RECF1V~L~

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONT1~9~

B(Mj~4

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.,)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

V.

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

b~u: ~r

POLLUTION cot

L~t~V~D

~JAN

‘

5

2004

PCB No.

~Ii-

IrL~~

U~

)

(CAAPP Perm~?

L~~f3~

cOwrROL ~OARb

)

)

)

)

~NOTICEOF 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 ofLegal

Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

(VIA

(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 each of

ETHYL

PETROLEUM

ADDITIVES, INC.’S

PETITION FOR

REVIEW;

MOTION TO

STAY EFFECTIVENESS OF CAAPP PERMIT; ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF

KATHERINE D. HODGE

and

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF N. LADONNA

DRIVER,

copies ofwhich are hereby served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.

Petitioner,

Dated:

January

~

N. LaDonna Driver

Katherine D. Hodge

N. LaDonna Driver

HODGE DWYER ZEMAN

3150 Roland Avenue

Post Office Box 5776

Springfield, Illinois

62705-5776

(217) 523-4900

THTS FILING

SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, N. LaDonna Driver, the undersigned, certif~’that I have served the attached

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.’S PETITION FOR REVIEW; MOTION TO

STAY EFFECTIVENESS OF CAAPP PERMIT; ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF

KATHERINE D.

HODGE and ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF N. LADONNA DRIVER

upon:

Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn

Clerk of the Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Division ofLegal 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 January 2, 2004.

N. LaDorma Driver

ETI-IL:007/FiIJNOF-COS

-

PFR

-

MTS

-

EOA

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RECEWED

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.,)

~

2004

)

iPd ~

Petitioner,

)

LL~O~

CONTROL

~o~o

)

‘I

v.

)

PCBNo,t’~T-

/f~3

)

(CAAPP Permit Appeal)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

PETITION FOR REVIEW

NOW COMES,

Petitioner, ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES,

INC.

(hereinafter “Ethyl”), by and through its attorneys,

HODGE DWYER

ZEMAN, pursuant

to

Section 40.2 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415

ILCS

5/40.2) (“Act”)

and 35

Ill.

Admin.

Code

§

105

Subpart C,

and petitions the Illinois Pollution Control

Board (“Board”) for review ofthe Clean Air Act Permit Program (“CAAPP”) permit

granted to Ethyl by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”)

pursuant to Section 39.5 of the Act on December

1, 2003.

In support thereof

Ethyl

states as follows:

1.

Ethyl

owns and operates a chemical manufacturing facility (the “facility”)

in Sauget, Illinois, which is classified as a “major source” for purposes ofTitle V of the

Clean Air Act and Section 39.5 of the Act.

2.

Pursuant to

Section

504 ofthe Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

§

766 lb(c)) and

Section

3 9.5(5) ofthe Act, Ethyl

submitted an

application for a CAAPP permit for its

Sauget, Illinois,

facility to the

Illinois EPA on December 4,

1995.

---

3.

On or about

September

10, 2003, Illinois EPA sent to public notice a draft

CAAPP permit for this facility and also provided a copy ofthe proposed permit to the

United States Environmental Protection Agency

(“USEPA”).

4.

During the public comment period provided pursuant to

Section 505d of

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

§

7661d) and Section 39.5(8) and (9) ofthe Act,

upon

information and

belief~,Illinois EPA received no written objection from the USEPA or

from any “affected states.”

Upon

information and belief

Illinois EPA received three

public comments on the draft permit,

including comments filed by Ethyl

(“Ethyl

Comments,” which are attached hereto as Exhibit A).

5.

On December

1, 2003, Illinois EPA granted a final CAAPP

permit for the

Ethyl facility.

(The December

1,

2003,

permit is attached hereto as Exhibit B.)

Although

some ofEthyl’s concerns were addressed in the final CAAPP permit, the Illinois EPA

failed to make certain changes to the CAAPP permit, as requested by Ethyl,

as set forth

below.

6.

Condition 3.1.2 ofthe CAAPP permit pertains to “activities that are

listed

as insignificant activities based upon maximum emissions,

pursuant to 35

IAC

201.210(a)(2) or (a)(3),

as follows.”

Ethyl requested that several Unit 266 storage tanks

identified in Section

7.9 be removed from this section and be reclassified as insignificant

activities pursuant to Condition

3.1.2.

The final CAAPP permit did not reclassify these

tanks, as requested in Ethyl Comments 3(a) and

30.

7.

Unit 270 and 275

Therminol Furnaces should have been incorporated

into

Section 4.0 ofthe CAAPP permit.

In addition, Unit 270

Therminol Furnace

should have

been included as an

emission unit,

along with the pertinent applicable requirements, in

2

---

Section 7.19 ofthe CAAPP permit.

Unit 275

Therminol Furnace should have been

included as an emission unit, along with the pertinent applicable requirements, in

Section

7.22 ofthe CAAPP permit.

Ethyl requested these changes in Ethyl Comments

5,

40 and

48,

but the changes were not incorporated into the final CAAPP permit.

8.

Condition

5.2.5(a)

requires compliance and certification ofcompliance

with future regulations, particularly “40 C.F.R. Parts

60,

61

or 63

or 35

IAC.”

Ethyl

believes this condition should be revised to state that

only

Subtitle B of 35

Ill.

Admin.

Code

is relevant to this condition.

Ethyl requested such clarification in Ethyl

Comments

6, but the Illinois EPA did not revise Condition 5.2.5(a) accordingly.

9.

Condition 5.2.7(c) provides that “The provisions ofSubpart H apply to all

equipment

.

.

.

that

is intended to operate organic HAP service 300 hours or more during

the calendar year within a source subject to 40 CFR 63,

Subpart F

40

CFR 63.160(a).”

In Ethyl Comments 8, Ethyl

requested this

sentence to be revised to clarify that only

“HON affected units” meeting the applicability criteria of40 C.F.R.

63.160(a) are subject

to the provisions of40

C.F.R.

63,

Subpart H.

Illinois EPA did not revise Condition

5.2.7(c) as requested.

10.

In Condition 5.3, the entire paragraph referencing the non-applicability of

40 C.F.R.

60,

Subpart VV was removed from the final CAAPP permit.

In Ethyl

Comments

9,

Ethyl requested this Condition be revised in

order to be

consistent with

Condition

7. 1.4(c).

The non-applicability provision should be

included and be made

consistent with Condition 7.1.4(c), as requested by Ethyl.

11.

Condition

5.4 contains source-wide operational and production limits and

work practice requirements for the facility.

However, this Condition

does not

address

3

---

requirements for malfunctions and

breakdown,

as requested in the CAAPP permit

application.

Thus, as set forth in Ethyl Comments

10, Ethyl sought revision ofCondition

5.4 to

address the requirements for malfunction or breakdown events.

In the final

CAAPP permit,

the malfunction and breakdown provisions are still listed for most of the

individual units within Section

7.

However, the individual provisions are not consistent

and do not address all

types of control equipment at all of the emission units.

12.

Conditions 5.5.3(a) and (b) contain hourly emission

limits on sulfur

dioxide,

carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides and volatile organic material

emissions for

Flare 36-0011.

In Ethyl Comments

13,

Ethyl requested the hourly emission limits be

converted to

a monthly basis.

The CAAPP permit states that the basis for this limit is to

ensure that the affected emission units are not subject to the control requirements of 40

C.F.R.

52.21.

However, as set forth in Ethyl Comments

13, the applicability of40 C.F.R.

52.21

is not determined on an hourly

basis and

hourly limits are not practically

enforceable due to the nature ofEthyl’s operation.

Thus,

monthly limits

should be

utilized,

as requested.

13.

In Ethyl Comments

15(c) and 43, Ethyl requested the ability to determine

short-term production/emission rates on a “per batch” or monthly

basis.

However,

several ofthe hourly emission limits

for batch systems were not converted to

a “per

batch”

or monthly basis,

as requested.

14.

Condition 7.8.5(d) states that compliance with the H2S

scrubber minimum

efficiency “shall be determined monthly from a running total of monthly material balance

data.”

In Ethyl Comments

27,

Ethyl requested that this condition be revised to

state that

compliance will be determined by monitoring the scrubber outlet temperature,

scrubbant

4

---

flow rate, and breakthrough point.

The monthly material balance requirement for the

Unit

280

H2S system was not

removed from Conditions 7.8.5(d) or 7.8.9(g),

as requested.

15.

The Vacuum Pump

Venturi Scrubber

is no longer operated at the facility

and is not

among the emission control equipment

listed in

Condition 7.8.2.

However, the

limitations for the Vacuum Pump Venturi Scrubber were not

removed from Condition

7.8.6, as requested in Ethyl

Comments 29.

16.

Condition 7.19.6(a) contains VOM emission limits referenced from

Construction Permit No.

85060020.

The primary VOM emissions from the affected Unit

270 reactors are HAPs.

In Ethyl

Comments 42, Ethyl requested that the VOM limits for

these reactors be revised to be consistent with the HAP emissions limits stated in

Operating Permit No.

72121045.

The limits were not revised as requested.

17.

Condition 7.19.12(b) explains that the emissions from the Unit 270

reactors are determined based on a material balance.

The emission factor stated in the

draft version ofthis condition was not required to determine emissions and Ethyl

requested that this emission factor be removed from the compliance procedures section.

The emission factor was removed as requested, but the corresponding stack test

requirement in this condition was not removed, as requested in

Ethyl Comments 44.

18.

Finally, the emission limitation in Condition

7.20.6 was not revised to

incorporate storage tank 35-610,

as requested in Ethyl Comments

45.

19.

For the above-referenced reasons, the CAAPP permit does not reflect the

current applicable requirements or the current operations at the facility, and thus

is not

“consistent with the Clean Air Act and regulations

promulgated thereunder and this Act

and regulations promulgated thereunder.”

Certain conditions discussed herein are not

5

---

required to “accomplish the purposes and provisions ofthis Act and to

assure compliance

with all

applicable requirements.”

WHEREFORE, Ethyl petitions the Board for a hearing on the Illinois EPA’s

final

action to issue this CAAPP permit in this fashion.

And, as set forth in the accompanying

Motion to

Stay Effectiveness of CAAPP Permit, Ethyl requests that the effectiveness of

the CAAPP permit be stayed until

the Board’s final determination in this matter.

Respectfully

submitted,

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.

Petitioner,

By:

~

~

I

(/ ~tO’ne

ofIts Attorneys

Dated:

January

2,

2004

Katherine D. Hodge

N. LaDonna Driver

HODGE DWYER ZEMAN

3150 Roland Avenue

Post Office Box 5776

Springfield,

Illinois

62705-5776

(217) 523-4900

ETHL:OO7fFilIPetition for Review

6

---

Due

to

the

volume

of this

please

contact

the

Clerk’s

Office

to

view

this

file.

---

‘AECE~VE~

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

~

5

2004

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.)

)

POLLUTiON

CONTROL ~OA~

Petitioner,

)

)

I

V.

)

PCBNo.O’1-_~I’~

)

(CAAPP Permit

Appeal)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

MOTION TO

STAY EFFECTIVENESS OF CAAPP

PERMIT

NOW COMES, Petitioner, ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.

(hereinafter “Ethyl”),

by and

through its attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, and

hereby moves

the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) to stay the effectiveness of

Ethyl’s Clean Air Act Permit Program (“CAAPP”) permit

in this matter, pursuant to 35

Ill.

Admin.

Code

§

105.304(b).

In support thereof~

Ethyl states as follows:

1.

On December

1, 2003, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“Illinois EPA”) issued a final CAAPP permit (No. 95120012) for Ethyl’s manufacturing

facility in Sauget, Illinois.

2.

Today, January 2,

2004, Ethyl has filed a Petition for Review in order to

preserve its right to

appeal in this matter.

3.

A stay ofeffectiveness of the CAAPP 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.

4.

The Illinois EPA, the public,

and the environment will not be harmed ifa

stay is granted.

---

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner moves the Board to grant a stay ofeffectiveness of

Ethyl’s CAAPP permit until the Board’s final action in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.

Petitioner,

/

One ofIts Attorneys

Dated:

January 2, 2004

Katherine D. Hodge

N. LaDonna Driver

HODGE DWYER ZEMAN

3150 Roland Avenue

Post Office Box 5776

Springfield,

Illinois

62705-5776

(217) 523-4900

ETHL:OO7IFilIMotion to Stay

2

---

AECE~VED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD rj~

~

2004

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.,)

POLUflION

CONTROL ~OM~

Petitioner,

)

)

I

v.

)

PCBNo.OT-

j(3

)

(CAAPP Permit Appeal)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

ENTRY OF

APPEARANCE

OF

KATHER1~E

D.

HODGE

NOW COMES Katherine D. Hodge, of the law firm ofHODGE DWYER

ZEMAN,

and

hereby enters her appearance on behalf ofPetitioner, ETHYL

PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.,

in the above-referenced matter.

Respectfully

submitted,

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.

Petitioner,

By:_______

Katherine D. Hodge

Dated:

January 2, 2004

Katherine D. Hodge

N. LaDonna Driver

HODGE DWYER ZEMAN

3150 Roland Avenue

Post Office Box

5776

Springfield, Illinois

62705-5776

(217) 523-4900

ETHL:OO7IFiVEOA Ci~PP-KDH

---

BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

REC~VED

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.,)

‘JAN

5

2004

Petitioner,

)

~.

*.~r

)

POLLIJ11ON

CONTROL

~OM~b

V.

)

PCBNo..Q~-

1(3

)

(CAAPP Permit Appeal)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF N. LADONNA

DRIVER

NOW COMES N. LaDonna Driver, ofthe law firm ofHODGE DWYER

ZEMAN,

and hereby enters her appearance on behalfof Petitioner, ETHYL

PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.,

in the above-referenced matter.

Respectfully submitted,

ETHYL PETROLEUM ADDITIVES, INC.

Petitioner,

~

L~

N. LaDonna Driver

Dated:

January 2, 2004

Katherine D. Hodge

N. LaDonna Driver

HODGE DWYER ZEMAN

3150 Roland Avenue

Post Office Box

5776

Springfield,

Illinois

62705-5776

(217) 523-4900

ETHL:OO7IFiLIEOA CAAPP-NLD