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 Modification

January 2013

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to set forth the legal and factual bases for permit conditions, 

including references to applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

implementing regulations. This document also describes 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 assures 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 Combustors, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE. 

EPA is proposing 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 because of the proposed action are open for comment during the comment period.
Veolia 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 Feedrates ............................................................ 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.................................................................................. 26
Veolia 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

Responsible 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 and 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 incinerators (Combustion Units 2 and 3), each rated at 16 million 

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

rated at 50 mmBtu/hr. Combustion 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). 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 nonattainment area 

for the 1997 annual NAAQS for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrograms (PM2.5).

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 PM2.5 nonattainment area in Illinois and 

Missouri has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified 
Veolia 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 permit 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). 

 

(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 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, EPA found 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 methodology as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(f)(1)(x); 

exceeding the applicable HWC MACT mercury 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 an 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 Veolia 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 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.

2 On 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, after 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.
Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V-IL-1716300103-08-01 Significant Modification

5

(b) 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, 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 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 as alleged 

under these provisions in the September 27, 2006 FOV/NOV. However, because the remaining 

alleged 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 compliance 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 63 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 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 permit conditions 4.0 (J), (K), (L), 

(M), and (N))
Veolia 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 

pending FOVs. An FOV 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 proceeding, and are 

important means of fact-finding 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 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 

requirements.

(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 requirements from all 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 parameter 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 final 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

88010001 8/3/88

88030101 6/27/88

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

Title V Permit No. V-IL-1716300103-08-01 Significant Modification

7

MACT.4 Specifically, 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)). 

Based upon EPA’s review of Veolia’s historical data, 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 on all three combustion units. The required 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 modification to its Title V permit to incorporate OPLs for mercury, SVM 

and LVM, as specified in the compliance schedule. However, Veolia withdrew the significant 

modification application on December 13, 2012 after receiving notice from EPA that it intended 

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 upon the August and 

September 2008 performance test results submitted by Veolia in establishing the feedrate limits 

proposed in this permitting action.

2.0. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND EMISSIONS

(A) Process Description

Veolia has three combustion units: Units 2, 3, and 4. Combustion Unit 1 was decommissioned 

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

Combustion Unit 4 is a rotary kiln incinerator (transportable system converted to a stationary 

unit). All three combustion units are fed liquid and solid waste streams, although Veolia 

processes bulk waste only in Combustion Unit 4. Figures 1 through 3 show the combustion 

process flow diagrams for Units 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 file, “Operating Parameter Limits for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, 

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

5 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, low volatile metals and semi-volatile metals. 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-IL-1716300103-08-01, September 12, 2008.
Veolia 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)
Veolia 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 

characteristics of the material.

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

directly injected into one of the three combustion units. Tank farm #1, which services 

Combustion Units 2 and 3, is made up of ten vertical fixed roof storage tanks. Tank 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 empty. Emissions from these 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 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 
Veolia 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 containers for charging to the combustion units. 

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

chamber (SCC). The PCCs and SCCs have natural gas-fired auxiliary burners, which are used 

during startup, shutdown, malfunctions and additional heat input. Liquid wastes are fed into the 

combustion 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 PCCs on all three 

units. High Btu streams can be fed to the SCCs as well; however, this is done only on 

Combustion Unit 4. Solid waste is fed in batches to the PCCs by conveyors. 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 combustion 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 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

combustion 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 heater.

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 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. 

(B) Insignificant 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) Laboratory
Veolia 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 ACTIONS

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 assures 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 Combustors, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE. EPA also is proposing 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) Revise condition 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 details.); 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 details. 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 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 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 

because of the proposed action are open for comment during the comment period.

(A) Regulatory Background

The HWC MACT requires 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.
Veolia 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 test. 

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 generally 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 establish 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 reasonably 

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 

pollution 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 operating 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 proposed 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.
Veolia 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 occurring 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, silverwhite 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-white 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 cadmium 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 debilitating. 

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 into 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 disorders. 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 relationship 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 cause 
Veolia 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 contaminated 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 particles or aerosols.

(C) Extrapolation of Performance Test Feedrates

40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(l)(1)(v) and (n)(2)(vii) allows 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 feedrates 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 previously 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 testing 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 extrapolation 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 heterogeneous 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 limited 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 feedrates, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(l)(1)(v) and (n)(2)(vii), and to 

incorporate the extrapolated OPLs into the Title V permit. Veolia applied for feedrate limits that 

were 7 to 10 times higher than the 2008 comprehensive tests feedrates. 

 

10See also 64 Fed. Reg. 52827, 52946-47, September 30, 1999; 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(l)(1)(v) and (n)(2)(vii). 

11 64 Fed. Reg. at 52946-47.
Veolia 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 17, 2009. EPA denied 

Veolia’s request 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 feedrates 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 efficiency and different mercury feedrates; 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, including a revised request to extrapolate metal 

feedrates. In the application, Veolia requested feedrate limits that are about three times higher 

than the 2008 comprehensive tests feedrates. Veolia submitted additional supporting data on 

historical metal feedrates 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 considers to be supported by the 

available performance test data. 12 Subsequently, on 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 dates 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.

December 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 

application, 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.
Veolia 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 

application, dated February 25, 2010, which revises moisture 

content calculations, historical feedrates, and the requested 

feedrate limits.

March 8, 2012 EPA informs Veolia, by conference call, that it does not 

intend to approve the significant modification application as 

proposed, and requests Veolia to submit additional 

information by April 13, 2012.13

March 27, 2012 Veolia states in an e-mail message to David Ogulei, EPA, 

that it will not be revising its extrapolation request.

June 7, 2012 Veolia re-submits historical 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.

December 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-SPECIFIC 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 the 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 OPLs

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 there 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 final permit and support documents are available at www.regulations.gov; Docket ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2008-

0235
Veolia 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 incorporate 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 mercury 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 feedrate 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 Feedrate Operating Parameter Limits.

Unit Metal

Average 

Metal 

Feedrate 

During 2008 

Testing 

(lb/hr)a

Was Testing 

Done at ≥ 

Median 12-hr 

Historical 

Rate? b

EPA’s 

Proposed 

Feedrate 

Limits 

(lb/hr)

Estimated Stack 

Conc. Assuming 

EPA’s Proposed 

Limits (μg/dscm 

@ 7% O2)

c

HWC 

MACT 

Limit 

(μg/dscm 

@ 7% O2)

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 offsite 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 estimated from exhaust parameters and “removal efficiencies” 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 specifications and interviews with Veolia personnel, most accurately 

represents the spike concentrations used in the 2008 test burns. 
Veolia 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 available 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 understand 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 metal 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 

compliance 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 21218
Veolia 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 metal 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 required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.7(e)(1) and 63.1207(g). See Tables 2 and 3. 

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

historical metal feedrates.19 Additionally, we believe that source-specific circumstances, 

including 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 Title V permit does not include OPLs for SVM and LVM, EPA has 

determined that it does not assure compliance with the standards 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 and 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 that 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 metals 

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 only 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 average feedrates.
Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Statement of Basis

Title V Permit No. V-IL-1716300103-08-01 Significant Modification

20

(C) Non-Applicability Determinations

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 shall 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 applicable 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 State 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 other artificially imposed limits, 

are described specifically in the permit. 

No additional non-applicability determinations have been made with the current permitting 

action.

(D) Periodic Monitoring

(a) Proposed Requirements

Where the applicable requirement does 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 reliable 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 conditions:

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 emission 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 compliance with the applicable feedrate 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 in 
Veolia 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 compliance with the operating parameter limits, EPA has specified 

mercury, LVM and SVM analysis procedures in the permit. Additionally, as further discussed 

below, we are proposing 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 feedstream analysis procedures, which are found in conditions 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 provisions in the FAP. 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 applicable HWC MACT limits.

(b) Advantages of Using Multi-Metals CEMS

Generally, feedstream 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 with 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 emissions. 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. Generally, 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 MACT 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 percent 

 

22 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, in the XactTM multi-metals CEMS (Cooper Environmental Services, LLC, Portland, Oregon), 

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 XactTM 640 Multi-Metal

Continuous Emissions Monitoring System. Specification Data Sheet. Available at: http://static.pall.com/pdfs/OEMMedia-Membranes-and-Materials/PGXACT640EN.pdf.
Veolia 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 specifications 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 would go undetected. A CEMS could 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.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 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 

directly monitoring emissions and showing that the HWC MACT limits are not 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.

(c) Availability of Multi-Metals CEMS

Multi-metals CEMS are commercially available and have been demonstrated 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 need 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 instead of sampling and analyzing a fraction of the 

heterogeneous waste being fed to the incinerator. Because the multi-metals CEMS provides 

real-time data, Veolia can determine its compliance with HWC MACT limits in near real time 

and make prompt adjustments 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 multi-metals 

CEMS with EPA Method 29 of Appendix A–8 to 40 C.F.R. Part 60 at industrial waste 

 

23 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).
Veolia 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 Fed. Reg. 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 Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems at Stationary Sources) and OTM 20 (Quality Assurance Requirements for X-RayFluorescence Based Multi-Metals Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary 

Sources).25 Moreover, multi-metals CEMS are an accepted option for 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 hazardous 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 XactTM multi-metals 

CEMS was developed by Cooper Environmental 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 Hg,

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 XactTM 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 Specification 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 http://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. (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.
Veolia 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 calibrating the 

multi-metals CEMS and for performing relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) of the multimetals CEMS.30

 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.31

In 2006, Eli Lilly and Company received 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, for at least six years, the XactTM 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 XactTM multi-metals CEMS in conjunction with 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 0F 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 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)

29 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.

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 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

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

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. 
Veolia 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-metals monitoring for compliance determination, 

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 filterbased monitoring methods. EPA’s Ohio studies show excellent comparability between the 

XactTM 625 and conventional, filter-based, metals monitoring methods. 

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.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 heterogeneous (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, Veolia 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 necessarily 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 limits 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, 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 (Table

2 above).35

During the temporary 12-month period, Veolia would continue to monitor feedrate limits using 

the procedures in its feedstream 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 deduce 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 units.
Veolia 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 use 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 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 could petition EPA to use the results of historical comprehensive performance 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) Streamlining

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(A), if 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 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. In the initial permit, EPA streamlined requirements in Conditions 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/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. 

37 Id.
Veolia 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 potentially 

experience disproportionate environmental harms and risk as a result of cumulative impacts or 

greater vulnerability to environmental hazards.38

Veolia is located in an area with significant EJ concerns in East St. Louis and is of significant 

public interest. Two-thirds of all persons living within three miles of Veolia (65.8 percent) are 

minorities, 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 national 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.gov/ejmap/entry.html

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

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.html
Veolia 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 benefit 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 monitoring 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.

Due to the facility’s location in an area with significant EJ concerns, EPA believes it is important 

to provide enhanced public participation opportunities to 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 transparency 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/2008/generalnotices.html#veolia