BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

IN THE MATTER OF 1 

ONYX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ) 

) ORDER RESPONDING TO 

) PETITIONERS' REQUEST THAT 

Petition number V-2005-1 ) THE ADMINISTRATOR OBJECT 

CAMP No. 163121AAP ) TO ISSUANCE OF A STATE 

Proposed by the Illinois ) OPERATING PERMIT 

Environmental Protection Agency 1 

ORDER AMENDING PRTOR ORDER PARTIALLY DENYING AND 

PARTIALLY GRANTING PETITION FOR OBJECTION TO PERMIT 

EPA has become aware of a factual error in the February 1,2006 Order Responding to 

Petitioners' Request that the Administrator Object to Issuance of a proposed State Operating 

Permit for Onyx Environmental Services. To correct that error, I am amending the February 1, 

2006 Order by striking out the section entitled "VI. Monitoring" and replacing it with the 

language appearing below. As a result of the correction, I am hereby granting the 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 

demonstrate compliance. Petitioners note that the next clause provides that the 

permittee need not comply with the requirement to "install, calibrate, maintain, 

and operate the PM CEMs until such time that U.S. EPA promulgates all 

performance specifications and operational requirements for PM CEMs." 

Petitioners argue that there are no PM monitoring requirements established in the 

permit without the obligation to 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 operational requirements 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 once U.S. EPA promulgates 

such operational requirements. However, subpart EEE contains other 
requirements 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 

deficient under 40 C.F.R. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B), but Petitioners are correct that the 

permit lacks monitoring required under other provisions of 40 C.F.R. $70.6, and 

therefore I am granting the petition on this issue and directing IEPA to revise the 

permit to incorporate all PM monitoring required 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 undisturbed and in effect. 

AUG -9 2006 

Dated: 

Administrator L/ 

6 See Final Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Vol. N: Compliance with 

the HWCMACT Standards (July 1999). 

7 Subpart EEE 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 current MACT 

requirements