### BOAR D MEETIN G DATE : Marc h 7,201 4 AGEND A NO . 27 B

PROPOSAL : SYNOPSIS :

COMMITTEE : Execut e Contrac t

an d Renta l Agreemen

t fo r Rul e 1420. 1 Multi-Metal s CEM S and Continuou s Multi-Metal s Ambien t Ai r Monitorin g Demonstratio n Program s O n Januar y 10,2014 , th

e Boar ddeferre d th

e multi-metal s continuou s emissio n monitorin g syste m(CEMS ) provisio n o f Amende dRul e 1420. 1 t

o th e Marc h 7,201 4 Boar dmeeting . Subjec t t o Boar dadoptio n o f

thi s provision , thi s actio n i s t o execut e acontract

with Coope

r Environmental Services , LL C i n a n amoun t no t t o excee d $413,45 1 fro mth e Rul e 1420. 1 Special Revenu e Fun dfo r th e multi-metal s CEM S demonstration project . Furthermore , thi s actio n i s t o execut e arenta l agreemen

t t o demonstrat

e acontinuou s multi-metal s ambien t ai r monitorin g syste

mwith Coope

r Environmental Services , LL C fo r

a n amoun t no t t o excee d $71,00 0 fro mth e Scienc e and Technolog y Advancemen t Budget . Stationar y Source , Februar

y 21,2014 ; Recommende d fo r Approva l RECOMMENDE D ACTIONS : 1 . Establis h aRul e 1420. 1 Special Revenue Fund ; 2 . Recogniz e upo n receip t u p t o $413,45 1 fro mExid e Technologie s and Quemetco , Inc. , into th

e Rul e 1420. 1 Specia

l Revenue Fund ; 3 . Authoriz e the Chairma n t o execut e acontract

wit h Coope r Environmental Services , L L C t o conduct ademonstration progra

mfo r amulti-metal s CEM S i n a n amoun t no t t o excee d $413,45 1 fro mth e Rul e 1420. 1 Special Revenu e Fund ; 4 . Transfer

$71,00 0 fro mth

e Salarie s Account , Salarie s and Employe e Benefit s Majo r Objec t t o th e Rent s an

d Lease s Equipmen

t Account , Service s and Supplie s Majo r Objec t i n th e F Y 2013-1 4 Scienc e and Technolog y Advancemen t Adopte dBudget ; an d

VE S 019489

### 5 . Authoriz e th e Chairma

n t o execut e arenta l agreemen

t t o demonstrat

e acontinuou s multi-metal s ambien

t ai r monitorin g syste

mwith Coope

r Environmenta

l Services , L L C fo r a n amoun t not t o excee d $71,00 0 fro mth e Scienc e and Technolog y Advancemen

t Budget .

Barr y R . Wallerstein , D.Env . Executiv e Office r MMM:PF:RE:JL:D S Backgroun d 

### O n Januar

y 10 , 2014 , th

e Boar dapprove d amendment s t o Rul e 1420.1 , bu

t deferre d th

e provisio n tha

t affecte d facilitie s must

implemen

t amulti-metal s CEM S demonstration projec t t o th e Marc h 7,201 4 Boar dmeeting . The additiona l tim e allowe dstaf

f t o wor k wit h th e affecte d facilities , th

e manufacture

r ofth e multi-metal s CEMS , and othe r stakeholders . SCAQM D staf f initiate ddiscussion s with Coope r Environmenta

l Services , LL C (Cooper) , th e onl y vendo

r o f multi-metal s monitorin g technology , regardin g cos t

an d implementatio n o f

ademonstration program . SCAQM D and Coope r conducte d sit

e visit s a t bot h affecte d facilities , Exid e Technologie s and Quemetco , Inc. , t o determin

e th e location s o n the exhaust stacks t o plac e th e CEM S and othe

r infrastructur

e requirements . Staf

f ha s als o conducted sit

e visit s a t bot h facilitie s t

o determin e location s fo r

fence-lin e continuou s ambien t air monitorin g multi-metal s monitorin g systems . Base d o n th e sit e visits , Coope

r ha s provide dpric e quote s fo r th e multi-metal s CEM S and th e ambien t air monitorin g syste

mdemonstratio n programs . The Coope

r Xact 64 0 CEM S fo r

stac k monitorin g an

d Xac t 625 syste

mfo r ambien t air monitorin g use reel-to-ree l filter tape samplin g an

d non-destructiv e X-ra y fluorescenc e (XRF ) analysi s t

o monito r

meta l emissions . I n on

e specifi c installation , U.S . EP A approve d th

e Xac t 64 0 syste

ma s a n alternativ e metho d fo r

monitorin g emission s a

t stationar y sources . I n 2011 , U.S . EP A evaluated th e Xac t 62 5 continuou s ambien

t monitorin g syste

mthroug h it s Environmenta l Technolog y Verificatio n Program , an d i t ha s bee n use d i n numerou s research applications . Proposal 

### Rul e 1420. 1 Multi-Metal s CEM S Subjec t t o Boar dadoptio n o f

th e Propose d Amende dRul e 1420. 1 multi-metal s CEM S demonstration progra

mprovision , larg e lead-aci dbatter y recyclin g facilitie s woul db e require d t o fun dand participat

e i n amulti-metal s CEM S demonstratio n progra mtha t th e SCAQM D staf

f propose s t

o implement . Th

e Xact 640 CEM S and al l necessar y accessorie s wil l be delivered , installed , an d maintaine d b y Cooper

A singl e CEM S uni t

-2

- VE S 01949 0

### wil l be deploye d and collec t dat afo r u p t o ten month s wher

e i t wil l be use d a

t Exid e Technologie s and Quemetco , Inc. , i n succession . Thi s progra

mwil l includ e traditional sourc e tests conducted concurrently t o evaluat e th e performanc e o f

th e multi-metal s CEM S technology . The complet e demonstration program , includin g u

p to tw o month s o f

equipmen

t set-up , testing , decommissioning , an d transfe r fro mon e facilit y t

o th e other, i s estimated t

o las t fo r aperio do f

twelv e months . Thi s demonstration progra mwil l allo w fo r

abette r understanding o f

th e capabilitie s ofthi s technolog y i n monitorin g multi-metal s o n acontinuou s basis , an d wil l no t be use d fo r

complianc e purposes . SCAQM D staf f wil l overse

e th e multi-metal s CEM S demonstration progra mand wil l conduct

th e necessar

y dat aretrieval , analysis , and concurren

t sourc e testing . I f

Propose d Amende dRul e 1420. 1 i s adopted , th e fundin g fo r

thi s CEM S demonstration progra mwil l be provide db y Exid e an d Quemetco , with in-kin dsuppor t fro mSCAQM D fo r

oversight , testin g an

d dat aanalysis . Multi-Metal s Ambien t

Ai r Monitorin g Svste

m Staf f propose s t

o conduct ademonstration o f

acontinuou s multi-metal s ambien t ai r monitorin g syste

mnea r Exid e Technologie s an

d Quemetco , Inc . Fo r

thi s program , th

e Xac t 625 syste

mwil l b e deploye d a

t eac h facilit y fo r

approximately tw o month s i n succession . The delivery , installatio n an d trainin g fo r

th e multi-metal s ambien

t air monitorin g syste

mwil l b e conducte d b y Cooper . SCAQM D staf f wil l operat

e th e multi-metal s ambien

t ai r monitorin g syste

man d wil l conduct

the necessar

y dat a retrieval , analysi s and reporting . I f th e demonstration progra

mi s successful , staf

f wil l retur n t o th e Boar dwit h arecommendation fo r deploymen

t o n amor e permanen

t basis . Benefit s t o SCAQM D 

### Th e multi-metal s CEM S demonstration progra ma t Exid e Technologie s an

d Quemetco , Inc. , wil l satisf

y th e provisio n o f

Propose d Amende dRul e 1420.1 . Additiona l complianc e tool s ar

e needed t

o monitor emission s fro mlarge-lead aci dbatter y recyclin g facilitie s on acontinuou s basis . Thi s progra mi s necessar

y t o understand an

d evaluat e the capabilitie s o f

thi s technolog y i n monitorin g metal s emission s o n acontinuou s basi s fro mmeta

l emittin g facilities . Likewise , th e continuou s multi-metal s ambien t air monitorin g syste

mdemonstration progra

mwil l provide a

n evaluatio n ofth e capabilitie s ofthi s technology i n monitorin g ambien t air meta l concentrations , includin g metal s derive dfro mfugitiv e emissions . Sol e Sourc e Justificatio n 

### Fo r the Amende dRul e 1420. 1 multi-metal s stac k CEM S an

d the ambien

t ai r monitorin g multi-metal s systems , sectio n VIII.B. 2 ofth e Procuremen t Polic y and Procedur

e identifie s fou r

majo r provision s unde

r whic h asol e sourc e awar d ma y be justified . Thi s reques t fo r asol e sourc e awar

d t o Coope r i s mad e unde r provisio n B.2.c.(l) : th

e unique experienc e and capabilitie s ofth e propose d contracto r o r contractor

team , B.2.c.(2 ) th

e -3

- VE S 01949 1

### projec t involve s th

e us e o f proprietar

y technology , and B.2.c.(3 ) th e contracto

r ha s ownershi p o f key asset

s require d fo r

projec t performance . Coope r i s th e origina l equipmen

t manufacture

r o f th e Xac t 640 stac k monitorin g multi

metal s CEM S an

d Xact 625 ambien

t ai r monitorin g system , an

d has obtaine d U.S . patent s fo r thi s technology . They produc e th e onl y commerciall y availabl e continuou s metal s monitorin g instruments fo r stac k o r ambien t applications . Coope

r ha s extensiv e expertis e i n th

e developmen

t an d continue d us e o f

thi s technolog y and instrumentatio n t o monitor

multipl e metal s o n acontinuou s basis . Resource Impact

s 

### Th e tota l cos t fo r the Xact 64 0 CEM S demonstration program , whic h wil l no t exceed $413,451 , wil l b

e provide d b y Exid e Technologie s and Quemetco , Inc. , i n accordanc e wit h Propose d Amende dRul e 1420.1 . Sufficien t fundin g i s availabl e fo r

th e tota l cos t fo r th e continuou s multi-metal s ambien t monitor demonstration , no t

t o exceed $71,000 , fro mcos t saving s realize d i n Scienc e and Technolog y Advancement' s Fisca l Year 2013-1 4 Salarie s account .

-4

- VE S 019492United State s Environmenta

l Protectio

n Agency : Regio

n 5 Draf t Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Titl e V Permi t to Operat

e Issue d t o Veoli aE S Technica l Solutions , L.L.C , 7 Mobil e Avenue , Sauget , Illinoi s Permi t No . V-IL-1716300103-2014-10 ; Issue d October 201 4 Docke t I D No . U.S . EPA-R05-OAR-2014-028 0



## Comment

s o f Veolia E S Technica

l Solutions , L.L.C . Decembe

r 17,201 4

VE S 01949 3Table o f Content s I . Introduction 1 II . Fact

s i n Suppor

to f Veolia' s Comment

s 2 A . Brie f

Overvie w o f HW C MAC T Developmen tan d Iteration

s 2 B . Basic

s of HW C MAC T Implementatio n an d Complianc

e 2 C . Basic

s ofth e Titl e V Operating Permi tProgra m 3 D . Th e HW C MAC T an d Titl e V Do No

tRequir e Regio n 5' s Propose

d Feedstrea

m Analysis Procedure

s o r Multi-Metal s Continuous Monitorin g Requirement s 4 HI . Fact

s i n Suppor

to f Veolia' s Comment

s 5 A . Relevan

tRegulator

y an d Procedura

l Histor y Concerning Veolia' s Titl e V Permit5 1. 1995through 2003: Initial Title V Application & Test

Plans for MACT Compliance 5 2. 2004 through 2005: Sierra Club Suit vs. USEPA & Initial

MACT Compliance 6 " 3. 2006

through 2007: Sierra Club Sues USEPA Again & USEPA Takes Over

the Title V

6 4. 2008: Performance Testing for Metals & Issuance of

Veolia's Title V Permit 8 5. 2009through 2010: Proposed CEMS and Special Waste Analysis Procedures 12 6. 2011 through 2013: NEIC Inspection & No Progress on Significant

Modification 15 B . Relevan

tRegulator

y an d Procedura

l Histor y Concerning Veolia' s RCR A Par

tB Permi

t1 8 1. 1997

through 2003: Initial

RCRA Part

B Permit, Renewal, and Risk Assessment

18 2. 2005through 2013: Veolia Risk Assessment, Permit

Issuance & RCRA Permit

Appeal 19 IV . Veolia' s Comment s 2 4

- i i - 

### VE S 01949 4A . Regio n 5 Ha s Exceede

d it s Authorit

y t o "Assur e Compliance " Unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac tb

y Requirin g Veoli a t

o Implemen

tSupplementa

l Feedstrea

m Analysis Procedure

s an d Instal l Multi-Metal s CEM S 2 4 1. Veolia's Existing Feedstream Analysis Procedures Are Sufficient and Region 5Has Exceeded Its Authority by Arbitrarily and Capriciously Determining Otherwise 27 2. The Monitoring Requirements of the HWC

MA CT Are Sufficient

2 7 3. 40C.F.R. § 63.1209(g)(2) Does Not Authorize Region 5's Decision to Force Veolia to Install Multi-Metals CEMS

29 4. Section 114 of

the CAA Does Not

Authorize Region 5's Permitting Decision 32 5. The Multi-Metals CEMS As Imposed

on Veolia Is Not

a Parametric Monitor

33 B . Regio

n 5 i s Arbitraril y an

d Capriciousl

y Requirin g th

e Us e of a n Unprove n Technolog

y (i.e. , a multi-metal

s CEMS ) t

o Verif y a Prove

n an d Required Mean

s of Complianc

e (i.e. , th e OPL S an

d FAP ) an

d th e Agenc y Ha s Improperl

y Modifie d th

e Proces s fo r Alternative Monitorin g 3 4 C . Regio

n 5 Failed t

o Analyze o r Consider th e Efficac y o

f Multi-Metal s CEM S an

d Demonstrate

d Bia s a s Evidenced b

y it s Collusion wit

h Coope r 3 8 D . Regio

n 5 i s Unreasonabl

y an d Unfairl y Requirin g Veoli a t o Instal l Multi-Metal s CEM S 4 5 1. Veolia Is a Small Source of

Mercury Emissions In the St. Louis Area 45 2. Veolia's MACT

Metals Emissions Are Below the HWC MACT Limits by a Margin of

Safety 46 3. The Requirement of the Xact CEMS Saddles Veolia with Unwarranted

Cost 46 4. Region 5's Requirement that Veolia Install

the Xact CEMS Places Veolia at an Unfair

Competitive Disadvantage 48 5. Region 5's Draft

Permit Condition Requiring the Installation of Multi-Metals CEMS

Within 365Days Is Impractical 49



### - ii i - VE S 0194956. USEPA Should Promulgate a National

Standard

That Attempts to Impose Multi-Metal

CEMS On All Hazardous Waste Combustors 51 E . Regio

n 5' s Representation

s Concerning Multi-Metal s CEM S Technolog

y ar e Incorrect

, Misleading an

d Unsubstantiate

d 5

3 1. Veolia's Comments on §5.3.1 (Overview of Requirements) 53 2. Veolia's Comments on §5.3.2, "Multi-Metals CEMS and Feedstream Analysis "

56 3. Veolia's Comments on §5.3.3, "Deficiencies in Veolia's Current Emissions Monitoring Procedures " 57 (i ) Regio n 5 incorrectl y view s a s adeficienc y th

e fac t tha t Veolia' s October

201 3 comprehensiv e performanc e tests reveale d tha

t Veolia' s thre e incineratio n unit s hav e significantl y differen t

emission s tha

t ma y no t b e linea r 5 7 (ii ) Veolia' s CP T result s demonstrat e complianc e whil e generatin g emission s unde r the wors t

cas e operatin g condition s fo r

the particula

r combinatio n o f

waste s incinerate d and combustio n condition s a t th e time ofth e tes t 5 8 4. Veolia's Comments on §5.3.4, "Availability of Multi-Metals CEMS" 58 5. Veolia's Comments on §5.3.5, "Performance Specifications for the Multi-Metals CEMS"

63 F . Th e Propose

d Methodolog

y fo r Measuring Beryllium Show s tha t Regio n 5' s Requiremen

tfo r th e Installatio

n o f Multi-Metal s CEM S I s Arbitrary an

d Capricious 6 5 G . Regio

n 5' s Permittin

g Decisio n t o Use Multi-Metal s CEM S i s No t Supporte

d b y Substantia

l Evidenc

e 6 6 1. The Xact

640Multi-Metals CEMS Has Never

Been Tested

or Installed on Incinerators with Dry Pollution Control Systems such as Those at

Veolia 66 2. Veolia Has Offered Unrefuted

Evidence that

the Xact 640MultiMetals CEMS

Will Not Work and Is Inappropriate to be Used as a Temporary Continuous Parametric Monitoring System at Veolia 66 (i ) Th e Xac t

64 0 a s propose d i n Veolia' s draf t Titl e V Permi t i s no t atemporar

y Continuou s Parametri c Monitorin g

- i v - VE S 01949 6Syste mno r shoul di t be use d a

s evidenc e o f

complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T 6 7 (ii ) Th e Xac t

64 0 has no t

been demonstrate d to b

e reliabl e fo r measurin g th

e conten t o f stac k emission s froma commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

6 8 (iii ) Th e Xac t

64 0 technolog y fail s t o obtai n arepresentativ e sampl e 7 1 (iv ) Th e Xac t

64 0 technolog y ha s no t been calibrate d agains t

a QA G tha t represent s the proces s condition s a t Veoli a7 3 (v ) The Xac t

64 0 technolog y i s ahistorica l failur e whe n applie dt o stack

emissio n monitorin g a

t the location s identifie db y USEP A 7 4 (vi ) Regio n 5' s action s i n requirin g the installatio n o f Cooper' s Xac t 64 0 CEM S ar

e unprecedente d an d shoul dbe investigate d furthe r

7 5 H . Regio

n 5 I s Arbitraril y an

d Capriciously Using Unsubstantiate d Enforcemen

tAllegation

s t o Den y Veoli a a PermitShield an d Suppor

t Unnecessar

y Multi-Metal s CEM S an d Feedstrea

m Analysis Requirement

s 7 6 1. The Findings of

Violation Issued

to Veolia Are Unsubstantiated 76 (i ) Th e Augus t

24 , 201 2 FO V 7 8 (a) Veolia's Alleged

Failure to Provide Information Pursuant to the March 2010Information Requests 79 (b) Allegation that

Veolia Failed

to Establish and Abide by Appropriate OPLs for Mercury Emissions 85 (c) Allegation that

Veolia Failed

to Appropriately Analyze Certain Waste Streams 86 2. Alleged

Referrals by the IEPA to the Illinois Attorney General 90 I . Th e Administrativ e Procedure

s USEP A I

s Employin g Violat

e Veolia' s Du e Proces s Right s 91 J . Specific Section-by-Sectio n Comment

s 9 2 1. Region 5's Statement of Basis Contains Errors and Inaccuracies 92 2, Region 5's Draft Permit Must Be Revised

99

- v - VE S 01949 7K . Regio n 5' s Statemen

tofBasi s I

s Contradictor

y an d Doe s No tSuppor t th e Conclusion

s Containe

d Therein 11 0 L . Regio

n 5' s Discussio

n of Environmenta

l Justic e Consideration

s Contain s Inaccurate

, Misleading , Prejudicia l an d Conflictin g Information 11 3 M . USEPA' s Notic

e failed t o compl y wit h th e requirement

s o f § 71.11(d)(4

) 11 5 N . Veolia' s Specific Incorporation of Othe r Publi c Comment s 11

5 V . Conclusion 11 6

- v i - 

### VE S 01949 8United State s Environmenta

l Protection Agency : Regio n 5 DRAF T Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Titl e V Permi t to Operat

e Issue d to Veoli aE S Technica l Solutions , L.L.C , 7 Mobil e Avenue , Sauget , Illinoi s

Permi t No . V-IL-1716300103-2014-10 ; Issue d October 201 4 Docke t I D No . U.S . EPA-R05-OAR-2014-028 0 

## Comment

s o f Veoli a E S Technica

l Solutions , L.L.C .

I . Introduction Veoli aE S Technica l Solutions , L.L.C . ("Veolia" ) operate s acommercia l hazardou s wast e incineratio n facilit y i n Sauget , Illinois . Veolia' s facilit y i s subjec t t o regulatio n unde

r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t ("CAA" ) and mus t

maintai n avali doperatin g permi t to carr y o n it s business . Althoug h mos t facilitie s lik e Veolia' s ar e permitte d b y stat

e agencie s wit h delegate d authorit y unde r the CAA , Veoli ai s permitte d b y th e USEPA , and mor

e specifically , USEP A Regio n 5 locate d i n Chicag o ("Regio n 5") . A s se t fort h i n detai l i n Par

t I I below , Veoli aand Regio n 5 hav e ha d a comple x an d sometime s difficul t relationship . Regio n 5 issue d Veolia' s first Titl e V operatin g permi t i n Septembe

r o f 2008 . Tha

t initia l permi t

wa s goo d fo r

five years . Pursuant

t o Titl e V , Veoli aapplie d fo r

arenewal t

o it s operatin g permi t

i n Apri l o f

2013 . I n October

o f 2014 , Regio n 5 issue d adraf

t permi t t o Veoli a("201 4 Draf

t Permit" ) tha

t i s the subjec t

o f thes e comments . Veoli aneed s avali dTitl e V permi t t o continu e it s operations . Thus , Veoli aappreciate s Regio n 5' s consideratio n o f

Veolia' s renewal applicatio n and Regio n 5' s issuanc e o f th e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . However , arenewe d permi t doe s no t d o Veoli aan y goo d i f

i t i s s o onerous—particularl y whe n compare d to th

e permi t obligation s o f

Veolia' s direc t

competitor s i n Regio n 5—a s t o threate n the continue d viabilit y o f Veolia' s curren

t business . Unde r accepte d administrativ e la w principles , a n agency' s permittin g decisio n i s arbitrar y and capriciou s "i f

the agenc y has relie d o n factor s whic h Congres s ha s no t intende d i t

to consider , entirel y faile dt o consider a n important

aspect o f th e problem , offere da

n explanatio n fo r

it s decisio n tha

t run s counte

r to th e evidenc e befor e th

e agency , o r

i s s o implausibl e tha

t i t coul dno t be ascribe d t o adifferenc e i n vie w o r th e produc t o f agenc y expertise. " Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 46 3 U.S . 29 , 4 3 (1983) ; see also Luminant Generation Co., L.L.C. v. U.S. E.P.A., 67 5 F.3 d 917 , 92 5 (5t h Cir . 2012) . A s se

t fort h i n detai l i n Veolia' s comment s below , Region 5' s permittin g decision , and th e condition s ofth e 201 4 Draf t Permit , ar

e arbitrar y an d capriciou s unde

r thi s standard . Regio n 5 shoul d withdraw , delete , amend , furthe r explain , and otherwis e revis e th e condition s o f the 201 4 Draf

t Permi t and its accompanyin g supportin g document s a s se t fort h belo w t o ensur

e tha t Veoli aultimatel y receive s afinal operatin g permi t tha t i s considered , reasonable , an d fair .

VE S 01949 9II . Fact s i n Suppor

to f Veolia' s Comment

s A . Brie f

Overvie w o f HW C MAC T Developmen tan d Iteration

s Hazardou s Wast

e Combustor s ("HWCs" ) ar e regulate d unde

r § 11 2 o f th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t ("CAA") . HWC s includ e th e followin g hazardous-wast e burnin g sources : incinerators , cemen t kilns , lightweigh t

aggregat e kilns , boilers , proces s heaters , and hydrochlori c acidproductio n furnaces . EP A firs t

propose d air-emissio n rule s fo r hazardou s wast

e incinerator s lik e Veoli ai n 198 1 unde

r thei r RCR A authority . See 4 0 C.F.R . Part s 26 4 & 265 . I n 1999 , EP A issue d th e first Maximu mAchievabl e Contro l Technolog y ("MACT" ) rul e fo r certai n HWCs , includin g hazardou s wast

e incinerators . See 64 Fed . Reg . 52,82 8 (Sept . 30 , 1999) . Th e ai r emissio n source s unde

r the 199 9 HW C MAC T ar e referre d to a

s "Phas e I " sources . Th e 199 9 HW C MAC T se

t ai r emissio n limit s fo r

numerou s hazardou s ai r pollutant s ("HAPs") , including : dioxin/furans , mercury , semi-volatil e metal s ("SVMs") , low-volatilit y metal s ("LVMs") , hydroge n chlorid e an d chlorin e gas . Shortl y afte r

USEP A issue d th

e 199 9 HW C MACT , industr y an d environmental group s challenge d the rule s fo r

divers e reasons . O n Jul y 24 , 2001 , th e Unite dState s Court

o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi aCircui t

vacate d the rules . However , before doin g so , the Cour t allowe dUSEP A to promulgat e interi mstandards . O n February 13 , 2002 , th e Agenc y publishe d interi mstandard s to regulat e air emission s fromPhas e I HWC s unti l permanen t replacemen

t standard s coul dbe develope d and finalized . See 67 Fed . Reg . 6,79 2 (Feb . 13 , 2002) . A s par t o f thi s process , USEP A als o entered into asettlemen t agreemen

t wit h the challengin g partie s to issu e standard s fo r

bot h Phas e I and Phas e I I source s b y Septembe r o f 2005 . USEP A publishe d arevise d HW C MAC T rul e fo r publi c commen

t o n Apri l 20 , 2004 . See 69 Fed . Reg . 21,19 8 (Apr . 20 , 2004) . Th e Agenc y publishe d th e final "replacement " HW C MAC T i n Octobe r

o f 2005 . See 7 0 Fed . Reg . 59 , 40 2 (Oct . 12 , 2005) . Th e 200 5 HW C MAC T include d HA P limit s fo r

bot h Phas e I an

d Phas e I I source s o f

emissions . I n 200 5 and 2006 , th e cementindustr y filedpetition s to reconsider certai n aspect s o f

the rul e a

s applie d t o cemen

t kilns . Th e grante d on

e o f thes e petition s i n Marc h of2006 ; however , th e issu e wa s subsequently resolve d withou t furthe r amendmen

t to the rule . Al l hazardou s wast e incinerator s had t o sho w the y wer e i n ful l complianc e wit h the requirement s ofth e 200 5 HW C MAC T b y Octobe r 14 , 2008 . B . Basic

s o f HW C MAC T Implementatio n an d Complianc

e USEP A create d th

e HW C MAC T emission s limit s fo r hazardou s wast

e incinerator s usin g the "MAC T floor " proces s authorize d b y § 112(d ) ofth e Clea n Ai r

Ac t ("CAA") . Th e proces s i s calle dth e "MAC T floor " becaus e i t determine s abaselin e limi t o f emissions . Th e MAC T limit s ca n be mor e stringent

tha n thi s limit , bu

t canno t be mor e lenient—henc e th

e "floor. " T o implemen t

the MAC T floor

fo r incinerators , USEP A constructe d adatabas e o f existin g incinerator s subjec t

to th e rule . USEP A then ranke d eac h incinerato r based o n the result s o f performanc e tests—i.e. , actua l samplin g o f

HAP s bein g emitte d fromthe incinerator' s stack s durin g certai n tes t

conditions . Th e Agenc y the n selecte d the to p 12 % o f performer s fromthe databas e (thos e wit h th

e lowes t emission s durin g tests) . Fro mthi s subset , USEP A then calculate dth e averag e emissio n level . USEP A then se t thi s averag e emissio n leve l a s the MAC T

- 2

- VE S 01950 0floor. Thus , th e HAP s emissio n limi t

fo r hazardou s wast

e incinerators , including thos e fo r metals—mercury , LVMs , and SVMs—ar e base d o n actual emission s achieve d durin g performanc e testing . See generally 7 0 Fed . Reg . a t 59,419 ; Offic e o f

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g & Stnds. , EPA , Guideline s fo r MAC T Determination s unde r §112 ® Requirement s (Feb . 2002 ) at www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/112j/guidance.pdf. I n additio n t

o playin g th

e central rol e i n creatin g the emission s limit s unde r th e HW C MACT , performanc e test s als o ar e the primary metho d b y whic h source s verif y complianc e wit h the standards . Unde r

4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1206(b)(2 ) and § 63.1207 , source s ar e require d to conduc t comprehensiv e performanc e test s to "demonstrat e complianc e wit h the emissio n standard s .. . [and ] .. . establis h limit s fo r

.. . operatin g parameters. " See 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1207(b) . Veoli aand othe r hazardou s wast

e incinerator s ru n comprehensiv e performanc e test s ("CPTs" ) ever y five year s t o ensur

e thei r emission s ar

e unde r the emission s limits . The y als o us e th e tes t datafrom the CP T to calculate operatin g paramete r limit s ("OPLs" ) tha

t the y us e to gover

n th e operatio n o f the incinerato r

i n th e time between tests . Throug h th e CP T process , th

e OPL s ar

e se t a t aleve l tha t ensure s tha

t th e incinerato r

wil l no t excee d the emissio n limits . A "feedrate " limi t i s on e o f several OPL s becaus e it

dictate s ho w muc h wast e ca n be fe d int o a

n incinerato r

ove r agive n time period . Fo r

example , Veolia' s OP L fo r mercur y fo r Uni t No . 4 i s .04 0 lbs/hou r

(measure d ove r a12-hou

r rollin g average) . Thus , a t Uni t No . 4 , Veoli acanno t

incinerate wast

e containin g mor e tha n .04 0 pound s o f

mercur y i n any give n 1 2 hour

period . T o compl y wit h it s OPLs , asourc e mus t als o analyz e the wast

e before i t

i s burne d t o determine it s makeup . Thi s proces s i s carrie d out unde r 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(c) , whic h provides : "Prio r to feedin g th

e material , yo u mus t

obtai n a n analysi s o f

eac h feedstrea

mtha t i s sufficien t

to documen t complianc e wit h th

e applicabl e feedrat

e limits. " 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(c)(1) . Th e analysi s proces s i s directe d b y asource' s feedstrea manalysi s pla n ("FAP") . See id. §63.1209(c)(2) . A source' s FA P mus t specify :

• Th e parameter s tha

t wil l b e use d to analyz e eac h wast e stream ; • Whethe

r th e analysi s wil l come fromsamplin g o r fromothe

r informatio n about

the wast e (suc h a s generator

knowledge) ; • Ho w th

e dat awil l be use d to ensur

e complianc e wit h the OPLs ; • Wha t tes t method s wil l be use d t o analyz e th e waste ; • Ho w th

e sample s wil l be taken ; an d • Ho w ofte n th

e samplin g an d analysi s wil l be repeated . See id. § 63.1209(c)(2)(i)-(vi) . I n short , th e FA P sets up th

e protoco l fo r

samplin g an d analyzin g wast e stream s s o tha

t th e incinerato r

operator know s wha

t the wast e contain s an d therefore ca n mak e sur e t o bur n th e wast e i n accordanc e wit h th

e OPLs . C . Basic

s o f th e Titl e V Operating Permi tProgra m Titl e V o f

th e 199 0 Amendment s to th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t require d th

e establishment

o f anationwid e air emission s operatin g permi t program("th

e Titl e V Program") . See 4 2 U.S.C . § § 7661-7661f ; 4 0 C.F.R . part s 70-71 . Th e Titl e V Programwa s create d to incorporate al l o f th e CA A requirement s appliabl e to a n air emission s sourc e int

o asingl e document . Th e origina l goa l o f - 3

- VE S 01950 1the Titl e V progra mwa s t o have eac h stat

e develo p thei r

ow n permi t

programtha

t complie dwit h the provision s o f

4 0 C.F.R . par

t 70 . Th e "Par

t 7 0 Rules " se

t up th e requirement s fo r

state s to follo w and taske d individua l source s wit h applyin g t o thei r appropriat

e stat e permittin g authorit

y fo r aTitl e V permi t

t o operate . Whil e almos t al l state s ru n Titl e V permi t program s tha

t ar e approve d b y the Agency , USEP A maintaine d the authorit y to ac t a s th e permittin g authorit

y i n certai n circumstances . Th e Agenc y propose d rule s t o carr y ou t thi s permittin g functio n i n 199 6 an d finalize dthemi n 1999 . See 6 4 Fed . Reg . 8,24 7 (Feb . 19 , 1999) . Thes e rule s wer e codifie d i n 4 0 C.F.R . par

t 7 1 ("Par t 7 1 Rules" ) an d ar

e analogou s to th

e Par t 7 0 requirements . Importantly , th

e Titl e V Programwa s create d t o collec t al l o f th e emissio n limits , standards , and record-keeping , monitoring , and reportin g requirement s applicabl e t o asourc e i n on e permit . Th e Titl e V Programwa s no t create d as avehicl e fo r imposin g additiona l standard s and the permittin g authorit

y canno t impos e ne w substantiv e requirement s unde r th e guis e o f

monitoring . See Sierra Club v . EPA, 53 6 F.3 d 673 , 67 5 (D.C . Cir . 2008) . However , thi s particula r par t ofth e Titl e V Program—specifically , the questio n o f whe n i s i t

appropriat

e fo r the permittin g authorit

y t o includ e additiona l monitorin g requirement s to "assur e compliance"—ha s bee n ver y controversial . I n fact , the USEP A has been o n bot h side s ofthi s issue . Th e Agenc y has propose d rule s and guidanc e tha t supporte d apermittin g authority' s abilit y t o ad d substantiv e permittin g requirements 1 an d has vigorousl y oppose d the abilit y o f apermittin g authorit

y t o impos e suc h requirements. 2Onl y afte r asui t b y th e Sierr aClu b overturne d th e Agency' s 200 6 rul e forbiddin g stat

e permittin g authoritie s fromincluding additiona l monitorin g requirement s i n Titl e V permit s di dth

e Agenc y adop t

it s current

interpretatio n tha

t suc h requirement s ar

e permissibl e unde

r 4 0 C.F.R . § 70.6(c)(1 ) and § 71.6(c)(1) . Yet , eve n unde r USEPA' s curren

t view , amonitorin g requirement mus t b e necessar

y to assur

e complianc e t o b e valid . See General Electric Lighting v. Koncelik, No . 05AP-31 0 & 323 , 200 6 W L 83252 7 (Ohi o Ct . App. , Mar . 31 , 2006) . D . The HW C MAC T an d Titl e V Do No

tRequir e Regio n 5' s Propose

d Feedstrea

m Analysi s Procedure

s o r Multi-Metal s Continuous Monitorin g Requirement

s A s se t fort h above , th

e HW C MAC T provide s th e substantiv e emission s requirement s tha t source s lik e Veoli ahav e to meet , and the Titl e V Programcollect s thos e and al l othe r applicabl e C A A requirement s i n on e enforceabl e and comprehensiv e document—the operatin g permit . Veoli areceive d it s Titl e V operatin g permi t fromUSEP A i n 200 8 and , a s require d b y the Par

t 7 1 Rules , applie d fo r

arenewal ofthi s permi t i n 2013 . Regio n 5 ha s i n thi s administrativ e actio n propose d arenewe d draf t permi t fo r Veolia . I n doin g so , Region 5 has decide d to includ e tw o additiona l source s o f

monitorin g tha

t wer e no t include d i n Veolia' s 200 8 Titl e V permit : (1 ) a serie s o f onerou s addition s t

o Veolia' s Feedstrea

mAnalysi s Pla n ("FAP" ) and (2 ) th e installatio n o f amulti-metal s continuou s emission s monitorin g system("CEMS") . A s detaile d i n the Part s

1 See USEPA , Periodi

c Monitorin

g Guidanc

e fo r Titl e V Operatin

g Permit s Program

s (Sept . 15 , 1998) , vacated by Appalachian Powerv. EPA, 20 8 F.3 d 101

5 (D.C . Cir . 2000) . 2 See Fina

l Rule Interpretin

g th e Scop e of Certai n Monitorin

g Requirement

s fo r Stat e an d Federa l Operatin

g Permi t Programs

, 7 1 Fed . Reg. 75,42

2 (Dec. 15

, 2006) , vacated

by Sierra Club v

. EPA, 53

6 F.3 d 673, 67

5 (D.C . Cir . 2008) .

. 4 . VE S 01950 2tha t follow , thes e additional source s o f monitorin g ar

e not se t fort h (o r eve n mentioned ) i n eithe r th e HW C MAC T o r

th e Titl e V regulations , ar

e not authorize d b y thes e standards , and are , i n fact , wholl y unnecessar

y to assur

e Veolia' s complianc e wit h th e CA A and shoul d b e removed . III . Fact

s i n Suppor

to f Veolia' s Comment

s A s note d above , prio r

to th e HW C MAC T Rule , HW C ai r emission s wer

e primaril y regulate d unde r rule s promulgate d unde r RCRA . Generally , RCR A provide s fo r "cradle-to-grave " managemen

t o f hazardou s wastes—fro mgeneratio n t o storag e to disposal . Becaus e Veoli a dispose s o f

hazardou s wast

e b y incineration , RCR A control s ho w waste s a t the facilit y ar

e stored , analyzed , an

d fe d int o th e incineratio n units . Upo n incineration , waste s ar e converte d int o ash , whic h i s regulate d unde r RCRA , o r

int o ai r emissions , whic h ar

e regulate d b y the CAA . Becaus e ai r

emission s ar

e generall y controlle d b y monitorin g o r restrictin g ho w muc h and wha t type s o f wast e ar e fe d int o the incinerators , ther

e i s overla

p between the regulator

y schemes . Therefore , USEP A promulgate d th e HW C MAC T unde

r th e authorit y o f bot h the CA A an d RCRA . See 6 4 Fed . Reg . a t 52,991 . I n ligh t o f thi s regulator

y background—i.e. , th

e intertwinin g o f

th e HW C MAC T Rul e requirement s and RCRA—i t i s necessar

y t o first understan d Veolia' s pat h throug h eac h o f

thes e regulator y processe s ove

r the pas t several year s i n orde

r to properl y conside r

an d evaluat

e Veolia' s comment s o n th e Draf t Permit . Thus , achronolog y o f Veolia' s complianc e i s se t fort h i n th e section s below . A . Relevan

tRegulator

y an d Procedura

l Histor y Concerning Veolia' s Titl e V Permi t 1 . 1995 through 2003: Initial Title V Application & Test

Plans for MACT Compliance Veoli asubmitte d it s origina l Titl e V permi t applicatio n t o IEP A o n Septembe r 7 , 1995 . Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y ("IEPA" ) deemed Veolia' s applicatio n administrativel y complet e th e followin g month , i n Octobe r o f 1995 . Nearl y eight

year s later , o n Jun

e 6 , 2003 , IEP A finally issue d adraf t Titl e V permi t

fo r publi c comment . Th e publi c commen t perio d o n thi s draf t permi t ende d o n Septembe

r 12 , 2003 , and IEP A sen t arevise d draf

t permi t to the Unite dState s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y ("USEPA" ) o n Novembe r 6 , 2003 , fo r

review . USEP A di d no t

issu e an y comment s o n IEPA' s revise d draf t Titl e V permit . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008384 . I n December

o f 2003 , i n complianc e wit h th e interi mHW C MAC T Rule , Veoli asubmitte d a Comprehensiv e Performanc e Tes t and Continuou s Monitorin g Syste mPerformanc e Evaluatio n Tes t Pla n ("200 3 CP T Plan" ) t o the IEP A and USEPA . Th e 200 3 CP T Pla n outline d the procedure s fo r

conductin g Comprehensiv e Perfonnanc e Test s ("CPTs" ) o n Veolia' s thre e incineratio n units—Unit s 2 , 3 , an d 4 . I n additio n to settin g fort h th e CP T parameter s fo r complianc e wit h th

e HW C MACT , the 200 3 CP T Pla n include d Veolia' s proposa l to us e data-in

lie u and extrapolatio n o f LVM , SVM , and mercur y feedrate s t

o establis h it s OPL s a

s expressl y allowe dunde

r 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1207(c)(2) , fo r data-in-lieu , and unde

r 4 0 C.F.R . §63.1209(n)(2)(vii ) and 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(l)(l)(v ) fo r LVM/SV M an d mercur y feedrat e - 5

- VE S 01950 3extrapolation , respectively . Veoli astate d it s intentio n to us e data-in-lie u and extrapolatio n wit h

the IEP A and USEP A durin g meeting s hel d wit h both agencie s o n Januar y 22 , 2003 , and Apri l 24 , 2003 , an

d neithe r objected . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008384-008385 . 2 . 2004 through 2005: Sierra Club Suit vs. USEPA & Initial

MACT Compliance O n February 18 , 2004 , the Sierr aClu b petitione d USEPA, 3 pursuan t to § 505(b)(2 ) ofth e CA A an d 4 0 C.F.R . § 70.8(d) , t o mak e adecisio n o n Veolia' s Titl e V permi t application . USEP A di d no t respon d to th

e Sierr aClub' s petition . O n June 30 , 2004 , Veoli aplace d aDocumen t o f Complianc e ("2004 DOC" ) i n it s Operatin g Recor destablishin g it s complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T Rule . Th e 200 4 DO C als o se t fort h informatio n regardin g the us e o f data-in-lie u and extrapolatio n t o establis h th

e Sauge t Facility' s OPLs . See 200 4 DO C a t VE S 001918-002196 . Th e Sierr aClub , o n Augus t 2 , 2005 , sue d USEPA , onc e agai n seekin g to forc e USEP A t o mak e adecisio n o n Veolia' s Titl e V permi t application . See Sierra Club, et al. v. Johnson, Cas e No . 05-C-442 5 (N.D . 111 . Aug . 2 , 2005) , VE S 004597-004628 . O n Septembe

r 28 , 2005 , Veoli asubmitte d aNotificatio n o f Complianc e wit h the HW C MAC T Rul e ("200 5 NOC" ) fo r al l thre e incinerators , utilizin g data-in-lie u fo r previou s tes t

result s o n unit s 2 , 3 and 4 and extrapolatio n to establis h OPL s fo r LVMs , SVMs , and mercury . See 200 5 NO C a t VE S 002197-002296 . A t thi s point , Veoli aha d no t receive d an

y commen

t fromeither USEP A or

IEP A regardin g it s submissio n ofth e 200 3 CP T Plan . Rather , the firs t time any agenc y communicate d wit h Veoli aregardin g the substantiv e portion s o f the 200 3 CP T Pla n wa s i n Apri l o f

2006 , a s discusse d below . 3 . 2006

through 2007: Sierra Club Sues USEPA Again & USEPA Takes Over the Title V O n February 1 , 2006 , pursuan t to aconsen

t decree between USEP A and th e Sierr aClu b resolvin g the Sierr aClub' s Augus t 2 , 2005 , lawsuit , USEP A partiall y grante d the Club' s petitio n and directe d IEP A to reasses s certai n aspect s ofth e draf t Titl e V permi t

fo r Veoli atha

t IEP A issue d i n 2003 . Further , USEP A directe d IEP A t o issu e arevise d permi t

withi n 9 0 days . O n Apri l 5 , 2006 , Veoli ame t wit h IEP A regardin g Veolia' s pendin g Titl e V permit . A t tha t meeting , IEP A stated tha t Veoli ahad submitte d sufficien t informatio n to documen t MAC T complianc e fo r

incinerato r

Unit s 2 an

d 4 . However , IEP A fo r the first time state d tha

t i t disagree d wit h Veolia' s us e o f data-in-lie u t

o establis h limit s regardin g incineratio n Uni t 3 . I n addition , IEP A insiste d tha t Veoli aconduc t

performanc e testin g o n Uni t 3 a s soo n a s possible . Thus , i n Ma y and June o f 2006 , a t significan t

additional expens e due t o th e shor t time perio d

3 Pursuan

tt o § 505(b)(2

) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act, a petitione

r i s require d t o provid e notic e t o th e permitte

e o f challenge

s unde r th e Section

. Se e 4 2 U.S.C . § 7661d(b)(2) . However , th e Sierr a Clu b faile d t o provid e Veoli a an

y notic e o f it s challenge

.

- 6 - VE S 019504allowe dfo r testin g b y IEPA , Veoli aperforme d MAC T complianc e testin g o n Uni t 3 individually . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008385 . Thi s testin g demonstrate d tha t th e uni t me t al l applicabl e MAC T standards , includin g thos e fo r LVMs , SVMs , and mercury . See Veolia' s June 200 6 Tes t

Repor t fo r Uni t 3 a t VE S 002297-002441 . IEP A faile dt o issue arevise d Titl e V permi t b y the deadlin e specifie d i n th e USE P A/Sierr aClu b consen t decree . I n Jul y o f

2006 , th e Sierr aClu b agai n filedsuit agains t USEP A i n the Unite d State s Distric t

Cour t fo r th e Northern Distric t

o f Illinoi s i n a

n attemp t t o forc e USEP A to issu e a revise dTitl e V permi t

t o Veolia . See Sierra Club, et al. v. Johnson, Cas e No . 06-cv-400 0 (N.D . 111 . Jul y 27 , 2006) . USEPA' s answe

r to the Sierr aClub' s complain t wa s du e o n Septembe

r 29 , 2006 . Tw o day s befor e the answe

r wa s due , o n Septembe

r 27 , 2006 , USEP A issue d it s first Findin g o f

Violatio n ("FOV" ) t o Veolia . VE S 004670-004679 . Th e Septembe r 200 6 FO V allege d violation s o f RCR A ("Resourc e Conservatio n an d Recover y Act" ) and th e CAA . Then , o n th

e da y the Agency' s answe

r wa s due , Septembe

r 29 , 2006 , USEP A notifie dVeoli ab y letter tha t USEP A woul dno w be the Agenc y i n charg e o f issuin g Veolia' s long-delaye d Titl e V permit . See Mem . Op . & Orde r

a t 4 , EC FNo . 29 , Sierra Club, et al. v. Johnson, Cas e No . 06-cv-400 0 ( N D . 111 . Ma y 21 , 2007) , attached as VE S 004680-004688 . USEP A subsequently attempte d to dismis s the Sierr aClub' s claim s a

s moo t b y arguin g tha

t th e Agenc y had take n the actio n require d b y the C A A (an d sough

t b y th e Sierr aClub ) b y takin g ove r th e permittin g actio n fromIEPA . See id. However , th

e Cour t denie d th e Agency' s motio n t o dismis s and ordere d USEP A to repor t to th e Cour t th e dat e b y whic h i t

woul dissu e o r

den y Veolia' s Titl e V permit . Id. a t 9 . O n Octobe r

23 , 2006 , Veoli ame

t wit h USEP A regardin g th e Septembe

r 200 6 FOV . (The FO V di dno t requir e Veoli ato submit

arespons e o r

take othe r specifi c correctiv e action , rathe r i t provide dVeoli awit h a

n opportunit

y t o mee t wit h USEP A t

o discus s the allegations. ) A t the meeting , Veoli aprovide d asignifican t amoun t o f informatio n specificall y disputin g th e allegation s containe d i n th e FOV . A t

th e conclusio n o f

th e meeting , USEP A personne l committe d t

o providin g arespons e t o the informatio n provide db y Veolia . However , USEP A ha s neve r provide dsuc h arespons e t o Veolia . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008385 . Afte r takin g over

the Titl e V permittin g authority , USEP A require d Veoli at o submi t ane w applicatio n fo r

aTitl e V permit , includin g informatio n relate d t o Veolia' s complianc e wit h the MAC T standards . USEP A se t Septembe

r 29 , 2007 , a

s th e deadlin e fo r

tha t applicatio n t o b

e submitted . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008385-008386 . However , i n Apri l o f 200 7 USEP A notifie d Veoli atha

t it mus t submit the applicatio n b y Ma y 2 , 2007 , effectivel y shortenin g th e remainin g applicatio n perio d to on

e month . Harri s Aff . a

t VE S 008385-008386 . Nevertheless , Veoli a timel y submitte d ane w Titl e V permi t applicatio n o n Ma y 2 , 2007 . Th e applicatio n wa s deemed administrativel y complet e o n Jun e 13 , 2007 . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008385-008386 . Subsequently , USEP A entere d into asettlemen t agreemen

t wit h the Sierr aClub . Then , o n June 18 , 2007 , th

e USEP A filedanotic e wit h th e Court statin g tha

t the Agenc y had decide d t o undertak e ade novo revie w o f

Veolia' s Titl e V permit applicatio n and woul dissu e o r den y the

- 7

- VE S 01950 5Titl e V permi t o n o r befor e Novembe r

2 , 200 8 (i.e. , withi n 1 8 month s o f receivin g Veolia' s complete d application). 4 See Notic e Re . Federa l Titl e V permi t Proceeding s a

t 2 , EC FNo . 44 , Sierra Club, etal. v. Johnson, Cas e No . 06-cv-400 0 (ND . 111 . June 18 , 2007) , attached a s VE S 004689-004692 .

4 . 2008: Performance Testing for Metals & Issuance of

Veolia's Title V Permit O n Februar

y 22 , 2008 , USEP A issue d th e first o f aserie s o f

§11 4 informatio n request s to Veoli a pertainin g to Veolia' s complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T Rule . See Februar y 200 8 Informatio n Requests , a

t VE S 002442-002460 . Eve n thoug h Veoli ahad demonstrate d complianc e wit h th e MAC T standard s b y usin g data-in-lie u and testin g Uni t 3 i n 2006 , th

e Februar

y 200 8 Informatio n Request s directe d Veoli ato submi t ane w CP T Pla n i n 4 5 day s an d conduc t CPT s o n al l three incinerator s b y Jul y 15 , 200 8 (i.e. , performstac k testin g fo r

al l MAC T ai r

pollutant s b y Jul y 15 , 2008) . See Id

a t VE S 002450 . Th e Februar y 200 8 Informatio n Request s specificall y prohibite d Veoli afromrequestin g t o us e data-in-lie u methodolog y unde r 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1207(c)(2) . Id. a t VE S 002450 . Th e Februar

y 200 8 Informatio n Request s als o containe d USEPA' s first comment s t

o Veoli a concernin g the 200 3 CP T Plan—ove r fou r year s afte r

Veoli afirst

submitte d th

e Pla n t o th

e Agency . (4 0 C.F.R . §63.1207(e)(1)(A ) direct s th e USEP A to notif

y a n emissio n sourc e o f

it s approva l o r

inten t to deny aCP T Pla n withi n 9 month s o f receivin g it. ) Upo n receip t o f th e Februar y 200 8 Informatio n Requests , Veoli aentered into negotiation s wit h th e Agenc y regardin g the infeasibilit y o f

developin g the CP T plans , obtainin g Agenc y approval , hirin g aCP T contractor , completin g CPT s o n al l thre e incinerators , and submittin g final report s fo r the CPT s b y Jul y 15 , 2008 . O n Marc h 3 , 2008 , USEP A sen t alette r to Veoli aenclosin g a"preliminary " draf t Titl e V permi t and askin g Veoli ato submit an y informa l comment s i t

had o n the draf

t permi t b y Apri l 15 , 2008 . See Veolia' s Marc h 3 , 200 8 Respons e a t VE S 004693-004694 . USEP A als o stated tha t i t coul d no t calculate OPL s (fo r

mercury , LVMs , an d SVMs ) to includ e i n the draf t permi t becaus e o f "flaws " the Agenc y allegedl y identifie di n th e datasubmitte d b y Veolia . USEP A furthe r state d tha t thes e sam

e allege d "flaws " wer

e previousl y identifie db y IEP A and tha t IEP A ha d share d thes e wit h Veolia . O n Marc h 10 , 2008 , Veoli asubmitte d aforma l writte n respons e t o the February 200 8 Informatio n Requests . See Veolia' s Marc h 10 , 200 8 Respons e a t VE S 004695-004706 . I n it s response , Veoli aagree d to conduc t th e testin g requeste d b y USEP A but stated tha

t i t coul dno t d o s o b y Jul y 15 , 2008 . Veoli afurthe r supporte d thi s assertio n b y attachin g a n affidavi t

from Crai g Doolittl e o f

ENS RCorporatio n (Veolia' s stack-testin g contractor) tha t provide dtha

t it wa s infeasibl e t o pla n an d perfor mtestin g tha t woul dnormall y tak

e ayea r o r more , i n les s tha

n five months .

4Sinc e Veolia' s applicatio

n wa s deeme d complet

e b y USEP A in Jun

e o f 2007 , Veoli a ha

s pai d Titl e V permi

tfee s t o bot h IEPA an

d USEP A annually

. - 8

- VE S 01950 6O n Marc h 11 , 2008 , Veoli aresponde d t o USEPA' s Marc h 3 , 2008 , letter regardin g th

e allege d "flaws " i n Veolia' s data . Veoli astate d tha t IEP A ha d neve r advise d Veoli ao f

an y "flaws " eithe

r durin g meeting s hel d betwee n Veoli aan d IEP A i n Apri l o f 200 6 o r a t any othe r time . Veoli a furthe r state d tha

t it continue d t o believ e i n the accurac y and integrity o f th e dataprovide di n suppor t o f it s Titl e V application . See Veolia' s Marc h 11 , 200 8 Lette r a t VE S 004708-004709 . I n ameetin g wit h USEP A o n Marc h 13 , 2008 , Veoli apresente d it s concern s regardin g th e extremel y shor

t time perio d tha

t i t wa s give n to complete th e performanc e testin g require d b y the Februar y 200 8 Informatio n Requests . A t th e meeting , USEP A acknowledge d tha t th e schedul e include di n the Februar

y 200 8 Infonnatio n Request s wa s unrealisti c i n ligh t o f th e time neede d t

o plan , prepare , and perfor mthe CPTs . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008386 . Veoli aagree d to propos e a n alternative , mor

e practical , schedul e an d submi t i t t o th e USEPA . Veolia' s propose d schedul e stated tha t the CPT s woul db e complete d between Augus t of200 8 and Apri l o f

2009 . See Veolia' s Marc h 21 , 200 8 emai l (transmittin g Veolia' s propose d CP T schedules ) a t VE S 004710

- 004720 . However , USEP A rejecte d the propose d schedule . Afte r furthe r discussio n an d investigatio n b y USEPA , Agenc y personne l decide d tha t they di d i n fac t hav e vali dtes t

datato develo p OPL s fo r al l thre e incinerator s fo r th e MAC T emissio n standard s fo r

particulate matte

r ("PM") , HCL/C12 , dioxins/furans , an d DR E bu t wante d Veoli ato conduc t performanc e test s t

o develo p OPL s fo r

mercury , LVMs , and SVMs . I n othe r words , USEP A limite dthe stac k testin g to jus t

metal s regulate d unde

r th e HW C MAC T Rule . Thi s metal s datawoul dthen b e use d b y USEP A to issu e arevise d Titl e V permit . Veoli aagai n expresse d concer

n regardin g the performanc e o f thi s testin g o n thre e incinerator s i n avery compresse d time period . I n a n Apri l 25 , 2008 , telephon e conferenc e call , Veoli awa s informe db y USEP A that , i n order t o addres s th

e need t o demonstrat

e complianc e wit h th

e HW C MACT , Veoli aha d t o choos e eithe

r t o complete th

e MAC T metal s testin g a s directe d b y th

e USEPA , pursuan

t t o th e Agency' s very tight time frame, o r

alternativel y t

o choos e on

e o f fou r option s addressin g MAC T metal s fo r inclusio n i n th

e Titl e V permit . The fou r option s presente d to Veoli awere : 1 ) ceas e incineratin g any waste s containin g MAC T metals ; 2 ) instal l CEM S fo r mercury ; 3 ) accept

OPL s develope d b y USEP A (USEP A Lan dt o assis t USEP A Air) ; o r

4 ) settl e previousl y discusse d complianc e concern s wit h issu e resolutio n incorporate d into th e Titl e V permit. 5 Afte r negotiations , Veolia—although knowin g tha t conductin g performanc e testin g withi n thi s expedite d tim e perio dwoul dbe challengin g and resul t i n increase d cost s and , mor e importantly , increase d ris k o f calculatio n erro r

a s aresul t o f reduce d QA/Q C revie w time—chose , wit h the agreemen t o f USEPA , to conduc t

the metal s performanc e testin g instea d o f on e o f th e fou r alternative s presente d b y the Agency . Veoli aagree d to expedit e th e delivery o f

th e metal s performanc e tes t plan s and USEP A agree d t o revie w th

e tes t plan s i n tw o weeks . I n phone conference s hel d o n Ma y 1 2 and 14 , 2008 , the partie s discusse d detail s o f th e testin g an d USEP A agree d t o memorializ e th

e agreemen

t b y issuin g revise d informatio n request s suc h tha t Veoli awoul donl y b e require d t o perfor memissio n testin g fo r mercury , LVMs , and SVM s ("MAC T metals") . Harri s Aff . a

t VE S 008386 .

5 Th e issu e resolutio

n proposa

l relate d t o th e allegation

s o f th e Septembe

r 200 6 FOV . - 9

- VE S 01950 7Pursuant t o thi s agreement , USEP A issue d arevise d §11 4 informatio n reques t o n Jun e 5 , 200 8 (th e sam e day USEP A issue d Veolia' s draf t Titl e V permit) . See Jun e 200 8 Informatio n Request s a

t VE S 004721-004733 . Th e Jun e 200 8 Informatio n Request s require d Veoli ato , amon g othe

r things : commenc e performanc e testin g fo r LVMs , SVMs , and mercur y b y n o late r tha n Augus t 15 , 2008 ; submi t

the result s o f

thi s testin g i n aNotificatio n o f Complianc e ("NOC" ) b y Septembe

r 26 , 2008 ; and submi t

a n applicatio n fo r

significant

modificatio n to it s Titl e V permi t (t o includ e th

e OPL s fo r

LVMs , SVMs , andmercur y develope d b y the metal s testin g i n the Titl e V permit ) b y Septembe r 26 , 2008 . (O n o r

abou t June 11 , 2008 , USEP A an d the Sierr a Clu b settle d th

e Jul y 200 6 lawsui t

wit h aconsen

t decree tha

t require d USEP A t o issue aforma l permi t decisio n o n Veolia' s Titl e V permi t b y Septembe

r 12 , 2008—thus , Veoli akne w tha t a Titl e V permi t

woul d be issue d i n Septembe r withou t OPL s fo r

metal s and tha

t it woul d b e require d t o submi t

a n applicatio n fo r

significan t

modificatio n to add the OPL s fo r metal s later. ) O n Jun e 12 , 2008 , USEP A issue d aFindin g o f Violatio n to Veoli a("June 200 8 FOV") . Jun e 200 8 FO V a

t VE S 004734-004739 . Th e FO V allege dtha t Veoli aha

d exceede d it s feedrat

e limits . Th e Agenc y als o inaccuratel y allege d tha t Veoli ahad faile dt o reques t approval ofth e extrapolatio n metho d include d i n the 200 3 CP T plan . Th e Agenc y asserte d tha t Veoli ahad exceede d it s feedrat

e limit s becaus e Veoli aha d operate d pursuan t to th e extrapolate d OPLs . However , th

e FO V di d no t

provid e an

y detai l concernin g whe n and ho w the OP L violation s may have occurre d o r

ho w Veoli aha dfaile dto garne r the appropriat

e approva l o f

it s extrapolatio n methodology . Further , the June 200 8 FO V di dno t requir e Veoli ato tak

e an y correctiv e action s o r t o submi t awritte n response . A publi c hearin g wa s hel d concernin g th e draf t Titl e V permi t

o n Jul y 8 , 2008 . Several prominen t

publi c figure s fromacros s th e Souther n Illinoi s regio n attende d th e hearin g and spok

e i n suppor t o f Veolia' s facility . See generally June 200 8 Publi c Hearing Transcrip t a t VE S 004740-004811 . Veoli awa s require d t

o submi t aperformanc e tes t

pla n fo r USEP A approva l prio r

t o performin g th e metal s testin g memorialize d i n th e Jun e 200 8 Informatio n Requests . Th e Februar y and Jun e 200 8 Informatio n Request s specificall y prohibite d Veoli afromrequestin g to us e data-in-lieu ; however , th

e request s di d allo w Veoli at o reques t to us e a n extrapolatio n methodolog y to calculate the feedrate s fo r LVMs , SVMs , andmercury . See Februar y 200 8 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 002450-002457 ; June 200 8 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 002481 . Befor e includin g a

n extrapolatio n metho d i n it s metal s tes t plan , Veoli adiscusse d extrapolatio n method s wit h Mr . Charle s Hall , aUSEP A Regio n 5 environmental engineer . A s aresul t o f thes e discussions , Mr . Hal l provide d Veoli awit h a n extrapolatio n protoco l tha t USEP A ha d previousl y approve d fo r

us e b y Lubrizo l Corporatio n ( acorporatio n als o regulate d b y Regio n 5 ) ("Lubrizo l Extrapolatio n Methodology") . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008387 . Veoli aincorporate d th e approve d Lubrizo l Extrapolatio n Methodolog y into the metal s tes t pla n tha t Veoli asubmitte d t o USEP A i n accordanc e wit h th

e June 200 8 Informatio n Requests . See Metal s Performanc e Tes t Plan s a t VE S 002487-002707 .

- 10

- VE S 01950 8USEP A approve d the genera l parameter s o f

th e metal s tes t

pla n i n alette

r sen t t o Veoli adate d Augus t 8 , 2008 . See USEPA' s Aug . 8 , 200 8 Letter a t VE S 002709-002712 . However , i n respons e to Veolia' s proposa l to us e th e extrapolatio n metho d tha t USEP A Regio n 5 had previousl y approve d fo r us e b y Lubrizol , the Agenc y state d tha t i t neithe r "approve d no r disapproved " o f

Veolia' s metal s feedrat e extrapolation . See id. a t VE S 002712 . USEP A agree d that , unti l suc h time as USEP A di d approv e metal extrapolation , Veoli acoul doperat e a t a feedrat e no greate

r tha n the feedrat

e use d durin g the actua

l stack testing . Veoli acontinue s to operat e a t afeedrat e no greate

r tha n feedrate s establishe d durin g CP T testing . Veoli aproceede d to perfor mth e stack testin g fo r

mercury , SVMs , an d LVM s i n Augus t and Septembe r o f 2008 . USEP A Regio n 5 personne l wer e presen t a t eac h test—except

the final run 6 o n unit 4 , whic h wa s observe d b y IEP A personnel . Th e final result s o f th e metal s test s showe d tha t al l thre e incineratio n unit s wer e i n ful l complianc e wit h the MAC T standard s fo r mercury , SVMs , an d LVMs . O n Septembe

r 12 , 2008 , USEP A formall y issue d aTitl e V permi t to Veoli a(Permi t

No . V-IL

1716300103-08-01) . Veolia' s 200 8 Titl e V permi t a t VE S 007297-007507 . Veolia' s final Titl e V permi t di d no t contai n OPL s fo r

mercury , SVMs , an

d LVMs . O n Septembe

r 16 , 2008 , a

t Veolia' s request , USEP A issue d anothe r revise d §11 4 informatio n reques t extendin g Veolia' s deadlin e to submit th e tes t data , NOC , and it s applicatio n fo r significan t

modificatio n to October 10 , 2008 . See Septembe r 200 8 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 002713-002726 . Th e extensio n provide dVeoli awit h additiona l tim e t o add informatio n collecte ddurin g the Septembe r portio n o f

th e metal s testing . O n October

8 , 2008 , th

e Sierr aClu b filedastipulatio n dismissin g wit h prejudic e the lawsui t tha t i t ha d filedagains t

USEP A i n Jul y o f

2006 . Th e basi s o f

the dismissa l wa s tha

t al l requirement s o f th e settlemen

t agreemen

t between the Sierr aClu b and th e USEP A had been fulfilled—i.e. , USEP A had issue d aTitl e V permi t t o Veolia . O n Octobe r

10 , 2008 , pursuan

t to th e February , June , and Septembe r 200 8 Informatio n Requests , Veoli asubmitte d aNOC , th e tes t report s fo r

incinerator s 2 , 3 , and 4 , and a n applicatio n fo r significant

modificatio n t

o Veolia' s Titl e V permit . See Veolia' s Oct . 10 , 200 8 Submissio n a t VE S 002727-003877. ) I n it s applicatio n fo r significan t

modification , Veolia , as require d b y the Agency , submitte d revise d OPL s fo r mercury , SVMs , and LVMs . See Septembe r 200 8 Informatio n Request s a

t VE S 002714-002726 . I n addition , pursuan

t to th e USEPA' s February , June , and Septembe r 200 8 revise d Informatio n Requests , Veoli aals o requeste d permissio n t o us e extrapolatio n method s t o calculate feedrate s fo r LVMs , SVMs , and mercury . See Feb . 200 8 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 002442-002459 ; Jun e 200 8 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 004728 ; Sept . 200 8 Informatio n Request s VE S 002721 . A s detaile d i n it s application , Veoli ause d th e Lubrizo l Extrapolatio n Methodolog y supplie d b y USEP A Regio n 5 and lowere d th e extrapolate d metal feedrate s base d o n historica l dataa s

6Eac h metal s performanc

e tes tconducte

d o n on e o f Veolia' s incineratio

n unit s consiste

d o f thre e runs.

- 1 1 - VE S 01950 9define di n 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(n)(2)(ii)(B)(2) . See Veolia' s Oct . 200 8 Applicatio n fo r

Significan t

Modificatio n a

t VE S 000743-000917 . O n October

14 , 2008 , jus t

fou r day s afte r

Veoli asubmitte d the NOC , th e tes t report s fromth

e Augus t and Septembe

r metal s testing , and it s applicatio n fo r significan t

modification , Veoli a place di n it s operatin g recor d anew DO C ("200 8 DOC" ) t o establis h it s complianc e wit h the final HW C MAC T Rule. 7 Importantly , Veolia' s 200 8 DO C containe d OPL s fo r LVMs , SVMs , and mercur

y tha t ar e not base d o n extrapolatio n methodology . See Veolia' s 200 8 DO C a t VE S 003879-004123 . Veoli abega n operatin g unde

r thes e OPL s o n October 14 , 2008 , i n ful l complianc e wit h the HW C MAC T standards . Als o o n Octobe r

14 , 2008 , Veoli asubmitte d anew CP T pla n fo r unit s 2 , 3 , and 4 . Thi s pla n se t fort h th e testin g protocol s fo r

PM , HCL/C12 , and dioxins/furan s a s require d b y th

e HW C MAC T Rule . Veoli awa s no t

require d t o includ e MAC T metal s i n thi s CP T plan . 5 . 2009through 2010: Proposed CEMS and Special Waste Analysis Procedures Afte r discussion s wit h USEP A i n lat e 2008 , Veoli asubmitte d arevise d applicatio n fo r significan t

modificatio n t o USEP A o n o r abou t Januar y 6 , 2009 . Thi s revisio n lowere d (i.e. , mad e the OPL s mor

e restrictive ) th

e feedrate s fo r

LVM , SVM , and mercur y base d o n arevise d calculatio n fo r

the moistur

e conten t o f th e soli dwast

e tha t wa s fe d to the incinerato r durin g th

e Augus t and Septembe

r 200 8 metal s testing . Veoli ainclude d i n the revise d applicatio n the Lubrizo l Extrapolatio n Methodolog y USEP A ha d provide d t o Veoli ai n 2008 . O n February 3 , 2009 , Veoli areceive d anothe r USEP A §11 4 Informatio n Reques t date d Januar

y 29 , 200 9 ("Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Requests") . See Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 004814-004824 . Th e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Request s directe d Veoli ato instal l Continuou s Emissio n Monitorin g System s ("CEMS" ) fo r mercury o n the thre e hazardou s wast e incinerator s locate d a

t the Sauge

t facilit y withi n 3 0 day s o f Veolia' s receip t

o f th e requests . Th e request s als o require d Veoli at o install , evaluate , and certif y the mercur

y CEM S i n accordanc e wit h an inapplicabl e Performanc e Specificatio n (Performanc e Specificatio n 12) withi n 3 0 day s after commencin g operatio n o f th e CEMS . See Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 004820 . Th e request s als o require d Veoli at o implement

"Specia l Wast

e Analysi s Procedures " tha t woul dsignificantl y modif y th e facility' s existin g wast e analysi s protocol s unde r it s Wast e Analysi s Pla n ("WAP" ) (require d unde r RCRA ) and Feedstrea

mAnalysi s Pla n ("FAP" ) (require d unde

r th e CAA). 8 Amon g othe

r things , th

e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Request s require d Veoli at o analyz e al l incomin g wast e fo r mercury , LVMs , and SVM s withi n 2 4 hour s o f receip t and require d mor

e extensiv e analysi s o f

batche s an d blend s o f

wast e receive d a

t th e facility . See Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 004822 .

7Veoli a wa

s require d t o compl y wit h th e final HW C MAC T o

n o r befor e Octobe r 14 , 2008 . Se e 4 0 C.F.R . § § 63.1200-63.1221 . 8 Th e Specia l Wast e Procedure

s wer e Regio n 5' s firstattemp

ta twha tha s no w becom e th e enhance

d monitorin

g techniqu e include d i n th e 201 4 Draf tPermi tcurrentl y a tissue .

- 12

- VE S 01951 0Upo n reviewin g th e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Request s and determinin g tha t it woul dnee d additiona l tim e t o full y evaluat e th e CEM S and the additiona l analysi s requirements , Veoli a sough t a60-da y extensio n o f

time t o respond . However , USEPA' s assistan t regiona l counse l Sabrin aArgentier i denie d Veolia' s reques t wit h n o furthe r

explanation . Veoli aresponde d to USEP A withi n the require d 30-da y timeframe . Veolia' s 35-pag e writte n response , date d Marc h 4 , 2009 , ("Marc h 200 9 Response" ) se t fort h i n grea

t detai l Veolia' s MAC T complianc e history , Veolia' s complianc e wit h the Titl e V permi t program , Veolia' s complianc e wit h th e RCR A Part B permi t program , and specificall y responde d t o eac h numbere d paragrap h i n Appendice s B an d C o f the Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Requests . See Veolia' s Marc h 200 9 Respons e a t VE S 001880-001917 . Veolia' s Marc h 200 9 Respons e als o raise d numerou s legal , procedural , and technica l concern s regardin g th

e provision s o f

th e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Requests . Th e vas t majorit y o f Veolia' s concern s wer

e substantiv e scientifi c an d engineerin g question s regardin g the reliabilit y and accurac y o f

mercur y CEMS . Harri s Aff . a

t VE S 008387-008388 . O n Ma y 13 , 2009 , Veoli arepresentative s fle w to Chicag o t o mee t wit h USEP A personnel . Th e majorit y o f

the meetin g addressed the technica l issue s surroundin g the installatio n o f mercur y CEM S o n Veolia' s hazardou s wast e incinerators . USEP A concede d tha t 3 0 day s had been an insufficien t

perio d o f

time to instal l the CEM S contemplate d b y th e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Requests . Moreover , th e Agenc y acknowledge d tha t the Nationa l Institute o f Standard s and Technolog y ("NIST" ) ha d ye t to com e up wit h atraceabl e calibratio n standar d tha t coul dverif

y th e accurac y o f

dataproduce d b y the propose d mercury CEMS . USEP A als o concede d tha t it had reference d the wron g Performanc e Specification—Draf t P S 12—i n it s informatio n request s and that , to it s knowledge , no mercur y CEM S had ye t

bee n installe d an d successfull y operate d a t acommercia l hazardou s wast e combustio n facilit y i n the Unite dStates . Despite thes e error s and admissions , USEP A indicate d tha t it wa s no t goin g to withdra w the Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Request s and tha

t it intende d to us e th

e datacollecte d b y th

e CEM S fo r

complianc e wit h the HW C MAC T and possibl e enforcement . However , the Agenc y di d indicate tha t it wishe d to continu e the dialogu e wit h Veoli aan d ende d the meetin g b y statin g tha t Agenc y personne l woul d contac t Veoli afo r

further discussions—wit

h the eventual goa l bein g som e sor t o f settlemen

t regardin g compliance . T o date , USEP A has no t provide d awritte n respons e to Veolia' s question s o r

concerns . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008387-008388 . O n o r abou t Ma y 29 , 2009 , Veoli areceive d anothe r §11 4 Informatio n Reques t fromUSEP A ("Ma y 200 9 Informatio n Requests") . See Ma y 200 9 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 004825

- 004832 . Th e Ma y 200 9 Informatio n Request s sough t datao n Veolia' s 1-minut e averag e mercur y feedrate s an

d 12-hou r rollin g averag e mercury feedrates , a s wel l as extensiv e technica l informatio n relate d to th e laborator

y analysi s Veoli aperforme d o n sample s take n durin g the 200 8 stack

testing . Veoli asubmitte d the require d infonnatio n i n arespons e date d Jul y 6 , 2009 , and supplemente d it s respons e b y correspondenc e date d Jul y 28 , 2009 . See Veolia' s Jul y 6 , 200 9 Respons e a

t VE S 004833-00484 1 and Veolia' s Jul y 28 , 200 9 Respons e a t 005547-005548 . USEP A di d no t

respon d t

o Veolia' s submissions . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008388 . O n Novembe r

3 , 2009 , durin g aconferenc e cal l wit h Veolia , USEP A requeste d tha t Veoli a resubmi t it s applicatio n fo r

significan t

modificatio n o f

Veolia' s Titl e V permi t wit h eve n mor

e restrictiv e OPL s fo r

LVMs , SVMs , and mercury . I n th e discussions , USEP A and Veoli aagree d

- 13

- VE S 01951 1tha t Veoli acoul dus e th

e Lubrizo l Extrapolatio n Methodolog y i t ha d previousl y use d (an

d tha t USEP A ha d provide d i n 2008) , bu t tha t Veoli awoul dlimi t

the extrapolatio n to amaximu mo f a lo w multipl e ofth e performanc e tes t feedrate s o r

75 % o f th e MAC T Emissio n Standard , whicheve r

wa s less . Harri s Aff . a

t VE S 008387 . I n December

o f 2009 , Veoli aconducte d aCP T o n unit s 2 , 3 , an d 4 pursuan t to th e CP T Pla n fo r P M , HCL/C12 , and dioxins/furan s tha t Veoli aha

d submitte d o n October

14 , 200 8 and USEP A ha d approve d o n Novembe r 25 , 2009 . Thi s testin g di d no t includ e MAC T metals . O n February 25 , 2010 , Veoli asubmitte d it s thir d revise d applicatio n fo r significan t

modificatio n o f th e Titl e V permit . Thi s Februar y 201 0 significan t

modificatio n applicatio n include d OPL s base d o n arevise d extrapolatio n methodolog y tha t wa s discusse d durin g the Novembe r 3 , 2009 , conferenc e call . However , consisten t wit h USEPA' s wishes , Veoli afurthe r limite dth

e OPL s t o amaximu mo f

thre e time s th

e amoun t o f LVMs , SVMs , and mercur y actuall y fe d into the incinerato r

durin g th e performanc e testing . (I n ligh t o f Veolia' s Februar

y 201 0 revise d application , USEP A late r requested tha

t Veoli awithdra w the October 10 , 2008 , and Januar

y 6 , 2009 , application s fo r

significan t

modification . Veoli aobliged USEP A vi acorrespondenc e dated Ma y 12 , 2010. ) See Veolia' s Ma y 12 , 201 0 Lette r a t VE S 000940-000941 . Th e Agency' s next

contac t wit h Veoli awa s the delivery , withou t prio r notificatio n or explanation , o f

ye t anothe r informatio n reques t

unde r §114 , dated Marc h 10 , 201 0 ("Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Requests") . Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 006357-006368 . The Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Request s consiste d o f aslightl y revise d versio n o f USEPA' s flawe dJanuar

y 200 9 Informatio n Request s wit h afe w materia l change s to th e relevant

requests . I n the Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Requests , USEP A attempte d t o fi x the deficiencie s tha t plague d th e Januar y 200 9 versio n b y impermissibl y shiftin g the burde n t o Veoli ato creat e technica l standard s to verif

y th e datagenerated b y the mercur y CEMS . Veoli aresponde d t

o th e Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Request s o n Marc h 25 , 2010 . See Veolia' s Marc h 25 , 201 0 Respons e a t VE S 006346-006468 . I n additio n to numerou s genera l objections , Veoli aobjecte d to th

e Informatio n Request s o n the ground s tha t (a ) they wer

e unconstitutional as they place d Veoli ai n apositio n o f incurrin g penaltie s fo r

noncomplianc e withou t an y opportunit

y fo r administrativ e o r

judicia l review ; (b ) the y represente d a n attemp t b y the Agenc y t o unlawfull y modif

y Veolia' s Titl e V permit ; (c ) they represente d a n attemp t b y th e Agenc y to depriv e Veoli ao f

it s du e proces s right s b y circumventin g Veolia' s appea l o f it s RCR A Part

B Permit ; an d (d ) they wer e arbitrar y an d capriciou s an

d lacke d arationa l basi s becaus e the y ignore dVeolia' s demonstrate d complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T Rule . However , despit e thes e objections , Veoli aagai n offere dt o mee t wit h the Agenc y i n a

n attemp t to work ou t a compromise . O n Apri l 28 , 2010 , Veoli asen t atea mo f decisio n maker s t o mee t wit h USEP A a

t USEPA' s Raleigh , Nort h Carolin aResearc h Triangl e Par k facility . A t

thes e meetings , the Agenc y wa s unabl e to identif

y any locatio n wher

e mercur y CEM S technolog y ha d eve r bee n successfull y utilize di n the Unite dState s o n acommercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator . Veoli aexpresse d it s belief, base d upon Veolia' s experienc e i n operatin g it s commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerators , tha t th e hig h moisture , hig h temperatur e environment

foun d i n th

e incinerator s and the wid e

- 14

- VE S 01951 2variation s o f mercur y foun di n th

e fee d combine d to mak e th e Veoli aincinerator s th

e mos t challengin g environment i n whic h anyone ha d ever propose d to operat

e amercur

y CEMS . Veoli abelieve d tha

t the technolog y wa s likel y t o fai l and woul dsucceed , i f ever , onl y afte r

the mercury CEM S endure d man y failure s and Veoli aincurre d muc h tim e and expens e attemptin g t o forc e the technolog y t o successfull y operate . Th e Agenc y di d no t disagree an d offere dn o evidenc e t

o the contrary . A s aresul t o f th e discussions , the Agenc y offere dto entertai n alternativ e method s t

o obtai n th

e relevant

emission s information . See Veolia' s Ma y 25 , 201 0 Lette r a t VE S 006469-006471 ; Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008388 . I n respons e t o USEPA' s invitatio n t o offe r alternativ e method s a

s par t o f the ongoin g discussion s betwee n th

e parties , o n Ma y 25 , 2010 , Veoli aoffered , i n relevant part , to instal l additiona l technolog y i n the for mo f activate d carbo n injectio n system s o n incinerator s 2 and 3 , provide d tha t al l approval s wer

e i n place , to furthe r

reduc e emissions . See Veolia' s Ma y 25 , 201 0 Lette r a t VE S 006469-006471 . (Activate dcarbo n injectio n system s ar e a n effectiv e mean s o f

reducin g the emission s o f

mercur y an d othe

r material s fromincinerators. ) Veoli afurthe r propose d tha

t it woul dprovid e th

e Agenc y wit h additiona l datab y schedulin g and performin g mercur y emissio n testin g i n accordanc e wit h th e USEP A approve d 200 8 performanc e tes t plans . Thi s testin g woul ddocumen

t whethe r incinerato r

unit s 2 , 3 and 4 me

t al l applicabl e mercur

y MAC T Standards . Despite it s offe r t o entertai n alternative s to the Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Requests , th e Agenc y neve

r provide d a

n analysi s o r

otherwis e responde d to the merit s o f Veolia' s proposal . Harri s Aff . a

t VE S 008388 . Rather , o n June 7 , 2010 , the Agenc y sen t Veoli ait s sixth informatio n reques t unde r §11 4 i n 2 8 month s ("June 201 0 Informatio n Requests") . Jun e 201 0 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 007572

- 007579 . Th e Jun

e 201 0 Informatio n Request s sough t dat ao n Veolia' s 1-minut

e averag e fo r

al l metal feedrates , 12-hou

r rollin g averag e fo r

al l metal feedrates , and extensiv e technica l informatio n relate d t

o analysi s performe d o n sample s conducte d o n al l material s fe d int o Unit s 2 , 3 an d 4 fromJanuar

y 1 , 200 5 to th

e dat e o f th e June 201 0 Informatio n Requests . I t als o requeste d informatio n o n proces s upsets , malfunctions , o r shutdown s fo r

variou s timeframes . Veoli asubmitte d the require d informatio n i n response s date d June 23 , 2010 , Jul y 7 , 2010 , Jul y 15 , 2010 , and Jul y 23 , 2010 . See Veolia' s Respons e t o Jun e 201 0 Informatio n request s a

t VE S 007508-7517 . USEP A di d no t respon d to Veolia' s submissions . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008389 . 6 . 2011 through 2013: NEIC Inspection & No Progress on Significant Modification O n December

5 , 2011 , Veoli awa s notifie db y th e USEP A Nationa l Enforcemen t Investigatio n Center ("NEIC" ) tha

t NEI C inspector s woul db e conductin g amultimedi acomplianc e inspectio n a t Veolia' s Sauge

t facilit y beginnin g the next day—o n December

6 , 2011 . See NEIC' s Dec . 5 , 201 1 Notic e Letter , a

t VE S 006472-006477 . Fro mDecember 6 , 201 1 unti l December 15 , 2011 , the NEI C conducte d amulti-medi acomplianc e inspectio n a t Veolia' s facility . Th e NEI C inspector s wer

e als o accompanie d b y USEP A Regio n 5 personne l Shanno n Downey , Sara h Marshall , and Jami e Pauli n durin g portion s ofth e visit . NEI C inspector s als o requeste d additiona l informatio n fromVeoli athroughou t calenda r yea r 2012 .

- 15

- VE S 01951 3O n February 27 , 2012 , USEP A contacte d Veoli ato se t up aconferenc e cal l concernin g Veolia' s applicatio n fo r

significan t

modificatio n o f

Veolia' s Titl e V permit . Despit e the requirement s o f 4 0 C.F.R . § 71.7(a)(2) , whic h require s th e Agenc y to respon d withi n 1 8 months , mor e tha n tw o year s had passe d sinc e Veoli asubmitte d it s February 201 0 applicatio n fo r significan t modification . A conferenc e cal l wa s hel d between Veoli aand USEP A o n Marc h 8 , 2012 . Durin g the call , USEP A informe dVeoli atha t the Agenc y wa s goin g t o den y Veolia' s applicatio n fo r significan t

modificatio n becaus e o f the extrapolatio n methodolog y tha t Veoli aused—th

e Lubrizo l Extrapolatio n Methodolog y tha t USEP A ha d provide d t o Veoli ai n 2008 . Veoli aan d USEP A then discusse d aschedul e b y whic h either Veoli awoul dsubmi t

additiona l information , o r th e Agenc y woul dbegi n action s t o formall y deny the modificatio n application . Veoli aresponde d t o USEP A b y emai l o n Marc h 27 , 2012 . I n tha t correspondence , Veoli a reiterate d tha

t i t wante d to work

wit h the Agency , bu t

believe d tha

t th e reques t b y the USEP A to agai n revis e th e application—fo r th e fourth time —was unreasonable , particularl y i n ligh t o f the fac t tha t Veoli aprepare d th

e Februar

y 201 0 submissio n i n accordanc e wit h the agreemen t reache d wit h USEP A durin g Novembe r of2009 . Subsequently , a

t th e Agency' s request , Veoli asubmitte d even mor e technica l informatio n t o USEP A i n Jun e 2012 , i n suppor t o f th e applicatio n fo r

significan t

modification . See Veolia' s Jun e 201 2 Submissio n a t VE S 008284-008287 . O n Augus t

27 , 2012 , Veoli areceive d aFindin g o f Violatio n date d Augus t 24 , 201 2 ("Augus t 201 2 FOV" ) fromthe Ai r and Radiatio n Branc h o f Regio n 5 . Augus t

201 2 FO V a

t VE S 001356-001365 . Th e Augus t 201 2 FO V allege d violation s base d o n the Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Request s (whic h restate d muc h o f th e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Requests ) tha t relate d to failur e t o instal l mercur

y CEMS , Veolia' s OPLs , and the NEI C inspectio n tha t had take n plac e i n Decembe r

o f 2011 . Portion s o f

the FO V wer

e base d o n th

e fina l inspectio n repor

t issue d b y th

e NEIC ; however , USEP A di d no t provid e th

e repor t to Veolia . O n Septembe

r 5 , 2012 , Veoli asubmitte d it s CP T pla n to perfor mstac k testin g o n al l thre e incinerator s per

the HW C MAC T Rule . Thi s submissio n include dplanne d testin g fo r al l hazardou s ai r

pollutant s regulate d unde r th e HW C MACT , includin g metal s (i.e. , mercury , LVMs , and SVMs ) t

o tak e plac e i n Augus t

and Septembe

r o f 2013 . Pursuant t o th e directio n ofth e Augus t 201 2 FOV , Veoli aschedule d ameetin g wit h USEP A t o addres s the FOV s allegations . Thi s meetin g wa s schedule d fo r Septembe

r 18 , 2012 , i n USEPA' s Chicag o office . O n Septembe r 17 , 2012 , the da

y befor e th

e schedule d meetin g o n the Augus t 201 2 FOV , USEP A Bureau o f Lan dsen

t Veoli aaNotic e o f

Violation , date d Septembe r 13 , 2012 . Septembe

r 201 2 NO V a

t VE S 006478-006481 . The Septembe r 201 2 NO V containe d a subse t ofth e sam

e allegation s containe d wit h the Augus t 201 2 FOV . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008390 . Veoli arepresentative s me t wit h USEP A o n Septembe r 18 , 2012 , i n Chicag o t

o discus s both th

e Augus t 201 2 FO V and the Septembe r 201 2 NOV . Durin g th

e meeting , Veoli ainforme dUSEP A tha t it coul dno t properl y respon d t

o th e violation s allege d i n the FO V and th e NO V withou t receivin g acop y o f

th e NEI C Report , which , a t th e time ofth e meeting , Veoli aha d requeste d but had no t received . I n addition , base d o n the informatio n se t fort h i n the FO V an d the NOV , Veoli astate d tha

t th e NEI C Repor

t appeare d to contai n errors . Regio n 5 Assistan t Regiona l

- 16

- VE S 01951 4Counse l Sabrin aArgentier i requeste d tha t Veoli ase

t fort h i n writin g th

e allegation s tha

t Veoli a believe dt o b

e erroneous , to th

e exten t Veoli acoul d d

o s o withou t

havin g the benefi t

o f havin g reviewe dth

e NEI C Report . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008390 . O n Septembe r 26 , 2012 , Veoli a provide dMs . Argentier i wit h th e requeste d writte n analysis . Veoli aSept . 26 , 201 2 Analysi s a t VE S 006482 . I n additio n to discussin g the FO V andthe NOV , Veoli aexpresse d concern s abou t installin g multi-metal s CEM S when non e o f it s competitor s wa s force dt o d o so . I n response , Regio n 5' s Natha n Frank , Chie f

o f the Ai r Enforcemen t

Sectio n Branch , dismisse d Veolia' s concer n b y stating : Someone ha s to be first. " Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008382 . Veoli afinall y receive d acop y o f the NEI C repor

t o n Septembe

r 28 , 2012 . Th e NEI C Repor t provide dcontext—an d furthe r explanation—fo r

USEPA' s allegations . Veoli aconfirme dtha t the NEI C repor

t containe d errors . Afte r havin g reviewe dth

e NEI C Report , Veoli aprovide d a writte n respons e to th

e allegation s vi aletter

date d October

12 , 2012 . See Veolia' s Oct . 12 , 201 2 Respons e a

t VE S 006483-006502 . Veoli anex

t receive d a

n emai l fro mGeorg e Czerniak , Regio n 5' s Chie f o f Ai r Enforcemen t

& Complianc e Assurance , o n Novembe r 29 , 2012 , informin g Veoli atha t USEP A wa s about

t o issu e anotic e o f

inten t to den y Veolia' s applicatio n fo r significan t

modificatio n o f

th e Titl e V permit . USEP A Nov . 29 , 201 2 emai l a t VE S 001679-001680 . Th e emai l als o state d tha t USEP A intende d to formall y reope n Veolia' s Titl e V permi t t o includ e mor

e stringen t OPL s fo r mercury , supplementa

l FA P requirement s (i.e. , the specia l wast e analysi s procedur

e first propose d i n th

e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Requests ) andrequir e th e installatio n o f

multi-metal s CEMS . One ofth e attachment s to USEPA' s Novembe r 29 , 2012 , emai l wa s a"Fac t Sheet " whic h containe d numerou s inaccurat e and derogator

y remark s concernin g Veolia , including tha t the Veoli afacilit y wa s "controversial " andneede d "tougher " feedrates . USEP A Nov . Fac t Shee t a t VE S 001844-001846 . O n Novembe r 30 , 2013 , Dou g Harri s contacte d Geneviev e DaMic o o f Regio n 5 USEP A and requeste d tha t the abov e statements be remove d fromthe fina l Fac t Shee t o r corrected . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008390-008391 . However , eve n thoug h Ms . DaMic o agree d to remov e thos e comments , Region 5 nevertheles s include d th e draf t Novembe r

Fac t Shee t containin g th

e derogator

y statements a

s par t o f the administrativ e recor d availabl e t o the publi c durin g th e subsequen

t permi t reopenin g proceeding . Emai l attachin g draf t Novembe r

Fac t Shee t a t VE S 001679-001846 , 001844-001846 . B y letter date d Decembe

r 13 , 2012 , Veoli aresponde dto Georg e Czerniak' s Novembe r 29 , 2012 , email . Veoli aDec . 13 , 201 2 emai l a t VE S 001850-001853 . Veoli aexplaine d tha t i t wa s withdrawin g it s applicatio n fo r significant

modificatio n becaus e th e proces s ha d take n fou r years , had not achieve d it s objectiv e o f establishin g OPL s fo r

Veolia' s existin g Titl e V permit , and wa s n o longer necessar y becaus e Veolia' s applicatio n to rene w the Titl e V permi t wil l b e du e o n Apri l 12 , 2013 . I n addition , Veoli ainforme dUSEP A tha t it woul d b e performin g stac k testin g o n al l thre e incinerator s pe r the HW C MAC T Rul e (includin g testin g fo r MAC T metals ) i n Augus t and Septembe

r o f 2013 .

- 17

- VE S 01951 5O n December 19 , 2012 , Davi dOgule i o f USEP A sen

t a n emai l t o Dou g Harri s providin g Veoli a wit h a n "update " o n USEPA' s plan s concernin g Veolia' s Titl e V permit . USEP A Dec . 19 , 201 2 emai l a t VE S 001857 . Th e emai l state d tha t USEP A intende d to reopen the permi t t o includ e feedrat e limit s derive d fromVeolia' s 200 8 metal s testin g an d tha t USEP A intende d to provid e forma l notic e o f

th e reopenin g i n earl y 2013 . Finally , o n o r

abou t Januar y 10 , 2013 , Veoli areceive d acop y o f USEPA' s "Notic e o f

Propose d Modificatio n o f

Veolia' s Titl e V permit " ("Notic e o f Reopening") , acop y o f

the Agency' s Statemen t ofBasi s fo r

reopenin g Veolia' s permit , acop y o f the draf t reopene d Titl e V permit , an d acop y ofth e USEP A fac t shee t entitle d "U.S . EP A Propose s to Reope n Titl e V Ai r Permit " ("Jan . 201 3 Fac t

Sheet") . See generally VE S 000002-000173 . Th e 201 3 Reopenin g Proposa l containe d fou r

mai n change s fromVeolia' s 200 8 Titl e V permit : 1 ) it require d the installatio n and operatio n o f

multi-metal s CEM S o n Uni t 3 fo r a1 2 mont

h period ; 2 ) it

include d OPL s (feedrate limits ) fo r

mercury , LVMs , and SVMs ; 3 ) it include d supplementa

l feedstrea

manalysi s procedure s fo r

mercury , LVMs , and SVMs ; an d 4 ) it prohibite d Veoli afromacceptin g berylliu m containin g wast

e fo r incineration. 9 Further

detail s concernin g USEPA' s attemp t a t reopenin g Veolia' s 200 8 Titl e V permi t ar e provide d i n Sectio n C o f thi s Part . B . Relevan

tRegulator

y an d Procedura

l Histor y Concerning Veolia' s RCR A Par tB Permi

t 1 . 1997

through 2003: Initial

RCRA Part

B Permit, Renewal, and Risk Assessment Veoli areceive d it s initia l RCR A Par t B permi t o n Marc h 31 , 1988 . See 198 8 RCR A Permi t a t VE S 006711-006858 . Thi s initia l permi t expire d o n Ma y 5 , 1998 . Consequently , o n Novembe r 6 , 1997 , Veoli asubmitte d a n applicatio n t o IEP A t

o rene w it s existin g RCR A Par t B permit . IEP A deemed Veolia' s applicatio n administrativel y complet e o n Apri l 17 , 1998 . Approximatel y fiv e year s later , IEP A finall y issue d adraf t RCR A Part

B permi t fo r publi c comment . I n 2003 , USEP A conducte d aRCR A ris k screen 1 0a

s par t o f it s revie w o f

the draf t Veoli apermit . Upo n completio n o f

th e ris k screen , USEP A advise d Veoli atha t Veolia' s emission s di d no t pos e an y risks , and additiona l risk-assessmen t wa s no t required . See VE S 006940 . A publi c meetin g regardin g th e Par t B Permi t

wa s hel d o n Jul y 22 , 2003 . A t tha t meeting , a publi c commente

r suggeste d tha

t mercur y emission s fromVeoli ama y pos e aris k

to the fisherie s i n are alake s tha

t resident s allegedl y us e a s afoo dsource. 1 1 Afte r th e publi c meeting , USEP A revise dthe ris k

screen . Thi s revise d versio n o f th e ris k screenin g wa s develope d i n respons e t o

9Veoli a onl

y accept s non-NESHA P berylliu m containin

g waste . 1 0The purpose

s of screenin g leve l risk assessment

s ar e to : 1 ) estimat e th e likelihoo

d tha ta particula

r risk exists

, 2 ) identif y th e nee d fo r site-specifi

c dat a collectio

n efforts , o

r 3 ) t o focu s site-specifi

c ris k assessment

s wher e warranted

. See Office of

Soli d Wast

e & Emergenc

y Response

, USEPA , Th

e Rol e of Screening-Leve

l Risk Assessment

s (Jun e 2001) , attache

d a tVE S 006507-006514

. 1 1 This statemen

ti s include d in th e transcribe

d comment

s fro m th e Jul y 22 , 200 3 publi c meeting

. See Jul y 22 , 200 3 Public Meetin

g Transcrip

ta tVE S 004472-004593

.

- 18

- VE S 01951 6the 200 3 publi c meetin g and , unlik e the earlie r ris k screenin g whic h wa s conducte d prio r t o the publi c meeting , thi s time USEP A identifie dincrease d risk . Veoli asubmitte d it s comment s o n the draf t permi t o n Septembe

r 17 , 2003 . Veolia' s 200 3 Cmts . a t VE S 006859-006866 .

2 . 2005through 2013: Veolia Risk Assessment, Permit

Issuance & RCRA Permit Appeal I n light o f USEPA' s contradictor

y ris k screenings—the firs t

identifyin g n

o ris k and th e secon d identifyin g som

e risk—Veoli acontracte d wit h Frankli n Engineerin g Grou p (Frankli n Engineering ) i n 2004 to perfor masecond , independent , ris k assessmen

t regardin g metal s emissions . Frankli n Engineerin g utilize dUSEPA' s Huma n Healt h Ris k Assessment

Protoco l ("HHRAP" ) fo r

Hazardou s Wast

e Combustio n Facilities 1 2to determine tha t Veolia' s lo w leve l o f metal s emission s di d no t pos e aris k

to the water

bodie s i n Fran k

Holte n Stat

e Park . VE S 019310-019488 . I n Novembe r of2005 , Veoli asubmitte d the result s o f thi s ris k assessmen

t t o USEPA . USEP A indicate d t o Veoli atha

t i t woul drevie w and commen t o n the result s o f

the ris k assessmen

t conducte d b y Frankli n Engineerin g withi n fou r to si x weeks ; however , USEP A neve r responde d to Veolia' s submission . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008385 . Rather , USEP A performe d yet anothe r ris k screenin g i n Ma y 2007 . Ma y 200 7 Ris k Screen a t VE S 007616-007713 . Th e Ma y 200 7 ris k screenin g conclude d n

o additiona l limit s wer

e necessar y fo r dioxins , cadmium , lead , chromium , berylliu mand arsenic . Id. a t VE S 007640 . Th e screenin g foun donl y emission s o f mercur y fromthe Veoli afacilit y a t the HW C MAC T emission s standar

d woul dresul t

i n potential exposur

e to methy l mercur

y abov e USEPA' s ris k managemen

t guidelines . Therefore , th e screenin g recommende d tha t tota l annual stack emission s o f

mercur y fromthe Veoli afacilit y be limite dt o protec t huma n health . Wit h regard t

o findin g increase d ris k

du e to potential methy l mercur y exposure , however , th e Agenc y onl y reache d thi s conclusio n b y ignorin g evidenc e and makin g man y assumptions , includin g tha

t subsistenc e fishin g i s conducte d a t lake s i n Frank

Holte n Stat

e Par k ( astat e par k an d gol f cours e locate d approximatel y three mile s to th e Eas t o f the Sauge

t Facility) ; tha

t th e lake s ar e close d system s when , i n fact , the y ar e connecte d t o th

e Mississipp i Rive r

throug h variou s canal s and ditche s whic h allo w fis h t o trave l between the lake s an d the River ; tha t fis h ar e nativ e t o th

e lake s whe n man

y o f the fis h mos t

likel y t o be consume d ar e stocked ; and tha

t th e trophi c leve l fo r

th e fis h i s 4 whic h i s to o conservativ e and inconsistent wit h existin g evidence . See generally VE S 006940 ; DW O a t VE S 007606-008087 . I n Novembe r 2007 , USEP A provide d a

n addendumt o th

e Ma y 200 7 Ris k

Screenin g whic h explaine d ho w USEP A calculate dthe conversio n o f expecte d emission s o f

inorgani c mercur

y fromth e Veoli a incinerato r

stacks t o methy l mercur

y fo r purpose s o f

assessin g potentia l huma n healt h risks , but faile dt o chang e an

y o f the unsupporte d assumption s o r the resultin g inaccurate conclusion s containe d i n th

e Ma y 200 7 Ris k

Screening . See USEP A Addendu ma t VE S 007714-007760 .

1 2Frankli

n Engineerin

g utilize d th e 199 8 Pee r Revie w Draf tversio n ofth e HHRA P (EPA530-D-98-001 ) durin g th e initia l stage s o f fh e risk assessmen

tan d the n finalized it

s evaluatio

n usin g th e Fina l HHRA P (EPA520-R-05-006) , whic h USEP A publishe

d i n Septembe

r o f 2005.

- 19

- VE S 01951 7O n Jul y 24 , 2008 , ove r te n year s afte r

Veoli asubmitte d it s origina l applicatio n fo r renewal o f

it s RCR A Par

t B Permit , IEP A issue d asecon d draf t permi t fo r publi c commen

t ("200 8 Draf

t RCR A Permit") . Th e 200 8 Draf t RCR A permi t

containe d many modification s fromth e draf t issue d b y IEP A i n 2003 , including stringen t requirement s regardin g mercury . The permi t establishe d a"Mercur y Annua l Fee d Rate Limit " fo r Veoli atha

t stated "[t]he Permitte e shal l no t fee d mor e tha n atota l o f

3.6 3 kilogram s (kg ) o f

mercur y per yea r t o an y combinatio n o f

the three incineratio n units. " See 200 8 Draf t RCR A Permi t

a t VE S 006549 . Th e permi t als o include d requirement s tha

t Veoli aanalyz e al l incomin g wast e fo r mercur y withi n 2 4 hour s o f

receip t and require d mor

e extensiv e mercury analysi s o f batche s and blend s o f

wast e receive d a

t th e facility . Id. a t VE S 006549-006553 . (Thes e late r requirement s ar

e nearl y identica l t o th

e one s include d i n the Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Requests , the 201 3 Reopenin g Proposal , an d the 201 4 Draf t Titl e V permit. ) Veoli asubmitte d it s comment s o n the 200 8 Draf t RCR A Permi t

o n Septembe

r 12 , 2008 . Veoli a Sept . 200 8 Cmts . a

t VE S 006867-006893 . Veoli astate d tha t th e ne w requirement s fo r

mercur y analysis , recordkeepin g and feedrate s wer e "overl y onerous , appea r punitive , hav e n

o regulator

y o r safet y basi s an d ar

e no t consistent

wit h th e requirement s o f

the othe r Regio n 5 hazardou s wast e incinerato r

permits. " See Id. a

t VE S 006867-006893 . Specifically , Veoli anote d tha t the mercur y feedrat e limi t o f 3.6 3 kg/yea

r faile dt o tak

e int o accoun t any remova l efficiencie s and ignore dthe result s o f

th e ris k assessmen

t performe d b y Frankli n Engineerin g i n 2005 . Veoli a als o commente d tha

t samplin g al l wast

e comin g into th

e facilit y fo r

mercur y withi n 2

4 hour s wa s impractica l an d potentiall y unsafe . Veoli aals o adde d tha t the increase d batc h and blen d samplin g wa s unnecessar y because , i f

implemented , it

woul drequire Veoli ato analyz e certai n waste s aminimu mo f

thre e time s before the y coul dbe incinerated . Th e 200 8 Draf

t RCR A Permi t

als o se t fort h ametho d fo r

calculatin g the concentratio n o f mercur y tha t Veoli amus t

us e i n determinin g it s feedrate . Unde r the method—i f

Veoli aanalyze d awast e and coul dno t

detect mercur y (becaus e th

e concentratio n wa s lowe r tha n th e instrument coul dmeasure)—the

n Veoli awa s require d to assum e tha t the wast e containe d mercur

y a t a concentratio n o f

Vz o f the reportin g limit. 1 3 I n othe r words , Veoli awoul db e require d to assum e tha t al l o f it s incomin g wast

e containe d som

e mercur y (i n thi s cas e u

p t o Vz ofth e reportin g limi t o f th e chose n mercur

y analyzer) . Veoli aexplaine d i n it s comment s tha t i f it wer e require d to assum e Vz the reportin g limi t

ever y tim e i t wa s require d to perfor ma n analysi s o f

waste , the n i t woul dnearl y excee d th

e annual feedrat

e limi t fo r mercur y withou t eve r havin g actuall y detecte d mercur y i n asingl e sampl e durin g th e entir e yea r o f incinerato r

operations . Veoli afurthe r relate d tha

t thi s requirement

woul dartificiall y inflat e the amoun t o f mercur y tha t i t wa s handlin g a t the facility . Veolia' s Sept . 200 8 Cmts . a t VE S 006880-006882 . (Note : I n th e 201 4 Draf

t Permit , i f the applicabl e metal i s not detecte d a

t o r above the reportin g limi t fo r th e metal , th e metal concentratio n shal l b e equa l to th e reportin g limit. )

1 3 Th e ter m "reportin

g limit " generall

y mean s th e lowes tconcentratio

n a twhic h a n analyt e ca n b e accuratel

y detecte d i n a sample

. However

, fo r purpose

s of Veolia' s comments

, "reportin

g limit " an

d "detectio

n limit " wil l b

e use d interchangeably

. -20

- VE S 01951 8O n December 2 , 2009,1 2 year s afte r

Veoli asubmitte d it s applicatio n fo r renewal o f

it s RCR A Part B Permit , IEP A issue d afinal RCR A Part B permi t to Veoli a("200 9 Fina l RCR A permit") . See 200 9 Fina l RCR A Permi t a t VE S 006711-006858 . Th e final permi t containe d essentiall y th e sam e requirement s a

s th e 200 8 Draf

t RCR A Permit ; specifically , i t include d al l ofth e stringen t mercur y analysi s requirement s tha t Veoli aha d commente d o n i n Septembe r o f 2008 . O n Januar

y 5 , 2010 , Veoli aappeale d th e 200 9 Fina l RCR A Permi t i n it s entiret

y b y filin g a petitio n fo r

revie w wit h th

e Illinoi s Pollutio n Contro l Board . Veoli aRCR A Appea l a t VE S 006697-006706 . Veolia' s appeal i s stil l pendin g befor e th e Board . I n a n effor t to settl e th e RCR A permi t

appeal , o n Augus t

5 , 2011 , Veoli asubmitte d a"Samplin g and Analysi s Plan " to IEP A and USEP A proposin g afish and water stud y o f lake s locate d i n Fran k Holte n Stat

e Par k tha t wer e the focu s o f

the 200 3 Ris k

Scree n (and Veolia' s follow-u p Ris k Assessment

i n 2005) . Th e Samplin g and Analysi s Pla n propose d to collec t asufficien t amoun t o f actual quality dataregardin g th e wate r an d fish i n the lake s i n order to determine th

e efficac y ofth e ris k

studies . Veoli amad

e thi s proposal i n order

t o provid e a

n analysi s base d o n actua l dataa s oppose d t

o the assume d dat aUSEP A use d i n it s Ma y 200 7 Ris k Screen . B y lette

r date d Septembe

r 19 , 2011 , IEP A provide d comment s o n th e Samplin g and Analysi s Plan . See IEPA' s Lette r

a t VE S 007168-007174 . IEPA' s Septembe r 19t h Lette r questione d ho w som

e o f the datawoul dbe use d t o reevaluat e the ris k

assessments bu

t di d agree tha

t the samplin g coul d be use d t o evaluat

e (and determine ) ake y assumptio n o f bot h studies—the assume d trophi c leve l o f certai n fish (i.e. , thei r

positio n i n th

e foo d chain ) and th

e resultin g bioaccumulatio n facto r ("BAF" ) assigne d to thos e fish. (BA Fi s ameasur e tha t indicate s uptak

e and retentio n o f

certai n compound s b y organisms. ) I n addition , IEP A als o responde d t o Veolia' s submission s regardin g settlemen t o f the variou s challenge d permi t

condition s vi aletter

date d Septembe

r 22 , 2011 . IEP A indicate d tha t the permi t coul dbe change d t

o clarif y som e o f the dispute d requirements , including bu t not limite d t o th e requirement

tha t al l wast e mus t b e sample d withi n 24 hour s o f receip t fo r the presenc e o f mercur y sinc e "Veoli amus t

neve r rus h t o sample awast

e wher e i t woul dcaus e asafety issue. " IEPA' s Sept . 22 , 201 1 Lette r a t VE S 007175-007177 , 007176 . O n October

4 , 2011 , Veoli ame

t wit h personne l fromIEPA , the Illinoi s Attorne y General' s Office , and USEP A i n Springfield , Illinois , to discus s IEPA' s comment s o n the Samplin g an d Analysi s Plan . Althoug h the meetin g wa s se t u p t o discus s IEPA' s comments , i t wa s clea r to Veoli atha

t USEP A ha

d provide d th

e majorit y o f

th e comment s and analysi s o f the Plan . Moreover , USEP A personne l le d the technica l discussio n ofth e meetin g concernin g the ris k studie s an d their

rol e i n supportin g the Agency' s action s unde r the HW C MAC T Rule . A t th e conclusio n o f

the meeting , USEP A also , fo r th e first time , verball y share d wit h Veoli ath e federa l Agency' s calculate d mercur y remova l efficiencie s fo r th e thre e incineratio n units . Thi s informatio n allowe dVeoli at o calculat e the numerica l OPL s (feedrates ) fo r mercur y tha t th e Agenc y believe d Veoli ashoul d b e operatin g under . (Recal l tha t Veoli ahad repeatedl y requeste d tha t USEP A shar

e their calculation s an d OPL s wit h Veoli adurin g th e Titl e V permittin g proces s i n 2008. ) Harri s Aff . a

t VE S 008389 .

-21

- VE S 01951 9Subsequently , Regio n 5 continue d it s pursui t o f multi-metal s CEM S and enhance d wast e analysi s unde

r thei r CA A enforcement

and permittin g authority . Thus , a s thi s federa l permittin g proces s has continued , th e IEPA , the Illinoi s Attorne y General' s Offic e an d Veoli ahave mor e o r les s been require d to maintai n aholdin g patter n wit h regar

d t o th e RCR A permi t

and the appeal . A s addressed immediatel y below , USEPA' s effort s to reope n Veolia' s Titl e V Permi t i n 201 3 consolidate d th

e dispute d RCR A issue s i n th e Titl e V process . C . USEPA' s Attemptt o Reope n Veolia' s Titl e V Permiti n 201 3 an d th e Convergenc

e o f Al l Dispute

d Issue s i n th e Curren tPermi

tActio n A s relate d above , Veoli ahas been continuall y hamstrun g i n it s permittin g efforts . I n th e earl y year s IEP A simpl y delaye d makin g permittin g decisions . Followin g the serie s o f Sierr aClu b lawsuits , USEP A wa s determine d to demonstrat e activit y whil e simultaneousl y avoidin g takin g final agenc y action . Addin g insul t t o injury , bot

h th e IEP A and USEP A delaye d and ultimatel y mishandle d the issuanc e o f Veolia' s RCR A permit . Thes e tortured , years-lon g processe s finally culminate di n the reopenin g tha t USEP A undertook

i n Januar

y o f 2013 . O n Januar

y 8 , 2013 , USEP A propose d t o reopen Veolia' s Titl e V permi t t o includ e revise d OPLs , installatio n o f

multi-metal s CEMS , an d enhance d FA P requirements . Th e permi t reopenin g effor t

essentiall y combine d al l o f th e contentiou s issue s concernin g Veolia' s CA A complianc e an d RCR A permi t into asingl e administrativ e process . USEP A too k thi s actio n eve n thoug h Veolia' s the n curren t Titl e V permi t

wa s se t to expire onl y nin e month s later—o n October 12 , 2013—an d Veolia' s permi t renewal applicatio n wa s due onl y thre e month s later — o n Apri l 12 , 2013 . Despit e USEPA' s illogica l timin g o f attemptin g t o reope n afive-year permi t wit h nin e month s ofth e permi t remaining , Veoli aspen t considerabl e tim e and resource s preparin g alengthy se

t o f comment s to the ne w permi t requirements . Regio n 5 conducte d a publi c hearin g wit h virtuall y no one fromth e community attending . O n Marc h 29 , 2013 , Veoli a submitte d it s comments , whic h pointe d ou t th e numerou s technica l flaws, inaccuracies , and misrepresentation s i n Regio n 5' s proposal . Veolia' s 201 3 comment s a t VE S 008972-009070 . Subsequently , th

e Agenc y too k

n o actio n whatsoeve

r o n the propose d reopening . Veoli adi d no t hea r fromUSEP A and therefore proceede d wit h it s obligation s unde r Titl e V and th

e HW C MACT . O n Apri l 8 , 2013 , Veoli asubmitte d it s applicatio n fo r renewal o f

it s Titl e V operatin g permit . Th e Agenc y deeme d Veolia' s applicatio n t o b e "administrativel y complete " vi alette r date d Septembe r 11,2013 . USEP A Sept . 11 , 201 3 Approva l Lette r a t VE S 010012-010013 . Approximatel y fou r

month s before USEP A had propose d to "reopen " Veolia' s Titl e V permit , Veoli awa s require d t

o submit it s tes t plan s fo r it s next roun d o f CPT s to b e performe d pursuan t t o th e MAC T standard . O n Septembe r 5 , 2012 , Veoli aha d submitte d it s CP T tes t plans . Vi a lette r date d Septembe

r 27 , 2013 , USEP A finall y approve d Veolia' s tes t plan s and Veoli a commence d th

e CPT s i n Septembe

r o f 2013 . VE S 019294-019295 . Durin g October

i n 2013 , Veoli aconducte d acomplet e se t o f CPT s o n incineratio n unit s 2 , 3 , and 4 . USEP A and IEP A representative s attende d th e test s and observe d th

e preparatio n o f

th e spike dwast

e to be fe d into th

e incinerator s and the procedure s use d t o pul l accurat

e sample s -22

- VE S 01952 0fromVeolia' s stack emissions . Veoli acomplete d it s CPT s i n Octobe r o f 201 3 an d the tes t result s showe d tha

t al l thre e unit s performe d wel l an d me t al l emission s standards . Under the HW C MAC T rule , Veoli aha d t o submit fina l tes t report s concernin g th

e CPT s t o USEP A b y Januar y 28 , 2014 . Howeve r befor e Veoli acoul dsubmit it s reports , o n December 12 , 2013 , Veoli areceive d a§11 4 reques t fromRegio n 5 seekin g asignificant amoun t o f ra w dat aconcernin g Veolia' s metal fee d rate s fo r a3 yea r period . Se

e Dec . 201 3 Info . Request s a t VE S 019297-019306 . Despite havin g t o wor k throug h th

e holiday s t o compil e the information—an d takin g tim e awa y fromfinishin g the CP T reports—Veoli aresponde d withi n th e very shor

t (1 4 day ) deadlin e requeste d b y the Agency . B y letter

date d Decembe

r 26 , 2013 , Veoli asen

t it s respons e to Regio n 5' s lates t 11 4 request . Veolia' s Respons e to Dec . 201 3 Info . Request s a t VE S 019271-019282 . Als o durin g Decembe r

o f 2013 , Veoli awa s contacte d b y representative s o f the U.S . Departmen

t o f Justic e ("DOJ") . DO J informe dcounse l fo r Veoli atha

t i t wishe d t o ente

r into atollin g agreemen

t wit h Veoli at o tol l th

e statute s o f

limitation s o n tw o ofth e previou s FOV s issue d to Veoli adate d Augus t

24 , 201 2 and Septembe

r 13 , 2012. 1 4 Veoli aexecute d atollin g agreemen t wit h DO J concernin g the tw o FOV s o n Januar y 3 , 2014 . Th e agreemen t tolle dth e statut e o f limitation s period s fo r

th e FOV s unti l Apri l 30 , 201 4 and wa s late r extende d to Septembe

r 30 , 2014 . (Subsequently , the DO J contacte d Veoli aafte r th e perio d ha d expire d an

d communicate d tha t the y woul dno t

be pursuin g an

y claim s agains t

Veoli abase d o n th

e FOVs . See Voicemai l fromDO J a

t VE S 016105. ) O n Januar

y 28 , 2014 , Veoli asubmitte d it s CP T report s showin g tha t al l thre e incinerator s passe d al l tes t parameter s and wer

e i n ful l complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T standards . See VE S 012326-012453 . O n Marc h 13 , 2014 , ove r ayea r afte r Regio n 5 propose d t o reope n Veolia' s Titl e V permit , Veoli afinall y learne d tha t Regio n 5 ha d abandone d th e reopenin g i n favo r

o f pursuin g th

e sam e condition s i n Veolia' s permi t renewal process . Regio n 5 di d not conve y thi s informatio n t o Veoli adirectly . Rather , Veoli alearne d tha t th e reopenin g was , i n effect , "dead " whe n th e Agenc y emaile d alistserv aime d a t developin g apla n fo r

publi c participatio n i n Veolia' s permi t renewal process . See Regio n 5 Marc h 13 , 201 4 emai l a t VE S 010889 . Veoli anext

hear d fromRegio n 5 concernin g it s Titl e V permi t o n Septembe

r 16 , 2014 , whe n th

e Agenc y sen

t Veoli aapreliminary versio n o f th e ne w draf

t Titl e V . See VE S 010159-010410 . Regio n 5 agree d to mee

t wit h Veoli ab y Septembe r 30 , 2014 . See id. Veoli amet wit h Regio n 5 representative s o n Septembe r 30 , 201 4 i n Chicago . VE S 019296 . A t the meeting , Veoli avoice d it s concern s regardin g th e requirement s include d i n the preliminar y draf t to instal l no t

one , but three , multimetal s CEM S a t the facility . However , despit e disagreemen

t ove r the CEMS' s related-issues , both side s believe d som e middl e groun d coul db e ha d o n othe r issue s and lef

t th e meetin g wit h acommitment to continu e discussions .

uTh e Septembe

r 13 , 201 2 FO V wa

s actuall y a "Notic

e o f Violation" ; however

, i tcontaine

d nearl y identica

l allegation

s t o th e Augus t24 , 201 2 FOV . -23

- VE S 01952 1O n October 9 , 2014 , Veoli aengaged i n telephon e discussion s wit h Regio n 5 regardin g workin g toward s a

n agreemen

t o n th e condition s o f

the permit . Regio n 5 agree d t o continu e discussin g the issu e internall y and represente d t o Veoli atha t i t woul dcontac t

Veoli aprio r

to actuall y issuin g th e draf t permi t fo r publi c commen

t pursuan t to 4 0 C.F.R . § 71.11(a)(5) . Fiv e day s later , USEP A contacte d Veoli aand state d tha t the Agenc y woul dbe issuin g th e draf t permit as written , withou t

furthe r discussion s toward s a

n agreement . Th e sam

e day , October , 14 , 2014 , Regio n 5 issue d the draf t Titl e V permi t

fo r publi c comment . A s Veoli apredicte d i n it s comment s submitte d i n Marc h o f 2013 , Regio n 5' s reopenin g proces s turne d ou t t o be acolossa l wast

e o f time an d resource s fo r

bot h Veoli aand the government . Tha t fac t wa s totall y los t

o n Regio n 5 as evidence d b y thei r justificatio n fo r

abandonin g the reopenin g (whic h wa s include d i n th e Statemen

t ofBasi s fo r

th e 201 4 Draf

t Permit) : Du e to the complexit y o f the comment s received , EP A di d no t finaliz e th

e propose d modification s prio r t o the expiratio n o f

th e 200 8 permit . A t

th e sam e time , Veoli ainforme dEP A tha t i t wa s plannin g t o conduc t anothe r roun d o f

CPT s i n Octobe r

2013 . Becaus e o f

tha t fac t and becaus e Veolia' s 200 8 permi t wa s du e fo r renewal , EP A decide d that , rathe r tha n finalizin g the propose d reopening , i t woul dbe mos t

effectiv e to includ e th

e OPL s and additiona l monitorin g requirement s i n th

e renewal permi t

tha t i s the subjec t

o f thi s permittin g action . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 27. 1 5 Fo r

Veolia , sayin g " I tol dyo u so " i s apyrrhi c victor y becaus e Region 5 stil l force dVeoli at o spend hundred s o f

thousand s o f

dollar s o n respondin g to apermi t actio n tha

t wen t nowher e and accomplishe d nothing . Thi s resul t woul dbe surprisin g i f

i t hadn' t happene d t

o Veoli as o man

y time s befor e durin g th

e permittin g history outline d above . IV . Veolia' s Comment s A . Regio

n 5 Ha s Exceede

d it s Authorit

y t o "Assur e Compliance " Unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac tb y Requirin g Veoli a t

o Implemen

tSupplementa

l Feedstrea

m Analysi s Procedure

s an d Instal l Multi-Metal s CEM S Regio n 5 has arbitraril y and capriciousl y exceede d it s authorit y t o "assur e compliance " unde

r the C A A b y imposin g unnecessar y permi t condition s o n Veoli atha t requir e th e implementatio n o f supplemental FA P procedure s and th e installatio n o f

multi-metal s CEMS . Sectio n 504 ofth e C A A sets fort h the authorit y fo r th e inclusio n o f

monitorin g requirement s i n Titl e V permits . See 4 2 U.S.C . § § 7661c(a) , (c) . Specifically , Sectio n 504 , subsection s (a ) and (c) , state :

1 5 Regio n 5 inaccuratel

y portray s it s failur e t o finalize th

e propose

d reopening

. Veolia' s permi

texpire d o n Octobe r 12 , 2013 , howeve r USEP A notifie

d Veoli a in Jun

e of 201 2 tha tth e CP T wa

s require d t o b e initiate d b y Septembe

r 5 , 2013. Althoug

h Veoli a disagree

d wit h thi s dat e becaus e th e five yea

r requiremen

tfo r CP T testin

g woul d hav e pu t th e testin g du e b y Septembe

r 5 , 2014 , Veoli a submitte

d CP T plan

s t o USEP A o

n Septembe

r 5 , 2012 . Thi s is wel l befor e th e permi texpire d o n Octobe r 12 , 2013. Thus , Regio

n 5' s clai m tha ti tabandone

d tiie reopenin

g becaus e is learne d of Veolia' s plan

s t o perfor m CP T testin

g i s completel

y false.

-24

- VE S 01952 2(a ) Conditions Eac h permi t

issue d unde

r thi s subchapte

r shal l includ e enforceabl e emissio n limitation s and standards , aschedul e o f compliance , arequiremen t tha t th e permitte e submit

t o th e permittin g authority , no les s ofte n tha n ever y 6 months , th e result s o f

an y require d monitoring , and suc h othe r condition s a

s ar e necessar

y t o assur e complianc

e wit h applicabl

e requirement

s ofthi s chapter

, includin g the requirement s o f

th e applicabl e implementatio n plan . (c ) Inspection, entry, monitoring, certification, and reporting Eac h permi t

issue d unde

r thi s subchapte

r shal l se t fort h inspection , entry , monitoring , complianc e certification , and reportin g requirement s to assur e complianc

e wit h th e permi tterm s an d conditions . Suc h monitorin g and reportin g requirement s shal l confor mto any applicabl e regulatio n unde r subsectio n (b ) ofthi s section . Id. B y usin g th

e phras e "assur

e compliance " i n thes e tw o subsections , Congres s provide d the Agenc y wit h authorit

y to : 1 ) impos e permi t

condition s tha

t ensur e tha t a n emission s sourc e complie s wit h the CAA ; and 2 ) impos e monitorin g requirement s tha t ensur e tha t a n emission s sourc e abide s b y th

e permi t condition s establishe d b y the Agency . However , th e expres s text

o f Sectio n 50 4 als o provide s limits t o thes e tw o areas o f

authorit y fo r USEPA . Unde r Subsectio n (a) , Congres s chos e t o qualif y the phras e "assur

e compliance " wit h the adjectiv e "necessary. " See § 7661c(a) . Th e adjectiv e "necessary " mean s somethin g tha t "canno t be dispense d with ; essential ; indispensable ; as , wate r i s necessar

y to life. " WEBSTER' S NE W UNIVERSA L UNABRIDGE D DICTIONAR Y 1200 (2 d ed . 1983) . Thus , Subsectio n (a ) limit s USEP A t o requirin g onl y thos e permi t condition s tha

t ar e essentia

l t o ensurin g tha

t asourc e maintain s complianc e wit h the Clea n Ai r Act . The monitorin g text

include d i n th

e Sectio n 50

4 an d th e Par t 7 1 Rule s ha s give n ris e t o thre e principl e situation s wher e the Agenc y include s monitorin g scheme s into Titl e V permits . 1 . Unde r

4 0 C.F.R . § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(A) , th e Agenc y mus t

ensur e tha t the monitorin g requirement s provide d b y th e substantiv e emission s rule s mak e it int o the Titl e V permit—e.g. , Regio n 5 must ensur e tha t the monitorin g provision s o f the HW C MACT , OPLs , certai n CEMS , FAP , etc. , ar e place d i n Veolia' s Titl e V permit . 2 . Unde r

4 0 C.F.R . § 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B) , i f th e substantiv e emissio n rul e doe s no t contai n any periodi c testin g o r

monitorin g requirements , then th e Agenc y has a

n obligatio n t o ad d monitorin g o r

testin g requirement s sufficien t to assur e compliance . 3 . I f th e substantiv e emission s rul e contain s some periodi c testin g and monitoring , but the Agenc y determine s tha

t th e periodi c testin g and monitorin g provide d b y the underlyin g substantiv e rul e i s inadequate , th e Agenc y ma

y ad d monitorin g o r

testin g requirement s sufficien t to assur e compliance . See 4 0 C.F.R . § 71.6(c)(1) .

-25

- VE S 01952 3Th e thir d scenari o has bee n th e subjec t o f muc h litigatio n as i t

allow s th e Agenc y the mos t discretio n and provide s the opportunit y fo r the mos t abuse . A s note d b y Regio n 5 i n th e Statemen t ofBasis , th

e D.C . Circui t

supporte d stat

e and loca l Titl e V permittin g authorities ' abilit y t o supplemen

t inadequat

e monitorin g requirement s i n Sierra Club v. EPA, 53 6 F.3 d 67 3 (D.C . Cir . 2008) . Whil e Sierra Club di d interpret 4 0 C.F.R . § 70.6(c)(1 ) a s providin g permittin g authoritie s wit h th

e powe r to supplemen

t monitorin g requirements , i t onl y di ds o i n th

e contex t o f afindin g tha

t th e underlyin g testin g and monitorin g requirement s wer e "inadequate. " Sierra Club, 53 6 F.3 d a

t 680 . Th e Sierra Club Court , however , wa s silen t o n wha t i s "inadequate " and th e cas e di dno t

discus s o r

eve n mentio n thi s issue . Wha t constitute s a

n "inadequate " monitorin g requirement i s not entirel y clea

r and i s a"context

specifi c determination"— apoin t drive n hom

e b y the Environmenta l Appeal s Boar dcas e cite d b y Regio n 5 i n the Statemen t ofBasis . See In re CITGO Refining & Chemicals Co., No . VI-2007

- 01 , 200 9 W L 7513859 , 5 (EA B Ma y 28 , 2009) . However , wha t i s clea r i s tha t the monitorin g requirement s provide d b y the MAC T rule s an d unde r USEPA' s Complianc e Assuranc e Monitorin g ("CAM" ) rul e ar e "sufficien t

t o assur e complianc e wit h permi t term s and conditions , thu s meetin g the requirement s o f 4 0 C.F.R . § 70.6(c)(1). " Id. I n fact , USEP A has lon g recognize dtha

t MAC T Standard s promulgate d pursuan t t o Sectio n 112 , includin g th e HW C MACT , contai n sufficien t monitorin g provision s t o assur e continuou s compliance . Th e Preambl e to th

e CA M rule , fo r

instance , states : Wit h respec t

t o emission s unit s subjec t t o ne w hazardou s ai r pollutan t standard s unde

r amende d sectio n 11 2 ofth e Act , EP A wil l includ e appropriat

e monitorin g requirement s a s par t o f thos e ne w hazardou s air

pollutant standards . .. . Thi s approac h i s consistent

wit h EPA' s statemen

t i n th e Jul y 21 , 199 2 preambl e t o 4 0 CF Rpar

t 7 0 tha t al l futur e rulemaking s wil l hav e no ga p i n thei r monitorin g provision s (se e 5 7 F R32278) . 6 2 Fed . Reg . 54,900 , 5491 8 (Oct . 22 , 1997) . USEP A ha s als o acknowledge d tha t the HW C MAC T include s "improve d monitorin g requirements. " 7 1 Fed . Reg . 75422 , 7542 6 (Dec . 15 , 2006) ; see also HW C MAC T Fac t Shee t re Titl e V Operatin g Permit s http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/td/combust/toolkit/titlevfs.pdf. Here , Regio n 5 propose s to : 1 ) ad d onerou s supplementa

l feedstrea

manalysi s procedures , and 2 ) requir e the installatio n o f

amulti-metal s CEMs . Regio n 5 state s tha t thes e modification s ar

e "necessary " t

o assur e Veolia' s complianc e wit h Titl e V and the HW C MAC T becaus e the monitorin g provide d b y th e HW C MAC T i s insufficient . See Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 4 7 & 54 . However , thes e proposal s ar e NO T necessar

y t o assurin g Veolia' s complianc e wit h either Titl e V o r the HW C MAC T and th e periodi c monitorin g requirement s o f HW C MAC T ar

e no t inadequat e o r insufficien t

suc h tha t Regio n 5 ma

y impos e thes e proposals .

-26

- VE S 01952 41 . Veolia's Existing Feedstream Analysis Procedures Are Sufficient and Region 5 Has Exceeded

Its Authority by Arbitrarily and Capriciously Determining Otherwise Th e condition s i n Veolia' s curren t FA P ar e identica l i n ever

y respec t to the provision s o f

4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(c ) ofth e HW C MACT . However , Regio n 5' s supplemental feedstrea m analysi s procedure s tha

t ar e include d i n th

e 201 4 Draf

t Permi t g o fa r beyon d wha

t i s se t fort h i n the HW C MACT . I n doin g so , th e Agenc y ha s als o gon

e fa r beyon d it s authorit

y t o assur e complianc e a

s se t fort h i n Titl e V . A s se

t fort h above , Sectio n 504 o f Titl e V create s atwo-tier schem e tha t provide s USEP A the powe r t o 1 ) impos e permi t

condition s tha

t ensur e complianc e wit h th e CA A and 2 ) impos e monitorin g provision s tha t ensur e tha t asourc e complie s wit h th e permi t conditions . Throug h the promulgatio n o f the HW C MACT , USEP A ha s already expressl y establishe d wha t feedstrea

manalysi s procedure s ar e require d t o assur

e complianc e wit h the CAA . Specifically , i n Sectio n 63.1209(c)(1 ) USEP A instruct s tha t "prio r to feedin g th

e material , yo u mus t obtai n a n analysi s o f

eac h feedstrea

mtha t i s sufficien t

to documen

t complianc e wit h th

e applicabl e feedrat

e limit s provide d b y thi s section. " 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(c)(1) . Then , i n Subsectio n 63.1209(c)(2 ) throug h subsectio n (4) , USEP A set s fort h th e requirement s tha

t mus t followe dt

o ensur e tha t the requirement s o f

(1 ) ar e met . Id. § § 63.1209(c)(2)-(4) . Thus , i n draftin g Sectio n 63.1209(c) , USEP A already expressl y determine d ho w Veoli aan d ever y othe r incinerato r

mus t analyz e feedstream s i n order t o documen

t complianc e wit h th

e "applicabl e feedrate limits " tha

t ar e develope d unde

r the HW C MAC T rule . Thes e provision s appea r verbati mi n Veolia' s FA P an d Veoli ahas complie d wit h thes e requirement s i n full . A s Regio n 5 itsel f ha s concluded , "Veolia' s FA P literall y ha s al l o f th e element s tha

t 4 0 C.F.R . Sectio n 63.1209(c)(2)(i ) throug h (vi ) require. " See Charle s Hal l Memo , a t VE S 0001293 . USEPA' s supplemental requirement s ar e therefore no t

essentia l o r necessar y t o ensur

e complianc e wit h the CAA—th e essentia

l term s ar e alread y se t fort h i n th

e HW C MAC T an d include d i n Veolia' s current FAP . Thus , Regio n 5 mus t

remov e th

e supplemental FA P requirement s fro mth e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . 2 . The Monitoring Requirements of the HWC

MACT Are Sufficient Th e essential testin g and monitorin g requirement s o f th e HW C MAC T ar

e CPT s (whic h no t

onl y indicate asource' s complianc e wit h emissio n limits , bu t als o ar e use d t o creat e the limit s i n th

e firs t place) , OPLs , an d asource' s FAP . USEP A chos e t o includ e thes e method s i n the HW C MAC T becaus e the y ar

e prove n measure s an d produc e reliabl e and timel y information . Th e rul e als o relie s o n certai n type s o f continuou s emission s monitorin g system s ("CEMS") . A s the acrony mimplies , CEMS , when calibrate d correctly , provid e real-tim e samplin g and analysi s o f a facility' s emissions . Th e HW C MAC T require s tha t source s us e certai n type s o f CEM S to monito r emissions . Specifically , hazardou s wast e incinerator s ar

e require d t

o us e eithe

r acarbo n monoxid e o r

hydrocarbo n CEM S and a n oxyge n CEMS . See 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(a) . Further , th e rul e require s a

n incinerato r

to install , calibrate , maintain , an d continuousl y operat e al l CEM S i n complianc e wit h th

e exac t technica l requirement s calle d "performanc e specifications " se t fort h i n th e appendi x t

o 4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 63 , Subpar

t EEE . I n additio n to the aforementione d CEMS , the HW C MAC T als o provide s tha t incinerator s (an d othe

r HWCs ) mus t

install , calibrate , maintai n

- 27

- VE S 01952 5an d operat e aparticulate matte

r ("PM" ) CEM S to measur e fine particl e emissions . See 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(a)(l)(iii) . However , fo r P M CEMS , th

e rul e make s anotabl e exception : [Complianc e wit h th

e requirement s i n thi s sectio n t o install , calibrate , maintai n and operat

e th e P M CEM S i

s no trequire d unti l suc h time tha

t the Agenc y promulgate s al l performanc e specification s and operationa l requirement s applicabl e to P M CEMS . Id. (emphasi s supplied) . T o date , EP A has ye t t o fulfil l thes e requirements , henc e Veoli aand othe r incinerator s ar

e not require d t o instal l P M CEM S unde r th e rule . Thus , pursuan

t to th e expres s languag e o f

th e HW C MACT , Veoli aoperate s CEM S to measure , amon g othe r constituents , oxyge n an d carbo n monoxid e i n it s emissions . Th e 201 4 Draf

t Permi t issue d to Veolia , however , require s Veoli at o install , calibrate , maintai n an d operat

e amulti-metal s CEMS . 201 4 Draf t Permi t a t 34 . Thi s conditio n wa s impose d notwithstandin g th

e fac t tha t th e HW C MAC T doe s no t require , o r

even mention , multi-metal s CEM S a s a n acceptabl e for mo f

monitoring . USEP A drafte d th

e HW C MAC T carefull y t o ensur e tha t source s implemente d onl y CEM S tha t were technicall y read

y t o produc e accurat

e results . Thi s i s evidence d b y th e delaye d implementatio n schem

e regardin g P M CEM S tha t wa s written-int o the text ofth e regulation s a

t Sectio n 63.1209(a) ( 1 )(iii) . USEP A recognize d tha t source s coul dnot

rel y o n P M CEM S t o produc e reliabl e dat

aunti l the Agenc y ha d vette d th e monitors , drafte d performanc e specifications , an

d promulgate d operational requirements . Moreover , USEP A ha s proceede d wit h cautio n concernin g anumbe r o f othe r CEM S tha

t have been discusse d a

s candidate s fo r complianc e purpose s unde r the HW C MAC T rule , includin g mercur y CEMS , hydrochlori c acid CEMS , chlorin e ga

s CEMS , and multimetal s CEMS . See 64 Fed . Reg . a t 52,930 . I n each instanc e th

e Agenc y stoppe d shor

t o f promulgatin g requirement s fo r thes e CEM S becaus e the monitor s eithe

r di d no t functio n correctl y i n th

e fieldo r coul dno t

mee t performanc e specification s tha

t USEP A drafted . See id. However , th e Agenc y di ddecid e t o provid e source s wit h th e abilit y to petitio n th

e Agenc y to us e aspecifi c CEM S fo r thes e HAP s unde

r 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(a)(5) . Usin g thi s provision , asourc e suc h a s Veoli acoul dpetitio n USEP A t o us e a CEM S i n lie u o f

complyin g wit h OPL s fo r agive n standard . Thus , i f asourc e wer

e s o inclined , it ha s th e abilit y and incentiv e t o mak e aCEM S work

i n exchang e fo r

th e eliminatio n o f

OPL s fo r whateve r HA P the CEM S monitors . USEPA' s decision s a

s se t fort h i n the text

ofth e HW C MAC T regardin g th e implementatio n o f CEM S ar e logica l an d base d o n whe n technolog y i s read y and available . Mor e importantly , th e HW C MAC T als o provide s emission s source s wit h th e powe r and th e incentiv e to pus h CEM S monitorin g and forg o complianc e wit h OPL s whe n th e technolog y i s feasibl e and available . I n contras t t o th e measured approac h o f

the HW C MACT , Regio n 5 ha s arbitraril y an d capriciousl y impose da

n experimental multimetal s CEM S o n Veoli ab y administrativ e fiat. No t onl y i s a multimetal s CEM S no t

require d b y th

e HW C MACT , Region 5' s insistenc e o n pushin g thi s unprove n technolog y o n Veoli ai s counter t o ho w suc h monitorin g technolog y ha s been handle d unde r th e HW C MAC T sinc e th

e rule' s creation .

-28

- VE S 01952 6A s evidence d b y th e thoroug h and carefu l approac h note d above , th e HW C MACT' s monitorin g requirement s ar

e not inadequat

e o r insufficient ; however , Regio n 5' s rational e fo r forcin g a n unprove n multi-metal s CEM S o n Veoli ai s inadequat e an d unreasonable . 3 . 40C. F. R. § 63.1209(g) (2) Does Not Authorize Region 5's Decision to Force Veolia to Install

Multi-Metals CEMS Regio n 5 cite s 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(g)(2 ) a s on e o f it s principl e mean s o f

lega l authorit

y i n suppor t o f requirin g Veoli ato instal l amulti-metal s CEMS . However , 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(g)(2 ) onl y addresse s operatin g parameters , no t CEM S a s use d i n Veolia' s Titl e V . Further , the "alternativ e approache s t o establis h limit s o n operatin g parameters " languag e doe s not suppor t the argumen

t tha t th e CEM S establishe s limit s o n operatin g parameters , sinc e n o limit s ar

e establishe d b y th

e CEMS . Whil e Veoli ama y nee d to explai n th

e caus e o f

adeviatio n and any action s it ma y voluntaril y choos e t

o tak e i n response , Veoli ai s require d t o compl y wit h the FA P a s se t fort h i n it s draf

t Titl e V permi t

durin g th

e perio dtha

t th e CEM S i s operating . Th e CEM S doe s no t establis h alternativ e limit s i n the FA P no r doe s i t have an y presen

t effec t o n any ofth e other operatin g parameter s se t fort h i n Veolia' s Titl e V permit . A relationshi p between the paramete r t o be measured vi aparametri c monitorin g and th e surrogat

e bein g measure d mus t

b e establishe d before USEP A can appl y parametri c monitorin g t o asource . I n thi s instance , ther e i s n o suc h relationship . I n fact , Regio n 5 i s improperl y usin g th e multi-metal s CEM S to establis h suc h arelationship . Th e inapplicabilit y o f

§ 63.1209(g ) to the CEM S requiremen t containe d withi n the 201 4 Draf t Permi t i s borne ou

t i n the firs t

par t o f § 63.1209(g ) whic h restrict s thi s sectio n t o "[alternativ e monitorin g requirement s othe r tha n continuou s emission s monitorin g system s (CEMS). " Sectio n 63.1209(g ) i s clearl y intende d t o allo w the Administrato r t o impos e additiona l non CEM S operatin g requirement s o n the facilit y i f i t i s determine d tha

t the y ar e needed . Ther

e i s n o mentio n o f

CEM s i n thi s paragraph . Thi s paragrap h specificall y mention s "additiona l o r alternativ e operatin g parameters " and "alternativ e approache s to establis h limit s o n operatin g parameters. " Further , § 63.1209(g)(2 ) allow s th e Administrato r

t o impos e additiona l operatin g parameter s (even give s the exampl e o f opacity fo r

PM) , bu t doe s not giv e th e Administrato r

th e authorit y t o requir

e afacilit y to instal l and operat e amulti-meta l CEMs. 1 6 I f th e regulator

y languag e i s no t

sufficien t

t o mak e thi s point , on e onl y need s to loo k a t th e Federa l Registe r

preambl e t o th

e Fina l HW C MAC T rule , th e Federa l Registe r

preambl e to th

e propose d HW C MAC T rule , th e Technica l Suppor

t Document , and the Respons e to Comment Document

- none o f

whic h provid e authorit

y fo r requirin g CEMS . I n HW C MAC T propose d rule , 6 9 Fed . Reg . 21,19 8 (Apri l 20 , 2004) , Sectio n 63.1209(g)(2 ) i s mentione d 3 time s al l o n the sam e page :

1 6This determinatio

n i s als o require d t o b e o n a case-by-cas

e basi s an d canno tb e base d o n a polic y t o requir e al l HWC s t o instal l CEM S (whic

h ca n onl y b e don e throug h a properl

y notice d rulemaking) . -29

- VE S 01952 7Finally , we not e that , i n the interi munti l w e determine whethe r t o promulgat

e a maximu mp H limi t

t o contro l mercur

y emissions , site-specifi c o r othe r informatio n ma

y lead the delegate d regulator y authorit

y t o conclud e unde

r §63.1209(g)(2 ) tha

t alimi t o n the maximu mp H o f

we t scrubbe r liqui dmay b

e warrante d to ensur

e complianc e wit h th

e mercur y emissio n standard . Th e curren

t regulation s require yo u t o establis h site-specifi c operatin g paramete r limit s to ensur

e performanc e o f

electrostati c precipitators , ionizin g we t scrubbers , and fabri c filters. See § 63.1209(m)(l)(iv).28 2 Regulator y official s revie w and approv e thos e operatin g paramete r limit s and ma

y require additiona l o r

alternativ e limit s unde

r § 63.1209(g)(2). [Footnot e 282. ] Pleas e not

e tha t § 63.1209(m)(l)(iv ) inadvertentl y indicate s tha t th e requiremen

t t o establis h site-specifi c operatin g limit s applie s t o contro l device s othe

r tha n ionizin g wet

scrubbers , baghouses , and electrostati c precipitators . W e shoul d have revise d tha t paragraph t

o requir e site-specifi c operatin g paramete

r limit s fo r

thos e contro l device s whe n w e revise d paragrap h (m)(l ) to delet

e the operatin g paramete r limit s fo r

thos e devices . Th e delegate d regulator y authorit

y can us e § 63.1209(g)(2 ) to requir

e yo u t o establis h site

specifi c operatin g paramete r limit s fo r

thos e contro l device s prio r to the effectiv e dat e o f th e final rul e base d o n today' s propose d rule . 6 9 Fed . Reg . a

t 21,34 6 (emphasi s added) . Th e onl y mentio n o f § 63.1209(g)(2 ) i n th

e final HW C MAC T rule , 7 0 Fed . Reg . 59,40 2 (Oct . 12 , 2005) , i s a s follows . Finally , al l sources—thos e wit h eithe r we t o r dr y gas—shoul d preconditio n th e samplin g trai n fo r on e hour prio r to beginnin g the tes t

t o satisf y th e filter's affinit y fo r

hydroge n chloride . Th e permittin g authorit y wil l ensur

e tha t source s preconditio n th

e sampl e trai n (unde r authorit y o f § 63.1209(g)(2)

) when they revie w and approv e the performanc e tes t plan . 7 0 Fed . Reg . a

t 59,42 9 (emphasi s added) . USEP A mention s the us e o f § 63.1209(g)(2 ) fou r time s i n the Technica l Suppor t Document

fo r th e 200 5 rul e (Volum e 4 , pag e number s a t the en d o f eac h quote) . Nevertheless , a10-minut e averagin g period , o r

perhap s instantaneou s limits , ma y b e mor e appropriat

e fo r som e parameter s a

t som e sites . Th e Agency , unde r §63.1209(g)(2) , ca

n specif y additiona l or

alternativ e requirement s (includin g shorte r averagin g periods ) o n acase-b y cas e basi s i f the y ar e necessar

y t o bette r assur e complianc e wit h the emissio n standards . (2-14 ) Liqui dinjectio n nozzl e pressur e ~ I n som

e scrubber s designe d fo r P M control , nozzle s ar

e use d an d relie d upo n to atomiz e th e scrubbin g liquid . Fo r

thes e systems , alimi t

o n minimu mnozzl e pressur e ma y be require d to ensur

e adequat e -30

- VE S 01952 8liqui datomization , a s determine d b y permittin g official s o n asite-specifi c basi s unde r the provision s o f

§63.1209(g)(2) . I

t i s recommende d tha

t complianc e b

e base d o n a1-hou

r rollin g averag e time period , an d tha t th e limi t be se t base d o n manufacturer

o r equipmen

t designer specifications . (4-14 ) However , ther

e i s concer

n tha t carbo n monoxid e o r

hydrocarbo n monitorin g ma y no t b e adequat

e t o ensur e tha t goo d combustio n practic e wil l b e maintaine d and tha t emission s standard s wil l b e me t fo r al l batc h fee d operations . Becaus e oxyge n depletio n can occu r

very rapidl y due to batc h overcharging , whe n C O o r H C begi n to approac h th

e standar d i t ma y be to o lat

e to appl y correctiv e action . T o addres s thi s concern , regulator y official s can impos e additiona l operatin g paramete r limit s tha

t ma y affec t batc h feedin g operation s fo r aspecifi c sit

e eithe r usin g discretionar

y authorit y provide db y §63.1209(g)(2 ) o r throug h a

n enforcement

action . (8-3 ) Afte r the MAC T complianc e date , permittin g official s wil l likel y becom e awar e o f inefficien t

o r unstabl e batc h feedin g operations , sinc e asourc e i s require d to submi t arepor t t o th e Agenc y i f

it exceed s an

y o f it s operatin g paramete

r limit s (suc h as the C O o r

H C standard

) mor e than 1 0 time s i n a6 0 da y period . I

t i s anticipate d tha

t permittin g official s wil l tak e th e opportunit

y to revie w batc h fee d operation s and , i f

i t i s determine d tha

t batc h fee d operation s d

o contribute t

o the frequenc y o f

exceedances , wil l us e th e authorit

y unde r §63.1209(g)(2 ) t o establis h batc h fee d operatin g paramete r limits . (8-4 ) Finally , ther

e i s onl y on

e mentio n o f

the us e o f

§63.1209(g)(2 ) i n th

e Respons e to Comment Document s (Volum e 3 , pag e 249-250) : A t the sam e time , w e ar

e no t prohibitin g th

e selectio n o f

amaximu mp H limi t

o n scrubbe r liquor , i f mad e b y th e permi t write r o n asite-specifi c basis , unde r Sectio n 63.1209(g)(2), and determine d fromfactor s suc h as : (1 ) proximit y o f projecte d emission s to th e MAC T standard ; (2 ) relativ e degree o f wet scrubbe r mercur y contro l achieve d and feedrat e o f mercury ; (3 ) previou s complianc e history ; an d (4 ) scrubbe

r desig n an d operational practices . A l l o f th e reference s i n th

e regulations , preambles , technica l suppor t document , and respons e t o comment s documen

t ar e interpretin g § 63.1209(g)(2 ) to requir e additiona l o r

modifie doperatin g parameters . Ther

e i s no mentio n o f

usin g thi s sectio n to requir e installin g o r

operatin g aCEMS . Thus , § 63.1209(g)(2 ) fail s to provid e Regio n 5 th e authorit y t o requir

e afacilit y t

o instal l an d operat e amulti-metal s CEMs . Th e fac t is , th e HW C MAC T allow s Veolia , no t th e Region 5 , t

o petitio n whethe

r to us e aCEM S i n lie u o f complyin g wit h the correspondin g OPLs . See 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(a)(5) . Thi s arrangement , containe d i n on e par t o f § 63.1209 , belie s an

y suggestio n tha

t anothe r par t o f

-3 1 - VE S 01952 9§63.1209 , includin g § 63.1209(g)(2) , allow s Regio n 5 to requir e Veoli ato instal l amulti-metal s CEMS. 1 7 4 . Section 114 of the CAA Does Not

Authorize Region 5's Permitting Decision Sectio n 114(a)(1 ) o f

the CA A i s agenera

l provisio n relatin g to the authorit y ofth e USEP A t o reques t informatio n necessar

y fo r developin g plan s and standards , "determinin g whethe r an y perso n i s i n violatio n o f any suc h standar

d o r an y requiremen

t o f suc h aplan, " an d "carrying ou t any provisio n o f

thi s chapter. " 4 2 U.S.C . § 7414(a)(1) . Regio n 5 admit s tha t requirin g Veoli at

o instal l amulti-metal s CEM S i s not fo r the purpose s stated i n Sectio n 114(a ) but i s instea d necessar y "t o asses s whethe

r th e identifie dparameter s and operatin g paramete r level s ar e adequat e to assur e complianc e wit h emission s limit s se t fort h i n the HW C MACT. " Statemen t o f Basi s a t 53 . I n othe

r words , the state d purpos e o f th e multi-metal s CEM S i s no t t o determine whethe r Veoli ai s i n violatio n ofth e HW C MAC T emission s limits , but t o asses s whethe

r th e establishe d OPL s ar

e sufficient . Region 5 doe s not explai n wh y requirin g Veoli ato instal l a multi-metal s CEM S i s necessar y fo r th e purpos e o f

"carryin g out " any provisio n o f the CA A o r eve n cite t

o aprovisio n o f

th e Ac t bein g carrie d out . Th e permi t

provisio n o f

th e CAA , § 504(a) , als o doe s not requir e Veoli ato instal l amulti-metal s CEMS . See 4 2 U.S.C . § 7661c(a) . A s state d above , the HW C MAC T sets th e conditions , includin g th

e OPLs , tha

t ar e "necessary " t o assur

e complianc e wit h the applicabl e emission s limits . I n fact , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7661c(b ) explicitl y state s tha t "continuou s emission s monitorin g nee d no t b e require d i f

alternativ e method s ar

e availabl e tha

t provid e sufficientl y reliabl e an d timel y informatio n fo r

determinin g compliance. " Importantly , USEP A ha s previousl y rejecte d requirin g CEM S i n order t o "assur e compliance " pursuan t t o § 114(a

) and § 504(a

) ofth e CAA . O n October 22 , 1997 , USEP A issue d th e Complianc e Assuranc e Monitorin g (o r "CAM" ) rul e establishin g enhance d monitorin g an d complianc e certificatio n requirement s fo r certai n majo r

stationar y source s a

t 4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 64 . 6 2 Fed . Reg . 54,90 0 (Oct . 22 , 1997) . A s USEP A explaine d i n the Federa l Registe r Preambl e to th e CA M rule :

1 7EP A Regio

n 5' s focu

s o n CEM S ma

y b e a resul tof a misunderstandin

g ofth e methodolog

y tha tUSEP A ha

s establishe

d fo r determinin

g complianc

e wit h emission

s limits . Th

e Statemen

tofBasi s a

t6 3 cite s page s 2- 5 an d Figur e 1 o f AP-42 fo

r th e "hierarchy " tha

tVeoli a mus

tfollo w whe n calculatin

g emissions. Se

e A P 4 2 a t http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/c00s00.pdf . Th e Statemen

tofBasi s misquote

s th e informatio

n i n th e documen

t b y holdin g CEM S result

s t o b e superio r t o result s of a n applicabl

e performanc

e test . Sinc e th e emission

s limit s ar e base d o n level s achievabl

e an d demonstrabl

e pursuan

tt o th e relevan tperfonnanc

e test , settin g CEM S result

s superio r t o perfonnanc

e tes tresult s i s inappropriate

. Se e Portlan d Cemen tAssociatio

n v . Ruckelshaus

, 48 6 F.2 d 375 , 39 6 (D.C . Cir . 1973), cert , denied , 41 7 U.S . 92

1 (1974 ) (" a significan

tdifferenc

e betwee n technique

s use d by th e agenc y i n arrivin

g a tstandards

, an d requirement

s presentl

y prescribe

d fo r determinin

g complianc

e wit h standards

, raise s seriou s question

s abou tth e validit y ofth e standard."). I

n addition

, th e Statemen

tofBasi s set

s u p a situatio n wher e Veoli a mus

tus e CEM S dat

a i f availabl e t o determin

e whethe r i ti s complyin

g wit h th e relevan t emission s levels, bu

tallow s "EPA , th

e public, o

r othe r regulator

y agencies " t

o us e "credibl

e evidence " unde

r th e Credibl e Evidenc

e Rul e of 6 2 Fed . Reg . 831

4 (Feb. 24

, 1997 ) t o challeng

e Veolia' s complianc

e wit h th e HW C MACT . No

tonl y i s thi s no tfair , i ti s inconsisten

twit h th e explici tlanguag

e ofth e Credibl

e Evidenc

e Rule . -32

- VE S 01953 0Ther e ar e tw o basi c approache s to assurin g tha t contro l measure s take n b y th

e owne r o r operator t o achiev e complianc e ar e properl y operate d and maintaine d s o tha t the owne r o r operator continue s t

o achiev e complianc e wit h applicabl e requirements . One metho d i s to establis h monitorin g a s ametho d fo r

directl y determinin g continuou s complianc e wit h applicabl e requirements . Th e Agenc y has adopte d thi s approac h i n som e rulemaking s and , as discusse d below , i s committe d to followin g thi s approac h whenever appropriat

e i n futur e rulemakings . Anothe r approac h i s t

o establis h monitorin g fo r th e purpos e of : (1 ) Documentin g continue d operatio n ofth e contro l measure s withi n range s o f specifie dindicator s o f

performanc e (suc h a

s emissions , contro l devic e parameter s and proces s parameters ) tha t ar e designe d t o provid e areasonabl e assuranc e o f complianc e wit h applicabl e requirements ; (2 ) indicatin g any excursion s fromthes e ranges ; and (3 ) respondin g t

o th e dat as o tha t excursion s ar

e corrected . Th e Par t 64 publishe d toda

y adopt s thi s secon d approac h a s an appropriat

e approac h to enhancin g monitorin g i n the context o f Titl e V permittin g fo r

significan t

emissio n unit s tha

t us e contro l device s t o achiev e complianc e wit h emissio n limits . 6 2 Fed . Reg . a

t 54,902 . I n adoptin g th

e CA M rule , USEP A expressl y rejecte d the earlie r propose d bu

t neve r finalize dEnhance dMonitorin g Rule , 5 8 Fed . Reg . 54,64 8 (Oct . 22 , 1993) , whic h ha d aperceive d bia s o f

requirin g CEM S a

s th e onl y appropriate metho d fo r assurin g continuou s compliance . See 6 2 Fed . Reg . a t 5492 3 ("Sectio n 64.3(d ) .. . clarifie s tha t the rul e doe s no t mandat e the us e o f

CEM S i n situation s wher e suc h monitorin g i s no t alread y required." ) Thus , neithe

r § 11 4 or §50 4 provide s Regio n 5 wit h authorit y t o impos e multi-metal s CEM S o n Veolia . 5 . The Multi-Metals CEMS As Imposed

on Veolia Is Not

a Parametric Monitor Region 5 include s th

e followin g i n th

e Statemen

t ofBasis : Therefore , 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(g)(2 ) and 4 2 U.S.C . § 7414(a) provid e th e authorit y t o requir

e installatio n an

dtemporar

y us e o f amulti-metal s Continuou s Paramete r Monitorin g Syste m(CPMS ) to asses s whethe r the identifie d parameter s an

d operatin g paramete

r level s ar e adequat

e t o assur e complianc e wit h the emissio n limit s se

t fort h i n th

e FTW C MACT . Unde r

thes e authorities , a CPM S usin g CEM S technolog y ca n b e use dto indicate performanc e and not necessaril y a

s adirec t measur e o f emissions . EP A ha s previousl y employe d thi s approac h i n th

e context o f th e Portlan d Cemen

t MAC T rulemakin g i n whic h EP A require d affecte d source s t o instal l P M CEM S bu

t t o operat

e eac h P M CEM S a

s a CPM S .. . Therefore , throughout thi s documen

t an dVeolia' s permit , EP A i s usin g the ter mmulti-metal s CEM S to reflec t th e us e o f th e CEM S a

s aCPMS . -33

- VE S 01953 1Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 54 . Parametri c monitorin g i s premise d o n th e ide ao f measurin g o r collectin g dat

ao n on e variabl e fo r

th e purpose s o f

determinin g avalu e associate d wit h asecon d variable . Thi s i s th

e "parametri c relationship. " T o have meaning , ther e mus t be a n establishe d correlatio n between th

e variables . I n th

e emission s monitorin g context , aCEM S i s sometime s use d t o measur e a"surrogate " pollutan t fo r th e pollutan t

o f concern . Fo r

example , aCarbo n Monoxid e ("CO" ) CEM S i s sometime s use d to determine whethe r asourc e i s complyin g wit h it s Volatil e Organi c Compoun d ("VOC" ) limit . Th e C O CEM S measure s C O concentration s whic h chang e wit h the amoun

t o f VOC s bein g emitted . See USEPA , Technolog y Transfe r Network , Continuou s Monitorin g System s at http://cfbub.epa.gov/oameb/mkb/Basic_Information.cfm . B y correlatin g the amoun t o f C O wit h th

e VO C emissions , th

e sourc e ca

n determine whethe

r i t i s complyin g wit h it s limi t withou t actuall y measurin g VOC s directly . Th e Portlan d Cement

MAC T ("P C MACT" ) use s aP M CEM S i n muc h the sam e way . USEP A decide d tha

t P M CEM S coul dnot

be include d i n th

e P C MAC T becaus e the CEM S coul dno t meetth e requirement s o f Performanc e Specificatio n 11 . See 7 8 Fed . Reg . 10,006 , 10,01 9 (Feb . 12 , 2013) . However , the Agenc y stil l require d source s to us e P M CEM S to measur e relativ e increase s and decrease s i n P M concentration . I n othe r words , the rul e doe s not requir e the CEM S t o measur

e th e actual output

o f PM , but doe s utiliz e the P M CEM S t o determine i f

a sourc e i s puttin g ou

t mor e o r les s P M a

t an y give n time . See id. ("Thi s relationshi p i s notabl y coarser i n term s o f

understandin g the precis e P M concentratio n i n the stack , but th e instrument' s sensitivity to changin g P M concentratio n i n the stack .. . doe s no

t deteriorat

e and ma y stil l be employe dt o qualitatively monito r P M emissions." ) (emphasi s added) . Th e P C MAC T scheme , therefore , i s totall y differen t tha n Regio n 5' s proposa l tha t Veoli aus e a multi-metal s CEM S to arriv e a t discret e numerica l reading s t o determin e whethe r th e OPL s fo r mercury , LVMs , an

d SVM s ar

e valid . Th e P C MAC T work s of f o f the traditiona l premis e o f parametri c monitoring— aknow n correlatio n between variables . I n Veolia' s instance , ther e i s n o know n correlation . However , eve n i f th e P C MAC T di d suppor

t Regio n 5' s positio n regardin g th e us e o f amulti-metal s CEM S b y Veolia , whic h Veoli adisputes , Regio n 5 misse s acrucia l distinctio n between the P C MAC T proces s and th e Veoli apermi t

process : the requirement t o us e aCEM S a

s CPM S unde

r th e P C MAC T wa s promulgate d pursuant to aMAC T rulemakin g proces s unde

r Sectio n 11 2 o f

th e CAA , no t

a s par t o f apermi t decisio n regardin g aparticula r facility . Regio n 5 canno t simpl y cal l th

e multi-metal s CEM S somethin g i t i s no t ( aCPMS ) i n orde r t o legaliz e it s implementation . Moreover , becaus e Regio n 5 lack s any lega l authorit y fo r it s decisio n t o impos e supplementa l FA P requirement s and amulti-metal s CEM S o n Veolia , thos e condition s mus t

be delete d fromth

e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . B . Regio

n 5 i s Arbitraril y an

d Capriciousl

y Requirin g th

e Us e o f a n Unprove

n Technolog

y (i.e. , a multi-metal

s CEMS ) t

o Verif y a Prove

n an d Required Mean s o f Complianc

e (i.e. , th e OPL S an

d FAP ) an

d th e Agenc y Ha s Improperl

y Modifie d th

e Proces s fo r Alternative Monitorin g Th e regulation s recogniz e OPL s and afeedstrea manalysi s pla n ("FAP" ) a s the primary mean s t o verif y complianc e wit h the HW C MACT . I n th e propose d permit , USEP A require s the us e o f a unprove n technolog y (i.e . amulti-metal s CEMS ) to verif y arequire d mean s o f

complianc e (th

e OPL S and FAP) . -34

- VE S 01953 2A l l commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator s i n Regio n 5 , including Veolia , demonstrat e complianc e wit h HW C MAC T throug h FAPs , OPLs , an d stac k testing . Non e o f

th e commercia l hazardou s wast

e incinerator s i n Regio n 5 have multi-metal s CEMS . Roberso n Aff . a t VE S 008292 . USEP A acknowledge d tha t no commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator s have installe d CEM S to measur

e HA P metal s b y statin g "[s]omeone has t o be first " whe n Veoli aquestione d the feasibilit y o f

applyin g the CEM S technolog y to ahazardou s wast e incinerato r

and th e competitiv e impac t

suc h technolog y woul dhav e o n Veoli ai f Veoli awa s the onl y entit y i n th e industr y force dto instal l suc h experimental technology . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008382 . Unde r the HW C MAC T rule , hazardou s wast e incinerator s suc h a

s Veoli amus t

conduc t comprehensiv e performanc e test s (4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1207(b) ) t o establis h OPLs , mus t characteriz e the feedstrea

mprio r to feedin g the materia

l into th e incinerato r

and documen

t the amoun

t o f mercury , semi-volatil e metal s (lead and cadmium ) and low-volatil e metal s (arsenic , beryllium , chromium ) i n eac h feedstrea m(4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(c)) . Pursuant to th e HW C MACT , Veoli ai s give n the choic e eithe

r to documen

t complianc e wit h th

e OPL s o r

petitio n USEP A to instal l and operat e aCEM S to directl y measur e emissions . Veoli ahas chose n to documen t complianc e wit h the OPLs . Sectio n 63.1209(c ) require s tha t asubjec t facilit y mus t

hav e aFA P "tha

t i s sufficien t to documen

t complianc e wit h th

e applicabl e fee d rat

e limits. " Th e pla n mus t be submitte d t

o USEP A o n request . Veoli ahas documente d it s complianc e consistent wit h th e regulations . I n fact , a s USEP A state d i n it s June 18 , 201 2 memorandum , "Veolia' s FA P literall y has al l o f th e element s tha

t 4 0 C.F.R . §63.1209(c)(2)(i ) throug h (vi ) require. " Charle s Hal l Jul y 1 8 Mem o a t VE S 001291-001294 ; VE S 001293 ; Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 47 . Th e HW C MAC T rul e doe s no t mandat e th e us e o f CEM S to documen

t complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T limit s fo r

mercury , lo w volatil e metals , sem i volatil e metal s o r

chlorine . I n th

e past , USEP A has allege d tha t th e reaso n CEM S wer

e no t require d i n pas t

permit s was , i n part , due t o EPA' s determinatio n tha t performanc e specification s fo r mercur y o r multi-metal s CEM S wer e no t ye t availabl e whe n USEP A finalizedth e HW C MAC T rule . See VE S 000159 . T o date , nothin g has changed—USEP A stil l ha s no t promulgate d performanc e specification s o r ongoin g quality assuranc e o r

quality contro l procedure s fo r multi-metal s CEMS . I n plac e o f promulgated , tested , an d vali dperformanc e specifications , Regio n 5 i s no w attemptin g t o substantiat

e th e multi-metal s CEM S wit h Other Tes t Metho d ("OTM" ) 1 6 and OT M 20 . Statemen t ofBasi s 61 . Thi s approac h and thes e method s ar e flawe di n several respects . Wit h regard t

o thi s approach , Regio n 5 states—without suppor t o r an y citatio n whatsoever—tha t "EPA' s historica l practic e indicates , OT M specification s and procedure s ca n be use d fo r complianc e purpose s wit h th e approval o f

the permittin g authority. " Statemen t ofBasi s 62 . Regio n 5' s vagu e and unsupporte d referenc e t o "historica l practice " show s the arbitrar y and capriciou s natur

e ofth e Agenc y decisionmakin g i n thi s instance . Moreover , Regio n 5' s approac h i s i n direc t

conflic t wit h th e "historica l practice " tha t the Agenc y displaye d whe n promulgatin g the HW C MAC T rule . Specifically , wit h regard t o th e implementatio n o f

P M CEM S i n th

e HW C MACT , th

e Agenc y promulgate d arequirement fo r P M CEM S but

als o delaye d implementatio n o f th e requiremen

t "unti l suc h tim e tha

t th e Agenc y promulgates al l performanc e specification s and operational requirement s applicabl e t o P M CEMS. " 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(a)(l)(iii ) (emphasi s supplied) . Promulgatio n o f standard s i s afor mo f

notic e and commen t rulemakin g wher

e impacte d partie s and th e general publi c can weig h i n wit h comment s -35

- VE S 01953 3tha t bolster , challenge , and otherwis e tes t th e standard s tha

t Regio n 5 i s seekin g t o implement . Makin g vague reference s to "historica l practice " an d postin g OTM s o n awebsit e ar e afa r cr y fromthi s process . See Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 61 . Thus , contrar

y to the measure d wa y tha t P M CEM S have bee n ushere d into th e HW C MAC T scheme , the Agenc y i s tryin g t o arbitraril y an d capriciousl y forc e multi-metal s CEM S o n Veoli awithou t properl y vetted , tested , and promulgate d perfonnanc e specification s and operational parameters . A s discusse d elsewher

e i n mor e detai l i n thes e comments , th e OT M specification s ar e als o dramaticall y flawe dan d biased . The y wer e develope d b y the sol e markete r o f th e multi-metal s CEM S technolog y a

t afacility—th e forme r

El i Lill y incinerator—an d unde r condition s tha

t d o no t compar e t o th e condition s encountere d a t commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerators . Further , eve n i f th e OT M specification s wer e vali do r applicabl e t o th

e Veoli aunits , Regio n 5 ha s no t provide dsufficien t

operational parameter s fo r Veoli at o full y implement

the multi-metal s CEMS . Veoli amus t

stil l grappl e wit h sample-trai n issue s (i.e. , ho w t o connec t th e multi-metal s CEM S t o Veolia' s unit s to ensur

e arepresentativ e sampl e arrive s a t th e monitor ) and wha

t quality assurance/qualit

y contro l and calibratio n measure s t o use . Region 5 state s tha t i t i s allowe dt o "impos e continuou s monitorin g requirement s under th e Titl e V withou t

apromulgate d performanc e specification , provide d tha t w e includ e appropriat

e Q A and Q C procedure s withi n the permit. " Statemen

t ofBasi s 62 . Regio n 5 doe s no t hav e tha t authority , bu

t even i f it did , it ha s faile dit s ow n tes t

b y no t includin g appropriate Q A and Q C measure s i n th e permit . I n short , i t i s impossibl e t

o determine whethe

r th e multi-metal s CEM S operate s correctly . Roberso n Aff . a t VE S 008290-008302 . Nevertheless , Regio n 5 justifie s it s attemp t to forc e Veoli at

o instal l amulti-metal s CEM S b y stating : [T]he recor d fo r

EPA' s propose d actio n o n Veolia' s Titl e V permi t renewal applicatio n support s th

e conclusio n tha

t the monitorin g alread

y performe d b y Veoli adoe s not

provid e sufficien t

dat afo r EP A t o determine tha

t th e metal feedrat e OPL s propose d b y Veoli aar e stringent

enoug h t o assur e complianc e wit h the HW C MAC T metal s emission s limit s regardles s o f the mi x o f

waste s bein g incinerate d o r

th e combustio n conditions , give n the heterogeneit y o f th e wast e tha t Veoli aincinerate s and EPA' s observation s o n Veolia' s operatio n practices . Multi-metal s CEM S woul dprovid e the datatha t EP A need s t o verif

y th e stringenc y o f

th e meta l feedrat e OPL s propose d b y Veolia . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 57 . However , Regio n 5' s Statemen t ofBasi s fall s shor

t o f establishin g tha

t multi-metal s CEM S wil l provid e accurat e data . Further , Regio n 5 refuse s to allo w Veoli ato utiliz e the multi-metal s CEM S technolog y i n lie u o f it s emissio n monitorin g requirements . Rather the draf t permi t instruct s Veolia : Durin g the 12-mont

h period , Veoli awil l continu e t o monito r feedrate s usin g th e procedure s i n it s FA P and the additiona l feedstrea manalysi s procedure s propose d i n th e Titl e V permit . I n addition , durin g th e 12

- mont h perio d durin g whic h it operate s th

e multi-meta l CEMS , Veoli awil l b e require d to compl y wit h the feedrat e limit s fo r

mercury , LV M an

d SVM . -36

- VE S 01953 4Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 55 . Region 5' s action s ar e inconsistent

wit h the regulation s and it s logi c i s flawed . Regio n 5 i s requirin g ametho d (multi-metal s CEM S technology ) not approve d i n the regulation s (absen

t apetitio n and additional proo f provide db y Veolia ) to verif y ametho d (OPL s an d th e FAP ) approve d b y the regulation s t o demonstrat

e compliance . Region 5' s analysi s make s OPL s an d th

e FA P irrelevant

an d unnecessary . Th e onl y reasonabl e explanatio n fo r Regio n 5' s demand tha

t Veoli aus e bot

h amulti-meta l CEM S an

d OPLs/FA P i s tha

t Regio n 5 lack s sufficien t knowledg e about , or

confidenc e in , th

e multi-metal s CEM S to allo w it s us e fo r complianc e purpose s (notwithstandin g th e representation s mad

e i n th e Statemen

t ofBasis) . A s already discussed , Regio n 5' s lac k o f knowledg e o f

the technolog y i s reflecte d i n Regio n 5' s unprecedente d relianc e o n th e financiall y intereste d Pal l and Coope r to explai n the technolog y an d respon d t o Veolia' s objections . See VE S 001368-001371 . Further , Regio n 5' s lac k o f confidenc e woul dexplain , a t leas t i n part , wh y USEP A ha

s neve r require d any commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

t o instal l amulti-metal s CEM S t o addres s a

n issue tha

t Regio n 5 allege s exist s a t al l incinerators—whethe r th e FA P and OPL s ar e sufficien t

to assur e continuou s complianc e wit h the HW C MACT . Veoli ai s th

e onl y commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

i n th e countr y tha t ha s aUSEP A regio n a s it s permittin g authority . Region 5 i s usin g thi s uniqu e opportunit y to attemp

t t o addres s wha t i t (wrongly ) believe s ar

e problem s wit h the wa y the HW C MAC T require s source s to sho w compliance—i.e. , CPT s and th e creatio n o f

OPL s and aFAP . Regio n 5 i s no t evaluatin g Veolia' s renewe d permi t s o muc h a

s it i s usin g Veoli a(a

t Veolia' s expense ) to exploi t wha t i t see s as issue s wit h th

e HW C MAC T Rule . Thi s i s unlawful , unfair , and arbitrar y and capriciou s a s applie d t o Veolia . Regio n 5 i s als o actin g i n an arbitrar y and capriciou s manne

r b y selectin g Veoli ato pay fo r

a n experimental CEM S t o benefi t Regio n 5 so tha

t th e Agenc y can obtai n mor e informatio n abou

t th e technolog y and determin e whethe r multi-metal s CEM S technolog y can operat e and accuratel y provid e multi-metal s analysi s whe n use d i n commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerators . Thi s i s likewis e unfai r a s applie d t o Veolia . Regio n 5 cannot unlawfull y mak

e Veoli ait' s "guine apig " wit h regar d t o the multi-metal s CEM S jus t becaus e i

t has th e opportunit

y t o d o so . Regio n 5' s lac k

o f fait h i n th

e CEM S and the Agency' s unfairnes s whe n dealin g wit h Veoli ai s furthe r expose d b y Regio n 5' s inexplicabl e action s wit h regard to arecen t Consen t Decre e entere d into between Regio n 5 an d Ros s Incineratio n Services , Inc . ("Ross") . Th e Consent Decre e aros e ou

t o f USEPA' s allegation s tha t Ros s violate d several provision s o f the HW C MACT , including exceedin g thei r OPL s fo r

mercury . See Unite dState s o f Americ avs . Ros s Incineratio n Servs. , Inc , Cas e No . l:12-cv-01441-DAP , U.S . Dist . Cour t N.D . Ohi o (June 7 , 2012 ) a t VE S 016712-016776 . I n it s complaint , th e Unite dState s allege s tha t o n multipl e occasion s sinc e Augus t

4 , 2006 , Ros s violate d it s Maximu mTota l Mercur y Feedrat e OPL . Compl . a t fflf 94-9 9 a t VE S 016727-016728 . Despite thi s allegation , whic h accuse s Ros s o f actuall y feedin g mor

e mercur y tha n it s permi t allowed , Regio n 5 entered int o aConsent

Decre e wit h Ros s o n October 24 , 2014 , tha

t make s no t eve n th e slightes t

referenc e to amulti-metal s CEM S o r an y other for mo f CEMS . Th e Consent Decre e catalog s asignifican t amoun t o f operational and capita l improvement s tha t Ros s mus t make , including certai n monitorin g upgrades , but inexplicabl y doe s no t

requir e Ros s to implemen t

aCEM S fo r

MAC T metal s compliance . I f USEP A trul y believe s tha t amulti-metal s CEM S can produc e accurat e result s i n acommercia l incineratio n environment , the n the y either

-37

- VE S 01953 5overlooke dthe opportunit y t o emplo y th

e technolog y a

t Ros s o r the y ar e not bein g hones t

abou t thei r motive s wit h regar

d t o Veolia . Finally , unde

r 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.7(f) , i f

afacilit y petition s t o us e aCEM S a s a n alternativ e tes t method , th

e petitioner

mus t prov e tha

t th e CEM S technolog y wil l wor k i n th e application . However , i n thi s case , Regio n 5 i s arbitraril y and capriciousl y mandatin g tha t Veoli autiliz e a multi-metal s CEM S wit h no proo f tha t it wil l work . I f

Veoli aha

d petitione d the Agenc y to us e th e technolog y and offere dn o proo f tha t i t woul dwork , th

e Agenc y woul dhav e summaril y and correctl y rejecte d th

e request . Moreover , Regio n 5 i s effectivel y actin g as th e petitione r

vouchin g fo r

th e effectiv e operatio n and accurac y o f

the new and unteste d multi-metal s CEM S technolog y a s an alternativ e tes t metho d unde

r 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.7(f) . However , USEP A doe s no t have the authorit

y to impos e thi s alternativ e tes t

metho d o n Veolia . Rather , th e regulatio n provide s that : Th e owne

r o r operator o f a n affecte d sourc e require d to d o performanc e testin g b y arelevant

standar d ma y us e a n alternativ e tes t

metho d fromtha

t specifie di n th

e standard . 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.7(f)(2 ) (emphasi s added) . USEP A i s no t a n "owne r o r operator " tha

t ca n reques t a n alternativ e metho d unde r th e regulation . Sectio n 63.7(f ) doe s no t

allo w USEP A to unilaterall y require Veoli at o us e a n alternativ e tes t

metho d suc h a

s the multi-metal s CEMS , but eve n i f i t did , tha t requiremen

t woul dbe impermissibl e becaus e th e multi-metal s CEM S ha s no t bee n validate d as a

n acceptabl e sourc e o f

data . Regio n 5 i s require d t

o accuratel y se

t fort h th e lega l an d factua l base s fo r permi t conditions , however , i t

faile dt o d

o s o i n th e Statemen

t ofBasis . Veoli ashoul d not be mad e to bea r the ris k o f failur e o f

th e multi-metal s CEM S technolog y whe n Veoli ahas demonstrate d and wil l continu e to demonstrat

e complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T b y th

e prescribe d methods—OPLs , FA P and CP T testing . Veoli ahas no t petitione d t o us e the multi-metal s CEM S technolog y a s a n alternativ e t

o traditiona l method s o f

demonstratin g compliance . Th e monitorin g firms tha t stan d to gai n financially fromth e sal e o f th e multi-metal s CEM S shoul d incu r th e expens e necessar

y to demonstrat

e t o USEP A and industr

y tha t CEM S technolog y i s robus t an d accurate . Similarly , USEP A shoul d independently revie w the technolog y and implement it throug h rulemakin g i f

i t i s atechnolog y tha

t USEP A wishe s to mandat e the hazardou s wast

e incineratio n industr

y t o use . Th e CEM S requiremen

t shoul d b e remove d fromth e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . C . Regio

n 5 Failed t

o Analyze o r Consider th e Efficac y of

Multi-Metal s CEM S an d Demonstrate

d Bia s a s Evidenced b

y it s Collusion wit

h Cooper Despit e bein g mad

e awar e ofth e potential fo r

bia s b y Veolia , the administrativ e recor d show s tha t Region 5 has abandoned it s rol e o f independentl y evaluatin g th e multi-metal s CEM S technolog y i n th

e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . A t th e time tha

t Regio n 5 attempted t o reope n Veolia' s Titl e V permi t i n 2013 , Veoli asubmitte d evidenc e tha

t demonstrate d Region 5 faile dt o independentl y consider whethe r amulti-metal s CEM S coul db

e implemente d a

t Veolia . Rather , the Agenc y simpl y accepte d th e representation s -38

- VE S 01953 6o f Pal l Corporatio n ("Pall") , acompany wh o wa s a t tha t tim e th e sol e markete

r ofth e multi

metal s CEM S technolog y and clearl y ha d afinancial interes t i n sellin g the technology . Veoli a commente d a

t lengt h abou t th e dange r o f bia s whe n suc h acompany communicate s wit h USEP A abou t whethe r the technolog y woul dwor k i n an y give n commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r environment . A s th

e permittin g authority , Regio n 5 shoul d independentl y study an d evaluat e whethe r th e technolog y can successfull y operat e i n the environment

an d no t simpl y accep t

th e wor do f acompany wit h afinancia l interes t i n sellin g the technology . Unfortunately , Regio n 5 ha s onc e agai n i n th

e draf t Titl e V allowe dbia s i n favo r o f the technolog y t o occu r b y relyin g upo n the unsubstantiate d statements o f Coope r Environmenta l Service s LL C ("Cooper") , th e developer

an d curren

t manufacturer

o f th e multi-metal s CEM S technolog y wh o has afinancial interes t i n sellin g th

e technology . CEM S technolog y wa s discusse d a t lengt h between the partie s whe n Veoli ame t wit h Regio n 5 o n Septembe

r 18 , 201 2 i n Chicag o to discuss , amon g othe r issues , the Augus t

201 2 FOV . A s par t o f thes e discussions , Regio n 5 stated tha t it wante d Veoli ato instal l aCEM S to monito r Veolia' s metal s emissions . Veoli astate d tha t Veoli aalready demonstrate d complianc e wit h emission s standard s usin g th e method s se

t fort h i n the HW C MACT—throug h Veolia' s OPLs , FAP , and CPTs . Thes e method s wer e approve d b y the Agenc y i n Veolia' s Titl e V permi t and ar e the sam

e method s use d b y ever

y othe r commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

i n Regio n 5 . Further , Veoli atol dUSEP A tha t multi-metal s CEM S technolog y coul dno t operat e effectivel y i n Veolia' s incinerator s du e t o hig h temperature s and hig h variabl e moisture content—u p to 40% — i n Veolia' s stacks . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008382 . Regio n 5 responde d b y alleging , a s se t fort h i n it s Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 60 , tha t th e El i Lill y facilit y i n Indian asuccessfull y utilize dthe technolog y i n the for mo f a n Xac t multi-metal s CEMS . Veoli areplie d tha t th e incinerato r

a t th e forme r El i Lill y location , whic h i s no w owne d and operate d b y Evonik , wa s no t acommercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

sinc e i t onl y accepte d ahomogenou s feedstream . Evoni k Aff . a t VE S 00759 6 Further , Evoni k remove d th

e CEM S fromservic e permanentl y i n August , 201 1 du e t o problem s wit h the samplin g trai n and software and firmware problems . Sara h Marshal l October

4 , 201 2 emai l a

t VE S 001470 . Evoni k foun d th e CEM S wa s costl y i n term s o f tim e and maintenanc e an d neve r relie d o n i t

fo r officia l monitorin g purpose s unde r th e site' s Titl e V permit . Evoni k Aff . a t VE S 007596

- 007597 . Veoli afurther

explaine d tha

t n o commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

i n the Unite d State s use d multi-metal s CEM S to monito r stack emission s an d th

e technolog y simpl y coul dnot successfull y operat

e i n th e hars h condition s produce d b y Veolia' s incinerators . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008382 . However , USEP A neve

r evaluate d Veolia' s concerns . Rather , a t tha t time , USEP A turne d over th e evaluatio n o f

multi-metal s CEM S t o commercia l vendor s wit h specifi c financial interest s i n th e technology—Pal l and Cooper . Coope r develope d th

e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S technolog y and Pal l wa s th

e primary markete

r ofth e Xact . A t

the time USEP A turne d t o Pal l an d Cooper , thos e companie s stoo d t

o gai n i f USEP A require d Veoli at o instal l and operat e amulti-metal s CEMS . Cooper

allowe dPal l to tak

e th e lead i n the discussion s wit h the Agency . Pal l ha s sinc e abandone d the technology . O n Septembe

r 19 , 2012 , th

e da y afte r Veolia' s meetin g wit h USEP A an d prio r t o Pal l abandonin g th

e technology , Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008383 , Dougla s Barth , Pall' s Busines s -39

- VE S 01953 7Developmen t Manager , wrot e Jef

f Rya n a t USEPA—apparentl y i n respons e t o a n earlier communicatio n tha

t USEP A faile dto mak

e apar t o f th e administrativ e record—the followin g email : I t look s lik e thi s effor t

wil l tak e som e time and tact . I wil l be happ y t o guide yo u an

d R 5 [Regio n 5 ] throug h the maze o f informatio n t o buil da scientificall y defensibl e cas e fo r our XR FCEM S and o n HW I [Hazardou s Wast e Incinerator] . XR Flook s lik e the educatio n startin g poin t fo r thi s effort . H g CEM S ar e A Fand Multi-Metal s ar

e XRF , thos e H g CEM S reference s se t no precedenc e her

e tha t sectio n o f

the slat e i s clean . A s fo r El i Lill y Co . Ric k

Lamber t i s the correc t

contact . Ric k

funde d th

e researc h startin g i n 199 6 wit h Arm y to R& D th e firs t EP A certifie dM M CEMS . H e owne d an

d operate d the syste mfo r 6 years . I wil l forwar dhi s contac t informatio n t

o you . I wil l save th

e res t o f m y response s fo r

our talk . D . Bart h Sept . 19 , 201 2 emai l a t VE S 001371. 1 8 A s th

e quote d correspondenc e make s clear , USEP A abdicate d it s regulator y responsibilit y to independentl y evaluat e th e scienc e and technolog y issue s raise d b y Veoli aand presente d b y the multi-metal s CEMS . Th e Agenc y deferre d to Pall— apart y wit h whic h th

e Agenc y had n o contractual relationshi p an d apart

y wit h aveste d interes t

i n havin g th

e Agenc y require Veoli at o instal l multi-metal s CEMS—t o guide the Agenc y "throug h the maz e o f informatio n to buil dascientificall y defensibl e case " fo r USEP A to requir

e Pall' s CEM S be installe d a t Veoli aa s par t ofth e reopenin g process . Bart h and Pal l kne w Pal l coul dbenefi t financially fo r

performin g wha

t woul dotherwis e be USEPA' s regulator y functio n i f

Pal l supporte d USEPA' s decisio n t o requir e Veoli ato purchas e Pall' s CEMS , regardles s o f whethe r i t actuall y worked . Pal l had no incentiv e to scrutiniz e whethe r the CEM S woul d produc e reliabl e datawhe n applie dto Veolia' s incinerators .

1 8 Whil e th e Agenc y include d email s i n th e administrativ

e recor d fo r th e 201 3 attemp tt o reope n Veolia' s titl

e V permi ttha tdemonstrat

e th e Agenc y abdicate

d it s rol e t o evaluat e th e multi-metal

s CEM S technology

, USEP A ha

s inexplicabl

y failed t o includ e man y of thes e sam e email s i n th e administrativ

e recor d fo r th e 2014 Draf

tPermit . Veoli a therefor

e ha s include d thes e document

s i n th e curren tadministrativ

e record . Further

, Veoli a request

s tha t USEP A disclos

e an d ad d t o th e administrativ

e recor d all communication

s pertainin

g t o th e Xac tCEM S an

d identif y an d describ e al l financial o

r employmen

tinterest s an y USEP A o

r othe r governmenta

l employee

s ma y hav e a tan y tim e i n th e Xac tCEM S o

r an y compan

y tha ti s associate

d wit h th e Xac tCEMS . Additionally , th e email s betwee n USEP A an

d Pall sho

w evidenc

e o f attachment

s tha tma y o r ma y no thav e bee n delivere

d an d ma y no thav e bee n mad e a par tofth e administrativ

e record. See VE S 001373-001378 . T o th e exten tUSEP A ha

s suc h attachment

s o r othe r document

s fro m Pall o r Cooper , USEP A shoul

d mak e suc h informatio

n par tof th e administrativ

e recor d i n thi s matter . If USEP A fail s t

o d o so , Veoli a believe

s suc h failure , withou tfurthe r explanation

, demonstrate

s a stron g showin g o f ba d fait h an d imprope

r behavior

. Veoli a reserve

s th e righ tt o furthe r investigat

e th e evidentiar

y basi s fo r USEPA' s decisio

n i n fron to f a n appropriat

e tribuna l throug h writte n discover

y and , i f necessary

, evidenc e depositions. See Sierra Club v . Costle, 65

7 F.2 d 29 8 (D.C . Cir . 1981) . Further , i f USEP A supplement

s th e record , Veoli a request

s th e publi c commen

tperio d b e reopene

d followin

g suc h additions. -40

- VE S 01953 8Jef f Ryan , o n behal f

o f USEPA , demonstrate d the exten t o f USEPA' s failur e to adequately an d independentl y analyz e o r consider the efficac y o f

multi-metal s CEM S technolog y i n Veolia' s incinerator s whe n h

e wrote t o Bart h o n Septembe

r 201 2 and requeste d tha t Pal l answe

r th e tw o difficul t question s Veoli araise d a t the Septembe

r 18 , 201 2 meeting : Shor t stor y i s I wan t t o confirm/refut e statu s o f syste ma t Lil y and need to kno w whethe

r yo u ca n operate d @40 % moisture . Thes e ar e thei r [Veolia's ] 2 major s point s a s wh y not . Th e H g i s atotall y separat e issue , and on e w e ar e wel l prepare d for . J . Rya n Sept . 20 , 201 2 emai l a t VE S 001370 . Interestingly , USEPA' s emai l reflect s aleve l o f comfort (perhap s equall y misguided ) wit h amercur y CEM S ("on

e w e ar e wel l prepare d for" ) tha t i t apparentl y lack s wit h regard t o th e multi-metal s CEMS . Thi s make s USEPA' s abandonmen

t o f it s rol e to independentl y analyz e th e multi-metal s technology— atechnolog y tha t USEP A apparently i s no t wel l prepare d fo r

but nevertheles s demand s Veoli ainstall—al l tha t mor e appalling . Pal l replie d t o Ryan' s inquiry th e sam e da y b y stating : Yes , w e ca

n operat e i n 40 % moisture . D . Bart h Sept . 20 , 201 2 emai l a t VE S 001370 . O n th e basi s o f Pall' s reply , the Statemen t ofBasi s fo r

the 201 3 reopenin g o f

the permi t provided : El i Lilly' s stack

gase s a t the Tippecano e facilit y average d approximatel y 8 percent moistur e conten t an d 140 degre

e F° whil e th

e multi-metal s CEM S wa s bein g operated . However , Pal l Corporatio n has assure d EP A tha t tria l test s o n it s CEM S demonstrat e tha t th e uni t ca n operat e reliabl y a

t moisture content s abov e 4 0 percent . 201 3 Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 24 (VE S 000162) . However , Pal l has neve r inspecte d Veolia' s incinerators . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008382 . I n th e Statemen

t ofBasi s fo r

th e 201 4 Draf

t Permit , USEP A ha

s onc e agai n repeate d thi s mantra albei t attributin g th

e assuranc e t o Cooper : El i Lilly' s stack

gase s a t the Tippecano e facilit y average d approximatel y 8 percent moistur e conten t and 140 degree F° whil e th e multi-metal s CEM S wa s bein g operated . However , Coope r Environmenta l Service s has assure d EP A tha

t tria l test s o n it s CEM S demonstrat e tha t the uni t ca n operat e reliabl y a

t moisture content s above 4 0 percent . 201 4 Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 60 n.58 . Th e only informatio n containe d withi n th e administrativ e recor d o f the draf t Titl e V tha

t support s USEPA' s statemen

t tha t the CEM S can operat

e i n Veolia' s 40 % moistur e environment

ar e a June 26 , 201 3 emai l fromCoope r (VE S 016100 ) i n whic h Cooper state s withou t

further support , "[l]e t m e emphasiz e tha

t i t shoul d b e clea r fromthi s material previousl y sen t tha t th e Xac t multi

4 1 - VE S 01953 9metal s CEM S ha s demonstrate d it s applicabilit y unde r awid e rang e o f

condition s including th

e condition s expecte d a

t the Sauge

t Veoli aHWI ; i.e . bot

h we t and dry condition s and temperature s exceedin g 350F " an d aJul y 17 , 201 3 emai l fromKrag Petterso n a t Coope r (VE S 015660

- 015663) , whic h state s i n relevant par t "[t]he Xac t

has been teste d i n facilitie s wit h stack temperature s rangin g from10 0 to 45 0 degree s Fahrenheit and rangin g i n moisture conten t u p to 20%. " However , th

e administrativ e recor d doe s not contai n th

e result s o f

any demonstration s o r test s wher

e th e Xac t CEM S has successfull y operate d i n thes e conditions . O n Septembe

r 26 , 2012 , Pal l sen

t a n emai l providin g additiona l informatio n to Jef f Rya n regardin g multi-metal s CEM S tha t show s both Pall' s lac k

o f objectivit y and the Agency' s abdicatio n o f

it s regulator

y role : Jeff , Pe r you r reques t fo r buildin g acas e wh y the Xac t 64 0 Multi-Metal s CEM S canno t

be rejecte d frommonitorin g aHWI . D . Barth Sept . 26 , 201 2 emai l a t VE S 001368 . Durin g the pendenc y ofth e comment perio d o n the propose d reopening , Pall—th e entit y tha t USEP A relie d upo n fo r

th e technica l informatio n concernin g the multi-metal s CEM S se t fort h i n th e Statemen

t o f Basi s fo r

th e 201 3 permi t

reopening—abandone d th e multi-metal s CEM S technology , stoppe d offerin g the Xac t CEM S fo r

sale , and abandone d the multi-metal s CEM S business . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008383 . Afte r Pal l abandone d th

e technolog y it

onc e championed , USEPA , rathe r than internall y reviewin g th

e technology , next

turne d to Coope r

to obtai n answer s t o fundamenta l technica l question s tha

t Veoli araise d pertainin g t o th e Xac t CEMS . O n Ma y 21 , 2013 , USEPA' s Measuremen

t Technolog y Grou p reache d ou t to Cooper

and requeste d Cooper

respon d t

o a numbe r o f Veolia' s comment s i n the propose d permi t reopenin g including tha t i t wa s misleadin g fo r USEP A to stat

e i n it s Statemen

t ofBasi s o n th

e reopenin g tha

t "[m]ulti-metal s CEM S ar e commerciall y availabl e and hav e been demonstrate d to be reliabl e fo r measurin g mercur

y an d othe r metal emission s fromhazardou s wast e combustors." 1 9 USEP A ended the emai l b y askin g Cooper' s permissio n t

o as k hi mfurthe r

question s pertainin g t o th e Xact . Da n Biven s Ma y 21 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 016087 . Throughou t

2013 , USEP A continue d to ask Cooper t o provid e USEP A wit h wha t USEPA' s respons e shoul d be o n additiona l fundamenta l point s Veoli araised : the us e an d availabilit y ofth e Xac t CEM S (Dan Biven s Ma y 21 , 201 3 emai l a t VE S 016087) ; ho w lon g it woul dtak

e to orde r an d instal l an Xac t

CEM S (id); OT M 1 6 an d 2 0 (Dan Biven s Ma y 23 , 201 3 emai l a t VE S 015839) ; the Quantitativ e Aeroso l Generato r ("QAG" ) calibratio n metho d (id.); whethe r th e MAT S rul e reference d multi-metal s CEM S (Dan Biven s Ma y 23 , 201 3 emai l a t VE S 015711

- 015713) ; an d th

e basi c operational technolog y o f th e Xac t CEM S (Ki mGarnet

t Ma y 23 , 201 3 emai l a t VE S 012314-012315) . See also Kra g Petterso n Jul y 17 , 201 3 emai l a t VE S 015660

- 015663 , whic h addresse s several o f thes e issues . USEP A ha

s retaine d thi s fals e statemen

ti n it s Statemen

tofBasi s fo

r th e draf t201 4 permi ta tp.59 .

-42

- VE S 01954 0Coope r frequentl y faile dto provid e asubstantiv e respons e to USEPA' s inquirie s concernin g the legitimat e point s tha

t Veoli araised . Rather , Coope r woul ddela

y respondin g (Joh n Coope r Ma y 23 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 015839) ; admit

tha t Veolia' s comment s concernin g th e Xac t 64 0 no t bein g employe d elsewher e wer e true , bu t provid e excuse s (Andre aGeige r Jul y 10 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 016102 ; John Coope r Ma y 29 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 010411) ; alleg e alac k o f knowledg e (id.); o r provid e non-responsiv e answer s an d referenc e o r repea t informatio n fromdate d material s tha

t onl y relat

e generall y to th

e Xac t CEM S (John Coope r

Ma y 28 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 010776 ; John Coope r

Jun e 14 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 010573 ; Joh n Coope r Jun e 26 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 016100) . USEP A faile dto evaluat e the legitimac y o f

suc h response s but

rathe r simpl y include dsuc h response s i n th e administrativ e recor d withou t furthe r analysis . I n fact , the administrativ e recor d i s devoi d o f any critica l analyse s b y USEP A o f th e Xac t CEM S technolog y o r the response s Coope r

offered . Base d upo n wha t i s containe d i n th

e record , USEPA' s Measurement

Technolog y Grou p has littl e actual knowledg e o f the technolog y it

i s requirin g Veoli aadopt

a s par t ofth e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . Incredibly , n o on

e tha t advocate s th

e installatio n o f

the multi-metal s CEMS , includin g Cooper , has any knowledg e as to whethe r it i s viabl e a

t Veolia . I n aJul y 10 , 201 3 email , Cooper' s Directo r o f Sale s an d Marketin g states , " I thin k my mai n concer

n i s tha t ther e simpl y aren' t

tha t man y stack

unit s i n existence , despit e th e fac t tha t w e hav e prove n the technolog y works. " Andre aGeige r

Jul y 10 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 010898 . Th e statemen t i n the emai l tha

t ther e "aren' t tha t man y stack unit s i n existence " i s a

n exaggeration—i n fact , ther e ar e none . Davi dOgulei , Regio n 5' s permi t

writer , admitte d durin g a n October

21 , 2014 , meetin g wit h Veolia , no multi

metal s CEM S exist s o n an y commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

i n the world . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 019308 . Further , th e onl y referenc e Kra g Petterso n o f Coope r offere dto Veoli afo r

th e us e o f th e Xac t 64 0 technolog y wa s th

e faile dexperiment

a t El i Lill y ove r

fou r year s ago . Warcho l Aff . a

t VE S 019309 . Cooper' s Directo r o f Sale s provide s th

e reaso n tha

t the Xac t CEM S i s no t

use d o n any commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerators : "[t]her

e ar e afe w difference s (between stack unit s and ambien

t units) , and certainl y the environmental condition s fo r astack uni t ar e muc h harshe

r tha n fo r a n ambien t unit , bu t th e overal l technolog y i s exactl y th e same. " Andre aGeige r Jul y 10 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 010898 . However , th e hars h environmental condition s presen t i n Veolia' s stack s ar

e precisel y wh y th

e Xac t CEM S i s no t place di n suc h stacks . A freshwater fish has the sam

e overal l makeu

p a s asaltwate

r fish, but woul ddi e i n saltwater . Environmenta l condition s matte r fo r th e viabilit y o f

the multi-metal s CEMS . USEP A need s to criticall y revie w th e Xac t 64 0 and th

e attendan

t samplin g train . Th e differenc e between the Xac t

64 0 and the Xac t

62 5 ambien

t ai r monitor , whic h doe s no t requir e asamplin g train , ar e staggering . Th e Xac t

64 0 multi-meta l CEM S use d fo r stac k emissio n monitorin g require s asampl e trai n t o brin g th e emissio n sampl e into th e CEMS , whil e a

n Xac t 62 5 multi

metal s CEMS , whic h i s i n us e a s afenc e lin e technology , simpl y collect s ambien t ai r directly . Thi s distinctio n i s important becaus e as discusse db y Michae l Fuchs , Rober t Baxter , Chri s McBride , Willia mAnderson , andth e Coalitio n fo r

Responsibl e Wast

e Incineratio n ("CRWI") , whos e comment s ar

e offere d separately , th

e Xac t 64 0 sampl e collectio n methodolog y an d othe r issue s suc h a

s th e multi-metal s collectin g and releasin g fromth e prob e and umbilica l wil l caus e

-43

- VE S 01954 1the multi-metal s CEM S t o b e inaccurate . See infra. Figur e 1.4 . I t i s no t a t al l clea r tha t a sampl e transpor

t systemfo r

amulti-metal s CEMS , a s applie d to Veolia' s stacks , coul dbe uniquel y develope d and designe d t o actuall y mak

e th e CEM S functional . I n addition , fenc e lin e monitorin g sample s ambien t ai r and i s not

designe d t o operat

e i n th e hars h hig h temperature , hig h variabl e moisture , and constantl y changin g environment whic h exist s i n Veolia' s stacks . USEP A wa s create d fo r

th e purpos e o f

protectin g huma

n healt h and the environment

b y writin g and enforcin g regulation s base d o n law s passe d b y Congress . However , i n thi s matter , i t ha s relinquishe dit s obligatio n t o protec t huma n healt h and th e environment

to thir d part

y profi t seeker s wh o ar

e strangers t o commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerators . Th e Agenc y has ignore d the statements o f

Veolia , th e expert s i n the operatio n o f it s incinerators . Rather , USEP A requeste d Pal l and Coope r t o mak e a"case " t o suppor

t requirin g Veoli ato purchas e and instal l thei r product . Needles s t

o say , Coope r

ignore d the samplin g trai n problem s and the hardwar e an d software failure s tha

t cause d pas t

systemfailure s i n mor

e welcomin g environment s tha n th e environment

a t Veolia . See Sara

h Marshal l Octobe r

4 , 201 2 emai l a

t VE S 001470 . Pal l an d Coope r responde d b y tellin g USEP A wha t th e Agenc y wante d to hear—a n unsubstantiate d an

d self-servin g conclusio n t o th e effec t tha t th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S wil l wor k to monito r

stack emission s fromacommercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator. 2 1 Durin g ameetin g wit h counse l fo r USEP A o n Septembe

r 30 , 2014 , USEPA' s counse l candidl y admitte d tha

t sh e wa s unawar

e o f an y othe r occasio n whe n Regio n 5 require d aregulate d entit y t o acquire aparticula

r CEM S from aparticula r manufacturer

a s Region 5 request s Veoli ad o i n it s draf t permit . See Warcho l Aff ; Statemen t ofBasi s p . 54 . I n requirin g Veoli ato purchas e the Xac t CEMS , th

e Agenc y blindl y accepte d Pal l and Cooper' s conclusion s and ignore d the fac t tha t Pal l ultimatel y abandone d th e technolog y and Coope r acknowledge d th

e technolog y i s unteste d i n th

e hars h condition s presen t i n Veolia' s stacks . Th e Agenc y abdicate d it s regulator y obligatio n to determine whethe r th e technolog y wil l effectivel y protec t huma n healt h an d th e environment . The Agenc y ha d predetermine d tha t th e Xac t CEM S wa s goin g t o be require d a t Veoli aand transferre d the obligatio n t o justif y thi s predetermine d answe r to Pal l and Cooper

— stranger s to Veolia' s incinerator s wit h afinancia l incentiv e t o exaggerat e th e capabilitie s ofth e CEM S technology . O n thi s basi s alone , USEPA' s decisio n i s clearl y arbitrar y an d capriciou s and the CEM S requirement shoul d b e removed .

2 0Veoli a generall

y offer s th e join tcomment

s o f Willia m C . Anderson

, Ph.D. , Senio

r Analytica

l Projec tManager

, TestAmerica

, Inc . an d Chris E . McBride , P.E. , Focu s Environmental, Inc

. VE S 016777-016795 ; Rober tW . Baxter

, B3Systems, Inc

. VE S 016997-017002 ; Emm a York , Evonik Manager , Environmental, Safety , Healt h an d Security

, VE S 007596-007597 ; Ralp h L . Roberson

, President

, RM B Consultin

g & Researc

h Inc , VE S 008290-008380 ; Michae l Fuchs , Projec

tmanage r i n th e Measurement

s Grou p i n URS Corporation' s Austin , Texa s Office , VE S 007598-760

5 an d VE S 019283-019293 ; Dou g Harris , Genera

l manage r a tVeoli a E S Technica

l Solutions, L.L.C , VE S 008384-008391 ; Denni s J . Warchol, Veoli a Manage r o f Environmental, Healt

h an d Safety , VE S 008381 - 00838 3 an d VE S 019308-019309 ; an d Delan a Owen , Frankli n Engineering

, VE S 007606-007615

, (collectivel

y "Veolia' s Experts" ) i

n oppositio

n t o th e Draf tPermi tfo r th e reason s state d in eac h of th e comment

s an d furthe r reference d herein . 2 1 Althoug

h Coope r ignore d th e problem

s o f th e Xac tCEM S whe

n toutin g th e produc tt o USEPA , Coope

r recognize

s th e risk s th e Xac tCEMS' s problem

s pos e whe n hi s profit s ar e a trisk—th

e produc twarrant y associate

d wit h th e Xac tmulti-metal

s CEM S expressl

y limit s Cooper' s liabilit

y t o th e purchas

e pric e o f th e Xact. VE S 016556

- 016557 .

-44

- VE S 01954 2D . Regio n 5 i s Unreasonabl

y an d Unfairl y Requirin g Veoli a t o Instal l MultiMetals CEMS . 1 . Veolia Is a Small

Source of

Mercury Emissions In the St. Louis Area A s evidence db y th

e permittin g andenforcement history se

t fort h above , Regio n 5' s primary concer n sinc e thi s proces s bega n has bee n Veolia' s mercur

y emissions. 2 2However , Veolia' s yearl y mercur

y emission s ar

e magnitude s lowe r

tha n othe r majo r source s o f

mercur y emission s i n th e St . Loui s area . A s the tabl e belo w shows , Veolia' s estimate d Toxi c Releas e Inventor y ("TRI" ) emission s fo r

reportin g yea

r 201 3 wer

e amer e 3. 1 pound s o f

mercury . See Veoli a201 3 For mRa t VE S 019265-019270 . Facilit y Stat

e TR I Mercur

y Emission s fo r 201 3 Reportin g Year * Metho

d o f Calculatio

n Approx . Distanc

e & Directio

n fro m Veolia' s Sauge

t Facilit y Labadi e Power Statio n M O 823. 2 lbs/yr publishe demissio n factor 36. 6 mile s wes t Rus h Islan dPowe

r Statio n M O 402. 5 lbs/yr publishe demissio n factor 32. 6 mile s sout h U S Steel - Granit

e Cit y I L 223.4 1 lbs/yr publishe demissio n factor 7. 5 mile s nort h Siou x Powe

r Plant M O 194. 9 lbs/yr publishe demissio n factor 19. 3 mile s southwest Baldwi n Power Statio n I L 82. 7 lbs/yr site-specifi c emissio n facto r 32. 6 mile s southeas t Meramec Powe

r Plan t M O 68. 7 lbs/yr publishe demission s factor 15. 9 mile s southwest Mississippi Lim e Concret e Plant M O 54.1 6 lbs/yr publishe demission s factor 45. 0 mile s sout h Woo dRive r

Powe r Statio n I L 41. 3 lbs/yr site-specifi c emissio n facto r 18. 4 mile s nort h Prairi e Stat

e Energ y Campu s I L 40. 0 lbs/y r site-specifi c emissio n

facto r 35. 9 mile s southeas t Woo dRive r Refiner y I L 20. 0 lbs/yr publishe demission s facto r 17. 7 mile s nort h Veoli aIncinerato

r I L 3. 1 lbs/yr site-specifi c emission s monitorin g 0 mile s •Values ar

e fro m eac h facility' s 201

3 reportin

g yea r For m R , arwww.epa.gov/enivro/facts/triform_r_search.html.

2 2Thi s i s evidence

d b y th e fac ttha tRegio n 5' s 201 3 reopenin

g proposa

l include d greate r feedrat e limit s (i.e. , mor

e lenien tlimits ) fo r LVM s an

d SVM s tha

n thos e limit s Veoli a ha

d establishe

d throug h performanc

e testing . See Regio n 5 propose

d Title V permi

tVE S 000002-00013

5 (Jan . 2013) . -45

- VE S 01954 3Thi s pale s i n compariso n t o the hundred s o f pound s o f

mercur y emitte d b y source s withi n a4 5 mil e radiu s o f

th e Veoli afacility . Specifically , Veoli ai s literall y surrounde d b y coal-fire d utilitie s tha

t emit hundred s o f

pound s o f

mercur y o n ayearl y basis . T o the west , th e Labadi e powe r statio n emit s awhoppin g 82 3 pound s o f mercur y ayear . T o th

e south , Rus h Islan d powe r statio n emit s ove

r 40 0 pounds . T o th

e southeast , Baldwi n powe r statio n and Prairi e Stat

e Energ y (whic h ar e onl y 1 1 mile s apart

) combin e to emit

ove r a10 0 pound s o f

mercury pe

r year , and , jus t 7. 5 mile s t o th

e nort h o f the Veoli afacility , U S Stee l i n Granit e Cit y release s ove r 22 0 pound s o f mercury int o th

e atmospher

e per year . I n relativ e terms , Veolia' s mercur y emission s ar

e onl y a tin y portio n o f

the tota l mercur

y emission s o f

th e greate r St . Loui s area . Thus , i n relativ e terms , th e Agency' s continue d haranguin g o f Veoli ai s misplaced . 2 . Veolia's MACT

Metals Emissions Are Below the HWC MACT Limits by a Margin of

Safety Throughou t

thi s torture d permittin g history , Regio n 5 has alleged , withou t eve r producin g evidenc e (t

o Veoli ao r

t o aneutral thir d party , suc h a s i n a n enforcemen t

proceeding) , tha

t Veoli a has bee n ou

t o f complianc e wit h th

e mercur y emissio n limitation s o f the HW C MACT . See Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 27-28 . Yet , Veoli aha s maintaine dcomplianc e wit h the HW C MACT , has kep t it s emission s belo w the limit s b y amargi n o f safety , and ha s provided , ove r th e years , voluminou s dataand informatio n to Regio n 5 documentin g Veolia' s HW C MAC T compliance . Th e HW C MACT , lik e al l MAC T rules , i s designe dt o provid e emission s limit s tha t provid e a

n "ampl e margi n o f

safety " to protec t

th e publi c health . See 4 2 U.S.C . § 7412(d)(4) . I n othe r words , the limit s ar

e se t a t level s tha

t ar e lo w enoug h t

o ensur e that , even i f

asourc e i s emittin g a t the limit , the publi c wil l be protected . Veolia' s emission s ar e consistentl y wel l belo w the applicabl e standards , particularl y fo r mercury . Fo r

example , Veolia' s actual mercur y feedrat e (i.e. , ho w muc h material i s actuall y fe d into the incinerator) is , o n average , les s tha n V% o f Veolia' s permitte d feedrat e limi t fo r mercury . (Voluminou s emission s datasubmitte d t o USEP A Regio n 5 b y Veoli aover th e las t five year s pursuan

t to § 11 4 request s support s thi s assertion. ) Thus , b y emittin g belo w a n already-protectiv e standard , Veoli ai s providin g anothe r margi n o f

safety to the publi c andth e environment . Further , Veoli adoe s no t us e extrapolatio n t o establis h an y o f it s feedrate s fo r

mercury , LVM , an d SVM , eve n thoug h i t i s allowe dto d

o s o unde r th e HW C MACT . See 4 0 C.F.R . §§63.1209(l)(l)(v ) & 63.1209(n)(2)(vii) . Extrapolatio n allow s incinerator s t o achiev e highe r feedrate s fo r

thes e metal s base d o n calculation s mad e fromthe facility' s CPTs . Veoli adoe s no t extrapolate d metal feedrate s fromit s CPTs—meanin g tha t Veolia' s feedrat

e limit s ar

e base d o n the actua l tes t result s achieve d durin g the CPT . Thi s practic e build s i n anothe r laye r o f safety regardin g Veolia' s complianc e wit h th e emission s limits . 3 . The Requirement of the Xact CEMS Saddles Veolia with Unwarranted Cost USEP A make s i t

clea r tha t th e onl y multi-metal s CEM S technolog y it consider s t

o be commerciall y availabl e i s th e technolog y tha

t th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S utilizes . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 5 4 n.16 . B y requirin g Veoli ato exclusivel y us e the Xac t CEMS , USEP A relinquishe dit s independen t statu s b y advocatin g o n behal f o f Xac t an d reduce d th

e incentiv e fo r -46

- VE S 01954 4technica l advancemen t whil e als o prejudicin g Veolia' s right s a s aconsumer . I f

th e Veoli a permi t were modifie da

s proposed , i n theor

y Coope r coul dcharg e Veoli aany pric e it wishe s fo r the Xac t multi-metal s CEMS . Roberso n VE S 008290-008302 . Further , the administrativ e recor d reflect s that , whil e Coope r reall y ha s no ide awha

t th e precis e cos t wil l b e to Veolia , the cos t wil l be substantial . O n Septembe r 16 , 2013 , Cooper' s Projec t Manage r sen t an emai l t o USEP A stating : [Fjirs t cost s fo r purchase/mstallation/certificatiori/trainin g o f aM M CEM S ar

e anticipate d t

o be approximatel y $365,000-$400,000* . Th e instrumen t run s abou

t $260,00 0 o f

tha t cost . Annua l cost s wil l likel y b e abou t $25,000.* * * Factor s such a

s transpor t length , remot

e control/pollin g options , samplin g interva l (i.e . shorte

r samplin g interval s require mor e tape) , and installatio n complexitie s wil l hav e a n impac t o n th e overal l initia l budget

fo r M M CEMS . **Annua l cost s depend largel y o n samplin g interval . Fo r a3 0 minut

e samplin g interval , filte r

tap e cost s ru n abou

t $19,500/year . 15-minut e samplin g interval s doubl e tha

t amoun t annually . I n addition , w e recommen d tha t companie s budge

t fo r an annua l X-ra y tub e replacemen

t and re-calibratio n (appx . $5-6K) . Annua l labo r generall y require s on

e technician approximatel y 8-1 0 hour s pe r mont h fo r tap e change s and general operatio n and maintenanc e tasks . Andre aGeige r

Sept . 16 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 015664 . O n Marc h 24 , 2014 , Regio n 5 place d a memorandu mi n it s file detailin g aphone cal l wit h Coope r whic h state s i n relevant

part : Eac h unit' s purchas e cos t i s abou t $250K . Approx . $900 k ballpar k tota l fo r 3 unit s includin g installatio n and testin g but can' t sa y fo r sure . Woul dneed to visi t the facilit y and d

o an appraisal o f

wha t i s needed . Davi dOgule i Marc h 24 , 201 4 Phon e Cal l Recor d a t VE S 010644 . Tw o day s later , o n Marc h 26 , 2014 , Regio n 5 place d anothe r memorandumi n it s file detailin g anothe r phone cal l wit h Coope r whic h state s i n relevant

part : Eac h unit' s purchas e cos t i s abou t $250K . Approx . $900 K ballpar k tota l fo r 3 unit s includin g installatio n and testin g but can' t sa y fo r sure . Woul dnee d to visi t th e facilit y and d

o a n appraisal o f

wha t i s needed . Operatin g cost s primaril y com e fromfilter

tape . Fo r

continuou s operatio n (1 5 mi n samples) , filter

tap e woul dcos t

$78 0 pe r rol l per week ($41 k pe r year ) per unit . Tota l operatin g cos t i s approximatel y $50 k

per yea r per unit . Davi dOgule i Marc h 26 , 201 4 Phon e Cal l Recor d a t VE S 010622 . Coope r

kep t it s monetar

y option s flexibl e b y including variabl e cos t factor s tha

t coul db e use d t o increas e th

e price . Clearly , Coope r

had a n incentiv e to quot

e lo w price s t

o USEP A i n order

to appea r reasonabl e t o USEP A whil e attemptin g to us e USEP A to forc e th e thir d part

y regulate d entit

y t o purchas e th

e

-47

- VE S 01954 5Xac t CEMS . Similarly , USEP A had no reaso n t o contes t the price s quote d sinc e it di d no t com e ou t o f USEPA' s budget. 2 3 CRW I provide s amor e realisti c cos t

figur e fo r

the deploymen

t and implementatio n o f

th e Xac t CEMS , whic h i s base d upo n it s members ' experience . CRW I estimate s the tota l cost s t o compl y wit h th

e multi-metal s CEM S requirement i n th e 201 4 Draf

t Permi t wil l be mor

e tha n $2. 2 million . See CRW I comment s o n Veolia' s 201 4 Draf t Permit . Further , substantia

l additiona l cost s wil l b

e incurre d fo r

procuremen

t o f th e samplin g probe s and transpor t systems , fo r

sit e constructio n cost s fo r

th e enclosure s to hous e three multi-metal s CEMS , fo r

power an d othe r utilitie s to be supplie dt o th e CEMS , and fo r

incinerato r

contro l syste menhancement s (t

o b e performe d b y athird-party contractor) t o integrat e require d dat a transfe r betwee n th

e CEM S and Veolia' s contro l system . A s aprivat e party , Veoli ashoul d no t hav e t o bea

r thes e extrem

e cost s fo r

wha t amount s t o ajoin t

researc h projec t

between Coope r and USEPA . Th e fac t tha t USEP A i s "only " requirin g th e multi-metal s CEM S fo r on e yea r i s o f n o hel p to Veolia . Ther

e i s no secondar

y marke t fo r the Xac t CEMS—onc e the y ar

e installed , the los s t o Veoli ai s permanent . Further , althoug h USEP A state s "Veoli ama y discontinu e us e o f

the CEM S onc e EP A ha

s sufficien t

informatio n t o verif

y the efficac y o f

the feedrat

e limit s i n assurin g complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T emission s limits, " give n th e numerou s and varie dinformatio n request s Veoli ahas receive d ove r th e las t several years , USEP A ma y very wel l neve

r determin e tha t i t ha s enoug h information , an d henc e never

allo w Veoli ato remov e th e CEMS . I n sum , withou t

further explanatio n fromUSEPA , USEPA' s sol e sourc e requiremen t tha t Veoli a instal l th e Xac t

64 0 CEM S i s improper . USEPA' s demonstrate d desir e to forc e someon

e othe r tha n Coope r t o bea r th e cos t o f researchin g an d developin g th e Xact s als o appears o n it s face , withou t furthe r explanation , to b

e improper . USEP A i s falsel y statin g i n th e draf t permi t tha t th e Xac t CEM S ar

e "temporary " whil e leavin g itsel f grea t leewa y t o mak e the mpermanent . USEPA' s action s ar

e unwarranted , prejudicia l agains t Veoli aan d ar

e no t rationall y based . Therefore , the CEM S requiremen t shoul d be remove d fromthe 201 4 Draf t Permit . 4 . Region 5's Requirement that Veolia Install

the Xact CEMS Places Veolia at an Unfair

Competitive Disadvantage Veolia' s Sauget , Illinoi s facilit y exist s fo r one reason—t

o incinerate wast

e safel y and compliantly . Companie s i n th e commercia l hazardou s wast e incineratio n industr

y compet e nationwid e fo r

busines s and each company i n th e industr y i s require d to hol daTitl e V operatin g permi t unde r th e CAA . Throug h the draf t permit , USEP A seeks to impos e onerou s and unfai r permi t condition s o n Veolia—condition s tha t ar e bein g impose d o n no othe r commercia l hazardou s wast

e incinerato r

i n the nation—tha

t threaten to shu

t dow n Veolia' s three incineratio n

2 3 Th e Unite d State s governmen

trequire s certai n precaution

s b e take n an d documente

d i f i twer e t o awar d a contracto r wit h a sol e sourc e contract

. See e.g. Federa

l Acquisition Regulatio

n (FAR) Par

t6 , 4 8 C.F.R . Par

t6 ; Competitio

n in Contractin

g Act , 4 1 U.S.C . § 3301 , et

seq. However

, USEP A ha

s no tallowe d Veoli a t

o tak e simila r precautions

. USEP A ha

s prevente

d Veoli a fro

m seekin g a competitiv

e bid b y instructin

g Veoli a tha

tVeoli a mus

t purchas e th e multi-metal

s CEM S fro

m Cooper

. Likewise , despit

e assurance

s t o USEP A tha

tit s multi-metal

s CEM S wil l perfor

m withi n Veolia' s stacks

, Coope r limit s it s ow n liabilit y throug h it s produc twarrant y for th e Xac tmulti metal s CEM S tha

texpressl

y limit s Cooper' s liabilit

y t o th e purchas

e pric e of th e Xact . USEP A i

s no tdealin g fairl y wit h Veolia . -48

- VE S 01954 6unit s and increas e Veolia' s operatin g cost s to suc h a n exten t tha t th e economi c viabilit y o f Veolia' s facilit y i s i n jeopardy . Veoli ahas done nothin g wron g to deserve Regio n 5 actin g i n suc h aprejudicia l manne r agains t it . Veoli ai s i n complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T standard . USEP A admit s Veolia' s existin g FA P include s verbati mal l o f the feedstrea

manalysi s provision s se t fort h i n th

e HW C MAC T rul e an d require d b y 4 0 C.F.R . §63.1209(c)(2)(i ) throug h (vi) . See Charle s Hal l Jul y 18 , 201 2 Memo , a t VE S 001293 ; Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 47 . A s apolic y matter , USEP A has alread y determined , throug h promulgatio n o f th e HW C MACT , tha

t feedstrea manalysi s i s th

e bes t metho d fo r

ensurin g tha

t th e OPL s ar

e assurin g complianc e wit h the emission s limits . USEPA' s inclusio n o f

multi-metal s CEM S i n Veolia' s permi t as a"parametri c monitor " fo r th e FA P i s unprecedented . See Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 019308 ; Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 019293 . Veolia' s relianc e o n it s FA P i s authorize d b y th e HW C MAC T and ha s bee n prove n to b e effectiv e throug h CP T testing . Th e CP T testin g wa s performe d pursuan t t o apla n tha

t USEP A approve d and the testin g wa s conducte d whil e USEP A wa s present . N o othe r commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

i n the Unite dState s has th

e requiremen

t o f amulti-metal s CEM S a s aparametri c monito r

o r otherwise . Veoli asimpl y request s tha t Regio n 5 trea

t it identicall y t o it s competitor s and sto p actin g i n a prejudicia l fashio n toward s it . Regio n 5' s requirement fo r th e installatio n o f

thre e multi-metal s CEM S i s baseless . Regio n 5 shoul d b e abl e t o satisf

y any questio n it

has concernin g the adequac y o f

Veolia' s feedrate s b y workin g withi n the framewor k ofth e HW C MAC T and , i f necessary , creatin g amor e robus t FAP . USEP A has no t

subjecte d Veolia' s competitors , eac h o f wh o operat

e pursuan t t o OPL s and aFA P i n order t o mee t th e HW C MAC T requirements , to a multi-metal s CEM S requirement . I n ligh t ofthis , durin g meeting s wit h Regio n 5 , Veoli ahas offere dt o operat

e pursuan t t o aFA P tha

t USEP A ha s alread

y approve d fo r

Ross . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 019308 . Regio n 5 has rebuffe d Veolia' s offe r withou t consideratio n o r

explanation . Regio n 5' s action s towar d Veoli aar e prejudicial . Moreover , th e installatio n o f

amulti-meta l CEM S o n eac h o f

Veolia' s incinerators—whe n non e o f Veolia' s competitor s ar e require d t o instal l an d maintai n suc h costl y equipment—simpl y ha s no rationa l basis .

5 . Region 5's Draft

Permit Condition Requiring the Installation ofMultiMetals CEMS

Within 365 Days Is Impractical Th e propose d 201 4 Veoli apermi t state s i n relevant

part : Th e Permitte e shal l install , calibrate , maintai n and operat e a n x-ray fluorescenc e multi-metal s CEM S fo r us e as acontinuou s parametri c monitorin g syste m(CPMS ) o n Unit s 2 , 3 and 4 withi n 1 2 month s (36 5 days ) after thi s permi t

become s effective , unles s th e Administrato r

determine s tha

t a tim e extensio n i s warrante d based o n th e Permittee' s documentatio n i n writin g o f factor s beyon d it s contro l tha t preven t the Permitte e frommeetin g the 12

- mont h deadline .

-49

- VE S 01954 7201 4 Draf t Permi t a t 3 4 (VE S 009111) . USEPA' s belie f tha t thre e multi-meta l CEM S ca n be installed , be calibrated , b e operationa

l and receiv e regulator

y approval withi n ayea

r i s no t supporte d b y the administrativ e record . A s already relate d herein , Regio n 5 ha s asordi d histor y o f inactio n and dela

y i n meetin g regulator y deadline s wit h regard t o Veolia' s facility . Th e Agenc y faile dt o offe r an y comment s o n Veolia' s first

Titl e V draf

t permi t application ; i t

faile dt o mee

t th e mandator

y deadlin e fo r rulin g upo n Veolia' s pas t applicatio n fo r

significan t

modification ; i t

has faile dt o tak

e any actio n to conclud e variou s NOVs/FOV s issue d throughou t th e years ; an d i t

abandoned it s effort s to reope n Veolia' s Titl e V permit . Give n thi s trac k record , Veoli aha

s no confidenc e tha

t Regio n 5 coul dac t i n atimel y fashio n to approv e the CEM S o r gran t a n extensio n o f

tim e i n the absenc e o f approval . Further , th

e recor d doe s no

t suppor t tha t multi-metal s CEM S ca

n b e installe d and operational wit h regulatory approval o n Unit s 2 , 3 and 4 withi n 1 2 months . I n 2012 , Pall , th e exclusiv e distributo r

o f Cooper' s multi-metal s CEM S technology , informe dVeoli atha t Pal l coul d no t deliver , install , calibrate and hav e one exac t multi-metal s CEM S operational withi n 18 0 days . O n Jul y 18 , 2013 , Cooper represente d to USEP A i n a n emai l tha

t it woul dtake 4 to 5 month s to delive r on e uni t and anothe

r 2 t o 3 month s to ge

t the Relativ e Accurac y Tes t Audi t ("RATA" ) schedule d an d complete d o n tha t on e unit . See Cooper

Jul y 18 , 201 3 emai l a

t VE S 015660 . Les s tha n ayea r later , Cooper

revise d it s projectio n i n aMarc h 24 , 201 4 phone cal l wit h USEP A and stated : [bjuildin g th

e unit s woul dno t

b e aproblem . 9 month s shoul d be adequat e to instal l and begi n operatin g the thre e units . 1 2 month s shoul d definitel y no t be a problem . Variable s includ e th e type s o f

stack modification s and othe

r site

specifi c facilit y modification s neede dto accommodat e th e CEMS . Davi dOgule i Marc h 24 , 201 4 Phon e Cal l Recor d a t VE S 010644 . However , Cooper' s estimate d timefram e onl y account s fo r th e Xac t CEM S and not

fo r othe r variables . Variable s uniqu e t o eac h installatio n suc h a

s th e constructio n o f

th e samplin g train , electrica l needs , the constructio n o f shelter s an d the programmin g ar e no t accounte dfo r

b y Coope r

becaus e thes e uniqu e item s ar e constructe d b y others . Base d o n Veolia' s experience , thes e variable s wil l take a t leas t 24 to 3 6 month s t o construc t

an d becom e permitte d afte r

th e CEM S ar

e delivere d and receiv e regulator y approval . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 019308-019309 . Further , USEP A ignore s timeframe s se t fort h i n it s ow n regulation s fo r

th e installatio n an d performanc e test s o f newl y acquire d CEMS . See 4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 51 , Appx . P (provide s affecte dsource s 1 8 month s o r mor e to instal l an d perfor m test s o n newl y require d CEMS) . Additionally , document s i n th e administrativ e recor d reflec t tha t i t too k El i Lill y three year s to resolv e installatio n problem s an d to obtai n th e necessar

y regulator y approval to operat

e one Xac t

CEM S a s an alternativ e method . See VE S 001013 . USEP A ha s requeste d three multi-metal s CEM S b e installe d a t Veolia . Veoli atherefore expect s th e time necessar

y to ge t thes e unit s sufficientl y operational fo r USEPA' s approva l wil l be tw o year s or more . Veoli ause s th

e incinerator s ever

y day . I t cannot wai t tw o year s o r

longer t o operat e it s incinerator s whil e USEP A consider s whethe r the multi-metal s CEM S ar e properl y installed , calibrated , maintaine d andoperational fo r Veoli ato obtai n th

e necessar

y regulator

y approva l fromUSEPA . -50

- VE S 01954 8Th e propose d permi t provide s tha

t a n extensio n o f

the 12-mont

h deadlin e i s availabl e i f the "Administrato r

determine s atime extensio n i s warrante d base d o n the Permittee' s documentatio n i n writin g o f

factor s beyon d it s contro l tha t prevent th e Permitte e frommeetin g th e 1 2 mont

h deadline. " 201 4 Draf

t Permi t a t 34 . Veoli ai s inth e incineratio n busines s and th e incinerator s ar e it s business . Veoli acanno t operat e it s busines s o n th

e vagarie s o f

whethe r a n extensio n o f tim e i s warrante d based upo n th e Agency' s evaluatio n and determinatio n o f whethe r somethin g i s under Veolia' s control . T o operat e it s busines s effectively , Veoli amus t hav e mor

e certaint y than i s offere d i n th

e propose d permit . Further , Veoli ai s inth e busines s o f safel y disposin g o f

hazardou s waste , no

t installin g an d testin g CEMS . No r

i s Veoli ai n th

e busines s o f

installin g and operatin g CEM S a s aresearc h projec t fo r Regio n 5 . Regio n 5 ha

s nothin g a

t stak e i n proposin g tha

t Veoli ainstal l three multi

metal s CEMS . Similarly , Veoli acanno t affor dto be

t the futur e viabilit y o f

it s operation s o n th

e representation s o f

someon e lik e Cooper , wh o has aveste d financial interes t i n misrepresentin g the timefram e tha

t hi s produc t

ca n be produced , installe d an d approve d b y USEPA . I n ligh t o f th e Agency' s inabilit y to mee t deadline s throughout

Veolia' s permittin g histor y and El i Lilly' s effort s fo r

thre e year s to mak

e the CEM S operational an d obtai n regulator y approval , USEP A doe s no t

hav e atrac k

recor d o f promptl y evaluatin g and respondin g t o submission s relate d t o thi s technology . Th e practica l result , shoul d the propose d modification s to the permi t b e force d upo n Veolia , i s tha t Veoli awil l hav e t o shu

t dow n it s Sauget

operation s becaus e the multi-metal s CEM S cannot be delivered , installed , calibrate d and operational withi n th e 12

- month deadline . Thus , a s drafted , th

e propose d permi t

i s equivalent

to ashut-dow n orde

r directe d t o Veolia . 6 . USEPA Should

Promulgate a National

Standard

That Attempts to Impose Multi-Metal

CEMS On All Hazardous Waste Combustors Regio n 5 posit s tha

t the multi-metal s CEM S ar e necessar

y t o "verif

y tha t the feedrat

e limit s an d th e feedstrea

manalysi s procedure s propose d i n thi s Titl e V permi t renewal ar

e sufficien t

to assur e continuou s complianc e wit h the HW C MAC T emission s limits " Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 5 4 (VE S 009303) . Specifically , Regio n 5 sets fort h tha t CEM S ar

e necessar

y to correc t

deficiencie s wit h the monitorin g requirement s currentl y devise d unde r th e HW C MACT : [fjeedstreamanalysi s generall y pose s severa l challenge s including the uncertaint

y associate d wit h 1 ) measuremen t o f extremel y lo w meta

l concentration s i n th

e feedstrea

m(i.e. , concentration s a t o r nea r th e detectio n limi t o f the measuremen

t device) ; 2 ) heterogeneit y o f th e hazardou s waste , whic h ma y leadt o anon-representativ e sampl e and henc e a n inaccurate estimat

e o f th e metal fee d concentration ; and 3 ) inabilit y t o demonstrat e continuou s complianc e wit h MAC T limits , a

s require d b y th

e HW C MACT , sinc e ther e i s generall y a considerabl e time la g between samplin g and analysis . Th e uncertaintie s cause d b y feedstrea manalysi s can be largel y resolve d whe n a well-maintaine dan d operate d CEM S i s use d t o directl y identif

y deviation s from emissio n limitation s tha

t ma y resul t frominaccurat

e or insufficien t

feedstrea m analysis .

- 5 1 - VE S 01954 9Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 5 6 (VE S 0009305) . Th e purporte d challenge s enumerate d b y USEP A ar e no t uniqu e to Veolia ; rather , i f the y exis t

a t all , the y ar

e commo n t

o eac h and ever

y emission s sourc e regulate d unde

r the HW C MACT . A s currentl y devised , th e HW C MAC T require s source s t o emplo y asyste mo f OPL s an d feedstrea

manalysi s t o ensur

e tha t they mee

t the emission s limit s se

t fort h fo r mercury , SVMs , an d LVMs . See 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(1 ) ("Yo u mus t compl y wit h th

e mercur y emissio n standar

d b y establishin g an d complyin g wit h th e followin g [OPLs]") ; § 63.1209(n ) ("Yo u mus t compl y wit h th

e sem i volatil e metal (cadmiu m and lead) an

d lo w volatil e metal (arsenic , beryllium , and chromium ) emissio n standard s b y establishin g and complyin g wit h th e followin g [OPLs]") ; and § 63.1209(c ) ("Prio r to feedin g th

e material , yo u mus t

obtai n a n analysi s o f

eac h feedstrea

mtha t i s sufficien t

t o documen

t complianc e wit h th

e applicabl e feedrat

e limit s provide d b y thi s section") . Fo r Veoli aalone , Regio n 5 i s no w stating tha t the explici t

directive s ofth e HW C MAC T ar e insufficientl y certai n an d tha t multi-metal s CEM S ar

e necessar

y t o assur

e th e feedstrea

manalysi s complie s wit h th e standard . Becaus e al l hazardou s wast e combustor s i n th

e Unite dState s rel y o n OPL s and feedstreamanalysi s to compl y wit h the HW C MAC T emissio n limits , Regio n 5' s apparen t chang e i n polic y regardin g th e adequac y o f

OPL s an d feedstrea

manalysi s shoul d be applie d t o al l hazardou s wast

e combustors—no t

jus t Veolia . I n ligh t o f Regio n 5' s pronouncement , al l source s unde r th e HW C MAC T must

no w be concerne d tha

t relianc e o n aFA P t o mee t OPLs , withou t

amulti-metal s CEMS , coul dcaus e the mt o be out

o f complianc e and possibl y subjec t to enforcement . Moreover , i n th e very least , it i s unclea r whethe r USEP A stil l believe s feedstrea manalysi s i s sufficien t

to maintai n complianc e wit h the standards . Thus , becaus e USEP A has no w create d uncertaint y ove r awhol e clas s o f source s regardin g th

e appropriat

e mean s o f

compliance , the Agenc y shoul d undertak e industry

wid e notic e an d commen t rulemakin g to propos e multi-metal s CEM S and th e enhance d feedstrea mrequirement s no w bein g propose d fo r Veolia . Suc h rulemakin g woul dhav e several advantage s over

imposin g thes e requirement s i n piecemeal fashio n i n individua l Titl e V permits . Specifically , i t

woul dallo w th

e entir e hazardou s wast

e combusto r

industr y to work

wit h th e Agenc y i n developin g thes e monitor s fo r the purpose s o f

compliance . Thi s woul dadvanc e the technolog y furthe r

and faster

an d lead t o bette

r overal l metal s monitorin g acros s the entir e industry . Promulgatin g th e us e o f multi-metal s CEM S acros s th e entir e industr y woul dals o spread th e cost s o f developmen

t amon g al l source s regulate d unde r th e HW C MACT—instea do f arbitraril y an d capriciousl y imposin g al l o f thos e cost s o n Veolia . Finally , and mos t importantly , i f USEP A believe s tha

t th e curren t syste mo f

OPL s and feedstrea

manalysi s doe s no t

sufficientl y assur e complianc e wit h th

e HW C MACT , then the Agenc y has adut y t o the publi c t o promulgate arul e requirin g th e development

o f multi-metal s CEM S acros s the entir e hazardou s wast e combustor

industry . See 4 2 U.S.C . § 7661c(b) .

2 4Fo r statemen

tnumbe r three , USEP A offer

s n o explanatio

n a s t o wha ti s mean tby "lag " wit

h regar d t o th e samplin g an d analysi s performe

d pursuan

tt o th e FAP ; no

r i s i tclea r ho w thi s relate s t o HW C MAC T compliance . Veoli a characterize

s it s wast e strea m fo r metal s prio r t o incineration

. Further , a s written , USEPA' s thir

d statemen

t i s vagu e an d confusin

g an d i s thu s arbitrar y an d capricious . -52

- VE S 01955 0E . Regio n 5' s Representation

s Concerning Multi-Metal s CEM S Technolog y ar e Incorrect

, Misleading an

d Unsubstantiate

d USEP A must

provid e proo f

o f it s statements i n suppor t o f it s permittin g decision , no t jus t mak e unsupporte d assertions . See Northeast Maryland

Waste Disposal

Authority v. EPA, 35 8 F.3 d 936 , 95 4 (D.C . Cir . 2004) . Unfortunately , the Statemen t ofBasi s contain s numerou s incorrect , misleadin g o r

unsubstantiate d statements o n critica l issue s i n th e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . Regio n 5' s substantiv e discussio n o f multi-metal s CEM S technolog y begin s i n the Statemen t o f Basi s o n pag e 5 2 unde

r §5.3 , entitle d "Multi-Metal s Continuou s Monitorin g Requirements, " and end s o n pag e 63 . Veolia' s specifi c comment s o n thes e provision s ar e as follows . 1 . Veolia's Comments on §5.3.1 (Overview of Requirements) Th e Agency' s entir

e argumen

t tha t Veoli ashoul d b e require d t o instal l multi-metal s CEM S t o monito r each o f it s stack s i s premised , i n larg e part , o n asimpl e belief : Durin g th e perio d i n whic h th

e multi-metal s CEM S i s operating , acorrelatio n ca n b e determine d between the emission s concentratio n value s reporte d b y th e multi

metal s CEM S and the feedrat e concentration s reporte d throug h feedstrea m analysis . Veoli athe n wil l us e th e dat afromth

e multi-metal s CEM S a

s a n indicato r o f whethe r o r no t the feedrat

e limit s ar

e sufficientl y stringent

t o assur e continuou s complianc e wit h the metal s emission s limit s i n th e HW C MAC T a

t eac h o f the combustio n units . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 54 . Regio n 5' s belie f

tha t acorrelatio n betwee n th e multi-metal s CEM S dat aand the feedrat e concentration s reporte d throug h feedstrea manalysi s i s wrong . A multi-metal s CEM S ha s neve r been attache d t

o a n operatin g commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

an d accuratel y reporte d multi-meta l emission s concentratio n values . Further , a n EP A approve d metho d has never successfull y been use d t o correlat e the result s o f

amulti-metal s CEM S t

o material s fe d into a commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

as par t o f afeedstrea

manalysi s plan . Ther

e i s simpl y n o evidenc e t o suppor

t tha t unde r suc h condition s acorrelatio n ca n be accuratel y mad

e between th e emission s concentratio n value s reporte d b y the multi-metal s CEM S and the feedrat e concentration s reporte d throug h th e feedstrea

manalysis . Th e evidenc e i s that , give n th e condition s a

t Veolia , n o correlatio n can i n fac t be made . Veoli a has offere d evidenc e base d o n publishe d report s and exper t statements o f

individual s wh o hav e relie dupo n publishe d report s and extensiv e personal experienc e samplin g fo r particulate material whic h woul dinclud e multi-metals . See comment s o f Veolia' s Expert s (citation s provide d supra i n not e 20. ) A s reflecte d i n Veolia' s Experts ' statements an d i n figure s below , th

e evidenc e show s tha

t th e Xac t 64 0 CEM S has man

y problems . One o f

thes e problem s i s tha

t metal s wil l accumulat

e i n th e prob e and umbilica l an d th e metal s wil l not

be sample d b y the multi-metal s CEM S contemporaneously wit h the materia l bein g incinerated .

-53

- VE S 01955 1Figur e 1. 1

Figur e 1. 2

-54

- VE S 01955 2Figur e 1. 3

Therefore , acorrelatio n between th e multi-metal s CEM S dataand the material bein g incinerate d canno t be established .

-55

- VE S 01955 3Unfortunately , Regio n 5' s inaccurat e belie f a s t o th e multi-metal s CEM S abilit y and th e Agency' s failur e t o consider likel y problem s i n th

e sample acquisitio n syste msignificantl y prejudic e Veolia : Unde r EPA' s proposal , th

e multi-metal s CEM S wil l provid e evidenc e o f deviation s tha

t ma y demonstrat

e tha t th e feedrat e limit s i n the Titl e V permi t ar e no t stringen t enough to assur

e complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T limit s a

t al l times . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 55 . Forth e reason s se

t fort h above , multi-metal s CEM S datacreate d a t Veoli ai s to o unreliabl e to b e use d a s evidence . Regio n 5 shoul d no t us e suc h dat

ato determine Veolia' s feedrates . An y attemp t b y th e Agenc y to se

t feedrat e limit s base d upo n suc h dat awil l leadto inconsistent

and prejudicia l results . 2 . Veolia's Comments on §5.3.2, "Multi-Metals CEMS and Feedstream Analysis" Regio n 5 sets up strawma n argument s fo r

challenge s pose d b y feedstrea manalysi s wit h regard to HWC s withou t

citatio n t o any authorit

y o r evidentiar

y support . See Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 56 . Thes e challenge s wer

e presen t whe n th e HW C MAC T wa s developed . I f Regio n 5 ha

s issue s wit h the HW C MACT , the appropriat e manne r i n whic h to addres s suc h issue s i s throug h rulemakin g and no t

throug h th

e Titl e V process . I n any case , absen t evidentiar

y support , Regio n 5' s assertion s agains t

th e feedstrea

manalysi s procedure s se t fort h i n the HW C MAC T canno t b e validate do r

even reasonabl y evaluated . Whil e amulti-metal s CEM S might i n theor y addres s th

e challenge s presente d b y Regio n 5 a s bein g associate d wit h feedstrea manalysis , multi-metal s CEM S ar e no t approve d fo r

us e i n the HW C MAC T no r

ar e the y include d i n Titl e V o r it s implementin g regulations . Moreover , the multi-metal s CEM S technolog y has not bee n analyze d an

d verifie db y USEP A o r source s regulate d unde

r the HW C MACT . Rather , a s evidence d b y th

e document s th

e Agenc y has place di n the administrativ e record , th e onl y entity tha

t claim s to hav e vette d and verifie dthe multi-metal s CEM S i s Cooper , wh o has apecuniar y interes t i n it s success . Regio n 5 state s "[t]h

e uncertaintie s cause d b y feedstrea manalysi s ca n b

e largel y resolve d whe n a well-maintaine dand operate d CEM S i s use d t o identif y deviation s fromemission s limitation s tha t ma y resul t frominaccurat

e o r insufficien t

feedstrea manalysis. " Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 56 . (VE S 0009305) . Thi s statemen t has no suppor

t o r evidentiar

y basis . I n fact , the phras e "well

maintaine d an d operate d CEMS " i s nonsensical i n relatio n t o a n Xac t multi-metal s CEM S sinc e none ar e currentl y i n operatio n a t an y hazardou s wast

e incinerator . Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 019292 . Veoli arequest s Regio n 5 specificall y defin e wha t i s mean t b y thi s statement . A t

most , Regio n 5 i s usin g suc h term s i n order fo r Region 5 t

o hav e adefens e tha

t the CEM S wer

e no t "well

maintaine d an d operated " when they ar e ultimatel y unsuccessfu l a t Veolia . USEP A ha

s mad e unwarrante d assumption s wit h regard t o th e CEM S technolog y and ha s offere dn o evidenc e tha

t it has independently substantiate d an y ofth e claims . I n contrast , Veoli a ha s offere dagrea

t deal o f unrefute d evidenc e tha

t th e CEM S technolog y wil l no t work i n Veolia' s incinerators . See Statements by : Ralp h Roberson , President o f RM B Consultin g & -56

- VE S 01955 4Researc h (VE S 008290-008380) ; Michae l Fuch s wit h UR S Corporatio n (VE S 007598-00760 5

and VE S 019283-019293) ; Emm aYor k wit h Evoni k

Industrie s (VE S 007596-007597) ; Denni s Warcho l wit h Veoli a(VE S 008381-00838 3 an d VE S 019308-019309) ; Rober t Baxte r with B 3 (VE S 016997-017002) , Willia mAnderso n wit h TestAmeric aan d Chri s McBrid e wit h Focu s Environmental , Inc . (VE S 016997-017002 ; VE S 016777-016795) .

3 . Veolia's Comments on §5.3.3, "Deficiencies in Veolia's Current Emissions Monitoring Procedures " (i) Region 5 incorrectly views as a deficiency the fact that Veolia's October 2013 comprehensive performance tests revealed that Veolia's three incineration units have significantly different emissions that

may not be linear Regio n 5 ha s alway s require d Veoli at o tes t it s three incineratio n unit s separately , believin g tha t eac h woul dhav e significantl y differen t emissions . Regio n 5' s vie w o n thi s poin t i s se t fort h i n detai l i n amemorandu mfromCharle s Hall , a n environmental enginee r wit h Regio n 5 , whic h discusses , i n relevant

part , Veolia' s CP T tes t

plan and Regio n 5' s rejectio n o f Veolia' s reques t

t o us e datafromIncinerato r # 2 to establis h OPL s fo r

Incinerato r

#3 : Veoli awante d to us e tes t datafromIncinerato r

# 2 to demonstrat

e complianc e an

d establis h OPL s fo r

Incinerato r

#3.. . [however

] Veoli aha s no t

ye t demonstrate d t

o EPA' s satisfactio n tha

t Incinerator s #

2 an d # 3 ar e identical : Incinerato r

#2' s baghous e ha s fou r

modules , an

d Incinerato r

#3' s baghous e ha s three modules . Thi s differenc e ma

y affec t th e emission s o f

dioxin/furan , mercury , PM , SVM , LVM , and HCL/CL 2 .. . hazardou s wast e incinerator s bur

n waste s tha

t ca n vary widel y i n thei r

hea t conten t an d elementa

l composition . Wast

e streams can vary fromon e hour to th e next . Liqui dwaste s ca n separat e into tw o o r

mor e phases . Consequently , EP A canno t reasonably assum

e tha t ahazardou s wast

e incinerato r

- especiall y on

e suc h a s Veoli atha

t accept s hazardou s wast

e fromnumerou s generator s - burn s ahomogenou s wast e stream . VE S 007534-35 . Thus , Region 5 ha s alway s require d Veoli ato tes t Unit s # 2 an d # 3 separately . Similarly , USEP A has alway s require d tha t Uni t 4 b e teste d separately du

e t o it s carbo n injectio n contro l syste mwhic h make s it difficul t t o compar e Uni t 4' s emission s to thos e o f the othe r units . VE S 007533-007536 . Tes t result s tha

t sho w differen t

emission s o f

mercur y fromUnit s #

2 an d #3 , despit e nearl y identica l mercur y feedrate s to Unit s #

2 and # 3 ar e consistent

wit h Regio n 5' s pre-existin g beliefs . Thus , nothin g ha s change d fromRegio n 5' s initia l vie w and thi s poin t cannot no w be identifie d a s a"deficiency " i n suppor t o f amulti-metal s CEMS .

-57

- VE S 01955 5(ii) Veolia's CPT results demonstrate compliance while generating emissions under

the worst

case operating conditions for the particular

combination of

wastes incinerated

and combustion conditions at

the time of

the test T o demonstrat

e complianc e durin g period s between complianc e tests , th e HW C require s source s compl y wit h OPL s tha

t ar e representativ e o f

operatin g level s achieve d durin g complianc e testin g require d b y the HW C MACT . See 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1207 ; Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 37 . Regio n 5 admit s tha

t th e emissio n level s achieve d durin g complianc e test s ar e typicall y th

e highes t emissio n level s asourc e emit s unde r reasonabl y anticipatabl e circumstances . See 6 9 Fed . Reg . 21197 , 2121 8 (Apri l 20 , 2004) ; see also 4 0 C.F.R . §§63.1206(b)(2) , 63.1207(f)(1) , (g)(1) ; Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 39 . Despit e USEPA' s admissions , and the regulation s whic h suppor t thes e admissions , Regio n 5 attempts t o limi t th e applicabilit y ofth e CP T b y statin g "[t]h e CP T demonstrate s complianc e onl y fo r th e particula

r combinatio n o f

waste s incinerate d and combustio n condition s a t the tim e o f

th e test. " Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 59 . Region 5' s effort s ar e similar to someon

e questionin g asuccessfu l Moun t Everes t mountai n climber' s abilit y t o climb a fligh t o f stairs . CP T tes t plan s ar e designe d "to generat

e emission s unde

r wors t cas e operatin g conditions " i n orde r fo r asourc e t

o "establis h OPL s tha

t accoun t fo r variabilit y i n operation s (e.g. , compositio n and feedrat

e o f waste , a s wel l a s variabilit y o f

pollutio n contro l equipment efficiency ) and tha

t d o no t impede normal operations. " Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 39 ; 6 9 Fed . Reg . a

t 21309-10 , nn . 20 2 & 204 . Regio n 5 foun dtha t Veolia' s revise d CP T plan s and Qualit y Assuranc e Projec t Pla n ("QAPP" ) were complete , a s require d b y th

e HW C MACT , and therefore approve d Veolia' s CP T tes t pla n and QAP P i n correspondenc e date d Septembe r 27 , 2013 . VE S 019294-019295 . Followin g the completio n o f th e testing , th

e Agenc y reviewe d Veolia' s CP T tes t repor t dated Januar y 28 , 2014 , and Veolia' s Notificatio n o f Complianc e date d Januar y 28 , 2014 , and determine d tha

t ther e i s sufficien t

informatio n to enable Regio n 5 to establis h OPL s fo r mercury , S V M and LV M tha

t satisf y the requirement s ofth e CA A and th e HW C MACT . VE S 009289 . Thus , Regio n 5 approve d bot h Veolia' s tes t

plan an d the accurac y o f Veolia' s tes t

results . Give n Regio n 5' s intimate involvemen t i n ever y ste p o f Veolia' s CP T testing , Regio n 5 cannot no w credibl y alleg e tha

t suc h testin g wa s not

unde r the wors t

cas e operatin g condition s o r otherwis e limi t the applicabilit y o f

th e result s i n an

y fashion . 4 . Veolia's Comments on §5.3.4, "Availability of Multi-Metals CEMS" Paragrap h 1 contain s three principa l assertions : 1 ) multi-metal s CEM S ar e commerciall y available ; 2 ) they have bee n demonstrate d to be reliable ; an d 3 ) th e multi-metal s CEM S wil l allo w Veoli at

o measur e complianc e i n "rea l time. " Thes e assertion s ar e wholl y unsupporte d b y th e facts . Regio n 5 make s absolutel y no effor t t o provid e suppor

t to it s firs t

statemen t i n paragrap h 1 , "[m]ulti-metal s CEM S ar e commerciall y availabl e and hav e bee n prove n t o be reliabl e fo r measurin g actua l emission s o f HA P metal s from ahazardou s wast e combustor. " Statemen t o f Basi s a t 59 . The fac t

i s tha t multi-metal s CEM S hav e no t been prove n t

o be reliabl e i n dail y us e a t acommercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

suc h a s Veolia .

- 58

- VE S 01955 6Th e Statemen t ofBasi s goe s o n to alleg e "EP A has monitore d side-by-sid e evaluation s o f multi

metal s CEM S wit h EP A Metho d2 9 .. . a t industria l wast

e incinerator s and foun d goo d correlatio n between th

e tw o methods. " Id. A s areferenc e fo r thi s statement , USEP A cite s to 7 5 Fed . Reg . 31,96 2 (Jun

e 4 , 2010) . Th e quot

e use d i n the Statemen

t ofBasi s i s copie d directl y fro mth e Federal Register. Unfortunately , th e Federal Register excerp t appears i n th

e preambl e to apropose d rul e an

d cannot b e verifie dbecaus e i t

contain s no referenc e o r documentation . A s Michae l Fuch s discusse s a t lengt h i n hi s comments , multi-metal s CEM S have neve r been demonstrate d agains t

USEP A Metho d29 . Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 019283-019293 . USEP A admit s tha

t multi-metal s CEM S ar

e not require d i n th

e recentl y promulgate d mercur y and ai r toxic s (MATS ) rule , althoug h "EP A consider s multi-metal s CEM S a s an accepte d optio n fo r metal s emissio n compliance. " 7 7 Fed . Reg . 930 3 (Feb.16 , 2012) . Th e ter m"multi-metal s CEMS " doe s no t

appea r i n MATS . Th e MAT S rul e doe s stat e tha t a n affecte d facilit y ma

y compl y wit h the meta

l HA P emissio n limit s usin g aCEM S approve d i n accordanc e wit h § 63.7(f ) a s a n alternativ e to the tes t

method s specifie di n th

e MAT S rule. 2 5 Assumin g tha t a "HA P metal s CEMS " i s functionall y equivalent to a"multi-metal s CEMS, " unde r th e rule , a facilit y tha

t wishe s to us e tha

t alternativ e has th

e burde n o f

selectin g the CEMS , and developin g the site-specifi c testin g procedures . The MAT S rul e contain s n o performanc e specification s fo r the HA P metal s CEMS , despit e th e fac t tha t OT M 1 6 and OT M 2 0 existe d a t th e time th e MAT S rul e wa s issued . The MAT S rul e state s tha t a n affecte d facilit y ma

y petitio n the Administrato r t o us e aHA P metal s CEM S a s a n alternativ e method . USEP A faile dto consider tha t amulti-metal s CEM S i s onl y a

n acceptabl e optio n fo r

metal s emissio n complianc e i n th e MAT S rul e "i f approve d a

s par t o f a n alternativ e monitorin g request. " See 11 Fed . Reg . a t 9,304 , 9,386 . Further , th

e Agenc y suggest s i n th

e Statemen

t ofBasi s tha

t aregulate d entity' s abilit y to petitio n USEP A t o us e aHA P metal s CEM S a s an alternativ e metho d support s requirin g multi-metal s CEM S fo r

measurin g actual emission s fro mahazardou s wast e combustor . Thi s i s unjustifiabl e and misleading . I n fact , th e MAT S rul e establishe s tha t multi-metal s CEM S ar

e no t commerciall y availabl e an d ar e no t ademonstrate d alternativ e tha t USEP A ca

n requir e withou t evidenc e tha

t it i s prove n to be reliable . Th e secon d paragrap h states , withou t substantiation , tha

t "EP A recentl y evaluated , a t several facilities , acommercia l versio n o f amulti-metal s CEM S capabl e o f measurin g u

p to 2 0 o r

mor e HA P metal s i n real time. " Th e statemen t fail s to identif

y th e facilitie s o r

type(s ) o f

facilities , th

e tes t condition s (includin g whethe r th e test s wer

e conducte d i n commercia l hazardou s incinerators) , whethe

r th e versio n evaluate d i s the sam e a s the versio n Regio n 5 discusse s throughout

th e res t o f th e Statemen

t ofBasis , whether

th e versio n evaluate d i n fac t measure d 2 0 o r mor e HA P metal s i n rea l time , and wha t th e result s o f

tha t evaluatio n were . Absen t suc h information , th

e sentenc e provide s n

o suppor t t o the Statemen

t ofBasi s discussion . Th e remainder

ofth e secon d paragraph relie s upo n material s tha t Cooper develope d o r contribute d to a

s suppor t fo r th e statements containe d therein . See Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 59-6 0 & nn.51-55 . Regio n 5 fail s t o conside r Cooper' s veste d interes t i n reportin g tha

t th e CEM S wa s a

7 7 Fed . Reg . 947

8 (Feb. 16

, 2012) .

- 59

- VE S 01955 7success . The Agenc y ha s offere dno evidenc e tha t USEP A independently verifie dthe claim s mad e b y thes e entities . Th e thir d paragrap h reflect s th e Agency' s continue d failur e t o independently evaluat e th e Xac t multi-metal s CEMS : Coope r Environmenta l Service s has als o develope d and receive d EP A approval fo r aQuantitativ e Aeroso l Generato r (QAG) , whic h generate s areferenc e aeroso l fo r calibratin g th

e multi-metal s CEM S and fo r performin g relativ e accurac y tes t audit s (RATAs ) ofth e multi-metal s CEMS . Yanc aet al. evaluate d bot

h th e Xac t and th e QA G usin g amodifie dEP A Metho d30 1 a t ahazardou s wast

e combustor b y comparin g measured and referenc e aeroso l concentrations . Th e author s foun d tha t both th e Xac t an d the QA G me

t the Metho d30 1 validatio n criteri awit h precision s and accuracie s o n the order o f 5 percen t over awid e rang e o f concentrations . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 6 0 (footnote s omitted) . Regio n 5 fail s to cite t o any independen

t verificatio n o f

th e QAG . Historically , agroup o f companie s have designed , develope d and markete d CEM S (e.g. , Thermo Fisher , Monito r Labs , Californi aAnalytics , etc.) . Anothe r completel y independen

t grou p o f companie s hav e manufacture d an d supplie d th e market wit h calibratio n gase s (e.g. , Ai r Liquide , Airgas , Linde , etc.) . Roberso n Aff . a t VE S 008295 . I n th

e presen t case , USEP A faile dto consider problem s tha

t ma y aris e due t

o Cooper , the developer , providin g both th

e availabl e performanc e specification s an d th e calibratio n materials . Regio n 5 ha s instructe d Veoli ato purchas e and instal l the multi-metal s Xac t CEM S sol db y Cooper , us e th e draf t performanc e specification s writte n b y Coope r t o determine whethe

r th e CEM S operate s accurately , an d calibrate th e CEM S to determine accurac y b y usin g material s supplie d b y Cooper . USEPA' s tota l relianc e o n Coope r i s no t appropriate—specificall y i n ligh t ofth e undevelope d stat

e ofth e multi-metal s CEM S technolog y an d it s questionabl e accuracy—becaus e Coope r has pecuniar

y incentive s to represen

t th e technolog y ha

d capabilitie s beyon d i t

limits . Withou t othe r companies ' participation , n o independen

t mean s exis t

to establis h tha

t th e Xac t CEM S produce s accurat e an d reliabl e datafo r

compliance . Further , the reference s Regio n 5 provide s i n paragrap h 3 and i n footnote s 5 6 an d 5 7 als o sho w th e Agency' s failur e to conside r Cooper' s veste d interes t i n reportin g tha

t the CEM S wa s a success . USEP A ha

s offere dn o evidenc e tha t USEP A independentl y teste d th e assertion s i t repeat s fro mthes e sources . Incredibly , USEP A use s paragrap h 4 t o tout i n apositiv e fashio n th

e Xac t CEM S whic h faile da

t th e forme r El i Lill y facility . Th e Xac t CEM S faile do n th

e El i Lill y non-commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

du e to software and firmwar e problem s and wa s remove d fromservic e permanentl y i n Augus t

o f 201 1 b y Evonik , th

e owner o f the facility . Evoni k

Aff . a t VE S 007596 . Durin g it s operation , Evoni k use d the Xac t

CEM S i n avery limite dcapacity , namel y durin g RAT A and performanc e testin g only ; foun d the Xac t CEM S to be costl y i n term s o f time

-60

- VE S 01955 8an d maintenance ; and neve r relie d o n it

fo r officia l monitorin g purpose s unde r th e site' s Titl e V permit. 2 6 Evoni k

Aff . a t VE S 007596-007597 . Th e Agenc y als o faile dto consider th e difference s between th e forme r Lill y Incinerato r

and Veolia' s incinerators . A n obviou s differenc e i s that , when Evoni k operate d th

e incinerator , i t wa s no t acommercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

lik e Veolia's . Evoni k

Aff . a t VE S 007596 . Veolia' s incinerators , an d commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator s lik e Veolia's , receiv e widel y divers e wast

e stream s fro munrelate d industrie s which , Regio n 5 recognizes , result s i n a heterogeneou s wast

e stream . Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 5 0 (VE S 009299) . Du e to the variety o f feedstream s Veoli aaccepts , th e significan t

varianc e i n metal s conten t woul dlikel y affec t

th e abilit y o f multi-metal s CEM S to produc e vali ddat aove r a n extende d period . Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 007600 . Mos t incinerators , includin g th e forme r El i Lill y incinerator , emplo y we t scrubber s o r

a combinatio n o f

wet scrubber s and baghouse s a s thei r pollutio n contro l equipment . Th e of f gase s fromincinerator s usin g we t scrubber s have simila r

moisture and temperatur e ranges . Th e supplier s o f

the Xac t Multi-Metal s CEM S clai mtha t the Xac t analyze s th

e off gas emitte d from an incinerato r

t o determine th

e amoun t o f metal s i n th

e emission s stream . Unlik e we t scrubbe r system s suc h a s tha

t employe d b y th

e Lill y Incinerator , Veoli aoperate s adr y pollutio n contro l syste mo n Unit s 2 , 3 and 4 o f it s Sauge t facility . T o Veolia' s knowledge , onl y on e othe r exclusivel y dry syste moperate s i n the Unite dStates : th e Clea n Harbor s incinerato r i n Kimball , Nebraska . Veolia' s dr

y pollutio n contro l system s operat e a t muc h higher

moistur e an d temperatur

e range s tha

n wet scrubbe r systems . Regio n 5 offer s no documentatio n demonstratin g tha t the Xac t Multi-Metal s CEM S has successfull y operate d i n the hig h variabl e moisture and hig h temperatur

e environmen

t presented b y Veolia' s incinerators . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008381

- 008382 . El i Lilly' s experienc e establishe s tha t th e multi-meta l CEM S i s costl y i n term s o f tim e and maintenanc e and tha

t it s software and firmwar e faile di n the comparativel y mor e friendly, non commercia l hazardou s wast e environmen

t involvin g ahomogenou s fee d stream . Th e Xac t CEM S ha

s neve r bee n prove n to b

e reliabl e i n measurin g actua l emission s o f HA P metal s i n a commercia l hazardou s wast e environment

involvin g aheterogenou s fee d strea msuc h a s Veolia . Fuch s Aff . a

t VE S 007599-007601 ; Evoni k Aff . a t VE S 007596 ; Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008382 ; Roberso n Aff . a

t VE S 008290-008302 . Likewise , Regio n 5' s allegatio n tha t th e multi-metal s CEM S can wor k effectivel y i n moisture lade n environment

o f th e stack s a

t Veoli ahas no true , teste d support . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 60 , n.58 . Rather , i t

i s base d o n a

n unteste d "assurance " fromCooper . Cooper has afinancia l incentiv e t o mak

e thi s assurance . Veoli ahas countere d Cooper' s assuranc e wit h evidenc e from expert s i n the fiel dtha

t th e Xac t wil l no t wor k a t Veolia . See comment s o f Veolia' s Expert s

2 6O n Octobe

r 4 , 2012 , USEPA' s Sara

h Marshal

l sen ta n emai l t o othe r USEP A staf

f discussin

g Evonik' s experienc

e wit h th e multi-metal

s CEM S an

d indicatin

g tha tfurthe r discussion

s directl y wit h Evonik woul

d occur . See Sara

h Marshal l Oct . 4, 201 2 emai l a tVE S 001470

. However

, n o document

s ar e containe

d withi n th e administrativ

e recor d reflectin g th e conten to f thos e subsequen

tdiscussions. Veoli a request s tha tUSEP A disclos

e an d ad d t o th e administrativ

e recor d all communication

s wit h Evonik pertainin

g t o th e CEMS . Further

, Veoli a request

s tha tth e publi c commen

tperio d b e reopene

d followin

g suc h additions.

- 6 1 - VE S 01955 9(citation s provide d supra i n not e 20 . Certainly , no datao r objectiv e evidenc e exis t i n th e recor d to demonstrat

e th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S can operat e a t moistur e content s a

t o r abov e 4 0 percent . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008382 . Footnot e 60 , cite d i n paragrap h 5 , furthe r reflect s USEPA' s misunderstandin g tha t the Xac t technolog y ha s bee

n successfull y employe d b y others . I n fact , th e evidenc e doe s no t

suppor t the Agency' s assertion . Region 5 state s tha t the U.S . Departmen

t o f Defens e has purchase d thre e Xac t unit s fo r us e a t arm y munition s incinerators . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 61 , n . 60 (VE S 009310) . I n fact , the Arm y i s not

usin g the three Xac t

unit s a t all , muc h les s fo r

complianc e purposes . Warcho l Aff . a

t VE S 019308 ; Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 007601-007602 . USEP A has admitte d durin g meeting s wit h Veoli atha t n o Xac t CEM S i s currentl y operatin g a t any commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

to monito r

stack emissions . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008382 . I n a n attempt to bolste r th e credibilit y ofth e faile dtechnology , Regio n 5 als o allege s tha t Coope r recentl y signe d agreements wit h th e Sout h Coas t Ai r Qualit y Management

Distric t (SCAQMD ) and aTexa s company tha t ha s som e typ e o f facilit y i n Nigeria . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 61 . Accordin g t o it s website , SCAQM D i s the ai r pollutio n contro l agenc y fo r al l o f Orang e County an d th e urba n portion s o f

Lo s Angeles , Riversid e and Sa n Bernardin o counties . USEP A state s tha t "SCAQM D wil l operat

e on e multi-metal s CEM S o n asecondar y lea d smelte r i n Souther

n Californi afo r

aperio d o f

a t leas t 1 0 month s beginnin g i n December 2014. " Base d upo n informatio n fro mthe minute s o f th e Marc h 7 , 201 4 Boar dMeetin g fo r SCAQMD , th

e multi

metal s CEM S wil l be a"demonstratio n program " whic h "wil l allo w fo r abette r understandin g o f the capabilitie s o f

thi s technolog y i n monitorin g multi-metal s o n acontinuou s basis , an d wil l no t b e use d fo r

complianc e purposes. " VE S 019491 . SCAQM D state s "[t]hi s programi s necessar y to understan d an

d evaluat e th e capabilitie s o f

thi s technolog y i n monitorin g metal s emission s o n acontinuou s basi s fo r

meta l emittin g facilities. " Thes e action s wer e take n "[sjubjec t

to Boar d adoptio n o f

th e Propose d Amende dRul e 1420. 1 multi-metal s CEM S demonstratio n program provision " pursuan

t t o whic h "larg e lead-aci d batter y recyclin g facilitie s woul dbe require d to fun dand participate i n amulti-metal s CEM S demonstratio n programtha t th e SCAQM D staf

f propose s t o implement. " Th e CEM S provision s containe d withi n Veolia' s draf t permi t ar e mor e arduou s the n thos e propose d b y SCAQMD . Unlik e SCAQM D wh o acknowledge s us e ofth e CEM S i s par

t o f ademonstratio n programt o bette r understan d the technology , Regio n 5 assume s th e HW C MAC T doe s no

t wor k and disregard s th

e FAP/OPL s monitorin g requirements . Thi s i s troublin g becaus e USEP A i s ultimatel y charge d wit h implementin g th e CA A throug h th

e HW C MACT . However , Regio n 5 disregard s th e FAP/OPL s and start s with th e presumptio n tha

t th e CEM S technolog y work s and tha t it accuratel y calculate s multi-metal s informatio n fo r Veolia' s emissions . Base d o n thi s assumption , USEP A require s Veoli ato modif y it s HW C MAC T complianc e dependin g o n th e value s calculate d b y the CEM S regardles s o f th e accurac y o f

thi s technolog y whe n applie d to Veolia' s stacks . The secondar

y lea d smelte

r i n Californi awa s t

o instal l th

e multi-metal s CEM S i n December 2014 . However , Cooper recentl y represente d to Veoli athat , t o date , th e Xac t a t th e Souther

n Californi asecondar

y lea d smelte r facilit y wa s no t

operational . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 019309 . Obviously , eve n i f

th e Xac t wa s operational , it s us e i n asecondar y lead smelte

r whic h deal s primaril y wit h onl y afe w metal s i s no t comparabl e to it s us e i n the Veoli aincinerator s whic h woul dinvolv e numerou s metal s a s wel l a s othe

r wast e streams . -62

- VE S 01956 0Regio n 5 apparently doe s not kno w enoug h abou

t th e Nigeria n company to referenc e an y particula r industry , howeve

r nothin g suggest s the Xac t CEM S i n Nigeri awil l be employe d t o monito r stack emission s o r

tha t it wil l be employe d a

t acommercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator . Th e locatio n i n Nigeri awa s to instal l th e multi-metal s CEM S i n mid-summer 2014 . Coope r

di d no t provid e astatu s repor

t o n whethe

r the Xac t wa s operational i n Nigeria . Veoli ai s unabl e to comment further o n the us e o f

multi-metal s CEM S i n Nigeri adu e to alac k

o f specificit y i n th

e Statemen t ofBasis . 5 . Veolia's Comments on §5.3.5, "Performance Specifications for the MultiMetals CEMS" Th e HW C MAC T emission s limitation s fo r mercury , SVMs , and LVM s wer e establishe d usin g USEP A Metho d29 . T o demonstrat e complianc e wit h thes e emission s limitations , asourc e mus t utiliz e Metho d2 9 durin g performanc e testin g or us e a n alternativ e monitorin g technology . 4 0 C.F.R . §63.1208(b)(2)-(4) . Th e sourc e ma y onl y us e a

n alternativ e monitorin g technolog y i f th e sourc e provide s evidenc e fo r it s approval an d th

e technolog y i s ultimatel y approve d b y the Agency . Veoli aha

s demonstrate d complianc e usin g Metho d29 . Further , Veoli ahas no t petitione d th

e Agenc y t o us e an

y alternativ e monitorin g technologie s and th e USEP A ha s no t approve d an

y suc h technologie s fo r

us e a t Veolia' s facility . Thus , Metho d2 9 remain s the onl y approve d metho d fo r

Veoli ato demonstrat

e complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T emission s limitations . Regio n 5 i s arbitraril y and capriciousl y requirin g Veoli at o us e a n alternativ e metho d tha

t i s no t approve d unde

r th e HW C MACT . Further , Regio n 5 has n o authorit y to require Veoli ato us e a

n alternativ e monitorin g technolog y tha t Veoli ahas no t

requested . Regio n 5 has promulgate d n o performanc e specification s fo r th e multi-metal s CEMS , an d therefor e th

e multi-metal s CEM S canno t b e use d t o measur

e compliance . Th e Statemen t o f Basi s states : "A s EPA' s historica l practic e indicates , OT M specification s and procedure s ca n be use d fo r complianc e purpose s wit h th e approva l o f

th e permittin g authority . A s the permittin g authority fo r

thi s permittin g action , EP A believe s tha t th e specification s and procedure s publishe das OT M 1 6 an d 2 0 ar e appropriat

e fo r the multi-metal s CEMS. " Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 61-62 . Pursuan

t to 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.7(f) , a n affecte d facilit y ma

y petitio n USEP A to us e a n alternativ e tes t

metho d t o an y tes t metho d specifie di n arelevant emissio n standard . However , i n thi s case , the multi-metal s CEM S i s parametri c monitorin g and Veoli ahas no t requeste d it

be use d a t it s facility . USEP A doe s not have authorit

y t o su aspont

e establis h OT M specification s fo r parametri c monitorin g tha t has no t been requeste d b y Veolia . Absen t suc h specification s and procedures , th

e performanc e o f

amulti-metal s CEM S cannot be evaluate d and result s produce d b y amulti-metal s CEM S suc h a s the Xac t

Multi-Metal s CEM S canno t b e relie d upo n t o accuratel y measur

e emission s froma

n incinerator . Roberso n Aff . a t VE S 008295 . Nevertheless , whil e acknowledgin g tha t performanc e specification s fo r multi-metal s CEM S hav e no t bee n subjecte d to aforma l rulemakin g process , Regio n 5 allege s "EP A ha s publishe d specification s and quality assuranc e procedure s fo r th e multi-metal s CEMS " a s OT M 1 6 and O T M 20 . Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 61 . USEP A has neve

r promulgate d o r

approve d thes e specification s and procedures ; rather , the tw o document s ar e simpl y poste d o n a

n EP A websit

e entitle d "Technolog y Transfe r Network Emissio n Measurement Center " unde

r "Categor

y C : Othe r Methods." Bot h document s hav e cove r page s stamped "DRAFT " and ar e date d Jun

e 2005 . Mor e importantly , neithe r documen

t wa s authore d b y USEPA , bu t rathe r bot h wer e -63

- VE S 01956 1authore d b y Cooper , whic h has afinancia l interes t i n portrayin g the performanc e specification s as legitimate . The USEP A website contain s the followin g lengthy cavea t tha t govern s document s suc h a

s these : Categor y C : Othe r Method s Thi s categor

y include s tes t

method s whic h hav e not yet been subjec t

t o th e Federa l rulemakin g process . Eac h o f thes e methods , a

s wel l a s the availabl e technica l documentatio n supportin g them , have been reviewe d b y the Emissio n Measurement Center staf f and hav e been foun dt o be potentiall y usefu l t

o the emissio n measuremen t community . Th e type s o f technica l informatio n reviewe d includ e fiel dand laborator y validatio n studies ; result s o f

collaborativ e testing ; article s frompeer-reviewe d journals ; peer-revie w comments ; an d qualit y assuranc e (QA ) and quality contro l (QC ) procedure s i n th e metho d itself . A tabl e summarizin g the availabl e technica l informatio n fo r each metho d ca

n be foun da

t th e lin k below . The EP A strongl y encourage s the submissio n o f additiona l supportin g fieldand laborator y dat aa s wel l a s comment s i n regard t o thes e methods . Thes e method s ma

y b e considere d fo r

us e i n Federall y enforceabl e Stat e and loca l program s (e.g. , Titl e V permits , Stat e Implementatio n Plan s (SIP) ) provide dthe y ar

e subjec t t o a n EP A Regiona l SI P approval proces s o r permi t vet o opportunit

y and publi c notic e wit h th e opportunit

y fo r comment . The method s ma y als o be considere d to b e candidate s t

o be alternativ e method s to mee t Federa l requirement s unde r 4 0 CF RPart s 60 , 61 , an d 63 . However , the y mus t b e approve d a

s alternative s unde

r 60.8 , 61.13 , o r 63.7(f ) before asourc e ma

y us e the mfo r

thi s purpose . Consideratio n o f

amethod' s applicabilit y fo r aparticula

r purpos e shoul d be base d o n th

e state d applicabilit y a

s wel l a s th e supportin g technica l informatio n outline d i n th e table . Th e method s ar

e availabl e fo r applicatio n withou t

EP A oversight

fo r othe r non-EP A programuse s including stat

e permittin g program s an d scientifi c and engineerin g applications . A s man y o f thes e method s ar

e submitte d b y partie s outside the Agency , the EP A staf

f ma y no t necessaril y b e the technica l expert s o n thes e methods . Therefore , technica l suppor t fromEP A fo r

thes e method s i s limited , bu

t th e tabl e contain s contac t

informatio n fo r

the developer s s o tha t yo u ma y contac t the mdirectly . Also , be awar e tha t thes e method s ar

e subjec t t o change base d o n th

e revie w o f

additiona l validatio n studie s o r o n publi c commen

t a s apar t o f adoptio n a

s aFedera l tes t

method , th

e Titl e V permittin g process , o r inclusio n i n aSIP . USEPA , Technolog y Transfe r Network , Tes t

Method s a

t www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/tmethods.html. , VE S 007561

- 007563 . Thus , USEP A admit s tha t i t ma y not b e "th e technica l expert s o n thes e methods " an

d tha t thes e method s have no t

been subjec t

to the federa l rulemakin g proces s an d ar e subjec t t o change based o n additiona l studie s o r publi c comment .

- 64

- VE S 01956 2Regio n 5 ha s abandone d recognize d mean s o f complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T i n favo r o f th e multi-metal s CEM S technology . Unfortunately , i n the process , th e Agenc y faile dt o consider tha t thi s technolog y lack s performanc e specification s and ongoin g qualit y assuranc e o r quality contro l procedure s fo r

measurin g whethe

r the technolog y wa s operatin g correctl y and tha t Pal l ha s no w abandone d th

e technology . Roberso n Aff . a t VE S 008290-008302 ; Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008383 . Regio n 5 als o faile dto consider tha t i t ma y hav e been misled , throug h it s exclusiv e relianc e o n Cooper/Pall , as to the technology' s abilitie s and it s capabilitie s t o functio n i n the environment

o f Veolia' s incinerators . Further , th e Agenc y faile dt o consider tha t USEP A demean s it s independen

t statu s b y advocatin g o n behal f o f th e Xac t CEM S and reduce s th

e incentiv e fo r

technica l advancemen

t whil e als o prejudicin g Veolia' s right s a s aconsumer . I f Veolia' s permi t

wer e modifie da

s proposed , i n theory , Coope r coul dcharg e Veoli aany pric e i t wishe s fo r

th e Xac t multi-metal s CEMS . Roberso n Aff . a t VE S 008290-008302 . F . Th e Propose

d Methodolog

y fo r Measuring Beryllium Show s tha tRegio n 5' s Requiremen

tfo r th e Installatio

n o f Multi-Metal s CEM S I s Arbitrary an

d Capricious Regio n 5 justifie s th

e installatio n o f

multi-metal s CEM S becaus e i t believe s the HW C MAC T feedstrea manalysi s procedur

e has problem s tha

t wer e no t adequatel

y deal t wit h b y thos e wh o promulgate d the procedure , specifically : [fjeedstrea manalysi s generall y poses. . .uncertaint y associate d wit h 1 ) measuremen

t o f extremel y lo w meta l concentration s i n the feedstrea m(i.e. , concentration s a

t o r nea r the detectio n limi t

o f the measuremen

t device) ; 2 ) heterogeneit

y ofth e hazardou s waste , whic h may lead to anon-representativ e sampl e an

d henc e a n inaccurat

e estimat e o f th e metal fee d concentration ; and 3 ) inabilit y t o demonstrat

e continuou s complianc e wit h MAC T limit s sinc e ther e i s typicall y aconsiderabl e tim e la g tim e between samplin g and analysis . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 56 . Althoug h offerin g n o actual evidence , suc h as studie s o f commercia l hazardou s wast

e incinerator s to suppor

t it s assertions , Regio n 5 assert s th e CEM S cure s the perceive d shortcoming s o f feedstrea manalysi s wit h on

e exception—berylliu memissions . Veoli abelieve s evidenc e demonstrate s tha t th e Coope r multi-metal s CEM S wil l no t accuratel y wor k t o measur

e multi-metal s whe n use d a t commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerators . Regio n 5 agree s wit h Veoli awit h respec t to beryllium : "EP A recognize s tha t the onl y current

availabl e multi-metal s CEM S tha

t woul dmee

t EPA' s requirement s (i. e th e Coope r Environmenta l Services' multi-meta l CEMS ) i s incapabl e o f measurin g berylliu memissions. " Statemen t o f Basi s a t 62 . Therefore , Regio n 5 proposes :

. . . amethodolog y i n the draf t permi t fo r quantifyin g emission s o f metal s fo r

whic h th e multi-metal s CEM S i s incapabl e o f directin g (sic ) measuring . See Conditio n 2.1(D)(l)(i)(ii) . Th e propose d methodolog y woul drequir e tha t berylliu m emission s b

e quantifie dusin g th

e result s o f

feedstrea manalysi s and th

e system remova l efficienc y and exhaus t parameter s use d b y Veoli at o estimat e emission s durin g th e 12-hou r perio d use d to calculate th e 12-hou r averag e rollin g average . -65

- VE S 01956 3Id. Th e methodolog y fo r berylliu mtha

t Regio n 5 propose s o n pag e 6 2 ofth e Statemen t ofBasi s i s the sam

e HW C MAC T methodolog y tha t Regio n 5 dismisse s a

s to o uncertai n o n pag e 5 6 o f th e Statemen

t ofBasis . I f

thi s accepte d HW C MAC T methodolog y i s accurat e and acceptabl e fo r beryllium , Regio n 5 mus t sho w wh y th

e sam e methodolog y i s inaccurat e fo r th e othe r metal emission s i n orde

r t o justif y it s decisionmakin g regardin g CEMS . Rather tha n treatin g th

e emission s monitorin g o f metal s i n suc h a

n arbitrar y fashion , Veoli apropose s tha t al l metal emission s b e subjec t

t o measuremen

t usin g the sam

e methodology—specifically , the methodolog y se

t fort h and approve d i n th e HW C MAC T standard . Th e HW C MAC T standar d wa s establishe d i n par

t to avoi d inconsistent

and varyin g samplin g result s whic h woul doccu r withou t thi s standar

d methodology . G . Regio

n 5' s Permitting Decisio n t o Us e Multi-Metal s CEM S i s No tSupporte

d b y Substantia

l Evidenc

e 1 . The Xact

640Multi-Metals CEMS Has Never

Been Tested

or Installed on Incinerators with Dry Pollution Control Systems such as Those at Veolia USEP A make s muc h o f

th e us e o f aXac t CEM S a t the forme r

El i Lill y incinerator . Statemen t o f Basi s a t 60-61 . El i Lilly' s incinerato r and Veolia' s incinerator s ar e not comparable . Th e El i Lill y incinerator , alon g wit h mos t othe r incinerator s i n th

e Unite dStates , employ s wet scrubber s as it s pollutio n contro l equipmen t or acombinatio n o f

wet scrubber s an d baghouses . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008381 . Th e of f

gase s fromincinerator s usin g we t scrubber s al l hav e similar moisture an d temperatur e ranges . I n comparison , Veoli aoperate s a n exclusivel y dr y pollutio n contro l syste mo n Unit s 2 , 3 and 4 o f it s Sauge t facility . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008381 . Th e onl y othe r exclusivel y dr

y syste mi n the Unite dState s know n to Veoli ai s the Clea n Harbor s incinerato r

i n Kimball , Nebraska . Veolia' s dry pollutio n contro l system s produc e of f gase s a t muc h higher

variabl e moistur

e and temperatur

e range s tha

n wet scrubbe r systems . Id. Th e Xac t Multi-Metal s CEM S purport s to analyz e the off gas emitte d froma

n incinerato r

to determine th

e amoun t o f metal s i n th

e emission s stream . Th e Xac t Multi-Metal s CEM S has neve r bee n tested , installe do r

demonstrate d to successfull y operat e i n incinerator s usin g exclusivel y dry pollutio n contro l system s and producin g of f gase s wit h th

e hig h variabl e moisture an d hig h temperatur e produce d b y Veolia' s incinerators .

2 . Veolia Has Offered Unrefuted

Evidence that

the Xact 640Multi-Metals CEMS Will Not Work and Is Inappropriate to be Used as a Temporary Continuous Parametric Monitoring System at Veolia Veoli ahas offere devidenc e fromnationwid e expert s tha t th e Xac t 64 0 Multi-Metal s CEM S i s no t aCPM S a s allege d i n the Statemen t ofBasi s an d wil l not

provid e accurat

e dataa t Veolia . See generall y comment s o f Veolia' s Expert s (citation s provide d supra not e 20) . Michae l Fuch s i s a

n exper t wit h ove r

3 5 year s o f

experienc e wh o actuall y take s emissio n measurement s fromhazardou s wast e incinerator s acros s th

e countr y a s par t o f hi s jo b a s a Projec t Manager i n th e Measurement s Grou p i n UR S Corporation' s Austin , Texa s office . H e use s CEM S t o measur

e particulate s and othe

r constituents . Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 019283-019293c .

-66 - VE S 01956 4Robert Baxte r ha s fo r ove r thirt y year s worke d i n hazardou s wast e incineratio n acros s th

e Unite d States . I n recen

t year s throug h hi s employment a t B 3 Systems , Inc. , h

e ha s becom

e extremel y familia r wit h particulate monitor s fo r EP A MAC T complianc e an d proces s control . Currently , multi-metal s CEM S ar e no t use d anywher

e i n th e Unite dState s t

o measur e metal s fro memission s a

t ahazardou s wast

e incinerator . Cooper

Environmenta l Services , LL C allege s tha t th e Xac t 64 0 continuou s emissio n monitorin g syste mi s capabl e o f measurin g metal s collecte do n filte r

tap e throug h th

e us e o f X-ra y fluorescence. Fo r purpose s o f

Veolia' s Titl e V permit , Regio n 5 allege s tha t thes e measurements woul daccuratel y reflec t th e metal conten

t o f emission s fromVeolia' s incinerators . However , evidenc e i n th e administrativ e recor d and Statemen t ofBasi s d

o no t suppor t th e viabilit y o f

th e Xac t 640' s us e a

t Veolia' s commercia l hazardou s wast

e incinerator . Further , the Xac t 64 0 cannot

provid e accurat

e datawithi n th

e Veoli aincinerators ' environment . See generally Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 019283-019293c ; Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 016997-017002 .

(i) The Xact

640as proposed

in Veolia's draft

Title VPermit

is not a temporary Continuous Parametric Monitoring System nor should it be used as evidence of

compliance with the HWC MACT USEP A allege s tha

t th e Xac t CEM S i s bein g installe d a s atemporar

y CPM S t o verif

y the adequac y o f

th e feedrat e limits . Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 54 . USEP A i s no t

bein g forthright . USEP A doe s not

trea t the Xac t CEM S a s atemporar

y CPM S i n th

e 201 4 Draf

t Permi t and to sugges t tha t th e Xac t CEM S i s atemporar

y CPM S withou t

furthe r explanatio n demonstrate s bad fait h and imprope r

behavio r b y the Agency . A s se t fort h i n the regulations , aCEM S limi t o n a n operational incinerato r i s typicall y requeste d b y th e permitte e as par

t o f th e CP T testin g i n order

to establis h arelationship , i f any , betwee n th

e CEM S and th

e paramete

r tha t i s sough t t o be monitored . See 4 0 C.F.R . §63.1209(g)(l)(iii)(A ) and (D ) (requirin g alternativ e monitorin g requirement s suc h a s CEM S to b

e submitte d a

t the sam e tim e as th

e CP T plan) ; Baxte r

Aff . a t VE S 016997-016998 . However , Veoli aneve r requeste d the CEMS . Further , th e first time Regio n 5 requeste d installatio n o f th e CEM S wa s a

s par t ofth e Titl e V draf

t permit—wel l after

th e CP T testing . Th e impac t t o Veoli ao f

th e CEM S no t bein g include d i n the CP T testin g i s tha t ther e i s no know n relationshi p between th e CEM S an d the paramete

r tha t i s sough t to be monitored . An y attemp t to establis h arelationshi p between the tw o mus t

be mad e durin g actual , operational condition s whic h i s bot h disruptiv e and prejudicia l to Veolia . Further , USEP A allege s the CEM S wil l be use d temporarily a s aCPMS . Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 53-54 . I n par

t due t o it s temporar

y nature , atemporar

y CPM S i s neve

r use d a s evidenc e o f compliance . Onl y apermanen t feedstrea

manalysi s pla n whic h wa s se t fort h i n th

e CP T pla n an d whos e validit y wa s establishe d throug h CP T testin g establishe s HW C MAC T compliance . Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 016998 . Further , th e CPM S i s bein g use d a s a n absolut e emissio n rat

e fo r providin g evidenc e o f

deviation s tha

t Region 5 believe s wil l demonstrat e tha t Veoli ama

y no t be i n complianc e wit h aHW C MAC T metal s emission s limit . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 53-55 . Thus , th e Agenc y i s impermissibl y usin g amulti-metal s CEM S a s aCPMS , whic h wa s neve r use d i n Veolia' s CP T testin g an d has no establishe d relationshi p t o complian t emissions , to replac e th e

-67

- VE S 01956 5HW C MAC T recognize d feedstrea manalysi s pla n whic h Veoli adi d us e i n it s CP T testin g and i s evidenc e o f

complian t

emissions. 2 7 (ii) The Xact

640has not

been demonstrated

to be reliable for measuring the content

of stack emissions from a commercial hazardous waste incinerator Th e Xac t 64 0 has neve

r bee n evaluate d b y USEP A approve d tes t methods . Th e Statemen t o f Basi s attempt s t

o obscur e thi s fac t

wit h generalization s and unsubstantiate d statements . USEPA' s Statemen

t ofBasi s provide s tha

t "multi-metal s CEM S .. . have bee n demonstrate d t o b e reliabl e fo r

measurin g metal s emission s from ahazardou s wast e combusto r

, " an d "EP A ha s monitore d side-by-sid e evaluation s o f multi-metal s CEM S wit h EP A Metho d29. " Statemen t o f Basi s a t 59 . USEPA' s statement s ar e confusin g i n tha

t they us e term s suc h as "multi-metal s CEMS, " "demonstrated, " "reliable " an d "Metho d29. " USEP A shoul d i n it s respons e t o comment s accuratel y stat e tha t no multi-metal s CEM S use d i n emissio n stack gas analysi s ha s eve r been demonstrate d to be reliabl e usin g Metho d29 , despit e the HW C MAC T requirin g tha t Metho d2 9 b e use d t

o demonstrat

e complianc e wit h the emissio n standard s fo r metals. 2 8 Similarly , the Statemen

t ofBasi s als o vaguel y state s "EP A recentl y evaluate d a t severa l facilitie s acommercia l versio n o f amulti-metal s CEM S (th e Xac t multi-metal s CEMS). " Statemen t o f Basi s a t 59 . Ther e i s n o citatio n give n fo r thi s evaluatio n an d withou t furthe r informatio n the statemen t ha s no evidentiar

y valu e relatin g t o th

e Xact . Regio n 5 shoul d furthe r

explai n i n it s respons e to comment s wha t th e Statemen

t ofBasi s mean

t tha t "[m]ulti-metal s CEM S .. . hav e bee n demonstrate d t o b e reliabl e fo r

measurin g metal s emission s from ahazardou s wast e combustor. " Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 59 . Sinc e th

e accurac y o f th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S ha s no t bee n demonstrate d agains t

EP A Metho d2 9 with sample s collecte ddirectl y fromasourc e b y bot h th e Xac t an d b y EP A Metho d2 9 and sinc e the HW C MAC T require s tha

t Metho d2 9 b e use d t

o demonstrat

e complianc e wit h the emissio n standard s fo r metals , the reliabilit y fo r measurin g metal s emission s b y th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S has no t been demonstrate d fo r

purpose s ofth e HW C MACT. 2 9

2 7Th e HW C MAC T doe

s no tprovid e fo r o r allo w a CPM S t

o b e use d t o "measure

" th e adequac

y o f a n operatin

g parameter

. 2 8 Th e HW C MAC T state

s tha tMetho d 2 9 (4 0 C.F.R . 60

, Appendi

x A , Metho

d 29 ) mus tb e use d t o demonstrat

e complianc

e wit h th e emissio

n standard

s fo r mercury ; th

e sem i volatil e metal s cadmiu m an d lead ; an

d th e lo w volatilit y metal s arsenic , berylliu m an d chromium

. 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.120

8 (b)(2)-(4) . 2 9USEPA' s website

, unde r Metal s an d Mercur y Emission

s Monitoring, state

s "[i]n 199

6 Performanc

e Specificatio

n 1 0 (P S 10 ) wa s propose

d in conjunctio

n wit h th e origina l Hazardou

s Wast e Combusto

r NESHAP , bu

tbecaus e th e measuremen

ttechnolog

y ha d no tbee n fully develope

d an d demonstrated

, th e specificatio

n wa s no tpromulgated. " USEP A at

www.epa

. g o v/ttnemc

O 1 /monito

r .html . I ti s importan

tt o not e tha teve n thi s propose

d technolog

y require s sample s b e draw n directl y fro m a sourc

e i f the y ar e t o b e analyzed

. Th e Xac tdoe s no ttes tsample s draw n directl y fro m a source

. Rather , i tdraw s a sampl

e throug h a n acquisitio

n syste m an d furthe r condition

s th e sampl e prio r t o analyzin g it . Fuch s Aff . a tVE S 019290-019291 . -68

- VE S 01956 6Further , USEP A represent s i n the Statemen t ofBasi s tha

t "El i Lill y Compan y receive d approva l fromth e EP A to us e amulti-metal s CEM S a s a n alternativ e to Metho d2 9 and operatin g paramete r monitorin g a

t th e El i Lill y facility, " and tha t the "U S Arm y has als o successfull y installe dan d evaluate d amulti-metal s CEM S o n on e o f it s hazardou s wast

e incinerators. " Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 60-6 1 & n.60 . "Thes e studie s resulte d i n severa l monitorin g method s and performanc e standard s fo r th e x-ray technology . Thes e document s ma y b e foun do n th

e OAQP S method s websit

e a t Other Tes t Methods . See http://www.epa .gOv//ttn-emc/prelim.html." 3 0 Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 6 1 & n.59 . Coope r prepare d the OTM s 16-21 , specificall y for , and i n suppor t of , the El i Lilly' s Alternativ e Monitorin g Petitio n fo r

th e us e ofth e Xac t

t o monito r

metal s emission s o n the hazardou s wast e incinerato r

a t El i Lilly' s Tippecano e Laboratorie s manufacturin g facilit y nea r Lafayette , Indiana . Fuch s Aff . a

t VE S 019286 . A t

th e forme r El i Lill y facility , the Xac t multi-metal s CEM S wa s primaril y t o sho w ther

e wer e no , t o very low , concentration s o f metal s emission s fromEl i Lilly' s incinerator . Thes e OTM s wer e not develope d t

o determine the accurac y o f amulti-metal s CEM S use d i n acommercia l hazardou s wast e incinerato r

t o measur e the actual an d varyin g concentratio n o f

metals . Thus , USEP A i s attemptin g to us e thes e OTM s i n amanne r i n whic h the y wer e never intende d an d fo r

afunctio n they wer

e not designe d to accomplish . Fo r emissio n stac k

sampling , th

e OTM s simpl y d

o no t hav e the safeguard s and essential element s tha

t Metho d2 9 provide s t o addres s critica l aspect s ofth e measuremen t o f metal s emission s fromstationar y source s throug h sample acquisitio n systems . Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 019288-019290 . Thes e omission s creat e the probabilit y fo r

erro r whe n the OTM s ar

e use d i n lie u o f Metho d2 9 t

o attemp t to demonstrat

e th e Xact' s reliability :

• Metho d2 9 rigorousl y require s th e sample tha

t i s analyze d b

e collecte d isokineticall y a t multipl e point s acros s th e stack to ensur e tha t arepresentativ e sampl e ofth e stack ga s i s collected , includin g both aeroso l an d gas-phas e constituents . Fo r th e result s o f

Metho d 29 , and al l isokineti c samplin g methods , t o be acceptable , th

e samplin g mus t

be withi n 10 % o f isokineti c (i.e. , 100±10%) . I f th e samplin g i s not

withi n 10 % o f

th e isokineti c samplin g rat

e then tha

t sample canno t

b e accepte d b y regulator

y agencies . By comparison, OT M 1 6 state s i n §1.3. 2 "you r multi-metal s CEM S shoul d sampl e fromthe sourc e a t aflo w rat

e whic h i s withi n 1 0 percen t o f tru e isokinetic. " However , operatin g datafo r installe dan d evaluate d Xac t CEM S d o not repor t th e isokineti c samplin g rate . Rather , "[t]he proces s begin s whe n a n isokineti c sub-sampl e o f stack gas i s take n from the stillin g chambe

r an d draw n throug h achemically-reactiv e filte r tape. " Statemen

t o f

3 0Th e OTM s liste

d o n EPA' s websit

e tha tpertai n t o multi-metal

s CEM S include : Othe

r Tes tMetho d 1 6 (OT M 16

) - Specification

s fo r X-Ray Fluorescenc

e Base d Multi-Metal

s CEM S a

tStationar

y Sources ; Othe

r Tes tMetho d 1 7 (OT M 17 ) - Determinatio

n o f Meta l Concentratio

n in CES ' Xac

tCEM S Stillin

g Chambe

r Using Filter

s an d Solid Sorbent s wit h X-Ra y Fluorescenc

e Analysis ; Othe

r Tes tMetho d 1 8 (OT M 18

) - Performanc

e Specification

s fo r a Quantitativ

e Referenc

e Aeroso l Generator ; Othe

r Tes tMetho d 1 9 (OT M 19

) - Determinatio

n o f Meta l Concentration

s i n Emission

s fro m Stationar

y Source s (Instrumenta

l Analyze r Procedure) ; Othe

r Tes tMetho d 2 0 (OT M 20 ) - Qualit

y Assuranc

e Requirement

s fo r X-Ra y Fluorescenc

e Base d Multi-Metals CEM S a tStationar

y Sources ; an

d Othe r Tes tMetho d 2 1 (OT M 21

) - Standar

d Operatin

g Procedur

e fo r Generatin

g a Quantitativ

e Multi Metal s Referenc

e Aeroso l wit h CE S QAG .

-69

- VE S 01956 7Basi s a t 59 . Th e stillin g chambe r i s acomponen

t o f th e sampl e acquisitio n system , an d i s avesse l into whic h sampl e ga s i s draw n fromth

e source . Thi s shoul d no t be confuse d a

s withdrawin g a

n isokineti c sampl e fromth e sourc e itsel f

as require d b y Metho d29 .

• Followin g collectio n o f th e Metho d2 9 sample , th

e entir e samplin g trai n i s rinse d (with reagent s specifie di n th

e method) , and al l o f

th e component s recovere d fromthe samplin g trai n (fro mth

e nozzl e t o th

e impinger s use d to collec t gas-phas e metals ) ar

e analyze d fo r metal s i n alaborator

y (usin g method s specifie di n Metho d29) . Result s fo r Metho d2 9 ar e specifi c t

o individua l metals , and includ e result s fo r al l component s recovere d and analyzed . By comparison, whil e differen t sample collectio n configuration s ar e foun d fo r application s o f

the Xac t multi-metal s CEMS , th

e sampl e acquisitio n system s alway s includ e atranspor

t line , and ma

y includ e astillin g chamber , water trap , and/or

dryin g chamber . Non e o f

the component s fromthe sampl e acquisitio n syste mar e recovere d o r analyze dfo r

inclusio n i n th

e result s fo r

the Xac t multi-metal s CEMS . Thi s differenc e between Metho d2 9 an

d th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S i s potentiall y critica l t o th e accurac y ofth e result s o f th e Xac t multi-metal s CEMS . Specificall y fo r mercury , experienc e ha s show n tha t mercur y ma y condens e and the n re-vaporiz e i n th e sampl e acquisitio n system , dependin g o n conditions . Thi s phenomeno n coul doccu r fo r othe r metals , dependin g o n th

e configuratio n and condition s o f the sample acquisitio n system . I f experienced , th

e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S wil l no t b e quantifyin g asampl e representativ e ofth e sourc e (i.e. , the stack gas ) and potentiall y inaccurat e datawil l b e collected .

• Du e to the desig n an d operatio n ofth e ai r pollutio n contro l systems , th e moisture conten

t o f stac k gase s fromVeolia' s incinerator s i s variabl e an d considerabl y higher than mos t incinerators , typicall y mor e tha n 40 % and a

t time s a s hig h a s 45% . Whil e Coope r Environmenta l Service s has assure d USEP A tha t th e Xac t ca n operat e reliabl y a

t moisture content s above 30 % t o 45 % (se

e Statemen

t ofBasi s footnote 58) , no studie s supportin g Cooper' s assuranc e ar e cited . Concentratio n o f moisture i n th

e stack ga s from Veolia' s incinerator s coul dhave anegativ e impac t upo n th e operatio n o f

multi-metal s CEM S (i.e. , it s reliability) , an d the CEM S abilit y t o produc e vali dmetal s datai n the stack ga s fromthos e incinerators . The OTM s wer e no t designe d to an

d d o no t determine whethe r th e Xac t ca n reliabl y operat

e i n th e condition s presente d a t Veolia . Further , n o evidenc e exist s i n th

e recor d tha

t th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S has successfull y operate d o n a n incinerato r

havin g th

e concentratio n o f

moisture i n th

e stack gas fromVeolia' s incinerators . Thus , USEP A an d Coope r hav e no t demonstrate d or

prove n th

e Xac t i s reliabl e fo r

measurin g actual emission s o f metal s a t the stack ga s moisture concentration s tha t woul dbe experience d a t Veolia . Fuch s Aff . a

t VE S 019288-019290 . The manne r i n whic h th

e sampl e i s collecte d and the condition s i n th

e Veoli astack s mak

e it extremel y unlikel y tha

t result s fromth

e Xac t 64 0 wil l replicate the conten

t o f the emissions , i f

any , fromVeolia' s stacks . Publishe darticle s b y Joh n A . Coope r o n th e Xac t 64 0 reflec t

tha t the Xac t 64 0 has no t

bee n compare d t

o emission s take n directl y fromth e stack . Fo r

example , th

e journa l articl e authore d b y Hay , et

al present s the result s o f

relativ e accurac y testin g o f th e Xac t multi-metal s CEMS . -70

- VE S 01956 8K . Jame s Hay , et al, Relativ e Accurac y Testin g o f a n X-Ra y Fluorescence-Base d Mercur y Monito r a t Coal-Fire dBoilers , 5 6 Journa l o f Ai r & Wast e Management

Association , 657-66 5 (2006) . A sampl e wa s draw n fromthe sourc e throug h asampl e acquisitio n syste mincludin g a transpor t line , wate

r trap , and dryin g chamber . Compresse d ai r wa s injecte d into th

e sample acquisitio n syste mupstrea mo f the dryin g chamber . Followin g the dryin g chamber , aportio n o f the sample gas wa s draw n into th e Xac t multi-metal s CEMS , and the remainde r ofth e sampl e ga s wa s collecte d i n paire d (i.e . two ) Metho d2 9 samplin g trains . Whil e relativ e accurac y (RA ) testin g o f th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S wa s performe dfo r th e Xac t fo r the sample it

analyze d (whic h ha d travele d throug h a n acquisitio n syste man dhas been furthe r conditioned) , R A wa s no t demonstrate d fo r

sample s collecte ddirectl y fromth e sourc e (Le. , stack). 3 1 Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 019290-019291 . Hence , no relativ e accurac y wa s prove n between the stac k emission s and th

e result s provide d b y th

e Xact . R A testin g performe d i n thi s manne r measure s th

e R A o f th e analytica l portio n o f

th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S to Metho d 29 , but i t fail s to measur

e th e R A between concentration s o f metal s measurement s foun d i n th e result s o f

the Xac t and th e concentration s o f

metal s measurement s foun d i n the sourc e (i.e. , stack gas) . Fuch s Aff . a

t VE S 019290-019291 . (iii) The Xact 640technology fails to obtain a representative sample Th e majorit y o f

th e metal s fromth

e dry proces s tha

t Veoli ause s ar

e i n the for mo f

particulate matte r ("PM") . A s aresul t

o f variation s durin g normal operation , th e P M emitte d i s no t

siz e selective . Baxte r

Aff . a t VE S 016998 . I n order

t o provid e accurat

e analysis , the Xac t

CEM S mus t obtai n arepresentativ e sampl e o f th e P M i n th

e emissio n strea

man d transpor

t tha t sampl e t o the detector . P M CEM S system s hav e P M stratificatio n issues . Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 016998 . Th e velocit y profil e ma

y normalize , bu

t higher P M concentration s ma

y sta y close r to the wal l and ca

n be shifte daroun d based o n th e ga s flo w dynamic s tha t ca n vary durin g norma l operation . Further , i n Veolia' s dr y process , the induce d draf t fa n wil l impac t

th e P M mixin g and dispersio n i n th e downstrea

mduct/stack . P M stratificatio n i n system s suc h a s Veolia' s ar

e par t o f adynami c proces s tha

t varie s durin g normal operations . Dynami c change s i n th e system(flow , temperature , particl e size , particl e density , etc. ) wil l chang e th e P M dispersion . Althoug h Veoli ause s abaghous e fo r P M removal , base d upo n th e 200 9 and 201 3 CP T tes t data , particl e siz e ma y vary dependin g upo n operational conditions . See Frankli n Engineerin g Group , Inc . Huma n Healt h Ris k

Assessment

Repor t a t VE S 019340 . Dr y particle s o f al l size s ma

y be transferre d int o th

e clean-ga s side ofth e baghous e an d carrie d t o th

e stack . Baxte r

Aff . a t VE S 016999 . Give n thes e conditions , th e representativenes s o f

asingl e poin t

sourc e suc h as th

e sourc e the Xac t

CEM S use s t o sample i s very questionable . A chang e i n particl e siz e an d densit y can and doe s affec t

the accurac y o f

th e result s o f

suc h singl e poin t

samplin g systems . Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 016999 .

3 1 Further

, R A wa s measure

d betwee n th e Xac tmulti-metal

s CEM S an

d Metho d 2 9 onl y fo r mercur y an d arsenic . Result s ar e no treporte d fo r th e othe r metal s regulate

d b y th e HW C MACT , beryllium , cadmium , chromium

, an d lead .

-7 1 - VE S 01956 9P M CEM S an d th e Xac t CEM S sample PM , wit h th e P M CEM S measurin g relativ e tota l P M and th e Xac t CEM S purportin g t

o measur e P M fo r selectiv e multi-meta l content . USEP A Performanc e Specificatio n 1 1 (PS I 1 ) define s the procedure s fo r P M CEMS . PS I 1 use s a n EP A Manua l Referenc e Metho d("RM" ) t o calibrat e th e P M CEM S unde

r thre e (3 ) level s o f

P M concentration . Thi s mean s tha t i f the monitorin g locatio n i s no t ideal , then th

e datafromth

e traversin g R M i s use d to calibrate the singl e poin t samplin g CEMS. 3 2Th e R M result s compensat

e fo r the imperfectio n i n the singl e poin t samplin g location . Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 016999-017000 . Further , aP M CEMS ' result i s merel y a"relative " output (i.e. , i s ther

e mor e o r les s PM ) an d th

e resul t i s no t adiscrete , quantifiabl e readin g (i.e. , a n absolut e numerical value) . Th e Xac t CEMS , o n th

e othe r hand , purport s to measur e metal s i n absolut

e terms . Th e result fromthe Xac t

CEM S i s adiscrete , quantifiabl e readin g fo r each ofth e multi-metal s i t test s fromasingl e samplin g point . A singl e poin t samplin g locatio n canno t obtai n asampl e as representativ e as atraversin g samplin g collectio n syste munde r changin g proces s conditions . Whe n the Xac t

CEM S fail s to obtai n arepresentativ e sampl e fromth e stack to be examine d b y th e detector , the resultin g discrete outpu t fo r eac h ofth e multi-metal s fromth e Xac t CEM S wil l be incorrect . Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 017000 . Base d o n th e actual samplin g locatio n o f th e Xac t CEMS , ther

e i s avery hig h possibilit y tha t th e Xac t CEM S outpu

t wil l no t matc h th e actual emission s since , unlik e P M CEM S whic h us e P S 11 , the Xac t CEM S doe s no t

have an y wa y o f compensatin g fo r

P M stratificatio n unde

r changin g proces s conditions . Dependin g o n th e singl e poin t

stac k gas samplin g locatio n o f th e Xac t CEMS , th

e sampl e collecte d coul dbe higher o r lowe r i n metals/P M tha

n th e overal l averag e concentration . I n additio n t o problem s inheren t i n asingl e poin t

samplin g syste mand the Xact' s attemp t to produc e adiscrete , quantifiabl e readin g fo r eac h o f th e teste d multi-metals , th

e OTM s fo r

th e Xac t ignore fundamental sample acquisitio n procedure s typicall y require d i n EP A referenc e method s and therefore , allo w numerou s opportunitie s fo r error i n sampl e transport . Th e first i s obtainin g a representativ e sample fromth e stack based o n asingl e poin t

samplin g system . Th e second i s transportin g the stack

sample throug h the larg e diamete r stack prob e and umbilica l t o th e stillin g chamber. 3 3 Th e thir d i s takin g arepresentativ e isokineti c subsampl e fromthe stillin g well. 3 4Th e final transpor

t relate d issue i s gettin g the subsample t o the filter

tap e fo r analysis . P M transportatio n i s easies t i n adownward , vertica l directio n du e t o gravity o r

i n a n upward , vertica l directio n du

e t o the forc e o f

th e gase s workin g agains t

th e gravitational pull . Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 017001 . Particl e transportatio n i s mos t difficul t fo r horizonta l and incline druns . USEP A referenc e method s us e samplin g probe s (i.e. , horizonta l transpor t runs) . Althoug h the stack gase s ar e bein g sample d isokineticall y (i.e. , a t th e sam e velocit y as the stack

flow) , base d o n th

e nozzl e diameter , th e actua

l flo w rat e i n the prob e cannot

carr y th e large r particle s throug h th

e prob e and

3 2Basically , "traversing " i s takin g sample s fro m multipl

e location

s i n th e stac k an d integratin

g thes e int o on e sample . 3 3 Krag Peterson

, Revie w of Monitorin

g Experienc

e wit h th e Xac tMulti-Metals CEMS , Coope r Environmental, IT

3 201 4 Pape r & Presentation

, Pape r 29 . 3 4Xac t64 0 Monitoring Syste

m Spe c Sheet , Coope r Environmental. -72

- VE S 01957 0t

o th e filter . Thi s droppin g out o f th e P M i s know n a

s "saltation " and account s fo r a s muc h a s 60 % to 80 % o f

the P M endin g u

p i n the probe . Thi s i s easil y see n b y reviewin g th

e detaile d P M result s fromthe CP T test , Table s 4-1 4 (VE S 017748) , 4-1 5 (VE S 017750 ) & 4-1 6 (VE S 017751 ) o f the CP T Report . Thi s i s further supporte db y detaile d analysi s o f the metal s samplin g train s i n Table s 4-2 0 (VE S 017756) , 4-2 2 (VE S 017758 ) & 4-24 (VE S 017761) . B y reviewin g th e tota l metal s catc h i n th

e prob e & nozzl e rins e (PNR ) t o th e total , it i s apparen

t tha t alarg e portio n o f th e metal s sho w u

p i n th e probe , wit h the exceptio n o f mercury . EP A referenc e method s suc h a s Metho d2 9 requir

e th e recover y o f th e PM/metal s fromthe prob e and nozzl e fo r analysis . However , the Xac t

CEM S OTM s d

o not requir e recover y o f th e multi-metal s P M fromth e prob e an d umbilical . I f

th e P M doe s not

mak e it t o the filter

o f the Xact , then tha

t P M wil l no t

be analyze d and the Xac t

CEM S result s wil l b

e biase dlo w i n compariso n wit h th e actual stack

gase s Conversely , i f

accumulate d P M i n th

e prob e nozzl e o r

umbilica l break s free durin g operation , thos e PM—potentiall y carryin g metals—woul dbe analyze d b y the Xac t CEM S givin g abiase d hig h resul t

unrelate d t

o curren t stack conditions . See supra Figur e 1.4 . Th e dynami c condition s i n the stack

gase s combine d wit h th e sampl e transpor

t issue s discusse d above ar e impossibl e to overcom e fo r asingl e poin t

samplin g systemwher

e alarg e majority o f

th e metal s ar

e i n th e for m o f PM . Thi s fac t

woul d becom

e glaringl y obviou s i f

the Xac t propose d fo r

Veoli ause d EP A referenc e method s suc h a s Metho d2 9 a

s require db y 4 0 C.F.R . 60 , Appendi x A . (iv) The Xact

640technology has not been calibrated

against a QAG that represents the process conditions at Veolia USEP A state s the Xac t

has been challenge d agains t aQAG : Coope r Environmenta l Service s ha s als o develope dand receive d EP A approva l fo r

aQuantitativ e Aeroso l Generato r (QAG) , whic h generate s areferenc e aeroso l fo r calibratin g the multi-metal s CEM S and fo r

performin g relativ e accurac y tes t audit s (RATAs ) o f the multi-metal s CEMS . Yanc aet al. evaluate d bot

h th e Xac t and the QA G usin g amodifie dEP A Metho d30 1 a t ahazardou s wast

e combusto r

b y comparin g measure d an dreferenc e aeroso l concentrations . Th e author s foun d tha t bot h th e Xac t and the QA G me t the Metho d 30 1 validatio n criteri awit h precision s and accuracie s o n the order

o f 5 percent

ove r awid e rang e o f concentrations . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 60 . Th e QA G i s a

n excellen t

too l t o verif

y the detector , similar

t o a calibratio n ga s fo r

othe r CEM S sinc e it

generate s aknow n concentratio n o f metal . However , a QA G use d t o verif

y adetector

i s onl y a s goo das the QAG' s replicatio n o f the condition s i n whic h the detecto r

wil l exist . Th e QA G use d t o validat e th e Xac t CEM S wa s non representativ e i n tha

t th e particl e size s containe d withi n th e QA G were to o smal l an d no t representativ e o f

th e particl e size s tha

t have been documente d to exis t i n Veolia' s stack emissions . Baxte r

Aff . a t VE S 017000 . Durin g the tim e tha t th e Xac t CEM S wa s bein g validate dprio r

t o 2010 , th

e QA G bein g use d to validat e th e Xac t coul d hav e onl y produce d metal particle s i n th

e resultin g ga

s strea mtha t were approximatel y 1 micro n o r less . Particle s bein g emitte d fromincineratio n processe s vary greatl y an d ar e no t uniforml y 1 micro n o r

less . -73

- VE S 01957 1Th e dat afro mVeolia' s 201 3 CP T testin g reflecte d stac k velocitie s acros s al l samplin g train s o n Unit s 2 , 3 and 4 average d 31. 2 ft/sec, 30. 8 ft/sec, an d 56. 8 ft/sec, respectively . Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 017000 . A t

3 0 ft/sec (9. 1 m/s) , larg e particles , 10 0 micro n an d greater , ca n be transporte d up Veolia' s stack s base d o n arevie w o f termina l settlin g velocities. 3 5 Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 017000 . Particle s o f

almos t any siz e ar

e dense r tha n thei r surroundin g flui d(air) an d therefore have mor

e mass . Thi s extr amas s mean s they do no t ac t lik e agas , especiall y onc e th e particl e siz e starts t

o b e greate r tha n 5-1 0 microns . Baxte r Aff . a t VE S 017000 . Several studies 3 6 o n pneumati c conveyin g o f

particle s have discovere d tha t tha t afte r th e particle s mad

e aturn , suc h as transitionin g from ahorizonta l duct t o astack , th

e particle s forme d arope , "hors e shoe " or "U " patter n o n the opposite sid

e ofth e vertica l wall . Thi s mean s tha t th e particle s o n th

e wal l ar e no t i n th e Centroi d (i.e. , no t

i n th e cente r o f the stack ) tha t the Xac t OTM s requir

e fo r sampling . The sample require d b y the Xac t i s therefor

e no t representativ e o f

the condition s i n th

e stack . Thi s erro r i s compounde d whe n th e Xac t take s it s sub-sample sinc e i t i s very probabl e tha

t large r particle s coul dstil l be nea r th e wal l and therefor

e th e sub-sampl e woul dmis s them . Further , th e particle s generate d b y th e pre-201 0 QA G wer

e very fin e and woul db

e les s affecte d b y thes e conditions . Th e Xac t

has simpl y neve

r bee n validate d usin g aQA G representativ e o f actual proces s condition s a

t Veolia . Baxte r

Aff . a t VE S 017000 . (v) The Xact

640technology is a historical failure when applied

to stack emission monitoring at

the locations identified

by USEPA I n th e Statemen

t ofBasis , Regio n 5 discusse s a t lengt h multi-metal s CEM S technology . Statemen t ofBasi s 52-63 . The Statemen t ofBasi s make s muc h o f ahandfu l o f

attempt s to utiliz e the Xac t fo r stac k emissio n monitorin g whil e obfuscatin g the truth . The multi-metal s technolog y i s ahistorica l failur e fo r daily , operational emission s monitorin g an d no t use d anywher

e i n th e countr y fo r suc h stac k

emission s monitoring . Th e Statemen

t ofBasi s discusse s th

e us e o f aXac t CEM S approve d b y USEP A a t th e reques t o f El i Lill y fo r

us e a t the forme r

El i Lill y incinerato r

from200 6 to 2010 . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 60

- 61 . Evonik s Deguss aCorporatio n purchase d the Tippecano e facilit y i n 2010 . Th e Xac t CEM S faile dand i s no longer

i n operatio n fo r

functiona l and economi c reasons. 3 7 Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 007601 ; Evoni k

Aff . a t VE S 007596-007597 .

3 5 "Perry' s Chemica

l Engineerin

g Handbook, " Fourt

h Edition , Figur

e 5-74 , P g 5-62 . 3 6"Quantitativ

e Aeroso l Generato

r (QAG ) fo

r P M CEM S Calibration, " Presentatio n a tEUE C 2014 ; "Mixin

g an d dispersio n of particl e rope s i n lea n phas e pneumati

c conveying, " Haru

n Bilirgen , Edwar

d K . Levy , Energ

y Researc

h Center , Lehig h University, 11

7 ATLS S Drive , Bethlehem , PA 18015

, USA ; an

d "Experimenta

l an d Numerica

l Stud y o f Dilut e Gas-Solid Flow insid

e a 90 ° Horizonta

l Squar e Pip e Bend, " Wali d Aniss Aiss a 1 , Tare k Abde l Mala k Mekhail 1

, Soubh i Al i Hassanein

, Osam a Hamdy , Ope n Journa l o f Flui d Dynamics , 2013

, 3 , 331-339

. 3 7Th e us e ofth e Xac

tCEM S a

tth e forme r El i Lill y incinerato

r i s no trelevan tt o it s us e a tVeoli a sinc

e th e system s a tth e tw o facilitie

s ar e completel

y different

. Baxte r Aff . a tVE S 017001 . Th

e incinerato

r a tEl i Lill y use

d a we t scrubber , no tth e dr y baghous

e syste m utilize d b y Veolia . A s a result

, th e incinerator

s a tth e tw o facilitie

s produc e P M includin

g multi-meta

l P M tha tar e of a completel

y differen

ttype , siz e an d characteristic

. Baxte r Aff . a tVE S 017001 . Thus , whethe

r th e Xac tCEM S worke

d an d produce

d accurat e result s a tEl i Lill y i

s no tpredictiv

e a s t o whethe r th e Xac tCEM S wil l wor

k an d produc e accurat e result s a tVeolia . -74

- VE S 01957 2Similarly , footnote 6 0 i n the Statemen t ofBasi s states , "EP A understand s tha t the U.S . Department

o f Defens e has purchase d three Xac t unit s fo r us e a t arm y munition s incinerators. " Mr . Fuch s contacte d Larr y Well s wit h th e U.S . Arm y a

t the Tooel e Arm y Depo t ("TEAD" ) abou t thes e Xac t

units . Well s relate d tha t TEA D had tw o Xac t

multi-metal s CEM S wit h on e installe do n eac h ofth e tw o incinerator s a t TEAD . Fuch s Aff . a

t VE S 007601 . See also VE S 010411 . Ofth e tw o incinerator s a t TEAD , on

e i s o n auni t

use d fo r testin g and th

e othe r i s use d fo r production . Th e unit

use d fo r testin g onl y operate s periodically , whil e th e productio n uni t operate s mor

e often . Well s sai d tha

t whil e ther

e i s aXac t

multi-metal s CEM S a

t th e tes t unit , h e wa s no t awar e tha t i t ha d eve r been operated . Well s then introduce d hi s colleague , Jo e Peterson , wh o i s involve di n the operation/monitorin g ofth e productio n furnac e a t TEAD . Fuch s Aff . a

t VE S 007601 . Peterso n remembere d tha t th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S wa s installe d o n the productio n furnac e an d calibrate d whe n i t wa s acquire d (h

e though t aroun d 2007) , and tha

t testin g o f th e productio n furnac e wa s performe d shortl y thereafter tha t allowe dcompariso n o f measurement s performe d b y th e multi-metal s CEM S to a n EP A referenc e method . H e remembere d tha

t th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S wa s operate d fo r abou t 1 5 to 2 0 day s befor e it failed . Peterso n sai d tha t th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S has no t operate d sinc e i t

failed . Base d o n th e phone conversation s wit h bot h Well s and Peterson , bot h o f th e Xac t multi-metal s CEM S ar

e stil l a t TEAD , but

ar e not i n operation . Th e Thir dXac t

multi-metal s CEM S reference d a t footnot e 6 0 i s a

t th e Cran e Nava l Surfac e Warfar e Center

i n Crane , Indiana . Th e instrumental monitorin g syste mhas bee n se t up . However , the CEM S i s no t connecte d to , or

drawin g sampl e ga s from, the stac k ofth e uni t

a s par t o f norma l operation s and therefore i t i s no t trul y installed . Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 019308 . Neithe r th e El i Lill y incinerato r

no r the munition s incinerator s trea t the broad rang e o f

waste s treate d i n acommercia l incinerator . Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 007600 ; Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008381

- 82 . Unlik e Veolia , th

e stack emission s fromthes e incinerator s als o d o not hav e the sam

e hig h temperatur

e range s an

d variabl e hig h moisture content . Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 00760 0 & VE S 019289-019290 ; Warcho l Aff . a t VE S 008381-008383 . Th e failur e ofth e Xac t 64 0 i n these , the onl y stac k

emissio n application s identifie db y USEPA , doe s not bode wel l fo r

succes s o f

th e Xac t 64 0 i n dail y operation s a t Veolia . (vi) Region 5's actions in requiring the installation of Cooper's Xact 640CEMS

are unprecedented

and should be investigatedfurther Regio n 5' s action s i n requirin g the installatio n o f Cooper' s Xac t

64 0 CEM S ar

e unprecedented . Fuch s Aff . a

t VE S 019292 . I

t i s highl y unusua l fo r

EP A t o endors e the us e o f

aspecifi c vendo r o f a n instrument , monitorin g equipment , o r othe r suc h syste mi n amandate d regulator y o r enforcement

circumstanc e o r

fo r us e i n lie u o f

aperformanc e test . Fuch s Aff . a t VE S 019292 ; Warcho l Aff . a

t VE S 019308 ; Robertso n Aff . a t VE S 008300-8302 . Veoli areserve s the righ t to reques t additiona l discovery includin g writte n discovery and deposition s before a n appropriat

e tribuna l due to USEPA' s failur e t o explai n thi s unprecedente d requirement tha t Veoli abelieve s demonstrate s astron g showin g o f ba dfait h and improper

behavior . See Sierra Club v. Costle, 657F.2d298(D.C . Cir . 1981) .

-75

- VE S 01957 3H . Regio n 5 I s Arbitraril y an

d Capriciously Using Unsubstantiate d Enforcemen

tAllegation

s t o Den y Veoli a a PermitShield an d Suppor

t Unnecessar

y Multi-Metal s CEM S an d Feedstrea

m Analysis Requirement s Regio n 5 i s improperl y usin g unsubstantiate d enforcement allegation s t

o 1 ) den y Veoli aapermi t shiel dan d 2 ) suppor

t unlawfu l an d unnecessar y multi-metal s CEM S an d burdensom

e feedstrea

m analysi s requirements . The allegation s i n th e FOV s ar

e unsupported , undeveloped , ar e no t final agenc y action , and hav e not bee n subjec t to administrativ e o r

judicia l review . A s se

t fort h below , USEP A has acte d arbitraril y an d capriciousl y i n makin g thes e unsupporte d allegation s an d b y includin g the mi n thi s permittin g decision .

1 . The Findings of

Violation Issued

to Veolia Are Unsubstantiated Regio n 5 sets fort h and briefl y summarize s (incorrectly ) thre e Finding s o f Violatio n ("FOVs" ) tha t th e Agenc y has issue d t o Veoli asinc e approximatel y 2006 . See Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 27-2 8 (VE S 009276-009277) . Thes e FOV s consis t o f unsupported , unsubstantiated , and highl y conteste d allegation s tha t shoul d no t

b e use d t o suppor

t th e Agency' s permittin g decision . Furthermore , reference s t o th e FOV s ar

e improper

and hav e no plac e i n the Agency' s Statemen t ofBasi s becaus e suc h reference s transfor mthe permi t renewal proces s into a

n enforcement actio n agains t

Veolia . B y thi s transformation , Veoli ai s deprive d o f the procedura l safeguard s i t woul dordinaril y receiv e ha d th e Agenc y brough

t a n enforcement

actio n pursuan

t t o the FOVs . Th e Statemen

t ofBasi s raise s th

e allegation s containe d i n the FOV s and—sinc e ther e i s no othe

r reaso n to includ e th

e FOV s i n th

e Statemen

t ofBasis—assume s the allegation s containe d withi n the FOV s ar

e tru e fo r purpos e o f

th e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . Thus , Veoli ai s bein g deprive d o f th e procedure s tha

t woul dbe availabl e i n the enforcement context to contes t

the allegation s containe d withi n th

e FOVs . B y Regio n 5' s ow n admissio n aFO V i s o f n o lega l consequence : A n FO V i s simpl y on

e ste p i n the EPA' s enforcement process . Thi s ste

p i s commonl y followe db y additiona l investigatio n o r discovery , informatio n gathering , and a

n exchang e o f

views , al l o f

whic h occu r

i n th e context o f a n enforcement

proceeding , and ar

e important

mean s o f

fact-findin g unde

r ou r syste mo f

civi l litigation. A n FO V i s no t afinal agenc y actio n and i s no t subjec t to judicia l review . No binding legal consequences flow from an FOV, and an FOV does not have the force or

effect of law. Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 2 9 (emphasi s added)(VE S 009278) . A s such , a n FO V ma

y consis t o f nothin g mor

e tha n nake d assertion s wit h n o factua l basi s (althoug h i t i s contemplate d tha

t the claim s wil l be develope d a s th e proces s continues) . Th e FOV s Regio n 5 has serve d o n Veoli a ar e comprise d o f

misstatement s and claim s tha t cannot be substantiated . I n meeting s wit h the Agency' s lega l personnel , Veoli aan d it s counse l have repeatedl y requeste d tha t th e Agenc y provid e Veoli awit h evidenc e supportin g th e Regio n 5' s claim s tha

t Veoli aviolate d the emissio n requirement s ofth e HW C MACT . However , Regio n 5 has refuse d t o provid e an y evidenc e o r analysi s showin g tha

t Veoli ahas violate dthe HW C MAC T emissio n standards . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008390 . -76

- VE S 01957 4Further , th e investigation , discovery , an d th e exchang e o f

view s contemplate d b y USEPA' s enforcement

proces s hav e been totall y absen t wit h regard to th

e FOV s serve d o n Veolia . Despit e Veolia' s effort s to mee

t wit h th e Agency , i n an effor t

t o understan d th

e claim s bein g mad

e agains t it , th e Agenc y ha s totall y faile dto suppor t o r develo p th

e allegation s s o tha

t Veoli aca

n appropriatel y answe

r and/or rebu t th e Agency' s claims . Also , s o muc h tim e has passe d wit h regard t o th

e allegation s containe d i n the 200 6 and 200 8 FOV s tha t th e statut e o f limitation s ha s expire dwit h regard t

o som e o r al l o f thos e claims . Becaus e o f the Agency' s failur e to develo p thes e FOVs , th

e claim s containe d i n the mar e no longe

r subjec t t o enforcement , hav e no relevance , an d cannot

justif y th e o f Veolia' s 201 4 Draf

t Permit . Thi s poin t

wa s reinforce dwhe n th e DO J contacte d Veoli aearlier thi s yea r and—after

a n extende d perio d o f

reviewin g the FOV s an d the allegation s containe d therein—informe d Veoli atha t th e Departmen

t woul dno t

pursuin g an y enforcement

agains t Veolia . VE S 016105 . O n the basi s o f

thes e unsubstantiate d FOVs , the Agenc y seeks t o den y Veoli aapermi t

shiel d fo r the applicabl e requirement s o f th e FfW C MACT . See Statemen t ofBasi s 28 . Sectio n 504(f ) o f the 199 0 amendments t o th e CA A explicitl y authorize s Titl e V operatin g permit s t o includ e a "permi t shield"— apermi t

conditio n providin g that , subjec t t o certai n restrictions , asourc e i s considere d t o b

e i n complianc e wit h al l applicabl e requirement s i f i t i s i n complianc e wit h the term s an d condition s o f

it s Titl e V permit . Unde r apermi t shield , th

e permi t become s the comprehensiv e statemen t o f th e source' s CA A obligations , and suc h obligation s can b e enforce d onl y under

the permit . Fo r

example , i f

th e permittin g authorit

y include s emission s limit s i n a permi t becaus e o f

arequirement

i n astat e implementatio n pla n ("SIP" ) fo r reasonabl y availabl e contro l technolog y ("RACT") , onl y an enforcemen t actio n fo r

violatin g thes e limit s can b e brought . N o enforcemen t actio n ca

n be initiate d o n th

e ground s tha

t th e SI P actuall y require s a technolog y differen t

fromtha t specifie da

s RAC T i n th

e permi t o r tha t th e pla n impose s mor

e stringent emissio n limits . Th e permi t shiel d mus t

b e explicitl y writte n into th e permi t fo r the permi t shiel dto apply . USEP A i s authorized , i f i t i s th e permittin g agency , but no t require d to , includ e aprovisio n i n th e permi t statin g tha

t complianc e wit h the condition s o f the permi t

i s considere d complianc e wit h an y applicabl e requirement s a s o f the dat e o f th e permi t issuance . 4 0 C.F. R§ 71.6(f) . Inth e cas e o f Veolia , Regio n 5 determine d tha t i s it no t appropriat

e to gran t a permi t shiel d fo r

th e applicabl e requirement s o f the HW C MAC T standar d t o Veolia : However , becaus e th

e allegation s i n the June 12 , 200 8 and Augus t 24 , 201 2 FOV s hav e no t ye t bee n resolved , an d may resul t i n incorporatio n into th

e permi t o f a complianc e schedule , i f

necessar y t o brin g thi s facilit y into compliance , EP A has determine d tha

t it i s no t appropriat

e a t thi s tim e to gran

t apermi t shiel d fo r

th e applicabl e requirement s o f the HW C MAC T standard . See Statemen

t ofBasi s a

t 28 . I n ligh t

o f the amoun

t o f time tha t has passed , Veolia' s effort s to tr y to resolv e th

e issues , and th

e lac k o f engagemen

t b y the Agency , thi s positio n i s unreasonable , arbitrar

y and capricious , an d absurd . USEP A has ha d multipl e opportunitie s durin g th e many interface s wit h Veoli asinc e th e FOV s wer

e issue d t o pursu e o r

a t leas t engage o n thes e topics . However , th e Agenc y ha s faile dt o d o so . Th e onl y fai r

conclusio n one ca n draw fromthi s patter

n o f conduc t i s tha t Regio n 5 has no intentio n o f actuall y pursuin g th

e FO V allegation s becaus e i t

lack s sufficien t

evidenc e t o brin g a

n enforcement

action . Notably , DO J

- 77

- VE S 01957 5decline dt o pursu e a n enforcement

actio n earlie r

thi s year . Despite this , Regio n 5 obviousl y want s to kee

p th e FOV s "alive " fo r

th e purpose s o f

pressurin g Veoli at o accept th e enhance d monitorin g requiremen

t an d multi-metal s CEM S include d i n th e Draf t Permit . Thi s conduc t

i s improper . Th e Agenc y i s als o bein g les s than tmthfu l whe n i t claim s tha

t thes e FOV s ma

y eventuall y resul t

i n acomplianc e schedul e i n th e Titl e V permit . Again , ther e has been ampl e tim e fo r Regio n 5 t

o addres s th

e allegation s i n the FOV s and includ e apropose d complianc e schedul e i n the Draf

t permit . However , as §3.2. 3 o f th e Statemen

t ofBasi s bear s out , th

e Agenc y ha s n o us e fo r acomplianc e schedul e and instead woul drathe r kee p th e FOV s as ausefu l too l t o leverag e Veoli aint

o acceptin g unnecessar

y requirements . I n addition , pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 70.6(f)(3) , apermi t shiel d doe s no t

affec t "[t]he liabilit y o f a n owner o r operator o f asourc e fo r

an y violatio n o f

applicabl e requirement s prio r t o o r a t the tim e o f the permi t

issuance. " Thus , allegation s o f pas t violation s ar

e no t affecte d b y th

e permi t shield . Further , arevie w o f the allegation s containe d withi n th e 200 8 and 201 2 FOV s demonstrat

e tha t th e FOV s ar

e premise d o n Veolia' s allege d conduc t and ar e no t premise d o n condition s presen

t i n Veolia' s pas t

permit . Therefore , th

e permi t shiel dwhic h applie s onl y fo r condition s se

t ou t i n the permi t

woul dbe inapplicabl e to suc h FOVs . Additionally , eve n i f th e FOV s wer

e premise d o n provision s containe d withi n Veolia' s pas t permit , and USEP A successfull y pursue s suc h allegations , acomplianc e schedul e shoul d be unnecessary . Commo n sens e woul dindicate tha t USEP A has modifie di n Veolia' s new draf t permi t any permi t condition s i t

previousl y foun dtroublin g i n Veolia' s former permit . An y permi t

shiel d provide d t o Veoli ano w woul db e premise d o n Veoli acomplyin g wit h ne w the draf t permi t including an

y ne w permi t

condition s tha

t USEP A has place d withi n it . Ther e i s no reaso n t o arbitraril y deny Veoli athe permi t

shield . Veolia' s draf

t permi t shoul d becom

e the comprehensiv e statemen t o f Veolia' s CA A obligation s includin g thos e containe d withi n th e HW C MACT , and suc h obligation s shoul d b

e capabl e o f

bein g enforce d onl y unde r thi s ne w permit . Regio n 5 shoul d therefor e gran

t Veoli aapermi t

shiel d fo r

the applicabl e requirement s o f HW C MAC T standar

d an d thos e portion s o f

4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 6 3 applicabl e t

o th e sourc e as aresul t

o f the applicabilit y o f 4 0 C.F.R . Part

63 , subpar

t EEE . Similarly , USEP A i s usin g th e unsupporte d an d unsubstantiate d FOVs—particularl y the Augus t 24 , 201 2 FOV—i n a n attemp t to suppor

t it s pus h fo r

amulti-metal s CEM S and an enhance d FAP . I n § 5.2.2 . ofth e Statemen t ofBasis , USEP A sets fort h it s primary justification s fo r the enhance d monitoring . Ever y argumen t furthere d b y the Agenc y i n thi s sectio n relie s o n th e allegation s tha

t wer e include d i n the Augus t 24 , 201 2 FO V an

d the underlyin g allegation s b y th e NEIC . However , lik e th e 200 6 and 200 8 FOVs , th e 201 2 FO V consist s o f

one-side d allegation s tha t hav e never

bee n teste d throug h a

n administrativ e revie w process , have no t been analyze d i n the ligh t o f Veolia' s counter-arguments , an d hav e not been subjec t

to independen

t third-part

y review . I n ligh t

o f this , Veoli aha s se

t fort h belo w it s response s t o the allegation s containe d i n th e Augus t 24 , 201 2 FOV .

(i) The August

24, 2012 FOV Th e FO V issue d t

o Veoli ao n Augus t

24 , 201 2 identifie dthree separat e categorie s o f

allege d violations : 1 ) tha

t Veoli afaile dt o provid e certai n informatio n t o Regio n 5 pursuan t t o the Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Requests ; 2 ) tha t Veoli afaile dto establis h correc t OPL s fo r

mercury base d o n

- 78

- VE S 01957 6the metal s testin g i t conducte d i n 2008 ; and 3 ) tha t Veoli afaile dt o appropriatel y analyz e certai n wast e stream s prio r

t o incineration . See Augus t 201 2 FO V a

t VE S 001356-001365 . Eac h o f th e allege d violation s arise s out o f long-runnin g point s o f

contentio n between th

e Agenc y and Veolia , bu

t none o f the allege d violation s support s Regio n 5' s proposa l to den y Veoli aaprope r

permi t shield . (a ) Veolia's Alleged

Failure to Provide Information Pursuant to the March 2010Information Requests Th e Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Request s issue d t o Veoli awer

e jus t on e even t i n alon g serie s o f negotiation s between Veoli aand the Agenc y regardin g metal s testing , CEMS , and OPL s fo r mercury . T o understand wh y th e allegation s i n the Augus t 201 2 FO V recklessl y misrepresent Veolia' s action s an d complianc e history , i t i s imperativ e t

o understan d the sequenc e o f event s surroundin g th

e Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Requests . USEP A first

serve d an informatio n reques t o n Veoli aregardin g metal s testin g o n Februar y 22 , 200 8 ("Februar

y 200 8 Informatio n Requests") . Th e Februar y 200 8 Informatio n Request s directe d Veoli ato perfor mcomprehensiv e performanc e testin g o n al l thre e incineratio n unit s b y Jul y 15 , 2008 . See Februar y 200 8 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 002450-002452 . O n Marc h 10 , 2008 , Veoli asubmitte d aforma l writte n respons e t o th e Februar

y 200 8 Informatio n Requests . See Veolia' s Marc h 10 , 200 8 Respons e a t VE S 004695-004706 . I n it s response , Veoli aagree d to conduc t

the testin g requeste d b y USEPA , but state d tha

t i t coul dno t

d o s o b y Jul y 15 , 2008 . Veoli afurthe r

supporte d thi s assertio n b y attachin g a n affidavi t

fromCrai g Doolittl e o f

ENS R Corporatio n (Veolia' s stack-testin g contractor) agreein g tha t i t wa s no t feasibl e t o pla n and perfor mi n les s tha

n five month s testin g tha t woul dnormall y tak

e ayea r o r more . Veoli aand the Agenc y me t to discus s the February 200 8 Informatio n Request s o n Marc h 13 , 2008 . USEP A acknowledge d tha t th e schedul e include d i n th e February 200 8 Informatio n Request s wa s unrealisti c i n ligh t o f the tim e neede d to plan , prepare , and perfor mthe CPTs . Veoli aagree d to propos e a n alternative , mor

e practical , schedul e an d submi t i t to the USEPA . Th e schedul e Veoli apropose d stated tha t the thre e testin g program s woul dbe complete d betwee n Augus t

of200 8 and Apri l o f

2009 . See Veolia' s Marc h 21 , 200 8 emai l (transmittin g Veolia' s propose d CP T schedules ) a t VE S 004710-004720 . However , thi s alternativ e schedul e wa s rejecte d b y Regio n 5 . Th e nex t discussio n regardin g th

e Februar

y 200 8 Informatio n Request s too k plac e o n Apri l 25 , 2008 . Durin g aphone cal l tha t da y between Veoli aan

d Regio n 5 , the Agenc y instructe d Veoli a tha t i t had t o choos e eithe

r to complet

e th e metal s testing , pursuan t t o th e Agency' s very tigh t time frame, o r

alternativel y t o choos e on e o f fou r option s fo r

metal s complianc e tha

t woul dbe include di n Veolia' s long-delaye d Titl e V permit . Th e fou r option s presente d to Veoli awere : 1 ) ceas e incineratin g any waste s containin g MAC T metals ; 2 ) instal l mercur y CEMS ; 3 ) accep t OPL s develope d b y Regio n 5 ; o r 4 ) settl e previousl y discusse d complianc e concern s wit h issu e resolutio n incorporate d int o the Titl e V permit . Afte r negotiations , Veolia—althoug h knowin g tha t conductin g performanc e testin g withi n thi s expedite d time perio d woul db e challengin g and resul t i n increase d cost s and , mor e importantly , increase d ris k o f calculatio n erro r

a s aresul t o f

-79

- VE S 01957 7reduce d QA/Q C revie w time—chose , wit h the agreemen t o f USEPA , t

o conduc t

th e metal s testin g instead o f

on e o f th e fou r alternative s presente d b y th e Agency . T o memorializ e the agreemen t between th

e Agenc y and Veoli aregardin g th e metal s testing , th

e USEP A agree d to revis e and reissu e th e Februar

y 200 8 Informatio n Requests . Region 5 issue d thes e revise d informatio n request s o n Jun e 5 , 200 8 (th

e sam e da y USEP A issue d Veolia' s draf t Titl e V permit) . See June 200 8 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 004721-004733 . Th e June 200 8 Informatio n Request s require d Veoli ato , among othe r things : commenc e performanc e testin g fo r LVMs , SVMs , and mercur y b y no late

r tha n Augus t 15 , 2008 ; submit

the result s o f

thi s testin g i n aNotificatio n o f

Complianc e ("NOC" ) b y Septembe r 26 , 2008 ; an d submi t

a n applicatio n fo r significan t

modificatio n t

o it s Titl e V permi t

(t o includ e th

e OPL s fo r

mercury , SVMs , and LVM s develope d b y the metal s testin g i n the Titl e V permit) b y Septembe r 26 , 2008 . Thus , the Jun

e 200 8 Informatio n Request s were specificall y negotiate d to addres s three ke y issues : 1 ) the dat

e b y whic h Veoli awoul dprovid e tes t datafo r mercury , SVMs , an

d LVMs ; 2 ) the developmen

t o f OPL s fo r

mercury , SVMs , and LVM s usin g the tes t data ; and 3 ) the manne

r i n whic h metal s woul dbe handle d unde r th e Titl e V permi t

(i.e. , the Agenc y require d Veoli at o submi t a n applicatio n fo r

modificatio n o f

the permi t

afte r i t wa s issue d t

o includ e OPL s develope d fromthe tes t

data) . Pursuant to the June 200 8 Informatio n Requests , Veoli aperforme d th e stack testin g fo r

LVMs , SVMs , and mercury i n Augus t and Septembe

r o f 2008 . O n Septembe

r 12 , 2008 , USEP A formall y issue d aTitl e V permi t to Veolia . Veolia' s final Titl e V permi t di d no t contai n OPL s fo r LVMs , SVMs , and mercury . O n Septembe r 16 , 2008 , a

t Veolia' s request , USEP A issue d anothe r revise d §11 4 Informatio n Reques t extendin g Veolia' s deadlin e t o submit th e tes t data , NOC , and it s applicatio n fo r significan t

modificatio n fromSeptembe r 26 , 2008 , unti l Octobe r 10 , 2008 . See Septembe

r 200 8 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 002713-002726 . Th e extensio n provide dVeoli awit h additiona l tim e t o add informatio n collecte d durin g th e Septembe

r portio n o f th e metal s testing . O n October

10 , 2008 , pursuant

t o th e February , June , and Septembe r 200 8 Informatio n Requests , Veoli asubmitte d aNOC , the tes t report s fo r

incinerator s 2 , 3 , and 4 , and a n applicatio n fo r significant

modificatio n t

o Veolia' s Titl e V permit . See Veolia' s Oct . 10 , 200 8 Submissio n a t VE S 000743-000917 . I n it s applicatio n fo r significan t

modification , Veolia , a

s require d b y th

e Agency , submitte d revise d OPL s fo r mercury , SVMs , and LVMs . See Septembe r 200 8 Informatio n Request s a

t VE S 002713-002726 . A t the directio n o f

USEPA , Veoli asubmitte d arevise d applicatio n fo r significan t

modificatio n t o USEP A o n o r

abou t Januar y 6 , 2009 . Veoli aJan . 200 9 Sig . Mod . a t VE S 000918

- 000922 . Thi s revisio n lowere d (i.e. , mad e th e OPL s mor

e restrictive ) fo r

LVMs , SVMs , and mercur y base d o n arevise d calculatio n fo r the moistur

e conten t ofth e soli dwast

e tha t wa s fe dt o th

e incinerato r durin g th e Augus t and Septembe

r 200 8 metal s testing . Afte r completin g al l ofth e requirement s o f th e negotiate d Jun

e 200 8 Informatio n Request s and submittin g arevise d applicatio n fo r significan t

modificatio n i n Januar

y 200 9 a t th e Agency' s direction , Veoli awa s very surprise d whe n it receive d anothe

r informatio n reques t

fromUSEPA , date d Januar

y 29 , 200 9 ("Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Requests") . Veoli awa s eve n mor e surprise d

- 80

- VE S 01957 8whe n i t learne d tha

t th e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Request s directe d Veoli ato instal l mercur y CEM S o n the three hazardou s wast e incinerator s locate d a

t th e Sauge t facilit y withi n 3 0 day s o f Veolia' s receip t

o f th e requests . See Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Request s a t VE S 006369

- 006379 . Thi s directio n wa s i n clea r violatio n o f

th e Apri l 25 , 200 8 agreemen t reache d between Veoli aand Agenc y whereby , wit h th e Agency' s concurrence , Veoli aconducte d metal s testin g i n lie u o f installin g mercur

y CEM S (o r

any ofth e othe

r option s offere db y the Agency) . Afte r bein g denie d a

n extensio n o f

time to evaluat

e USEPA' s directiv e to instal l million s o f dollars ' wort h o f

monitorin g equipment , Veoli aresponde d withi n th e require d 30-da

y deadlin e provide db y th

e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Requests . Veoli aobjecte d to th e premis e ofth e informatio n requests—tha t the y wer e to "determine whethe

r [Veolia ] .. . i s complyin g wit h th e Hazardou s Wast

e Combusto r

MACT"—becaus e Veoli aha d jus t establishe d complianc e wit h the HW C MAC T throug h USEP A approve d and directe d performanc e testing . Veoli aMar . 4 Respons e a

t VE S 006388-006389 . Further , Veoli aasserte d tha t i f Regio n 5' s intentio n ha d alway s bee n t

o requir e Veoli at

o instal l mercur

y CEM S technology , USEP A shoul d have mad e Veoli aawar

e i n Apri l o f

200 8 tha t th e Agenc y wa s goin g t o requir e the installatio n o f

CEM S technolog y fo r

metal s befor e Veoli aincurre d hundred s o f thousand s o f

dollar s i n cost s an

d spen t hundred s o f

hour s o f staf f tim e completin g the metal s test s pursuan t to th e June 200 8 Informatio n Requests . Id. a t VE S 006391 . Veolia' s respons e demonstrate d tha t the installatio n o f

mercur y CEM S wa s impractica l an d improper fo r th e purpose s o f

tryin g to ensur

e HW C MAC T compliance . Specifically , Veoli a mad e th e followin g points , amon g others , concernin g th e problem s associate d wit h th e applicatio n o f

mercur y CEM S t o it s incineratio n units :

• Afte r diligen t inquiry , Veoli adi d no t

discover an y successfu l mercur

y CEM S implementatio n effort s o n any commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator s i n th

e Unite d States . Moreover , th

e CEM S technolog y employe d i n the electri c utilit y industr y and o n European commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator s i s no t

applicabl e to , an

d significantl y differen t

than , th e CEM S technolog y tha

t USEP A directe d Veoli ato install .

• Th e 30-da

y perio d provide d b y USEP A i n the Informatio n Request s fo r design , selection , purchase , manufacture , and installatio n o f thre e mercur

y CEMS , and acquisitio n an d configuration o f aDat aAcquisitio n Syste m(DAS ) wa s unreasonable , unachievable , and contrar y t o goo d practice . I

t als o wa s contrar

y t o USEPA' s ow n guidance, 3 8 and inconsistent wit h the time perio d allowe dfo r implementin g CEM S program s i n numerou s othe r regulations . Moreover , the 30-da y time perio d i s no t achievabl e fo r

any singl e CEM S application , muc h les s thre e separat e mercur y monitorin g systems .

3 8 Cente r for Environmenta

l Researc

h Information

, USEPA , EP A Handbook : Continuou s Emissio n Monitorin

g System s for Non-Criteria Pollutants, EPA/625/R-97/00 1 (April 1997) , attache d a tVE S 004160-004329

.

- 8 1 - VE S 01957 9• USEP A require d th e CEM S t

o be "installed , evaluated , and certifie di n accordanc e wit h th e propose d Performanc e Specificatio n 12" ; however , n o commercially availabl e mercur y CEM S ca n mee

t the requirement s fo r

eithe r Draf t Performanc e Specificatio n 1 2 o r Performanc e Specificatio n 12A . o USEP A has neve

r officiall y promulgate d Draf t Performanc e Specificatio n 1 2 and ha s neve r subjecte d th

e specificatio n to notic e and comment rulemakin g procedures . o Draf t Performanc e Specificatio n 1 2 contain s numerou s technica l error s (a s wel l a s careles s typographica l error s duplicate d i n othe r "draft " performanc e specifications ) and i s inappropriat e fo r mercur y monitorin g applications . o Draf t P S 1 2 require s th

e us e o f Nationa l Institute s o f

Standard s an d Technolog y ("NIST" ) traceabl e mercur y calibratio n standard s fo r bot h elemental and oxidize dmercur

y tha t ar e not ye t availabl e becaus e suc h traceabilit y protocol s ar e stil l unde

r development . o Draf t PS1 2 mandate s the us e o f NIS T traceabl e standard s fo r oxidize dmercur

y whic h d o not exis t a t an y concentratio n level .

• The Informatio n Request s lacke d an y referenc e t o averagin g perio d fo r reportin g data fromth e CEMS . A CEM S attemptin g complianc e wit h any emissio n standar d mus t includ e bot

h anumerica l limi t

and a n associate d averagin g period .

• Th e commerciall y availabl e CEM S tha t USEP A wa s forcin g Veoli at o consider unde r th e Informatio n Request s provide s we t basi s measurements ; however , unde r 4 0 CF.R . Part 63 , Subpar

t EEE , complianc e determination s ar e base d o n dry basi s measurement s USEP A provide d no informatio n a s to ho w thi s conversio n woul dbe made .

• Th e Informatio n Request s reference d citation s tha t d o no t exis t i n the Cod e o f

Federa l Regulations . Becaus e o f

thes e defect s and other s wit h th e CEM S require d b y the Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Requests , Veoli aconcluded : Veoli abelieve s tha

t th e mercur y CEM S technolog y i s no t ademonstrate d complianc e monitorin g technolog y fo r commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerators . Rather , th

e best metho d fo r

Veoli aand othe

r hazardou s wast

e incinerator s to accuratel y demonstrat

e complianc e wit h th

e MAC T metal s standard s i s throug h performanc e testin g and the developmen t o f OPLs . Thi s i s supporte d bot h b y th e stringent and detaile d CP T MAC T metal s requirement s o f 4 0 C.F.R . Part

63 , Subpar t EE E and USEP A Regio n 5' s ow n representation s t o Veoli aregardin g th e us e o f OPL s over

CEM S technology . Specifically , i n an Apri l 16 , 200 8 memorandu mdirecte d to Veolia , whic h wa s approve d b y Sectio n Chie f Willia m

-82

- VE S 01958 0MacDowell , Regio n 5 state d th e followin g regardin g th e us e o f CEM S fo r

MAC T metals : Althoug h continuou s emissio n monitor s (CEM ) fo r dioxin/furan , mercury , PM , SVM/LVM , an d HC1/C1 2 d

o exist , th

e HW C MAC T doe s no t

requir e them . EP A has no t

promulgate d a performanc e specificatio n fo r HC1/C1 2 CEMS . A DR E CE M i s technicall y possible , but th e cas e enginee

r doe s no t kno w o f an y facilit y tha

t use s one . Unti l EP A require s a CE M fo r eac

h standard , w

e wil l hav

e t o rel y upo n OPL s a

s surrogate

s fo r them . I n orde r fo r OPL s t

o assur e complianc

e reliably , th

e owne r o r operato

r mus testablis h OPL s fro m CP T operatin g dat a o n th e sam e incinerator , unde

r know n tes toperatin

g conditions . Veoli aMar . 4 , 200 9 Respons e a t VE S 00639 3 (quotin g USEP A Apri l 16 , 200 8 Memo) . Afte r Veoli asubmitte d it s detaile d respons e o n Marc h 4 , 2009 , USEP A an d Veoli ame

t t o discus s th

e Januar y 200 9 Informatio n Request s o n Ma y 13 , 2009 . A t the Ma y 13 , 2009 , meeting , USEP A concede d tha

t 3 0 day s had been a

n insufficien t

perio d o f

tim e t o instal l the CEM S contemplate d b y the Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Requests . Moreover , the Agenc y acknowledge d tha t NIS T had yet to com e u p wit h atraceabl e calibratio n standar d tha t coul dbegi n t o verif

y the accurac y o f dataproduce d b y th

e propose d mercur

y CEMS . USEP A als o concede d tha t the y reference d the wron g Performanc e Specification—Draf t P S 12—i n their

informatio n request s and that , t o thei r knowledge , no mercur

y CEM S ha

d ye t been installe d and successfull y operate d a t acommercia l hazardou s wast

e combustio n facilit y i n th e Unite dStates . Despit e thes e error s and admissions , USEP A indicate d tha

t i t woul dno t

withdraw the Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Request s and maintaine d tha

t th e Agenc y intende d t

o us e the dat

acollecte d vi ath

e CEM S fo r

complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T and possibl e enforcement . However , the Agenc y di dindicate tha t it wishe d to continu e the dialogu e wit h Veoli aan d ended the meetin g b y statin g tha t Agenc y personne l woul d contac t Veoli afo r

furthe r discussions—wit

h the eventua

l goa l bein g som

e sor t o f settlemen

t regardin g compliance . See Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008388 . However , instead o f

adiscussio n regardin g settlement , the next meaningfu l contac t

tha t Veoli a receive dfromthe Agenc y wer e th e Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Requests . USEP A sen t th e Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Request s to Veoli awithou t explanatio n o r

prio r notification . Th e Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Request s consiste d o f aslightl y revise d versio n o f USEPA' s flawe dJanuar y 200 9 Informatio n Request s wit h afe w materia l change s to th e relevan t

requests . Th e primary materia l chang e i n the Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Reques t wa s tha t USEP A attempted t o fi x th e deficiencie s tha t plague d the Januar

y 200 9 versio n b y impermissibl y shiftin g fromitsel f t o Veoli ath

e burde n o f creatin g technica l standard s t o verif y th e datagenerate d b y the mercur y CEM S tha

t USEP A itsel f ha d faile dt

o devise . ( A strikethroug h compariso n o f the Januar

y 200 9 an d Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Request s i s attache d a t VE S 006420-006438. ) Veoli aresponde d t o th

e Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Request s o n Marc h 25 , 2010 . See Veolia' s Marc h 25 , 201 0 Respons e a t VE S 006346-006468 . I n additio n t o numerou s genera

l objections , Veoli aobjecte d t

o th e Informatio n Request s o n th e ground s tha

t (a ) the y wer

e unconstitutional a

s they place d Veoli ai n apositio n o f incurrin g penaltie s fo r

noncomplianc e withou t an y

- 8 3 - VE S 01958 1opportunit y fo r administrativ e o r

judicia l review ; (b ) the y represente d a n attemp t b y the Agenc y t o unlawfull y modif

y Veolia' s Titl e V permit ; (c ) they represente d a n attemp t b y the Agenc y t o depriv e Veoli ao f

it s due proces s right s b y circumventin g Veolia' s appea l o f it s RCR A Part

B Permit ; and (d ) the y wer e arbitrar y and capriciou s and lacke d arationa l basi s becaus e the y ignore dVeolia' s demonstrate d complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T Rule . However , despit e thes e objections , Veoli aagai n offere dt o mee t wit h the Agenc y i n a

n attemp t to work ou t a compromise . O n Apri l 28 , 2010 , Veoli asen t atea mo f decisio n maker s t o mee t wit h USEP A a

t USEPA' s Raleigh , Nort h Carolin aResearc h Triangl e Park facility . A t

thes e meetings , th

e Agenc y wa s unabl e to identif

y alocatio n wher

e mercur y CEM S technolog y ha d eve r bee n successfull y utilize di n the Unite dState s o n acommercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator . Veoli aexpresse d it s belief, base d upo n Veolia' s experienc e i n operatin g it s commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerators , tha t the hig h variabl e moisture , hig h temperatur e environment

foun d i n the incinerator s and th e wid e variation s o f

mercur y foun di n th

e fee d combine d to mak e the Veoli aincinerator s the mos t challengin g environment i n whic h anyone had eve r propose d t o operat

e amercur

y CEMS . Veoli abelieve d tha

t the technolog y wa s likel y t o fai l and woul dsucceed , i f ever , onl y afte r

th e mercury CEM S endure d many failure s an d Veoli aincurre d muc h tim e and expens e attemptin g to forc e th e technolog y to successfull y operate . Th e Agenc y di dno t disagre e and offere dn o evidenc e t o th

e contrary . A s aresul t

o f the discussions , th

e Agenc y offere dto entertai n alternativ e method s to obtai n th e relevant

emission s information . Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008388 . I n respons e t o USEPA' s invitatio n to offe r alternativ e method s as par t o f the ongoin g discussion s between the parties , o n Ma y 25 , 2010 , Veoli aoffered , i n relevan t part , to instal l additiona l technolog y i n th

e for mo f

activate d carbo n injectio n system s o n incinerator s 2 and 3 , provide d tha t al l approval s were i n place . Carbo n injectio n system s actually reduce emissions a s oppose d t o simpl y monitorin g emissions . See Veolia' s Ma y 25 , 201 0 Lette r a t VE S 006469-006471 . Veoli afurthe r

propose d tha

t i t woul dprovid e th

e Agenc y wit h additiona l datab y schedulin g and performin g mercur

y emissio n testin g i n accordanc e wit h th e USEP A approve d 200 8 performanc e tes t

plans . Thi s testin g woul ddocumen t whethe r incinerato r

unit s 2 , 3 an d 4 me

t al l applicabl e mercury MAC T Standards . Despite it s offe r t o entertai n alternative s to the Marc h 2010 , Informatio n Request , th e Agenc y neve

r provide d a

n analysi s o r

otherwis e responde d t o th e merit s o f thi s proposal . I n fact , USEP A di d no t

brin g up the Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Requests—o r mentio n CEM S a

t all—unti l Veoli areceive d th e Augus t 201 2 FOV . Th e Augus t 201 2 FO V states , withou t explanation , "[t] o date , Veoli aha s faile dto provid e an y o f the informatio n require d b y the Marc h 10 , 201 0 Informatio n Reques t i n violatio n o f

§11 4 ofth e CAA. " Augus t 201 2 FO V a

t VE S 001364 . Quit e conversely , a s se t fort h i n thes e comment s and i n Mr . Harris ' Affidavit , i t wa s USEPA tha

t neve r provide d an

y respons e to Veolia' s Marc h 4 , 2009 , respons e t o the Januar

y 200 9 Informatio n Requests , Veolia' s Marc h 25 , 201 0 respons e to the Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Requests , o r

Veolia' s Ma y 25 , 201 0 offe r to instal l carbo n injectio n system s as awa y t o resolv e th e CEM S issues . See Harri s Aff . a t VE S 008387-008388 . Throughou t

thi s entir e period , despit

e it s repeate d requests , Veoli ahas been presente d wit h n o evidenc e demonstratin g Veolia' s noncomplianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T emissio n standard s a s se t fort h i n th

e Augus t 201 2 FOV . Moreover , give n thi s history , USEPA' s deman d tha t Veoli a 84

- VE S 01958 2instal l mercur y CEM S a

s se t fort h i n th

e Marc h 201 0 Informatio n Requests—a n expensive , experimental technolog y tha t cannot be use d t

o establis h MAC T compliance—ha s no rationa l basi s an d i s arbitrar

y and capricious .

(b ) Allegation that

Veolia Failed

to Establish and

Abide by Appropriate OPLs

for Mercury Emissions A s detaile d above , Veoli aan d USEP A hav e communicate d extensivel y from200 8 forwar d concernin g Veolia' s emissions . Throughou t thi s period , Veoli aworke d cooperativel y wit h USEP A i n a

n effor t to establis h appropriat

e OPLs . I n Augus t

and Septembe

r of2008 , Veoli a undertoo k

performanc e testin g t

o establis h OPL s fo r

mercury , SVMs , and LVM s a s detaile d i n the June 200 8 Informatio n Requests . Prio r t o conductin g the tests , Veoli aprovide d USEP A wit h Veolia' s Metal s Performanc e Tes t Plan , whic h se

t fort h ho w the testin g woul d be performe d and ho w the wast

e woul d b

e spike d wit h mercur

y prio r to bein g fe d into th

e incinerator . See VE S 002633-002707 . Further , durin g the Augus t 200 8 performanc e testing , Veoli aprovide d spli t sample s to USEPA' s Regio n 5 Lan dGrou p a t USEPA' s request . A s reflecte d i n th e pla n provide dto USEPA , Veoli aretaine dENS RCorporatio n (whic h i s no w apar t o f AECOM , Inc. ) to perfor mthe stac k

testing . ENS Rretaine d the service s o f th e outside la

b Maxxa mAnalytics , Inc . t o evaluat

e and analyz e th

e collecte dsample s o n behal f o f Veolia . Maxxa mi n turn sub

contracte d the analysi s to PS C Environmenta l System s t o perfor mas h and heatin g valu e analyse s ofth e wast

e samples . Th e accepte d analytica l metho d fo r the metal s analyse s ofth e soli dwast e sample s fromthe test s wa s tha t th e testin g wa s to be performe do n the sample s o n a n "a s received " basis . Maxxa m followe daprocedure , commo n fo r soi l samples , tha

t include d aste

p tha t drie d the sample s prio r to analyzin g fo r

metal s content . Thi s mos t likel y inflate dth

e reporte d metal s concentrations . I t wa s presume d tha

t th e metal s analysi s reporte db y the la b wer e o n a n "a s received " basi s sinc e th e la b report s di d no t

indicate otherwis e (as i s typicall y done whe n analyse s ar e performe d o n a dry basis) . Th e fac t

tha t the sample s wer

e first drie dbefor e analyse s were performe d wa s discovere d i n earl y Novembe r of2008 . Maxxa mwa s instructe d to repea t their dryin g procedure , followin g the sam

e protoco l a

s wa s originall y performed , o n the remainin g soli dwast e sample s fo r Unit s 2 and 3 (no sample s remaine d fromUni t 4 testing ) an d recor d befor e and afte r weight s s o amoisture percentag e coul d be determined . Afte r thes e moisture determination s wer e received , mercur

y fee d rate s fo r

th e testin g were recalculate d and Veoli alowere d th e mercur y feedrat e limi t se t fort h i n it s DO C from0.004 7 lb/hr to 0.003 4 lb/h

r o n Unit s 2 an

d 3 o n Novembe r

18 , 2008 . See VE S 007582-007589 . Sinc e Maxxa mdi d no t have any Uni t

4 soli d wast e sample s remaining , i t

wa s determine dtha

t th e mos t conservative , an

d onl y known , moisture value s fo r

th e Uni t 4 soli dsample s (fro mPS C analytica l results ) woul d b e use d t o recalculate the mercur

y feedrate s fo r

th e testin g o n Uni t

4 . Upo n completin g thi s calculation , Veoli alowere d Uni t

4' s mercur

y feedrat e limi t se t fort h i n it s DO C from0.03 1 lb/hr t o 0.02 6 lb/h r o n Novembe r

25 , 2008 . See VE S 007590-7595 . Veoli apromptl y notifie dUSEP A personne l o f

the ne w calculation s and th e reason s fo r

the ne w calculations . It shoul d be note d tha t Veoli abelieve s tha

t USEPA' s insistenc e tha t th e 200 8 metal s testin g b

e conducte d o n a

n expedite d basis—i n ashorte r timefram e tha

n provide dfo r

i n the HW C MACT—significantl y contribute d to the moistur e issu e no t

bein g discovere d unti l Novembe r 2008 . I n fact , i f

Veoli a had been provide d wit h three month s to prepar e th e tes t report s a s provide d unde

r the

-85

- VE S 01958 3regulations , thi s issu e woul dhave bee n identifie dan d correcte d withi n th e three mont

h period , sinc e it wa s correcte d i n Novembe r of2008 . O n o r abou t Jul y 28 , 2009 , USEPA' s Lan dand Ai r Group s initiate d acal l wit h Veoli astaff . Durin g thi s call , USEP A expresse d satisfactio n wit h the preparatio n o f the spike d sampl e fo r mercur y but continue d to expres s concern wit h th e moisture conten

t ofth e soli dsamples . Thi s wa s par t o f a n ongoin g discussio n wit h USEP A i n whic h USEP A allege d o n anumbe r o f occasion s tha

t analysi s th

e Agenc y had conducte d o n the 200 8 spli t samples—specificall y wit h regard t o moisture content—wa s inconsistent wit h Veolia' s analysi s eve n afte r Veoli aha d adjuste d the OPL s i n Novembe r o f 2008 . Durin g thes e discussions , Veoli arepeatedly offere dto us e USEPA' s moisture conten t or , i n th e alternative , us e th

e mos t conservativ e moistur

e conten t t o develo p ne w OPLs . See Veolia' s Jul y 6 , 200 9 Respons e a t VE S 004833-004841 . USEP A continuall y rebuffe d thes e attempts t o settle the dispute b y refusin g t o provid e Veoli awit h the moisture conten

t USEP A allegedl y foun d vi aanalysi s o f it s ow n spli t

samples . Harri s Aff . a

t VE S 008387 . I n a n effor t t o resolv e the disput

e wit h USEPA , but

withou t the benefi t

o f USEPA' s analytica l dat afromthe spli t

samples , Veoli asearche d fo r alogica l nexu s fo r

a n eve n mor

e conservativ e moisture value . Veoli adetermine d tha t PSC' s analytica l method s resulte d i n a n eve n mor

e conservativ e moistur

e valu e the

n Maxxam' s (du e to dryin g temperature ) an d therefore use d PSC' s moisture result s to establis h eve n lowe r OPLs . Thes e revise d OPL s wer e place d i n Veolia' s NO C o n Marc h 16 , 2010 , fo r Unit s 2 and 3 . Veoli ause d PSC' s moisture result s no t becaus e Veoli abelieve dthemt o be mor e accurate , rathe

r simpl y a s a

n accommodatio n t o USEP A and i n an effor t to brin g final resolutio n to the moisture issue . Durin g ameetin g i n Springfield , Illinoi s o n Marc h o f 2011 , USEP A representative s finall y agree d tha t th e moisture issu e wa s resolved . It i s important

to not e tha t fromMarc h 10 , 2008 , to th e present , Veoli ahas followe dUSEPA' s specifi c directiv e tha

t Veoli acompl y wit h the October 10 , 2008 , OPLs . See USEPA' s December 5 , 200 8 Lette r

a t VE S 007553-007560 . Further , durin g thi s tim e period , Veoli aneve r exceede d it s mercur

y emissio n standar

d o f 13 0 ug/dsc mbase d o n it s actua l feedrate . (c ) Allegation that

Veolia Failed

to Appropriately Analyze Certain Waste Streams Th e 201 2 FO V allege d tha t Veoli afaile dt

o appropriatel y profil e and analyz e certai n waste s i t receive s fo r

incineration . Th

e allegation s aros e out

o f a n inspectio n conducte d a t th e Veoli a facilit y b y the USEPA' s Nationa l Enforcemen t Investigation s Center

("NEIC" ) betwee n December

5 , 2011 , and Decembe

r 15 , 2011 . Th e Augus t

201 2 FO V containe d excerpt s fromthe NEIC' s final repor

t regardin g the inspection ; however , Regio n 5 di d not provid e Veoli awit h a cop y ofth e NEI C repor

t prio r to issuin g th

e Augus t 201 2 FOV . Th e excerpt s o f the NEI C repor

t tha t wer e include dcontaine d errors , moreover , becaus e the repor t wa s excerpted , th

e totalit y o f th e NEIC' s findings wit h regar d t o Veoli awere unclear—i.e. , i t wa s unclea

r whethe r th e NEI C ha d generall y foun dVeoli at o b e i n complianc e an d had onl y foun dasmal l numbe r o f mino r issues , o r whethe r the NEI C ha

d determine d ther

e wer e larger complianc e issues .

-86

- VE S 01958 4I n respons e to the Augus t 201 2 FOV , Veoli aschedule d ameetin g wit h USEP A o n Septembe r 18 , 2012 . O n Septembe

r 17 , 2012 , th

e da y befor e th

e schedule d meetin g o n th e Augus t 201 2 FOV , Regio n 5 sen

t Veoli aaNotic e o f

Violatio n ("NOV") , dated Septembe r 13 , 2012 . Sept . 201 2 NO V a

t VE S 006478-006481 . Th e Septembe r 201 2 NO V containe d th e sam e allegation s base d o n th

e NEI C inspectio n tha

t wer e containe d i n the Augus t 201 2 FOV . I n addition , althoug h i

t containe d nearl y identica l allegations , th e Septembe

r 201 2 NO V wa s sen

t b y the RCR A Branc h o f

Regio n 5 . Veoli arepresentative s me t wit h USEP A o n Septembe r 18 , 2012 , i n Chicag o to discus s both the FO V an d th

e NOV . Durin g th

e meeting , Veoli ainforme dUSEP A tha t i t coul dno t

properl y respon d t o th e violation s allege d i n the FO V and th e NO V withou t

receivin g acop y o f

the NEI C Report , which , a

t th e tim e o f th e meeting , Veoli ahad requeste d but had no t received . I n addition , base d o n th

e informatio n se

t fort h i n FO V and the NOV , Veoli astate d tha t the NEI C Report appeare d t

o contai n errors . Region 5' s assistan t regiona l counsel , Sabrin aArgentieri , requeste d tha

t Veoli ase

t fort h i n writin g the allegation s tha t Veoli abelieve d t o be erroneou s to th e exten t Veoh acoul dd

o so withou t

havin g th

e benefi t o f havin g reviewe d th

e NEI C Report . O n Septembe

r 26 , 2012 , Veoli aprovide dMs . Argentier i wit h th e requeste d writte n analysis . Veoh afinall y receive d acop y o f the NEI C repor

t o n Septembe

r 28 , 2012 . Th e NEI C repor t state d tha t the specifi c purpos e ofth e investigatio n wa s t o determine Veolia' s complianc e wit h 4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 63.1209(c ) (analysi s o f

feedstreams ) unde

r the Clea n Ai r

Ac t and Veolia' s complianc e wit h it s Wast e Analysi s Pla n ("WAP" ) unde r RCRA . See NEI C Repor t a t VE S 001330 . Th e NEI C repor t di dnot offe r conclusion s o r

compliance/enforcemen t recommendations ; rather , the repor t se t fort h fou r

"observations/area s o f

concern " regardin g Veolia' s wast

e profiles . Thes e "observations/area s o f concern " eventuall y ende d u p i n th e FO V an d NO V serve d o n Veolia . Afte r havin g reviewe d the NEI C Report , Veoli aconfirme dtha t th e NEI C Repor

t containe d errors . Veoli aprovide dawritte n respons e t o th e allegation s vi alette

r date d October

12 , 2012 . ( A cop y o f

Veolia' s October

12 , 201 2 respons e i s attache d a s VE S 006483-006502. ) Veoli aresponde d to Regio n 5' s genera l allegation s voicin g concern s over Veolia' s wast

e profile s a

s follow s Sinc e th e effectiv e dat

e o f th e Incinerato r

MAC T Rule , Veoli aha s had a Metal s Testin g Protoco l i n plac e tha t has bee n provide dto USEPA , alon g wit h aWast e Analysi s Pla n (WAP ) and Fee d Strea mAnalysi s Pla n (FAP) . Thi s protoco l alon g wit h th

e WA P and FA P determine s i f metal s analysi s need s t o b e conducte d and ho w ofte n base d o n th e generator' s provide dwast e profil e shee t includin g meta

l analysis , MSDSs , and additiona l generator-provide d information . Th e facility' s on-site laborator y i s equippe d wit h tw o Inductivel y Couple dPlasm a("ICP" ) unit s an d tw o direc t mercur y analyzer s ("DMA" ) tha

t suppor t thi s effort . [Currently , Veoli aoperate s three ICP s an d 4 DMAs. ] Thes e instrument s ar e continuall y upgrade d t o kee p up wit h improve dtechnology/software . Thes e protocol s and plans , alon g wit h th e on sit e laboratory' s capabilities , ensur e tha t the waste s bein g receive d ar e properl y evaluate d and th e metal concentration s ar e correctl y determined . I n addition , Veoli aha

s ametal s suspec t

lis t tha t i s continuall y update d and tha t require s thos e suspect

waste s to underg o metal s analysis .

- 87

- VE S 01958 5I n addition , Veoli aresponde d to eac h o f USEPA' s individua l allegation s a s follows : USEP A Allegatio n No . 1 : Veolia was using toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) results instead of total metals concentrations. NEIC identified the presence of

conflicting metals data between the profile package and the information in the WTS and in the incineration control system (ICS). For profile 236152, an MSDS contained

in the profile package listed the chromium concentration as "3 to 6 percent chromium as chromium oxide " (30,000to 60,000mg/kg). TCLPvalues from off-site analytical (SGS Environmental

Services, Inc. on 3/24/06) were 11.4 mg/L for Chromium and 0.876 mg/L for Cadmium. Veolia stated that 20times TCLPvalues were used (228and 17.52 mg/L) for

the incinerator

feed rate calculations, although there are no values in the WTS query that

were provided. Veoli a Respons

e No . 1 : Profil e 23615 2 i s rarel y use d an d has onl y shippe d o n fou r occasion s sinc e Apri l o f 2006 . Thi s wast

e strea mi s comprise d o f

spen t filte r medi a(carbo n wit h chrome) . Th e MSD S i n th e profd e packag e i s fo r unuse d carbo n wit h copper and chromiu mand i s provide d as additiona l information , no t

t o establis h ametal s concentratio n fo r th e waste . A s aresult , the concentratio n valu e define d o n th e MSD S woul dno t

be i n th e WT S o r ICS . Followin g discussion s wit h NEIC , currentl y thi s spen t filter medi awast

e strea mi s sample d and analyze d fo r metal s ever

y tim e it i s received . Finally , afte r reviewin g th

e NEI C inspectio n report , it doe s no t reflec t accuratel y Veolia' s procedure s fo r

managin g the tota l metal s concentration s i n the WT S and ICS . Th e profil e packag e ma y contai n additiona l informatio n (fro m MSDSs ) tha

t i s not representativ e o f

the actual wast

e stream . I n thi s case , the MSD S i n th

e profil e packag e wa s unuse d carbo n wit h copper and chromium , wher e th e actua l wast

e strea mwa s spen

t filter medi a(carbo n wit h chrome) . Th e 22 8 mg/ l fo r

chromiu mwa s consistentl y use d i n th e profil e packag e and i n th e WT S an

d ICS . I f th e NEI C continue s to have concerns , Veoli awil l nee d additiona l informatio n fromth e NEI C i n orde

r to addres s the NEIC' s concerns , i f

any . USEP A Allegatio n No . 2 : The profile package for 691163 has a TCLPvalue for chromium of

1.8mg/L, while the WTS and ICS used a value of

0mg/L. Chromium is likely much greater than 20times the TCLPconcentration of 1.8 mg/L, an off-site analysis result that was found in the profile package. No onsite metal analyses has been conducted. Veoli a Respons

e No . 2 : Veoli areviewe d thi s profil e and determine d tha t i t di dno t tak e the TCL P dat

aan d multipl e b y 2 0 to obtai n the metal s concentration . Thi s wast e strea mi s no t ametal s suspect

wast e so i n accordanc e wit h Veoli aprotocols , metal s analysi s i s no t required . Th e TCL P value s include d i n thi s wast e profil e were al l belo w detectio n limits . Moreover , th

e 1. 8 mg/L valu e reference d i n bot h paragrap h 45(b ) ofth e Firs t Lette r and paragrap h 2 o f

th e Secon d Lette r

wa s no t include d i n thi s profile .

- 88

- VE SI f th e NEI C continue s to have aconcern , Veoli aneed s additiona l informatio n fromthe NEI C i n order

to addres s the NEIC' s concern , i f any . USEP A Allegatio n No . 3 : Veolia profile reviews were based on general processes that

did not consider

the possibility for

variability in volatile or semivolatile metals concentrations. For example, profiles 660210and CI5789both are described as "cyanide containing wastes. " While both profiles list

cadmium cyanide as a possible constituent, Veolia uses a value of 6,470mg/kg cadmium for profile CI5789and

1 mg/kg cadmium for

profile 660210. These are very similar waste streams generated by different generators, therefore there could be variability between waste streams. Veoli a Respons

e No . 3 : Thes e ar

e no t "ver y similar

wast e streams" ; rather , CI578 9 i s bul k

liqui dwast

e tha t come s to Veoli ai n 5,00 0 gallo n shipment s and66021 0 consist s o f

container s fille dwit h individually-package dan d labele dunuse d products . The cadmiu mcyanid e concentratio n fo r CI578 9 i s base d o n analytica l analysis , whil e the concentratio n presen t i n 66021 0 i s know n becaus e i t

i s unuse d materia l (andwa s confirme dthroug h analysis) . Veoli abelieve s thi s furthe r explanatio n adequately addresse s NEIC' s issues . I f th e NEI C continue s to have concerns , Veoli awil l nee d additiona l informatio n fromth

e NEI C i n order

t o addres s the NEIC' s concerns , i f any . USEP A Allegatio n No . 4 : The profile package for AF3753 has a total mercury value of

4140mg/kg (TCLPvalue of 37.8mg/L), but

the WTS and ICS used a value of

25mg/kg for at least 5years. Having conflicting values between profile packages and databases, without

a clear indication as to which value is correct, could lead to the use of

incorrect metals concentrations for

feed rate calculations. Veolia stated that a total mercury analysis was measured

and the measured

value of 25ppm is usedfor

the incinerator

feed rate calculations, rather than the profile values stored in the WTS. Since the historical data in the profile indicates a mercury value as high as 4140mg/kg, this waste stream might not have a total

mercury value of 25ppm every shipment. Veoli a Respons

e No . 4 : The 414 0 mg/k g valu e i s ahistorica l valu e tha t date s bac k to th e earl y 1990s . I n 2004 , whe n the MAC T standard s cam e into effect , th e analysi s fo r

profil e packag e AF375 3 wa s update d andth e update d analysi s showe d mercur

y to be belo w 2 5 mg/kg . Therefore , Veoli ause d avalu e o f 2 5 mg/k g fo r

th e incinerato r

fee d rat e calculations . Recently , th e generator validate dVeolia' s us e ofth e 2 5 mg/k g mercury figur e whe n the generator amended profil e AF375 3 to lis t 0-5 0 mg/k g thimerosal . Thimerosa l i s 49.55 % mercury . Give n tha t th e uppe r limi t o f profil e AF375 3 i s 5 0 mg/kg thimerosal , th

e uppe r limi t o f profil e AF375 3 fo r

mercur y i s 49.55 % o f

5 0 mg/k g o r 24.7 8 mg/kg . Pursuant to applicabl e regulations , Veoli aha s th e righ t t o rel y upo n th

e generator' s representations . Further , the generator' s representation s ar

e i n agreemen

t wit h Veolia' s ow n analysis . Finally , after

- 89

- VE Sreviewin g th e NEI C inspectio n report , i t doe s no t reflec t accuratel y Veolia' s procedure s fo r

managin g th

e tota l metal s concentration s i n th e WT S and ICS . Th e profil e packag e matche d the WT S and ICS . I f the NEI C continue s to hav e concerns , Veoli awil l need additiona l informatio n fromthe NEI C i n order t o addres s th

e NEIC' s concerns , i f

any . USEP A Allegatio n No . 5 : For Profile 374339, Veolia stated that a total metals analyses was run on-site and total MACT metals were usedfor IPS/WTS. Since the waste type listed on this profile is "Organic Debris, " this waste stream is variable and should be analyzed

each time a load

is received. Veoli a Respons

e No . 5 : Whil e no t

t o th e exclusio n o f

it s ow n samplin g and analysis , Veoli ahas th

e righ t to rel y upo n the generator' s representation s relatin g t o th e wast e strea munde r applicabl e regulations . However , Veoli ai s samplin g and analyzin g thi s wast e strea mfo r metal s ever

y tim e i t i s receive d and th e metal s concentration s ar e adjuste d a

s suc h i n th

e WT S and IC S base d o n tha t curren t analysis . Veolia' s Oct . 12 , 201 2 Respons e a t VE S 006483-006502 . A s Veolia' s response s indicate , th e wast e analysi s allegation s containe d i n the FO V and NO V wer e eithe r base d o n misunderstanding s o f

Veolia' s wast

e profile s an d wast

e profil e system , o r

wer e jus t erroneous . Moreover , Veolia , althoug h it wa s no t require d t o d

o so , institute d aprogramt o tes t many ofth e incomin g waste s streams identifie di n the NEI C repor t fo r metal s ever

y time thos e waste s ar

e receive da

t the facility . Regio n 5 faile dt o provid e an y response , comment , or reactio n to Veolia' s Octobe r

12 , 2012 , response . I n sum , eac h and ever

y allegatio n containe d i n th e Augus t 201 2 FO V ha s been resolved , rebutted , clarified , o r

otherwis e addresse d b y Veoli adurin g the negotiation s wit h th e Agenc y over Veolia' s HW C MAC T complianc e tha t hav e take n plac e ove

r th e las t severa l years . Moreover , despit

e th e time , effort , and resource s Veoli ahas spen t to engage USEP A regardin g th e issue s raise d i n th

e Augus t 201 2 FOV , th

e Agenc y has offere dno respons e an d provide dn o othe r suppor t fo r it s allegations . Th e Agenc y ha s take n no final action—no r take n step s towar d final agenc y action—tha t sho w tha

t Veoli ai s ou t

o f compliance . Fo r

thes e reasons , Regio n 5 mus t revis e the Statemen

t ofBasi s and th

e draf t permi t to includ e apermi t

shiel dto Veoli afo r th e HW C MAC T and remov e al l reference s to th e FOVs . Thereafter , Regio n 5 shoul d reope n thi s portio n ofth e permi t fo r publi c comment . 2 . Alleged

Referrals by the IEPA to the Illinois Attorney General O n Pag e 28 , footnote 15 , o f th e Statemen

t ofBasis , USEP A sets fort h the following :

1 5 O n Februar

y 26 , 2007 , IEP A referre d Veoli at o th e Illinoi s Attorne y Genera l fo r allege dviolation s o f

th e Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Act , Illinoi s Pollutio n Contro l Boar dRegulations , and th e HW C MACT . O n Marc h 5 , 2010 , afte r receivin g additiona l information , th e IEP A referre d to th

e Illinoi s Attorne y

-90

- VE S 01958 8Genera l additiona l allege dviolation s ofth e Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Act , Illinoi s Pollutio n Contro l Boar dRegulations , andth e HW C MACT . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 2 8 n.1 5 a

t VE S 009277 . Veoli ahas neve r receive dany notic e o f

any kin d regardin g thes e allege dviolation s referre dt o the Illinoi s Attorne y Genera l b y IEPA . No r has the Illinoi s Attorne y General , t o Veolia' s knowledge , eve r pursue dsuc h allegation s i n any way . Moreover , the passag e o f tim e sinc e thes e allege dreferral s wer e supposedl y mad

e (mor e than seve n year s andfou r

years , respectively ) strongl y suggest s that , eve n i f thes e referral s were made , the Illinoi s Attorne y General lon g ag o deeme d themunworthy . Regio n 5' s inclusio n o f thi s footnot e i n the Statemen t ofBasi s i s imprope r

andnegligent , anddemonstrate s th e Agency' s bia s andmalic e agains t

Veoli ai n requirin g the multi-metal s CEM S andth e change s to the FA P i n the 201 4 Draf

t Permit . Thes e unspecifie dan dunsubstantiate d allegation s provid e n o suppor t fo r an y o f the Agency' s permittin g action s wit h regardto Veolia . A l l reference s to th

e 2006 , 2008 , and201 2 FOV s andan y referenc e t

o allege dviolation s referre d t o the Illinoi s Attorne y Genera l b y IEP A shoul db e remove dfro mth

e Statemen

t ofBasis . I

t woul db e arbitrary andcapriciou s fo r Regio n 5 t

o rel y o n unsupported , unsubstantiated , and unidentifie denforcement allegation s t

o suppor t the Agency' s denia l o f

Veolia' s permi t

shiel d an dth e enhance d monitorin g requirements . Further , th e permi t shiel dfo r

th e HW C MAC T shoul dbe grante d andthe enhance d FA P an dth e requirement s fo r

th e installatio n o f

CEM S shoul db e remove dfromth e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . I . Th e Administrativ e Procedure

s USEP A I

s Employin g Violat

e Veolia' s Du

e Proces s Right s Th e administrativ e procedure s USEP A i s followin g fo r the permi t

renewal ar

e constitutionall y inadequat

e as applied

to Veoli abecaus e the y d o no t giv e Veoli aan adequat

e opportunit

y t o contes t the allege dviolation s o f the Clea n Ai r

Ac t tha t Regio n 5 i s usin g to justif y portion s ofth e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . Veoli ai s no t

amanufacturin g facility . I t doe s no t mak e commercia l o r

industria l products . Rather , Veolia' s sol e busines s i s t o destro y hazardou s wast e i n asaf e andeffectiv e manne

r b y incineratin g tha

t waste . Th e incineratio n proces s doe s no t creat e products ; i t

create s air emissions . Unde r

§ 50 2 o f the CAA , Veoli acanno t operat e it s incinerator s andcreat e ai r emission s withou t

avali dpermit . See 4 2 U.S.C . § 7661a . I n addition , whil e th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t contemplate s tha

t source s require dto have permit s ma y b e permitte db y state-regulator y agencie s wit h delegate d programs—like IEPA—USEP A ha s take n ove r the Titl e V permi t

proces s a

s i t relate s t o Veolia . Veoli acanno t obtai n aTitl e V permi t

fromany othe

r authorit y othe r tha n USEPA . Thus , USEP A hold s auniqu e an dpowerfu l authorit y ove r Veolia' s sol e busines s activity . A s se t fort h herein , USEP A ha s subjecte dVeoli at o abarrag e o f enforcement

action s beginnin g wit h the issuanc e o f

the 200 6 FO V andcontinuin g wit h ahalf-doze n §11 4 informatio n requests , andthe 200 8 and201 2 FOVs . I n eac h instance , Regio n 5 allege dsignificant violation s o f

the C A A o r asserte d tha

t violation s forme dth

e basi s o f

th e Agency' s request s fo r information . However , als o i n eac h instance , Regio n 5 provide dlittl e o r n o factua l suppor

t fo r it s assertion s -91

- VE S 01958 9and faile dto substantivel y respon d to Veolia' s submissio n o f informatio n i n respons e to th e Agency' s accusations . I n addition , Regio n 5 ha s carrie d o n thi s proces s i n amanne r tha t ensure d Veoli acoul dno t

see k judicia l review . Th e unsupporte d natur

e o f it s accusation s notwithstanding , Regio n 5 i s no w usin g it s Titl e V authorit y ove r Veoli ato continu e it s pursui t o f Veolia . Th e Agency' s action s ar e a n unlawfu l and an inappropriate us e ofth e Titl e V programtha t has resulte d i n th

e violatio n o f

Veoha' s du e proces s rights . Th e permi t condition s tha

t USEP A impose s i n thi s draf t permi t gravel y threaten Veolia' s propert

y right s and Veolia' s abilit y t o carry o n it s business . Unde r the guarantee s o f

th e Fift h Amendment

to th e Unite dState s Constitution , USEP A cannot tak e thes e action s and depriv e Veoli ao f

it s protecte d interest s "withou t du e proces s o f

law. " U.S . Const , amend . 5 . Th e procedure s fo r

processin g aTitl e V permi t renewal ar

e include d i n 4 0 C.F.R . §71.7(a ) and Subsectio n 71.1 1 and mirro r thos e associate d wit h th e familia r

"notic e an d commen

t rulemaking " unde

r § 55 3 o f the Administrativ e Procedure Act . See 5 U.S. C § 553 . Whil e thes e procedure s offe r

sufficien t

du e proces s protectio n i n mos t instances , the y ar

e inadequat

e as applied to Veoli aunde

r the circumstance s o f

the 201 4 Draf

t Permit . Th e § 55 3 procedure s ar e designe d t o ensur

e publi c participatio n i n th e Agency' s decisionmakin g and they offe r protectio n a

t aleve l consummat

e wit h participatio n b y any membe r ofth e genera

l public . However , the y ar e inadequat

e a s applie d t o Veoli awhe n th e Agenc y i s basin g it s permi t decisio n o n specific , unsubstantiate d allegation s regardin g Veolia' s complianc e history . Whil e Veoli ahas participate d i n the proces s throug h thes e comment s and th e publi c hearing , it

has no opportunit

y unde r thes e procedure s to engage i n fact-findin g o r othe r discover y regardin g th

e allegation s bein g mad

e agains t it . Veoli aals o ha s had no opportunit y t o conduc t cross-examinatio n o r

otherwis e t o tes t

the evidenc e agains t

it i n th e presenc e o f

aneutral fact-finder . Finally , althoug h th e procedure s i n 4 0 C.F.R . § 71.1 1 an d § 307(b ) ofth e CA A contemplat

e a n appea l t o th e appropriat

e Unite dState s Cour

t o f Appeal s afte r

USEP A make s it s permittin g decisio n (and appeal s t o th e EA B ar e exhausted) , thi s leve l o f post-deprivatio n revie w wil l no t provid e Veoli awit h th

e fact-findin g and cross-examinatio n tha t i s essential t o due proces s i n thi s instance . J . Specific Section-by-Sectio n Comment

s 1 . Region 5's Statement of Basis Contains Errors and Inaccuracies Pag e 1 5 o f

79 . §2.1 . Tabl e 2 Th e capacit y o f

Storag e Tank s fo r

Liqui dWaste s Tan k

# 2 i s 493 1 gallons , no t

439 1 gallon s a

s se t fort h i n th

e Table . Pag e 2 0 o f

79 . §2.2 . Tabl e 4 Th e facilit y ha

s onl y on e horizonta l 55 0 gallo n # 2 fue l oi l tank , not

tw o a s se t fort h i n the table .

- 92

- VE S 01959 0Pag e 2 7 o f 79 , § 3.I.2.C. . Paragrap h 3 Regio n 5 suggest s tha

t it becam e awar e o f Veolia' s intentio n to conduc t CPT s i n Apri l o f

201 3 and , base d o n tha

t information , i t

decide d t o abando n the reopening . However , Regio n 5 ha s misstate d th e fact s wit h regar d to whe n Veoli amad

e the Region awar

e tha t Veoli awa s goin g t o conduc t anothe r roun d o f CPTs . Veolia' s Titl e V permi t expire d o n October

12 , 2013 , however USEP A notifie dVeoli ai n June o f 201 2 tha t the CP T wa s require d to be initiate d b y Septembe r 5 , 2013 . Althoug h Veoli adisagree d wit h thi s dat e becaus e the 5 yea

r requirement

fo r CP T testin g woul dnot

hav e require d Veoli ato conduc t testin g unti l Septembe

r 5 , 2014 , Veoli a submitte d CP T plan s to USEP A o n Septembe r 5 , 2012 . Thi s i s wel l before th

e permi t expire d o n October

12 , 2013 , and month s befor e the Apri l 201 3 dat e tha t Region 5 suggests . Becaus e o f this , Regio n 5' s clai mtha t Veolia' s CP T testin g wa s the reaso n fo r abandonin g the reopenin g proces s i s dubious . Region 5 shoul d revis e thi s paragrap h and stat e th e rea l reason s tha

t i t abandone d the permi t

reopening , to the exten

t i t ha s actual reasons . Pag e 2 7 o f

79 , § 3. 2 & 3.2. 2 Th e Agenc y has neve

r take n any fina l agenc y actio n pertainin g t o th e allegation s containe d withi n the Septembe

r 27 , 200 6 FOV/NO V and th e Jun e 12 , 200 8 FOV/NOV . S o muc h time has passe d wit h regard t

o th e allegation s containe d i n th e 200 6 and 200 8 FOVs , tha t the statut

e o f limitation s ha s expire d wit h regard to som e o r al l o f thos e claims . Becaus e o f the Agency' s failur e t o develo p thes e FOVs , the claim s containe d i n the mar e no longe

r subjec t t o enforcement , have no relevance , and shoul d b e delete d fromth e Statemen

t ofBasis . Moreover , i t i s imprope r

fo r Regio n 5 t

o deny Veoli aacomprehensiv e permi t shiel do n the basi s o f

the unsubstantiate d an

d unprove n FOVs . Th e Statemen t ofBasi s and th

e 201 4 Draf

t Permi t shoul d b e revise d t o giv e Veoli aapermi t shiel dfo r

the applicabl e provision s o f the HW C MACT . See supra Part

IV.H . Pag e 2 8 o f

79 . Footnot

e 1 5 Ther e i s n o evidenc e o f

any enforcement

referral s i n the administrativ e recor d an d thi s footnot e i s potentiall y misleadin g an d prejudicia l t o Veoli aan d shoul d be delete d fromthe Statemen t o f Basi s it it s entirety . Pag e 4 7 o f

79 , § 5.2.1 . Firs t

Partia l Paragrap h Th e followin g statemen

t i s incorrect , misleading , an d potentiall y prejudicia l t o Veoli aand shoul d b e remove d fromth

e Statemen

t ofBasis : "Therefore , unde r th e HW C MACT , Veoli amus t analyz e eac h feedstrea

mprior to feedin g the material into an y o f it s incinerator s and documen t the amount

o f metals , as h and chlorin e presen t i n th e feedstream. "

-93

- VE S 01959 1Th e HW C MAC T doe s no t requir e eac h feedstrea

mt o b e analyzed . I n fact , th

e tw o othe

r commercia l incinerator s i n Regio n 5 do not analyz e eac h feedstrea

mprio r t o feedin g the material int o thei r incinerators . See Ros s Incineratio n Services , Inc. , Wast e Characteristic s and Wast e Analysi s Pla n (Apri l 2013 ) a t VE S 016106-01629 3 & Heritage-WTI , Inc. , Wast e Characteristic s an d Waste Analysi s Pla n (Sept . 18 , 2014 ) a t VE S 016295-016537 . Furthermore , the HW C MAC T doe s no

t requir e tha t Veoli aanalyz e ever

y feedstrea

mprio r t o incineration ; rather , i t allow s Veoli aan d othe

r incinerator s to us e "othe r methods " suc h a

s "usin g analytica l informatio n obtaine d fromother s o r usin g othe

r publishe d o r

documente d data. " 4 0 C.F.R . 63.1209(c)(2)(H) . Th e us e o f "othe r methods " i s eve n reference d i n th e 201 4 Draf

t Permit : "[Veoli ashall ] [determin e and recor d the valu e o f the paramete

r fo r eac h feedstrea

mb y samplin g an d analysi s o r othe r method. " See 201 4 Draf t Permi t a t § 2.0(D)(4)(d)(i)(A ) Thus , the statemen

t i n thi s paragrap h shoul d be delete d becaus e i t i s contradictor

y to th e HW C MACT , inconsistent

wit h wha

t has been impose d o n othe r facilitie s i n Regio n 5 , and conflict s wit h othe r provision s o f

th e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . Pag e 4 7 o f

79 . § 5.2.1 . Ful l Paragraph s 1 & 2 Th e followin g statements ar e incorrec t

and shoul d b

e delete d fromth

e Statemen

t ofBasis : Veoli acurrentl y depend s o n informatio n i n acorporat e databas e fo r

"similar " wast e stream s withou t

rea l knowledg e o f

wha t metal s ar

e i n the waste s i t incinerates . Further , th

e databas e frequently contain s informatio n tha t i s inconsisten t

wit h dataprovide db y wast e generators . Therefore , th e existin g FA P canno t assur e complianc e wit h the metal s feedrat e limits . Additionally , becaus e Veolia' s FA P doe s not ensur e tha t eac h feedstrea

mi s appropriatel y characterized , the current FA P doe s no t

assur e complianc e wit h the feedrate limit s i n th

e permi t Veoli adoe s no t

depen d o n informatio n from acorporat e database . Veoli acharacterize s eac h shipmen t o f waste . Excep t

fo r thos e wast

e streams tha

t have exemption s define d i n Veolia' s FAP , Veoli aanalyze s waste s tha t ar e suspect fo r metals—i.e. , i f

th e proces s generatin g th

e waste , th e wast e type , th e wast e characteristics , o r

the history o f

facilit y indicate tha

t metal mayb e present . Thus , Veoli aidentifie s the characteristi c o f eac h wast

e strea mindependen

t o f a corporat e databas e throug h analysis , generator knowledge , MSDSs , technica l information , and referenc e document s t

o ensur e complianc e wit h existin g regulation s and permi t requirements . Thes e method s ar

e consisten

t wit h the practice s o f

othe r commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator s i n Regio n 5 . See Ros s Incineratio n Services , Inc. , Wast e Characteristic s and Wast e -94

- VE S 01959 2Analysi s Pla n (Apri l 2013 ) a t VE S 016106-01629 3 & Heritage-WTI , Inc. , Wast e Characteristic s and Waste Analysi s Pla n (Sept . 18 , 2014 ) a t VE S 016295-016537 . Pag e 4 8 o f

79 . § 5.2.1 . Las t

Paragrap h Th e statemen

t "Becaus e Veoli awoul dgenerall y bas e metal feedrat e calculation s o n actual feedstrea manalysi s dataan

d no t o n theoretical profil e estimates... " i s no t acorrec t statemen t and shoul dbe delete d fromthe Statemen t ofBasis . Thi s statemen t infer s tha

t Veoli aonl y use s theoretica l estimate s t

o calculate metal feedstreams . A s note d above , Veoli acharacterize s eac h shipment o f waste . Excep t

fo r thos e wast

e streams tha

t have exemption s definedi n Veolia' s FAP , Veoli aanalyze s waste s tha t ar e suspect fo r metals—i.e. , i f

th e proces s generatin g the waste , the wast

e type , the wast

e characteristics , or

the history o f

facilit y indicate tha

t metal mayb e present . Pag e 4 9 o f

79 . § 5.2.2(A ) Thi s entir

e sectio n i s incorrec t

and flawe dand shoul d be delete d fromth e Statemen

t ofBasis . Unde r Veolia's , Ross' s and Heritage-WTF s WAPs , ther e ar e wast e streams tha

t ar e specificall y exempt fromsamplin g becaus e o f (a ) safet y concerns , (b ) th

e impracticality o f

samplin g the waste , o r (c ) th e wast e characteristic s ar

e o f suc h anatur

e tha t th e wast e informatio n provide s al l the require d informatio n t o incinerat

e the waste . I n thes e instances , the facilitie s rel y o n generator knowledge , MSD S information , o r othe r wast e profil e informatio n to properl y characteriz e th

e waste . Althoug h awast e ma y no t be sampled , it

doe s no t mea n tha t metal s ar

e bein g underreported . Th e metal concentration s ar e determine d o n generator knowledge , MSD S information , and othe

r wast e profil e informatio n t

o properl y characteriz e th e waste . I n addition , wast e stream s tha

t ar e no t exempt fromsamplin g tha

t ar e suspect fo r metal s ar e sample d an

d analyze dever

y tim e prio r

t o incineratio n to calculate metal concentrations . Veoli adoe s not

depend o n informatio n fromacorporate database . Veoli acharacterize s eac h shipment o f waste . Excep t

fo r thos e wast

e streams tha

t have exemption s define di n Veolia' s FAP , Veoli aanalyze s waste s tha t ar e suspect fo r metals—i.e. , i f

th e proces s generatin g th

e waste , the wast

e type , th e wast e characteristics , or

th e history o f

facilit y indicate tha

t metal mayb e present . Thus , Veoli aidentifie s th e characteristi c o f

eac h wast

e strea mindependen

t o f a corporate databas e throug h analysis , generator knowledge , MSDS's , technica l information , and referenc e document s t o ensur e complianc e wit h existin g regulation s and permi t requirements . Thes e method s ar

e consisten

t wit h th e practice s o f

othe r commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator s i n Regio n 5 . See Ros s Incineratio n Services , Inc. , Wast e Characteristic s an d Wast e Analysi s Pla n (Apri l 2013 ) a t VE S 016106-01629 3 & Heritage-WTI , Inc. , Wast e Characteristic s and Wast e Analysi s Pla n (Sept . 18 , 2014 ) a t VE S 016295-016537 . -95

- VE S 01959 3Pag e 5 0 o f 79 . § 5.2.2.B. . Paragrap h 1 USEP A justifie s th

e impositio n o f

the enhance d feedstrea

manalysi s wit h th

e statement : Veolia' s feedstream s ar

e highl y variabl e and meta l composition s ca

n var y significantl y withi n the feedstrea m(i.e. , heterogeneou s feedstreams ) and amon g feedstream s (variabl e feedstreams) . Veoli atreat s and dispose s avariety o f solid , liqui dand gaseou s waste s whic h typicall y arriv e i n drums , roll-off container s o r

othe r similar bul k transpor t vehicles , totes , Gaylor dboxes , tan k truck s an d cylinders . Accordin g t o Veolia' s website , i n additio n to othe r hazardou s and non-hazardou s waste , Veolia' s Sauge t facilit y accept s fo r

incineratio n Dru g Enforcemen t Administratio n controlle d substances , drugs , good s wit h expire d dates , seize d goods , returne d good s and la b chemicals . Becaus e Veolia' s Sauge t facilit y accept s and incinerate s abroa d rang e o f wastes , Veoh ahas explaine dtha t the individua l stream s tha t ma y mak e u p th e incinerato r

overal l fee d a

t an y give n tim e ca n var

y greatly , dependin g o n generator productio n an d shippin g schedules . Whil e portion s ofthi s statemen t ar e accurate , th

e variabilit y o f

Veolia' s wast

e streams doe s not justif y Regio n 5' s enhance d monitorin g proposal . Veoli adoe s accep t awid e rang e o f wastestreams , bu

t thi s i s als o tru e fo r

al l o f the commercia l incinerator s i n the country , includin g the Ros s and Heritage-WT I incinerator s i n Regio n 5 . Th e varie d wast e stream s d o no t

suppor t o r justif y aneed to sample al l wast e streams . Veoli adoe s sampl e and analyz e thos e wast e stream s tha t ar e highl y variabl e an d use s th e mos t current datato demonstrat

e complianc e wit h the HW C MAC T Rul e an d Titl e V permi t requirements . However , som e wast e stream s suc h a

s cylinder s (whic h canno t

be sample d but

th e content s ar

e known) , explosives , and reactiv e waste s pos e significan t

safet y concern s tha

t mak e analysi s imprudent

and dangerou s fo r

Veoli astaff. Other wastes , suc h a

s certai n off-specificatio n commercia l products , controlle dsubstances , an d certai n chemica l waste s ar

e mad e u p o f know n constituent s an

d d o no t vary i n thei r

compositions . Unde r Regio n 5' s 201 4 Draf

t Permit , Veoli awoul db

e require d t o sampl e and analyz e thes e wast e streams—

adangerou s and wastefu l proposition . Neithe r o f th e othe r tw o incinerator s i n Regio n 5 (Ros s an

d Heritage-WTI ) currentl y hav e to sampl e an d analyz e thes e type s o f waste . Pag e 5 0 o f

79 . § 5.2.2.B. . Paragrap h 2 Th e followin g statemen

t i s incorrec t

and shoul d b e delete d fromthe Statemen t ofBasis :

-96

- VE S 01959 4I n it s 201 2 investigation , EPA' s Nationa l Environmenta l Investigation s Center(NEIC ) foun dtha t som e nominall y similar

wast e streams generate d b y differen t generator s ha d significantl y differen t meta l concentrations , yet , a

s describe d above , Veoli adi d no t analyz e thes e waste s whe n they arrive d onsite . Instead , Veoli arelie dupo n a n "overl y broad " characterizatio n o f the waste s and assigne d asingl e metal concentratio n valu e fo r th e individua l wastes . I n on e instance , fo r

example , Veoli ahas assigne d tw o wast e streams , both classifie da s "cyanid e containin g wastes " and identifie db y Veoli aas "very similar, " tw o very differen t cadmiu mconcentrations : 6,47 0 mg/kg an d 1 mg/kg , respectively . NEI C suggeste d that , du

e to the potential variabilit y i n meta l concentration s o f

som e "ver y similar " waste s fromdifferen t generators , Veoli ashoul d analyz e wast e stream s generated b y differen t generator s eac h time the y arriv e on-site instea d o f relyin g o n "overl y broa d profiles " to characteriz e thes e wastes . Th e waste s discusse d i n th e NEI C repor

t ar e no t "similar " wast

e streams . Th e wast

e containin g the 647 0 mg/k g o f

cyanid e i s abul k

liqui dwast

e tha t i s shippe d to Veoli ai n 500 0 gallo n tankers . Th e 1 mg/k g o f

cyanid e wast

e strea mi s acontaine

r filledwit h individually-package dan d labele d unuse d products . Th e bul k wast e strea mwa s sample d an d analyze d wit h acyanid e concentratio n o f 647 0 mg/kg . Th

e individua l package s ar e unuse d products , s

o th e cyanid e concentratio n i s know n b y technica l information . Th e bul k liqui dwast

e i s aperfec t

demonstratio n o f wastestream s tha

t vary and ar

e therefore sample d and analyze d b y th e facility . Similarly , the unuse d produc t

i s ademonstratio n o f

awastestrea

mtha t doe s no t vary an d technica l informatio n i s provide d t o suppor

t th e chemica l concentratio n and ar e therefore not

sample d and analyze d b y the facility . Regio n 5' s us e o f thi s exampl e t o justif

y th e need fo r

enhance d analysi s demonstrate s th

e Agency' s profoun d misunderstandin g ofth e industr y tha t i t purport s t

o regulate . Region 5' s enhance d monitorin g requirement s woul drequire Veoli at o sample al l wast e stream s containin g metal s regardles s o f the safet y and environmental concerns , practicality , o r

th e technica l informatio n receive d regardin g th e wast e strea mtha t clearl y identifie s th

e waste' s constituents . Thes e requirement s ar e dangerou s fo r

Veoli astaff

, ar e unnecessar

y and wasteful , an d ar

e no t require d o f

th e othe r incinerator s i n Regio n 5 . Pag e 5 0 o f

79 . § 5.2.2.B. . Paragrap h 3 Th e statemen

t "Also , a s note d i n the NEI C report , '[sjample s o f bul k liquid s ar

e no t analyze d [by Veolia ] fo r

metals ; instead , metal s concentration s ar e calculate d base d o n profil e informatio n store d i n Veolia' s wast

e trackin g syste m(WTS) . The WT S pull s informatio n fromth e corporate trackin g system , calle d th e "I-Series."' " i s no t

correc t and shoul d b

e delete d fromth

e Statemen

t ofBasis .

-97

- VE S 01959 5Regardles s ofth e wast e bein g liquid s o r

solids , Veoli acharacterize s eac h shipment o f waste . Excep t fo r thos e wast

e streams tha

t have exemption s defined i n Veolia' s FAP , Veoli aanalyze s waste s tha

t ar e suspect fo r metals—i.e. , i f

the proces s generatin g th e waste , th

e wast e type , th e wast e characteristics , o r

th e history o f

facilit y indicate tha

t metal mayb e present . Pag e 5 1 o f

79 . § 5.2.2.C . Th e followin g statemen

t i s incorrec t

and shoul d be delete d fromth e Statemen

t ofBasis : Veolia' s curren

t feedstrea

manalysi s an d recordkeepin g procedure s coul dcaus e Veoli at o significantl y underrepor t concentration s o f

som e metal s i n it s feedstreams . NEIC' s investigatio n reveale d tha t Veoli ama

y hav e significantl y underreporte d concentration s o f chromiu mand cadmiu mi n som e feedstreams . I n on e example , Veoli areporte d achromiu mvalu e o f 22 8 milligram s per

kilogra m (mg/kg ) fo r

acertai n wast

e i n it s database s whil e amaterial safety datashee t fo r tha t wast e liste d atota l chromiu mvalu e o f 30,00 0 t o 60,00 0 mg/kg . Becaus e Veoli agenerall y use s informatio n containe d i n it s database s to calculat e metal feedrate s rathe

r tha n independentl y analyzin g eac h feedstrea mbefor e it

i s fe d t o the incinerator , Veoli amay hav e use d an incorrec t concentratio n t o calculate chromiu mfeedrate s i n thi s case . Therefore , i n th e example s observe d b y NEIC , Veolia' s possibl e us e o f incorrec t metal concentration s to calculate feedrate s ma y hav e resulte d i n significan t underreportin g o f

th e actual metal feedrates . Withou t the propose d monitorin g procedures , ther e i s no way t

o evaluat e the accurac y ofth e meta

l concentration s use d b y Veolia . Th e wast e profil e tha

t th e NEI C repor

t referre d t

o consiste d o f

spen t filte r media . The MSD S value s were fo r

unused carbo n wit h copper and chromiu mtha

t wa s provide d a

s additiona l information . A s aresult , Veoli adi d no t us e th e total chromiu mvalu e defined o n th e MSD S to determin e the metal s concentration . Veoli acurrentl y sample s and analyze s thi s wast e strea m ever y tim e i t i s receive d t o determin e th e metal s concentration . Pag e 51-5 2 o f

79 . § 5.2.2.D . Th e followin g statemen

t i s incorrec t

an d shoul d b

e delete d fromth

e Statemen

t ofBasis : Analytica l an d datareportin g error s ma y hav e resulte d i n inaccurate feedrat e calculation s fo r

som e metals . I n it s investigation , NEI C identifie dconflictin g metal s dat

abetween th

e profil e packag e and th e informatio n entere d i n Veolia' s databases . I n on

e example , aprofil e reporte d achromiu mconcentratio n o f 1. 8 milligram s per

lite r (mg/L) , ye

t Veoli ause d avalu e o f

0 mg/ L i n it s databases . I n -98

- VE S 01959 6anothe r example , aprofil e reporte d atota l mercur y concentratio n o f

414 0 mg/k g but Veoli ause d avalu e o f

2 5 mg/k g i n it s database s fo r a t leas t 5 years . NEI C estimate d tha

t i f amercur y concentratio n o f

414 0 mg/kg had been presen t i n wast e tha t wa s incinerate d o n Augus t 2 8 and 29 , 2011 , Veoli awoul dhav e exceede d th

e emission s and feedrat

e limit s fo r

mercur y o n thos e days . Becaus e o f thi s typ e o f

proble mwit h conflictin g entries , withou t an y clea r indicatio n o f whic h concentratio n i s correct , i t i s possibl e tha

t Veoli ause d incorrec t

metal s concentration s fo r

feedrat e calculation s o n Augus t 2 8 and 29 , 2011 , and very likel y tha t Veoli ause s incorrec t

metal s concentration s o n aregula r basis . Th e 1. 8 mg/ L valu e fo r

chromiu mwa s no t

include d i n Veolia' s wast e profil e an d th

e TCL P value s i n the profil e wer e al l belo w detectio n limits . Thus , thi s allegatio n i s incorrec t and i s o f n o suppor

t fo r Regio n 5' s position . I n addition , the mercur y valu e o f

2 5 mg/k g determine d b y Veoli awa s validate d b y th e generator

o f th e wast e and Veoli ai s entitle d to rel y o n the generator' s representation s unde r applicabl e regulations . Thus , the mercur y valu e o f

414 0 mg/k g tha t Regio n 5 allege s Veoli afe d o n Augus t 2 8 and 29 , 201 1 i s incorrec t and likewis e doe s no t suppor t Regio n 5' s draf

t permi t proposal . Regio n 5' s us e o f unsubstantiate d and inaccurat e allegation s i n suppor

t o f it s permittin g decisio n i s inappropriat e and arbitrar

y and capricious . See also supra Par

t IV.H(l)(i)(c ) fo r

Veolia' s specifi c respons e t o thi s allegatio n b y the NEIC . 2 . Region 5's Draft Permit Must Be Revised Pag e 9 o f

172 . $ 1.3 Th e capacity o f

Storag e Tank s fo r

Liqui dWaste s Tank

# 2 i s 493 1 gallons , not

439 1 gallon s a

s define di n the Table . Pag e 1 3 o f

172 . §2.1.7(a ) Thi s sectio n shoul d be amende d as follow s t o accoun t fo r th e differen t

limit s establishe d a

t incineratio n Uni t

4 : "Th e Permitte e shal l no t allo w emission s o f

dioxin s and furan s fromthe facilit y i n exces s o f

0.2 0 nanogram s (or

0.40nanograms if

the combustion gas temperature at the inlet to the initial

particulate matter

control device is 400°F

or lower based on the average of the test run average temperatures) toxicit y equivalent s pe r dry standar

d cubi c mete

r (n g TEQ/dscm) , correcte d t

o 7 percen

t oxygen . [40 C.F.R . § 63.1219(a)(1)]. " (Inserte d languag e i n italics. ) Pag e 1 5 o f

172 . § 2.1(C)(1 ) Thi s sectio n state s tha

t th e permitte e shal l no t

bur n hospita l medica l infectiou s waste . Veoli a woul dlik e thi s requirement remove d because , althoug h the facilit y doe s no t currentl y receiv e -99

- VE S 01959 7and incinerate hospita l medica l infectiou s waste , i t doe s posses s apermi t

fromth e Illinoi s EP A to accept an d incinerat

e potentiall y infectiou s medica l waste . Ther e ar e no curren

t prohibition s o r regulator

y reason s wh y th

e facilit y canno t

accept and incinerate hospita l medica l infectiou s wast e a s lon g a s i t meets al l the regulator

y requirements . Pag e 1 5 o f

172 . 5 2.1(0(2 ) Sectio n 2.1(C)(2 ) provides : Th e Permitte e mus t

operat e Unit s 2 , 3 and 4 i n complianc e wit h th e followin g operatin g paramete

r limit s (OPLs) . Th e Permitte e mus t als o compl y wit h the OPL s containe d i n th

e Notificatio n o f

Complianc e (NOC ) require d pursuan t t o conditio n 2.1(E)(2) , below . I f any OP L containe d i n thi s conditio n 2.1(C)(2)diffe r fromth e correspondin g OP L containe d i n th e Permittee' s mos t

recen t NOC , th e Permitte e ma

y submi t a n applicatio n requestin g arevisio n t o th e OPL s i n thi s permit , pursuan

t t o 4 0 C.F.R . § 71.7(e)(1) . Nothin g i n thi s permi t obligate s th

e Administrato r

t o approv e a

n applicatio n to revis e OPL s i n thi s permit . Th e facilit y i s require d to conduc t Comprehensiv e Performanc e Testin g ever y 5 year s and the n i n accordanc e wit h 4 0 C.F.R . 63.1207(j)(l) , submit aNotificatio n o f

Complianc e (NOC ) to USEP A withi n 9 0 day s o f

th e completio n o f

testing . Upo n postmar

k o f the NOC , the facilit y mus t compl y wit h al l operatin g requirement s specifie di n th e NOC . Complyin g wit h thi s requiremen t woul dinevitabl y put

the NO C and the Operatin g Condition s defined i n thi s permi t i n conflict . Veoli ai s schedule d t o tes t al l ofth e incinerator s agai n i n 2018 , whic h wil l resul t i n OPL s base d o n performanc e test s tha t ar e differen t

tha n thos e include d i n thi s permit . I f ther e i s n o mechanis mi n thi s permi t t o addres s tha

t the new OPL s shoul d b e followe di n lie u o f the outdate d requirement s include di n thi s permit , then th e facilit y wil l hav e t

o operat e unde r bot h sets o f conditions . Thi s put s the facilit y i n acompromisin g positio n an d wil l creat e complianc e issues . A significan t

modificatio n can b

e submitte d a

t th e sam e tim e a s th e NO C i s submitte d but th e Agenc y ha s 1 8 month s to revie w and approv e th e submittal . Thi s agai n create s aperio d wher e th e ne w NO C OPL s can and wil l be differen t tha n wha t i s include d i n th

e permit . I

t i s commo n i n many permit s wher e thes e situation s ca

n occu r tha t wordin g i s place d i n thi s sectio n tha t state s tha

t th e curren

t NO C OPL s ar

e alway s the poin t

o f complianc e unti l asignificant modificatio n i s approve d b y th e Agency . Thi s sectio n mus t be amended t o addres s thi s conflic t and t o clearl y identif

y wha t se t o f OPL s ar e applicabl e and enforceable . Pag e 15-1 6 o f

172 . § 2.1(C) . OP L Tabl e Th e "minimu msecondar y combustio n chambe

r temperature " fo r

incineratio n Uni t

3 shoul d be th e sam e as incineratio n Uni t

2's , i. e 188 5 °F .

- 100

- VE S 01959 8Th e valu e fo r incineratio n Uni t

4 fo r "minimu mcarrier

flui d(ga s o r liquid ) flowrat e o r

pressur e dro p fo r activate d carbo n injectio n system " shoul d b e N/A . Thi s criteri ai s me t b y hig h and lo w pressur e switche s supplie d b y the manufacturer and previousl y approve d b y USEPA . Th e 3.1 0 gal/l b CI 2 valu e i s fo r

"minimu mcarrier

flui dflowrat e o r

nozzl e pressur

e dro p fo r

th e spra y dryer absorber " i n th

e tabl e o n pag e 17 . Pag e 34ofl72 .S2.0fDVn (flfii ) Th e Xac t 64 0 i s incapabl e o f

measurin g beryllium . Becaus e o f thi s th e 201 4 Draf

t Permi t require s Veoli ato "quantif y [beryllium ] emission s usin g [th e beryllium ] feedrat

e a s determine d accordin g t o 2.1(D)(4)(d ) fo r th e mos t recen t 12-hou r perio d fo r

whic h feedstrea

manalysi s data fo r [beryllium ] i s availabl e and the syste mremova l efficienc y [SRE ] and exhaus t parameter s use d b y the Permitte e t

o estimat e emission s o f

[beryllium ] fo r

tha t 12-hou r period. " However , Veoli acannot calculate a

n SR E specifi c fo r

beryllium , alo w volatil e metal (LVM) , fromth e 201 3 CP T dat

abecaus e analytica l result s fo r th e wast e feed s and emission s wer e predominatel y non-detec t values—i.e. , ther

e wa s no t enough berylliu mi n eithe r the fee d o r

i n th e emission s t

o obtai n a

n accurat e measurement . Thus , Veoli awoul dnee d t o us e aSR E fo r LVM , instea d o f

on e fo r beryllium . Th e lowes t

SR E fo r LV M amon g th

e thre e incinerator s i s 99.99918% . Page36ofl72.g2.1(D¥l¥i)(x ) Th e followin g requirement i s confusing , impractical , an d canno t be implemente d a

s written : An y one-hou

r bloc k averag e CEM S readin g above an y parametri c range , a

s definedi n conditio n 2.1(D)(l)(i)(iii) , i s adeviation . Conditio n 2.1(D)(l)(i)(iii) , states : "Th e parametri c rang e fo r eac h metal o r

clas s o f metal s measure d b y th

e multi-metal s CEM S i s equa l t o th e emissio n limi t

fo r tha t metal o r clas s o f metal s specifie d i n conditio n 2.1(A)(7 ) ofthi s permit. " A s aresul t o f the definitio n o f

th e parametri c range tha

t i s define d a

s the emissio n limit , then th e one-hou

r bloc k averag e CE M readin g se

t a t tha t parametri c rang e ca

n neve r b e exceeded . Usin g mercur y as an example , th

e parametri c range woul db e se t a t 0-13 0 ug/dscm , wit h 13 0 bein g th e emissio n limit . Sinc e the rang e o f th e instrumen

t i s se t a t 0-13 0 the n the instrumen t cannot , b y definition , rea d abov e 13 0 ug/dsc mbecaus e thi s conditio n require s th e rang e to be se

t a t th e emissio n limit . A n instrumen t se t a t tha t rang e wil l neve

r sho w areadin g abov e th e emissio n limit . Thi s conditio n become s even mor e confusin g whe n tryin g to implement thi s requirement

wit h L V M an d SVM . Sinc e the instrumen t cannot rea d beryllium , th

e parametri c rang e fo r

th e LV M compounds , arseni c and chromium , i s 9 2 ug/dscm . The parametri c rang e fo r SV M compounds , cadmiu man d lead , i s 23 0 ug/dscm . Becaus e LV M and SV M ar e eac h mad

e u p o f tw o compounds , i

t i s difficul t

fo r Veoli at o determine i f

i t shoul d se

t th e parametri c rang e a

t hal f th e

- 10 1 - VE S 01959 9emissio n limi t o r shoul d procee d a

s instructe d b y thi s conditio n and se t the rang e a

t th e emissio n limit . Th e permi t

condition s do not

se t fort h ho w t

o deal wit h th

e LV M an d SV M compound s no r d o the y provid e ho w th

e multi-metal s CE M woul dbe abl e t o se t th e range s fo r

a n emissio n standar d tha t include s multipl e compounds . Pag e 3 6 o f

172 . § 2.1fD¥l¥i¥x)(i ) Veoli ai s unabl e t

o implement

th e followin g permi t

conditio n a

s written : Fro mth e time tha

t aCEM S record s adeviation , th e Permitte e mus t

immediatel y tak e correctiv e actio n t o reduc e emission s o f th e affecte d metal(s ) an

d recor d al l correctiv e action s taken . Correctiv e action s ma y include , but

ar e no t limite dto , stop feedin g o r

reduc e the feedrat

e ofth e batc h o f

wast e burne d whe n the deviatio n occurred , o r

adjustmen

t to combustio n conditions . Th e Permitte e mus t documen t al l correctiv e action s i n th e repor t require d b y conditio n 2.1(D)(l)(i)(x) . A s explaine d i n the commen t t o § 2.1(D)(l)(i)(x ) immediatel y above , the deviatio n can neve r occu r du e to the requiremen

t fo r settin g th e parametri c rang e a

t the emissio n limit . However , ther e ar e othe r problem s wit h thi s permi t condition , eve

n i f adeviatio n coul doccur . Th e multi

metal s CE M tha

t i s bein g propose d i s no t areal-time CEMS . A readin g i s obtaine d ever y 15-2 0 minute s versu s othe

r real-time instrument s tha t th e facilit y use s tha

t produc e avalu e withi n seconds . Thi s dela

y make s i t

almos t impossibl e to correlat

e between what

i s bein g incinerate d and the CEM S reading . Veolia' s wast e feed s and feedrate s ca

n vary minute b y minute , s o wha t occurre d 15-2 0 minute s ag o mayb e entirel y differen t tha n wha t wa s occurrin g whe n th

e valu e wa s actuall y obtained . Also , th e wast e tha t wa s bein g fe d 15-2 0 minute s ago ma y be completel y gon e whe n the readin g i s obtaine d s o tha t ther e i s no way to go bac k

an d d o mor e analysi s t o prov e o r disprov e the instrument reading . I

t i s therefore impossibl e t o pinpoin t

wit h any accurac y wha

t wa s causin g the deviatio n wit h a n instrumen

t tha t has a15-2 0 minut

e delay . Thi s i s no t areal-time instrumen

t and , sinc e th

e facility' s feed s and operatin g condition s chang e minute b y minute , parametri c monitorin g a s propose d b y Regio n 5 i n the 201 4 Draf t Permi t i s impossible . Pag e 4 1 o f

172 . § 2.1.4 . Analysi s o f Feedstream s Veoli aE S Technica l Solution s currentl y operate s wit h a n Illinoi s EP A approve d Wast e Analysi s Pla n (WAP ) an

d aFee d Strea

mAnalysi s Pla n (FAP ) tha t "contain s the minimu melement s require d b y 4 0 C.F.R . 63.1209(c)(2)(i ) throug h (vi) " a s define d i n USEP A Regio n 5' s Statemen t ofBasis . Regio n 5 goe s o n t o sa y tha t th e FA P i s no t

sufficien t

to determin e tha

t wast e stream s compl y wit h th

e feedrat e limit s and cite s t

o th e NEI C Multimedi aComplianc e Investigatio n Observation s Report . Veoli acontest s th e findings containe d i n the NEI C Report . See supra Par t IV.H(l)(i)(c ) (settin g fort h Veolia' s responses) . Further , Veoli atake s many step s to ensur e tha t ever y wast e strea mincinerate d i s accuratel y characterize d pursuan t to the HW C MAC T

- 102

- VE S 01960 0requirements . Th e enhance d monitorin g tha t Regio n 5 i s requirin g i n th e 201 4 Draf

t Permit , however , cause s seriou s safet y concern s b y requirin g samplin g and analysi s o f waste s tha

t ar e currentl y exempte d fromanalysi s (e.g. , explosives , certai n reactives , controlle d substances) , o r ar e impossibl e t o sample (e.g. , ga s cylinders , seale d fdters) . Th e enhance d monitorin g woul d als o requir

e Veoli ato sampl e othe

r exempte d waste s suc h as la b pack s and off-specificatio n commercia l product s despit e th e fac t tha t th e metal s concentration s o f thes e waste s ar

e alread y known . Th e requirement s containe d withi n Veolia' s 201 4 Draf t Permi t ar e extraordinaril y mor

e burdensom

e the n Veolia' s curren

t WA P an d mor e extrem e tha n the requirement s fo r

th e tw o commercia l incinerator s tha t ar e als o regulate d b y Regio n 5 . Currently , the tw o othe r commercia l incinerator s i n Regio n 5 ar e allowe dt o rel y upo n generator knowledge , MSD S information , o r

othe r wast e profil e informatio n t o exempt certai n wast

e fromsamplin g eithe

r becaus e o f

safety concerns , impracticality o f sampling , o r

the wast e characteristic s ar

e o f suc h a natur e tha t th e wast e informatio n provide s al l th e require d informatio n t o incinerat e th e waste . See Ros s Incineratio n Services , Inc. , Wast e Characteristic s an d Wast e Analysi s Pla n (Apri l 2013 ) a t VE S 016106-01629 3 & Heritage-WTI , Inc. , Wast e Characteristic s an d Wast e Analysi s Pla n (Sept . 18 , 2014 ) a

t VE S 016295-016537 . Veoli ahas take n man

y step s to enhanc e it s wast e characteristi c procedure s sinc e the promulgatio n ofth e HW C MACT . Further , Veoli ahas implemente d certai n suggestion s resultin g fromthe NEI C inspectio n i n 201 1 an d th e final repor

t date d Augus t

2012 . Veoli a sample s an d analyze s al l suspect wast e fo r metal s and has develope d alis t o f suspect industrie s whos e wast

e ma y contai n metals . Metal s analyse s ar e conducte d o n waste s receive d fromthes e industrie s even thoug h the wast e ma y no t contai n metals . Al l waste s ar e characterize d fo r

metal s concentratio n prio r

t o incineration . Thi s characterizatio n may be performe d throug h generato r knowledge , MSDS's , technica l documents , o r throug h samplin g an d analysis . Thus , i f certai n wast e i s abl e to be completel y characterize d throug h informatio n provide d b y th e generator , then the wast e i s no t sample d o r

analyzed . Thes e waste s ar e calle d "exempt " wastes , acommo n term i n th e incineratio n industr

y tha t denote s waste s tha

t requir e no samplin g and analysi s ofth e wast e becaus e thei r

chemica l propertie s ar

e sufficientl y documente d to enable the mto be processe d and manage d properl y i n accordanc e wit h th e HW C MACT . One categor

y o f exemp t waste s ar

e thos e tha

t presen t safet y concerns , suc h a

s explosives , controlle dsubstances , o r reactiv e wastes . Samplin g and analysi s ar e "exempted " becaus e th e wast e coul dendange

r a n employe e b y samplin g o r performin g certai n analysi s (e.g. , BTU , flashpoint) . However , i n al l case s th e wast e i s stil l characterize d to ensur e tha t al l regulator

y and permi t requirement s ar

e met . Anothe r

categor y o f exempt waste s ar

e waste s tha

t ar e impractica l t o sampl e suc h a

s aeroso l cans , seale d filters, o r ga s cylinders . Thes e waste s ar e appropriatel y characterize d b y mean s othe r tha n samplin g to ensur

e tha t al l regulatory and permi t requirement s ar e met . Exempte d waste s ma y als o consis t

o f off-specificatio n product s eithe r i n their consume r packagin g o r

package d i n othe

r container s tha

t mak e i t mor e practica l fo r

shipping . Again , sinc e

- 10 3 - VE S 01960 1detaile d informatio n i s provide db y th e manufacturer

ofth e product , the wast e i s exempt

from samplin g an d analysi s bu t appropriatel y characterize d to ensur e tha t al l regulator

y and permi t requirement s ar

e met . Ross' s WA P and Heritage-WTI' s WA P us e thi s "exempt " wast e proces s andthes e facilitie s d

o no t sample and analyz e waste s tha t fal l into thes e categories . Th e enhance d monitorin g provide di n Veolia' s 201 4 Draf t Permit , Pag e 4 5 o f

172 , § 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(F) , expressl y allow s thi s "exempt " wast e process , bu

t remove s th

e exemptio n i f the wast e contain s mercury , LV M an d SVM . Thi s chang e woul drequire Veoli at o sample waste s tha

t pos e safety and environmental risk s suc h a s explosives , controlle dsubstance s o r reactives . It

woul dals o requir

e the facilit y to sampl e wast e filters , aeroso l can s and cylinders , agai n causin g safet

y concerns . It

woul drequir

e samplin g o f

off-specificatio n product s o f whic h th e exac t chemica l compositio n i s know n causin g unnecessar y release s o f

chemical s t o th

e environment , no

t to mentio n th

e wast e o f resource s an d generatio n o f wast e product s throug h th

e samplin g an d analysi s procedures . I f usin g generator

knowledge , MSDSs , technical , o r referenc e document s ar

e acceptabl e t o characteriz e waste s tha t ar e no t sample d an d analyze d whe n the wast e contain s no metals , then i t shoul dbe acceptabl e to characteriz e waste s whe n the waste s contai n metals . I f

thi s i s sufficien t

fo r th e othe r tw o incinerator s i n Regio n 5 , then i t shoul d b e sufficien t fo r Veolia . Veoli ahas enhance d existin g procedure s t o require samplin g and analysi s o f wast e stream s tha

t contai n metals . Fo r

waste s no t

exempte d fromsamplin g b y th e current FAP/WAP , Veoli a analyze s thos e waste s ever y time and the value s obtaine d ar e use d to documen

t compliance . Thes e enhancement s ar

e far mor e stringen t tha n thos e requirement s foun di n th e Ros s an

d Heritag e WAPs . I n fact , Veoli ai s willin g to accep t the condition s containe d i n the approve d WA P o f Heritage-WTI , Inc . Ther e ar e no current

Agenc y action s t

o modif y thei r WAP , s o the Agenc y mus t

fee l tha t their WA P i s adequat

e to sho w complianc e wit h th e existin g regulations . Pag e 4 2 o f

172 , § 2.1.4(d)(u ) The Agenc y i s requirin g Veoli at o submi t arevise d FA P fo r

approva l withi n 6 0 day s ofth e permi t becomin g effective . Du e to th e complexit y o f

thes e type s o f

plan s an d t

o ensur e tha t al l require d element s ar

e incorporated , Veoli awoul dexpec t to mee t wit h th e Agenc y several time s to ensur e th e pla n i s adequate . A s aresult , Veoli ai s requestin g tha t thi s requirement

b e change d from6 0 day s t

o 18 0 day s t

o allo w th

e necessar

y time t o ensur e al l require d element s ar e included . Pag e 4 3 o f

172 . § 2.1.4fd¥ii¥Q . Batc h Samplin g Procedure The statemen

t 'Teedstream s whic h ar

e exempt fromsamplin g i n accordanc e wit h conditio n 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(F ) mus t no t b e batched , treated , blended , mixed , o r otherwis e

- 104

- VE S 01960 2altered , unles s the Permitte e sample s and analyze s the otherwis e exemp t feedstream " i s vague and confusing . Th e reaso n fo r

the exemption s fromsamplin g and analysi s define d i n th e 201 4 Draf

t Permi t i s to avoi dsafety an d environmental concern s o f samplin g explosives , controlle d substance s o r reactiv e materia l whe n ther e i s sufficien t

informatio n availabl e t

o calculate meta

l feedrates . Thes e exemption s als o preven t Veoli afromhavin g to sample waste s whic h hav e alread y been sample d an d ar

e impractica l t o sample again , particularl y whe n ther e i s alread

y sufficien t informatio n to calculate feedrates . Thes e exemption s als o avoi d the samplin g o f off

specificatio n product s wher e ther e ar e MSDS s tha

t completel y defin e th

e waste . B y requirin g tha t exempte d waste s tha

t ar e batched , treated , blended , mixed , o r otherwis e altere d be sampled , Regio n 5 i s unnecessaril y placin g employee s and th e publi c a

t ris k and causin g Veoli ato incu r additiona l cost s tha

t it s direc t competitor s i n Regio n 5 , Ros s and Heritage-WTI , d o not have t o bear . I n addition , i f

th e Agenc y i s allowin g sample d wast e to b e batched , treated , blended , mixed , o r

otherwis e altered , exempte d wast e shoul d b e permitte d t o b e batched , treated , blended , mixed , o r

otherwis e altere d a

s lon g as informatio n i s availabl e t o determine metal s concentratio n and feedrate s t o ensur

e complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T Rul e an d th e Titl e V Permi t requirements . Pag e 4 4 o f

172 . § 2.1.4(d)(u)(E)q D Veoli aobject s to th

e followin g requirement : I f the applicabl e metal i s no t detecteda

t o r abov e th e reportin g limi t

fo r tha t metal , as define d i n conditio n 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(E)(III) , i n any samplin g analysi s require d b y conditio n 2.1(D)(4)(d)(2) , th e meta l concentratio n shal l b e equal t o the reportin g limit , a

s define d i n conditio n 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(E)(III) , fromthe samplin g analyse s require d b y conditio n 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) . USEP A use d "non-detects " as zero s i n formulatin g the HW C MAC T rul e and Regio n 5 canno t no w rejec t

thi s approac h b y requirin g tha t "non-detects " be reporte d a t the reportin g limit . Veoli aagree s wit h Regio n 5 tha t th e reportin g limi t

i s the onl y defensibl e numbe r tha t shoul d be used , but the HW C MAC T mus t

b e applie dconsistently . Th e metho d tha t wa s use d to se

t the standard s ha s t o b

e the on e tha t i s use d to sho w compliance . Thus , Regio n 5 canno t no w require non-detect s t o be reporte d a t the reportin g limit . Thi s woul d artificiall y inflat e Veolia' s emission s an d potentiall y creat e complianc e issue s wher e non e actuall y exist . Thi s als o wil l caus e problem s wit h Veolia' s complianc e wit h th e Emergenc y Plannin g and Community Right

to-Kno w Act . Th e requirement s o f thi s conditio n plac e Veoli ai n a"catch-22"—i f Veoli adoe s no t compl y wit h thi s permi t conditio n i t

wil l b e i n violatio n o f

it s Titl e V permit ; however , i f Veoli adoe s compl y wit h thi s conditio n i t wil l b e force d to not

certif y tha t it s EPCR A emission s report s ar e accurat e (becaus e the emission s ar e inflated ) and thu s wil l b e i n violatio n o f EPCRA .

- 10 5 - VE S 01960 3Pag e 45-4 6 o f 172 , § 2.1.4(d)(ii)(F) . Exemption s t o th e analysi s procedure s Veoli aobject s t

o the entiret

y o f subsectio n (F) . Thi s subsectio n arbitraril y and capriciousl y omit s provision s o f

Veolia' s curren

t FAP/WA P an d impose s requirement s tha t ar e onerous , unsafe , and plac e Veoli aa t a n unfai r disadvantag e a

s compare d t o othe

r incinerator s i n Regio n 5 . Th e permi t

requirement

cause s seriou s safet

y concern s b y requirin g samplin g an d analysi s o f wast e tha t ar e currentl y exempte d (e.g . explosives , certai n reactives , controlle d substances ) o r impossibl e t o sample (e.g . ga s cylinders , seale d filters) . Th e enhanced monitorin g als o require s the samplin g o f

othe r define d "exempt " wast

e suc h as la

b pack s an d off-specificatio n commercia l product s althoug h the metal s concentratio n ar e known . Thes e requirement s ar e no t require d b y Veolia' s curren t FAP/WA P and ar

e mor e stringent

tha n th e tw o commercia l incinerator s tha

t ar e als o regulate d b y Regio n 5 . See Ros s Incineratio n Services , Inc. , Wast e Characteristic s an d Wast e Analysi s Pla n (Apri l 2013 ) a t VE S 016106-01629 3 & Heritage-WTI , Inc. , Wast

e Characteristic s and Wast e Analysi s Pla n (Sept . 18 , 2014 ) a t VE S 016295-016537 . I f usin g generator

knowledge , MSDS's , technica l o r referenc e document s ar

e acceptabl e t

o characteriz e waste s tha

t ar e no t sample d an

d analyze d whe n th

e wast e contai n no metals , tha

n i t shoul db e acceptabl e to characteriz e wastes , whe n the waste s contai n metals . Th e Ros s and Heritage-WT I WAP s allo w thes e exemption s regardles s o f the metal content . Regio n 5 fail s to explai n wh y th e exemption s defined i n § 2.1.4(d)(ii)(F) , hav e eliminate d som e o f the defined exemption s i n Veolia' s curren t FAP/WAP . One ofth e exemption s tha t has bee n remove d i s fo r

visuall y identifiabl e material suc h as glass , batteries , metal parts , etc . Thes e type s o f waste s i n man

y case s cannot

b e sample d du e t

o thei r desig n and construction ; however , th e chemica l constituent s ar e know n fro mMSDSs , generator knowledge , technica l datao r referenc e documents . USEP A mus t reinstat e thi s exemption . Veoli aals o request s tha t th e Agenc y includ e i n the exemptio n lis t

"othe r wast e tha t pos e safety , health , environmental and samplin g difficultie s as determine and justifie db y th e Technica l Manager. " Th e Ros s and Heritage-WT I WAP s giv e thi s latitude to th e Technica l Manager

s o tha t he/sh e ca n determine whethe

r samplin g woul dpresen

t safet y and environmental concerns . Additionally , th

e requiremen

t i n § 2.1.4(d)(ii)(F)(VII ) requirin g a"writte n determinatio n o f exemptio n fro mthes e analysi s procedure s [that ] shal l describ e the informatio n reviewe d and the basi s fo r th e determinatio n tha

t n o mercury , LV M o r

SV M i s present " i s unnecessar y and overl y burdensome . Veoli amaintain s technica l record s o n the wast e stream s approve d a

t th e facilit y and th e Waste Profil e Sheets and supportin g documentatio n support s th e Technica l Manager' s decisio n o n samplin g and analysis . T o requir e additiona l documentation , suc h a s describin g the basi s fo r th e decisio n i s no t

require d i n th

e RCR A regulation s fo r WAP s a t 4 0 C.F.R . 264.13 , no r i s i t require d i n eithe

r th e Ros s o r Heritage-WT I WAP s o r Titl e V permits . Thi s requiremen t

- 106

- VE S 01960 4needlessl y duplicate s informatio n tha t i s already availabl e a

t th e facilit y an d shoul d be remove d fromth e 201 4 Draf

t Permit . Pag e 4 6 o f

172 . § 2.1.fD)(4)(d)(uXF)qX ) Veoli aobject s t o th

e followin g permi t

requirement : Th e Permitte e ma

y reques t approva l fromth

e Administrato r

t o exempt any wast

e tha t i s no t liste d i n condition s 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(F)(I ) throug h (VI ) fromth e analysi s procedure s se

t fort h i n conditio n 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(A ) throug h (E) . The Permitte e shal l describ e th

e informatio n reviewe d an d the basi s fo r the determinatio n tha

t n o mercury , LV M o r

SV M i s presen

t i n the waste s propose d fo r exemption . Th e exemptio n shoul d be expande d to includ e waste s tha t contai n metals . Wast

e streams tha

t contai n metal s ca n b

e properl y characterize d withou t samplin g t

o determine th

e metal s concentration . Veoli aals o respectfull y request s tha t the sectio n provid e th

e amoun t o f tim e th e Agenc y has t

o approv e thes e requests . I f thes e request s ar

e no t reviewe d and responde d t o i n a timel y manner , Veoli awil l be unabl e to respon d t o the need s o f

it s customer s an d wil l los e busines s a

s aresult . Veoli awil l onl y incinerate wast e tha t i s properl y characterize d eithe r b y samplin g an d analysis , generator knowledge , MSDSs , technica l documents , o r othe r referenc e material . Pag e 5 6 o f

172 . § 2.1(D )(4Xo )(ifl(A ) Th e citatio n t

o the HW C MAC T i n thi s paragrap h need s t o b e corrected . I t shoul d b e 4 0 C.F.R . §63.1209(n)(2)(vii) , no t 4 0 C.F.R . §63.1209(n)(2)(ii L Pag e 58-5 9 o f

172 . § 2.1(D¥4¥p ) Thi s paragrap h doe s no t adequatel

y trac k th e languag e o f

4 0 C.F.R . §63.1209(p ) and shoul d be amended accordingly : "Th e Permitte e mus t monito r th e pressur e instantaneousl y an d th e automati c wast

e fee d cutof

f syste mmus t

be engage d whe n negativ e pressur e i s no t adequately maintained. " (Inserte d languag e i n italics. ) Pag e 6 5 o f

172 . § 2.1(D¥ 1 l¥a¥xvi¥A ) & (B ) Thi s paragrap h doe s not pertai n t o Veolia' s incineratio n unit s an d shoul d b e removed .

- 10 7 - VE S 01960 5Pag e 7 7 o f 172 . § 2.1(E)(4)(a) Thi s paragrap h doe s no t adequatel

y trac k the languag e o f

4 0 C.F.R . §63.1206(c)(3)(vi ) an d shoul db e amende d accordingly : "Fo r each set

of 10exceedance s o f

an emissio n standar

d o r operatin g requirement

whil e hazardou s wast

e remain s i n th

e combustio n chambe

r (i.e. , whe n th

e hazardou s wast

e residenc e time has no t transpire d sinc e the hazardou s wast e fee d wa s cutoff

) durin g a60-da

y bloc k period , yo u mus t

submi t to th e Administrato r

awritte n repor

t withi n 5 calenda r day s ofth e 10t

h exceedanc e documentin g the exceedance s an d result s ofth e investigatio n an d correctiv e measure s taken. " (Inserte d languag e i n italics. ) Pag e 77-7 8 o f

172 . § 2.1(E)(5 ) Thi s paragrap h doe s no t adequatel

y trac k the languag e o f

4 0 C.F.R . §63.1206(c)(8)(iv ) an d shoul db e amende d accordingly : "I f yo u operat

e th e combusto r

whe n th e detector

respons e exceed s th

e alarmset-poin

t o r th e bag lea k detectio n systemi s malfunctionin g mor e than 5 percent o f the time durin g an

y 6-mont h bloc k tim e period , yo u mus t

submit anotificatio n to th

e Administrato r

withi n 3 0 day s o f

th e end o f the 6-mont

h bloc k tim e perio dtha

t describe s th

e cause s o f th e exceedance s an d ba g lea k detectio n syste mmalfunction s an d the revision s to the design , operation , o r

maintenanc e o f

th e combustor , baghouse , o r bag lea k detectio n syste myo u ar e takin g t o minimiz e exceedance s an d ba g lea k detectio n syste mmalfunctions . T o documen t complianc e wit h thi s requirement:. " Pag e 8 0 o f

172 . §2.1(E)(9 ) Th e cros s referenc e shoul db e to conditio n 2.1(C)(4) , no t to conditio n 2.1(B)(4) . Pag e 8 0 o f

172 . §2. 1 (E) ( 10

) Thi s sectio n shoul db e amended t o includ e the requirement s o f 4 0 C.F.R . §63.1207(e)(l)(i)(A) , whic h state s tha

t "[t]h e Administrato r

wil l notif

y yo u o f approva l o r

inten t to den y approva l o f the site-specifi c tes t

plan an d CM S performanc e evaluatio n tes t pla n withi n 9 month s afte r receip t o f th e origina l plan. " Pag e 8 2 o f

172 . § 2.1(E)(10)(c)(ii ) Thi s sectio n shoul dbe amended t o includ e ane w subsectio n C . Th e ne w subsectio n shoul d state : "Th e Administrato r wil l approv e o r

den y th e petitio n withi n 3 0 day s o f receip t an d notif y yo u promptl y o f

th e decisio n pursuan

t to the requirement s o f

4 0 C.F.R . §63.1207(e)(3)(ii)(B). "

- 108

- VE S 01960 6Pag e 9 9 o f 172 . § 2.2(E)(3) There ar e n o enclose d storag e tank s locate d i n MP-1 , MP- 2 o r i n the La b Pac k

Repac k areas . Th e las t sentenc e o f

thi s paragrap h shoul d therefore b e deleted . Pag e 105 o f

172 . § 2.4(D)(1 ) Veolia' s tank s ar

e no t belo w atmospheri c pressure ; thus , th e sentenc e "Th e Permitte e mus t monito r th e pressur e continuousl y t o ensur

e tha t th e pressur e i n the tan

k remain s belo w atmospheri c pressure " shoul d be removed . Pag e 11 7 o f

172 . § 2.5(E)(2)(D) Thi s paragrap h discusse s calculatio n o f VO M fromth

e bul k pit s usin g th

e mos t current method , however , becaus e ther

e ar e no enclose d storag e tank s locate d i n the bul k soli dwast

e storag e facility , thi s discussio n shoul d b e deleted . Pag e 12 4 o f 172 . 5 2.7(D)(4 ) There i s no t

aregulator

y basi s fo r

performanc e testin g thi s boiler . Further , whil e Veoli ahas historicall y bee n require d to perfor mperformanc e testin g fo r CO , th e draf t permi t no w add s NO x t o th e requirements . Veoli adisagree s primaril y wit h the need fo r an y performanc e testin g but als o the additiona l emission s test . Thi s i s anatural gas fire dboile r an d ther e ar e publishe d emissio n factor s whic h ca n be use d fo r

both C O and NOx . Pag e 125 o f

172 . § 2.7(E)(2)(h ) Veoli adoe s not

have aSSM P fo r

th e boiler , whic h i s subjec t onl y to tune-up s and energ y assessments . Therefore , thi s requiremen t shoul d be deleted . Pag e 12 5 o f 172 . § 2.7(E)(2)(e ) Th e annual complianc e repor t require s asummar

y o f performanc e tes t

results . Performanc e testin g i s require d onc e ever y 5 years . I f

performanc e testin g i s required , Veoli awoul dlik e thi s sectio n t o rea d a s follows : " A summar

y o f th e result s o f

performanc e test s conducte d durin g the reportin g perio d i f

applicable. "

- 10 9 - VE S 01960 7Pag e 129 o f 172 . § 2.8(0(10 ) Thes e fue l requirement s ar e applicabl e under

Subpar t ZZZZ , if, an d onl y if , Veoli aparticipate s i n a n emergenc y demand respons e program . Th e draf t permi t implie s th

e facilit y i s subjec t

to th e fue l requirement s a

t al l time s beginnin g Januar y 1 , 2015 . Pag e 15 0 o f

172 . § 3.1(C ) Sectio n 3.1(C) 1 require s emission s calculation s to b e chose n from ahierarchicall y ranke d lis t o f options . Sectio n 3.1(C) 2 require s Veoli at o documen t revie w o f

the hierarch y prio r

t o selectio n o f a n emission s calculatio n methodology , includin g ademonstratio n o f th e appropriatenes s o f

th e selecte d emissio n factor . The draf t permi t clearl y identifie s emissio n calculatio n method s fo r Veoli aemissio n unit s lackin g publishe d emissio n factor s o r commerciall y availabl e emissio n calculatio n software . Review , demonstration , an d documentatio n o f th e choic e o f

methodolog y i s unnecessar

y and thes e requirement s shoul d b e deleted . K . Regio

n 5' s Statemen

tofBasi s I

s Contradictor

y an d Doe s No tSuppor

tth e Conclusion

s Containe

d Therei n Regio n 5' s rational e fo r th e provision s containe d withi n th e 201 4 Draf

t Permi t ar e unsoun d and contradictory . USEP A finds (a ) tha t Veolia' s CP T testing , OPL s and FAP , a s supplemente d i n the 201 4 Draf

t Permit , ar

e adequat

e fo r F1WC MAC T complianc e but als o determine s (b ) tha

t Veolia' s CP T testing , OPL s and FAP , a s supplemented , ar

e inadequat

e fo r HW C MAC T complianc e i n order

to justif y the installatio n o f

three multi-metal s CEMS—bot h finding s cannot b e simultaneousl y true . USEP A acknowledge s i n th e Statemen

t o f Basi s tha

t th e emissio n level s achieve d durin g complianc e test s ("CP T testing" ) ar e typicall y th

e highes t emissio n level s asourc e emit s unde r reasonabl y anticipatabl e circumstance s an d wors t cas e operatin g conditions : T o ensur e tha t thes e OPL s d

o no t impede normal day-to-da y operations , source s generall y tak

e measure s t o operat

e durin g complianc e testin g unde r condition s tha t woul dnormall y produc e th e highes t emissions . Fo r

example , source s ofte n fee d ash , metals , and chlorin e durin g complianc e testin g a t substantiall y higher than normal level s (e.g. , b y spikin g the feedstream) t o maximiz e th

e fee d concentration , and they often detun e the air pollutio n contro l equipmen t to establis h operatin g limit s o n the contro l equipmen t tha t provid e operatin g flexibility . Thus , th

e emissio n level s achieve d durin g complianc e test s ar e typicall y th

e highes t emissio n level s asourc e emit s unde r reasonabl y anticipatabl e circumstances . B y designin g it s CP T t

o generat e emission s unde

r wors t cas e operatin g conditions , asourc e ca

n establis h OPL s tha

t accoun t fo r variabilit y i n operation s (e.g. , compositio n and feedrat e o f feedstreams , a

s wel l as variabilit y o f

pollutio n

- 110

- VE S 01960 8contro l equipmen t efficiency ) and tha

t d o no t imped e norma l operations . Thus , the feedrat

e OP L woul db

e base d o n wast

e level s fe d durin g th

e CP T unles s th

e regulator y authorit

y approve s areques t

fo r the sourc e to extrapolat e t o ahigher allowabl e feedrat

e (an d emissio n rate ) limit . Statemen t o f Basi s a t 3 9 (footnote s omitted) . Regio n 5 acknowledge s tha t Veoli athroug h it s CP T Test s provide d sufficien t informatio n t o enable the Agenc y t o establis h OPL s fo r mercury , S V M an d LV M tha

t satisf y th e requirement s o f

th e Ac t and th e HW C MACT : EP A has reviewe d Veolia' s CP T tes t repor t dated Januar

y 28 , 201 4 (th

e 201 4 CP T report

) and Veolia' s Notificatio n o f Complianc e (NOC ) date d Januar y 28 , 201 4 (th e 201 4 NOC ) an

d determine d tha

t ther e i s sufficien t

informatio n to enable EP A to establis h OPL s fo r mercury , SV M an d LV M tha t satisf y th e requirement s ofth e Ac t

and th e HW C MACT . Specifically , EP A has determine d tha t th e OPL s show n i n Tabl e 9 , below , ar e supporte d b y the availabl e CP T data . Therefore , consistent

with 4 0 C.F. R§ 71.6(a)(1) , EP A i s proposin g t o incorporate d thes e OPL s int o th e permit . See Conditio n 2.1(C)(2) . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 4 0 (footnote s omitted) . B y Regio n 5' s ow n admission , Veolia' s CP T test s hav e establishe d OPL s tha t represen t th e highes t emissio n level s Veoli awoul dtypicall y emi t unde r reasonabl y anticipatabl e circumstance s an d wors t cas e operatin g conditions . Havin g acknowledge d th

e adequac y o f

Veolia' s CP T tests , afe w page s late r i n the Statemen

t ofBasis , Regio n 5 discard s the adequac y o f Veolia' s CP T test s i n a n attemp t t o justif y the installatio n o f multi-metal s CEMS : Veoli aconducte d comprehensiv e performanc e test s (CPTs ) a t eac h o f the incinerator s i n October

2013 . Th e result s o f

thos e CPT s demonstrated , amon g other things , tha

t th e emission s fromthe thre e unit s wer e significantl y different , despit e th e fac t tha t Veoli aha

d incinerate d similar

waste s durin g th

e tests . Thi s illustrate s tha

t asimpl e linea

r calculatio n may no t

b e appropriat

e fo r estimatin g meta l stack

concentration s fromth

e emissio n units . A s discusse d a t sectio n 5.3.3 , below , EP A ha s identifie dseveral possibl e reason s fo r th e differin g emission s a

t the thre e units . Further , EP A doe s no t kno w wit h whic h metal s chlorin e o r othe r anion s preferentiall y reac t i n th e gas strea

mand whic h metal chloride s ar e mor e easil y capture d i n Veolia' s ai r pollutio n contro l equipment . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 53-54 . I f

Regio n 5 reall y believe d tha t Veolia' s CP T tes t

result s wer

e flawed , Regio n 5 shoul d no t have accepte d the results . Th e Agenc y shoul d hav e require d Veoli a reru n th e test s rathe

r tha n require the "after-the-fact " installatio n o f three multi-metal s CEMS . Simila r contradiction s ar

e foun d i n USEPA' s discussio n o f Veolia' s FAP . First , Regio n 5 criticize s i t

a s bein g inadequat

e and propose s minimu mmercury , LV M an d SV M analysi s procedure s i n th

e permi t t o addres s th

e deficiencies : EP A has reviewe d Veolia' s FAP , whic h i s availabl e a s par t o f the permi t

recor d fo r thi s propose d permi t

renewa l action , and othe r monitorin g requirement s i n th e

- Il l - VE S 01960 9existin g 200 8 permit , and determine d tha t the y ar e no t sufficien t

t o determine tha

t waste streams compl y wit h th e feedrat e limit s o r

assur e complianc e wit h applicabl e emission s limit s fo r metals . Althoug h Veolia' s FA P contain s the minimu melement s require d b y 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(c)(2)(i ) throug h (vi) , forth e reason s outline d below , EP A ha s foun dtha t th e existin g FA P i s no t

sufficien t

t o ensur e tha t th e mercury , lead , arsenic , beryllium , cadmiu mand chromiu m concentration s i n th

e wast e stream s ar

e no greate

r tha n th e concentration s stated i n th e wast

e profile s tha

t Veoli ahas use d to calculate metal feedrates . A s discusse d below , Veoli acurrentl y depend s o n informatio n i n acorporate databas e fo r "similar " wast

e stream s withou t

rea l knowledg e o f

wha t metal s ar

e i n the waste s it incinerates . Further , th

e databas e frequentl y contain s informatio n tha t i s inconsisten t

wit h dataprovide db y wast e generators . Therefore , th e existin g FA P canno t assur e complianc e wit h the metal s feedrat e limits . Additionally , becaus e Veolia' s FA P doe s no t ensur e tha t each feedstrea

mi s appropriatel y characterized , th e current FA P doe s no t

assur e complianc e wit h th

e feedrate limit s i n th

e permit . Fo r the reason s furthe r

discusse d below , Veolia' s curren t FA P i s no t

sufficien t

t o ensur e tha t th e mercury , SV M an d LV M concentration s i n th e wast e stream s ar

e no greate r tha n th e concentration s state d i n th e wast e profile s tha

t Veoli ause s t

o calculat e meta

l feedrates . Therefore , the FA P canno t assur e complianc e wit h th

e feedrate limit s fo r

mercury , SV M and LVM . Complianc e wit h th e feedrat e limit s i s afundamenta l ste

p i n assurin g complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T emission s limits . T o addres s th

e deficiencie s i n Veolia' s FA P describe d above , and t o assur e complianc e wit h th

e feedrat e limits , EP A has propose d minimu mmercury , LV M and SV M analysi s procedure s i n th e permit.. . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 47 . USEP A assert s th

e supplementa

l feedstrea

manalysi s procedure s assur e complianc e wit h th

e propose d feedrat

e limits , and throug h them , wit h applicabl e HW C MAC T emission s limits : Th e above feedstrea

manalysi s provision s supplemen t an y analysi s procedure s specifie di n Veolia' s FA P fo r mercury , LV M and SVM , and supersed e an y les s stringent provision s i n the FAP . Incorporatio n o f thes e requirement s into the Titl e V permi t woul dno t

eliminate Veolia' s obligatio n to maintai n a n adequat

e FAP , consistent

with 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.1209(c) ; rather , th e permi t woul dspecif

y minimu m feedstreamanalysi s procedure s to assur e complianc e wit h th

e propose d feedrat

e limits , and , throug h them , wit h applicabl e HW C MAC T emission s limits . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 48 . Subsequently , USEP A state s tha t installatio n o f

multi-meta l CEM S ar

e necessar y t o verif

y tha t th e feedrat e limit s an d th

e supplementa

l feedstrea

manalysi s procedure s assur e complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T emission s limits : T o verif y tha t th e feedrat e limit s and the feedstrea manalysi s procedure s propose d i n thi s Titl e V permi t

renewal ar

e sufficien t

to assur e continuou s complianc e wit h the HW C MAC T emission s limits , EP A i s proposin g t o requir e tha t Veoli ainstal l

- 112

- VE S 01961 0and operat e amulti-metal s CEM S a t eac h incineratio n uni t

fo r aperio d o f

a t leas t 1 2 months . Veoli awil l operat e eac h multi-metal s CEM S a s aCPMS , usin g the meta l concentration s measure d b y th e multi-metal s CEM S a

s aparametri c indicato r o f complianc e wit h the emission s standard s an d to verif y th e adequac y ofth e feedrat

e limits . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 54 . Onc e again , i f

Regio n 5 reall y believe d tha t th e supplementa

l feedstrea manalysi s procedure s propose d i n th e 201 4 Draf

t Permi t di d no t assur e complianc e wit h th e HW C MACT , USEP A shoul d have propose d additiona l procedure s unti l i t ha d suc h assurance . I n short , the Agenc y canno t simultaneousl y fin d(a

) tha t Veolia' s CP T testing , OPL s and FAP , a s supplemented , ar

e adequat

e fo r HW C MAC T complianc e and later determin e (b ) tha

t Veolia' s CP T testing , OPL s and FAP , a s supplemented , ar

e inadequat

e fo r HW C MAC T complianc e i n orde r to justif y the installatio n o f

thre e multi-metal s CEMS . Thi s exemplifies Regio n 5' s inconsisten t

an d contradictor

y reasonin g an d demonstrate s th e Agency' s arbitrary an

d capriciou s decisionmaking . L . Regio

n 5' s Discussio

n o f Environmenta

l Justic e Consideration

s Contain

s Inaccurate, Misleading , Prejudicia l an d Conflictin g Information Veolia' s facilit y has been locate d i n Sauget , Illinoi s fo r ove r thirty years . Durin g thi s time period , USEP A personne l hav e visite d th e Veoli asit

e o n numerou s occasions . Regio n 5 nevertheles s inaccuratel y state s "Veoli ai s locate d i n Eas t St . Louis , Illinois , a

n are awit h overburdene d communities , and th e sourc e i s o f

significant

publi c interest. " Statemen t ofBasi s a t 75 . Regio n 5' s statemen t i s simpl y no t

true . Veoli ai s locate d a t 7 Mobil e Avenue , Sauget , Illinoi s 62201 , and th

e facilit y i s no t

o f a"significan t

publi c interest " a

s evidence d b y th

e lac k o f attendanc e an

d comment s a

t the publi c hearin g regardin g the 201 4 Draf t Permi t tha t wa s hel d o n December

3 , 2014 . See Hearin g Transcript , VE S 016558-01656 9 and Sign-i n Sheet , VE S 019307 . Premise do n thi s inaccuracy , USEP A goe s ont o cit e variou s statistic s i n an attemp t to persuad

e the publi c tha

t additiona l monitorin g requirement s se t fort h i n Veolia' s draf

t Titl e V permi t

ar e authorize d and necessary . Rather than attemptin g t

o draf t apersuasiv e Statemen

t ofBasi s tha

t inflame s prejudice , Regio n 5' s firs t goa l shoul d b

e t o draf t a n accurat e Statemen

t ofBasis . Afte r revisin g th e Statemen

t ofBasi s t

o accuratel y reflec t

Veolia' s location , USEP A need s t o perfor m additiona l study an

d collec t furthe r evidenc e usin g th

e correc t Veoli alocatio n i n Sauget , Illinoi s t o determin e whethe

r environmental justic e shoul d even b e discusse d i n th e Statemen

t ofBasis . I f suc h issue s shoul d b

e discussed , the Agenc y shoul d reissu e th e Statemen

t ofBasi s and reope n the draf t permi t fo r comment . Further , th e manne

r i n whic h USEP A discusse s environmental justic e i n the context o f complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T attempt s t o creat e amisleadin g impressio n tha t Veoli ahas no t been an d woul dnot

b e i n complianc e wit h the HW C MACT , but fo r the additiona l and specifi c monitorin g requirement s se t fort h i n the draf

t permit :

- 113

- VE S 01961 1Th e Titl e V Programitsel f doe s no t gran t EP A th e authorit y t o creat e ne w limit s o r othe r requirement s base d o n thes e (Environmenta l Justice ) concerns . A s previousl y discussed , the Titl e V permittin g progra m codifie dunde

r 4 0 C.F.R . Par

t 7 1 provide s EP A wit h th e authorit

y to incorporate into permit s 'al l operational requiremen t an d limitation s tha

t assur e complianc e wit h al l applicabl e requirements ' and monitorin g 'sufficien t

to yiel dreliabl e datafro mthe relevant time perio d tha

t ar e representativ e o f

th e sources ' complianc e wit h th e permit ' tha

t wil l assur

e complianc e wit h al l requirement s o f the Act . Throug h thi s propose d permi t renewal action , EP A i s incorporatin g monitorin g requirement s necessar y t o assur

e complianc e wit h al l applicabl e requirements . E P A believe s tha

t complianc e wit h th

e HW C MAC T requirement s wil l hel p protec t

th e ai r quality aroun d Veolia , whic h wil l benefi t the entir e community . T o ensur

e complianc e wit h th

e feedrat e limit s i n the permit , E P A ha s include d i n th

e Titl e V permi t

additional and specifi c monitorin g requirement

fo r heav y metal s .. . [t]h

e propose d monitorin g requirement s ar e base d o n site-specifi c condition s a t th e Veoli afacilit y an d wil l help protec t huma n healt h an d the environment

fromth e consequence s o f emission s o f

mercur y and othe

r metal s b y providin g furthe r assuranc e tha

t Veoli awil l no t

excee d it s permitte d limits . Statemen t ofBasi s a

t 77 . A s th e cite d passage fromth

e Statemen

t ofBasi s indicates , Veoli aand Regio n 5 ar e i n agreemen

t tha t the Titl e V Programdoe s no t gran t USEP A th

e authorit

y to creat e ne w limit s o r othe r requirement s base d o n thes e Environmenta l Justic e concerns . Give n thi s fact , Regio n 5 had no reaso n t

o rais e Environmenta l Justic e i n th e Statemen

t ofBasi s fo r

Veolia' s draf

t permit . Veoli aan d th

e Agenc y ar

e als o i n agreemen

t wit h th e non-conteste d statemen t tha t complianc e wit h th e HW C MAC T wil l help protec t the ai r quality aroun d Veoli aand benefi t the entir e community . However , the foregoin g noncontroversia l statement s ar e precursor s to Regio n 5' s fals e conclusio n tha

t "[t] o ensur

e complianc e wit h th

e feedrat e limit s i n th

e permit , EP A has include d i n the Titl e V permi t

additiona l an d specifi c monitorin g requirement fo r heav y metals.. . [t]h

e propose d monitorin g requirement s ar e base d o n site-specifi c condition s a t the Veoli afacilit y and wil l hel p protec t huma n healt h and the environment

fromth e consequence s o f

emission s o f mercur y an d othe

r metal s b y providin g furthe r assuranc e tha

t Veoli awil l no t

excee d it s permitte d limits. " Thi s statemen

t i s fals e o n man

y levels . Firs t

and importantly , Veoli aha s alway s ensure d complianc e wit h th

e feedrat e limit s i n the permi t

b y conductin g and demonstratin g complianc e throug h emissio n testin g a s define d i n 4 0 C.F.R . 63.1209 . An y implicatio n t o th e contrar y b y th e Agenc y throug h thi s statemen t or otherwis e i s fals e and prejudicial . Further , th e propose d monitorin g requirements , suc h a s th e CEMS , d

o no t chang e Veolia' s history o f complianc e o r effec t Veolia' s futur e compliance . Th e CEM S i s not and cannot

b e use d to assur

e complianc e b y

- 11 4 - VE S 01961 2Veolia , and t o the exten t Region 5 asserts otherwis e i n th e Statemen

t ofBasis , suc h assertion s ar e untru e and misleading . Th e CEM S i s purporte d t o be amulti-metal s monitorin g devic e b y Regio n 5 an d b y other s wit h afinancia l incentiv e to sel l suc h devices . Unlik e th e HW C MAC T standards , th e CEM S has neve r been show n t o protec t

huma n healt h an d th e environment

from the consequence s o f

emission s o f

mercur y an d othe

r metal s i n th

e stack emission s froma commercia l hazardou s wast e incinerator . Regio n 5' s statements t o th e contrar y ar e fals e an d prejudicia l t o Veolia . Additionally , Veolia' s facilit y has no t move d andth

e demographic s i n th

e are ai n whic h i t

i s locate d hav e no

t changed . T o th

e exten t th e Agenc y attempts t

o justif y the addition s containe d withi n th e draf t permit , i n part , due t

o the locatio n o f

th e facility , Regio n 5 mus t explai n wh y i n 200 8 Regio n 5 exercise d it s judgment and issue d Veoli ait s permi t withou t suc h conditions . Th e Agenc y cite s t

o the 200 0 U.S . Censu s datai n the Statemen t ofBasi s i n order

to suppor

t it s environmenta l justic e discussion . Thi s exac t dat aexiste d i n 200 8 whe n Regio n 5 issue d Veolia' s Titl e V permit . Th e facility' s locatio n andthe surroundin g demographic s hav e no t change d sinc e 2008 , but th e Agency' s decision s wit h regardto Veolia' s permi t hav e changed . Regio n 5 shoul d explai n wh y it

considere d th

e sam e data , bu t arrive d a

t adifferen t

conclusion . M . USEPA' s Notic

e failed t o compl y wit h th e requirement

s o f § 71.11(d)(4

) USEPA' s Notic e o f

Propose d Renewa l o f

Veolia' s Titl e V Permi t ("Notice" ) faile dt

o compl y with40C.F.R . § 71.11(d)(4) . Sectio n 71.11(d)(4 ) provide s "(i ) .. . [a]llpubli c notice s issue d unde r thi s subpar

t shal l contai n th

e followin g minimu minformation : .. . (B ) Th e nam e an d addres s o f

the permitte e o r

permi t applican t

and , i f different , o f

th e facilit y regulate d b y the permit , excep t

i n th e cas e o f draf t genera l permits. " Likewise , "(ii ) .. . [a]n y publi c notic e o f

a hearin g shal l contai n .. . (A ) [t]h e informatio n describe d i n paragrap h (d)(4)(i ) o f thi s sectionf.] " A s identifie db y the Illinoi s Secretar y o f State , Veolia' s principa l offic e i s locate d a t 70 0 E . Butterfiel dRd. , St e 201 , Lombard , Illinois , 60148 , but thi s addres s wa s no t

include d i n USEPA' s Notice . Sectio n 71.1 1 (d)(4 ) furthe r provide s tha

t al l publi c notice s shal l contain : "(E ) Th e name , address , and telephon e numbe r o f aperso n who mintereste d partie s ma y contac t fo r instruction s on ho w to obtai n additiona l informatio n .. . availabl e t o th e permittin g authorit

y tha t ar e relevant

t o the permittin g decision. " USEPA' s Notic e fail s t o designat e a n individua l tha

t may be contacte d "fo r

instruction s o n ho w to obtai n additiona l information " a s require d b y thi s section . Thus , USEPA' s Notic e i s deficien t andthe Agenc y mus t

remed y th e deficienc y an d al l othe r defect s arisin g fromth

e deficiency . N . Veolia' s Specific Incorporation o f Other Publi c Comment s I n additio n to the comment s se t fort h i n thi s document , Veoli aincorporate s into thes e comment s as thoug h full y se

t fort h herein , th

e affidavit s and comment s o f the belo w liste d individual s an d request s tha

t USEP A consider

and respon d t o thes e affidavit s an d comments :

• Join t comment s o f

Willia mC . Anderson , Ph.D. , Senior Analytica l Projec t

Manager , TestAmerica , Inc . and Chri s E . McBride , P.E. , Focu s Environmental , Inc . VE S 016777

- 016795 ; • Robert

W . Baxter , B3Systems , Inc . VE S 016997-017002 ;

- 11 5 - VE S 01961 3• Emm aYork , Evoni k Manager , Environmental , Safety , Healt h andSecurity , VE S 007596-007597 ; • Ralp h L . Roberson , President , RM B Consultin g & Researc h Inc. , VE S 008290-008380 ; • Michae l Fuchs , Projec t manage r i n th e Measurement s Grou p i n UR S Corporation' s Austin , Texa s Office , VE S 007598-760 5 an dVE S 019283-019293 . • Dou g Harris , Genera l Manager a t Veoli aE S Technica l Solutions , L.L.C , VE S 008384

- 008391 ; • Denni s J . Warchol , Veoli aManager o f Environmental , Health an dSafety , VE S 008381

- 00838 3 andVE S 019308-019309 ; • Delan aOwen , Frankli n Engineering , VE S 007606-007615 ; an d • Th e Comment s offere db y th e Coalitio n fo r

Responsibl e Waste Incineratio n offere di n respons e to Veolia' s 201 4 Draf t Permi t as wel l a s i n respons e t o USEPA' s attemp t to reope n Veolia' s Permi t

i n 201 3 (VE S 016961-016974) . V . Conclusion Fo r the reason s se

t fort h above , Veoli arequest s tha t USEP A modif

y the Draf

t Permi t i n accordanc e wit h Veolia' s comments . Veolia' s comment s ar

e offere dby : Dou g Harri s General Manage r Veoli aE S Technica l Solutions , LL C 7 Mobil e Ave . Sauget , I L 6220 1 Offic e 618-271-280 4 Ext . 10 1 Fax : 618-271-212 8 Doug.harris@veoliaes.co m www.veoliaes.co m

- 116

- VE S 01961 4