THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 05-74
)
(Construction Per mit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Carol Webb, Esq.
Clerk of the Board
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Suite 11-500
Post Office Box 19274
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)
(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board Hartford Working Group’s
MOTION TO
VOLUNTARILY DISMISS PETITION FOR REVIEW
a copy of which is herewit h
served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP,
Respondent,
Dated: October 5, 2005
By:/s/ Katherine D. Hodge
One of Its Attorneys
Katherine D. Hodge
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 5, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Katherine D. Hodge, the undersigned, certify that I have served the attached
MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS PETITION FOR REVIEW upon:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Carol Webb, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
via electronic mail on October 5, 2005; and upon:
Robb H. Layman, Esq.
Divisio n of Legal Counsel
I llino is E nvironmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
by depositing said documents in the United States Mail in Springfield, Illinois, postage
prepaid, on October 5, 2005.
/s/ Katherine D. Hodge
Katherine D. Hodge
CLTN:001/Fil/NOF and COS – Motion to Dismiss
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 5, 2005
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 05-74
)
(Construction Per mit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS PETITION FOR REVIEW
NOW COMES Petitioner, HARTFORD WORKING GROUP (“Petitioner” or
“HWG”), by its attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin.
Code 101.Subpart E, Section 101.500, moves the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”) to voluntarily dismiss this act ion. In support of this Mot ion, Petit ioner states
as follows:
1.
On September 14, 2004, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(the “Illinois EPA”) granted a Joint Construction and Operating Permit (the
“Construction Permit”) to HWG for the purpose of installing certain equipment to
remediate soil and groundwater contaminated with petroleum products.
2.
On October 21, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for review requesting
delet ion o f Special Condit ion 2.0 contained in t he Construction Permit.
3.
Special Condit io n 2.0 of the Construction Per mit provided that:
“For purposes of the Clean Air 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.
119090AAA) under Section 39.5 o f the Environmental Protection Act, the
Per mitt ee must submit its complete CAAPP applic ation for the extraction
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 5, 2005
2
syste m within 12 months after commencing operatio n, pursuant to Section
39.5(5)(x) of the Act.”
4.
In the interim timeframe, the Illinois EPA and HWG have cooperated in
effort s to obtain a final determinat ion fro m the United States Environmenta l Protection
Agency (“USEPA”) regarding whether HWG was a separate source from the Premcor
Refining Group (“Premcor”) or whether HWG and Premcor were part of a single source
and to revise the Construction Permit accordingly.
5.
On July 21, 2005, USEPA, Region V, issued a letter wherein the USEPA
states that it “believes that the Hartford Working Group project and the Premcor
Distr ibution Center should not be considered a single source for Tit le V and Prevent ion
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) purposes.” A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
6.
The Illinois EPA has prepared a draft Joint Construction and Operating
Permit – Revised (the “Revised Construction Permit”), which includes an appropriate
revisio n to Condit ion 2, and has committed to the issuance the Revised Construction
Permit in a timely manner.
7.
As all issues between the parties have been resolved, Petitioner requests
that the Board grant this Mot ion to Voluntarily Dismiss Petit ion for Review, and dismiss
this action.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 5, 2005
3
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, HARTFORD WORKING GROUP, respectfully
requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board enter an Order dismissing this action.
Respectfully submitted,
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP,
P
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
,
By:/s/ Katherine D. Hodge
One of Its Attorneys
Dated: October 5, 2005
Katherine D. Hodge
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
CLTN-001\Filings\Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Permit Appeal.doc
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 5, 2005
SEP-06-2005
14:04
D!" LEGAL
rýý}ý3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PAOTECT1ON
AGENCY
REGION
5
7 7 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, IL
60604-3590
R EPLY TO THE
ArrENTION
OF
JUL
2
12005
Don Sutton,
Manager
Permit Section
Illinois
Eavisonctental Protection Agency
P.O. Bcac 1.9506
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9506
(AR-18J)
or your February 15, 2005, letter
requesting a single source
determination for the
Hartford Working Group. In your letter,-you state that
the
Illinois Envirornnntal
Protection Agency (IEPA) has already -recently
issued a canstructian
permit to the
Hartford
Working Group for the egtzipmeat
to be used to remediate the soil
and groundwater contamination in
the
area.
The purpose for the rertadiation
equipYent is to settle an aduinistrative order
on consent fretm the United
States
Enviroýýntai
Protection Agency (USEPA) to
abate any ongo ng threat
of discharge and contamination to the area. IEPA
has
requested that
US-EPA
provide guidance
on
whether
the Hartford Working Group
retaediation site and the
nearby Pre cor Distribution Center are a single
source. The
US19PA-believes that the Hartford Working Group project and
Premcor Distribution
Center should rot be considered a single source for Title
V and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) purposes.
The Federal PSD regulations
define "stationary source" as "any building,
structure, facility,
or installation winich emits or may enit any air pollutant
subject to regulaticn,
urxier the Act" and further defines "building, structure,
facility, or
installation" as all of
the
pollutant-emitting
activities which
belong
to the sacntr industriaa,
grouping, are located tart one or more cantigucous
or adjacent properties,
and are under the control of the same person (or
persons under camrm
control.) 40 C.F.R. 52.21 (b) (5) and (6). Furthermore,
if
multiple emissions units
exist
and
do not have the same two-digit SIC code,
a. support
facility
relationship may be
determined
if facilities "cclnvey,
store, or otherwise assist
in
the
production of the principal. product..,, , (See
draft
New Source Review
Workshop Manual, page A.2 - A.3).
tarzdang
is that the
Hartford Working Group rwediation site and the
Prencor
Distribution Center
are on contiguous property that is owned, at least
by Prior. Furthezmore, Prewar owns a share of both
foci
However, we
did not see evidence in your letter
that Pre=r exercise
control over either
of these facilities. Additionally, the facilities
I
JUL
2
5 2005
JEPA-
DAPC
-
SPFLE
RecyctedlRecydable " Printed All Vegetable DD Based Inks on So% Recyded Paper {20% PotacoraLxner)
S EP-08-2005
14:20
99%:
P.02
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 5, 2005
Di
r
LEGAL
-2-
F
, aJ/eý
different
SIC codes. Therefore, :based con the information as we understand it,
the facilities
do
not
meet
the three criteria'necessary to be defined
as
a
single, source. Furthermore, there is no evidence that either of the
facilities
provides support services to the other. It is our understanding
that
the extent of their relationship is that the r i.ation facility gets
electricity fr xn the Distribution Center. Because this does
not appear to be
'the type of assistance
conterplated in the Nest Source Review
Workshop
Manual
as necessary to support a determination of a support relationship,
we do not
believe that the relationship between the Distribution
Center aril the
reme id ation facility is that of a nein and support facility.
We hope this letter will be
useful.
if
you
have
any further
questions,
please
feel free to contact me or have your
staff
contact
Ccnstantine Blathras at
(312) 886-0671 or Danny Marcus at
(312) 353-8781...
Pamela Blakley,
Chief
Air Permits Section
TOTAL
P.03
8EP-08-2005 14:21
P.03
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 5, 2005
