DATE: March 12, 2012

SUBJECT: Meeting Summary for the March 8, 2012, Veolia-EPA 

Conference Call

FROM: David Ogulei, Environmental Engineer

ARD/APB/Air Permits Section

TO: Files

THRU: Genevieve Damico, Section Chief

The following is a summary of a conference call between EPA Region 5 

and Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., held on March 8, 2012 at 

10:00 am. Representing EPA were David Ogulei, Genevieve Damico, and 

Danny Marcus. Representing Veolia were Doug Harris, Dave Klarich, and 

Dennis Warchol

This summary provides a written record of the subject conference call

by identifying highlights from the call. 

EPA and Veolia discussed the following topics:

Extrapolation of metal feed rates

EPA explained that our current course of action is to fully deny 

Veolia’s significant modification request because EPA believes the 

extrapolation factors proposed in the application are not approvable. 

EPA’s concerns are as follows:

o EPA does not recommend any extrapolation for Hg because the 

performance test feed rates were too low (< 50% of the highest 

historical 12-hour rolling average feed rate). For Unit 4, EPA 

needs an acceptable analysis of the corresponding activated 

carbon injection rate at higher feed rates. Therefore, the Hg 

test feed rates would be set as the Hg feed rate OPL.

o If the test feed rate was higher than the highest historical 12-

hour rolling average feed rate (e.g., SVM from Units 2 & 4), EPA

would use the test feed rate as the OPL. 

o For LVM (Units 2, 3, 4) and SVM (Unit 3), EPA plans to grant 

extrapolation up to the highest historical 12-hour rolling 

average feed rate because the test feed rate was higher than the 

median historical feed rate. Therefore, the OPLs for LVM (Units 
Veolia-EPA March 8, 2012, Conference Call Summary

Page 2 of 4

2, 3, 4) and SVM (Unit 3) would be set to be equal to the highest 

historical 12-hour rolling average feed rate.

Procedurally, EPA plans to issue a notice of intent to deny (NOID) the 

permit application, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(a)(3). The NOID 

will explain the reasons for the denial and re-iterate the extent of 

extrapolation, if any, that might be acceptable to EPA. Veolia will 

then have an opportunity to submit a revised application that 

addresses EPA’s concerns.

Veolia commented that they are confused by the methodology being used 

by EPA to estimate stack concentrations. They believe that EPA has 

used a “straight-line” approach, which EPA has previously claimed was 

not acceptable. Also, Veolia is concerned that EPA is proposing to 

deny an extrapolation approach that they believe is allowed under the 

HWC MACT, and has previously been approved for other facilities within 

Region 5. EPA responded that as we gain more experience with the HWC 

MACT, it is possible we will require applicants to perform different 

types of analyses in the future. Veolia also stated that they do not 

believe they are required to test at their highest historical rate 

(i.e., “extreme range of normal”) in order for extrapolation to be 

granted. EPA agreed to check with EPA’s rule writers to verify the 

intent of the extrapolation language in the HWC MACT.

EPA stated that a source can only extrapolate to their highest 

historical rate or the feed rate used during testing, whichever is 

higher. EPA cited 64 FR 52947, September 30, 1999, which explains 

that EPA took this policy position “to avoid creating an incentive to 

burn wastes with higher than historical levels of metals.” Veolia 

said some of the HMC MACT regulations (e.g., the 1999 and 2003 rules) 

were either vacated or remanded by the courts and therefore should be 

interpreted with caution.

Veolia stated that they would be interested in coming to the table 

with EPA to discuss a middle ground on the extrapolation factors. 

Veolia said they are willing to consider extrapolation factors that 

fall between what they proposed in March 2010 and what EPA recommends

above. Dave Klarich, Veolia’s MACT Implementation Manager, will 

perform some calculations, review the applicable regulations & 

guidance, and provide additional background information to EPA. Also, 

Veolia will review historical data to see if a more recent 5-year 

period can be used to establish their “historical normal”. Veolia 

will provide the historical data to EPA for use in verifying the 

highest historical 12-hour rolling average calculation. Veolia and 

EPA will schedule a conference call or face-to-face meeting, as
Veolia-EPA March 8, 2012, Conference Call Summary

Page 3 of 4

necessary, to communicate what extrapolation methodology Veolia “can 

live with”.

EPA agreed to give Veolia an opportunity to respond to EPA’s proposed 

course of action before issuing the NOID. EPA will provide Veolia 

with a drop-dead date by which they must provide additional 

information to support their extrapolation methodology, or propose a 

revision to their application. Should Veolia not meet that deadline, 

EPA would proceed to issue the NOID. 

Feedstream Analysis Plan (FAP)

EPA stated that we believe Veolia’s FAP is inadequate. EPA plans to 

require Veolia to either revise their plan to incorporate EPA’s 

comments, or EPA will impose a FAP that addresses their concerns. EPA 

stated that the plan is based on a 1985 wastestream analysis plan 

(WAP) that contains a number of outdated provisions. Veolia stated 

that they are confused by the additional Clean Air Act requirements 

when RCRA, incinerator manufacturers, and the State have their own 

requirements. Veolia also explained that their FAP is actually based 

on a 1994 WAP. Veolia stated that the 1994 version of the WAP differs 

significantly from the 1985 version. Veolia will submit the 1994 

version of the WAP/FAP to EPA for review.

NEIC Report

EPA stated that if EPA and Veolia agreed on an extrapolation 

methodology, EPA would not issue a draft permit for public comment 

until the NEIC report is released. The report is expected in late 

spring.

Assignments

EPA pledged to research answers to the following questions:

- Is the historical range of normal metal feed rates referenced 

by the HWC MACT in § 63.1207 & § 63.1209 frozen in time? 

i.e., must the period used to develop the historical normal 

feed rate precede the date of the MACT or compliance date, 

whichever is later, or should it always be the 5 years 

preceding the permit action?

- If the historical range of normal is always the 5 years 

preceding the permit action, the HWC would always have a lower 

historical range of normal in the current permit action than 

the previous permit action. When EPA wrote the HWC MACT, did

EPA intend to have a “downward spiral” of historical metal 
Veolia-EPA March 8, 2012, Conference Call Summary

Page 4 of 4

feed rates as facilities reduce the quantity of metals in 

their feedstreams?

Additionally, EPA agreed to provide Veolia with a “drop dead date” by 

which Veolia must provide additional information on the proposed 

extrapolation methodology.

For their part, Veolia will:

- Review the highest historical rate calculations including a 

review of whether a more recent time period is more 

appropriate for establishing the highest historical 12-hour 

rolling average.

- Share historical feed rate data and calculations with EPA.

- Provide additional information to support Veolia’s 

extrapolation methodology, or propose a different 

extrapolation methodology in the form of a revision to the 

significant modification application.

- Submit a copy of the 1994 WAP.