United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5

Air & Radiation Division

77 West Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Statement of Basis 

for:

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 2014
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 2 of 79

SUMMARY

Pursuant to Title 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. Part 71, the U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency is issuing for public comment a draft renewal operating permit (draft permit) for Veolia 

ES 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 Permit 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. Applicant 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 PERMITTING 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)............................... 37
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 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..................... 58

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 SO2 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 Observations 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. Supplemental 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 ............ 71
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 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 Requirements 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................... 79
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 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 operating 

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 clarifying 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 Veolia 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 ES 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 disposal 
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 7 of 79

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

includes two fixed-hearth, dual chamber, multi-type feed incinerators (Incineration Units 

2 and 3), each rated at 16 million British thermal units per hour (mmBtu/hr), and one 

rotary kiln incinerator (Incineration Unit 4), rated at 50 mmBtu/hr. Incineration Units 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 Unit 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 units. 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 micrometers (PM2.5).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 federal poverty level. EPA considers the area surrounding Veolia 

as an area with environmental justice (EJ) concerns. See section 6.0 for a detailed

discussion of the EJ considerations specific to this permit action.

 

1 On May 23, 2011, EPA took final action determining that the Saint Louis PM2.5 nonattainment area in Illinois and 

Missouri has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 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. 

The designation of the area will remain nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 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 permitting requirements because it is a major source of 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions and because it is subject to the requirements 

established under 40 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 than 18 months prior to expiration of a Title V

permit. Since Veolia’s existing Title V permit had an expiration of date of October 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 timely. 

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 renewal 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 19, 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 additional 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 additional 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 

administratively complete. As specified by 40 C.F.R. § 71.5(a)(2), the 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 was timely and complete, Veolia is 

covered by an application shield, which allows Veolia to continue operating its facility 
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 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 effect 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. The permit application shield does not mean 

that EPA has already approved the requested permit, nor does it mean that EPA has

determined that Veolia has adequately addressed 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 TWI2000, Series 2October 1986 Joy-Niro Spray Dryer 

Absorber (SDA-2), Pulse 

Flo Fabric Filter (BH-2)

Incineration Unit #3, Model TWI2000, Series 2November 

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 constructed 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 BldgCA)

Gasoline Storage 

Tank

550-gallon design capacity, 

equipped with submerged loading 

pipe

June 20123 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))

1988 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 roll-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 explosives 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 transferred via drum pumps to Tank Farm #1 or Tank 

Farm #3.

Tank Farm #1, which services Incineration Units 2 and 3, is made up of 10

vertical fixed roof storage tanks. Tank Farm #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. Veolia’s Title V permit requires Veolia to

operate the 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 units. 

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 

Building. 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 drums that are unsuitable for reuse 

are crushed. Some empty drums may contain residual waste when crushed. 

These emissions are not controlled. 

Fugitive 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 facility-wide fugitive emissions. 

Finally, Veolia operates small combustion sources consisting of a natural gasfired boiler (10.6 mmBtu/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 mmBtu/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 incineration 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 mmBtu/hr.

4

 

 

4 Units 2 and 3 are similar in design and function. The key differences between these units are 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) rated 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 chamber (SCC). The PCCs and SCCs have natural gasfired 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 

Kiln (includes kiln and 

a secondary chamber)

Model TWI-2000, Series 2 TWI-2000, Series 2 PY*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 Each 

Combustion 

Chamber

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 liquid 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 liquid 
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 19 of 79

feed systems. Each unit can receive any combination 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 SCC. 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 delivery 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. 

The 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 emissions. Veolia continuously monitors each incineration unit for 

carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen chloride/chlorine (HCl/Cl2) emissions via a 

continuous emissions 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 

requirements 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 calculated 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 Description 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 kerosene 

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 Description Basis for Classification as an Insignificant 

Emission Unit or Activity

Regulatory Reference

Two horizontal

550-gallon No. 2 

fuel oil tanks

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 handling  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 spent 

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 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)

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 Description 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 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)

Use of absorbent 

material (fugitive 

PM generation)

 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)

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

releases, 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 Description 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 oC (100 oF) 

or 0.7 kPa (5 mmHg or 0.1 psi) at 20 oC (68

oF) 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 IAC 201.210(b)(24)

Storage and 

handling of closed 

drums

Storage and handling of drums or other 

transportable containers where the containers 

are sealed during storage and handling is 

insignificant pursuant to 35 IAC 

201.210(b)(26).

35 IAC 201.210(b)(26)

2.3. Emissions

Veolia emits a variety of pollutants including CO, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), PM, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers

(PM10), PM2.5, semivolatile metals (SVM) (i.e., lead and cadmium), low-volatile metals 

(LVM) (i.e., arsenic, beryllium and chromium), volatile organic compounds (VOC or 

VOM), greenhouse gases (GHGs)5and other HAPs. 

Veolia is a major source of HAPs with potential and actual 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 of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. 40 C.F.R. § 71.2.

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

located 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

PM10 12.62 1.07 1.12 1.10 1.07 1.04

PM2.5 12.62 1.07 1.12 1.10 1.07 1.04

SO2 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 

(CO2e))*

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 CO2, methane and nitrous 

oxide as published in 78 Fed. Reg. 71948 (November 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 pollutant 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. AIR 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 Title 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 Order 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 applicable 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 Description 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 applicable 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 Order 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 addressed the issues raised in the EPA Order. 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 nondiscretionary 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 final 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 not 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. On February 22, 2008, EPA issued a

Request for Information under Section 114 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, 

requiring Veolia to complete comprehensive performance tests (CPTs) on all of 

its three incineration units. The required testing was limited to mercury, SVM

and LVM.10 Veolia conducted 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 compliance 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 

significant modification to its Title V permit to incorporate OPLs. 

C. The 2013 Proposed Significant Modification/Reopening

As required by the 2008 permit, on October 10, 2008, Veolia submitted to EPA

the results of the August and September 2008 tests, 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 

information from Veolia. In response to EPA’s requests 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 12, 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 the 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 permit file, “Operating Parameter Limits for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, 

LLC, Sauget, IL.”). Available at www.regulations.gov; Docket ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0235.

10 Veolia explained that it could not meet the deadlines 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 incorporated into the draft Title V permit 

parameters that EPA calculated based upon data submitted by Veolia. See Statement of Basis for Permit No. V-IL1716300103-08-01, 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-2012-0649-0069
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 27 of 79

On January 8, 2013, EPA proposed to reopen Veolia’s Title V Permit No. V-IL1716300103-08-01 for cause, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.7(f)(1)(iv), to 

incorporate OPLs and additional monitoring requirements into the permit. EPA’s 

primary purpose for proposing to reopen the permit was to ensure that the permit 

complied with the CAA’s mandate that the permit include “all operational 

requirements and limitations that assure compliance with all applicable 

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 public 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 was 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 additional 

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 with 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, 

on June 12, 2008, EPA issued an FOV to Veolia alleging 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 extrapolation 
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 28 of 79

methodology 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 regulations 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 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. 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 is appropriate following resolution of the 

allegations in the FOVs.

 

15 On February 26, 2007, IEPA referred Veolia to the Illinois Attorney General for alleged violations of the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Act, Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations, and the HWC MACT. On March 5, 

2010, after receiving additional information, IEPA 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 Section 303 of the Act (emergency 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 

Section 408(a) of the Act; or

(iv) The ability of EPA to obtain information from a source pursuant to Section 

114 of the Act.

EPA may reopen the permit to add or modify permit terms and conditions if EPA 

determines that additional measures are necessary to assure compliance. See

Conditions 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 important means of factfinding under our system of civil litigation. An FOV is not a final agency action 

and is not subject to judicial review. No binding legal consequences flow from an 

FOV, and an FOV does not have the force or effect of law. See PacifiCorp 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 (11th Cir. 2008); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 557 F.3d 401, 406-409 (6th 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

Title V permits 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 emissions 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 conditions of the permit. 40 C.F.R. 

§ 71.6(a)(3)(B), (c)(1).

One purpose of the Title 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 requirements. 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 enforceable compilation of enforceable terms, conditions and limitations. 

Veolia’s permit includes enforceable 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 codified in Title 35 of the Illinois 

Administrative Code (35 IAC) and 40 C.F.R. § 52.720; and

 Construction 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 nor 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.

SO2 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

Calculate emissions 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 Units 2 and 3;

and 13.86 tpy for Unit 

4. [Condition 

2.1(A)(3)]

40 C.F.R. § 

63.1219(a)(5); 35 

IAC 216.141;

Construction Permits 

83120053, 87100024 

and 88010001.

CO continuous emissions 

monitoring systems (CEMS)

and recording devices.

PM limits: 0.08 grain 

per standard cubic foot 

(gr/scf)) of effluent 

gases corrected to 12 

percent CO2; 0.013 

gr/dscf, corrected to 

7 percent oxygen; 15.0 

35 IAC 212.181(b), 

Construction Permit 

83120053; 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.1219(a)(7); 

Construction Permits 

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

tpy for Units 2 and 3 

and 16.92 tpy for 

Unit 4. [Condition 

2.1(A)(4)]

Comply with the reporting 

and recordkeeping 

requirements of the HWC 

MACT. Calculate

emissions from test results,

monitoring data, 

engineering calculations and 

standard emission factors.

VOC emission limits: 

8 lb/hr; 0.9 tpy for 

Units 2 and 3 and 3.1 

tpy for Unit 4. 

[Condition 2.1(A)(5)]

35 IAC 219.301, 

219.302; 

Construction Permits 

87100024 and 

88010001

Compliance with the HWC 

MACT’s DRE standard of 

99.99% destruction provides 

for compliance with these 

requirements. Calculate

emissions from test results,

monitoring data, 

engineering calculations and 

standard emission factors.

NOx emission limits: 

4.0 tpy for Units 2 and 

3 and 61.6 tons per 

year for Unit 4. 

[Condition 2.1(A)(6)]

Construction Permits 

87100024 and 

88010001

Calculate emissions from

test results, monitoring data, 

engineering calculations and 

standard emission factors.

HAP emission limits

(corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen): dioxins 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 Permits 

83120053 and 

87100024

CPTs at the frequency 

required by the HWC 

MACT. Establish and 

comply with applicable 

OPLs established in the 

permit through the use of 

continuous monitoring 

systems (CMSs), feedstream 

analysis as prescribed in a 

feedstream analysis plan 

and the permit, and 

operation 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)]

Destruction and 

Removal Efficiency 

(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. § 

63.1219(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.

Work 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, 

Subparts DD and PP

Comply with the work 

practice requirements of 40 

C.F.R. Part 63, Subparts 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 Calculate VOC emissions 

based on the most recent 

version of the TANKS 

program.

Visible 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. 

[Conditions 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 inspection 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 tpy. [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. 

[Conditions 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 building during 

operations. Calculate VOC 

emissions 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. 

[Conditions 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 Permit 

95080025

Performance 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) Annual Method 9 testing.
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 

Requirements of 35 

IAC Part 219, Subpart 

C, and 40 C.F.R. Part 

61, Subparts J and V

(equipment leaks). 

[Conditions 2.9(A)(1)

and (A)(2)]

40 C.F.R. Part 61, 

Subparts J and V, 

and 35 IAC Part 

219, Subpart 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 apply 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 operating 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 Fed. 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 because 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 potential 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). Additionally, 

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. 

As of the date of EPA’s proposal of this 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 compliance 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 develop 

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 systems.
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 compliance 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 the 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 highest 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 and 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. 52827, 52946-52947. 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 expects

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 extrapolation 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.

21See also 64 Fed. Reg. 52827, 52946-47 (September 30, 1999); 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(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. Specifically, 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 Selected Parameters.

Unit # Measured Parameter

Average 

Feedrate 

During 

CPT (lb/hr)

Proposed 

OPL 

(lb/hr) a

Measured Average

Stack Concentration 

(μg/dscm @ 7% O2,

except as noted) d

MACT Limit 

(Corrected to 7% 

O2) 

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 ClAsh 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 ClAsh 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 Concentration 

(μg/dscm @ 7% O2,

except as noted) d

MACT Limit 

(Corrected to 7% 

O2) 

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 ClAsh 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. Hazardous 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, measurements that 

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

Veolia did not include in the 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 incorporate 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 analysis 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 limits 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 establish 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 establish the feedrate limits for 

HCl/Cl2.

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 not 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 

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

Table 10 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.

Emission 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) prohibits the 

Permittee from accepting or 
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 43 of 79

Emission 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. This 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. The 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)]

Liquid Waste 

Storage Tanks

35 IAC 219.120, 219.121 and 

219.123

The affected liquid waste storage 

tanks are not subject to the control 

requirements of 35 IAC 219.120, 

219.121 and 219.123 because these 

storage tanks are less than 151 m3

(40,000 gallon) 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

Emission 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. The 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 affected 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 m3(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 The 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

Emission Unit The affected emission unit is not 

subject to...

Explanation and Regulatory 

Reference

40 C.F.R. Part 64, CAM The 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)]

Emergency 

Generators

40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart IIII Construction 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 Title V permits contain, among other things,

monitoring requirements to assure compliance with permit terms and conditions. 

42 U.S.C. § 7661c(c). EPA codified monitoring 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 

instrumental 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 with the permit.” 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B). Such 

monitoring requirements, which may consist of recordkeeping provisions, 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. § 71.6(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 ensures that 

“all Title V permits include monitoring ‘sufficient to assure compliance with the 

terms and conditions 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 feedrate 
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 47 of 79

limits established through comprehensive performance testing for those metals, 

ash and chlorine, 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 operate 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 must 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 comply with the feedrate limits or assure compliance with 

applicable 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, lead, 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 information 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 metals 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 cannot 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, blend, 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 compliance with the proposed feedrate 

limits, and, through them, with applicable HWC MACT emissions limits. 

Because Veolia would generally base 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 the 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 

feedstreams.

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 facility, 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, cadmium, 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 pH, 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. The 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 exempted by the FAP from sampling and analysis.

31 Id. Veolia utilizes standard 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 chemical 

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 and 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 

generator 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 concentrations, 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 instance, 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 containers 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 NEIC 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 metal 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. Veolia’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 chromium 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 incorrect 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 metal 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 preparations 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 shipments 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 the 

actual mercury 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 feedrate for Units 2 or 3 (based on the updated 

Notification of Compliance (NOC)), 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 value 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 which 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 Title 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 supersede any less 

stringent provisions in the FAP. As already stated above, incorporation 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 

specifying 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 permit. 

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. The results of those CPTs 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 preferentially 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 operating 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 

require additional monitoring related 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 the Act. 

Section 114(a) of 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 than 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, and 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-metals Continuous 

Parameter Monitoring System (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. Under these authorities, a

CPMS using CEMS technology can be used to indicate performance and not 

necessarily 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 and 
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 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 authority 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 this 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, using 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. Because multi-metals CEMS measurements have 

previously been demonstrated

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 sitespecific side-by-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. Because 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 period in which the multi-metals CEMS is operating, a correlation can 

be determined between the emissions concentration values reported by the multimetals CEMS and the feedrate concentrations reported through feedstream 

analysis. Veolia then will use the 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 quantified 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 multi-metals CEMS, Veolia will be required to comply with the 

feedrate limits for mercury, LVM and SVM. 

If the data from the multi-metals CEMS show a deviation from the metals 

emissions limits, indicating that Veolia may not be in compliance with a HWC 

MACT 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 CEMS 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 CEMS

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 demonstrate 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. If data collected through operation 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 other 

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 

historical performance tests, feedstream analysis, and CEMS data to establish 

higher feedrate limits for the affected incineration units, provided that Veolia 
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 56 of 79

demonstrates that compliance would be assured at the higher feedrate limits 

regardless of the waste burned.

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 emissions, as well as analyze the waste data and combustion conditions 

that existed at the time of the deviation.

EPA believes that one 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 supplements 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, feedstream analysis 

generally poses several challenges including the uncertainty associated with 1) 

measurement of extremely low metal concentrations in the feedstream (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) 

inability to demonstrate continuous 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 resolved 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 Depending on the sampling and analytical technique used by the CEMS, a brief time lag typically exists 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, Oregon, has informed EPA that the XactTM

multi-metals 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 XactTM 640 

Multi-Metal 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 during 

combustion of heterogeneous feedstreams. Without a CEMS, many deviations

resulting from combustion of such heterogeneous feedstreams would 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 problem. 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 proposing 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 continue to demonstrate compliance with the OPLs in the permit 

through feedstream analysis.

As further discussed below, the record for EPA’s proposed action on Veolia’s 

Title V permit renewal application supports the conclusion that the monitoring 

already performed 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 the 

heterogeneity of the waste that Veolia incinerates and EPA’s observations on 

Veolia’s operating 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 in 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 mercury 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. Therefore, 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 mercury 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 for 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 incinerator 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 whether compliance with the OPLs in the 

permit will lead to compliance with the HWC MACT emissions limits. 

 

50 See CPT Report (January 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 though 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 combustion 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 units 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

Multi-metals CEMS are commercially available and have been demonstrated to 

be reliable for measuring metal emissions from a commercial hazardous waste 

combustor. In addition, EPA has monitored side-by-side evaluations of multimetals CEMS with EPA Method 29 of Appendix A–8 to 40 C.F.R. Part 60 at 

industrial waste incinerators and found good correlation between the two 

methods. 75 Fed. Reg. 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 multimetals CEMS (the XactTM multi-metals CEMS), which is capable of measuring 

up to 20 or more HAP metals in real time. The XactTM multi-metals CEMS was 

developed and is being marketed by Cooper Environmental Services, LLC (10180 

SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite J6, Portland, 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 stilling 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 XactTM 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 marketing rights for the XactTM.
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 for 

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 XactTM 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 

XactTM 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 XactTM 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 multimetals CEMS as an alternative to operating parameter monitoring at the Eli Lilly 

Tippecanoe Laboratories manufacturing facility near Lafayette, Indiana. Eli Lilly 

successfully installed and certified the XactTM multi-metals CEMS, and operated

it for at least six years, on a 50 mmBtu/hr rotary kiln hazardous (solid and liquid) 

waste incinerator at its facility from 2005 until 2010.58 Eli Lilly used the XactTM

 

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 XactTM multi-metals CEMS can be used at waste 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-AWMASymposium-on-Air-Quality-Measurement-Methods-and-Technology.pdf (Slide 37). In one test case at a coal-fired 

power plant, the XactTM 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 0F 

while the multi-metals CEMS was being operated. However, Cooper Environmental Services has assured EPA that 

trial tests on its CEMS demonstrate 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 been 

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 MultiMetals Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources) and 

OTM 20 (Quality Assurance Requirements for X-Ray-Fluorescence Based MultiMetals 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 multi-metals CEMS, Eli Lilly in 

conjunction with EPA prepared a number of technical documents that are now posted on the OAQPS methods 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

XactTM units for use at army munitions incinerators. Finally, multi-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 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS), has also recently evaluated the use of the multi-metals CEMS technology for ambient fenceline multimetals monitoring for compliance determinations, ambient health exposure studies, and for locating and evaluating 

unknown sources of metals emissions. In 2010-2011, EMC deployed the XactTM 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 XactTM 625 reports 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 XactTM 625 and conventional, 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 and procedures can be 

used for compliance purposes with the approval of the permitting authority. As 

the permitting authority for this permitting 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 continuous 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 

Thompson, 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 used 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 the proposed temporary multi-metals CEMS is not intended to replace the 

feedstream analysis provisions. As already discussed, the purpose of the multimetals CEMS is to enable EPA to establish a correlation between the feedrates 

(and feedrate OPLs) and the emissions; therefore, Veolia will continue to analyze

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 multi-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 that 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-approved 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 have 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 document 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 appropriate 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, Volume I, Fifth Edition - January 1995 

(AP-42 Introduction) at 2-5 and Figure 1. Veolia should document in its records

that it followed this hierarchy. Note that Veolia’s choice of emission calculation 

methodology based on the above hierarchy does not preclude any person, such as

EPA, the public, or other regulatory agencies, from using other credible evidence 

 

66 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42
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 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 believes 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 AP42 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 developing 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 sources, 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. Therefore, it is crucial that 

Veolia’s records include a clear justification 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 SO2 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 SO2 emissions from 

Units 2, 3 and 4 to 7.7 tpy, 7.7 tpy and 50.76 tpy, respectively. Condition 

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, Conditions 2.1(A)(1) and 2.1(A)(5)(a) contain emissions 

limitations for visible emissions (opacity) and VOM from any emission unit, 

respectively. These limits are from the Illinois SIP. 

Although EPA acknowledges that compliance with the HWC MACT 

requirements assures that NOx, SO2 and VOM emissions will generally be 

 

67 As EPA has previously stated: “Before simply applying AP-42 emission factors to predict emissions 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

different 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, as well as the age of the information and the user’s knowledge of technology advances.” AP42 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 periodically 

document the actual emissions of these pollutants so as to document compliance 

with the numerical emission limits for these pollutants. Therefore, EPA has

proposed additional emissions testing requirements for NOx, SO2, opacity and 

VOM emissions in Condition 2.1(D)(7)(b) of the draft permit. These 

requirements state that during the confirmatory performance tests required by 

Conditions 2.1(D)(8) and (10), Veolia shall also measure emissions of NOx, SO2, 

visible emissions (opacity) and VOM to document compliance with the NOx, 

SO2, 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 five

years on each incinerator to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan 

emission standards, and to evaluate the performance of continuous monitoring 

systems for dioxin/furans. Because the NOx, SO2, opacity and VOM emissions

testing would be conducted along with the dioxin/furan tests required by the 

HWC MACT, Veolia can demonstrate compliance with the NOx, SO2, opacity 

and VOM emissions limits while it burns the same type of waste, and under the 

same operating conditions, as used to demonstrate compliance 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 emissions of “smoke or other particulate 

matter” from any emission unit to no greater than 30% opacity. To demonstrate 

compliance with this requirement, Condition 2.2(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 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 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 emission 

point for 3 additional weeks. Condition 2.2(E)(2) requires Veolia to keep records 

associated with the visual surveys and Method 9 observations. 

It is very unlikely that the repackaging of materials will cause opacity greater than 

30% because the wastes that are being repackaged are in enclosed containers. 

The process typically involves opening the containers briefly while the waste is 
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 66 of 79

repackaged, and takes place in an enclosure that minimizes the impact from wind. 

EPA believes this 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 

received 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 which 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 atmosphere 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 renewal permit to require 

Veolia to calculate VOM and HAP emissions from units MP-1, MP-2 and the Lab 

Pack Repack using the Emission Inventory Improvement Program’s70 surface 

evaporation model for calculating emissions from surface evaporation of VOM 

from open or partially covered mixing tanks during coating mixing operations, 

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 Administrators/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 the 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 is proposing to continue to require that Veolia use TANKS or the equations 

and algorithms specified in Chapter 7 of AP-42 for estimating any VOCs emitted 

from any enclosed storage tanks located in MP-1, MP-2 and the Lab Pack 

Repack.

5.4.5. Visible Emissions Observations for the Drum Crusher [Conditions 2.3(D) 

and 2.3(E)(3)]

Condition 2.3(A)(3) 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 2.3(D) requires Veolia to visually survey the 

drum crusher 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 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 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 particles to 

violate the opacity standard when the drums are crushed. EPA believes this 

staged approach to assessing compliance with the opacity limit 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 [Conditions

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 number 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 0.0221 pounds VOM per drum crushed 

assumes that the drum residue contains 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 breakthrough 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 emission 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 rather 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 

bulk feed building 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 

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, Veolia is required to conduct weekly 

visible emissions observations of the emission point for 3 additional weeks. 

Condition 2.5(E)(3) requires Veolia 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)]

Conditions 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 this 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 Feed 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 

processed, maintenance and repair activity and level of pressure maintained inside 

of the building. EPA is proposing to require that Veolia calculate VOM/HAP 

emissions from waste processing operations located at the bulk solid waste 

storage facility (bulk feed 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/HAPs emitted from any enclosed storage tanks located in the bulk feed 

building.

5.4.12. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Gasoline Storage Tank 

[Conditions 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 loading 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/HAP 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 draft 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 provisions 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 analyzing for Reid vapor pressure 

 

74 Effective January 28, 2013, the Illinois Pollution 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 remove the repealed provisions; however, 

EPA has not yet acted on that request. EPA is proposing to retain the repealed 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 provisions 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 believes 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 related 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 

compliance 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 demonstrate 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 measurements 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-ups 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 

Condition 2.7(A)(2). EPA believes this frequency of testing is adequate given 
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 72 of 79

that previous testing conducted on the affected boiler over the past four years has 

produced CO concentrations 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 Emission 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 specifically 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 requiring 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 pollutant 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 for 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 17, 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 prevent 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 dryer 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 water 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, the HWC MACT requires each subject facility to have in place a functioning 

system that immediately and automatically cuts off the hazardous waste feed under 

certain conditions, also known as the Automatic Waste Feed Cut-Off (AWFCO) system. 

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. Construction 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 loss of slurry 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: OPLs 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) upon malfunction of a CMS monitoring an OPL specified under 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.1209 or an emission level; or 

(d) when any component of the AWFCO fails.

The construction permits 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 requirements are 

clearly monitoring the incineration units’ 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 configured 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. Part 63, Subpart EEE, will assure compliance with the list of required monitors 

in construction 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 address 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 

vulnerability to environmental hazards.79

Veolia is located in East St. Louis, an area with overburdened communities, and the source is of 

significant public interest. Approximately two-thirds of all persons living within three miles of 

Veolia (64 percent) are minorities, and one-third (33 percent) live below the federal poverty 

level.80 Table 11 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 $25,000 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% 72.4%

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/policy/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 2010 data, by Block Group. Available through EPA’s EJView: 

http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.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 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)

34%

17%

29%

11%

8%

Income of households within 3 mile of the 

facility 

Less than $15,000

$15,000 - $25,000

$25,000 - $50,000

$50,000 - $75,000

Greater than $75,000
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

The Title V program itself does not grant EPA the authority to create new limits or other 

requirements based on these concerns. As previously discussed, the Title V permitting program 

codified under 40 C.F.R. Part 71 provides EPA with 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 requirements.

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 

facility and will help protect human health 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 included 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 this Title V permitting 

action provides opportunity for meaningful participation in environmental decision making. 

Specifically, EPA has fulfilled and exceeded CAA public notice requirements for Title V 

permitting by holding a 45-day public comment period and a public hearing for the draft permit. 

The specific public participation opportunities for this permitting action are described in a fact 

sheet that accompanies this draft permit (see Docket ID. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0280). We 

believe that more transparency and dialogue can lead to better permit 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.xhtml 
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 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 discussions 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, SO2, opacity and VOM emissions from each incineration unit. The new

requirements state that during the comprehensive performance tests required by 

Conditions 2.1(D)(8) and (10), Veolia shall also measure emissions of NOx, SO2, opacity

and VOM to document compliance with the NOx, SO2, visible emissions and VOM 

limitations, respectively. EPA has included the appropriate test methods in Conditions 

(2.1)(D)(14((i) through (l). See section 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 Section 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 those standards. See Natural 

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 consequence 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

determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be equivalent to the limitations that would apply 

to the affected boiler if an emission standard had been promulgated in a timely manner 

under Section 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-2008-0235
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 79 of 79

boilers and process heaters, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DDDDD. Veolia’s boiler is 

subject to those standards 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), if 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 remove from the permit the caseby-case MACT determination that it made in the 2008 permit and to incorporate 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 from stationary RICE located at major and area sources of HAP emissions. 73 

Fed. Reg. 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 requirements 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 incorporated all of the applicable provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart 

ZZZZ, into Veolia’s renewal permit.