RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
OCT 2 12004
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL ~A~OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PCB(ConstructionNo.
O~-
Permit
I
Appeal)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(VIA FIRST CLASS
MAIL)
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North GrandAvenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
(SEE
PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and nine copies of a PETITION FOR
REVIEW AND A MOTION TO STAY EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIAL CONDITION
2.0 OF JOINT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING PERMIT, copies ofwhich are
hereby served upon you.
Dated: October 19, 2004
Katherine D. Hodge
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
Respectfully submitted,
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP
Petitioner,
By:
One ofIts Attorneys
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
)
)
)
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP,
Petitioner,
v.
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
H
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Katherine D. Hodge, the undersigned, certif~,’that I have served the attached
PETITION FOR REVIEW AND A MOTION TO STAY EFFECTIVENESS OF
SPECIAL CONDITION 2.0 OF JOINT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING
PERMIT upon:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
~
.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield,
Illinois, on October 19, 2004.
atherine D. Hodge
REC~JVEDCLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OCT 212004
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP,
)
Pollution Control
Board
)
Petitioner,
)
ç
v.
)
PCBL~’-___
)
(Construction Permit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
PETITION FOR REVIEW
NOW COMES, Petitioner, HARTFORD WORKING GROUP (hereinafter
“HWG”), by and through its attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, pursuant to Section
40 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
5/40)
(“Act”) and
35
Ill.
Admin. Code Part 105 Subpart B, and petitions the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”) for review ofthe Joint Construction and Operating Permit (“Construction
Permit”) granted to HWG by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois
EPA”) pursuant to Section 39 ofthe Act on September 14, 2004.
In support thereof, IWG states as follows:
1.
HWG, consisting ofAtlantic Richfield Company, Equilon Enterprises,
L.L.C., d b a Shell Oil Products US and The Premcor Refining Group Inc., was
established for the purpose of performing remediation work and sharing costs for the
Hartford Area Hydrocarbon Plume Site, pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
2.
Pursuant to Section 39 ofthe Act and 35 Ill. Admin. Code
§
201.163,
HWG submitted an application for a Construction Permit to construct and operate three
vacuum extraction systems including vacuum blowers, thermal oxidizers and ancillary
equipment (the “facility”) at its Hartford, Illinois, facility to the Illinois EPA on June 17,
2004.
3.
On September 14, 2004, Illinois EPA granted a final Construction Permit
for the HWG facility. The September 14, 2004, permit is attached hereto as Exhibit A,
Joint Construction and Operating Permit ofHartford Working Group. HWG is hereby
petitioning the Board for relief from the following Special Condition.
4.
Special Condition 2.0 of the Construction Permit provides that:
“For purposes ofthe CleanAir Act Permit Program (CAAPP), unless the
Hartford Working Group is determined to be a separate source from the
Premcor Refining Group, 201 East Hawthorne, Hartford (I.D. No.
1 19O9OAAA) under Section 39.5 ofthe Environmental Protection Act, the
Permittee must submit its complete CAAPP application for the extraction
system within 12 months after commencing operation, pursuant to Section
39.5(5)(x)
ofthe Act.”
HWG requests that this section be deleted, because HWG is a separate source from the
Premcor Refining Group facilities, i.e., the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center, as
“source” is defined in the Act. The rationale for classifying HWG and the Premcor
Hartford Distribution Center as separate sources is attached hereto as Exhibit B, Letter,
dated September 8, 2004, from Jeffery L. Pope, P.E. to Donald E. Sutton, P.E. regarding
the Hartford Working Group Application for Joint Construction and Operating Permit.
5.
For the above-referenced reasons, the referenced Special Condition does
not reflect the current applicable requirements at the facility, and is thus arbitrary,
capricious, without merit, and poses an unreasonable hardship on HWG.
2
WHEREFORE, HWG petitions the Board for review of Special Condition 2.0 in
the Construction Permit issued by the Illinois EPA. And, as set forth in the
accompanying Motion to Stay Effectiveness of Special Condition 2.0 ofJoint
Construction and Operating Permit, HWG requests that the effectiveness ofSpecial
Condition 2.0 ofthe Construction Permit be stayed until the Board’s final determination
in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP
Petitioner,
By:______
One of Its Attorneys
Dated: October 19, 2004
Katherine D. Hodge
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
3
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
P.O Box 19506, SPRINC~IF.L~,ILLINOIS
62794-9506
RENEE C~pR:ANo;DIREcToR
217/782-2113
JOINT CONSTRUCTION ?~ND
OPERATNG
PERMIT
PERMITTEE
Hartford Working Group
do Clayton Group Services
Atta: Monte Nienkerk
3140 Finley Road
Downers Grove, Illinois ~0S15
Application No. 04060060
I.D. No. 11905O~..P~S
Applicants Designation: VCS001’
‘
Date Received: June
17,
2004
Su~ecj: Three Vacuum Extraction Systems
Date Issued: September 14, 2004
~erating Permit Expiration
Date: September 14, 2009
Location: 201 East Hawthorne, Hartford
Permit is hereby granted to the above-designated. Permittee to CONSTRUCT and
OPERATE emission source(s) and/or air pollution control equipment consisting
of three vacuum extraction systems including vacuum blowers (B..
B2,
and 33),
thermal oxidizers’(TO-l, TO-2, and TO-3’) and ancillary eq~iipment, as
described in the above-referenced application. This.Përmit is subject to
standard conditions attached hereto and the following special condition(s):’
1.0 UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1.1 ‘Unit:
Vacuum Extraction Systems
Control: Thermal Oxidizers
1.1.1 Description
Operation of three vacuum extraction systems to remediate
soil and groundwater contaminated with petroleum products.
The systems cOnsist of vacuum blowers, thermal oxidizers
and ancillary equipment.
1.1.2 List of Emission
Units
and PollutionControl Equipment
Emisa ion
Unit
Description
Emission
Control
Equipment
Vacuum
Extraction
Systems
Blowers, Ancillary
Equipment
,
Thermal
Oxidizers
1.1.3 Applicability Provisions az~dApplicable Regulations
a. An “affected unit” for the purpose of these unit-.
spec.tfic conditions, are the vacuum extraction
systems described in Conditions 1.1.1 and 1.1.2.
ROD R. BL.~COJEV~CH,GOVERNOR
I~rvei
~
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2
b. The affected unit is subject to 35 IAC Part 21~,
Subpar:TT: Other Emission Units.
1.1.4 Non-Applicability of Regulations of Concern
a. This permit is issued based upon the affected unit
not being subject to the 40 CFR ?ar.t 63. Subpart
GGGGG:
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Site Remediation because the site
rernediation is required by orders authorized under
RCRA section 7003 (40 CFR 63.7881(b) (3).
1.1.5 Control ‘Requirements, Operational Limits and Work
Practices
a.
The
emission ‘capture and control equipment shall
achieve an overall reduction in uncontrolled
VOM
emissions from each affected uz~itof at least 81
percent from each emission
unit,
pursuant to. 35 IAC
219.985(a)
.
.
.
.
b. The thermal oxidizers shall’be in operation at all”
times ~‘henthe affected units are in operation
and
emitting air contaminants.
c. Each thermal oxidizer combustion chamber shall be
preheated to at least the manufacturer’s recommended
temperature but no less than the temperature at which
compliance was demonstrated in the nioDt recent
compliance test, or l4OD~Fin the absence of a
compliance test. This ‘temperature sk~all be
maintained during operation.
d. Natural gas sh~llbe the only fuel fired in the
thermal oxidizers.
e. The maximum gas ~1ow rate to each thermal oxidizer
shall not exceed 750 scfm.
1.1.6 Emission Limitations
a. ‘Emissions from the affected units (combined) shall
not exceed the following limits. Compliance with
annual limits shall be determined from a
running
total of 12 months of data.
Emissions
Pollutant
(Tons/Mo)
.
(Tons/Yr)
.9.20
CO
‘7.73
VOM
2.77
33.20
Page 3
1.1.7
.
Testing Requirements
a. When in the opinion of the Agency it isnecessaxy to
conduct testing to demonstrate compliance with 35 IAC
219.986, the owner or
operator
of a VO~’1
emission unit
subject to the requirements of 35 IAC Part 219,
Subpart TT shall, at his own
expense,
conduct such
tests in accordance with the applicable test methods
and procedures specified in 35 IAC 219.105
(35 IAC
219.988(a).
b. Nothing in 35 IAC Part 219 ,shall limit the authority
‘of the USEPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as’
amended, to require testing (35 IAC 219.989(b).
1.1.8 Monitoring Requirements
a.
The Permitte~shall use Illinois EPA approved
continuous monitoring
equipment
which shall be
installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated
according to vendor, specifications
at
all times the
afterburner is in use except. The continuous
m~nitoringequipment shall monitor the combustion
chamber temperature of each afterburner.
1.1.9 ‘Recordkeeping Requirements
a. The Permittee shall collect and record all of the
following information each day and maintain the
information at the source for a period of three
years:
i.
Control device
monitoring
data.
ii.
A log of operating time for the capture
system, cont~oldevice, monitoring equipment
and the associated emission source.
iii. A maintenance log for the capture system,
control device and monitoring equipment
detailing all routine and non-routine
maintenance performed including dates and
duration of any outages.
b. The Permittee shall.maintain a file for the..affected
unit
documenting the following:
Maximum rated exhaust flow rate from each
unit, as exhausted to
an oxidizer (SCFM);
page 4
ii.
Maximum VOM concentration in uncontrolled
exhaust
(ppm-v);
iii.
Maximum rated burner capacity of each thermal
oxidizer (mmBtu/hr),; and
iv.
Potential
NO~
and CO en~issions from each unit,
with supporting documentation and
calculations.
.
‘
c.
The Permittee shall maintain records of the VOM
emissions (ton/month and tons/year) with supporting
calculations and documentation.
1.1.10 Reporting Requirements
a. The’Permittee shall promptly notify the Illinois EPA
of deviations of the affected units with the permit
requirements. Reports sb.all describe the probable
cause of such deviations,
and any
corrective actions
or preventive measures taken.
b. The Permittee shall notify the Illinois EPA in the
following instance (3SIAC 219.991(a)’.(3)
i.
Any record showing a violation of the
requirements of 35 IAC Part 219, Subpart PP,
QQ,
RR or TT shall be reported by sending a
copy of such record
to the Illinois EPA within
30 days following the occurrence of the
violation.
1.1.11 Operational Flexibility/Anticipated Operating Scenarios’
1.1.12 Compliance Procedures
a. Compliance with the VOM emission limit in Condition
1.1.6 shall
be
based on a
the
recordkeeping
requirements in Condition 1.1.9 and the following
equation~
ER
Q
x C x MW x 1.581 x 1o~x (1
-
CE/lao)
~“Where:
ER ~ Emission rate (lb/lir)
Q
=
Pumping rate (cfm)
C VOM concentration (‘ppm-v)
MW
=
Molecular weight of VOM (lb/lb-mole)
and
Page 5
Where:
ppm-v
= C
x
(AT/P)
x
‘(l/MW).x 1000
liters/rn3
C Concentration (pg/liter)
A
=
Gas constant
0.05236 (mm Hg m3)/(mole K)
T
=
Temperature (K)
273.15
+
‘C
P Atmospheric pressure (mm Hg)
=
760 mm Hg
MW
Molecular weight of contaminant
CE ~ Overall control efficiency
b. Compliance with
the
NO~and CO emission limits in
Condition 1.1.6 shall
be
determined by
appropriate
emission factors and the recordkeeping requirements
in Ccndition 1.1.9.
2.
For pu~posesof the Clean
Air Act Permit
Program (CAAPP),
unless
the
Hartford Working Group is determined to
be
a separate source from the
Premcor
Refining Group, 20,1 East Hawthorne, Hartford (I.D. No.
119O9OAAA) under Section 39.S of the Environmental Protection Act, the
Permittee must submit its complete CAAPP application for the extraction
system within
12
months after commencing operation, pursuant ~o Section
39.5(5)
(x)
o~the
Act.
If you have
any questions on this, please
call Jason Schnepp at 217/782-2113.
Z7~~t
~ ~.
~
~onald E. Suttdn, P.E.
Manager, peñ~it Section
Division of Air Pollution Control
DES:~1MS:jar
cc: Region 3
3140 Fin’ey Road
Downers Grove,
160515
(~
clayton
Fax.630.795.1130
GROUP SERVICES
September 8, 2004
Donald B. Sutton, P.E.
Manager, Air Permits Section
Division ofAir Pollution Control
ILL1I~OISENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1021
North
Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box
19506
Springfield, Illinois
62794-95
06
Clayton Project No. 15-03095.13-002
RE: Hartford Working
Group
Application for Joint Construction and Operating Permit
Facility I.D. No.: 119O5OAAS
Application No.: 04060060
Dear Mr. Sutton:
This letter is to follow up on recent conversations with Jason Schnepp regarding whether
the emission source and air
pollution control equipment covered by the above-referenced
application constitutes a separate source from the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center
(Facility I.D. No. 11
9O5OAAA).
This letter will demonstrate that the
Hartford Working
Group is a separate “source” as defined in Section
39.5
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (“Act”) from the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center.
INTRODUCTION
As you know, the Hartford Working Group, consisting of Atlantic Richfield Company,
Equilon Enterprises, L.L.C., d b a Shell Oil
Products US and The Premcor Refining
Group mc, was established for the purpose of performing remediation
work and sharing
costs for the Hartford Area Hydrocarbon Plume Site, pursuant to an Administrative Order
on Consent (“AOC”) from United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”)
(No.
R7003-5-04-001). Pursuant to the Cost-Sharing Agreement between these entities,
the above-mentioned parties agreed to designate
contractors to investigate, imp1e,z~ient
and design a vapor extraction system to
abate any on-going threat of discharge and
contamination to the area. All three parties separately agreed to
share equally the costs
associated with this activity and to designate Clayton Group Services,
Inc. (“Clayton”) to
ruti the
operation and management of the remediation, to consist of acquiring equipment
and overseeing the modification and installation of the pollution control equipment on
behalf of the Hartford Working Group. It was
further agreed among the parties that
Clayton would subcontract out the work to be performed in a bidding process and would
run the day-to-day operations at the subject site, in accordance with direction from all
three parties.
15-03095.10ca056.cioc
ATTACHMENT B
~C1ayton
CR001’ SERVICES
Mr. Donald Sutton
Clayton
Project No. 15-03095.13-002
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
September 8, 2004
RE: Comments on
Final
Draft Permit
Page 2
The subject of this letter, the application for Joint Construction and Operating Permit, by
the Hartford Working Group, provides for the construction and
operation of an extraction
system
and air pollution control equipment consisting of three vacuum extraction systems
including vacuum blowers, thermal oxidizers and ancillary equipment in order to carry-
out the
AOC. As you know,
the issue of whether the Hartford Working Group and
Premcor Hartford Distribution Center should be considered a “single source” for air
permitting has been the subject of our recent conversations. The Premcor Hartford
Distribution Centeris a petroleum bulk storage and loading terminal.
DEFINITIONS
As you
know, the
Act definition of “source” closely parallels the federal definition of
“major source” in 40 C.F.R. Part 70 as it was the General Assembly’s plan that the law of
Illinois be consistent with the federal law in this area. Further, effective August 14, 1998,
the definition of “source” in Section
39.5
ofthe
Act
(415
ILCS
5/39.5)
was amended to
read as follows, and a defmition of“support facility” was added:
“Source” means any stationary
source (or
any group of stationary sources) that are
located on one
or more contiguous or adjacent properties and that are under
common control of the same person (or persons under common control)
and
that
belongs to a single major industrial grouping. For the purposes of defining
“source,” a stationary source or group of stationary sources shall be considered
part
of a single major industrial grouping if all of the pollutant emitting activities
at such source or group of sources located on contiguous or adjacent properties
and under common control belong to the same Major Group (i.e., all have the
same two digit code) as described in the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual, 1987, or such pollutant emitting activities at a stationary source (or group
of stationary sources) located on contiguous or adjacent properties and under
common control constitute, a support facility., The determination as to whether
any group of
stationary
sources are located on contiguous or adjacent properties,
andlor are under common control, and/or whether the pollutant emitting activities
at such group of stationary sources_constitute a support facility shall be made on a•.
case by case basis.
“Support facility” means any
stationary source (or group of stationary sources)
that conveys, stores, or otherwise assists to a significant extent in the production
of a principal product at another stationary source (or group of stationary
sources).
A support facility shall
be considered tO
be part Of
the s~±h&sdürce’ás
the stationary
source (or group of stationary sources) that
it supports regardless of
the 2-digit Standard Industrial Classification code for the support facility.
1998
Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 90-773 (West). These amendments expand the
definition of source to include “support facilities” that significantly assist the
15-03095.lOcaOS6.doc
~~C1ayton
CR001’ SERVICES
Mr. Donald Sutton
Clayton Project No. 15-03095.13-002
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
September 8, 2004
RE: Comments on Final Draft Permit
Page 3
production of another facility regardless of
SIC
codes. Moreover, as you can see,
the relevant “source” determination definitions require existence of three different
criteria, which the Board has also enunciated, in determining whether two
or more
emission sources are one “source,” as follows:
1.
Whether all emission sources are located on property that is
contiguous oradjacent;
2.
Whether the emission sources are under the common control of the same
person or group ofpersons; and
3.
Whether the sources belong to the same major industrial grouping.
CRITERIA NO.1- CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT PROPERTY
As to the first criteria, all “sources” must be located on property that is contiguous or
adjacent. As discussed in the preambles to the proposed and final
federal regulations,
federal guidance documents, and in common law decisions discussing the meaning of
“source” and “contiguous”
or “adjacent”, the determination of whether sources are
contiguous or adjacent is based upon
a case-by-case analysis and will
consider the
distance between the sources, along with any physical connections, shared
personnel/management, common industrial grouping, and the support relationship. In
this case, both sources are
located on property owned by The Premcor Refining Group
Inc. However, there is
no physical connection between the facilities, and
as set out
below, there is no
support relationship. Further, there are no shared personnel between
the Hartford Working Group entities nor
with the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center.
As mentioned above, Clayton was charged with the responsibility to obtain contractors to
perform the remediation work. Moreover, from a reading of the federal guidance and
conmion law
decisions interpreting the single source determination, it is clear that
USEPA, in developing this criteria, intended for multiple sources to be categorized as a
single source where the operations of the facilities supported one another in production,
not
dissimilar sources such as in this case. Further, as we will set out below, the
remaining criteria cannot be established because the facilities are not under common
control of the same person or group ofpersons and the sources do not belong to the
same
major industrial grouping and do not fit the definition of “support facility” in the Act.
Therefore; the two permitted sources cannot be considered a “single source” ‘as defined in
the Act.
l5-03095.10ca056.doc
~C1ayton
CR001’ SERVICES
Mr. Donald Sutton
Clayton Project No. 15-03095.13-002
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
September 8, 2004
RE: Comments on Final Draft Permit
Page
4
CRITERIA
NO.2- COMMON CONTROL
As to the second criteria,
the Hartford Working Group is not under the common control
ofthe
same person or group of persons as the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center. As
you know, USEPA regulations do not provide a definition of “control”. However, federal
guidance suggests that common ownership
constitutes common control. Additionally,
common ownership is not the only evidence of control. Federal guidance on this issue
sets forth a number ofquestions to determine common control:
1. Do the facilities share common workforces, plant managers, security forces,
corporate executive officers,
or board ofexecutives?
2. Do the
facilities share equipment, other property, or pollution control
equipment? What
does the contract specif~rwith regard to pollution control
responsibilities of the contractee? Can the managing entity of one facility
make decisions that affect pollution control at the other facility?
3. Do the facilities share common payroll activities, employee benefits, health
plans, retirement funds, insurance coverage, or other administrative functions?
4. Do the facilities
share intermediates, products, byproducts, or other
manufacturing equipment? Can the new
source purchase raw materials from
and
sell products or byproducts to other customers? What are the contractual
arrangements for providing goods
and
services?
5.
Who accepts the
responsibility for compliance with air
quality control
requirements? What about forviolations ofthe requirements?
6; What is the dependency of one facility on the other? If one shuts down, what
are the limitations on the other to pursue outside business interests?
7. Does one operation support the operation of the other? What are the financial
arrangements betweenthe two entities?
This list ofquestions is-~notexhaustive and together, is not dispositive of the issue. First,
as a matter of clarification, one must look at the three Hartford Working Group entities as
a “facility” to understand the answers to the above-mentioned questions. As to the
first
question, as you know, ‘the Hartford Working Group approved Clayton to oversee the
acquiring of equipment, modification, and
installation on behalf of the Working Group.
Clayton is charged with the authority to manage the day-to-day activities
and
to
subcontract the remediation work.
15-03095.lOcaOS6.doc
~C1ayton
CR001’ SERVICES
Mr. Donald Sutton
Clayton Project No. 15-03095.13-002
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
September 8, 2004
RE: Comments on Final Draft Permit
Page
5
As to the second question, the Hartford Working Group entities do not share equipment
or other property with each other nor with the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center. The
Hartford Working Group intends to utilize three new
vacuum
blowers and three new
thermal treatment units utilizing the underground piping network from a previously
installed system. The existing blowers and
thermal treatment
unit will be demolished
once the new system is
online and operating properly. Further, the decisions and
responsibilities of the Hartford Working Group are split eyenly between the three parties
and
the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center
has no involvement in decision-making.
Thus, no one party has decision-making primacy.
As to the
third question, the facilities are
separate entities and do
not share common
payroll, employee benefits, health plans, retirement funds, insurance coverage, or other
administrative flmctions.
As to the fourth
question, the facilities are separate and therefore, do not share
intermediaries, byproducts or other manufacturing equipment, as discussed above, nor
can the new source produce or sell anything as its function is solely remediation. Further,
there is no contractual arrangement providing for goods
and
services.
As to the fifth question, the Hartford Working Group entities accept equal responsibility
for compliance of air quality control
requirements and for such violations. Further, the
Premcor Hartford Distribution Center has no relationship to this responsibility.
As to the sixth question, there is no dependency of one source on the other such that if
one shut down, the other could not pursue outside business interests. The only
relationship is the supply ofutilities from the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center to the
Hartford Working Group. Certainly, if the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center shut
down, the Hartford Working Group could find this supply elsewhere and this deficiency
would not hamper the Hartford Working Group’s outside business interests because they
-
have no outside business
interests. Similarly, the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center is•
not dependent upon the Hartford Working Group in any manner.
Finally, one operation does not
support the operation of the other. The
operations at
these sources are
distinctly separate as discussed above. Moreover, there are
virtually no
fmancial arrangements between the two facilities.
15-03095 IOcaOS6.doc
~C1ayton
CR001’ SERVICSS
Mr. Donald Sutton
Clayton Project No. 15-03095.13-002
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
September 8, 2004
RE: Comments
on Final Draft
Permit
Page 6
CRITERIA NO.3- FACILITY SIC CODE
As to the third criteria, of same industrial grouping or SIC code, or alternatively, a
“support facility” relationship, it is clear that the sources do not belong to the same major
-~
industrial grouping, nor
does one serve as a
“support facility” to
another. The Premcor
Distribution Center SIC code is 5171
and the Hartford Working Group’s SIC code is
4959.
Therefore, the two facilities have different SIC codes. As a matter ofbackground,
the federal “support facility” concept,
relied upon by USEPA when making “source”
determinations in the New Source Review
program, provides that even if pollutant-
emitting activities do not share the same SIC Code,
if the activities are
adjacent, share
common control
and
there is a support facility
relationship, they should be classified as a
single source. According to the definition of “support facility”
in the Act, the source
acting as such would be required to convey, store, or assist to a significant extent in the
production of a principal product at the other source. In this case, Hartford Working
Group’s purpose is to facilitate the remediation of
groundwater contamination and the
Premcor Hartford Distribution Center’s operation is related to petroleum storage
and
distribution. Therefore, neither facility assists in the production of a principal product of
another facility, and obviously, cannot significantly participate is
such activity. The only
support relationship that possibly
could be seen is the supply of electricity and
gas from
the Premcor Hartford
Distribution Center to the Hartford Working Group’s operation.
However, the
costs associated with these utilities is shared equally among the Hartford
Working Group entities, therefore, proving that there is not common ownership or
control,
and such supply does not assist in the production of a product. Because the two
sources have different SIC codes and neither acts as a “support facility” pursuant to the
definition set forth in the Act, the sources must be considered “separate” permitted
facilities, as the ‘definition of “source” within the Act requires all three criterion be met,
and as indicated, this
third criterion cannotbe met.
SUMMARY
In
summary, the
purpose of the Hartford Working Group is to ‘enable the Hartford
Working Group
entities to perform the activities pursuant to the AOC, which was
properly signed by all three entities in the presence of a corporate officer, to assume costs
of such work equally and to assume responsibility for the project equally. While the
Hartford Working Group’s planned vapor control system (new blowers, new oxidizers)
will be located on property owned by The
Premcor Refining Group Inc., the
Hartford
Working Group, acting as a “facility”, has a different SIC code than the Premcor Hartford
Distribution Center and further, the
Hartford
Working Group is not a “support facility” as
defined in the Act as assisting in production at the Premcor Hartford Distribution Center.
Moreover, the Hartford Working Group is not under common ownership or control of the
Premcor Hartford Distribution Center. Therefore, the Hartford Working Group and
Premcor Hartford Distribution Center
cannot
be considered a single
source,
as not all of
5-03095.10c3056.doc
~C1ayton.
CR001’ SERVICES
Mr. Donald Sutton
Clayton Project No. 15-03095.13-002
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
September 8, 2004
RE: Comments on Final Draft Permit
Page 7
the three criteria pursuant to Section
39.5
of the Act have been met. Accordingly, the
Hartford Working Group firmly
believes that it is a separate “source” for the purpose of
air
permitting.
I would like
thank
you for your consideration, cooperation, and assistance in
this matter.
If you would like to
discuss this matter further, please feel free to give me a call directly
at 630-795-3211.
Sincerely,
‘
-
Jeffe L. ope, P.E.
Vice P esid nt
Director emediation
Engineering Services
cc:
Hartford Working
Group
Steve Faryan (USEPA, Region
5)
Kevin Turner (USEPA, Region
5)
Robert Egan (USEPA, Region
5)
Tom Binz (TT EMI)
Jim Moore (IEPA, Springfield)
Chris Cahnovsky (IEPA, Collinsville)
15-03095.
10ca556doc
‘~FLCE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROI~i3k~P’
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP,
)
STTEOF~~d
OCT
212OW~
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB121’~
)
(Construction Permit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
‘MOTION TO STAY EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIAL CONDITION 2.0 OF
JOINT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING PERMIT
NOW COMES, Petitioner, HARTFORD WORKING GROUP (hereinafter
“HWG”), by and through its attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, hereby moves the
Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) to stay the effectiveness
of Special Condition
2.0 ofthe Joint Construction and Operating Permit (“Construction Permit”) issued by the
Illinois EPA that is the subject of this matter, pursuant to the Board’s authority to grant
discretionary stays ofpermit conditions. (Community Landfill Company and City of
Morris v. Illinois EPA (October 19, 2000), 2000 Ill. ENV. LEXIS 670, 11, PCB Nos. 01-
48, 01-49).
In support thereof, HWG states as follows:
1.
On September 14,2004, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Illinois EPA”) issued
a final Joint Construction and Operating Permit (No.
11 9O5OAAS) for vacuum extraction system~,including
thermal oxidizers and ancillary
equipment, to be constructed by the HWG in Hartford, Illinois;
2.
Today, HWG has filed a Petition for Review of Special Condition 2.0 in
order to preserve its right to appeal in this matter;
3.
A stay ofeffectiveness ofSpecial Condition 2.0 ofthe Construction
Permit is needed to prevent irreparable harm to the Petitioner and to protect a certain and
clearly ascertainable right of the Petitioner, the right to appeal permit conditions, no
adequate remedy exists at law and Petitioner has a probability of success on the merits;
and
4.
The Illinois EPA, the public, and the environment will not be harmed if a
stay is granted.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner moves the Board to grant a stay ofeffectiveness of
Special Condition 2.0 of
HWG’s Construction Permit until the Board’s final action in this
matter.
Respectfully submitted,
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP
Petitioner,
By:
One
~#h.
of Its Attorneys
Dated: October 19, 2004
Katherine D. Hodge
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
2
