STATEMENT OF BASIS

Air Pollution Control Title V Permit to Operate

Permit No. V-IL-1716300103-08-01

The purpose of this document is to set fo rth 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 gives the derivation of conditions as required by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(b).

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

(A) Applicant and Statio nary Source Information

Owner Facility (SIC Code: 4953)
Veolia ES, Technical Services L.L. C. Veolia Environmental Services

7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, Illinois 62201

Responsible Official Facility Contact Doug Harris, (618) 271-2804 De nnis Warchol, (618) 271-2804

(B) Facility Description

Veolia ES, Technical Services L.L.C.’s (Veolia or Permittee) Sauget, Illinois facility is a treatment, storage and disposal facility, whic h accepts offsite waste for further disposal through incineration. Containers and bulk ship ments of hazardous and solid wastes are received, analyzed and transferred to te mporary storage facilities, processed and

incinerated in one of three combustion units.

(C) Area Classification

St. Clair County, Illinois is designated as a moderate nonattainment area for both the 8- hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the NAAQS for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrograms. St. Clair County is in attainment with NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants.

(D) Major Source Status

The source 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).

1(E) Enforcement Issues and Permit Shield

On September 27, 2006, the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency issued a Finding of

Violation and Notice of Violat ion (FOV/NOV) to Veolia notifying the company that the Agency finds it to be in violation of th e CAA and the following regulations: 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart V, the National Emission Stan dard for Emission Leaks; 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DD, the National Emission Standa rd for Hazardous Air Pollutants from OffSite Waste and Recovery Operations; and 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart FF, the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operati ons. Subsequent to the issuance of the FOV/NOV and based on further investiga tion, EPA found that Veolia is also in noncompliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE, the HWC MACT, for failure to timely perform compliance testing as re quired by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(c); failure to appropriately request the use of an extrap olation methodology as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(f)(1)(x); exceeding the applicable HWC MACT mercury limit on incinerator numbers 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).

EPA's regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 71 a llow permitting authorities the discretion to include a provision in the perm it stating that compliance with the conditions of the permit shall be deemed compliance with any applicab le requirements as of the date of permit issuance, which is commonly referr ed to as a "permit shield." ( See 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(f).) In view of the need for a compliance schedule to bring this facility into compliance with the HWC MACT standard set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 63.1200-1221 and table 1 and the appendix to 40 C.F.R. part 63, EPA has determin ed 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 ge neral provisions of part 63 a pplicable 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 to incorporate operating parameter limits established pursuant to the compliance schedule, and may provide a full permit shield at that time.

Similarly, EPA has determined that it is not appropriate at this time to grant a permit shield for the requirements appl icable to the source as a resu lt of applicability of the following regulations: 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpa rt 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 Wast e and Recovery Operations; and 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart FF, the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations.

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 th e Act (emergency orders), including the authority of the Administ rator 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;

2(iii) The applicable requirements of the aci d rain program, consistent with section 408(a) of the Act; or (iv) The ability of EPA to obtain inform ation from a source pursuant to section

114 of the Act.

The issuance of this permit by EPA and the receipt thereof by the Permittee does not and

shall not be construed as ba rring, diminishing, adjudicating or in any way affecting any currently pending or future legal, administra tive, or equitable right s or claims, actions, suits, causes of action or demands whatso ever that the EPA may have against the Permittee, including, but not lim ited to, enforcement actions related to the HWC MACT standard, and other enforcement actions au thorized pursuant to the provisions of applicable federal law.

In addition, EPA may modify or reopen the permit for the addition or revision of permit

terms and conditions if EPA and the Permittee enter into an Order on Consent, or EPA determines that additional measures to assure compliance are necessary. ( See permit conditions 4.0 (J), (K), (L), (M), and (N)

. )

(F) History of the Title V Permit

Veolia (formerly Onyx Environmental Serv ices) submitted to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on September 7, 1995, an application for a Title V permit for its facility in Sauget, Illinois. IEPA issued a draft Title V permit on June 6, 2003, and the public comment period for the permit ended September 12, 2003. During the public comment period, IEPA received comments on th e draft permit. IEPA revised the permit and submitted the proposed permit to EPA on November 6, 2003. EPA did not object to the proposed permit within its 45-day re view period, which ended December 21, 2003.

On February 18, 2004, EPA received a petiti on from the Sierra Club and American Bottom Conservancy requesting that EPA object to issuance of the Veolia Title V permit, pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 C.F.R. § 70 .8(d). On February 1, 2005, EPA issued an order granting the petition in pa rt and denying it in pa rt. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 70.8(c), this action started a 90-day period during which IEPA was required to issue a revised Title V permit that addresse d the issues raised in the February 1, 2005

order. IEPA did not issue th e permit within the 90-day windo w. The Sierra Club and the American Bottom Conservancy sued EPA, alleging that EPA had a duty to issue the permit following the State of Illinois’ failure to timely issue the revised permit.

On September 29, 2006, EPA announced its intent to issue or deny a federal Title V permit. Veolia submitted a Part 71 permit application to EPA on May 2, 2007. EPA deemed the application administratively complete on June 13, 2007.

32. PROCESS DESCRI PTION AND EMISSIONS

(A) Summary

Veolia has three combustors: #2, #3, and #4. Combustor #1 was decommissioned and

closed in 1992. Combustors #2 and #3 are cust om fixed hearth incinerators. Combustor #4 is a rotary kiln incinerator (transportable system converted to a stationary unit). All three combustors are fed liquid and solid wast e streams, although Ve olia processes bulk waste only in combustor #4

.

Veolia receives a variety of wastes in cont ainers (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 char acteristics 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 th ree combustors. Tank farm #1, which services combustors #2 and #3, is made up of ten vertical fixed roof storage tanks. Tank farm #3, which services combustor #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 fr om these storage tanks are controlled by individual carbon adsorption units 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, ba ghouse, and carbon adsorption unit. The enclosed building must be operated under pe rmanent negative pressure. A clam shell moves bulk solids from the bulk feed building through an enclosed gallery to combustor

#4.

Material processing occurs at units MP-1 and MP-2, and the lab pack repack areas. Material processing involves the repackaging of drummed so lids into more manageable containers for subsequent incineration. Some of these solids may have free liquids, which

are fixed with an inert absorbent material be fore repackaging. Lab packs are opened and repackaged into acceptable containers for charging to the combustors.

Each combustor has a primary combustion chamber (PCC) and a secondary combustion chamber (SCC). The PCCs and SCCs have natu ral gas-fired auxiliary burners, which are used during startup, shutdown, ma lfunctions and additional heat input. Liquid wastes are fed into the combustors by air atomized inj ection nozzles. These feeds are made up of wastes with high Btu and aqueous streams, whic h 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 combustor #4. Solid waste is fed to the PCC by conveyors in batch mode. Each combustor has an air pollution control train consisting of a spray dryer absorber and baghouse. In addition, combustor #4 has a tempering chamber and activated carbon injection.

4The three combustors are s upported by lime handling systems and ash handling systems. The lime handling systems are made up of lime storage silos and slur ry mix tanks. There is one system for combustors #2 and #3 and one for combustor #4. The silos are controlled by bin vents. Ash handling c onsists of material collection from the

combustion chambers

, the spray dryer and baghouse. The combustion chamber ash is

collected in roll off boxes. These roll off boxes are tarped to minimize particulate matter (PM) emissions. Each combustor is c ontinuously monitored for carbon monoxide and hydrogen chloride/chlorine emissions via a continuous emission monitoring system.

Veolia operates small combustion sources compri sing a natural gas-fired boiler as well as

two emergency generators a nd 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 pump s that handle liquid organic waste. The evaporation of organics from spills, leaks, a nd drum sampling also contribute to facilitywide fugitive emissions.

(B) Applicable Requirements

This permit details the requirements applicable to Veolia. The following chart lists the applicable requirements for each of the emission units.

Emission

Unit Description Emission Control Equipment Applicable Requirements

Hazardous Waste

Combustors Incineration Unit #2 (Incinerator) with a

Maximum Heat

Capacity 16

mmBtu/hr

Incineration Unit #3 (Incinerator) ) with a

Maximum Heat

Capacity 16

mmBtu/hr

Incineration Unit #4 (Rotary Kiln) ) with

a Maximum Heat Capacity 50

mmBtu/hr Joy-Niro Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA-2), Pulse

Flo Fabric Filter (BH-2)

Joy-Niro Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA-3), Pulse

Flo Fabric Filter (BH-3)

Tempering Chamber,

Activated Carbon Injection, Spray Dryer Absorber, Fabric

Filter visible

emissions

Sulfur Dioxide(SO2)

Carbon Monxide (CO)

Particulate Matter (PM)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) 35 IAC 212.123(a), 212.301,

and 212.314

Construction permits 87100024 and

88010001

HWC MACT, 40 C.F.R. part 63, subpart EEE; Illinois SIP 35 IAC 216.141; Construction permits 83120053, 87100024, and 88010001

Illinois SIP 35 IAC 212.181(b); HWC MACT, 40 C.F.R. part 63, subpart EEE; Construction permits

87100024 and 88010001

Illinois SIP 35 IAC 219.301 and 219.302; Construction permits

87100024 and 88010001

5Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) Construction permits 87100024 and

88010001

HWC MACT; Construction permits

83120053 and 87100024

Material Processing Areas Waste Processing Units (Area 1 and Area 2)

Lab Pack Repack

Unit Carbon Adsorption Unit

(MP-2 only)

None visible

emissions

VOC

HAPs Illinois SIP 35 IAC 212.123

Illinois SIP 35 IAC 219.301

40 C.F.R. § 63.688

Drum Crusher Empty drums are

crushed None visible

emissions

PM

VOC Illinois SIP 35 IAC 212.122

Illinois SIP 35 IAC 212.321(a)

Illinois SIP 35 IAC 219.301 Storage Tanks for

Liquid Wastes Tanks #2, #4, #6, #8, #10, #20, #30, #40, #50, #60, #300,

#302, #304, #306, #308, #310, #312,

#314, and #390 Carbon Canisters VOC

HAPs 40 C.F.R. § 60.112b; Illinois SIP 35 IAC 219.129(f) and 219.122(b)

40 C.F.R. part 61, subpart FF and 40 C.F.R. part 63, subpart DD

Bulk Feed Building Temporary storage

of bulk solid wastes in pits prior to being

fed to incineration

unit #4 Cyclone, Airtol Baghouse (BF Bldg-BH-1),

Carbon Adsorption Unit visible

emissions

PM

VOC

HAPs Illinois SIP 35 IAC 212.123(a)

Illinois SIP 35 IAC 212.321(b)(1)

Illinois SIP 35 IAC Part 219, Subpart

G

40 C.F.R. part 61, subpart FF and 40 C.F.R. part 63, subpart DD Gasoline Storage

Tanks Design capacity – 564 gallons, equipped with submerged loading pipe None VOC Illinois SIP 35 IAC 219.122(b), 219.583(a)(1), 219.585(a), 219.585(b), and 219.585(c)

Boiler Natural Gas-Fired

Boiler with a

Maximum Heat Capacity 10.6

mmBtu/hr None visible

emissions

CO

NOx

HAPs Illinois SIP 35 IAC 212.122

Illinois SIP 35 IAC 216.121; Construction permit 95080025

Construction permit 95080025

42 U.S.C. § 7412(j) Fugitive Emissions Pumps, Valves, Open-End Lines and Compressors None VOC

HAPs Illinois SIP 35 IAC part 219, subpart

C 40 C.F.R. part 61, subparts J and V

6(C) Insignificant Activities

2.5 mmBtu/hr Tioga portable boiler Two emergency generators (<112kW) Ash handling Handling of spent dry scrubber solids Lime unloading and proportioning Gasoline storage and dispensing

Use of absorbent material General vehicle maintenance and servicing (a ssumed to include diesel fuel handling) Laboratory Piping and storage system for natural gas Non-halogenated cold cleaning degreasers Internal combustion engi nes of motor vehicles Storage and handling of closed drums

(D) Actual Emissions

The following table lists actual a nnual emissions of criteria pollu tants from this source, as reported in the Annual Emission Repor ts sent by Veolia to the IEPA.

Annual Emissions (tons)

Pollutant 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

CO 1.41 0.45 1.74 1.73 1.35

NOx 13.67 9.03 10.98 11.54 56.63

PM 1.01 0.34 0.83 1.03 1.07

SO2 0.03 0.001

--- 0.001 0.002

VOM 5.47 1.53 2.09 1.25 1.32

(E) Construction Permits

IEPA has issued the following cons truction permits to this source:

Permit # 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

73. UNIT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

(A) Hazardous Waste Combustor Maximum Achievable Control Technology (HWC MACT)

Veolia is subject to the HWC MACT, 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE. The HWC MACT requires that subject f acilities develop operating para meter limits (OPLs) either by using existing tests or by performing new tests ( See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207.) Veolia chose to use the data in lieu option unde r 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(c)(2). As part of its application for a federal Title V permit, Veolia submitted its notice of compliance (NOC), including OPLs, some of which Veolia calculated based upon the data in lieu.

EPA reviewed the data that Veolia used to calculate the OPLs. EPA concluded that,

because we cannot determine whether the tests that Veolia used to establish the OPLs were valid and complete tests and because Veolia did not propose all required OPLs,

reliance on the OPLs that Veolia submitted w ill not assure Veolia’s compliance with the applicable requirements in the HWC MACT. ( See April 16, 2008 memorandum from Charles Hall to the file, “Operating Parameter Limits for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC, Sauget, IL,” which is part of the record for this permitting action.) As a result of EPA’s review of the data, on February 22, 2008, EPA issued a Request for Information under section 114 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, requiring Veolia to complete comprehensive performance tests on all three co mbustion units. Veolia asserted that it

could not meet the deadlines in the Febr uary 22, 2008 Request for Information because stack testing crews and materials were not av ailable. Therefore, EPA agreed to extend the schedule and limit the testing to mercury, low volatile metals and semi-volatile metals. This agreement is reflected in th e June 5, 2008 revision to the February 22, 2008 Request for Information and in the complian ce schedule contained in section 2.1 of the draft permit. For all other required OPLs, EP A has incorporated into the draft Title V permit parameters that EPA calculated based upon data submitted by Veolia. EPA’s calculations and explanations for accepting Veol ia’s data are detailed in the June 5, 2008 memorandum from Charles Hall to the file, “Operating Parameter Limits for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC, Sauget, IL,” which is a part of the record for this permitting

action.

Since the test results and the OPLs are not ava ilable at the time this action is available for public notice, EPA is provi ding the opportunity for the public to comment on the compliance schedule, Veolia’s performa nce test plan, and the OPL calculation methodologies that are part of the record fo r this permit action. EP A is requiring in the June 5, 2008 Request for Information revision and the compliance schedule in the permit

that Veolia submit the results of its testing and revised OPLs by September 26, 2008. If EPA finds the revised OPLs acceptable, EPA will reopen the permit to incorporate the OPLs developed from the required performan ce test and allow for public comment on the

OPLs.

8(B) Non-Applicability Determinations

40 C.F.R. § 71.6(f)(1)(ii) provide s that a permitting authority “may expressly include in a part 71 permit a provision stating that complia nce with the conditions of the permit shall be deemed compliance with any applicable requirements as of the date of permit issuance, provide 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.” Sections 2.1(B), 2.2(B), 2.3(B) , 2.4(B), 2.5(B), 2.6(B), 2.7(B), a nd 2.8(B) of the draft part 71 permit each describe federal regulations or portions of the Illinois SIP that EPA has determined do not apply to this facility; the statement of basis explains why each of the specific regulation is not applicable. All of the determinations made in the above listed sections of the permit are based on each rule ’s applicability criteria, not the source’s potential to emit, or other artificially imposed limits. For example, section 2.4(B)(1) provides that the liquid waste storage tanks are exempt from the requirements of 35 IAC 219.121, 219.122, and 219.123 because these portions of the Illinois SIP do not apply to any stationary tank, reservoir or other cont ainer of less than 151 cubic meters (40,000 gal) capacity. None of Veolia’s storage tanks have a capacity of 40,000 gallons or more.

(C) Periodic Monitoring

40 C.F.R. § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B) requi res that each permit contain :

Where the applicable requirement doe s not require periodic testing or

instrumental or noninstrumental monitori ng (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring), periodi c monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period th at are representative of the source's compliance with the permit, ... Such mon itoring requirements shall assure use of terms, test methods, units, averaging periods, and other stat istical conventions consistent with the applicable requi rement. Recordkeeping provisions may be sufficient to meet [these monitoring] requirements....

The draft permit contains the following periodic monitoring:

2.2(D)(12): Section 2.2(A)(4) of the permit provides that no person shall cause or allow

the emission of smoke or other particulate matter with an opacity greater than 30%. It is very unlikely that the repackaging of mate rials will cause opacity greater than 30% because the wastes that are being repackaged are in enclosed containers. The process typically involves opening the containers brie fly while the waste is repackaged, and takes place in an enclosure that minimizes the im pact from wind. Section 2.2(D)(12) of the permit requires Veolia to visually survey units MP1, MP2 and the lab pack area of the material processing area for any visible emissi ons, including fugitives. If emissions are observed, the permit requires appropriate correc tive action. If the co rrective action does not eliminate the visual emissions, then Veo lia is required to conduct a method 9 opacity reading. If the method 9 reading results in an observation of 20% opaci ty or greater, then Veolia must continue monitoring the proce ss using method 9. Sec tion 2.2(E)(2) requires

9that Veolia keep records associated with the visual surveys and method 9 observations. EPA believes this staged approach to assess ing the compliance with the opacity limit is appropriate, given the infreque ncy of visible emissions in the materials processing area.

2.2(E)(3): Section 2.2(A)(3) of the permit pr ovides that no person shall cause or allow the discharge of more than 3.6 kg/hr (8 lb/hr) of organic material into the atmosphere from any emission unit. Section 2.2(E)(3) of the permit requires Veolia to use the TANKS program to calculate the emissions of VOM/HAPs from units MP1, MP2 and the lab pack areas. The TANKS program is desi gned to estimate air emissions from organic liquids in storage tanks. T ANKS allows users to enter specific information about a storage tank (dimensions, construction, pain t condition, etc.), the liquid contents (chemical components and liquid temperature), and the locati on of the tank (nearest city, ambient temperature, etc.), and generate an air emissions report. Report features include estimates of monthly, annual, or partial year emissions for each chemical or mixture of chemicals stored in the tank. Since the organic liquids are stored in drums and canisters, using TANKS to determine the emissions base d on the size of the containers and the liquid content will yield the most reliable information.

2.3(D): Section 2.3(A)(3) of the permit provide s that no person shall cause or allow the emission of smoke or other particulate matte r with an opacity greater than 30%, with certain exceptions. It is very unlikely that crushing drums will cause opacity greater than 30%, because the drums are empty and would not contain dust particles that would be dispersed when the they are crushed. Sec tion 2.3(D) of the permit requires Veolia to visually survey the material processing area for visible emissions. The permit specifies appropriate corrective action if emissions are observed. If the corrective action does not eliminate the visual emissions, then Veolia is required to conduct a method 9 opacity reading. If the method 9 reading results in an observation of 20% opaci ty or greater, then Veolia must continue monitoring the proce ss using method 9. Sec tion 2.3(E)(3) of the permit requires Veolia to keep records associated with the visual surveys and method 9 observations. EPA believes this staged appr oach to assessing the compliance with the opacity limit is appropriate, given the rarity of visible emissions from the drum crusher.

2.3(E)(2): Section 2.3(E)(2) of the permit require s Veolia to calculate emissions from the drum crusher using an emissions factor that is based on the assumption that only

methanol residue is released from the crus hed drums. Methanol has the highest vapor pressure of all organic material, and therefor e, would emit the greatest amount of organic material to the atmosphere

.

2.4(D)(4): To ensure the integrity of the carbon adsorption bed, section 2.4(D)(4) of the permit provides that Veolia must replace the carbon bed when a breakthrough occurs. If no breakthrough occurs, Veolia must replace the carbon bed within 365 days of operation on a high Btu tank and within 3 years of operation on a low Btu tank.

2.4(D)(6): Section 2.4(A)(6) of the permit provides that each affected liquid waste storage tank must be equipped with a perman ent submerged loading pipe. EPA believes

10compliance with this requirement can be dete rmined from a quarterly inspection from the top and physical inspections every five years.

2.5(D)(3): Section 2.5(A)(5) of the permit pr ovides that no person shall cause or allow

the emission of smoke or othe r particulate matter w ith an opacity greater than 30 percent from any emission unit, with certain exceptions. It is very unlikely th at operations in the bulk feed building will cause opacity greater than 30% since it is totally enclosed. Section 2.5(D)(3) of the permit requires Veolia to visually survey the bulk feed building each day for visible emissions, including fug itive emissions. If emissions are observed, the permit requires specific corrective action. If the corrective acti on does not eliminate the visual emissions, then Veolia is requi red to conduct a method 9 opacity reading. If the method 9 reading results in an observati on of 20% opacity or greater, then Veolia must continue to monitor the process usi ng method 9. Section 2.5(E)(3) requires Veolia to keep records associated with the visual surveys and method 9 observations. EPA believes this staged approach to assessing the compliance with the opacity limit is appropriate, given the rarity of visibl e emissions from the bulk feed building.

2.5(D)(6): Section 2.5(A) of the permit contains requireme nts to ensure that the bulk feed building is totally enclosed. Section 2.5 (D)(4) provides that Veolia must design and operate the bulk feed building in accordan ce with Procedure T, “Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Tota l Enclosure,” includi ng the requirement to perform an annual verification procedure, as specified in Procedure T. EPA believes that the requirement in section 2.5(D )(6), that Veolia must continuously maintain and monitor the negative pressure inside the bulk feed bu ilding, in conjunction with the requirements of subsection (D)(4), assures that Veolia is maintaining a total enclosure.

2.6(D)(1): Section 2.6(A)(4) of the permit provides that th e Reid vapor pressure of gasoline cannot exceed 7.2 psi. To demons trate compliance with this limit, section 2.6(D)(1) of the permit requires Veolia to have gasoline in the affected tank sampled and analyzed for Reid vapor pressure at least once every calendar year. EPA believes that annual sampling and analysis is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of section 2.6(A)(4), because section 2.6(E)(5) requires that Veolia maintain for three years records of, among othe r things, the Reid vapor pressure of each shipment of gasoline loaded into the ga soline storage tank. Additionally, section 2.6(D)(6) of the permit requires Veolia to insp ect the tank annually to review its physical condition and ability to comply with the Illinois SIP.

2.7(D)(1): Section 2.7(A)(3) of the permit provides that no person shall cause or allow

the emission of smoke or othe r particulate matter w ith an opacity greater than 30 percent from any emission until, w ith certain exceptions. Sec tion 2.7(C)(1) of the permit provides that natural gas will be the only fuel fired. Natural gas fired boilers emit very low levels of particulate. Therefore, EPA believes that, because it is very unlikely that this operation will cause opac ity greater than 30%, an annua l method 9 opacity reading is

sufficient to demonstrate co mpliance with this limit.

11(D) Streamlining

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(A), if two or more a pplicable requirements regulate emissions of the same pollutant from th e same emissions unit, EPA may require a permittee to comply with a streamlined set of monitoring or testi ng provisions, provided that the specified monitoring or testing is ad equate to assure compliance at least to the same extent as the monitoring or testing app licable requirements that are not included in the permit as the result of the streamlining. EPA has streamlined requirements in conditions 2.1(C)(7)(g) and 2.1(C)(12).

The waste cutoff interlock system required by construction permits 83120053, 87100024

and 88010001 includes several criteria that would trigger th e curtailment of waste being fed to the incinerators, such as when (1) the primary chamber falls below 1500 degrees and the secondary chamber exceeds 2275 degr ees; (2) high opacity is indicated by a broken bag detector; or (3) the quench water flow falls below 100 gallons permit minute. The HWC MACT requires the Automatic Waste F eed Cut Off system to cut off the feed to the incinerators when (1) operating parameter limits specified under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209, an emission standard monitored by a CEMS, or the allowable combustion chamber pressure are exceeded; (2) the span value of any CMS detector, except a CEMS, is met or exceeded; (3) there is a malf unction of a CMS monitoring an operating parameter limit specified under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209 or an emission level; or (4) any component of the automatic waste feed cuto ff system fails. The construction permit and the MACT contain different criteria for when the feed should be cut off, making it difficult to compare each individual criteria for triggering the waste cutoff interlock system with the criteria for triggering the Automatic Waste Feed Cut Off system. Although the criteria are different, the two a pplicable requirements are clearly monitoring the combustors’ operation as a means to determine when the units may be out of compliance. It is clear that the breadth of the Automatic Waste Feed Cut Off system requirements in the HWC MACT is more stringent than the construction permit requirements. For this reason, EPA believes that compliance with 40 C.F.R. part 63, Subpart EEE will assure compliance with the list of required mon itors in construction permits 83120053, 87100024, and 88010001.

(E) Section 112(j) Determination

Veolia was subject to 40 C.F.R. part 63, subpa rt DDDDD, prior to the vacatur of subpart DDDDD in July 2007. ( See Natural Resources Defense Council v, EPA , 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).) Subpart DDDDD was a st andard promulgated pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d). In the absence of a section 112(d) standard, Veolia is subject to section 112(j) of th e CAA. Section 112(j) requires the permitting authority to issue a Title V permit with limitations on hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions that the permitting authority determines, on a case-by-case basis, to be equivalent to the limitation that would apply to such source if an emission standard had been promulgated in a timely manner under section 112(d). The HAP emitted by natural gas-fired boilers is a variety of organic compounds, collectiv ely referred to as “organic

HAP.”

12In the vacated section 112(d) standard, EPA c hose to use CO as a surrogate to represent organic HAP emitted from the various fuels burned in boilers and process heaters. EPA’s review of existing gas-fired boilers found th at no units were usi ng control technologies that achieve consistently lower emission ra tes than uncontrolled s ources for organic HAP,

and EPA did not establish a MACT standard for existing gas-fired boilers. Based on a review of CO limits in state regulations, EP A established a standard of 400 parts per million (ppm) for new natural gas fired boilers. ( See 68 Fed. Reg. 1660 (January 13, 2003) (proposal), 69 Fed. Reg. 55217 (September 13, 2004) (final).)

EPA is proposing a section 112(j) limit for Ve olia’s natural gas fired boiler of 100 parts per million by volume (ppmv) CO. EPA believe s that, in setting a 112(j) standard for Veolia’s natural gas fired boile r, it is appropriate to use CO as a surrogate to represent organic HAP. Because CO is a diffi cult-to-destroy refractory compound ( i.e. , oxidation

of CO to carbon dioxide is the slowest and last step in the oxidation of hyd rocarbons), it is a conservative surrogate for destructi on of hydrocarbons, incl uding organic HAP ( See 70 Fed. Reg. 59463 (October 5, 2005)).

EPA is aware that natural gas fired boilers can achieve lower CO emissions. However, since EPA has chosen CO as a surrogate fo r organic HAP, the question is whether those lower CO levels would result in lower orga nic HAP emissions. As oxidation progresses and hydrocarbon levels decrease, the larg er, heavier compounds are destroyed and smaller, lighter compounds form until, ideally, all hydrocarbons are oxidized to CO (and then carbon dioxide) and water. Conse quently, the relationship between total hydrocarbons and organic HAP becomes weaker as total hydrocarbon levels decrease to form compounds that are not organic HAP, such as methane and acetylene. Data analyzed for the HWC MACT standard indicat e that, at CO levels less than 100 ppmv, most hydrocarbons, including organic HAP, have been destroyed, and while some residual light organic HAP compounds such as benzene, toluene, and phenol may remain, there is no apparent relationship betw een carbon monoxide and remaining total hydrocarbons, including remaining organic HAP, at lower CO levels (other than that hydrocarbon levels are generally below 10 ppm when CO levels are below 100 ppm) (See 70 Fed. Reg. 59463-64 (October 5, 2005)). Accord ingly, EPA does not believe there is a basis for concluding that reducing CO be low 100 ppmv would have any reliable, replicable effect on organic HAP emissions.

Thus, EPA concludes that steps taken to m eet the proposed 100 ppm CO limit will result in minimizing organic HAP emissions, and EPA believes, based on the information currently available, that this limit repr esents the “MACT floor” limit that would be established under section 112( d) for comparable natura l gas-fired boilers.

EPA also considered, as requi red by section 112(d), whether we should establish a more stringent “beyond the floor” standard. However, since EPA has determined that there is no basis for concluding that reducing CO below 100 ppmv would have any reliable, replicable effect on organic HAP emissions, EP A is also proposing th at it would not be appropriate to establish a “beyond the floor” st andard for this natural gas-fired boiler.

13EPA notes that the Illinois SIP requires that Veolia meet a 200 ppm CO limit. Because this limit is higher than the section 112(j) limit proposed for the permit, the draft permit contains a “streamlined” limit of 100 ppm. Compliance with the 100 ppm CO limit will assure compliance with the requirements of both the SIP and secti on 112 of the CAA for

this boiler.

The draft permit also contains a requirement for an annual stack test, consistent with the requirements of EPA method 10, and a requirement to keep records of fuel usage, hours of operation, and malfunctions. EPA believes these requirements are consistent with the requirements of part 71. Since the boiler is restri cted to natural gas, the fuel is unlikely to vary substantially, so it is reasonable to assume that an annual emissions test under normal operations will represent CO (and ther efore organic HAP) emissions during the remainder of the year. The recordkeepi ng requirements are designed to monitor the

boiler to determine if the bo iler is operating under conditi ons similar to the operating conditions during testing of the boiler.

14