## VES016712-016776.pd fCase : l:12-cv-01441-DAP Doc#: l Filed : 06/07/1 2 lof28 . PagelD#: l

UNITE D STATE S DISTRIC T COUR T FO RTH E NORTHER N DISTRIC T O FOHI O

Civi l Actio n No . UNITE D STATE S O FAMERICA , Plaintiff, v . ROS S INCINERATIO N SERVICES , INC. , Defendant . COMPLAIN T Th e Unite dState

s o f America , b

y th e authorit y o f th e Attorne y Genera l o f th e Unite d State s an dthroug h th e undersigne

dattorneys , actin

g a t th e reques t o f th e Unite dState

s Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y ("EPA") , allege s a

s follows : NATUR E O F TH E ACTIO N Thi s i s acivi l actio

n brough t unde r Section 113(b

) ofth e Clea

n Ai r Act , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7413(b ) ("th e CAA") , fo r

injunctive relie f

an dth e assessmen

t o f civi l penaltie s agains

t Defendan t Ros s Incineratio

n Services , Inc . ("Ross " o

r "Defendant") . Th

e UnitedStates allege s tha t Defendan t violate dprovision s o f

th e Nationa l Emissio n Standard

s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s fo r Hazardou s Wast

e Combustor

s (th e "Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP") , 42 U.S.C . § 7412 , codifie da

t 40 C.F.R . Par

t 63 , Subpar

t EEE . Th e violation s a

t issu e i n thi s action occurre da t Defendant' s hazardous wast e incinerato

r locate di n Grafton , Ohi o (th

e "Facility") . JURISDICTION, VENUE , AN D NOTIC E 1 . Thi s Cour

t ha s jurisdictio n ove

r th e subjec t matte r an dove r th e partie s pursuan

t t o Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e CAA , 4

2 U .S.C . § 7413(b) , an

dpursuan t t o 2 8 U.S.C . § § 1331 , 1345 , an d 1355(a) .Case : l:12-cv-01441-DAP Do c #: 1 Filed : 06/07/1 2 2 o f 28 . Pagel D #

: 2

2 . Authorit

y t o bring thi s actio

n i s veste di n th e Unite dState

s Departmen

t o f Justice , pursuan t t o Sections 113(b) , 42 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , an dpursuan t t o 28 U.S.C . § § 51 6 an

d519 . 3 . . Venu

e lie s i n thi s Distric t

pursuan t t o Section 113(b

) o f th e CAA , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , an

d28 U.S.C . § § 1391(b

) an d1395(a ) becaus e th e allegedviolation s occurre dwithin thi s distric t

a t afacility locate

di n Grafton , Ohio . 4 . Notic e o f

th e commencemen

t o f thi s action ha

s bee n give n t o th e Ohi o Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency ("Ohio EPA" ) i n accordanc e wit h Section 113(b

) o f th e CAA , 42 U.S.C . § 7413(b) . DEFENDAN T 5 . Ros s i s incorporate

dunde r th e law s o f th e Stat e o f Ohi o an ddoe s busines s i n th

e Stat e o f Ohio . A t al l time s relevan

t t o thi s Complaint , Ros s owne dan doperate daHazardous Wast e Incinerator

, a s tha t ter mi s definedi n 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1201 , locate da t 36790 Gile s Road , Grafton , Ohio . STATUTOR Y AN D REGULATOR Y BACKGROUN D Clea n Ai r Ac t 6 . Th e Clea n Ai r Ac t establishes aregulator

y schem e t o protec t an denhanc e th e qualit y o f th e nation' s ai

r resources so a

s t o promot e th e publi c healt

h an dwelfar e an dth e productiv e capacit y o f its population . 42 U.S.C . § 7401(b)(1) .

NESHAP s 7 . Congres s ha

s establishe

dalis t o f hazardou s ai

r pollutant s ("HAPs") , which includes , amon

g others , cadmium, lead , an dmercur y compounds . 4

2 U.S.C . § 7412(b)(1) . Unde r Sectio n 112(b)(2

) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7412(b)(2) , EP A periodically review s th e lis t o f hazardous ai

r pollutant s and , wher

e appropriate , revise s th

e lis t by rule .Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Doc#: l Filed : 06/07/1 2 3 o f 28 . PagelD#: 3

8 . Sectio

n 112(c ) ofth e Act , 42 U.S.C . § 7412(c) , requires th e EP A Administrato

r t o publis h alis t

o f al l categories an

dsubcategories o f

majo r sources an

dcertai n are asources o f

th e hazardous ai

r pollutant s liste dpursuan

t t o 4 2 U.S.C . § 7412(b) . 9 . Section 112(d

) ofth e Act , 42 U.S.C . § 7412(d) , require s th e EP A Administrato

r t o promulgat e regulation s establishin

g emission standard

s fo r eac h categor y an dsubcategor

y o f majo r sources an

dare asources o f

HAPs. These emission standard s ar e calle dth e Nationa l Emissio n Standard

s fo r Hazardous Ai r

Pollutants ("NESHAPs") . 10 . Sections 113(a)(3 ) an d(b ) ofth e Act , prohibit

violation s o f

an y NESHAP s regulation . Thus , aviolatio n o f aNESHA P regulation i s aviolatio n o f th e Ac t 11 . Th e NESHAP s appl

y t o facilitie s tha

t ar e "majo r sources " an

d"areasources " o f HAPs . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1200 . "Major s sources " ar e sources o

r group s o f stationar y sources locate dwithi n acontiguous are

aan dunde r commo n contro l tha

t emi t o r hav e th e potentia l t o emi t te n ton s pe r yea r o r mor e o f an y HAP , o r twenty-five ton

s pe r yea r o r mor e o f an y combinatio

n o f HAPs. 4 2 U.S.C . § 7412(a)(1) ; 4

0 C.F.R . § 63.2 . A n "are

asource " i s an

y stationar y sourc e o f HAP s tha t i s no t amajo r source . 4 2 U.S.C . § 7412(a)(2) . A "stationar y source " i s an

y building , structure , facility , or installation tha

t emit s or ma y emi t an y ai r pollutant . 4 2 U.S.C . § 7412(a)(3 ) (b

y reference t

o 4 2 U.S.C . § 7411(a)) . 12 . Pursuantt

o Section 112(1 ) ofth e CAA , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7412(1) , EP A ma y delegat e t o aStat e th e authorit y t o implemen

t portion s o f

th e CA A i n tha

t State . 13 . A s par

t ofth e approva

l proces s o f

th e Ohi o Titl e V progra

munde r Section 502(d

) o f Ih e CAA , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7661a(d) , EP A delegate dauthorit y t o implemen

t th e NESHAPs , including those no

t ye t promulgated, t

o th e Ohi o EPA . 6

0 Fed . Reg . 42,04

5 (Aug . 15,1995) ; 6

0 Fed . Reg . 18,79

0 (Apri l 13 , 1995) .Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Doc#: l Filed : 06/07/1 2 4 o f 28 . PagelD# : 4

14 . Pursuan

t t o Sectio n 112(1)(7 ) ofth e CAA , 42 U.S.C . § 7412(1)(7) , EP A retain s authorit y t o enforc e delegate

dSectio n 11 2 programs . 15 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.124(a) , EP A retains th e authorit y t o implemen

t an d enforce delegate

dprovision s o f

th e Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP . Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto

r NESHA P 16 . Pursuan

t t o Sectio n 112(c ) ofth e CAA ; 42 U.S.C . § 7412(c) , on July 16,199 2 (5 7 Fed . Reg . 31,576) , EP A identifie dhazardous wast e combustor

s a s acategor y o f sources o f

HAP s an dpromulgate

dth e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP , which i s se

t fort h a t 4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 63 , Subpar t EEE . 6 4 Fed . Reg . 52,82 8 (Sept . 30,1999) . 17 . Hazardous wast

e combustor

s emi t o r hav e th e potentia l t o emi t dioxin s an

d furans ; mercury ; lea

dan dcadmium ; arsenic , beryllium , chromium ; carbo n monoxid

e ("CO" ) an

d hydrocarbons ; hydroge

n chlorid e an dchlorine gas ; an

dparticulates . 18 . Dioxin s an

dfurans , mercury , lead , cadmium, arsenic , beryllium , chromium, CO , hydrocarbons , hydroge

n chloride , chlorin

e gas , an dparticulate s hav

e advers e effect s on huma

n healt h an dth e environment. 19 . A s revisedo

n Februar y 13,2002 , (6

7 Fed . Reg . 6809) , th

e Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto r NESHA P include s emissio n standard

s for : Dioxin s an

dfuran s 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(a)(1 ) Mercur y 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(a)(2

) Lea dan dCadmiu m4 0 CFU . § 63.1203(a)(3 ) Arsenic , berylliuman

dchromiu m4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(a)(4

) Carbon monoxid

e an dhydrocarbons 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(a)(5 ) Hydrochlori c aci dan

dcUorine ga

s 4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(a)(6) ; an d Particulate s 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(a)(7) . Th e Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto

r NESHA P als o establishe s adestructio n an dremova l efficienc y ("DRE" ) standard . 4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(c) .Case : l:12-cv-01441-DAP Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1 2 5 o f 28 . Pagel D #: 5

20 . EP A revisedth

e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHA P o

n Oct . 12,2005 . (7 0 Fed . Reg . 59,402) . Th

e revision s tightene

dan dsupersede

dvariou s provision s ofth e 200 2 Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP . 40 C.F.R . § 63.1219 . Th e revisedHazardous Wast

e Combusto r NESHA P i s codifie da

s follows :

Th e revisedHazardous Wast e Combusto

r NESHA P als o establishes aDR E standard . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219(c) . 21 . Th e requirement

s o f Subpar t EE E appl y t o "al l hazardous wast

e combustors, " 4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1200 , whic h ar e define da s a" ahazardou s wast

e incinerator, hazardous wast e burnin g cemen t kiln , hazardous wast

e burnin g lightweigh

t aggregat e kiln , hazardous wast

e liqui d fue l boiler , hazardous wast e soli dfue l boiler , o

r hazardous wast

e hydrochlori c aci dproductio n furnace. " 4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1201 . 22 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1201(a) , "hazardous wast e incinerator " i s adevice defineda s a n incinerato

r unde r 4 0 C.F.R . § 260.1 0 an

dtha t burns hazardous wast

e a t an y time . Th e ter m"hazardous wast

e incinerator " include s al l associate dfiring system

s an dai r pollutio n control devices , a

s wel l a s th e combustio

n chambe r equipment

. 23 . 4 0 C.F.R . § 260.1 0 define s "incinerator " t o includ e "an y enclose ddevice that : (1 ) Use s controlle

dflam e combustio

n an dneithe r meet s th e criteri afo r

classificatio n a

s aboiler , sludg e dryer, o r carbo n regeneratio

n unit, no r i s liste da s a n industria

l furnace ; o

r (2 ) Meet s th e definitio n o f

infraredincinerato

r o r plasm aar c incinerator. " Dioxin s an

dfuran s Mercur y Lea dan dCadmiu m Arsenic , berylliu man

dchromiu m Carbo n monoxid

e an dhydrocarbons Hydroge n chlorid e an dchlorin e ga s Particulate s 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219(a)(1 ) 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219(a)(2

) 4 0 C.F.R. § 63.1219(a)(3 ) 4 0 C.F.R. § 63.1219(a)(4

) 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219(a)(5 ) 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219(a)(6) ; an d 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219(a)(7) .Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1 2 6 o f 28 . Pagel D #: 6

24 . Th e emissio n standard s an doperatin g requirement

s i n th e Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto r NESHA P "appl

y a t al l time s except : (i ) Durin g periods o f star t up , shutdown , an

d malfunction ; an

d(ii ) Whe n hazardous wast

e i s no t i n th e combustio

n chamber. " 40 C.F.R . § 63.1206(b)(1) . Complianc e Requirement s 25 . I n orde

r t o demonstrat

e compliance wit

h th e carbo n monoxid

e an dhydrocarbons emission standard, th

e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHA P require s asourc

e t o us e a continuou s emissio

n monito r ("CEM") . 4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(a) . 26 . I n orde r t o demonstrat

e compliance wit

h th e othe r emissio n standard s an dth e DR E standard, th

e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHA P require s asourc

e t o establish an

d compl y wit h certai n operatin g paramete

r limit s ("OPLs") . 4

0 C.F.R . § § 63.1209(j)-(o) ; se e 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.120 1 ("Operatin g requirement

s means.. . operatin

g paramete

r limit s .. . tha

t ensur e compliance wit

h th e emissio n standards.") . 27 . A sourc

e mus t us e continuou s monitorin

g system s ("CMS" ) t

o demonstrat

e compliance wit

h th e OPLs . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(b) . 28 . Al l CM S shall b

e i n continuou s operatio

n excep t durin g periods of

, amon g othe r things , "syste

mbreakdowns. " 4

0 C.F.R . § 63.10(c)(1) . Complianc e Dat

e 29 . Th e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHA P establishe

da n initia l compliance dat

e o f Septembe r 30,2002 , fo r

"existing " sources . 40 C.F.R . § 63.1206(a)(1 ) (1999) . 30 . On Decembe

r 6,2001 , EP A revisedth

e initial complianc

e dat e fo r "existing sources " t o Septembe

r 30,2003 . (66 Fed . Reg . 63,317) .Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1 2 7 of 28 . Pagel D #: 7

31 . O n Marc h 5,2004 , Ohi o EP A extende dth e compliance dat

e t o Septembe

r 30 , 2004 . 32 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1201(a) , "existing source " i s defineda s an y sourc e tha t i s no t a"ne w source. " Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § § 63.1201(a

) an d1206(a)(l)(i)(B) , "ne

w source " i s definedfo r

purposes o f

th e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHA P a

s an y affectedsourc

e th e constructio

n o f which i s commence

dafte r Apri l 19,1996 . 33 . B y th

e compliance date, th

e owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast

e combusto

r mus t compl y wit h th e emissio n standard s an dmus t identify , i n adocumen

t referredt o a s a Documentatio

n o f Compliance ("DOC") , th

e OPL s i t ha s establishe

da s requiredby th

e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP . 34 . Followin g preparatio n o f th e DOC , an

dafte r performing acomprehensiv e performanc

e tes t ("CPT") , th

e owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast

e combusto

r mus t confirm , i n adocumen

t referredt o a s aNotificatio n o f

Compliance ("NOC") , th

e adequac y o f th e OPLs . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.12070) . 35 . Unde

r th e revisedHazardou s Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP , 4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1219 , th e compliance dat

e wa s Octobe r 14,2008 . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1206(a)(i)(ii) (2006) . Th e owne r o r operato r mus t als o submi

t arevisedNO C unde

r th e revisedHazardous Wast e Combusto

r NESHAP . 3 6 . Followin g preparatio n o f aDOC , th

e owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast

e combusto r mus t compl y wit h th e OPL s an

dothe r requirement

s se t fort h i n th e DOC . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1211(c)(4) .Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1 2 8 o f 28 . Pagel D #: 8

37 . Followin g submitta l o f aNOC , th

e owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast

e combusto r mus t compl y wit h m e OPL s an dothe r requirement

s se t fort h i n th e NO C i n lieu o f those i n th e DOC . 4 0 C.F.R . § § 63.1207(j)(l)(ii ) an d63.1210(d)(2) . Enforcemen

t 38 . Section 113(b

) ofth e CAA , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , authorizes th e UnitedState

s t o commenc e acivi l actio

n fo r th e assessmen

t o f acivi l penalt

y o f u p t o $25,00 0 pe r da y fo r eac h violatio n wheneve

r an y perso n violate s an

y requiremen

t o f th e CAA . Pursuan

t t o th e Federa l Civi l Penaltie s Inflatio n Adjustmen t Ac t o f 1990,2 8 U.S.C . § 246 1 note , a s amende dby th e Deb t Collectio n Improvement

s Ac t o f 1996,3 1 U.S.C . § 370 1 note , th e Unite dState

s ma y see k civi l penalties o f

u p to $27,50

0 pe r da y fo r eac h violatio n occurrin

g on o r afte r Januar y 31,1997 . Pursuan t t o EPA' s 200

4 an d200 8 Civi l Monetar

y Penalt y Inflatio n Adjustmen

t Rules , th e UnitedState

s ma y see k civi l penaltie s o f

u p t o $32,50 0 pe r da y fo r eac h violatio n occurrin

g o n o r afte r March 16,2004 , an

dcivi l penaltie s o f

u p to $37,50

0 pe r da y fo r eac h violatio n occurrin

g on o r afte r Januar y 13,2009 . 4

0 C.F.R . Par

t 19 . GENERA L ALLEGATION S Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r 39 . A t al l time s relevan

t t o thi s Complaint , Ros s ha

s bee n a"person " within th

e meanin g o f Sectio n 302(3 ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U .S .C . § 7602(e) . 40 . A t al l time s relevan

t t o thi s Complaint, Ros s ha

s owne dan doperate daHazardous Wast e Combusto

r withi n th e meanin g o f 40 C.F.R . § 63.1201 , locate da t 36790 Gile s Road , Grafton , Ohio . 41 . A t al l time s relevan

t t o thi s Complaint , th

e Ros s facilit

y include da

n "incinerator " within th e meanin g o f 40 C.F.R . § 63.1201(a) .Case ; l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1 2 9 o f 28 . Pagel D #: 9

42 . A t al l time s relevan

t t o thi s Complaint , Ros s burne dhazardous wast

e i n th e incinerator . 43 . A t al l time s relevan

t t o thi s Complaint , Ros s ha

s been , an dcontinue s t

o be , a n "existin g source " withi n th e meanin g o f 40 C.F.R . § 63.1201(a

) an da n "existin g source " within th e meanin g o f 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.2 . 44 . A t al l time s relevan

t t o thi s Complaint , Ros s ha

s been, an dcontinue s to be , a

n "are asource " o f

HAP s a s define di n Sectio

n 112(a)(2 ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7412(a)(2

) an d4 0 C.F.R . § 63.2 . Operatin g Paramete

r Limit s 45 . I n orde r t o compl y wit h th e DR E an demissio n standard s se t fort h a t 4 0 C.F.R . Par t 63 , Subpar

t EEE , Ros s mus

t compl y wit h it s specifiedOPLs . 4

0 C.F.R . § § 63.120

9 (j)-(o) . 46 . Ross ' DOC , establishe do n o r befor e Septembe

r 30,2004 ("200

4 DOC") , identifie dth

e OPL s necessar

y t o compl y wit h th e emissio n an dDR E standard

s a t 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1203 . Th

e OPL s i n th

e 200 4 DO C becam

e effectiv e o

n Septembe

r 30,2004 , an

dremaine d i n effec t unti l Augus

t 3,2006 . 47 . Base

do n CP T results fromFebruar y an dMay 2006 , Ros s submitte daNO C date

d Augus t 4,2006 , ("200

6 NOC" ) t o confir mth e adequac y ofth e OPL s requiredb y 4 0 C.F.R . § § 63.1209(j)-(o) . Defendan

t establishe dthes e OPL s t o compl y wit h th e emission an

dDR E standard s a t 40 C.F.R . § 63.1203 . Th

e OPL s identifie di n th

e 200 6 NO C becam

e effectiv e o

n August 4,200 6 an

dremaine di n effec t

unti l Octobe

r 12,2008 . 48 . Ros s submitte

dane w NO C date

dOctobe r 13,200 8 ("2008 NOC" ) t

o confir mth e adequac y ofth e OPL s require

db y 40 C.F.R . § § 63.1209(j)-(o) . Defendan t establishe dthes eCase : l:12-cv-01441-DAP Doc#: l Filed : 06/07/1 2 1 0 o f 28 . PagelD#:1 0

OPL s t o compl y wit h th e emissio n an dDR E standard

s a t 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219 . Th

e OPL s identifie di n th

e 2008 NO C becam

e effectiv e on Octobe

r 13,200 8 an

dremai n i n effect . FIRS T CLAI M FO RRELIE F Dioxin/Fura

n Emission s Standar

d 49 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n by reference . 50 . Subsectio

n 63.1203(a)(l)(i ) ofth e Hazardous Wast e Combusto

r NESHA P an

d Subsectio n 63.1219(a)(l)(i ) o f

th e revisedHazardou s Wast e Combusto

r NESHA P prohibit

a n owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast

e incinerato

r fromdischargin

g or causin g t o b e discharge

d int o th e atmospher

e emissions o f

dioxin/fura

n i n exces s o f

0.2 0 nanogra mtoxi c equivalen

t pe r dr y standar dcubic mete

r (n g TEQ/dscm

) correcte dt o 7 percen

t oxygen . Notwithstandin

g th e • provisio n i n subsectio

n (i) , subsectio

n 63.1203(a)(l)(ii ) permit

s a n owne r o r operato r o f a hazardous wast

e incinerato

r t o discharg e u p t o 0.4 0 n g TEQ/dscmcorrecte

dt o 7 percen

t oxygen , provide dtha t th e combustio

n ga s temperatur

e a t th e inle t t o th e initial particulat

e matte r control device i s 400° Fo

r lowe r base do n th e averag e ofth e tes

t ru n averag e temperatures , Fo r

purposes o f compliance , operatio

n o f awe t particulat e contro l devic

e i s presume

dt o mee t th e 400° Fo r lowe r requirement. 51 . Ros s use

s awe t ai r pollutio n contro l system . Consequently , Ros s wa s subjec t t o th e 0.4 0 ng TEQ/dcs mdioxin/fura n emission standar

di n 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(a)(l)(ii ) prio r t o Octobe r 13,2008 , an

di s currentl

y subjec t t o th e 4 0 n g TEQ/dcs mdioxin/fura

n emission standar di n 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219(a)(l)(ii) . 52 . Betwee

n Februar y 6 an d9 , 2006 , an

do n May 9,2006 , Ros s conducte daCPT .

-10

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c #: 1 Filed : 06/07/1 2 1 1 of 28 . Pagel D #: 1 1

53 . Results fromRoss ' 200 6 CP T indicat

e tha t o n on e o r mor e day s betwee

n Februar y 6,2006 , an

dMa y 9,2006 , Ros s exceede

dth e applicabl

e dioxin/fura

n emissions limi t

o f 0.4 0 n g TEQ/dscmcorrecte

dt o 7 percen

t oxygen . 54 . Thus , on on

e o r mor e days betwee

n Februar y 8 an dMay 9,2006 , Ros s discharge d int o th e atmospher

e combustio

n gase s tha t containe ddioxins/furan s i n exces s o f 0.4 0 n g TEQ/dscmcorrecte

dt o 7 percen

t oxyge n i n violatio n o f

4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(a)(l)(ii) .

. 55 . On Octobe

r 1 1 an d12,2011 , Ros s conducte

daCPT . 56 . Ros s submitte

dth e preliminar

y result s fromth e Octobe r 201 1 CP T t

o EP A o n Decembe r 6,2011 . Th

e result s indicat e tha t Ros s exceede

dth e applicabl

e dioxin/fura

n emissions limi t

o f 0.4 0 ng TEQ/dscmcorrecte

dt o 7 percen

t oxyge n durin g th e Octobe r 201 1 CPT . 57 . O n Decembe r 6,2011 , Ros s cease

dburnin g hazardous wast

e a s require dby 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1207(l)(l)(i) . 58 . Thus , on on

e o r mor e days betwee

n Octobe r 1 1 an dDecembe

r 6,2011 , Ros s discharge dint o th e atmospher

e combustio

n gases tha

t containe ddioxms/fufan s i n exces s o f 0.4 0 ng TEQ/dscmcorrecte

dt o 7 percen

t oxyge n i n violatio n o f

4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219(a)(l)(ii) . 59 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctive relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . SECON D CLAI M FO RRELIE F Carbo n Monoxide Emissio n Standar d 60 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallege dan dincorporate

dherei n b y reference .Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Doc# : 1 Filed : 06/07/1 2 1 2 of 28 . PagelD#:1 2

61 . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1203(a)(5 ) prohibits a n owne r o f ahazardous wast

e incinerato

r fro mdischargin

g o r causin g t o b e discharge

dint o th e atmospher

e emission s o f

C O i n exces s o f 10 0 part s pe r millio n b y volum

e (ppmV) , ove

r a n hourl y rollin g averag

e (monitore

dcontinuousl

y wit h aCEM) , dr

y basi s an dcorrecte dt o 7 percen t oxygen . Ros s wa

s subjec t t o thi s regulatio

n betwee n Septembe

r 30,2004 , an

dOctobe r 13,2008 . 62 . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1219(a)(5 ) prohibits a n owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast

e incinerato r fro mdischargin

g o r causin g t o b e discharge

dint o th e atmospher

e emissions o f

C O i n exces s o f 10 0 ppmV , ove

r a n hourl y rollin g averag

e (monitore

dcontinuousl

y wit h aCEM) , dr

y basi s an dcorrecte dt o 7 percen

t oxygen . Ros s ha

s bee n subjec t t o thi s regulation , which remains unchanged , o n an dafte r Octobe r 14,2008 . Se

e 4 0 C.F.R . 63.1206(a)(l)(ii)(A) . 63 . O n on e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s exceede

dit s C O emissio

n standar do f 10 0 ppm V correcte dt o 7 percen t oxygen . 64 . A s providedi n Section 113(b ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s claimsubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . THIR D CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Minimu mRotar y Kil n Temperatur

e OP L 65 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallege dan dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 66 . A s require

db y 4 0 C.F.R . § § 63.12090(1 ) an d(k)(2) , th

e owne r or operato r o f a hazardous wast

e combusto

r mus t establish an

dmaintai n ammimu

mcombustio

n chambe r temperatur

e OP L fo r eac h combustio

n chambe r i n orde r t o compl y wit h th e DR E standar

dan d th e dioxin/fura

n emissio n standard . Ros s ha

s establishe

dthi s OP L separatel

y fo r th e rotar y kil n an dth e mai n chamber .

-12

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 1 3 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 1 3

67 . Betwee

n Septembe

r 30,2004 , an

dAugus t 3,2006 , th

e applicable Mimmu

m Rotar y Kil n Temperatur

e wa s 1500° Fa s a1-hou r rollin g average . O n an

dafte r August 4,2006 , th e applicabl

e Minimu mRotar

y Kil n Temperatur

e OP L wa s 1522° Fa

s a1-hou r rollin g average . 68 . On on

e o r mor e day s afte r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n a manne r suc h tha t temperatur

e insid e th e rotar y kil n fel l belo

w Ih e applicable MinimumRotar y Kil n Temperatur

e OPL . 69 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e rotar y kil n temperatur

e a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violated4 0 C.F.R . § § 63.12090X1 ) an d(k)(2) . 70 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctive relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . FOURT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Minimu mMai n Chambe r Temperatur

e OP L 71 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 48 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n by reference . 72 . A s require

db y 4 0 C.F.R . § § 63.12090)0 ) an d(k)(2) , th

e owne r o r operato r o f a hazardou s wast e combusto

r mus t establis h an dmaintai n aminimu

mcombustio

n chambe r temperatur

e OP L fo r eac h combustio

n chambe r i n orde r t o compl y wit h th e DR E standar

dan d th e dioxin/fura

n emissio n standard. Ros s ha

s establishe

dthi s OPL separatel

y fo r th e rotar y kil n an dth e mai n chamber . 73 . Betwee

n Septembe

r 30,2004 , an

dAugust 3,2006 , th

e applicable MinimumMai n Chambe r Temperatur

e OP L wa s 1700° Fa s a1-hou r rollin g average . O n an

dafte r Augus t 4 , 2006 , th e applicabl

e Minimu mMai n Chambe r Temperatur

e wa s 1829° Fa

s a1-hou r rollin g average .

-13

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Doc#: l Filed : 06/07/1 2 1 4 o f 28. PagelD#:1 4

74 . On on

e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n a manne r suc h tha t temperatur

e insid e th e main chambe

r fel l belo w th e applicable MinimumMai n Chambe r Temperatur

e OPL . 75 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e mai n chambe

r temperatur

e a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha s violate d4

0 C.F.R . § § 63.1209(j)(l ) an d(k)(2) . 76 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s claimsubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . FIFT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : MaximumFlu e Ga s Flo w Rat

e OP L 77 . Paragraph

s 1 throug h 48 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 78 . A s require

dby 4 0 C.F.R . § § 63.1209(j)(2) , 00(3) , (m)(2) , (n)(5) , an d(o)(2) , th

e owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast

e combusto

r mus t establis h an dmaintai n amaximu

mflu e ga s flo w rat e OP L i n orde

r t o compl y wit h th e dioxin/furan , PM , semi-volatile metal s (combine d emissions o f

cadmiu man dlead) , lo w volatil e metal s (combine demission s o f

arsenic , beryllium , an dchromium) , an

dhydroge n chlorid e an dchlorine ga

s emissio n standar dan dth e DR E standard

, 79 . Betwee

n Septembe

r 30,2004 , an

dAugus t 3 , 2006 , th

e applicable Maximu

mFlu e Ga s Flo w Rat e OP L wa s 50,40 0 actua l cubic fee

t pe r minut e (acfm ) a s a1-hou r rollin g average . O n an dafte r August 4,2006 , th

e applicabl

e MaximumFlu e Ga

s Flo w Rat

e OP L wa s 52,30 0 acf ma s a1-hou r rollin g average . 80 . O n on

e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r a s t o excee dth e Maximu mFlue Ga s Flo w Rat

e OPL .

-14

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 1 5 o f 28. Pagel

D # : 1 5

B y failin g t

o maintai n th e flu e ga s flo w rat e a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violate d4

0 C .F.R . § § 63.12090X2) , (k)(3) , (m)(2) , (n)(5) , an d(o)(2) . 81 . A s providedi n Section 113(b ) o f th e Act , 4 2 U.S .C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . SIXT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : MinimumRotar y Kil n Lance Atomizin g Ai r

Pressur e OP L 82 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallege dan dincorporate

dherei n by reference . 83 . A s require

dby 4 0 C .F.R . § 63.12090)(4) , th e owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast e combusto

r mus t establish operatin

g parameter

s an dlimit s t o ensur e tha t goodoperatio

n o f eac h hazardous wast

e firin g syste

mi s maintaine

di n orde r t o compl y wit h th e DR E standard . Ros s establishe

dseparat e OPL s fo r

th e rotar y kil n an dth e main chamber

. 84 . On an

dafte r Septembe r 30,2004 , th

e applicabl

e MinimumRotar

y Kil n Lance Atomizin g Ai r

Pressur e OP L wa s 3 0 inche s o f

wate r colum n on a n instantaneous basis . 85 . On on

e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r tha t th e atomizin

g ai r pressur e insid e th e rotar y kil n lance fel l below th

e Minimum Rotar y Kil n Lance Atomizin g Ai r Pressur e OPL . 86 . B y failin g t

o mamtai n th e atomizin

g ai r pressur e i n th e rotar y kil n lance a

t th e prescribe dlevel , Ros s ha

s violated40 C .F.R . § § 63.12090)(4) . 87 . A s providedi n Section 113(b ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S .C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s set . fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation .

-15

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Doc#: l Filed : 06/07/1 2 1 6 o f 28 . PagelD#:1 6

SEVENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Minimu

m Mai n Chambe

r Burne r Atomizin g Ai r

Pressur e OP L 88 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 48 ar e reallege dan dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 89 . A s require

db y 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(j)(4) , th e owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast e combusto

r mus t establish operatin

g parameter

s an dlimit s t o ensur e tha t goo doperatio n o f eac h hazardous wast

e firin g syste

mi s maintaine

di n orde r t o compl y wit h th e DR E standard . Ros s establishe

dseparat e OPL s for

th e rotar y kil n an dth e mai n chamber. 90 . On an

dafte r Septembe r 30,2004 , th

e applicabl

e Minimu mMai n Chambe r Burne r Atomizin g Ai r

Pressur e wa s 2 8 inches o f

wate r colum n o n a n instantaneous basis . 91 . O n on

e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r tha t th e atomizin

g ai r pressur e insid e th e mai n chambe r fel l burne r belo w th e Minimum Mai n Chambe

r Burne r Atomizin g Ai r

Pressur e OPL . 92 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e atomizing ai

r pressur e i n th e main chambe

r burne r a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violated4

0 C.F.R . § § 63.1209Q)(4) . 93 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . EIGHT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : MaximumTota l Mercur y Fee dRat e OP L 94 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallege dan dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 95 . A s require

db y 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(1)(1) , th e owne r o r operato r o f ahazardous wast e combusto

r mus t establish an

dmaintai n amaximu

mtota l mercur y feedrat e i n orde r t o compl y wit h th e mercur y emissio n standard . -16

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 1 7 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 1 7

96 . Since Augus t

4,2006 , fh

e applicabl

e Maximu mTota l Mercur y Fee dRat e OP L wa s 0.013 5 lbs/h

r a s a12-hou

r rollin g average . 97 . On on

e o r mor e days afte

r Augus t 4,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h a manne r a s t o excee dth e MaximumTota

l Mercur y Fee dRat e OPL . 98 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e tota l mercur y feedrat e a t th e prescribedlevel , Ros s ha s violated4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(f)(1) . 99 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 42 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctive relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . NINTH CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Minimu mRF S Pressur e Dro p OP L 100 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 48 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 101 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R. § 63.1209(m)(l)(i)(A) , source s equippe dwit h hig h energ y we t scrubber s mus t establish an

dmaintai n aminimumpressur

e dro p fo r th e hig h energ

y we t scrubbe r i n orde r t o compl y wit h th e P M emission standard . 102 . Ross ' incinerato

r i s equippe

dwit h aRadia l Flo w Scrubbe

r ("RFS") , whic

h i s a hig h energ y we t scrubber. 103 . Since Septembe

r 30,2004 , th

e applicabl

e MinimumRF S Pressur

e Dro p OP L wa s 1 7 inches o f

wate r colum n a s a1-hou r rollin g average . 104 . On on

e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r a s t o fal l below th

e MinimumRF S Pressur

e Dro p OPL . 105 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e RF S pressur

e dro p a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violate d4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(m)(l)(i)(A) .

-17

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 1 8 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 1 8

106 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 42 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctive relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount

s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . TENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Maximu mClose dLoo

p Specifi c Gravit

y OP L 107 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 108 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(m)(l)(i)(B) , source s equippe dwit h we t scrubber s mus t ensur e tha t th e concentratio

n o f solid s i n th

e scrubbe r liqui ddoe

s no t excee dit s concentratio

n durin g th e CP T i n orde

r t o compl y wit h th e P M emission standard . T o fulfil l thi s requirement

, asourc e ma y establish eithe

r amaximu msolid s conten

t OP L o r aminimu m blowdow n rat e an deithe r aminimu mscrubbe

r tan k volum e o r liqui dlevel . 109 . Ros s chos

e t o limi t solid s conten

t o f th e scrubbe r liqui db y establishin

g a Maximu mClosedLoo

p Specifi c Gravit

y OPL . 110 . Betwee

n Septembe

r 30,2004 , an

dAugus t 3,2006 , th

e MaximumClose dLoo

p Specifi c Gravit

y OP L wa s 1.1 2 a s a12-hou r rollin g average . O n an

dafte r August 4,2006 , th

e Maximu mClosedLoo

p Specifi c Gravit

y OP L wa s 1.1 1 a s a12-hou r rollin g average . 111 . O n on

e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r a s t o excee dth e Maximu mClose dLoop Specifi c Gravit y OPL . 112 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e solid s conten

t o f fhe scrubbe

r liqui da t th e prescribe

d level , Ros s ha

s violated4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(m)(l)(i)(B) . 113 . A s provide

di n Section 113(b

) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p to th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation .

-18

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 1 9 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 1 9

ELEVENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Minimu mRF S Liqui dt o Ga s Rati o OP L 114 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 115 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(m)(l)(i)(C) , sources equippe dwit h high energ

y we t scrubber s mus t establis h an dmaintai n eithe r arninimu mliqui dt o ga s rati o o r aminimu m scrubbe r wate r flo w rat e an dmaximu mflue ga s flo w rat e i n orde r t o compl y wit h th e P M emissio n standard . 116 . Ross ' incinerato

r i s equippe

dwit h aRFS , which i s ahigh energ y we t scrubber. 117 . Betwee

n Septembe

r 30,2004 , an

dAugust 3,2006 , th

e RF S Liqui dt

o Ga s Rati o OP L wa s 17. 3 gallon s pe

r thousan dcubic feet

(gallons/kcf) . On an

dafte r Augus t 4,2006 , th

e MinimumRF S Liqui dt

o Ga s Ratio OPL wa

s 17. 0 gallons/kcf

. 118 . O n on

e o r mor e day s afte r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r a s t o fal l below th

e MinimumRF S Liqui dt

o Ga s Rati o OPL . 119 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e RF S liqui dt

o ga s ratio a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violate d4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(m)(l)(i)(C) ) and , thereby , faile dt o demonstrat

e compliance wit

h th e P M emission standard . 120 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . TWELFT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Minimu mGL C Pressur e Dro p OP L 121 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference .

-19

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 2 0 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 2 0

122 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(o)(3)(ii) , source s equippe dwit h lo w energ

y we t scrubber s mus t establish an

dmaintai n aminimu

mpressur e dro p acros s th

e we t scrubbe r base d on th e manufacturer' s specification s i n orde r t o compl y wit h th e P M emission standard. 123 . Ross ' incinerato

r i s equippe dwit h aGa s Liqui dContacto

r ("GLC") , which i s a low energ y we t scrubber . 124 . Since Septembe

r 30,2004 , th

e Minimu mGL C Pressur

e Dro p OP L wa s 0.75 inche s o f wate r colum n a s a1 -hou r rollin g average . 125 . O n on

e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r a s t o fal l below th

e MinimumGL C Pressur

e Dro p OPL . 126 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e GL C pressur

e dro p a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violated4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(o)(3)(ii) . 127 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 42 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , Ih e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctive relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . THIRTEENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OPL Exceedance : Minimu mGL C Liqui dFee

dPressure/Nozzle Pressur e OP L 128 . Paragraph

s 1 throug h 48 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 129 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(o)(3)(iii) , sources equippe dwit h lo w energ

y we t scrubber s mus t establish an

dmaintai n aminimu

mliqui dfee dpressur

e OP L t o th e we t scrubbe r base do n th e manufacturer' s specification s i n orde r t o compl y wit h th e hydroge n chlorid e an d chlorin e ga s emissio n standard . 130 . Ross ' incinerato

r i s equippe dwit h aGLC , whic h i s alo w energ y we t scrubber.

-20

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 2 1 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 2 1

131 . Betwee

n Septembe

r 30,2004 , an

dAugust 3,2006 , th

e applicable MinimumGL C Liqui dFee

dPressure/Nozzl

e Pressur e OP L wa s 3.62 5 inche s o f

wate r colum n a s a1-hou r rollin g average . O n an

dafte r Augus t 4,2006 , th

e applicable Minimu mGL C Liqui dFee d Pressure/Nozzl

e Pressur e OP L wa s 13.1 5 inche s o f

wate r colum n a s a1-hou r rollin g average . 132 . O n on

e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r a s t o fal l below th

e Minimu mGL C Liqui dFee dPressure/Nozzl

e Pressur e OPL . 133 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e GL C liqui dfeedpressure/nozzl e pressur e a t th e prescribe dlevel , Ros s ha

s violate d4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(o)(3)(iii) . 134 . A s provide

di n Sectio

n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 42 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctive relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . FOURTEENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Minimu mGL C Outle t p H 135 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 48 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 136 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F. R§ 63.1209(o)(3)(iv) , sources equippe dwit h we t scrubber s mus t establish an

dmaintai n aMinimumGL C Outle

t p H OP L i n orde

r t o compl y wit h th e hydroge n chlorid e an dchlorin e ga s emissio n standard . 137 . Ross ' incinerato

r i s equippe

dwit h aGLC , whic h i s awe

t scrubber . 138 . Since Septembe

r 30,2004 , th

e Minimu mGL C Outle

t p H OP L ha

s bee n 6 a s a 1-hou r rollin g average . 139 . O n on

e o r mor e days afte

r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r a s t o fal l below th

e MinimumGL C Outle

t p H OPL .

-2 1 -Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Doc#: l Filed : 06/07/1 2 2 2 o f 28. Pagel

D # : 2 2

140 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e GL C outle

t p H a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violated4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(o)(3)(iv) . 141 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . FIFTEENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : MinimumGL C Liqui dt o Ga s Rati o OP L 142 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 143 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(o)(3)(v) , source s equippe dwit h we t scrubber s mus t establis h an dmaintai n eithe r aminimu mliqui dt o ga s ratio OP L o

r arninimu mscrubbe

r wate r flo w rat e OP L an dmaximu mflu e ga s flo w rat e OP L i n orde

r t o compl y wit h th e hydroge n chlorid e an dchlorin e ga s emissio n standard . 144 . Ross ' incinerato

r i s equippe

dwit h aGLC , which i s awe

t scrubber . 145 . Betwee

n Septembe

r 30,2004 , an

dAugust 3,2006 , th

e Minimu mGL C Liqui dt

o Ga s Rati o OP L wa

s 45. 3 gallons/kcf

a s a1-hou r rollin g average . On an

dafte r Augus t 4,2006 , th e MinimumGL C Liqui dt

o Ga s Rati o OP L wa

s 49. 8 gallons/kcf

. 146 . O n on

e o r mor e day s afte r Februar y 6,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h amanne r a s t o fal l below th

e apphcabl

e Minimu mGL C Liqui dt

o Ga s Rati o OPL . 147 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e GL C liqui dt

o ga s ratio a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violated4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(o)(3)(v) . 148 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) o f th e Act , 42 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation .

-22

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 2 3 o f 28. Pagel

D # : 2 3
SIXTEENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : MinimumQuenc h Inle t Heade r Flo w Rat e OP L 149 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 48 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherein b y reference . 150 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(g)(2) , th e Administrato

r ma y specif y additiona

l o r alternativ e OPL s i n orde

r t o documen

t compliance wit

h emissio n standards . 151 . In orde

r t o demonstrat

e compliance wit

h th e dioxin/fura

n emission standard

, th e Ohio EP A require

dRos s t o establish aMinimu mQuenc h Inle t Heade r Flo w Rat e OPL . 152 . On an

dafte r Augus t 4,2006 , th

e applicabl

e MinimumQuenc

h Inle t Heade r Flo w Rat e OP L wa s 54 4 gallon s pe

r minut e a s a1-hou r rollin g average . 153 . On on

e o r mor e days afte

r Augus t 4,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h a manne r a s t o fal l below th

e Minimu mQuenc

h Inle t Heade r Flo w Rat e OPL . 154 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e quenc h inlet heade r flo w rat e a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha s violated4

0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(g)(2) . 155 . A s providedi n Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s claimsubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . SEVENTEENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Minimu mWe t ES P # 1 Powe r OP L 156 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherein b y reference . 157 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(g)(2) , th e Aelministrato

r ma y specif y additiona

l o r alternativ e OPL s i n orde

r t o documen

t compliance wit

h emissio n standards .

-23

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 2 4 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 2 4

158 . On Augus

t 4,2005 , Ohi o EP A approve dRoss ' CP T pla

n an dinclude da

n additiona l requiremen

t t o establish aminimu

mpowe r OP L fo r eac h We t Electrostati c Precipitato

r ("We t ESP") . 159 . O n an dafte r Augus t 4 , 2006 , th

e Minimu mWe

t ES P # 1 Powe r OP L wa s 0. 5 kilovolt-amper

e (kVa ) a s a1-hou r rollin g average . 160 . On on

e o r mor e day s afte

r Augus t 4,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h a manne r a s t o fal l below th

e Minimu mWe

t ES P # 1 Powe r OPL . 161 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e We t ES P # 1 powe r a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violate d4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(g)(2) . 162 . A s provide

di n Section 113(b

) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctive relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . EIGHTEENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F OP L Exceedance : Minimu mWe t ES P # 2 Powe r OP L 163 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 164 . Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F. R§ 63.1209(g)(2) , th e Administrato

r ma y specif y additiona

l o r alternativ e OPL s i n orde

r t o documen

t compliance wit

h emissio n standards . 165 . On Augus

t 4,2005 , Ohi o EP A approve dRoss ' CP T pla

n an dinclude da

n additiona l requiremen

t t o establish aminimu

mpowe r OP L fo r eac h We t ESP . 166 . O n an dafte r Augus t 4,2006 , th

e Minimu mWe

t ES P # 2 Powe r OP L wa s 1 2 kV a a s a1-hou r rollin g average . 167 . On on

e o r mor e day s afte

r Augus t 4,2006 , Ros s operate

dth e incinerato

r i n suc h a manne r a s to fal l belo

w th e Minimu mWe

t ES P # 2 Powe r OPL .

-24

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 2 5 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 2 5

168 . B y failin g t

o maintai n th e We t ES P # 2 powe r a t th e prescribe

dlevel , Ros s ha

s violated4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(g)(2) . 169 . A s provide

di n Section 113(b

) ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th

e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s clai msubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation . NINETEENT H CLAI M FO RRELIE F Recordkeepin

g Violation s 170 . Paragraph

s 1 throug

h 4 8 ar e reallegedan

dincorporate

dherei n b y reference . 171 . ' Pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F. R§ 63.1211 , asourc e mus t retain , amon

g othe r thing s "information require

dt o documen

t an dmaintain comphanc

e wit h th e regulation s o f

Subpar t EEE , including dat

arecorde dby continuous monitorm g system s (CMS) , an

dcopie s o f

al l notifications , reports , plans , an

dothe r document s submitte dt o th e Administrator. " 172 . I n accordanc

e wit h 4 0 C.F. R§ 63.1211 , th

e followin g recordin

g keepin g requirement

s i n th e Genera l NESHA P appl

y to Ross : 40 C.F.R . § 63.10(b)(2)(vii) provide s tha t a n owne r o r operato r shal l maintai

n al l require

d measurement

s neede dt o demonstrat

e compliance wit

h arelevan

t standard . 40 C.F.R . § 63.10(c)(1 ) provide s tha t a n owne r o r operato r require dt o instal l aCM S shal

l maintai n record s o f al l require dCM S measurements . 40 C.F. R§ 63.10(c)(8) provide s tha t a n owne r o r operato r require dt o instal l aCM S shall maintai n record s o f th e specifi c identificatio n o f eac h tim e periodo f

paramete r monitoring exceedance

s tha t occu r durin g periods othe

r tha n startups , shutdowns , an

d malfunctions . 173 . I n accordanc

e wit h 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.10(b)(1) , Ros s mus t maintai n file s o f al l infonnation (including al l report s an dnotifications ) require

db y th e Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto

r NESHA P i n afor

msuitabl e an dreadil y availabl e fo r

inspectio n an dreview . Th

e file s shal l be retaine dfo r a t leas t fiv e years . -25

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 2 6 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 2 6

174 . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1206(c)(5)(ii) require s Ros s t o specif y th e followin g i n it s CPT pla n an dNOC : th e metho dtha t Ros s wil l use t

o control combustio

n syste mleaks ; th

e monitorin

g an drecordin g frequenc

y o f th e pressur e monitor ; an

dho w th e monitorin

g approac h wil l b e integrate dint o th e automati

c wast e feedcutof

f ("AWFCO" ) system . 175 . T o compl

y wit h 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1206(c)(5)(i) , Ros s chos e t o contro l combustio

n syste mleak s by maintainin

g th e maximu mcombustio

n zon e pressur e lowe r tha n ambien t pressur e a s se t fort h i n 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(B) . 176 . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(p

) require s a

n owne r o r operato r t o monito r th e pressur e instantaneously . 177 . I n th e 2003 CP T pla

n an dth e NOCs , Ros s establishe

dcomphanc

e wit h th e Mai n Chambe r Pressur e an dKil n Pressur

e limit s i n term

s o f six consecutiv

e 1-secon dexceedances . 178 . I n Februar y 2005 , Ros s modifie dth

e threshol dfo r activation ofth e AWFC O syste mfro msi x consecutiv

e 1-secon dmeasurement

s abov e amaximu

mpressur e o f 0. 0 inches o f wate r colum n t o te n consecutiv

e 1-secon dmeasurement

s abov e amaximu

mof-0.0 5 inche s o f wate r column . 179 . Ros s doe

s no t recor dCM S monitoring result

s a t 1-secon dinterval s fo r

th e Mai n Chambe r Pressur e an dKil n Pressur

e limits . 180 . B y failin g t

o maintai n records o f

th e Mai n Chambe

r Pressur e an dKil n Pressur

e limit s a t 1-secon dintervals , Ros s ha

s violate d4

0 C.F.R . § 63.121 1 an

dth e associate

dprovision s ofth e Genera

l NESHAP . 181 . A s provide

di n Sectio

n 113(b ) ofth e Act , 42 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , th e violation s se

t fort h i n thi s claimsubjec

t Ros s t o injunctiv e relie f

an dacivi l penalt

y o f u p t o th e statutor y maximu mamount s se t fort h i n Paragrap

h 3 8 pe r da y fo r eac h violation .

-26

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 2 7 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 2 7

PRAYE RFO RRELIE F WHEREFORE , Plaintif

f Unite dStates respectfull

y request s tha t thi s Court : 1 . Issu

e a n injunctio n requiring Ros s t o remed y its pas t an dcurren t noncomplianc

e wit h th e CA A an dth e implementin

g regulation s unde

r those statutes , an

dt o compl y prospectivel

y wit h al l applicabl

e requirements ; 2 . Asses s civi l penaltie s agains t Ros s fo r u p t o th e amount s providedi n th

e CA A fo r eac h da y o f violation ; 3 . Awar

dth e Unite dState

s it s cost s an ddisbursement

s i n thi s action ; an

d 4 . Gran

t suc h relie f a s thi s Cour

t deem s jus t an dproper . Respectfull

y submitted, TH E UNITE D STATE S OFAMERIC A

KMACI A S . MOREN O Assistan t Attorne y Genera l Environmen

t an dNatura l Resource s Divisio n U.S . Departmen

t o f Justice
SUMON A N . MAJUm

B a R Tria l Attorne

y Environmenta

l Enforcemen

t Sectio n Environmen

t an dNatura l Resource s Divisio n U.S . Departmen

t o f Justice P.O . Bo x 761

1 Washington , D C 20044-761 1 Telephone : (202

) 514-358 1 Facsimile : (202)616-658

4 Sumona.Majumdar@usdo j .go v

-27 -Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 1 Filed : 06/07/1

2 2 8 o f 28 . Pagel D # : 2 8

STEVE N M . DETTELBAC H UnitedState

s Attorne y Norther n Distric t o f Ohi o STEVE N J . PAFFILA S (0037376 ) Assistan t UnitedState

s Attorne y Norther n Distric t o f Ohi o 80 1 W . Superio

r Avenue , Suit

e 40 0 Cleveland , O H 4411 3 Telephone : (216)622-369 8 Facsimile : (216

) 522-492 8 Steven.Paffilas@usdoj.gov OFCOUNSEL : CHARLE S MIKALIA N EATO N WEILE R Associat e Regiona l Counse l U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agency , Regio n 5

-28

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 1 o f 36. Pagel

D # : 15 7
I N TH E UNITE D STATE S DISTRIC T COUR T FO RTH E NORTHER N DISTRIC T O FOHI O

TH E UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A Plaintiff , v . ROS S INCINERATIO N SERVICES , INC . Defendant . No , 12-cv-0144 1 Hon . Da n Aaro n Polste

r

CONSEN T DECRE ECase : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 15 8

TABL E O F CONTENT S I . JURISDICTIO N AN D VENU E . 2 - II . APPLICABILIT Y -2

- III . DEFINITION S - 3 - IV . CIVI L PENALT Y - 6 - V . CONTRO L SYSTE M IMPROVEMENT S - 6 - VI . POWE RQUALIT Y IMPROVEMENT S -9

- VII . DAT A RECORDIN G MODIFICATION S -1 2 - VIII . INVESTIGATION , CORRECTIV E ACTIO N AN D REPORTIN G -13

- IX . PERMIT S • -1 3 - X REPORTIN G REQUIREMENT S -1 3 - XI . STIPULATE D PENALTIE S -1 5 - Xtl . FORC E MAJEUR E - 1 8 - XLI L DISPUT E RESOLUTIO N - 2 0 - XIV . INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N AN D RETENTIO N - 2 2 - XV . EFFEC T O FSETTLEMENT/RESERVATO N O FRIGHT S - 2 4 - XVI . COST S -25

- XVII . NOTICE S - 26 - XVIII . EFFECTIV E DAT E - 2 7 - XLX . RETENTIO N O FJURISDICTIO N - 2 7 - XX . MODIFICATIO N - 2 7 - XXI . TERMINATIO N -28

- XXII . PUBLI C PARTICIPATIO N - 2 9 - i

VES01674 1Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 3 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 15 9

XXIII . SIGNATORIES/SERVIC E - 2 9 XXrV . INTEGRATIO

N -2 9

i i

VES01674 2Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 4 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 16 0
WHEREAS , Plaintif

f Unite dState

s o f America , o

n behalf o f th e Unite dState

s Environmenta

l Protection Agenc y ("EPA") , filedacomplain t i n thi s action o

n Jun e 7,2012 , allegin g tha t Defendan t Ros s Incineratio

n Services , Inc . ("Defendant " o r "Ross") , violated , an

d continues t

o violate , variou s provision s o f th e Nationa l Emission Standards fo r

Hazardous Ai r Pollutants fro mHazardou s Wast e Combustor

s ("Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP") , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7412 , codifie da t 4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 63 , Subpar

t EEE , a t it s hazardou s wast

e incinerato

r locate di n Grafton , Ohi o (th

e "Facility") . Th e allege dviolation s mclud

e violation s of

: th e dioxin/fura

n emission standar

dan dth e carbo n monoxid

e ("CO" ) emission standar dse t fort h i n th e Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP ; violation s o f

numerou s operatin

g paramete

r limit s ("OPLs" ) necessar

y t o compl y wit h th e Destruction an

dRemova l Efficienc y ("DRE" ) an

demissio n standard

s se t fort h i n th e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP ; an

dviolation s o f

th e recordkeepin

g provision s ofth e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto

r NESHAP . Defendan t denie s an y liability t

o th e Unite dState

s arisin g ou

t ofth e transactions o

r occurrences allege

di n th e Complain

t an dallege s th

e overwhelmin

g majorit y o f th e allege d violation s constitut

e "malfunctions " a

s tha t ter mi s define db y 4

0 C.F.R . § 63.2 . Th e Partie s recognize , an

dth e Cour t b y enterin g thi s Consen

t Decre e finds , that : (1 ) thi s Consen t Decre e ha s bee n negotiate

db y th e Partie s i n goodfait

h i n settlemen

t ofthi s action ; (2 ) entr y o f thi s Consen

t Decre e wil l avoi dlitigatio n betwee n th e Parties ; an

d(3 ) thi s Consen

t Decre e i s fair , reasonable , an

di n th e publi c interest . NOW , THEREFORE , befor e th e taking o f

an y testimony , withou

t th e adjudication o

r admissio n o f an y issu e o f fac t o r la w excep t a s providedi n Section I (Jurisdictio n an dVenue ) o f

VES01674 3Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 5 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 16 1
thi s Consen

t Decree , an

dwit h th e consen t ofth e Parties , IT I S HEREB Y ADJUDGED , ORDERED , AN D DECREE D a s follows : I . JURISDICTIO N AN D VENU E 1 . Thi s Cour

t ha s jurisdictio n ove

r th e subjec t matte r ofthi s action , pursuan

t t o 2 8 U.S.C . § § 1331 , 1345 , an d1355 , an dSection 113(b

) ofth e Clea

n Ai r Ac t ("CAA " o

r "Acf) , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , an

dove r th e Parties . Venue lie s i n thi s distric t pursuan t t o Sectio n 113(b ) ofth e CAA , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) , an

d2 8 U.S.C . § § 1391(b

) an d1395(a ) becaus e th e violation s allege di n th e Complain

t ar e allegedt o hav e occurre din , an dDefendan

t conduct s busines s in , thi s judicial district . Fo r

purpose s o f

thi s Consen

t Decree , or

an y action t o interpret, enforce o

r resolv e difference s regardin

g thi s Decree , th

e Partie s consen

t t o th e Court' s jurisdictio n ove

r thi s Consen t Decre e an dan y suc h action an

dconsen t t o venu e i n thi s judicia l district . 2 . For

purpose s o f

thi s Consen

t Decree , Defendan

t agrees tha

t th e Complain

t state s a clai mupo n which relie f

ma y b e grante dpursuan t t o Section 113(b

) o f th e Act , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7413(b) . II . APPLICABILIT Y 3 . Th e obligation s o f

thi s Consen

t Decre e appl y t o an dar e binding upo

n th e Unite d States , an dupo n Defendan

t an dan y successors , assigns , o

r othe r entitie s or

person s otherwise bonn db y law . 4 . No transfe

r o f ownershi p or operatio n o f th e Facility , whethe

r i n compliance wit

h th e procedures o f

thi s Paragrap

h o r otherwise , shal l relieve Defendan t o f it s obligation t

o ensur e tha t th e term s o f th e Consen t Decre e ar e implemented . Unles s thi s Consen t Decre e ha s terminated, a

t leas t 3 0 Day s prior

t o suc h transfer , Defendan

t shal l provide acop

y o f thi s Consen t Decre e t o th e propose dtransfere

e an dshall simultaneousl

y provid e writte n notic e ofth e - 2

-

VES01674 4Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 6 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 16 2 prospectiv e transfer, togethe

r wit h acop y o f th e propose dwritte n agreement

, t o EP A Region 5 , th e Unite dStates Attorne

y fo r th e Norther n Distric t o f Ohio , an dth e Unite dState

s Departmen

t o f Justice , i n accordanc

e wit h Section XVJ J (Notices ) o f thi s Consen

t Decree . An y attemp

t t o transfe r ownershi p or operatio n ofth e Facility withou

t complyin g wit

h thi s Paragrap

h constitute s aviolatio n o f

thi s Consen

t Decree . 5 . Defendan

t shall provid

e acop y ofthi s Consen

t Decre e t o al l officers , employees , an dagent s whose dutie s migh

t reasonabl y includ e instituting an

y provisio n o f

thi s Consen

t Decree , a s wel l a s t o an y contracto

r retainedt o perfor mwork , requiredunde

r thi s Consen

t Decree . Defendan t shal l condition an

y suc h contrac t upo n performance o f

th e wor k i n conformit

y wit h th e term s ofthi s Consen

t Decree . 6 . I n an y action t o enforc e thi s Consen

t Decree , Defendan

t shal l no t rais e a s a defense th e failure by an

y o f its officers , directors , employees , agents , o r contractor s t o tak e an y actions necessar

y t o compl y wit h th e provision s o f

thi s Consen

t Decree . 7 . Purpose : I

t i s th e expres s purpose ofth e Partie s i n enterin g thi s Consen

t Decre e to furthe r th e objective s ofth e Act , a

s enunciate

di n Section 10 1 ofth e Act , 4 2 U.S.C . § 740 1 etseq. Al l plans , reports , construction , maintenance , an dothe r obligation s o f

thi s Consen

t Decre e ar e intende dt o preven t o r minimiz e (duration an

dmagnitude

) futur e emissio n standar dan dOPL exceedance

s t o th e exten t feasible . HI . DEFINITION S 8 . Term

s use di n thi s Consen

t Decre e tha t ar e define di n th

e Ac t o r i n regulation s promulgate

dpursuan t t o th e Ac t shall hav e th e meaning s assigne

dt o the mi n th e Ac t o r suc h regulations , unles s otherwise providedi n thi s Consen t Decree . Wheneve

r th e term s se t fort h helo w ar e use di n thi s Consen

t Decree , th

e followin g definition s shall apply : - 3

-

VES01674 5Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 7 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 16 3

A . "Complaint " shall mea n th e complain

t file db y th

e Unite dState

s i n thi s action ; B . "Consen t Decree " or

"Decree " shal l mea

n thi s Decre

e an dal l appendices attache dhereto ; C . "Dat

e o f Entry " o r "Entr y o f th e Consen t Decree " shal l mea

n th e dat e tha t thi s Consen

t Decre e i s entere da s ajudgmen

t b y th e Cler k o f fh e Cour t fo r th e Unite dState

s Distric t Cour t fo r th e Norther n Distric t o f Ohi o afte r bein g signe

db y aUnite dState

s Distric t Judge ; D . "Dat e o f Lodging " shal l mea

n th e dat e th e Unite dStates lodge s acop y o f thi s signe dConsen t Decre e wit h th e Court, prior

t o noticing thi s Decre

e i n th e Federa l Register ; E . "Day " shal l mea

n acalenda

r da y unles s expressl

y state dt o b e abusines s day . I n computin

g an y perio do f

tim e unde r thi s Consen

t Decree , wher

e th e last da y woul dfal l o aaSaturday , Sunday , o r

federa l holiday , th

e perio dshal l run unti l th

e clos e o f busines s ofth e nex t busines s day ;

F . "Defendant " o

r "Ross " shal l mea

n Ros s Incineratio

n Services , Inc. ; G . "EPA " shal l mea

n th e Unite dStates Environmenta l Protection Agency an dan y o f it s successo

r department

s o r agencies ; H . "Effectiv e Date " shal l hav e th e definitio n providedi n Sectio n XVII I (Effectiv e Date

) o f thi s Consen

t Decree ; I . "ES V Opening " shal l mea n an y openin g o f th e emergenc

y safet y ven t whil e hazardous wast

e i s burnin

g i n Defendant' s Facility ; J . "Facility " shall mea n Defendant' s hazardou s wast e incinerato

r locate di n Grafton , Ohio ; -4 -

VES01674 6Case : l:12 -cv -01441 -DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1 4 8 o f 36 . Pagel

D #: 16 4

K . "Ohi o EPA " shall mea n th e Ohi o Environmenta

l Protection Agency an

d an y o f its successo

r department

s o r agencies ; L . "OPL(s) " shal l mea n th e operatin g paramete

r limit(s ) a t th e Faciht y tha t Defendant, EPA , o

r Ohi o EP A ha

s establishe

do r wil l establis

h pursuan t t o th e Hazardous Wast

e Combusto r NESHAP ; M . "Malfunction " shall mea n an y sudden , infrequent , an

dno t reasonabl y preventabl e failur e o f air pollutio n control an

dmonitorin

g equipment

, proces s equipment

, o r a proces s t o operat e i n anorma

l o r usua l manne r which causes , o

r ha s th e potentia l t o cause , th

e emissio n limitation s i n a

n applicabl e standar

dt o b e exceeded . Failure s tha

t ar e cause di n par t b y poo r maintenanc

e o r careles s operatio

n ar e no t malfunctions ; N . "Paragraph " shall mea n aportion o f

thi s Consen

t Decre e identifie dby a

n Arabi c numeral ;

O . 'Tarries " shal l mea n th e Unite dState

s an dDefendant ; P . "Section " shal l mea n aportion o f

thi s Decre

e identifie db y aRoma

n numeral ; Q . "State " shal l mea n th e Stat e o f Ohio ; R . "Titl e V Permit " shal l mea n th e penni t issuedt o Defendan

t b y Ohi o EP A pursuan t t o Subchapte

r V ofth e CAA , 4

2 U.S.C . § § 7661-7661e ; S . "Unite dStates " shal l mea n th e UnitedStates o f

America , actin

g o n behalf of EPA ; an d T . "WFCO " shal l mea n th e wast e feedcutof

f proces s employe

db y Defendan t t o sto p th e additio n o f

hazardou s wast

e t o Defendant' s Facility followin g a n OP L and/o r emissio n standar dexceedanc

e o r othe r operationa

l issue . - 5

-

VES01674 7Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1 4 9 o f 36 . Pagel D #: 16 5
IV . CIVIL PENALT Y 9 . Withi n 3 0 Day s afte r th e Effectiv e Dat

e o f thi s Consen

t Decree , Defendan

t shal l pa y th e su mo f $400,00 0 a s acivi l penalty . 10 . Defendan

t shal l pa y th e civi l penalt

y du e b y FedWir

e Electroni c Fund

s Transfe r ("EFT" ) t o th e U.S . Departmen

t o f Justic e i n accordanc

e wit h writte n instniction s t

o b e provided t o Defendant, followin g entr y o f th e Consen t Decree , by th

e Financial Litigatio n Uni t ofth e U.S . Attorney' s Offic e fo r

th e Norther n Distric t o f Ohio , 80 1 W . Superio

r Avenue , Suit

e 400 , Cleveland , O H 44113 , phone : (216 ) 622-3600 . A t

th e tim e o f payment , Defendan

t shall sen da cop y ofth e EF T authorization for man dth e EF T transactio

n record , togethe

r wit h atransmitta

l letter, whic h shall stat

e tha t th e paymen t i s fo r th e civi l penalt

y owe dpursuan

t t o th e Consen t Decre e i n UnitedStates o f

Americ av . Ros s Incineratio n Services . Inc. . an

dshal l reference th

e civi l action numbe

r an dDO J cas e numbe r 90-5-2-1-10042 , t

o th e Unite dState

s i n accordanc

e wit h Section XVI I (Notices) ; b y email t o acctsreceivable.CINWD@epa.gov ; an dby mai l to : EP A Cincinnat

i Finance Offic e 26 Marti n Luthe

r Kin g Driv e Cincinnati , Ohi o 4526 8 11 . Defendan

t shal l no t deduc t an y penaltie s pai dunde

r thi s Decre

e pursuan t t o thi s Sectio n o r Sectio n X I (StipulatedPenalties ) i n calculatin g its federa

l incom e tax . V . CONTRO L SYSTE M IMPROVEMENT S 12 . No t

late r tha n 24 0 Day s afte

r th e Effectiv e Dat

e o f th e Consen t Decree , Ros s shal l hav e complete

dconstruction an

dcommence

doperatio n o f ane w contro l syste

mtha t reflects th

e following : A . Th

e goal s o f th e ne w contro l syste

mshal l include , amon

g othe r things , reducin g emissio n standar dan dOP L exceedances , increasin g reliability , improving efficienc y - 6
-

VES01674 8Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 1 0 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 16 6

an dmonitoring o f

operations , reducin

g interruption s an

ddistraction s fo r

kil n control roo

m operators , an

dreducin g th e numbe r o f nuisance o

r non-critica

l alarms . B . Improvement

s t o DistributedContro l System . Ros s wil l design , purchase , instal l an dbegin operatio

n o f ane w distributedcontrol syste mwhic h reflects th

e followin g elements : i . Installation o f tw o ne w redundan

t Rockwel l controllers andmigration o f al l existin g contro l logi c (th e programming) t

o thes e ne w controllers . Migratio n o f

al l existing logi c shall occu r withi n 24 0 day s o f th e Effectiv e Dat

e o f th e Consen t Decree ; ii . Installation o f

ne w Rockwel l input/outpu

t ("I/O" ) device s t

o replace th e existing Honeywel l I/

O devices ; iii . Installation o f

thre e ne w operato r workstation s wit

h ne w graphic s an

d alar mscreens ; iv . Implementatio

n o f ane w Dat aHistoria n wit h redundan

t dat a collectio n nodes . Th

e Dat aHistoria n Syste mshal l b e use dt o recor d an dstor e proces s dat

aa s se t fort h i n Section VI I below ; v . Durin g th

e installatio n o f

th e ne w distributive control system, implementatio

n o f a n off-lin e virtua

l controlle r environmen

t t o allo w logi c modifications , testing , an dtraining withou

t disturbing syste

m operations ; vi . Remova

l o f al l Honeywel l controllers , I/ O devices , an

doperato r workstations ; vii . Developmen

t o f ne w alar msummar y screens ; viii . Eliminatio n an

drationalization o f

obsolet e programming ; an

d ix . Modification s t

o control logi c t

o suppor t change s i n contro l strategy . C . Ros s wil l design , purchase , instal l an dbegi n operatio

n o f ane w contro l roo mtha t include s th

e followin g elements : i . Two operato

r workstations , eac

h wit h multipl e monitors ;Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 1 1 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 16 7
ii . Multi-purpos e overhea dmonitor s t o displa y vide o o f variou s proces s location s (fee

dconveyors , combustio

n chambers , lances , etc. ) o r alar m summar y information ; iii . Window s t

o overloo k th e proces s are

asout h ofth e incinerator ; an

d iv . Environmenta

l control s t

o maintai n adistraction-free environmen t fo r th e operators . 13 . Instrumentatio

n Modifications : No t

late r tha n 6 0 Day s afte

r th e Effectiv e Dat

e o f th e Consen t Decree , Ros s shall hav

e implemente

dth e followin g modification s t o th e incineration equipmen t an dinstrumentatio

n a t th e Facilit y wit h th e goa l o f preventin g an dminimizin g (duratio n an dmagnitude

) futur e OP L and/o

r C O emissio

n limi t exceedances : A . Chang

e th e automati

c WFC O se

t poin t fo r th e Kil n Lance Atomizing Ai r Pressur e OP L t o 110 % ofth e OP L value ; B . Modif

y th e interlock

strateg y fo r th e tota l quenc h flo w measuremen

t a s follows : Curren t Interloc k Modifie dInterloc k Emergenc y wate r operate s an dwast e feed , auxiliar

y fuel , an dcombustio

n fan s sto p i f tota l quenc h flo w goe

s below low-lo w flo w alar

mo r quenc h flo w measuremen

t i s ba dvalu e fo r greate r tha n 5 second

s whil e th e quenc h outle t temperatur

e i s greate r tha n lo w temperatur

e alarm . Emergenc y wate r operate s an dwast e feed , auxiliar

y fuel , an dcombustio

n fan s sto p i f tota l quenc h flo w goe

s belo w low-lo w flo w alar

mo r quenc h flo w measuremen

t i s ba dvalue , a s wel l a s quenc h nozzle pressur

e belo w low-lo w pressur

e alarm , fo r

greate r tha n 5 second

s eac h whil e th e quenc h outle t temperatur

e i s greate r tha n lo w temperatur

e alarm .

- 8

-

VES01675 0Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 1 2 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 16 8
14 . Withi n 90 Day s o f

completin

g al l activitie s unde

r thi s Section , Defendan

t shall see k t o modif y its Titl e V Permi

t t o incorporat

e an y necessar y changes t

o it s Titl e V Penni

t resulting fromth

e above-describe

dContro l Syste

mImprovements . 15 . Reportin

g Requirements . Defendan t shal l submi

t th e followin g report

s t o EP A wit h respec t t o activitie s requireduhde

r Section V (Contro l Syste

mImprovements) : A . Construction Completion Report . Withi n 3 0 Day s o f completin

g al l activitie s require

dunde r thi s Section , Defendan

t shall submi

t aConstruction Completion Repor t t o EPA . I n th e Construction Completion Report, Defendan t shall : i . Certif

y t o EP A whethe

r Defendan t complete dal l activitie s require

d unde r thi s Sectio

n i n accordanc

e wit h th e requirement

s thereof ; an d ii . Describ e an

y issue s o r problem s identifie di n performance o f th e requirement

s unde r thi s Sectio

n an dth e resolution o f

thos e issues o r problems . B . Performanc e Report . Withi n 3 0 Day s afte r 1 2 month

s hav e elapse dsinc e beginning operatio

n o f th e improvedcontrol system , Defendan

t shal l submi

t aPerformanc

e Repor t t o EPA . I n th e Performanc e Report , Defendan t shall : i . Describ e an

y issue s o r problem s identifie di n performance o f th e specifie dimprovements ; ii . Describ e deviation s an dth e rational e therefor e fromth e specifie d improvements , includin g change s t o contro l syste

msettings , alarms , an dcontrol strategies ; an

d iii . Describ e al l measure s take n t o preven t an dminimiz e exceedance

s o f emission standard

s an dOPL s cause

db y event

s during th

e performance repor t period . VI . POWE RQUALIT Y IMPROVEMENT S 16 . Not

late r tha n 24 0 Day s afte

r th e Effectiv e Dat

e o f th e Consen t Decree , Ros s shal l complet e th e implementatio

n ofth e followin g change s t o its facilit y powe

r distributiv e systems : - 9

-

VES01675 1Case : l:12-cv-01441 -DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1 4 1 3 o f 36 . Pagel

D # : 16 9

A . Instal l aRockwel l ProDys c Extende dRuntim e voltage sa

g correcto r (o r engineerin g equivalent

) t o fee dth e primar y sid e ofth e 15kV A transforme r i n fh e Electrica

l Buildin g Moto

r Contro l Cente

r B an dremov e o r relocat e non-critica

l circuit s o n th

e Electrica

l Buildin g Motor

Contro l Cente

r B distribution panel ; B . Mov e Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Retur

n Pum p Driv e 120

V contro l powe r t o th e conditionedpowe

r panel i n Electrica

l Buildin g Motor

Contro l Cente

r B , se t driv e parameter

s for optima l ride-through , an

dinstall 24VD C powe

r suppl y t o fee dth e driv e control card

s o n terminal s 3 5 an

d36 ; C . Mov e Electrical Buildin g Remot e I/ O Rac k RIO-0 1 powe

r fee dt o th e conditione dpowe r pane l i n Electrica

l Buildin g Moto

r Contro l Cente

r B ; ' D . Install acoi l loc k

rela y i n th e moto r starte r fo r th e Mai n Chambe

r Combustio

n Ai r Fan ; E . Mov e I

D Fa n Driv e 120

V control powe

r t o th e conditionedpowe

r pane l i n Electrica l Buildin g Motor

Contro l Cente

r B an dse t drive parameter

s fo r optima l ride-through ; F . Instal l aRockwel l Mini-DyS C voltage sa g correcto r (o r engineerin

g equivalent ) t o protec t processo r powe r t o DistributedContro l Syste mcomponent

s i n th e meterin g building ; G . Maintai n existing Uninterruptible Powe r Source i n th

e Close dLoo

p Control Building ;

H . Mov e Flo w Mete

r Panel control powe

r t o existin g Uninterruptible Powe r Sourc e i n th e Close dLoo p Contro l Building ; I . Instal l aRockwel l ProDys c Extende dRuntim e voltage sa

g correcto r (o r engineerin g equivalent

) t o feedth e primar y sid e o f th e 15kV A transforme

r i n th e ClosedLoo

p -10

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 1 4 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 17 0

Motor Contro l Cente

r A an dremov e o r relocat e non-critica

l circuit s o

n th e ClosedLoop Moto

r Contro l Cente

r A distribution panel ; J . Mov e Variabl e Frequenc y Driv e Buildin g Remot

e I/ O Rac k RIO-0 2 powe r feedt o th e conditionedpowe

r pane l i n ClosedLoop Moto r

Contro l Cente

r A an dmaintain existing Uninterruptible Powe r Source i n th

e I/ O panel ; K . Mov e Coohng Towe r Pum p Driv e 120

V contro l powe

r t o th e conditione

d powe r pane l i n Close dLoo

p Motor Contro l Cente

r A , se t driv e parameter

s fo r optima l ride

through , an

dinstal l 24VD C powe

r suppl y t o fee dth e drive contro l card

s on terminal s 3 5 an

d36 ; L . Mov e Clarifie r

Pum p Driv e 120

V contro l powe

r t o th e conditione

dpowe r pane l i n Close dLoo p Motor

Contro l Cente

r A , se t drive parameter

s for optima l ride-through , and install 24VD C powe

r suppl y t o fee dth e driv e contro

l card s o n terminal s 3 5 an

d36 ; an d M . Install Bonitro n SA G UP D ride-throug h device s (o

r engineerin

g equivalent ) on th e D C bu s ofth e variable frequenc

y drive s fo r

th e ID Fan , Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Retur n Pumps , Coolin g Towe

r Pumps , andClarifier

Pump s (te n protecte ddrive s total) . 17 . Reporting Requirements . Defendan t shal l submi

t th e followin g report

s t o EP A wit h respec t t o activitie s require

dunde r Section V I (Powe

r Qualit y Improvements) : A . Constructio

n Completio n Report . Withi n 3 0 Day s o f completin g al l activitie s requiredunde

r thi s Section , Defendan

t shall submi

t aConstructio n Completion Repor t t o EPA . I n th e Construction Completion Report , Defendan t shall : i . Certif

y t o EP A whethe

r Defendan

t completedal l activitie s require d unde r thi s Section i n accordanc

e wit h th e requirement

s thereof ; an d ii . Describ e an

y issue s o r problem s identifie di n performance ofth e requirement

s unde r thi s Sectio

n an dth e resolution o f

thos e issue s o r problems .

-11

-

VES01675 3Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 1 5 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 17 1

B . Performance Report . Withi n 3 0 Day s afte r 1 2 month s hav e elapse d since implementatio

n ofth e powe

r qualit y improvements , Defendan t shal l submi

t aPerformance Repor t t o EPA . I n th e Performance Report, Defendan t shall : i . Describ e an

y issue s o r problem s identifie di n performanc

e ofth e specifie dimprovements ; ii . Describ e deviation s an dth e rational e therefor e fro mth e specifie d improvements ; an

d iii . Describ e al l measure s take n t o preven t andminimiz e exceedance s o f emissio n standard

s an dOPL s cause

db y event

s durin g th e performance repor t period . VIL DAT A RECORDIN G MODIFICATION S 18 . Not

late r tha n 18 0 day s fro mth

e Effectiv e Dat

e o f th e Consen t Decree , Defendan

t shal l implemen

t change s t o its dat aacquisitio n syste

mt o allo w th e monitoring , recordin

g an d reportin g o f 1-secon ddat apoints fo r

eac h combustio

n chambe r use dby Defendan

t t o detennin

e compliance wit

h 40 C.F.R . § 63.1209(p) (maximu mcombustio

n chambe r pressure) . 19 . Withi n 4

5 Day s o f th e Effectiv e Dat

e o f th e Consen t Decree , Defendan

t shall implemen t changes necessar

y t o allo w th e monitoring , recording , andreportin g o f th e pumpabl e ari dtota l (i.e. , pumpabl

e an dnonpumpable

) hazardous wast

e fee drat e fo r eac h combustio

n chambe r o f th e incinerator, exclusive o f

th e auxiliar y fue l fee drate . Th

e auxiliar y fue l feedshal l b e monitored , recorded , an

dreporte dseparately . 20 . Dat

aRecording Modification s Completion Report . Withi n 3 0 Day s o f completin g al l activitie s require

dunde r thi s Section , Defendan

t shal l submi

t aDat aRecordin

g Modification s Completion Repor t t o EPA . In th

e Construction Completio n Report, Defendan t shall certif

y t o EP A whethe

r Defendan t complete dal l activitie s requiredunde r thi s Section .

-1 2 -Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1 4 1 6 o f 36 . Pagel D #

: 17 2

VIII. INVESTIGATION . CORRECTIV E ACTIO N AN D REPORTIN G 21 . Defendan

t shal l provid

e acop y o f al l quarterly , semiannua

l andannua

l ai r report s require dt o b e submitte dt o th e Ohi o EPA , t

o th e EP A b y emai l t

o Charle s Hal l (Hal l .Charles@,epa.gov

- ) withi n seve

n (7 ) Day s o f

submittin g th e report s t o th e Ohi o EPA . Thes e include , bu

t ar e no t limite dto , report

s concernin

g malfunction s an

dnon-malfunction s a

s thos e term s ar e describe di n Paragrap

h 8. M 22 . Nothin g i n thi s Consen t Decre e shal l excuse Defendan

t fro mcomplying wit

h th e investigation , corrective action an dreportin g provision s ofth e Hazardou s Wast e Combusto

r NESHAP , including , bu

t no t limite dto , 4

0 C.F.R . § § 63.1206(c)(2)(v)(A)(3) , 63.1206(c)(3)(v ) and63.1206(c)(3)(vi) . IX . PERMIT S 23 . Permits . Wher

e an y compliance obligation unde r thi s Consen

t Decre e requires Defendan t t o obtai n afederal , state , o

r loca l permi

t o r approval , Defendan

t shal l submi

t timel y an dcomplet e application s an

dtak e al l othe r action s necessar

y t o obtai n al l suc h permit s o r approvals . Defendan

t ma y see k relie f unde r th e provision s o f

Section XI I (Forc e Majeure) for an y dela y i n th e performance o f

an y suc h obligatio n resulting fromafailure t o obtain , o

r adela y i n obtaining , an

y permi t o r approva l requiredt

o fulfil l suc

h obligation , i f

Defendan t ha s submitte dtimel y an dcomplet e application s an

dha s take n al l othe r actions necessar

y t o obtai n al l suc h permits o

r approvals . X . REPORTIN G REQUIREMENT S 24 . I n addition t

o othe r report s requiredb y thi s Consen

t Decree , Defendan

t shall by Januar y 3 1 o f eac h yea r submi t arepor t fo r th e precedin g calenda r yea r tha t shal l includ

e a -13

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 1 7 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 17 3 description o f

an y noncompliance wit

h th e requirement

s o f thi s Consen

t Decre e an da n explanatio n o f th e violation' s likel y caus

e an dofth e remedia

l step s taken , or

t o b e taken , t o preven t o r minimiz e such violation . I f Defendan t canno t full y explai n th

e cause o f aviolatio n a

t th e tim e th e repor t i s due , Defendan

t shal l so stat e i n th e report . Defendan

t shal l investigat

e th e cause o f th e violatio n an

dshal l the n submi t a n amendmen

t t o th e report, includin g aful l explanatio n o f th e cause o f

th e violation , withi n 3 0 Day s o f th e Da y Defendan

t become s awar e of th e caus e ofth e violation . Nothing i n thi s Paragrap h o r th e followin g Paragrap

h relieve s Defendan t o f its obligatio n t

o provid e th e notic e require

dby Section XI I (Forc e Majeure) . 25 . Wheneve

r an y noncomplianc

e ofthi s Consen

t Decre e o r an y othe r even t affectin g Defendant' s performance unde r thi s Decree , or

th e performance o f

it s Facility , ma

y pos e a n immediat e threa t t o th e publi c healt

h o r welfar e o r th e environment

, Defendan

t shall notif

y EP A orall y or by electronic or

facsimil e transmissio

n a s soo n a s possible , bu

t no late r tha n 2 4 hour s afte r Defendan t firs t kne w o f th e violatio n o

r event. Thi s procedur

e i s i n addition t

o th e requirement

s se t fort h i n th e precedin g Paragraph . 26 . Al l report

s shal l b e submitte dt o th e persons designate

di n Section XVI I (Notices) . 27 . Each repor

t submitte db y Defendan

t unde r thi s Sectio n shal l be signe db y a n officia l o f th e submittin

g part y an dinclud e th e followin g certification : I certif y unde r penalt y o f la w tha t thi s documen

t an dal l attachment

s wer e prepare dunde r m y directio n or

supervision i n accordanc e wit h asyste mdesigne

dt o assur e tha t qualifie d personne l properl y gathe r an devaluat e th e informatio n submitted . Basedo n m

y inquir y o f th e perso n o r persons wh

o manag e th e system, o r those person

s directly responsibl

e fo r gatherin g fh e information , th

e information submitte

dis , t o th e bes t o f m y knowledge an

dbelief , true , accurate , an

dcomplete . I a

mawar e tha t ther e ar e significan

t penaltie s fo r

submittin g fals e information , includin g th

e possibilit

y o f fine an dimprisonmen

t fo r knowing violations . -14

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 1 8 o f 36 . PagelD.#: 17

4

Thi s certificatio n requiremen t doe s no t appl y t o emergenc

y o r simila r notification s wher

e compliance wouldb

e impractical . 28 . Th e reporting requirement

s ofthi s Consen

t Decre e d o no t reliev e Defendan

t o f an y reportin g obligation s requiredb

y th e Ac t o r implementin

g regulations , o

r b y an y othe r federal , state , o

r local law , regulation , permit , o r othe r requirement . 29 . An y information providedpursuan t to thi s Consen

t Decre e ma y b e use db y th e Unite dState

s i n an y proceedin

g t o enforce th

e provision s o f

thi s Consen

t Decre e an da s otherwis e permitte

dby law . XI . STIPULATE D PENALTIE S 30 . Defendan

t shal l be liabl e fo r

stipulate dpenaltie s t

o th e Unite dState

s fo r violation s ofthi s Consen

t Decre e a s specifie dbelow , unles s excusedunde r Section XI I (Forc

e Majeure) . A violatio n include s failin g t o perfor man y obligation requiredb y th e term s o f thi s Decree , includin g an

y workplan o

r schedule , accordin

g t o al l applicable requirement s ofthi s Consen t Decre e an dwithi n th

e specifie dtim

e schedules establishe

dby thi s Decree . 31 . Lat

e Paymen t o f Civi l Penalty : I f

Defendan

t fail s t o timely pa

y th e civi l penalt

y t o th e UnitedState

s Departmen

t o f Justice , a s require dt o b e pai dunde

r Section I V (Civi l Penalty) , Defendan

t shall pa y astipulate

dpenalt y o f $1,00 0 pe r Da y fo r eac h Da y tha t th e paymen t i s late . 32 . Complianc e Milestones : Th e followin g stipulate

dpenaltie s shall accru

e pe r violatio n pe

r Da y fo r failure t o timely complet

e th e task s o r requirement

s o f Paragraph

s 1 2 (Contro l Syste

mImprovements) , 1 3 (Instrumentatio n Modifications) , 1 6 (Powe r Qualit y Improvemen

t Plan) , 1 8 an

d1 9 (Dat aRecording Modifications) :

-15

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 1 9 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 17 5
Penalt y Pe r Violatio n Pe

r Da y Perio do f

Noncomplianc e $50 0 1s t throug h 14t h Da y $100 0 15t h throug h 30t h Da y $2,50 0 31s t Da y an dbeyon d 33 . Reportin

g Requirements . Th

e followin g stipulate

dpenaltie s shall accru

e pe r violatio n pe

r Da y fo r eac h violatio n o f

th e reporting requirement

s o f Section X (Reportin

g Requirements ) an

dth e reportin g requirement

s o f Paragraph

s 15,17,20 , an

d2 1 ofthi s Consen

t Decree : Penalt

y Pe r Violatio n Pe

r Da y Perio do f

Noncomphance $50 0 1s t throug h 14t h Da y $1,00 0 15t h throug h 30t h Da y $2,00 0 31s t Da y an dbeyon d 34 . Stipulate

dpenaltie s unde

r thi s Section shall begin t

o accru e o n th e Da y afte r performance i s du

e o r o n th e Da y aviolatio n occurs , whicheve r i s applicable , an

dshal l continu

e t o accru e unti l performance i s satisfactorily complete do r unti l th e violatio n ceases . Stipulate d penaltie s shal l accru

e simultaneousl

y fo r separat e violation s o f

thi s Consen

t Decree . 3 5 . Defendan

t shall pa y an y stipulatedpenalt

y within 3 0 Day s o f

receiving awritte

n deman dfro mth e Unite dStates . 36 . Stipulate

dpenaltie s shall continue t o accru e a s provide di n Paragraph

s 34 an d5 2 durin g an y Disput e Resolution bu

t nee dno t b e pai dunti l th

e following : A . I f th e disput e i s resolvedb y agreemen

t o r b y adecision o f

EP A tha t i s no t appeale dt o th e Court , Defendan

t shal l pa y accrue dpenaltie s determine

dt o b e owing , togethe

r

-16

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 0 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 17 6
wit h interes t a t th e rat e specifie da

t 2 8 U.S.C . § 1961 , t

o th e Unite dState

s withi n 3 0 Day s o f

th e Effectiv e Dat

e o f th e agreemen

t o r th e receip t o f EPA' s decisio n o r

order. B . I f th e disput e i s appeale

dt o th e Cour t an dth e UnitedStates prevail s i n whol e o r i n part, Defendan

t shall pa y al l accrue

dpenaltie s determine

db y th e Cour t t o b e owing , togethe r wit h interest a t th e rat e specifie da

t 2 8 U.S.C . § 1961 , withi n 6 0 Day s o f receiving th

e Court' s decisio n o

r order, excep

t a s providedi n subparagrap

h C , below . C . I f an y Part y appeal s th

e Distric t Court' s decision , Defendan t shall pa y al l accrue dpenaltie s determine

dt o b e owing , togethe

r wit h interest a t th e rat e specifie da

t 28 U.S.C . § 1961 , withi n 1 5 Day s o f receiving th

e final appellat

e cour t decision . 37 . Defendan

t shall pa y stipulate dpenaltie s owin g t

o th e Unite dStates i n th

e manne r se t fort h an dwit h th e confirmatio n notice s requiredb y Paragrap

h 10 , excep

t tha t th e transmitta

l lette r shal l stat e tha t th e paymen t i s fo r stipulate dpenaltie s an

dshal l stat

e fo r whic h violations

) th e penaltie s ar

e being paid . 38 . I f Defendan t fail s t o pa y stipulate dpenaltie s accordin

g t o th e term s ofthi s Consen t Decree , Defendan

t shall be liabl e fo r

interes t o n suc h penalties , a

s provide dfo r

i n 2 8 U.S.C . § 1961 , accruin

g a s o f th e dat e paymen t becam e due . Nothin g i n thi s Paragrap h shall b e construe dt o limi t th e Unite dState

s fromseekin

g an y remed y otherwise providedb y la w fo r Defendant' s failur

e t o pa y an y stipulatedpenalties . 39 . Subjec

t t o th e provision s o f

Section X V (Effec t

o f Settlement/Reservatio

n o f Rights) , th e stipulate dpenaltie s providedfo r

i n thi s Consen

t Decre e shall b e i n addition t

o an y othe r rights , remedies , o

r sanctions available t

o th e UnitedStates fo r

Defendant' s violatio n o f thi s Consen

t Decre e o r applicabl e law . Wher

e aviolatio n ofthi s Consen t Decre e i s als o a violatio n o f

Sectio n 11 2 ofth e Act , 4

2 U.S.C . § 7412 , o

r th e Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto

r -17

-

VES01675 9Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 1 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 17 7
NESHAP , 4

0 C.F.R . Par

t 63 , Subpar

t EEE , Defendan

t shal l b e allowedacredit , fo r

an y stipulate dpenaltie s paid , against

an y statutor y penaltie s impose

dfo r suc h violation . XII . FORC E MAJEUR E 40 . "Forc e majeure, " fo r purposes o f

thi s Consen

t Decree , i s define da

s an y even t arisin g fro mcause

s beyon dth e control o f

Defendant , o f

an y entit y controlle dby Defendant , o r o f Defendant' s contractors , tha t delay s o r prevent s th e performance o f

an y obligatio n unde

r thi s Consen t Decre e despit e Defendant' s bes

t effort s t o fulfil l th e obligation . Th

e requiremen

t tha t Defendan t exercis e "bes

t effort s t o fulfil l fh e obligation " include s using best effort s t o anticipat e an y potentia l forc e majeur

e even t an dbes t effort s t o addres s th

e effect s o f

an y suc h even t a s i t i s occurring an

dafte r i t ha s occurredt

o preven t o r minimiz e an

y resulting dela

y t o th e greates t exten t possible . "Forc e Majeure " doe s no t includ e Defendant' s financial inabilit y t o perfor man y obligatio n unde

r thi s Consen

t Decree . 41 . I f an y even t occur s o r ha s occurredtha

t ma y dela y th e performance o f

an y obligatio n unde

r thi s Consen

t Decree , whethe

r o r no t cause dby aforc e majeur

e event , Defendan

t shal l provid

e notic e orally o r b y electronic o

r facsimil e transmissio

n t o EPA , withi n 7 2 hour

s o f whe n Defendan

t first knew tha t th e even t migh t caus e adelay . Withi n seve

n Day s thereafter

, Defendan t shall provid

e i n writin g t

o EP A a n explanatio

n an ddescription ofth e reason s for th e delay ; th e anticipate

dduratio n o f th e delay ; al l action s take

n o r t o b e take n t o preven t o r minimiz e th

e delay ; aschedul

e fo r implementatio

n o f an y measure

s t o b e take n t o preven t o r mitigat e th e dela y o r th e effec t o f th e delay ; Defendant' s rational e fo r attributing suc

h dela y t o a forc e majeur

e even t i f i t intends t o asser t suc h aclaim ; an

dastatemen

t a s t o whether , i n th e opinio n o f Defendant

, suc h even t ma y caus e or contribut e t o a n endangermen

t t o public health , welfar e o r th e environment . Defendan

t shal l includ

e wit h an y notic e al l availabl e documentatio n -18

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 2 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 17 8 supportin g th e clai mtha

t th e dela y wa s attributabl

e t o aforc e majeure . Failur

e t o compl y wit h th e abov e requirement

s shal l preclud

e Defendan

t fromassertin

g an y clai mo f forc e majeur

e fo r tha t even t fo r th e perio do f

tim e o f suc h failure t o comply , an

dfo r an y additiona

l dela y cause db y suc h failure . Defendan

t shal l b e deeme dt o know o f an y circumstance o f

whic h Defendant

, an y entit y controlledb y Defendant, o r Defendant' s contractor

s kne w o r shoul dhav

e known . 42 . I f EP A agree

s tha t th e dela y o r anticipate ddela y i s attributabl

e t o aforc e majeur

e event , th e tim e fo r performance o f

th e obligation s unde

r thi s Consen

t Decre e tha t ar e affectedb y th e forc e majeur

e even t wil l b e extende db y EP A fo r

suc h tim e a s i s necessar

y t o complet e those obligations . A n extensio

n ofth e tim

e for performance o f

th e obligation s affectedb

y th e forc e majeur e even t shall not , o f

itself , exten dth e tim e fo r perfonnance o f

an y othe r obligation . EP A wil l notif y Defendan

t i n writin g o f

th e lengt h ofth e extension , i f

any , fo r performance o f

th e obligation s affectedb y th

e forc e majeur

e event . 43 . I f EP A doe s no t agre e tha t th e dela y or anticipate ddela y ha s bee n o r wil l b e cause dby aforc e majeur

e event , EP A wil l notif

y Defendan

t i n writin g o f

it s decision . 44 . I f Defendan

t elect s t o invok e fh e disput

e resolution procedure s se t fort h i n Section XII I (Disput

e Resolution) , it

shall d o s o n o late r tha n 1 5 Day s afte

r receipt o f EPA' s notice . I

n an y suc h proceeding , Defendan

t shal l hav e th e burde n o f demonstratin

g b y apreponderanc

e o f th e evidence tha

t th e dela y o r anticipate ddela y ha s bee n o r wil l b e cause db y aforc e majeur

e event , tha t th e duratio n o f th e dela y o r th e extensio n sough t wa s or wil l be warrante

dunde r th e circumstances , tha

t bes t effort s wer

e exercisedt

o avoi dan dmitigat e th e effect s o f

th e delay , an

d tha t Defendan t compliedwit

h th e requirement

s o f Paragraph

s 4 0 an d4 1 above . I f

Defendan t carrie s thi s burden , th

e dela y a t issu e shal l be deeme

dno t t o b e aviolatio n b

y Defendan

t o f th e affecte dobligation o f

thi s Consen

t Decre e identifie dt

o EP A an dth e Court . -19

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 3 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 17 9

XIII . DISPUTE RESOLUTIO N 45 . Unles s otherwis e expressl y provide dfo r

i n thi s Consen

t Decree , th

e disput e resolution procedures o f

thi s Sectio

n shall be th

e exclusive mechanis

mt o resolve disputes arising unde r o r wit h respec t t o thi s Consen

t Decree . Defendant' s failur e t o see k resolution o f

adisput e unde r thi s Sectio

n shall preclud

e Defendan

t fro mraising an

y suc h issu e a s adefense t

o a n actio n b y th e UnitedState

s t o enforc e an

y obligation o f

Defendan

t arisin g unde

r thi s Decree . 46 . Informa

l Disput e Resolution . An y disput

e subjec t t o Disput e Resolutio n unde

r thi s Consen

t Decre e shal l firs t

b e th e subjec t o f informa l negotiations . Th

e disput e shal l b e considere dt o hav e arise n whe n Defendan

t send s th e UnitedStates awritten Notic e o f Dispute . Such Notic e o f

Disput e shal l stat

e clearl y th e matte r i n dispute . Th

e perio do f

informa l negotia

tion s shal l no

t excee d2 0 Day s fromth

e dat e th e disput e arises , unles s tha

t perio di s modifiedb y writte n agreement

. I f th e Partie s canno

t resolv e adisput

e b y informa l negotiations , the

n th e positio n advance

db y th e Unite dState

s shal l be considere

dbinding unless , withi n 3

0 Day s afte

r th e conclusion o f

th e informal negotiatio

n period , Defendan

t invoke s formal disput

e resolutio n procedures a

s se t fort h below . 47 . Forma

l Disput e Resolution . Defendan

t shal l invok e formal disput

e resolutio n procedures , within th

e tim e perio dprovidedi n th

e precedin g Paragraph , b y serving o n th e Unite d State s awritte n notice tha

t i t i s invoking formal disput

e resolution an

dserving aStatemen

t o f Position regardin

g th e matte r i n disput e withi n 1 0 days thereafter . Th

e Statemen

t o f Position shal l include , bu

t nee dno t be limite dto , an

y factua l data , analysis , o

r opinio n supportin

g Defendant' s position an

dan y supportin

g documentatio

n relie dupo

n b y Defendant . -20 -

VES01676 2Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 4 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 0
48 . Th e Unite dState

s shall serv

e it s Statemen

t o f Positio n withi n 3 0 Day s o f receip t o f Defendant' s Statemen

t o f Position . Th

e Unite dStates ' Statemen

t o f Positio n shall include , bu t nee dno t b e limite dto , an

y factua l data, analysis , o

r opinio n supportin

g tha t positio n an

dan y supportin g documentatio

n relie dupo

n b y th e UnitedStates . Th

e Unite dStates ' Statemen

t o f Position shal l b

e bindin g on Defendant, unles s Defendan t file s amotion fo r

judicia l revie

w o f the disput e i n accordanc

e wit h th e followin g Paragraph . 49 . Defendan

t ma y see k judicia l revie

w o f th e disput e by filin g wit

h th e Cour t an d servin g o n th e Unite dStates , i n accordance wit h Section XVI I (Notices) , amotio n requestin

g judicia l resolution o f

th e dispute . Th

e motion mus

t b e filedwithi n 3 0 Day s o f

receip t ofth e Unite dStates ' Statemen

t o f Position pursuan

t t o th e precedin

g Paragraph . Th

e motio n shall contai n awritte n statemen

t o f Defendant' s positio n o

n th e matte r i n dispute , including an

y supportin g factua l data, analysis , opinion , or documentation , an

dshal l se t fort h th e relie f requeste dan dan y schedul e within whic h th

e disput e mus t b e resolvedfo r

orderl y implementatio

n o f th e Consen t Decree . 50 . Th e Unite dState

s shall respon

dt o Defendant' s motio

n withi n th

e tim e perio d allowedby th

e Loca l Rule s o f

thi s Court . Defendan

t ma y file areply memorandum , t o th e exten t permitte db y th e Loca l Rules . 51 . Standar

do f Review . Excep t

a s otherwise providedi n thi s Consen t Decree , i n an

y othe r disput e brough t unde r Paragrap h 47 , Defendan

t shal l bea r th e burde n o f demonstratin

g tha t it s position complie s wit

h thi s Consen

t Decree an

dtha t i t i s entitledt

o relie f unde r th e applicable principle s o f

la w b y apreponderanc

e o f th e evidence . 52 . Th e invocation o f

disput e resolutio n procedures unde r thi s Section shall not, b

y itself , extend, postpone , or

affec t i n an y wa y an y obligation o f

Defendan

t unde r thi s Consen

t -2 1 -

VES01676 3Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 5 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 1

Decree , unles s an

dunti l fina l resolution ofth e disput e so provides . Stipulatedpenaltie s wit h respec t t o th e dispute dmatte r shal l continu

e t o accru e fromth e firs t Da y o f noncompliance unti l 3 0 Day s afte

r th e invocation o f

formal disput

e resolution unde

r Paragrap h 47 , bu t paymen t shall b e staye dpendin g resolution o f

th e disput e a s providedi n Paragrap

h 36 . I f Defendan t doe s no t prevai l o n th

e dispute dissue , stipulate

dpenaltie s shall b

e assesse dan dpai da s providedi n Sectio n X I (Stipulate

dPenalties) . XTV. INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N AN D RETENTIO N 53 . Th e Unite dStates an

dit s representatives , including attorneys , contractors , an d consultants , shal l hav

e th e righ t o f entr y int o th e Facility , a

t al l reasonabl

e times , upo

n presentatio

n o f credentials , to : A . Monitor

th e progres s o f

activitie s requiredunde

r thi s Consen

t Decree ; B . Verif

y an y dat ao r information submitte

dt o th e Unite dStates i n accordanc e wit h th e term s ofthi s Consen

t Decree ; C . Obtai

n samples and , upo

n request , split s o f an y samples take

n by Defendan t o r its representatives , contractors , o r consultants ; D . Obtai

n documentar

y evidence , including photograph s an dsimila r data; an d E . Asses s Defendant' s compliance wit h thi s Consen

t Decree . 54 . Unti l fiv e year

s afte r th e terminatio

n o f thi s Consen

t Decree , Defendan

t shal l retain , an dshal l instruc

t its contractor

s an dagent s t o preserve , al l non-identica l copie s o f al l documents , records , o

r ofhe r informatio n (including documents , records , o r othe r information i n electroni c form ) i n its o r its contractors ' o

r agents ' possessio

n o r control , o r tha t com e int o its o r its contractors ' o

r agents ' possessio

n o r control , an

dtha t relat e i n an y manne r t o Defendant' s -22 -

VES01676 4Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 6 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 2 performance o f

its obligation s unde

r thi s Consen

t Decree . Thi s information-retention requiremen

t shal l appl

y regardles s o f

an y contrar y corporat e o r institutiona

l policie s o

r procedures . A t

an y tim e during thi s information-retentio n period , upo

n reques t b y th e United States , Defendan

t shal l provid

e copie s o f

an y documents , records , or

ofhe r informatio n require

d t o be maintaine

dunde r thi s Paragraph . 55 . A t th e conclusion ofth e information-retentio n perio dprovidedi n th

e precedin g Paragraph , Defendan

t shal l notif

y th e Unite dStates a

t leas t 9 0 Day s prio

r t o th e destructio

n of an y documents , records , o

r othe r informatio n subjec

t t o th e requirement

s ofth e precedin

g Paragrap h and , upo

n reques t b y th e Unite dStates , Defendan

t shal l delive

r an y suc h documents , records , o r othe r informatio n t

o EPA . I n th e even t th e Unite dStates request

s sai ddocuments , records o r information , Defendan

t ma y asser t tha t certai n documents , records , o

r othe r mformation i s privilege dunde r th e attorney-clien

t privileg e o

r an y othe r privileg e recognize

db y federa l law . I f Defendan t assert s suc h aprivilege , it

shall provid

e th e following : A . Th e titl e o f th e document

, record , o r information ; B . Th e dat e o f th e document

, record , o r information ; C . Th e nam e an dtitl e o f eac h autho r ofth e document

, record , o r infonnation ; D . Th e nam e an dtitl e o f eac h addresse

e an drecipient ; E . A genera

l description o f

th e document

, record , or

information ; an

d F . Th e privileg e asserte

db y Defendant . However, no documents , records , or othe r informatio n require

dt o b e generate db y thi s Consen

t Decre e shal l b e withheldon ground

s o f privilege . 56 . Excep

t a s otherwis e providedb y thi s Consen t Decree , Defendan

t ma y asser t tha t mformation require

dt o b e providedunde

r thi s Sectio

n i s protecte

da s Confidentia

l Busines s

- 23 -

VES01676 5Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 7 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 3
Information ("CBI" ) unde

r 4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 2 . A s t o an y information tha

t Defendan t seek s t o protec t a s CBI , Defendan

t shal l follow , th

e procedures se

t fort h i n 4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 2 . 57 . Thi s Consen

t Decre e i n n o wa y limit s o r affect s an

y righ t o f entr y an dinspection , o r an y righ t t o obtai n information , hel db

y th e Unite dState

s pursuan t t o apphcabl

e federa l laws , regulations , o

r permits , nor

doe s i t limi t o r affec t an y dut y o r obligatio n o f

Defendan t t o maintai n documents , records , o

r othe r information impose

db y applicable federa

l o r stat e laws , regulations , o r permits . XV . EFFEC T O F SETTLEMENT/RESERVATO N O F RIGHT S 58 . Thi s Consen

t Decre e resolve s th

e civi l claims o f

th e Unite dStates fo r

th e violation s allege

din th e Complain

t filedi n thi s actio

n throug h th e Dat e o f Lodging . 59 . Th e Unite dStates reserve

s al l lega l an dequitabl e remedies available t

o enforc e th e provision s o f

thi s Consen

t Decree , excep

t a s expressl y state di n Paragrap

h 58 . Thi s Consen

t Decre e shall no t b e construe dt o limi t th e rights o f th e Unite dStates t

o obtai n penaltie s o

r injunctiv e relie f

unde r th e Ac t o r implementin

g regulations , o

r unde r othe r federa l laws , regulations , o

r permi t conditions , excep

t a s expressl y specifie di n Paragrap

h 58 . 60 . I n an y subsequen

t administrativ

e o r judicial proceedin

g initiate dby th

e United State s fo r injunctive relief

, civi l penalties , othe

r appropriat

e relie f relating t o th e Facility , Defendan t shal l no t assert , an dma y no t maintain , an

y defense o

r clai mbase

dupo n th e principle s o f waiver , res judicata , collatera l estoppel , issu

e preclusion , clai mpreclusion , claim-splitting , or othe r defense s base

dupo n an y contentio

n tha t th e claim s raisedb y th

e Unite dStates i n th

e subsequen t proceedin g wer e o r shoul dhav e bee n brough t i n fh e instan

t case , excep

t wit h respec t t o claims tha

t hav e bee n specificall y resolvedpursuan t t o Paragrap h 5 8 ofthi s Section .

-24 -

VES01676 6Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 8 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 4
61 . Thi s Consen

t Decre e i s no t apermit , or amodificatio n o f

an y permit, unde

r an y federal , state, or

loca l law s o

r regulations . Defendan

t i s responsibl

e fo r achieving an

d maintainin

g complet e compliance wit

h al l apphcabl

e federal , state , an

dloca l laws , regulations , an dpermits ; an

dDefendant' s compliance wit h thi s Consen

t Decre e shal l be n

o defense t

o an y actio n commence

dpursuan t t o an y suc h laws , regulations , o

r permits , excep

t a s se t fort h herein. , Th e Unite dState

s does not , by it s consen

t t o th e entr y o f thi s Consen

t Decree , warran

t o r ave r i n an y manne r tha t Defendant' s compliance wit h an y aspec t o f thi s Consen

t Decre e wil l resul

t i n compliance wit

h provision s o f

th e Act , 4 2 U.S.C . § 740 1 et

seq., o r wit h an y othe r provision s o f federal , state , o

r local laws , regulations , o

r permits . 62 . Thi s Consen

t Decre e doe s no t limi t o r affec t th e rights o f Defendan t o r ofth e Unite dState

s agains t an y thirdparties , no

t part y t o thi s Consen

t Decree , nor

doe s i t limi t th e right s o f thir dparties , no

t part y t o thi s Consen

t Decree , agains

t Defendant, excep

t a s otherwise providedby law . 63 . Thi s Consen

t Decre e shal l no t b e construe dt o creat e rights in , o

r gran t an y caus e o f action to , an

y thirdpart

y no t part y t o thi s Consen

t Decree . XVI . COST S 64 . Th e Partie s shal l bea

r thei r ow n cost s ofthi s action a

s wel l a s th e cost s o f Disput e Resolution , includin g attorneys ' fees . Notwithstandin g th e above , th

e Unite dStates shall b

e entitle dt o cost s (including attorneys ' fees ) agains t Defendan t incurredi n an

y othe r actio n necessar y t o collect : (a

) an y portion o f

th e civi l penalty ; o

r (b) an y stipulatedpenaltie s du

e tha t wer e no t pai dby Defendant .

-25

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 2 9 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 5

xvn . NOTICE S 65 . Unles s otherwis e specifie dherein , wheneve r notifications , submissions , o r communications ar

e requiredby thi s Consen

t Decree , the

y shal l be mad

e i n writin g an

d addresse da s follows : T o th e Unite dStates : Chief , Environmenta

l Enforcemen

t Section Environmen

t an dNatura l Resource s Divisio n U.S . Departmen

t o f Justice Bo x 761 1 Be n Frankli n Station Washington , D.C . 20044-761 1 Re : DO J No . 90-5-2-1-10042 an d Eato n Weiler Associat e Regiona l Counse l U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agency Region s (C-14J ) 7 7 W . Jackso

n Blvd . Chicago , I L 60604-3590 T o EPA : Sar aBrenema

n Chief , Ai r Enforcemen

t an dComplianc e Assuranc

e Branch U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y Region 5 77 W . Jackso

n Blvd. , AE-17 J Chicago , I L 60604-3590 T o Ros s Incineration Services . Inc. : Richar dD . Panza , Esq . Matthe w W . Nakon , Esq . Wickens , Herzer , Panza , Coo k & BatistaCo . 3576 5 Cheste r Roa d Avon , O H 44011-1262 an d -26

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 3 0 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 6

Mr . Jame s N . Larso n Ms . Patrici aR . Lawson Ros s Incineration Services , Inc . 3679 0 Gile s Road Grafton , O

H 44044-975

2 66 . An y Part

y may , b y writte

n notic e t o th e othe r Parties , chang

e it s designate

dnotic e recipien t or notice addres s provide

dabove . 67 . Notice s submitte

dpursuan t t o thi s Sectio

n shal l b e deeme dsubmitte dupo n mailing , unles s otherwis e providedi n thi s Consen t Decre e o r b y mutua l agreemen

t ofth e Partie s i n writing . XVJJ L EFFECTIV E DAT E 68 . Th e Effectiv e Dat

e ofthi s Consen

t Decre e shal l be th

e dat e upo n whic h thi s Consen t Decre e i s entere dby the , Cour t o r amotio n t o ente r th e Consen t Decre e i s granted, whicheve r occur s first , a s recorde do n th e Court' s docket . XIX . RETENTIO N O F JURISDICTION 69 . Th e Cour t shal l retai n jurisdictio n ove

r thi s case unti l terminatio

n ofthi s Consen

t Decree , fo r

th e purpose o f

resolving dispute s arising unde r thi s Decre

e o r enterin g order s modifyin g thi s Decree , pursuan t t o Section s XII I (Disput

e Resolution) an

dX X (Modification) , o r effectuatin g o r enforcin g compliance wit h th e term s ofthi s Decree . XX . MODIFICATIO N 70 . Th e term s ofthi s Consen

t Decree , including an

y attache dappendices , ma

y b e modifie donl

y b y asubsequen

t writte n agreemen

t signe db y bot h Parties . Wher

e th e modificatio n constitute s amateria l chang e t o thi s Consen

t Decree , i t

shal l b e effectiv e only upo

n approva l by th e Court . -27 -

VES01676 9Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 3 1 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 7
71 . An y dispute s concernin g modification o f

thi s Consen

t Decre e shal l b e resolved pursuan t t o Sectio n XII I (Disput

e Resolution) , provided , however, that , instea do f th e burde n o f proo f providedb

y Paragrap

h 51 , th e Part y seekin g th e modificatio n bear

s th e burde n o f demonstratin

g tha t it i s entitle dt o th e requeste dmodificatio n i n accordanc e wit h Federa l Rule o f Civi l Procedur

e 60(b) . XXI . TERMINATIO N 72 . Afte r

Defendan

t ha s complete

dth e requirement

s o f Section s V (Contro l Syste m Improvements) an

dV I (Powe

r Qualit y Improvements) ofthi s Consen t Decree , an

dha s complied wit h al l othe r requirement

s o f thi s Consen

t Decree , an

dha s pai dth e civi l penalt

y an dan y accrue dstipulate dpenaltie s a

s require db y thi s Consen

t Decree , Defendan

t ma y serv e upo n th e Unite dState

s aReques

t fo r Termination , statin

g tha t Defendan

t ha s satisfie dthose requirements , togethe r wit h al l necessar

y supportin

g documentation . 73 . Withi n 6

0 Day s o f receip t b y th e UnitedStates o f

Defendant' s Reques

t fo r Termination , th

e Partie s shal l confe

r informall y concernin

g th e Reques t an dan y disagreemen

t tha t th e Partie s ma

y hav e a s t o whethe r Defendan

t ha s satisfactorily compliedwit h th e requirement

s fo r terminatio

n ofthi s Consen

t Decree . I f

th e Unite dState

s agree s tha t th e Consen t Decre e ma y be terminated , th

e Partie s shal l submit

, fo r th e Court' s approval , ajoint stipulatio n terminatin g th e Decree . 74 . I f th e Unite dStates doe

s no t agre e tha t th e Decre e ma y b e terminated , Defendan

t ma y invok e Disput e Resolutio n unde

r Section XII I (Disput

e Resolution) . However , Defendan t shall no t see k disput e resolution o f

an y disput e regardin g termination , unde

r Paragrap h 4 7 o f Sectio n XII I (Disput

e Resolution) , unti l 6

0 Day s afte

r servic e o f it s Reques

t fo r Termination .

-28

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 3 2 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 8

XXII . PUBLI C PARTICIPATIO N 75 . Thi s Consen

t Decre e shal l b e lodge dwit h th e Cour t fo r aperio do f

no t les s tha n 3 0 days fo r publi c notice an

dcommen t i n accordanc

e wit h 2 8 C.F.R. § 50.7

. Th e UnitedState

s reserves th

e righ t t o withdra w o r withhol dits consen

t i f th e comment

s regardin g th e Consen t Decre e disclos e facts o

r consideration s indicating tha t th e Consen t Decre e i s inappropriate , improper, o

r inadequate . Defendan

t consent s t o entr y ofthi s Consen

t Decre e withou t furthe r notic e an dagree s no t t o withdra w fro mo r oppos e entr y o f thi s Consen

t Decre e by th e Cour t o r t o challenge an

y provisio n o f

th e Decree , unles s th

e Unite dStates ha

s notifie dDefendan

t i n writin g tha t i t n o longe r support s entr y o f th e Decree . XXm . SIGNATORJJES/SERVTC E 76 . Each undersigne

drepresentativ

e o f Defendan t an dth e Actin g Assistan

t Attorne y Genera l fo r th e Environmen

t an dNatura l Resources Divisio n o f

th e Departmen

t o f Justice o r hi s designe e certifie s tha

t h e or sh e i s full y authorize

dt o ente r int o th e term s an dcondition s ofthi s Consen t Decre e an dt o execut e an dlegally bin dth

e Part y h e o r sh e represent

s t o thi s document

. 77 . Thi s Consen

t Decre e ma y b e signe di n counterparts , an

dit s validit

y shall no t b e challenge don tha t basis . Defendan

t agree s t o accep t servic e o f proces s by mai l wit

h respec t t o al l matter s arisin g unde

r or relating t o thi s Consen

t Decre e an dt o waiv e th

e forma l service requirement

s se t fort h i n Rule s 4 an

d5 o f th e Federa l Rule s o f Civi l Procedur

e an dan y applicable Local Rule s o f

thi s Cour t including , bu

t no t limite dto , servic e o f

asummons . XXIV . INTEGRATIO N 78 . Thi s Consen

t Decre e constitute s th

e final , complete , an

dexclusive agreemen

t an d understandin

g amon g th e Partie s wit

h respec t t o th e settlemen

t embodie di n th e Decre e an d -29 -

VES01677 1Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 3 3 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 18 9 supersede s al l prio r agreement

s an dunderstandings , whethe

r ora l or written , concernin

g th e settlemen t embodie dherein . Othe

r tha n deliverable s tha

t ar e subsequentl

y submitte

dan d approve dpursuan t t o thi s Decree , n

o othe r document , no r an y representation , inducement , agreement , understanding , o r

promise , constitute s an

y par t ofthi s Decre

e o r th e settlemen

t i t represents , no

r shal l i t b e use di n construin

g th e term s o f thi s Decree
I T I S S O ORDERE D Date d an d entere d thi s da y o f , 201

4

Unite d State s Distric tJudg e

-30

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 3 4 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 19 0

Consent Decre e i n United

States v . Ross Incineration Services, Inc, No . 12-CV-0144 1 Consente dan

dagreedt

o by : O N BEHAL F O F TH E UNITE D STATES :

^ Date : /0'22-fo'<t THOMA S A . MARIAN I V ~ Deputy Sectio n Chie f

/ Environmental Enforcemen t Sectio n Environment

an dNatura l Resource s Divisio n U.S . Departmen

t o f Justic e

_SWCfON A N . MAJUMDA R Tria l Attorne y Environmental Enforcemen t Sectio n Environment

andNatura l Resource s Divisio n 30 1 Howar dStree

t Suite 105 0 San Francisco , G A 9410 5 Tel : (415 ) 744-647 3 Fax:(415)744-647. 6 SiiTnona-Maiumdartaiusdo i .gov

STEVE N M . DETTELBAC H Unite dState s Attorne y STEVE N J . PAFFILA S Assistan t Unite dState s Attorne y Northern Distric t

o f Ohi o 80 1 W . Superio r

Avenue * Suit e 40 0 Cleveland , O H 4411 2 Tel : (216 ) 622-369 8 Fax : (216)522-492 6 Steven.Paffilas(S),usdoi.go v

-31

-Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1 4 3 5 o f 36 . Pagel D #: 19 1 Consen t Decre e i n United

States v. Ross Incineration Services, Inc. No . i2-cv-0144 1 O N BEHAL FO FTH E U.S . ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY :

SUSA N HEDMA N Regiona l Administrato

r U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agency Regio n 5 7 7 "Wes t Jackso n Boulevar

d Chicago , Illinoi s 60604-350 7 Tel : (312 ) 886-300 0

ROBER T KAPLA N V Regiona l Counse l U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agenc

y Regio n 5 7 7 Wes t Jackso n Boulevar

d Chicago , Illinoi s 60604-350 7 Tel : (312 ) 886-1499 Dat e

j^r<^/-/ 4 - /^M^-

—Date : A?/ ( C / 1 ^ 1 IOBER T KAPLA N ( /

-3 2 -Case : l:12-cv-01441-DA P Do c # : 27- 1 Filed : 10/28/1

4 3 6 o f 36 . Pagel D # : 19 2 Consen tDecre e i n United States v . Ross Incineration Services, Inc. No. 12-cv-0144

1 O N BEHAL F O F DEFENDAN T ROSS INCINERATION SERVICES , INC. :

Attorne y Wickens , Herzer , Panza , Coo k & BatistaCo . 3576 5 Cheste r Roa d Avon , O H 4401 1 Tel : (440) 695-805 5 Fax : (440 ) 695-809 8 RPanza@WickensLaw.com Presiden t Ros s Incineration Services , Inc . 3679 0 Gile s Roa

d Grafton , O H 44044-975 2

-33

-6525 0 Federa l Register /Vol . 79 , No . 212 /Monday , Novembe r 3 , 2014 /Notice s DEPARTMEN T O F JUSTIC E Notice Lodgin g o

f Propose d Consen t Decre e Unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t O n Octobe

r 28 , 2014 , th e Departmen

t o f Justic e lodged a propose

d consen t decre e wit h th e Unite d State

s Distric t Cour tfo rth e Norther

n Distric to f Ohio i n th e lawsui tentitled United

States v . Ross Incineration Services, Inc., Civi l Actio n No . 12-01441 . Th e United State

s file d thi

s lawsui t under th e Clean Ai rAct . Th

e Unite d States ' complain

tseek s injunctiv

e relie f an d civi l penaltie

s forviolations o

f variou s provisions o

f th e Nationa

l Emission Standard

s fo r Hazardou

s Ai r Pollutant s fro m Hazardou

s Wast e Combustor

s a tdefendant' s hazardou

s wast e incinerato

r i n Grafton , Ohio . The consen tdecre e require s th e defendan

tt o perfor m injunctiv

e relief an d pa y a civi l penalt y o f $400,000

. The publicatio n o

f thi s notic

e open s a perio d fo

rpubli c commen

to n th e propose d consen tdecree. Comment

s should b e addresse

d t o th e Assistan

t Attorne y General , Environmen tan d Natura l Resource

s Division , an d should refe r t o United States v . Boss Incineration Services, Inc., D.J . Ref . No . 90-5-2-1-10042 . Al l comment s mus tb e submitte d n o late r tha n thirt y (30 ) day s afte r th e publicatio n dat

e ofthi s notice. Comment

s ma y b e submitte

d eithe r by emai l o rb y mail : 7 b submit comments: Send

them to: pubcomment-ees.enrd@ usdoj.gov. B y mai l Assistan

tAttorne y General , U.S . DOJ—ENRD

, P.O. Bo x 7611 , Washington , D C 20044-7611 . Durin g th e publi c commen

tperiod , th e propose

d consen tdecre e ma y b e examine d an d downloade

d a tthi s Justic e Departmen

tWe b site : http:// www. usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_ Decrees.html. W

e wil l provide a pape

r copy o f th e propose

d consen tdecre e upo n writte

n reques tand paymen

to f reproductio

n costs. Pleas

e mai l you

r reques tan d paymen

tto : Consen tDecre e Library , U.S . DOJ ENRD.P.O . Bo

x 7611 , Washington, D C 20044-7611 . Pleas e enclose a chec

k o rmone y orde r fo r$8.2 5 (2 5 cent s pe r pag e reproductio n cost ) payabl e t o th e Unite d State s Treasury . Mauree n Katz , Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FRDoc . 2014-2600 1 File d 10-31-14 ; 8:4 5 am ] BILLIN G COD E 44KM5- P DEPARTMEN T O F LABO R Offic e o f th e Secretar

y Agenc y Informatio n Collectio n Activities ; Submissio n fo r OM B Review ; Commen t Request ; Annua l Refilin g Surve

y ACTION : Notice . SUMMARY : The Departmen to f Labo r (DOL ) is submittin

g th e Burea u o f Labor Statistic s (BLS) sponsore

d information collectio n reques

t(ICR ) revisio n titled , "Annua l Refilin g Survey, " t

o th e Offic e o f Managemen

tan d Budge t(OMB ) fo r revie w and approva

l for us e i n accordanc

e wit h th e Paperwor

k Reduction Ac t(PRA

J o f 199 5 (4 4 U.S.C . 3501 e tseq.) . DATES ; Submi

tcomment

s on o rbefor e Decembe r 3 , 2014 , ADDRESSES : A copy o

f thi s IC Rwit h applicable supportin

g documentation ; includin g a description o f th e likel y respondents , propose

d frequenc

y o f response, an

d estimate

d tota l burde n ma y b e obtaine

d fre e o f charg e fro m th e RegInfo.go

v We b sit e a thttp:// www.reginfo.gov/pubIic/do/ PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201409-1220-002 (thi s lin k wil l onl y becom

e activ e on th e da y followin g publicatio n ofthi s notice ) o rby contactin

g Miche l Smyt

h b y telephon e a t202-693-1129 (thi

s i s no t a toll-fre e number

) o rsendin g a n email t o DOL_PRA_PUBIIC@dol.gov. Submi tcomment

s abou tthis reques

t t o th e Offic e o

f Informatio

n an d Regulator

y Affairs , Attn : OM B Des k Officer forDOL-BLS , Offic e o f Managemen

tan d Budget , Roo m 10235 , 72 5 17t h Stree tNW. , Washington, D C 20503 , Fax : 202-395-688 1 (thi s is no ta toll-fre e number) , email : OIRA_ submission@omb.eop.gov. Commenter s ar e encouraged, bu

tno trequired , t

o sen d a courtes

y cop y o f an y comment

s t o th e U.S . Departmen

to f Labor — OASAM , Offic e o

f th e Chie f Informatio

n Officer , Attn : Departmenta l Informatio

n Complianc

e Managemen

tProgram, Roo m N1301 , 20

0 Constitution Avenu e NW „ Washington, D C 20210 , email : DOL_PRA_PUBUC@dol.gov. FO R FURTHE R INFORMATIO N CONTACT : Contac tMiche l Smyt

h by telephon

e a t 202-693-412

9 (thi s i s no ta toll-fre e number ) o rb y emai

l a tDOL_PRA_ PUBUC@dol.gov. Authority : 4

4 U.S.C . 3507(a)(1)(D)

. SUPPLEMENTAR Y INFORMATION : Thi s IC R seek s OM B approva

l fo rrevisions t

o th e Annual Refilin g Surve

y (ARS) . Th e ARS is use d i n conjunction wit

h th e BL S Quarterl y Censu s o f Employmen

tan d Wage s (QCEW ) program. The primar

y purpos e ofth e AR S i s t

o verif y o r t o correc tth e Nort h American Industr

y Classificatio n Syste

m (NAICS) cod e assigne d t o establishment

s a s wel l a s t o obtai n accurat e mailin g an

d physica l location addresse

s o f establishments . A s a result , change s i n th e industria

l and geographica

l composition

s o f th e econom y ar e capture d i n a timely manne r an d reflected i n BL S statistica l programs. Th e QCE W progra m provide s dat a necessar

y t o administe

r Stat e Unemploymen

tInsuranc

e systems . QCE W dat

a accuratel

y reflec tth e exten t o f coverag e o f th e Stat e U I law s an d ar e use d fo rdeterminin

g U I tota l and taxabl e wage s rate s and fo rothe r purposes . Federal , State , an d loca l governmen

tofficial s a

s wel l a s privat e researcher

s depen d on accurat

e geographica

l an d industria

l codin g base d o n th e 201 2 Nort h America n Industr y Classificatio n Syste

m Manual . Thi s IC Rha s bee n classifie d a

s a revision becaus

e o f change s t o th e scope an d frequenc

y o f th e ARS an d because o f minor revision

s t o th e notificatio n letter s an d collectio n instruments . Th e DOL , i n coordination wit h th e OMB , curtailed th

e QCE W progra

m throug

h a permanen

tbudge treduction o

f $4. 8 millio n i n F Y 2014

. A s a par

to f th e effor tt o develo p a reduction strateg

y wit h minima

l impac ton dat a quality , th e AR S is bein

g reduce d i n scop e an

d is changin

g approach . A n analysi

s considere

d ho w frequentl y establishment

s change d their industry , location , an

d ownership . Th e analysi s looke d a tthes e change s ove r thre e AR S cycle

s coverin g nin e years , an d i tshowe d ther e wer e industrie s wit h lo w rate s o f change . Thus , certai n NAIC S industrie

s exis ttha ttraditionall y hav e low volatilit

y base d o n factor s suc h a s infrastructure, intellectua l property, o

r advance

d degree s tha tmak e the m unlikel y candidate

s for transitionin

g from on

e industr y t o another . Rathe r tha n surveyin

g one thir d o f businesse

s i n thes e low-chang

e industrie s ever y year , th e QCEW progra m wil l surve

y one-sixt

h o f thes e businesse

s eac h year , puttin g the m on a six-yea r cycle . Th e six-yea

r cycl e preserve s th e abilit y t o identif y trends i n thes e slow-changin

g industries , whil e reducin g workload , postage

, an d othe r

## VES016777-016795.pd f

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc .

Decembe r 9 , 201 4 Mr . Georg e Czernia k Director , Ai r an d Radiatio n Divisio n (A-18J ) EP A Regio n 5 7 7 Wes t Jackso n Boulevard , 18 t h Floo r Chicago , I L 6060 4 Re : Viabilit

y o f th e Xact

® Multi-meta l CEM S a s a tractabl e instrumen t fo r th e collectio n o f metal s dat a relate d t o HW C MAC T complianc e standards . Dea r Mr . Czerniak : Brie f Biographica l Sketche s o f th e Author s Willia m C . Anderso n hold s a doctorat e i n Analytica l Chemistry fro m th e Universit y o f Tennessee . H e ha s worke d fo r TestAmeric a Laboratorie s an d it s predecesso r companie s a t th e Knoxville , T N locatio n fo r 3 1 years . Hi s professiona l titl e a s a chemica l consultan t i s Senio r Analytica l Project Manage r fo r Hazardou s Wast e Incineratio n projects . Hi s specialty i s th e chemistr y an d analytica l testin g o f sourc e emission s an d th e relate d qualit y assurance . H e ha s bee n involve d wit h man y incinerato r tes t program s i n th e fiel d an d a t th e laboratory , an d ha s writte n severa l paper s i n thi s field . H e worke d fo r El i Lill y an d Compan y o n sit e a t thei r incinerato r whe n th e Xact ® CEM S wa s bein g use d fo r complianc e dat a collection s durin g Comprehensiv e Performanc e Testin g campaigns . Chri s E . McBrid e hold s a Bachelo r o f Scienc e i n Chemica l Engineerin g fro m Rose-Hulma n Institut e o f Technology . H e i s a consultan t an d principa l wit h Focu s Environmental , Inc . H e bega n hi s professiona l caree r wit h th e U.S . Arm y Chemica l Weapon s Demilitarizatio n progra m an d ha s spen t th e las t 2 4 year s i n th e design , performanc e optimization , an d complianc e testin g o

f multipl e type s o

f Hazardou s Wast e Incineratio n an d Therma l Treatmen t systems . Hi s specialty i s th e desig n an d managemen t o f sourc e emission s testin g program s fo r combustio n systems . H e ha s bee n involve d wit h mor e tha n 10 0 combustio n testin g programs , an d ha s writte n a numbe r o f paper s i n thi s field . H e manage d th e El i Lill y an d Compan y test progra m fo r th e Tippecano e rotar y kil n incinerato r i n 2005 , an d agai n i n 201 0 whe n th e Xact ® CEM S wa s bein g use d fo r complianc e dat a collection s durin g th e Comprehensiv e Performanc e Test . Pleas e fin d belowou r comment s regardin g th e viabilit y ofth e Xact®

multi-meta l continuou s emission s monitorin g syste m (CEMS ) propose d fo r us e b y EP A o n th e Veolia' s Sauget , Illinoi s hazardou s wast e incinerators . Ou r positio n i s tha t th e Xact

® CEM S performanc e unde r condition s representative o f actua l stac k

ga s condition s i n a commercia l incinerato r environmen t i s no

t sufficientl y accurat e o r precise . Emission s measuremen t demonstration s performe d usin g th e artificia l "controlled " Xact ® matri x d o no

t represen t actua l emission s situation s leadin g t o a n artificiall y hig h appearanc e o f accurac y an d precision . Th e Xact® CEM S actuall y fail s t o matc h th e result s obtaine d wit h EP A referenc e method s whe n direct Pag e 1 o

f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.coi n VES01677 7

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . comparison s o

f th e tw o ar e made . W e believ e tha t particulate an d vapo r transpor t consideration s hav e no t bee n adequatel y considere d an d addresse d whil e thes e issue s probabl y caus e significan t bia s an d residua l carryove r effect s fro m previou s sampling . W e conclud e tha

t th e Xact

® CEM S shoul d no

t b e a require d Titl e V permi t ite m du e t o dat a reliabilit y factors . I n addition , w e conclud e EPA' s state d basi s fo r requirin g 1 2 month s o f metal s emission s dat a collectio n usin g th e Xact ® CEM S fo r correlatio n wit h incinerato r uni t documente d metal s fee d rate s i s unwarranted . Th e objective o f th e dat a collectio n wil l no t b e met , that bein g to demonstrate th e adequac y o f th e feedstrea m analyse s an d contro l syste m calculate d fee d rate s t o actua l metal s emission s vi a CEM S dat a an d wast e fee d rate/analysis . Dat a generate d wil l provid e n o meaningfu l scientifi c o r complianc e information . A t th e technology' s curren t state , th e Xact ® CEM S measure d metal s emission s dat a ar e qualitative , a t best , an d ar e no

t usabl e fo r continuou s emission s complianc e demonstratio n fo r a commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator . Issue s wit h th e Xact® Metho d 30 1 Validatio n Testin g EPA' s Statemen t of Basi s state s tha t th e Xact

® CEM S wa s validate d b y Metho d 30 1 at th e El i Lill y an d Compan y Tippecano e Laboratorie s (Lilly ) rotar y kil n incinerator . Th e validatio n methodolog y use d a slipstrea m ofth e actua l stac k ga s whic h wa s fortifie d wit h spike d metal s a t know n concentration s an d subsequentl y sample d b y th e Xact

® CEMS 1 . Th e dat a derive d fro m thi s validatio n proces s were evaluate d fo r precisio n an d accuracy . A Quantitative Aeroso l Generato r (QAG ) wa s use d to generat e th e validatio n standar d aerosols . Th e QA G i s a Metho d 30 1 validate d devic e whic h operate s b y nebulizin g a n aqueou s solutio n into a ga s strea m a

t a controlle d rate . Th e aeroso l strea m wa s sample d numerou s time s t o assimilat e supportin g dat a fo r th e Metho d 30 1 validatio n o f th e Xac t CEMS . Usin g Nationa l Institute s o f Standard s an d Technolog y (NIST ) traceabl e metal s salt s i n th e QAG , th e favorabl e Xact ® CEM S apparen t performanc e result s wer e obtained . However , th e Xact

® CEM S Metho d 30 1 validatio n usin g th e QA G fail s to mimi c th e actua l condition s i n a hazardou s wast e incinerato r stac k gas . Th e specifi c material s use d a s standard s ar e inappropriate chemicall y becaus e the y ar e no

t comparabl e to th e actua l chemistr

y an d physica l stat e o f th e compound s require d to b e measure d i n th e stac k gas . Coope r Environmenta l Service s chos e solubl e meta l nitrate s [suc h a s chromiu m nitrate , Cr(N0 3 ) 3 ] t o prepar e th e QA G aeroso l solutions . Suc h easil y dissolve d meta l compound s generat e a matri x tha t lend s itsel f favorabl y t o th e generatio n o f th e QA G aerosol . However , th e aeroso l generate d usin g thes e easil y dissolve d meta l nitrat e salt s i n n o way chemicall y compare s t o th e hard-fired , resilien t meta l oxide s compound s [suc h a s chromiu m oxide , Cr 2 0 3 ] tha t normall y exi t combustio n systems . Combustio n temperature s an d oxidativ e condition s produc e meta l emissions , typicall y oxides , whic h ar e very stabl e an d generall y insolubl e i n wate r withou t th e ai d o f hars h chemica l digestion . Thes e tenaciou s chemica l propertie s pos e a formidabl e challeng e to a QA G standar d desig n whic h shoul d us e chemical s tha t ar e th e sam e a s th e actua l exhaus t ga s matri x chemica l species . T o prov e th e Xact

® CEM S capture s a representative sampl e an d provide s a n accurat e analytica l result , th e QA G generate d matri x an d th e chemica l specie s tha t ar e sample d shoul d b e compositionall y th e sam e a s a n actua l stac k gas . I t i s irrelevan t tha

t th e X-ra y fluorescenc e (XRF ) technolog y alon e ca n purportedl y accuratel y detec t meta l concentration s o n th e proprietar

y reactive filte r tap e regardles s o f th e matrix . Th e issu e i s no t th e analysi s Pag e 2 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.300 0 fax 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01677 8

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc. technology , bu t th e sampl e collection . Th e proble m occur s becaus e th e chemica l materia l use d i n th e combustio n ga s simulatio n samplin g (QAG ) an d thei r associate d transpor t mechanism s are no

t consisten t wit h thos e o f th e matri x actuall y foun d i n stac k gas . T o prove tha t th e entire Xact

® CEM S proces s i s reliable , it s capabilit

y o f accuratel y extractin g an d transportin g sample s fro m a n actua l stac k ga s matri x t o th e analyze r must b e demonstrated . Metal s solutio n aerosol s injecte d into a slipstrea m o f stac k ga s ar e no

t sufficientl y representative to mak e thi s demonstration . Th e meta l nitrates introduce d t o th e Xact ® CEM S prob e interfac e ar e simpl y no t comparabl e to th e materia l actuall y containe d i n stac k ga s emitte d fro m a hazardou s wast e incinerato r system . Unti l th e actua l matri x an d chemica l specie s ca n b e matche d b y th e QAG , an d standardizatio n implemente d wit h actua l chemica l form s an d th e associate d resultin g particl e size s encountere d b y hazardou s wast e incinerato r units , th e tractabilit

y o f th e entir

e applicatio n shoul d b e questioned . Xact ® CEM S versu s Metho d 2 9 Sampl e Collectio n Metho d 2 9 i s EPA' s referenc e metho d fo r measurin g multi-metal s emissions . An y assessmen t a s to th e precisio n an d accurac y o f th e Xact

® CEM S must b e vi a direct compariso n t o Metho d 29 . Suc h assessmen t o f th e Xact

® CEM S require s understandin g th e operatin g principle s of Metho d 2 9 an d ho

wthos e principle s compar e t o an d ar e o r ar e no t addresse d by th e Xact ® CEM S operatio n an d design . Th e XACT 8 CEM S operate s o n a repeatin g 15-minute cycl e time . Fo r approximatel y 1 2 minute s o

f eac h cycle , a sampl e o f stac k ga s i s extracte d vi a a heate d samplin g prob e an d draw n throug h a filte r element . Th e filte r elemen t i s a proprietary , chemicall y infuse d materia l designe d t o captur

e metals . Th e filte r elemen t i s mounte d o n a ree l simila r t o tape . Afte r sampling , th e filte r medi a i s advance d o n th e ree l to mov e th e sampl e to th e XR F analyze r an d expos e fres h filte r medi a fo r th e nex t samplin g cycle . Th e filter medi a advancemen t an d XR F analysi s take s approximatel y 3 minutes . Th e cycl e the n repeats . Durin g th e samplin g portio n o f th e cycle , th e stac k

ga s i s sample d a

t a fixe d rate . Th e sample d volum e an d temperatur e ar e measure d an d correcte d t o standar d temperature . Th e Xact ® software use s a fixe d valu e fo r stac k

ga s moistur

e t o correct t o dr

y volume . Stac k

ga s oxyge n dat a fro m a separat e analyze r ar e use d to correct th e measure d value s t o 7% oxygen . Metho d 2 9 i s a manua l method . Th e "sampling train" consist s o

f a heate d samplin g probe ; pito t tube s fo r measurin g stac k ga s differentia l pressure/flow ; a heate d quart z glas s filte r element ; a serie s o

f interconnected , reagen t filled , glasswar e impinger s i n a n ic e bath ; an d a silic a ge l impinge r al l connecte d t o a samplin g contro l mete r box . Th e samplin g contro l mete r bo x include s a vacuu m pump ; a dr y ga s meter ; variou s thermocoupl e monitorin g inputs ; sampl e prob e an d filte r elemen t heat controls ; a manometer ; an d samplin g vacuu m controls . Th e stac k

i s sample d isokineticall y (explaine d late r i n thi s letter ) b y drawin g stac k

ga s throug h th e heate d sampl e probe , th e heate d glas s filte r element , an d spargin g (bubbling ) throug h th e reagent s i n th e impingers . Stac k ga s flo wrate , sample d ga s flo wrate , temperature s (stac k gas , probe , filter , an d dr y ga s mete r inle

t an d outlet) , an d vacuu m are continuousl y measure d an d adjuste d a s necessar y to maintai n isokinetics . Particulat e form s o f metal s ar e deposite d o n th e samplin g prob e internal s an d filte r element . Th e impinger s includ e tw o containin g acidifie d peroxid e i n serie s t o capture vapo r form s o f metals . Whe n configure d t o sampl e fo r mercury , tw

o additiona l impinger s containin g acidifie d permanganat e ar e configure d i n serie s afte r th e acidifie d peroxid e impingers t o captur e an y mercur y tha t ma y pas s throug h th e Pag e 3 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01677 9

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R IN ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . acidifie d peroxid e impingers . Th e samplin g trai n recovery generate s si x sample s fractions : (1 ) filte r element , (2) nitri c aci d rins e ofth e samplin g prob e an d filte r holder , (3 ) acidifie d peroxid e impinge r content s an d rinses , (4 ) initiall y empty impinge r content s an d rinses, (5 ) acidifie d permanganat e impinge r content s an d rinses , an d (6 ) hydrochlori c aci d rinse s o f th e acidifie d permanganat e impingers . Whe n analyzed , Fraction s 1 an d 2 ar e usuall y combine d a s a singl e sampl e fo r analysis ; th e othe r fou r fraction s ar e analyze d separately . Fraction s 1/ 2 an d 3 ar e analyze d fo r multi-metal s includin g mercury . Fraction s 4 , 5 , an d 6 ar e analyze d onl y fo r mercury . Sample d volum e i s calculate d fro m dr y ga s mete r flo

wmeasurement s an d temperatures . Stac k ga s moistur

e i s calculate d fro m th e weigh t gai n ofth e impingers includin g th e silic a ge l impinger . Stac k ga s oxyge n an d carbo n dioxid e ar e measure d separatel y an d use d t o calculat e stac k ga s molecula r weight . Samplin g rat e isokinetic s ar e determine d fro m th e rati o o

f calculate d velocity atth e sampl e prob e ti p t o th e calculate d stac k ga s flo wrate an d must b e withi n +10

% (sample d velocity 90-110 % of th e stac k flo wrate ) fo r a vali d sample . Base d o n ou r experienc e wit h Metho d 29 , th e majorit y o f th e non-mercury metal s captur e i s exhibite d i n th e filter/prob e rins e (combine d Fraction s 1 an d 2) analysi s whic h i s representativ e o f particulate-boun d form s o f th e metals . Th e lesse r amoun t o f vaporou s form s o

f th e non mercur y metal s tha

t pas s throug h th e filte r ar e reacte d an d capture d i n th e acidifie d peroxid e impinger s (Fractio n 3) . Ou r experienc e wit h mercur y i n nearl y al l case s i s th e filter/prob e rins e fractio n (combine d Fraction s 1 an d 2 ) i s non-detect , whic h indicate s mercur y i s eithe r i n vapo r for m o r a chemica l for m tha t readil y volatilize s fro m th e heate d prob e an d filte r surface s an d i s capture d i n th e impingers . Mor e specifically , th e majorit y o f th e mercur

y i s capture d i n th e acidifie d permanganat e impinger s tha t followth e acidifie d peroxid e impinger s an d i s subsequentl y exhibite d i n Fraction s 5 an d 6 . Chemically , thi s indicate s th e for m o f mercur

y i n th e emission s i s eithe r elementa l o r a compoun d specie s tha t require s th e mor

e aggressiv e oxidativ e medi a o

f th e permanganat e t o b e capture d an d retained . (Note : Factio n 4 , th e initia l empt y impinger , i s place d i n serie s betwee n th e acidifie d peroxid e an d acidifie d permanganat e impinger s t o capture an y bac k flo wo f liqui d fro m th e acidifie d permanganat e impinger s t o th e acidifie d peroxid e impingers tha t ca n occu r durin g lea k checkin g ofth e samplin g train . Fractio n 4 ca n b e analyze d separatel y fo r mercur y o r i n som e case s may b e combine d wit h Fractio n 5 fo r analysis. ) I n summary , ou r experienc e i s th e dat a fro m Metho d 2 9 use d o n hazardou s wast e incinerato r units tell s u s tha

t rion-mercury metal s ar e mostl y emitte d i n particl e for m whil e mercur y i s emitte d i n vapo r for m o r a particl e siz e that i s s o smal l a s to behav e a s a vapor . A s such , th e non-mercury metal s ar e mostl y exhibite d i n th e portion s ofth e Metho d 2 9 samplin g trai n designe d fo r particl e capture , an d th e mercur y i s mostl y exhibite d i n th e portion s designe d to react an d condens e vapo r forms . Th e Xact ® CEM S utilize s a reactive filte r medi a (tape) t o capture metals , particl e an d vapo r form s includin g mercury . Th e "reactive " par t ofth e Xact® CEM S filte r medi a i s infuse d wit h a proprietar y chemica l o r chemica l mixtur e designe d primaril y t o react wit h an d capture mercury . Metho d 2 9 i s EPA' s referenc e metho d fo r measurin g multi-metal s emissions . Th e HW C MAC T metal s emission s standard s were develope d an d promulgate d base d o n historica l Metho d 2 9 data . Metho d 2 9 i s th e samplin g metho d require d b y th e HW C MAC T rul e t o demonstrat e metal s emission s compliance . Sinc e Metho d 2 9 wa s use d t o develo p th e dat a use d t o se t th e HW C MAC T emission s standards , Metho d 2 9 i s th e onl y metho d suitabl e fo r th e demonstratio n Pag e 4 o

f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fax 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m 

### VES01678

0

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . o f complianc e unles s o r unti l EP A promulgate s a n alternativ e metho d tha

t achieve s equivalen t results . W e conclud e base d o n ou r experienc e tha t th e Xact

® CEM S i s no

t an d canno t consistentl y produc e comparabl e result s wit h th e precisio n an d accurac y o f Metho d 29 . Th e Xact ® CEM S fail s t o matc h th e result s obtaine d wit h EP A referenc e method s whe n direc t comparison s ar e mad e an d thes e dat a ar e understood . Matri x an d Transpor t Problem s Significan t matri x an d transpor t problem s ar e expose d whe n direc t comparison s o f emission s measure d b y th e Xact ® CEM S ar e correlate d to a n EP A referenc e metho d suc h a s Metho d 29 . Correlatio n testin g o

f th e Xact

® CEM S t o Metho d 2 9 wa s performe d a t th e Tooel e Arm y Depo t (TEAD ) incinerato r i n 200 1 an d 2002. 2 W e reviewe d th e repor t fro m th e 2001/200 2 testin g performe d a

t TEAD . Thi s testin g wa s performe d unde r condition s where stac k ga s simulate d an d nativ

e concentration s of metal s ar e abov e th e detectio n limits o f th e respectiv e methodologies . Emission s samplin g usin g th e Xact ® CEM S wa s performe d an d compare d agains t result s obtaine d usin g concurrentl y operate d paire d Metho d 2 9 samplin g trains . "Paired" testin g i s define d to b e tw o o f th e same samplin g method s operate d concurrentl y t o provid e comparabl e dat a fo r precisio n an d accurac y assessment . A serie s o

f 1 3 tes t run s were performed . Th e simulate d metal s emission s wer e create d an d controlle d by meterin g metal s solution s directl y int o a stac k

ga s usin g th e QAG . Th e metal s adde d t o a ga s strea m were arseni c (As) , bariu m (Ba) , cadmiu m (Cd) , chromiu m (Cr) , mercury (Hg) , nicke l (Ni) , antimon y (Sb) , an d zin c (Zn) . Lea d (Pb) , anothe r meta l evaluate d durin g testing , wa s no

t spike d a s quantifiabl e native concentration s ar e generall y presen t i n th e TEA D incinerato r emission s unde r norma l operatin g conditions . Samplin g result s o f th e paire d Metho d 2 9 train s were compare d t o eac h othe r a s a measur e ofth e referenc e method' s precisio n an d accuracy . Th e Xact ® CEM S samplin g result s wer e compare d t o th e averag e Metho d 2 9 result s t o asses s th e relativ e accurac y o

f th e Xact

® CEMS . Sinc e a singl e Xact ® CEM S wa s operated , n o "paired" testin g dat a fo r direct precisio n an d accurac y assessment s o f th e Xact ® CEM S wer e generated . Th e tes t repor

t indicate s tha

t th e TEA D incinerato r emission s wer e measure d fo r fiv e of th e si x hazardou s wast e combusto r (HWC ) regulate d metal s emissions : arseni c (As) , cadmiu m (Cd) , chromiu m (Cr) , lea d (Pb) , an d mercur y (Hg) . Th e Xact

® CEM S i s no

t capabl e ofth e detectio n o f berylliu m (Be) , s o n o dat a ca n b e presente d fo r berylliu m forth e Xac t CEMS . Th e averag e percen t difference s betwee n th e paire d Metho d 2 9 train s ove r 1 3 tes t run s fo r As , Cd , Cr , Pb , an d H g wer e 4 , 4 , 8 , 6 , an d 2 percent , respectively 3 . Thi s rang e of relativ e difference s i s 2- 8 percent , wel l belowth e 15 % precisio n an d accurac y cite d fo r Metho d 29 4 . Th e relative accurac y o

f theXact®CEM S a s measure d agains t th e averag e ofth e paire d Metho d 2 9 measurement s fo r 1 1 ofth e 1 3 test run s (Run s 3-13) fo r As , Cd , Cr , Pb , an d Hg , wer e +55 , - 10 , -19 , +4

5 an d -7 8 percent , respectively 5 . Tes t Run s 1 an d 2 wer e discarde d du e t o problem s wit h a fault

y incinerato r bypas s valve . Th e dat a fo r cadmiu m an d chromiu m wer e deeme d acceptabl e bein g unde r th e 2 0 percen t criteri a ofth e draf t Performanc e Specificatio n 1 0 (PS-10) . Th e hig h differenc e betwee n th e tw o method s durin g Run s 9,10 , an d 1 1 pushe d th e relativ

e accurac y to 4 5 percen t fo r lead . I f thes e thre e run s ar e als o excluded , th e relative accurac y decrease s to 2 2 percen t fo r lead , whic h i s stil l outsid e th e PS-1 0 criteria . XR F spectra l interferenc e i s note d i n th e tes t repor t fo r th e hig h bia s fo r arsenic , specificall y tha t Pag e 5 of 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.300 0 fax 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01678 1

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . relativel y hig h lea d concentration s ca n interfer e wit h arseni c measurements , althoug h th e revers e i s no

t true. 6 Durin g th e TEA D incinerato r testing , mercur y presente d particula r problem s fo r th e Xact ® CEMS . A s discusse d i n th e tes t report , th e Xact ® CEM S to Metho d 2 9 mercur y ratio s varie d fro m ru n t o run . At th e beginnin g o f eac h tes t day , th e Xact ® CEM S reporte d lo

wmercury concentration s relativ e t o Metho d 29 . A s th e da y progressed , th e Xact ® CEM S concentratio n woul d graduall y increas e unti l i t approximate d Metho d 2 9 reporte d concentrations . A s note d i n th e report : "The pattern suggests

that the transport

line from the stack to the Xacf CEMS needed to be heated to a higher temperature

to improve

transmission

efficiency. The use of a heat-traced

transport

line should improve

Hg transmission efficiency. Interestingly, more than 98 percent

ofthe Hg measured

by Method 29 passed through

the filter and was collected

in the back half ofthe sample train indicating

that the vast majority

ofthe Hg was in the vapor phase." 7 Th e observatio n tha

t mercur y appear s to b e i n a vapo r for m tha t ca n pas s throug h th e Metho d 2 9 filte r elemen t an d i s capture d i n th e impinger s i s consisten t wit h ou r hazardou s wast e incinerato r testin g experienc e a s previousl y noted . No t consisten t wit h ou r hazardou s wast e incinerato r testin g experienc e usin g Metho d 2 9 i s tha t mercur y i s bein g retaine d i n th e Xact ® CEM S samplin g probe , an d that a highe r prob e temperature i s neede d t o ensur e mercur y transpor t t o th e reactive filte r tap e media . Non-mercury (Non-Hg ) metal s ar e exhibite d substantiall y more i n th e Metho d 2 9 prob e rins e an d filte r fraction s (Fraction s 1 an d 2 ) tha n th e impinge r fraction s (Fractio n 3) . Thi s observatio n woul d indicat e tha t th e non-mercury metal s ar e largel y emitte d i n particulat e for m whic h i s consisten t wit h ou r Metho d 2 9 experience . Conversely , ou r hazardou s wast e incinerato r experienc e indicate s tha t positive result s fo r mercur y o n th e Metho d 2 9 prob e rins e an d filte r fraction s ar e rare , indicatin g that mercur y i s emitte d almos t exclusivel y a s a vapo r o r a chemica l for m o r particl e siz e mimickin g a vapor . Specifically , mercur

y tend s to b e capture d an d detecte d more i n th e acidifie d permanganat e an d hydrochlori c aci d rins e fraction s (Fraction s 5 an d 6) tha n th e precedin g acidifie d peroxid e fraction . Thi s phenomeno n seem s to indicat e mercur y i s bein g emitte d i n elementa l for m o r a t leas t a chemica l vapo r for m that require s th e stronge r chemica l oxidizin g actio n o f th e permanganat e t o firs

t oxidiz e an d the n dissolv e mercury . Th e Xact

® CEM S fail s t o matc h th e result s obtaine d wit h EP A referenc e method s whe n direct comparison s ar e made . Durin g th e TEA D testing , th e Xact ® CEMS ' result s fo r non-mercur y metal s deviate d significantl y fro m th e result s obtaine d usin g Metho d 29 . Th e TEA D testin g als o show s th e Xact

® CEMS ' filte r medi a i s wholl y inadequat e fo r th e captur e an d retentio n o f mercur y a s emitte d fro m a hazardou s wast e incinerator . Th e testin g approac h t o trul y validat e th e Xact ® CEM S woul d b e to perfor m head-to-hea d concurren t testin g of paire d Xac t CEM S an d paire d Metho d 2 9 samplin g trains . Suc h testin g eithe r ha s neve r bee n performed , o r i f i t has , th e dat a hav e no t bee n mad e publicl y available . Th e Xact

® CEM S invento r note s tha t th e technolog y ha s undergon e a numbe r o f Relative Accurac y Tes t Audit s (RATAs). 8 Fro m ou r revie wo f th e methodolog y employe d fo r thes e evaluations , i

t appear s t o u s tha

t th e metho d i s mor

e aki n t o a calibratio n erro r (CE ) test . Pag e 6 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01678 2

# TestAmeric

a TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

# JFOCU S Focu s Environmental , Inc . Unde r th e EP A ai r regulations , annua l RATA s ar e require d t o b e performe d o n complianc e CEM S suc h a s thos e fo r carbo n monoxid e (CO) , sulfu r dioxid e (S0 2 ) , nitroge n oxide s (NO x ) , etc . Th e RAT A i s performe d usin g a referenc e metho d (RM ) operate d concurrently . Fo r th e typica l CEMS , th e RAT A i s require d t o b e don e b y operatin g a temporary , equivalen t CEM S instrumen t concurrentl y wit h th e installe d CEM S instrumen t followe d b y compariso n o

f th e relativ e response s of th e tw o instruments . Th e RAT A include s performin g a serie s o f twelv e 21-minut e run s o

f whic h a

t leas t 9 ofth e 1 2 run s must pas s withi n variance s define d b y th e applicabl e performanc e specification . Th e RAT A i s typicall y performe d b y a qualified , independen t testin g compan y usin g a n instrumen t the y brin g t o th e site an d connec t i n paralle l wit h th e installe d instrument . PS-1 0 a t Sectio n 7. 4 states : "As of 3/22/95 there is no approved

alternative

RM (for example, a

second metals CEMS, calibrated

absolutely

according

to the alternate

procedure

to be specified

in an appendix

to this performance

specification

to be added when an absolute

system calibration

procedure

becomes

available

and is approved)

to Method 29." Sectio n 7. 3 o

f PS-1 0 define s th e numbe r o f test s necessar y forth e RATA : "Obtain a minimum

of three pairs of CEMS and RM measurements

for each metal required

and at each level required

(see Section

7.1). If more than nine pairs of measurements

are obtained, then

up to three pairs of measurements may be rejected

so long as the total number

of measurement

pairs used to determine

the RA is greater than or equal to nine. However, all

data, including the rejected

data, must

be reported." Withou t a referenc e metho d suc h a s anothe r multi-meta l CEMS , a norma l CEM S RAT A canno t b e performe d o n th e Xact® CEMS . Th e onl y curren t referenc e metho d note d i s Metho d 29 . Metho d 2 9 wa s no

t use d t o perfor m th e cite d RATA s o f th e Xact

® CEMS . Th e "RATA"

methodolog y employe d b y th e Xact

® CEM S invento r involve s usin g th e QA G to dynamicall y spik

e a serie s o

f referenc e aeroso l concentration s an d comparin g th e Xact ® CEM S result s t o th e documente d concentrations ; th e Xact ® CEM S RAT A i s no

t a direct compariso n o f th e relativ

e response s of equivalen t instruments . What i s terme d a s a RAT A forth e Xact ® CEM S i s wha

t woul d b e terme d a C E test . A C E test i s where a CEM S i s challenge d usin g a know n concentratio n gas , a ga s othe r tha n an y ofth e norma l dail y calibratio n spa n gases , an d comparin g th e varianc e of th e instrumen t result s to th e know n concentratio n o f th e challeng e gas . T o clai m tha

t th e Xact®

CEM S technolog y ha s undergon e RAT A testin g require s a redefinitio n o

f th e methodolog y a s outline d i n th e EP A ai r regulations . A s such , th e publishe d dat a fo r th e Xact

® CEM S havin g undergon e a RAT A a s claime d ar e simpl y no t accurate . Mor e Recen t Tes t Result s Th e Xact

® CEM S wa s mor e recentl y teste d o n tw o coal-fire d powe r systems. 9 Th e Xact ® CEMS ' result s obtaine d fro m thes e test s compare d mor e favorabl y wit h concurren t measurement s usin g EP A referenc e methods . Howeve r whe n thes e dat a ar e understood , th e seemingl y bette r performanc e o f th e Xact

® CEM S appear s t o b e applicatio n specifi c an d i s no t comparabl e to th e emission s situatio n fo r a hazardou s wast e incinerator . Pag e 7 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.300 0 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01678 3

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . Th e dat a presente d i n on e coal-fire d unit cas e ar e fo r metal s challenge s usin g th e QA G t o generat e metal s aerosol s i n a slipstrea m o f th e coal-fire d effluen t a t thre e differen t concentratio n levels . Th e dat a presente d ha d correlatio n R 2 value s o f >0.9 9 fo r As , Cd , Cr , Hg , an d Pb . A s before , thi s tes t i s simpl y examinin g th e Xact ® performanc e o n th e sample d artificia l matri x o

f spike d material s an d no t a direct representatio n o f th e metal s specie s an d particl e and/o r vapo r form s fro m th e combustio n process . Th e samplin g wa s performe d betwee n th e electrostati c precipitato r (ESP ) an d we t scrubbe r wher e th e moistur e leve l i n th e sample d ga s i s low . Th e coal-fire d uni t operatio n include d us e o f activate d carbo n an d Enhance d Mercur

y Oxidation ®

(EMO® ) technolog y fo r mercur y control . I n th e secon d coal-fire d uni t case , th e Xact ® CEM S mercur

y measurement s were directl y compare d t o concurrentl y performe d measurement s usin g Metho d 30 B ove r a perio d o f approximatel y thre e weeks . Metho d 30 B i s a sorben t tra p metho d exclusivel y fo r measurin g mercur y emissions . Th e coal-fire d unit teste d wa s equippe d wit h a n ES P fo r particulate control ; n o mentio n i s mad e o f activate d carbo n o r EMO ® technolog y use . Th e dat a presente d sho wa correlatio n o

f th e Xact

® CEM S an d Metho d 30 B wit h a n R 2 o f >0.9 9 fo r a tota l o

f 1 2 measurements . Ou r hazardou s wast e incinerato r testin g experienc e i s tha t mercur y emission s measure d vi a Metho d 2 9 an d Metho d 30 B ar e comparabl e an d consistent . Th e Xact ® CEM S an d Metho d 30 B dat a ten d t o indicate a marke d improvemen t o f th e Xact

® CEM S to measur e mercur y emissions . Th e TEA D incinerato r tes t dat a clearl y sho wa substantia l lo wbia s fo r mercur

y versu s Metho d 29 . Althoug h thes e late r coal-fire d uni t tes t dat a showe d a marke d improvemen t i n th e abilit y t o accuratel y measur e mercur y emissions , w e believ e th e dat a whe n understoo d ar e misleading . Th e particulate emission s fro m a typica l hazardou s wast e incinerato r equippe d wit h emission s control s are >99 percen t les s tha n on e micromete r (submicron ) i n dynami c particl e size . Conversely , th e particulat e emission s fro m a coal-fire d powe r plan t equippe d wit h a n ES P wil l includ e particulate matte r size s abov e an d belowon e micro n siz e an d a substantiall y highe r tota l particulate emissio n concentratio n tha n th e controlle d emission s fro m a hazardou s wast e incinerator . Th e significanc e o f thes e difference s i s observe d i n mercury an d particl e behavior , an d th e presenc e o

f potentiall y active carbonaceou s material . A s w e have note d relativ

e t o ou r experienc e wit h Metho d 2 9 o n hazardou s wast e incinerators , mercur y tend s t o b e emitte d i n form s tha t mimi c vapo r behavior . W e believ e th e bette r an d more consisten t performanc e o f th e Xact

® CEM S i n th e coal-fire d unit s test i s relate d t o natur e ofth e particulate emission s fro m thes e units . Th e adsorptio n o f mercury vapo r o n particle s studie d usin g soo t particle s generate d b y incineratio n o

f sewag e sludg e foun d tha t very littl e mercur y absorb s a

t hig h temperature , an d therefore most mercury stil l behave s a s a vapo r eve n i n th e presenc e o f particulate matter. 1 0 Activate d carbo n i s routinel y use d fo r mercur y emission s control . Th e coal-fire d powe r plan t emission s n o doubt includ e significan t amount s o f carbo n whic h coul d behav e similarl y t o activate d carbon . W e conclud e th e bette r performanc e o

f th e Xact

® CEM S i n measurin g mercur y emission s fro m a coal-fire d powe r plan t i s uniqu e an d limited , mos t likel y du e t o th e presenc e o f substantiall y more an d large r size , potentiall y reactive (carbonaceous ) particulate matte r i n th e exhaus t ga s stream . Specifically , th e affinit

y fo r mercur

y t o adher e t

o carbo n particle s tha t ar e easil y capture d b y th e Xact

® CEM S reactive filte r medi a i s th e primar y reaso n fo r th e bette r performanc e whe n teste d o n th e Pag e 8 o

f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fax 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m 

### VES01678

4

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . coal-fire d units . Thes e type s of carbonaceou s particle s ar e absen t fro m th e typica l hazardou s wast e incinerator' s emission s an d th e performanc e of th e Xact ® i s therefore substantiall y poorer . W e believ e more testin g i s necessar y to prove th e Xact® CEM S ca n accuratel y measur e mercur

y i n a combustio n ga s strea m wit h nearl y al l submicro n particulat e matte r an d mercur y behave s almos t exclusivel y a s a vapor . Th e majo r issue s impactin g th e measuremen t o f mercur y emission s are al l relate d to th e sampl e transpor

t system : 1 . Mercury more ofte n tha n no t i s a vapo r o r a for m tha t mimic s a vapo r behavio r 2 . Mercury doe s no

t generall y adher e t o particulate matte r i n th e combustio n ga s 3 . Th e for m o

f th e particulate , suc h a s th e presenc e o f potentiall y active carbonaceou s material , ca n impact mercury' s behavio r i n th e stac k gas . Whil e increasin g th e Xact ® CEM S prob e an d transpor t lin e temperature a s suggeste d i n th e repor t fro m th e TEA D testin g ma y improv

e th e transfe r o

f mercur

y vapo r fro m th e stac k ga s t o th e reactive filte r tap e media , capturin g an d the n retainin g mercur y o n th e reactiv e filte r tap e media , fro m vapo r form s o f mercur y o r form s tha

t chemicall y mimi c vapo r form s of mercury , i s exceedingl y questionable . Th e late r coal-fire d unit dat a seemingl y showth e carbonaceou s natur e o f particl e matte r favorabl y impact s mercur y capture an d analysi s usin g th e Xact ® CEMS . Metho d 2 9 dat a sugges t tha t mercur

y i s emitte d fro m a hazardou s wast e incinerato r i s largel y i n vapo r for m o r a chemica l for m mimickin g a vapor . Therefore , w e have significan t doubt s abou t th e abilit y o f th e Xact®CEM S to accuratel y measur e mercur y emission s fro m a well-controlle d hazardou s wast e incinerator . Ou r specifi c concern s abou t th e particulate/non mercur y metal s portio n ofth e Xact®CEM S sampl e transpor t ar e presente d i n th e nex t section . Documente d Difficultie s wit h P M Monitorin g (Henc e Metal s Monitoring ) Ther e hav e bee n reporte d variou s issue s associate d wit h usin g particulat e matte r (PM ) CEM S tha t relat e t o particulate emission s measuremen t accuracy . Som e issue s hav e bee n well documente d an d presente d a s cas e studie s relate d t o particulat e emission s monitorin g commo n acros s al l applications . Th e issue s caus e challenge s t o bot h th e accurac y an d representativenes s of particulate emission s data . Stac k ga s meta l emissions , mos t especiall y non-mercur

y metals , are commonl y correlate d wit h particulate emission s sinc e non-mercur y metal s ar e typicall y emitte d a s meta l oxide s tha t for m particulate matte r i n th e stac k gas . Therefore , th e sam e problem s tha t ar e associate d wit h th e us e o f CEM S fo r particulate matte r measurement s woul d likewis e appl y to a CEM S use d fo r multi-meta l monitoring . Th e proble m o

f particulate matte r representative samplin g i s associate d wit h particulate transpor t throug h a sampling/monitorin g system' s connectin g lines . Durin g th e particulate transport , th e samplin g relie s o n pneumati c conveyanc e tha t sometime s involve s horizonta l pathways . Connectin g line s have bee n show n t o exhibi t depositio n o f particulate matte r vi a inertia ) impactio n a

t bend s an d turns . Additionally , particulate matte r ofte n stratifie s durin g transport . Wit h continue d depositio n withi n th e system , residua l carryove r effect s fro m previou s samplin g ca n b e acquire d an d exhibite d by particulate matte r re-entrainmen t an d subsequen t fals e positives . Lik e a P M CEMS , th e Xact ® CEM S sampl e extractio n syste m n o doub t i s impacte d b

y thes e sam e particulate transpor t issues . Pag e 9 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01678 5

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . Th e referenc e metho d fo r measurin g multi-meta l emission s i s Metho d 29 . Whe n Metho d 2 9 samplin g i s performed , th e recover y include s rinsin g th e samplin g prob e wit h nitri c aci d an d recoverin g th e rinse s fo r inclusio n i n th e analysis . A s note d earlier , th e Metho d 2 9 samplin g prob e an d filte r fraction s ar e wher e th e predominanc e o f th e non-mercury metal s ar e displayed . W e conclud e tha

t becaus e th e sampl e analyze d b y th e Xact

® CEM S doe s no

t includ e an y particulat e potentiall y adherin g t o th e samplin g prob e an d connectin g lines , th e Xact ® CEM S sampl e result s ar e inaccurate . Additionally , th e increas e o f buildu p o

f particulate i n th e sam e area s coul d resul t i n residua l carryove r effect s fro m previou s samplin g an d fals e positive result s fo r metal s fro m particulate matte r re-entrainment . Therefore , th e Xact ® CEM S measurement s cannot consistentl y compar e t o Metho d 2 9 an d canno t be use d a s a n accurat e measur e of compliance . Th e Xact

® CEM S fail s to matc h th e result s obtaine d wit h EP A referenc e method s whe n direc t comparison s ar e mad e an d thes e dat a ar e understood . Th e solel y filter-base d samplin g methodolog y an d subsequen t emission s result s o f th e Xact

® CEM S simpl y canno t consistentl y matc h analyse s obtaine d usin g th e Metho d 2 9 fo r non-mercury metal s an d mercury . Th e Xact ® CEM S canno t consistentl y measur e th e mostl y particulate form s of non-mercur y metal s that ma y adher e t o th e samplin g probe , an d whic h coul d randoml y brea k loos e causin g fals e positives . Th e dat a furthe r indicat e Xact ® CEM S samplin g technolog y cannot consistentl y an d comparabl y measur e mercur y emission s i n situation s lik e hazardou s waste incinerato r emission s wher e th e mercur y i s no t likel y boun d to particulat e matter . Super-isokineti c Defaul t Samplin g Lead s t o Fals e Positive s Metho d 2 9 emission s samplin g fo r complianc e i s performe d isokinetically . "Isokinetically " mean s th e velocit

y o f th e sample d ga s a

t th e inle

t o r ti p o f th e samplin g prob e i s th e sam e a s th e velocit

y ofth e ga s travelin g u p o r throug h th e stac k o r duct . Th e allowabl e velocity varianc e pe r th e EP A fo r manua l samplin g method s i s +10 % isokinetic . Th e reason s fo r samplin g i n thi s manne r ar e particl e flo wphenomeno n i n a ga s (fluid) . I f th e ga s wer e to b e sample d super-isokineticall y (faste r tha n th e stac k ga s velocity) , smalle r particle s i n th e slowe r movin g stac k

ga s tha t woul d otherwis e aerodynamicall y no t b e draw n t o th e samplin g probe , ar e draw n into th e prob e (enriched) , whil e large r particle s bypas s th e prob e (depleted) , wit h th e resultin g sampl e o

f particulate most likel y biase d hig h wit h a deficienc y o f cours e particulate . Conversely , if th e ga s were t o b e sample d sub-isokineticall y (slowe r tha n th e stac k ga s velocity) , current s an d eddie s wil l occu r a t th e edge s o

f th e samplin g ti p potentiall y forcin g smalle r particle s i n th e faste r movin g stac k ga s awa

y fro m th e samplin g ti p (depleted) , whil e large r particle s ar

e draw n to th e prob e (enriched) , wit h th e resultin g sampl e o f particulat e mos t likel y biase d lo

wwit h a n excess o

f cours e particulate . Samplin g performe d usin g a n isokineti c samplin g metho d suc h a s Metho d 2 9 require s th e stac k flowt o b e steady-stat e wit h minima l variatio n s o tha t preliminar

y stac k flo wrate , moisture , an d ga s molecula r weigh t determination s ca n b e mad e (Method s 2-4) . Thes e determination s ar

e use d t o selec t a n appropriatel y size d nozzl e an d determin e th e samplin g rat e necessar y to ensur e a ±10 % isokineti c samplin g rate . Additionally , isokineti c samplin g i s performe d vi a traverse s o f th e stac k

wit h nominall y equa l volume s o f ga s sample d a

t eac h poin t representative o f equa l siz e cross-sectiona l are a o f th e stack . Stac k

ga s velocity i s determine d vi a differentia l pressur e measurement s (velocit y hea d an d stati c pressure ) usin g pito t tubes . Thi s par

t o f th e samplin g i s to accoun t fo r natura l current s an d eddies , o r possibl e Pag e 1 0 o

f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01678 6

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . flo wstratification , tha

t coul d impact particl e transpor t i n th e stac k

gas . Th e Xact®

CEM S sampl e prob e i s installe d a t a fixe d positio n an d sample s th e ga s a t a fixe d volumetri c rate ; n o consideratio n o r adjustmen t i s mad e wit h regar d to actua l stac k flo wcondition s o r isokinetics . Whil e suc h measuremen t i s acceptabl e fo r measurin g th e emission s concentratio n of a ga s no t impacte d b y particulate matter , e.g. , carbo n monoxid e (CO) , an y measuremen t o f a particl e boun d constituen t wil l b e predictabl y inaccurate . Th e operationa l desig n o f th e Xact

® CEM S i s t o sampl e th e stac k ga s unde r "super-isokinetic " conditions . Tha t is , th e Xact ® CEM S b

y desig n extract s a potentiall y hig h biase d sampl e fro m th e stac k

ga s an d operate s continuall y i n a mod e tha t i s no t representative o

f isokineticall y measure d emissions . Unde r thes e condition s a metal s emission s resul t evaluate d b y th e Xact ® CEM S i s no t comparabl e to complianc e stac k ga s metal s concentration s measure d usin g Metho d 29 . Isokineti c velocitie s vary unde r stac k flo wcondition s an d are no t fixed . Also , isokineti c velocitie s are no t constan t a

t al l point s o

f a cros s sectio n ofth e stac k a s alread y explained . Whe n performin g Metho d 2 9 sampling , th e operato r continuall y monitor s an d make s samplin g adjustments t o maintai n isokinetics . Th e Xact ® CEM S i s se t u p o n th e super isokineti c operatin g conditio n i n a n attemp t to avoi d a lo w bias , non-representative reputation . However , th e hig h bia s desig n defaul t ca n generat e fals e hig h dat a reading s i n condition s wher e emission s complianc e i s bein g assessed . Thes e falsel y hig h reading s alon g wit h th e problem s associate d wit h th e transmissio n line s includin g th e potentia l fals e positive result s fo r particulat e re-entrainmen t cause s a facilit y an d EP A t o hav e n o abilit y t o asses s th e accurac y ofth e dat a bein g acquire d by th e Xact ® CEM S relativ

e t o complianc e shor t o f direct , concurren t measurement s usin g Metho d 29 . Th e Xact ® CEM S dat a ca n therefore onl y b e use d a s a qualitativ

e indicato r of complian t operatio n an d no t a s a n accurat e indicato r of actua l emissions , an d no

t to judg e th e appropriatenes s ofth e Feedstrea m Analysi s Pla n procedures . Othe r Assessment s o f Xact ® CEM S Performanc e Yanca , et . al . (2006) evaluate d bot h th e Xact ® CEM S an d th e QA G usin g a modifie d EP A Metho d 30 1 o n Lilly' s rotar y kil n hazardou s wast e incinerato r b y comparin g measure d an d referenc e aeroso l concentrations . Th e author s foun d that bot h th e Xact ® CEM S an d th e QA G me t th e Metho d 30 1 validatio n criteri a wit h precisio n an d accurac y o f nominall y fiv e (5

) percen t ove r a wid e rang e o

f concentrations. 1 1 Thi s validatio n i s accurat e fo r th e operatin g condition s an d th e flu e ga s condition s a t th e Lilly' s rotar

y kil n hazardou s wast e incinerator . However , thi s ha s no t bee n verifie d a

t an y othe r facility. 1 2 Deploymen t an d implementatio n o f th e Xact

® CEM S o n an y combustio n proces s i s unitspecific . W e disagre e wit h th e followin g statemen t of Yanca , et . al . regardin g th e Xact ® CEMS : "The methods

and the instruments

used to perform

the methods

were developed

to provide more precise, accurate, and frequent

measurement capabilities

than are offered by Method 29." 13 Metho d 2 9 i s th e EP A referenc e metho d fo r measurin g multi-meta l emissions . Us e o f Metho d 2 9 fo r complianc e determination s i s als o no t unit-specific . A n acceptabl e validatio n o f an y installe d Xact®

CEM S mus

t therefore b e appropriatel y performe d o n a unit-specifi c basis , an d vi a direct an d concurren t testin g usin g Metho d 29 . Pag e 1 1 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01678 7

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . EPA' s Statemen t o f Basi s I n Veolia' s Draf

t Titl e V permi t Statemen t of Basis , EP A set s fort h th e desir e t o perfor m emission s monitorin g fo r a minimu m o f 1 2 continuou s month s usin g th e Xact ® CEMS . W e believ e th e 12-mont h timefram e i s arbitrar y an d withou t substantive basis , an d wil l no t achiev e th e state d objectives . Th e followin g paragraph s examin e specifi c portion s o f th e Draf

t Titl e V Statemen t o

f Basis . O n pag e 4 7 of 79 , EP A state s tha t Veolia' s Feedstrea m Analysi s Pla n (FAP ) wa s reviewe d an d determine d t o be :

".. .not sufficient

to detennine

waste streams

comply with the feed rate limits or assure compliance

with emissions

limits for metals. ... Veoila

currently

depends on information

in the corporate

database

for "similar"

waste streams

without real knowledge

of what metals are in the wastes it incinerates. Further, the database

frequently

contains

information

that is inconsistent

with data provided by the waste generators". O n page s 50-5 2 o

f 79 , EP A cite s a numbe r o f specifi c instance s o f difference s i n metal s analysi s data . EPA' s statement s abou t thos e finding s presuppos e tha t th e inconsistencie s ar e sufficien t i n an d o

f themselve s t o potentiall y lea d t o exceedance s o f th e metal s fee d rate limits . I n fact , th e note d difference s i n metal s concentration s i n an d o f themselve s are likel y insignificant . Metal s fee d rate limit s are mas s fee d rate limits . Onl y whe n metal s concentration s ar

e translate d int

o mas s fee d rate s ca n conclusion s abou t an y significan t difference s i n erran t documentatio n b e drawn . Fo r example , th e differenc e betwee n th e potentia l fee d rat

e o f a meta l i n a 30 0 I

b dru m o

f wast e a

t 1 0 versu s 10 0 mg/kg i s ten-fold . Th e differenc e i n potentia l mas s fee d rate fro m th e dru m i s therefore als o ten-fold , 0.00 3 versu s 0.0 3 I b (1. 4 versu s 1 4 grams) . I f th e permitte d mas s fee d rate limi t o f th e meta l i s severa l pound s pe r hour , th e impac t ofth e differenc e fro m on e dru m fe d pe r hou r (0.0 3 Ib/h r o r 1 4 g/h r @ 10 0 mg/kg ) o r eve n a hundre d drum s pe r hou r (~3 Ib/h r o r !1,40 0 g/h r @ 100 mg/kg ) may b e insignifican t relativ

e to th e metal' s tota l pennitte d fee d rat e limit . Therefore , EPA' s comment s abou t discrepancie s i n documente d metal s concentration s ar e withou t basi s i n thei r limite d context . Onl y i n th e broade r contex t o f uni t operation s an d wast e fee d rate s ca n suc h assessment s a s to th e significanc e o f an y documente d difference s i n metal s concentratio n documentatio n b e made . Absen t associate d wast e fee d rate documentation , EPA' s assertio n i s withou t meri t wit h regar d t o actua l metal s fee d rate s an d subsequen t emission s compliance . O n page s 52-5 3 o

f 79 , EP A states : "Veolia conducted

comprehensive

perfonnance

tests (CPTs) at each ofthe incinerators

in October

2013. The

results of those CPTs demonstrated, among other things, that

the emissions

from the three units were significantly

different, despite the fact that Veolia had incinerated

similar wastes during the tests. This illustrates

that a simple linear calculation

may not be appropriate

for estimating metal stack concentrations

from the emission

units. As

discussed

at section 5.3.3, below, EPA has identified

several possible

reasons

forthe differing emissions

at the three units. Further, EPA does not know with which metals Pag e 1 2 o

f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fax 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01678 8

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . chlorine or other anions preferentially

react in the gas stream and which metal chlorides

are more easily captured

in Veolia's

air pollution

control equipment," CPT s ar e conducte d a t worst-cas e operatin g condition s t o establis h operatin g paramete r limit s (OPLs ) tha

t ensur e complianc e wit h th e emissio n standard s durin g subsequent , les s rigorou s operations . Thre e o r mor e test run s constitute s a test condition . Fo r metal s emission s control , th e CP T i s conducte d a t condition s a s specifie d b y 63.1209(n)(2)-(5) . Thes e condition s includ e usin g wast e feed s augmente d vi a metal s spiking , concurren t wit h maximu m as h an d chlorin e fee d rates , an d operatio n o f particulate matte r an d hydrochlori c aci d (HCI ) contro l device s a t condition s leas t favorabl e fo r emission s control . Th e objective i s t o maintai n uni t operation s a s nearl y steady-stat e a s possibl e fo r th e duratio n o f eac h tes t ru n an d a s consisten t a s possibl e fro m ru n t o ru n durin g a singl e test condition . Th e resultin g emission s represen t th e variability of operatio n a

t th e target , worst-cas e conditions . Mos t OPL s ar e establishe d base d o n th e averag e ofth e averag e valu e demonstrate d durin g eac h test run , th e exception s bein g wast e fee d rate s an d th e indicato r o f combustio n ga s velocit y whic h ar e establishe d a s th e averag e o f th e maximu m hourl y rollin g averag e valu e demonstrate d durin g eac h test run . B y rule , mos t fina l OPL s ar e establishe d a s hourl y rollin g averag e values . Ash , metals , an d chlorin e fee d rate limits ar e establishe d a s 12-hou r rollin g averag e values . Th e HW C MAC T rule s allo wfo r linea r extrapolatio n o f th e demonstrate d metal s fee d rate s t o establis h th e fina l metal s fee d rat e limits . Upwar d extrapolatio n o f metal s fee d rate s ca n b e don e wit h confidenc e o f no t exceedin g allowabl e emission s precisel y becaus e metal s emission s contro l i s no t linear. 14,1 5 Durin g norma l operations , th e uni t i s operate d wel l withi n th e OPL s establishe d durin g testing , an d rarel y i f eve r operate d a

t th e exten t o

f an y specifi c OPL . Additionally , becaus e OPL s are establishe d fro m testin g performe d a t mor e rigorou s condition s tha n norma l operations , an d th e OPL s includ e averagin g periods , emission s complianc e i s ensure d b y th e fac

t tha t th e potentia l to excee d an y emission s standard , includin g metals , i s mad e exceedingl y remote . By design , th e HW C MAC T rul e establishe d procedure s fo r settin g OPL s naturall y compensat e fo r potentia l occasiona l error s associate d wit h documentin g metal s fee d rates . Du e t o th e desig n an d operationa l problem s discusse d whe n th e Xact ® CEM S i s use d i n a commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r environment , th e Xact ® CEM S i s o

f n o significan t valu e fro m th e perspective s o f determinin g an y direc t correlation s wit h documente d metal s fee d rates . Nor , wil l operatio n o f th e Xact®

CEM S eve r sho wan y potentia l excursion s o f an y metal s emission s limits . An y dat a generate d wil l b e purel y o f a qualitativ

e nature , no

t quantitative . Xact ® CEM S Implementatio n W e are onl y aware o f a singl e instanc e wher e th e Xact ® CEM S wa s deploye d an d operate d fo r an y extende d period , tha t bein g o n th e El i Lill y an d Compan y Tippecano e Laboratorie s (Lilly ) rotar y kil n incinerator . [Note : Th e facilit y an d unit ar e no

wowne d an d operate d b y Evoni k Corporatio n (Evonik)] . Th e operatio n o f th e installe d Xact

® CEM S wa s certifie d followin g uni t specifi c specification s develope d jointl y betwee n Lill y an d th e inventor , Coope r Environmenta l Services , an d ultimatel y approve d b y EPA . EP A approve d us e o f th e Xact

® CEM S t o demonstrat e th e equivalen t o r bette r assuranc e o f complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T standard s Pag e 1 3 o

f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.300 0 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01678 9

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . consisten t wit h th e approve d alternativ e monitorin g petitio n (AMP) . Th e AM P als o approve d us e o f othe r CEM S fo r P M an d HCI . Unde r th e condition s ofth e approve d AMP , th e incinerato r coul d operat e whil e documentin g thei r complianc e wit h th e applicabl e emission s standard s solel y vi a CEMS , als o referre d t o a s "CEM S mode" . Whe n operatin g i n "CEM S mode " al l ofth e PM , HCI , an d metal s relate d OPL s includin g ash , chlorine , an d metal s fee d rate s an d emission s contro l devic e limit s were waived . I f fo r som e reaso n th e PM , HCI , an d metal s CEM S wa s ou t o f service , operatio n o f th e incinerato r woul d rever t bac k to complianc e wit h th e CPT-establishe d OPLs , inclusive o f ash , chlorine , metal s fee d rate s an d emission s contro l devic e limits als o referre d t o a s "parametri c mode" . Th e relief o r advantag e to Lill y t o operat e i n "CEM S mode " cam e fro m th e perspective o f th e long-ter m cos t an d hazard s avoidanc e (economic s an d safety ) associate d wit h th e samplin g an d analysi s o

f containerize d hig h potenc y an d miscellaneou s phannaceutical , research , an d manufacturin g wastes . Mor e succinctly , containerize d soli d an d liqui d waste s coul d b e fe d i n an y combinatio n withi n th e tota l wast e fee d rate limits establishe d forth e unit , withou t an y analysi s o r documentatio n o f th e material s fe d wit h regar d to ash , chlorine , o r metal s content s o r fee d rates . Revertin g to operatio n unde r "parametri c mode " woul d trigge r complianc e vi a OPL s includin g implementatio n ofth e Feedstrea m Analysi s Plan . Fo r liqui d wastes , "parametri c mode " operatio n include d sampling , analysis , an d treatmen t o n a batc h tan k basis . Fo r soli d wastes , "parametri c mode " operatio n include d accessin g th e extensiv e databas e o f more tha n 3,00 0 wast e profile s t o documen t compliance . Lilly/Evoni k

maintaine d an d periodicall y operate d th e Xact ® CEMS , an d th e P M an d HC I CEMS , fro m circ a 200 4 t o 2011 . Th e 201 0 CP T wa s conducte d demonstratin g PM , HCI , an d metal s emission s complianc e usin g CEMS ; n o correspondin g samplin g analysi s usin g standar d EP A method s fo r thes e emission s wa s performed . Samplin g an d analysi s usin g Metho d 5 (PWI ) an d Metho d 26 A (HCI/CI 2 ) wa s no

t performed . Samplin g an d analysi s wa s performe d usin g Metho d 29 , howeve r th e scop e wa s limite d t o assessin g th e emission s o f beryllium ; n o Metho d 2 9 samplin g an d analysi s fo r arsenic , cadmium , lea d an d chromiu m wa s performed . Becaus e th e Metho d 2 9 samplin g trai n wa s no t configure d fo r mercur y emission s sampling , mercur y emission s samplin g an d analysi s usin g Metho d 2 9 wa s als o no t performed . A s such , n o concurren t emission s dat a were generate d fo r an y o f th e CEM S utilized . Therefore , n o dat a fo r direc t an d documente d emission s comparison s o f CEM S performanc e relativ e to th e standar d EP A method s wer e generate d durin g th e 201 0 CPT . Shortl y afte r th e 201 0 CPT , Evoni k cease d us e ofth e PM , HCI , an d Xact ® CEMS. 1 7O f additiona l note i s th e generall y lo wmetal s conten t o

f th e Lilly/Evoni k

wast e streams . Operationally , th e deploymen t o f th e Xact

® CEM S o n th e Lilly/Evoni k rotar y kil n wa s no

t s o muc h a s t o demonstrat e metal s emission s compliance , but rathe r t o demonstrat e th e absenc e of metal s i n th e emissions . Th e retur n t o Lilly/Evoni k i n operatin g th e Xact ® an d othe r CEM S wa s th e avoidanc e o f th e hazard s an d cost s associate d wit h th e samplin g an d analysi s o f th e containerize d wastes .

Pag e 1 4 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fax 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01679 0

# TestAmeric

a FOCU S

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc . Economic s o f Xac t CEM S Deploymen t an d Implementatio n Th e Xact

® CEM S instrumen t i s no t a n off-the-shel f instalment . Approximatel y si x month s i s require d fro m th e tim e a purchas e orde r i s issue d t o buil d a n Xact® CEM S instrument . Additiona l tim e i s require d t o develo p th e site-specifi c samplin g trai n an d th e software interfac e betwee n th e instrumen t an d th e facility' s contro l systems . Th e software developmen t proces s wil l likel y tak

e severa l month s afte r th e instrumen t i s installed. 1 8 Th e estimate d cos t of eac h Xact ® CEM S instrumen t i s approximatel y $250,000 ; thre e ar e require d fo r Veolia , on e fo r eac h hazardou s wast e incinerato r unit . Th e estimate d cos t to the n instal l an d operat e th e monitorin g syste m (instal l th e sampl e loo p o n th e stack , construct th e climate-controlle d housin g forth e instrument , an d connectio n t o electrica l an d othe r utilities) woul d likel y b e a n additiona l $250,00 0 pe r unit . Th e annua l cos t o f th e filte r medi a i s estimate d a t $50,00 0 pe r unit . W e estimate th e othe r annua l operatin g cost s fo r ongoin g calibrations , quarterl y auditing , an d th e annua l relativ e accurac y tes t audi t (RATA ) (testin g agains t Metho d 29 ) woul d likel y b e a

t least $100,00 0 pe r unit . A minimu m of on e full-tim e enginee r o r engineerin g technicia n wil l be require d t o trac k an d maintai n complian t instrumen t operation . Th e estimate d annua l cos t o f thi s perso n includin g salary an d fring e benefit s i s likel y ove r $200,000 . W e therefore estimate th e cos t fo r Veoli a t o instal l an d the n begi n t o operat e th e Xact ® CEM S o n thre e incineratio n system s fo r on e yea r i s nominall y $2. 2 million . Thi s estimat e doe s no

t includ e th e initia l calibratio n an d debuggin g o f th e sampl e transpor t syste m o n eac h uni t (unit-specifi c operatio n of th e sampl e prob e an d sampl e loo p unde r varyin g stac k ga s condition s an d associate d software interfac e wit h th e instrument) . EPA' s PS-1 0 i s no t adequate . Therefor e lik e Lilly , Veoli a mus t spen d additiona l tim e an d resource s t o develo p th e unit-specifi c performanc e specificatio n protocol s necessar y t o confir m eac h installe d Xac t CEMS ' accuracy , precision , an d bias . Othe r additiona l interna l an d externa l cost s wil l als o b e incurre d b

y Veoli a associate d wit h incinerato r contro l an d operation s interface . Fo r comparison , ou r estimat e fo r th e averag e CP T progra m fo r a singl e incinerato r conducte d ever y five year s i s approximatel y $250,000 . Ou r estimat e fo r th e averag e dioxi n confirmator y performanc e tes t (CfPT ) progra m fo r a singl e incinerato r conducte d a t th e mid-poin t betwee n ever y CP T i s approximatel y $100,000 . Thes e estimate s includ e stac k ga s an d wast e fee d sampling , spiking , sampl e analysis , an d reporting . Therefore , th e recurrin g five-yea r cos t o f performanc e testin g i s nominall y $350,00 0 pe r uni t an d approachin g $ 1 millio n fo r thre e units . Thes e estimate s d o no t includ e othe r additiona l interna l an d externa l cost s incurre d b y th e syste m owner/operato r i n specificall y preparin g fo r testing . W e therefore estimat e th e cos t o f installin g an d operatin g Xact ® CEM S o n three incinerato r units fo r on e yea r i s a t least tripl e th e cos t o f tw o test cycle s sprea d ove r 1 0 years . W e hav e n o basi s fo r estimatin g Veolia' s annua l operatin g cost s o f th e Feedstrea m Analysi s Pla n implementation . EP A doe s no t includ e i n th e Draf

t Titl e V permi t relief fro m an y existin g complianc e requirement s t o offse t th e cost s of deployin g an d implementin g th e Xact ® CEM S o n th e Sauge t incinerators . Conclusion s Base d o n ou r revie

wofth e publicl y availabl e data , an d ou r persona l testin g experience , w e offe r th e followin g technica l an d complianc e relate d conclusion s wit h regar d to us e ofth e Xact ® CEM S o n th e Veoli a incinerators : Pag e 1 5 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testaniericainc.co m VES01679 1

# TestAmeric

a
TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc .

•Th e Xact

® CEM S validatio n proces s i s deficien t wit h regar d t o representativenes s o f th e chemica l specie s an d physica l form s presen t i n a hazardou s wast e incinerato r stac k gas . Validatio n usin g QA G generate d aerosol s wit h nitrate salt s i s no t a n accurat e representatio n o

f actua l performanc e i n hazardou s wast e incinerato r applications .

•Whe n th e dat a are understood , n o testin g t o dat a sho wa direct correlatio n o f th e Xact® CEM S wit h th e EP A referenc e Metho d 2 9 o n a well-controlle d hazardou s wast e incinerator . Concurrentl y generate d dat a unde r condition s where metal s ar e a t measureabl e level s i n th e stac k ga s suc h tha

t precision , accuracy , an d bia s relativ e t o th e referenc e method s ca n b e assesse d simpl y doe s not exist o r ha s no t bee n mad e publicl y available . I n most cases , th e XACT® CEM S fail s whe n directl y compare d t o th e referenc e method , Metho d 29 .

•Th e Xact®

CEM S bia s fo r measurin g mercur y emission s a s impacte d b y particulat e concentratio n an d compositio n i s no t resolved . I n samplin g situation s wher e th e tota l particulat e concentration s ar e ver y lo wan d th e particle s muc h smalle r (submicron ) an d lackin g i n carbonaceou s conten t suc h tha t mercur y behave s more a s vapor , performanc e agains t th e referenc e metho d i s poor . Thi s environmen t exist s i n Veolia' s stacks an d th e Xact

® CEM S wil l therefor e fai l t o provid e accurat e mercur y emission s data .

•Th e Xact

® CEM S bia s relativ

e t o particl e transpor

t i s a facto r tha

t need s t o b e resolved . Th e potentia l fo r residua l carryove r effect s fro m previou s samplin g an d potentia l fals e positive s fro m th e samplin g syste m exist .

•Operatin g th e Xact ® CEM S a

t supe r isokineti c condition s to compensat e fo r potentia l lo wbia s result s ha s th e potentia l t o overstat e emission s an d present s complianc e monitorin g issues .

•An y actua l emission s dat a collecte d usin g th e Xact ® CEM S must b e qualifie d a s qualitative . Th e issue s presente d herei n significantl y undermin e th e accurac y ofth e dat a generate d fo r an y for m o f analysi s a s to th e adequac y o f th e Feedstrea m Analysi s Pla n o r othe r complianc e and/o r enforcement .

•Existin g syste m OPL s establishe d a s prescribe d by th e HW C MAC T rules , particularl y metal s fee d rat

e limits , ar e overtl y conservativ e an d by desig n ar e forgivin g o f occasiona l errors mad e i n documentin g metal s fee d rates .

•EPA' s state d purpos e o f requirin g us e o

f Xact ® CEMS , that bein g t o verif y th e fee d rat e limits an d th e feedstrea m analysi s procedure s i n th e Titl e V permi t renewa l ar e sufficien t t o assur e continuou s complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T emission s limits , i s unwarranted . An y dat a collecte d ca n onl y b e qualifie d a s qualitativ e an d no

t quantitative . A s such , n o meaningfu l o r reliabl e correlation s wit h otherwis e documente d metal s fee d rate s ca n b e generated . Pag e 1 6 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fax 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01679 2

# TestAmeric

a TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc .

•Becaus e th e Xact ® CEM S samplin g i s bein g require d t o b e don e concurren t wit h th e wast e fee d metal s documentatio n alread y performed , th e requiremen t t o operat e th e syste m fo r 1 2 month s appear s t o b e a thinl y veile d EPA-mandate d extende d fiel d tes t o f th e Xact ® CEM S funde d b

y Veoli a an d no

t associate d wit h an y substantive concer n o r evidenc e of possibl e exceedance s o f metal s emission s standards .

•Th e complexit

y an d aggregatio n o f wast e types , combine d wit h th e averagin g an d agglomeratin g effect s ofth e treatmen t uni t operation s (multipl e fee d charge s of variou s containerize d waste s o r continuou s feedin g o f blende d liqui d wastes) , caus e an y analysi s usin g th e Xact ® CEM S a s direct lin k

t o an y specifi c wast e ite m fe d o r Feedstrea m Analysi s Pla n generate d dat a to b e impossible . EPA' s state d basi s fo r requiremen t to us e th e Xact ® CEM S i s no

t supported .

•EP A ha s no

t expressl y vi a rules , eithe r i n 4 0 CF R 6 3 Subpart EE E (HW C MACT ) o r othe r simila r regulations , provide d fo r immediate an d direc t relie f fro m OPL s o r othe r monitorin g procedure s whe n CEM S ar e deploye d an d implemente d fo r continuou s complianc e demonstration . Onl y throug h th e arduou s an d length y alternative monitorin g petitio n proces s ha s EP A eve r grante d suc h exemptions . Ye t i n th e cas e o f Veolia , EP A i s allowin g th e Xact ® CEM S t o tak

e precedenc e ove r th e Feedstrea m Analysi s Pla n b

y requirin g Veoli a t o tak e specifi c operationa l step s i n respons e t o an y deviatio n ofth e CEMS , eve n whe n Veoli a i s operatin g i n ful l complianc e wit h th e Feedstrea m Analysi s Plan . Th e Xact

® CEM S fail s t o matc h th e result s obtaine d wit h EP A referenc e method s whe n direc t comparison s ar e mad e an d thes e dat a ar e understood . Therefor e a t th e technology' s curren t state , th e Xact

® CEM S measure d metal s emission s dat a are qualitative , a t best , an d ar e no

t usabl e o r reliabl e fo r continuou s emission s complianc e demonstratio n fo r a commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator . Pleas e contac t u s t

o discus s th e specific s o f ou r comment s o r an y question s yo u may have .

Willia m C . Anderson , Ph D Senio r Analytica l Project Manage r TestAmerica , Inc .

Chri s E . McBride , P E Consultant/Principa l Focu s Environmental , Inc . Pag e 1 7 of 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01679 3

# TestAmeric

a
TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc .

1Review

of Monitoring

Experience

with Xacf Multi-Metal

Continuous

Emissions

Monitor, Pape r #29 ; Kra g Petterson , Coope r Environmenta l Services , LLC , Beaverto n OR ; 33 r d Internationa l Conferenc e o n Therma l Treatmen t Technologie s & Hazardou s Wast e Combustors , Octobe r 13-15 , 2014 , Baltimore , M D 2 X-Ra y Fluorescence-Base d Multi-Meta l Continuou s Emissio n Monitor . U. S Arm y Cor p o f Engineers , Enginee r Researc h an d Developmen t Center ; K . Jame s Hay , Veer a M . Boddu , Bruc e E . Johnsen , an d Joh n A . Cooper ; Marc h 2005 . 3 Referenc e 2 , Tabl e 12 . 4Referenc e 1 , en d note s 13-1 5 re-cite d below : Rigo , H.G. ; Chandler , A.J. ; Journal of Air and Waste Management

Association, 1999 , 49 , 399 - 411 . America n Society o

f Mechanica l Engineers , Researc h Committe e o n Industria l an d Municipa l Waste . Reference

Method Accuracy

and Precison

(remap);

Phase I, Precision

of Manual Stack Emission

Measurements;

Repor t No . CRTD-60 ; America n Societ y o f Mechanica l Engineer s International ; Washington , D C 1991 . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Evaluation of Two Methods

for the Measurement

of Mercury Emissions

in Exhaust

Gases from a Municipal

Waste Combustor, EP A 450/4-92-013 . U.S . Governmen t Printin g Office ; Washington , DC , 1991 .

5 Referenc e 2 , Tabl e 10 . 6 Referenc e 2 , pag e 31 . 7Referenc e 2 , pag e 33 . 8 Referenc e 1 , pag e 4 . 9 Referenc e 1 . 1 0 Adsorptio n o

f Mercur y Vapo r o n Particles ; Yoshi o Otani , Kanazaw a University ; Environmenta l Scienc e an d Technology ; Jul y 1986 ; 20(7):735-8 . 1 1 Validatio n o

f Thre e Ne

wMethod s fo r Determinatio n o f Meta l Emission s Usin g a Modifie d Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Metho d 301 , ISS N 1047-328 9 Journa l o f th e Ai r & Wast e Management . Association , 56:1733-174 2 (2006) ; Catherin e A . Yanca , Dougla s C . Barth , Kra g A . Petterson , Michae l P . Nakanishi , an d Joh n A . Cooper , Coope r Environmenta l Services , LLC , Portland , OR ; Bruc e E . Johnsen , SAI F Co. , Portland , OR ; Richar d H . Lambert , Engineerin g Tec h Center , El i Lill y an d Co. , Indianapolis , IN ; Danie l G . Bivins , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . 1 2 Docket I D No . EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0649 . Lette r to Georg e Czerniak , Chie f Ai r Enforcemen t an d Complianc e Assuranc e Branch , USEP A fro m Melvi n Keener , Executiv e Director , Coalitio n fo r Responsibl e Wast e Incineratio n (CRWI) , date d Apri l 1 , 2013 . 1 3 Referenc e 10 . 1 4USEPA , Technica l Implementatio n Documen t fo r EPA' s Boile r an d Industria l Furnac e Regulations . EP A 530-R-92-01 1 (P B 92-154947) , Marc h 1992 ; Sectio n 10.5 . 1 5 USEPA , Technica l Suppor t Documen t fo r HW C MAC T Standards . Volume IV : Complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T Standards , Septembe r 2005 , Sectio n 6.3 . Pag e 1 8 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fax 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01679 4

# TestAmeric

a

TH E LEADE R I N ENVIRONMENTA L TESTIN G 

### Focu s Environmental , Inc .

1 6 Lette r to El i Lill y an d Company , Inc . fro m Georg e T . Czerniak , Chie f Ai r Enforcemen t an d Complianc e Assuranc e Branch , USEPA , date d February 27,2004 . 1 7Referenc e 1 . 1 8 Referenc e 11 .

Pag e 1 9 o f 1 9 581 5 Middlebroo k

Pik e Knoxville , T N 3792 1 te l 865.291.3000 fa x 865.584.431 5 www.testamericainc.co m VES01679 5

## VES016796-016809.pd f

## Revie

w o f Monitorin

g Experienc

e wit h th e Xact ® Multi Meta l Continuou

s Emission

s Monito r Pape r #2 9 Presente d a tth e 33 r dInternationa

l Conferenc

e o n Therma

l Treatmen

tTechnologie

s & Hazardou

s Wast e Combustor

s Octobe r 13-15,201

4 Baltimore

, M D Kra g Petterso

n Coope r Environmenta

l Services , LLC , Beaverton

, O R 

### ABSTRAC T Th e Xac t 640 i s amulti-metal s Continuou s Emission s Monito r (CEM ) base

do n X-ray fluorescence an

dreactiv e filte r tap e technology . Th

e Xac t wa s certifie da

s acompliance CE M a

s par t o f a n alternativ

e monitorin

g plan a t ahazardous wast

e incinerator. 1, 2A s par

t o f th e certificatio n proces s th

e Xac t underwen t aMetho d301 3 procedur

e t o validat e its accurac

y an d precision . Thi s presentatio n wil l review th

e tes t result s fromthi s Metho d30 1 validatio n a s wel l a s th e results fromsubsequen

t annua l relative accurac

y testin g during th

e si x year s i t wa s use da s acomplianc e instrument. I aaddition , th e presentatio

n wil l review th

e result s fromsevera

l othe r test s involvin g th

e Xact , including multi-metal s testin g o n acoa l fired sourc

e a s wel l a s mercur y measurement

s on severa

l coa l firedpowe

r plants . Finally , th

e presentatio

n wil l als o outlin

e testin g tha t wil l occu r during a n upcomin g demonstratio

n project sponsore db y th e Sout h Coas t Ai r Qualit y Monitorin g Distric t

on tw o secondar

y lea dsmelters . 

### BACKGROUN D Unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t amendment

s o f 199 0 th e Unite dStates Environmenta l Protection Agency (U S EPA ) ha

s th e authorit y to regulat

e hazardous meta

l emission s fromsources usin g a MaximumAchievable Contro l Technolog y (MACT ) approach . Severa l sourc e categorie s currentl y hav e regulate demissio n level s fo r

metals includin g coa

l firedpowe

r plants, 4 hazardous wast e incinerators, 3 medica

l wast e incinerators 6 an

dPortlandcemen

t plants. 7 Ofte n thes

e source s ar e regulate dusing o r a t leas t allowin g particulat

e matte r (PM ) a s asurrogat

e fo r metals emissions (e.g . coa

l firedpowe

r plants , Portlan

dcemen t plants) . I n othe

r case s actua l meta l measurement

s o f meta l emissions ar

e require dbu t no t on acontinuou s basis . In thes e case s performance testm

g o f contro l equipmen

t ma y be performedperiodically using Metho d29 s
1

VES01679 6alon g wit h representativ

e monitoring o f

th e wast e strea mdurin g norma l operatio n (e.g . Hazardous Wast

e Incinerators) . Th e U S EP A has , however

, indicatedtha

t i t may , fo r certai n sources , prefe

r t o se e continuou s metals monitorin

g using amulti-metal s CEMS . For example , i n 199 6 whe

n th e origina l hazardous wast

e incinerato

r MAC T rule wa

s propose di t containe da n option t o perfor mmetal s monitorin g wit h amulti-metal s CEMS, 9 however, th e option wa

s late r withdraw n since n o ther e wer e n o commerciall

y available multi-metal s CEM S a t th e time . Mor

e recently , i n 2013 , th

e U S EP A unsuccessfull

y attempte

dt o requir e th e use o f amulti-metal s CEM S a

s par t o f air permi t fo r aspecifi c hazardous wast

e incineration facility. 1 0EP A als o requeste dcommen t o n th e use o f lea d(Pb) CEM S a

s par t ofth e propose

dsecondar

y lea dsmelte r MACT 1 1 an

di s likel y t

o continu e t o explor e th e us e o f multi-metal s CEM S o

n severa l sources regulate

dfo r metal s including hazardous wast

e incinerator

s an dmedica l wast e incinerator

s a s th e MAC T rule s for thes e sourc e categories com

e u p fo r review . Th e Xac t i s amulti-metal s continuou s emission s monito r base do n X-Ra y Fluorescence (XRF ) develope db y Coope

r Environmenta

l Services , LL C (CES) . Th e instrumen

t operate s by withdrawin

g alarg e sampl e o f stac k effluen t fromth e sourc e an dtransportin

g i t t o th e instrument . A subsampl

e ofthi s mai

n flo w i s the

n draw n throug h areactiv e filter tap e mounte d o n areel-to-ree

l typ e tape drive . Th

e filter tap e captures bot

h vapo r phase an dparticulat

e phas e metals . Followin g sampling , th e deposi t i s automaticall

y advance dint o th e analysi s are

awher e i t i s analyze dusing XR Ft

o determin

e th e mas s o f eac h meta l whil e th e nex t sampl e i s collected . Th e stac k concentratio

n (ug/dscm

) i s determine

db y dividin g th

e XR Fdetermine

dmas s (fig ) b y th e tota l sampl e flo w throug

h th e tap e (dscm) . The Xact

i s abl e t o measur e concentrations o f nearl y al l ofth e metals on th

e U S EPA' s hst

o f hazardous ai

r pollutant s includin g antimon

y (Sb) , arseni c (As) , cadmiu

m(Cd) , chromiu

m(Cr) , cobal

t (Co) , lea d(Pb) , manganes

e (Mn) , mercur

y (Hg) , nicke l (Ni) , an

dseleniu m(Se) . 

### EXPERIMENTA L Th e wor k describe di n thi s documen

t span s severa l year s an dsevera l differen t apphcations ofth e Xact t o variou s source

s including : 1 ) Metho d30 1 validatio n ofth e Xac t CEM S 2 ) Operatio

n o f th e instrumen

t fo r approximatel

y si x year s on aga s fired hazardous wast

e incinerato r 3 ) Brie f stud y evaluatin

g th e feasibilit

y o f measurin g metals wit

h th e Xac t o n acoa l fired sourc e 4) Two studies evaluatin

g th e accurac y o f mercur y measuremen

t wit h th e Xac t on coa l fired powe r plants . Wit h th e exceptio n o f wor k don e measurin

g mercur y on coa l firedpowe

r plant s th e accurac y o f th e Xac t wa s evaluate dusing adynami

c spikin g procedur

e i n whic h fh e instrumen

t wa s challenge dwit h know n concentrations ofth e element s o f interest. These procedure s utiliz e th e Quantitativ

e Aeroso l Generato

r (QAG ) whic h ha

s itsel f unde r gon e evaluation an

dMetho d30 1 testing. 1 2Th

e QA G operate

s b y nebulizing asolutio n containin g aNationa

l Institut e o f Standard s

VES01679 7an dTechnolog

y (NIST ) traceabl

e concentratio

n o f metals (d ) a

t ameasure drat e (R) int o a measure dflo w (F). Th

e concentratio

n ofth e resulting aeroso

l (C

a ) i s given b y equatio

n 1 . Ca = "T " Equatio n 1 . Th e aeroso l i s spikedint

o asubsampl

e o f stac k ga s bein g draw n int o th e instrument . B y spiking actua l stac k gas , th e potentia l effec t o f different interfering component

s presen t i n th e stac k effluen t i s evaluated . Th

e QA G wa

s utilize dinstea

do f Method2 9 becaus e ofth e precisio n an

d accurac y o f Metho d29 ar

e aroun d15% 13 " 1 3 an

dar e no t sufficien t t o evaluat e th e precisio n an

d accurac y o f th e Xact . 

### Metho d 30 1 Validation o

f th e Xac t Th e Metho d30 1 validatio n o f fh e Xact wa s performe

do n aga s fired hazardou s wast

e incinerato

r a t El i Lilly' s Tippecano

e Laboratorie s i n Wes

t Lafayette , Indiana . Th

e incinerato

r burne dwast e associate dwit h Lilly' s drug productio

n an dwa s equippe dwit h ba g house an

dawe t scrubber. Durin g th e test , QA G aerosol containin

g five regulate

dmetal s includin g arseni

c (As) , cadmiu

m (Cd) , chromiu

m(Cr) , lead(Pb) an

dmercur y (Hg ) wer

e spike dint o asubsampl

e o f stac k gas . Each meta l wa s spikeda t thre e differen t nomina l concentratio

n level s (20,4 0 an

d11 0 ug/dscm) . Th e Xac t the n sample dth e spikedstac

k ga s an dth e Xac t reporte dresults wer

e evaluate dfor precision , accurac

y an dlinearity . 

### Operatio n ofth e XactOve

rSevera l Year s Th e Xac t wa s certifie da

s acompliance metal s monitorin g instrumen

t a t th e El i Lill y incinerato

r base di n par t o n it s Metho d30 1 validation. 2Th e Xac t the n operate da t tha t facility fo r

aperio do f approximatel

y si x year s durin g which tim

e i t ha dt o continuousl

y mee t severa l performanc

e criteria. 16,1 7 Eac h requiredtes t i s liste dbelo w alon

g wit h abrief description an

dit s require

d testin g frequenc

y i s i n parentheses . 1) Upscale Calibration Drift Check (Daily) During th e upscal e calibration drif

t chec k th e XR Fportio

n o f th e Xac t i s challenge

dwit h soh dsampl e containing severa

l ke y metal s measure

db y th e instrumen

t fo r comphanc

e purposes . Th

e standar dconsist s o f aro dwit h abi t o f materia l a t th e en dtha t i s injectedint

o th e analysi s are

aonc e pe r day . Th e concentratio

n ofthi s standar

di s determine

dimmediatel

y followin g cahbratio

n an dthe n subsequen

t check s o f th e Xac t verif y th e stabilit y ofth e XR F syste mafte r that. The reporte

dconcentratio

n fo r eac h ofth e metal s o

n th e daily calibration drif t standar dnee dt o b e within 15 % ofth e reference concentratio n eac h da y fo r th e instrumen t t o remain i n compliance .

2) Zero Drift

Check (Daily)

VES01679 8Tli e zer o drif t chec k involve dchallengin

g th e Xact' s XR Fanalyze

r wit h ablan k sectio n o f tap e onc e pe r day . Th e differenc e betwee

n th e valu e ofth e zer

o standar dan dth e CEM S reporte dconcentratio

n mus t b e les s tha n 20 % o f th e apphcabl

e emission limit . 3) Flow Check

(Daily) Durin g th e flow check

, th e readin g fro mth e Xact' s sampl

e flo w mete

r i s checke dagains t a secon dqualit y assuranc e (QA ) flow meter . Th

e differenc e betwee

n th e sampl e flo w mete

r an dth e Q A flo w mete

r neede dt o b e les s tha n 20 % ofth e ful l scal

e value ofth e meter. 4) XRF Audit (Quarterly) Th e XR Faudi

t evaluates th

e accurac y ofth e XR Fanalyze

r portion ofth e Xact . Durin g th e audi t th e XR Fanalyze

r i s challenge

dwit h aserie s o f

thi n filmstandards . Thes

e standard s ar e produce db y vapo r depositio n ont o afilter andar e commerciall

y availabl e from Micromatte

r Co. 1 8 Th e standard

s ar e gravimetricall

y traceabl e t o NIS T standard

s an dhav e bee n recommen

dfo r use by th e U S EP A i n calibrating XR Fequipmen t usedt o measur e ambien t ai r filter samples. 1 9 Th

e differenc e betwee

n th e reference concentratio

n ofth e standar dan dth e concentratio

n reporte db y th e Xac t mus t b e les s tha n 10 % ofth e reference concentratio

n fo r th e instrumen

t dat at o be use dfo r compliance purposes . 5) Flow Audit

(Quarterly) Th e flo w audi

t evaluates th

e accurac y ofth e Xact' s flo w system . Th e reading s frombot

h th e sampl e an ddilutio n flo w meter

s ar e compare dt o a n independen

t NIS T traceabl

e reference flo w meter. Th

e erro r betwee n th e Xac t flo w mete

r an dth e reference flo w mete

r nee dt o b e les s tha n 10 % ofth e reference flow . 6) Relative Accuracy Test Audit (Annually) Finally , th e Xact wa s challenge

dwit h adynamicall

y spikedareference aeroso l a t thre e differen t concentratio

n level s on a

t leas t a n annua l basis . Th e reference aerosol durin

g eac h tes t wa s generate dusing th e QA G an dspikedint

o th e Xact' s sampl

e flow syste

ma s nea r a s possible t o th e prob e tip . Th e Xac t reporte dconcentratio

n wa s the n plottedagains

t th e reference aeroso

l concentratio

n an dalinea r leas t square s regressio n fit wa s performedon th

e data . Th e slop e o f thi s bes t fit line neede dt o b e betwee n 0.80 an d1.20 , th e correlation coefficient

neede dt o be greate

r tha n 0.90 an dintercep t neede dt o b e les s tha n 20 % o f th e emission limi t

fo r th e instrumen

t t o pas s it s relative accurac

y test. 

### Evaluation ofth e Xac

tMulti-Metal s CEM S o n a Coa l Fire d Sourc

e A s par t o f a n EP A sponsore

dsmall busines s innovativ e researc h (SBIR) gran

t th e accurac y o f th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S wa

s evaluate don apilo t

scal e coa l firedsource . Testing wa

s performeda

t fh e U S EPA' s Mult i Pollutan t Contro l Researc

h Facility (MPCRF ) locate di n Researc h Triangle Park , Nort

h Carolina . Th

e MPCR Fi s abl

e t o fire pulverize dcoal , distillat e oil , an do r natura l ga s a t 4 millio n Btu/hr . Th

e facility i s equippe

dwit h we t an ddr y flue ga s cleanin g system s an dclosel y simulates ful l scal

e emission s sources . Durin g th e stud y wit h th e Xac t th e faciht y burne dbituminou s coa

l an dutilize da

n ES P an dwe t scrubbe r controls . Th

e

VES01679 9