THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL IN RE: CHINA JUSHI USA CORPORATION RICHLAND COUNTY CONSENT ORDER 23-006-A The Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Air Quality (“Department”), and China Jushi USA Corporation, 2971 Shop Road, Columbia, South Carolina (“China Jushi”), without the adju ation of any issues of fact or law and upon the consent of the parties agree to the terms of this Consent Order as follows: EINDINGS OF FACT WHEREAS, China Jushi agrees to the following findings of the Department: 1. China Jushi manufactures textile glass fibers at its facility located at 2971 Shop Road in Columbia, South Carolina. Business filings at the Office of the South Carolina Secretary of State list China Jushi as an entity incorporated in South Carolina, 2. On November 22, 2016, the Department issued Synthetic Minor Construction Permit 1900-0284 to China Jushi, and the permit was modified on ‘April 18, 2018 (“Construction Permit”). On August 1, 2019, the Department received a notification of start-up, stating the initial start-up date was May 18,2019. On August 1, 2019, China Jushi submitted an operating permit request to the Department that is currently under review, 3. The Construction Permit authorizes China Jushi to construct the following:a) Raw material handling process (ID “EUI”), where particulate matter (-PM”) emissions, including PMio and PMzs, would be controlled by fabric filters (IDs “DC1-DC44”) equipped with pressure drop gauges; b) Two glass furnace processes (ID “EU2”), where PM, PMio, PMas, CO, SO2, NOx, Flourides, HF, and volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions are controlled by a ceramic air pollution control system (IDs “MCI” and “MC2); ©) Two forming processes (“ID EU3") where PM, $02, NOx, Flourides, and HF emissions are controlled by MCI and MC2; and 4) Two drying processes (“ID EU4”) without a control device. 4, Although the Construction Permit authorized construction of two glass fumace and forming lines, only one glass furnace and forming line has been constructed. 5, Based on the project’s potential to emit, China Jushi was considered a potential major source for PM, PMio, PM2.s, SO2, NOx, HF, and hazardous air pollutant (“HAP”) emissions pursuant to U.S. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.5, Air Pollution Control Standards, Standard No. 7 — Prevention of Significant Deterioration (collectively, “PSD Regulations”); and 40 CFR Part 63 and S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.63, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (collectively, "NESHAP”). China Jushi has taken, federally enforceable limits to establish and maintain synthetic minor source classification for purposes of Title V permitting requirements, the PSD Regulations, and NESHAP requirements.6. Due to the nature of its operations, China Jushi is subject, in part, to the following regulations: a) U.S. EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, and $.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.60, South Carolina Designated Facility Plan And New Source Performance Standards, Subpart A — General Provisions (collectively, “Subpart A”) and Subpart CC — Standards of Performance for Glass Manufacturing Plants (collectively, “Subpart CC”); b) U.S. EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 63 and S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61- 62.63, National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Stationary Source Categories, Subpart ZZZZ — National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, (collectively, “Subpart ZZZZ"); c) S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.5, Air Pollution Control Standards, Standard No. 4 — Emissions From Process Industries (“Standard 4”); and 4) S.C, Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.5, Air Pollution Control Standards, Standard No. 5.2 — Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (“Standard 5.2”). 7, Subparts A, CC, and the Construction Permit required China Jushi to perform an initial source test on MCI and MC2 for PM emissions and opacity within 60 days after achieving the maximum production rate at which the facility will be operated, but not later than 180 days after initial start-up. 8, The Construction Permit required China Jushi to perform the following additional source tests at its facility within 180 days of start-up:a) An initial source test for PM (filterable), PMwo (filterable and condensable), and PM, (filterable and condensable) emissions, and additional source tests every two years thereafter, for EU1; b) An initial source test for PM (filterable), PMio (filterable and condensable), PM25 (filterable and condensable), SO2, NOx, fluoride, and HF emissions, and additional source tests every two years thereafter, for EU2 and EU3; c) An initial source test on MC] and MC2 for CO and VOC emissions; 4) An initial source test to verify CO and NOx emissions factors for the curing ovens associated with EU are not more than 0.0392 Ib/MMBtu for CO and no more than 0.0922 Ib/MMBitu for NOx; ©) An initial source test on MCI and MC2 for phenol and acetaldehyde; and f) An initial source test on MC1 and MC2 for fugitive emissions of CO, NOx, and SO> from the charging ports of the furnaces. 9. Additionally, $.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.1 and the Construction Permit require China Jushi to first obtain a construction permit from the Department prior to constructing, altering, or adding a source of air contaminants, including installation of any device for the control of air contaminant discharges. If construction is not built as specified in the permit application and associated construction permit(s), the owner/operator must submit to the Department a complete description of modifications that are at variance with the documentation of the construction permitting determination prior to commencing operation.10. Subpart CC and the Construction Permit require China Jushi to limit PM emissions from any glass melting furnace to 0.1 grams of PM/kg of glass produced. 1], Subpart 2227. and the Construetion Permit require China Jushi to maintain records of the hours of operation for its emergency generators, 12, Standard 4 and the Construction Permit require China Jushi to limit opacity to no greater than 20 percent. 13, Standard 5.2 and the Construction Permit require China Jushi to ensure that NOx emissions do not exceed the applicable monthly limit. Section III of Standard 5.2, along with Condition C.8 of the Construction Permit, prescribe the calculation for the monthly limit of NOx emissions. Standard 5.2 and the Construction Permit also require China Jushi to develop and maintain on-site a tune-up plan and perform tune-ups every two years in accordance with manufacturer's specifications or with good engineering practices. 14, The Construction Permit requires China Jushi to: a) Maintain all records required to demonstrate compliance with the limits established under this permit on site for a period of at least 5 years from the date the record was generated and make them available to a Department representative upon request. ) Install, operate, and maintain a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to measure S02, NOx, CO, PM, and HF emissions; ©) Operate and maintain the CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, including developing a site-specific correlation curve for the PM CEMS. Under the Appendix B to Part 60 — Performance Specification 11 ~ Specifications and Test Procedures for Particulate MatterContinuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources (“PS- 11”), China Jushi is required to conduct additional correlation curve testing if the hourly average PM CEMS response exceeds 125% of the highest response on the correlation curve for 24 consecutive hours; or the hourly average PM CEMS response exceeds 125% of the highest response on the correlation curve for greater than 5% of the PM CEMS operating hours for the previous 30-day period; 4) Maintain records of all VOC emissions, including the total amount of each material used, the VOC content in percent by weight of each ‘material, and any other records necessary to determine VOC emissions; ©) Maintain records of all HAP emissions, including the total amount of each material used, the HAP content in percent by weight of each material, and any other records necessary to determine HAP emissions; ) Minimize to the maximum extent possible fugitive PM emissions from material handling, process equipment, or storage piles. This includes proper maintenance of the control system such as scheduled inspections, replacement of damaged or worn parts, etc. Fugitive emissions from dust buildup will be controlled by proper housekeeping and/or wet suppression; 2) Maintain all records necessary to determine facility-wide PM, PMes, and PMio SQ2, CO, NOx, and HF emissions. Emissions for each pollutant must be calculated monthly, along with a twelve-month rolling sum; and hh) Document that air pollution control equipment, process equipment, orprocesses were at all times maintained and operated, to the maximum extent practicable, in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions following a malfunction of air pollution control equipment or system, process upset or other equipment failure which results in discharges of air contaminants lasting for one hour or more and which are greater than those discharges described for normal operation in the permit application. 15, On January 15, 2020, Department inspectors conducted a routine inspection at China Jushi. During the inspection the Department inspectors observed that China Jushi had constructed binvents on ID EUI, rather than installing fabric filters. Additionally, China Jushi had not performed the required source tests referenced in Paragraphs 7 and 8 above. The source tests should have been performed no later than November 14, 2019. 16, _ On September 2, 2020, the Department issued a Notice of Alleged Violation and Notice of Enforcement Conference to China Jushi, and on September 28, 2020, the Department held an enforcement conference with China Jushi 17, On March 24, 2021, China Jushi submitted a revised PM CEMS Data Report to the Department. In the report, China Jushi identified that the hourly PM CEMS response exceeded 125% of the highest response on the correlation curve for more than 5% of the PM CEMS operating hours in the previous 30-day period on each day between March 19, 2020, and March 31, 2020; and exceeded 125% or more of the highest response on the correlation curve for 24 consecutive hours on March 18, 20, 21, 27, 29, and 31,2020. To date, China Jushi has not completed therequired additional testing, or revised the correlation equation, as required by the Construction Permit and PS-11. 18. On December 10, 2021, the Department requested that China Jushi submit revised semi-annual reports to the Department for reporting periods between May 18, 2019, through September 30, 2021. On February 15, 2022, China Jushi submitted the revised reports. The revised reports for the glass furnace indicate that China Jushi exceeded its monthly NOx limit for eight months since start-up, specifically: July 2019, November 2019, June 2020, July 2020, October 2020, December 2020, February 2021, and January 2022. Additionally, China Jushi exceeded its PM emission limit of 0.1 g of PM/kg of glass produced on 134 days during the same time period. The revised semi-annual reports indicated that the cause of the emission violations was due to broken filter cartridges. 19. On August 15, 2022, China Jushi submitted a letter to the Department to notify the Department of ongoing issues with the operation of the facility’s ceramic filter air pollution control system. Specifically, the letter stated that sorbent was clogging all four filter houses and causing excessive filter breakage, resulting in excessive PM emissions and difficulty controlling sulfur dioxide and hydrogen fluoride emissions. Additionally, the letter stated that the facility had been operating with only two of the four filter houses in operation, 20. On August 16, 2022, Department inspectors conducted an inspection at China Jushi in response to a complaint of fugitive emissions. During the inspection a Department inspector conducted a U.S. EPA Method 9 Visible Emissions ‘Observation (“Method 9 VEO”) on MC1, with the highest six-minute average calculated at 99% opacity.21. On August 17, 2022, a virtual meeting was held between the Department, and China Jushi representatives to discuss the issues referenced in China Jushi’s letter. During the meeting, the Department expressed concern about the observed exceedance of opacity limits. Representatives of China Jushi attributed the excess opacity to the reduced capacity of the ceramic filter air pollution control system. China Jushi reiterated that the facility was only able to utilize two of the four filter houses associated with the system at approximately 75% of the filter capacity due to supply issues, and as a result, sorbent introduced into the system to control emissions was not being captured as designed. Representatives also discussed timing for when replacement filters were anticipated to be received. 22. On August 18, 2022, Department inspectors conducted an inspection at China Jushi in response to a complaint of fugitive emissions, During the inspection a Department inspectors conducted a Method 9 VEO on MCI, with the highest six- minute average calculated at 100% opacity. 23. On August 24 and 25, 2022, Department inspectors conducted a comprehensive inspection at China Jushi. During the inspection a Department inspector conducted a Method 9 VEO on MCI, with the highest six-minute average calculated at 90% opacity. The inspectors observed fugitive dust emitting from the silo binvent. Accumulations of virgin and spent lime sorbent were observed throughout the facility. Additionally, the inspectors observed at the time of the inspection, China Jushi had not: a) Minimized to the maximum extent possible fugitive PM emissions from material handling, process equipment, or storage piles; b) Maintained a copy of a tune-up plan for its combustion sourcesassociated with the glass furnace and forming processes on-site; ©) Maintained all records of the hours of operation for the emergency generator and failed to make the records available to the Department upon request. 24. During the August 24-25, 2022, inspection, Department inspectors reviewed facility records which indicated that there had been additional exceedances of the 0.1 g of PM/kg of glass produced PM emission limit for multiple days since the revised semi-annual reports were submitted to the Department on. February 15, 2022. PM emission limit exceedances occurred during the following months: March 2020, April 2020, May 2020, August 2020, November 2020, January 2021, March 2021, April 2021, May 2021, June 2021, July 2021, November 2021, March 2022, April 2022, May 2022, June 2022, and July 2022, resulting in a total of 219 days during which exceedances of the 0.1g of PM/kg limit occurred. August and September data were not yet available at the time of review. 25. During the August 24-25, 2022, inspection, Department inspectors observed two boilers and a welding process that had been installed and operated at the facility. Department inspectors requested any documentation demonstrating that the equipment was exempt from permitting requirements. China Jushi did not have the documentation readily available and had not obtained a construction permit prior to installation and operation of the equipment. 26. During the August 24-25, 2022, inspection, Department inspectors noted that China Jushi had not operated the NO; CEMS since August 23, 2022. As a result, the inspectors requested CEMS uptime data for all CEMS. Data provided by China Jushi indicated the following CEMS uptimes:a) NOx CEMS - 1% for August 2022 and 91% for the 12-month rolling average; b) PM CEMS - 0% for August 2022 and 60% for the 12-month rolling average; ¢) CO CEMS - 1% for August 2022 and 67% for the 12-month rolling average; and 4) $Oz CEMS - 1% August 2022 and 90% for the 12-month rolling average. Based on the Department's review of the data provided, the Department determined that China Jushi failed to operate and maintain the CEMS for NOx, PM, CO, and ‘S02 emissions. 27. During the August 24-25, 2022, inspection, Department inspectors requested monthly and twelve-month rolling sums of the following emissions: VOC, individual and combined HAP, PM, PMio, PMz5s, S02, CO, NOs, and HP. Based on a review of the information provided, the Department determined that China Jushi failed to: a) Provide adequate documentation demonstrating how VOC emissions are being calculated (including emissions from malfunctions); b) Provide adequate documentation demonstrating how HAP emi jons are being calculated (including emissions from malfunctions); and ©) Maintain all records necessary to determine facility-wide PM, PMc, PMas, SOz, CO, NOx, and HF emissions (including emissions from ‘malfunctions and bypasses). 28. On September 1, 2022, Department inspectors conducted a follow-upinspection at China Jushi, in part, to observe the replacement of 200 ceramic filters. During the inspection a Department inspector conducted a Method 9 VEO on MCI, with the highest six-minute average calculated at 100% opacity. The Department also observed that the facility was only operating one of the four filter boxes associated with the ceramic filter air pollution control systems and that the facility had entirely ceased adding sorbent into the system, resulting in a significant increase in SO2 and HF emissions from the facility, as documented by continuous monitoring data from the facility. 29. Based on the Department's observations during the August 2022 and September 1, 2022, inspections, the Department determined that emergency action was necessary to address the danger to publie health, safety, and welfare presented by China Jushi’s operations in the absence of emission controls maintained and operated in a manner consistent good practice (including the absence of a sufficient number of filter boxes to meet emissions requirements, and failure to use and capture sorbent). Therefore, on September 1, 2022, the Department issued a Notice and Emergency Order of Permit Suspension and Cease and Desist. The Department also concurrently filed a Motion for Emergency Suspension and Expedited Hearing with the South Carolina Administrative Law Court. 30. Following the issuance of the emergency order, China Jushi notified the Department that it had replaced missing or broken ceramic filters. On September 2, 2022, China Jushi provided updated continuous monitoring data to the Department to confirm that emissions from the facility were not at that point posing a danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. Upon review of the provided data, the Department dismissed its emergency suspension action.31. Also on September 2, 2022, Department inspectors conducted a follow-up inspection at China Jushi to observe operations and emissions following the filter replacement. During the inspection a Department inspector conducted a Method 9 ‘VEO on MC1, with the highest six-minute average calculated at 28% opacity. 32. On September 22, 2022, Department inspectors conducted a follow-up inspection at China Jushi to observe operations and emissions as the facility would be closing one module at a time on the filter boxes to locate a broken filter. During the inspection a Department inspector conducted a Method 9 VEO, with the highest si ‘minute average calculated at 25% opacity. 33. On October 14, 2022, the Department issued a Notice of Alleged Violation and Notice of Enforcement conference to China Jushi. China Jushi subsequently submitted a letter responding to the alleged violations. In the letter China Jushi provided the following documentation: ) Emission calculations for the boilers demonstrating that they are exempt from permitting requirements; b) Emission calculations for the welding process demonstrating that it is exempt from permitting requirements; ©) Emission calculations for a new silo; and d) Records for the emergency generators, beginning in January 2022. 34. On November 8, 2022, the Department held an enforcement conference ‘with China Jushi to discuss the alleged violations. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHEREAS the Department concludes the following:1, S.C. Code Ann. Section 48-1-330 (2008 & Supp. 2022) provides that any person violating any provision of the Pollution Control Act, or any rule or regulation, permit or permit condition, final determination or order of the Department, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars per day of such violation. 2 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.1, Section I, Permit Requirements, requires an owner or operator to comply with all terms, conditions, and limitations of any Department-issued permit for sources or activities at its facility. 3, China Jushi violated U.S. EPA 40 CFR 60,292(a) and S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.60.292(a) and 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it exceeded its PM emission limit of 0.1 g of PM/kg of glass produced for 219 days during the following months: July 2019, November 2019, March 2020, April 2020, May 2020, June 2020, July 2020, August 2020, October 2020, November 2020, December 2020, January 2021, February 2021, March 2021, April 2021, May 2021, June 2021, July 2021, November 2021, January 2022, March 2022, April 2022, May 2022, June 2022, and July 2022. 4, China Jushi violated U.S. EPA 40 CFR 60.8(a) and 60.296, S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.60.8(a) and 61-62.60,296, and 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to perform an initial source test on MCI for PM emissions and opacity on or before the due date. 5. China Jushi violated U.S. EPA 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) and 63.6655(f), and S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.63.10(b)(1) and 61-62.63.6655(f), and 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to maintain all records of the hours ofoperation for its emergency generators and make them readily available to the Department upon request. 6. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann, Regs. 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Emissions From Process Industries, Section IX, Visible Emissions and 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements, in that it exceeded its opacity limit of 20% on August 16, 18, 24, and 25, 2022, and September 1, 2, and 22, 2022. 7, China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2, Section III, Standard Requirements for New Affected Sources and 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements, in that it exceeded its monthly NOs limit during the following months: July 2019, November 2019, June 2020, July 2020, October 2020, December 2020, February 2021, and January 2022. 8. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2, and 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements, in that it did not maintain on-site and provide to the Department upon request during inspection the tune-up plan for the combustion sources associated with the glass furnace and forming processes on- site, 9, China Jushi violated $.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.1, Section 1(B)(2)(h), in that it did not maintain on-site and provide to the Department upon request during inspection documentation to demonstrate that equipment including two boilers and a welding process is exempt from permitting requirements. 10. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann, Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to perform an initial source test on EU1 for PM (filterable), PMio (filterable and condensable), and PMzs (filterable and condensable) emissions on or before the due date.11. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to perform initial source tests on EU2 and EU3 for PM (filterable), PMio (filterable and condensable), PMzs (filterable and condensable), SO2, NOx, fluorides, and HF emissions on or before the due date. 12. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to perform initial source test to verify CO and NOx emission factors from the curing ovens associated with EU4 are not more than 0.0392 Ib/MMBu for CO and no more than 0.0922 Ib/MMBtu for NOx on or before the due date. 13. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann, Regs 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to perform an initial source test on MC1 for CO and VOC emissions on or before the due date. 14, China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann, Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to perform an initial source test on MCI for phenol and acetaldehyde on or before the due date. 15. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to perform an initial source test on MCI for fugitive emissions of CO, NOs, and SO on or before the due date. 16. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, and Section IL.A.1.a, in that it failed to construct as specified in the permit application and associated construction permit(s) or submit to the Department a complete description of modifications that are at variance with the permit, and failed to obtain a construction permit or permission from theDepartment prior to constructing or altering a source of air contaminants (construction of binvents in place of fabric filters designated for EU1). 17. China Jushi violated $.C. Code Ann, Regs. 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to conduct additional correlation curve testing and revise the correlation equation within 60 days of an event requiring additional correlation curve testing, as required by PS-11. 18 China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann, Regs. 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to operate and maintain the CEMS for S02, NOx, CO, and PM emissions. 19. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann, Regs. 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to provide all records necessary to determine VOC emissions. 20. Cl ia Jushi violated Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to provide all records necessary to determine HAP emissions. 21. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to maintain all records necessary to determine facility-wide PM, PMo s, and PM1o SO2, CO, NO, and HF emissions. 22. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann, Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements, in that it failed to minimize fugitive emissions to the maximum extent possible in accordance with the Construction Permit, including a failure to perform proper maintenance of the emissions control system and ensure replacement of worn and damaged parts. 23. China Jushi violated S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.1, Section Il, PermitRequirements, in that it failed to document that air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or processes were at all times maintained and operated, to the ‘maximum extent practicable, in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions following a process upset resulting in discharges of air contaminants greater than those described for normal operation in the permit application. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND AGREED under authority of the Pollution Control Act, . Code Amn. § 48-1-10 et seq. (2008 & Supp. 2022) that China Jushi shall: 1, Henceforth, ensure compliance with emissions limits, monitoring requirements, source test requirements, operational requirements, and recordkeeping requirements pursuant to the Construction Permit and applicable regulations 2. Within sixty (60) days of the execution date of this Order, conduct three additional test runs for the PM CEMS. The resulting new data along with the previous data must be used to calculate a revised correlation equation. The revised correlation equation must be submitted to the Department with ninety (90) days of the execution date of this Order. 3, Pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of four hundred and ten thousand dollars ($410,000.00), payable in six total payments. Five equal payments of sixty-eight thousand, three hundred thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents ($68,333.33); with a final payment in the amount of sixty- eight thousand, three hundred thirty-three dollars and thirty-five cents ($68,333.35). The first payment is due within thirty (30) days of theexecution of this order. The second payment is due within sixty (60) days of the execution of this order. The third payment is due within ninety (90) days of the execution of this order. The fourth payment is due within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the execution of this order. The fifth payment is due within one hundred and fifty (150) days of the execution of this order. The final payment is due within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the execution of this order. Payment in the full amount of $410,000.00 is due no later than November 1, 2023. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND AGREED that this Consent Order governs only the civil liability to the Department for civil sanctions arising from the matters set forth herein and constitutes the entire agreement between the Department and China Jushi with respect to the resolution and settlement of these civil matters. The parties are not relying upon any representations, promises, understandings or agreements except as expressly set forth witl this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND AGREED that the execution date of this Consent Order is the date this Order is signed by the Director of Environmental Affairs, AND IT IS SO ORDERED. {SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW}FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL gz Due:__5//2/1023 Myra C. Rhece Director of Environmental Affairs vue OS fhe Rhonda B. Thomps Bureau Chief Bureau of Air Quality AZ pue,_ 6/7/25 Bureau of Air Quality Reviewed By: Se Wr pate:_S-|\-QOad Reorney Office of General Counsel FOR CHINA JUSHI USA CORPORATION ye hfe wi 8) pate:__ 5/2/2023 at Ereeuttive. presicl ant 2revqu) Print or type name and title Ts\V. PENALTY CALCULATION WORKSHEET (rev. 3/18/2008) NAME Tyler Scoville DATE 2128/2023, ‘A. COMPANY NAME (INDIVIDUALIENTITY) China Jushi USA (Richland County) B. REQUIREMENT(S) VIOLATED » 3) 4) 5) 6 8) 10) 1) 12) 13) 14) 16) 16) 7 U.S. EPA 40 CFR Part 60.292(a) and S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.60.292(a) and 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements, exceeded its PM emission limit of 0.1 g of PMfkg of glass produced for 219 days between July 2019 and July 2022 U.S. EPA 40 CFR 60.8(a) and 60.296, S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.60.8(a) and 61-62.60.206, and 61- 62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements failed to perform an intial source test on MC1 for PM emissions and opacity on or before the due date. U.S. EPA 40 CFR Part 63.6855(), and S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.63.6655(), and 61-62.1, Section 1), Permit Requirements led to maintai records ofthe hours of operation for its emergency generators ‘S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Emissions From Process Industries, Section IX, Visible Emissions and 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements. exceeded its opacity limit of 20% on August 16, 18, 24, and 25, 2022, and September 1, 2, and 22, 2022 8.C. Code Ann, Regs. 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2, Section Il, Standard Requirements for New Affected Sources and 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements exceeded its monthly NOx limit during the following months: July 2019, November 2019, June 2020, July 2020, October 2020, December 2020, February 2021, and $C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2, and 61-62.1, Section I, Permit Requirements, did not maintain a copy of the tune-up plan for the combustion sources associated with the glass fumace and forming processes on-site S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.1, Section IKB)(2)(h), did not provide documentation to demonstrate that the equipment is exempt from permitting requirements upon request S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements failed to perform an intial source test on EUI for PM emissions on or before the due date ‘S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements failed to perform initial source tests on EU2 and EUS for PM (fiterable), PM10 (fiterable ‘and condensable), PM2.5 (fiterable and condensable), S02, NOx, fluorides, and HF ‘S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements {failed to perform initial source test to verify CO and NOx emission factors from the curing ovens associated with EU4 are not more than 0.0392 Ib/MMBtu for CO and no S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements failed to perform an intial source test on MC1 for CO and VOC emissions on or before the due date. '$.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements failed to perform an intial source test on MC1 for phenol and acetaldehyde on or before the due date ‘S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-62.2, (Supp. 2014), Section 1LE.3 failed to perform an initial source test on MC! for fugitive emissions of CO, NOx, and ‘$02 on or before the due date $.C. Code Ann, Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements failed to construct as specified in the permit application and associated construction permit '$.C. Code Ann, Regs 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements failed to conduct additional correlation curve testing and revise the correlation equation, as required by PS-11 ‘S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements failed to operate and maintain the CEM for S02, NOx, CO, and PM emissions. S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements,\V. PENALTY CALCULATION WORKSHEET. (rev. 3/18/2008) failed to provide all records necessary to determine VOC emissions. 18) S.C. Code Ann, Regs 61-62.1, Section I, Permit Requirements failed to provide all records necessary to determine HAP emissions. 19) S.C. Code Ann, Regs 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements faled to maintain all records necessary to determine faciity-wide PM, PM2.5, and PMO 20) S.C. Code Ann, Regs 61-62.1, Section Il, Permit Requirements failed to minimize fugitive emissions to the maximum extent possible in accordance with the Construction Permit, including a failure to perform proper maintenance of the 21) S.C. Code Ann. Regs 61-62:1, Section Il, Permit Requirements" * . processes were at all times maintained and operated, to the practicable, in a manner consistent with good practice for mi following a process upset resulting in discharges of air contaminants greater than those . STATUTORY MAXIMUM PENALTY [EZETOTOTTT]ouvtotal c C= a*(S10,000"b) Req t 219 (@NUMBER OF DAYS FAI ‘1 (b)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS: Reqs2 1 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS: 2 (0)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS 3 3 3 Regs 3 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS 70000,00- 7 (0) NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS: Req 4 7 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS. i T (b) NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. Req 5 8 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS 1 (b)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS 30,000.00, Req 6 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS 1 (b)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS 710,000.00 Reqs 7 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. 70,000.00 Regs 8 41 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS a 70,000100, 7 (b)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS Req 41 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS z 70,000.00, 7 (b)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. Req 10 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS. 70,000.00, 7 (b)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. Req 11 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS. 2 (o)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. 3 IE EI : g 20,000.00, Req 12 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS: 20,000.00, Z (o)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS: Req 13 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS 3 (ONUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. 30,000.00,\V. PENALTY CALCULATION WORKSHEET (rev. 3/18/2008) Req. 14 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS z 710,000.00, I (b) NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. Req. 15 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS = 710,000.00, 7 (b)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS Regs. 16 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS g 40,000,007 & (b) NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. Reqs. 17 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS 5 10,000.00 T (0) NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS: Regs. 18 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS z 70,000.00, = NuMBER OF VIOLATIONS Regs. 19 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS © (b)NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS: Regs. 20 1 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS. z 10,000.00 “T (0) NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS: Regs. 21 4 (@)NUMBER OF DAYS 5 70,000.00 “T (0) NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS: D. GRAVITY-BASED PENALTY (PER OCCURRENCE) 745,500.00 Jsubtotal D y Reqt Category: Emission Limits and Standards Major Extent of Deviation 219 days out of compliance Major Potential for Harm Involves Subpart CC emissions limit. extensive noncompliance z 7,500.00 ] (Mid-Range) 2) Req. 2 Cetegor: Emission Limits and Standards Major Extent of Deviation ‘multiple Initial Source tests not performed Potential for Harm ‘Subparts A, CC. (Sam Ran 3) Req. Sand 6 Category: Permit Conditions Major Extent of Deviation Failed to meet the requirement Minor Potential for Harm Record keeping requitment, combined violations [3 5000.00 | High-Range) 4) Req.4 Moi Emission Limits and Categony: Standards Major Extent of Deviation Failed to meet the requirement Wajor Potential for Harm Method 9 VEO test at Synthetic minor source. X7 Occurrances. extensive noncompliance = 770,000.00 | High-Range) 5) Req.5V. PENALTY CALCULATION WORKSHEET ‘ates, Eston Le nd Mojr___Exent of Deviton Fated to mest tho voqiement ajar Peer Ha fre Stondar No, 52, x8 Occurence. edensive noncompliance [SET Raney Gatecon: Req. 7 Pernting Alyy Exon of Deviation Fale oilers eubtatl prion of appcalerequrents Tite —— Potent to or eB ove htm Regs. 61-621, Secon ILA ta an 8:2. poiting wlaton [HTT Rage) 7 Rowe Erision Lis and Standards y ___Entnt of Deaton Se antral pct ck eect epinrte ner — Fotena tor orn Perey equrement (Sapo Range) 8) Req9 Coteco Eriasion Lt ond Standards Msjr Extent of Deviation Fated to eplementsubtatelporom of ppicalerequtrents i — Patent or orn Pettey oement [a5 erage) ) Regio Gategory: Emissions Limits and Standards. Mae ___Euent of Deviation ee tip dopo! lations ier — Patt ar Permit only requirement [EGTA via. Range) mutiple work practice violations oaann 2" Emissions Limits and Standards OO tr Extent of Deviation Tr Miatinte isposat viotations. nor Potential for Harm Permit only requirement [SEBO Range) mutipe work practice violations 11) Req 12 Category: Emissions Limits and Standards Major Extent of Deviation ‘Multiple disposal violations ™™ifingr Potential for Harm: Permit only requirement [S__7000-00 ] (wid-Range) multiple work practice violations 12) Req 13 Category: Emissions Limits and Standards Major Extent of Deviation Matin disposal violations. ine Potential for Harm Permit only requirement [5———ZHTDET Ma Range) multiple work practice violatons (rev. 3/18/2008)VIBENALTYFaOBLATION WORKSHEET (rev. 3/18/2008) Permitting Sate or Extent of Deviation Failed to implement substatial portiom of applicable requirments ino Potential for Harm ‘S.C. Code Ann, Regs. 61-62.1, Sections IIA ta and permitting violation a 77900.00 ] (Mid Range) raane 21 Permitting ORO ioe Extent of Deviation Failed to implement substatial portiom of applicable requirments Potential for Harm Required by PS-11 [3 75000.00 (mid-range) 15) Reg. 16 Category: Record Keeping and Monitoring Major Extent of Deviation Failed to implement substatial portiom of applicable requirments Major Potential for Harm ‘Synthetic minor source. CEMS for $02, NOx, CO, and PM. extensive noncompliance [57H HOHNT igh Range) Mr iteserate 18) Regs. 17 and 18 Category: Record Keeping and Monitoring Major Extent of Deviation Failed to implement substatial portiom of applicable requirments, Major Potential for Harm ‘Synthetic minor source for VOC and HAP z 710,000.00]|(High Range, Combined Violations) 1) Reat9 Cateaon RecordKeeping and Monitoring Major ___Extent of Deviation Fated to implement subtatelportom of appicaberequiments Tia —— Peter for Harm Synthetic minor source for 802, NOx, CO, and PM [57H DTT gh Range mutiplepotuants) 18) Req. 20 Category: Record Keeping and Monitoring ‘Major Extent of Deviation Failed to implement substatial portiom of applicable requirments Tiajor Potential for Harm Failure to perform proper maintenance of the emissions control system and ensure replat z 710,000.00 |(High Range, extensive noncompliance) 19) Req. 21 Category: Record Keeping and Monitoring Major Extent of Deviation Failed to implement substatial portiom of applicable requirments Major Potential for Harm Failed to document that air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or processes [57 TEDGTTT igh Range extensive noncompliance) E. MULTI-DAY PENALTY [subtotal E |The Department has elected to assess a multi-day penalfy for Requirment 1. $850 X J218 days = $185,300 $ 185,300.00V. PENALTY CALCULATION WORKSHEET (rev. 3/18/2008) F. ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE Bo rutotat |The Department has reviewed the potential economic benefit of non-compliance. Based on the review, the Department determined thatthe Respondent didnot gain a signifcaln economie benefit fom noncompliance. G. VIOLATION RECURRENCE COMPONENT ET hntotac [Repeat wiin 3 yrs (60%-100%) }3 wiin yrs (50%) (100%-300%) H. PREVIOUS ORDER(S) & AMOUNTS |. UPWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS atta = ]History of Non-compliance Lack of Cooperation 5 = Degree of wiltulnessinegigence 5 = ]HPV determination 4. CALCULATED PENALTY BUSH DT]subtotal J K. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS oubtotal * not applied to calculated economic benefit of non-compliance or recurrence component $ = _|Timeliness of Corrective Action $ =_|Degree of Cooperation $ =_|Smali businessyndividual $ = inability to Pay $ 720,800.00 |Litigation Risk L OFFERED SETTLEMENT PENALTY TOTAL, [S_—40,0000 etre rouding)