“The section of the Chemi-washer where the Knockoff Shower is used is the only section of the Chemi-washer that is not vented to and controlled by the HVLC system.”

💡 The company’s own performance test plan admitted that a key pollution source was not connected to required emission controls.

“The results of the 2022 Performance Test showed that the amount of HAP per ton of ODP removed by the Steam Stripper, as an average over 16 test days, was 8.0 pounds of HAP per ton of ODP. Each daily removal amount was below 10.2 pounds of HAP per ton of ODP.”

💡 Every single day of testing confirmed the facility failed to remove enough hazardous air pollutants, releasing excess toxic substances.

“A properly operated and maintained steam stripper is expected to achieve an actual HAP removal efficiency of 92%. During the 2022 Performance Test, the Steam Stripper was tested over a range of operating conditions consistent with normal operations. The Steam Stripper achieved between 48% and 68% HAP removal efficiency.”

💡 The equipment operated at roughly half the efficiency it should, indicating inadequate maintenance or operational investment.

“Respondent provided records of 55 potential overflows from the Sludge Blend Tank in 2019 to 2021. During EPA’s on-site inspection on July 21, 2021, EPA inspectors observed sludge on the ground near the sludge blend tank.”

💡 Persistent operational failures led to contamination visible to federal inspectors during their visit.

“According to Respondent’s visual inspection records, Respondent documented a leak in the Chemi-washer vent hood on January 31, 2018. Respondent continued to document a leak in the Chemi-washer vent hood during each visual inspection through March 28, 2019. Respondent completed repair of the leak on April 18, 2019.”

💡 Despite a 15-day repair requirement, the company allowed a known emission leak to persist for 442 days.

“Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO and neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in this CAFO.”

💡 The company paid a penalty but never formally acknowledged doing what the EPA documented over multiple years.

“Respondent reported 7.94% downtime for the CEMS for monitoring opacity at the No. 9 Recovery Furnace in the Second Quarter of 2020.”

💡 Required continuous monitoring systems were offline for significant periods, leaving pollution levels untracked.

“These are pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects.”

💡 The substances Pixelle failed to adequately control are recognized as severely harmful to human health.

“CO is a poisonous gas that can cause harmful health effects by reducing oxygen delivery to the body’s organs and tissues. High levels can be fatal.”

💡 Exceedances of carbon monoxide limits exposed the community to a potentially deadly pollutant.

“At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.”

💡 Federal regulations required the company to minimize emissions at all times, not just meet minimum thresholds when convenient.

“The repair or corrective action shall be completed no later than 15 calendar days after the problem is identified.”

💡 Clear regulatory language required rapid repair, which the company ignored for over a year.

“Respondent’s records of visual inspections between January 31, 2018 and March 28, 2019 do not include information required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.454(b), including: repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the defect or leak; the reason for the delay if the defect or leak is not repaired with 15 days after discovery; the expected date of successful repair of the defect or leak if the repair is not completed within 15 days; and the date of successful repair of the defect or leak.”

💡 The company not only delayed repairs but also failed to properly document why it wasn’t following the rules.

“The Administrator and the Attorney General of the United States, each through their respective delegates, have determined jointly that an administrative penalty action is appropriate for the period of violations alleged in this CAFO.”

💡 The violations spanned so many years that special approval was needed to pursue them administratively rather than in court.

“Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case and Respondent’s cooperation, Complainant has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $234,440.”

💡 The EPA considered multiple factors including cooperation, but the penalty still may not reflect the full societal costs of years of excess pollution.

“Respondent certifies that it is complying fully with NESHAP S, the Permit, and 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.13(e), and 60.48b(c).”

💡 The company only certified full compliance as part of the settlement, after years of documented violations.