United States Environmental Protection Agency

, Region 5

Air & Radiation Division

77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604

STATEMENT OF BASIS

Air Pollution Control Title V Permit to Operate

Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modificat ion

January 201 3

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to set forth the legal and factual bas e s for permit conditions, including reference s to applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act ) and implementing regulat ions . This document also describ es the derivation of conditions as required by 40 C

. F

. R . § 71.11(b).

Summary of Permitting Action

In this permitting action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to reopen the Title V permit for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L. L.C. (Veolia or Permittee) , pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.7(f)(iv), to incorporate heavy metal feedrate limits that EPA considers to be supported by available performance test data supplied by Veolia. This reopening is necessary to ensure that the permit ass ure s compliance with Title V of the Act and its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 71, and the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Hazardous Waste Combustor s
, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE

. EPA is propos ing to supplement monitoring requirements to assure compliance with the proposed feedrate limits.

EPA is modifying Veolia’s Title V permit pursuant to the significant modification procedures of

40 C.F.R. § 71.7 (e)(3)

. Thus, EPA is making available for public comment a draft significant

modification to Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 (draft permit) that contains heavy

metals feedrate limits proposed by EPA . The draft permit is subject to a minimum 30

- day public comment period as required by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(d). Only portions of the permit that are being changed beca use of the proposed action are open for comment during the comment period.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

2 CONTENTS

1.0. GENERAL INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ....................... 3

(A) Applicant and Stationary Source Information

................................ .............................. 3

(B) Facility Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3

(C) Area Classification

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3

(D) Basis for Title V Applicability

................................ ................................ ..................... 4

(E) Enforcement Issues

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4

(F) Permitting History

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

2.0. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND EMISSIONS

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

(A) Process Description

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

(B) Insignificant Activities

................................ ................................ ............................... 10

3.0. BACKGROUND ON CURRENT PERMITTING ACTIONS

................................ 11

(A) Regulatory Background

................................ ................................ .............................. 11

(B) Pollutants Affected by this Permit Action

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

(C) Extrapolation of Performance Test Feedrate s

................................ ............................ 14

(D) Application Review Timeline

................................ ................................ ..................... 14

4.0. UNIT

- SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

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

(A) Applicable Requirements

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

(B) HWC MACT OPLs

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

(C) Non

- Applicability Determinations

................................ ................................ ............. 20

(D) Periodic Monitoring

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 20

(E) Streamlining

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 26

5.0. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

................................ ................................ .................. 26V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

3 1.0. GENERAL INFORMATION

(A) Applicant and Stationary Source Information

Owner : Veolia ES Technical Solutions

, L.L.C.

Facility Name & Address: Veolia Environmental Services

7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62201

SIC Code: 4953

Respons ible Official & Mailing

Address: Doug Harris

7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62201 Telephone: (618) 271

- 2804

Facility Contact: Dennis Warchol, (618) 271

- 2804

(B) Facility Description

Veolia owns and operates a hazardous waste incinerator in Sauget, St . Clair County, Illinois.

Veolia ’s Sauget facility is a treatment, storage and disposal facility, which accepts offsite waste for further disposal through incineration. Containers and bulk shipments of hazardous and solid wastes are received, analyzed an d transferred to temporary storage facilities, processed and

incinerated in one of three combustion units. The facility includes two fixed

- hearth, dual chamber, multi

- type feed incinerator s ( Combustion Unit s 2 and 3), each rated at 16 million

British ther mal units per hour (mmBtu/hr), and one rotary kiln incinerator ( Combustion Unit 4),

rated at 50 mmBtu/hr. Combustion Unit s 2 and 3 each use spray dry absorbers with lime slurry injection to control hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions and baghouses for parti culate matter (PM). Combustion 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.

Veolia’s Sauget facility is operating under a Title V permit that EPA issued on September 12,

2008 , pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 71

.

(C) 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 nonatta inment area

for the 1997 annual NAAQS for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrograms (PM 2.5 )

. 1 St. Clair County is classified as attainment or unclassifiable with respect to all other NAAQS.

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

Missouri has attained the 1997 annual PM 2 .5 NAAQS, based upon quality

- assured, quality

- controlled, and certifiedV eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

4 (D) Basis for Title V Applicability

Veolia requires a Title V per mit 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

Combu stors” (HWC MACT).

(E) Enforcement Issues

(a) Violation Notices Issued to Veolia

On September 27, 2006, EPA issued a Finding of Violation and Notice of Violation (FOV/NOV) to Veolia notifying the company that the Agency found it to be in violation of the Ac t 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 invest igation, EPA found that Veolia wa s also in noncompliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE, th e 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 methodology as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(f)(1)(x); exceeding the applicable HWC MACT merc ury limit on incinerators 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 June 12, 2008, EPA issued a n FOV to Veolia notifying the company that the Agency found it

to be in violation of the Act and the HWC MACT, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE (64 Fed. Reg. 53038). On August 24, 2012, after further investigation into Veolia’s compliance with the HWC

MACT , EPA issued another FOV to Veolia notifying Veo lia that the Agency 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, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE (64 Fed. Reg. 53038), and Section 114 of the Act,

42 U.S.C. §§ 7414

. 2

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 equivale nt to redesignating the area to attainment. The designation of the area will remain nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that this area meets the Act requirements for redesignation to attainment. See 76 Fed. Reg . 29652.

2 O n February 26, 2007, the Illinois EPA 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, afte r receiving additional information, the Illinois EPA referred additional alleged violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations, and the HWC MACT.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

5 (b) Permit Sh ield

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 da te of permit issuance, which 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 source as a result of applicabilit y 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 as alleged under these provisions in the September 27, 2006 FOV/NOV . However, b ecaus e the remaining alleg ed violations discussed in the June 12, 2008 and August 24, 2012 FOVs have not yet been

resolved and any additional allegations identified as a result of the ongoing investigation may result in incorporation into the permit of a compli ance schedule 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 Part 6 3 applicable to the source as a result of the applicability of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE. EPA intends to reconsider whether a permit shield for these provisions is appropriate when EPA revises the permit, if necessary, to incorporate changes pursuant to the settlement of the enforcement action, and may provide a full permit shield at that time.

In addition, EPA notes that 40 C

. F

. R . § 71.6(f)( 3 ) expressly provides that nothing in any P art 71 permit shall alter or affect the following:

(i) The provisions of S ection 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 S ection 408(a) of the Act; or

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

Act.

EPA may reopen the permit to add or modify permit terms and conditi ons if EPA determines that additional measures are necessary to assure compliance. ( See permit conditions 4.0 (J), (K), (L), (M), and (N))V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

6 (c) Compliance Schedule

EPA has determined that a compliance schedule is not required at this time to address the pend ing FOVs. A n F OV is simply one early step in the 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 proc eeding, and are important means of fact

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

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

. See 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 C ir. 1975). See also

, Sierra Club v. Johnson , 541 F.3d at 1267; Sierra

Club v. EPA , 557 F.3d at 406409. However, EPA will reopen the permit following resolution of EPA’s allegations if necessary to incorporate a compliance schedule or any applicable requi rements.

(F) Permitting History

(a) New Source Review (NSR) Permits

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has issued the following construction permits to this source:

Applicable r equirements from a ll of the construction permits issued to Veolia to date have been incorporated into the Title V permit.

(b) Title V Permits

EPA issued a final Title V permit (Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01) to Veolia on September 12, 2008, and the permit became effective on October 12, 2008. 3 Prior to issuing the final permit, EPA reviewed historical metal feedrate data supplied by Veolia to support Veolia’s proposed operating paramet er limits (OPLs) for hazardous air pollutants required by the HWC

MACT , 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE

. EPA concluded that reliance on the OPLs submitted by Veolia would not assure Veolia’s compliance with the applicable requirements in the HWC

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

- R05

- OAR

- 2008

- 0235 Permit # Date Issued

00110030 2/6/01

95080025 8/11/95

87100024 8/19/88

8801 0001 8/3/88

88030101 6/27/88

83120053 9/2/86V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

7 MACT. 4 Sp ecifically, EPA determined that the past data were not reliable for determining

feedrate OPLs for mercury (Hg), semi

- volatile metals (SVM )

– lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd), or

low volatile metals (LVM )

– arsenic (As), chromium (Cr) and beryllium (Be)).

Base d upon EPA’s review of Veolia’s historical data, on February 22, 2008, EPA issued a Request for Information under S ection 114 of the Act , 42 U.S.C. § 7414, requiring Veolia to complete comprehensive performance tests on all three combustion units. The req uired testing was limited to mercury, low volatile metals and semi

- volatile metals. 5

Since the test results and the OPLs 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 performance test plan, and the OPL calculation methodologies. EPA required Veolia to submit the results of its testing and a request for a significant modification to its Title V permit to incorporate OPLs by October 10, 2008.

Veolia conducted the comprehensive performance tests in August and September 2008. On October 10, 2008, Veolia submitted to EPA the August and September 2008 test results, and requested a significant m odification to its Title V permit to incorporate OPLs for mercury, SVM

and LVM , as specified in the compliance schedule. However, Veolia withdrew t he significant modification application on December 13, 2012 after receiving notice from EPA that it intende d to deny the application and to reopen the permit to add feedrate limits that EPA considered to be supported by the available performance test data

. EPA has relied up on the August and September 2008 performance test results submitted by Veolia in establi shing the feedrate limits proposed in this permitting action.

2.0. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND EMISSIONS

(A) Process Description

Veolia has three combust ion units : Units 2, 3, and 4

. Combust ion Unit 1 was decommissioned

and closed in 1992. Combust ion Units 2 and 3 are custom fixed hearth incinerators.

Combust ion Unit 4 is a rotary kiln incinerator (transportable system converted to a stationary unit). All three combustion unit s are fed liquid and solid waste streams, although Veolia processes bulk waste only in C ombustion Unit 4

. Figures 1 through 3 show the combustion

process flow diagrams for Unit s 2 , 3 and 4, respectively.

4 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 fi le, “Operating Parameter Limits for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC, Sauget, IL.”) . A vailable at www.regulations.gov ; Docket ID: EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2008

- 0235

. 5 Veolia explained that it could not meet the deadlines i n 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, low volatile metals and semi

- volatile metals. For all other req uired 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

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01, September 12, 2008.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

8 Figure 1 . Process Flow Diagram for Combustion Unit 2.

( Source : Veolia, August 27, 2012)

Figure 2 . Process Flow Diagram for Combustion Unit 3

.

(Source : Veolia, August 27, 2012)V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

9 Figure 3 . Process Flow Diagram for Combustion Unit 4.

( Source : Veolia, August 27, 2012)

Veolia receives a variety of wastes in containers (drums, roll offs, etc.) and in bulk. These wastes come into the facility predominantly in the form of solids and liquids. Drums are stored in various buildings on the property (including an explosives magazine)

, depending on the

characteri stics of the material.

Drummed liquids may be transferred via drum pumps to tank farm #1 or tank farm #3

, or may be directly injecte d into one of the three combustion units . Tank farm #1 , which services

Combustion Units 2 and 3

, is made up of ten vertica l fixed roof storage tanks. T ank farm #3

, which services Combustion Unit 4

, is made up of eight 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 empt y. Emissions from t hese storage tanks are controlled by an individual carbon adsorption unit on each tank.

Bulk solid wastes are stored in four pits in the bulk feed building

. The building is enclosed and equipped with a cyclone, baghouse

, and carbon a dsorption unit. Ve olia’s Title V permit requires

Veolia to operate t he enclosed building under permanent negative pressure. A clam shell moves

bulk solids from the bulk feed building through an enclosed gallery to Combustion Unit 4.

Material processing occurs at units MP

- 1 and MP

- 2

, and the lab pack repack areas. Material processing involves the repackaging of drummed solids into more manageable containers for subsequent incineration. Some of these solids may have free liquids, which are fixed with anV eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

10 inert absorbent material before repackaging. Lab packs are opened and repackaged into acceptable container s for charging to the combust ion units

.

Each combust ion unit has a primary combustion chamber (PCC) and a secondary combustion chamber (SCC)

. T he PCC s and SCC s have natural gas

- fired auxiliary burners , which are used during startup, shutdown, malfunctions and additional heat input. Liquid wastes are fed into the

combust ion units by air atomized injection nozzles. These feeds are made up of wastes with high energy content (high Btu )

, and aqueous streams

, which are fed to the PCC s on all three units. High Btu streams can be fed to the SCC s as well; however, this is done only on Combustion Unit 4 . Solid waste is fed in batches to the PCC s by convey ors. Each combustion

unit has an air pollution control train consisting of a spray dryer absorber and baghouse. In addition, Combustion Unit 4 has a tempering chamber and activated carbon injection.

The three combust ion units are supported by lime handl ing 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 Combustion Units 2 and 3 and one for Combustion 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

combust ion unit for carbon monoxide and hydrogen chloride/chlorine emissions via a continuous emission monitoring system.

Veolia operates small combustion sources comprising a natural gas

- fired boiler as well as two emergency generators and a portable Tioga heate r.

Veolia also operates a drum crusher. Drums that are unsuitable for reuse are crushed at the drum crusher. Some empty drums may contain residual waste when crushed. These emissions are not

controlled.

Fugitive emissions occur facility

- wide. The m ost 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.

(B) Insignific ant Activities

a) 2.5 mmBtu/hr Tioga portable boiler b) Two emergency generators (<112kW) c) Ash handling d) Handling of spent dry scrubber solids e) Lime unloading and proportioning f) Gasoline storage and dispensing g) Use of absorbent material h) General vehicle maintenance and servicing (assumed to include diesel fuel handling) i) LaboratoryV eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

11 j) Piping and storage system for natural gas k) Non

- halogenated cold cleaning degreasers l) Internal combustion engines of motor vehicles m) Storage and handling of closed drums

3.0. BACKGROUND ON CURRENT PERMITTING ACTION S

In this permitting action, EPA is proposing to reopen the Title V permit for Veolia , pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.7(f)(iv), to incorporate feedrate limits that EPA considers to be supported by available performance test data supplied by Veolia. This reopening is necessary to ensure that the permit assure s compliance with Title V of the Act and implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 71, and the National Emissions Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from

Hazardous Waste Comb ustor s
, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE . EPA also is propos ing to supplement monitoring requirements to assure compliance with the proposed feedrate limits. In addition to formatting changes, EPA is proposing to reopen the permit as follows:

1) R evise c ond ition 2.1(C)(2) by adding feedrate limits for mercury, semi

- volatile metals, and low volatile metals;

2) Add periodic monitoring requirements for the proposed feedrate limits in conditions 2.1(D)(1)(i) and 2.1(D)(4)(d)(2) ( See Section 4.D. below, for deta ils.); and

3) Revise condition 4.0(U) by granting a permit shield for the requirements applicable to the source 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. See Section 1.E. above, for d etails. EPA believes this revision is appropriate at this time because EPA is no longer pursuing the violations as alleged under these provisions in the September 27, 2006 FOV/ NOV

.

EPA is modifying Veolia’s Title V permit pursuant to the significant modi fication procedures of

40 C.F.R. § 71.7 (e)(3)

. Thus, EPA is making available for public comment a draft significant

modification to Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 that contains heavy metals feedrate

limits proposed by EPA . The draft permit is s ubject to a minimum 30

- day public comment period as required by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(d). Only portions of the permit that are being changed

beca use of the proposed action are open for comment during the comment period.

(A) Regulatory Background

The HWC MACT re quires subject facilities to develop OPLs either by using existing performance tests or by performing new tests. 6 As allowed by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(c)(2), Veolia

6 See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

12 chose to use previous emissions test data in lieu of the initial comprehensive performance te st. As part of its application for the initial Title V permit, Veolia submitted its notice of compliance (NOC), including proposed OPLs, some of which Veolia calculated based upon historical

emissions test data. EPA reviewed the historical emissions test data that Veolia used to calculate

the proposed OPLs for the initial permit and concluded that reliance on the OPLs proposed by Veolia would not assure Veolia’s compliance with the applicable requirements in the HWC

MACT.

Hazardous waste combustors gen erally emit their highest emissions while demonstrating compliance with emission standards during Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) compliance testing. For real

- time compliance during periods between compliance tests , sources are required to e stablish and comply with operating parameters that are representative of operating levels achieved during compliance testing. Thus, the emission levels achieved during these compliance tests are typically the highest emission levels a source emits under r easonably anticipatable circumstances. 7

To ensure that these operating limits do not impede normal day

- to

- day operations, sources generally take measures to operate during compliance testing under conditions that are at the extreme high end of the range of normal operations. For example, sources often feed ash, metals, and chlorine during compliance testing at substantially higher than normal levels (e.g., by spiking the waste feed) to maximize the feed concentration, and they often detune the air pollu tion control equipment to establish operating limits on the control equipment that provide operating flexibility. 8

By designing the compliance test to generate emissions at the extreme high end of the normal range of emissions, sources can establish o perating limits 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 limit

would be based on waste levels fed during the comprehensive performance test unless the regulatory authority approves a request for the source to extrapolate to a higher allowable feedrate (and emission rate) limit. 9

(B) Pollutants Affected by this Permit Action

The prop osed permit action sets feedrate limits for mercury, semi

- volatile metals (cadmium and lead), and low

- volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium, and chromium). Volatility is a measure of how readily a substance changes from a solid or liquid to a vapor. These pollutants have known negative health effects. EPA is setting feedrate limits in this action that comply with applicable federal regulations. Each of the pollutants affected by this action is described in further detail

below.

7 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).

8 69 Fed. Reg. at 21218.

9 69 Fed. Reg. at 21309

- 10, fn. 202 & 204

.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

13 Mercury is a naturally occ urring element (Hg on the periodic table) that is found in air, water and soil. It exists in several forms: elemental or metallic mercury, inorganic mercury compounds, and organic mercury compounds. Elemental or metallic mercury is a shiny, silver

white metal and is liquid at room temperature. If heated, it is a colorless, odorless gas. Exposures to mercury can affect the human nervous system and harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system.

Cadmium , in its purest form, is a soft silver

- w hite metal found naturally in the earth’s crust. Cadmium doesn’t have a distinct taste or smell. Breathing high doses of cadmium can irritate and damage the lungs and can cause death. However, the greatest concern is from exposure to

lower doses of cadmi um over a long period. The lower and long

- term exposure to cadmium through air can cause kidney damage. Although the damage is not life threatening, it can lead to the formation of kidney stones and affect the skeleton, which can be painful and debilitat ing. Lung damage has also been observed. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has classified cadmium and certain cadmium compounds as probable or suspected carcinogens (substances that cause cancer).

Lead is a naturally occurring metal found in small amounts in rock and soil. Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust. Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and is accumulated in the

bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits and lowered IQ.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element widely distributed in the earth’s crust. Inorganic forms of arsenic are found throughout the environment; it is released int o the air by volcanoes, the weathering of arsenic

- containing minerals and ores, and by commercial or industrial processes.

Short

- term high

- level inhalation exposure to arsenic dust or fumes can cause nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain and nervous system dis orders. Long

- term inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic can cause irritation of the skin and mucous membranes and lung cancer.

Beryllium is an inorganic metallic element in the periodic table. Because it is an element, it does not degrade nor can it be destroyed. Compounds of beryllium are either white or colorless and do not have a particular smell. Short

- term inhalation exposure to high levels of beryllium has been observed to cause irritation and swelling of the lungs; after exposure ends, these symptoms may be reversible. Long

- term inhalation exposure of humans to beryllium has been reported to cause chronic beryllium disease, in which noncancerous lesions develop in the lung. Human epidemiology studies are limited, but suggest a causal relati onship between beryllium exposure and an increased risk of lung cancer.

Chromium occurs naturally in rocks, animals, plants, and soil. It can exist in several different

forms. Depending on the form it takes, it can be a liquid, solid, or gas. The form of chromium of most concern from a health perspective is chromium (VI), also called hexavalent chromium. Inhalation of hexavalent chromium at high levels can damage the respiratory system and causeV eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

14 cancer. Exposure to chromium occurs from ingesting conta minated food or drinking water or breathing contaminated air. It is odorless and tasteless. Air emissions of chromium are predominantly of chromium (III), an essential nutrient that helps the body use sugar, protein, and fat and in the form of small part icles or aerosols.

(C) Extrapolation of Performance Test Feed r ates

40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(l)(1)(v) and (n)(2)(vii) allow s each facility to include as part of the performance test 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 feedrate s and associated emission rates during the comprehensive performance test to extrapolate to higher allowable feedrate limits and emission rates, subject to a number of statutory and policy provisions. 10 EPA has previ ously provided the following guidance on extrapolation of performance test feedrate levels to calculate metal

feedrate limits: 11

Extrapolation can be advantageous because it avoids much of the spiking that sources normally undertake during compliance test ing and the associated costs, risks to operating and testing personnel, and environmental loading from emissions. Under an approved extrapolation approach, you would be required to feed metals at no less than normal rates to narrow the amount of extrapola tion requested. Further, we expect 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 heterogene ous feedstreams can be minimized by spiking known quantities).

Extrapolation approaches that request feedrate limits that are significantly higher than the historical range of feedrates should not be approved. Extrapolated feedrate limits should

be lim ited to levels within the range of the highest historical feedrates for the source. We are taking this policy position to avoid creating an incentive to burn wastes with higher than historical levels of metals. Metals are not destroyed by combustion but rather are

emitted as a fraction of the amount fed to the combustor. If [a source wants to] burn wastes with higher than historical levels of metals, [the source] must incur the costs and address the hazards to plant personnel and testing crews associated with spiking metals

into [the] feedstreams during comprehensive performance testing.

(D) Application Review Timeline

On October 10, 2008, Veolia submitted a request for a significant modification to its Title V permit to incorporate feedrate limits (i.e., OPLs). Veolia requested that EPA estimate metal

feedrate limits by extrapolating the results of tests performed in August and September 2008 to higher metal feedrate s, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(l)(1)(v) and (n)(2)(vii), and to incorporate the extra polated OPLs into the Title V permit. Veolia applied for feedrate limits that were 7 to 10 times higher than the 2008 comprehensive tests feedrate s.

10 See also 64 Fed. Reg. 52827, 52946

- 47, September 30, 1999; 40 C.F.R. § 6 3. 1209(l)(1)(v) and (n)(2)(vii)

. 11 64 Fed. Reg. at 52946

- 47.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

15 EPA denied Veolia’s requested extrapolation in a letter dated July 1 7 , 2009. EPA d enied Veolia’s reque st because : 1) Veolia did not consistently conduct its performance tests at the “extreme range of normal”; therefore, EPA could not reliably conclude that Veolia would have equal system removal efficiencies at the requested feedrate limits; 2) EPA believed that extrapolation of mercury feedrate s for Unit 4 is not appropriate since the tests did not provide sufficient data to understand the relationship between the necessary amount of activated carbon needed to maintain the calculated system removal efficien cy and different mercury feedrate s; and 3) EPA had a number of concerns with the 2008 comprehensive test procedures.

On March 2, 2010, Veolia submitted a revised application , dated February 25, 2010, for a significant modification of its Title V permit

, i ncluding a revised request to extrapolate metal

feedrate s. In the application, Veolia requested feedrate limits that are about three times higher than the 2008 comprehensive tests feedrate s. Veolia submitted additional supporting data on

historical metal feedrate s on March 12 and June 7 , 2012. On November 29, 2012, EPA notified Veolia that it intended to deny Veolia’s February 25, 2010 significant modification application and to reopen the permit to add feedrate limits that EPA consider s to be supported by the available performance test data. 12 Subsequently, o n December 13, 2012, Veolia withdrew the February 25, 2010 significant modification application and pledged to submit a Title V renewal application by April 12, 2013

.

A table showing relevant dat es is provided below.

Table 1 . Summary of Application Review Timeline

. Relevant Dates Activity
October 10, 2008 Veolia submits its initial significant modification application requesting extrapolated feedrates for metals

. Decem ber 5 & 10, 2008 Veolia submits to Charles Hall, EPA, by electronic mail, the highest historical 12

- hour rolling feedrate data for mercury,

low volatile metals and semi

- volatile metals. January 7, 2009 Veolia submits a revised significant modification

app lication, dated January 6, 2009, which revises feedrate

calculations to account for the moisture content of the solid

waste fed. January 22, 2009 EPA requests additional information.
March 27, 2009 In response to EPA’s request for additional information, Veolia submits laboratory reports for the 2008 performance

tests.

12 EPA intended to deny the application because EPA determined that Veolia’s requested extrapolation of feedrates was not consistent with the requirements of the HWC MACT, and Veolia would likely violate the HWC MACT standards if it operated at the requested feedrate limits

.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

16 Relevant Dates Activity July 17, 2009 EPA denies Veolia’s request for extrapolation, included in the significant modification application. March 2, 2010 Veolia submits a revised significant modification applicat ion, dated February 25, 2010, which revises moisture content calculations, historical feedrate s, and the requested

feedrate limits.

March 8 , 2012 EPA informs Veolia , by conference call, that it do es not intend to approve the significant modification appli cation as proposed, and requests Veolia to submit additional information by April 13, 2012. 13

March 27, 2012 Veolia states in an e

- mail mess age to David Ogulei, EPA,

that it will not be revising its extrapolation request.

June 7 , 2012 Veolia re

- submits hi storical metal feedrate data , at the request of EPA

. November 29, 2012 EPA notifies Veolia that it intends to deny Veolia’s February 25, 2010 significant modification application and to reopen Veolia’s Title V permit to incorporate feedrate limits.

Decem ber 13, 2012 Veolia withdraws the February 25, 2012 significant modification application. January 8 , 2013 EPA issues for public comment a draft significant
modification to Veolia’s Title V permit. March 15, 2013 Public comment period closes

4.0. UNIT

- SPECIF IC CONDITIONS

(A) Applicable Requirements

The Title V permit details the requirements applicable to Veolia , including the HWC MACT requirements . A chart detailing all applicable requirements for each of the emission units was provided on Pages 5 and 6 of th e Statement of Basis for the initial permit, dated September 12,

2008. 14

No new requirements have become applicable to the source since the last permit was issued.

(B) HWC MACT OPL s

EPA has reviewed Veolia’s August and September 2008 performance test data and other data supplied by Veolia as part of its significant modification application dated February 25, 2010,

and determined that the re is sufficient information to enable EPA to establish OPLs for mercury,

13 David Ogulei, EPA Region 5, sent Doug Harris

, Veolia, meeting notes and a schedule for Veolia to submit

additional information by e

- mail on March 12, 2012.

14 The f inal permi t and support documents are available at www.regulations.gov ; Docket ID: EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2008

- 0235V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

17 SVM and LVM that satisfy the requirements of the Act and the HWC MACT. As further

discussed below, EPA is reopening Veolia’s Title V permit to incorporat e into the permit

feedrate limits which EPA considers to be supported by the available test data. EPA has based

the mercury feedrate limits on the m ercury spike concentrations calculated using the minimum purity of the original spike material instead of the mercury spike concentrations calculated by Veolia’s contractor, Maxxam Analytics, Inc. 15

Table 2 below provides a summary of EPA’s proposed feedr ate limits. The feedrate limits are based on historical feedrate data provided to EPA by Veolia on June 7, 2012 ( see Table 3

below ), and comprehensive performance test data conducted by Veolia in August and September

2008.

Following is a discussion of how EPA calculated the feedrate limits shown in Table 2

.

Table 2 . Proposed Metal Feed r ate Operating Parameter Limits.

Unit Metal Average

Metal

Feedrate During 2008 Testing (lb/hr) a Was Testing

Done at ≥

Median 12

- hr

Historical

Ra te? b EPA’s

Proposed

Feedrate

Limits (lb/hr) Estimated Stack

Conc. Assumi ng EPA’ s Proposed Limits (μg/dscm

@ 7% O 2 ) c HWC

MACT

Limit (μg/dscm

@ 7% O 2 ) d

2 Mercury 0.00165 Yes 0.0017 53 130

LVM 47.2 Yes 68.5 10 92

SVM 63.6 Yes 91.0 31 230

3 Mercury 0.0018 Yes 0.0018 57 130

LVM 47.7 Yes 77.8 38 92

SVM 64.3 Yes 81.6 73 230

4 Mercury 0.0214 Yes 0.021 24 130

LVM 50.3 Yes 77.3 15 92

SVM 63.6 Yes 98.1 42 230

a. Mercury feedrates were calculated by EPA using calculated mercury spike composition and o ffsite waste

feed concentrations provided by Veolia’s laboratory contractor (Maxxam).

b. Median historical feedrate was calculated by EPA from data provided by Veolia on June 7, 2012.

c. Stack concentrations are estimat ed from exhaust parameters and “ removal eff iciencies ” reported by Veolia

in its significant modification application, dated February 25, 2010, except that mercury removal efficiencies were recalculated by EPA. The μg/dscm calculation is a linear estimate and should only be used to generally compare the recommended limits with the HWC MACT emission limitations.

d. HWC MACT limits are found in 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219.

15 In its laboratory report, Maxxam warned that its mercury spike results should be “viewed with discretion” due to

the presence of uncertainty in the laboratory measurements. Our review of Veolia’s mercury spike preparation methodology and data shows that an estimate of spike mercury concentration based on Veolia’s spike preparation and procedures, including equipment sp ecifications and interviews with Veolia personnel, most accurately represents the spike concentrations used in the 2008 test burns.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

18 Table 3 . Summary of Historical Metal Feedrate Data Submitted By Veolia (12

- hour Rolling Average Feedrates).

Unit # Metal Date Range Minimum (lb/hr) Median

(lb/hr) Average

(lb/hr) Maximum

(lb/hr)

2 Mercury 7/1/04

- 5/31/09 0 0.0000065 0.00027 0.0064

LVM 1/2/05

- 12/31/08 0 0.116 0.859 68.5

SVM 1/2/05

- 12/31/08 0 0.078 0.832 91.0

3 Mercury 7/1/04

- 5/31/09 0 0.0000065 0 .00025 0.0059

LVM 1/2/05

- 12/31/08 0 0.140 0.993 77.8

SVM 1/2/05

- 12/31/08 0 0.0582 0.829 81.6

4 Mercury 7/1/04

- 5/31/09 0 0.0034 0.0087 0.060

LVM 1/2/05

- 12/31/08 0 1.66 2.79 77.3

SVM 1/2/05

- 12/31/08 0 1.13 2.63 98.1

a) Mercury

Based on the availa ble information, EPA does not believe that any extrapolation is appropriate for mercury for several reasons:

i. For Combustion Unit 4, which uses an activated carbon injection system to control mercury emissions, EPA does not have sufficient data to understa nd the relationship between the necessary amount of activated carbon needed to maintain the calculated system removal efficiency at different mercury feedrates.

ii. Mercury was spiked as part of the comprehensive performance test. 16 The intended purpose of me tal spiking when conducting comprehensive tests is to enable a facility to verify compliance with MACT limits under worst

- case conditions. 17 To protect workers

, EPA does not encourage unnecessary spiking of metals during comprehensive tests. Therefore, if a facility spikes metals when conducting comprehensive tests, the metal spike rates and the native mercury content of the waste should be used to set the feedrate limit with little or no extrapolation, provided the corresponding stack emissions assure

com pliance with all MACT limits with an ample margin of safety.

Since we do not believe that extrapolation is appropriate for mercury , we are proposing to incorporate as mercury feedrate limits the feedrates at which Veolia conducted its 2008 testing.

16 For the 2008 test burns, Veolia spiked lead nitrate , chromic acid , mercury nitrate

, and hexachloroethane.

17 69 Fed. Reg . at 21218V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

19 b) SVM and LVM

In a June 2008 letter to Veolia, 18 EPA stated, “[i]n order to conduct performance tests under operating conditions that represent the extreme range of normal conditions

- as 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.7(e)(1) and 63.1207(g) require

– Veolia must feed each m etal group (i.e., Mercury , LVM, and SVM) at no less than the highest 12

- hour rolling average during the previous 5 years

. ” However, Veolia did not consistently feed metals at rates that are representative of the extreme range of normal conditions, as requ ired by 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.7(e)(1) and 63.1207(g). See Table s 2 and 3

. EPA’s policy is not to grant feedrate limits that are significantly higher than the reported

historical metal feedrate s. 19 Additionally, w e believe that source

- specific circumstances,

in cluding Veolia’s compliance history , the variability of its feedstream, and its location in an

area with significant environmental justice concerns
, underscore the need to establish

conservative feedrate limits for heavy metals

.

Because Veolia’s current T itle V permit does not include OPLs for SVM and LVM, EPA has

determined that it does not assure compliance with the standard s at 40 C.F.R. §63.1219. Thus,

we are proposing to reopen Veolia’s permit

, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §71.7(f)(iv)

, to incorporate

SVM a nd LVM feedrate limits which EPA calculated as follows:

i. If the feedrate during the 2008 comprehensive performance tests was higher than the highest historical 12

- hour rolling average feedrate , we used the performance test feedrate

as the proposed feedrate limit ;

ii. If the feedrate during the 2008 comprehensive performance tests was less than the highest

historical 12

- hour rolling average feedrate , but it was greater than the median historical

12

- hour rolling average feedrate , we used the highest historical 12

- hour rolling average

feedrate as the proposed feedrate limit ; 20

iii. If the feedrate during the 2008 comprehensive performance tests was less than the

median historical 12

- hour rolling average feedrate , we used the median historical 12

- hour rolling average feedrate as the proposed feedrate limit

. 21

18 George Czerniak, Chief, Air Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Branch, EPA Region 5, to Douglas Harris, General Manager, Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., June 12, 2008.

19 62 Fed. Reg. 24211, 24238, Fn 51, explains that EPA does not want sources to extrapolate to allowable feedrates that are significantly higher than their historical range of feedrates (“... i.e., extrapolated feedrates should be limited close to the historical levels that a source actually fed.”). 64 Fed. Reg. 52947 adds t hat EPA took this policy position “to avoid creating an incentive to burn wastes with higher than historical levels of metals.” Additionally, facilities that want to burn wastes with higher than historical levels of metals could do so through spiking of m etals during comprehensive performance testing, but they “must incur the costs and address the hazards to plant personnel and testing crews associated with spiking metals into [their] feed streams.” Id

. See also 64 Fed. Reg. at 52946.

20 Veolia spiked Pb and Cr during the 2008 comprehensive tests, but did not spike As, Be, or Cd. Pb is a SVM

while Cr is a LVM . We believe a limited amount of extrapolation up to the highest historical 12

- hour rolling average feedrate is justifiable in this case because onl y a fraction of SVM was spiked (Cd was not spiked), and only a fraction of LVM was spiked (As and Be were not spiked).

21 As shown in Tables 2 and 3 , all of the LVM and SVM test feedrates were higher than the respective median

historical 12

- hour rolling ave rage fe e drates.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

20 (C) Non

- Applicability D eterminations

40 C.F.R. § 71.6(f)(1)(ii) provides that a permitting authority “may expressly include in a part 71 permit a provision stating that compliance with the conditions of the permit sh all be deemed compliance with any applicable requirements as of the date of permit issuance, provided that: ... [t]he permitting authority, in acting on the permit application ... determines in writing that ... requirements specifically identified are not applic able to the source, and the permit includes the determination or a concise summary thereof.” Conditions 2.1(B), 2.2(B), 2.3(B), 2.4(B), 2.5(B), 2.6(B), 2.7(B), and 2.8(B) of the Part 71 permit each describe federal regulations or portions of

the Illinois S tate implementation Plan that EPA has determined do not apply to this facility. All of the determinations made in the above listed conditions of the permit, which are based on each rule’s applicability criteria, not the source’s potential to emit, or oth er artificially imposed limits, are described specifically in the permit.

No additional non

- applicability determinations have been made with the current permitting

action.

(D) Periodic M onitoring

(a) Proposed Requirements

Where the applicable requirement doe s not require periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring), 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B) requires that each permit contain “periodic monitoring sufficient to yield relia ble data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance with the permit.... Such monitoring requirements shall assure use of terms, test methods, units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions consistent with the applicable requirement. Recordkeeping provisions may be sufficient to meet [these monitoring] requirements....” The initial permit established periodic monitoring in the following conditi ons : 2.2(D)(12); 2.2(E)(2); 2.2(E)(3); 2.3(D); 2.3(E)(2); 2.4( D)(4) ; 2.4(D)(6); 2.5(D)(3); 2.5(D)(6); 2.6(D)(1); and 2.7(D)(1).

Under the HWC MACT , each subject facility must conduct comprehensive performance tests to

establish metal feedrate limits , and must analyze its feedstream prior to feeding the material into

the incinerator and document the amount of mercury, LVM (arsenic, beryllium, chromium) and

SVM (lead and cadmium) in each feedstream. The facility must either comply with the feedrate limits or it may petition EPA to install and operate continuous emissi on monitoring systems (CEMS) to directly measure emissions and document compliance with the MACT limits. 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c) requires that a subject facility have a feedstream analysis plan (FAP) “that is sufficient to document comp liance with the appl icable feed rate limits.” The plan must be submitted to EPA on request.

EPA has reviewed Veolia’s FAP and determined that it is necessary to supplement the mercury

, LVM and SVM analysis procedures contained in the FAP in order to assure compliance with

HWC MACT limits and the proposed feedrate limits

. To address the identified deficiencies inV eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

21 Veolia’s FAP, and assure compli ance with the operating parameter limit s, EPA has specified

mercury , LVM and SVM analysis procedures in the permit. Additionally, a s further discussed below, we are propos ing that Veolia install and operate a multi

- metals continuous emissions monitoring system ( CEMS ) on Combustion Unit 3 for a period of at least 12 months. The temporary use of the CEMS in conjunction with compliance with the OPLs, the feedstream analysis plan, and the supplements to the plan included in the permit will assure that the OPLs established in the permit are adequate to assure compliance with the metals emissions limits in

the HWC MACT.

The proposed feedst ream analysis procedures , which are found in condition s 2.1(D)(1)(i) and 2.1(D)(4)(d)(2) , supplement any other mercury , LVM and SVM analysis procedures specified in
Veolia’s FAP and supersede any less stringent provision s in the FAP

. I ncorporation of thes e 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 applicable HWC MACT limits.

(b) Advantages of Using Multi

- Metals CEMS

Generally, f

eedstream analysis 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 w ith MACT limits, as required by the HWC MACT, since there is generally a considerable time lag time between sampling and analysis.

The uncertainties caused by feedstream analysis are largely solved when an EPA

- approved CEMS is used to directly measure e missions. First, unlike feedstream analysis, CEMS monitor emissions continuously or semi

- continuously. 22 The use of CEMS is the most direct means of ensuring compliance with emissions limits, which helps protect public health and the

environment. General ly, EPA considers other options for monitoring compliance when CEMS are not available or when we determine that requiring CEMS is unnecessary or unreasonable. For example, the HWC MACT does not mandate the use of CEMS to document compliance with

the HWC M ACT limits for mercury, LVM

, SVM , or chlorine based in part on EPA’s determination that performance specifications for mercury or multi

- metals CEMS were not yet available at the time of finalization of that rule. However, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(a )(1)(i), the source must use either a carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon CEMS to demonstrate and monitor compliance with the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon standard, and an oxygen CEMS to continuously correct the carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon level to 7 perc ent

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

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

checks . For example, in the Xact TM multi

- metal s CEMS ( Cooper Environmental Services

, LLC

, Portland, O regon), sampling and analysis occurs simultaneously within the instrument except for the time required to advance the tape (about 20 seconds) and the time required for automated quality assurance checks

. See Xact TM 640 Multi

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

Media

- Membranes

- and

- Materials/PGXACT640EN.pdf

.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

22 oxygen. For PM, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(a)(1)(iii), the source must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a PM CEMS to demonstrate and monitor compliance with the PM standards at such time that the Agency promulgates all performance specif ications and operational requirements applicable to PM CEMS. Under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(a)(5), the source may petition the Administrator to use CEMS for compliance monitoring for PM, mercury, semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, and hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas under 40 C.F.R. § 63.8(f) in lieu of compliance with the corresponding operating parameter limits.

Second, modern multi

- metals CEMS have been shown to be more accurate and reliable than feedstream analysis for monitoring mercury and other hazardous metal emissions from combustion of heterogeneous feedstreams. Without a CEMS most emission excursions from combustion of such heterogeneous feedstreams w ould go undetected. A CEMS could alleviate this concern by giving the facility instantaneo us data

, thus enabling it to make changes that compensate for the increased metals in the feedstream before emissions become excessive. 23
Although a momentary exceedance of the emission limit would not be expected to immediately

affect the 12

- hour rolling average used for demonstrating compliance, 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 op timize 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 directly monitoring emissions and showing that the HWC MACT limits are not exceeded at high er feedrates. This could be attractive to a facility that wants flexibility in feedrates to account for expected or unplanned variability in waste profiles.

(c) Availability of Multi

- Metals CEMS

M ulti

- metals CEMS are commercially available and have been dem onstrated to be reliable for measuring mercury and other metal emissions from hazardous waste combustors. Multi

- metals CEMS measure the amount of mercury and a number of other trace metals, and thus the

installation of a multi

- metals CEMS eliminates the n eed for a mercury CEMS. Unlike mercury

CEMS , which measure only mercury emissions, a multi

- metals CEMS enables a facility such as Veolia to directly measure the actual stack concentrations of a number of HAP metals in the homogeneous exhaust gas stream in stead of sampling and analyzing a fraction of the heterogeneous waste being fed to the incinerator. Because the multi

- metals CEMS provid es real

- time data, Veolia can determine its compliance with HWC MACT limits in near real time and make prompt adjustme nts to process parameters (temperature, oxygen, feed rate, etc.) to

minimize emissions.

EPA has approved the use of multi

- metals CEMS as alternative monitoring methodologies at hazardous waste combustors. EPA has performed side

- by

- side evaluations of mul ti

- metals

CEMS with EPA Method 29 of A ppendix A

– 8 to 40 C

. F

. R

. P art 60 at industrial waste

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

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

- 6.pdf (accessed October 16, 2012).V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

23 incinerators and found good correlation between the two methods. 75 F ed. R eg. 31962 (June 4, 2010) . In addition, performance specifications and quality assurance ( QA) procedures are now available for both mercury and multi

- metals CEMS. 24 EPA has published performance specifications and QA procedures for multi

- metal CEMS as OTM 16 (Specifications and Test

Procedures for X

- ray Fluorescence Based Multi

- Metals Continuou s Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources) and OTM 20 (Quality Assurance Requirements for X

- Ray

Fluorescence Based Multi

- Metals Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources). 25 Moreover, multi

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

. Therefore, the multi

- metals CEMS has been proven to be reliable for measuring actual emissions of HAP metals from a hazard ous waste combustor such as Veolia.

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

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

- metals CEMS was developed by Cooper Environment al Services, LLC (10180 SW Nimbus Avenue, Suite J6, Portland, Portland, Oregon 97223) and is now being marketed by Pall Corporation (25 Harbor Park Drive, Port Washington, New York 11050). The system uses reel

- to

- reel (RTR) 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 H g
, are deposited on the reactive filter tape along with the particulate matter. The 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. 26

, 27 The Xact TM multi

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

, cadmium,

24 Performance Specification 10 (for multi

- metals CEMS) and Performance Specification 12 for mercury CEMS were proposed in 1996 in conjunction with the original HWC MACT. However, because the multi

- metals and mercury CEMS measurement technologies had not been fully developed and demonstrated, neither performance specification was promulgated. Between 2003 and 2005, Performance S pecification 12A for mercury CEMS was proposed and promulgated in conjunction with the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) after extensive demonstration of mercury CEMS and identification of appropriate performance parameters. In 2007, CAMR was vacated by the

U .S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia , which called into question the legality of using Performance Specification 12A. It has since been re

- proposed in conjunction with amendments to the Portland Cement

NESHAP. See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/monitor.html#metals

25 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm16.pdf and htt p://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm20.pdf

. 26 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).

27 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. (20 06). 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.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

24 chromium

, mercury , and lead

. 28 The system reports analytical results every 15 minutes in the units of the MACT standards (μg/dscm). 29

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

multi

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

metals CEMS. 30 Yanca et al . evaluated both the Xact TM and the QAG using a modified EPA Method 301 at a hazardous waste combustor by comparing measured and reference aerosol

concentrations. The authors found that both the Xact TM and the QAG met the Method 301 validation criteria with precisions and accuracies on the order of 5 percent over a wide range of

concentrations. 31

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

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

. Eli Lilly successfully installed, certified, and operated, f

or at least six years, the Xact TM multi

- metals CEMS on a 50 mmBtu/hr rotary kiln hazardous (solid and liquid) waste incinerator at the Eli Lilly Tippecanoe Laboratory Facility from 2005 until 2010. Eli Lilly used the Xact TM multi

- metals CEMS in conjunction w ith a PM and hydrochloric acid (HCl) CEMS. 32

, 33 Evonik Degussa Corporation purchased the Tippecanoe Laboratory facility in 2010 and continued to operate the multi

- metals, PM and HCl CEMS for monitoring compliance with the HWC MACT.

Eli Lilly’s stack gases at the Tippecanoe facility averaged approximately 8 percent moisture

content and 140 0 F while the multi

- metals CEMS was being operated

. However, Pall Corporation has assured EPA that trial tests on its CEMS demonstrate that the unit can operate reliably at moisture contents above 40 percent

.

28 Lambert, R., and Foster, M. (2011). Eli Lilly’s Ex perience Using a Multi

- Metals Continuous Emission Monitoring System. Available at: htt p://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)

29 Cooper E nvironmental Services reports that the Xact TM multi

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

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

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

- content/uploads/2010/11/2010

- Xact

- 640

- Presentation

- at

- the

- AWMA

Symposium

- on

- Air

- Quality

- Measurement

- Methods

- and

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

- fired power plant, the Xact TM was install ed and operating within 2 days.

30 http://cooperenvironmental.com/wp

- content/uploads/2010/01/QAG

- 820

- Data

- Sheet.pdf

31 Yanca et al. (2006).

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

- m etals CEMS

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

site as Other Test Methods

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

33 The U

. S

. Army has also successfully installed and evaluated a multi

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

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

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

.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

25 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 multi

- me tals monitoring for compliance determination, ambient health exposure studies, and for locating and evaluating unknown sources of metals

emissions. In 2010

- 2011, EMC deployed the Xact TM 625 fenceline multi

- metals monitor at two

sites in Ohio in coordinati on with EPA Region 5, EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Ohio EPA. The Xact TM 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

Xact TM 625 and conventional, filter

- based, metals monitoring methods.

Several additional multi

- metals CEMS are under development, including several efforts focused

on las er

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

- based AES. 34
However, EPA is not aware that any of these other technologies are currently commercially

available.

(d) Proposed Multi

- Metals CEMS Requirements

Veolia ’s waste streams are hete rogeneous (i.e., the composition of the waste is variable within each waste stream) . Also, some wastes burned by Veolia have unknown composition because their composition profiles have not been provided by the respective waste generator . In many cases, V eolia relies on waste composition analyses supplied by the individual waste generators but these analyses may not be accurate. Moreover, performance testing that is conducted periodically by Veolia provides only a snapshot of emissions and does not necess arily represent actual emissions performance with respect to all waste streams burned by Veolia throughout the

year. The use of a multi

- metals CEMS is the only sure way to verify that Veolia’s feedstream analysis procedures and the proposed feedrate limit s are sufficient to assure continuous compliance with the HWC MACT limits.

To verify that Veolia’s feedstream analysis procedures and the proposed feedrate limits are sufficient to assure continuous compliance with the HWC MACT limits while operating at the permit’s feedrate limits , EPA is proposing that Veolia install and operate a multi

- metals CEMS

on Combustion Unit 3 for a period of at least 12 months. EPA is proposing Combustion Unit 3

because

, b ased on EPA’s proposed feedrate limits, EPA estimates that Combustion Unit 3 has the highest potential emissions of mercury, SVM or LVM of any of the combustion units (Table

2 above ). 35

During th e temporary 12

- month period, Veolia would continue to monitor feedrate limits using the procedures in its feedstre am analysis plan and the enhanced feedstream analysis procedures proposed in the revised permit. In addition, during the 12

- month period when the multi

- metals

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

35 Unit 3 is nearly identical to Unit 2, by design; therefore, the CEMS data from Unit 3 can be used to de duce the emissions performance of Unit 2 without making significant assumptions. Unit 4 uses an activated carbon injection system to control mercury emissions, which makes it more difficult to extrapolate emissions data from Unit 4 to

other uncontrolled u nits.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

26 CEMS is being operated, Veolia would be required to comply with the feedrate limits for

mercury, LVM or SVM for Unit 3

. This would allow Veolia to demonstrate to EPA that the feedrate limits are sufficiently stringent to assure compliance with the metals emissions limits.

At the end of the 12

- month period, Veolia could petition EPA to continue to u se the multi

- metals CEMS as the primary means of compliance in lieu of complying with the feedrate limits.

If operation of the multi

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

- metals CEMS. On the other hand, if operation o f 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 could petition EPA to use the results of historical comprehensive per formance tests, feedstream analysis, and CEMS data to establish higher feedrate limits for the affected incineration units provided the CEMS data demonstrate that compliance would be assured at the higher feedrate limits regardless of the waste burned.

(E) St reamlining

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(A), i f two or more applicable requirements regulate

emissions of the same pollutant from the same emissions unit , EPA may allow a permittee to comply with a streamlined set of monitoring or testing provisio ns
, 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. In the initial p ermit, EPA streamlined requirements in C onditions 2.1(C) (7)(g)

and 2.1(C)(12)

.

No additional streamlining was performed as part of the current permitting action.

5.0. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

In 2011, EPA published Plan EJ 2014, EPA’s roadmap for integrating environmental justice (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. 36 One

focus area of Plan EJ 2014 is “ Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting. ” 37 EPA’s goal

is to enable overburdened communities to have full and meaningful access to the permitting

36 See Plan EJ 2014: Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting

– Implementation Plan . Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/r esources/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 Permitti ng Process and Draft Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA

- Issued Permits; Request for Comments, 77 Fed. Reg. 38052

. 37 Id.V eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

27 process and to develop permits that address EJ issues to the greatest extent practicable under existing environmental laws. Overburdened communities are communities that potent ially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risk as a result of cumulative impacts or greater vulnerability to environmental hazards. 38

Veolia is located in a n area with significant EJ concerns in East St. Louis and is of significant public i nterest. T wo

- thirds of all person s living within three miles of Veolia (65.8 percent ) are minorit ies, and one

- third (32.7 percent ) live below the federal poverty level. 39 Table 4 compares the race distribution in the vicinity of Veolia to the state and na tional distributions. Figure 4

shows the breakdown of household income within three miles of Veolia, based on 2000 U.S. census data. As shown in Figure 4 below , about one

- half of all households within three miles of

Veolia have annual household income of $50,000 or less.

Table 4 . Race Distribution Within 3 Miles of Veolia.

Race Percent of total population within 3

miles Illinois U.S.

White 35.1% 73.5% 75.1%

African

- American 60.3% 15.0% 12.3%

Asian/ Pacific Islander 1.3% 3.4% 3 .7%

American Indian 0.4% 0.2% 0.9%

Other race 0.8% 5.8% 5.5%

Multiracial 2.1% 2.0% 2.4% *Statistics represent residential population, by 2000 Census Block Group, from EJView: http://epamap14.epa.g ov/ejmap/entry.html

Figure 4 . Income of households within 3 miles of Veolia.

38 77 Fed. Reg. 38052

. 39 U.S. Census 2000 data, by Block Group. Available through EPA’s EJView: http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.htmlV eolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V

- IL

- 1716300103

- 08

- 01 Significant Modification

28 To assure compliance with the HWC MACT requirements

, EPA has proposed permit limits that

will protect the air quality around Veolia , which will be nefit the entire community.

To ensure compliance with the proposed feedrate limits

, EPA has included in the Title V permit enhanced monitoring requirements for heavy metals ( mercury , arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium and lead) . The enhanced monitor ing requirements are based on site

- specific conditions at the Veolia facility and in the surrounding community. Previous site

- specific dispersion modeling and risk assessment, conducted by EPA for purposes of RCRA permitting, showed that mercury emissions from the Veolia facility could result in deposition of mercury in and around lakes used for fishing downwind of the facility. 40 The proposed enhanced mercury monitoring requirements will help protect human health and the environment from the

consequences of mercury emissions by providing further assurance that the permitted mercury

limits will not be exceeded.

To verify that Veolia’s feedstream analysis procedures and the proposed feedrate limits are sufficient to assure continuous compliance with the HWC MACT limits

, EPA is proposing that Veolia install and operate a multi

- metals CEMS on Combustion Unit 3 for a period of at least 12

months. EPA is proposing Combustion Unit 3 because, based on EPA’s proposed feedrate limits, EPA estimates that Combustion Unit 3 has the highest potential emissions of mercury, SVM or LVM of any of the combustion units.

D ue to the facility’s location in a n area with significant EJ concerns

, EPA believes it is important to provide enhanced public participation opportunities t o overburdened communities near Veolia. The specific public participation opportunities for this permitting action are described in a focus sheet accompanying this Statement of Basis ( see Docket ID EPA

- R05

- OAR

- 2012

- 0649 ). We believe that more transparenc y and dialogue can lead to better permit outcomes for the community as well as permit applicants.

40 A copy of the risk assessment is available at: http://www.epa.state.il.us/public

- notices/20 08/general

notices.html#veolia