UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

REPLY TO THE ATIENTION OF



### Ted Dragovich Manager, Disposal Alternatives Unit Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1

021 North Grand Avenue East Post Office Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 RE: Response to Comments, Veolia Draft Permit Dear Mr. Dragovich: LR-8J

Per yourrequest, U.S. EPA has reviewed the following comments onthe Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC (Veolia) draft RCRA permit. These comments were submitted byVeolia and pertain to elements ofthe draft permit designed to protect humanhealth and environment through an annual mercury feed rate limit. Veolia's comments are repeated inthe attached document along with ourrecommended response after each comment. As for the mostrecent comments submitted we are looking at the SierraClub comments to see ifwehave anything to add. Please feel free to contact Todd Ramaly ofmy staffat (312) 353-9317 or at the address above with questions orcomments.

Enclosure: Sincerely,



### .., ,·- I 

# ;r)deu_,/)/

**<~t0vud** Willie H. Harris, P.E. Chief, RCRA Branch Land and Chemical Division

Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)

### VEOLIA COMMENT: PageIV-2 SectionA.9. Draft Permit reads: "MercuryAnnualFeedRate Limit. The Permittee shall notfeedmore than a total of3.63 kilograms (kg) of mercuryperyearto any combination of the three incinerator units. The Permittee shallnot feed mercury ormercury-containingmaterials, including hazardous waste, solidwaste,fuels, andany other feed streams into the incinerators at a rate that will result in an exceedance of the mercwyannual feed rate set forth in this paragraph. Forpwposes of the mercury annualfeedrate limit, thefirstyearshall begin on the effective date of this permitand eachyearthereaftershall begin on the anniversmy of the effective date of thepermit." 1. Demonstrated removal efficiencies for each ofthe incineration units were not taken into consideration in developing this mercury annual feed rate limit. The facility completed metals testing on all three incinerators in August, 2008 that included mercury testing. Test reports along with SRE data will be submitted to IEPA and USEPA to document compliance with the Regulations and define a annual feed rate limit for mercury based on these testing results. 2. Veolia submitted a revised Human Health Risk Assessment to USEPA in November, 2005. The results ofthis assessment demonstrated no risk to human health and the environmentbased on the current Incinerator MACT emission limit for Mercury. Veolia, as ofthis writing have received no comments from the Agency onthis report. 3. This defined feedrate limit along with the requirements for calculating mercury non-detected sample analysis defined in this permit would essentially make this facility non-viable. Commentor's Suggestion: Incorporate the revised annual feed rate limit for mercury for the incinerators based on the August, 2008 test results and the revised Human Health Rick Assessments results submittedby Veolia in November, 2005. 

### EPA RESPONSE: 1. The results ofthe August 2008 test bums were not available for the July 24, 2008 draft permit. They canbe considered as part ofa request for a permit modification. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did review system removal efficiency (SRE) data for mercury from testbums conducted priorto the August 2008 test bums, however, SRE calculations from these bums were rejected because they either lacked adequate test feed analysis and quality control orfailed the MACT standard at the stack orboth. 2 The Agencies and Veolia have over a ten-year history ofcommunication regarding the human health risk assessments to establish RCRA permit conditions. The following is a summaryofthe main communicationpoints regarding the site-specific risk assessment process:

• 1995 Veolia did not include a site-specific risk assessment in its PartB RCRA permit application.

• 1998 EPA contractorprovided site-specific data to EPA to perform risk assessment.

• 2001 EPA prepared a draft screening risk assessment from 1995 testbumdata that showed a potentiallyhigh cancerrisk from dioxin exposure. EPA contacted the facility and was told about the facility's installation ofa carbon-injection unit in 1998 to reduce dioxin emissions. The facility then provided stack test data to be used in a revised risk assessment.

• 2003 The results from a revised risk assessment that indicated acceptable risk and hazard results was submitted for public comment with the Draftpermit for public comment. The Sierra Club commented that the risk assessment should include deposition into water bodies located at Frank Holden State Park.

• 2004 EPA agreed with The Sierra Club's comments and revised the risk assessment to address deposition into those waterbodies. When revised, the risk assessment revealed that the hazard index was unacceptable due to the potential for people to consume fish that might be contaminated from mercury emitted at the MACT standard. Based on this revision, EPA was able to back-calculate an emission rate from the acceptable hazard index to establish an annual mercury feedrate for the permit.



### 1• 2004 Veolia submitted its own risk assessment. EPA and Veolia communicate extensively to attempt to resolve the many differences in the two reports, including the treatment offish consumption rates and trophic level parameters.

• 2005 Veolia conducted additional testing to determine mercury speciation and particle size distribution at Unit 4. At a meeting called to discuss high-end fish consumption and fish trophic level parameters, Veolia submitted a revised risk assessment that used portions ofa newly released EPA final combustorrisk assessment guidance. This risk assessment did not incorporate EPA's comments on fish consumption rates and trophic level parameters.

• 2007 EPA revised its risk assessment to include site-specific elements ofVeolia's risk assessment while addressing the new EPA guidance and the EPA-recommended fish consumption rates and trophic level parameters. !EPAconcurred with EPA's risk assessment and incorporated permit conditions based onthe EPA risk assessment in the new Draft RCRA permit. 3. Economic viability is not a factor inthe determination ofappropriate permit conditions. Veolia's facility is in the business ofcommercially incinerating hazardous wastes and needs to meet conditions necessary to protect human health and the environment. These permit conditions are necessary to protecthuman health and the environment from the consequences ofmercury emissions. These conditions are designed to reduce mercury emissions at the stack in orderto mitigate the potential for mercury deposition in nearby lakes and subsequent exposure ofresidents to ingestion ofmercury contaminated fish. EPA disagrees with Veolia and recommends the permit condition remain unchanged.



### 2

### VEOLIA COMMENT: PagesIV-2- IV-5 SectionA.I

### 0. SpecialMercury Procedures General Statement: The "Special Mercury Procedures" defined in Section IV ofthe Draft Part B are overly onerous, appearpunitive and have no regulatory or safetybasis. These procedures are also not consistent with the requirements for mercury analysis for the other hazardous waste incinerators in Region 5. A review ofthe Heritage

- WTI RCRA Part B Permit and the Ross RCRA Part B Permit in regards to these requirements merely state that the facility's are to follow the procedures detailed in their Waste Analysis Plan. The requirements in their WAP are far less onerous than those defined in the Veolia's draft RCRA Part B Permit. 

### EPA RESPONSE: Draft permit conditions are based on site-specific conditions and risk assessment at the Veolia facility and in the surrounding community. These conditions were deemed necessary to protect human health and the environment from the consequences ofmercury emissions. Site-specific dispersion modeling and risk assessment showed that mercury emissions from the Veolia facility could result in deposition ofmercury in and around lakes used for fishing downwind ofthe facility. These conditions are designed to reduce mercury emissions at the stack in order to mitigate the potential for mercury deposition in the nearby lakes and subsequent exposure ofresidents to ingestion ofmercury contaminated fish. The special mercury conditions are designed to verify compliance with the mercury feedrate limit and simply require analysis ofVeolia's feed for mercury and proper documentation. Veolia's current WAP is inadequate for this purpose and adding "Special Mercury Conditions" to the permit that supercede the WAP was more efficient than rewriting Veolia's entire WAP.



### 3VEOLIA COMMENT: PageIV-2 SectionA.JO.(i) Draft Permit reads: "SpecialMercwy Procedures. The Permittee shall implement thefollowing specialmercury procedures beginning on the effective date of thispermit: Pre-acceptance screeningprocedure. The Permittee shallscreen all wastefor mercwyprior to acceptance for incineration at thefacility. The Permittee shall obtain,priorto the shipment of waste to thefacility, a representative sample of the waste for mercwyanalysis by the Pe1mittee using appropriate quality assurance/quality control procedures andan appropriate test method that are consistent with the "TestMethodsfor EvaluatingSolid Waste, Physical/ChemicalMethods" (SW-846). The Permittee shall follow thispre-acceptance screeningsampling and ana(vsisprocedureat least twice ayear for each waste stream using appropriate quality assurance/quality control procedures andan appropriate test methodthat are consistent with SW-846. If the sampling analysis indicates that the concentration ofmercwy in the waste is such that the mercury annual feed rate limit in condition !V(A)(9) would be exceeded, the Pe1mittee shallnotaccept such wastefor incineration at the facility. " 1. Samples are submitted for many wastes that simply do not contain mercury. The generators waste profile sheet and accompanying MSDS (ifthe waste is a off-spec product) will determine ifthe waste is suspect for mercury. Veolia has a procedure in place that models the PCB Policy in the Waste Analysis Plan that defmes the criteria for suspect. Ifa waste is not a mercury "suspect" waste based on a review ofthe waste profile sheet and!or MSDS, mercury analysis should be deferred. Ifthe waste requires mercury analysis, the analysis will be completed during the acceptance procedure when the waste is on-site. 2. Pre-acceptance analysis is performed on many wastes that will never actually be received. Requiring mercury analysis on wastes that may not be received ties up personnel and instrumentationresources which could be better utilized for analyzing wastes which are actually in the process ofbeing received for incineration. Veolia bases its approval criteria onthe waste profile sheet and!orMSDS and the mercury concentration that is defined by the generator. Veolia will not approve waste that are prohibitedbythe RCRA Part B Permit, the regulations or the defmed mercury concentration would exceed our feed rate limits. Ifthe waste is approved for acceptance and meets any element ofourMercury suspect criteria, the waste will be analyzed for mercury upon receipt ofthe waste onsite. 3. Performing pre-accepting screening sampling and analysis twice a year is overburdensome and provides no additional information for compliance with the regulations. Veolia currentlyrecertifies it waste streams every five years or ifthe process generating the waste changes. Veolia has thousands ofwaste profiles approved from generators that are never received. Many ofthese profiles are lab packs or off-specification products that the exact chemical composition is known. Ifwaste is shipped to the facility, Veolia will determine ifthe waste is "mercury suspect'' based on our defined criteria. Ifthe waste is suspect for mercury it will be analyzed for mercury concentrationupon receipt during the acceptance. 4. There are instances when a waste is profiled prior to being generated. In these cases, it would be impossible to obtain samples for pre-acceptance analysis. Generators who have approved profiles in place but have not shipped the waste will not provide a sample every six months. 5. Veolia's lab currently performs the analyses required bytheWAP on 50-60 profile re-certifications per month. There are more than 9,000 profiles that are currently active at the facility. Were pre-acceptance screening and analysis procedures, to be required for the thousands ofactive profiles twice peryear, the workload for this activity alone would increase to 1,500 each month. The added costs associated with wages and the purchase ofadditional instrumentation would be substantial. In addition, ifFlashpoint, PCBs and metals as a part ofourrecertification analysis for all waste streams, ifwould take a significant amount ofextra analysis time. 6. Recertifying every 6 months would simply add no new information relevant to processing the waste. Profiles are already amended every five years, or as process generating the waste changes and ifthey become discrepant. 7. Veolia feels that many ofthese additional conditions are overly onerous, appearpunitive, have no regulatory or safetybasis and are not consistent with the requirements ofthe other Region 5 hazardous waste incineratorpermits.



### 4Commentor's Suggestion : Delete the requirement for sampling and analysis ofwaste streams every six months. Continue to follow the current WAP requirements ofrecertifying waste streams every five years that includes analysis for mercury. The facility will analyze all waste that meet our mercury suspectprotocol before incineration. EPA RESPONSE: 1. Given the sensitivity ofthe surrounding community to mercury emissions and the allowable mercury feed rates in this permit, even small amounts ofmercury in waste could impact the annual limit. MSDS sheets often limit reported concentrations to percent-levels (10,000 mg/kg). A small quantity ofwaste (i.e. one cubic yard) at even halfthis concentration would comprise the entire annual feed rate limit ofmercury. Veolia's approach to analyze only waste "suspect" for mercury is not sensitive enough to ensure they comply with the mercury emission standard in this permit. 40 CFRPart 264.13(a)(1), states that "[b]efore an owner or operator treats, stores, ordisposes ofany hazardous wastes, ornonhazardous wastes ifapplicable under

**~264.113(d),** he must obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis ofa representative sample ofthe wastes. At a minimum, the analysis must contain all the information which must be known to treat, store, ordispose ofthe waste in accordance with this part..." Although

**~264.13(a)(2)** goes on to say that the analysis maybe obtained from other sources, such as a generator, it does not guarantee that those sources willbe sufficient, only that they maybe. In fact, ifthe generator cannot supply the necessary information, the owner oroperator is still responsible for 9btaining it. Veolia's owncomment to Page IV-3 SectionA.lO.(vi) ofthe draft permit illustrates how even a small amount of mercury in a large waste stream may be critical to demonstrating compliance with an annual feed limit. The amount ofmercury referenced (a detection level of0.05 mg/kg) is well below the typical hazardous waste screens for mercury (0.2 mg/L TCLP) that a generator might certify to. Veolia's own example clearly shows the potential for mercury concentrations that are high enough to exceed the annual limit to go undetected, unsuspected, and assumed to be zero when they might not be. Thus, the permit conditions were designed to ensure that Veolia obtains good and detailed chemical analysis for the mercury content in wastes it will incinerate using appropriate methods and techniques for quality assurance and qualitycontrol. 2. Since the primary concern is the amount ofmercury processed for incineration byVeolia, EPArecommends that pre-acceptance screening for mercury be required only when the waste stream will be incinerated. When Veolia decides to actively accept intermittently generated waste, the waste must be orhave been screened for mercury in accordance with the special mercuryprocedures no more than one yearprior to receiving the waste. 3. Since the proposed mercury feedrate is an annual one, EPA recommends the recertification occur no less than once a year. Given the sensitivity to risk from even low levels ofmercury emissions and the potential for small variations in mercury content to increase risk, this interval shall not exceed one year (instead ofthe frequency provided for in the RCRA WAP). Veolia remains subject to the requirements to repeat analysis pursuant to Part 724.113(a)(3) ofTitle 35 ofthe Illinois Administrative Code. 4. See response to item 2. above. 5. As discussed above, these conditions were deemed necessary to protect human health and the environment from the consequences ofmercury emissions. 6. See response to item 3. above. 7. Draft permit conditions are based on site-specific conditions and risk assessment at the Veolia facility and in the surrounding community. EPA recommends thatpart ofdraft permit condition Section IV.A.lO.(i) be changed from: 'The Permittee shall follow this pre-acceptance screening sampling and analysis procedure at least twice a year for eachwaste stream ..

." to "The Permittee shall follow this pre-acceptance screening sampling and analysis procedure at least once a year for each waste stream .. "



### 5VEOLIA COMMENT: PageIV-2 SectionA.JO.(iii) Draft Permitreads: Batch samplingprocedure. If waste accepted for incineration is hatched, treated, blended, mixed, orotherwise alteredfi'om its shippedstate, thePermittee shallsample andanalyze such hatched, treated, hlended, mixed, orotherwise alteredwasteformercuryprior to incineration usingappropriate quality assurance/quality controlprocedures andan appropriate test method that are consistent with SW-846. 

### If the sampling analysis indicates that the concentration of mercury in the waste is such that the totalannual feed rate limit for mercwy in condition JV(A)(9) would be exceeded, the Permittee shallnot incinerate such waste at the facility.

1. Ifmercury analysis is performed at receipt it should notbe necessary to re-analyze after hatching has been performed. This will eliminate useless sampling and analysis. Following the requirements ofthis draft permit, waste received for processing as a decant or a consolidation wouldbe analyzed no less than 3 times between the time the load arrives and the time it is incinerated. Also, it is more accurate to analyze the most concentrated waste (at receipt), than mathematicallycalculate the bended material. This avoids the issue oflower concentrations being found by analyzing blended diluted samples. 2. Operations wouldbe unable to feed from storage tanks and bulkpits while waiting for mercury analysis to be completed. 3. Veolia feels that this additional condition is overly onerous, appears punitive, have no regulatory or safetybasis are consistent with the requirements ofthe otherRegion 5 hazardous waste incineratorpermits. Commentor's Suggestion: All waste will be analyzed for mercuryprior to incineration. Waste that meet the mercury suspect criteria would be sampled and analyzed before blending orconsolidating. The blended, consolidated mixture would be calculated, using the results from the individual analysis and be based on volumes and mercury concentrations. This approach is more conservative and accurate then mixing then sampling and possible diluting the results due this activity. EPA RESPONSE: 1. Given that only a fraction ofthe containers in an individual waste shipment will be subject to waste-acceptance sampling and analysis, an analysis ofa blended batch will be more representative ofthe waste burned. In light of the more representative nature ofblended-batch sampling, the hierarchy for determining mercuryconcentration for mercury annual feed rate calculation in Condition IV.3.A.lO.(vi) should continue to place preference on the results ofblendedbatch sampling. The sampling ofintermediate batches orblends is not necessary, onlythe final batch or blend as fed for incineration. 2. We agree that it would beprudent for Veolia to wait for mercury analysis before burning waste from a particular blended batch. 3. Analysis ofthe blendedbatch will yield the mostrepresentative sample for mercury as it corresponds to the condition ofthe waste as fed to the incinerator. Samples from blended batches comprising waste from numerous smallercontainers, such as 55-gallondrums, will include representative amounts from all the containers, while only a fraction ofsuch containers will bephysicallyrepresented in eitherpre-acceptance (profile) samples oracceptance samples. As the most representative form ofsampling for Veolia's wastes, we believe it should remain the first choice for selecting mercury data for compliance documentation. We recommend clarifying the permit language to make it clear that intermediate batches orblends (those that will have additional waste added to them before incineration) need not be sampled. We recommend adding "inits final form as feed for incineration," to the permit condition as follows: ". Ifwaste accepted for incineration is hatched, treated, blended, mixed, orotherwise altered from its shipped state, the Permittee shall sample and analyze suchbatched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered waste for mercury, in its final form as feed for incineration, priorto incineration



### 6using appropriate quality assurance/quality control procedures and an appropriate test method that are consistent with SW-846.



### 7

### VEOLIA COMMENT: Page/V-3 Section A.JO.(iv) Draft Permit reads: Fuelprocedure. The Permittee shalldocument the concentration of mercury in anyfuel, including naturalgas, used oil, diesel, andalternative fuels, butnot including hazardous waste,fed into the incinerators by either ( 1) obtaininganalytical results_11-om eachfi1elsupplier or (2) conducting representative sampling of eachfuel supply andanalyzingsuch samples using appropriate quality assurance/quality control procedures andappropriate test methods. The Permittee shall follow thisprocedure at least onceperyearforeach fuel supply. 

### If the samplinganalysis indicates that the concentration of mercwy in thefuel is such that the total annualfeed rate limit for mercury in condition !V(A)(9) would be exceeded, the Pemzittee shallnot feedsuchfuel to the incinerators. With the negligible amount ofmercury in natural gas, obtaining this information twice a year doesn't provide additional useful information for the time spend obtaining and documenting the information. Commentor's Suggestion: Delete this requirement. USEPA Air and Land Division have agreed that this requirement is no longer required due to the extremely low concentration ofmercury in natural gas. See attached August 1, 2008 USEPA letter. EPA RESPONSE: Based onpublications pertaining to the mercury content offossil fuels, EPA agrees with Veolia's request provided they continue to use only natural gas. Other fossil fuels may contain mercury and should not be used without appropriate testing for mercury. EPA recommends that draft permit condition Section IV.lO.(iv) be deleted ifthe RCRA permit allows only natural gas as an auxiliary fuel orbe changed from: "Thepermittee shall document the concentration ofmercury in any fuel, including natural gas, used oil,

..." to "Thepermittee shall document the concentration ofmercury in any fuel other than natural gas including used oil,

..."



### 8VEOLIA COMMENT: PageIV-3 SectionA.IO.(v) Draft Permitreads: Special mercwyprocedure recordkeeping. The Permittee shalldocument compliance tvith the SpecialMercury Procedures setforth in condition JV(A){JO). Such documentation shall include, but is not limited to, pre-acceptance waste screeningdeterminations, waste acceptance determinations, sampling logs, analysis logs, sampling results, andquality assurance/quality controldocumentation. Permittee shallmaintain such records for seven calendaryears andmake them available atall timesfor inspection by U.S. EPA, Illinois EPA, localagencies, ortheir

**du~v** authorized representatives. Veolia currentlyrecords and stores on-site all the information defined in this condition as it does for all waste streams. It appears that this condition is punitive in nature and would require the facility to incur additional recordkeeping and operational cost to comply with this requirement with no added benefits. Commentor's Suggestion: No change to the facility's record keeping procedures are necessary. EPA RESPONSE: Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are routinelyrequired to document compliance with permit conditions. EPA disagrees with Veolia and recommends the permit conditionremain unchanged

.



# ..

9VEOLIA COMMENT: PageIV-3 SectionA.JO.(vi) Draft Permitreads: Determination ofmercury concentration for mercury annualfeedrate calculation. The Permittee shall use the concentration ()lmercury as setforth below in order to calculate the mass of mercury for each waste or fuel fed to each incinerator unit consistent with condition IV(A)(II): (1) if'waste is batchfed to an incinerator unit, the mercwyconcentrationfor annual feed-rate limit calculation shall be: (a) the result olthe batch sampling analysis required by condition (A)(JO)(iv); or (b) the estimatedquantitation limit (EQL), definedas the lowest non-zero concentration of mercwy in a 5-point linearcalibration study multipliedby the appropriate extraction anddilutionfactors, ilmercwy is notdetected at or above the EQL in the batch sampling analysis requiredby condition !V(A)(IO)(iii). (2) if batch sampling is not required, the mercwyconcentrationfor annualfeed-rate limit calculation shall be: (a) the highest concentration of mercury detectedat orabove the EQLfrom the sampling analyses required for by conditions IV(A)(IO)(i) and (ii), orcondition JV(A){IO)(iv)for fuels; or (b) the highestEQLfrom the samplinganalyses requiredby conditionsIV(A)(IO)(i) and (ii), orcondition IV(A)(IO)(iv)forfuels, ifmercwy is not detected at orabove the EQL in any of the samplinganalyses required by conditions IV(A)(JO)(i) and (ii), orcondition JV(A)(JO)(iv)forfitels, and there is acceptable knowledge that mercury could bepresent in the waste or fuel; or (c) one-half olthe highestEQLfrom the samplinganalyses required by conditions JV(A)(JO)(i) and (ii), or condition IV(A)(IO)(iv)for fuels, if mercury is notdetected at orabove the EQL in either olthe sampling analyses requiredby conditions IV( A)(JO)(i) and (ii), or condition JV(A)(JO)(iv)for fuels, andthere is acceptable knowledge that that mercury is notpresent in the waste. L "EQL" is not a term familiar to the facility. Veolia assumes that EQL is equivalent to MDL (method detection limit). 2. Veolia feels that this additional condition is overly onerous, appears punitive, have no regulatory or safety basis, is not consistent with the requirements ofthe other Region 5 hazardous waste incinerators and could make the facility a non-viable operation. 3. There are many cases beyond the Exemptions given in the Draft, where mercury would not reasonably be expected to be in a waste. Using even halfthe highest EQL for these wastes as described above, would artificially inflate the total quantity ofmercury fed to the units. Considering the drastically low feed limit inthe draft permit, these sources which do not truly contain mercury should not be added to the totaL The following example illustrates this: Ifthe EQL of0.1 PPM was used for the 2007 throughput of74,500,000 lbs, taking_the EQL = 0.05 PPM. 74,500,000 lbs X 0.05 PPM/1,000,000 = 3.725 lbs Hg 3.725 lbs X 1kg/2.2 lbs = 1.7 kg Hg 1.7 kg Hg versus 3.63 kg Hg (RCRA permit limit) 50% ofHg calculatedbythis method in feed coming from_ EQL being used. This example demonstrates how the feed rate calculatedbythis method could grossly and artificially inflate the Hg feed rate. Iffollowing the procedure for a suspect waste, the EQL would be 0.1 ppm which would calculate out to 3.4 kg Hg. This is very near the proposed permitted limit of3.63 kg. Again, a gross over estimation ofwhat is actually being fed.

This second example details how the Hg feed is artificially inflatedby non-batch analytical versus batch analytical: Assume 55 gallon drum@ 1ppm Hg 25,000 gallon tank@ 0 ppm Hg EQL = 0.1 ppm

_ EQL = 0.05 ppm Non-Batch Analytical 55 gallon X 8.34 lbs/gal X 111,000,000 = 0.0000459 lbs Hg Calculated Hg concentration in tank: 55/25,055 X 1ppm= 0.0022 ppm Hg



### 10Batch Analytical 55 gal+ 25,000 gal X 8.34lbs/gal X 0.0511,000,000 = 0.01045 lbs Hg Using the batch analytical calculation the Hg is inflated 23 times the non-batch analytical calculation. Commentor's Suggestion: Delete this entire section due to the flawed natural ofthis calculation. Incorporate Veolia's current method ofanalyzing the waste as received, then calculating the batch concentrationbased on actual volumes and concentrations ofthe waste. This is more accurate and will not bias the results due to dilution. EPA RESPONSE: 1. The EQL is clearly defined in the special mercury procedures and is not equivalent to the method detection limit. The permit defines the EQL as '

... the lowest non-zero concentration of mercwy in a 5-point linear calibration study multipliedby the appropriate extraction anddilutionfactors." 2. This condition is designed allocate an amount ofmercury for compliance purposes with the annual feed rate. The condition is designed to ensure a conservative demonstration when multiple sources ofdata for a given waste are available. The condition is also designed to place a premium ongood chemical analysis since more sensitive detection levels for mercury will result in lower annual feed rates. 3. The first example calculation provided does not demonstrate that a gross overestimation is being made. The special mercury procedures call for using the EQL or one-halfthe EQL. Mercury may very well be presentjust belowthese concentrations and to assume zero mercury could grossly underestimate mercury fed to the incinerator. The key to avoiding noncompliance with the annual mercury feed rate is to obtain the best analysis possible so that the lowest detected value orEQL will be used in the calculation. Based on the sensitivity to mercury emissions from the Veolia facility, as shown in the site-specific risk assessment, even small mercury concentrations in some wastes could result in deposition ofmercury on the nearby lakes. Since even very small amounts ofmercury in wastes that might otherwise be expected not to contain mercury could cause inappropriate emissions, it is important that Veolia checkeach waste for mercury. To avoid overestimating the amount ofmercury in a waste for the purposes oftracking the annual mercury limit, Veolia should seek the lowest EQL byusing analytical methods sensitive to very small amounts ofmercury. In cases where Veolia can affirmatively demonstrate that mercury is not expected to be in the waste, the special mercury conditions allow Veolia to use one-halfofthe EQL when mercury is not detected. In the second example, Veolia does not include an EQL or 1/2 EQL for the 25,000 gallons ofliquid waste, potentially artificially lowering the mercury content ofthe blended batchby assuming exactly zero mercury in the liquid waste. By including the appropriate analytical result orEQL or 1/2 EQL for the 25,000 gallons ofliquid waste, the non-batch analytical in the second example would be essentially equal to the batch analytical calculation. EPA disagrees with Veolia and recommends the permit condition remain unchanged.



### 11VEOLIA COMMENT: PageIV-5, SectionA.IO.(vi)paragraphfollowing (6) Draft Permit reads: The Permittee shall review any container labels, materialsafety data sheets, drum inventories, packing lists, andany other relevant data or informationprovidedby the generator to determine whether mercwy is present in any waste listedabove that may be exempt. Only those wastes listedabove that thePermittee determines in writing contain no mercury basedon such review are exempt.{i-om the SpecialMercury Procedures set forth in conditions IV(A)(IO)(i) through (vi). The Permittee's written determination of exemptionfrom the SpecialMercury Procedures shall describe the information reviewedandthe basisfor the determination that no mercury ispresent. Any waste listedabovefor which there is insufficient information to allow the Permittee to make a reasonable determination that mercury is notpresent shallnot be exempt. The Permittee shall maintain any written determination of exemption at thefacilityforseven calendaryears andmake it available at all timesfor to U.S. EPA, the Illinois EPA, local agencies, ortheir duly authorized representatives for inspection. The list needs to notbe all-inclusive and make provisions for those waste that are not identified on this list but meet the mercury exemption criteria. Commentor's Suggestion: Add a provision to this list that includes other waste types that meet the mercury exemptionbut may not be identified on this list. EPA RESPONSE: Generally, the exception to required mercury analysis should stem from either oftwo concepts taken from the April 1994, WasteAnalysisAtFacilities That Generate, Treat, Store, AndDispose Of Hazardous Wastes, A Guidance Manual:, U.S. EPA Office ofSolid Waste And Emergency Response, OSWER 9938.4-03: 1. Physical nature ofthe waste does not lend itselfto taking a laboratory sample, and 2. Health and safetyrisks to personnel would notjustify sampling. Given the premise ofVeolia's business model as disposal services for hazardous materials, there is an expectation that Veolia should be capable ofhandling and analyzing (orprocuring off-site analysis) ofmany types ofhigh hazard wastes that do pose health and safety risks. Veolia is in the business ofdisposing ofhazardous waste. Therefore, this exception should be limited to extreme cases wherein the risk to laboratory personnel is much greater than to other facility personnel who routinely handle the waste because ofthe unique risks posedby laboratory techniques versus other facility operations. A small number ofotherpossible exception criteria described in the RCRA Waste Analysis Plan Guidance were rejected in this case because ofthe importance ofidentifying even trace amounts ofmercury incinerated at this location and because mercury analytical services are commonly available at both commercial laboratories and Veolia's own on-site laboratory. For example, the RCRA Waste Analysis Plan Guidance also states that: ''any waste described in the F, P, or U list has alreadybeen designated as hazardous byEPA. Therefore, with many listed wastes the application ofacceptable knowledge is appropriate because the physical/chemical makeup ofthe waste is generally well known and consistent from facility to facility." EPA does not believe that the "generally well-J.:nown chemicalmake-up of the waste"-assumption will adequately account for mercury concentrations at the levels the risk assessment is sensitive to. Furthermore, it is not difficult to obtain representative samples for many ofthese wastes or to analyze them in Veolia's on-site lab or at an appropriate off-site facility. Veolia should actively test these wastes. The current draft permit exemption categories can berelated to the RCRA Waste Analysis Plan Guidance exception concepts as explained below. Exemption number (1) is for "packaged chemicals from laboratories, hospitals, household clean sweeps, or manufacturing facilities, including scintillation vials packed in accordance with Small Quantity Chemical Guidelines (SQCG's)." This type ofwaste is often referred to as a lab-pack and consists ofcontainers such as drums packed with many smaller containers. Due to the small size ofeach ofmany individual containers combined with the likelihood that such materials will have some label or other documentation, EPA believes the physical nature ofthis



### 12type ofwaste does not lend itselfto taking laboratory samples. However, chemicalsfi-om laboratories, hospitals, householdclean sweeps, ormanufacturing facilities that are not packaged in numerous small containers or are unknowns (such as having no labels or other identification) would not be appropriate to exempt from mercury analysis. Exemption number (2) "Emptycontainers as defined in 35 lAC 721.107(b);"shouldpresent a similarproblem sampling provided they are really empty (meeting all three ofthe provisions of35 lAC 721.107(b)). Exemption number (3) "Pharmaceutical and commercial products orchemicals that are off-specification or outdated and are packaged in consumer quantities, are unused orbanned, and are in their original packaging orare packaged as specifiedbythe Permittee" fall into the same category due to the small size ofindividual containers combined with the likelihood that such materials will have some label or other documentation. Just as for the labpacks, wastes described by this exemption that are not packaged in numerous small containers or are unknowns (such as having no labels or other identification) would not be appropriate to exempt from mercury analysis. In light ofthe clarification, we recommend deleting "

...orare packaged as specified by the Permittee" as this could include bulk shipments that present no difficulty in sampling. Exemption number (4) ''Aerosol cans, lecture bottles orgas cylinders;" are also considered to present sampling problems due to the physical nature ofthe waste not lending itselfto the taking ofa laboratory sample. However, aerosolcans, lecture bottles orgas cylinders that are unknowns (such as having no labels or other identification) would not be appropriate to exempt from mercury analysis. Exemption number (6) "Explosive, poison inhalation hazard (PIH), or odiferous material, such as mercaptan, which present sampling, and analytical safety hazards." are considered to present health and safetyrisks to personnel that would notjustify sampling as long as these materials are to be handled unopened until destroyed in the incinerator. Wastes that might otherwise meet this definition but are opened, bulked, repackaged, orotherwise handled bythe permittee are viewed as hazardous materials

**fo~hich** the permittee is willing to and able to handle despite the risks and would not be exempt from mercury analysis. Exemption number (5) "Controlled substances regulated by the Federal Government"; are for controlled substances as defined in 21 CFRPart 1308 that are required bythe United States Drug Enforcement Agency to be processed unopened. This exemption stems from the requirements ofotherAgencies and not from the RCRA Waste Analysis Plan Guidance concepts. EPA continues to recommend requiring affirmative documentation ofthe absence ofmercury for wastes exempted from special mercury conditions (permit condition A.10(vii)). Veolia must be able to document that mercury is not present in the exempted wastes. A lack ofdocumentation that mercury is present does not mean that mercury is absent. The appropriate method for adding other waste types to the list ofexemptions to the special mercury procedures is as a Class 2 Permit modification as defined in Title 35 ofthe Illinois Administrative Code, Section 703, Appendix A, Classification ofPermit Modifications. Specifically, modification A.4. "Changes in the frequency oforprocedures for

... sampling

...", modification B.1.d "changes to waste sampling oranalysis methods

...other changes

...",and modification L.5.c. "Modification ofany other operating condition orrecordkeeping requirement specified in the permit.

.. " all require a class 2 permit modification. In order to clarify the approach to mercury analysis exemptions, EPA recommends the following changes to the draft permit conditions. EPA also recommends that a permit modification framework for adding types ofwastes to the list ofexemptions be presented to Veolia under separate cover including a description ofthe exemption criteria. Add "except those that are not packaged in numerous small containers or are unknowns (such as having no labels or other identification)" to permitcondition IV.A.10. (vii)(!) as follows:



### 13(1) Packagedchemicalsfi'om laboratories, hospitals, householdclean sweeps, ormanufacturing facilities, including scintillation vialspacked in accordance ·with Small Quantity Chemical Guidelines (SQCG's) except those that are notpackaged in numerous small containers orare unlc?lowns (5uch as havingno labels orother ident(fication). For packagedchemicals, the Permittee shall obtain apacking list for each container fi'om the generatorspecifYing type and quantity of chemicals containedwithin; Add "except those that are not packaged in numerous small containers or are unknowns (such as having no labels or other identification)" to permit condition IV.A.l0. (vii)(3) and delete "orare packaged as specifiedbythe Permittee" as follows: (3) Pharmaceutical andcommercialproducts orchemicals that are offspecifzcation oroutdatedandarepackaged in consumerquantities, are unused orbanned, andare in their originalpackaging except those that are not packaged in numerous smallcontainers orare unknowns (such as havingno labels orother identification); Add "except those that are unknowns" to permit condition IV.A.lO. (vii)(4) as follows: (4) Aerosolcans, lecture bottles orgas cylinders, except those that are unknowns; Add", as defined in 21 CFRPart 1308," and "and are handled unopened until destroyed in the incinerator" to permit condition IV.A.lO. (vii)(5) as follows: (5) Controlledsubstances, as defined in 21 CFR Part 1308, regulatedby the Federal Government andare handled unopened untildestroyed in the incinerator; and Add", that are handled unopened until destroyed in the incinerator" to permit condition IV.A.lO. (vii)(6) as follows: (6) Explosive, poison inhalation hazard (PIH), orod(ferous material, such as mercaptan, whichpresent sampling, andanalyticalsafety hazards, that are handledunopeneduntil destroyed in the incinerator.



### 14

### VEOLIA COMMENT: Page/V-5 and/V-6, SectionA.JJ,A./2andA.l3. 1. The requirements defined in condition 11, 12 and 13 are maintained at the facility through various reports and documents including electronic media. These records are available at any time for Regulators to review, however, these records that demonstrate compliance with the mercury feed rate are not incorporated into one log. This requirement ofall the information documenting compliance in one log is not required bythe Regulations and seem to be arbitrary and capricious. 2. Veolia feels that this additional condition is overly onerous, appears punitive, have no regulatory or safetybasis and are not consistent with the requirements ofthe other Region 5 hazardous waste incinerator permits. Commentor's Suggestion: Delete conditions A.ll, A.l2 and A.l3. Veolia maintains all ofrequired records that are defined in these conditions, however they are in many different reports and on electronic media but not part of one log. They are available for review at any time. EPA RESPONSE: Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are routinely required to maintain records or logs documenting compliance with permit conditions. Since so many different sources ofinformation are necessary to demonstrate compliance with an annual mercury feed limit (waste mercury concentrations, waste feed rates, three different incinerators, etc.) it is reasonable to require that the informationbe organized in a concise manner such as a single log. Without such a log, it would be very difficult to verify that facility emissions will not pose a hazard to human health through ingestion ofmercury in fish. For example, Veolia currently tracks mercury feed rates electronically, yet was unable to provide information about the highest 12-hourrolling average mercury feed rates to Agencypersonnel for over four months after requested by EPA. A single log comprising all ofthe data necessary to calculate the total facility annual mercury feed rate and that can be reviewed for compliance during a facility visit will significantly improve Veolia's ability to document compliance. EPA disagrees with Veolia andrecommends the permit conditionremainunchanged.



### 15VEOLIA COMMENT: Page V-1, Special Condition 6 Draft Pennit reads: Mandatmy analysis must be conductedon each individualphase of a multi-phase waste stream. 1. This condition doesn't appear to be relevant orapply to Section V, Material Processing. 2. Method SW846 provides specific cases for multi-phase sampling and analysis. Itis unnecessary to require multiple samples in all cases iffollowing EPA Methods found in SW846. 3. In discussions with Chris Lambesis ofUSEPA, he indicated that this was not a mandatory analysis and only applied to metals. Veolia digest all ofits metal samples in a microwave using high temperature and pressure in

. concentrated acids. The reaction is controlled and monitored throughout the digestion. This produces a completely homogenous sample. Commentor's Suggestion: Delete this condition since it doesn't apply to this material processing section and due to phases being eliminated by the metals sample preparation procedure. EPA RESPONSE: Provided Veolia commits to a mercury analytical method that is relatively insensitive to matrix interference, such as mercury in solids andsolutions by thermal decomposition, amalgamation, andatomic absorption spectrophotometry, EPA agrees that this condition will not be necessary. The method above, SW-846 Method 7473, is very robust and only samples comprising a silica matrix require special sample preparation such as providedby SW-846 Method 3052. Veolia's proposed RCRA WAP refers to none ofthese methods although EPA personnel observed instruments consistent with these methods at Veolia's on-site laboratory. We recommend changing this condition to reflect these particular methods orensuring the RCRA WAP is modified to require them.



### 16

### VEOLIA COMMENT: Page V-1, Special Condition 7 Draft Permit reads: The waste streamprofile must include a measuredpHof a representative sample of the H'aste or identifYapHrange not to exceed fourstandard units. Waste identifiedwith a singlepHon theprofile shall be considerednonconforming 

### if thepHis greater than orless than two standard units of theprofile value. Waste identifiedwith afour standard unitpHrange on theprofile shall be considerednonconj(>mzing if thepHis greater than orless than the specifiedrange. The waste streamprofile must include a specification of the total numberand type of possiblephases expected in the waste stream. Waste shall be considerednonconforming 

### if the numberortype of observedphases differs with the number ortype indicated on thepro_file. 1. Liquid wastes are not managed in the material processing areas and so pH would not be a condition relevant to these areas. 2. The secondparagraph ofCondition 7 doesn't seem to be related to pH. 3. Currently, the facility's WAP defmes a discrepancy with pH when the value is less than 2 orgreater than 12.5 and it is notprofiled as such. This would then require the D002 code to be added to the manifest. The pH ofthe waste is an indicator for processing. Compatibility testing is completed on all waste added to tanks. Waste is not mixed in material processing so the pH is not a processing issue. 4. The facility has had no incidents with waste due to pH. Commentor's Suggestion: Remove Special Condition 7 from Section V and continue to follow the current requirements in theWAP. 

### EPARESPONSE: These conditions are designed to flag wastes that maybe significantly different than those expected based on the profile. Non-conformance with these conditions is not intended to result in automatic rejection, only further investigation as a non-conforming waste. EPA recognizes the regulatory significance ofpH values as they relate to the D002 waste code, however, these requirements address issues ofnonconformance that could indicate that waste constituents have undergone dangerous conversion to othercompounds or that the waste has been misidentified by the generator. A pH swing between 12.0 on the profile and 2.5 in the drum would not be flagged under the current system, yet the waste could hardlybe considered consistent. Additional phases not mentioned in the profile could carry chemicals, waste codes, and safety and environmental hazards not identified in the profile. EPAdisagrees with Veolia andrecommends the permit conditionremain unchanged.



### 17