Background

USEPA Region 5 (“Region 5”) is the only EPA region that is seeking to require a hazardous 

waste incinerator to install these problematic monitors. Within Region 5 there are only three 

commercial hazardous waste incinerators (“HWIs”): Veolia, Ross, and WTI/Heritage. Veolia is 

located in Sauget, Illinois and Ross and WTI/Heritage are both located in Ohio. Of these three 

facilities, Region 5 directly permits only Veolia—the others are permitted by Ohio EPA. This is 

because Region 5 took permitting authority for Veolia away from the Illinois EPA in 2006, after 

Illinois EPA failed to issue a Title V air operating permit to Veolia following years of delay. 

Ross and WTI have each paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and have undertaken significant 

projects at their facilities to settle environmental violations. Conversely, Region 5 has never 

filed a formal enforcement action against Veolia for alleged violations and Veolia has not paid 

any penalties or had to perform any actions for environmental violations. 

As you know, under the Clean Air Act, HWIs are subject to the Hazardous Waste Combustor 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology Rule (“HWC MACT”). The HWC MACT requires

that HWIs use Comprehensive Performance Tests (“CPTs”) to demonstrate compliance with 

emissions limits. Veolia runs CPTs periodically to verify its compliance. Further, the HWC 

MACT requires, and Veolia uses, a Feedstream Analysis Plan (“FAP”) to test the composition of 

incoming waste. Veolia’s Title V permit—last issued by Region 5 in 2008—includes CPT and 

FAP requirements among other enforceable provisions. Since 2008, Veolia has demonstrated 

through numerous CPTs that it has fully complied with the law and has never emitted metals (or 

any other regulated pollutant) over its permitted emission limits. 

Veolia must renew its Title V air operating permit every 5 years. Veolia conducted and passed 

all of its required CPTs in 2013 and timely applied to renew its Title V permit. Region 5 issued 

a draft permit for public comment in October of 2014. Veolia timely submitted comments in 

December of 2014. Veolia’s comments focused on two totally new permit conditions proposed 

by Region 5: (1) a more stringent and onerous FAP and (2) a first-of-its-kind requirement in the 

HWI industry that Veolia install an Xact 640 multi-metals continuous emissions monitor 

(“CEMS”) on each of its three incinerator stacks. 

Xact Multi-Metals Technology

The Xact multi-metals technology is provided by only one company: Cooper Environmental 

Services, LLC (“Cooper”) from Portland, Oregon. The technology purports to collect, analyze, 

and determine the concentration of metals in stack gas emissions or in ambient air. The Xact 640 

multi-metals CEMS is the version that purports to analyze stack gases and takes a sample from 

within a stack. (The machine sits outside the stack and pulls air through a tube, called an 

umbilical, connected to the stack.) The Xact 625 multi-metals monitor measures metals in 

ambient air and takes samples from the ambient air around wherever it is placed. 

The Xact multi-metals technology is unverified. A 2012 study commissioned by USEPA to test 

the viability of the Xact 625 determined that the monitor failed to detect and/or properly analyze 

19 of the 23 metals that the machine was designed to capture. Further, the Xact 640 has never 

been validated using USEPA Method 29, which is considered the gold standard for stack-gas 

metals analysis under the HWC MACT. Moreover, the analytical problems inherent in the Xact 
625 are more prevalent in the Xact 640 because significant problems are introduced when the 

Xact 640 attempts to obtain and accurately analyze samples of stack gas through the umbilical. 

Not surprisingly, the commercial hazardous waste incineration industry has rejected the Xact 

technology because the Xact technology has not been proven to accurately measure numerous 

metals on a continuous basis, a fact supported by several experts. In fact, the Xact 640 multimetals CEMS is currently not in use at any industry anywhere in the World.

Region 5 Is Forcing Cooper’s Unverified Technology on Veolia Alone 

Region 5 has previously represented to Veolia that Region 5 has “strongly encouraged” 

Ohio EPA to require Ross and WTI/Heritage to install Xact multi-metals CEMS as a part 

of their Title V permits. However, Ohio EPA has resisted Region 5’s pressure and has 

taken no actions to require Ross and WTI/Heritage to install this unverified and 

expensive technology as a part of their Title V permits. Thus, simply by being the only 

facility directly permitted by Region 5, Veolia is being placed at a significant 

disadvantage when compared to its closest competitors.

Further, Region 5 has failed to apply this burdensome requirement equally when it was 

provided the opportunity to do so. Region 5 issued Veolia’s draft permit containing the 

multi-metals CEMS requirement on October 14, 2014. Just 10 days later, Region 5 

signed a 33-page consent decree with Ross that settled numerous violations of the CAA, 

including violations of the metals emissions limits. However, despite the seriousness of 

the claims against Ross (which included a $400,000 penalty), USEPA did not require 

Ross to install multi-metals CEMS as a part of the negotiated consent decree. 

Given these facts, we question why Region 5, as the direct permitting authority for Veolia, is

forcing Veolia to bear the cost of installing and attempting to perfect the Xact multi-metals 

technology. We believe Region 5’s actions towards Veolia amount to improper rulemaking. If 

the Agency wishes to go down this path, they should promulgate a rule that applies to the entire 

industry, as opposed to making Veolia stand alone to bear unreasonable costs and the burden of 

trying to get the Xact 640 to work. 

Veolia’s Efforts at Compromise

We understand that Veolia has made major concessions in an attempt to compromise with 

Region 5 to reach a reasonable resolution. Yet, no compromise has been acceptable with Region 

5 unless it involves Veolia purchasing some type of monitoring equipment from Cooper 

Environmental Services. In fact, we understand that Region 5 has threatened to terminate 

negotiations unless Veolia purchases air monitoring equipment from Cooper Environmental 

Services. 

If it is forced to install the Xact 640 technology, Veolia will be the only commercial HWI using 

it in the world. The forced installation of this expensive and unverified equipment will put 

Veolia at a significant disadvantage as compared to its competitors. We believe if this 

technology is to be applied to the industry, it should be applied through rulemaking in order for 

the technology to be fully vetted and tested. If, as Region 5 asserts, the Xact 640 does work, 

USEPA should apply it to the entire industry via appropriate rulemaking procedures so that no 

individual company is forced to bear the research and development costs alone. If Region 5 
decides not to engage in appropriate rulemaking, we would like for the Agency to explain to us 

why Region 5 is requiring Veolia to contract solely with Cooper Environmental Services in order 

to finalize Veolia’s Title V permit.