**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 onl y 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 onl y Veolia

—the others are permitted by Ohio EPA. This is because Region 5 took permitting authorit y for Veolia away from the Illinois EPA in 2006, after Illinois EPA failed to issue a Title V air o perating permit to Veolia following ye ars of delay

. Ross and WTIhave 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 an y actions for environmental violations. As y ou 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 HWI s 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 Analy sis 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 l aw 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 y ears. 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 stringe nt and onerous FAP and (2) a first

- of

- its

- kind requirement in the HWIindustry

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 b y **only one** company : Cooper Environmental Services, LLC (“Cooper”) from Portland, Oregon. The technology purports to collect, anal yz e, and determine the concentration of metals in stack gas emissions or in ambient air. The Xact 64 0 multi

- metals CEMS is the version that purports to anal yz e 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 moni tor 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 properl y 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 anal ys is under the HWC MACT. Moreover, the anal yt ic al problems inherent in the Xact625 are more prevalent in the Xact 640 because significant problems are introduced when the

Xact 640 attempts to obtain and accurately anal yz e sample s of stack gas through the umbilical. Not surprisingl y, 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 fa ct supported by several experts. Infact, the Xact 640 multi

metals CEMS is currently **not in use**  at any industry any where 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 “strongl y 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 onl y facility directl y 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 equall y 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 day s 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 requ ire 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 forc ing 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 alon e 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 co mpromise has been acceptable with Region 5 unless it involves Veolia purchasing some t ype 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.
I f it is forced to install the Xact 640 technology , Veolia will be the onl y commercial HWI using it in the w orld. The forced installation of this expensive and unverified equipment will put Veoli a at a significant disadvantage as compared to its competitors. We believe i f 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, th e 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 5decides 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.