### United States Environmental Protection Agency

, Region 5
Air & Radiation Division
77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604



# Statement of Basis

f or :



## DRAFT Air Pollution Control Title V Permit to Operate

No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

issued to:



## Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.

7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62201

October 2014Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Pe rmit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 2 of 79



## SUMMARY

Pursuant to T itle V of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act )

, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7401, et seq ., and its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. P art 71, t he U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing for public comment a draft renewal o perating p ermit (draft permit) for Veolia

E S Technical Solutions, L.L.C. (Veolia) , a hazardous waste storage and disposal facility located at 7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, Illinois. This document sets forth the legal and factual bases for the

draft permit conditions

, including references to applicable provisions of the CAA and its implementing regulations. This document also describes the derivation of conditions as required by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(b).

The draft permit ( Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10 ) contains emissions limitations and standards to assure compliance with all CAA requirements that apply to the source, as well as other necessary terms and conditions. This proceeding is subject to the administrative requirements of 40 C

. F

. R . § 71.11. The draft permit is subject to a minimum 30

- day public comment period as required by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(d).Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Pe rmit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 3 of 79

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2

1.0. GENERAL INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ....................... 6

1.1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 6

1.2. Applica nt and Stationary Source Information

................................ ................................ .. 6

1.3. General Facility Description

................................ ................................ ............................ 6

1.4. Area Classification

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7

1.5. Basis for Title V Applicability

................................ ................................ ....................... 12

1.6. Application Review History and Application Shield

................................ ..................... 12

2.0. EMISSION UNITS AND EMISSIONS

................................ ................................ ...... 15

2.1. Emission Units and Process Information

................................ ................................ ....... 15

2.1.1. Process Description

................................ ................................ ................................ 16

2.1.2. Incineration Units

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17

2.2. Insignificant Emission Units and Activities

................................ ................................ ... 19

2.3. Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 22

3.0. AIR PERM ITTING AND ENFORCEMENT HISTORY

................................ ........ 24

3.1. Permitting History

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24

3.1.1. Construction Permits

................................ ................................ .............................. 24

3.1.2. Title V Permitting History

................................ ................................ ...................... 25

3.2. Enforcement History and Permit Shield

................................ ................................ ......... 27

3.2.1. Allegations of Violation

................................ ................................ ......................... 27

3.2.2. Permit Shield

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 28

3.2.3. Compliance Schedule

................................ ................................ ............................. 29

4.0. PERMIT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

................................ ................................ .... 30

4.1. Overview of Permit Terms

................................ ................................ ............................. 30

4.2. Applicable Requirements

................................ ................................ ............................... 31

4.2.1. GHG Emissions

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 36

4.2.2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD)

............................... 37Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Pe rmit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 4 of 79

4.2.3. OPLs Required by the HWC MACT

................................ ................................ ..... 37

4.2.4. Extrapolation of CPT Feedrates

................................ ................................ ............. 39

4.2.5. Feedrate OPLs Included in Veolia’s Permit

................................ ........................... 40

4.3. Non

- applicable Requirements

................................ ................................ ........................ 42

5.0. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

................................ ................................ .......... 46

5.1. Statutory Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 46

5.2. Feedstream Analysis Procedures for Mercury, LVM and SVM

................................ .... 46

5.2.1. Overview of Requirements

................................ ................................ ..................... 46

5.2.2. Deficiencies in Veolia’s Current Feedstream Analysis Procedures

....................... 49

5.3. Multi

- Metals Continuous Monitoring Requirements

................................ ..................... 52

5.3.1. Overview of Requirements

................................ ................................ ..................... 52

5.3.2. Multi

- Metals CEMS and Feedstream Analysis

................................ ...................... 56

5.3.3. Deficiencies in Veolia’s Current Emissions Monitoring Procedures

..................... 5 8

5. 3.4. Availability of Multi

- Metals CEMS

................................ ................................ ....... 59

5.3.5. Performance Specifications for the Multi

- Metals CEMS

................................ ...... 61

5.3.6. Measurement of Beryllium Emissions

................................ ................................ ... 62

5.4. Other Supplemental Monitoring Provisions Included in the Permit

.............................. 63

5.4.1. Emissions Calculation Methodology

................................ ................................ ...... 63

5.4.2. Testing Requirements for NOx, VOM and SO 2 Emissions from the Incineration
Units

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 64

5.4.3. Visible Emissions Observations for Material Processing Areas

............................ 65

5.4.4. Calculation of VOM Emissions from Material Processing Areas

......................... 66

5.4.5. Visible Emissions Obs ervations for the Drum Crusher

................................ ......... 67

5.4.6. Calculation of VOM Emissions from the Drum Crusher

................................ ....... 68

5.4.7. Periodic Replacement of Carbon in the Carbon Adsorption System

..................... 68

5.4.8. Inspection Requirements for the Submerged Loading Pipes

................................ . 68

5.4.9. Visible Emissions Observations for the Bulk Feed Building

................................ . 69

5.4.10. Requirements that Ensure Total Enclosure for the Bulk Feed Building

................ 69

5.4.11. Supple mental Recordkeeping Requirements for the Bulk Feed Building

............. 70

5.4.12. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Gasoline Storage Tank

..... 70

5.4.13. Compliance with the Opacity and Other Numerical Limits for the Boiler

............ 71Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Pe rmit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 5 of 79

5.4.14. Periodic Monitoring Requirements for Insignificant Emission Units

.................... 72

5.5. Streamlining

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 72

6.0. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS

................................ ............ 75

7.0. MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE 2008 PERMIT

................................ .................... 78

7.1. Revision of OPLs and Addition of Monitoring Require ments for Metals and Other
Pollutants

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 78

7.2. Removal of Case

- By

- Case MACT Determination for the Boiler

................................ .. 78

7.3. Incorporation of Applicable Requirements for the Emergency Generators

................... 79Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Pe rmit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 6 of 79



## 1.0. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. Introduction

The 1990 amendments to the CAA established a comprehensive air quality permit program under the authority of Title V of the Act. Title V requires certain facilities that emit large amounts of air pollution (also called major sources) to obtain an operatin g permit, also known as a Title V permit, after the source has begun to operate. This permit is an enforceable compilation of all enforceable terms, conditions and limitations that are applicable to the source and is designed to improve compliance by clar ifying what facilities must do to control air pollution. EPA regulations implementing Title V are
codified at 40 C

. F

. R

. Part 71 for permits issued by EPA or its delegatees and at 40 C

. F

. R

. Part 70 for permits issued by states and local agencies pursuant to approved programs

. A
Title V permit is valid for no more than five years and may be renewed in five year term
increments

.

EPA is the CAA Title V permitting authority for Veolia’s Sauget facility

. EPA issued the initial Title V permit to Ve olia on September 12, 2008 pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 71

. As allowed by Title V, EPA is now proposing to renew the permit for a five year term.



### 1.2. Applicant and Stationary Source Information

Owner : Veolia ES Technical Solutions

, L.L.C.

Facility Name & Address: Veolia E S Technical Solutions
7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62201

SIC Code: 4953
Responsible Official & Mailing
Address: Doug Harris
7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62201 Telephone: (618) 271

- 2804

Facility Contact: Dennis Warchol, (618) 271

- 2804



### 1.3. General Facility Description

Veolia owns and operates a commercial hazardous waste incinerator in Sauget, St. Clair County, Illinois. Veolia ’s Sauget facility is a waste treatment, storage and disposalStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Pe rmit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 7 of 79

facility that accepts offsite waste for further disposal through incineration. The facility
includes two fixed

- hearth, dual chamber, multi

- type feed incinerator s ( Incineration Unit s 2 and 3), each rated at 16 million British thermal units per hour (mmBtu/hr), and one rotary kiln incinerator ( Incineratio n Unit 4), rated at 50 mmBtu/hr. Incineratio n Unit s 2
and 3 each use spray dry absorbers with lime slurry injection to control hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions and baghouses for particulate matter (PM). Incineration U nit 4 uses a spray dry absorber for HCl control, an activated carbon injection system for mercury (Hg) control, and a baghouse for PM control. Containers and bulk shipments of hazardous and solid wastes are received, analyzed and transferred to temporary storage facilities, processed

, and incinerated in one of three incineration unit s. Figures 1 through 4 show the layout of the facility.



### 1.4. Area Classification

St. Clair County, Illinois

, is designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the 8

- hour

ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). It is also designated as a nonattainment area for the 1997 annual NAAQS for particulate matter with aerodynamic
diameter less than 2.5 micro meter s (PM 2.5 ). 1 St. Clair County is classified as attainment
or unclassifiable with respect to all other NAAQS.

The area surrounding Veolia has a significant minority population (about 65 percent) , and a substantial proportion of all persons living within three miles of Veolia (over 30 percent) live below the feder al poverty level . EPA considers the area surrounding Veolia as an area with environmental justice (EJ) concerns

. S ee section 6.0 for a detailed
discussion o f the EJ considerations specific to this permit action

.

1 On May 23, 2011, EPA took final action determining that the Saint Louis PM 2.5 nonattainment area in Illinois and

Missouri has attained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality

- assured, quality

- controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007

– 2009 monitoring period. This final determination suspends the States’ obligation to submit a number of plans for this area but is not equivalent to redesignating the area to attainment.

T he designation of the area will remain nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that this area meets the Act requirements for redesignation to attainment. See 76 Fed. Reg. 29652.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 8 of 79

Figure 1 . Layout of Veolia’ s Facility Showing Units 2 and 3.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 9 of 79

Figure 2 . Layout of Veolia’ s Facility Showing Drum Storage and Lab Pack Repack Areas.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 10 of 79

Figure 3 . Layout of Veolia’s Facility Showing Additional Storage and Staging Areas.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 11 of 79

Figure 4 . Layout of Veolia’s Facility Showing Incineration Unit 4 and Associated Emission Units.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 12 of 79



### 1.5. Basis for Title V Applicability

Veolia is subject to Title V permit ting requirements because it is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions and because it is sub ject to the requirements
established under 4 0 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC MACT).



### 1.6. Application Review History and Application Shield

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.5(a)(1)(iii), a timely renewal application is one that is
submitted at least 6 months but not more tha n 18 months prior to expiration of a Title V permit. Since Veolia’s existing Title V permit had an expiration of date of Octob er 12, 2013, Veolia was required to submit its renewal application no earlier than April 12, 2012 and no later than April 12, 2013. As shown in Table 1, below, Veolia submitted its application on April 8, 2013; therefore, Veolia’s renewal application is t imely.

Table 1 . Application Review History.

Relevant Date Activity

April 8, 2013 Veolia submits its Title V Permit renewal application.

May 16, 2013 EPA notifies Veolia that its application is incomplete.

July 17, 2013 Veolia submits (by electronic mail) a preliminary response to EPA’s May 16, 2013 Notification of Incompleteness. Veolia

and EPA hold a conference call to discuss the Notification of Incompleteness

.

August 16, 2013 Veolia submits an addendum to its renewa l application.

September 11, 2013 EPA notifies Veolia that its application is complete.

November 20, 2013 Veolia submits additional information on its renewal application as requested by EPA on November 7, 2013

.

December 9, 2013 Veolia submits additional information on its renewal application as requested by EPA on December 9, 2013.

December 10, 2013 Veolia submits additional information on its renewal application as requested by EPA on December 9, 2013.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 13 of 79

Relevant Date Activity

December 20, 2013 Veolia submits additional information on its renewal application as requested by EPA on December 1 9, 2013.

January 14, 2014 Veolia submits additional information on its renewal application as requested by EPA on December 11 , 2013.

March 3, 2014 Veolia submits additiona l information on its renewal application.

March 4 , 2014 Veolia submits additional information on its renewal application as requested by EPA on March 4, 2014

.

March 10, 2014 Veolia submits additional information on its renewal application.

March 27, 2014 EPA holds a conference call with interested parties to discuss public participation opportunities.

March 31 , 2014 Veolia submits additional information on its renewal application as requested by EPA on March 28, 2014

.

April 1, 2014 Veolia submits ad ditional information on its renewal application.

April 3 , 2014 Veolia submits additional information on its renewal application as requested by EPA on April 1, 2014

.

October 10, 2014 EPA issues Veolia’s draft renewal permit for comment.

EPA reviewed Veolia’s April 8, 2013 Title V permit renewal application, as amended on August 16, 2013, for completeness pursuant to the criteria in 40 C.F.R. § 71.5(a)(2). EPA determined on September 11, 2013 that the information submitted by Veolia was
administrativ ely complete. As specified by 40 C.F.R. § 71.5(a)(2), t he application completeness determination does not preclude EPA from requesting additional relevant information during the course of evaluating or taking final action on the application. In addition, 40 C.F.R. § 71.5(b) obligates Veolia to promptly file corrections to its application should Veolia find that it has omitted any relevant facts or has submitted incorrect information in the application.

Because EPA found that Veolia’s permit application w as timely and complete, Veolia is covered by an application shield , which allows Veolia to continue operating its facilityStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 14 of 79

even though EPA has not yet issued a renewal permit to Veolia

. 40 C.F.R. §§ 71.5(a)(2) and 71.7(b). This application shield is in e ffect from the date of completeness until EPA
has acted on Veolia’s pending application , provided Veolia submits any requested information by EPA’s specified deadlines. T he permit application shield does not mean
that EPA has already approved the requeste d permit, nor does it mean that EPA has
determined that Veolia ha s adequately ad dressed compliance concerns in its application. The permit application shield means only that Veolia may operate its facility until EPA
has acted on the pending application

.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 15 of 79



## 2.0. EMISSION UNITS AND EMISSIONS

2.1. Emission Units and Process Information

Table 2 shows a listing of all of Veolia’s emission units that have applicable requirements in the permit.

Table 2 . Listing of Veolia’ s Emission Units with Applicable Requirements in the Permit

. Emission
Unit Description Date of
Construction Emission Control

Equipment

Hazardous Waste
Combustors Incineration Unit #2, Model TWI

2000, Series 2 October 1986 Joy

- Niro Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA

- 2), Pulse
Flo Fabric Filter (BH

- 2)

Incineration Unit #3, Model TWI

2000, Series 2 November
1987 Joy

- Niro Spray Dryer

Absorber (SDA

- 3), Pulse Flo Fabric Filter (BH

- 3)

Incineration Unit #4, Model

PY*ROX June 1988 Tempering Chamber, Activated Carbon Injection, Spray Dryer Absorber,
Fabric Filter

Material Processing Areas Waste Processing Units (Area 1 and

Area 2) 1988

None Lab Pack Repack Unit 1988

Drum Crusher Empty drums are crushed 1984 None Storage Tanks for Liquid Wastes Tanks #2 (4,391 gals), #4 (4,931

gals), #6 (7,200 gals), #8 (5,820 gals), #10 (12,869 gals), #20 (12,869 gals), #30 (12,869 gals), #40 (12,869 gals), #50 (12,869 gals), #60 (12,869 gals), #300 (19,850 gals), #302 (30,000 gals), #304 (30,000 gals), #306 (30,000 gals), #308 (30,000 gals), # 310 (30,000 gals), #312 (10,000 gals) and #314 (10,000 gals) April 2002 for #2 and #4;
June 2004 for #10 and #20;
March 2009 for #30; 1988
for the
others. 2 Activated Carbon

Absorption Systems for Storage Tank Vents.

Storage Tank for
#2 Fuel Oil Tank #390 (30,000 gals) 1988 None

2 All of the tanks were originally c onstructed in 1988. Construction dates later than 1988 were in

- kind replacements.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 16 of 79

Emission
Unit Description Date of
Construction Emission Control

Equipment

Bulk Solid Waste Storage Facility Temporary storage of bulk solid

wastes in pits prior to being fed to
incineration unit #4 1988 Cyclone, Airtol Baghouse (BF Bldg

- BH

- 1), Carbon Adsorption Unit (BF Bldg

CA) Gasoline Storage
Tank 550

- gallon design capacity,

equipped with submerged loading pipe June 2012 3 None

Boiler 10.6 mmBtu/hr natural gas

- fired

boiler (Boiler #1) November
1995 None

Emergency Generators (2) Two #2 fuel oil

- fired emergency

generators (each <112 kilowatts (kW)) 1 988 None

Fugitive
Emissions Pumps, Valves, Open

- End Lines

and Compressors N/A None

2.1.1. Process Description

Veolia receives a variety of wastes in containers (drums, roll offs, etc.) and in
bulk form . These wastes come into the facility predominantly in the form of solids and liquids. Liquid wastes arrive in tank trucks and drums. Gaseous (and some liquid) wastes arrive in various sized cylinders. Bulk solids primarily arrive
in 20

- to 40

- yard rol l

- off containers or other similar bulk transport vehicles. Solid wastes are also received in containers such as drums, totes, and Gaylord boxes.

Once received, wastes are stored prior to incineration in various buildings on the property (including an e xplosives magazine), depending on the characteristics of the material, and either fed directly to an incinerator, repackaged into smaller charge containers for incineration, or sent off

- site for treatment at other locations. Drummed liquids may be transfe rred via drum pumps to T ank Farm #1 or Tank

F arm #3

.

Tank F arm #1, which services Incineration Units 2 and 3, is made up of 10
vertical f ixed roof storage tanks. Tank F arm #3, which services Incineration Unit 4, is made up of 8 vertical fixed roof storage tanks . These storage tanks release fugitive emissions during filling and emptying of the tanks, as well as when the tanks are empty. Emissions from these storage tanks are controlled by an individual carbon adsorption unit on each tank.

3 This was an in

- kind replacement to the tank originally constructed in 1992.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 17 of 79

Bulk solid wastes are stored in four pits in the bulk feed building (bulk solid waste storage facility)

. The building is enclosed and equipped with a cyclone, baghouse, and carbon adsorption unit. Ve olia’s Title V permit requires Veolia to operate t he enclosed building under permanent negative pressure. A clam shell
moves bulk solids from the bulk feed building through an enclosed gallery to
Combustion Unit 4.

Material processing occurs at units MP

- 1 and MP

- 2, and the lab pack repack

areas . Material processing involves the repackaging of drummed solids into more manageable containers for subsequent incineration. Some of these solids may have free liquids, which are fixed with an inert absorbent material before repackaging. Lab packs are opened and repackaged into acceptable containers for charging to the incineration unit s

.

The incineration units produce ash, which enters the Ash Handling System. Ash
from Units 2 and 3 is temporarily staged in roll

- off containers at the Ash Storage
Bui lding. From there it is transported to the bulk solid waste storage facility . Ash
from Unit 4 is collected in roll

- off containers and transported to Storage Building

#7. Emissions of PM are minimized through work practices such as wet handling, covering with a tarp, and handling inside enclosed structures.

Veolia also operates a drum crusher , at which d rums that are unsuitable for reuse are crushed. Some empty drums may contain residual waste when crushed.
These emissions are not controlled.

Fugiti ve emissions occur facility

- wide. The most significant source of fugitive emissions is equipment leaks from pipelines and pumps that handle liquid organic waste. The evaporation of organics from spills, leaks, and drum sampling also
contribute to facilit y

- wide fugitive emissions.

Finally, Veolia operates small combustion sources consisting of a natural gas

fired boiler (10.6 mm Btu/hr natural gas boiler ) used to generate heat and steam
for on

- site uses, two emergency generators (each rated at less than 112 kW) and a portable Tioga heater (rated at 2.5 mm Btu/hr )

. There are no emission control
devices associated with these units.

2.1.2. Incineration Units

As shown in Table 2

, above, Veolia has three incinera t ion units : Units 2, 3, and 4

. Incineration Unit 1 was decommissioned and closed in 1992. Incineration Units 2
and 3 are custom fixed

- hearth , dual

- chamber units each rated at 16 mm Btu/hr

. 4

4 Units 2 and 3 are similar in design and function. The key differences between these units ar e the slight differences in feed types and baghouse configurations. As shown in Table 1, Unit 2 also burns gases while Unit 3 does not. Also, Unit 2 has four baghouse modules while Unit 3 has three baghouse modules.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 18 of 79

Incineration Unit 4 is a rotary kiln (transportable system converted to a stationary unit) r ated at 50 mmBtu/hr

. Each unit includes its own feed, air pollution control, process instrumentation and controls, and continuous emission monitoring
systems. Each incineration unit has a primary combustion chamber (PCC) and a secondary combustion chambe r (SCC). The PCCs and SCCs have natural gas

fired auxiliary burners, which are used during startup, shutdown, malfunctions and additional heat input. Table 3 shows a summary of the key design specifications for each of the three incineration units.

Table 3 . Design Specifications for Veolia’s Incineration Units.

Design Parameter Specification

Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Incinerator Type Fixed Hearth, Dual

(Primary and Secondary) Chamber Fixed Hearth, Dual

(Primary and Secondary)
Chamber Transportable Rotary

K il n (includes kiln and a secondary chamber)

Model TWI

- 2000, Series 2 TWI

- 2000, Series 2 P Y*ROX

Manufacturer Trade Waste

Incineration Trade Waste

Incineration International Waste

Energy Systems Feed Type Solids, Organic

Liquids, Aqueous Liquids, Sludges, Gases (Unit 2 only) Solids, Organic

Liquids, Aqueous Liquids, Sludges Solids, Organic

Liquids, Aqueous Liquids, Sludges

Maximum Feed

Rate For E ach

C ombustion

C hamber Limited by permit

( see Table 9) Limited by permit

( see Table 9) Limited by permit ( see

Table 9)

Heat Release Rating 16 mmBtu/hr 16 mmBtu/hr 50 mmBtu/hr

Burner Fuel Type Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas

Emission Control
Device Spray dryer absorber

and fabric filter (baghouse) Spray dryer

absorber and fabric
filter (baghouse) Tempering chamber,

spray dryer absorber, carbon injection and
lime recirculation system, and fabric
filter (baghouse)

Units 2 and 3 are designed to receive and incinerate containerized wastes, aqueous, organic and specialty liqu id wastes, and sludge wastes. The aqueous and organic liquid wastes are fed through air

- atomizing nozzles. The specialty liquid feeds and direct

- inject liquids are fed through the aqueous or organic liquidStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 19 of 79

feed systems. Each unit can receive any combina tion of liquid, semi

- solid, or solid wastes. Unit 2 can also receive waste gases through separate feed nozzles.

Unit 4 can incinerate container, aqueous, organic and specialty liquid, and sludge wastes. Liquid wastes are fed into either the kiln or SC C. Bulk solid wastes are fed into the kiln through either the ram feeder or the screw auger. Containerized wastes are fed into the kiln through the ram feeder or the auxiliary ram feeder. Unit 4 can also accept liquid wastes injected directly from the d elivery vehicle.

The three incineration units are supported by lime handling systems and ash handling systems. The lime handling systems are made up of lime storage silos and slurry mix tanks. There is one system for Units 2 and 3 and one for Unit 4.

T he silos are controlled by bin vents. Ash handling consists of material collection
from the combustion chambers, the spray dryer and baghouse. The combustion
chamber ash is collected in roll

- off boxes. Veolia tarps the roll

- off boxes to
minimize PM emis sions. Veolia continuously monitors each incineration unit for
carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen chloride/chlorine (HCl/Cl 2 ) emissions via a
continuous emission s monitoring system.



### 2.2. Insignificant Emission Units and Activities

Table 4 , below, provides a listing of emission units and activities located at Veolia that EPA has determined to be insignificant pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.5(c)(11)

. Unless otherwise specified in the permit, the Permittee must comply with all applicable require ments including any air quality control requirements that apply to insignificant
emission units and activities. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.9(c)(5)(iii), emissions from insignificant emission units and activities that are not required to be listed or calcu lated in a permit application pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.5(c)(11) are excluded from the
calculation of fees under 40 C.F.R. § 71.9 (c)(1) through (4).

Table 4 . List of Insignificant Emission Units and Activities

. Unit Descripti on Basis for Classification as an Insignificant

Emission Unit or Activity Regulatory Reference

2.5 mmBtu/hr Tioga portable
boiler Direct combustion unit designed and used for

comfort heating purposes , as defined at 35 IAC 201.210(a)(4)

. 35 IAC 201.210(a)(4) ; 40 C.F.R. § 71.5(c)(11)(i)(D)

Horizontal 550

- gallon k erosene tank Storage tanks of virgin or rerefined distillate

oil, hydrocarbon condensate from natural gas pipeline or storage systems, lubricating oil, or
residual fuel oils. 35 IAC 201.210(a)(11)Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 20 of 79

Unit Descripti on Basis for Classification as an Insignificant

Emission Unit or Activity Regulatory Reference

Two h orizontal

550

- gallon No. 2
fuel oil tank s Storage tanks of virgin or rerefined distillate

oil, hydrocarbon condensate from natural gas pipeline or storage systems, lubricating oil, or
residual fuel oils. 35 IAC 201.210(a)(11)

Ash hand ling  The emission unit does not emit more than 1.0 lb/hr of any regulated air pollutant not listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment;

 The emission unit does not emit more than 0.1 lb/hr of any regulated air pollutant that is listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment; and

 The emission unit is not a process unit. 35 IAC 201.211 (a)

Handling of spen t dry scrubber solids  The emission unit does not emit more than 1.0 lb/hr of any regulated air pollutant not listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment;

 The emission unit does not emit more tha n 0.1 lb/hr of any regulated air pollutant that is listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment; and

 The emission unit is not a process unit. 35 IAC 201.211 (a)

Lime unloading (silo) and proportioning  The emission unit does not emit more than 1.0 lb/hr of any regulated air pollutant not listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment;

 The emission unit does not emit more than

0 .1 lb/hr of any regulated air pollutant that is listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment; and 35 IAC 201.211 (a)Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 21 of 79

Unit Descripti on Basis for Classification as an Insignificant

Emission Unit or Activity Regulatory Reference

 The emission unit is not a process unit. Gasoline storage and dispensing  The emission unit does not emit more than 1.0 lb/hr of any regulated air pollutant not listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment;

 The emission unit does not emit more than 0.1 lb/hr of any reg ulated air pollutant that is listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment; and

 The emission unit is not a process unit. 35 IAC 201.211 (a)

Use of absorbent material (fugitive PM generation)  The e mission unit does not emit more than 1.0 lb/hr of any regulated air pollutant not listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment;

 The emission unit does not emit more than 0.1 lb/hr of any regulated air pollutant that is listed as a HAP pursuant to Section 112(b) of the CAA in the absence of air pollution control equipment; and

 The emission unit is not a process unit. 35 IAC 201.211 (a)

General vehicle
maintenance and servicing (assumed

to include diesel fuel handling) General vehicle maintenance and servicing

activities at the source, other than gasoline fuel handling, are insignificant pursuant to 35 IAC 201.210(b)(4)

. 35 IAC 201.210(b)(4)

Laboratory (chemical and physical analysis) Bench scale laboratory equipment and

laboratory equipment used exclusively for chemical and physical analysis, including associated laboratory fume hoods, vacuum producing devices and control devices installed primarily to address potential accidental
rele ases, are insignificant pursuant to 35 IAC 201.210(b)(11 )

. 35 IAC 201.210(b)(l1)Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 22 of 79

Unit Descripti on Basis for Classification as an Insignificant

Emission Unit or Activity Regulatory Reference

Piping and storage system for natural

gas Piping and storage systems for natural gas,

propane, and liquefied petroleum gas are insignificant pursuant to 35 IAC 201.210(b)(15 )

. 35 IAC 201.210(b)(15)

Non

- halogenated cold cleaning degreasers Cold cleaning degreasers that are not in

- line

cleaning machines, where the vapor pressure of the solvents used never exceed 2 kPa (15 mmHg or 0.3 psi) measured at 38 o C (100 o F) or 0.7 kPa ( 5 mmHg or 0.1 psi) at 20 o C (68

o F) are insignificant pursuant to 35 IAC 201.210(b)(19 )

. 35 IAC 201.210(b)(19)

Internal combustion engines of motor
vehicles (primarily forklifts) Internal combustion engines (including the fuel

system) of motor vehicles, locomotives, aircraft, watercraft, lift trucks, and other vehicles powered by nonroad engines are insignificant pursuant to 35 IAC 201.210(b)(24 )

. 35 I AC 201.210(b)(24)

Storage and handling of closed
drums Storage and handling of drums or other

transporta ble containers where the containers are sealed during storage and handling is insignificant pursuant to 35 IAC 201.210(b)(26 )

. 35 I AC 201.210(b)(26)



### 2.3. Emissions

Veolia emits a variety of pollutants including CO, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), PM, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers (PM 10 ) , PM 2.5 , semivolatile metals ( SVM) ( i.e., lead and cadmium), low

- volatile metals ( LVM ) ( i.e., arsenic, beryllium and chromium), volatile organic compounds (VOC or VOM) , gree nhouse gases (GHGs) 5 and other HAPs.

Veolia is a major source of HAPs with potential and actu al emissions as shown in Table

5 , below. The source’s actual and potential GHG emissions are provided for informational purposes. The facility’s potential to emit (PTE) is less than major source
thresholds for the other pollutants. 6

5 GHGs refers to the aggregate group o f six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocar bons, and sulfur hexafluoride

. 40 C.F.R. § 71.2.

6 As it pertains to HAP emissions, “m ajor source ” means any stationary source or group of stationary sources

l ocated within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAPs

. 40 C.F.R. § 63.2. The major source threshold for regulated criteria pollutants in the Sauget area is 100 tpy. 40 C.F.R. § 71.2.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 23 of 79

Table 5 . Potential to Emit and Actual Emissions Reported by Veolia (Tons Per Year)

.

Pollutant PTE Actual Emissions

2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

PM 12.62 1.07 1.12 1.10 1.07 1.04

PM 10 12.62 1.07 1.12 1.10 1.07 1.04

PM 2.5 12.62 1.07 1.12 1.10 1.07 1.04

SO 2 66. 25 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.52 0.50

NOx 74.99 56.56 58.16 57.1 55.23 54.76

VOM (VOC) 15.70 1.93 1.51 1.62 1.74 1.70

CO 31.04 1.16 1.21 1.41 1.67 1.95 GHGs (as carbon
dioxide equivalents ( CO 2 e ) ) * 147,053 112,378

HAPs (Total) 21.41

Arsenic (As) 0.0388 2.51 x 10

- 5 Beryllium (Be) 0.0388 1.76 x 10

- 7
Cadmium (Cd) 0.0968 3.11 x 10

- 5
Chromium (Cr) 0.0388 5.46 x 10

- 5

Dioxins and

Furans 9.97E

- 08 6.35 x 10

- 8

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 19.75 1.98 1.89 2.03 2.09 3.56

Lead 0.0968 0.00018 Mercury (Hg) 0.0342 0.0017 *GHG emissions were calculated using global warming potentials for CO 2 , methane and nitrous
oxide as published in 78 F ed. R eg. 71948 ( Nov ember 29, 2013 )

.

This threshold applies to VOM and NOx because this area is designated as a “moderate” nonattainment area for the

8

- hour ozone, and its PM nonattainment designation is not classified as “serious.” Although EPA is including GHG emissions here for informational purposes, it notes that after the June 23, 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (No. 12

- 1146 ) EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollu tant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or

Title V permit. The major source threshold is 250 tpy for all other regulated pollutants.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 24 of 79



### 3.0. 

## AI R PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT HISTORY

3.1. Permitting History

Veolia operates under a number of construction permits issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)

. Veolia also operates under a CAA Title V permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 that EPA issued on September 12, 2008 pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 71, and that became effective on October 12, 2008. As discussed in more detail below, EPA took over as the CAA Tit le V permitting authority for Veolia’s Sauget facility

, as provided by 40 C.F.R. § 70.8

, when IEPA did not timely issue a permit to address EPA’s February 1, 2006 O rder objecting to IEPA’s proposed Title V permit for this facility. Although EPA is the CAA Title V permitting authority for Veolia’s facility

, IEPA retains the authority to issue construction permits for projects proposed by Veolia

.

3.1.1. Construction Permits

Table 6 lists all of the construction permits issued by IEPA to Veolia. EPA has incorporated a pplicable requirements from all of Veolia’s active construction permits into the Title V permit.

Table 6 . Summary of State Construction Permits Issued by IEPA to Veolia.

Date Issued Permit # Project Descri ption Permit Active?

- 83080072 Construction of Unit 1. Unit 1 was

decommissioned and removed from
service in 1992. No

8/8 / 1984 84060063 Shredder System No

9/2/1986 83120053 Units 2 and 3 and Tank Farm #1
Construction Yes

2/11/1988 87110052 Pneumatic Conveyor No

4/13/1988 87120069 Residue Feed System for Unit 1 No

6/27/1988 88030101 Tank Farm #3 Construction Yes

8/3/1988 88010001 Unit 4 Construction Yes

8/19/1988 87100024 Unit 3 Construction Yes

6/7/1993 93030107 Specialty Feeder for Unit 3 No

11/7/1995 95080025 Cleaver Brooks Boiler #1 Yes

2/6/2001 00110030 Activated Carbon Injection System and Baghouse Solids Recirculation System for Unit 4

. 7 Yes

7 Construction Permit #00110030 did not establish additional air quality control requirements beyond those already established by 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 25 of 79

3.1.2. Title V Permitting History

A. Regulatory and Factual Background

All major stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources are required to apply for Title V operating permits that include emission limitations and other conditions necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of the Act, including the requirements of the ap plicable State Implementation Plan (SIP). See CAA sections 502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661a(a) and 7661c(a).

On September 7, 1995, Veolia submitted to IEPA its first application for a Title V permit for Veolia’s Sauget, Illinois facility. Following a public comment period
that ended on November 6, 2003, IEPA provided a proposed permit to EPA for
review. EPA did not object to the proposed permit within its statutory 45

- day review period, which ended on December 21, 2003. On February 18, 2004, EPA received a petition submitted by the Sierra Club and American Bottom Conservation ( ABC ) pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. § 70.8(d )

, requesting that EPA object to issuance of Veolia’s Title V permit . On February 1 , 2005, EPA issued an O rder granting the petition in part and denying it in part. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 70.8(c), EPA’s action on the petition initiated a

90

- day period during which IEPA was required to issue a revised Title V permit
that addresse d the issues raised in the EPA O rder. IEPA did not issue the permit
within the 90

- day period. The Sierra Club and ABC filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that EPA failed to perform a non discretionary duty under CAA section 505(c), 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(c), to issue by May 2, 2006, a Title V operating permit for Veolia under

40 C.F.R. Part 71. Sierra Club v. Johnson , Case No. 06

- CV

- 4000 (N.D. Ill.).

On September 29, 2006, EPA announced its intent to issue or deny a federal
Title V permit for Veolia. Subsequently, Veolia submitted a Title V permit application to EPA on May 2, 2007. On June 4, 2008, EPA signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs requiring the Agency to take action on Veolia’s application by September 12, 2008.

B. The Initial Permit

Following a public comment period that closed on July 18, 2008, EPA issued a final Title V permit to Veolia on September 12, 2008. 8

Prior to issuing the 2008 permit, EPA reviewed historical metal feedrate data supplied by Veolia to support Veolia’s proposed operating parameter limits (OPLs or feedrate limits ) for HAPs required by the HWC MACT. EPA

8 The f inal permit and support documents are available at www.regulations.gov ; Docket ID: EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2008

- 0235 . Also, see Document ID. EPA

- HQ

- OGC

- 2008

- 0310.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 26 of 79

concluded that reliance on the OPLs submitted by Veolia would n ot assure Veolia’s compliance with the applicable requirements in the HWC MACT. 9 Specifically, EPA determined that the past data were not reliable for determining
feedrate OPLs for mercury, SVM and LVM. O n February 22, 2008, EPA issued a Request for Information under S ection 114 of the Act , 42 U.S.C. § 7414, requiring Veolia to complete comprehensive performance tests (CPTs) on all of
its three incineration unit s. The required testing was limited to mercury, SVM
and LVM. 10 Veolia conduct ed the CPTs in August and September 2008.

Since reliable test results for mercury, SVM and LVM were not available at the
time that EPA made the initial permit available for public comment, EPA provided the opportunity for the public to comment on the co mpliance schedule,
Veolia’s comprehensive performance test ( CPT ) plan, and the OPL calculation methodologies. In the September 12, 2008 final permit, EPA required Veolia to
submit

, by October 10, 2008

, the results of its testing and a request for a signif icant modification to its Title V permit to incorporate OPLs

.

C. The 2013 Proposed Significant Modification/Reopening

As required by the 2008 permit, o n October 10, 2008, Veolia submitted to EPA
the results of the August and September 2008 test s , and requested a significant modification to its Title V permit to incorporate OPLs for mercury, SVM and

LVM , as specified in the compliance schedule in the 2008 Title V permit

. EPA reviewed Veolia’s application and submitted multiple requests for additional

i nformation from Veolia. In response to EPA’s re quests for information , Veolia amended its significant modification application multiple times

, including application updates submitted to EPA on January 7, 2009, 11 March 27, 2009

, 12

March 2, 2010

, 13 and March 1 2, 2012

. 14

On November 29, 2012, EPA notified Veolia that it intended to deny its significant modification application and to reopen the permit to add feedrate

OPLs that EPA considered to be supported by the available CPT data. However,
Veolia withdrew t he significant modification application on December 13, 2012

.

9 See Statement of Basis for Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 at 8, September 12, 2008 (citing April 16, 2008 memorandum from Charles Hall to the per mit file, “Operating Parameter Limits for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC, Sauget, IL.”) . A vailable at www.regulations.gov ; Docket ID: EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2008

- 0235

. 10 Veolia explained that it could not meet the deadl ines in the February 22, 2008 Request for Information because stack testing crews and materials were not available. Therefore, EPA extended the testing schedule and limited the testing to mercury, SVM and LVM . For all other required OPLs, EPA incorporate d into the draft Title V permit parameters that EPA calculated based upon data submitted by Veolia. See Statement of Basis for Permit No. V

- IL

1716300103

- 08

- 01, September 12, 2008.

11 See Document ID. EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2012

- 0649

- 0007

. 12 See Document ID. EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2012

- 0649

- 0104

. 13 See Document ID. EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2012

- 0649

- 0005

14 See Document ID. EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2012

- 0649

- 0069Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 27 of 79

On January 8, 2013, EPA proposed to reopen Veolia’s Title V Permit No. V

- IL

1716300103

- 08

- 01 for cause, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.7(f)(1)(iv)

, to incorporate OPLs and additional monitoring r equirements into the permit

. EPA’s primary purpose for proposing to reopen the permit was to ensure that the permit complie d with the CAA ’s mandate that the permit include “all operational requirements and limitations that assure compliance with all appli cable requirements” and monitoring sufficient to assure compliance with the requirements of the Act

. See 40 C.F.R. § 71.6 (a) and (c) . EPA’s action was based on EPA’s analysis of the 2008 CPT data and recognition that, given the variability of Veolia’s feedstream, minimal monitoring is not sufficient to assure compliance with the HWC MACT emissions limits.

EPA received a significant number of substantive written and oral comments during the p ublic comment period for the reopening, which closed on April 1

, 2013

. Due to the complexity of the comments received, EPA did not finalize the proposed modifications prior to expiration of the 2008 permit. At the same time, Veolia informed EPA that it w as planning to conduct another round of
CPTs in October 2013. Because of that fact and because Veolia’s 2008 permit

was due for renewal , EPA decided that , rather than finalizing the proposed reopening, it would be most effective to include the OPLs and ad ditional monitoring requirements in the renewal permit that is the subject of this permitting action

. Inclusion of the additional monitoring discussed below will satisfy the CAA mandate that the permit contain sufficient monitoring to assure compliance wi th all requirements of the Act.



### 3.2. Enforcement History and Permit Shield

3.2.1. Allegations of Violation

On September 27, 2006, EPA issued a Finding of Violation and Notice of Violation (FOV/NOV) to Veolia notifying the company that EPA found it to be in violation of the Act and the following regulations: 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart V, the National Emission Standard for Emission Leaks; 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DD, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off

- Site Waste and Recovery Operations; and 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart FF, the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations.

Subsequent to the issuance of the FOV/NOV and based on further investigation,

o n June 12, 2008, EPA issued an FOV to Veolia a lleging that Veolia was also in noncompliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE, the HWC MACT, for failure to timely perform compliance testing as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(c); failure to appropriately request the use of an extrapolationStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 28 of 79

methodolog y as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(f)(1)(x); exceeding the applicable HWC MACT mercury limit on Units 2, 3, and 4, as set forth in

40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(b)(1); and exceeding the HWC MACT arsenic emission
standard as set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 63.1203(a)(4).

On August 24, 2012, after further investigation into Veolia’s compliance with the

HWC MACT , EPA issued another FOV to Veolia notifying Veolia that EPA
found it to be in violation of Section 112 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412, and its implementing regulation s for the HWC MACT , and Section 114 of the Act,

42 U.S.C. § 7414

. 15

3.2.2. Permit Shield

EPA’s regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 71 allow permitting authorities the discretion to include a provision in the permit stating that compliance with the conditions of
the permit shall be deemed compliance with any applicable requirements as of the date of permit issuance

, provided that certain specific conditions set out in

40 C.F.R. § 71.6(f) are met. This provision is commonly referred to as a “permit
shield.” See 40 C. F.R. § 71.6(f)

. EPA has determined that it is appropriate at this time to grant a permit shield for the requirements applicable to the Sauget facility as a result of applicability of the following regulations: 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart V, the National Em ission Standard for Emission Leaks; 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DD, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Off

- Site Waste and Recovery Operations; and 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart FF, the
National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations. EPA has made this
determination because EPA is no longer pursuing the violations of these provisions alleged in the September 27, 2006 FOV/NOV

.

However, because the allegations in the June 12, 2008 and August 24, 2012 FOVs have not yet been resolved , and may result in incorporation into the permit of a compliance schedule

, if necessary to bring this facility into compliance, EPA has determined that it is not appropriate at this time to grant a permit shield for the applicable requirements of the HWC MACT standard, including those portions of the general provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 63 applicable to the source as a result of the applicability of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE. EPA will reconsider whether a permit shield for these provisions i s appropriate following resolution of the allegations in the FOVs

.

15 O n February 26, 2007, I EPA referred Veolia to the Illinois Attorney General for alleged violations of the Illinois
Environmental Prot ection Act, Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations, and the HWC MACT. On March 5, 2010, after receiving additional information, I EPA referred to the Illinois Attorney General additional alleged
violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act , Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations, and the HWC

MACT.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 29 of 79

In addition, EPA notes that 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(f)(3) expressly provides that nothing in any Part 71 permit shall alter or affect the following:

(i) The provisions of S ection 303 of the Act (eme rgency orders), including the authority of the Administrator under that section;

(ii) The liability of an owner or operator of a source for any violation of applicable requirements prior to or at the time of permit issuance;

(iii) The applicable requirements of the acid rain program, consistent with

S ection 408(a) of the Act; or

(iv) The ability of EPA to obtain informa tion from a source pursuant to S ection
114 of the Act.

EPA may reopen the permit to add or modify permit terms and conditions if EPA
determines that add itional measures are necessary to assure compliance. See
C onditions 4.10 through 4.14 of the permit

.

3.2.3. Compliance Schedule

EPA has determined that a compliance schedule is not required at this time to address the pending FOVs. An FOV is simply one early step in EPA ’ s enforcement process. This step is commonly followed by additional investigation or discovery, information gathering, and an exchange of views, all of which occur in the context of an enforcement proceeding, and are impor tant means of fact

finding under our system of civil litigation. An F OV is not a final agency action and is not subject to judicial review. N o binding legal consequences flow from an

F OV, and an F OV does not have the force or effect of law

. See PacifiCo rp v. Thomas , 883 F.2d 661 (9th Cir. 1988); Absetec Constr. Servs. v. EPA , 849 F.2d 765,768

- 69 (2nd Cir. 1988); Union Elec. Co. v. EPA , 593 F.2d 299, 304

- 06 (8th Cir. 1979); and West Penn Power Co. v. Train , 522 F.2d 302, 310

- 11 (3rd Cir. 1975). See also

, Sierra Club v. Johnson , 541 F.3d 1257, 1267 (11 th Cir. 2008) ; Sierra Club v. EPA , 557 F.3d 401, 406

- 409 (6 th Cir. 2009)

. However, EPA will reopen the permit following resolution of EPA’s allegations

, if necessary

, to incorporate a compliance schedule or any applicable requirements.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 30 of 79



## 4.0. PERMIT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

4.1. Overview of Permit Terms

T itle V permit s generally do not impose new substantive air quality control requirements

, referred to as “ applicable requirements

. ” 16 See 57 Fed. Reg. 32250, 32251. A Title V permit must include all e missions limitations and standards, including those operational requirements and limitations that assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance

. 40 C.F.R § 71.6(a)(1)

. Additionally, the permit must contain periodic monitoring that is sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source’s compliance with the permit, and that is sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and condition s of the permit. 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(a)(3)(B), (c)(1).

One purpose of t he T itle V permit is to enable the source, states, EPA, and the public to
better understand the requirements to which the source is subject, and whether the source is meeting those requi rements

. 57 Fed. Reg. 32251

. Thus , the Title V permit is a vehicle for ensuring that air quality control requirements are appropriately applied to facility emission units and for assuring compliance with such requirements. The Title V permit
is an enfor ceable compilation of enforceable ter ms, conditions and limitations

.

Veolia’s permit includes enforcea ble terms and conditions from the following sources :

 National Emission Standards for HAPs (NESHAPs)

– Standards promulgated under the authority of Section 112 of the CAA and promulgated under 40 C.F.R. Parts 61 and 63. The specific applicable subparts are listed in Table 7 ;

 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

– Standards promulgated under the authority of Section 111 of the CAA and promulgated under 40 C.F.R. Part 60. The specific applicable subparts are listed in Table 7;

 The Illinois SIP

– EPA

- approved regulations c odified in Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code ( 35 IAC) and 40 C.F.R. § 52.720 ; and

 C onstruction and operating permits issued by IEPA.

16 The term “applicable requirement” is defined in 40 C.F.R § 71.2.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 31 of 79



### 4.2. Applicable Requirements

Table 7 provides a summary of the applicable requirements included in Veolia’s permit

. Note that this summary is provided as an overview of the requirements that apply to
Veolia’s emission units and it does not include specifics on all of the applicable requirements n or does it include all of the monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements to which Veolia is subject . The permit itself includes such information.

Table 7

. Summary of Applicable Requirements.

Emission
Unit Summary of

Applicable Requirement and
Permit Condition Regulatory

Citation Summary of Monitoring,

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Incineration Units

2 , 3 and 4 Visible emission

limitations : maximum 30 percent opacity and
no visible emissions beyond the property boundary. [Condition 2.1(A)(1)] 35 IAC 212.123(a),

212.301 and 212.314 Continuous opacity

monitors (COMs) and recording devices . Best management practices.

SO 2 emission limit : 7.7 tpy for Units 2 and 3; 50.76 tpy for Unit 4. [Condition 2.1(A)(2)] Construction Permits

87100024 and

88010001 C alculate e missions from

test results, monitoring data, engineering calculations and
standard emission factors.

CO emission
limitations : 100 parts per million by volume (ppmv) corrected to 7
percent oxygen ; 500 ppm corrected to 50
percent excess air ; 6.6
tpy for U nits 2 and 3 ; and 13.86 tpy for U nit

4

. [Condition 2.1(A)(3)] 40 C.F.R. §

63.12 19(a)(5) ; 35

IAC 216.141 ; Construction Permit s 83120053, 87100024
and 88010001

. CO continuous emissions

monitoring system s (CEMS)
and recording devices

.

PM limits : 0.08 grain per standard cubic foot (gr/scf)) of effluent gases corrected to 12
percent CO 2 ; 0 .013 gr/ d scf, corrected to

7 percent oxygen ; 15.0 35 IAC 212.181(b)

,

Construction Permit

83120053 ; 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219(a)(7) ; Construction Permit s 87100024 and

88010001 Bag leak detection systems

for baghouses. CPTs at the frequency required by the

HWC MACT. Establish and comply with the applicable OPLs.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 32 of 79

Emission
Unit Summary of

Applicable Requirement and
Permit Condition Regulatory

Citation Summary of Monitoring,

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

t py for U nits 2 and 3
and 16.92 tpy for

U nit 4. [Condition 2.1(A)(4)] Comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the HWC

MACT. C alculate

e missions from test results, monitoring data, engineering calculations and
standard emission factors.

VOC emission limits : 8 lb/hr ; 0.9 tpy for

U nits 2 and 3 and 3.1
tpy for U nit 4

. [Condition 2.1(A)(5)] 35 IAC 219.301,

219.302 ; Construction Permit s 87100024 and

88010001 Compliance with the HWC

MACT’s DRE standard of 99.99% destruction provides for compliance with these requirements. C alculate

e missions from test results, monitoring data, engineering calculations and
standard emission factors.

NOx emission limits : 4.0 t py for U nits 2 and 3 and 61.6 tons per year for U nit 4

. [Condition 2.1(A)(6)] Construction P ermits

87100024 and

88010001 C alculate e missions from

test results, monitoring data, engineering calculations and
standard emission factors.

HAP emission limits ( corrected to 7 percent

oxygen ): dioxin s and
furans : 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm ; mercury : 130 μg/dscm ; cadmium and lead (combined): 230 μg/dscm ; arsenic, beryllium and

chromium (combined)
92 μg/dscm ; HCl: 32

ppmv, 4.0 lb/hr from
Units 2 and 3 or a minimum HCl
removal efficiency of

99 percent

. [Conditions 40 C.F.R.

§ 63.1219(a) ; Construction P ermits
83120053 and

87100024 CPTs at the frequency

required by the HWC

MACT. Establish and comply with applicable
OPLs established in the permit thr ough the use of continuous monitoring systems (CMS s ), f

eedstream analysis as prescribed in a feedstream analysis plan and the permit , and

o peration of a multi

- metals

CEMS as a parametric
monitor at each unit for at least one year. Comply with
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
of the HWC MACT.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 33 of 79

Emission
Unit Summary of

Applicable Requirement and
Permit Condition Regulatory

Citation Summary of Monitoring,

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 2.1(A)(7)(a)

- (d) and (A)(8)]

D estruction and

R emoval E fficiency (DRE) standard. [Condition 2.1(A)(9)] 40 C.F.R. §§

63.1219(c)(1)
and 63.1219 (d) ; 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219(c)( 2 ) ; 40 C.F.R. §

63.12 19 (c)(3)] CPTs at the frequency

required by the HWC

MACT. Establish and comply with applicable

OPLs. Comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the HWC

MACT.

W ork practice , design and operating requirements

. [Conditions 2.1(A)(7)(e) and (f); 2.1(C)] 40 C.F.R.

§ § 61.348(a)(1)(iii) ; 63.689(c)(2) ; 63.1209 ; 63.1206 ; 63.6(e)(3) Establish and comply with

applicable OPLs. Comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
of the HWC MACT.

Material Processing

Areas (MP

- 1

, MP

- 2
and Lab Pack Repack Unit ) NESHAPs for off

- site waste and recovery operations and
containers. [Conditions 2.2(A)(1) and (A)(2))] 40 C.F.R. Part 63,

Subpart s DD and PP Comply with the w ork

practice requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart s DD
and PP . Control air
emissions from containers
in accordance with
Container Level 1 requirements.

VOC limit : 8 lb/hr except as allowed for

in 35 IAC 219.301

. [Condition 2.2(A)(3)] 35 IAC 219.301 C alculate VOC e missions
based on the most recent
version of the TANKS

program

. V isible emissions : 30 percent limit except as allowed by 35 IAC

212.123 (b). [Condition 2.2(A)(4)] 35 IAC 212.123 Daily visible emissions
observations

.

Drum Crusher PM limits : Variable

SIP limits for process
emission units. [Condition 2.3(A)(1)] 35 IAC 212.321(a) Calculate PM emissions from test results, monitoring data, engineering
calculations and standard
emission factors.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 34 of 79

Emission
Unit Summary of

Applicable Requirement and
Permit Condition Regulatory

Citation Summary of Monitoring,

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
VOC limit : 8 lb/hr except as allowed for
in 35 IAC 219.301. [Condition 2. 3(A)(2 )] 35 IAC 219.301 Calculate VOM emissions using an emission factor equal to 0.0221 lb VOM per
drum crushed.

Visible emissions : 30 percent opacity limit except as allowed by 35 IAC 212.123(b)
and 212.124

. [Condition 2.3 (A)(3 )] 35 IAC 212.123(a) Daily visible emissions
observations.

Storage Tanks for Liquid Wastes ( Tanks #2, #4, #6, #8, #10, #20, #30, #40, #50, #60, #300, #302, #304, #306, #308, #310, #312, #314 ) , and
No. 2 Fuel Oil (Tank #390 ) NESHAPs for benzene

waste operations and
off

- site waste and recovery operations. [Condition s 2. 4 (A )( 1 ) and (A)(2) ] 40 C.F.R. Part 61,

Subpart FF ; 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DD Monitoring, recordkeeping

and reporting requirements
of 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart FF and 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DD

. Regular i nspect ion of submerged loading pipes

. NSPS for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels. [Condition 2. 4 (A)(3)] 40 C.F.R. Part 60,

Subpart Kb Monitoring, recordkeeping

and reporting requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Kb

. VOC emissions from
Tank Farm #3 limited

to 2.5 t py

. [Condition 2.4(A)(3)] Construction Permit

88030101 Comply with the work

practice and operating requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Kb

, 35 IAC 219.129(f) and 219.122(b)

. Bulk Solid Waste Storage Facility (Bulk Feed Building ) NESHAPs for benzene

waste operations and
off

- site waste and recovery operations. [Condition s 2. 5 (A)( 1 ) and (A)(2) ] 40 C.F.R. Part 61,

Subpart FF ; 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DD Monitoring, recordkeeping

and reporting requirements
of 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart FF and 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DD

.

PM limits : Variable
SIP limits for process
emission units. [Condition 2.5(A)(3)] 35 IAC 212.321(a) Calculate PM emissions from test results, monitoring data, engineering
calculations and standard
emission factors.

Visible emissions : 30 percent opacity limit except as allowed by 35 IAC 212.123(a) Daily visible emissions
observations.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 35 of 79

Emission
Unit Summary of

Applicable Requirement and
Permit Condition Regulatory

Citation Summary of Monitoring,

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 35 IAC 212.123(b)
and 212.124

. [Condition 2.5(A)(4 )]
VOC limit : 8 lb/hr except as allowed for

in 35 IAC 219.301

. [Condition 2.5(A)(5)] 35 IAC 219.301 Enclosed b uilding during operations. C alculate VOC

e missions from test results, monitoring data, engineering calculations and
standard emission factors

. Gasoline Storage
Tank (564 gallon design capacity equipped with submerged loading pipe ) Requirements of the

Illinois SIP. [Condition s 2. 6 (A)( 1 ) and (A)(2) ] 35 IAC 219.122(b)

and 35 IAC 219.583(a)(1)

. Recordkeeping of tank

design information and gasoline throughput.

Boiler #1 CO emission limits :

200 ppm, corrected to 50 percent excess air ; 2.1 lb/hr; 9.2 tpy. [Conditions 2.7(A)(1) and (A)(2)] 35 IAC 216.121;

Construction P ermit
95080025 P erformance tests for CO

and NOx at a frequency of no less than once every 5

years

. Comply with the work practice requirements
of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DDDDD

, including conducting annual tune

- ups

. Use of natural gas only. Recordkeeping of fuel

usage. NOx emission limits : 1.46 lb/hr and 6.41 tpy. [Condition 2.7(A)(2)] Construction Permit

95080025 Performance tests for CO

and NOx at a frequency of no less than once every 5

years. Measure NOx concentrations during
annual tune

- ups. Use of natural gas only. Recordkeeping of fuel

usage. Visible emissions : 30 percent opacity limit except as allowed by 35 IAC 212.123(b) 35 IAC 212.123(a) A nnual Method 9 test ing.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 36 of 79

Emission
Unit Summary of

Applicable Requirement and
Permit Condition Regulatory

Citation Summary of Monitoring,

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

and 212.124

. [Condition 2. 7 (A)( 3 )]

NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers
and Process Heaters. [Condition 2.7(A)( 5 )] 40 C.F.R. Part 63,

Subpart DDDDD Comply with the work

practice requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart

DDDDD

, including conducting annual tune

- ups.

Emergency Generators (2) NESHAP for

Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE)

. [Condition

2.8 (A)] 40 C.F.R. Part 63,

Subpart ZZZZ Comply with the work

practice requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart

ZZZZ.

Facility

- wide Fugitive Emissions Requirements R equirements of 35

IAC Part 219, Subpart

C , and 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subparts J and V (equipment leaks )

. [Condition s 2. 9 (A)( 1 ) and (A)(2) ] 40 C.F.R. Part 61,

Subparts J and V

, and 35 IAC Part 219, S ubpart C Comply with the work

practice , leak detection and repair requirements of 35 IAC Part 219, Subpart C, and 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subparts J and V

.

Other General Facility

- wide Requirements Permit conditions 2.10, 3.0 and 4.0 detail all applicable general

requirements, including emissions control requirements that ap ply to insignificant emissions units and activities. Veolia must maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements.

4.2.1. GHG Emissions

Veolia is not currently subject to any applicable requirements for emissions of GHGs. This is because there are no GHG air quality control requirements
contained in the CAA, the Illinois SIP

, construction permits issued pursuant to the
Illinois SIP , or op erating permits that currently apply to this facility. While Veolia is subject to the Mandatory Reporting Rule for GHG emissions, 40 C.F.R. Part 98, that rule does not constitute an “applicable requirement,” as defined at

40 C.F.R § 71.2. See , e.g., 74 F ed. Reg. 56260, 56288 (October 30, 2009) . The Permittee must continue to comply with the applicable provisions of the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 37 of 79

4.2.2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD)

Congress developed the PSD program, set forth in Part C of the CAA (Sections 160 through 169B), to prevent significant adverse environmental impacts on “attainment areas” from large industrial sources of air pollution. Attainment areas are regions of the United States where air quality meets standards established by EPA (also called National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS).

The PSD permitting requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 52.21 apply to major stationary
sources located in Illinois. This is becau se EPA has delegated to IEPA the responsibility for all PSD permitting in the state of Illinois with the exception of any sources in Indian Country. 17 A major stationary source under the PSD regulations is a stationary source that emits or has the potentia l to emit 100 tpy or more of a regulated new source review (NSR) pollutant as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(50), and the stationary source belongs to the list of source categories provided in 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a). 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(1). Addi tionally, any stationary source is considered a major source if it emits or has the potential to emit 250 tpy or more of a regulated NSR pollutant. Id

.

A s of the dat e of EPA’s proposal of th is Title V renewal permit , there are no PSD permits issued by IEPA for construction projects undertaken by Veolia

. Future construction projects at Veolia will continue to be reviewed for applicability of PSD permitting requirements.

4.2.3. OPLs Required by the HWC MACT

To demonstrate compliance during periods between c ompliance tests, the HWC MACT (40 C.F. R. Part 63, Subpart EEE) requires sources to establish and comply
with OPLs that are representative of operating levels achieved during compliance testing required by the HWC MACT

. 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207. Veolia must de velop the OPLs contained in Table 8 for Units 2, 3 and 4

.

17 Illinois currently does not have any federally

- recognized Indian Country areas.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 38 of 79

Table 8 . OPLs Required by the HWC MACT.

OPL Reference Minimum primary combustion chamber
temperature 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(j)(1)

, (k)(2)

Minimum secondary combustion chamber
temperature 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(j)(1), (k)(2)

Maximum flue gas flowrate or production rate 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(j)(2)), (k)(3), (m)(2), (n)(5), (o)(2) Maximum hazardous waste pumpable feedrate
rate for each combustion chamber 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(j)(3), (k)(4)

Maximum hazardous waste total feedrate rate for
each combustion chamber 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(j)(3), (k)(4)

Operation of waste firing system for each location
where waste is fed to the incinerator 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(j)(4)

Maximum temperature of the gas at the inlet to a dry particulate matter control device 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(k)(1)), (n)(1)

Minimum carbon injection rate (Unit 4 Only)* 40 C.F. R. § 63.1209(k)(6)(i) Minimum carrier fluid (gas or liquid) flowrate or pressure drop for activated carbon injection
system (Unit 4 Only) * 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(k)(6)(ii)

The brand ( i.e., manufacturer) and type of carbon used during the comprehensive performance test (Unit 4 Only) * 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(k)(6)(iii)

Maximum total feedrate of mercury 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(l)(1)(i)

Maximum ash feedrate 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(m)(3)

Maximum total feedrate of semivolatile metals 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(n)(2)(ii)

Maximum total feedrate of low volatile metals 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(n)(2)(ii)

Feedrate limits for low volatile metals in pumpable feedstreams 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(n)(2)(vii)

Feedrate of total chlorine and chloride in all
feedstreams 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(n)(4), (o)(1)

Minimum sorbent feedrate 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(o)(4)(i)

Minimum carrier fluid flowrate or nozzle pressure drop for the spray dry adsorber 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(o) (4)(ii)

The brand ( i.e., manufacturer) and type of sorbent used during the comprehensive performance test 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(o)(4)(iii)(A)

Maximum combustion chamber pressure 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(p) *These OPLs only apply to combustion units that are equipped with an activated carbon injection system . Units 2 and 3 are not equipped with activated carbon injection system s.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 39 of 79

To ensure that these OPLs do not impede normal day

- to

- day operations, sources generally take measures to operate during complia nce testing under conditions
that would normally produce the highest emissions . For example, sources often feed ash, metals, and chlorine during compliance testing at substantially higher than normal levels (e.g., by spiking the feedstream) to maximize th e feed concentration, and they often detune the air pollution control equipment to establish operating limits on the control equipment that provide operating flexibility. 18 Thus, the emission levels achieved during compliance tests are typically the highes t emission levels a source emits under reasonably anticipatable
circumstances. 19

By designing its CPT to generate emissions under worst case operating
conditions

, a source can establish OPLs that account for variability in operations (e.g., composition an d feedrate of feedstreams, as well as variability of pollution control equipment efficiency) and that do not impede normal operations. Thus,
the feedrate OPL would be based on waste levels fed during the CPT unless the regulatory authority approves a request for the source to extrapolate to a higher allowable feedrate (and emission rate) limit. 20

4.2.4. Extrapolation of CPT Feedrates

40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(l)(1)(v) and (n)(2)(vii) allows each facility to include as part
of the CPT plan required under 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.7(b) and (c) and 63.1207(e) and (f) a request to use the mercury, SVM and LVM feedrates and associated emission rates during the CPT to extrapolate to higher allowable feedrate limits and emission rates, subject to a number of statutory and policy provisions. 21 Extrapolation can be advantageous because it avoids much of the spiking that sources normally undertake during compliance testing and the associated costs, risks to operating and testing personnel, and environmental loading from emissions. 64 Fed. Reg. 5282 7

, 52946

- 529 47. Under an approved extrapolation approach, the facility would be required to feed metals at no less than normal rates to narrow the amount of extrapolation requested. Id

. Further

, EPA expect s that some spiking would be desired to increase confidence in the measured performance test feedrate levels that will be used to project feedrate limits (i.e., the errors associated with sampling and analyzing heterogeneous feedstreams can
be minimized by spiking known quantities). Id

. EPA will generally disapprove

any e xtrapolation approaches that request feedrate limits that are significantly higher than the historical range of feedrates. Id

. Extrapolated feedrate limits

18 69 Fed. Reg. 21198, 21218 (April 20, 2004)

. 19 69 Fed. Reg. 21197, 21218, April 20, 2004, HWC MACT Proposed Rule. See also 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1206(b)(2), 63.1207(f)(1) and (g)(1).

20 69 Fed. Reg. 21197, 21309

- 10, fn. 202 & 204

. 21 See also 64 Fed. Reg. 52827, 52946

- 47 ( September 30, 199 9 ) ; 40 C.F.R. § 6 3.1209(l)(1)(v) and (n)(2)(vii)

.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 40 of 79

should be limited to levels within the range of the highest historical feedrates for
the source. Id

.

4.2.5. Feedrate OPLs Included in Veolia’s Permit

EPA has reviewed Veolia’s CPT test report dated January 28, 2014 (the 2014 CPT report) 22 and Veolia’s Notification of Compliance (NOC) dated January 28, 2014 (the 2014 NOC) and determined that there is sufficient information to enable EPA to establish OPLs for mercury, SVM and LVM that satisfy the requirements of the Act and the HWC MACT. Sp ecifically, EPA has determined that the OPLs shown in Table 9, below, are supported by the available CPT data. Therefore,
consistent with 40 C.F.R § 71.6(a)(1)

, EPA is proposing to incorporated these OPLs into the permit. See Condition 2.1(C)(2).

Table 9

. Proposed Feedrate OPLs for Select ed Parameters

.

Unit # Measured Parameter Average

Feedrate During CPT (lb/hr) Proposed

OPL (lb/hr) a Measured Average

Stack Conc entration (μg/dscm @ 7% O 2 , except as noted) d MACT Limit (Corrected to 7%
O 2 )

2 Mercury 0.00212 0.0021 100 130 μg/dscm

LVM 46.3 46 2.6 92 μg/dscm LVM (Pumpable) 46.3 46 2.6 92 μg/dscm

SVM 61.9 62 0.95 230 μg/dscm

Total Chlorine 206.1 204 20 32 ppmv dry, as Cl

Ash 503.0 503 0.00071 gr/dscf (PM) 0.013 gr/dscf

Total Waste 4,182.4 4,017 b N/A N/A
Total Pumpable Waste 3,324.5 3,107 b N/A N/A

3 Mercury 0.00221 0.0021 48 130 μg/dscm

LVM 46.0 46 9.4 92 μg/dscm LVM (Pumpable) 46.0 46 9.4 92 μg/dscm

SVM 62.3 62 15 230 μg/dscm

Total Chlorine 204.2 204 3.6 32 ppmv dry, as Cl

Ash 525.8 503 0.00200 gr/dscf (PM) 0.013 gr/dscf

Total Waste 4,180.2 4,017 b N/A N/A
Total Pumpable Waste 3,337.5 3,107 b N/A N/A

22 The 2014 CPT report contains the results of the CPT performed in October 2013 and analysis of the data.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 41 of 79

Unit # Measured Parameter Average

Feedrate During CPT (lb/hr) Proposed

OPL (lb/hr) a Measured Average

Stack Conc entration (μg/dscm @ 7% O 2 , except as noted) d MACT Limit (Corrected to 7%
O 2 )

4 Mercury 0.0402 0.040 10 130 μg/dscm

LVM 46.2 46 9.7 92 μg/dscm LVM (Pumpable) 45.9 46 9.7 92 μg/dscm

SVM 62.0 62 7.8 230 μg/dscm

Total Chlorine 203.2 203 14 32 ppmv dry, as Cl

Ash 4 ,777.2 4,777 0.0021 gr/dscf (PM) 0.013 gr/dscf

Total Waste to PCC 9,490.5 10,632 N/A N/A Total Pumpable Waste

to PCC 3,432.0 3,312 c N/A N/A

Total Pumpable Waste

to SCC 1,191.5 1,203 N/A N/A

a. H azardous waste feedrate OPLs are 1

- hour rolling averages ; other OPLs are 12

- hour rolling averages

. Maximum hazardous waste feedrate is established as the average of the maximum hourly rolling averages for each run

. b. 1993 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA ) Trial Burn value for Unit 2

.

c. 1995 RCRA Trial Burn value for Unit 4.
d. Data taken from the 2014 CPT Report. For purposes of this table, m easurements that

were reported below the detection limit have been rounded up to the detection limit.

Veolia did not include in t he 2014 CPT report or application for renewal of its Title V permit a request to extrapolate mercury

, SVM or LVM feedrates pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(l)(1)(v) and (n)(2)(vii). Because Veolia did not request such extrapolation, we are proposing to incorporat e as mercury , SVM and LVM feedrate OPLs the feedrates at which
Veolia conducted its October 2013 testing, as documented in the 2014 NOC

.

To establish the mercury, LVM

, SVM and chlorine feedrates reported in Table 9 , Veolia spiked : 23

 mercury (as a mercuric nitrate solution) during all three metal test runs of the CPT
and used the mercury system removal efficiency ( SRE ) demonstrated during the
CPT to establish the feedrate limits for total mercury;

23 Spiking during CPTs involves adding a known amount of a high purity compound into the feedstream for the purpose of establishing the maximum amount of that compound that can be fed to the incinerator without violating any applicable emission standards. The average CPT feedrates for mercury, SVM, LVM and chlorine reported in Table 9 represent the ana lysis results of feedstream samples collected at least 30 minutes after spiking with chromium, lead, mercury and chlorine had been initiated.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 42 of 79

 chromium (as chromic acid) during all three metal test runs of the CPT and used the chromium SRE demonstrated during the CPT to establish the feedrate li mits for total and pumpable LVM;

 lead (as lead nitrate) during all three metal test runs of the CPT and used the lead SRE demonstrated during the CPT to establi sh the feedrate limits for SVM ; and

 chlorine ( hexachloroethane ) during all three metal test runs of the CPT and used the
chlorine SRE demonstrated during the CPT to est abli sh the feedrate limits for
HCl/Cl 2

.



### 4.3. Non

- applicable Requirements

As previously discussed, EPA’s regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 71 allow permitting

authorities the discretion to include a “permit shield ” in the permit (i.e., a provision in the permit stating that compliance with the conditions of the permit shall be deemed compliance with any applicable requirements as of the date of permit issuance). See
40 C.F.R. § 71.6(f). However, to extend the permit shield to conditions to which the

source is n ot subject, the permitting authority must, in acting on the permit application, determine in writing that requirements specifically identified in the permit are not applicable to the source, and must include in the permit that determination or a concise

su mmary thereof. See 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(f)(1)(ii).

Table 1 0 provides a summary of requirements that EPA has determined do not apply to
Veolia’s emission units. The non

- applicability determinations are found in conditions 2.1(B), 2.2(B), 2.3(B), 2.4(B), 2.5(B), 2.6(B), 2.7(B), 2.8(B) and 2.9(B) of the proposed renewal permit

. Each non

- applicability determination is based on the particular rule’s applicability criteria

.

Table 10 . Summary of Non

- applicable Requirements.

Emissi on Unit The affected emission unit is not

subject to... Explanation and Regulatory
Reference

Incineration Units 2, 3 and 4 40 C.F.R. Part 64, Compliance

Assurance Monitoring for Major Stationary Sources (CAM). These units are required to comply
with a MACT standard proposed after November 15, 1990

. Emissions units subject to MACT standards proposed by the Administrator after November 15, 1990 are exempt from CAM. [40 C.F.R. § 64.2(b ) (1)(i) ]

35 IAC Part 229

, Hospital Medical
Infectious Waste Incinerators

. Condition 2.1(C)(1) prohibit s the
Permittee from accepting orStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 43 of 79

Emissi on Unit The affected emission unit is not

subject to... Explanation and Regulatory
Reference processing hospital medical infectious waste at the facility . [35 IAC 229.110]

Waste Processing Areas (MP

- 1, MP

- 2
and the Lab Pack Repack ) 40 C.F.R. Part 64, CAM. These units do not use an add

- on control device to achieve compliance
with an emission limitation or
standard . [40 C.F.R. § 64.2 (a)] 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart BB

. T his source is not part of a benzene production facility. [40 C.F.R. § 61.300 ]

Waste Processing Areas (MP

- 1, MP

- 2) Conveyor Systems 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DD

. The conveyor systems associated with

MP

- 1 and MP

- 2 are used in the conveyance of material using a container. [40 C.F.R. § 63.681]

Drum Crusher 40 C.F.R. Part 64, CAM

. T he affected drum crusher does not
use an add

- on control device to achieve compliance with an emission limitation or standard. [40 C.F.R. § 64.2(a)]

L i quid W aste Storage T anks 35 IAC 219.120, 219.121 and

219.123 The affected liquid waste storage tanks are not subject to t he control requirements of 35 IAC 219.120,
219.121 and 219.123 because these storage tanks are less than 151 m 3 (40,000 gal lon ) capacity. [35 IAC 219.119, 219.121, 219.123(a)(2)] 40 C.F.R. Part 64, CAM.  The affected liquid waste storage
tanks are subject to a NESHAP proposed after November 15,
1990. Emissions units subject to NESHAPs proposed by the Administrator after November 15, 1990 are exempt from CAM. [40 C.F.R. § 64.2(b)(1)(i)]

 The potential pre

- control device emissions are less than major source levels for any of the CAM pollutants. [40 C.F.R. § 64.2(a)(3)]Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 44 of 79

Emissi on Unit The affected emission unit is not

subject to... Explanation and Regulatory
Reference

Bulk Solid Waste Storage Facility 40 C.F.R. Part 64, CAM. T he potential pre

- control device emissions are less than major source levels for any of the CAM pollutants

. [ 40 C.F.R. § 64.2 ]

Gasoline Storage
Tank 35 IAC 219.583(a)(2),(3),(4) The af fected gasoline storage tank has a capacity of less than 575 gallons. [ 35 IAC 219.583(b)(3) ] 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Kb The design capacity of the storage
tank is less than 40 m 3 (10,576 gallons). [40 C.F.R. § 60.110b(a)]

35 IAC 219.121 The gasoline storage tank has a capacity of less than 40,000 gallons. [35 IAC 219.121]

35 IAC 219.120 The gasoline storage tank stores petroleum liquids. [35 IAC 219.119(e)]

40 C.F.R. Part 64 , CAM. The gasoline storage tank does not use
an add

- on control device to achieve compliance with an emission limitation or standard. [40 C.F.R. § 64.2]

Boiler #1 35 IAC 217.121 T he actual heat input of the affected boiler is less than 73.2 MW (250 mmBtu/hr). [ 35 IAC 217.121 ]

35 IAC 219.301 Boiler #1 is a fuel combustion
emission unit and fuel combustion emission units are not subject to 35 IAC 219.301. [35 IAC 219.303]

35 IAC 214.122 Solid or liquid fuels are not burned in
the affected boiler. [ 35 IAC 214.122 ] 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ Boiler #1 is a gas

- fired boiler as defined at 40 C.F.R. § 63.11237. [40 C.F.R. § 63.11195(e).] 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Da Boiler #1 is not capable of combusting more than 73 MW (250 mmBtu/hr) heat input of fossil fuel (either alone or in combination with any other fuel). [ 40 C.F.R. § 60.40Da(a)(1)] 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Db Boiler #1 has a heat input capacity
from fuels combusted in the unit of less than 29 MW (100 mmBtu/hr). [40 C.F.R. § 60.40b(a)]Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 45 of 79

Emissi on Unit The affected emission unit is not

subject to... Explanation and Regulatory
Reference 40 C.F.R. Part 64, CAM T he affected boiler does not use an
add

- on control device to achieve compliance with an emission
limitation or standard. [40 C.F.R. § 64.2(a)]

E mergency G enerators 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII C onstruction of the emergency generator engines did not commence, as defined at 40 C.F.R. § 60.4200(a), after July 11, 2005 and the engines
have not been modified or reconstructed after July 11, 2005. [40 C.F.R. § 60.4200] 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart JJJJ The emergency generator engines are not spark ignition engines as defined at 40 C.F.R. § 60.4248. [40 C.F.R. § 60.4230]

40 C.F.R. Part 64 , CAM. The affected emergency generators do
not use an add

- on control device to achieve compliance with an emission limitation or standard. [40 C.F.R. § 64.2(a)]

Fugitive
Emissions from Equipment
Leaks 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts VV, III,

NNN, and RRR ( NSPS for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry ) and 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subparts F, G, H, and

I ( NESHAP for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry ). The leaking equipment is not
associated with the manufacture or production of the affected organic
chemicals. [ 40 C .F.R. §§ 60.480 ; 60.610 ; 60.660 ; 60.700 ; 63.100 ; 63.110 ; 63.160 ]

40 C.F.R. Part 64 , CAM. The affected leaking equipment does
not use add

- on control devices to achieve compliance with an emission
limitation or standard. [40 C.F.R. § 64.2(a)]Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 46 of 79



## 5.0. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

5.1. Statutory Requirements

Section 504(c) of the Act requires that all T itle V permits contain , among other things, monitoring requirements to assure compliance with permit terms and conditions.

42 U.S.C. § 7661c(c). EPA codified mo nitoring rules at 40 C.F.R. §§ 71.6(a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) and 71.6(c)(1) to carry out that directive.

EPA must take the following three steps to satisfy the monitoring requirements in its regulations:

 First, EPA must ensure that monitoring requirements contained in applicable requirements are properly incorporated into the Title V permit. 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(A)

.

 Second, if the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or
instrume ntal or noninstrumental monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring), EPA must add “periodic monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source’s compliance wi th the permit.” 40 C.F.R. § 71 .6(a)(3)(i)(B)

. S uch monitoring requirements, which may consist of recordkeeping provision s, shall assure use of terms, test methods, units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions consistent with the applicable requirement. Id

.

 Third, if the applicable requirement contains some periodic monitoring, but that monitoring is not sufficient to assure compliance with permit terms and conditions, EPA must supplement monitoring to assure such compliance.

40 C.F.R. § 7 1.6(c)(1)

. See Sierra Club v. EPA

, 536 F.3d 673 , 680

- 681 (D.C. Cir.

2008 ) (the most reasonable reading of 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(c)(1) is that it ensure s that “all Title V permits include monitoring ‘sufficient to assure compliance with the

terms and condition s of the permit.’”). See also In the Matter of CITGO Refining & Chemicals Co., Petition No. VI

- 2007

- 01 (Order on Petition) (May 28, 2009) at

6

- 7

.



### 5.2. Feedstream Analysis Procedures for Mercury, LVM and SVM [Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)]

5.2.1. Overview of Requirements

Under the HWC MACT, to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limits for mercury, LVM

, SVM, PM and chlorine, Veolia must either comply with feedrateStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 47 of 79

limits established through comprehensive performance testing for those metals,
ash and chl orine, or it may petition EPA to approve the installation and continuous operation of emission monitoring systems to directly measure and document compliance with PM , metals and chlorine emissions limits. Veolia has not petitioned EPA to install and opera te a CEMS for PM , metals, or chlorine. Therefore, under the HWC MACT, Veolia must analyze each feedstream prior to feeding the material into any of its incinerators and document the amount of metals, ash and chlorine present in the feedstream. Veolia mus t follow procedures documented in a feedstream analysis plan (FAP). The FAP must be “sufficient to document compliance with the applicable feedrate limits.”

40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c).

EPA has reviewed Veolia’s FAP , which is available as part of the permit record for this proposed permit renewal action, 24 and other monitoring requirements in the existing 2008 permit , and determined that they are not sufficient to determine
that waste streams compl y with the feedrate limits or assure compliance with applicabl e emissions limits for metals. Although Veolia’s FAP contains the minimum elements required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(2)(i) through (vi), for the reasons outlined below, EPA has found that the existing FAP is not sufficient to ensure that the mercury, lea d, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium and chromium concentrations in the waste streams are no greater than the concentrations stated in the waste profiles that Veolia has used to calculate metal feedrates. As discussed below, Veolia currently depends on informat ion in a 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 waste generators. Therefore, the existing FAP cannot assure compliance with the metal s feedrate limits.

Additionally, because Veolia’s FAP does not ensure that each feedstream is appropriately characterized, the current FAP does not assure compliance with the
feedrate limits in the permit.

For the reasons further discussed below , Veolia’s current FAP is not sufficient to ensure that the mercury, SVM and LVM concentrations in the waste streams are no greater than the concentrations stated in the waste profiles that Veolia uses to calculate metal feedrates. Therefore, the FAP cann ot assure compliance with the feedrate limits for mercury, SVM and LVM. Compliance with the feedrate limits is a fundamental step in assuring compliance with the HWC MACT emissions limits. To address the deficiencies in Veolia’s FAP described above, and to assure compliance with the feedrate limits, EPA has proposed minimum mercury, LVM and SVM analysis procedures in the permit. The proposed analysis procedures would require Veolia to:

24 Veolia’s FAP and RCRA Waste Analysis Plan (WAP) are available at http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/veoliasauget/index.html

.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 48 of 79

 sample and analyze each feedstream accepted for incineration unless that feedstream is specifically exempted by the permit; 25

 sample and analyze all batched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered waste for mercury, LVM and SVM in its final form as feed for incineration prior to incineration; 26

 not batch, treat, bl end, mix, or otherwise alter feedstreams which are exempt from sampling unless Veolia samples and analyzes the otherwise exempt feedstream;

 document the concentration of mercury, LVM and SVM in any fuel other than natural gas, including used oil, diesel, and alternative fuels fed into the incinerators by either (1) obtaining analytical results from each fuel supplier or (2) conducting representative sampling of each fuel supply and analyzing such samples using appropriate quality assurance/quality control procedures and test methods. Veolia would follow this procedure at least once per year for each fuel supply; 27

 document concentrations that fall below the detection limit in non

- exempt feedstreams as equal to the detection limit; 28 and

 maintain records of all required feedstream analyses for a period of five calendar years.

The above feedstream analysis provisions supplement any analysis procedures specified in Veolia’s FAP for mercury, LVM and SVM

, and supersede any less stringent provisions in the FAP. Incorporation of these requirements into the Title V permit would not eliminate Veolia’s obligation to maintain an adequate FAP, consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c); rather, the permit would specify minimum feedstream analysis procedures to assure comp liance with the proposed feedrate limits, and, through them, with applicable HWC MACT emissions limits. Because Veolia would generally bas e metal feedrate calculations on actual feedstream analysis data and not on theoretical profile estimates, the above

25 The proposed permit lists exemptions in condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) (F).

26 In lieu of sampling and analysis, Veolia would be given the option to perform a mass balance calculation to determine concentrations in the final batched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered waste. The calculation must be based on all batched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered ingredients having been analyzed and the contribution of each ingredient determined as specified in the permit

. 27 This provision refers to fuels that are burned in the incinerators along with hazardous waste.

28 For purposes of this provision, “detection limit” loosely refers to t he proposed permit’s “reporting limit” that would be calculated for each measurement using procedures contained in EPA’s solid waste analysis methods manual, SW

- 846.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 49 of 79

supplemental feedstream analysis provisions will increase our confidence in the feedrates reported by Veolia. These provisions also will ensure that Veolia does not report metal concentrations of zero in situations where actual metal
concentrations in the feedstream are only slightly below the detection limit.

5.2.2. Deficiencies in Veolia’s Current Feedstream Analysis Procedures

A. Veolia currently does not sample and analyze all feedstreams and thus might be underreporting metal concentrations in its
feedstre ams.

Under Veolia’s current feedstream analysis procedures, Veolia does not analyze all feedstreams and instead primarily relies on the generator for information regarding the composition of a feedstream. Prior to scheduling wastes for shipment to the fa cility, the generator characterizes the waste streams. Veolia staff review the generator information before accepting the waste for
incineration. 29 Veolia maintains a “dynamic suspect list” of industries and process wastes that could contain mercury, cadm ium, chromium, arsenic, lead, and beryllium which it, therefore, must analyze for metals before the waste stream can be approved for incineration. 30 However, if Veolia considers a waste stream submitted by a generator for approval to be “similar” to waste streams that it already has accepted for treatment at Veolia facilities, rather than sampling the waste, Veolia currently may use a standard profile designation to calculate the
amount of metals in the waste. 31 The standard profile designation is based on a database developed using analytical data from wastes from similar industries or processes. Once waste is accepted for incineration, Veolia randomly samples and analyzes 10 percent of containers from each receipt number (profile) within a shipment for p H, radiation, flash point, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and apparent viscosity, pursuant to its waste analysis plan. 32 However, metals analysis may nor may not be conducted on these samples. As discussed below, there are numerous problems with Veolia’ s reliance on its analytical database in lieu of independently sampling and analyzing each feedstream.

29 Comprehensive Performance Test ( CPT) Plan for Unit 2 (June 27, 2013) at 3

- 1

. 30 NEIC Multimedia Compliance Investigation Observations Report, Veolia ES Technical Services, NEIC Project No. VP0972, August 2012 (NEIC Report) at 8

- 9. Available at: www.regulations.gov ; document ID. EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2012

- 0649

- 0035 . NEIC conducted this investigation at the request of EPA Region 5. T he goal of the investigation was to determine Veolia’s compliance with CAA and RCRA waste analysis requirements. In general, Veolia does not analyze wastes that are exemp ted by the FAP from sampling and analysis.

31 Id

. Veolia utilizes s tandard profile designations , many of which are based on historical data obtained by the Veolia facility located in Port Arthur, Texas

, for waste streams that have similar physical and chem ical characteristics, that are generated by similar industries or processes, or that have the same EPA hazardous waste codes as similar process waste. Id

. 32 Id . at 10.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 50 of 79

B. Veolia’s feedstreams are highly variable and metal compositions can vary significantly within the feedstream (i.e., heterogeneous feedstreams) and among feedstreams (variable feedstreams).

Veolia treats and disposes a variety of solid, liquid and gaseous wastes which typically arrive in drums, roll

- off containers or other similar bulk transport vehicles, totes, Gaylord boxes, tank trucks and cylinders. 33 According to Veolia’s website, in addition to other hazardous and non

- hazardous waste, Veolia’s Sauget facility accepts for incineration Drug Enforcement Administration controlled substances, drugs, goods with expired dates, seized goods, returned goods a nd lab
chemicals. 34 Because Veolia’s Sauget facility accepts and incinerates a broad range of wastes, Veolia has explained that “the individual streams that may make up the incinerator overall feed at any given time can vary greatly, depending on
generato r production and shipping schedules.” 35

In its 2012 investigation, EPA’s National Environmental Investigations Center (NEIC) found that some nominally similar waste streams generated by different generators had significantly different metal concentration s, yet, as described above, Veolia did not analyze these wastes when they arrived onsite. Instead, Veolia relied upon an “overly broad” characterization of the wastes and assigned a single metal concentration value for the individual wastes. In one insta nce, for example, Veolia has assigned two waste streams, both classified as “cyanide containing wastes” and identified by Veolia as “very similar,” two very different cadmium concentrations: 6,470 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg, respectively. 36 NEIC suggested that, due to the potential variability in metal concentrations of some “very similar” wastes from different generators, Veolia should analyze waste streams generated by different generators each time they arrive on

- site instead of relying on “overly broad profiles” to characterize these wastes. 37

Also, as noted in the NEIC report, “[s]amples of bulk liquids are not analyzed [by Veolia] for metals; instead, metals concentrations are calculated based on profile
information stored in Veolia’s waste tracking system (WTS). The WTS pulls information from the corporate tracking system, called the “I

- Series”.... Onsite analyses may be used to update the profile information in the WTS.” 38 Because liquids stored in drums, tank trucks or other contain ers separate or settle and, thus, do not generally stay homogenous (i.e., well mixed) over an extended period of

33 Veolia’s 8

- 16

- 13 application addendum at 3.

34 http://www.veoliaes.com/en/services/enterprise/waste/incineration.html (last accessed 3/14/14)

35 CPT Plan for Unit 2 (June 27, 2013) at 3

- 1

. 36 NEIC Report at 23.

37 Id

. 38 N EIC Report (August 2012) at 6. The goal of the NEIC investigation was to determine Veolia’s compliance with

CAA and RCRA waste analysis requirements. Id . at 8.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 51 of 79

time in storage, the metal concentrations in these drums can vary substantially within the drum, tank truck or container such that the stored m etal concentration profile may no longer represent the actual metal concentrations in each portion of the waste as fed to the incinerator. In addition, solids stored in containers may not stay well

- mixed (i.e., homogeneous) during transport from the waste generator to the facility. Therefore, in order to better determine actual metal concentrations in solid and liquid wastes as fed to the incinerator, it is critical that these wastes be analyzed after they are accepted for incineration at the facility.

C. V eolia’s current feedstream analysis and recordkeeping procedures could cause Veolia to significantly underreport
concentrations of some metals in its feedstreams.

NEIC’s investigation revealed that Veolia may have significantly underreported

concentrations of chromium and cadmium in some feedstreams. 39 In one example, Veolia reported a chromium value of 228 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for a certain waste in its databases while a material safety data sheet for
that waste listed a total chro mium value of 30,000 to 60,000 mg/kg. 40 Because Veolia generally uses information contained in its databases to calculate metal feedrates rather than independently analyzing each feedstream before it is fed to the incinerator, Veolia may have used an incor rect concentration to calculate chromium feedrates in this case. Therefore, in the examples observed by NEIC, Veolia’s possible use of incorrect metal concentrations to calculate feedrates may have resulted in significant underreporting of the actual meta l feedrates. 41

Without the proposed monitoring procedures, there is no way to evaluate the accuracy of the metal concentrations used by Veolia.

D. Analytical and data reporting errors may have resulted in
inaccurate feedrate calculations for some metals.

In its investigation, NEIC identified conflicting metals data between the profile package and the information entered in Veolia’s databases. 42 In one example, a profile reported a chromium concentration of 1.8 milligrams per liter (mg/L), yet

39 NEIC Report at 23.

40 Id

. 41 Another example of this possibility is illustrated within the pre parations leading up to the October 2013 comprehensive performance test . Waste Profile #739592, BILT PLATES

– a product containing kaolin clay

– was not identified by Veolia staff as “suspect” for mercury. As such, Veolia continued to receive several shi pments and would likely have incinerated the material assuming a mercury concentration of zero had it not decided to reserve

this material for the test burn. As it turns out, analysis of this wastestream during the test burn revealed that t he

actual mercu ry concentration in the wastestream was 0.19 ppm

– not zero

. Thus, the wastestream contained enough

mercury to have supplied about 36% of the total mercury f eedrate for Unit s 2 or 3 (based on the updated

N otification of Compliance (N OC )), but Veolia would not have accounted for it in its wastestream analysis.

42 NEIC Report at 23.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 52 of 79

Veolia used a v alue of 0 mg/L in its databases. 43 In another example, a profile reported a total mercury concentration of 4140 mg/kg but Veolia used a value of 25 mg/kg in its databases for at least 5 years. 44 NEIC estimated that if a mercury concentration of 4140 mg/kg had been present in waste that was incinerated on August 28 and 29, 2011, Veolia would have exceeded the emissions and feedrate limits for mercury on those days. 45 Because of this type of problem with conflicting entries, without any clear indication of wh ich concentration is correct, it is possible that Veolia used incorrect metals concentrations for feedrate calculations on August 28 and 29, 2011, and very likely that Veolia uses incorrect metals concentrations on a regular basis.

Thus, in the proposed T itle V renewal permit , EPA requires Veolia to prepare and follow a FAP to demonstrate compliance with the metal feedrate limits, conduct periodic comprehensive performance tests as required by the HWC MACT, and comply with a number of additional monitoring

, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The additional feedstream analysis procedures, which are found in conditions 2.1(D)(1)(i) and 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii), supplement any other mercury, LVM and SVM analysis procedures specified in Veolia’s FAP and superse de any less stringent provisions in the FAP. As already stated above, i ncorporation of these requirements into the Title V permit does not eliminate Veolia’s obligation to maintain an adequate FAP, consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c); rather, we are

sp ecifying minimum feedstream analysis procedures to assure compliance with the proposed feedstream limits, and, through them, compliance with the applicable HWC MACT limits.

We are also specifying that Veolia maintain records of its feedstream analyses and other data required to be kept by the permit for a period of five calendar years, and make them available at all times for inspection by EPA, Illinois EPA, local agencies, or their duly authorized representatives, pursuant to Condition 2.1(E)(21) of the p ermit.



### 5.3. Multi

- Metals Continuous Monitoring Requirements [Condition 2.1(D)(1)(i)]

5.3.1. Overview of Requirements

Veolia conducted comprehensive performance tests (CPTs) at each of the
incinerators in October 2013 . T he results of those CPT s demonstrated

, among other things, that the emissions from the three units were significantly different,

43 Id

. 44 Id

. 45 Id . at 27.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 53 of 79

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 for the differing emissions at the three units. Further, EPA does not know with which metals chlorine or other anions p referentially react in the gas stream and which metal chlorides are more easily captured in Veolia’s air pollution control equipment.

The HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(g)(2) provides the Administrator authority to limit additional or alternative oper ating parameters or require “alternative approaches to establish limits on operating parameters” that are necessary to document compliance with the HWC MACT emissions standards. EPA interprets 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(g)(2) as providing EPA with authority to

r equire additional monitoring r elated to parametric monitoring

. Additionally, section 114(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a), provides EPA with authority to require “enhanced monitoring” as necessary to carry out any provision of th e Act

. Section 114(a) o f the Act states in relevant part:

For the purpose ... (iii) [of] carrying out any provision of this chapter (except a provision of subchapter II of this chapter with respect to a manufacturer of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines) ... (1) the Administrator may require any person who owns or operates any emission source, ... who the Administrator believes may have information necessary for the purposes set forth in this subsection, or who is subject to any requirement of this chapter (other th an a manufacturer subject to the provisions of section 7525 (c) or 7542 of this title with respect to a provision of subchapter II of this chapter ) on a one

- time, periodic or continuous basis to ... (C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, an d use such audit procedures, or methods ... and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require...

. The Administrator shall in the case of any person which is the owner or operator of a major stationary source...require enhanced monitoring and submission of compliance certifications.

Therefore, 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(g)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a) provide the authority to require installation and temporary use of a multi

- metal s C ontinuous

P arameter M onitoring S ystem (CPMS) to assess whether the identified parameters and operating parameter levels are adequate to assure compliance with
the emission limits set forth in the HWC MACT . Un der th e s e authorit ies

, a CPMS using CEMS technology can be used to indicat e performance and not

necess arily as a direct measure of emissions. EPA has previously employed this approach in the context of the Portland Cement MACT rulemaking in which EPA required affected sources to install PM CEMS but to operate each PM CEMS as a CPMS

. See 78 Fed

. Reg

. 10019

- 10020. Therefore, throughout this document andStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 54 of 79

Veolia’s permit , EPA is using the term multi

- metals CEMS to reflect the use of
the CEMS as a CPMS

. Section 504(a) of the Act requires that “Each permit issued under [Title V of the Act] shall include ... such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable requirements of this Act, including the requirements of the applicable implementation plan.” Inclusion of requirements for use of the multi

- metals CEMS as a CPMS under the au thority of

40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(g)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 7414(a) is consistent with this
mandate.

To verify that the feedrate limits and the feedstream analysis procedures proposed
in th is Title V permit renewal are sufficient to assure continuous compliance with the HWC MACT emissions limits, EPA is proposing to require that Veolia install and operate a multi

- metals CEMS at each incineration unit for a period of at least
12 months. 46 Veolia will operate each multi

- metals CEMS as a CPMS

, us ing the metal concentrations measured by the multi

- metals CEMS as a parametric
indicator of compliance with the emissions standards and to verify the adequacy
of the feedrate limits

. B ecause multi

- metals CEMS measurements have previously been demonstrate d 47 to have excellent correlation with measurements made using EPA Reference Method 29 of Appendix A to 40 C.F.R. Part 60

, Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources, the EPA sees a distinct advantage in using this technology for establishing the correlation
between metal emissions and metal feedrates

. For purposes of Veolia’s permit

, the parametric range for the multi

- metals CEMS would be equivalent to the HWC
MACT emissions standards. However, Veolia may choose to perform a site

specific side

- b y

- side evaluation of the multi

- metals CEMS and EPA Reference
Method 29 to establish an alternate parametric range that demonstrates compliance with the HWC MACT standards , and it may propose to use that alternate parametric range to establish a correlation between the OPLs and the
emission limits. B ecause the metal concentrations measured by the multi

- metals CEMS are directly comparable to concentrations by Method 29, EPA does not
believe that such a site

- specific evaluation is necessary.

During the perio d in which the multi

- metals CEMS is operating, a correlation can be determined between the emissions concentration values reported by the multi

metals CEMS and the feedrate concentrations reported through feedstream analysis. Veolia then will use t he data from the multi

- metals CEMS as an indicator of whether or not the feedrate limits are sufficiently stringent to assure

46 EPA is aware of one commercially available multi

- metals CEMS

– the Xact Multi

- Metals CEMS manufactured and distributed by Cooper Environmental Services

, LLC (10180 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite J6, Portland, Portland, Oregon 97223 ). The Xact does not directly measure beryllium, which is one of the regulated metals. The proposed permit would require Veolia to estimate beryllium emissions from its feedrate as q uantified according to the additional feedstream analysis procedures in the permit and the system removal efficiency and exhaust parameters used by Veolia to estimate emissions of that metal.

47 See , for example, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi

- bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433778 for the results of one such evaluation.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 55 of 79

continuous compliance with the metals emissions limits in the HWC MACT at
each of the combustion units.

During the 12

- month period, Veolia will continue to monitor feedrates using the procedures in its FAP and the additional feedstream analysis procedures proposed in the Title V permit . In addition, during the 12

- month period during which it operates the mu lti

- metals CEMS, Veolia w ill be required to comply with the feedrate limits for mercury, LVM and SVM.

If the data from t he multi

- metals CEMS show a deviation from the metals emissions limits, indicating that Veolia may not be in compliance with a HWC

MA CT metals emissions limit, Veolia will analyze the feedstream analysis data
for the waste burned at the time of the deviation and the combustion conditions that existed at the time of the deviation to determine why the deviation occurred.
Veolia will send to EPA within 30 days of the deviation all feedstream analysis data for the period of the deviation

, its analysis of the cause of the deviation , an explanation of all corrective actions taken, and the corresponding 12

- hour average
metal concentrations for the period that includes the hour of the deviation

.

At any time during or after the period in which Veolia operates the CEMS as a parametric monitor of the adequacy of the feedrate limits , Veolia may petition

EPA to allow it to use the multi

- metals CEM S as the primary means of demonstrating compliance with the HWC MACT emissions limits, in lieu of complying with the feedrate limits . If Veolia does not petition to use the CEM S as the primary means of demonstrating compliance, Veolia may discontinue use
of the CEMS once EPA has sufficient information to verify the efficacy of the feedrate limits in assuring compliance with the HWC MACT emissions limits.

Under EPA’s proposal, the multi

- metals CEMS will provide evidence of deviations that may demonstrat e that the feedrate limits in the Title V permit are not stringent enough to assure compliance with the HWC MACT limits at all times. A deviation will not necessarily mean that Veolia has violated a HWC

MACT emissions limit. I f data collected through ope ration of the multi

- metals

CEMS at the time of any deviation, along with analysis of the waste burned and
the combustion conditions that existed at the time of the deviation

, reveal that any of the feedrate limits included in Veolia’s permit must be more stringent to assure compliance with the applicable emissions limits, EPA will reopen the permit, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.7(f), to either revise the affected feedrate limits or require extended or permanent operation of the multi

- metals CEMS. On the oth er hand, if operation of the multi

- metals CEMS reveals that any of the feedrate limits included in the permit are more stringent than necessary to assure compliance with the applicable emissions limits, Veolia may petition EPA to use the results of
histori cal performance tests, feedstream analysis, and CEMS data to establish higher feedrate limits for the affected incineration units, provided th at VeoliaStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 56 of 79

demonstrate s that compliance would be assured at the higher feedrate limits regardless of the waste burn ed.

Because the multi

- metals CEMS will provide continuous data, Veolia can identify
deviations from the HWC MACT emissions limits in near real time and make prompt adjustments to process parameters (temperature, oxygen, feed rate, etc.) to
minimize emissi ons , as well as analyze the waste data and combustion conditions
that existed at the time of the deviation

.

EPA believes that o ne year of data at each incinerator should be sufficient to
ensure that deviations resulting from any variability in feedstream characteristics can adequately be captured. Additionally, Veolia may be able to develop a correlation between feedrates and deviations based on the CEMS data. The temporary use of the CEMS, in conjunction with the feedstream analysis plan and the supplem ents to the plan proposed in the permit to ensure compliance with the
feedrate limits should, therefore

, confirm that the metal feedrate limits established in the permit are adequate to assure compliance with the emissions limits for these
metals.

5.3.2. Multi

- Metals CEMS and Feedstream Analysis

Aside from the specific deficiencies discussed above, f eedstream analysis generally poses several challenges including the uncertainty associated with 1) measurement of extremely low metal concentrations in the fe edstream (i.e., concentrations at or near the detection limit of the measurement device); 2) heterogeneity of the hazardous waste, which may lead to a non

- representative sample and hence an inaccurate estimate of the metal feed concentration; and 3)
inabil ity to demonstrate continuo us compliance with MACT limits since there is typically a considerable time lag time between sampling and analysis.

The uncertainties caused by feedstream analysis can be largely re solved when a well

- maintained and operated CEMS is used to identify deviations from emissions limitations that may result from inaccurate or insufficient feedstream analysis

. First, unlike feedstream analysis, CEMS provide continuous or semi

- continuous
data

. 48 This allows the facility to identify the waste being burned at the time a deviation occurs, enabling it to determine the reason for the deviation.

48 D epending on the sampling and analytical technique used by the CEMS, a brief time lag typically exist s between

measurements due to the amount of time needed to collect and analyze each sample and to conduct quality assurance

checks . For example, Cooper Environmental Services

, LLC

, Portland, O regon, has informed EPA that the Xact TM

multi

- metal s CEMS samples and analyzes simultaneously within the instrument except for the time required to advance the tape (about 20 seconds) and the time required for automated quality assurance checks

. See Xact TM 640
Multi

- M etal Continuous Emissions Monitoring System. Specification Data Sheet. Available at: http://static.pall.com/pdfs/OEM

- Media

- Membranes

- and

- Materials/PGXACT640EN.pdf

.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 57 of 79

Second, because multi

- metals CEMS continuously measure post

- combustion stack emissions, they are able to capture all deviations that occur dur ing combustion of heterogeneous feedstreams. Without a CEMS

, many deviations resulting from combustion of such heterogeneous feedstreams w ould go
undetected. A CEMS can alleviate this concern by giving the facility
instantaneous data

, thus enabling it to make changes that compensate for the
increased metals in the feedstream before emissions become excessive. 49 Thus, the facility operator could rely on the instantaneous data to initiate various corrective actions before there is a compliance or safety pro blem. Instantaneous data typically gives a facility plenty of time to optimize performance before employee or public safety is threatened.

Third, the use of CEMS has the potential to enable the facility to increase waste feedrates by demonstrating that the HWC MACT limits may not be exceeded at higher feedrates. This could be attractive to a facility that wants flexibility in feedrates to account for expected or unplanned variability in waste profiles.

In the context of this Title V permit, EPA is pro posing the temporary use of the
multi

- metals CEMS to provide data that will allow verification that the OPLs in the permit will assure compliance with the emissions limits in the HWC MACT.
Because the multi

- metals CEMS provides real

- time data, Veolia can use the data to evaluate whether it is necessary to make adjustments to process parameters (temperature, oxygen, feed rate, etc.) to minimize emissions. EPA is not proposing to replace the feedstream analysis provisions of the HWC MACT as
Veolia must cont inue to demonstrate compliance with the OPLs in the permit through feedstream analysis.

As further discussed below, t he record for EPA’s proposed action on Veolia’s

Title V permit renewal application supports the conclusion that the monitoring already per formed by Veolia does not provide sufficient data for EPA to
determine that the metal feedrate OPLs proposed by Veolia are stringent enough to assure compliance with the HWC MACT metals emissions limits regardless of the mix of wastes being incinerated or the combustion conditions, given th e heterogeneity of the waste that Veolia incinerates and EPA’s observations on Veolia’s operati ng practices. Multi

- metals CEMS would provide the data that EPA needs to verify the stringency of the metal feedrate OPLs proposed by
Veolia

.

49 French, N.B., and Priebe, S.J. (1999). Implementing Mercury CEMS i n DOE Mixed Waste Treatment Systems. Presented at the WM’99 Conference, February 28

- March 4, 1999. Available at http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1999/32/32

- 6.pdf (accessed October 16, 2012).Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 58 of 79

5.3.3. Deficiencies in Veolia’s Current Emissions Monitoring Procedures

A. Veolia’s October 2013 comprehensive performance tests
revealed that Veolia’s three incineration units have significantly different emissions.

In October 2013, Veolia conducted performance tests on each of its incinerators as required by the HWC MACT regulations. The test results show that emissions of mercury were at least 50% higher from Incineration Unit 2 than from
Incineration Unit 3

, despite nearly identical merc ury feedrates to Units 2 and 3, 50 and despite the fact that Units 2 and 3 are nearly identical by design and type of emissions control equipment used. Emissions of other metals from Units 2, 3, and 4 were also significantly different. See Table 9 . There fore, it is not possible to assume that emissions data from any one emissions unit are representative of emissions from any other unit. To verify actual emission rates from each unit and to assure that compliance with the feedrate limits, verified through feedstream analysis, is adequate to assure compliance with all applicable requirements, it is necessary to separately monitor emissions from each incineration unit.

B. Veolia’s October 2013 comprehensive performance tests on
Units 2 and 3 demonstrated that the relationship between stack concentrations and metal feedrates may not be linear.

As discussed above, the October 2013 test results showed that, despite nearly identical feedrates, emission unit design, and control equipment, stack
concentrations of me rcury and other metals were significantly different from Units 2 and 3. This illustrates that a simple linear calculation may not be appropriate for estimating metal stack concentrations from the emission units. A number of factors might be responsible f or the test results on Units 2 and 3, including:

(a) possible interference by other chemical species present in the feedstreams; (b) feedstream sampling and analysis errors; (c) stack testing errors; (d) differences in the mix of wastes as fired; (e) differences in incinerat or operating parameters (residence time, temperature, etc).

Because of EPA’s and Veolia’s lack of knowledge about any of these or other
relevant factors, the temporary use of multi

- metals CEMS on each of the incinerators is necessary to determine whethe r compliance with the OPLs in the permit will lead to compliance with the HWC MACT emissions limits.

50 See CPT Report (J anuary 28, 2014) at 1

- 11 through 1

- 13.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 59 of 79

C. The CPT demonstrates compliance only for the particular
combination of wastes incinerated and combustion conditions
at the time of the test.

Even thoug h Veolia’s October 2013 comprehensive performance tests demonstrated compliance with the HWC MACT emissions limits at each of the three incinerators, the tests cannot guarantee that Veolia will be in compliance
with the emissions limits under different com bustion conditions or when burning a different mix of wastes. As discussed above, there are a variety of possible reasons that the test results for Units 2 and 3 differed despite the similarity of the two units. For similar reasons, any of the three uni ts may be out of compliance
when different mixes of waste are incinerated or when combustion conditions differ from that achieved during the October 2013 tests. The temporary use of
multi

- metals CEMS will allow Veolia to ascertain under what conditions it remains in compliance. Further, the use of the CEMS will allow Veolia to vary its feedstream or incinerator parameters if it discovers that it is violating emissions limits while burning different combinations of waste under varying
conditions.

5.3.4. Availability of Multi

- Metals CEMS

M ulti

- metals CEMS are commercially available and have been demonstrated to be reliable for measuring metal emissions from a commercial hazardous w aste
combustor

. In addition, EPA has monitored side

- by

- side evaluations of multi

metals CEMS with EPA Method 29 of A ppendix A

– 8 to 40 C

. F

. R

. P art 60 at industrial waste incinerators and found good correlation between the two
methods. 75 F ed. R eg. 31962 (June 4, 2010)

. Moreover, though not specifically required, EPA considers multi

- metals CEMS as an accepted option for metals emission compliance in the recently promulgated mercury and air toxics (MATS)
rule. 77 Fed. Reg. 9303 (February 16, 2012).

EPA recently evaluated at several facilities a commercial version of a multi

m etals CEMS (the Xact TM multi

- metals CEMS ), which is capable of measuring
up to 20 or more HAP metals in real time. The Xact TM multi

- metals CEMS was developed and is being marketed by Cooper Environmental Services, LLC (10180 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite J6, Po rtland, Portland, Oregon 97223). 51 The system

uses reel

- to

- reel filter tape sampling technology followed by X

- ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis of metals in the deposit. The process begins when an isokinetic
sub

- sample of stack gas is taken from the stillin g chamber and drawn through a chemically

- reactive filter tape. Vapor phase metals

, including mercury, are deposited on the reactive filter tape along with the particulate matter. The

51 Prior to March 2013, the Xact TM was being marketed by Pall Corporation (25 Harbor Park Drive, Port Washington, New York 11050) ; however, Cooper Environmental Services now holds the exclusive manufacturing

and market ing rights for the Xact TM

.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 60 of 79

resulting deposit is then automatically advanced and analyzed by XRF fo r selected metals while the next sample is being collected. The XRF sample analysis technique does not destroy the sample, which allows for possible sample archiving and re

- analysis at a later time

. 52

, 53 The Xact TM multi

- metals CEMS can measure up to 20 or more metals simultaneously including arsenic

, cadmium,
chromium

, mercury , and lead

. 54 The system reports analytical results every 15 minutes in the units of the MACT standards (μg/dscm). 55

Cooper Environmental Services has also developed and received EPA approval for a Quantitative Aerosol Generator (QAG), which generates a reference aerosol for calibrating the multi

- metals CEMS and for performing relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) of the multi

- metals CEMS. 56 Yanca et al . evaluated both the

Xact TM and the QAG using a modified EPA Method 301 at a hazardous waste combustor by comparing measured and reference aerosol concentrations. The
authors found that both the Xact TM and the QAG met the Method 301 validation criteria with precisions and accuracies on the order of 5 percent over a wide range
of concentrations. 57

In 2006, Eli Lilly and Company received approval from EPA to use a multi

metals CEMS as an alternative to op erating parameter monitoring at the Eli Lilly Tippecanoe Laboratories manufacturing facility near Lafayette, Indiana

. Eli Lilly successfully installed and certified the Xact TM multi

- metals CEMS , and operated
it f or at least six years, on a 50 mmBtu/hr rot ary kiln hazardous (solid and liquid)
waste incinerator at its facility from 2005 until 2010. 58 Eli Lilly used the Xact TM

52 Hay, K.J., Johnsen, B.E., and Cooper, J.A. (2005). X

- Ray Fluorescence

- Based Multi

- Metal Continuous Emission Monitor: Development. Final Report ERDC/CERL TR

- 05

- 3, January 2005. Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a430237.pdf (accessed October 16, 2012).

53 Yanca, C.A., Barth, D.C., Petterson, K.A., Nakanishi, M.P., Cooper, J.A., Johnsen, B.E., Lambert, R.H., and Bivins, B.G. (2006). Validation of Three New Methods for Determination of Metal Emissions Using a Modified Environmental Protection Agency Method 301. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 56: 1733

- 1742.

54 Lambert, R. and Foster, M. (2011). Eli Lilly’s Experience Using a Multi

- Metals Continuous Emission Monitoring System. Available at: http://events.awma.org/it32011/presentations/SESSION%2014/14

- 3%20Lilly's%20Experience%20with%20Using%20the%20Xact%20Multi

- Metals%20Monitoring%20System.pdf (accessed October 17, 2012)

55 Cooper Environmental Services reports that the Xact TM m ulti

- metals CEMS can be used at w aste incinerators (hazardous, sewage, municipal, medical, industrial), cement kilns, lime kilns, foundries, coal

- fired power plants, industrial furnaces and boilers, primary and secondary metal smelters, etc. The unit has been tested at hazardous waste incinerators, coal

- fired boilers, wet and dry stacks and 50 ppm acid gases. See http://cooperenvironmental.com/wp

- content/uploads/2010/11/2010

- Xact

- 640

- Presentation

- at

- the

- AWMA

Symposium

- on

- Air

- Quality

- Measurement

- Methods

- and

- Technology.pdf (Slide 37). In one test case at a coal

- fired power plant, th e Xact TM was installed and operating within 2 days.

56 http://cooperenvironmental.com/wp

- content/uploads/2010/01/QAG

- 820

- Data

- Sheet.pdf

57 Yanca et al. (2006).

58 Eli Lilly’s stack gases at the Tippecanoe facility averaged approximately 8 percent moisture content and 140 0 F
while the multi

- metals CEMS was being operated. However, Cooper Environmental Services has assured EPA that
trial tests on its CEMS demonstra te that the unit can operate reliably at moisture contents above 40 percent.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 61 of 79

multi

- metals CEMS in conjunction with a PM and HCl CEMS. 59

, 60 Evonik Degussa Corporation purchased the Tippecanoe facility in 2010 and continued to operate the PM

, HCl and, for a brief period, the multi

- metals CEMS for monitoring compliance with the HWC MACT. 61

Cooper Environmental Services has also recently signed agreements with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and a Texas company to supply two multi

- metals CEMS units. 62 The SCAQMD will operate one
multi

- metals CEMS at a secondary lead smelter in southern California for a period of at least 10 months beginning in December 2014. According to Cooper,
the Texas company expects to begin operating the CEMS at its facility in Nigeria

in mid

- summer 2014.

Several additional multi

- metals CEMS are under development, including several
efforts focused on laser

- based atomic emission spectroscopy (AES), microwave AES and spark

- based AES. 63 However, EPA is not aware that any of these other technologies are currently commercially available.

5.3.5. Performance Specifications for the Multi

- Metals CEMS

Although performance specifications for multi

- metals CEMS have not yet be en subjected to a formal rulemaking process, EPA has published specifications and quality assurance procedures for the multi

- metals CEMS in its website as OTM 16 (Specifications and Test Procedures for X

- ray Fluorescence Based Multi

Metals Continuous Emiss ion Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources) and OTM 20 (Quality Assurance Requirements for X

- Ray

- Fluorescence Based Multi

Metals Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources). 64 As

59 Lambert, R. and Foster, M. (2011). As part of Eli Lily’ s experience with the m ulti

- m etals CEMS

, Eli Lilly in conjunction with EPA prepared a number of technical documents that are now posted on the OAQPS m ethods web

site as Other Test Methods

. See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim.html

60 The U

. S

. Army has also successfully installed and evaluated a multi

- metals CEMS on one of its hazardous waste incinerators. Hay et al . (2005). EPA also understands that the U.S. Department of Defense has purchased three

Xact TM units for use at army munitions incinerators. Finally, m ulti

- metals CEMS are an accepted option for metals emission compliance in the utility mercury and air toxics ( MATS ) rule that was recently promulgated by EPA

. See

40 C

. F

. R . § 63.10010(j)

. 61 EPA’s Emissions Measurement Center (EMC), located within the Offi ce of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), has also recently evaluated the use of the multi

- metals CEMS technology for ambient fenceline multi

metals monitoring for compliance determination s , ambient health exposure studies, and for locating and eva luating
unknown sources of metals emissions. In 2010

- 2011, EMC deployed the Xact TM 625 fenceline multi

- metals monitor at two sites in Ohio in coordination with EPA Region 5, EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD)
and Ohio EPA. The Xact TM 625 report s hourly ambient air metals concentrations in near real

- time, which allows for faster data acquisition and decision making over conventional filter

- based monitoring methods. EPA’s Ohio studies show excellent comparability between the Xact TM 625 and conven tional, filter

- based, metals monitoring methods.

62 Phone conversations between EPA and John Cooper and Krag Petterson, Cooper Environmental Services, dated March 24 and 26, 2014, respectively.

63 French, N.B., and Priebe, S.J. (1999)

64 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm16.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm20.pdf

.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 62 of 79

EPA’s historical practice indicates, OTM specifications a nd procedures can be used for compliance purposes with the approval of the permitting authority. As the permitting authority for this permit ting action, EPA believes that the specifications and procedures published as OTM 16 and 20 are appropriate for the
multi

- metals CEMS. In addition, these specifications and procedures were reviewed and approved by EPA under 40 C.F.R. § 63.7(f) as part of the Eli Lilly Alternative Monitoring Petition (AMP) approval process.

EPA guidance allows EPA to impose continuou s monitoring requirements under Title V without a promulgated performance specification, provided that we include appropriate QA and QC procedures within the permit. See , for example, Dianne J. McNally, Air Toxics Coordinator, EPA Region III to Tamera
Tho mpson, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, May 30, 2001 (McNally Memo) (the permitting authority is required to incorporate into the Title V permit acceptable performance specifications for the continuous monitoring system used to comply with the Pulp and Paper MACT standard, and may rely on draft performance specifications to develop such performance specifications). 65

5.3.6. Measurement of Beryllium Emissions

EPA recognizes that the only currently available multi

- metals CEMS that would meet EPA’s requirements is incapable of measuring beryllium
emissions. Because of this, EPA has proposed a methodology in the draft permit for quantifying emissions of metals for which the multi

- metals CEMS is incapable of directing measuring. See Condition 2.1(D)(1)(i)(ii)

. The proposed methodology would require that beryllium emissions be quantified using the results of feedstream analysis and the system removal efficiency and exhaust
parameters u sed by Veolia to estimate emissions during the 12

- hour period used
to calculate the 12

- hour average rolling average.

The proposed methodology for measuring beryllium emissions is appropriate
since t he proposed temporary multi

- metals CEMS is not intended to replace the feedstream analysis provisions. As already discussed, t he purpose of the multi

metals CEMS is to enable EPA to establish a correlation between the feedrates (and feedrate OPLs ) and the emissions; therefore, Veolia will continue to analyz e its feedstreams while the multi

- metals CEMS is installed and operated. After the

12

- month period over which the multi

- metals CEMS will be operated (unless that period is extended by EPA), Veolia has the option to petition EPA to permanently operate the mu lti

- metals CEMS in lieu of feedstream analysis. Should Veolia choose that option, EPA and Veolia would determine at that time the best methodology for quantifying beryllium emissions without concurrent feedstream analysis. Until such time, we believe tha t it is appropriate to require Veolia to

65 Available at www.regulations.gov ; document ID. EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2012

- 0649

- 0100

.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 63 of 79

calculate beryllium emissions from the beryllium feedstream analysis results and using acceptable conversion factors. We expect that Veolia would use the system removal efficiency from the last CPT or other EPA

- app roved Method 29 tests in
the calculations. Also, because Veolia is required to install and operate continuous monitoring systems ( CMSs ) for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the maximum temperature and flowrate OPLs, we expect that
Veolia will hav e continuous flow and temperature data that it can use in the
calculations.



### 5.4. Other Supplemental Monitoring Provisions Included in the Permit

5.4.1. Emissions Calculation Methodology [Condition 3.1(C)]

Veolia’s Title V permit establishes periodic monitoring in a number of conditions as summarized below. In general, the periodic monitoring requirements include, as appropriate, regular or periodic performance testing, recordkeeping and work practice provisions. In situations where continuous emissions monitoring, performance testing or use of specific emissions estimation software, is not required, EPA expects Veolia to rely on emission factors to calculate emissions. Whether or not the permit specifies the emission factors to be used, Veolia is required to docum ent the emission factors it uses

, including a demonstration of their appropriateness to the specific emission units from which emissions are being calculated.

In all situations, EPA expects Veolia to follow the following hierarchy when selecting the appro priate methodology for calculating emissions:

1. Continuous Emissions Monitoring CEM data from the stationary source ; 2. Performance test data from the stationary source ; 3. Manufacturer’s emissions performance guarantee ; 4. CEM data from a similar stationary source or sources ; 5. Performance test data from a similar stationary source or sources ; 6. Industry

- derived emission factors ; 7. Emission factors published by EPA in the latest version of AP

- 42 ; 66

8. Engineering judgment

.

See , generally, Introduction to AP

- 42, Vol ume I, Fifth Edition

- January 1995 (AP

- 42 Introduction) at 2

- 5 and Figure 1. Veolia should document in its record s that it followed this hierarchy. Note that Veolia’s choice of emission calculation methodology based on the above hierarchy does not precl ude any person, such as

EPA

, the public , or other regulatory agencies , from using other credible evidence

66 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 64 of 79

to establish compliance or noncompliance with applicable requirements as provided by the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7413 and 62 Fed. Reg. 8314 (February 24

, 1997)

.

Under the above hierarchy, Veolia should treat AP

- 42 emission factors (if available) as the last resort before using engineering judgment to estimate
emissions . In situations where representative source

- specific data cannot be obtained, EPA bel ieves that emissions information from equipment vendors, particularly emission performance guarantees or actual test data from similar equipment, is a better source of information for calculating emissions than an AP

42 emission factor

. AP

- 42 Introduction at 3. If AP

- 42 emission factors must be used, A

- rated AP

- 42 emission factors should be considered before the lower rated
emission factors. While it may not be necessary in some situations to review
each individual data source that EPA relied upon in de veloping the AP

- 42 emission factors, such review may be appropriate in cases where EPA has reported significant source

- to

- source variability in the measured emission

rates. Because AP

- 42 emission factors represent an average of emissions from
different so urces, it is possible that some of the sources evaluated by EPA in developing the AP

- 42 emission factors being considered have significantly
different emissions characteristics than Veolia

. T herefore , it is crucial that
Veolia ’s record s include a clear ju stification of the appropriateness of the selected

AP

- 42 emission factor for the specific emission unit being evaluated. 67

5.4.2. Testing Requirements for NOx, VOM and SO 2 Emissions from the
Incineration Units

Condition 2.1(A)(6) limits NOx emissions from Units 2, 3 and 4 to 4.0 tpy, 4.0 tpy and 61.6 tpy , respectively. Condition 2.1(A)( 2 ) limits SO 2 emissions from Units 2, 3 and 4 to 7.7 tpy, 7.7 tpy and 50.76 tpy, respectively. Condit ion 2.1(A)(5 ) (b) limits VOM emissions from Units 2, 3 and 4 to 0.9 tpy, 0.9 tpy and

3.1 tpy, respectively. These limits are from Construction Permits 87100024 and

88010001

. In addition, Condition s 2.1(A)(1) and 2.1(A)(5)( a ) contain emissions
limit ations for visible emissions (opacity) and VOM from any emission unit

, respectively . Th ese limit s are from the Illinois SIP.

Although EPA acknowledges that compliance with the HWC MACT requirements assures that NOx, SO 2 and VOM emissions will generally be

67 As EPA has previously stated: “ Before simply applying AP

- 42 emission factors to predict em issions from new or proposed sources, or to make other source

- specific emission assessments, the user should review the latest literature and technology to be aware of circumstances that might cause such sources to exhibit emission characteristics

differen t from those of other, typical existing sources. Care should be taken to assure that the subject source type and design, controls, and raw material input are those of the source(s) analyzed to produce the emission factor. This fact should be considered, a s well as the age of the information and the user’ s kno wledge of technology advances.” AP

42 Introduction at 4.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 65 of 79

minimized from the incineration units , EPA believes it is necessary to periodic ally document the actual emissions of these pollutants so as to document compliance with the numerical emission limits for these pollutants. Therefore, EPA has proposed add itional emissions testing requirements for NOx, SO 2 , opacity and

VOM emissions in C ondition 2.1(D)(7)(b) of the draft permit. These requirements state that d uring the confirmatory performance tests required by

C onditions 2.1(D)(8) and (10 )

, Veolia shall also measure emissions of NOx

, SO 2 , visible emissions (opacity) and VOM to document compliance with the NOx,

SO 2 , visible emissions and VOM limitations, respectively. EPA has included the appropriate test methods in Conditions 2.1(D)(14 ) (i) through (l).

Confirmatory performance tests are conducted approximately once every f ive

years on each incinerator to d emonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan
emission standard s , and to evaluat e the performance of continuous monitoring
systems for dioxin/furan s. Because the NOx, SO 2 , opacity and VOM emissions testing would be conducte d along with the dioxin/furan tests required by the HWC MACT, Veolia can demonstrate compliance with the NOx, SO 2 , opacity
and VOM emissions limits while it burns the same type of waste

, and under the same operating conditions , as used to demonstrate compl iance with the
dioxin/furan emission standards

.

5.4.3. Visible Emissions Observations for Material Processing Areas [Conditions 2.2(D)(4) and 2.2(E)(2)]

Condition 2.2(A)(4) of the permit limits emission s of “ smoke or other particulate

matter ” from any emission unit to no greater than 30% opacity

. To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, Condition 2.2(D)( 4 ) requires Veolia to visually survey units MP1, MP2 and the Lab Pack Repack area each day for the presence of visible emissions or fugitive em issions. If emissions are observed, the permit requires appropriate corrective action. If the corrective action does not eliminate
the vis ible emissions, then Veolia is required to conduct opacity observations using EPA M ethod 9. If any of the visible e missions observations indicate visible emissions greater than 20 percent opacity, Veolia must conduct daily visible emissions observations, for 30 minutes, of the emission point in question until 2 consecutive daily observations indicate visible emissions of 20 percent opacity or
less. If the Method 9 visible emissions observations, or if 2 consecutive daily observations, indicate visible emissions of 20 percent opacity or less, the Permittee shall conduct weekly visible emissions observations of the emiss ion point for 3 additional weeks. Conditio n 2.2(E)(2) requires Veolia to keep records
associat ed with the visual surveys and M ethod 9 observations.

It is very unlikely that the repackaging of materials will cause opacity greater than
30% because the wa stes that are being repackaged are in enclosed containers. The process typically involves opening the containers briefly while the waste isStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 66 of 79

repackaged, and takes place in an enclosure that minimizes the impact from wind.
EPA believes thi s staged approach to assessing compliance with the opacity limit is appropriate, given the infrequency of visible emissions in the materials processing area.

5.4.4. Calculation of VOM Emissions from Material Processing Areas [Condition 2.2(E)(3)]

Condition 2.2(A)(3) provides that no person shall cause or allow the discharge of more than 3.6 kg/hr (8 lb/hr) of organic material into the atmosphere from any
emission unit. To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, Condition 2.2(E)(3) of the 2008 permit required Veolia to calculate VOM/HAP emissions
from units MP

- 1, MP

- 2 and the Lab Pack Repack using the most recent version of the TANKS program. 68 EPA had believed that the majority of the waste processing occurring in the waste processing areas took place within the drums
and canisters and therefore , using TANKS to determine the VOC and HAP emissions based on the size of the containers and the liquid content would yield
the most reliable information. However, according to Veolia, 69 containers that are

rece ived and stored in MP

- 1, MP

- 2 and the Lab Pack Repack are closed with a lid
or cover which allows no volatile compounds to escape. Once the containers are received into the MP

- 1, MP

- 2 and the Lab Pack Repack buildings , they are held
there until the waste is transferred for processing either within the building or directly to the incinerator feeds. Containers are only opened to sample and process the contents. The processing consists of placing the waste from a container either into open troughs through w hich the waste moves through sizing activities and is repacked into feed containers; or directly into feed
containers. The waste in the trough is open to the atmosphere of the building. As such constituents in the waste volatilize into the building atmos phere and are emitted through the building exhaust.

In recognition of the nature of the waste processing operations performed in the material processing areas, EPA is proposing in the re new al permit to r equire
Veolia to calculate VOM and HAP emissions f rom units MP

- 1, MP

- 2 and the Lab Pack Repack using the Emission Inventory Improvement Program’s 70 surface evaporation model for calculating emissions from surface evaporation of VOM from open or partially covered mixing tanks during coating mixing operation s, Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Paint, Ink, and Other Coating Manufacturing Facilities, Volume II: Chapter 8 (February 2005) at 8.4

- 22

68 TANKS is a computer software program that estimates VOC and HAP emissions from fixed

- and floating

- roof storage tanks. It is based on the emission estimation procedures from Chapter 7 of AP

- 42

. 69 See email from Kathy Strubberg to David Ogulei dated April 3, 2014.

70 The Emission Inventory Improvement Program was a joint effort by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program A dministrators/ Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) and EPA

.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 67 of 79

(Equation 8.4

- 22). 71 The surface evaporation model estimates the amount of
constituents volatized based on t he volatility of the different waste constituents and the air flow across the exposed surface of the waste and it is more appropriate than TANKS for calculating emissions from emission units that behave like spills. 72 Thus, although EPA generally considers the TANKS program to be reliable for estimating VOM emissions from enclosed storage tanks, the surface evaporation model is more conservative than TANKS for estimating emissions from Veolia’s waste processing areas.

EPA i s proposing to continu e to require that Veolia use TANKS or the equations
and algorithms specified in Chapter 7 of AP

- 42 for estimating any VOC s emitted

f rom any enclosed storage tanks located in MP

- 1, MP

- 2 and the Lab Pack Repack

.

5.4.5. Visible Emissions O bservations for the Drum Crusher [Conditions 2.3(D) and 2.3(E)(3)]

Condition 2. 3 (A)( 3 ) limits emission s of “smoke or other particulate matter” from any emission unit to no greater than 30% opacity. To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, Condition 2.3 (D) requires Veolia to visually survey the
drum crusher each day for the presence of visible emiss ions or fugitive emissions. If emissions are observed, the permit requires appropriate corrective action. If the corrective action does not eliminate the visible emissions, then Veolia is required to conduct opacity observations using EPA Method 9. If a ny of the visible emissions observations indicate visible emissions greater than 20 percent opacity, Veolia must conduct daily visible emissions observations, for 30 minutes, of the emission point in question until 2 consecutive daily observations indicate visible emissions of 20 percent opacity or less. If the Method 9 visible emissions observations, or if 2 consecutive daily observations, indicate visible emissions of 20 percent opacity or less, the Permittee shall conduct weekly visible emissions
observ ations of the emission point for 3 additional weeks. Condition 2. 3 (E)( 3 ) requires Veolia to keep records associated with the visual surveys and Method 9
observations.

It is very unlikely that crushing drums will cause opacity greater than 30% because the drums are empty and would not generate enough dust particle s to violate the opacity standard when th e drums are crushed. EPA believes thi s staged approach to assessing compliance with the opacity l imit is appropriate, given the unlikelihood of visible emissions from the drum crusher

.

71 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume02/ii08_feb2005.pdf

. 72 Moreover, EPA has recently determined that the TANKS model is not reliably functional on computers using certain operating systems such as Windows Vista or Windows 7.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 68 of 79

5.4.6. Calculation of VOM Emissions from the Drum Crusher [Condition s 2.3(E) (1) and (2)]

Condition 2.3(E)(2) requires Veolia to calculate VOM emissions from the drum crusher using an emissions factor of 0.0221 pounds VOM per drum crushed

. This VOM emission factor is based on an analysis of actual throughput data collected by Veolia since the initial Title V permit was issued, including the num ber of containers crushed, the type of volatile constituents likely to be in container residue and the amount of these volatile constituents processed on an annual
basis. The VOM emission factor of 0.022 1 pounds VOM per drum crushed
assumes that the drum residue contain s the most prevalent organics at the concentrations present in the waste received during 2007

- 2011

. 73

To enable calculation of hourly and annual emissions, Veolia must maintain records of the total number of drums crushed (drums/hour and drums/year) for the
drum crusher

. EPA believes this is a reasonable procedure for estimating actual
VOM emissions from the drum crusher. As provided by Condition 4.22 of the permit

, any person may also use other credible evidence to establish compliance or noncompliance with applicable requirements.

5.4.7. Periodic Replacement of Carbon in the Carbon Adsorption System [ Condition 2.4(D)(4) ]

To ensure the integrity of the carbon adsorption bed, Condition 2.4(D)(4) of the permit requires Veolia to replace the carbon bed within 365 days of operation for a high BTU tank and 3 years of operation for a low BTU tank. This provision supplements Condition 2.4(D)( 3 ) which requires Veolia to replace the existing carbon with fresh carbon immediately when carbon breakthroug h is indicated.

5.4.8. Inspection Requirements for the Submerged Loading Pipes [Condition 2.4(D)(6)]

This provision requires Veolia to inspect the presence and condition of the submerged loading pipes from the top during the quarterly inspections and to
conduct a physical inspection of the submerged loading pipes every 5 years. EPA believes this provision is necessary to assure compliance with Condition 2.4(A)( 5 ) which requires that each affected liquid waste storage tank be equipped with a permanent submerged loading pipe.

73 The original permit required Veolia to calculate VOM emissions from the drum crusher using an emissio n factor of 0.0914 lb VOM per drum crushed. That emission factor was calculated based on the assumption that only methanol residue is in the containers to be crushed and that methanol is the only VOM released as the containers are
crushed. This was a ra ther conservative assumption because methanol has a higher vapor pressure than most of the
volatiles found in the container residues. Veolia requested that EPA update the VOM emission factor as discussed

here.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 69 of 79

5.4.9. Visible Emissions Observations for the Bulk Feed Building [ Condition 2.5(D)(3) and 2.5(E)(3) ]

Condition 2. 5 (A)( 4 ) limits emissions of “smoke or other particulate matter” from any emission unit to no greater than 30% opacity. To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, Condition 2. 5 (D) (3) requires Veolia to visually survey the
b ulk f eed b uilding each day for the presence of visible emissions or fugitive emissions. If emissions are observed, the permit requires appropriate corrective action. If the corrective action does not eliminate the visible emissions, then Veolia is required to conduct opacity observations using EPA Method 9. If any of the visible emissions observations indicate visible emissions greater than 20

per cent opacity, Veolia must conduct daily visible emissions observations, for 30 minutes, of the emission point in question until 2 consecutive daily observations indicate visible emissions of 20 percent opacity or less. If the Method 9 visible
emissions ob servations, or if 2 consecutive daily observations, indicate visible emissions of 20 percent opacity or less, Veolia is required to conduct weekly visible emissions observations of the emission point for 3 additional weeks.
Condition 2. 5 (E)(3) requires Ve olia to keep records associated with the visual surveys and Method 9 observations.

It is unlikely that operations in the bulk feed building will cause opacity greater than 30% since it is totally enclosed

. EPA believes this staged approach to assessing compliance with the opacity limit is appropriate, given the unlikelihood of visible emissions from the bulk feed building.

5.4.10. Requirements that Ensure Total Enclosure for the Bulk Feed Building [Condition 2.5(D)(6)]

Condition s 2.5(A) (1)(b) and 2.5(D)(4) contain requirements to ensure that the bulk feed building is totally enclosed. For the purpose of assuring compliance with these requirements, Condition 2.5(D)(6) requires Veolia to maintain an average facial velocity of at least 200 ft/min flowing into the bulk feed building ’s enclosure at all natural draft openings in the building. Veolia must annually demonstrate the facial velocity according to Procedure T

– Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure, 40 C.F.R. § 52.741

, Appendix B. EPA believes th is periodic monitoring requirement, in conjunction with the requirements of Condition 2.5 (D)(4), assures that Veolia is maintaining a
total enclosure of the building

.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 70 of 79

5.4.11. Supplemental Recordkeeping Requirements for the Bulk Fee d Building [ Condition 2.5(E)(2) ]

To help verify compliance with the applicable requirements, EPA is requiring Veolia to maintain records according to Condition 2.5(E)(2). These records would provide information on VOM/HAP emissions, amount of wastes

proc essed, maintenance and repair activity and level of pressure maintained inside of the building. EPA is proposing to requir e that Veolia calculate VOM/HAP emissions from waste processing operations located at the bulk solid waste storage facility (bulk fee d building) using the Emission Inventory Improvement Program’s surface evaporation model. See discussion in Section 5. 4.4 , above. In addition, Veolia will use the most recent version of the TANKS program or the equations and algorithms specified in Chapter 7 of AP

- 42 to calculate

VOM /HAP s emitted from any enclosed storage tanks located in the bulk feed building

.

5.4.12. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements fo r the Gasoline Storage Tank [ Condition s 2.6 (D) and (E) ]

Conditions 2.6(A)(1) and (2) prohibit Veolia from causing or allowing the transfer of gasoline from any delivery vessel into any stationary storage tank unless the tank is equipped with a submerged l oading pipe. EPA believes it is necessary for Veolia to maintain records that document the presence of a permanent submerged loading pipe. Also, to ensure that the submerged loading pipe and the storage tank are designed and operated so as to limit VOM/H AP emissions during the transfer of gasoline, EPA believes it is appropriate to require Veolia to maintain records of inspections, maintenance and repair for the storage tank and submerged loading pipe. Condition 2.6(E) requires such recordkeeping.

The d raft permit also includes the requirements of 35 IAC 219.585, Gasoline Volatility Standards for the Metro East Area , in Conditions 2.6(A)(3) through (5). 74 To monitor compliance with these requirements, EPA is proposing

to include periodic monitoring provi sions in Conditions 2.6(D)(1) through (5). In particular, Condition 2.6(D)(1) of the draft permit requires Veolia to demonstrate compliance with the 7.2 pounds per square inch Reid vapor pressure limit in
Condition 2.6(A)(4) by annually sampling and analy zing for Reid vapor pressure

74 Effective January 28, 2013, the Illinois P ollution Control Board repealed the requirements of 35 IAC 219.585

from state rules . IEPA has submitted to EPA a request to revise its SIP to r emove the repealed provisions; however,

EPA has not yet acted on that request. EPA is proposing to retain the r epealed provisions in Veolia’s permit until such a time that those provisions are removed from the Illinois SIP

. If prior to issuing the final permit, EPA grants IEPA’s request to remove the repealed provisions from its SIP, EPA will remove the repealed p rovisions from this permit when it issues the final permit. EPA will follow the appropriate permit reopening/revision procedures in

40 C.F.R. § 71.7 if EPA grants IEPA’s request to remove the repealed provisions from its SIP after the final permit

is issued.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 71 of 79

the gasoline in the affected tank. Pursuant to Condition 2.6(E)(4), Veolia must maintain records of all sampling and analyses it conducts. In addition, Veolia

must maintain for three years records of, among other things, the Reid vapor pressure of each shipment of gasoline loaded into the gasoline storage tank pursuant to Condition 2.6(E)(5). Because Veolia is required to record the Reid vapor pressure of each shipment of gasoline loaded into the gasoline storage tank

, EPA be lieves that the additional annual sampling and testing requirements for Reid vapor pressure are sufficient to assure compliance with the vapor pressure
limit.

5.4.13. Compliance with the Opacity and Other Numerical Limits for the Boiler [Conditions 2.7(C)(2)
, 2.7(D)(1) , 2.7(D)(2)(e) ]

Conditions 2.7(A)(1) through (3) contain numerical limits for the boiler

, including

SIP limits in Conditions 2.7(A)(1) and (3) and construction permit limits in
Condition 2.7(A)( 2 )

. Because emissions from a boiler are directly r elated to the amount and type of fuel burned in the boiler, the permit also includes limits on natural gas consumption ( see Condition 2.7(C)(2)) along with requirements to track and report natural gas usage ( see Condition 2.7(E)). To demonstrate complianc e with these numerical limits, the Permittee must comply with a number of work practice and operational requirements as well as performance testing requirements for NOx, CO and opacity.

Condition 2.7(D)(1) requires Veolia to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit by conducting annual opacity observations using EPA Method 9. In addition, Condition 2.7(C)(1) provides that natural gas will be the only fuel fired in the boiler, and Veolia must conduct annual tune

- ups pursuant to Condition 2.7(D)(2). Because natural gas

- fired boilers generally emit very low levels of particulate matter, it is unlikely that visible emissions from the boiler would ever exceed 30% opacity. Therefore, an annual opacity observation using EPA
Method 9 is sufficient to demo nstrate compliance with the 30% opacity limit for
this unit.

Pursuant to Condition 2.7(D)(2)(e), Veolia must measure the concentrations of
both CO and NOx in the effluent stream each time it conducts the annual tune

- ups required by the permit. These mea surements may be taken using portable CO and NOx analyzers. Because CO and NOx typically have an inverse relationship in boilers (i.e., CO is typically highest when NOx is lowest), EPA believes that measurement of both CO and NOx during the tune

- up s will help assure continuous compliance with the CO and NOx emission limits. In addition, Veolia is required, pursuant to Condition 2.7(D)(4), to conduct performance tests for CO and NOx from the affected boiler at a frequency of no less than once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance with the CO and NOx emission limits in

C ondition 2.7(A)(2). EPA believes this frequency of testing is adequate givenStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 72 of 79

that previous testing conducted on the affected boiler over the past four years has produced CO concentra tions that are significantly lower than the applicable CO
limits. 75 All CO and NOx measurements would be recorded and reported to EPA according to Conditions 2.7(E)(1)(c)

, 2.7(E)(1)(d) and 2.7(E)(2)

.

5.4.14. Periodic Monitoring Requirements for Insignificant Emis sion Units [ Condition 2.10(C) ]

Conditions 2.10(B)(1) through (3) contain requirements that apply to insignificant
emission units and activities , including numerical emission limits contained in the Illinois SIP for process emission units (Condition 2.10(B )(1)) and organic material emission units (Condition 2.10(B)(2)) . Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.6, the permit must include monitoring requirements sufficient to assure compliance with
these requirements.

Because the insignificant emission units specifical ly identified in the permit are expected to have very low emissions compared to the applicable emission limits, EPA believes the appropriate means of monitoring compliance for these units is through recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, EPA is requiri ng that Veolia maintain a record of its emissions calculations, throughput, inspection, maintenance and repair log, and other information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements and classification of the units as insignificant emissions units. Veolia must submit that record to EPA according to the general recordkeeping and reporting schedule in the permit.



### 5.5. Streamlining

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(A)

, if two or more monitoring or testing requirements apply to the same p ollutant from the same emission unit, EPA may allow a permittee to comply with a streamlined set of monitoring or testing provisions, provided that the specified monitoring or testing is adequate to assure compliance at least to the

same extent as the monitoring or testing applicable requirements that are not included in the permit as the result of the streamlining. EPA is proposing to streamline requirements in Condition 2.1(C)(7)(g) pertaining to requirements f or a waste feed cutoff interlock system and sensors as contained in construction permits 83120053, 87100024 and

88010001 and the HWC MACT

.

75 Test data provided by Veolia indicate that average CO concentrations in the boiler exhaust were less than 0.5 part per million (ppm), corrected to 3% oxygen, in measurements conducted on June 25, 2009 (0.06 ppm), June 1 7, 2010 (<0.01 ppm), June 9, 2011 (<0.01 ppm) and June 8, 2012 (0.13 ppm). See Veolia Permit Application (April 8, 2013)

at 9

- 10.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 73 of 79

The waste cutoff interlock system required by construction permits 83120053, 87100024
and 88010001 must be constructed and operated so as to preven t introduction of waste into the incineration unit when any of the following events have occurred:

(a) Primary chamber temperature below 1600 °F; (b) Secondary chamber temperature below 1800 °F; (c) Primary or secondary chamber above atmospheric pressure; (d) Spray drye r adsorber inlet greater than 2200 °F; (e) Spray dryer adsorber outlet greater than 400 °F or below 370 °F; (f) Low liquid level in lime slurry head tank; (g) Low makeup water pressure into slurry heat tank; (h) Baghouse tube sheet pressure drop greater than 10 inches wat er column (w.c.) ; (i) Combustion stack gas flow less than 5,000 actual cubic feet per minute ( acfm ) or greater than 15,000 acfm; (j) Oxygen concentration less than 6% by volume; (k) Carbon monoxide concentration greater than 500 ppm; (l) Carbon monoxide concentration greater than 50 ppm for 3 minutes; (m) Total hydrocarbon concentration greater than 100 ppm corrected to 1% oxygen; (n) HCl concentration greater than 100 ppm for 1 hour; (o) Opacity greater than 10%; (p) Primary fuel pressure below 30 psig; (q) Combustion air pressure below 10 inches w.c. ; (r) Primary burner failure; (s) Secondary burner failure; (t) Emergency stack open; and (u) OPLs as established based upon evaluation of actual operation and measured emissions during a trial burn.

See Construction Permit 87100024 (Unit 3), Condition 4, and Construction Permit

88010001 (Unit 4), Condition 4. 76

Conversely, t he HWC MACT requires each subject facility to have in place a functioning system that immediately and automatically cuts off the hazardous waste feed under

certa in conditions , also known as the Automa tic Waste Feed Cut

- Off (AWFCO) s ystem

. See 40 C

. F

. R

. § 63.1206(c)(3) . This system is triggered:

76 Available at www.regulations.gov ; Docket ID. EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2014

- 0280 . Constructi on Permit 83120053 (Units 2 and 3) includes additional trigger events such as induced draft fan failure, quench water flow below 100 gallons per minute (gpm), Venturi scrubber water below 37 gpm, pressure drop across Venturi scrubber less than 21 inches

w. c., scrubber pH less than 6, flue gas temperature entering the scrubber greater than 180 °F, and l oss of s lurry flow

to spray dryer adsorber. See Condition 5 of Construction Permit 83120053 . EPA is not proposing to streamline these trigger events.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 74 of 79

(a) when any of the following are exceeded: O PLs specified under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209; an emission standard monitored by a CEMS; and the allowable combustion chamber pressure;

(b) when the span value of any CMS detector, except a CEMS, is met or exceeded;

(c) u pon malfunction of a CMS monitoring an OPL specified under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209 or an emission level; or

(d) w hen any component of the AWFCO fails.

The construction permit s and the HWC MACT contain different criteria for when the feed should be cut off, making it difficult to compare each individual criteria for triggering the waste feed cutoff interlock system with the criteria for triggering the

AWFCO system. Although the criteria are different, the two applicable requireme nts are clearly monitoring the incineration unit s’ operation as a means to determine when the units may be out of compliance. Because the AWFCO system required by the HWC

MACT can be conf

igur ed to incorporate all of the triggering events identified in the construction permits, EPA believes that compliance with the AWFCO requirements of

40 C.F.R. P art 63, Subpart EEE

, will assure compliance with the list of required monitors
in const ruc tion permits 83120053, 87100024 and 88010001.Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 75 of 79



## 6.0. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS

In 2011, EPA published Plan EJ 2014, EPA’s roadmap for integrating EJ into its programs, policies and activities. Plan EJ 2014 has three objectives: 1 ) Protect health and the environment in overburdened communities; 2) Empower communities to take action to improve their health
and environment; and 3) Establish partnerships with local, state, tribal, and federal governments and organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable communities. 77 One focus area of Plan EJ
2014 is “ Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting. ” 78 EPA’s goal is to enable

overburdened communities to have full and meaningful access to the permitting process and to develop permits that addr ess EJ issues to the greatest extent practicable under existing
environmental laws. Overburdened communities are communities that potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risk as a result of cumulative impacts or greater
vulnerabili ty to environmental hazards. 79

Veolia is located in East St. Louis

, a n area with overburdened communities

, and the source is of significant public interest. Approximately t wo

- thirds of all person s living within three miles of
Veolia (6 4 percent ) are minorit ies, and one

- third (3 3 percent ) live below the federal poverty
level. 80 Table 1 1 compares the race distribution in the vicinity of Veolia to the state and national distributions. Figure 5 shows the breakdown of household income within three miles of Veolia, based on 2000 U.S. census data. As shown in Figure 5, below , about one

- half of all households within three miles of Veolia have annual household income of $ 2 5,000 or less.

Table 11 . Race Distribution Within 3 Miles of Veolia.

Race Percent of total population within 3 miles Illinois U.S.

White 36 % 71.5 % 7 2.4 %

African

- American 59 % 14.5 % 12. 6 %

Asian/ Pacific Islander 2 % 4.6 % 5.0 %

American Indian 0% 0. 3 % 0. 9 %

Other race 0 % 6.7 % 6.2 %

Multiracial 3 % 2. 3 % 2. 9 %

* Statistics represent residential population, by 2000 Census Block Group, from EJView: http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.html

77 See Plan EJ 2014: Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting

– Implementation Plan . Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/po licy/plan

- ej

- 2014/plan

- ej

- permitting

- 2011

- 09.pdf

. See also “EPA Activities To Promote Environmental Justice in the Permit Application Process,” Notice of Availability of Proposed Regional Actions to Promote Public Participation in the Permitting Process and Draft Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA

- Issued Permits; Request for Comments, 77 Fed. Reg. 38052

. 78 Id.

79 77 Fed. Reg. 38052

. 80 U.S. Census 2000 and 20 1 0 data, by Block Group. Available through EPA’s EJView: http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.htmlStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 76 of 79

Figure 5

. Income of households within 3 miles of Veolia. ( Source : U.S. Census 2000 data, by Block Group)

Figure 6 . Percentage of population surrounding Veolia living below the federal poverty

level. ( Source : U .S. Census 2000 data, by Block Group )Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 77 of 79

A significant portion of the population living directly north of Veolia in East Saint Louis, and across the river to the west of the facility in portions of Saint Louis is living below the federal poverty level. See Figure 6 (marker shows the location of the facility). Compared to the national average of 12.4% of individuals living below the poverty level, it is clear that the block groups

near Veolia have a much higher percentage of individuals living below the federal poverty level
than the national average

. 81

T he Title V program itself does not grant EPA the authority to create new limits or other requirements based on these concerns

. As previously discussed, t he Title V permitting program codified under 40 C.F.R. Part 71 provides EPA w ith the authority to incorporate into permits “all operational requirements and limitations that assure compliance with all applicable requirements” and monitoring “sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source’s compliance with the permit” that will assure compliance with all requirements of the Act. Through this proposed permit renewal action, EPA is incorporating monitoring requirements necessary to assure compliance with all applicable requirement s

.

EPA believes that compliance with the HWC MACT requirements will help protect the air quality around Veolia , which will benefit the entire community. To ensure compliance with the
feedrate limits in the permit

, EPA has included in the Title V permit additional and specific monitoring requirements for heavy metals ( mercury , arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium and lead) . The proposed monitoring requirements are based on site

- specific conditions at the Veolia
facil ity and will help protect human healt h and the environment from the consequences of
emissions of mercury and other metals by providing further assurance that Veolia will not exceed
its permitted limits. See sections 5.2 and 5.3 for a discussion of the additional monitoring requirements incl uded in the permit.

EPA defines EJ as providing fair treatment and meaningful participation in environmental decision making. We believe that the process we are following with th is T itle V permitting
action provide s opportunity for meaningful participation in environmental decision making. Specifically, EPA has fulfilled and exceeded CAA public notice requirements for T itle V permitting by holding a 45

- day public comment period and a public hearing for the draft per mit

. The specific public participation opportunities for this permitting action are described in a fact
sheet that accompan ie s th is draft permit ( see Docket ID

. EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2014

- 0280 ). We believe that more transparency and dialogue can lead to better perm it outcomes for the community as well as permit applicants.

81 U.S. Census 2000 data. Available through: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtmlStatement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 78 of 79



## 7.0. MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE 2008 PERMIT

7.1. Revision of OPLs and Addition of Monitoring Requirements for Metals
and Other Pollutants

As previously discussed, today’s permit includes multi

- metals CEMS requirements and supplemental feedstream analysis procedures for mercury, LVM and SVM

. The permit
also includes new OPLs required by the HWC MACT based on performance tests conducted by Veolia in October 2013. Please see detailed discussion s in sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 5.2 and 5.3 of this Statement of Basis.

EPA has also proposed in Condition 2.1(D)(7)(b) emissions testing requirements for NOx, SO 2 , opacity and VOM emissions from each incineration unit. T he new requirements state that d uring the comprehen sive performance tests required by Conditions 2.1(D)(8) and (10), Veolia shall also measure emissions of NOx, SO 2 , opacity and VOM to document compliance with the NOx, SO 2 , visible emissions and VOM limitations, respectively. EPA has included the appropriate test methods in Conditions (2.1)(D)(14((i) through (l). See s ection 5

. 4

. 2 for a more detailed discussion

.



### 7.2. Removal of Case

- By

- Case MACT Determination for the Boiler

On September 13, 2004, under the authority of S ection 112 (d) of the Act

, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)

, EPA promulgated national emission standards for HAPs for new and existing industrial/commercial/institutional boilers and process heaters

, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart

DDDDD (the Boiler MACT)

. On June 19, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded th os e standards. See Natu ral Resources Defense Council v. EPA , 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007 ). Veolia was subject

to the Boiler MACT prior to its vacatur by the D.C. Circuit. As a consequ ence of the Boiler MACT’s vacatur, pursuant to Section 112(j) of the Act, EPA was required to include in the 2008 Title V permit for Veolia limitations on HAP emissions that EPA
determine d , on a case

- by

- case basis, to be equivalent to the limitation s that would apply

to the affected boiler if an emission standard had been promul gated in a timely manner
under S ection 112(d) of the Act

. Thus, in the 2008 permit, EPA established pursuant to Section 112(j) of the Act, a carbon monoxide emission standard ( as a surrogate for organic HAP ) for Veolia’s natural gas

- fired boiler of 100 parts per million by volume on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen

. See Condition 2.7(A)(1) of the 2008 permit. 82

After EPA issued the 2008 permit, on March 21, 2011, EPA promulgated new national
emission standards for HAPs for new and existing industrial/commercial/institutional

82 Docket ID: EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2008

- 0235Statement of Basis for DRAFT Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 2014

- 10

Permittee: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. , Sauget, Illinois
Date Issued: October 10, 2014 Page 79 of 79

boilers and process heaters

, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DDDDD . V eolia’s boiler is subject to tho se standa rds and EPA has proposed to incorporate each applicable provision
from 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DDDDD

, into the Title V permit

. See Conditions 2.7(C) through (E). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7412( j ) (6), i f the Administrator promulgates an
emission standard that is applicable to the major source prior to the date on which a permit application is approved, the emission limitation in the permit shall reflect the promulgated standard rather than the case

- by

- case MACT emission limitation.

Because the Administrator has promulgated a standard that applies to Veolia’s boiler under Section 112(d) of the Act , EPA is proposing to remov e from the permit the case

by

- case MACT determination that it made in the 2008 permit and to incorporat e into the permit the applicable provisions from 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DDDDD

.



### 7.3. Incorporation of Applicable Requirements for the Emergency
Generators

Veolia’s two diesel fuel

- fired emergency generators, each with a site rating of less than

112 kW , are subject to the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE), 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.6585 . This
federal rule establishes national emission limitations and operating limitations for HAP
emitted f rom stationary RICE located at major and area sources of HAP emissions. 73

F ed

. R eg

. 3603 (January 18, 2008). For emergency generators of the size owned and operated by Veolia, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ , includes work practice and operational requir ements that will minimize HAP emissions from the generators while they are being operated.

Consistent with the CAA’s mandate to include all applicable requirements in the permit,

EPA has i ncorporated all of the applica ble provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart

ZZZZ , into Veolia’s renewal permit

.