Now Reading
Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.| Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.| Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

Download PDF

The Arkansas Department of Energy & Environment – Division of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) and PPG Industries, Inc. (“PPG”) entered into a January 24th Consent Administrative Order (“CAO”) addressing alleged violations of an air permit. See LIS No. 22-010.

The CAO provides that PPG owns and operates a facility (“Facility”) located in Alexander, Arkansas which manufactures conventional and high solids metal finishes, extrusion finishes, and wood finishes.

The Facility is stated to hold an air permit (“Permit”).

According to DEQ personnel, they conducted a compliance inspection at the Facility on April 15, 2021. According to the inspection, it covered the reporting period from July 2018 to March 2021.

The Facility is subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart CCCCCCC – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing (Subpart CCCCCCC).

According to the inspection, PPG failed to record and conduct Method 22 visual determinations of particulate control device emissions at four sources every three month. A table in the CAO provides some related information. These alleged failures are considered to be violations of Specific Conditions 17-18 of the Permit.

Records reviewed during the inspection are stated to have indicated that PPG failed to prepare the Annual Compliance Certification (“ACC”) reports for 2018, 2019, and 2020 by the following January 31st for each respective year. The Facility was also found to not have submitted the 2018 and 2020 ACC reports, despite reporting deviations within the reporting periods. These alleged failures violate Specific Condition 9 in the Permit.

PPG responded to an ADEQ letter concerning alleged compliance issues. It stated:

. . . Following “PPG”‘s last correspondence, and while implementing and completing these corrective actions to ensure the Method 22 inspections take place every 3 months, it was discovered some of the missing visible emission inspections noted by ADEQ had been completed by Chris Santee, the plant EHS Technician. The Method 22 visible emission inspection process consisted of Chris Santee inspecting the visible emissions during batch making, while operators added solids to the vessels. After the visual emissions inspections had been completed and no emissions were detected, Chris signed the batch tickets that indicated the completion of the visual emission inspection. As Attachment A shows, we found records that indicated that the Method 22 visual emission inspections had been completed on the following dates.

  • 4/20/20 -for Q2 2020
  • 9/14/20 -for Q3 2020
  • 4/9/21 -for Q2 2021
  • 5/25/21 -for Q2 2021

PPG provided the following statement regarding alleged ACC issues:

PPG acknowledges that the Annual Compliance Certificates were prepared and submitted in accordance with the above. PPG has already taken corrective actions in relation to this annual certification requirement. In our Compliance Tracking system, we have created an action item with reminders for the annual calendar to ensure that the Annual Compliance Certificates are completed by January 31st. They must be submitted by February 15th if there are any deviations. This is in accordance with NESHAP and Specific Condition 19 of the facility’s air permit.

See Also

After reviewing the records provided by PPG, DEQ concluded that they were not qualified for a Method 22 visible emission test for the reasons set out in the CAO.

PPG informed that a new Method 22 observational form and an environmental compliance track system were being implemented. This system identifies environmental compliance items due dates, personnel responsible, and task description in relation to the applicable requirements under NESHAP. PPG also included a copy the 2018 and 2020 ACC reports.

The CAO states that PPG cannot admit or deny the factual or legal allegations made in the CAO. PPG must submit to DEQ a Method 22 observation report within 15 calendar days from the effective date CAO. This document must contain certain items.

PPG is also required by DEQ to conduct and submit Method 22 observations using the approved Method 22 documentation referenced in the CAO. The observation documents must be submitted to DEQ within 15 days from the date of the observations.

A civil penalty of $6.048 is assessed.

You can download a copy of the CAO Here.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.