BEFORE THE 

### ADMINISTRATOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY



### IN THE MATTER 

### OF 

### 1 ONYX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ) ) 

### ORDER RESPONDING TO ) PETITIONERS' REQUEST THAT Petition number V-2005-1 ) THE ADMINISTRATOR OBJECT CAMPNo. 163121AAP ) TO ISSUANCE 

### OF A STATE Proposed by the Illinois ) OPERATINGPERMIT Environmental Protection Agency 

### 1

ORDER AMENDING PRTOR ORDER PARTIALLY DENYING 

### AND PARTIALLY GRANTING PETITION 

### FOR OBJECTIONTO PERMIT

EPA has become aware of a factual error in the February 1,2006 Order Respondingto Petitioners' Request that the AdministratorObject to Issuance of a proposed State Operating Permit for Onyx Environmental Services. To correctthat error, 

### I am amending the February 1, 2006 Orderby strikingout the section entitled 

### "VI.Monitoring" and replacing it with the language appearingbelow. As a result ofthe correction,I am hereby grantingthe petition on that issue.

The amended language for section VI is as follows: 

# I

VI. Monitoring

The Petitioners argue that the Administrator must object to the proposed Onyx permit because it fails to include conditions that meet the legal requirements for monitoring. The Petitioners cite condition 7.1-8.b.ii.on page 56 of the proposed Onyx permit, which provides that Onyx must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitors (PM CEMs) to demonstratecompliance. Petitioners note that the next clause provides that the permittee need not comply with the requirement to "install, calibrate, maintain, and operatethe PM CEMs until such time that 

### U.S. EPA promulgates all performance specificationsand operational requirements for 

### PM CEMs." Petitioners argue that there are no PM monitoring requirements established in the permit without the obligationto install and operate the 

### PM CEMs, which is contingent on future

### U.S. EPA action. Petition at 18.



### U.S. EPA promulgated the performance specification for 

### PM CEMs (Performance Standard 11) on January 12,2004. However, U.S. EPA has not yet promulgated the operationalrequirements for PM CEMs. Accordingly, the requirement to install and operate 

### PM CEMs does not currently apply to 

### Onyx, although the permit properly requires PM CEMs onceU.S. EPA promulgates such operationalrequirements. However, subpart

### EEE contains otherrequirements intended to help assure compliance with the 

### PM limits, including 

### a requirement for bag leak detection monitoring.' The Onyx facility is equipped with baghouses, and therefore 

### Onyx is required to operate and maintain a system to detect leaks from the baghouses, but the permit currently lacks provisions requiring 

### a leak detection system. Accordingly, the lack of a currently applicable requirement to operate and maintain 

### PM CEMs does not make the permit deficientunder 40 

### C.F.R. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B), but Petitioners are correct that the permit lacks monitoring required under otherprovisions of 40 C.F.R. $70.6, and therefore

### I am grantingthe petition on this issue and directing

### IEPA to revise the permit 

### to incorporate all PM monitoringrequired for the facility under subpart EEE, including a leak detection system.'



### I am not revising 

### the Order issued 

### February 1 

### in 

### any other 

### way and its provisions, other than section 

### VI, remain undisturbedand in effect.



### AUG -9 2006 Dated:

Administrator 

### L/

6 See Final Technical SupportDocument for HWC MACT Standards,Vol.

### N:Compliance with the

## HWCMACT Standards (July 1999).

7 SubpartEEE has been amended srnce the permit was proposed by IEPA, although the requirement for bag leak detection applied to the Onyx facility at the time the permit was proposed. In reproposing the permit, IEPA should ensure that the permit properly reflects all of the currentMACT requirements