scale. iIvhich converts to: 59 ft3 of ash a. 3rd bank pf tubes had 1/16? Scale which converts bdiier? ash were in the boiler at the Itirne of the incident, which converts to IBI 4,52 I of ash (using den_Sity obtained from anaiysis) . . - I Based on the design of. the boiien iotatidn? of the bahk of tubes, and force of the pressure surge: I 30% oiIthe boliersollds (ash) left the boii?er: -- - - -. Based. dn the design of the boiler. outlet duet, which forced the materlal towards the ground the 'force efthe reiease'j and the 1D rah continLIin'g to maintain aI negative dIraIvIv - I _o 30% of the release material traveled beyond the Ifeitc? Iiine 3= 7 -- melee Based on the design of the boner location of the bank oftubes add _force ofthe pressure surge: 3? Apprommately 2, 536 left the boiler (39% of B, 452 lbs); I- . "Based on the doom of the boiler outlet d_Lict forcing the. material towards the ground the. toroe of the release, and the ii) fan continuing to maintain a negative draw: . I Approximately 7IB1 _vvas hot captured by the system or forced tIoI the ground (30% _of 2,536 lbs) - - - - I breach The avaIlable data IndIcates that the any pollutant released Was asIh The amount of Iash reieased estimated to be 751IlIbs has prepared byIICaIrrie Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. Response to United State Environmental Protection Agency Request For Information Question 6: Provide the results of all investigations into the cause of the Incident, the appropriate . . - meaSures that could have been taken to prevent the Incident from occurring, and the steps HTS has. taken andfor will take to prevent future occurrences. Provide Copies of all your findings, conclusions and corrective measures taken or planned for the Facility by its agents, contractOrs, or others-.II _Ash or slag occasionally builds up' at the end of the kiln or in the SCCI When the weight of this ash or ?slag becomes such that it can no longer support itself this material faIIs. Directly beneath the SCC Is a tank of water called the slag quench tank, which serves two purposes; it provides a seal In the .I system to maintain a negative pressure, and it quenches the slag coming out of the kiln. Ordinarily, .IEIvvh'en slag or; ash falls into this tank," the heat transfer takes place relatively slowly, and the material .. I ?is cooled by the evaporation ofthe water in the tahIkI; A problem occurs when the ash that falls into I??_Ithis 'tIIank' of Such Ia nature that the heat transfer occurs very rapidly. This type of ash that causes a .. "'hheat transfer ?to rapIdIy referred to as energetic ash. Depending on the mass of this I ?type of aIsH that falls into the slag quench tanlr, enough steam can be generated from the water evaporating to "cause pressure throughout the incineration system If enough pressure is generated, ?damage to the system can oIchiIrII April of 2011 HT-SI has been working to: correct the problem pf energetic ash discharging into . slag quench tank. Following an InCIdent on April 12, 2011, it was determined that the ash that 'Ifel'II was high? In aluminum there were several competing theories for the potential - II root cause of- this April 12, 2011. InCIdent There Is more discussion in the response to question 13a Ion. these I'otIher-I pete'ntial. root ca.uses'.- Follov'ving that investigatihon HTS believed that certain types I of re?nery wastes that were high In aluminum silicates were responsible for this high energy ash collecting In the HITSI. addressed this concern by limiting the receipt of a particular waste stream Chem 3 speCIfIc re?nery SpeCIfIcalIy, HTS put shipping limitatIOns into place for this stream and .IIsiImiIarI waste streams After another incident December of 2011, it Was determined that all wastes from this specific I I - refinery wIereII no longer to be accepted. At that time, HTS believed the problem was isolated to this - :1 Corie generator HTS approvals- chemists, who determine whether HTS will accept partlcuiar waste I I'l-fIstrea Ins Ifor Incmeratlon _IwIeIre Instructed to decline the approval of waste streams containing aluminum Silicate refinerles In bull; This approach seemed to be effective for over a y?IaIrI ill-'1: .In March of 2013' there was a energetlc ash I'fall In the SCC There was no" damage to the I I I facility due to this event; however, it was Clear to. facility management that the problem of the II'fI-energetIc ash had] not been completely adIdressed hy the rejection of waste streams contaInIng I I i silicate engaged the Herltage Research Group (HRG) In IndIanapolIs toII ?assist with the ?cause of the energetic ash problems .IWith asmstance determined that certain types? of FCC (FIIuid' Catalytic Cracking) can be problematic In this I 'l regard. These types of are prInCIpaIIy composed or zeolites which IS a form of aluminum These I'ty'pes o'fII Iz'eIIol'ites have extremely high Internal surface area- -'Heritage ?i?hie'rtnalnservice'S, Ino'Response'to United State For-_Inifottdation I I. which allows for rapid heat transfer Ash that' Is generated from this type of_ materiaI' _Is very -. energetic The! of this study. are produce In the attached report by Dr Ralph Roper Foliowmg the March 2013 incident HTS began testing every bolk deiivery from refineries for i aluminum and In an attempt to screen out Sigmficant concentrations of these zeolite AddItIonally, HTS began testing for several tare earth elements that are cornrnon in these types of This testing was. done by Inductively Coupled Piastna (ICPI tnethods following a 7 nitric acid. digestion under SW346 3050- end 3051.. Usingthis approach HTS rejected 3 built loads In I I a period of4 months HTS also recognized that these methods had their limitatIons end began the I process to obtain an. ray Fiuorescence (XRF) Instrument I was in the process of obtaInIng the XRF when the InCIdent on July 13 2013 occurred was .- "determined that. anelysis of these wastes by__ methods were not. completeiy t-he elements of- concern. This allowed for waste to be received into the fariility that contained these - I I'zeoiit'e' of Concern but went undetected As corrective action followmg the July 2013 I Incident HTS has Impiemented a policy under wnich all wastes from refineries must now undergo a' I- pre acceptance analysis by XRF before they are acCept?d Also each load of material from refineries I 3 must undergo a analySIs by XRF prior to being processed by the FaCIlIty in addition HTS _is obtamlng samples from these refineries of the spent catalyst to compare against the waste on _By this rnethod HTS can compare the ratios of these elements In the waste to the elements In the spent catalyst to see denttIvely if the: catalyst is present in the waste I i-iThis. response was prepared by Steve Lorah Question 7: Prowde copies of all reports documents anii electronic maii messages HTS _sent to the Ohio EPA and/or the National Response Center regarding the inCIdent I HTS has sent to the Ohio EPA and/or the NatIonal Response Center (NRC) tega rdIng the incident. I i j' CopIes of the documents described In the Excei spreadsheet are also attached HTS reported the incrdent to the NRC by calling the NRC hothne The case number for the NRC I 35; This response was prepared by Carrie Beringer Question 3 As defined in 40 R. 63. 2' "malfunction means any sudden Infrequent end not reasonably preventable failure ofair. pollution control and momtormg equlpment process _eqdipment - __or a process to operate in a normal at usuai manner which causes or has}. the potential to cause. the emissmn limitations in an standard to be exceeded Failures that are caused __in part by poor. I imamtenance or careless operation are not malfunctions For each exceedance IdentIf' ed in response 2 Quito Item 3 above: . Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. ReSponse to United State Environmental Protection Agency Request For Information Question 8a: Identify whether HTS claims that the exceedance was caused by a malfunction as that term is defined HTS identified the incident and the resulting of Facility operating parameter limits as malfunctions. HTS reported these malfunctions to the Ohio EPA. This response was prepared by Vince IWaggle. Question 8b: Explain how the claimed malfunction fits the definition of malfunction HTS believes that the initiating cause of the incident Clinker Fall involving energetic ash meets the definition of a malfunction as defined Under 40 C. F. R. 63. 2, malfunction means any sudden infreqLIent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which causes, or has the potential to cause, the emission limitations' In an applicable standard to be . exceededAs described in response to Question 1 and 6, this event was both sudden and not reasonably preventable by HTS. Moreover, HTS could not have foreseen, avoided, or planned for the . excess emissions caused by the Incident. HTS has had-many minor pressure exceedances in the past caused by clinker falls. See Response to Question 13e. Clinkers are the hardened combustion remains present in a furnace or incinerator These Can build tip on the ceiling and sidewalls ofthe SCC eventually dislodging and falling into the quench tank. When these hot masses fall and strike the water, a rapid expansion of steam may - occur. This steam expansion typically causes a minor pressure increase within the incineration system-resulting in minimal damage and exceedances. In Contrast, energetic ash? clinker falls have been relatively rare and, as described in more detail in the response to Question 6 and 13a, have been the subject of investigations over the past 2 years by HTS. See Response to Question 8c. Prior to the incident, HTS reasonably believed that, based on its investigations, the energetic ash? clinker falls had been addressedby a revised waste characterization and acceptance process. Thus, HTS could not foresee that its Waste screening method Would fail to identify all wastes of concern, I resulting in the-Jilly 13, 2013 ?energetic ash?. clinker fall incident. I .I . HTS does not have the ability to regulate clinker build? ?up on the SCC walls nor anticipate when the -_fmaterial will fall. As a result, when this occurs and leads to an exceedance ofa MACT parameter, HIT-SI belleves the event to be a process malfunction HTS does not believe that these events are the result of inadequate operatiOn or maintenance practices. In order to prevent excess emissions to the maximum extent practicable falls, HTS maintains a waste feed cutoff system and other operational interlocks that liimInImIze their potential impact. Heritage Thermal Services, inc. Response to United State EnvironmentaiSPzI?otection AgencyRequest As described' In the re5ponse to Question the hazardous was Inclnerator _wIaS shut down SS immediately foliowing the Incident to ensure expeditious re.pairS-I_ and minimize the amount Of emissions and their effect on ambient air quality. Further, emission monitoring systems were kept' In operation during and after the emissions event and actions were documented Following the Incident HTS immediately noti?ed Ohio EPA and local response authorIties it also contacted the National Response Center. This response was prepared by Vince Waggie. Question 8c: identify the malfunction that HTS claims caused the exceedance. SS HTS has identified this event as a clinker fall malfunction clinker Is a generally accepted Industry term that refers to the hardened non?combustible remains that accumulate In a fu pr; two months the incident (See Response to Question 6, above, and Question 13e, below), HTS I believes that this energetic ash ciinker faiiI' Is qualitatively different from the typical clinker ens; that are discussed In its SSMP. Accordingly, HTS intends to discuss amending its SSMP to address this SS energetic ash clinker fall maifunction with the Ohio Environmental Pretection Agency after data-I from the planned brief September outage discussed below Is collected and analyzed This response was prepared by Vince wa-ggie. I . I Question 8d: Identify whether, and if so where, the claimed malfunction is addressed IinS ?the applicable Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Plan (SSMP) for the Facility The malfunction of "Clinker" has been listed' In the Facility? 5 Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Plan since Revision 1 of the pian dated February 27, 2004. At the request of Ohio EPA a detailed description of this malfunction was include'd In Revision 8 dated June 12 2009. SS This responSe was prepared by Vince Waggle ZS - SQIuestioh 8e: To; the extent not prowded in reSponse to question 6, above, prowde copies of all - documents referencmg the Investigation of. the mum of the exceedance, the Corrective actions StakeIrII I "Ito correct the exceedance; and any evaluations of approaches to minimize the frequency, duration, severity of the exceedance - - - - HTS has no more information to provide that. was not- prov1ded to the response to Question 6.. Th IS response was prepared by Carrie Beringer Question On JUne 12, 21309, December 9, 2010 May 1, 2011 and July 2012 HTS: made reviSiIons to SSMP ,er the Submit copies of thesISe' revisions (NIos. I8, 9, and 11} and all othe?I'rI revisions to the SSMP rnad? during the time period from JIIune 12S, 2009 to the present Heritage Thermal Servicesinc Response to United'State Environmental ProteCtion Agency Request For Information Question 9 requests Copies of fourirevisions of the Facilitv?s SSMP. Copies of the requested SSMP . r?Visions accompany this letter. Hovvever, the date listed. in information request for Revision . 'is incorrect. The correct date fOr Revision 9 Is 2/11/2010, not 12/9/2010. This mistake may stem from mOSt recent Semi -Annual Start? -up, Shutdown and Malfunction Report. HTS has discovered that the date listed for revision 9 of the SSMP on that report is incorrect, and will correct this tYpographical error in future correspondence and reprints. There were no other revisions made to the SSM during the time period from June 12, 2009 to the present. I I HTS Claims certain informatidn contained in these revisions to be Confidential Business Infarmation (CBI). As a result for the purpose of this submittal, is c?iaiming protections for certain pages of Revisions 8,9,10, and 11 of the HTS Start? ?up, Shutdown and Maifunction Plan. I These pages of the Revisions are marked "Con?dential. This response was prepared by Vince Waggle Question .10: Submit copies of all correspondence between HTS and Ohio EPA regarding SSMP Revisions 8, 9, 10, and 11 and all subsequent SSMP revisions for which HTS submitted information in response to. itern number 9 above. On May 6, 2009, Pam Korenewych of Ohio EPA visited the Facility to conduct a Title inspection. I During the visit, certain elements of the Facility's SSMP were discussed. The attached letter, dated 12/21/2009, summarizes the discussion and Ohio request for more information to be included I in the SSMP. The requested information was included' In revision 8 of the SSMP and submitted to Ohio EPA on June 15, 2009, prior to receipt of Ms. Korenewych' 5 letter. I Revision 9 ofthe SSMP was created as a result of the completed MACT Com prehensive Performance Test and resuiting Changes In operating parameter limits. A malfunction for Feed Chute Maintenance was added and one for Faulty Lab Data was removed. No conversations were documented with Ohio EPA regarding this revision and the document was not submitted to Ohio EPA. I Revision-10 of was created to incorporate a discussion ofthe exceedance investigation . Fri-process and include additional malfunctions identi?ed during an internai review. This revision was WIthout documented discussion to Ohio EPA on May 2011 h} ReVIsIon 11 of the SSIMP. was the restilt of deficiencies identified through a MACT compiiance audit I by a third party Minor changes Were made to correct some of the language of the plan that was Identrfed by the auditor as not meeting the intent of the regulations. There were no - . -- regarding this revision with Ohio EPA and, due to the minor nature of the changes, the 3" plan was not submitted to. Ohio EPA. Heritage Thermal Services, inc. Response to United State Environmental Protection Agency Request Forlnformatlon The following table summarizes the correspondence related SSMP Revision Nos. 8, 9, and 11 5 submitted. I Date . Documentation Correspondence-With Ohio EPA or rea: submitted -- for change i I to Ohio EPA Revision. 8 - June 12, 2009 6/15/2009 . Submission No email conversation; were held I II notification regarding th ese revisions;cd?versa?a I attached . were held in'person and via telephone regarding the SSMP with'P; koregnewiyl in May 2009 leading to ReviSihd 8. See 12/212?2009 letter from Karen-ma Revision 9 - February 12, 2010 (typo in MACT not No conversations were report lists this'date as December 9, 2010). submitted regarding this revision. Change-s - I were made to include-new": MACT OPLs and malfunction lists were revised 2 Revision 10 - May 1, 2011 5/4f2011 Submission No Conversations were held With I notification regarding this SSMP revision. Changes attached were made to the exceedance I investigation process and additional- malfu'nctions were included. II I Revision 11 - July 5, 2012 not No conversations with OEPA regarding I . the SSMP. Changes were made based. recommendations from the 2012 MAC Compliance Audit conducted by_5trat (T. Schomer]. HTS-has submitted copies of its SSMP to the regulatory agencies upon request or in the case of a major change to the plan, Ali revisions of the SSMP are maintained onsite as part of the Fa?cility?s - operating record. ?This response was preh?r?d Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. Response to United State Environmental Protection Agency Request For Information I Question 11: identify all periods of startup and shutdown of the Facility between July 12, 2013 to the present. Question 11 requests information on eath period of startin and shutdown of the Facility from July 12, 2.013 to the present. The Facility itself was not shutdOwn or started up during this time period. However, the incineration system did enter a shutdown period at 12:59:56 PM oh July 13, 2013. At that time, the incineration system began a pre?planned outage that had been scheduled to begin on July 14, 2013. The shutdown period lasted until 3:57:25 PM on July 13, 2013,when HWRT had expired. There we're'no auxiliary fuel feeds to the incinerator after the onset of the shutdown.? Following this outage, the Facility began startup of the incinerator with auxiliary fuels on July 29, 2013 at Hazardous waste burning operations resumed on July 30, 2013 at 7:04 PM. A brief . shutdown period of. the Incineration System began on July 30, 2013 at approximately 11:10 PM. At this-time, HTS began cooling the incineration System so that a repair could be made to a boiler tube that had sprung a leak Repairs were completed and startup began at 12: 06 PM on July 31, 2013. There were no operating parameter limit exceedances as the result ofthe shutdown for the boiler tube repair. No other startu'p or shutdown periods occurred between 7/13/2013 and 8f2/2013. This response was prepared by Vince Waggle. Question 12: Submit a copy of the latest version of the operation and Maintenance Plan for the Facility prepared in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Revision 2 of the Facility' 5 Operation and Maintenance Plan dated July 3, 2012' Is attached. This response was prepared by Vince Waggle. Question 13. Regarding the Facility 5 ash (or slag) removal system, answer the following questions: Question 133: Describe the removal System and include diagrams and photographs of the system. - The HTS Facility utilizes a slag quench tank and conveyor for the removal of slag and ash from the - kiln and secondary combustion chamber (-SCC) The slag quench tank is a Ireinforted steel tank that ?lled with water and located at the ground level ben?ath thejunction of the rotary kiln and SCC. jhe tank Is .str'ifened to withstand the pressure surges that could be caused when hot slag enters the water. The slag quench tank' [5 equipped with a steel belt conveyor which transports slag 'ii gland ash from the slag quench tank. ji system performs three functions. 1) The slag quench tank, filled with water, acts as a cooling bath for the slag and ash that . . enter the tank from the rotary kiln and SCC. - This response was prepared by Kevm Lloyd Heritage Thermal Response toII United State Envrronmental Protecnon Agency Request For I I 1,2] The Ibelt conveyor located bottom IIo'f tIIhIe tank; removes and ash Inchne piane de?waterlng the and Irish before depoSItIng it into -I - .anend dumptruck .. -.. . I The slag qu?enCh tank acts as aI'wIaI'e'rIfsea-I _scIc In: h'feirentI'aiIrI'Iin? I'irhIIs' is: I II by the tra nSitIon Ich'uteI Iof the-I" kiln and ISICIIC been the water line - I the tank. This water seal acts as Ia pressure reltefyent for the system IS .2 malntaIned IS Inches Question 13b Describe the procedures used the removal of ash/slag from the Interior surfaces When IthIeI Incmeratlon .syIsterInII Ion We and processang waste feeds the and SCC continuously '-Idischarge to the Islag quenIIth _tan'IlIc ?thus maIntaanng aI constant flow of reSIduals INhIithI mInIrnIzes in the combUStIon chambers I I I IWhen theII mcmeratlon system is off l_inIe,II the Interior surfaces ofthe combustion chambers can onIIlyI I be. when the system has Ia chance to for at least I24 the system has I . suchrently cooled four men doors on the IISIICIIC can be opened Ito prowde access tn SCC HITS-- employs a contractor _Iwihich IuI'tiliIzIesII a high preSIsIIuIrIe water blaster to clean the walls of SICC.I II.II This IwIaterII biaster operates with suf?FCIent pressure and volume IrernoIve any build _Iup I_frIom the . . I 2- walls of the SCC cleanlng ofthe intlerior of the combustlon chambers IImIted InSIgnIfcant ?and rorIrnIIs Ia IthinI slag 'IAny oIrI asIhI thaItI IIreIrnovIedI from the of IISIICCII intIoII the quench and is thenII conveyed pot oIfI the system to an end dump trIuIcIkII' In the same manner as normal operation This. . material [5 treated as hazardous IINast'Ie. any :oIIr .thaIIt' generated durIng normal operation I- I Is disposed at a hazardous waste land?ll This response was prepared by Kevm Lloyd Question 13: Spemfy ampunt of that quench system is deSIgned Ito safely handle I I specify. .15.th amount ash that dropped into the quench system on .IJulIng I13 and explain the reason. I_IthaItI -. II amount of that Ifell from the Interior eralIls the combustion chambers on 13, ?2013 IgIIreaIterI thaIInII .ItIhe. amount the ash system I_ctIIuIldI safely handle Submlt nInIdI explam all calculations and. I cOpIes supporting documentatlon The quench tank and conveyor is. deSIgned forI IItIhe collection and coollng slag, hotI metal, fly from the and SCC system Iis. deSIgned to safely handle 4400 [hour normal conditions and ICICIBIIGI hour Iundern maXIrnum condItIons Heritage Thermal Services, inc. to Ut?ted State Environmental Protection Agency Request For Information The amount of ash that fell during the July 13 2013 incident was approximately 22 000 over the I _time period of the event plus one hour. This data was collected from the truck scale that Is used for - filling and dUmp trailers for slag; The amount of slag I ash that fell during theJuly13 incident did not exceed-the maximum capacity for the slag quench tank and conveyor. This conclusion is supported by the fact that there was no damage to the slag quench tank or conveyor. HTS believes that the damage that reSulted to the boiler outlet duct was not related to the amount- of aSh that fell, but rather the type of ash that fell. HTS believesthat theash that fell had a very high melting point (higher than the temperatures in which the HTS incinerator operateS) and a very small particle size. The small particle size resolted In an ash that had a very high surface area. When this material fell into the Water quench the result was an extremely fast transfer of heat which then . produced a large amount of steam in a very short period of tIme This steam generation produced a pressure wave that overcame the capacity ofthe boiler outlet duct. See Response to Question 6 for more detail. This response was prepared by Kevin Lloyd. Question 13d: in the weeks prior to the Incident explain whether HTS personnel or HTS contractors made any observations regarding the amounts of ash being collected in the quench tank or otherwise being removed from the combustion chambers. Submit copies of all relevant documents. There were no documented or reported observations made by HTS or contractors regarding the amount of ash being collected by the quench tank or being removed from the combuStion chambers in the weeks prior to the incident There were no signi?cant changes regarding the Slag/ash generation rate. This response was prepared by Kevin Lloyd. Question 13o: Halve there been previous incidents when ash or slag fell'into the quench bath resulting in the Facility exceeding one or more of an applicable Explain each such incident. Provide copies of all documents referencing the investigation of the cause of the exceedancelsl, the corrective actions taken to correct the exceedance(s); and the evaluation of approaches to minimize the frequency, duration and severity of the exceedance(s), and submit all supporting documentation I There has been one other event In which ash or slag had fallen into the slag quench tank and resultedf In: equipment damage. This event occurred on April 12 2011 and also resu'lted In damage to the boner outlet duct. I'll-This issue has been very complex to investigate. At the time of the April 12 2011 incident Baker I I Risk was retained to assist with the investigation. Their report is also attached. The report itself to a vapor cloud explosmn in the boiler as the event that caused the damage. In reviewing l-I the ?les the draft ofthelr report (also attached) identified a rapid steam eXpansion as the . I Thermal Suite AgencyRequestForInformz-mon likely ca use pf the event This ZtoiZ scenario is capable of generating the damage noted in ZZ both the ApIZri-l 12; 2011 event and the inCIdent The team investigating the 7/13 event revievved- the Z3 - tinai Baker Risk report and found it Improbable and based on some questionable data assumptions questionable assumptions included use Zof. THC data measured in the stack estimating ZtianZe between generation bf the THC and measurement Ianduszng this time to superimpose this 3Z measurement actual process pressure data measured Within the process unit (the SCC) itself. fBaker used this assumption to postulate that the THC wasted in the boiler. before the pressumre . lZZlevent further that it was present ii} suffICIent concentration to proVIde a fuel for: an Ignition 5Z'ZZ_3eZven with a. process flow greater than Z50 000 "shim [wet] There was no identification of an] Zj source or how suffICIent oxygen would heve been present if there was unburnt queZZl present believesthat a much? more ZZliZkZely scenario is that the pre53ure event from sudden steaZZmZ 3' generation pushed some _Z'unbUrnZt hydrocarbon through the System to the monitoring device This Is supported by the reduction of oxygen measured in the SCC during the event as steam would have displaced oxygen creating an oxygen depleted Situation The credibility Zof the finai Baker Risk -Z report was. qurther eroded by its concluSIon that a series of three events occurred together ZyZetZ none on these events Were readily observable in the process data collected The timeline of events to the: April 2011 event was assembled by HTS prowded Baker Risk for its In -. -_-discu55ions with the primary investigator ZerorrZiZ Ra kerl Risk it was noted that events that Baker Risk there was no ZrZeaZl oZr observed ewdence that supported this sZZo- called ?deflagration "scenario? Zotherthan the equment damage The chain oi events described In the =finZalZ RakZle RisZZk Z: . report was much more complex than what HTS believed occurred during both the April Z2011 and i July Z2013 inCIdents With the introduction (if a concentrated amount of hot FCC catalyst ZZiZnto the slag . . unanch tank With _a subsequent generation damaging steam pressure See Response to Question .6: in Zlv'larch of. 2013 there was a pressure event that exceeded IQPLs and diSplaced water from the slag ZZ this event led to _ZquZ rther ZchZaZ racterization ZtoZ catalyst materials Within waste streams .3 arm a supporting document generated by the Herrtage Research Group See Response to Question Z_3i3onZ till refnery waste streams being received to look: for high concentrations __of aluminum IleZ a concentration above 1% by waight was found an ZahZainisZ ZZforZ. ZsilicaZ content was performed to these- two components proportionally in additionZ, the plant. purchased standards to allow for testing Zof rare ZmetZalsZZ if the aluminum and Silica were totind In high concentrations 3Z - proportitins identi?ed er_1. FCC then the {are earth minerals were tested using ICE. methods ..Z and the results Wete hsed to reject materials likely to be FCCZ in addition the plant. ,'_pursued obtaining an Instrument thich hedZ been Identified as the preferred Instrument for ZZ Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. Response to United State Environmental Protection Agency Request For Information analyzing for these materials. HTS located an instrument-and spent approximately $17,000 refurbishing this equipment. This equipment was introduced at the plant after the 7/13 lncident. During the investigation of the 7/13 incident limitations of analysis were identi?ed as a contributing cause to the approval of and _UItimate introduction of FCC Contaminated re?nery waste to the kiln train. See Response to Question. 6. Limitations In effectiveness of the digestion portion of the method used caused the amount of aluminum to be understated and, as a result, the test results did not trigger further review on'ioads that were introd'IJced prior to the incident. Due to low solids inventory levIels' In the feed pits just prior to the event these materials containing FCCs were fed without any significant amount of other solids material and are believed to have introduced a suffiCient quantity of FCC cataiyst fines to have initiated the event in the secondary combustion chamber and the slag quench tank. I The acceptance of all refinery wastes was discontinued while the investigation proceeded. A re?nery overview was completed, identifying: potential sources 'of the materials of clonce rn, generating processes, events that might generate these materials, and waste stream describers that; 'would likely contain these Imateriais. This information was provided to the Waste'Approvais group I at HTS for purposes of reqUiring more detailed generating Source information when generators approach HTS about handling any oftheir refinery waste streams. Further, a review was completed identifying relative levels of'refinery?generatedeastes historically managed by HTS, and concluding .. that significant'quantities of these wastes had been processed through the Facility throughout 2012 without issue. Ultimately, this review determined that there were some re?nery waste streams that were not problematic. These waste streams were listed and will Continue to be accepted at HTS. Each load of these materials continuas'to be screened by XRF, however and Heritage has obtained a sampie of spent FCC catalyst from each these Sites for purposes of establishing a finger print for comparison with sampies from each load See ReSponse to Question 6. Ail other waste streams from refineries are not being processed through the HTS incinerator. in order to confirm our-analytical approach for acceptance of the limited refinery waste, HTS plans to conduct a brief outage-in September to evaluate the condition of the-SCC, looking for any 'aIsh/powderetype buildups throughout the unit. if poIWderfash buiidup Is evident, we Will further I evaluate sampling and analysis to determine composition. .This exercise is expected to con?rm the I.IIeffectIveness of; our anaiytrcai approach to approvmg eaIIch load as we receive it. I I: in addition there have been a number events in the past where ash or slag faiilng Into the. slag quench tank has resulted In the exceedance of an OIPL: This Is typically the CPI. for pressu re -"-"monrtorIng IItheI ISCC (see September 4, 2003 letter F.- SIgg from CzernIak) These events are, "always some of slag ash In the These events are Investigated by oUr MACT event I to determine the root. cause These events resuit in the exceedance of the SCC pressure-- and typIcaliy last approXImateiy 30 seconds The corrective action for theSe events I I I is ItoI Increase the draft on the system by opening the damper on the draft (ID) fan In order Heritage Thermal Services Inc Response to UniteICIiI State Ernnronmentai Protection Agency Request For Information. I I -.I types events are reported IIDI ItheII USEPA every siIC months aiong With other MACT .. that are exceeded IIAs described in response to Question I81) Infra; these minor eyeIntsI are II -"attributabie same cause as the 20.13 inCIdent . It should he noted that aside __IhIe ApIriI- 2011, March 2013.; and 2013I events discussed in -. detail In this. response, there have. been a totai 123 pressure exceedences attributed Ito clinker to return ItheI system negative pIressuIreI. allI DIPLs have been re~estabiished then _wIIaste feed . 5- I since There. have been 15 Isuch: events throughout 2012 year to date 2013 _The total I. II I I II duration of these low severity events IS. approxrmately 19 minutes over the last? .3 and a yea.rs.I._ is response Q35 prepared Vince Waggle Keyin Lloyd Question 131?: Submit copies of all manufacturers instructions and facnity instructions related ItoI .tIheI removal or. the handling ash/slag from the combustion chambIIeIrIs the Attached are the foIIowmg standard operating procedures instructions related removal the II I - I I ash/slag IroIiInI the combustion chambers .IatI the FaCIIity IRS-300 I Slag End. Dump Loading -- II I I- II II Reprocessmg I I I I321) - Dewatering response Iwas prepared blyII Kevin Lloyd II - - . Question 14: Regarding maintenance plans for the-I hazardous waste incinerator EpraIinI hon' IHITSI determines the Faculty should shutdown planned maintenance IandII what. particular maintenance he done HTISII plans large maintenance outage perI yeah. This maintenance outage isI scheduled based on I the refractory' in the rCIItary kIIilr'i, Since the refraIctoryI' in the rotary Iinln typiIcIaIIlyI hia'st's apprCIXImate-Iy one year; a two week aInInLial Ishmut dIoIInh is scheduIedI' in order to repiace the refractory _IinIingI The -'Ishutdown is 'sIchediIIlIedI based on two Icriteria (I1) inIInI shell temperature measurements and (2-). internal inspections of the kiln refractory Kiln shell temperatures are measured continUOUSly and _.lIogged Kiln shell temperatures will indicate where the refra?tory. lining is thinning Also. I -_.Ith_ronghIoutI_ the yeah there are oceasions wIIheriI the kiin is. offline. these times the can be I II I I- . entered for Inspections IAI kiln Inspection includes _a refractory inspeCtion where refractory i_I_sI. 'dIIriIIleIdI Iand measured toI determine remaining refractory thickness; This measurement IS then used - I I. to cIachIulateII a refractory vIvIeaIr _rIaIIte is IuSed to extrapolate when IItheI refractory need to I r?pIaCed. Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. Response'to United State Environmental Protection Agency Request'For information I The maintenance condIIcted during an annUal outage is based on operating experience, internal and external inspection-s, feedback from operations-personnel, and review of process data. I Maintenance activities during annual outages can include the following: refractory repairf replacement inspections of air pollution control equipment, cleaning of air pollution control equipment and interconnecting calibration of process instruments and preventive maintenance for various pieces of eduipment. HTS also plans shorter shutdowns for maintenance and cleaning of the incineration System. The duration of these shutdowns is approximately ?ve days. These shutdowns are scheduled based on the continuous review and trending of operating data collected from various instruments locatEd throughout the-incineration system, feedback from operations personnel, and scheduled inspections. It is the goal. of HTS to schedule maintenance as necessary in order to regulatory compliance with all OPLs. I This response Was prepared by Kevin Lloyd. Question ?lm-Provide copies" of all documents that describe the Facility?s internal procedures and decision making process relative to planned maintenance on the hazardous waste incinerator. HTS has no procedures describing the decision making process relative to planned maintenance on' the hazardous waste incinerator. operations personnel review and trend operating data, conduct inspections, and utilize operating experience for making decisions when planned maintenance should be scheduled for the incinerator. it is the goal of HTS toISChedule maintenance as necessary in order to ensure regulatory compliance'with all OPLs. if HTS personnel determine that there will be' Issues in maintaining OPLs, then recommendatitms are made for scheduling downtime' In order to maintain the facility so that OPL events can be avoided. HTS then schedules maintenance for the incinerator per the description provided' In the response to question 14(a). This I response was prepared by Kevin Lloyd. Question 15: Provide copies of the results and reports of the following types of testing and evaluations concluded on and after July 13, 2013 {whether or not such testing or evaluations Were submitted to any regulatory agency). I Question 15a: Sampling and analysis (for metals or other contaminants} of the ash deposited at the Facility and-throughout the community. include In submittal any and all assessments of the amount of ash deposited (explain calculations and assumptions). Include any and all photographs of the ash deposits resulting the incident, whether at the Facility, or. any other location. Samples of the ash that was deposited In the community and within the Facility were collected right after the release and were tested for 23. compounds that are typically found In theFacility ash. See . Question 7 for summary data of analytical for sampling ofthe ash. I Hentage Thermal Services; Inc. Response to United State Envu'onmental Protechon Agency Request Information - HTS hIred a third party to conduct additional on~5Ite and WIthIn the commumtyi I. 2' 2' 7- order to. evaluate the. extent of the Jelly-13 2013 release of boiler The results efIhe third I I I parIy sampling ha'Ive been included See the response Io Question 3 for caiculatlons IIhe - - - I - I'll; 2:5 of .ash deposrced (?This response Was prepared ny CIaIIrIrie Bermger Questlon 15h Ambient air quallty test results In or around the FaCIlIty for the named from July 13 to the date of .IheI Information request I 7I.;Shortly after the release of Boiler ash on July 131.2013 an HTS employee conducted ambient airj .monrtoring onI- -s_itIe at totir'Il4 dIfferent locations Two (21 locations were within- the release zone - I The remaining two (2) locations were located north of: release gone. The results from Itha- 'ambIent air monitoring are attached I I -. . This II_Irespons'e was prepared bI'Iy Came Berlnger Qwestlon 13c: 3tack' of. from the hazardous waste Incmerator HerItage Thermal Services has not performed stack testing of emissions from the Hazardous Waste lncmerator since July- 13 2013. The most reCent test of stack emissions ocwrred during the I n' I performance test conducted on July 13 19; 2012:. Results of this test were submitted to EPA on October, 5 2012 This; test performed In accordance with 40 C. F. Part _63 ISLIbpart I i "'rhEasured donm/furan ernissIOns fromI the stack durIIng normal operations ':On August 678, 2013 Air Compliance Testing, Inc of Cleveland Ohlo performed _a Relative Accuracy I.I?Test Audit Calibration Error test and Absolute Calibration Audit or the Heritage Thermal i Se. rinces Continuous Monltorlng System and Continuous Opatity Monitoring System? I I of the test show Ihat all challenged CEMS met the reqwrements of their applicable I - standards ThisI-respen?elw?? pr?p?l'r'ed - I Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. Response to United State 'En?ronrttental Protection Agency Reducst For Information Question 16: in a July 16, 2013 electrOnic mail message to the Ohio EPA, Vince Waggle'of HTS states: were observed; from the facility at the-time of the'event andfor several minutes fol-inviting.? EXplain how long visible emissions were observed from, the Facility, who obserVed them and the range of opacity of the em issionss Submit-copiesofany and all visible emission observations taken on July 13, 2013. There are no first hand observations bylany trained personnel to quantify opacity ofemissions associated with this event. Based on video recordings from locations within the plant site, emissions were reieased for an Estimated 1 minute 53 seconds; These video recordings'are . attached. Emissions that escaped formed a cloud that could-be seen abbve the Facility for several - minutes. This response was preparedbv Stewart Fletcher.? Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 Prepared by: ox-Colvin a ASSOCIATES, INC:1 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Prepared for: )HER1 AGL '116... THERMAL SERVICES Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 Prepared for: Heritage Thermal Services 1250 St. George Street East Liverpool, Ohio 43920 Prepared by: Cox-Colvin & Associates, Inc. 7750 Corporate Blvd. Plain City, Ohio 43064 Cox Colvin I N C. Et ASS O C I A T E S, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4' Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 Prepared for: Mr. John Avdellas Heritage Thermal Services 1250 St. George Street East Liverpool, Ohio 43920 Prepared by: Craig Cox, CPG Principal Scientist Cox Colvin I N C. Et ASS O C I A T E S, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4' Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 Background. 1 Approach 3.1 Data Quality Objectives. 3.2 Conceptual Model 3.3 Goal of the Study 3.3.1 Boundaries of the Study 3.3.2 Analytical Approach. 3.3.3 Performance Criteria 3.4 Data Collection Activities 3.4.1 Ash Sampling 3.4.2 Soil Sampling 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4.0 Evaluation of Results. 4.1 Major Constituent Comparisons. 4.2 Minor Constituent Comparison 5 5 6 5.0 Conclusions 6 6.0 References 7 2.0 3.0 Figures 1 Site Location Map, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio. 2 Soil Sample Locations, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio. 3 Ratios of Aluminum, Calcium, Iron, and Potassium in Surface Soil Samples, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio. 4 Ratios of Aluminum, Calcium, Iron, and Potassium in Shallow Soil Samples, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio. Cox-Colvin a Associates, inc. Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 Figures (continued) 5 Ratios of Arsenic, Lead, Magnesium, Manganese, Titanium, and Zinc in Surface Soil Samples, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio. 6 Ratios of Arsenic, Lead, Magnesium, Manganese, Titanium, and Zinc in Shallow Soil Samples, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio. Tables 1 List of Analytes with TestAmerica Reporting Limits. 2 Summary of Analytical Results for Ash and Soil Samples Collected in East Liverpool, Ohio, Heritage Thermal Systems, East Liverpool, Ohio. Appendices A Field Paper Work B Laboratory and Validation Reports Cox-Colvin a Associates, inc. Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this document is to present the findings of activities conducted to evaluate the July 13, 2013 release of incinerator ash from the Heritage Thermal Services (HTS) facility located in East Liverpool, Ohio (Figure 1). The work was performed in accordance with a July 24, 2013 assessment work plan prepared by Cox-Colvin & Associates, Inc (CoxColvin & Associates, Inc., 2013). 2.0 Background Heritage Thermal Services, located at 1250 St. George Street, treats hazardous and nonhazardous waste through a rotary kiln incineration process. On Saturday, July 13, 2013, at 1:00 pm during the course of routine incineration operations, a large amount of ash fell from interior walls of the incineration process equipment into an ash-quench water bath. The quenching operation is designed as an integral process for cooling hot slag and ash, however, the volume of ash overwhelmed the ash-quench system. The rapid expansion of steam from quenching resulted in the release of an estimated 700-800 pounds of incinerator ash and steam beyond the property boundary over an estimated 30-second period. No injuries were reported. HTS immediately stopped operations, initiated cleanup efforts and began a previously scheduled outage. Based on eye-witness accounts and information provided by HTS personnel, the ash release was carried by the wind less than a mile to the southwest of the plant, paralleling the Ohio River. The ash was deposited as a thin coating of rust-color, powdery material on cars, streets, and homes near and adjacent to the incinerator facility (Figure 1). 3.0 Approach The objective of the assessment was to analyze soils, both within and outside of the area of potential ash deposition, for the presence of various elemental analytes. These analytes included metals known to be present in both the ash material and those found in areas soils, whether occurring naturally or present through other area activities including motor vehicle traffic, train operations, and other industrial activities. The approach for evaluating the extent of the ash release relies on the collection, analysis and comparison of the metallic content of the ash, surface soils (potentially affected), and shallow soils, which represent pre-release conditions. Based on the results, discussed later in this Cox-Colvin a Associates, inc. 1 Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 document, the scope of the activities was sufficient to meet the objective of the assessment. Additional sampling is not anticipated. The approach presented in the work plan was broken into four parts. These parts included: o o o o 3.1 Develop Data Quality Objectives, Evaluate the Ash Material, Assess Potentially Affected Areas, and Assess Background Conditions. Data Quality Objectives Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) were developed in a manner consistent with Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (USEPA, 2006) and presented in the work plan. The DQ0s identified the situation under study, the goal of the study, the information inputs needed to conduct the study, the boundaries of the study, the analytical approaches to be used, the specific performance or acceptance criteria, and the plan for obtaining data. 3.2 Conceptual Model Ash released from the incinerator was carried through the air by a northeasterly wind, which was uncharacteristic of the prevailing winds in this area l . A wind rose constructed from wind data collected by HTS on July 13, 2013 is presented on Figure 1. Deposition of ash material occurred on the ground surface, grass, leaves, swimming pools, and other objects (building, cars, streets, etc.). There was limited ash deposition on the HTS parking lot located immediately southwest of the incinerator. Based on the visual inspection completed by HTS personnel following the event, deposition was spread less than a mile southwest of the plant, diminishing in the downwind direction (Figure 1). The East Liverpool, Ohio area has a long industrial history which could result in the presence of metal-bearing dust unrelated to the ash release of July 13th, 2013. Current sources of metal-bearing dust in the vicinity of the HTS facility include a metal recycling facility, a cement plant, and an active rail line, all of which lie within the area of evaluation. Residential and commercial/industrial use properties within the study area are identified on Figure 2. 'Prevailing winds in the area are generally from the west and southwest. Cox-Colvin a Associates, inc. 2 Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 The released ash is a rust-color, powdery substance. The powder did not appear to adhere to objects once it was deposited and was easily brushed or rinsed from horizontal surfaces. Because of these observed physical characteristics, the material was not expected to penetrate beyond the ground surface. Prior to sampling, the area received some brief rain events, which would have washed the loose materials to the soil. 3.3 Goal of the Study The goal of the study was to assess the extent of the ash release on the soils of the community adjacent to the HTS facility through an evaluation of the spatial distribution of inorganic constituents in surface soils. Because the ash was suspected to contain many of the same inorganic constituents (primarily metals) occurring naturally in the environmental, it was necessary to characterize the ash, surface soils (potentially affected media), and soils slightly deeper than the surface soil (unaffected media). In addition, soil samples collected upwind of the incident were analyzed to evaluate background conditions. 3.3.1 Boundaries of the Study The approximate area affected by the release was visually evaluated soon after the event by HTS personnel (Figure 1). The affected area was determined to cover approximately 0.09 square miles. The study area includes the area identified by HTS personnel as well as upwind areas. 3.3.2 Analytical Approach The ash and soil samples were analyzed for US EPA's Target Analyte List (TAL) metals plus tin and titanium (Table 1). Tin and titanium are contained on RCRA's Appendix IX list of metals, but not included on the TAL metals list. They were added to the list of analytes in this evaluation to make it consistent with RCRA corrective action guidance. Table 1 also lists the Reporting Limits in mg/kg for TestAmerica's North Canton, Ohio laboratory. 3.3.3 Performance Criteria Samples were analyzed for the TAL metals using SW-846 method 6010B and method 7471 A (mercury). Reporting limits from the laboratory were at least as low as the lowest published risk-based screening levels. Fifteen (15) paired surface soil and shallow soil samples were collected and analyzed. In addition, matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples were collected for quality assurance purposes. MS/MSD samples are used to evaluate the analytical methodology's performance on a specific matrix type (soil, in this case). Cox-Colvin a Associates, inc. 3 Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 3.4 Data Collection Activities Consistent with the work plan, data collection activities were completed in a single phase from July 29 through July 30, 2013. Individual activities are discussed below. Field paper work is attached as Appendix A. 3.4.1 Ash Sampling The purpose of this task was to better understand the inorganic composition of ash released from the incinerator. HTS personnel collected a sample of the ash, placed it in a sample container and provided it to Cox-Colvin for shipping under chain-of-custody for analysis by TestAmerica Laboratories located in North Canton, Ohio. 3.4.2 Soil Sampling The purpose of this task was to collect samples required to assess the extent of the release. Soil samples from two depths in the potentially affected and unaffected areas in the community were collected for analysis (Figure 2). A representative of Ohio EPA was present to observe soil sampling efforts. A Topcon GPS unit was used to locate proposed sampling points in the field. When access to a proposed sampling point was limited or unavailable, the point was moved to an accessible location in the immediate area and new coordinates were collected with the GPS. Prior to sampling, a soil probe was used to evaluate the make up of the material to be sampled. All attempts were made to collect only native soils. Pebbles, gravel, and organic material such as grass and roots were excluded from the samples. A surface soil sample was collected from a one (1) square foot area at each location between the surface and a depth of 2 inches. A slightly deeper (shallow soil) sample was collected between 2 and 3 inches in depth also from the same one (1) square foot area at each location. Each sample was collected using a freshly decontaminated stainless-steel trowel or spoon, placed in labeled laboratory-provided sample containers and shipped in an iced cooler to the laboratory under standard chain-of-custody procedures. Duplicate samples were collected, at the request of the Ohio EPA, at all sample locations and depths for their use. Cox-Colvin a Associates, inc. 4 Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 4.0 Evaluation of Results Upon receipt, the analytical results were validated by Cox-Colvin personnel and transferred to a site-specific database for further evaluation. The characteristics of the metal-bearing ash, surface and shallow soils was reviewed to assess trends, metal-to-metal ratios, and specific concentration profiles. The lateral and vertical distribution of individual and characteristic metal combinations in ash and soils were used to evaluate if the effect of the release could be discerned, and if so, the extent of the release. The most useful comparisons were those that grouped the major constituents and minor constituents detected in the ash and compared them to similar constituents detected in surface and shallow soil samples. These are discussed in more detail below. The laboratory and validation reports are provided as Appendix B. The analytical results of the ash and soils are presented in Table 2. To assist in understanding what the detected concentrations mean, state-wide background concentrations are included on the table. In general, the soil sample results fall within the range ofbackground concentrations detected in Ohio soils. The exceptions are: o o o arsenic in one sample (ELSS-06.01); copper in nine samples (ELS S-02.01, ELS S-02.03, ELS S-03 .01, ELS S-04.01, ELSS-04.03, ELSS-10.01, ELSS-10.03, ELSS-11.01, and ELSS-11.03); and manganese in one sample (ELS S-13.01). There are no background concentration ranges for calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, tin, or titanium. 4.1 Major Constituent Comparisons There are five major constituents present in the ash sample. These constituents (aluminum, calcium, iron, sodium, and potassium) make up nearly 95% of the mass of the constituents analyzed. Four of these constituents (aluminum, calcium, iron, and potassium) were used for the ash-soil comparative study. Sodium was not included in the comparison because it was not detected in any of the soil samples. Figure 3 represents the four chosen major constituent comparisons for surface soils. Figure 4 represents the four chosen major constituents comparisons for shallow soils. As the figures demonstrate, the ash is predominantly composed of calcium, with lesser amounts of Cox-Colvin a Associates, inc. 5 Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 aluminum, potassium and iron. The soils samples were composed primarily of iron with lesser amounts of aluminum, calcium, and potassium. With the exception of three sample locations (ELS S-10, ELS S-11, and ELS S-13), surface and shallow soils appear similar to one another, even when comparing the upwind samples (ELSS-12, ELS S-14, and ELS S-15) to downwind samples. Samples from ELS S-10, ELS S11, and ELSS-13 contain relatively higher concentrations of calcium. 4.2 Minor Constituent Comparison There are six minor constituents present in the ash sample. These constituents (arsenic, lead, magnesium, manganese, titanium, and zinc) make up nearly 4% of the mass of detected constituents. This list of constituents was selected because they are present in both ash and soil. Figure 5 represents the six chosen minor constituent comparisons for surface soils. Figure 6 represents the six chosen minor constituents comparisons for shallow soils. As the figures demonstrate, the portion of the ash made up of the minor constituents predominantly consists of magnesium and zinc, with lesser amounts of arsenic, lead, and titanium. Manganese is present in the ash, but at very low concentrations. The minor constituents found in the soil samples consists primarily of magnesium and manganese, with lesser amounts of arsenic, lead and zinc. Titanium is present in soils, but at concentrations near the analytical limit. Because the concentrations of these elements in both soil and ash are very low, minor variations in individual elemental concentrations will appear as visible changes in their relative concentrations. This being said, inspection of individual soil sampling locations show a fair degree variability (Figures 5 and 6); however, the comparison of surface and shallow soil demonstrates that the there is little to no change in concentration ratios with depth at each location. Based on the comparison of minor constituents, it does not appear that the effect of the ash release is discernible. 5.0 Conclusions On July 13, 2013 at 1:00 pm, a release of ash occurred at the HTS facility in East Liverpool, Ohio. Based on eye-witness accounts and information provided by HTS personnel, the ash release was carried by the wind less than a mile to the southwest of the plant, paralleling the Ohio River. The ash was deposited as a thin coating of rust-color, powdery material on cars, streets, and homes near and adjacent to the incinerator facility (Figure 1). Cox-Colvin a Associates, inc. 6 Evaluation of the July 13, 2013 Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services East Liverpool, Ohio September 9, 2013 A sample of ash and fifteen paired surface and shallow soil samples were analyzed for aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zinc. The analytical results for surface and shallow soils were compared to state-wide background soil concentrations. These comparisons indicate that the surface and shallow soils are generally consistent with background concentrations. Comparison of major and minor constituents in the ash to those in surface and shallow soil samples indicate that the effect of the release is generally not discernible. There is some indication that the release is discernible at two locations immediately downwind (ELSS-10 and ELSS-13) of the HTS facility; however this indication is based largely on the proximity of the locations to the HTS facility. Based on the results of this study, additional sampling efforts do not appear to be warranted. 6.0 References Cox-Colvin & Associates, Inc., 1996. Evaluation of Background Metals Concentrations in Ohio Soils. Unpublished Consultant's Study. June 21, 1996. Cox-Colvin & Associates, Inc., 2013. Work Plan to Evaluate the Extent of the Ash Release at Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio. Unpublished Consultants Report. USEPA, 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4. EPA/240/B-06/001. February 2006. K:\CCA\PROJECTS\Heritage Thermal Systems\East Liverpoolaeport of Findings\FJNAL\Report of Findings.wpd Cox-Colvin a Associates, inc. 7 D"'" Herita e DATE: 07'" . . W .f n 0". Legend y- ' :: // Heritage Thermal Services Property Boundary . At - Affected Area _,.. ,...2.4", -, .,-, .. .. .. '3,,.:;'\ .::. .4 , , o [ \ 1P, -_. ,- - - . , r . 2 r ''' r- _ -- Source of aerial photography: Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2006/2007 - Ca, ce o 0 3 a) .+4 cn . 1-`` /r -e - ---- '. . Wind Speed (mph) . . . 0' n 1-2 2-3 o 3-4 4-5 n 5-6 n 6-7 300' 600' 1200' n Ohio River . Seale n 0-1 --s, - - - t n 7 -8 - .;:',;\.-, ,-- <7 _,! -,0- ..k. a. f 04%6 2a-3560c ' 0 f. ---, 5-- 0 o y. otirimr: / -. ,,f_, ,....l ,,..., .,,...,, I . WA 'it VAti ,t_., a ko k. Wind Rose Data from July 13, 2013 from 1:00pm to 1:30 pm d ill% E N COX -- COlVin Iltn .7.:' .". a ASSOCIATES, INC. o ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES lr Site Location Map, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio e / Ail 4,114,'-,.._., A* :_..., -4,.. A alli:4# ,;,.- ..4 00., ? Figure 1 DWG NAME: Herr DATE: 07 19 2017 .. , ,. _ o. ,,.. . . .** - Legend oi. f'r;:, [ ; ..,--- S / Heritage Thermal Services Property Boundary o Soil Sample Location -1,S S -- 1 Z - . ...-,/,,r, Residential Areas . , . . - \ ' *7 , -,,,, Commercial/Industrial Areas . ---.--.,- . ,, Affected Area 00'1?' er -- -- .....-_, Via:,'' ,--* , ( ,- ,1, N- -.-- , Source of aerial photography: Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2006/2007 ..---'; ,.. 4V- '''. .. r 4'7,rf ,--- t.c. ') 'S -08 3a) ELS' S - -, cn = cn -07 ELS ...: Scale - , ES 4. - -' . 300' 600' 1200' . Ohio River . 0' , fi ELS 5'.--. ,-,e -- '- - 47 ' '-' ' --...-P't,4 -' ,,,s1,4-I'6, 470.N. . o ga3 Eoc. 1 ' n. le 40'11 7 i ItitTfr1. i et 4,, , . -- 41.6. . 01111111 n ...-1 _. . 1 10 1 0 x ''''' COlVill a ASSOCIATES, INC. / ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES , Soil Sample Locations, He Heritage Thermal Services, s East Liverpool, Ohio ,,,,A, 4?' 64_ 4t _ Gam. Figure D" - Heritage DATE: 07 "" 4 ' . n n , ,. _ . ,. o Legend , .. ELS S-12 ,., ELSS -11 // Heritage Thermal Services Property Boundary Sample Designation ELS S -01 Calcium __......, _ Aluminum .... 40,,,,..40. ,.. iron Surface soil samples collected at depths of less than two inches. LAS ,,,,,,,,./* r' '- - i f---rto ' ,- ,,, ' \ - Potassium ELS S-15 \ --,: -T ELSS-08 S-08 , a) tm, 114 I cn = o cn 'e g .. Source of aerial photography: Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2006/2007 ELS S -14 r .. ELS S -OT, r.,-r--,,.._ EIS S -07 , 66 - ELS S-10 0 0. -o ce 1\\, , ELS S-09 N 0 .8 ,;\ 'il.S'S`.. '\ ... +I- ,-:, U 4 Scale ELS S-06 0' 300' 600' 1200' A ' -, 1 ..- (4- sT, Ohio River t -, ..k O n t; It ii , ELS S -01 Al. '''' <71ot ,,, i, v i ),- -t 4.4. g t "I ....:: 111:::: 'IV ;0 - ti. o totiviw,/ ' , 4:4 ,t, s 4,.. _ :_A, . - v ..k. e <1 4 .. .0.11., '-'.<,,, ,'"1100 , -- i.g. /.40:446 11owl. 0 Cox -- Colvin IF '',.:',% a ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 5 0 ... ELS S -02 o5 Ratios of Aluminum, Calcium, Iron, and Potassium in Surface Soil Samples, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio Figure D" - Heritage DATE: 07 o _ , n . . , EISS -11 Legend ,,,.. ..-.. o -,ELS S -12 ' // Heritage Thermal Services Property Boundary ELSS -01 Sample Designation Calcium o --....., . _. Aluminum ELS S-15 ...__. , ,\.___ Potassium ..;.-`...**4 o LAS MY ' ...,_ _ \\ "* ,I ' \, \ e Iron 41 Shallow soil samples collected at a depth of two to three inches. tm, ce ., , ' ,,? 0" . t cn Source of aerial photography: Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2006/2007 ELSS-14 ELS S -08 o o =ce ..o cn f-'14.api -r.. . . 5 .- ., -, -, , _ ELS S -OTT, r.,-r--"-- EIS S -07 , .,..,o . L'd 0 0. ELS S -10 -o o ce 1\\, , ELS S -09 o 4 N 0 A ELS S . .'\ \ , z., - Scale ELS S-06 0' 300' 600' 1200' ., ' -, 1 ..- ... +I- .v. .c.., U (4- sT, Ohio River o 5 5 0 ... . ELS S -02 .9.rn _ .-- <7 -,-0-_,,--.,k A- --,-- --, t; 0/ 0 1 04--.6 0_1 0-0,, It l''I , ELS S -01 y' r VI ),-__tf:',. 4%, 0 IVO ' ,-'91.41. ,',,e;k ' , 4,. . o C ox -- Colvin a ASSOCIATES, INC. / ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - . \3.,,,,,,,, - <4 e .0.111 '-'.<,,, b.. i.g. ' ofNitr, A owl. t' 7 1 o-o -4.,,-r, , ._ b' totiviw,/ ' .4.4. 0 IF Ratios of Aluminum, Calcium, Iron, and Potassium in Shallow Soil Samples, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio Figure D" -- Heritage DATE: 07 "" _,. _, . Legend ...0 . . e-, , S-12 ELSS-12 , 8LSS -1 // Heritage Thermal Services Property Boundary ..,.. . ' ELSS-01 Sample Designation Arsenic Zinc t , o ....1\ ,;-.- go. , ELS S-15 , ,. rn P., 5ce cn ro o Magnesium Titanium Manganese CI) Surface soil samples collected at depths of le s s than two inches. o .,- Lead cn LAS W \ \ C.) ro....- 4#0. 4 - --- \ - ., 0 ELS S-08 A*-- g tft t ;EIS cn .5 C.) .5 ! IF , Source of aerial photography: Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2006/2007 ELS S -14 r--, 1", , . .,...o .. ee ., .-- .:`' k . , f, E' rn a) o ad ed) o ELS S-09 ,.. , ... ELS S-10 ELS S - U-, r. -,,,,_ /ELKS -07 , --, :-., , , , , ..r- ' do . ,, ELS S`. ELS S-06 fF , o 0 Scale 0' Ohio River .., N illo so \_ et0 600 300' 1200' ,,7-, 1 b ad /., i. c.; ... t ELS S 02 0 .;-:,,---, ,--- <7 - - . v_,, - - ,k - ry ern -- ,,-' 5 , ELS S -01 , f0 v e g1 e ,. e ofto e-, e It1 0 .,,...,, l 5- 4thA--__tf:., ,',./..:k ' , e en - - - - , Al . t6/ ". , .-. ,c; it =-.-, .-,.__ ek.,..--- A 01%, g-e. . N /-1104' r''' i. jrtr 0 .. o k.k. ... e ek <,4 -ow ',-_ 1 v owl. Cox -- Colvin 110 a ASSOCIATES, INC. '.::7.7 / ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IF Ratios of Arsenic, Lead, Magnesium, Manganese, Titanium, and Zinc in Surface Soil Samples, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio 0 . Figure D" Heritage DATE: 07 . - Legend _... y ..= ..-.0 ELS S-12 , 8LS -S -1 ..,. // Heritage Thermal Services Property Boundary , ..ELS S -01 Sample Designation Arsenic Pi Zinc t ELS S-15 ,oo, ,;-.- go. . ',-,-)-7 . .....,_ .,\\.? A....ati-1", P., 5 Shallow soil samples collected at a depth of two to three inches. o \ \ tft , -"EIS .. 0 ELS S-08 --;'-', ,. I F Source of aerial photography: Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2006/2007 ELS S -14 , . cn .5 c..) .5 ! .....o .. ., .., ELS S -Ur -, r.,-r-- ..''' ee ELS S-10 ,,, :', o ' ... E' EIS S-07 , . a) o ad ELS S-09 , ,.. 01) -, "" . , / o a) ELS g^.. 0 Scale ELS S-06 0' Ohio River ..,, , so , ELS S - 02 .. . t 04 600 300' 1200' ad ...--, ,.......,,, ,,c A -- ! - - ''.-o f' 0 , ELS S -01 , N ... vir_..tf... , a ASSOCIATES, INC. / ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IF e re eI g1 11 1 ? ^,..,,,,- 14 ". . m. Cox -- Colvin e 5->e 04-.6 016it . . ItilMVP -47 / e ,,4": .41,4 ...0.0, 1 10 ' .".:7.7 ad cn = o cn Td ../ 40- ...,_ -4--- \ - rna) Magnesium Titanium Manganese LASH OY. --.,,r.0, ' -,-- Lead 1 i.4. /.40:aritia, Ratios of Arsenic, Lead, Magnesium, Manganese, Titanium, and Zinc m Shallow Soil Samples, Heritage Thermal Services, East Liverpool, Ohio Figure ..-. CI). o -''tt-' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 IN THE MATTER OF: Heritage Thermal Services 1250 Saint George Street East Liverpool, Ohio 43920?3400 ATTENTION: Mr. SteWart Fletcher General Manager Request to Provide Information Pursuant to the Clean Air Act The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requiring Heritage Thermal Services to submit Certain information about its facility at 1250 Saint George Street, East Liver-mo], Ohio. Appendix A provides the instructions needed to answer this information request, including instructions for electronic submissions. Appendix specifies the information that you must submit. You must send this information to us within thirty (30) calendar days after you receive this request. We are issuing this information request under Section 1 14(a) of the Clean Air Act (the 42 U.S.C. 7414(a). Section 1 14(a) authorizes the Administrator of EPA to require the submission of information. The Administrator has delegated this authority to the Director of the Air and Radiation Division, Region 5. I Heritage Thermal Services (HTS) owns andOperates an emission source at the East Liverpool, Ohio facility. We are requesting this information to determine whether your emission source is complying with the Ohio State Implementation Plan and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. HTS must send all required information to: Attn: Compliance Tracker, 7] Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch US. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 W. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 HTS must submit all required infOrmation under an authorized signature with the following certification: I certify under penalty of law that I have examined and am familiar with the information in the enclosed documents, including all attachments. Based on my inquiry ofthose individuals with primary reSponsibility for obtaining the information, I certify that the statements and information are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and complete. 1 am aware that there are signi?cant penalties for knowingly submitting false statements and information, including the possibility of fines or imprisonment pursuant to Section 1 l3(c)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act and 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 1341. As explained more fully in Appendix C, you may assert a claim of business con?dentiality under 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart for any part ofthe information you submit to us. Information subject to a business con?dentiality claim is available to the public only to the extent, and by means ofthe procedures, set forth at 40 CPR. Part 2, Subpart B. If you do not assert a business confidentiality claim when you submit the information, EPA may make this information available to the public without further notice. You should be aware, moreover, that pursuant to Section 1 14(c) ofthe CAA and 40 C.F.R. 2.301(a) and emissions data, standards and limitations are not entitled to confidential treatment and shall be made available to the public notwithstanding any assertion ofa business confidentiality claim. Appendix provides additional information regarding the meaning and scope ofthe term ?emissions dataf= - This information request is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, because it seeks collection of information from specific individuals or entities as part of an administrative action or investigation. We may use any information submitted in response to this request in an administrative, civil 0r criminal action. Failure to comply fully with this information request may subject HTS to an enforcement action under Section 113 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7413. You should direct any questions about this information request to Linda H. Rosen, at (312) 886-6810, or Charles Hall, at (3112) 353-3443. (Z 77 Date George T. Czerniak Director Air and Radiation Division Appendix A When providing the information requested in Appendix B, use the following instructions and definitiOns. Instructions - Provide a separate narrative response to each question and subpart of a question set forth in Appendix B. Precede each answer with the number of the question to which it corresponds and at the end of each answer, identify the person(s) who provided information used or considered in responding to that question, as well as each person consulted in the preparation of that response. Indicate on each document produced, or in some other reasonable manner, the number of the question to which _it corresponds. When a response is provided in the form of a number, specify the units of measure of the number in a precise manner. Where information or documents necessary for a response are neither in your possession nor available to you, indicate in your response why the information or documents are not available or in your possession, and identify any source that either possesses or is likely to possess the documents or information. If information not known or not available to you as of the date of submission later becomes known or available to yOu, you must supplement your response. Moreover, should you find at any time after the submission of your reSponse that any porti0n of the submitted information is false or incorrect, you must notify EPA as soon as possible. Electronic Submissions To aid in our electronic recordkeeping efforts, we request that you provide all documents responsive to this information request in an electronic format according to paragraphs 1 through 6, below. These submissions are in lieu of hard copy. 1 . Provide all responsive documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) or similar for-mag unless otherwise requested in speci?c questions. If the PDFS are scanned images, perform at least Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for ?image over text== to allow the document to be searchable. Submitters providing secured PDFs should also provide unsecured versions for EPA use in repurposing text. b) _Ul When Speci?c questions request data in electronic Spreadsheet form. provide the data-and corresponding information in editable Excel or Lotus format. and not in image format. If Excel or Lotus f0rmats are not available, then the format should allow for data to be used in calculations by a standard spreadsheet program such as Excel or Lotus. Provide submission on physical media such as compact disk. ?ash drive or other similar item. Provide a table of contents for each compact disk or ?ash drive containing electronic documents submitted in response to our request so that each document can be accurately identified in relation to your response to a speci?c question. We reCOmmend the use of electronic ?le foldersorganized by question number. In addition. each compact disk or ?ash drive should be labeled appr0priately Company Name. Disk 1 of4 for Information Request RcSpOnse. Date of Response). Documents claimed as con?dential business information (CB1) must be submitted on separate disks/drives apart from the non-con?dential information. This will facilitate appropriate records management and appropriate handling and protection of the CBI. Please follow the instructions in Appendix for designating information as Certify that the attached ?les have been scanned for viruses and indicate what program was used. De?nitions All terms used in this information request haVe their ordinary meaning unless such terms are de?ned in the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq]. or the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors. 4O .C.F.R. Part 63. Subpart BEE or the General Provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 63. l. The terms ?_?document? and ?documents? shall mean any object that records. stores. or presents information. and includes writings. memoranda. records. or information of any kind. formal or informal. whether wholly or partially handwritten or typed. whether in computer format. memory. or storage device. or in including any form or format ofthese. If in computer format or memory. each such document shall be provided in translation to a form useable and readable by EPA. with all necessary documentation and support. All documents in hard c0py should also include'attachments to or enclosures with any documents. - The terms ?relate to?: or ?pertain to? (or any form thereof) shall mean constituting. re?ecting. representing. supporting. contradicting. referring to. stating. describing. recording. noting. embodying. containing. mentioning. studying. analyzing. discussing. evaluating or relevant to. 2 The term ?hazardous Waste incinerator? means a device de?ned as an incinerator in 40 Part 260.10 and that burns hazardous waste at any time. purposes of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart BEE, the hazardous waste incinerator includes all associated ?ring systems and air pollution control devices: as well as the combustion chamber equipment. Lu Appendix Information You Are Required to Submit to EPA Heritage Thermal Services (HTS) must submit the following infOrmation pursuant to . Section 1 14(a) ofthe CM, 42 U.S.C. 7414(a); within thirty (30) calendar days after you receive this request. The requested information relates to hazardous waste incinerator located in East Liverpool; Ohio (Facility). The requests relate to energetic and non-energetic ash clinker falls and related pressurization events at the Facility. . 1. Regarding the pressurization events that occurred in (1) April/May 201 1; (2) December 201 1; and (3) March 2013; and which are discussed in the April 23; 2013 document entitled ?Veri?cation that FCC Cause Pressurization Events at our HTS East Liverpool Facility? by Ralph R0per of the Heritage Research Group (hereinafter referred to as the ?Roper report?); provide separate responses for each pressurization event: Specify the date and time that each pressurization event occurred; Describe each pressurization event. include; but do not limit your response to the following: the sequence of events leading up to; during and after the event; the causes of the event; the type of waste that was processed or incinerated at the time of the event; the type of waste that was processed or incinerated during the 24?hour period prior to each event; the type and extent of damage to equipment; the effect on Facility air emissions (including whether emissions; gas or ash were allowed to escape from the process); and the Facility: response; List all the dates and times that HTS exceeded Operating Parameter Limits (OPL) and/or emission limits for the Facility on the dates of the events and afterwards until the hazardous waste residence times had traHSpired. For each day of exceedance; specify: the OPL and emission limit exceeded, the time period of the exceedance; and the highest values ofthe exceeded OPLs and emission limits; (Ci) Provide the results of all investigations into the Cause of each event; the appropriate measures that could have been taken to prevent each event from occurring; and the steps HTS decided to take after each event to prevent additional occurrences. Provide c0pies of all your ?ndings; conclusions and corrective measures taken or planned for the Facility by its agents; contractors; or others; Provide the container numbers; waste/chemical pro?le numbers; waste/chemical profile descriptions; and waste profile packets for the speci?c containers of waste that HTS believes were directly related to each pressurization event. Explain how these waste/chemical profiles and pro?le packets were derived whether they were generated by the generator or both); Provide the dates when the waste containers identified in response to ?question above; were received by the facility. Describe the handling process of the containers following receipt; as follows: Provide the method of storage; if applicable. if the waste was not stored; describe every step taken by HTS prior to the incineration of the waste; Lu (ii) State whether the .waste remained in its original container; was processed, repackaged, or removed from its original packaging by and/0r was combined with other waste during storage or was separated; and Describe the mode of transporting the waste to the feed for the incinerator, the method and rate of feed, and whether the waste containers were combusted with other waste streams, or were isolated._ Provide the dates and times when the waste containers identi?ed in response to question above, were introduced into the incinerator; Describe the screening process and criteria that HTS used for the waste containers identi?ed in response to question above, to determine that they should be accepted into the facility and that they should be processed. Explain how this screening process and criteria were developed the technical basis). Provide COpies of and explain all protocols and criteria for accepting and/or rejecting re?nery wastes that were utilized at the time of each of the pressurization events; Explain why each Speci?c container identi?ed in response to item above, was accepted and not rejected; lnclude c0pies ofthe results ofall testing and analysis done on the speci?c waste containers at issue; and For the period January 1, 201 1 through the present; provide the dates when HTS received and processed the same waste identi?ed in response to question above. Provide the waste pro?le numbers, waste pro?le descriptions, container numbers; and waste pro?le packets; Regarding the pressurization event(s) that occurred during the April/May 201 1 period that are discussed in the Roper report (?the April/May 201 Incidents?), provide the following information for each separate event: ldentify how and when HTS determined that Sunoco waste No. 96406-12 was the problematic material for the pressurization event. State which facility(ies) (location) generate(s) the Sunoco waste No. 96406-12; Explain how and when HTS determined that the Sunoco waste No. 96406-12 to be causing the build?up of slag ?doughnuts? in the kiln,== as stated in the R0per report; and Explain in detail why at least ?ve pressurization events occurred before HTS st0pped processing the Sunoco material. Regarding the pressurization event(s) that occurred during or around the week of December 12, 201 l, and that are discussed in the R0per report, provide the following information: Explain how HTS determined that Sunoco waste No. 96406?14 was the problematic material. State which facility(ies) (location) generate(s) the Sunoco waste No. 96406? 14; and Explain why HTS did not reject Sunoco waste No. 96406-14 prior to or at the time of the December 12, 201 lncident even though it contained FCC 4. Regarding the pressurization event(s) that occurred during or around March 3= 2013 (?the March 3, 20] 3 Incident?)= that are discussed in the R0per report2 answer the following questions: Explain how and when HTS determined that the problematic material came from the Sunoco Marcus Hook plant and was a listed K170 waste; and Explain why during the acceptance/rej ection evaluation process: HTS was unaware and/0r did not ?ag as a concern: the presence of alumina catalyst in the Kl 70 waste': 5. In its September l, 2013 response to Request for Informatiom HTS stated that: ?[?ollowing the March 20] 3 incident: HTS began testing every bulk delivery from re?neries for'aluminum or silicon in an attempt to screen out signi?cant concentrations of these zeolite This testing was done by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) methods following a nitric acid digestion underSW846 3050 and 305]. Using this approach HTS rejected 3 bulk loads in a period of4 months. HTS also recognized that these methods had their limitations and began the process to obtain an ray Fluorescence (XRF) instrument. HTS was in the process of obtaining the XRF when the incident on July 13, 20] 3 occurred." Please provide the follOwing information: {plain the limitations ofthe' ICP testing/sampling methods in comparison to an. . :tplain when and how HTS determined that ICP had limitations? for' completely det ecting the elements of concern Provide all supporting documentation; ?What steps had HT taken to obtain an XRF prior to July 3, 20 3 and when did HTS take each step? Provide all written supporting documentation; and Explain how conclusion that the March 20] 3 incident was caused by the processing of waste containing zeolites (a form of aluminum silicates) is different than conclusion in or around April 20] that the April 20] incident was caused by refinery wastes that were high in aluminum silicates. See your September l: 20] 3'response to Question 6 of previous Request for Information. 6. Regarding the pressurization event(s) that occurred July 13, 2013 (the ?July 2013 Incident?), answer the following questions: Provide the container numbers: waste/chemical pro?les: waste?chemical descriptions: and waste profile packets for the specific containers of waste that HTS believes caused or were directly related to the July l3 20] 3 pressurization event Explain how these waste/chemical profiles were derived and whether they were generated by HTS the generator or both;_ (13) Provide the dates when the waste containers identi?ed in response to item 6(a) above, were received by the Facility. Describe the handling process of the containers following receipt= as follows: - Provide the method of storage: if applicable. If the waste was not stOre? describe every step taken by HTS prior to the incineration of the waste; (i i) State Whether the waste remained in its original container; was processed, repackaged, or removed from its original packaging by and/0r was combined with other waste during storage or was separated; and Describe-the mode of transporting the waste to the feed for the incinerator, the method and rate 'of feed, and whether the waste containers were combusted with other waste streams, or were isolated. Specify the dates and tinrcs that the waste containers identi?ed in response to item above, were introduced into the incinerator; Describe the screening process and criteria that HTS used for these speci?c waste containers to determine that they should be accepted into the facility and then processed. Explain how this screening process and criteria were developed the technical basis). Provide cOpies of and explain all protocols and criteria for accepting/rejecting re?ncry wastes that were utilized at the time ofthe July 2013 Incident. Explain in detail why each speci?c container that was a cause of or aggravating factor in the July 2013 Incident was accepted for incineration and was not rejected; Include copies of the results of all testing and analysis done on the speci?c waste containers at issue that were identi?ed in response to item above; . Explain any additional investigation or follow up that HTS has conducted since the July 2013 Incident that is not discussed in response to Request for Information and report the results. Include a discussion regarding the investigatory shutdown that was proposed to occur in or around September 2013 to inspect the and I For the period January 1, 201 1 thr0ugh the present, provide the dates when the same waste identi?ed in response to item above, was received and procesSed by HTS. Include the container numbers, waste/chemical pro?le nunrbers, waste/chemical pro?le descriptions, and waste pro?le packets. For the period January 1, 201 1 through the present, has the HTS Facility experienced any other ?energetic ash? clinker falls other than the April/May 201 1 Incidents, December 1 2, 201 1 Incident, March 3, 2013 Incident, and the July 2013 Incident? If so, provide the information sought in question 1, above, separately for each incident. In its response to Request for Information, HTS stated: . .aside from the April 201 1, March 2013, and July 2013 events discussed in detail in this response, there have been a total of 123 pressure exceedances attributed to clinker falls since 2010." For each of these clinker falls and for any which have occurred since the time you responded to the ?rst Request for Information, provide the following information: List all the dates and times that HTS exceeded OPLs and/or emission limits for the Facility at the time of the above described clinker falls and afterwards until the hazardous waste residence times had. transpired. For each day and time of an exceedance, specify: the OPL and emission limit exceeded, the time period of the exceedance, and the highest values of the exceeded OPLs and emission limits; Submit c0pies of Operating parameter and emission monitoring data for the period November 1, 2010 through the present. The monitoring data should include: all 1?hour and 12?hour rolling average data, as applicable to the particular OPL or 7 emission limit*being measured; and (ii) all instantaneous and/or one minute readings of secondary combustion chamber pressure, pressure in the inlet and outlet shrouds, and feed lance atomization pressure. HTS may submit the monitoring data on a compact disk or thumb drive in comma separated value or Plain Text format. Identify any times since January 1, 2010 that the automatic waste feed cutoff system did not immediately and automatically cut off the hazardous waste feed during a clinker fall event that resulted in an OPL or emissions exceedance. If such incidences did occur, explain why. For each of the clinker fall events that have occurred since 2010 and that resulted in an OPL or emissions exceedance, answer the following: - Identify whether you claim that the exceedance was caused by a malfunction, as that term is de?ned by 40 C.F.R. 63.2; (ii) Explain how the claimed malfunction fits the de?nition of malfunction at 40 CPR. 63.2; Identify the malfunction that you claim caused the exceedance; (iv) Explain your investigation into the cause of each exceedance; the corrective actions takento correct the exceedance; and the evaluation of approaches to minimize the frequency, duration, and severity of the exceedance. Provide copies of documents discussing the investigation of the cause of the exceedance; the corrective actions taken to correct the exceedance; and the evaluation of approaches to minimize the frequency, duration, and severity of the exceedance; Provide copies of any engineering evaluations that HTS has had done to try to minimize clinker falls or clinker accumulations; and (vi) State whether HTS ever investigated or received estimates related to re? engineering ofthe gas ?ow path in order to prevent clinker accumulations. If so, provide c0pies of the estimates. 9. Provide copies of all Semi?Armual Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Reports and Semi-Annual Excess EmissiOns Reports (required by 40 C.F.R. 63.10) that pertain to the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013. Provide copies of all MACT Excessive Exceedance Reports (required by 40 C.F.R. 63.] 206(c)(3)(vi)) that pertain to the period January 1, 2010 through the present. 10. Provide copies of all reports submitted to Ohio EPA pursuant to 40 CPR. (excessive eXceedances during malfunctions). If no such reports have been submitted to Ohio EPA, please explain why. -çW Si f p UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 4t MAR 2 3 2015 REPLY TO THE ATTENTtON OF: CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Stewart Fletcher Vice President General Manager Heritage Thermal Services 1250 St. George Street East Liverpool. Ohio 43920 - Re: Finding of Violation Dear Mr. Fletcher: The US Environmental Protection Agency is issuing the enclosed Finding of Violation (FO\T) to Heritage Thermal Services (you) under Section 13(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3). We find that you are violating National Emission Standards for 1-lazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Hazardous Waste Combustors and your Title \T permit at your East Liverpool, Ohio facility. 1 Section 113 of the Clean Air Act gives us several enforcement options. These options include issuing an administrative compliance order, issuing an administrative penalty order and bringing a judicial civil or criminal action. We are offering you an opportunity to confer with us about the violations alleged in the FOV. The conference will give you an opportunity to present information on the specific findings of violation, any efforts you have taken to comply and the steps you will take to prevent future violations. In addition, in order to make the conference more productive, we encourage you to submit to us information responsive 19 the FOV prior to the conference date. Please plan for your facility's technical and management personnel to attend the conference to discuss compliance measures and commitments. You may have an attorney represent you at this conference. Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable OLL Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (100% Post-Consumer) The EPA contact in this matter is Linda H. Rosen. You may call her at (312)886-6810 to request a conference. You should make the request within 10 calendar days following receipt of this letter. We should hold any conference within 30 calendar days following receipt of this letter. Sincerely. Geor T. Cfrrni Direèo.r' Air and Radiation visi'on Enclosure cc: Ed Fasko Air Pollution Control Manager Northeast District Office Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Bob Hodanbosi Chief. Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 IN THE MATTER OF: FINDING OF VIOLATION Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. dfb/a Heritage Thermal Services. East Liverpool, Ohio EPA-5-15-OH-12 Proceedings Pursuant to Section 11 3(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3). FINDING OF VIOLATION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues this Finding of Violation (FOV) to Heritage Thermal Services. inc. d!b/a Heritage Thermal Services (Heritage) for violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., at its ha.ardous waste incinerator located in East Liverpool, Ohio (the Facility). Specifically, Heritage violated Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Hazardous Waste Combustors at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE, 40 C.F.R. § 63.1200 through 63.1221 (HWC MACT). Title V ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 76617661f, and its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 70, 40 C.F.R. § 70.1 through 70.12, and the Facility's Title V permit. EPA issues this FO\T pursuant to Section 1 13(a)(3) of the CA.A. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3). The authority to issue this FOV has been delegated to the Regional Administrator of EPA, Region 5. and re-delegated to the Director of the Air and Radiation Division, Region 5. STATUTORY REGULATORY AUTHORITY HWC MACT Section 112(d) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 74 12(d), requires EPA to promulgate regulations for particular industrial sources that emit significant quantities of one or more of the hazardous air pollutants (I-TAPs) listed in Section 112(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 74 12(b). These emission standards are called the NESHAPs. 2. Pursuant to Section 112(1) of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 74120), EPA may delegate to a State the authority to implement portions of the CAA in that state. As part of the approval process of the Ohio Title V program under Section 502(d) of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 7661a(d), EPA delegated authority to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to implement the NESHAPs in Ohio, including NESHAPs not yet promulgated. See 60 Fed. Reg. 42,045 (Aug. 15. 1995); 60 Fed. Reg. 18,790 (April 13! 1995). Pursuant to Section 112(c) of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 74 12(c), on July 16, 1992 (see 57 Fed Reg. 31,476), EPA identified hazardous waste combustors as a category of sources of HAPs. and pursuant to Section 112(d) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d), EPA promulgated the HWC MACT on September 30, 1999. See 64 Fed. Reg. 53,038. The HWC MACI is set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1200 through 63.1221. The HWC MACT applies to both "area sources" and "majorsources" of HAPs. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1200. "Major sources" are sources or groups of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emit or have the potential to emit ten tons per year or more of any HAP, or twenty-five tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs. See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 63.2. An "area source" is any stationary source of HAPs that is not a "major source." See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(a)(2). - A "stationary source" is any building, structure, facility, or installation that emits or may emit any air pollutant. See 42 U.S.C. § 74 12(a). The "affected source" to which the HWC MACT applies is, among other things, all hazardous waste combustors. which are defined to include "hazardous waste incinerators." See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1200. 8. A "hazardous waste incinerator" is a device defined as an incinerator under 40 C.F.R. § 260.10 that bums hazardous waste at any time, and includes all associated firing systems and air pollution control devices, as well as the combustion chamber equipment See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1201(a). An "incinerator" is defined to include "any enclosed device that: (1) uses controlled flame combustion and neither meets the criteria for classification as a boiler, sludge dryer, or carbon regeneration unit, nor is listed as an industrial furnace; or (2) meets the definition of infrared incinerator or plasma arc incinerator." See 40 C.F.R. § 260.10. 10. TheHWC M.ACT implements section 112(d) of the CAA by requiring hazardous waste combustors to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACI).. IL The emission standards and operating requirements of the HWC MACI apply at all times except: (i) during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and (ii) when hazardous waste is not in the combustion chamber. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(b)(1). .1, Compliance Requirements To demonstrate and monitor compliance with the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emission standard, the 1-TWC MACT requires an affected source to conduct performance tests and to install and operate a continuous emission monitor (CEM). See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(b)(1) and 63.1209(a). 63.1207(b) requires an affected source to conduct comprehensive performance tests (CPT) to: (1) demonstrate compliance with the emission standards in the HWC MACT: (2) establish operating parameter limits (OPL) provided by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209, and (3) demonstrate compliance with the performance specifications for continuous monitoring systems (CMS). 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(b) requires that an affected source must use CMS to demonstrate compliance with the applicable OPLs in 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209. 40 C.F.R. § The owner or operator of a hazardous waste incinerator must, among other things, retain information required to document and maintain compliance with the HWC MACT. including data recorded by its CMS. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1211(b). Compliance Date The HWC MACT established an initial compliance date of September 30. 2002 for "existing sources." See 40 C.F.R. § 63. 206(a)(1) (1999). EPA subsequently revised the initial compliance date for "exiting sources" to September 30, 2003. See Fed, Reg. 63,317 (December 3,2001). 1 By the compliance date, the owner or operator of a hazardous waste combustor must have developed and included in its operating record a document referred to as a Documentation of Compliance (DOC). which identified: (1) the applicable emission standards; and (2) the corresponding OPLs under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209 that will ensure compliance with those emissions standards. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1 206(a)(l) and 63. 1211(c). The owner or operator of a hazardous waste combustor must then operate in compliance with the OPLs and other requirements set forth in the DOC. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(e)(1) and 63.1211(c). When EPA revised the HWC MACT on October 12, 2003. EPA established the replacement emission standards set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219. and required owners or operators of hazardous waste combustors to submit a revised Notification of Compliance (NOC) reflecting its compliance with the revised HWC MACT. The HWC IvIACT required the owner or operator of a hazardous.waste incinerator to commence the initial comprehensive performance test (CPT) no later than 12 months after the compliance date (October 14, 2008) for the revised HWC MACT replacement standards in 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219. The owner or operator must commence subsequent testing no later than 61 months after the date of commencing the previous CPT. Within 90 days after it completes the CPT, the owner or operator of a hazardous waste combustor must prepare and submit an NOC to EPA, documenting the facility's compliance with the emission standards and continuous monitoring system requirements. andidentifi,'ing OPLs under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209. See 40 C.F.R. § 63,1207(j). Following submittal of an NOC, the hazardous waste combustor must operate in compliance with the OPLs and other requirements set forth in the NOC in lieu of those in the DOC or previous NOC. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(j)(l)(ii) and 40 C.F.R. §63.1210(d)(2). In order to comply with the destruction and removal efficiency and emission standards set forth in the HWC MACT, owners and operators must comply with the OPLs specified in its NOC. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(j)-(o). Failure to comply with the operating requirements set forth in the applicable DOC or NOC is failure to ensure compliance with the emission standards of the HWC MACT. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(1)(iii). TITLE V REQUIREMENTS 23. Title V of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 766l-7661f. and its impletnenting regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 70, establish an operating permit program for certain sources; including certain sources subject to standards under Section 112 of theCAA. The purpose of Title V is to ensure that all "applicable requirements" for compliance with the CAA are included in the Title V operating permit for the source. 26. 40 C.F.R. § 70.1(b) requires all sources subject to the Title V operating permit program. including certain sources subject to standards under Section 112 of the CAA. to have a permit to operate which includes enforceable emission limitations and such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with all "applicable requirements" of th CAA and the requirements of the applicable SIP. 27. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 70.2. an "applicable requirement" includes any standard or other requirement under Section 112 of the CAA, which includes all applicable NESHAP requirements. - 28. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(1)(iv) and (v). operating requirements in the NOC are "applicable requirements" for purposes of 40 C.F.R. Part 70 and shall be incorporated rntc) the Title \1 permit. 4 29. 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b) requires that the owner or operator of a Title V source shall not operate such source after the date that a timely and complete Title \T permit application is required to be submitted, except in compliance with a permit issued under a Part 70 program. ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY Section 1 13(a)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3), provides in part that if the Administrator finds that a person has violated, or is in violation of any requirement or prohibition of any rule promulgated under Title V of the CAA, the Administrator may issue an administrative penalty order under Section 113(d), issue an order requiring compliance with such requirement or prohibition, or bring a civil action pursuant to Section 113(b) for injunctive relief andlor civil penalties. Sections 13(a)(3) and (b) of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3) and (b), prohibit violations of any NESHAP regulation. Thus, a violation of a NESHAP regulation is a violation of the CAA. 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Heritage and the Facility Heritage's Facility treats hazardous waste by thermal oxidation in a rotary kiln-based incineration ssteni. Heritage's incineration system includes a primary combustion chamber (a rotary kiln) followed by a secondary combustion chamber (SCC). The incineration system also includes heat recovery and flue gas treatment units. 33. Heritage was and is a "person," as that term is defined in Section 302(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7602(e). Heritage was and is an "owner" and an "operator" as those terms are defined in Section 112 of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 7412. and 40 C.F.R. § 63.2. ofa "ha ardous waste incinerator," as that term is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 260.10 and 63.1201, located at 1250 St. George Street, East Liverpool. Ohio. Heritage's incinerator was and is an "existing source" within the meaning of the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1201(a) and 63.1206(a)(1)(ii)(B), because construction of the hazardous waste incinerator comnenced prior to April 20, 2004. Heritage was and is subject to the HWC MACT at all times relevant to this FOV because it bums hazardous waste in the incinerator it owns and operates. On December 22. 2008, Ohio EPA issued Heritage its Title \T permit, effective January 12, 2009, including requirements that Heritage establish and comply with various OPLs. On March30 and 31, April and 2, May 11 and 12, September 15 and 16, 2010, Heritage conducted a CPT for the incinerator to demonstrate compliance with the HWC MACT, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207. 1 On November 18, 2010, Heritage submitted an NOC (the 2010 NOC) and the results of the CPT conducted during 2010 at the facility. The 2010 NOC contained OPLs that Heritage established during its CPT. The OPLs identified in the 2010 NOC became effective pn November 18, 2010, and remain in effect through the present. Clinker Fall Events Heritage experienced "routine clinker fall" events at the Facility on 39 days between November 18, 2010 and December 31, 2014. "Clinker" is the name for hardened combustion remains (fly ash or particulate matter) entrained in flue gas that build up on the ceiling and sidewalls of the 5CC at the Facility. These "clinker fall events" occurred when the weight of theclinker in the SCC became such that it could no longer support itself and the clinker dislodged and fell into the quench tank at the bottom of the 5CC, generating steam and increasing pressure in the incineration system. Energetic Ash Pressurization Events Heritage experienced a series of "clinker eents" at the Facility involving "energetic ash" on the following dates: (1) Januaiy 16. 2011; (2) April/May2Ol 1; (3) June 9. 2011; (4) December 17. 2011; (5) January 31. 2012; (6) March 13. 2013; and (7) July 13. 2013. These "energetic ash pressurization events" involved clinker of such an energized nature that falling into the quench tank at the bottom of the SCC caused more rapid generation of steam than a "routine clinker fall," along with a corresponding increase in pressure in the incineration system. The April 12, 2011 eyent caused extensive damage to the heat recovery boiler outlet expansion joint and displaced the ductwork. The July 13, 2013 event caused extensive damage to the heat recovery boiler and a rupture at the expansion joint for the ducting joining the heat recovery boiler to the spray dryer - The July 13. 2013 event caused the release of gas and boiler ash containing heavy metals and other HAPs from the failed duct connection onto the surrounding equipment. the concrete below, and into the surrounding community Operator Error Events Heritage experienced numerous OPL or emission exceedances at the Facility caused by "operator error" between November 18, 2010 and December 31. 2014. 6 HERITAGE'S HWC MACT VIOLATIONS 40 C.F.R. 63.1219(a)(5)- THC Emission Rate Exceedances 63.1219(a)(5) prohibits the owner or operator of an existing ha7ardouswaste incinerator from discharging or causing combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain total hydrocarbons (THC) in excess of 10 parts per million (ppm) by volume over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system). dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, aM reported as propane. 40 C.P.R. § On the following days, Heritage discharged or caused combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere from the Facility containing THC in excess of the 10 ppm by volume standard: a. b. c. d. e. ±1 g. h. i. j. k. 1. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. v. w. x. y. z. aa. bb. cc. dd. 11/24/10, 11/25/10 (two times), 11/30/10, 12/31/10 1/3/11, 1/4/11, 1/9/11, 1/15/11, 1/16/11, 1/17/11, 1/19/11, 1/31/11 2/11/11. 2/12/11 (two times), 2/28/11 3/2/11, 3/6/11, 3/22/11, 3/24/11, 3/29/11 4/1/11, 4/2/1l.4/5/11,4/9/11.4/12/11 5/6/11, 5/i0/1l.5/1i/li, 5/20/li 6/7/Il, 6/24/Il 7/1/11, 7/14/11, 7/25/11 8/1/11, 8/1 0/11 (three times). 8/1 1/11, 8/12/11, 8/1 7/11 (two times), 8/21/11, 8/22/11 (two times) 9/5/11 (two times) 10/7/11, 10/8/11, 10/16/11, 10/31/11 11/6/11, 11/22/11 12/1/11, 12/13/11 1/1/12, 1/4/12. 1/25/12 3/25/12 4/2/12, 4/17/12, 4/18/12 (four times), 4/30/12 (two times) 5/3/12, 5/11/12,5/13/12,5/14/12,5/16/12,5/24/12, 5/29/12 6/1/12. 6/12/12, 6/19/12, 6/22/12. 6/26/12, 6/27/12 7/14/12. 7/16/12, 7/31/12 8/3/12, 8/13/12. 8/27/12, 8/29/12, 8/31/12 9/7/12, 9/21/12 (two times) 10/22/12 11/6/12, 11/14/12. 11/20/12 (two times) 12/4/12, 12/7/12, 2/19/12 1/19/13, 1/23/13 2/5/13,2/14/13,2/17/13,2/19/13,2/20/13,2/24/13 3/4/13, 3/22/13 4/3/13, 4/4/13. 4/11/13,4/13/13,4/25/13 5/21/13, 5/22/13, 5/26/13 7 cc. if. gg. Hi. ii jj. kk. 11. mm. in. pp. qq. rr. ss. it. uu. vv. 6/2/13, 6/5/13, 6/15/13, 6/22/13, 6/26/13 7/1/13, 7/5/13, 7/6/13, 7/1 2/1 3, 7/13/13 (two times) 8/16/13. 8/21/13. 8/31/13 9/5/13, 9/10/13, 9/17/13, 9/23/13, 9/29/13, 9/30/13 10/14/13 (two times), 10/24/13 11/15/13, 11/22/13, 11/26/13 12/4/13. 12/14/13 1/6/14, 1/16/14, 1/28/14, 2/22/14,2/26/14 4(11/14, 4/14/14.4/19/14.4/24/14,4/27/14 5/17/14 5/28/14, 5/29/14 (two times) 6/29/14 7/4/14 (two times). 7/6/14. 7/8/14. 7/1714, 7/20/14 8/12/14. 8/16/14. 8/19/14. 8/29/14. 8/30/14 (three times) 9/5/14. 9/5/14, 9/22/14, 9/25/14, 9/26/14, 9/29/14, 9/29/14 10/1/14 (two times). 10/3/14. 10/8/14, 10/11/14, 10/14/14, 10/22/14 11/5/14, 11/6/14, 11/26/14, 11/29/14 12/8/14, 12/17/14 By exceeding the 10 ppm THC standard. Heritage violated the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219(a)(5), 63.1206(bXl) and (c)(l); Title V at 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title V permit. OPL Exceedance: Maximum Flue Gas Flow rate In order to comply with the DRE standard, the dioxin/Vuran standard, the particulate matter standard, the semivolatile and low volatile metals standards, and the hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas standards, the owner or operator of a hazardous waste combustor must establish and maintain a maximum flue gas flowrate OPL. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.l209j)(2). (k)(3), (m)(2), (n)(5). and (o)(2). Heritage established the applicable maximum flue gas flowrate OPL for the Facility in the 2010 NOC as 67,505 standard cubic feet per minute (scflui) as a 1-hour rolling average. On the following dates, the flue gas flow rate for the Facility exceeded the applicable maximum flue gas fiowrate OPL: 4/12/11 b. 4/13/11 c. 7/13/13 d. 10/9/14 a. 52. By exceeding the maximum flue gas flowrate. Heritage.violated the HWC MACI at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(j)(2), (k)(3). (m)(2). (n)(5). and (o)(2) and 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(b)(1) and (cXl); Title V at 40 C.F.R. § 7.7(b); and the Facility's Title V permit. 8 OPL Exceedance: Minimum Combustion Chamber Temperature In order to comply with the DRE standard and the dioxin/furan standard, the owner or operator of a ha ardous waste combustor must establish and maintain a minimum combustion chamber temjerature OPL for each combustion chamber. See 40 C.F.R. 63.1209(j)(1) and (k)(2). § Heritage separately established this OPL for the Facility in the 2010 NOC for the rotary kiln and the 5CC. OPL Exceedance: Minimum Rotan' Kiln Temperature The applicable minimum rotary kiln temperature OPL for the Facility is 1718 degrees Fahrenheit as a 1-hour rolling average. On the following dates, the temperature inside the rotary kiln at the Facility fell below the applicable minimum rotary kiln temperature OPL: a. 1/16/11 b. 4/12/11 c. 4/13/11 d. 1/31/12 e. 7/13/13 By failing to maintain the rotary kiln temperanire at or above the required minimum level, Heritage violated the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(j)(1) and (k)(2), 63.1206(b)(1) and (c)(1); Title \T at 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title V permit: OPL Exceedance: Minimum SCC Temperature The applicable minimum 5CC temperature OPL for the Facility is 1747 degrees Fahrenheit as a 1-hour rolling average. On the following dates, the temperature inside the 5CC fell below the applicable Minimum 5CC Temperature OPL: 1/16/11 b. 4/12/11 c. 4/13/11 d. 1/31/12 e: 10/5/12 (two times) a. 10/17/12 g. 11/23/12 h. 12/27/12 i. 3/3/13 j. 7/13/13 fT 9 k. 1. 10/24/13 4/28/14 By failing to maintain the 5CC temperature at or above the required minimum level. Heritage violated the HWC MACT at 40 C.RR. § 63.1209(j)(1) and (k)(2), 63.1206(b)(l) and (c)(1); Title V at 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title V permit. OPL Exceedance: SCC Pressure 40 C.F.R. § 63.1 206(c)(5)(i) requires the owner or operator to control combustion leaks of I-lAPs from its hazardous.waste combustor. The owner or operator can select one of two means of compliance; either by keeping the combustion zone sealed to prevent combustion system leaks pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(A), or by complying with and maintaining the maximum combustion zone pressure lower than ambient pressure using an instantaneous monitor pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(B). The owner or operator ma)' also request prior written approval from EPA for it to utilize 'an alternative means of control to provide control of combustion system leaks equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than ambient pressure." 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(C). On September 4, 2003, EPA approved a request by Von Roll America, Inc. (Heritage's predecessor in interest) that the Facility control combustion system leaks by maintaining the maximum combustion zone pressure lower than ambient pressure pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(S)(i)(B), and by using an alternative means of controlling combustion system leaks under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(C) that is equivalent to maintaining maximum combustion zone pressure lower than ambient pressure. The alternative means of controlling system leaks involves the use of pressurized shrouds around the inlet and outlet ends of the primary combustion chamber to control combustion system leaks during pressure spikes. Heritage is required under both compliance methods to utilize instantaneous monitoring of the pressure in the 5CC and the inlei and outlet shrouds. Heritage's alternative means to control and monitor combustion system leaks requires that Heritage: Pressurize the inlet and outlet end shrouds to approximately 0.2 inches of water column; Monitor the pressure in the inlet and outlet end shrouds and in the SCC; Comply with the following OPLs: The pressure in the SCC must he greater than zero inches of water column for more than 10 seconds; or The pressure in the 5CC must be greater than the pressure in the inlet or outlet end shroud at any time; or The pressure in the 5CC must be greater than the ambient pressure for more than 2 seconds during operating time when the pressurizing equipment for either shroud has failed. 10 d. If Heritage exceeds any of these OPLs, the automatic feed cut-off (AWFCO), system will engage. 64. On the following dates, Heritage failed to comply with the SCC pressure OPL by failing to maintain SCC pressure: (1) greater than zero inches of water column for more than 10 seconds; (2) greater than the pressure in the inlet or outlet end shroud at any time; or (3) greater than the ambient pressure for more than 2 seconds during operating time when the pressurizing equipment for either shroud had failed: 12/12/10, 12/22/10 1/4/11 (three separate exceedances), 1/10/11, 1/11/11, 1/16/1 1(ten separate exceedances), 1/17/11 (five separate exceedances). 1/18/11 (two separate exceedances). 1/31/11 (two separate exceedances) 2/6/11,2/16/11 3/26/11, 3127/11 (two separate exceedances). 3/29/11 (two separate exceedances). 3/30/11 (four separate exceedances). 3/31/11 4/1/11, 4/4/11 (six separate exceedances), 4/6/11 (two separate exceedances). 4/12/11 (three separate exceedances) 5/4/11, 5/5/11 (two separate exceedances), 5/10/11 (three separate exceedances). 5/11/11 6/7/11 (two separate exceedancés), 6/9/11 (two separate exceedances). 6/26/11 (two separate exceedances) 8/30/11 10/14/11 11/5/11, 11/6/Il, 11/28/11 12/1/11 (two separate exceedances), 12/17/11 (two separate exceedarices). 2/27/11 (two separate ekceedances) 1/31/12 (two separate exceedances) 3/5/12 (two separate exceedances) 9/18/12. 9/22/12 11/3/12, 11/4/12 12/7/12, 12/19/12 1/20/13 2/1/13 1 1. L 5. t. u. v. w. x. 65. ' I'll fl 4/9/13. 4/28/13. 4/30/13 6/2/13 7/9/13, 7/13/13 10/13/13 11/19/13 y. 12/4/13 z. 6/2/14 By failing to maintain the SCC pressure at the required level, Heritage violated the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(B) and (C). 63.1206(b)(1) and (c)(1); Title V at 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title V permit. 11 OPL Exeeedances: Minimum Carbon Feed Pressure or Minimum Enhanced Carbon Injection System Pressure 66. - In order to comply with the dioxinlfttran standard and the mercury standard, the owner or operator of a ha72rdous waste incinerator must establish and comply with a limit on the minimum carbon feed pressure or minimum enhanced carbon injection system (ECIS) pressure, and the minimum carrier fluid (gas or liquid) flowrate or pressure drop as an hourly rolling average based on themanufacturer's specifications. See 40 C.F.R. § § 63.1 209(k)(6)(ii) and 63.1 209(1X3). 67. 1-leritage separately established this OPL in its 2010 NOC for each of the two locations where carbon is injected (the Spray Dryer Adsorber (SDA) and the Scrubber locations). 68. The November 2010 NOC. the applicable minimum carbon feed pressure is 3.0 psig as a 1-hour rolling average at each location. 69. On the following dates, the carbon feed pressure fell below the minimum carbon feed pressure at the SDA location: SDA ECIS Pressure a. 4/12/11 4/13/11 b. 5/11/11 c. 70. On the following dates, the carbon feed pressure fell below the minimum carbon feed pressure at the SDA location: Scrubber ECIS Pressure a. b. c. 4/13/11 5/11/11 7/13/13 By failing to maintain the carbon feed pressure at the SDA location and the scrubber location at or above the required minimum levels, Heritage violated the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(k)(6)(ii) and (l)(3). 63.1206(bXl) and (c)(1); Title V at 40 C+R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title \T permit. OPL Exceedances: Minimum Carbon Feed Rate In order to comply with the dioxin/fisran standard and the mercury standard, the owner or operator of a hazardous waste incinerator must establish and comply with a limit on the minimum carbon feed rate, and the minimum carbon injection rate on an hourly rolling average calculated as the average of the test averages See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(k)(6)(i) and (0(3). 12 73. Heritage separately established this OPL in its 2010 NOC for each of the two locations where carbon is injected at the Facility (the SDA and Scrubber locations). 74. Heritage claimed in its 2010 NOC that the applicable minimum carbon feed rate for the SDA location at the Facility is Confidential Business Information. 75. On the following days the carbon feed rate fell below the minimum carbon feed rate for the Facility at the SDA Location: 6/21/12 2/18/14 76. By failing to maintain the carbon feed rate at the SDA location at the Facility at or above the required minimum level. Heritage violated the HWC MACI at 40 C.F.R § 63.1209(k)(6)(i) and (0(3), 63.1206(b)(1) and (c)(1); Title V at 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title V permit. OPL Exceedanees: Minimum Scrubber Ring Jet Blowdown Flowrate 77. In order to comply with the hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas standard, the mercury standard, and the particulate matter standard. the owner or operator of a hazardous waste incinerator must establish and comply with a limit on the minimum scrubber ring jet blowdown tlowrate on an hourly roiling average as the average of the test run avenges. See 40 CY.R. § 63.1209(o)(3)(v), 63.1209(m)(1)(i)(B). and 63.1209(l)(2). 78. Heritage established in the 2010 NOC the applicable minimum scrubber ring jet blowdown flowrate for the Facility as 19.5 gallons per minute (gpm) as a 1-hour rolling avera2e. 79. On the following days. Heritage operated the incinerator in such a manner that the scrubber ring jet blowdown flow rate for the Facility fell below the minimum scrubber ring jet blowdown flowrate OPL: 4/13/11 (two times) 3/25/12 12/4/13 80. By failing to maintain the scrubber ring jet floTate for the Facility at or above the required minimum level. Heritage violated the HWC MACI at 40 C.FR. § 63i209(o)(3)@). 63.1209(m)(1)(i)(B). and 63.1209(1)(2). § 63.1206(b)(1) and (c)(l); Title V at 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title V permit. 13 OPL Exceedanees: Minimum Ring Jet Pressure Dron 81- In order to comply with the hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas standard, the mercury standard, and the particulate matter standard, the owner or operator of a hazardous waste incinerator must establish and comply with a limit on the minimum pressure drop across the scrubber on an hourly rolling average as the average of the test run averages. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1 209(o)(3)(i), 63.1 209(m)(l )O)(A), and 63.1 209(l)(2). 82. Heritage established in the 2010 NOC the applicable minimum ring jet pressure drop for the Facility as 28.0 inches of water column as a 1-hour rolling average. 83. On the following days, the ring jet pressure drop at the Facility fell below the minimum ring jet pressure drop OPL: a. b. c. jU. e. 84. 1/30/11 4,18/12 11/3/12 A/lflhl '+/ 13f1.i 3/26/14 By failing to maintain the ring jet pressure drop for the Facility at or above the required minimum level. 1-leritage violated the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63. 1209(o)(3)(i). (niXl)(i)(A). and (0(2). 63.l206(b)(1) and (c)(l); Title \T at 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title \' permit. OPL Exceedance: Minimum Ring Jet Sump Level In order to comply with the particulate matter standard in the HWC MACT, an owner or operator of a hazardous waste incinerator must, among other things, establish and comply with an OPL for the minimum scrubber tank volume or liquid level using a CMS. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(m)(1)(i)(B). Heritage established the applicable minimum scrubber ring jet sump level for the Facility in the 2010 NOC as 1.7 feet as a 1-hour rolling average. On December 6, 2011, the scrubber ring jet sump level at the Facility fell below the minimum scrubber ring jet sump level OPL. By failing to maintain the scrubber ring jet sump level at or above the required minimum level. Heritage violated the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(m)(1)(i)(B) and 63.1206(bXl) and (cXl); Title V at4O C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title \T permit. 14 OPL Exceedance: Minimum Scrubber pH of the HWC MACT, the owner or operator of a hazardous waste inèinerator must establish and comply with an OPL for the minimum wet scrubber pH on an hourly rolling average as the average of the performance test run averages. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(o)(3)(iv). In order to comply with the hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas standard Heritage established the applicable Minimum Scrubber pH for the Facility in the 2010 NOC as 7-6 as a 1-hour rolling average On May 18, 2014, the scrubber pH at the Facility fell below the Minimum Scrubber pH OPL. By failing to maintain the scrubber pH at or above the required minimum level for the Facility, Heritage violated the HWC MACT at 40 C.FR. § 63.1209(o)(3)(iv) and 63.1206(b)(1) and (c)(1); Title V at 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title V permit. 40 C.F.R. 63.1206(c)(3)(ii) Failure to Duct Emissions to Air Pollution Control Equipment 63.1206(c)(3)(ii) requires that, during an AWFCO, the owner or operator of a hazardous waste incinerator must continue to duct combustion gases to the air pollution control system while ha7ardous waste remains in the combustion chamber (Le. the hazardous waste residence time had not transpired since the hazardous waste feed cutoff system was activated). 40 C.F.R. 94 § On April 12, 2011 and July 13, 2013, Heritage failed to continue to duct combustion gases to the air pollution control system while hazardous waste remained in the combustion chamber (i.e. the hazardous waste residence time had not transpired since the hazardous waste feed cutoff system was activated). By failing to duct combustion gases to the air pollution control system during an AWFCO while hazardous waste remained in the combustion chamber at the Facility, Heritage violated the HWC MACI at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(3)(ii); Title V at 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b); and the Facility's Title V permit. 40 C.F.R. 63.1211 Recordkeeping and Reporting Violations Combustion System Pressure The HWC MACI at 40 C.F.R. § 63.12 11(b) requires affected sources to retain, among other things, "information required to document and maintain compliance with the [HWC MACI]. including data recorded by [CMS] and copies of all notifications, reports, plans. and other documents submitted to [EPA or Ohio EPA]." 15 Heritage is required to demonstrate compliance with the MACT Provision for combustion system leaks using an instantaneous monitor to monitor the pressure in: (1) the 5CC. and (2) the inlet and outlet shrouds. "Instantaneous monitoring" for combustion system leak control means detecting and recording pressure, without use of an averaging period, at a frequency adequate to detect combustion system leak events from hazardous waste combustion. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1201(a). 1-leritage does not record the instantaneous pressure of the 5CC or the inlet and outlet shrouds. Heritage records one-minute averages of the 5CC pressure and inlet and outlet shroud pressure. Since at least September 11,2013, Heritage has failed to record the instantaneous pressure of the 5CC and the instantaneous pressures of the inlet and outlet shrouds. Heritage violated 40 C.F.R. § 63.1211(b) by failing to maintain records of the instantaneous pressure of the 5CC and the inlet and outlet shrouds which are measurements required to document and maintain compliance with the regulations of Subpart EEE. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Of' 'VIOLATIONS Heritage's violations have caused or can cause excess emissions of organic MAPs. dioxinsffl.irans. PM. PM metals (such as antimony, cobalt, manganese, nickel. and selenium)1 mercury. semivolatile (lead and cadmium) metals. low volatile (arsenic. beryllium, and total chromium) metals, hydrogen chloride and chlorine. Organic HAPs: Organic HAPs include halogenated and nonhalogenated organic classes of compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinaied biphenyls (PCBs). Both PAHs and PCBs are classified as potential human carcinogens, and are considered toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative. Organic HAP also include compounds such as benzene, methane, propane, chlorinated alkanes and alkenes, phenols and chlorinated aromatics. Adverse health effects of HAPs include dathage to the immune system. as well as neurological. reproductive, developmental, respfratorv and other health problems. DioxintFurans: Dioxins and furans can cause a number of health effects. The most well-known member of the dioxins/ftirans family is 2.3.7.8 TCDD EPA has said that it is likely to be a cancer causing substance to humans. In addition, people exposed to dioxins and furans have experienced changes in hormone levels. High doses of dioxin have caused a skin disease called chloracne. Animal studies show that animals exposed to dioxins and furans experienced changes in their hormone systems. changes in the development of the fetus, decreased ability to reproduce and suppressed immune system. 16 EM: Exposure to particles can lead to a variety of serious health effects. Fine particles pose the greatest problems. Scientific studies show links between these small particles and numerous adverse health effects. Epidemiological studies have shown a significant correlation between elevated PM levels and premature mortality. Other effects associated with PM exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, lung disease, decrease lung function, asthma attacks, and certain cardiovascular problems. PM Metals (antimony, cobalt, manganese. nickel and selenium): Studies have shown that antimony accumulates in the lung and is retained for a long time. Antimony has been associated with lung damage and myocardial effects. Cobalt has been reported to cause respiratory effects in humans including irritation, wheezing, asthma and pneumonia and may cause lung cancer. Chronic exposure to high levels of manganese by inhalation in humans results primarily in central nervous system effects. Respiratory effects have been reported in humans from inhalation of nickel. EPA has classified nickel refinery subsulfide as a human carcinogen and nickel carbonyl as a probable human carcinogen. Smdies of humans chronically exposed to high levels of selenium in food and water have reported discoloration of the skin, pathological deformation and loss of nails, loss of hair. excessive tooth deca. lack of mental alertness and listlessness. Mercury: Chronic exposure to elemental mercury in humans affects the central nervous system with effects such as increased excitability. irritability, excessive shyness, and tremors. The major effect from chronic exposure to inorganic mercury is kidney damage. EPA has classified mercuric chioride (an inorganic mercury compound) as a Group C possible human carcinogen. Sethivolatile metals (lead and cadmium): Chronic exposure to high levels of lead in humans results in effects on the blood, central nervous system. blood pressure, and kidneys. Reproductive effects, such as decreased sperm count in men and spontaneous abortions in women have been associated with lead exposure. Chronic inhalation or oral exposure to cadmium leads to a build-up of cadmium leads to a build-up of cadmium in the kidneys that can cause kidney disease. Cadmium has also been shown to be a developmental toxicant in animals, resulting in fetal malformations. Low volatile metals (arsenic. beryllium, and total chromium): Chronic inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic in humans is associated with irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. Inorganic arsenic exposure in humans by the inhalation route has been shown to be strongly associated with lung cancer. Chronic inhalation exposure of humans to high levels of beryllium has been reported to cause chronic beryllium disease in which noncancerous lesions develop in the lung. Inhalation exposure to high levels of beryllium has been demonstrated to cause lung cancer in rats and monkeys. Chromium may be emitted tin two forms, trivalent chromium or hexavalent chromium. The respiratory tract is the major target organ for hexavalent chromium toxicity for inhalation exposures. Human and animal studies have clearly established that inhaled hexavalent chromium is a carcinogen. The respiratory tract is also the major target organ for trivalent chromium. although trivalent chromium is less toxic than hexavalent chromium. 17 Hvdrocen chloride: Hydrogen chloride is corrosive to the eyes. skin, and mucous membranes. Chronic occupational exposure to hydrogen chloride has been reported to cause gastritis. bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. In rats exposed to hydrogen chloride by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. Chlorine gas: Chlorine is an irritant to the eyes, the uppef respiratory track, and lungs. Chronic exposure to chlorine gas in workers has resulted in respiratory effects including eye and throat irritation and airflow obstruction. Date George T. ze Directo Air anc&adiation D 18 ts.n CERTIFICATE OF MAILING that I sent a Finding of Violation, No. EPA-5-15-OH-12, by Certified Mail, Retufn Receipt Requested, to: I. Loretta Shaffer, certify Stewart Fletcher Vice President General Manager Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. dlb/a Heritage Thermal Services 1250 Saint George Street East Liverpool, Ohio 43920 - I also certify that I sent copies of the Finding of Violation by first-class mail to: Ed Fasko Air Pollution Control Manager Northeast District Office Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2110 East Aurora Road Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 Bob Hodanbosi Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1800 WaterMark Drive Columbus. Ohio 43266-1049 On the 9dayof M4rd 2015 Loretta Shaffer. Program Technician AECAB. PAS CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NUMBER: 70 II 19 2 ' lb Otof I?TtEt 5263 From: Rosen, Linda Sent: Tue 6/02/15 1:22 PM To: mike_wid_1@hotmaicom? In March 2015. the US. Environmental Protection Agency commenced an enforcement action against Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. by issuing 21 Finding ofViolation for Clean Air Act violations at the company?s hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio. EPA alleges that on numerous occasions. between November 2010 and December 2014, the facility exceeded the allowable total hydrocarbon emission rate for the facility and failed to meet operation limits and requirements (such as temperature and pressure) that are specified by federal regulations and in the operating permit for the facility. These alleged violations may have caused excess emissions of hazardous air pollutants, heavy metals and soot. EPA is scheduled to meet with Heritage Thermal Services in mid-June to discuss the alleged violations and to ensure that the facility complies with Clean Air requirements to protect public health and the environment. Because this is an ongoing enforcement matter, EPA cannot provide any information beyond the statements in the Finding ofViolation. As the case progresses, there will be an opportunity for public comment on the resolution ofthese alleged violations. Affidavit Of Standing By Sandra Estell I , Sandra Estel I, da::I are as foll O\NS: 1. I an a residart of East Liverpool, Ohio, where I have Iiva:I for my entire Iife. I an 62 years old. 2. I have Iiva:t in my current house at 1410 Etruria Street for 37 yea-s. 3. I an a manber of Save Our Counties of Columbiana County, which I joi na:t in 1990. 4. I j oi na:t Save Our Counties of Col umbi aia County bsalse I bel if!Ne in its mission to prota:t the environment and public health of East Liverpool, and its commitment to ra:tuc:e or eliminate the air pol Iution emitta:t by the Heritcge-Wfl hazardous waste incinerator. 5. I havespErific, pers:>nal health, environmental, C11d aestheticinterestsiri the quality of air at my property and in the air surrouridi n9 the Herit.Wrl Incinerator. My home is locata:I 800 feet from the hazardous waste incinerator and ~proximately 75 feet ct>ove the incinerator's stack. 6. There are many days when the wind blO\Ns in the di ra:tion of my home from the ! incinerator. There are als:> many days when I experience the wind behave Ii ke an umbrella over this area, macing the air from the incinerator's stcck ba::ome tr~ in the area surrounding the incinerator and my home. 7. My husba'ld grows a garden on our property. I an concerna:t ct>out theeffa:t the air pol IUtion coming from the.incinerator has on the fruits aid vegetct>les we grow. We tiave da::reasa:t the size of our garden as a result of this c:Oncern. The 1 air pollution from the inciraator causes me to vieN gardening and eating what we grow asarisk instEB:t of a&>urceof pleasure, which iswhat itwasbeforethe incina-ator arrived. 8. Theincina-ator is a constant &>urceof stress in our lives. Since it began operating, I have felt explosions occur at the incina-ator that ma:lemefear that I needed to grct> my children and run. Until they repla:a:t their ala-m system with an alarm that could not be heard from my home, I would frs:'luently hear alarms during the day and night. This wcs a constant &>urce of fear and stress in my Iife. 9. The knowledge that violations of cir emissions standards continue to occur remains a constant &>urce of stress. The knowla:tge that violations and emissions increases may betaking plci:e without the public even having the ct>i Iity to find out is also a source of stress. 10. It is my understanding that air pollution emissions, induding excess le.tels of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, can cause dan~e to human health. I an concerned that my health mCfi have been and may continue to be harmed, a:lversely affected, and irreparct>ly injured by the air pollution emissions coming from Heritcge-WfI's haza-dous waste incinerator. 11. I belie.tetheair emissions contribute to my daughter suffering severe allergies when she comes to visit me, and to the de.tel opment of severe allergies in three of my children. 12. I belie.tetheair emissions from the incinerator have contributed to the discoloration of my neighbors' homes, which have bEmme coated in orange when they uSE:d to bewhiteor light in color. This discoloration of homes neighboring 2 our property negatively i mpais the CESthetic quality of my surrounding environment and the vieN from my home. 13. I bel ie1e the air emis9ons from the incinerator contri butai to the economic downturn of my community and to the dosing of theneel'by s:hool. 14. The relief &>ught by Aaintiffswill, if graitai by the court, help significantly in ra:fressing the injuries to my interests resulting from theallega:t violations of federal and state laN. It is my understanding aid belief that the proper enforcanent of the CIEHl Air Act and the Ohio State I mplanentation Aan will result in Herit~e-WTI being re:tuirm to aihereto sperific air quality staida"ds and reporting r~ui rements estct>I ishm for the protection of humC11 aid envi ronmenta health. ~NORA ESfELL SNorn before me and subsl"i bed in my presence this _ ____;,,_1.]__ day of {!) oT 2016. /,.,- Marilyn Bosco State of Ohio My Commission Expires December 18, 2020 3 iohn R. Kasich, Governor Mary Tayior, Lt. Governor Craig W. Butter, Director Protection Agency May 26, 2017 Mr. Vince Waggie Re: Heritage Thermai Services 1250 St. George St. Notice of Vioietion East Liverpool, Ohio 43920-3400 Air Permit Coiumbiana County 0215020233 MAEL Division of Air Poiiation Controi til 33qu ??nial: ?3311733?? earn seen Dear Mr. Waggie: On April 28, 2017, Heritage Thermal Services submitted the quarteriy report for the continuous emissions monitoring systems as required by the Title permit, P0108372, issued on Juiy 5, 2011. The report was reviewed on May 15, 2017. Findings Based on a review of the quarterly report, Ohio EPA has determined that emissions unit N001 violated the permitted allowable hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limitation. in order to bring your into compliance, we recommend promptiy addressing this violation within the timeframes outiined in this ieder 1. Ohio Revised Code (ORG) "No person any applicable requirement of a Title permit or any permit Titie permit P0108372, sections and ?Hydrocarbon emissions from the stack shall not exceed 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7' percent oxygen, reported as propane. . 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart section ?You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmOSphere that contain hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane.? The terms and conditions of Titie permit P0108372, and the requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart establish a THC emissions iimitation of 10 parts per by volume (ppmv), over an bouriy rolling average. Northeast District Office a 2110 East Au rora Road 8 Twinsburg, OH 44087-1924 epa.ohio.gov a (330) 963-1200 {330) 487-0769 (fax) MR. VINCE WAGGLE MAY 26, 2017 PAGE 2 Violation: The quarterly report submitted on April 28, 2017, identified the measured THC emissions rates above the emissions limitation on March 25, 2017, from 11:23 am. to 12:20 pm, with values ranging from 72.15 to 12.78 ppmv, as an hourly rolling average. An exceedance of the THC emissions limitation, as identified above, is considered a violation of the terms and conditions of P0108372 and ORC Requested action: Within 30 days of receipt of this letter, Heritage Thermal Services shalt submit a compliance plan to Ohio EPA which will identify how the facility will address the emissions exceedance identified above and how exceedances of this type will be prevented in the future. Conclusion The Ohio EPA requests that Heritage Thermal Services undertake the necessary measures to return to compliance with Ohio?s environmental laws and regulations. Within 30 days of receipt of this letter, please provide documentation to Ohio EPA of the actions taken to resolve the violations cited above. Documentation of steps taken to return to compliance includes written correspondence, updated policies, and photographs, as appropriate, and may be submitted via the postal service or electronically by email to the email address below. Failure to comply with Chapter 3704. of the Ohio Revised Code and rules promulgated thereunder may result in an administrative or civil penalty. ll circumstances delay resolution of violations, Heritage Thermal Services is requested to submit written correspondence describing the steps that will be taken by a date certain to attain compliance. Please note that the submission of any requested information to respond to this letter does not constitute waiver of the Ohio authority to seek administrative or civil penalties as provided in Section 3704.06 of the Ohio Revised Code. Thank you for your time and cooperation and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (330 )963?1261 or by email at Jana.Gannon@epa.ohio.gov. Ef?j?l??/?fl?lmm Jana L. Gannon Environmental Specialist Division of Air Pollution Control Northeast District Office ec: John Paulian/James Kavalec, Tirn Fischer, Manager, Brian Dickens, US. EPA Region Font Size: - Home About Services Members Employment OESI News Contact Us OESI is Ohio Commercial Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Each year, out Active Members process over 600,000 tons (that’s 1.2 billion pounds) of hazardous wastes generated by businesses, industries, and institutions in Ohio and other states. This represents 70% of the hazardous waste handled commercially in Ohio. Ohio Providers of Waste Management Goods and Services Associate Members offer support services such as transportation, drum cleaning, testing, communications, and training to the Ohio hazardous waste management industry. OESI members use state-of-the-art methods for processing hazardous wastes. Their operations are primarily regulated under the Resource Coonservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) through permits issued by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). Members with RCAoermitted facilities comprise the active governing body of OESI. OESI members promote chemical recovery, reuse and recycling wherever possible. The group advocates sounds methods and programs for treating and disposing hazardous wastes in Ohio. + Font Size: - Home About Services Members Employment OESI News Contact Us Active Members OESI Active Members are firms located within the State of Ohio that recycle, treat or dispose of hazardous and nonhazardous waste materials. Our Active Members are subject to regulation by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Active Members comprise the governing body of OESI. Agmet Chemtron Corporation Clean Harbors Environmental Services Environmental Enterprises, Inc. Envirosafe Services of Ohio, Inc. Heritage Thermal Services Ross Environmental Services, Inc. Systech Environmental Corporation US Ecology Veolia ES – Technical Solutions Vickery Environmental, Inc. + mess"; Am. Sub. HB. 49 Ae Passed by the Seeate moved its amend as feiiows: In line 99 0f the title, after insert ?3734,31,? In line 572, after ?3734.15,? insert ?3734.31,? Between linee 54275 and 54276, insert; ?Sec. 3734.31, (A) The director of environmental pretection shaii empley and equip such indivieuale as are needed to adequately and regularly inspect and monitor operating hazardous waste facilities, infectious waste treatment facilities, or eelid waste facilitiee located off the premises where hazardous waste, infectious waste, or eeli? waste is generated. (B) The director may employ and equip such individuals as are necessary to inspect and monitor operating hazardeue waste facilities, infectious waste treatment facilities, er solid waste facilities ether than those described in divieien (A) of this 1 section. "Txrx 1 r3 S1 7' {1 F??i m-F: Pk?r?e (1 min": xx?; 173.5.) ugh? 4.4.1? Va. VA 1 n?vrgn'11n ?wt-347413? mm (:13 ma? xu ibmpawi 1. .544 mu. ?Linux. 11 Ms. ?auvaum 4: 154?? vi? vs F?x 131%xr {1+1 a a? Lu 3.. mei?ug Vi; 1..) 54.4.1, ML: Muugzl uvugvLiz. .LA .1. u. Lu us.) Wyn; L194. .551.) Lu f?k "raw/v r?i 1 wrap-1: 1 1 7min?? r3 ?my" vr?w ULI. statutes.) 3.3. pix.? guiawi ?Ink; up 3.0 eh ?w eh i??in ?in r1 ?ex? in, 1/1 1? J. pilUii U1 k, V??ilu ?La, bus I UL Jae} uiiubl132143494366063 49 48 {'31 mi?: arm Litui \z nu v; 7' nmw'! ?rx Ann f?f \iumb} Vb}. 4 ?x A xiuua;bxwv all35{Mary .L '1 KY nf? puny-4: A ?rm 1? r?x?rx I In VVLL r? 1? up 3:14.. .LLou?j 28 ?Wm u; {gym} 7 ("jg m, J. -1 1- ll LLUJ. nv? UL '1 3 mug ?r7 71/) (1 L) Anni-"125.4. 14 .J myN?s" 1?9? LBLUHAM . 2% Lil"; 71 Jul. r74 Mk} 4? 4: VIM-Subwim 2% @mxzu 9* mm 5 my ?ilk/? LthVui 23 Lu ?yr-1i? um 22 ?i?U-Ia F?ivx ring a .L k? VJ- VHMW LL LKALAMJLJ wr-TE mi? 7?5? 66666? Page 2 1 ?r 1' we wr; 1? "iiwumw A 1.. Mg.) a 3v .1. 1% f. Ava-i why- hi? n1? 1" ?vx 53?51%; m1 "1 1 r: .Li Lbui ykub 1.. moody beta?; \?um .L. a; (Y ear-r v- ?w irmn v.L. wan.LJ. v1.3.1, :5 ?5 f8 '1 {Win ?at mi" mm ?P?ir?s mi- 1,4. LA L, 5 AU 4.1. . 1&3?pr 4. in?; I?wa? .L LL ?w 11?; .3 F1 4: +11 vs?? AA wings. VJ. 3.4ka LVL 2 L. tweak}. L54.- mn? rain- 1w kinn 1cm varQ 5 1p 12? (an art U1 ?lm Lauda?h?? xv .. UL ?Law .1. .1. uzik?, VA. beau @1111 r11 1" ??11 1" m?z? 34%1-31: rx 31m ream? {ream 3 5% pizoou uh Li.- MLuwu ?mu giro. lluLaLAL?xA us.) mam?am mi? {:11qu ny- 1 r1{'nrq 3! LL.- iuuigu pun 4: .Lu i. wanna, 1. Luna yuan, In line 106002, aiter ?3734.15,? insert ?3734.31,? The motion was agreed to. SYNOPSIS Insoection of commercial hazardous waste facilities 3734.31 Removes the Director of Environmental Protection?s authorization un?er current law to do ali of the following: ii) Emgloy and equip one quali?ied individual or utilize groven and universally accepted technology to yerform ongoing on~site inspection ano monitoring functions a: each operating commercial hazaroous waste facility; Recover the actual an? reasonable costs incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for maintaining qualified Page3 Ex668613;? agency persamnei anmgite CO perfarm auah ingpectiam and manitering functians at the and Negotiate with the Owner 0: cp?rater of a far the placement 0f ad?i?iemal anaite ingpectars a: the faciliiy an? far the costs incurred by the for maintaining thoge inspectars at the facility. Page'17? John R. Kasich, Governor Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor Craig W. Butler, Director September 2017 This letter covers Ohio EPA’s decision on the onsite inspector program at Envirosafe Services of Ohio, Inc, Heritage Thermal Services, Inc, Ross Incineration Services, Inc, and Vickery Environmental, Inc. Ohio EPA has considered public input, the number and type of violations cited, and the compliance history at those four facilities among other factors. Going forward Ohio EPA will conduct four inspections a year at those four commercial treatment, storage and disposal facilities that receive hazardous waste from offsite and are doing some form of incineration, deep well injection or landfill disposal. The four inspections per year will be two full compliance inspections and two focused compliance inspections. These inspections span a number of days. The specific details of the focused compliance inspections are still being finalized, but may include, operational inspections, manifest reviews and waste profile reviews. The focused compliance inspections will be facility specific based on the needs and waste treatment methods at each facility. As with any facility in Ohio, an inspector will be available to respond to complaints and provide oversight as needed for: • • • • • Construction activities; Corrective action activities; Spill response; Sampling; and Instances of non-compliance in which additional inspections may be needed. Thank you for providing comments about the onsite inspector program. As Ohio EPA moves forward with these inspections, feedback is welcome from the communities impacted. For any questions, please contact Mary McCarron by calling (614) 644-2160 or via email at mary.mccarron@epa.ohio.gov. Central Office • 50 W. Town St. • Columbus, OH 43216-1049 www.epa.ohio.gov • (614) 644-3020 • (614) 644-3184 (fax) John R. Kasich, Governor Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor [Ohio Environmental Craig w. Butler, Director Protection Agency September 5, 2017 As an active member in the community regarding Heritage Thermal Services, Inc (HTS), we are reaching out to provide some information regarding changes to the RCRA on-site inspector program at HTS located 1250 Saint George Street, East Liverpool, OH 43920. For over 30 years, the RCRA on-site inspector program has focused on ensuring compliance on a routine basis at commercial hazardous waste facilities receiving waste from offsite generators that are doing some form of incineration, deep well injection or landfill disposal. Over the past few years, Ohio EPA has been reducing the frequency of RCRA on-site inspections at HTS. The reduction of RCRA on-site inspections was the result of continued compliance awareness by HTS. Historically, Ohio?s statute (Ohio Revised Code section 3745.31) allowed Ohio EPA to recover costs incurred from commercial hazardous waste facilities receiving waste from offsite generators that conduct incineration, deep well injection or landfill disposal for having an on-site inspector at the facility. Effective October 1, 2017, a change in the statute will no longer allow Ohio EPA to automatically recover the incurred costs for an on-site inspector. Ohio EPA is evaluating the RCRA on-site inspector program for HTS. In part, this evaluation includes but is not limited to: frequency of inspections, what is being inspected, number and type of violations cited, compliance history and public involvement. A final decision will be made in the coming weeks regarding compliance inspections at HTS. Any public input received will be taken into consideration before a final decision is made about the RCRA on-site inspector program. Any comments should be sent by September 19, 2017. For additional information or to submit comments, please contact Mary McCarron by calling (614) 644- 2160 or Via email at marv.mccarron@epa.ohio.gov. Sincerely, ?ag/wee Bradley Mitchell Hazardous Waste Permitting Manager Central Office - 50 W. Town St. 0 Columbus, OH 43216?1049 - (614) 644?3020 0 (614)644?3184lfax} I $1 John R. Kaslch, Governor . Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor Fr Ohlo Environmental Craig W. Butler, Director Protection Agency August 31, 2017 Alonzo Spencer 1233 Penn. Ave. East Liverpool, Ohio 43920 Mr. Spencer, This is a letter following up on your Aug. 30, 2017 voicemail regarding US. EPA enforcement action pending with Heritage Thermal Services, inc. i left you a voicemail with this information and told you I would follow up with a written response. Ohio EPA has no new information on this enforcement action. You may contact US. EPA for more information: Brian Dickens, Chief Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Section U.S. EPA, Region 5 312?886-6073 i hope this is helpful. As always, please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, (3 74 WW Mary rron Public involvement Manager 614?644-2160 cc: Darla Peelle, Pic 50 West Town Street - Suite 700 - P.0. Box 1049 0 Columbus, OH 43216-1049 epa.ohio.gov 0 (614) 644-3020 - (614) 644-3184 (fax) Scanned by CamScanner {aha-?5 ?um-I EA 5 aw?xwx??n 9 mm". . 7km? LEGISLATIVE . l? 31. it a if; p" HUICITY BUILDING 126 West Sixth Street September 20, 2017 Brian Dickens, Chief Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Section US EPA Region 5 Ralph Metcalf Federal Building 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, 60604-3590 Mr. Dickens, It was recently brought to the attention of the East Liverpool Ohio, City Counci' .wnrt problem with the U5. EPA enforcement action which has been pending with Heritage Therma? Service over what is now a period of months, extending to a couple of years. This matter has beer taker ur an ad?hoc committee of East Liverpool City Council. We hereby request copies of the documents related to this issue, along with any applicable time-line for relief and a statemen progress toward resolution action at this time. Please foreword your response to: East Liverpool City Council City Building, 126 W. 6th street, East Liverpool Oh. 43920 Attention: Clerk of Council Lipton, Eric Fw: WTI-Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. 5 messages JOHN TORMA To: Lipton Eric Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:29 AM ----- Forwarded Message ----From: Cederholm, Eric .eric@epa.gov> To: Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017, 5:06:30 PM EDT Subject: WTI-Heritage Thermal Services, Inc. Good afternoon, Thank you for taking my call and discussing with me your letter you sent in. As discussing on the call, I mentioned a series of links that will help guide you in your pursuit of information concerning Heritage Thermal Services, located at 1250 St. George Street, East Liverpool, Ohio 43920. Please use the following links, as they may assist you with the information you are seeking: Enforcement and Compliance History Online: · https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110027242320#pane3110027242320 o Contains various enforcement and compliance information, including state and federal activity, violations, and penalties Previous FOIA requests: · EPA-R5-2013-009338 o https://foiaonline.regulations.gov:443/foia/action/public/view/request/ 800a7df0 · EPA-R5-2014-000699 o https://foiaonline.regulations.gov:443/foia/action/public/view/request/ 80149324 · EPA-R5-2014-001120 o https://foiaonline.regulations.gov:443/foia/action/public/view/request/ 801564d9 · EPA-R5-2015-006988 o https://foiaonline.regulations.gov:443/foia/action/public/view/request/ 806f226d · EPA-R5-2015-010478 o https://foiaonline.regulations.gov:443/foia/action/public/view/request/ 808ca141 · EPA-R5-2017-004519 o https://foiaonline.regulations.gov:443/foia/action/public/view/request/ 811b27ed · EPA-R5-2017-008583 (in process, an interim response has been sent) o https://foiaonline.regulations.gov:443/foia/action/public/view/request/ 813b3c21 Please review the records in the previous FOIA responses above. If you have any questions feel free to call or email, and I will do my best to assist. Thank you, Eric P. Cederholm US EPA, Region V Air and Radiation Division 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-18J) Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 gov Protecting the environment is everyone’s responsibility. Help EPA fight pollution by reporting possible harmful environmental activity. To do so, visit EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/complaints/index.html NY Times: Heritage Thermal Services mew. Er It Pherseh. Christepher -!heritage-thermalceme Hey ?ii" 1-. le me - Mr. Lipten: lam resp en cling en hehalf ef Heritage Th erm al Seryices te yeur email te Jeanne Jenes inquiring sheet a pending EPA matter. HTS is in engeing discussiens and ceepereting fully with the EPA cencerning the 2015 Netice ef?y'ielatien that yeti reference. eelicy is net te cemment further en engeing legal matters er te ereyide site teLirs relating te such matters. HTS has re bust, selehisticatecl enyirenmental pregrams and persennel at its East Liyerpeel facility and the cempany is cemmitted te centintieu sly enhancing its eerferman ce and enyirenmental cempliance. Regards. Chris Phersen Christepher T. F'hersen Preeident Heritage Thermal Semi-ices 1253 St. I{Seerge Str. East DH $3932] SSEI cem C) HERITAG Check: eut eur latest cemerate capabilities yiclee: Click here te see mere. And as always. we leye hearing hew we are eeihg. Cemelete eur custeme.r same-:- as eften as yeu wish. Cennect with Heritage: websitei twitter facehee-lr. I linheein HERA Traininti C::it.y C>-F E::~SI Ll"VE::~~C>C>L LECISLATIVE DEPARTMENT C>l-ll C>, LJ.S.~. 43920 CITY BUILDING l 26 West Sixth Street November 20,2017 Eric P. Cederholm USEPA, Region V Air and Radiation Division 77 West Jackson Blvd (AE-18J) Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 Sir : Several weeks ago, the East Liverpool City Council sent a letter requesting documentation and/or clarification regarding an apparent failure to take enforcement action on a violation citation here in our city. Since then we have received no specific response from the USEPA concerning this matter. Some online sites have been forwarded to us concerning enforcement and compliance history but that has not clarified this issue. Some confusion remains as to why a USEPA violation was (or might have been) turned over to Ohio EPA for enforcement action. The failure of government entities such as yours or ours is of course a serious breech of our shared responsibility to act in the interest of citizens. This is a matter we take in earnest and we imagine you do as well. Please respond to our original request with all due haste so that we may resolve this issue and put the publics mind at rest. We patiently await your prompt reply. Sincerely, John Torma, Council President Cc to US Senators Brown and Portman, US Congressman Johnson, State Senator Shiavoni, State Representative Ginter - EFH r' . not 2.5ng ?/11le Lb; MA JEWI W: 43% "'HE'ddg? . ?91 Wilmbfuh?hHU-W I. HA E5 FM Willa TM j? ?mm ?4?th wr ML- wf?gum .a BM ?5 W?m - Case: Doc #2 9-4 Filed: 07/21/17 1 of2. PageID 211 0? 5?0, 75% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY i REGION 5 2?9 5- 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 4? CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 0 4t NOV 15 2016 REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: Craig W. Butler Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency PO. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Re: Upcoming Consultation regarding Accuracy of Information on which Proposed Clean Air Act Section 303 Action is Based Dear Mr. Butler: I am in receipt of your November 10, 2016 correspondence to Alice Chow, the Associate Director of U.S. EPA Region 3?s Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis. In your letter, you address U.S. invitation to consult on the accuracy of the information to support a finding of imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health in East Liverpool, Ohio. On the call currently scheduled for Wednesday, November 16, 2016, U.S. EPA looks forward to a robust discussion with Ohio EPA and PADEP about the available data and studies. We are forwarding to your staff today the meteorological data collected by the monitor in Lawrenceville, West Virginia. U.S. EPA is in the process of loading this data into its air quality system. My staff assures me that, while U.S. information collection and investigation continues, the Agency has provided Ohio EPA with all other data and publicly available information underlying conclusions, including:l East Liverpool Ambient Monitoring Data-Primarily Collected by Ohio U.S. Health Study of Airborne Manganese Exposure in East Liverpool; U.S. Air Toxics Assessment'of East Elementary School in East Liverpool; 2010 Health Consultation for East Liverpool Requested by Ohio September 22, 2016 Update to its 2010 Health Consultation; and Ohio 2008 Air Quality Study of East Liverpool. lWhile U.S. EPA has provided or is today providing Ohio EPA with all data and publicly available information underlying U.S. conclusions, we have not provided internal summaries and analysis (such as the case referral to the Department of Justice or summaries of the environmental studies) that constitute protected or privileged material. We anticipate, however, that those conclusions and the basis for them would be discussed at our consultation. Recycleleecyclahle 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer) Case: Doc #2 9-4 Filed: 07/21/17 2 of2. PageID 212 This information is also publicly available at: a US. website concerning Air Monitoring in East Liverpool and Glasgow: air?monitoring-data; 0 US. website concerning its health study of manganese exposure in East Liverpool: 0 US. Air Toxics Assessment of East Elementary School in East Liverpool: .epa .gov/ai r/sat/EastEleinenln fo . html; 0 website concerning its health consultation of airborne manganese in East Liverpool: liverpool/; and 0 Ohio 2008 Air Quality Study of East Liverpool: We invite your thoughts on all of this information and appropriate next steps. If Ohio EPA believes that there is information missing from this record, please let us know what that information is so that we may ensure that we have considered all relevant data and studies. We continue to believe there is a need for immediate action to address the threat to human health and the environment and look forward to discussing this with Ohio EPA during our November 16, 2016 consultation. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, mM?Diim Robert A. Kaplan Acting Regional AdministratOr We've made some changes to EPA.gov. If the information you are looking for is not here, you may be able to find it on the EPA Web Archive or the January 19, 2017 Web Snapshot. News Releases from Region 03 Settlement with S.H. Bell Requires Manganese Emission Safeguards at Plant in Ohioville, Pa. and East Liverpool, Ohio 01/18/2017 Contact Information: Roy Seneca (seneca.roy@epa.gov) 215-814-5567 Anne Rowan (EPA Region 5) (rowan.anne@epa.gov ) (312)-253-9391 Wyn Hornbuckle (U.S. Dept. of Justice) (wyn.hornbuckle@usdoj.gov) (202) 514-2007 PHILADELPHIA (January 18, 2017) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice today announced a proposed consent decree with S.H. Bell Company requiring the company to monitor and take measures to reduce manganese emissions from its 92-acre plant that spans the Pennsylvania-Ohio border in Ohioville, Pa. and East Liverpool, Ohio. The proposed consent decree was filed in federal district court in Cleveland along with a complaint alleging that airborne manganese particles from S.H. Bell’s facility may endanger the health of residents who live near the facility. The government complaint is based on authority of the Clean Air Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” also known as the “Superfund” statute). Today’s federal action builds upon actions previously taken by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). According to EPA, air monitoring conducted in East Liverpool, Ohio and Glasgow, Pa. by Ohio EPA and Pennsylvania DEP showed that the company’s operations have contributed to or caused elevated airborne manganese levels in residential areas near the S.H. Bell facility. Manganese is a naturally occurring element found in many soils, rocks and foods, and is used in the production of steel and other industrial processes. Manganese can be toxic when inhaled by humans at elevated exposure levels, leading to neurological and neuropsychological damage. In the proposed consent decree, S.H. Bell has agreed to several measures to provide both immediate and long-term reductions in fugitive manganese emissions. These safeguards include fugitive dust control measures (such as rolling doors, and a baghouse with monitoring/recording systems); a tracking system for manganese materials and video recordings of certain facility operations to help the company and regulators determine the source of manganese emissions detected in the future; fenceline monitoring with EPA-approved monitors; and required steps to investigate and, if needed, take corrective action if emissions exceed specified trigger levels. As part of the settlement, the company did not admit liability. The proposed consent decree is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval. LAST UPDATED ON JANUARY 18, 2017 Case: 4:17-cv-00131-BYP Doc #: 2-1 Filed: 01/18/17 1 of 48. PageID #: 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ----------------------------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) S.H. BELL COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) ----------------------------- Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-131 CONSENT DECREE Case: 4:17-cv-00131-BYP Doc #: 2-1 Filed: 01/18/17 2 of 48. PageID #: 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE....................................................................................................... 2 II. APPLICABILITY ............................................................................................................................ 2 III. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 3 IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF .................................................................................................................... 6 V. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 15 VI. STIPULATED PENALTIES ......................................................................................................... 17 VII. FORCE MAJEURE ....................................................................................................................... 21 VIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................................................. 23 IX. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION ................................................................. 25 X. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ...................................................... 28 XI. COSTS ........................................................................................................................................... 29 XII. NOTICES ....................................................................................................................................... 30 XIII. EFFECTIVE DATE ....................................................................................................................... 31 XIV. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................... 31 XV. MODIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 32 XVI. TERMINATION ............................................................................................................................ 32 XVII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 33 XVIII. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE ............................................................................................................ 33 XIX. INTEGRATION............................................................................................................................. 34 XX. FINAL JUDGMENT ..................................................................................................................... 34 XXI. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 34 ii Case: 4:17-cv-00131-BYP Doc #: 2-1 Filed: 01/18/17 3 of 48. PageID #: 24 Plaintiff United States of America, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), has filed a complaint in this action, concurrently with this Consent Decree, against Defendant S.H. Bell Company (“S.H. Bell”). The Complaint alleges that emissions of ambient manganese from Defendant’s facility located in East Liverpool, Ohio and Ohioville, Pennsylvania (the “East Liverpool Facility” or “Facility”) present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare under Section 303 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7603, and Section 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9606. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (“ATSDR”) has identified a minimal risk level (“MRL”) of 0.3 µg/m3 for chronic-duration (365 days or more) inhalation of airborne respirable manganese. MRL values reflect health-based estimates of exposure to a chemical over a specified duration that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects. The United States’ allegations regarding the presence of an imminent and substantial endangerment are based on a range of considerations including, but not limited to, exceedances of the MRL for chronic respirable manganese exposure. The relief embodied in this Consent Decree to abate the potential endangerment reflects the United States’ current understanding of the health risks posed by exposure to airborne manganese. Defendant does not admit any liability to the United States arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the Complaint. The Parties recognize, and the Court by entering this Consent Decree finds, that this Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith and will avoid litigation between the Parties and that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest. 1 Case: 4:17-cv-00131-BYP Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/03/17 1 of 1. PageID #: 72 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. S.H. BELL COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:17CV0131 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON ORDER The United States of America’s Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree provides in pertinent part: “If the United States receives any public comments, it will consider and file with the Court any written comments on the proposed Consent Decree along with the United States’ response to those comments.” ECF No. 2 at PageID #: 18, ¶ 5. The Court has received one comment in objection (February 24, 2017). On or before March 16, 2017, Plaintiff shall either: (1) notify the Court of its withdrawal of the proposed Consent Decree, or (2) file with the Court any written comments on the proposed Consent Decree along with the United States’ response to those comments and move the Court to enter the proposed Consent Decree. ECF No. 2 at PageID #: 18, ¶ 7. IT IS SO ORDERED. March 3, 2017 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION _____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) S.H. BELL COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) _____________________________________) Case No. 4:17-cv-00131-BYP Hon. Benita Y. Pearson UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MOVE FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE On January 18, 2017, the United States filed a Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree (Dkt. 2) and lodged with the Court a proposed Consent Decree (Dkt. 2-1) between the United States and S.H. Bell Company (“S.H. Bell”). On January 25, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register, advising the public of the lodging of the proposed Consent Decree and inviting the public to comment on it for a 30-day period commencing with the date of publication of the notice. See 82 Fed. Reg. 8436-8437. The United States received four comments during the public comment period; two comments were from local residents and two from industry-associated entities. On March 3, 2017, this Court issued an Order directing the United States to move for entry of the proposed Consent Decree or notify the Court of its withdrawal of the proposed Decree by March 16, 2017 (Dkt. 4). The United States seeks this extension to allow time to brief incoming administration officials with decision-making responsibility about this case, so that they may become familiar with the subject matter and issues presented. The new EPA Administrator was confirmed by the Senate less than a month ago, on February 17, 2017, and many subordinate political positions at the agency remain unfilled. Requests to continue proceedings to allow time for new administration officials to become familiar with cases under their authority are customary. See Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. Salazar, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2009) (noting that an extension of a preliminary injunction briefing schedule was granted after a change in administration). THEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the Court provide the United States an extension of time until March 30, 2017 to make the requisite filing. Defendant has indicated that it does not object to the United States’ request for additional time. Dated: March 14, 2017. Respectfully submitted, PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES JEFFREY H. WOOD Acting Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division /s/ Jeffrey A. Spector JEFFREY A. SPECTOR Senior Attorney Environmental Enforcement Section Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044-7611 Phone: (202) 514-4432 Jeffrey.Spector@usdoj.gov 2 DAVID A. SIERLEJA Acting United States Attorney STEVEN PAFFILAS Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney’s Office 801 West Superior Avenue; Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113 (216) 622-3698 OF COUNSEL: JOHN C. MATSON Associate Regional Counsel U.S. EPA, Region 5 Office of Regional Counsel 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (C-14J) Chicago, IL 60604 CHARLES MIKALIAN Associate Regional Counsel U.S. EPA, Region 5 Office of Regional Counsel 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (C-14J) Chicago, IL 60604 HUMANE ZIA Senior Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA, Region 3 Office of Regional Counsel 1650 Arch Street (3RC10) Philadelphia, PA 19063 3 G Model NEUTOX 2239 No. of Pages 9 NeuroToxicology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect NeuroToxicology Full Length Article Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio Erin N. Haynesa,* , Heidi Sucharewb , Timothy J. Hilberta , Pierce Kuhnellb , Alonzo Spencerc , Nicholas C. Newmana,d, Roxanne Burnse,1, Robert Wrightf , Patrick J. Parsonsg,h , Kim N. Dietricha a University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Department of Environmental Health, 160 Panzeca Way, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA c Save Our County Inc., East Liverpool, OH, USA d Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Division of General and Community Pediatrics, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA e Kent State University East Liverpool Campus, 400 E 4th St, East Liverpool, OH, 43920, USA f Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1468 Madison Ave, New York, NY, 10029, USA g Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, 12201-0509, USA h University of Albany, School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY, 12222, USA b A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: Received 14 April 2017 Received in revised form 1 August 2017 Accepted 1 September 2017 Available online xxx Background: East Liverpool, Ohio, the site of a hazardous waste incinerator and a manganese (Mn) processor, has had air Mn concentrations exceeding United States Environmental Protection Agency reference levels for over a decade. Save Our County, Inc., a community organization, was formed to address community environmental health concerns related to local industry. Researchers from the University of Cincinnati partnered with Save Our County to determine if air Mn had an impact on the neurocognitive function of children in the community. Methods: Children 7–9 years of age from East Liverpool and its surrounding communities, were enrolled (N = 106) in the Communities Actively Researching Exposure Study from between March 2013–June 2014. Blood and hair were analyzed for Mn and lead, and serum was analyzed for cotinine. We used linear regression to assess associations between biological measures and IQ subscale scores. Results: Geometric mean blood lead (n = 67), blood Mn (n = 66), hair Mn (n = 98), and serum cotinine (n = 69) concentrations were 1.13 1.96 mg/dL, 10.06 1.30 mg/L, and 360.22 2.17 ng/g, 0.76 6.12 mg/L respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, hair Mn was negatively associated with Full Scale IQ. Conclusions: Hair Mn was negatively associated with child IQ scores. Community partners were instrumental in the conception and implementation of this study. © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Manganese Appalachia Children Environmental justice Community engagement Abbreviations: BSMSS, Barratt Simplified Measure of Social Status; CARES, Communities Actively Researching Exposure Study; Cd, cadmium; GSD, geometric standard deviation; Hg, mercury; HI, hazard index; ICP-MS, Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry; MDL, method detection limit; Mn, manganese; OhioEPA, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Pb, lead; PM10, particle with aerodynamic diameter <10 mm; PM2.5, particle with aerodynamic diameter <10 mm; PRQ, Parenting Relationship Questionnaire; RfC, reference concentration; TSP, Total Suspended Particulate; US EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency; WASI, Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence; WISC IV, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV. * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: erin.haynes@uc.edu (E.N. Haynes), heidi.sucharew@cchmc.org (H. Sucharew), hilbertj@ucmail.uc.edu (T.J. Hilbert), pierce.kuhnell@cchmc.org (P. Kuhnell), alonzosspecer@gmail.com (A. Spencer), nicolas.newman@cchmc.org (N.C. Newman), robert.wright@mssm.edu (R. Wright) , patrick.parsons@health.ny.gov (P.J. Parsons), kim.dietrich@uc.edu (K.N. Dietrich). 1 Author deceased. 1. Introduction The City of East Liverpool sits on the Ohio River in northeastern Ohio. East Liverpool was once the center of the American pottery industry and was coined the “Pottery Capital of the Nation” (East Liverpool Historical Society Webpage, 2016). It reached its peak in 1970 with a population over 26,000 but rapidly declined along with the pottery industry; 2015 Census population estimate was just under 11,000 (92% Caucasian) (US Census American Fact Finder, 2016). Overall, 7.3% of residents have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 29.3% in the nation; 30.6% of East Liverpool residents are below the federal poverty limit compared to 15.6% in the nation (US Census American Fact Finder, 2016). The http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2017.09.001 0161-813X/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Please cite this article in press as: E.N. Haynes, et al., Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio, Neurotoxicology (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2017.09.001 G Model NEUTOX 2239 No. of Pages 9 2 E.N. Haynes et al. / NeuroToxicology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx East Liverpool School District reported that in 2010, they had a higher percentage of students in special education (19%) as compared to the state of Ohio (13%) (FY2010 District Profile Report, 2016). These socioeconomic issues are compounded by potentially significant environmental exposures. An environmental organization, Save Our County, Inc., was formed by East Liverpool residents in 1982 in response to the proposed construction of a hazardous waste incinerator in their community. In 2005, East Liverpool was deemed a potential environmental justice area by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) 2010 All Ohio Air Toxics Report reported that manganese (Mn) concentrations from an air sampling station in East Liverpool were 30 times higher than the US EPA reference concentration of 0.05 mg/ m3 (All Ohio Air Toxics Report, 2016). Based on the evaluation of ambient air Mn data, Ohio EPA indicated that S.H. Bell, a warehouse facility which handles and distributes metals, minerals, and semifinished industrial materials was the primary source of the airborne Mn (Director's Final Findings and Orders, 2016). Their data indicate that Mn concentrations in East Liverpool are highest when the wind is blowing from the direction of S.H. Bell (Health Consultation-East Liverpool Air Quality, 2016). Primarily due to elevated Mn levels, Ohio EPA calculated the non-cancer hazard index (HI) in East Liverpool as 34.5; an HI below 1.0 is considered “safe” (All Ohio Air Toxics Report, 2016). Mn is an essential nutrient, but is neurotoxic in excess. Adverse neurological outcomes, such as declines in cognitive and motor function, are associated with occupational exposures as well as environmental exposures among highly exposed adults and children (Racette et al., 2012; Rugless et al., 2014; Lucchini et al., 1997, 2012; Bowler et al., 2006; Haynes et al., 2015a). In response to the 2010 reports regarding elevated airborne Mn levels, the East Liverpool Public Schools Superintendent requested that “hair metal level tests” and “follow-up neuropsychological tests” be conducted on school-aged children . . . by Dr. Erin Haynes” (McElwain, 2010). The first author (E.N.H.) and co-authors (E.N.H, P.K., N.N., K.D.) were already engaged in an ongoing community-based participatory research study, Communities Actively Researching Exposure Study (CARES) in Marietta, Ohio with residents concerned about airborne Mn (Haynes et al., 2011). Following meetings with East Liverpool residents and the East Liverpool Board of Health, a pilot study was conducted to examine hair Mn and blood Mn concentrations in children (Haynes et al., 2015b). Hair Mn concentrations in that pilot study were nearly double the levels found in children of similar age from the Marietta cohort (Haynes et al., 2015b). The purpose of this study was to respond to the request of the school district Superintendent and investigate the association between Mn exposure and child cognition. 2. Methods 2.1. Study participants This current study represents an expansion of CARES (Haynes et al., 2015a) into East Liverpool, Ohio. Children aged 7, 8, or 9 were recruited to participate if they resided in East Liverpool or the surrounding area throughout their life with no plans to relocate in the coming year (Fig. 1). The biological mother must also have resided in the area during her pregnancy with the child. A volunteer sampling strategy was used for recruitment, which included postcards sent home from schools, advertisements aired on local radio and printed in local newspapers, and recruitment information placed in public locations such as libraries. Participant data collection took place March 2013–June 2014. Children with a health condition that could impede their ability to participate in the behavioral assessment testing (i.e. a significant visual, auditory, or motor impairment) were excluded from participation. The University of Cincinnati Institutional Review Board approved this study. All parents signed an informed consent and children signed an informed assent. High-volume sampling for Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) was conducted by Ohio EPA at three East Liverpool locations: Port Authority, Maryland Avenue and Water Plant (Fig. 2). Through a public records request, Ohio EPA provided monthly values since 2003 for each of these locations. The values are a composite result from analysis of five filters for each month. 2.2. Specimen collection and analysis The methods for specimen collection and analysis have been described in detail elsewhere (Haynes et al., 2015a; Wright et al., 2006). Approximately 20 strands of hair were collected from the occipital region, cut with ceramic scissors as close to the scalp as possible. Long hair was trimmed to 6 cm and taped towards the non-scalp-side of the hair shaft onto an index card with an arrow pointing in the direction of the scalp end. The hair sample was placed into a pre-labeled envelope and stored at room temperature until shipped. The Channing Trace Metals Laboratory, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard School of Public Health, which processed hair samples for the pilot study, relocated to the Molecular Environmental Health Laboratory at the Mount Sinai Hospital in the interim and was utilized for the current study. The samples were first washed in a 1% (v/v) TritonTM X-100 solution and then digested using concentrated HNO3. Acid digestates were then analyzed by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) using previously described methods. The method detection limit (MDL) for Mn in hair was 2 ng/g. In light of this change in location, five hair samples from the pilot study were retested, with the new lab providing slightly higher values, but within 10% of the original lab. Venous whole blood specimens were collected and shipped to the Laboratory of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry at the New York State Department of Health’s Wadsworth Center where they were analyzed for Mn via Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (GFAAS). The MDL for Mn in blood was 2.1 mg/L. Blood lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg) was determined by ICP-MS. The MDL for blood Pb, Cd, and Hg were 0.069 mg/L, 0.042 mg/L, and 0.33 mg/L respectively. Serum cotinine levels were also measured at the Wadsworth Center. The MDL was 0.05 mg/L cotinine in serum. Child’s serum ferritin was measured by the East Liverpool City Hospital. 2.3. Neurocognitive assessment Neurocognitive assessments of the children were conducted by a registered nurse from East Liverpool after training by an experienced developmental neuropsychologist (K.N.D.). Quality control was maintained via periodic review of videotapes of the assessment sessions. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenIV (WISC-IV) (Wechsler, 2003) was administered at the time of biological sample collection. The WISC-IV provides an overall score (Full Scale IQ) and four major areas of intellectual functioning including Perceptual Reasoning, Processing Speed, Working Memory, and Verbal Comprehension. 2.4. Other covariates The IQ of the primary caregiver was assessed with the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) (Wechsler, 1999). The Please cite this article in press as: E.N. Haynes, et al., Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio, Neurotoxicology (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2017.09.001 G Model NEUTOX 2239 No. of Pages 9 E.N. Haynes et al. / NeuroToxicology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 3 Fig. 1. Map of East Liverpool CARES Participants. Parenting Relationship Questionnaire (PRQ) (Reynolds and Kamphaus, 2004) was also administered. The PRQ provides T scores for the following domains: Attachment, Communication, Discipline Practices, Involvement, Parenting Confidence, School Satisfaction, and Relational Frustration. The PRQ was administered for each child, including siblings. Parent education was assessed using the Barratt Simplified Measure of Social Status (BSMSS) (Barratt, 2012; Davis et al., 1991). Other demographic or socioeconomic factors considered included child age, child sex, child race (white yes/no), child birth weight, tobacco smoke exposure, whether or not the child’s home was owned or rented, and parent income. 2.5. Statistical analysis The following variables were transformed using the natural logarithm to obtain normal distributions: hair Mn, blood Mn, blood Pb, serum cotinine, and serum ferritin. As a blood sample was unobtainable on some children, there were missing values for the biological measures: 7% hair Mn, 38% blood Mn, 37% blood Pb, 35% serum cotinine, and 40% serum ferritin. Correlations among variables were evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Potential differences between sexes for each biomarker were evaluated using the t-test. Multiple imputation using the Please cite this article in press as: E.N. Haynes, et al., Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio, Neurotoxicology (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2017.09.001 G Model NEUTOX 2239 No. of Pages 9 4 E.N. Haynes et al. / NeuroToxicology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Markov chain Monte Carlo method was used to impute missing value (Bernard and Rubin, 1999; Schafer, 1997). The imputation models included all independent variables of interest and covariates and 10 datasets were imputed. Potential nonlinear associations between log hair and blood Mn and WISC-IV outcomes were examined using penalized splines in generalized additive models with covariates included as linear terms. Since there was insufficient evidence to suggest nonlinear associations, linear regression models were used to evaluate associations with WISC-IV outcomes. The method of generalized estimating equations was employed to account for the correlation between siblings. Covariates that were either statistically significantly associated with the outcome (p < 0.05) or resulted in over 10% change in the biomarker variable when removed were retained in the final models. Separate regression models for each biomarker (hair Mn, blood Mn, blood Pb, and serum cotinine) were evaluated. The hair Mn models were stratified by sex. All biomarkers (hair Mn, blood Mn, blood Pb, and serum cotinine) along with covariates were then included in the multiple biomarkers models. The sample size of 106 children provides 80% power to detect a coefficient of slope greater than or equal to 2.52 between biomarker measure and WISC-IV outcome with significance level of 0.05 assuming a coefficient standard error of 0.90. All statistical analyses were completed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and R version 2.10.1 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, www.r-project.org). 3. Results 3.1. Air sampling Geometric mean Mn air sampling values from three Ohio EPA monitoring stations in East Liverpool (Figs. 2 and 3) exceeded the US EPA reference concentration (RfC) of 0.05 mg/m3 during the current study period: Water Plant (1.04 mg/m3), Port Authority (0.17 mg/m3) and Maryland Avenue (0.09 mg/m3). The values from the Water Plant station were noticeably higher than the other two stations and were twentyfold the RfC. The monthly mean airborne Mn concentrations exceeded the RfC for every month during the study period at the Water Plant and Port Authority, and 69% of the months at the Maryland Avenue site. The geometric mean air concentrations measured from 2003 to 2014 were similar to the current study period: Water Plant (1.01 mg/m3), Port Authority (0.18 mg/m3) and Maryland Avenue (0.11 mg/m3); all of these values exceeded the RfC. Fig. 2. Location of Ohio EPA air monitoring locations in East Liverpool, Ohio. Please cite this article in press as: E.N. Haynes, et al., Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio, Neurotoxicology (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2017.09.001 G Model NEUTOX 2239 No. of Pages 9 E.N. Haynes et al. / NeuroToxicology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 5 Fig. 3. Monthly Mn total suspended particulate (TSP) concentration (mg/m3) from Ohio EPA monitoring stations in three East Liverpool locations 2003–2014. 3.2. Descriptive characteristics of participants Our study participants (n = 106) were predominately Caucasian (non-Hispanic white, 83%) and female (61%) with a mean age of 8.4 years (Table 1). Annual household income below $20,000 was reported by 39%, with 81% below $50,000. Most parents (62%) reported having 12 or more years of education. Biological measures of blood Pb, blood Mn and hair Mn (geometric mean GSD) were 1.13 1.96 mg/dL, 10.06 1.30 mg/L, and 360.22 2.17 ng/g, respectively (Table 1). Blood Hg and Cd were measured (geometric mean GSD were 0.11 2.64 mg/dL, 0.09 1.40 mg/L respectively) (data not shown). The geometric mean of serum cotinine was 0.76 mg/L (GSD 7.84 mg/L). Hair Mn was significantly and inversely correlated with blood Mn (r = 0.27, p = 0.03) and significantly correlated with serum cotinine (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) and blood Pb (r = 0.27, p = 0.03); blood Pb was significantly correlated with serum cotinine (r = 0.44, p < 0.001). Males were significantly higher in log blood Mn (p = 0.02) while females were significantly higher in log blood Pb (p = 0.01). No significant sex differences were identified for log hair Mn, log serum cotinine, and log serum ferritin. Mean performance on our core measures of intellectual attainment (Wechsler, 1999) were within normal limits, but below national standardized population norms by about 5–20 points or one third to more than one standard deviation. 3.3. Neurocognitive outcomes Linear associations were investigated. In the single biomarker model, increasing log hair Mn was significantly associated with declines in Full Scale IQ, processing speed and working memory (Table 2, Model 1). In the sex-stratified models (Table 2, Model 2), although the associations between hair Mn and WISC-IV outcomes were not statistically significant, a similar trend was observed between hair Mn concentration and Full Scale IQ for both female ( 2.24, 95% CI: 4.88, 0.39) and male ( 1.55, 95% CI: 4.20, 1.10). In the multiple biomarkers model (Table 2, Model 3), the association between log hair Mn and WISC-IV outcomes was no longer statistically significant. There was no association between log blood Mn, log blood Pb, log serum cotinine, and WISC-IV outcomes, except log serum cotinine was positively associated with verbal comprehension in the multiple biomarkers model. 4. Discussion During the current study, monthly mean airborne Mn concentrations exceeded US EPA reference concentration of 0.05 mg/m3 at Ohio EPA sampling stations: Water Plant (100% months), Port Authority (100% months), and Maryland Avenue (69% months). The mean value of Mn measured at the Water Plant sampling station also exceeded US EPA reference concentration by twentyfold during the study period. Using Water Plant samples collected in 2011, the Mn fraction of TSP was determined as 0.35 for PM10 (aerodynamic diameter <10 mm) and 0.037 for PM2.5 (aerodynamic diameter <2.5 mm) (Colledge et al., 2015). Utilizing 2003– 2013 Ohio EPA air sampling data from East Liverpool and these size fractions, the estimated respirable (PM10) geometric mean concentration was 0.123 mg/m3 and PM2.5 was 0.013 mg/m3 (Colledge et al., 2015). The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection collected TSP and PM10 samples at a location one-mile northeast of the East Liverpool Water Plant from October 26, 2014 through July 5, 2015, after the current study period (Ambient Air Toxics Monitoring Project Summary, 2016). The arithmetic mean airborne Mn concentration for TSP was 0.521 mg/ m3 (n = 40 samples) and PM10 was 0.1452 mg/m3 (n = 41 samples). A number of studies have reported neurological health effects at similar levels of airborne Mn (Lucchini et al., 2012; Haynes et al., 2012; Menezes-Filho et al., 2011, 2009; Rodriguez-Agudelo et al., 2006; Baldwin et al., 1999; Beuter et al., 1999; Bowler et al., 1999; Mergler et al., 1999). Another Ohio community with environmental Mn exposure demonstrated reduced child IQ at a reported geometric mean airborne Mn PM2.5 exposure level of 0.011 mg/ m3 (Haynes et al., 2015a, 2012). A Brazilian study with limited Please cite this article in press as: E.N. Haynes, et al., Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio, Neurotoxicology (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2017.09.001 G Model NEUTOX 2239 No. of Pages 9 6 E.N. Haynes et al. / NeuroToxicology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of the study participants. Characteristic Child Measures Age (years) [mean SD] Child’s sex [n (%)] Male Female Race/ethnicity [n (%)] Caucasian Hispanic More than one race Birth Weight (g) [mean SD] [n = 101] Hours per day near someone smoking [mean SD] East Liverpool Total (n = 106) Range 8.40 0.95 7.00–9.99 41 (39) 65 (61) 88 (83) 3 (3) 14 (13) 3270 590 1.7 3.3 1361–4876 0–8 Household measures Income [n (%)] Less than $20000 $20000–$50000 More than $50000 Parent Education <12 Years [n (%)] Parent IQ [mean SD] [n = 89] 32 (36) 37 (41) 20 (23) 39 (44) 95.98 10.26 70–122 Biological measures [GM GSD] Hair Mn (ng/g) [n = 98] Blood Mn (mg/L) [n = 66] Blood Pb (mg/dL) [n = 67] Serum Cotinine (mg/L) [n = 69] Serum Ferritin (ng/m) [n = 64] 360.22 2.17 10.06 1.30 1.13 1.96 0.76 6.12 30.48 1.72 16.84–15967.08 5.9–18.4 0.30–6.64 ^sion CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I I,. « • "IViL" 4rii\jP''k°yL certify that I sent a Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation, No. EPA-5-16-OH-01, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to: Mr. Dominic V. Nardis Manager, Environmental Health and Safety TimkenSteel Corporation 1835 Dueber Avenue Canton, Ohio 44706 j I also certify that I sent copies of the Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation by firstclass mail to: , ^ Terri Dzienis Administrator, Air Pollution Control Canton City Health Department 420 Market Avenue North Canton, OH 44702 Robert Hodanbosi Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 50 West ToWn Street, Suite 700, Columbus, OH 43215 On thq^^^ day of _2015. Loretta Shaffer AECAB, PAS CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NUMBER: 70)4 OOO) \ SS3 io " " "! " " " " " " ! )_$ _ % _ ' & _ _ } (Ą Ą  ¢ Ą Ą Å cĄ ódĄ Ą _ . Ù ÆĄ Ą Ą Ą $ aĄ 2 1Ą7 , +Ą Ą Y Ą » O BĄ Ą3* 2Ą ~ Ą Ą Ą +ôCĄ4 ß Ą GƒĄ Ą7 à ì Ą6 %eĄ Ą*F1Ą 5© fĄ < ª Ą tFs pĄ 6 vĄ &#= #(OĄ ĄŒ Ç 'Ą ë Ą  Ą £)gĄ Ò . BĄ" Ą «" Ą X Ą Ą $ õDĄ5!EĄ Ą4Õ " Ą / Ą Ą Î "öĄ y Z Ą 9 hĄ4 ¬ Ą x Ą€ÛoĄ wĄ † ‘ĄŠ Ą 0 ÓÏ SĄ! Ą :’ @Ą z„ Ą Ą Y ­ ¤Ą Ą V ä8 Ą& < :Ą ĄI TJ Ą A&H Ą Ą Ô Ą 8 ¥aiĄ jĄ Ą " Ą M Ą Ą $ ÷DĄ5!CĄ Ą Ą Ą Ą $ )Ą ) Ą Ą ® Ą ĄGĄ Ą Ą Ą È Ą Ą kĄ32Ą‹ ĄāĄ u3Ą Ą Aq %Ą ! Ą ž Ą>P Ąø Ą í Ą?¯ Ą ĄÉ Ą - Ą åJ Ą Ą) ^XĄ‡ ĄIĄ! Þ- Ą Ö Ą Ą ° ÊĄ м WĄ ]L / Ą  Ą  / ^ZĄ #ÜĄ! ]L Ąb‚{ … Ą Ąr1Ą %& 6 ĄĂĄ* %* Í EĄ Ą) Ą  Ą ¨ K§ lĄ ± Ą› < [ù Ą WĄ Ą Ą Ą Ą;²? Ą Ą ` Ą ט 8$ Ą %Ą ‰ Ą ³ Ą Ą ´ :Ą Ą U½'R ç. ` ĄN U N Ą nĄµ ê ;Ą Ą - 'R é 0 Ą ËèĀĄ Ą Ą ¾ 9º(+Ą ĄÁ Ą ,0 Ą Ą ÝQÑ¿ SĄ Q Ą 7“ĄM Ą œ /#(;Ąú Ą"Ą ãÀ>ûĄ Ą ؚ” Ąð Ą Ą Ą Ąî¶ Ì · Ą T ¦ Ą Ą Ą&HŽ Ą ˆ Ą V™ Ąñ Ą9,_ Ąü Ą 'Ą â' \ýĄ Ą Ą#=— .-K Ą Ą Ą Ÿ Ą–¹= #(+ Ą Ą ï ¸ mĄ @Ą  á Ą@ Ą ? Ą\ Õ Ą Ą $ þĄ Ą>P Ą ăĄÿ Ąò, Ąæ Ä Ą Ą Ú 0 Ą¡[ Ą "60\0D62 "60\0E*.F6_ ^_ S@KX73_[AX? (8>9X+/G:_ BH_ ,V74_ LCW_OM_ #;1]1I75_ -R¤žxŒ¤ “W„J¤ˆx¤ 8{Œ8„‡¤.¤6xvC< 8o68 ¤ ,xŒ¤„JxŒc7¤l.b8¤‡J8¤ 8{Œ8„‡¤“U‡Ja¤ %¤6.f8o7.~¤7.Ÿ„¤?ycix”WoF¤ 86:Zzˆ¤x>¤‡O„¤g8‹8 ¤)8¤„JxŒh7¤Lxh7¤.q ¤6xo>8 8o68¤•[‡NWo¤ ¤6.g8o70¤7.Ÿ„¤?ycix–XoG¤ 868Wz‰¤x>¤ ‡JP„¤c=‹8 ¤ £ 3¤ 8x}H8 W =6‡x ¤ W ¤/q7¤'.7W.‡\xo¤ X‘P„Wxo¤ o6cx„ 8¤ 66 ¤ "]6J.8c¤ 4i ¤#xƒJ—8„ˆ¤'8I[xo.j¤$D68¤ 8Š„¡¤-i.ˆx„ ¤!s7P.q.¤ „„W„‡.q‡¤ ‹x‚8¢¤ 8o8 .c¤ ,>8E54I*E2E5CI >G9B?>=5>E2;I&A?E53E:?>I 65>3HI (57:?>I I I+ I< ++ (I% I ;­cW­Wç9W»_¶»ç3¶šfç3¶§·X±Þ çCH ç <­cX±Wç9X½`¶»ç3¶›fç3¶§·Y±Þ çY±cç KÔ­3¶œfç6­f»qß ç;­b ç H»¶bffc‚­rÇçHÔÂÇ×Êç˶ç Ë~fç3fY±ç2”¿ç2bÌç + çP K 3 ç ååç/+ ç ç ç I ç I ç ç ç ç ç $ I% I/ % + % I ' ! I " I% I/ % + %!I N~fçP K ç6­Ùƒ»¶µ«f­ËWçH»¶Ëfbʃ¶­ç2rf®bàç„ÇçƒÇÇԅ³sçÊ~ƒÇç7ƒ­cƒ­tç¶jTƒ¶žW˃¶­ç 8GT ç ˶ç=­c…Y±Wç9X½_¶»ç3¶œfç3¶§·Y²ä ç CH ç;­cY±Wç:]_¶»ç3¶œfç3¶§·Y±áç >9G çY±cçKÔ­3¶œfç 6­f»qâ çB°b ço»çچ¶W˃¶­Çç¶jçË~fç3f[ç2‡»ç2bËç 2bË ç + çP K 3 çååç/+ ç WËçË~fç;9Gç kbƒƒÒâ琳ç6^Ëç3~–bWu¶ ç?­cƒY±W ç L~ Çç7GTçƒÇçˆÇÇÔfcç·ØÈÔY±ÊçÓç Kfbˁ¶­Ççç ' W ' ç¶jçË~fç2bÊ ç + çP K 3 çåç/+ ' W ( ç N~fçWÔÑ~¶¼”Êãçʶç‰ÇÇÔfçÊ~ƒÇç7GTç~WÇç_ff­çcffvWËfcç˶çÊ~fçIfwŠ¶­Wç2c§´˜ÇË»Wʶ»ç¶jç6H2 ç Ifxƒ¶­ç, çW­cç»fcffyWÊfcç˶çÑ~fç4‡»fbʶ» ç2ƒ»çW±cçIWcƒWʃ¶­ç4ƒÚƒÇƒ¶­ ç *+ +-+%(1I # I) , +%(1I (%. I +9E;5I0I(5@F9A5=5>EDI @ Kfbʋ¶­ç- c  ç¶jçË~fç2bÊ ç + çP K 3 çæç/..W c  ç»f¹Ô‰ÀfÇçfWb~çÇÏZËfç˶çcfÚfŸ¶·çY±cçÇÔ_ª—Ê ˶ç6H2ç\綷f»Wˇ³wç·f¾¬…Ëç·»¶ ¾W§ç܀b~ç§ffÊÇçË~fç»fºÔƒ»f§f­ÊÇç¶jçLŒËfçU ç G­ç4fbf§_f»ç + ç ç 6H2ç}Y±Êfcç=­dƒY±Wçn­W çW¸·»¶ÚW¡ç¶jç‡ÊÇçL‰Ê¡fçQç3¢fY±ç2•Àç2bËçHfÉËçH¼¶z½X© çflfbˍÚf F¶Úf¨_f»ç' ç ! " Kfbʋ¶­ç, # W ç¶jçË~fç2bÊ ç +$çP K 3 çåç/..W W çW­cç + ç3 7 J åç/ / a ç·»¶ÚƒcfçÍ~WË çWpf»çÑf fmfbˉÚgçdWÊfç¶jçW²Þç·fÅÊç·»¶q¼W©çW··»¶Úfc綻緻¶©ÔzWÊfcçÖ°ef»çLƒÊfçRç¶jçÑ~fç2bÎ ç­¶ ɶÔÂbfçÇÔa™fbËç˶çL†Ë£fç Sç§Wä綷f»WÊfçfÝbf·Ë煳çb¶§·¡ŽY±bfç܏Ê~çWçLË¤fçTç·fÁ§‘Ë * ;­cW­Wç4h·W¼Ë§f­Êç¶jç6­Û’»¶´©f¯ÐW¥çDY±Wsf§f­Êç A56Eç“ÇÇÕfcç˶ç;9GçWçL”ʦfçT G·f»Wʃ­{çHfÆËçM 01 ) +* * 0%ç L•ÊfçTçHiÄ‡Ë ç¶­ç4fbf§_f»ç! ç & ç OfçLƒËfçV 6Ú ňÛ Ğ ň Eň ň, ň ň ň ňB< ň ň‡8+Œň ň ; j ň 6 ‘ň *'¢' J £ J* &ňÜ Ģ ň1 % !;/ň &ň>''*ň ň 2m ň ň· ) ň" ’ň 0ň A ň 6 ň E ň o ňB ň ň4 ň ň H - ňIJ ģň t ň ň„- ň3-ň =! .0ň _ 7% ň ň(Ýhy 2n , ňe Þ2ï ß ň *'] # # ] ¨* ň ň sň¸ ) ň" “ň &ň Y ?^ 0# ň ˆ°+ ňA ňLň 6 ň CĐo ňü ň r ňÍ ň ňĶ ĥ ň4-ň =! .ň (=! .ňµ? > ň ňij ň . ň ň 'ň ň ň Ä ”ň ) h ň ) ň ň kĿň 7 ň {÷ ^ ª gXňb ' ň K8+Ž ňA ý ňLň ĝ ň $ à ňK8+ň ň E /ň Ċ ň ň < 2n ň <ň ň Ĥ ňG ň =O ň ň ň 7%  ň ċ À ňķ ň i ň 6 ňM ň !R ň ň ňA ňLň 6 [ň t CTÏň ČQ ňE r •ň Ĩ! % –ň!w ĸ Sň \ň ) F Ðň ň F ňd, ġň ň ň? č ň" ň ň ň )á ƒ~ňŁ N%—ň Ę $ ňK8+ň ň ňī ¦ ň <ň ň¶?@eň ň ň@ ň ňþ ň ň Wpÿň «ň ň ň ł Á0 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ň ň> ňÅ ň &ň_ ň¾0f ň `#> ˜ň G WpZ ň@ ň ň PM ň Ñį ħO Ø 3ň ň !z ňB ň gğ Ā!zňj Ĝ āň 7% ňG ň ň ň ň ň ň 8à ň Q ň qq‚ , ň ³» ň l ň ň( Ĕň ň ň ň ň ň ňùň âÖUñ2m , ň$ x ã ä ` + ň F ň #Iň "&ň@ ň ‚ 4 ňG ň‰¹¯(±®ºň ė ň S ň+Ĵ ­ň ƒ~Ù 4™ň½ × Òš ňb  %†ň( S ň ň# ň 1 9 ň Yň JIň( <ň ¥ň ( NĠň ň ĂC ň ĹT ň ň ň ň ň . ň ) ň Į ;…ň ň ň . ň ă ň ň ň ň ň Yň ǐň ň ú ň ň² ň ň ň û ň ı ň ňc ň ň ň Ą ň ň ň ň ň -ň ň ň ň, /ň å 3 ňc ¼ň ň ň ň ň ň ň ň æ ň ň… %ň ň †ň óV ç ň ´ň ň ň ň ¬ň ň ň ň ňH N% ň # ň 1 9 ň " ňa§* * # ň 1 9 ň :Xň ©›ň f MXň œň 2ð ň ň È ň 7} ň ň ň ĺň ň ŀ Pň . ) ň  ;/ň ; ň ň ň Ë ňd /ň"[ň ň ' # ň 1 9 ň " a" ň ňŠ ň $ ň Hņň " è &ň/ ň ň Ļ¿H ň ň DV:5 ň/ ň É ň &ň 3ň R ň é ň¤ ąň: ň õ ěø Pň $ v \ň ň wx ň ňļ  ň 4 ň ň ê ň ň ňÌ ň 5Ē ZëU3ň ì ň Ć - ň ň ň ĵ ć ň $ ň Ńňĭ ň !{Ħ0‹ # ň 1 9 ňŇň " ň $ kĚ ň ň ň ň 5ď žň5Ė D Óň F ň ň €Âĩİ Ÿň i ĽuI , ňĎ Î s ňĪ ň ľu ň ň ň ň ę: ň ň =Oí ň ńň Ê ň 7} & 5 D 4ň- l ň Q ň Ĉ ň ň $ ň U ň ö WR Ôň $ v ¡ňDVň ň !Tĕ ň„ ň €Ņň ňÕ ň:5 ň ĉ î ň Ĭ ň C ňB ňēZòy3ňÆđô !" % # % 5 7 ģ0 $>Cģ@m ģ ģˆ›™ ģ ģ ģ î >Šģ_1&ģ" ģ@ ģ 8 ģ Ě ģ ē ģ ·— ģ ģ ģ ģ ) r ģ $ *ģ ģ o ģ ģ ģ­¬ + $ 7 ‹ģ0 ą ģ g ¾ UģG È"n ģ,€£ -Vģ2 ģ ģ# Éx ģÊ ģ ģĔ Ë ģ_"j ģ z @ D 5 W 2 ģ# >ģÌ ģ : h» ģ°ćģ ģK å ģ ² ģ ģ ģ ģ āģ ģ ¼ ģ" ģ/ ģ V¡ b žģH ģ(ģ!!, -,ģ/-,ÍÎ-Cģ ģ ģ ~Ï $ģ i ģ ) ģ = ÿ ģ:ģ ģ tģÐ ģ A ģ ģ/ ģ D¢“bW ! E \ 2 ģ# Ñ* ģ õ ģe ģ ģ { ģ = ģ Ò$ ģ^ = % ģF&ģ ^&ģ ģ p ģ'.ģRfJ ĕ ģ Đ ģ ģ (ģ??\ / ģF % *ģ ZUģ Cģ‚¤ ģ Ó= ģ ģ] ģ + ģ 4 A ģ Ċģ ģG'0a { $ģď ģ % ģI® 8Nģ ( ģ ģ ģ' ¸ï ģ ģ( ģ ģ Lģ f– ģ ăŒģ T ģ 4 ģČÆ ģ ģ ~ ģ ģ!‘ ģ* ģ l< < ģ hóÔ ģ ģ[?ģ 93 ģ "O< ģ8 ģ ģ y ģ ;ģ S Õ Bģ ģ ģƒ + q ģ ģ "è Rö „ģ P ¿ģ ģ % ģId ³ģ (&ģ ģ ' ģ ģ( ģ 5 Z ģF % +ģ [ ģ /.ģ§ ģ z = ģ ģ] éģ + ģ 4 A ģ 4ģ ģG 0a ) Nä Àģ ģ % ģ•ª 8NĠģ Hģ 5 ģ ģ' K ģ ģ(&ģ ģ¨ ģ Ç ģ 4&ģT ģ 4 ģw Ö ģ ģ ę ģ ģ!’ ģ* ģ × ģ ØðÙ ģ ģ !ģu 9 ģ :Ú Ćģ:ģ ģ k ģ ;ģ S Û Bģ ģ ěģ… q ģ ģ Ė÷ †ģ % Bģ ģ Ü ģI ģ ( ģ ģ ' ģ 5 ! 2 ģ# Q3 ģ ģ@ Ý ģ ģ ģ m ģ6 g ģ ģ ģ .ģ `1&ģ 7P ģ0n $>ŽģL¹Xģ ģ M ) ģ Bù 93 ģ vy ģ# ê ģ ģ ģß ģ "û ģ à ø ģR ģ ¯º Ĝģ ģÁ ģ Mģ í ģ *ģ ģeMģ JôĢá  Y Y˜ $ ! % % % ! % % %! % !% % % E «Å ģ# ëđĀ ģ ģ L ģ¥ 3 þģ ģ l .ģ`1.ģ© ¶ ģ¦ 3 ģ i ģ ñ oĝ.ģ p 7Pú ģ0 ÃĞ&ģ6 Dģ ģ â ã ģ ģ ģ½ òģĎ ģĘ O ģ$ ģu jģ,7 æģ6'ģ -ģ !ģ) ģ ċ± ç ģ ģw ģ6 ģ# k Ĉğģ ģ XģHģ?ģ ģ rģ Qsģ ģœEŸģ 9 ģ "O ģ< ģ d ģ ģ µ ģ ) Ä ģ ) ģ ģ Sģ Qsģ % ģĒ ì ģ1"Ąģ'”ģ ģ /, -ģ ;ģ ģ2 ģcģ1 Ă ĉ ģ 5EB”T…{´ 9 ´…H´”RE´#B” ´ ´7 5 $ ´³´ g 9 9 ´ ´ $"( 4 ´³´ A ´ 9{D´”RE´1'5+´9”´ ´ $ ( 4 ´³³´ E g ´9{D´ 9 6E´T…h9”T…{´A¬´, DU9{9´*9‡A…‡´ $…eE´ $…v†9­ ´ /€DV9{9´*9‡A…‡´ $…eE´ $…v†9® ´ 02 ´9D 5š{ $…eE´&{E‡P° ´-€B ´gED´”…´EªBE´gE9D´EwTT…{ ´0E9D´B9{´9JEB”´9iv…”´E E²´…‡O9{´T{ ”RE´A…D¬´Aš”´W´x…”´DF”‹TvE{”9g´”…´”RE´{E‡£…š´¯”Ev ´-{´BRTjD‡E{ ´g…¥´kEžEl´…H´mE9D´X{´•SE Ag……D´B9´‡Ešn”´Y{´†E}~9{E{”´D:v9OE´”…´”RE´A‡9T{´T{O´†‡…AgEv ´g…§E‡´,3 ´RE9ˆZ‚O´†‡…AoEv ´g…¦ED´O‰…¨”R ´9D´9EvT9 ´.{ 9Dšg” ´iE9D´9KEB”´”RE´{G‡¤…š´ 9D´B9‡DT… ;‘Bšp9‡´¬”Ev ´9{D´v9¬´B9šE´DEB‡E9’ED´fdD E± NƒB”[…{ ´‡E†‡…DšB”\¡E´†‡…AqEv´M‡´A…”R´vE{´9D´§…vE{ ´9D´E‹c…š´‹ce´M‡´†‡EO{9{” ©…vE{´9D´DE¢Eg…†]{P´IE™E ! '«BE´gE9D´9D´C…eE´…E{´EvT^…{‘´T{B‡E;“E´•SE´9y…š{”´…H´9B_D´‡9T{´=D´†šAg`B´Eª†…š‡E ”…´š„SE9g”R¬´†?XBšr9”E´x9—E‡ ´ 2@aBšs9”E´v9˜E‡ ´E†EB`9tu°´L{E´†9bBšg9”E ´B…{–\Aœ”E´”… ‡E‘†bŠ9”…Ž²´†‡…AkEv‘ ´mš{O´D9z9OE´9€D´†‡Ev9™‡E´DE9”R %9”E´ )E…‡QE´ %c‡EB” 8 rOĄ # ôõ Ą ¢ 0Ą ®£Ą ĄsĄ Ą Ą7¯Õ ° DĄ Ą> ÚH ± PĄ; [Ą }!24W 3u<3 1Ą þĄ è  % Ą: .Ą ÷Ą ²Þ Ą ßø ê (Ą gĄ w ­Ą* • Ą ¥ ĄÛ Ą* (Ą ìÿ/Ą Ą ' & ÉĄ "J ĄpŽã Ą Ç Ą & ĀĄ Ą„ í À ,Ą€ Ą nA Ą EÁ ¦ QĄ Ö?Ą b_ Ą "Ą Ą àî$¤Ą « Ą Ą Ą ³ Ą Ą Ą7 ´ ,Ą Ą>$ Ê µ Ą NĄ¡% Ą A Ą& ¶ Ą hĄ x LG ˜Ą8 Ą ùK È Ą §NiĄt M Ą Ą…ˆ× û·ÎÏ Ą \RĄ Ą Ą #$ SĄ"H ÃÙ ¸ Ą d 4 Ą Ąlá ¨ Ą 6 'BLÄ ,™Ą- Ą $@Ó TĄ ~ Ą Ą+Ą y FĄ ä Ą Ą ¹ Ą Ą 6 ÂÔ šUĄ Ą X ) Ą :º ¬‰ ËĄq ÐĄ z ý Ą © Ą= C% Ą 9 Ą “ðÑ Ą Ą 'Gâ & ï IĄ D Ò Ą 5 5 Ą# » ¼Œ-ŠĄ › Ą œ MÆ ü .Ą – Ą 2f Ą+Ą ă@ óEĄ !]Ą‡Ì Ą /Ą=ŸC% ĄÜ Ą# ª ÍĄ úK Ą +Ą Ą< FĄ ‹ Ą!Ą' Ą mĄ Y `(Ą 8 ;Ą eĄ 9Ø ?- Ý VĄvĄ Z )Ą Ą † ā Ą‚^Ą! Ą jë ½ ò’ Ą ƒé  Ą Ąkö æžĂĄ { ñ BçĄ ¾ åÅ Ą Ą ‘ Ą ) Ąo IĄ ”0Ą ¿ Ą c Ą * 1Ą"J— Ą a Ą &( ( ( $ ( ! % ( " ( ! $ #'( ( ( f L 1212^1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ^ 1 % 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 jj?i 3 ^ REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REOIESTED Matthew Greene Environmental, Health, and Safety Corporate Manager Globe Metallurgical, Inc. County Route 32 Waterford, Ohio, 45768 Dear Mr. Greene: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing the enclosed Notice and Finding of Violation (NOV/FOV) to Globe Metallurgical, Inc.'s facility at Count}' Route 32, Waterford, Ohio (you or the facility). EPA has determined that you are in violation of the Standards of Performance for Ferroalloy Production Facilities, the facility's Title V Permit and Permit to Install, and the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SEP). Violations of the Standards of Performance for Ferroalloy Production Facilities constitute violations of Section 111 of the Act. Violations of the Ohio SIP and the Permit to Install constitute violations of Section 110 of the Act Violations of a Title V Permit constitute violations of Section 503 of the Act. Section 113 of the Clean Air Act gives us several enforcement options. These options include issuing an administrative compliance order, issuing an adrninistrative penalty order and bringing a judicial civil or criminal action. We are offering you an opportunity to confer with us about the violations alleged in the NOV/FOV. The conference will give you an opportunity to present information on the specific findings of violation, any efforts you have taken to comply and the steps you will take to prevent future violations. In addition, in order to make the conference more productive, we encourage you to submit to us information responsive to the NOV/FOV prior to the conference date. Please plan for the refinery's technical and management personnel to attend the conference to discuss compliance measures :and commitments. You may have an attomey represent you at this conference. Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (100% Post-Consumer) The EPA coatacts in this matter are Virginia Galinsky, Environmental Engineer, Alexandra Letachy, and Terry Branigan, Associate Regional Counsel, You may call them at (312) 353-2089, (312) 88^ 6035 and (312) 353-4737, respectively, if you wish to request a conference. You should make the request for a conference within 10 calendar days following receipt of this letter. We should hold any conference within 30 calendar days following receipt of this letter. Sincerely, Enclosure cc: Bob Hodanbosi, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS IN THE MATTER OF: Globe Metallui^cal, Inc. Waterford, Ohio NOTICE AND FINDING OF VIOLATION EPA-5-1S-OH-20 Proceediags Pursuant to the Clean Air Act 421J.S.C.§ § 7401 etseq. NOTICE AND FINDING OF VIOLATION Globe Metallurgical, Inc., (Globe) owns and operates a ferroalloy production facility at County Road 32, Waterford, Ohio (facility). Operations at the facility include severd electric arc furnaces and their associated air pollution control devices. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is sending this Notice and Finding of Violation (NOV/POV or Notice) to notify the facilit}^ that we have found violations of the General Provisions to the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS), the NSPS for Ferroalloy Production Facilities, the facility's Title V Permit and Permit to Install, and the Ohio State Implementation Plan (Ohio SIP). Clean Air Act 1. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 7411, authorises EPA to promiilgate regulations establishing the NSPS. NSPS General Provisions 2. The Administrator promulgated the General Provisions to the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.1 - 60.19 (NSPS Subpart A) on November 17,1975 (40 Fed. Reg. 53346). . 3. 40 C.F.R. § 60.7(a)(4) provides that "[a]ny owner 'or operator subject to the • provisions of this part shall furnish the Administrator written notification or, if acceptable to both the Adpnundstrator and the owner or operator of a source, electronic notification, as follows: (4) A notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the emission rate of any air pollutant to which a standard apphes, unless that change is specifically exempted under an applicable subpart or in §60.14(e). This notice shah be postmarked 60 days or as soon as practicable before the change is commenced and shall include information describing the precise nature of the change, present and proposed emission control systems, productive capacrtj' of the facility before and after the change, and the ejq^ected completion date of the change. The Administrator may request additional relevant information subsequent to this notice." 4. 40 C.F.R. § 60.8(a) provides that "[ejxcept as specified in paragraphs (a)(l),(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of tids section, within 60 days after achieving the maximum, production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but not later than 180 days after initial startup of such facility, or at such other times specified by this part, and at such other times as may be required by the Administrator under section 114 of the Act, the owner or operator of such facility shall conduct performance test(s) and furnish the Administrator a written report of the results of such performance test(s)." 5. 40 C.F.R. § 60.14(a) provides that "[ejxcept as provided under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, any physical or operational change to an existing facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies shall be considered a modification within the meaning of section 111 of the Act Upon modification, an existing facility shall become an affected facility for each pollutant to which a standard applies and for which there is an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere." Standards of Performance for Ferroalloy Production Facilities 6. .EPA promulgated the Standards of Performance for Ferroalloy Production Facilities (NSPS for Ferroalloy Production Facilities), effective May 4,1976. See 41 Fed. Reg. 18501. The NSPS for Ferroalloy Production Facilities is codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Z. 7. 40 C.F.R. § 60.260(a) provides that the provisions of Subpart Z "are applicable to the following affected facilities: Electric submerged arc furnaces which produce sihcon metal, ferrosihcon, calcium silicon, sihcomanganese zirconium, ferrochrome sihcon, silvery iron, highcarbon ferrochrome, charge chrome, standard ferromanganese, silicomanganese, ferromanganese silicon, or calcium carbide; and dust-handling equipment" 8. 40 C.F.R. § 60.260(b) provides that "[ajny facihty under paragraph (a) of this section that commences construction or modification after October 21,1974, is subject to the requirements of this subpart." 9. 40 C.F.R. § 60.264(a) provides that "[tjhe owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall install, cahbrate, maintain and operate a continuous monitoring system for measurement of the opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control device(s)." 10. 40 C.F.R. § 60.262(a)(l) proMdes that "[ojn and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the pro^tisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any electric submerged arc furnace any gases which... [ejxit fi-om a control device and contain particulate matter in excess of 0.45 kg/MW-hr (0.99 Ib/MW-hr) while silicon metal, ferrosilicon, calcium silicon, or silicomanganese zirconium is being produced." Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Onality 11. Part C of Title I of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-7492, sets forth requirements for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in those areas designated as either attainment or unclassifiable for purposes of meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These requirements are designed to protect public health and welfare, to assure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources, and to assure that any decision to permit increased ah pollution is made only after careful evaluation of aU the consequences of such a decision and after public participation in the decision making process. See 42 U.S.C. § 7470. These provisions are referred to as the Clean Ah Act's "PSD Program." 12. Part C of Title I of the Act and the regulations implementing Part C, at 40 C.F.R. § 52.21, prohibit a major stationary source from constructing a modification without first obtaining a PSD permit, if the modification is major in that it will result in a significant net increase in emissions of a regulated pollutant, and if the source is located in an area which has achieved the NAAQS for that pollutant Part C and its implementing regulations further requhe that a source subject to PSD regulations install best available control technology (BACT). 13. Sections 110(a) and 161 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a) and 7471, requhe states to adopt a SEP that contains emission limitations and such other measnres as may be necessary to prevent significant deterioration of ah quality in areas designated as attainment or tmclassifiable. 14. A state may comply with Sections 110(a) and 161 of the Act by having its own PSD regulations approved as part of its SEP by EPA, provided they are at least as stringent as those set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 51.166. 15. If a state does not have a PSD program that has been approved by EPA and incorporated into the SIP, the federal PSD relations set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 52.21 may be incorporated by reference into the SIP. 40 C.F.R § 52.21(a). 16. On May 1,1980, EPA disapproved Ohio's proposed PSD program and incorporated by reference the PSD regulations of 40 C.F.R § 52.21(b) throu^ (w) into the Ohio SEP. EPA also delegated to Ohio the authority to implement the federal PSD program incorporated into the Ohio SEP. 46 Fed. Reg. 9580 (January 29,1981). See 40 C.F.R § 52,1884. 17. On October 10,2001, EPA conditionally approved revisions to the Ohio SEP to incorporate Ohio's PSD program, effective October 10, 2001. 66 Fed. Reg. 51570 (October 10, 2001). On January 22, 2003, EPA granted final approval for Ohio's PSD program, effective March 10, 2003. 68 Fed. Reg. 2909 (January 22, 2003). On February 25, 2010, EPA partiaEy approved revisions to Ohio's PSD program, effective March 29,2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 8496 (February 25, 2010). On February 20,2013, EPA partially approved revisions to Ohio's PSD program, effective March 22,2013. 78 Fed Reg. 11748 (February 20,2013). 18. Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3745-31-01(FFFFF)(2) of the federaEyapproved Ohio SEP protddes that, for stationary sources located in an attainment area, "regulated NSR pollutant" includes, among other things, any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and any constituents or precmsors for such pollutants. 19. OAC Rule 3745-31-01(LLL)(2)(b) of the federally-approved Ohio SIP provides that "[f]or stationary sources located in an attainment area for a given regulated air pollutant", a "major stationary source" is considered to be "any stationary source that emits, or has the potential to emit, two hundred fiifty tons per year or more of any regulated [new source review] NSR pollutant" ,20. OAC Rule 3745-31-01(JJJ) of the federally-approved Ohio SIP defines "major modification" as: "[a]ny physical change in or change in the method of operation of a m^or stationary source that would result iu: (1) A significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant; and (2) A significant net emissions increase of that pollutant fi-om the major stationary source... (4) Regardless of any such preconstruction projections, a major modification results if the NSR project causes a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase." 21. OAC Rule 3745-31-01(JJJ)(4)(a) of the federally-approved Ohio SIP provides that for NSR projects that only involve modification of an existing emissions unit, "[a] significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollulant is projected to occur if the sum of the difference between the projected actual emissions and the baseline actual emissions, for each existing emissions unit, equals or exceeds the significant amount for that pollutant" 22. , OAC Rule 3745-31-01(Tip of the federally-approved Ohio SIP defines "net emissions increase" as "the amount by which the sum of the following, except as limited by paragraph (TTT)(3) of this rule, exceeds zero: (1) Any increase in emissions from a particular physical change or change in the method of operation at a stationary source as calculated under this rule; and (2) Any other increases and decreases ii actual emissions at the stationary source that are contemporaneous with the particular change and are otherwise creditable. Baseline actual emissions for calculating increases and decreases under paragraph ( i ll ) of this rule shall be determined as provided in paragraph (0) of this rule, except that paragraphs (0)(l)(c) and (0)(2)(d) of this rule shall not apply." 23. OAC Rule 3745-31-01(MMMMM) of the federally-approved Ohio SIP defines "significant," in reference to a net emissions increase, as any increase in SO2 of 40 tons or more per year. 24. OAC Rule 3745-31-12(C)(4) and (5) of the federally-approved Ohio SIP require that a source submit the air quality iiLpact(s) of a major modification. • 25. OAC Rule 3745-31-13(A) of the federally-approved Ohio SIP provides that no major modification shall begin actual construction unless, at a miniTnum. the requirements of OAC Rules 3745-31-01 throu^ 3745-31-20 have been met and the stationary source has obtained a valid permit to install fi-om the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA)., 26. OAC Rule 3745-31-15(D) of the federally-approved Ohio SEP requires a major modification to apply BACT for each regulated pollutant for which it would residt in a significant net emissions increase at the source. Title V 27. Title V of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661-7661fi establishes an operating permit program for major sources of air poUution. 28. In accordance with Section 502(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7661a(b), EPA promulgated regulations establishing the minirmnn elements of a Title V permit program to be administered by any air pollution control agency. See 57 Fed. Reg. 32250 (July 21,1992). Those regulations are codified at 40 C.F.R Part 70. 29. Section 502(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7661a(d), provides that each state must submit to EPA a permit program meeting the requirements of Title V. 30. On August 15,1995, EPA approved the State of Ohio's operating permit program (OAC Rule 3745-77) with an effective date of October 1,1995- See 60 Fed. Reg. 42045 (August 15,1995). . 31. Section 502(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7661a(a), and 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(b) provide that, after the effective date of any permit program approved or promulgated under Title V of the Act, no source subject to Title V may operate except in compliance with a Title V permit. 32. 40 C.F.R § 70.6(b)(1) provides that all terms and conditions in a Title V permit are enforceable by EPA. Permit to Install 33. Effective March 10,2003, EPA approved OAC 3745-31-02 as part of the federally-enforceable Ohio SIP. 68 Fed. Reg. 29009. 34. OAC Rtile 3745-31-05 authorizes the Ohio EPA to, among other things, issue fedarally-enforceable Pamits-to-Install (PIT) with such terms and conditions as are necessar}' to ensure compliance with applicable la'ws and to ensure adeqitate protection of environmental quality. Permitting Background Title V Permit 35. The Ohio EPA issued a Title V Permit to the Permit)- on January 30,2O02 (Title V 36. The significant emission units and .associated emission control equipment in the ride V Permit relevant to this NOV/FOV are: Emission Unit ID F005 P017 P023 P902 P903 P904 P907 P908 P910 P911 Emission Unit Name Portable Jaw Crusher No. 1 Shop Alloy Sizing Line No. 1 Shop Plunging Station No. 1 Ferrosilicon Furnace No. 2 Ferrosilicon Fumace No. 3 Ferrosilicon Fumace No. 5 Silicon Metal Fumace No. 7 Sihcon Metal fumace Alloy Loader (DOW Loader) No. 2 Shop Alloy Sizing Line Control Device Filter Baghouse No. 1 Shop Sizing Line Baghouse No. 1 Shop Ba^ouse No. 2 Shop Baghouse Loader Baghouse Filter Baghouse 37. Condition A.II.1 for Emission Unit POl7 states that "[tjhe pressure drop across the baghouse shall be maintained within the range of 1 and 7 inches of water while the emissions imit is in operation." 38. Condition A.L 1. for Emission Units P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908 States that emissions from each unit shall not exceed "20% opacity as a 3-nunute average for fugitive emissions." 39. Condition A.I.1. for Emission Units P023, P902, P903. P904, P907, and P908 states that emissions from each unit shall not exce^ 0.030 grain per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust gases from the control de%dce or no.visible [particulate] emissions, whichever is less stringent 40. Condition A.L2. for Emission Unit P023 states that "[t]he permittee shall employ reasonably available control measures on the #1 shop magnesium plunging station for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the above-mentioned applicable reqtxirements. In accordance with the permittee's application^ the permittee has committed to maintain enclosures and vent emissions to a fabric filter baghouse to ensure compliance." 41. Condition A.IJ2. for Emission Units P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908 states that "[tjhe permittee shall employ reasonable available control measures on all charging, melting and tapping operations for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the above-mentioned applicable requirements. In accordance with the permittee's permit application, the permittee shall maintain enclosures and vent particulate emissions to the baghouse to ensure compliance." 42. Condition A-E.l for Emission Units P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908 requires that "[t]he pressure drop across the b'a^ouse shall be maintained within the range of 5 and 15 inches of water while the emissions unit is in operation." 43. Condition A.III.1 for Emission Unit P023 states that "[tjhe permittee shall perform daily checks, while the equipment is in operation and when the weather conditions allow, for any visible particulate emissions from tos emissions unit." 44. Condition AJII.1 for Emission Unjts P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908 states that "[tjhe permittee shall perform daily checks, while the equipment is in operation and when the weather conditions allow, for any visible fugitive particiilate emissions from this emissions unit and visible particulate emissions from the stack serving this emissions unit" 45. For Emission Units P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908, Condition A.m.1 requires that the presence or absence of any visible emissions shall be noted in an operations log. If visible emissions are observed, the permittee shall also note the following in the operations log: a. the color of the emissions; b. whether the emissions are representative of normal operations; c. if the emissions are not representative of normal operations, the cause of the abnormal emissions; d. the total duration of any visible emission incident; and e. any corrective actions taken to eliminate the visible emissions. 46. Condition A.II.l for Emission Unit F005 states that "[t]he pressure drop across the ba^ouse shall be maintained within the range of 4 to 6 inches of water \Nhile the emissions unit is in operation." 47. Condition All.1 for Emission Unit P910 states that "[t]he pressure drop across the baghouse shall be maintained within the range of 1 to 4 inches of water while the emissions unit is in operation." 48. Condition A.n.1 for Emission Unit P911 states that "[t]he pressure drop across the baghouse shall be maintained within the range of 1 to 7 inches of water while the emissions unit is in operation." PTI06-08118 49. The Ohio EPA issued PTI 06-08118 to the facility on August 1,2006. 50. The significant emission unit and associated emission capture eqxtipment in PTI 06-08118 relevant to this NOV/FOV is emission unit F008, Shop #1 Fume Handling System, controlled by No. 1 Shop Baghouse. 51. Condition A.1.1. for Emission Unit F008 states that particulate emissions from the stack "shall not exceed 0.030 grain per chy standard cubic foot of exhaust gases from the control device or there shall be no \dsible emissions, whichever is less stringent" PTI 06-08119 52. The Ohio EPA issued a PTI 06-08119 to the facility on August 1, 2006. 1- 53. The significant emission unit and associated emission capture equipment in PTI 06-08119 relevant to this NOV/FOV is emission unit FO11, Shop #2 Fume Handling System, controlled by No. 2 Shop Baghouse. 54. Condition A.1.1. for Emission Unit FO11 states that particulate emissions from the stack "shall not exceed 0.030 graio per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust gases from the control device or there shall be no visible emissions, whichever is less stringent" Factual Backgroiind 55. Globe owns and operates a ferroalloy production facility at County Road 32, Waterford, Washington County, Ohio (the facility). The facility includes several emission units, including electric arc furnaces and sizing lines. 56. At all times relevant to this NOV/FOV, Washington Coimtj' has been designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 1971 SO2 standard. Effective October 4,2014, the portion of Washington Coxmty that includes Waterford Township, where Globe is located, is designated nonattainment for frie 2010 SO2 NAAQS standard (see 78 F.R 47203). 57. Globe is a major source undeir the PSD Program because it emits more than 250 tons per year of a regulated NSR pollutant 58. On August 14, 2013, EPA conducted an inspection at the facility. 59. On March 5, 2014, EPA issued an information request to Globe pursuant to Section 114 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414. 60. Globe provided a response to the information request on June 19,2014. NSPS for Ferroalloy Production Facilities 61. On or around April 2013, Globe rebuilt electric arc furnace (EAF) #5 to increase the diameter of the furnace shell with the stated intent of using larger electrodes to increase the furnace load and allow production of silicon alloys. The increased furnace load has resulted in an increase in the emission rate of PM from the furnace. 62. The 2013 rebuild of EAF #5 constitutes a modification under NSPS. 63. Globe has not submitted any notificatioi;ts related to the rebuild and enlargement of EAF #5, has not conducted a performance test, and has not installed a continuous opacity monitor. PSD Requirements fOhio SIP) 64. The April 2013 rebuild of EAF #5 constitutes a modification to an air pollutant source under the PSD requirements in the federally-approved Ohio SIP. 65. The April 2013 rebuild of EAF #5 resulted in an emissions increase and a net emissions increase of SO2 above the significance threshold, thus maVing the project a major modification under the PSD requirements in the federally-approved Ohio SIP. 66. Globe has not applied for or obtained any permits containing the necessary PSD requirements (including installation of BACT), conducted any modeling, or undergone any other sort of pre-constmction review for this major modification. Titlp. V Permit Pressure Drop 67. On 73 days between March 2010 and April 2014, Globe operated the No. 1 Shop Baghouse outside the permitted pressure drop range of 5.0 and 15.0 inches of water while associated emissions units were in operation. 68. On 345 days between July 2011 and April 2014, Globe operated the No. 1 Shop Sizing Line Baghouse outside the permitted pressure drop range of 1.0 and 7.0 inches of water while associated emissions units were in operation. 69. From July 2010 through December 2013, Globe regularly operated the Filter Baghouse for Emission Unit F005 outside the permitted pressure drop range of 4 to 6 inches of water while associated emissions units were in operation. 70. From July 2010 through December 2013, Globe regularly operated the Loader Baghouse outside the permitted pressure drop range of 1 to 4 inches of water while associated emission units were in operation. 71, From July 2010 through December 2013, Globe regularly operated the Filter Baghouse for Emission Unit P911 outside the permitted pressure drop range of 1 to 7 inches of water while the emission units were in operation. Reported Visible Emissions from Control Device 72. Globe reported that it operated with observable visible particulate emission fi-om control devices for the following number of days in each identified quarter: Emission Unit P023/P902/P903/P904 P907/P908 Control Device No. 1 Shop Ba^ouse No. 2 Shop Ba^ouse Dates 1H2010 2H2010 1H2011 2H2011 1H2012 2H2012 2H2013 1H2010 1H2011 Number of Days 9 9 7 4 7 9 9 5 11 • 1H2012 2H2012 1H2013 2H2013 5 25 1 32 73. . Many of Globe's completed logs kept pursuant to Condition A.in.l of Globe's Title V Permit for Emission Unit P023, P902,.P903, P904, P907, and P908 did not note color of emissions, whether the emissions were representative of normal operations, if the emissions were not representative of normal operations, the reason for the abnormal emissions, and the total duration of any visible emission incident Opacity Exceedances 74. Globe provided a Method 9 reading for January 20,2011 for Emission Unit P902. The highest three-minute average opacity reading was 20.4%. 75. On December 9,2014, EPA conducted opacity readings at the No. 1 Shop building from 2:20 to 2:37 PM and from 2:38 to 2:52 PM. During the first set of readings, there were 49 three-minute average readings that exceeded 20%. During the second set of readings, there were 14 three-minute average readings that exceeded 20%. PTI06-08118 76. The table below identifies the number of days in each semiannual time period that visible particulate emissions at Emission Unit F008 from No. 1 Shop Baghouse were obsen^ed and reported by Globe. Dates 1H2011 2H 2011 1H2012 2H2012 2H 2013 Number of Days 1 3 4 9 3 PTI 06-08119 77. The table below identifies the number of days in each semiannual time period that visibleparticuiate emissions at Emission Unit FOll from No. 2 Shop Baghouse were observed and reported by Globe. Dates 1H2010 • 1H2011 1H2012 2H 2012 1H2013 Number of Days 1 4 2 12 1 10 2H2013 1 Violatioiis NSPS for Feiroallov Production Facilities 78. By failing to submit any notification of the rebuild of EAF #5, Globe has violated 40 C.F.R.. § 60.7(a)(4). 79. By failing to conduct a performance test within 60 days after achieving the maximnm production rate, but not later than 180 days after initial startup of EAF #5, Globe has violated 40 C.F.R. § 60.8. 80. By failing to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous monitoring system for measurerhent of the opacity from the baghouse controlling EAF #5, Globe has ' violated 40 C.F.R. § 60.264(a). PSD Requirements fOhio SIPl 81. Globe's failure to apply BACT to control emissions of SO2 from EAF #5 prior to commencement of operation after construction of a major modification at EAF #5 is a violation of the federally-approved Ohio SIP Rule at GAG 3745-31-15(D). 82. Globe's failure to obtain a valid Ohio EPA permit to install that meets the PSD requirements in the Ohio SIP Rules at OAC 3745-31-01 through 3745-31-20 constitutes a violation Of the federally-approved Ohio SEP Rule at OAC 3745-31-13(A). Title V Permit 83. By failing to maintain the pressure drop across No. 1 Shop Baghouse within the pressure drop range stated in the permit. Globe has violated Condition A.n.1 for Emission Units P023,P902,P903,andP904. 84. By failing to maintain the pressure drop across No. 1 Shop Sizing Line Baghouse within the pressure drop range stated in the permit. Globe has violated Condition A.n.1 for Emission Unit PO17. 85. By failing to maintain the pressure drop across the Filter Baghouses for Emission Units F005 and P911 and the Loader Ba^ouse within the pressure drop range stated in the permit. Globe has violated Condition A-H.1 for Emission Units F005, P910, and P911. 86. By exceeding the visible particulate emission limit from control devices at Emission Units P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908, Globe has violated Title V Condition A.I.I. for Emission Units P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908. 11 87. By exceeding 20% opacity as a three-minute average.emission limit at Emission Units P902, P903, and P904, Globe has violated Title V Condition A.Ll.for Emission Units P023, P902, P903, and P904. 88. By failing to consistently note in the visible emission operations log the color of emissions, whether the emissions were representative of normal operations, if the emissions were not representative of normal operations, the reason for the abnormal emissions, and the total duration of any visible emission incident. Globe has violated condition A.IIL1 for Emission Units P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908. PTI06-08118 89. By exceeding the visible particulate emission limit for Emission Units F008, Globe has violated PTI 06-08118 Condition A.L1. PTI 06-08119 90. By exceeding the visible particulate emission limit for Emission Units FOl 1, Globe has violat^ PTI 06-08119 Condition A.1.1. Date 12 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Loretta Shaffer, certify thai I sent a Notice and Finding of Violation, No. EPA-5-15OH-20, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to; Matthew Greene Environmental, Health, and Safety Corporate Manager Globe Metallurgical, Inc. Coxmty. Route 32 Waterford, Ohio, 45768 I also certify that I sent a copy of the Notice and Finding of Violation by first-class mail to: Bob Hodanbosi Chief Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio, Environmental Protection Agency 1800 WaterMark Drive Columbus, Ohio 43266-1049 On the day of 2015. CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NUMBER: "766^ ^OPQ 1^4^ 3ZH O (^^^Loretta Shaffer, Program Specialist PAS, AECAB 0 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY It; 3 REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD \0 ?44 pnmee" CHICAGO, IL 60604?3590 DEC 0 5 21115 REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Matthew Greene Environmental, Health, and Safety Corporate Manager Globe Metallurgical, lnc. County Route 32 Waterford, Ohio, 45 768 Dear Mr. Greene: The .8. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing the enclosed Notice and Finding of Violation to Globe Metallurgical, Inc?s facility at County Route 32, Waterford, Ohio (you or the. facility). EPA-has determined that you are in violation of the facility?s Title Permit and the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP). Violations of the Ohio SIP constitute violations of Section 10 of the Act. Violations of a Title Permit constitute violations of Section 503 of the Act. Section 1 13 of the Clean Air Act gives us several enforcement options. These options include issuing an administrative compliance order, issuing an administrative penalty order and bringing a judicial civil or criminal action. EPA is already conferring with you and your attorneys regarding associated violations described in an sent to you on June 30, 2015. We anticipate discussing the violations alleged in this in those same conferences. If you wish to discuss these alleged violations separately, you should make the request for a conference within 10 calendar days following receipt of this letter. We should hold any conference within 30 calendar days following receipt of this letter. Recycleleecyclable I Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (?100% Post?Consumer) The EPA contacts in this matter are Virginia. Galinsky, Environmental Engineer, Alexandra Lotuchy, and Terry Branigan, Associate Regional Counsel. The Department of Justice contact in this matter is Jeffrey Spector. You may call them at (312) 353?2089, (312) 886?6035, (312) 353?4737, and (202) 514? 4432, respectively. Sincerely, Edward Nam Acting Director Air and Radiation Division cc: Bob Hodanbosi, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Enclosure UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 IN THE MATTER OF: Globe Metallurgical, Inc. NOTICE AND FINDING OF Waterford, Ohio VIOLATION Proceedings Pursuant to the Clean Air Act 42 7401 et seq. NOTICE AND FINDING OF VIOLATION Globe Metallurgical, Inc. (Globe), owns and operates a ferroalloy production facility at County Road 32, Waterford, Ohio (facility). Operations at the facility include several electric arc furnaces and their associated air pollution control devices. The US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sending this Notice and Finding of Violation or Notice) to notify the facility that we have found violations of the facility?s Title Permit, and the Ohio State Implementation Plan (Ohio SIP). Title 1. Title of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661?7661f, establishes an operating permit program for major sources of air pollution. 2. In accordance with Section 502(b) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b), EPA promulgated regulations establishing the minimum elements of a Title permit program to be administered by any air pollution control agency. See 57 Fed. Reg. 32250 (July 21, 1992). Those regulations are codified at 40 OER. Part 70. 3. Section 502(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(d), provides that each state must submit to EPA a permit program meeting the requirements of Title V. 4. On August 15, 1995, EPA approved the State of Ohio?s Operating permit program (Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3745?77) with an effective date of October 1, 1995. See 60 Fed. Reg. 42045 (August 15, 1995). 5. Section 502(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 76613(a), and 40 C.F.R. 70.7(b) provide that, after the effective date of any permit program approved or promulgated under Title of the Act, no source subject to Title may operate except in compliance with a Title permit. 6. 40 CPR. provides that all terms and conditions in a Title permit are enforceable by EPA. Ohio SIP 7. Effective December 27, 2010, EPA approved OAC 37?17?01 as part of the federal enforceable Ohio SIP. 75 Fed. Reg. 65567. 8. OAC de?nes reasonably available control measures as ?the control technology which enables a particular fugitive dust source to achieve the lowest particulate matter emission level possible and which is reasonably available considering technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness.? 9. Effective December 27, 2010, EPA approved OAC 3745-17?08 as part of the federally enforceable Ohio SIP. 75 Fed. Reg. 65567. 10. OAC Rule states that OAC Rule applies to stationary sources in speci?ed counties in Ohio (including Washington County). 11. OAC Rule requires that person shall cause or permit any fugitive dust source to be operated; or any materials to be handled, transported, or stored; or a building or its appurtenances or a road to be used, constructed, altered, repaired, or demolished without taking or installing reasonably available control measures to prevent fugitive dust-from-becoming airborne. Such reasonably available control measures shall include the installation and use of hoods, fans, and other equipment to adequately enclose, contain, capture, vent and control the fugitive dust. Such equipment shall meet the following requirements: the collection efficiency is sufficient to minimize or eliminate visible particulate emissions of fugitive dust at the point(s) of capture to the extent possible with good engineering design.? 12. OAC states that purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of paragraph (B) of this rule, the director shall consider a control measure to be adequate if it complies with the following: (I) The visible particulate emission limitation(s) contained in rule 3745?17?07 of the Administrative Code; (2) If applicable, the control requirements contained in paragraph (B) of this rule; and (3) The definition of reasonably available control measures in paragraph of rule 3745?17?01 ofthe Administrative Code.? Title Permit 13. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) issued a Title Permit to the facility on January 30, 2002 (Title Permit). 14. The signi?cant emission units and associated emission control equipment in the Title Permit relevant to this are: Emission Unit ID Emission Unit Name Control Device F009 No. I Hot Metal Casting P023 No. 1 Shop Plunging Station No. 1 Shop Baghouse P902 No. i Ferrosilicon Furnace P903 No. 2 Ferrosilicon Furnace P904 No. 3 Ferrosilicon Furnace P907 No. 5 Silicon Metal Furnace No. 2 Shop Baghouse P908 No. 7 Silicon Metal furnace 15. Condition A.l.2. for Emission Units F009 states that ?[t]he permittee shall employ reasonable available control measures on all hot metal casting for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the above-mentioned applicable requirements. In accordance with the permittee?s permit application, the permittee shall perform such activities within the #1 shop and capture emissions, as much as possible, through the furnace hoods to ensure compliance.? 16. Condition All. for Emission Units P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908 states that emissions from each unit shall not exceed ?20% opacity as a 3?minute average for fugitive emissions.? 17. Condition A.l.2. for Emission Unit P023 states that ?[t]he permittee shall employ reasonably available control measures on the #1 shop magnesium plunging station for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the above?mentioned applicable requirements. In accordance with the permittee's application, the permittee has committed to maintain enclosures and vent emissions to a fabric ?lter baghouse to ensure compliance.? 18. Condition A12. for Emission Units P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908 states that ?[t]he permittee shall employ reasonable available control measures on all charging, melting and tapping operations for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the above-mentioned applicable requirements. In accordance with the permittee's permit application, the perrnittee shall maintain enclosures and vent particulate emissions to the baghouse to ensure compliance.? - Factual Background 19. Globe Metallurgical, Inc. (Globe), owns and operates a ferroalloy production facility at County Road 32, Waterford, Washington County, Ohio (the facility). The facility includes several emission units, including submerged electric arc furnaces and casting lines. 20. On August 14, 2013, EPA conducted an inspection at the facility. EPA noted poor capture in No. 1, including emissions escaping the hoods associated with No. 1 Ferrosilicon Furnace (P902) and No. 3 Ferrosilicon Furnace (P904) and leaving the building through the roof monitor. EPA also noted emissions escaping the hood above the No. 1 Shop Plunging Station (P023). - LJJ 21. On December 9, 2014, EPA conducted opacity readings at the No. 2 Shop. The table below summarizes the opacity readings in excess of 20% as a non-overlapping 3? minute average: Date Time Opacity December 9, 2014 2:21 4 2:24 PM 24 December 9, 2014 2:34 2:37 PM 24 December 9, 2014 2:38 2:41 PM 50 December 9, 2014 2:41 2:44 PM 42 December 9, 2014 2:44 2:47 PM 65 December 9, 2014 2:47 2:50 PM 55 December 9, 2014 2:50 2:53 PM 50 22. On February 10, 2015, EPA conducted an inspection at the facility. During the inspection of the No. 1 Shop, EPA noted that no emissions from the No. 1 Shop Hot Metal Casting (F009) are captured by the furnace hoods. Casting into chills is done in an area of the shop Where furnace hoods would not capture emissions. 23. On February 10, 2015 and. February 11, 2015, EPA conducted opacity readings at the northern half of the No. 1 ShOp. The table below summarizes the opacity readings in excess of 20% as a non?overlapping 3?rninute average: Date Time Opacity February 10, 2015 1:38 41:41 PM 22 February 10, 2015 1:59 2:02 PM 30 Februaryll,2015 31 24. On December 14, 2015, EPA conducted an inspection at the facility. EPA noted poor capture at the No. 2 Shep, including emissions escaping capture hoods and leaving the building through the roof monitor. Violations 25. By exceeding 20% Opacity as a three-minute average emission limit at Emission Units P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908, Globe has violated Title Condition All. for Emission Units P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, P908, and OAC Rule 26. By failing to use furnace hoods to capture emissions from the #1 Shop Hot Metal Casting, Globe has violated Title Condition A.l.2. for Emission Unit F009 and OAC Rule 27. By operating Emission Units F009, P023, P902, P903, P904, P907, and P908 without installing RACM with a collection ef?ciency suf?cient to minimize or eliminate Visible particulate emissions of fugitive dust at the point(s) of capture to the extent possible with good engineering design, Globe has violated OAC Rule 374547-0803). 1/ was; Ed Nam Acting Director Air and Radiation Division CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Loretta Shaffer, certify that I sent a Notice and Finding of Violation, No. 7? by Certi?ed Mail, Return Receipt RequestedQMlom? CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NUMBER: I also Matthew Greene Environmental, Health, and Safety Corporate Manager Globe Metallurgical, Inc. County Route 32 Waterford, Ohio, 45 768 certify that I sent a copy of the Notice and Finding of Violation by ?rst-class mail Robert Hodanbosi Division of Air Pollution Control, Ohio EPA Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 PO. Box 1049 Columbus, OH 43216-1049 Melissa Witherspoon Division of Air Pollution Control, Ohio EPA- - Southeast District Of?ce 2195 Front St. Logan, OH 43138 2016. 700?! 7ch 9789! [Cm (gW?Loretta Shaffer, Program Specialist PAS, AECAB