V ES 001250.pdf 
Agenda for March 8 meeting between EPA and Veolia Q 

David Ogulei to: Doug Harris 

Cc: Genevieve Damico, Charles Hall 

Bcc: Jane Woolums 

03/06/2012 03:56 PM 

Doug, 

Attached is the agenda and call-in information for Thursday's conference call. Let me know if you 

have any questions, or if you have additional topics for the agenda. A s we discussed, we are not 

planning to have our attorney present at this call; however, if your attorney wil l be present, we wil l 

need to invite one of our attorneys as well. 

-David 

Davi d Ogulei, Ph.D., P.E. 

U.S . EP A | Ai r & Radiation Division, A-18 J 

77 West Jackson Blvd . | Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Phone: (312) 353-0987 | Ogulei.David@epa.gov 

Agenda for March 8 2012 Veolia Conference Call.pdf 

VES 001250 
Conference Call Between 

Veolia Environmental Services (Veolia) and EPA 

March 8, 2012 (10:00 am - 12:00 noon) 

Call-in information: 

Toll-free dial-in number: (877) 226-9607 

Participant conference code: 6693830375 

1. Introductions 

2. Purpose of the call 

3. Veolia's significant modification request 

a. Extrapolation of metal feed rates 

o What is EPA's position on Veolia's proposed extrapolation rates? 

b. Feedstream Analysis Plan 

o 40 C.F.R. §63.1209(c) requires each subject facility to have a feedstream 

analysis plan (FAP) "that is sufficient to document compliance with the 

applicable feed rate limits." What is EPA's position on Veolia's FAP? 

c. Ongoing enforcement issues 

o As part of an enforcement investigation, the National Enforcement 

investigations Center (NEIC) inspected Veolia's Sauget facility in late 2008. 

How could the findings of that investigation affect EPA's decision on the 

significant modification request? 

4. Other topics as necessary 

VES 001251 
March 8, 2012 Meeting With Veolia Page 2 of 2 

Table 1. Veolia's Proposed Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) 

Col. ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Highest 

E P A 12-hr Test Feed 

Metal Revised Rolling Rate A s a % Veolia's Est. Stack H W C 

Feed Metal Feed Average ofthe 3/2/10 Cone. @ MAC T 

Rates Rates Metal Highest 12- Proposed Veolia's Limit (40 

During During Feed Rate hr Rolling Extrapola Proposed C.F.R. § 

2008 2008 7/1/04- Average o f ted OPLs 63.1219); 

Testing Testing 1/1/08 Historical Feedrate (Ug/dscm @ Ug/dscm @ 

Unit # Metal (lb/hr) a (lb/hr) b (lb/hr) Values (lb/hr) c 7% 0 2 )

d 7% 0 2 

2 

H g 0.00185 0.00165 0.0054 

• ';34>T 0.0057 182 130 

2 L V M 46.8 47.2 84.5 2 55% 140 20 92 

S V M 62.9 63.6 50.6 124% 189 65 230 

3 

H g 0.00185 0.0018 0.00545 

62% 

0.0057 178 130 

3 L V M 47.7 47.7 77.3 62% 143 70 92 

S V M 64.3 64.3 72.1 89% 193 173 230 

4 

Hg 0.026 0.0214 0.05981 0.078 87 130 

4 L V M 50.3 50.3 69.9 72% 151 30 92 

S V M 63.6 63.6 58.4 109% 191 81 230 

Table Notes: 

a. Feed rate calculated by EPA (& proposed by Veolia in the 2010 application) from offsite 

spike rates and PSC Republic's moisture content. 

b. Feed rate calculated by EPA in March 2010 using calculated Hg spike composition & 

offsite waste feed concentrations. 

c. Calculated by escalating the metal feed rate during testing (Column 2) by a factor of 3. 

d. Stack concentrations are estimated from exhaust parameters and the "removal 

efficiencies" reported by Veolia in the March 2010 application. 

VES 001252 
V ES 001253.pdf 
DATE : March 12, 2012 

SUBJECT: Meetin g Summary fo r th e March 8, 2012, Veolia-EP A 

Conferenc e Cal l 

FROM: Davi d Ogulei , Environmenta l Enginee r 

ARD/APB/Air Permit s Sectio n 

TO: File s 

THRU: Geneviev e Damico, Sectio n Chie f 

The followin g i s a summary o f a conferenc e cal l between EPA Regio n 5 

a nd Veoli a ES Technica l Solutions , L.L.C , hel d on March 8, 2012 a t 

10:00 am. Representin g EPA were Davi d Ogulei , Geneviev e Damico, and 

Danny Marcus. Representin g Veoli a were Doug Harris , Dave Klarich , and 

Denni s Warcho l 

Thi s summary provide s a writte n recor d o f th e subjec t conferenc e cal l 

by identifyin g highlight s fro m th e call . 

EPA and Veoli a discusse d th e followin g topics : 

Extrapolatio n of metal feed rates 

EPA explaine d tha t our curren t cours e o f actio n i s t o full y deny 

Veolia' s significan t modificatio n reques t because EPA believe s th e 

extrapolatio n factor s propose d i n th e applicatio n ar e not approvable . 

EPA's concern s ar e as follows : 

o EPA does no t recommend any extrapolatio n fo r Hg becaus e th e 

performanc e tes t fee d rate s were to o low (< 50% o f th e highes t 

historica l 12-hour rollin g averag e fee d rate) . Fo r Uni t 4, EPA 

needs an acceptabl e analysi s o f th e correspondin g activate d 

carbo n injectio n rat e a t highe r fee d rates . Therefore , th e Hg 

tes t fee d rate s woul d be se t as th e Hg fee d rat e OPL. 

o I f th e tes t fee d rat e was highe r tha n th e highes t historica l 12-

hou r rollin g averag e fee d rat e (e.g. , SVM fro m Unit s 2 & 4) , EPA 

woul d use th e tes t fee d rat e as th e OPL. 

o Fo r LVM (Unit s 2, 3, 4) and SVM (Uni t 3) , EPA plan s t o gran t 

extrapolatio n up t o th e highes t historica l 12-hour rollin g 

averag e fee d rat e becaus e th e tes t fee d rat e was highe r tha n th e 

median historica l fee d rate . Therefore , th e OPLs fo r LVM (Unit s 

VES 001253 
Veolia-EP A March 8, 2012, Conferenc e Cal l Summary 

Page 2 o f 4 

2, 3, 4) and SVM (Uni t 3) woul d be se t t o be equa l t o th e highes t 

historica l 12-hour rollin g averag e fee d rate . 

Procedurally , EPA plan s t o issu e a notic e o f inten t t o deny (NOID) th e 

permi t application , as require d by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(a)(3) . The NOID 

wil l explai n the reason s fo r th e denia l and re-iterat e th e exten t o f 

extrapolation , i f any, tha t migh t be acceptabl e t o EPA. Veoli a wil l 

the n have an opportunit y t o submi t a revise d applicatio n tha t 

addresse s EPA's concerns . 

Veoli a commented tha t the y ar e confuse d by th e methodology bein g use d 

by EPA t o estimat e stac k concentrations . They believ e tha t EPA has 

use d a "straight-line " approach , whic h EPA has previousl y claime d was 

n o t acceptable . Also , Veoli a i s concerne d tha t EPA i s proposin g t o 

deny an extrapolatio n approac h tha t the y believ e i s allowe d under th e 

HWC MACT, and has previousl y been approve d fo r othe r facilitie s withi n 

Regio n 5. EPA responde d tha t as we gai n more experienc e wit h th e HWC 

MACT, i t i s possibl e we wil l requir e applicant s t o perfor m differen t 

type s o f analyse s i n th e future . Veoli a als o state d tha t the y do no t 

believ e the y ar e require d t o tes t a t thei r highes t historica l rat e 

(i.e. , "extreme rang e o f normal") i n orde r fo r extrapolatio n t o be 

granted . EPA agree d t o chec k wit h EPA's rul e writer s t o verif y th e 

inten t o f th e extrapolatio n languag e i n th e HWC MACT. 

EPA state d tha t a sourc e can onl y extrapolat e t o thei r highes t 

historica l rat e o r th e fee d rat e use d durin g testing , whicheve r i s 

higher . EPA cite d 64 FR 52947, September 30, 1999, whic h explain s 

tha t EPA too k thi s polic y positio n "t o avoi d creatin g an incentiv e t o 

bur n waste s wit h highe r tha n historica l level s o f metals. " Veoli a 

sai d some o f th e HMC MACT regulation s (e.g. , th e 1999 and 2003 rules ) 

were eithe r vacate d o r remanded by th e court s and therefor e shoul d be 

interprete d wit h caution . 

Veoli a state d tha t the y woul d be intereste d i n coming t o th e tabl e 

wit h EPA t o discus s a middl e groun d on th e extrapolatio n factors . 

Veoli a sai d the y ar e willin g t o conside r extrapolatio n factor s tha t 

fal l between what the y propose d i n March 2010 and what EPA recommends 

above. Dave Klarich , Veolia' s MACT Implementatio n Manager, will , 

perfor m some calculations , revie w th e applicabl e regulation s & 

guidance , and provid e additiona l backgroun d informatio n t o EPA. Also , 

Veoli a wil l revie w historica l dat a t o see i f a more recen t 5-year 

perio d can be use d t o establis h thei r "historica l normal" . Veoli a 

wil l provid e th e historica l dat a t o EPA fo r use i n verifyin g th e 

highes t historica l 12-hour rollin g averag e calculation . Veoli a and 

EPA wil l schedul e a conferenc e cal l o r face-to-fac e meeting , as 

VES 001254 
Veolia-EP A March 8, 2012, Conferenc e Cal l Summary 

Page 3 o f 4 

necessary , t o communicate what extrapolatio n methodolog y Veoli a "can 

liv e with" . 

EPA agree d t o giv e Veoli a an opportunit y t o respon d t o EPA's propose d 

cours e o f actio n befor e issuin g th e NOID. EPA wil l provid e Veoli a 

wit h a drop-dea d dat e by whic h the y must provid e additiona l 

informatio n t o suppor t thei r extrapolatio n methodology , o r propos e a 

revisio n t o thei r application . Shoul d Veoli a no t meet tha t deadline , 

EPA woul d procee d t o issu e th e NOID. 

Feedstream Analysis Plan (FAP) 

EPA state d tha t we believ e Veolia' s FAP i s inadequate . EPA plan s t o 

requir e Veoli a t o eithe r revis e thei r pla n t o incorporat e EPA's 

comments, o r EPA wil l impose a FAP tha t addresse s thei r concerns . EPA 

state d tha t th e pla n i s base d on a 1985 wastestrea m analysi s pla n 

(WAP) tha t contain s a number o f outdate d provisions . Veoli a state d 

tha t the y ar e confuse d by th e additiona l Clea n Ai r Ac t requirement s 

when RCRA, incinerato r manufacturers , and th e Stat e have thei r own 

requirements . Veoli a als o explaine d tha t thei r FAP i s actuall y base d 

on a 1994 WAP. Veoli a state d tha t th e 1994 versio n o f th e WAP differ s 

significantl y fro m th e 1985 version . Veoli a wil l submi t th e 1994 

versio n o f th e WAP/FAP t o EPA fo r review . 

NEIC Report 

EPA state d tha t i f EPA and Veoli a agree d on an extrapolatio n 

methodology , EPA woul d no t issu e a draf t permi t fo r publi c comment 

unti l th e NEIC repor t i s released . The repor t i s expecte d i n lat e 

spring . 

Assignments 

EPA pledge d t o researc h answers t o th e followin g questions : 

I s th e historica l rang e o f norma l meta l fee d rate s reference d 

by th e HWC MACT i n § 63.1207 & § 63.120 9 froze n i n time ? 

i.e. , must th e perio d use d t o develo p th e historica l norma l 

fee d rat e preced e th e dat e o f th e MACT o r complianc e date , 

whicheve r i s later , o r shoul d i t alway s be th e 5 year s 

precedin g th e permi t action ? 

I f th e historica l range o f norma l i s alway s th e 5 year s 

precedin g th e permi t action , th e HWC woul d alway s have a lowe r 

historica l rang e o f norma l i n th e curren t permi t actio n tha n 

t h e previou s permi t action . When EPA wrot e th e HWC MACT, di d 

EPA inten d t o have a "downward spiral " o f historica l meta l 

VES 001255 
Veolia-EP A March 8, 2012, Conferenc e Cal l Summary 

Page 4 o f 4 

fee d rate s as facilitie s reduc e th e quantit y o f metal s i n 

thei r feedstreams ? 

Additionally , EPA agree d t o provid e Veoli a wit h a "drop dead date " by 

whic h Veoli a must provid e additiona l informatio n on th e propose d 

extrapolatio n methodology . 

F o r thei r part , Veoli a will : 

Review th e highes t historica l rat e calculation s includin g a 

revie w o f whethe r a more recen t tim e perio d i s more 

appropriat e fo r establishin g th e highes t historica l 12-hour 

rollin g average . 

Share historica l fee d rat e dat a and calculation s wit h EPA. 

Provid e additiona l informatio n t o suppor t Veolia' s 

extrapolatio n methodology , o r propos e a differen t 

extrapolatio n methodolog y i n th e form o f a revisio n t o th e 

significan t modificatio n application . 

- Submit a copy o f th e 1994 WAP. 

VES 001256 
V ES 001257.pdf 
Follow-up from Veolia-EPA Conference; Deadlines 

Davi d Ogulei to: Doug Harris 

Cc: David A Klarich, Genevieve Damico, Charles Hall 

Bcc,: Danny Marcus, John Mooney, Jane Woolums 

03/12/2012 02:36 PM 

Doug, 

E P A was pleased to host a conference call wit h you and other representatives of Veolia 

Environmental Services (Veolia) on Marc h 8, 2012. At the meeting, we agreed that EP A would send 

you a schedule for submitting additional information for review by EPA . That schedule is as follows: 

• By April 13, 2012, Veoha must submit additional information to support Veolia's extrapolation 

methodology, or propose a different extrapolation methodology i n the form of a revision to the 

significant modification application. 

• EP A and Veolia shall schedule a conference call for no later than April 27, 2012, to review the 

submitted information. 

• If EP A and Veolia do not come to agreement on the outstanding issues by May 11, 2012, EP A 

wil l issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the application on or after Ma y 11, 2012. 

If you are unable to submit the requested information according to the above schedule , you may 

provide a written request for an extension along with a detailed explanation of why your request 

should granted. 

Meeting Summary 

Below is a brief summary ofthe topics we discussed at the Marc h 8 conference call. Please contact 

me with any questions. 

Extrapolation of metal feed rates 

EPA's current course of action is to full y deny Veolia's significant modification request because EP A 

believes the extrapolation factors proposed i n the application are not approvable . If EP A decides to 

deny the application, EP A wil l issue a notice of intent to deny (NOID) the permit application, as 

required by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(a)(3). The NOI D wil l explain the specific reasons for the denial and 

re-iterate the extent of extrapolation, if any, that might be acceptable to EPA . Veolia wil l then have 

an opportunity to submit a revised application that addresses EPA's concerns. Veolia is interested i n 

coming to the table with EP A to discuss a middle ground on the extrapolation factors. 

Feedstream Analysis Plan (FAP) 

E P A believes Veolia's PA P is inadequate. EP A plans to require Veolia to either revise their plan to 

incorporate EPA's comments, or EP A wil l impose a FA P that addresses their concerns. Veolia 

explained that their FA P is based on a 1994 wastestream analysis plan (WAP), which differs 

significantly from the 1985 version. Veoli a wil l submit the 1994 version of the WAP/FA P to EP A for 

review. 

National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) Report 

If EP A and Veolia agree on an extrapolation methodology, EP A wil l likely not issue a draft permit for 

pubhc comment until the NEI C report is released. The report is expected i n late spring. 

VES 001257 
Follow-up 

Veolia will : 

• Review the highest historical rate calculations inchiding a review of whether a more recent time 

period is more appropriate for establishing the highest historical 12-hour rolling average. 

• Share historical feed rate data and calculations with EPA . 

• Provide additional information to support Veolia's extrapolation methodology, or propose a 

different extrapolation methodology i n the form of a revision to the significant modification 

application. 

• Submit a copy of the 1994 WAP . 

E P A agreed to provide Veoli a wit h a "drop dead date" by which Veolia must provide additional 

information on the proposed extrapolation methodology. EP A also pledged to research answers to 

the following questions: 

• Is the historical range of normal metal feed rates referenced by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207 & § 63.1209 

frozen i n time? i.e., must the period used to develop the historical normal feed rate precede the 

date of the MAC T or compliance date, whichever is later, or should it always be the 5 years 

preceding the permit action? 

• If the historical range of normal is always the 5 years preceding the permit action, the HW C 

would always have a lower historical range of normal i n the current permit action than the 

previous permit action. When EP A wrote the HW C MACT , did EP A intend to have a "downward 

spiral" of historical metal feed rates as facilities reduce the quantity of metals i n their 

feedstreams? 

Sincerely, 

David Ogulei 

Environmental Engineer 

U.S. EP A | Ai r & Radiation Division, A-18 J 

77 West Jackson Blvd . I Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Phone: (312) 353-0987 | Ogulei.David@epa.gov 

VES 001258 
V ES 001259.pdf 
'wiflMetal s Extrapolation Information 

- - 'f David A Klaric h to: David Ogulei 03/12/2012 09:18 A M 

History: This message has been replied to. 

2 attachments 

Metals Extrapolation 2008 Testing Sig Mod.xls Metals Extrapolation Equation.pdf 

David, 

I have attached the page from the Metals Performance Test Plan that explains the metals extrapolation 

methodology and shows the equations used for calculating the extrapolated feedrates for the three 

metals groups. As we had discussed during the conference call on Thursday, this methodology was 

given to us from USEPA Region 5. 

Also attached is the Excel spreadsheet that was used to calculate the extrapolated metals feedrates 

utilizing the above mentioned methodology. 

Ifyou should have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Dave 

Dave Klaric h 

Veoli a ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C . 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, I L 62201 

618-271-2804, X120 office 

618-271-9704 fax 

david.klarich@veohaes.com 

http'.//www.veoliaes.com/ 

Service first. Safety always. 

This e-mail message from Veolia E S Technical Solutions is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyo u are not the intended recipient, please communicate 

wit h the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and delete same from 

all computers. 

VES 001259 
USEP A Approved Extrapolation Method 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed Proposed 

Unit 4 (LVM) Removal Max. ER at 75% LVM Feedrate Extrapolation Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 92 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit Limit (Pump.) 

(%) (dscfm,7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 99.99961 27711 0.007151 1838 

2 99.99923 27234 0.007028 910 

3 99.99893 25683 0.006628 622 

Avg 99.99926 26876 0.006936 1123 500 427 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed 

Unit 4 (SVM) Removal Max. ER at 75% SVM Feedrate Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 230 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit 

(%) (dscfm,7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 99.99862 27711 0.017878 1291 

2 99.99800 27234 0.017571 879 

3 99.99824 25683 0.016570 943 

Avg 99.99829 26876 0.017340 1038 500 

[1] [2] PI [4] Proposed 

Unit 4 (Hg) Removal Max. ER at 75% Hg Feedrate Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 130 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit 

(%) (dscfm,7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 95.00 27711 0.010105 0.202 

2 96.72 27234 0.009931 0.303 

3 96.47 25683 0.009365 0.265 

Avg 96.06 26876 0.009801 0.257 0.257 

Extrapolated metals feedrates calculated using USEPA approved method. 

VES 001260 
USEP A Approved Extrapolation Method (PSC H20) 

[Maximum extrap. value 3 times feed) 

Total Total 

LVM Emis. SVM Emis. Hg Emis. 

Stackflow Oxygen LVM Feed Rate (ER) SVM Feed Rate (ER) Hg Feed Rate (ER) 

Test Data Run (dscfm) (% dry) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (lb/hr) (Ib/hr) 

Unit 2 (8/08) 1 5496 11.72 0.0023 0.000791 

2 5572 11.54 0.0017 0.000822 

3 5357 11.3 0.0016 0.000799 

Unit 2 (9/08) 1 4698 11.21 46.82 0.000125 62.06 0.000398 

2 5099 10.91 46.52 0.0000438 63.46 0.000144 

3 5248 11.35 47.17 0.000101 63.27 0.000364 

Unit 3 (8/08) 1 5665 11.99 47.71 0.000388 64.07 0.000799 0.0016 0.000748 

2 5719 10.96 47.31 0.000308 65 0.00103 0.0022 0.000938 

3 5890 11.98 48.01 0.00022 63.78 0.000655 0.0018 0.000818 

Unit 4 (8/08) 1 17280 12.27 50.61 0.000214 63.51 0.0009 0.0257 0.00153 

2 17255 12.13 50.65 0.000425 63.45 0.0013 0.026 0.000996 

3 17189 11.63 49.79 0.000586 64.01 0.00116 0.0264 0.00108 

VES 001261 
USEP A Approved Extrapolation Method (PSC H20) 

[Maximum extrap. value 3 times feed) 

1 1 

USEP A Approved Extrapolation Method 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed Proposed 

Unit 2 (LVM) Removal Max. ER at 75% LVM Feedrate Extrapolation Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 92 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit (Total) Limit (Pump.) 

(9/08) (%) (dscfm,7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 99.99973 6718 0.001734 649 

2 99.99991 7075 0.001826 1939 

3 99.99979 7614 0.001965 918 

Avg 99.99981 7136 0.001841 1169 140 140 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed 

Unit 2 (SVM) Removal Max. ER at 75% SVM Feedrate Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 230 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit 

(9/08) (%) (dscfm.7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 99.99936 __6718_ , 0.004334 676 

2 99.99977 7075 0.004564 2012 

3 99.99942 7614 0.004912 854 

Avg 99.99952 7136 0.004604 1180 189 

[1] [2] 13] [4] Proposed 

Unit 2 (Hg) Removal Max. ER at 75% Hg Feedrate Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 130 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit 

(8/08) (%) (dscfm,7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 65.61 8291 0.003024 0.0088 

2 51.65 8246 0.003007 0.0062 

3 50.06 7732 0.002819 0.0056 

Avg 55.77 8090 0.002950 0.0069 0.0057 

Extrapolated metals feedrates calculated using USEPA approved method. 

III I 

Extrapolated metals feedrates calculated using USEPA approved method. 

III I 

VES 001262 
USEP A Approved Extrapolation Method (PSC H20) 

[Maximum extrap. value 3 times feed) 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed Proposed 

Unit 3 (LVM) Removal Max. ER at 75% LVM Feedrate Extrapolation Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 92 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit Limit (Pump.) 

(%) (dscfm,7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 99.99919 8802 0.002272 279 

2 99.99935 7975 0.002058 316 

3 99.99954 9142 0.002359 515 

Avg 99.99936 8640 0.002230 370 143 143 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed 

Unit 3 (SVM) Removal Max. ER at 75% SVM Feedrate Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 230 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit 

(%) (dscfm, 7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 99.99875 8802 0.005679 455 

2 99.99842 7975 0.005145 325 

3 99.99897 9142 0.005898 574 

Avg 99.99871 8640 0.005574 451 193 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed 

Unit 3 (Hg) Removal Max. ER at 75% Hg Feedrate Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 130 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit 

(%) (dscfm,7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 53.25 8802 0.003210 0.0069 

2 57.36 7975 0.002908 0.0068 

3 54.56 9142 0.003334 0.0073 

Avg 55.06 8640 0.003151 0.0070 0.0057 

Extrapolated metals feedrates calculated using USEPA approved method. 

I l l I 

Extrapolated metals feedrates calculated using USEPA approved method. 

I l l I 

VES 001263 
USEP A Approved Extrapolation Method (PSC H20) 

[Maximum extrap. value 3 times feed) 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed Proposed 

Unit 4 (LVM) Removal Max. ERat75% LVM Feedrate Extrapolation Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 92 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit Limit (Pump.) 

(%) (dscfm,7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (lb/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 99.99958 27711 0.007151 1691 

2 99.99916 27234 0.007028 838 

3 99.99882 25683 0.006628 563 

Avg 99.99919 26876 0.006936 1031 151 151 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed 

Unit 4 (SVM) Removal Max. ER at 75% SVM Feedrate Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 230 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit 

(%) (dscfm, 7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 99.99858 27711 0.017878 1262 

2 99.99795 27234 0.017571 858 

3 99.99819 25683 0.016570 914 

Avg 99.99824 26876 0.017340 1011 191 

[1] [2] [3] [4] Proposed 

Unit 4 (Hg) Removal Max. ER at 75% Hg Feedrate Extrapolation 

Em. Std.: 130 ug/dscm Efficiency (RE) Stackflow of Standard OPL Limit 

(%) (dscfm, 7%02) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 

1 94.05 27711 0.010105 0.170 

2 96.17 27234 0.009931 0.259 

3 95.91 25683 0.009365 0.229 

Avg 95.38 26876 0.009801 0.219 0.078 

Extrapolate Extrapolated metals feedrate feedrates calculate calculated using USEPA approve approved method. 

VES 001264 
2008 Metals and 2009 HCI Testing Removal Efficiencies 

Unit 2 (LVM) Removal Unit 3 (LVM) Removal Unit 4 (LVM) Removal 

Em. Std.: 92 ug/dscm Run Efficiency (RE) Em. Std.: 92 ug/dscm Run Efficiency (RE) Em. Std.: 92 ug/dscm Run Efficiency (RE) 

(9/08) (%) (8/08) (%) (8/08) (%) 

1 99.99973 1 99.99919 1 99.99958 

2 99.99991 2 99.99935 2 99.99916 

3 99.99979 3 99.99954 3 99.99882 

Avg 99.99981 Avg 99.99936 Avg 99.99919 

Unit 2 (SVM) Removal Unit 3 (SVM) Removal Unit 4 (SVM) Removal 

Em. Std.: 230 ug/dscm Run Efficiency (RE) Em. Std.: 230 ug/dscm Run Efficiency (RE) Em. Std.: 230 ug/dscm Run Efficiency (RE) 

(9/08) (%) (8/08) (%) (8/08) (%) 

1 99.99936 1 99.99875 1 99.99858 

2 99.99977 2 99.99842 2 99.99795 

3 99.99942 3 99.99897 3 99.99819 

Avg 99.99952 Avg 99.99871 Avg 99.99824 

Unit 2 (Hg) Removal Unit 3 (Hg) Removal Unit4(Hg) Removal 

Em. Std.: 130 ug/dscm Run Efficiency (RE) Em. Std.: 130 ug/dscm Run Efficiency (RE) Em. Std.: 130 ug/dscm Run Efficiency (RE) 

(8/08) (%) (8/08) (%) (8/08) (%) 

1 65.61 1 53.25 1 94.05 

2 51.65 2 57.36 2 96.17 

3 50.06 3 54.56 3 95.91 

Avg 55.77 Avg 55.06 Avg 95.38 

Unit 2 (HCI/CI2) Removal Unit 3 (HCI/CI2) Removal Unit 4 (HCI/CI2) Removal 

Em. Std.: 32 ppmv Run Efficiency (RE) Em. Std.: 32 ppmv Run Efficiency (RE) Em. Std.: 32 ppmv Run Efficiency (RE) 

(12/09) (%) (12/09) (%) (12/09) (%) 

1 99.86 1 99.89 1 99.19 

2 99.83 2 99.89 2 98.92 

3 99.71 3 99.77 3 99.91 

Avg 99.80 Avg 99.85 Avg 99.34 

VES 001265 
Revision: 0 

Date: May 2008 

Section: 4.0 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions Unit 4 HWC MACT Performance Test Plan Page 3 of 7 

an easily volatilized form fed along with other solid feeds in a manner that is representative of normal 

operations. 

4.5 Metals Extrapolation Method 

Veolia plans to extrapolate to higher feed rate limits than actually fed during the test using the performance test 

-established SREs. This is appropriate since it is generally agreed that SREs at higher feed rates would be at 

least as good as those observed at the lower level. Any extrapolation performed will take into consideration 

the MACT standards to ensure full compliance. Based on previous discussions with EPA Region 5, the 

following approach will be used. 

The average SRE for the three runs would be calculated from the feed and emission rates for each run and an 

average SRE for the performance test. A feed rate limit would then be calculated for each metal category by 

dividing 75% of the emission standard for that category by the SRE for the spiked compound representing that 

category. A similar approach would be followed for SVM (cadmium and lead) and for mercury. To further 

assure that this method is protective, Veolia proposes to limit the maximum feedrate for any one category to 

10 times the spiked feed rate during the performance test. The test program will establish 12-hour feed rate 

limits for the MACT metals. Example calculations are show below: 

Maximum emission rate for extrapolation 

= (emission standard (yg/m3 @ 7% 02 )' 0.75 * C W (dscfm @ 7% 02) * 0.0283 m3/ft3* 60 min/hr)/(453.6 g/lb * 106 ug/g) 

Maximum extrapolated feed rate 

= Maximum emission rate / (1 - SRE from performance test) 

4.6 Description, Preparation and Delivery of Feeds for the Performance Test [40 

CFR § 63.1207 (f)(1)(vi) and (vii)] 

To the extent possible (and with the exception ofthe spiked constituents noted above), only normal waste 

materials processed at the facility will be fed to the incinerator during the test program. Waste materials will be 

stockpiled to meet the objectives for the target performance test parameters. These wastes will be 

characterized in advance of the test and kept until needed. All waste materials will be delivered to the facility 

in accordance with routine operation and currently permitted procedures as described elsewhere in this 

document. 

4.7 Conditioning Time Needed to Reach Steady State [40 CFR § 63.1207(f)(1)(xii)] 

The incinerator will be operated for 15 minutes at the desired feed rates and operating conditions before 

sampling begins for a given condition of the performance test. This will assure all operating parameters are 

stabilized at the desired settings to achieve steady state before sampling. 

4.8 Anticipated Test Schedule 

The performance test will be performed over a 4-day period using a three-person field crew according to the 

schedule shown in Table 4-3. For this performance test, it is anticipated that all runs will be approximately two 

hours in duration, as dictated by the sample run time required for metals measurements. The performance 

test program for this incinerator is planned to start on or after August 1, 2008. 

Q:\mw97\Projectsl10002022Weolia Perfonnance Tesl Plan U4 R3_052108.doc 

VES 001266 
V ES 001267.pdf 
vi-*_ ^ Metals Extrapolation Information 

• -

 r David A Klaric h to= David Ogulei 03/12/2012 09:18 A M 

History- This message has been replied to. 

2 attachments 

Metals Extrapolation 2008 Testing Sig Mod.xls Metals Extrapolation Equation.pdf 

David, 

I have attached the page from the Metals Performance Test Plan that explains the metals extrapolation 

methodology and shows the equations used for calculating the extrapolated feedrates for the three 

metals groups. As we had discussed during the conference call on Thursday, this methodology was 

given to us from USEPA Region 5. 

Also attached is the Excel spreadsheet that was used to calculate the extrapolated metals feedrates 

utilizing the above mentioned methodology. 

Ifyou should have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Dave 

Dave Klaric h 

Veoli a ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C . 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, I L 62201 

618-271-2804, X120 office 

618-271-9704 fax 

david.klarich@veoliaes.com 

http .//www .veoliaes.com/ 

Service first. Safety always. 

This e-mail message from Veolia E S Technical Solutions is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyo u are not the intended recipient, please communicate 

with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and delete same from 

a ll computers. 

VES 001267 
V ES 001268.pdf 
I _ - Veolia's Waste Analysis Plan 

Dennis J Warchol to: David Ogulei 

History- This message has been replied to. 

David, 

I just Fed-x'ed Veolia's current Waste Analysis Plan to you for arrival tomorrow. Please call if you have 

any questions. 

SERVIC E FIT" " ~ / FET Y ALWAY S 

Dennis J. Warchol 

E H S Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C . 

Trade Waste Incineration Facihty 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, IL 62201 

618-271-2804 (ext.169) 

618-271-2128 (fax) 

Dennis.warcliol@VeoliaES.com 

www.VeoliaES.com 

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LL C is for the sole use ofthe intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyo u are not the intended recipient, please communicate 

with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies ofthe original message and delete it from all 

computers. 

03/13/2012 02:03 PM 

VES 001268 
V ES 001269.pdf 
^. Monday's extrapolation call 

" J E , , r, > David Ogulei, Charles Hall, Gary Gross, „„,..,,„. „ n0 . , a p. , w

 fran k Behan to-,, . , , >, .,, . ~ . 03/15/2012 02-58 PM Michael Galbraith, Genevieve Damico 

History: This message has been replied to. 

PYI - with respect to what EPA has stated on metals extrapolation in the past, I believe these are the 

substantive discussions on the topic (that our office has released): 

May 2, 1997 (proposed rule): 62 FR at 24238 

Sept 30,1999 (final rule): 64 FR at 52946-47 

July 3, 2001 (direct final rule)-' 66 FR at 35097-98 [Note-' no adverse comments were 

received on this amendment so it became effective on Oct 16, 2001] 

Some of these notices reference a background document that supported the May 1997 notice. This 

document is attached below. 

__3tTSD Vol 3 (Extrapolation) - May 1997 NODA.pdf 

Ifyou are aware of other relevant notices /documents on the issue, can you forward to the group prior 

to Monday's call. Thanks 

Frank 

703-308-8476 

Call to Discuss Questions on the HazWaste Combustor MACT 

Mon 03/19/2012 11:00 A M - 12:30 PM 

Attendance is for Frank Behan 

Chair: David Ogulei /R5/USE PA/US 

Rooms: R1816/R5 Metcalfe - 18th Floor@EPA 

yjj This entry has an alarm. The alarm will go off before the entry starts. 

Charles Hall/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Frank Behan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary 

Gross/K3/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Galbraith/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Genevieve Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 

This entry was created in a different time zone. The time in that time zone is: Mon 

03/19/2012 10=00 AM CDTli:30 AM CDT 

Requhed: 

Optional: 

Time zones: 

VES 001269 
V ES 001270.pdf 
Highest 12-Hour Rolling Averages (7/1/04 - 1/1/08) 

W

 David A Klaric h to: David Ogulei 03/20/2012 03:59 P M 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

David, 

During our March 8 conference call, you were curious why some of the maximum 12-hour rolling 

average (HRA) metals feed values in Veolia's February 25, 2010 Significant Modification were different 

from those that the USEPA had documented. Specifically, the values for Unit 2 SVM, Unit 3 SVM, and 

Unit 4 LVM were different. In Table 1 from the agenda for the March 8 call, you have maximum rates 

listed for the time period 7/1/04 to 1/1/08 in column 4. After reviewing documents from that time 

period, I discovered a summary spreadsheet that showed maximum 12 HRA feedrates through 5/31/08. 

In this document, the maximum rate for Unit 2 SVM is 91 lbs/hr, for Unit 3 SVM is 82 lbs/hr, and for 

Unit 4 LVM is 77 lbs/hr. These rates were the result of operations during the first five months of 2008. 

These are the maximum 12 HRA values that are in the resubmittai of the Significant Modification on 

February 25, 2010. Veolia had apparently included these updated values in this document. 

Should you have any further questions , please contact me. 

Dave. 

Dave Klaric h 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C . 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, I L 62201 

618-271-2804, X120 office 

618-271-9704 fax 

david. klarich@veoliaes. com 

http 7/w w w. veoliaes .com/ 

Service first. Safety always. 

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyo u are not the intended recipient, please communicate 

wit h the sender by reply e-mail and destroy al l copies ofthe original message and delete same from 

a ll computers. 

VES 001270 
V ES 001271.pdf 
"fe - LVM and SVM Maximum Feed 

David. A Klaric h to: David Ogulei 03/21/2012 08:59 A M 

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded. 

1 attachment 

Max Metals Feed Jan 2008_May 2008.xlsx 

David, 

As w e discussed , i have attache d th e file for the maximu m 12 HR A values fo r LV M an d SV M fo r January , 

2008 throug h May , 2008 . 

Dave 

Dave Klaric h 

Veolia E S Technical Solutions, L.L.C . 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, I L 62201 

618-271-2804, X120 office 

618-271-9704 fax 

david.klarich@veoliaes.com 

http://www.veoliaes.com/ 

Service first. Safety always. 

This e-mail message from Veoli a E S Technical Solutions is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyo u are not the intended recipient, please communicate 

with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies ofthe original message and delete same from 

all computers. 

From : David A Klarich 

Sent: Tuesday , Marc h 20 , 2012 5:00 P M 

T o : ogulei.david@epa.gov 

Subject: Highest 12-Hour Rolling Average s (7/1/0 4 - 1/1/08) 

David, 

During ou r Marc h 8 conferenc e call, yo u wer e curious wh y som e of the maximu m 12-hou r rolling 

average (HRA) metal s fee d values in Veolia' s Februar y 25 , 201 0 Significant Modificatio n wer e different 

fro m thos e that the USEPA ha d documented . Specifically, the values for Unit 2 SVM , Unit 3 SVM , an d 

Unit 4 LV M wer e different. In Table 1 fro m th e agend a for th e Marc h 8 call, yo u have maximu m rates 

listed fo r th e tim e perio d 7/1/0 4 to 1/1/0 8 in colum n 4. Afte r reviewin g document s fro m tha t tim e 

period , I discovere d a summar y spreadshee t that showe d maximu m 12 HR A feedrate s throug h 5/31/08 . 

In this document , the maximu m rate for Unit 2 SV M is 91 lbs/hr, fo r Unit 3 SV M is 82 lbs/hr, an d fo r 

Unit 4 LV M is 77 lbs/hr. Thes e rates wer e the result o f operation s durin g th e first five month s of 2008 . 

VES 001271 
These are the maximum 12 HRA values that are in the resubmittal of the Significant Modification on 

February 25, 2010. Veolia had apparently included these updated values in this document. 

Should you have any further questions , please contact me. 

Dave. 

Dave Klaric h 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C . 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, I L 62201 

618-271-2804, X120 office 

618-271-9704 fax 

david.klarichfeiveoliaes.com 

http://www. veoliaes.com/ 

Service first. Safety always. 

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate 

with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and delete same from 

a ll computers. 

VES 001272 
LVM 

12 Hr Max Value 

12 Hr Avg Value 

Std Dev 

Avg +1 StdDev 

Avg + 2 StdDev 

SVM 

12 Hr Max Value 

12HrAvg Value 

Std Dev 

Avg +1 StdDev 

Avg + 2 StdDev 

01/01/08 thru 05/31/08 

Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 

(lbs/hr) (lbs/hr) (lbs/hr) 

62.6 3 22.78 77.29 

2.11 1.05 4.21 

6.26 2.78 7.88 

8.37 3.83 12.09 

14.63 6.61 19.97 

01/01/08 thru 05/31/08 

Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 

(lbs/hr) (lbs/hr) (lbs/hr) 

90.7 3 81.59 57.57 

2.18 2.93 3.40 

7.00 8.64 6.34 

9.18 11.57 9.74 

16.18 20.21 16.08 
V ES 001274.pdf 
RE: Follow-up from Veolia -EPA Conference; Deadlines 

Doug Harris to: Davi d Ogulei 

Cc: David A Klarich, Genevieve Damico, Charles Hall 

03/27/2012 03:35 PM 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

David, 

Veolia appreciated the opportunity to meet you and to discuss with you and Genevieve Damico 

our February 25, 2010 extrapolation modification request. 

You should already be in receipt of the highest historical 12-hour rolling average (HRA) 

calculations you requested and the time period during which these were calculated. It appears 

Veolia and USEPA R5 used slightly different time periods which resulted in the difference of the 

highest historical 12-HRA in some cases. For example, the maximum value for Unit 4 LV M 

feed from your data table is 69.9 lbs/hr for the time period 7/1/04 to 1/1/08. Veolia's value of 

77.3 lbs/hr was obtained from an expanded data base that spanned the time period 7/1/04 through 

5/31/08. We also included a copy of the 1994 WAP you requested. 

With regard to the Veolia extrapolation modification request, it may be useful to review the 

history of Veolia's efforts to obtain this modification, since you are new to this matter. In 

October of 2008, Veolia submitted a significant modification to extrapolate the metals feedrates 

from its successfully completed Metals Performance Tests from August and September 2008 to a 

maximum of 75% of the MACT emission standard using a previously accepted USEPA R5 

methodology. Thirteen months later, during a conference call with Veolia in November 2009, 

USEPA R5 requested that Veolia voluntarily withdraw its modification and resubmit it using a 

methodology given to Veolia by the USEPA R5, which was the same as Veolia's previously used 

extrapolation methodology, but would limit allowable extrapolation to a maximum of a low 

multiple of the Metals Performance Test feedrates or 75% of the MACT Emission Standard, 

whichever was less. In February 2010, Veolia resubmitted the extrapolation request. USEPA R5 

indicated to Veolia that a modification based on this second extrapolation methodology would 

more likely be approved by USEPA R5. In an effort to work with USEPA R5 and come to a 

mutually agreeable solution, Veolia did exactly what USEPA R5 asked in submitting its second 

modification request in February 2010. Over two years later, USEPA R5 is now suggesting this 

second request is not acceptable and is asking that Veolia submit yet another revision of its 

modification request. Against this background, Veolia believes USEPA's current request to 

further modify an extrapolation methodology that USEPA R5 had previously recommended is 

unreasonable. In providing the February 2010 modification request, Veolia did exactly what 

USEPA R5 requested in February 2010. Veolia therefore stands firm on its current modification 

request which was recommended by USEPA R5 to Veolia in February 2010. 

Veolia's goal, as it always has been, is to work closely with USEPA R5 to resolve all issues and 

in a reasonable and mutually agreeable fashion The team at Veolia is available to meet with 

USEPA R5 to discuss these issues at USEPA's convenience. 

VES 001274 
Doug Harris 

General Manage r 

Veolia E S Technical Solutions, LL C 

7 Mobile Ave . 

Sauget, I L 62201 

Office 618-271-2804 Ext. 101 

Cell: 618-616-7420 

Fax: 618-271-2128 

Doug. harris@veoliaes. com 

www.veoliaes.com 

Service First. Safety Always 

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services North Americ a Corp. is for the sole use of 

the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized 

review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyo u are not the intended recipient, please 

communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and 

delete same from all computers. 

From : David Ogulei [mailto:Ogulei.David@epamail.epa.gov ] 

Sent: Monday , March 12, 2012 2:37 P M 

T o : Dou g Harris 

C c : David A Klarich; Genevieve Damico ; Charles Hall 

Subject: Follow-up from Veolia-EPA Conference ; Deadlines 

Doug , 

E P A wa s please d to host a conference call with yo u an d other representatives of Veoli a Environmental 

Service s (Veolia) on Marc h 8, 2012. At the meeting, w e agree d that EP A would sen d yo u a schedul e for 

submitting additional information for review by EPA . Tha t schedul e is a s follows: 

• B y Apri l 13, 2012 , Veoli a must submit additional information to support Veolia' s extrapolation 

methodology, or propose a different extrapolation methodology in the form of a revision to the 

significant modification application. 

• 

• EP A an d Veoli a shall schedul e a conferenc e cal l for n o later than Apri l 27 , 2012 , to review the 

submitted information. 

• 

• If EP A and Veoli a do not com e to agreemen t o n the outstanding issue s by Ma y 11, 2012, EP A will 

issu e a Notice of Intent to Den y the application o n or after Ma y 11, 2012 . 

• 

If yo u are unable to submit the requested information accordin g to the abov e schedule , you ma y provide a 

written reques t for an extension along with a detailed explanation of wh y your request shoul d granted. 

Meetin g Summar y 

Belo w is a brief summar y ofth e topics we discusse d at the Marc h 8 conferenc e call. Pleas e contact m e 

with an y questions . 

VES 001275 
Extrapolation of metal feed rates 

EPA' s current cours e of action is to fully den y Veolia' s significant modification request becaus e EP A 

believes the extrapolation factors propose d in the application are not approvable. If EP A decide s to den y 

the application, EP A will issu e a notice of intent to den y (NOID) the permit application, a s required by 4 0 

C.F.R . § 71.11(a)(3). Th e NOI D will explain the specifi c reason s for the denial an d re-iterate the extent of 

extrapolation, if any, that might be acceptable to EPA . Veoli a will then hav e an opportunity to submit a 

revised application that addresse s EPA' s concerns . Veoli a is interested in comin g to the table with EP A to 

discus s a middle ground on the extrapolation factors . 

Feedstrea m Analysi s Pla n (FAP ) 

E P A believe s Veolia' s FA P is inadequate. EP A plans to require Veoli a to either revise their plan to 

incorporate EPA' s comments , or EP A will impos e a FA P that addresse s their concerns . Veoli a explained 

that their FA P is base d on a 1994 wastestrea m analysi s plan (WAP) , whic h differs significantly from the 

198 5 version . Veoli a will submit the 1994 version of the WAP/FA P to EP A for review. 

National Enforcemen t Investigations Cente r (NEIC ) Report 

If EP A and Veoli a agree o n an extrapolation methodology , EP A will likely not issu e a draft permit for public 

commen t until the NEI C report is released . Th e report is expecte d in late spring. 

Follow-up 

Veoli a will: 

• Revie w the highest historical rate calculations including a review of whether a more recent time 

period is more appropriate for establishing the highest historical 12-hour rolling average . 

• Shar e historical feed rate data an d calculations with EPA . 

• Provid e additional information to support Veolia' s extrapolation methodology, or propos e a 

different extrapolation methodology in the form of a revision to the significant modification 

application. 

• Submi t a copy of the 1994 WAP . 

E P A agree d to provide Veoli a with a "drop dea d date" by whic h Veoli a must provide additional information 

on the propose d extrapolation methodology . EP A also pledge d to researc h answer s to the following 

questions : 

• Is the historical range of normal metal feed rates referenced by 4 0 C.F.R . § 63.120 7 & § 63.120 9 

frozen in time? i.e., mus t the period use d to develo p the historical normal feed rate preced e the 

dat e of the MAC T or complianc e date, whicheve r is later, or should it alway s b e the 5 year s 

precedin g the permit action? 

• 

• If the historical range of normal is alway s the 5 year s preceding the permit action, the HW C would 

alway s hav e a lower historical range of normal in the current permit action than the previous 

permit action. Whe n EP A wrote the HW C MACT , did EP A intend to hav e a "downward spiral" of 

historical metal feed rates a s facilities reduce the quantity of metals in their feedstreams ? 

Sincerely , 

VES 001276 
David Ogule i 

Environmental Enginee r 

U.S . EP A | Air & Radiation Division, A-18 J 

7 7 Wes t Jackso n Blvd . | Chicago , Illinois 6060 4 

Phone : (312) 353-098 7 | Ogulei.David@epa.go v 
V ES 001278.pdf 
Re: Veolia spiking Q 

Christopher Lambesis to: Davi d Ogulei 

Cc: Charles Hall, Todd Ramaly 

03/28/2012 12:52 PM 

For the 2008 test burns, Veolia spiked lead nitrate, chromic acid, mercury nitrate and 

hexachloroethane (chlorine). 

Christopher Lambesis 

Environmental Scientist 

U .S EP A Region 5 

Lan d and Chemicals Division 

(312) 886-3583 

Davi d Ogulei Todd/Chris/Charlie: Could you help me verify... 03/28/2012 09:32:59 A M 

From: David Ogulei/R5/USEPA/US 

To: Todd Ramaly/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Christopher Lambesis/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles 

Todd/Chris/Charlie: 

Could you help me verify if Veoli a spiked all metals during the 2008 test burns? I figured you would 

have that info more readily available. H g was definitely spiked. I think As was too (but I'm not sure 

since i n one area Veoha reported Arsenic's spike concentration as 0.0). I'm trying to figure out if 

spiking wit h done for SV M & LVM . 

Thanks for your help. 

Date: 

Subject: 

Hall/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 

03/28/2012 09:32 AM 

Veolia spiking 

Davi d 

VES 001278 
V ES 001279.pdf 
Table 2 . Feed Rate Data & Exhaust Data From Veolia's March 2010 Application Updated: 6/1/2012 

Uni t # 

Test Run 

# 

Hg Feed Rate 

(lb/hr) a 

LVM Feed 

Rate 

(lb/hr ) 

SVM Feed 

Rate 

(lb/hr ) 

Stack 

flo w 

(dscfm) 

Oxygen (% 

dry) 

Removal 

Efficienc y 

(RE) fo r Hg 

(%) 

RE fo r LVM 

(%) 

RE fo r 

SVM (%) 

2 

1 0.0023 46.82 62.06 5496 11.72 65.61 99.99973 99.99936 

2 

2 0.0017 46.52 63.46 5572 11.54 51.65 99.99991 99.99977 

2 3 0 . 0016 47.17 63.27 5357 11.3 50.06 99.99979 99.99952 2 

Average 0.0017 46.84 62.93 5475 11.52 55 .50 99.99981 99.99955 

3 

1 0 .0016 47.71 64 . 07 5665 11. 99 53.25 99. 99919 99.99875 

3 

2 0.0022 47 .31 65 5719 10 . 96 57 .36 99.99935 99.99842 

3 

3 0.0018 48.01 63.78 5890 11. 98 54.56 99.99936 99.99897 

3 

Average 0.0018 47. 68 64.28 5758 11.64 54 .47 99.99930 99.99871 

4 

1 0.0257 50.61 63.51 17280 12 .27 94 . 05 99.99958 99.99858 

4 

2 0.026 50 . 65 63.45 17255 12.13 96.17 j 99.99916 99.99795 

4 3 0.0264 49.79 64.01 17189 11.63 95.91 99.99882 99.99819 4 

Average 0.0214 50.35 63.66 17241 12.01 95.30 99.99919 99.99824 

Table 3 . Estimated Stack Concentrations at Proposed OPLs 

Stack Stac k 

Cone. @ Cone. @ HWC MACT 

Veolia' s Veolia' s EPA's Limi t (40 

3/2/10 EPA's Proposed Proposed C.F.R. § 

Proposed Proposed OPLs OPLs 63.1219); 

Extrapolate d OPLs ((ig/dscm (pg/dscm pg/dscm @ 

Uni t # Meta l OPLs(lb/hr ) (lb/hr ) @ 7% 02 ) @ 7% 02 ) 7% 02 

2 

Hg 0.0057 0.00165 183 53 130 

2 LVM 140 68.4687214 20 10 92 

SVM 189 90.9824796 65 31 230 

3 

Hg 0.0057 0.0018 181 57 130 

3 LVM 143 77.8169429 70 38 92 

SVM 193 81.5946987 173 73 230 

4 

Hg 0.078 0.0214 89 24 130 

4 LVM 151 77.2880386 30 15 92 

SVM 191 98.128117 81 42 230 

VES 001279 
Table 4 . Unit #2 Stack Parameters Measured i n September 2008

 b 

Stac k 

Test flo w 

Run # (dscfm) % Oxygen (dry) 

1 4698 11.21 

2 5099 10.91 

3 5248 11.35 

Average 5015 11.16 

a. Hg average fee d rate s & REs were calculate d by EPA (Todd Ramaly, March 26, 2010) . 

b. Used fo r LVM & SVM calculations . August 2008 data fo r Uni t # 2 were used fo r Hg 

VES 001280 
V ES 001281.pdf 
Table 1. Estimating Veolia's Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) Updated: 6/22/2012 

Unit # Metal 

Metal 

Feed 

Rates 

During 

2008 

Testin g 

(lb/hr) * 

Highest 12-

hr Rollin g 

Average 

Metal Feed 

Rate 7/1/04-

1/1/08 

(lb/hr) 

Highest 12-hr 

Rollin g 

Average Metal 

Feedrate 

(lbs/hr) , from 

June 7, 2012 

Test Feed 

Rate As a % 

of the 

Highest 12-

hr Rollin g 

Average of 

Historica l 

Values 

Was Testin g 

Done at > 

Highest 12-

hr 

Historica l 

Rates?" 

Was Testin g 

Done at > 

Median 12-

hr 

Historica l 

Rates?" 

Veolia' s 

3/2/10 

Proposed 

Extrapolate d 

Feedrate 

(lb/hr) c 

EPA's 

Proposed 

OPLs (lb/hr) d 

Est . 

Stack 

Cone. @ 

Veolia * s 

Proposed 

OPLs 

(Ug/dscm 

6 7% 07)° 

Est . Stack 

Cone. a 

EPA' s 

Proposed 

OPLs 

(pg/dscm 11 

7% 0 2 )

a 

HWC MACT 

Limi t (40 

C.F.R. § 

63.1219); 

pg/dscm @ 

7% a, 

Hg 0.00165 0.0054 0.0064 No res 0.0057 0.00165 ! ?3 53 130 

2 LVM 47.2 84.5 68.5 56% No Yes 140 68. 5 20 10 92 

SVM 63.6 50.6 > • 126% No Yes 189 91.0 65 31 230 

Hg 0.0013 0.00545 0.0059 No Yes 0.0057 0.0018 57 130 

3 LVM 47.7 77.3 77.8 62% No Yes 143 77.8 70 38 92 

SVM 64.3 72.1 - b 89% No Yes 193 81.6 173 73 230 

Hg 0.021-1 0.05981 0.060 No Yes 0.078 0.021 89 24 130 

4 LVM 50.3 69.9 72% No Yes 151 77.3 30 15 92 

SVM 63.6 53.4 98.1 109* No Yes 191 98.1 81 42 230 

a. Feed rate calculate d by EPA i n March 2010 using calculate d Hg spike composition & offsit e waste feed concentrations. 

b. In general, feed rate s tha t fal l withi n the top 10-25% of historica l 12-hour rollin g average rate s may be considered 

f o r extrapolation . 

c. Calculate d by escalatin g the metal feed rat e during testin g by a facto r of 3. 

d. No extrapolatio n i s recommended fo r Hg because the tes t feed rate s were too low (< 50% of the highest historica l rate) . 

For Unit 4, EPA needs an acceptable analysi s of the corresponding activate d carbon injectio n rate at higher feed rates . 

I f the tes t feed rate i s higher than the highest historica l 12-hour feed rate (e.g., SVM from Unit s 2 & 4) , use the tes t 

feed rate . For LVM (Units 2, 3, 4) and SVM (Unit 3), extrapolat e up to the highest historica l feed rate . 

e. Stack concentrations are estimated from exhaust parameters and "removal efficiencies " reported by Vecli a i n the 

March 2010 application , except that Hg removal efficiencie s were re-calculate d by EPA. (Todd Ramaly Memo, March 26, 2010) 

VES 001281 
Table 2. Feed Rate Data & Exhaust Data From Veolia's March 2010 Application Updated: 6/1/2012 

Uni t # 

Test Run 

# 

Hg Feed Rate 

(lb/hr) a 

LVM Feed 

Rate 

(lb/hr ) 

SVM Feed 

Rate 

(lb/hr ) 

Stac k 

flo w 

(dscfm) 

Oxygen (% 

dry) 

Removal 

Efficienc y 

(RE) fo r Hg 

(%) 

RE fo r LVM 

(%) 

RE fo r 

SVM (%) 

2 

1 0.0023 46.82 62.06 5496 11.72 65.61 99.99973 99.99936 

2 

2 0.0017 46.52 63.46 5572 11.54 51. 65 99.99991 99.99977 

2 3 0.0016 47 .17 63.27 5357 11.3 50.06 99.99979 99.99952 2 

Average 0.0017 46.84 62. 93 5475 11.52 55. 50 99.99981 99.99955 

3 

1 0.0016 47.71 64.07 5665 11.99 53.25 99.99919 99.99875 

3 

2 0.0022 47.31 65 5719 10.96 57 . 36 99.99935 99.99842 3 

3 0.0018 48.01 63.78 5890 11.98 54.56 99.99936 99.99897 

3 

Average 0.0018 47.68 64.28 5758 11.64 54.47 99.99930 99.99871 

4 

1 0.0257 50.61 63 .51 17280 12.27 94 . 05 99.99958 99.99858 

4 

2 0 .026 50 . 65 63.45 17255 12 .13 96.17 99.99916 99.99795 

4 3 0.0264 49.79 64 . 01 17189 11.63 95 . 91 99.99882 99.99819 4 

Average 0.0214 50.35 63. 66 17241 12.01 95.30 99.99919 99.99824 

Table 3 . Estimated Stack Concentrations at Proposed OPLs 

Uni t # Meta l 

Veolia' s 

3/2/10 

Proposed 

Extrapolate d 

OPLs(lb/hr ) 

EPA's 

Proposed 

OPLs 

(lb/hr ) 

Est . Stac k 

Cone. @ 

Veolia ' s 

Proposed 

OPLs 

(ug/dscm @ 

7% 02 ) 

Stack 

Cone. @ 

EPA's 

Proposed 

OPLs 

(ug/dscm 

@ 7% 02 ) 

HWC MACT 

Limi t (40 

C.F.R. § 

63.1219) ; 

pg/dscm @ 

7% 02 

2 

Hg 0.0057 0.00165 183 53 130 

2 LVM 140 68.4687214 20 10 92 

SVM 189 90 . 9824796 65 31 230 

3 

Hg 0.0057 0.0018 181 57 130 

3 LVM 143 77.8169429 70 38 92 

SVM 193 81.5946987 173 73 230 

4 

Hg 0 . 078 0.0214 89 24 130 

4 LVM 151 77.2880386 30 15 92 

SVM 191 98.128117 81 42 230 

VES 001282 
Table 4. Unit #2 Stack Parameters Measured i n September 2008

 b 

Stack 

Test Run flo w 

# (dscfm) % Oxygen (dry) 

1 4698 11.21 

2 5099 10 . 91 

3 5248 11.35 

Average 5015 11.16 

a. Hg average fee d rate s & REs were calculate d by EPA (Todd Ramaly, March 26, 2010). 

b. Used fo r LVM & SVM calculations . August 2008 data fo r Uni t # 2 were used fo r Hg 

VES 001283 
Veolia' s Operating Parameter Limit s (OPLs) 6/1/2012 

Uni t # Meta l 

Meta l 

Feed 

Rate s 

Durin g 

2008 

Testin g 

(lb/hr) a 

Highes t 12-hr 

Rollin g 

Averag e Meta l 

Feedrat e 

7/1/04-1/1/08 

(lbs/hr) , fro m 

Veolia' s March 

2010 

applicatio n 

Veolia' s 

3/2/10 

Propose d 

Feedrat e 

Limit s 

(lb/hr ) 

EPA's 

Propose d 

Feedrat e 

Limit s 

(lb/hr ) 

Est . Stac k 

Cone. @ 

Veolia' s 

Propose d 

Limit s 

(ug/dscm @ 

7% 02 ) 

Est . Stac k 

Cone. @ 

EPA's 

Propose d 

Limit s 

(ug/dscm @ 

7% 02 ) 

HWC MACT 

Limi t (40 

C.F.R. § 

63.1219); 

pg/dscm @ 

7% 02 

2 

Hg 0.00165 0.0055 0.0057 0.0017 183 53 130 

2 LVM 47 .2 84 140 68.4687214 20 10 92 

SVM 63 . 6 91 189 90.98247959 65 31 230 

3 

Hg 0.0018 0.0054 0.0057 0.0018 181 57 130 

3 LVM 47.7 77 143 77.81694287 70 38 92 

SVM 64.3 82 193 81.59469867 173 73 230 

4 

Hg 0.0214 0.06 0.078 0.0214 89 24 130 

4 LVM 50.3 77 151 77.28803855 30 15 92 

SVM 63.6 58 191 98 81 42 230 

LVM: "Low volatil e metals " - As, Be & Cr (combined) 

SVM: "Semivolatil e metals " - Cd & Pb (combined) 

VES 001284 
EPA Analysis of Veolia's June 7, 2012 Historical Data Submission 

Analysis by Jennifer Williams & David Ogulei 

7/1/04-5/31/09 

All years combined (12-hr rolling average, Ib/hr) 

Unit 2 

Unit 3 

Unit 4 

Median Average Maximum 

0 6.547E-06 0.000275 

0 6.474E-06 0.000253 

0 0.0033917 0.008659 

0.006361638 

0.005917775 

0.059851552 

2586240 

2586240 

2586240 

1/2/05-12/31/08 

Unit 2 

Unit 3 

Unit 4 

Median Average Maximum 

0 0.1162806 0.858779 68.4687214 

0 0.1396305 0.99291 77.81694287 

0 1.6565573 2.789275 77.28803855 

2102400 

2102400 

2102400 

1/2/05-12/31/08 

Unit 2 

Unit 3 

Unit 4 

Median Average Maximum 

0 0.0781746 0.83193 90.98247959 2102400 

0 0.0582251 0.829436 81.59469867 2102400 

0 1.1326414 2.626729 98.12811703 2102400 

Unit # Metal Date Range Number o: Minimum Median Average Maximum 

iHg 7/1/04-5/31/0 9 2586240 0 0.0000065 0.00027 0.00 63 6 

o LVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 0.1163 0.8587792 68.4687 

SVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 0.0782 0.83192985 90.9825 

Hg 7/1/04-5/31/0 9 2586240 0 0.0000065 0.00025276 0.00592 

3 LVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 21C2400 0 0.1396 0.99290954 77.816 9 

SVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 21G2400 0 0.0582 0.82943622 81.5947 

Hg 7/1/04-5/31/0 9 2586240 0 0.0034 0.00865853 0.05985 

4 LVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 1.6566 2.7892751 77.28 8 

SVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 1.1326 2.6267294 9 98.1281 

% of % above 

OPLs maximum maximum 

proposed historica l historica l 

by Veoli a rat e rat e 

0.0057 90% -10% 

140 204% 104% 

189 208% 108% 

0.0057 96% -4% 

143 184% 84% 

193 237% 137% 

0. 078 130% 30% 

151 195% 95% 

191 195% 95% 

VES 001285 
V ES 001286.pdf 
RE: LVM and SVM Maximum Feed 

W

 •• - to. David Ogulei 06/04/2012 03:28 P M 

H i story • This message has been replied to. 

David , 

I a m putting tw o CD' s containin g the requeste d informatio n in the mai l this afternoon . 

O n e disk contains mercur y fee d data fro m July 2004 throug h Ma y 2009. The disk contains one-minut e 

feedrate s for mercur y in the units of lb/mi n an d 12-hour rolling average feedrate s for mercur y in the 

units of lb/min . This forma t wa s requeste d by USEPA Region 5 whe n this data wa s previousl y 

submitted . The tabs at the botto m of eac h file indicate whic h incinerator the dat a is fro m (12,13, and 14 

)• 

T h e othe r disk contains LV M an d SV M fee d data fro m Januar y 2005 throug h Decembe r 2008. The disk 

contain s one-minut e feedrates for LV M an d SV M in th e units of lb/mi n an d 12-hour rolling average 

feedrate s fo r LV M an d SV M in the units of lb/min . Again , this forma t wa s requeste d by USEPA Region 5 

whe n this data was previousl y submitted . 

Afte r yo u have received thes e disks an d ha d a chanc e to look atth e files , please contac t m e ifyo u have 

any questions . 

Dave 

Dave Klaric h 

Veoli a ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C . 

#7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, I L 62201 

618-271-2804, X120 office 

618-271-9704 fax 

david.klarieh@veoliaes.com 

http://www.veoliaes.com/ 

Service first. Safety always. 

This e-mail message from Veoli a E S Technical Solutions is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate 

wit h the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and delete same from 

a ll computers. 

From : David Ogulei [mailto:Ogulei.David@epamail.epa.gov ] 

Sent: Friday, Jun e 01, 2012 4:37 P M 

T o ; David A Klarich 

Subject: RE: LV M an d SV M Maximu m Feed 

Than k you . 

VES 001286 
David A Klarich —06/01/201 2 03:26:30 PM — David , I received your voicemai l from earlier today. I ca n 

collect the historical 12-hour rolling a 

From: David A Klarich <david.klarich@veoliaes.com> 

To: David Ogulei/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 06/01/2012 03:26 PM 

Subject: RE: LVM and SVM Maximum Feed 

David, 

I received your voicemail from earlier today. I can collect the historical 12-hour rolling average feedrates for LVM, 

SVM, and Hg and put them on a CD for you. I should be able to get copies of this data together and send it to you 

by Monday afternoon. Should I have any problems getting this data to you on Monday, I will contact you. 

Dave 

Dav e Klarich 

Veoli a E S Technica l Solutions , L.L.C . 

#7 Mobile Avenu e 

Sauget , IL 62201 

618-271-2804 , X12 0 office 

618-271-970 4 fax 

david.klarich@veoliaes.com 

http://www.veoliaes.com/ 

Servic e first. Safet y always . 

Thi s e-mai l messag e from Veoli a E S Technica l Solutions is for the sole us e ofth e intended recipient(s) 

a n d ma y contain confidential an d privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 

distribution is prohibited. If you ar e not the intended recipient, pleas e communicat e with the sende r by 

reply e-mai l an d destroy all copie s of the original messag e an d delete sam e from all computers . 

From : David Ogulei [mailto:Ogulei.David@epamail.epa.gov ] 

Sent: Friday, Jun e 01, 2012 1:14 P M 

T o : David A Klarich 

Subject: Re : LV M and SV M Maximu m Feed 

Dave , 

I a m trying to locate Veolia' s media n 12-hour historical metal fee d rates ove r the entire historical period 

evaluated (2004-2008). Coul d yo u sen d me a n exce l file showin g the historical 12-hour averag e feed rates 

you use d to calculate the highest 12-hour averages ? 

I also left yo u a voice message . Thanks . 

-Davi d 

David Ogule i 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agenc y 

VES 001287 
Regio n 5 | Air & Radiation Division | A-18 J 

77 Wes t Jackso n Blvd . | Chicago , Illinois 6060 4 

Phone : (312) 353-098 7 | Ogulei.David@epa.go v 

David A Klarich —03/21/201 2 08:59:49 AM—David , A s we discussed , I hav e attached the file for the 

maximu m 12 HR A values for LV M and SV M for J 

From: David A Klarich <davkiklaridi@veoliaes.com> 

To: David Ogulei/F?5/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 03/21/2012 08:59 AM 

Subject: LVM and SVM Maximum Feed 

David, 

As we discussed, I have attached the file for the maximum 12 HRA values for LVM and SVM for January, 2008 

through May, 2008. 

Dave 

Dav e Klarich 

Veoli a E S Technica l Solutions , L.L.C . 

#7 Mobile Avenu e 

Sauget , IL 62201 

618-271-2804 , X12 0 office 

618-271-970 4 fax 

david.klarich@veoliaes.co m 

htt p://www. veoliaes.com / 

Servic e first. Safet y always . 

Thi s e-mai l messag e from Veoli a E S Technica l Solutions is for the sol e us e ofth e intended recipient(s) 

a n d ma y contain confidential an d privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use, disclosur e or 

distribution is prohibited. If yo u are not the intended recipient, pleas e communicat e with the sende r by 

reply e-mai l and destroy all copie s of the original messag e an d delete sam e from all computers . 

From : David A Klarich 

Sent: Tuesday , March 20 , 2012 5:00 P M 

T o : ogulei.david@epa.gov 

Subject: Highest 12-Hour Rolling Average s (7/1/04 - 1/1/08) 

David, 

During our March 8 conference call, you were curious why some of the maximum 12-hour rolling average (HRA) 

metals feed values in Veolia's February 25, 2010 Significant Modification were different from those that the USEPA 

had documented. Specifically, the values for Unit 2 SVM, Unit 3 SVM, and Unit 4 LVM were different. In Table 1 

from the agenda for the March 8 call, you have maximum rates listed for the time period 7/1/04 to 1/1/08 in 

column 4. After reviewing documents from that time period, I discovered a summary spreadsheet that showed 

maximum 12 HRA feedrates through 5/31/08. In this document, the maximum rate for Unit 2 SVM is 91 lbs/hr, for 

Unit 3 SVM is 82 lbs/hr, and for Unit 4 LVM is 77 lbs/hr. These rates were the result of operations during the first 

five months of 2008. These are the maximum 12 HRA values that are in the resubmittal ofthe Significant 

VES 001288 
Modification on February 25, 2010. Veolia had apparently included these updated values in this document. 

Should you have any further questions , please contact me. 

Dave. 

Dav e Klarich 

Veoli a E S Technica l Solutions , L.L.C . 

#7 Mobile Avenu e 

Sauget , IL 62201 

618-271-2804 , X12 0 office 

618-271-970 4 fax 

david.klarich@veoliaes.com 

http://www.veoliaes.com/ 

Servic e first. Safety always . 

Thi s e-mai l messag e from Veoli a E S Technica l Solutions is for the sol e us e ofth e intended recipient(s) 

a n d ma y contain confidential an d privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use , disclosure or 

distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, pleas e communicat e with the sende r by 

reply e-mai l an d destroy all copie s of the original messag e an d delete sam e from all computers . 

[attachment "Max Metals Feed Jan 2008_May 2008.xlsx" deleted by David Ogulei/R5/USEPA/US] 

VES 001289 
V ES 001290.pdf 
EPA Analysis of Veolia's June 7,2012 Historical Data Submission 

Analysis by Jennifer Williams & David Ogulei 

7/1/04-5/31/09 

All years combined (12-hr rolling average, lb/hr) 

Unit 2 

Unit 3 

Unit 4 

Median Average Maximum N 

6.547E-06 

6.474E-06 

0.0033917 

0.000275 

0.000253 

0.008659 

0.006361638 

0.005917775 

0.059851552 

2586240 

2586240 

2586240 

1/2/05-12/31/08 

Unit 2 

Unit 3 

Unit 4 

Median Average Maximum N 

0 0.1162806 0.858779 68.4687214 2102400 

0 0.1396305 0.99291 77.81694287 2102400 

0 1.6565573 2.789275 77.28803855 2102400 

1/2/05-12/31/08 

Unit 2 

Unit 3 

Unit 4 

Median Average Maximum N 

0 0.0781746 0.83193 90.98247959 2102400 

0 0.0582251 0.829436 81.59469867 2102400 

0 1.1326414 2.626729 98.12811703 2102400 

Uni t # Metal Date Range Number ojMinimum Median Average Maximum 

Hg 7/1/04-5/31/0 9 2586240 0 0.0000065 0.00027 0.00636 

2 LVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 0.116 3 0.858779 2 68.4687 

SVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 0.078 2 0.8319298 5 90.9825 

Hg 7/1/04-5/31/0 9 2586240 0 0.000006 5 0.0002527 6 0.00592 

3 LVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 0.1396 0.99290954 77.816 9 

SVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 0.0582 0 .82943622 81.5947 

Hg 7/1/04-5/31/0 9 2586240 0 0.0034 0 .00865863 0.05985 

4 LVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 1.6566 2 .7892751 77.28 8 

SVM 1/2/05-12/31/0 8 2102400 0 1.1326 2 . 62672949 98.128 1 

% above 

OPLs % of maximum maximum 

proposed historica l historica l 

by Veoli a rat e rat e 

0.0057 90% -10% 

140 204% 104% 

189 208% 108% 

0.0057 96% -4% 

143 184% 84% 

193 237% 137% 

0.07 8 130% 30% 

151 195% 95% 

191 195% 95% 

VES 001290 
V E S 001291.pdf 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 West Jackso n Boulevar d 

CHICAGO, I L 60604 

DATE: 

DUN 1 8 2012 

SUBJECT: Review of Feedstream Analysi s Pla n (FAP) from Veoli a 

ES Technica l Solutions , LLC, Sauget, Illinoi s 

FROM: 

A i r Enforcement and Compliance Assuranc e Branch 

TO: Jane D. Woolums, Associate.Regiona l Counse l 

Offic e of Regiona l Counse l 

Davi d Ogulei , Chemica l Enginee r 

•Ai r Permit s Sectio n 

A i r Programs Branc h 

THROUGH: Willia m MacDowell, Chie f l/^P¥ \ 

MN/OH Ai r Enforcement and Compliance Assuranc e Sectio n 

Veoli a ES Technica l Solutions , LLC (Veolia) , owns and operate s 

three, hazardou s waste incinerator s a t it s Sauget, Illinois , 

facility . The incinerator s ar e subjec t t o th e emissio n 

standard s and othe r requirement s i n th e Nationa l Emissio n 

Standard s fo r Hazardous Ai r Pollutant s from Hazardous Waste 

Combustors, 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1201 et . seq . (the HWC MACT). Thi s 

memorandum evaluate s Veolia' s complianc e wit h th e provision s o f 

40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(1) and (2) . 

Regulatory Background 

Pursuan t t o 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(1) o f th e HWC MACT, prio r t o 

feedin g a waste strea m t o any o f it s thre e hazardous waste 

incinerators , Veoli a must obtai n an analysi s o f the.waste strea m 

tha t i s sufficien t t o document complianc e wit h th e applicabl e 

fee d rat e limit s provide d by thi s section . Pursuant t o 4 0 

C.F.R. §§ 63.1209(1)(1) , 63.1209(m)(3), 63.1209(n)(2) , and 

63.1209(o) (1) , Veoli a must establis h and comply wit h fee d rat e 

operatin g parameter limit s fo r mercury, ash , semivolatil e metal s 

(SVM) , low volatil e metal s (LVM), and chlorine , respectively . 

40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(2) require s th e owner o r operato r t o 

develo p and implement a feedstrea m analysi s pla n (FAP) and 

VES 001291 
specifie s si x topic s tha t th e FAP must address . 

Discussion 

EPA made two changes t o 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c) between 

proposa l on Apri l 19, 1996, and promulgation. 1 I n the 

September 30, 1999, preamble fo r the promulgatio n of th e HWC 

MACT, EPA di d not comment on th e FAP provisions . Because EPA 

h as no t amended 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c) sinc e promulgation , 

September 30, 1999, the autho r does no t have any reason t o 

believ e tha t EPA has had any subsequent occasio n t o comment on 

t h e FAP provision s i n the HWC MACT. 

On Apri l 19, 1996, EPA propose d tha t hazardous waste 

combustors 2 be equipped wit h a continuou s emissio n monito r (CEM) 

f o r particulat e matte r (PM), mercury, carbo n monoxide (CO), 

tota l hydrocarbo n (THC), and oxygen. See 61 FR 17520.' I n th e 

preamble fo r th e promulgatio n o f the HWC MACT, EPA note d tha t 

commenters on th e proposed HWC MACT questione d the availabilit y 

a nd reliabilit y o f PM and mercury CEMs. See 64 FR 52919. The 

Agency decide d t o requir e CEMs fo r CO, THC, oxygen and PM. 

However, EPA decide d t o not requir e mercur y CEMs, and di d not 

requir e complianc e wit h th e requiremen t unti l EPA promulgate d 

t h e performance' specification s fo r PM CEM.3 EPA di d explicitl y 

stat e tha t an owner or operato r may petitio n th e Administrato r 

t o use CEMS fo r complianc e monitorin g fo r PM, mercury, 

semivolatil e metal s (SVM), low volatil e metal s (LVM), and 

hydrogen chloride/chlorin e gas (HC1/C12 ) under § 63.8(f) i n lie u 

o f complianc e wit h th e correspondin g operatin g parameter limit s 

i n sectio n 63.1209. See 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(a)(5). 4 

On Apri l 19, 1996, EPA propose d a three-tiere d complianc e 

monitorin g hierarch y i n descendin g orde r o f preferenc e t o ensur e 

complianc e wit h th e emissio n standards : (1) Use o f a continuou s 

emissio n monitorin g system (CEMS) fo r a hazardou s ai r pollutant ; 

1 One, EPA replace d "the owner'or operator" wit h "you"; and two, EPA added 

paragraph 63.1209(c)(5) t o provide fo r waiving the monitorin g requirements 

f o r certai n feedstreams such as natura l gas, process air , and feedstreams 

from vapor recover y systems. 

2 .At tha t time, hazardous waste combustors includ e three' subcategories: 

hazardous waste incinerators , hazardous waste burnin g cement kilns , and 

hazardous waste burning lightweigh t aggregate kilns . 

3 EPA promulgated tha t performance specificatio n fo r PM CEMs on .January 12, 

2004, but a February 23, 2004, lette r from Barr y Breen, Deputy Assistan t 

Administrato r i n the Offic e of Soli d Waste and Emergency Response, delayed 

t he compliance wit h the requirement t o install , operate, calibrate , and 

maintai n a PM CEM. 

1 Compare proposed Sectio n 63.1210(a) wit h curren t Sectio n 63.1209(a). 

2 

VES 001292 
(2) absen t a CEMS fo r tha t hazardous ai r pollutant , use of a 

CEMS fo r a surrogat e of tha t hazardous ai r pollutan t and, when 

necessary , settin g limit s on operatin g parameter s t o account fo r 

t he limitation s o f usin g surrogates ; and (3) lackin g a CEMS for . 

.either , requirin g periodi c emission s testin g and site-specifi c 

limit s on operatin g parameters . See 64 FR 52 919. 

I n th e 16 year s sinc e EPA propose d th e requiremen t t o 

instal l mercury and PM CEMs, th e technolog y fo r PM and mercury 

CEMs has improve d and can answer th e origina l criticism s 

regardin g th e availabilit y and reliabilit y o f PM and mercury 

CEMs. On Januar y 27, 2006, EPA approve d El i Lilly' s proposa l t o 

instal l and operat e CEMS fo r metals , PM, and HCI t o directl y 

demonstrat e continuou s complianc e wit h the-HWC MACT's mercury, 

SVM, LVM, PM and HC1/C12 emissio n standards . El i Lill y di d no t 

and Evoni k Degussa, it s successo r a t th e Lafayette , Indiana , 

facility , has no t reporte d operatin g problem s wit h th e 

multimetal , PM and HCI CEMs. Consequently , we believ e tha t th e 

installatio n and operatio n o f multimetal , PM and HCI CEMs a t 

Veoli a i s a viabl e option . EPA simpl y has t o push th e issu e 

forwar d unti l Veoli a installs , calibrate s and begin s t o operat e 

and maintai n multimetal , PM and HCI CEMs. 

Withou t pushin g th e issue , Veoli a wil l continu e t o rel y 

upon statement s fro m generator s who have no particula r interes t 

i n knowing th e exac t compositio n o f thei r waste o r even i n 

knowing tha t th e concentration s o f ash , chlorine , and th e si x 

HWC MACT-regulate d metal s ar e below th e concentration s tha t ar e 

state d i n th e waste profil e and tha t Veoli a uses t o calculat e 

ash, chlorin e and meta l feedrates . Veolia' s FAP literall y has 

a l l o f th e element s tha t 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(2)(i ) throug h 

(vi ) require . However, direc t measurement o f emissio n 

concentration s o f PM, mercury, SVM, LVM, and HCI i s th e Agency's 

state d preferenc e fo r assurin g complianc e wit h the. HWC MACT's 

PM, mercury , SVM, LVM, and HCI emissio n standards . 
standar d bee's: Officia l Fil e Copy w/enclosure(s ) 

Sectio n Reading Fil e w/o enclosure(s ) 

Branch Reading Fil e w/o enclosure(s ) 

othe r bee's: 

Creatio n Date: June 18, 2012 

Filename : C:\EPAWORK\WasteCombustion\hazwaste\sources\ 

Veolia\FAPrvwl20615.doc x 

Legend: ARD:AECAB:AECAS(MN/OH):c.hall 
V ES 001295.pdf 
Table 1. Estimating Veolia1 s Operating Parameter Limits (OPLs) Updated: 6/22/2012 

Unit It Metal 

Metal 

Feed 

Rates 

During 

2008 

Testin g 

(lb/hr) a 

Highest 12-

hr Roilin g 

Average 

Metal Feed 

Rate 7/1/04-

1/1/08 

(lb/hr) 

Highest 12-hr 

Rollin g 

Average Metal 

Feedrate 

(lbs/hr) , from 

June 7, 2012 

Test Feed 

Rate As a % 

of the 

Highest 12-

hr Rollin g 

Average cf 

Historica l 

Values 

Was Testing 

Done at S 

Highest 12-

hr 

Historica l 

Rates?b 

Was Testing 

Done a t £ 

Median 12-

hr 

Historica l 

Rates?" 

Veolia' s 

3/2/10 

Proposed 

Extrapolate d 

Feedrate 

(lfc/hr) " 

EPA's 

Proposed 

OPLs (lb/hr) d 

Est. 

Stack 

Cone. @ 

Veolia' s 

Proposed 

OPLs 

(Ug/dscm @ 

7% Oj)" 

Est. Stack 

Cone, g 

EPA's 

Proposed 

OPLs 

(ug/dscm @ 

7% 0 2 )

e 

HWC MACT 

Limi t (4 0 

C.F.R. § 

63.1213); 

ug/dscm @ 

7% 02 

Hg 0.00165 0.0054 0.0064 No Yes 0.0057 0.00165 53 130 

2 LVM 47.2 84.5 68.5 56% No Yes 140 68.5 20 10 92 

SVM 63.6 50 . 6 126% No Yes 139 91.0 65 31 230 

Hg 0.0018 0.00545 0.0059 •H2WIM N No Yes 0.0057 0.0018 57 130 

3 LVM 47.7 77.3 77.8 62% No Yes 143 77.8 70 38 92 

SVM 64 .3 72.1 89% No Yes 193 81.6 173 73 230 

Hg 0.0214 0.05981 0.060 No Yes 0.078 0.021 89 24 130 

4 LVM 50.3 69.9 72% No Yes 151 77.3 30 15 82 

SVM 63. 6 58.4 93.1 109% No Yes 191 98.1 81 42 230 

a. Feed rate calculate d by EPA i n March 2010 using calculate d Hg- spike composition & offsit e waste feed concentrations. 

b. In general, feed rates that fal l withi n the top 10-25% of historica l 12-hour rollin g average rates may be considered 

f o r extrapolation , 

c. Calculate d by escalatin g the metal feed rate during testin g by a facto r of 3. 

d. No extrapolatio n i s recommended fo r Hg because the tes t feed rates were too low (< 50% c f the highest historica l rate) . 

F or Unit A, EPA needs an acceptable analysi s of the corresponding activate d carbon injectio n rate at higher feed rates . 

I f the tes t feed rate i s higher than the highest historica l 12-hour feed rate (e.g., SVM from Units 2 s A), use the tes t 

feed rate . For LVM (Units 2, 3, 4) and SVM (Unit 3), extrapolat e up to the highest historica l teed rate . 

e. Stack concentrations are estimated from exhaust parameters and "removal efficiencies " reported by Veoli a i n the 

March 2010 application , except that Hg removal efficiencie s were re-calculate d by EPA. (Todd Ramaly Memo, March 26, 2010) 

VES 001295 
V ES 001296.pdf 
/' 'A EPA Activities To Promote Environmental Justice in the Permit 

\. j Application Process 

X^_>> David Ogulei to: Doug Harris 06/26/2012 01:51 P M 

„ . David A Klarich, Dennis J Warchol, Genevieve Damico, Danny 

(JCMarcus, "Bakowski, Ed", Andrea Morgan 

Doug, 

E P A has just released for public comment the attached "Notice of Availability of Proposed Regional 

Actions to Promote Public Participation i n the Permitting Process" and "Draft Best Practices for 

Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits." The notice describes and seeks comment on 

actions that EP A regional offices can take when issuing EP A permits to promote greater 

participation i n the permitting process by historically underrepresented communities. The draft best 

practices are designed to encourage and assist permit applicants to reach out to neighboring 

communities when applying for permits that may affect the community's quality of life , including 

their health and environment. 

E P A Region 5 intends to follow the guidelines discussed in this notice, i n accordance wit h a regional 

implementation plan, when reviewing the current Title V significant modification and the upcoming 

Title V renewal for Veolia's Sauget facility. The guidelines are designed to (l) help EP A regional 

offices identify which permits to prioritize for greater public involvement for overburdened 

communities; and (2) suggest activities the regional offices can undertake to promote greater public 

involvement i n their permitting process. 

I encourage you to review the notice and the accompanying draft guidance document (located i n the 

appendix to the notice), and provide comments on both the proposed actions that Regional offices can 

take and the draft best practices for permit applicants. The addresses for filing your comments, and 

the specific questions for which comment is sought, are provided i n the notice. 

Let me know if you have any questions. 

Davi d Ogulei 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 | Ai r & Radiation Division | A-18J 

77 West Jackson Blvd . I Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Phone: (312) 353-0987 | Fax: (312) 692-2080 

O gulei. D avid@ep a. gov 

2012-15605.pdf 

VES 001296 
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 38051 

Bureau of Reclamation's Pinto dam, on 

Billy Clapp Lake near the city of Moses 

Lake in Grant County, Washington. The 

sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if 

issued, is to grant the permit holder 

priority to file a license application 

during the permit term. A preliminary 

permit does not authorize the permit 

holder to perform any land-disturbing 

activities or otherwise enter upon lands 

or waters owned by others without the 

owners' express permission. 

The proposed project would use the 

existing Pinto dam, and would consist 

ofthe following new facilities: (1) A 72-

inch-diameter penstock connecting the 

existing Pinto dam outlet tunnel to a 

powerhouse located immediately 

downstream ofthe dam; (2) a 

powerhouse containing a 3.4-megawatt 

Francis turbine/generator unit; (3) a 

tailrace discharging flows into the 

existing feed route between Billy Clapp 

Lake and Brook Lake; (4) a 7,000-footlong, 34.5-kilovolt (kV) transmission 

line extending from the project to a 

34.5-kV transmission line owned by the 

Public Utility District No. 1 of Grant 

County, Washington; and (5) 

appurtenant facilities. The estimated 

annual generation of the Pinto Dam 

Project would be 8.1 gigawatt-hours. 

Applicant Contact: Mr. Ronald K. 

Rodewald, Secretary-Manager, Grand 

Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority, 

P.O. Box 209, Ephrata, Washington 

98823; phone: (509) 754-2227. 

FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper; 

phone: (202) 502-6136. 

Deadline for filing comments, motions 

to intervene, competing applications 

(without notices of intent), or notices of 

intent to file competing applications: 60 

days from the issuance of this notice. 

Competing applications and notices of 

intent must meet the requirements of 18 

CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to 

intervene, notices of intent, and 

competing applications may be filed 

electronically via the Intemet. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(l)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission's Weh 

site http://ivww.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 

brief comments up to 6,000 characters, 

without prior registration, using the 

eComment system at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 

(202) 502-8659. Although the 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filing, documents may also be 

paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an 

original and seven copies to: Kimberly 

D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

More information about this project, 

including a copy of the application, can 

be viewed or printed on the "eLibrary" 

link of Commission's Web site at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 

Enter the docket number (P-14380) in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, contact FERC 

Online Support. 

Dated: June 19, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[ FR Doc . 2012-1548 2 File d G-25-12 ; 8:45 am! 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 13860-001] 

Jones Canyon Hydro, LLC; Notice of 

Application for Amendment of 

Preliminary Permit Accepted for Filing 

and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 

Intervene, and Protests 

On May 29, 2012, Jones Canyon 

Hydro, LLC filed an amendment to their 

preliminary permit issued March 28, 

2011 for the Jones Canyon Pumped 

Storage Project. The proposed project 

would be a closed-loop pumped storage 

project located near Grass Valley, in 

Sherman County, Oregon. 

The applicant proposes to make the 

following changes to their issued 

permit: (1) Expand the project boundary 

to include a second canyon north of the 

project; (2) change the location of the 

proposed lower reservoir dam to north 

of the current location and include an 

additional canyon; (3) expand the lower 

reservoir from 68 surface acres to 98 

surface acres at an elevation of 1,150 

feet above mean sea level; (4) change the 

total installed capacity of the project 

from 400 megawatts (MW) to 500 MW; 

(5) change the length of the transmission 

line from 0.34 miles to 4.5 miles; (6) 

lengthen the conduit between the 

proposed reservoirs from 6,225 feet to 

7,330 feet; and (7) change the name of 

the project from "Jones Canyon Pumped 

Storage Project" to "Oregon Winds 

Pumped Storage". 

FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper, 202-

502-6136. 

Deadline for filing comments or 

motions to intervene: 30 days from the 

issuance of this notice. Comments and 

motions to intervene may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(l)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission's Web 

site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 

brief comments up to 6,000 characters, 

without prior registration, using the 

eComment system at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support. 

Although the Commission strongly 

encourages electronic filing, documents 

may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, 

mail an original and seven copies to: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

More information about this project, 

including a copy ofthe application, can 

be viewed or printed on the "eLibrary" 

link of the Commission's Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number 

(P-13860-001) in the docket number 

field to access the document. For 

assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support. 

Dated: June 19, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FRDoc . 2012-1548 3 File d 6-25-12 : 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0452; FRL-9680-6] 

EPA Activities To Promote 

Environmental Justice in the Permit 

Application Process 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of 

Proposed Regional Actions to Promote 

Public Participation i n the Permitting 

Process and Draft Best Practices for 

Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued 

Permits; Request for Comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its ongoing efforts 

under Plan EJ 2014 to integrate 

environmental justice into all of its 

programs, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is soliciting public 

comment on ways that EPA and permit 

applicants can meaningfully engage 

communities in die permitting process. 

This notice describes and seeks 

comment on actions that EPA regional 

offices can take when issuing EPA 

permits to promote greater participation 

in the permitting process by 

communities that have historically been 

underrepresented in that process. This 

notice also announces the availability of 

VES 001297 
38052 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 

draft best practices for permit applicants 

seeking EPA-issued permits (located in 

the appendix to this notice). The best 

practices are designed to encourage and 

assist permit applicants to reach out to 

neighboring communities when 

applying for permits that may affect the 

community's quality of life, including 

their health and environment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2012-0452 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: "Plan EJ 2014: Considering EJ 

in EPA's Permitting Process" Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Docket Center, Mailcode 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: "Plan EJ 2014: 

Considering EJ in EPA's Permitting 

Process" Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such 

deliveries are accepted only during the 

Docket's normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangement should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

EPA's policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

available online at http://www. 

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information of which 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://www. 

regulations.govor email. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

"anonymous access" system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, avoid any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www. 

ep a .gov/cpallomc/dockets.h tm. EP A 

also encourages the public to review 

and participate in the Environmental 

Justice in Action Blog which can be 

found at https://blog.epa.gov/ej. EPA 

intends to use the Environmental Justice 

in Action Blog to encourage different 

public stakeholders to dialogue over the 

ideas set forth in this Federal Register 

Notice. The Environmental Justice in 

Action Blog does not replace the 

conventional public comment process 

described above. Rather, EPA hopes that 

the Environmental Justice in Action 

Blog provides an informal public forum 

for stakeholders to exchange idea and 

share views, which may help shape 

comments submitted to EPA through 

Regulations.gov. As this public 

participation initiative illustrates, EPA 

believes that early and frequent dialogue 

among people with different points of 

view can lead to more thoughtful 

outcomes. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Actions That EPA Regional Offices Can 

Take To Promote Meaningful 

Engagement in the Permitting Process by 

Overburdened Communities 

III. Draft Besl Practices for Permit Applicants 

Seeking EPA-Issued Permits; Ways To 

Engage Communities at the Fence-Line 

IV. Conclusion 

I. General Information 

Expanding the conversation on 

environmentalism and working for 

enviromnental justice are top priorities 

ofthe Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). In 2011, EPA published Plan EJ 

2014, the Agency's overarching strategy 

for advancing environmental justice. 

The Plan has three objectives: 

1. Protect health and the environment 

in overburdened communities; 

2. Empower communities to take 

action to improve their health and 

environment; and 

3. Establish partnerships with local, 

state, tribal, and federal governments 

and organizations to achieve healthy 

and sustainable communities. 

The year 2014 marks the 20th 

anniversary of the signing of Executive 

Order 12898 on environmental justice, 

which directs each federal agency to 

"make achieving environmental justice 

part of its mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies, and activities." 

Plan EJ 2014 is EPA's roadmap for 

integrating enviromnental justice into 

its programs, policies and activities. 

One focus area of the Plan is 

"Considering Environmental Justice in 

Permitting." Environmental permits 

play a key role in providing effective 

protection of public health and the 

environment in communities. Thus, 

Plan EJ 2014 calls upon EPA to: (1) 

Enhance the ability of overburdened 

communities to participate fully and 

meaningfully in the permitting process 

for EPA-issued permits; and (2) take 

steps to meaningfully address 

environmental justice issues in the 

permitting process for EPA-issued 

permits to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

Plan EJ 2014 directs EPA to make 

achieving environmental justice part of 

its mission, and to be a leader among 

federal departments and agencies in 

addressing the impacts of federal 

activities on overburdened 

communities. EPA believes that 

environmental permitting presents 

opportunities to address environmental 

justice, and that the Agency has the 

responsibility to lead by example to 

address environmental justice in 

permits issued by EPA. Therefore, the 

actions described in this notice focus on 

EPA-issued permits. Although EPA 

issues few environmental permits 

compared to state, local and tribal 

governments that implement federal 

environmental laws as approved or 

delegated by EPA, EPA intends to share 

its experiences and ideas with these 

governments as well as with other 

federal agencies, with the goal of 

promoting similar efforts. 

In this notice, EPA focuses on 

enhancing the opportunity and ability of 

overburdened communities to 

participate in the permitting process. 

Overburdened communities are 

communities that potentially experience 

disproportionate environmental harms 

and risk as a result of cumulative 

impacts or greater vulnerability to 

environmental hazards. EPA believes 

that the participation of overburdened 

communities in the permitting process 

is an essential step toward the ultimate 

goal of achieving permits that 

meaningfully address environmental 

justice issues. Following the National 

Environmental Justice Advisory Council 

(NEJAC) recommendation to encourage 

more public participation in the 

permitting decision-making process, 

EPA has identified actions that EPA and 

permit applicants, both for new and 

renewed permits, can take to reduce 

barriers to participation in the 

permitting process. In overburdened 

communities, these barriers can include 

lack of trust, lack of awareness or 

information, language barriers, and 

limited access to technical and legal 

resources. In EPA's view, more 

transparency and dialogue can lead to 

better permit outcomes for the 

community as well as permit applicants. 

Thus, EPA believes it is especially 

important to make special efforts to 

provide enhanced public participation 

VES 001298 
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 38053 

opportunities to overburdened 

communities, particularly minority, 

low-income, and indigenous 

communities. EPA also realizes that 

enhanced public engagement is only 

one aspect of attention to environmental 

justice in the context of permitting. 

Both EPA regional offices and permit 

applicants can—and in some cases 

already do—bring overburdened 

communities into the permitting process 

through special outreach efforts. EPA 

believes that permit applicants have 

unique opportunities in this area. Many 

companies are already active, 

contributing members of the 

community. In addition to their 

important role as a source of 

employment and economic stability 

within a community, permit applicants 

play other roles. Many facilities 

applying for permits, for example, have 

robust community engagement 

strategies that recognize the value of 

community outreach. Pursuant to these 

strategies, facilities engage actively with 

the community through environmental 

initiatives, neighborhood beautification 

projects, education programs and 

charitable giving, civic programs and 

the arts, youth activities, and other 

investments in the community. These 

existing ties between permit applicants 

and the broader communities where 

they are located provide a foundation 

for permit applicants to reach out to 

their immediate neighbors along the 

facility's fence-line—ideally, to discuss 

health or environmental issues 

associated with their plans for new or 

increased pollutant releases. 

EPA has compiled the draft list of 

activities and best practices presented in 

this notice from many sources. EPA 

surveyed its regional offices, where EPA 

permitting activity predominantly 

occurs, to determine what steps are 

currently or could be taken to 

meaningfully involve overburdened 

communities in the permitting process. 

Additionally, EPA conducted numerous 

listening sessions, conference calls and 

meetings with a variety of stakeholders, 

including environmental justice 

stakeholders, members of the business 

community, state, local and tribal 

governments and communities, nongovernmental organizations, and the 

NEJAC, to gather more input on how to 

enhance participation of overburdened 

communities in EPA's process of issuing 

environmental permits. One set of ideas, 

presented in Section II below, focuses 

on activities that EPA, as the permitting 

authority, can undertake to make it 

easier for communities to engage 

meaningfully and effectively in the 

permitting process. The second set of 

ideas, described in Section III below, 

presents best practices that permit 

applicants can use to initiate and 

sustain a dialogue with the communities 

at their fence-line when the companies 

seek environmental permits that may be 

affected by the permitting action. 

EPA recognizes that some states have 

made significant progress in 

meaningfully involving overburdened 

communities in the permitting process. 

While the focus of today's notice is on 

EPA-issued permits, EPA believes that 

states with experience in this area can 

provide valuable information that will 

strengthen EPA's efforts. Therefore, EPA 

invites states to share their ideas for 

ensuring the meaningful involvement of 

overburdened communities in the 

permitting process and encouraging 

dialogue between permit applicants and 

communities. 

The ideas in this notice are meant to 

complement all of the other tools and 

resources developed under Plan EJ 2014 

and other EPA initiatives to aid 

communities and EPA permitting 

authorities in incorporating 

environmental justice into the 

permitting process. The tools and 

resources include the EJ Legal Tools, 

which addresses EPA's legal authority 

to consider environmental justice, EPA's 

effort to develop a nationally consistent 

screening tool for environmental justice, 

and EPA's efforts to meaningfully 

engage local communities and 

stakeholders in government decisions 

on land cleanup, emergency 

preparedness and responses and the 

management of hazardous substances 

and wastes through the Community 

Engagement Network, and EPA's 

collaboration with other federal 

agencies to improve our communitybased actions and assistance and to 

strengthen the use of interagency legal 

tools, such as the National 

Environmental Policy Act and Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act. These resources 

supplement information disseminated 

by EPA regional offices about their 

permit processes and particular permits. 

II. Actions That EPA Regional Offices 

Can Take To Promote Meaningful 

Engagement in the Permitting Process 

by Overburdened Communities 

As noted above, EPA has identified a 

number of activities and approaches 

that can be used to promote greater 

public involvement of overburdened 

communities in its permitting processes, 

particularly for major permitting actions 

that may significantly impact them. 

Each EPA regional office will put in 

place a regional implementation plan to 

address meaningful engagement of 

overburdened communities in their 

permitting activities. This notice 

describes the general expectations for 

the regional plans and presents the 

framework and specific activities 

intended to enhance public 

participation. 

EPA's expectation is that each 

regional office will use the agency-wide 

guidelines to develop a regional 

implementation plan that is appropriate 

for the particular circumstances within 

that region. The agency-wide guidelines 

in this notice are designed to promote 

consistency among regional offices and 

provide EPA's expectation for a basic 

regional plan. At the same time, EPA 

recognizes that each permit and 

community is different and that each 

EPA regional office has the insight and 

experience to develop strategies tailored 

to the particular communities and needs 

within that region. Therefore, EPA 

couples these agency-wide guidelines 

with the expectation that EPA regional 

offices have the flexibility in developing 

their implementation plans to take 

actions suited to the concerns of 

impacts on overburdened communities 

typically raised within their regions. 

This notice does not address any 

obligations imposed by the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 or under EPA regulations at 

40 CFR part 7. Please refer to EPA's 

Guidance to Environmental Protection 

Agency Financial Recipients Regarding 

Title VI Prohibition Against National 

Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited 

English Proficient Persons and Title VI 

Public Involvement Guidance for EPA 

Assistance Recipients Administering 

Environmental Permitting Programs. 

This notice does not address Executive 

Order 13175 or EPA's Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Tribes. It is important to note the 

difference between the meaningful 

involvement of tribal communities as it 

is used in the EJ context and 

consultation with tribes. The Agency's 

responsibilities under E.O. 13175 are 

separate from the responsibilities under 

E.O. 12898 and stem from federally 

recognized tribes' status as sovereign 

governments. 

The activities described in this notice 

go beyond the standard notice-andcomment procedures required by law. 

EPA believes, however, that enhanced 

outreach can help to remove some ofthe 

barriers that can discourage 

overburdened communities from 

participating in permit processes that 

affect them and are appropriate in some 

circumstances. 

A. Agency-Wide Guidelines for EPA 

Regional Offices 

The guidelines presented here 

provide a framework for the regional 

offices to identify possible actions they 

VES 001299 
38054 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 

can take to promote the meaningful 

engagement of overburdened 

communities for priority permits. 

Specifically, the guidelines for EPA 

regional offices are designed to: (1) Help 

regional offices identify which permits 

to prioritize for greater public 

involvement for overburdened 

communities; and (2) suggest activities 

the regional offices can undertake to 

promote greater public involvement in 

their permitting process. 

1. Priority Permits for Enhanced Public 

Involvement Opportunities 

Although any permit action may be an 

opportunity to enhance the engagement 

of a community, EPA believes that it is 

particularly important to provide 

meaningful engagement opportunities in 

permitting actions that may have 

significant public health or 

environmental impacts, such as a new 

operation or a modification of an 

existing operation, which may affect 

overburdened communities. Significant 

public outreach and engagement require 

significant resources. EPA recognizes its 

regional offices' limited ability to 

enhance engagement for every EPAissued permit as well as the limited 

ability of overburdened communities to 

engage on every permit potentially 

impacting them. For this reason, EPA 

wil l consider prioritizing enhanced 

public involvement opportunities for 

those EPA-issued permits with 

significant public health or 

environmental impacts on already 

overburdened communities, determined 

by regional offices' use of a screening 

tool or other methodology. Examples of 

permits that may have significant public 

health or environmental impacts 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• Construction permits under the Clean 

A ir Act, especially new major 

sources (or major modifications of 

sources) of criteria pollutants; 

• Significant Underground Injection 

Control Program permits under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act; 

• "Major" industrial National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits (as defined in 40 

CFR 122.2) under the Clean Water 

Act that are for: 

o New sources or new dischargers, or 

o Existing sources with major 

modifications, including, but not 

limited to, a new outfall, a new or 

changed process that results in the 

discharge of new pollutants, or an 

increase in production that results 

in an increased discharge of 

pollutants; 

• "Non-Major" industrial NPDES 

permits (as defined in 40 CFR 

122.2) under the Clean Water Act 

that are identified by EPA on a 

national or regional basis as a focus 

area, for: 

o New sources or new dischargers, or 

0

 Existing sources with major 

modifications, including, but not 

limited to, a new outfall, a new or 

changed process that results in the 

discharge of new pollutants, or an 

increase in production that results 

in an increased discharge of 

pollutants; and 

• RCRA permits associated with new 

combustion facilities or 

modifications to existing RCRA 

permits that address new treatment 

processes or corrective action 

cleanups involving potential off-site 

impacts. 

In addition, EPA will consider 

prioritizing for enhanced public 

involvement activities both permit 

applications and renewals for which a 

community has raised plausible 

environmental justice concerns, and 

permit applications and renewals where 

EPA has other information indicating 

environmental justice concerns related 

to the permit. 

In further recognition of EPA's 

regional offices' limited ability for 

enhanced public engagement, a regional 

office may not prioritize every EPAissued permit with significant public 

health or environmental impacts on 

already overburdened communities. 

Additionally, there may be 

circumstances under which a regional 

office finds enhanced public outreach 

appropriate irrespective of whether the 

permitting action has a significant 

public health or environmental impacts 

on already overburdened communities. 

2. Regional Offices' Activities To 

Promote Greater Public Involvement in 

the Permitting Process 

Presented below is a proposed list of 

activities that EPA regional offices could 

undertake at key junctures in the 

permitting process to promote greater 

involvement of overburdened 

communities. The list of proposed 

activities is intended to identify priority 

areas of activity and to provide options 

for proposed activities in the 

development of regional 

implementation plans. Regional offices, 

therefore, may choose not to implement 

all ofthe proposed activities listed 

below. Similarly, the list of activities is 

not meant to be comprehensive or 

exhaustive. Different situations will 

justify different responses. 

Planning & Gathering Information: 

° Identify upcoming priority permits 

for promoting greater public 

involvement. When identifying priority 

permits, focus on permits that the 

community has identified as a priority, 

to the extent such information is 

available. 

o Locate existing data and studies 

that are relevant to the particular 

community. 

° Explore ways to reach out to the 

affected community in coordination 

with relevant EPA staff, including 

permit writers, EJ coordinators, public 

affairs staff, the press office, and EPA's 

Conflict Prevention & Resolution Center. 

o Evaluate the appropriate length of 

the public comment period. 

o Consider holding information 

meetings for the public in addition to 

formal public comment sessions. 

Coordinating within EPA: 

o For applicants with multiple EPA 

permits, inform EPA permit writers 

from other offices in the region that your 

office has received a permit application 

from the applicant. 

Communicating with the Community: 

o Designate EPA point(s) of contact 

that the community can contact to 

discuss environmental justice concerns 

or questions of a technical nature about 

the permit application. 

o Explain the permitting process by 

making informational fact sheets 

available. 

o Use plain language when 

communicating with the public. 

o Use communication techniques the 

community values, such as direct 

mailings, posters, articles in local 

newspapers, and emails to list serves. 

o Offer translation services for 

communities with multi-lingual 

populations (including interpreters at 

public meetings or translations of public 

documents). 

o Make key documents on the 

proposed project readily accessible to 

the community, using a variety of media 

tools (paper copies, online, etc.), when 

appropriate. 

° Hold public meetings at times and 

places i n the community best designed 

to afford the public a meaningful chance 

to attend. 

0

 After the permit has been issued, 

make available to the community a 

summary of EPA's comment responses 

and provide information on where the 

community can find the entire comment 

response document. 

Communicating with the Permit 

Applicant: 

o Encourage the permit applicant to 

provide EPA with a plain-language 

description of its proposed project or 

permit application. 

0

 Encourage the permit applicant to 

consult EPA guidance on environmental 

justice and other resources developed 

under Plan EJ 2014, including the (when 

VES 001300 
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 38055 

finalized) Draft Best Practices for Permit 

Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits: 

Ways to Engage Communities at the 

Fence-Line. (See appendix.) 

B. EPA's Expectations for Regional 

Implementation Plans 

EPA expects each regional office to 

develop, implement and make 

publically available a regional 

implementation plan consistent with 

the agency-wide guidelines presented in 

this notice in order to support the 

meaningful engagement of 

overburdened communities in the 

permitting process for priority permits. 

EPA believes that regional offices will 

be better able to provide opportunities 

for enhanced public participation when 

they have planned and allocated 

resources for outreach in advance 

through the development of regional 

implementation plans. EPA also 

believes that making the regional 

implementation plans publically 

available will increase transparency and 

inform communities of EPA regional 

offices' efforts to create opportunities for 

overburdened communities to 

meaningfully engage in the permitting 

process. 

EPA expects the regional 

implementation plans to address with 

more specificity the process that a 

regional office will use to prioritize 

permits for enhanced engagement, 

including the types of permits and 

activities the regional offices plan to 

implement. EPA expects the regional 

plans to be tailored to the region's 

specific needs but also to be consistent 

with the agency-wide guidelines 

direction on prioritization of permits for 

enhanced engagement and priority areas 

of outreach activities outlined in today's 

notice. 

Consistent with the agency-wide 

guidelines previously discussed, the 

regional implementation plans will 

include: 

I. The EPA Regional Office's process 

for prioritizing permits for enhanced 

engagement 

a. Use of a screening tool or other 

methodology to identify already 

overburdened communities; 

b. Types of permits with significant 

public health or environmental impacts. 

II. Priority Enhanced Outreach 

Activities 

a. Planning and gathering 

information; 

b. Coordinating within EPA; 

c. Communicating with the 

Community; 

d. Communicating with the Permit 

Applicant. 

C. Solicitation of Comments 

EPA welcomes all comments on the 

proposed actions that Regional offices 

can take to promote the meaningful 

engagement of overburdened 

communities in the permitting process, 

but is particularly interested in 

comments addressing the following 

questions: 

• Has EPA identified the appropriate 

agency-wide guidelines to inform the 

development of regional 

implementation plans? What other 

guidelines should EPA consider that 

provide both agency-wide consistency 

and regional flexibility in promoting the 

meaningful engagement of 

overburdened communities in the 

permittmg process? 

• What criteria should regional 

offices use to prioritize permits for 

enhanced outreach? 

• For priority permits, has EPA 

identified the appropriate activities that 

regional offices can take to promote the 

greater involvement of overburdened 

communities in the permitting process? 

What other activities should EPA 

consider? 

• Based on experiences you have had 

in the permitting process, what lessons 

have you learned that can be applied to 

improve the agency-wide guidelines or 

the regional implementation plans? 

HI. Draft Best Practices for Permit 

Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued 

Permits: Ways To Engage Communities 

at the Fence-Line 

Even though EPA is the permitting 

authority for EPA-issued permits, both 

the permit applicant and the potentially 

affected community are also key 

stakeholders in the permit process. 

Therefore, EPA engaged in extensive 

outreach to these stakeholders, and in 

particular the business community, on 

how to meaningfully engage fence-line 

communities in the permitting process. 

Business leaders on environmental 

justice issues shared their experiences 

and insights with EPA. EPA learned that 

if a permit applicant engages a 

community early and maintains that 

conversation, a partnership can form 

that facilitates the exchange of 

information and provides the 

foundation for dialogue on issues that 

may arise during the permitting process. 

Such engagement may be especially 

beneficial with communities that have 

historically been underrepresented in 

the permitting process and that 

potentially bear a real or perceived 

disproportionate burden of an area's 

pollution. EPA learned from its 

conversations with business 

stakeholders that dialogue with the 

community early in the permitting 

process promotes reasonable 

expectations among the public and, 

therefore, more predictable outcomes for 

the permit applicant. EPA also learned 

that permit applicants that invest in 

outreach may avoid the costs of delay, 

negative publicity among peers and 

investors, and community distrust 

resulting hom a community objecting to 

a permit late in the permitting process. 

EPA believes that a facility that 

believes in environmental stewardship 

in all its dimensions and that acts 

consistently with that belief, including 

accountability to the neighboring 

community, may achieve more 

environmental good than any permit 

can compel. Reducing treatment 

failures, spills or other incidents 

becomes a source of organizational 

pride when the trends—and the 

facility's response and prevention 

strategies—are publicized within the 

community. These practices also make 

good business sense because facilities 

save energy, devise new technologies, 

reduce the rate of equipment failures, 

and develop cleaner products, among 

other things. This ethic of corporate 

responsibility—more than any permit— 

can improve the environment at the 

fence-line and far beyond. Engaging 

meaningfully with the local community 

is another facet of responsible corporate 

citizenship that achieves environmental 

results. EPA believes that a partnership 

with the community can lead to more 

intbrmed permits, resultmg in better 

outcomes for the permit applicant as 

well as the community that has a stake 

in the success of the facility. 

In order to maximize the benefits of 

community engagement, and conserve 

the limited resources of both the permit 

applicants and the communities for 

outreach, EPA has identified what it 

considers to be effective communication 

practices and strategies that permit 

applicants can employ to meaningful^ 

involve communities in the permitting 

process. EPA gathered these practices 

and strategies from numerous 

conversations with environmental 

justice stakeholders, members ofthe 

business community, state, local and 

tribal governments and communities, 

non-governmental organizations, and 

the NEJAC. Based on these 

conversations, EPA has developed and 

solicits comment on the Draft Best 

Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking 

EPA-Issued Permits: Ways to Engage 

Communities at the Fence-line. (See 

appendix.) 

EPA hopes that these best practices, 

once finalized, will inform businesses 

and other participants in the permitting 

process of some effective techniques for 

VES 001301 
38056 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 

meaningfully engaging overburdened 

communities in the permitting process 

for EPA-issued permits. The final 

document would supplement existing 

guidance and recommendations issued 

by permitting authorities, including 

state and local agencies. 

The draft best practices presented 

here are designed to foster emerging 

leadership among permit applicants 

operating (or proposing to operate) 

facilities in overburdened communities. 

EPA emphasizes that no permit 

applicant will be required to follow 

these suggestions. To the contrary, EPA 

will continue to evaluate permit 

applications solely based on applicable 

regulations. 

EPA welcomes all comments on these 

draft best practices for permit 

applicants. EPA is particularly 

interested in comments addressing the 

following questions: 

• What different or additional 

activities could permit applicants 

employ in the permitting process to 

meaningfully involve overburdened 

communities? 

• Based on experiences you have had 

in the permitting process, what lessons 

have you learned or successful 

approaches you have employed that can 

be used by EPA to improve the best 

practice recommendations for permit 

applicants? 

• How can EPA ensure that 

communities are aware of the 

opportunity to have a two-way dialogue 

with permit applicants through the 

ideas provided here? 

IV. Conclusion 

EPA looks forward to considering 

suggestions and comments received in 

response to this notice. EPA hopes the 

creation of agency-wide guidelines and 

the development of regional 

implementation plans, as well as the 

presentation of best practices for permit 

applicants, will increase the meaningful 

participation of overburdened 

communities in the permitting process 

for EPA-issued permits. Although 

meaningful involvement in the 

permitting process may not always lead 

to reduced environmental impacts, EPA 

believes that every time an EPA permit 

writer or a permit applicant 

acknowledges a concern that would not 

have been aired but for enhanced 

outreach, communities and the permit 

applicant benefit. EPA further believes 

that every time this enhanced outreach 

leads to a feasible solution to an issue 

of interest to the community, all 

stakeholders benefit. 

Dated: June 15, 2D12. 

Janet McCabe, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Air and Radiation. 

Appendix 

Best Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking 

EPA-Issued Permits: Ways To Engage 

Communities at the Fence-Line 

I. Introduction 

Achieving environmental justice is an 

integral part of EPA's mission to protect 

human health and the environment. One way 

E PA promotes environmental justice is to 

ensure that individuals in all parts of society 

have access to information sufficient to help 

them participate i n EPA decision-making. 

EPA decision-making takes many farms. 

These best practices focus on the permitting 

process, through which EPA authorizes 

industrial and municipal facilities to release 

pollutants into the environment al levels 

intended to meet applicable standards. 

By soliciting public comment prior to 

issuing environmental permits, EPA plays an 

important role i n bringing communities and 

other members of the public into the 

permitting conversation. But the best time to 

achieve positive, collaborative dialogue is 

before the permit is drafted, even before a 

permit application is filed. An d the key 

players are not EPA but rather permit 

applicants and members of the neighboring 

community. Both sets of individuals have a 

long-term stake in the health of tlie 

community and the success of the company 

or enterprise. 

Information is critical at this early stage i n 

the permitting process, and the permit 

applicant has access to the information that 

can create a constructive dialogue throughout 

the permitting process. The permit applicant 

also has an interest in being a good neighbor 

to the community on the other side of the 

facility's fence. EPA believes that many 

applicants for EPA-issued permits are 

employing practices to be good neighbors. 

These best practices are designed to help a 

permit applicant to apply its good neighbor 

values to the permitting process, with an 

emphasis on ways to reach out effectively to 

the community at the fence-line. 

E PA encourages all permit applicants to 

experiment with these practices; all 

neighborhoods and communities will benefit 

when a facility reaches out as part of its 

environmental permitting process. This 

document emphasizes communities at the 

fence-line because, for the vast majority of 

permits, communities most proximate to a 

facility are likely to be the most impacted by 

a permitting decision. For some permits, 

however, the communities most impacted by 

a permitting decision may exist beyond Ihe 

fence-line. EPA encourages permit applicants 

for such permits to make efforts to engage (he 

communities that are likely to experience 

public health or environmental impacts by 

their permitted activities. These practices 

also have particular value i n overburdened 

neighborhoods that have been historically 

underrepresented in the permitting process 

and may face barriers to participation in the 

permitting process, such as include lack of 

trust, lack of awareness or information, 

language barriers, and limited access to 

technical and legal resources. 

While EPA will evaluate a permit 

application based solely on the applicable 

regulations, pennit applicants are encouraged 

to employ the suggestions in these best 

practices. EPA hopes that these best 

practices—which emerged from EPA's 

conversations with a host of community, 

permit applicants and government 

stakeholders—will help applicants for EPAissued permits to seize a leadership role in 

this important area and, in doing so, 

demonstrate publicly that the core values on 

their Web sites do indeed influence corporate 

behavior. 

II. The Purpose of Best Practices 

The purpose of these best practices is to 

publicize the good neighbor practices already 

employed by permit applicants across the 

country and to encourage their greater use. 

Many of these practices are quite simple. The 

best practices can help build trust, promote 

a better understanding in the community of 

the facility's environmental impacts, foster 

realistic expectations and help build strong 

partnerships that will lead to better results 

for all parties. Investing in communities is a 

cost-effective strategy. EPA encourages 

permit applicants to make each of its 

facilities a good neighbor to the communities 

at their fence-line. EPA hopes that the best 

practices will help companies think of ways 

to engage the communities at their fencelines and, in doing so, become better 

neighbors. 

UJ. Why is EPA Providing Best Practices to 

Permit Applicants? 

Industrial facilities are important members 

of the communities in which they are 

located. In addition to their important role as 

a source of employment and economic 

stability within a community, facilities play 

other roles. Many facilities, for example, have 

robust community engagement strategies that 

recognize the value of community outreach. 

Pursuant to these strategies, facilities engage 

actively with the community through 

environmental initiatives, neighborhood 

beautification projects, education programs 

and charitable giving, civic programs and the 

arts, youth activities, and other investments 

i n the community. Indeed, many companies 

and public authorities embody these 

principles in their mission statements, using 

words and phrases like collaboration, 

respect, and building mutually beneficial 

relationships. Some even aspire to measure 

their own success by the success of their 

customers, shareholders, employees and 

communities. In short, a corporate culture is 

emerging in this Nation that values and 

actively promotes community partnerships. 

E PA recognizes that many permit 

applicants already practice community 

outreach. These best practices are meant to 

encourage those leaders to continue their 

efforts. EPA hopes that the best practices will 

persuade those who are new to these ideas 

to experiment with this form of leadership, 

and to provide helpful suggestions for those 

seeking greater direction. Indeed, engaging 

with their communities as described here is 

consistent with many permit applicants' core 

VES 001302 
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 38057 

valuHs. These principles, practices and 

values lead to corporate sustainability, 

stability and—ultimately—profitability. 

Early and meaningful dialogue between tbe 

permit applicant and the community is 

especially important in overburdened 

communities that have historically been 

underrepresented in the permitting process 

and that potentially bear a real or believed 

disproportionate burden of an area's 

pollution. Meaningful dialogue promotes 

environmental justice. EPA strongly 

encourages applicants for EPA-issued 

permits to engage in public outreach to the 

neighboring community whenever the 

facility's pollutant releases have—or may be 

perceived to have—potential health and 

environmental impacts on overburdened 

communities. This approach is consistent 

with EPA's objectives under Plan EJ 2014, 

which promotes meaningful involvement of 

the affected community in the permitting 

process. 

EPA believes these best practices can foster 

a smoother and faster permitting process. 

This outcome is in everyone's interest—EPA, 

permit applicants and communities alike. 

The permit applicant and EPA have an 

mterest in an efficient permitting process. 

The permit applicant wants permission to 

make operational improvements or construct 

a new facility. The permitting authority 

wants to efficiently issue a permit that 

comports with the law and accounts for 

public comment. The community at the very 

least wants the assurance that, through 

appropriate permit terms and conditions, the 

permit applicant accepts responsibility for 

appropriately controlling its pollutant 

releases and keeps the community informed 

of its control successes (and failures). These 

interests, while different, do not conflict. 

Conversations between the permit applicant 

and the community before the permit 

application is filed can help launch tlie 

permit process in a way that achieves all of 

these interests, with mmimum conflict and 

delay. This could result in a more 

expeditious permitting process. 

Engagement early can also yield a less 

contentious permitting process. It seems 

axiomatic that no community welcomes one 

more source of pollution, especially when 

the community already feels aggrieved by 

past siting decisions. When the new project 

accelerates a transition to cleaner energy or 

achieves another important environmental 

objective with benefits beyond the local 

community, interests may seem lo collide. 

Early meaningful dialogue can help sort out 

the interests, encourage a pennit applicant to 

accept responsibility for its impacts, and 

perhaps find low-cost ways valuable to the 

community by which the permit applicant 

can voluntarily mitigate environmental 

burdens. A community is less likely to hold 

a new project responsible for past unrelated 

actions if the permit applicant accepts 

responsibility for its own actions and is 

willing to help make community life better. 

IV. How Can a Permit Applicant Enhance its 

Outreach to a Fence-Line Community? 

There are many ways that a facility can 

enhance its outreach to a community. 

Whatever degree of outreach a facility 

chooses to employ, the following best 

practices are designed to help both the 

permit applicant and the surrounding 

communities get a reasonable return on their 

investment of time, energy and other 

resources. EPA gathered these ideas from 

permit applicants that have employed them, 

but the permit applicant and the affected 

community are in the best position to 

determine what engagement strategy is most 

appropriate for their particular 

circumstances. 

1. Think Ahead 

Before deciding whether to undertake 

special efforts lo reach out lo Ihe neighboring 

community regarding a permit application, a 

permit applicant may want to ask itself the 

following types of questions. The answers to 

these questions may help the. permit 

applicant decide what kind of community 

engagement will make sense under the 

circumstances. 

• Would the new permit introduce new or 

additional pollutants to the fence-line 

community? 

• Is the fence-line community already 

exposed to pollutants originating from other 

facilities? 

• How will changes at the facility site 

affect the quality of life in the fence-line 

community, independent of the pollutants 

released? 

• Is the proposed pollutant release—or 

associated activity—likely to cause concern 

in the community? 

• If a risk assessment has been performed 

for the community, what does it say? What 

does the community think it says? 

• What direction do the permit applicant's 

published core values offer? 

Some laws, such as the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, require 

permit applicants to reach out to the 

neighboring community before applying for a 

permit. In most cases, however, the decision 

on whether to engage in pre-application 

outreach is committed to the permit 

applicant's good judgment. (See Section V 

below for a discussion of the benefits to 

permit applicants when they engage the 

community as part of permit applications.) 

But whatever way a permit applicant chooses 

to engage the neighboring community, its 

outreach activities should be proportional to 

the actual or perceived impact the facility's 

proposed permitting action would have upon 

the community. In other words, permitting 

actions that may have a significant impact on 

the community may justify more extensive 

outreach than permits likely to have fewer 

impacts. Engaging the community early in 

the permitting process can help a permit 

applicant gauge the level of outreach 

appropriate to the community's concerns. 

A pubhc participation plan can be a useful 

tool for permit applicants engaged in 

outreach on permit actions. A public 

participation plan is one way to organize all 

ofthe permit applicant's outreach activities 

and to communicate those activities to the 

community. 

EPA also recognizes that a permit 

applicant, despite its planning and 

execution, might not elicit community 

interest in its project. For example, few 

people might allend meetings or visit the 

plant for tours. Before concluding that the 

community is uninterested in the project, the 

company may want to explore whether its 

engagement efforts were sufficiently tailored 

for the community. Other factors, such as 

lack of awareness of the engagement 

opportunity or the timing of the opportunity, 

may not have afforded the community a 

meaningful chance to attend. If the permit 

applicant's efforts to engage the community 

are made in good faith and are sufficiently 

tailored for the community, this will go a 

long way toward building trust. 

2. Engage Community Leaders 

One of the best ways to promote early and 

meaningful engagement between a permit 

applicant and the surrounding community is 

by creating a community environmental 

partnership. The key is to assemble the right 

people to be in partnership. EPA has learned 

from stakeholders that the first step in 

meaningful engagement is the cultivation of 

a trusting relationship among participating 

individuals; doing so will then foster 

effective relationships among the interests 

they represent and will help identify their 

common as well as their unique goals. The 

following best practices can help a company 

create a successful community 

environmental partnership. 

• Find out who the established community 

leaders are, both elected and unelected. 

• On tribal lands, work with the tribal 

government and olher contacts to 

identify tribal community leaders to 

commence outreach and assistance to 

tribal communities. 

• Identify people who collectively 

understand the needs (and aspirations) 

of local stakeholders (permit applicant, 

community, environmental groups, 

academic, etc.) 

• Recruit stakeholder representatives who 

have strong interpersonal skills and are 

willing to: 

o Seek common interests; 

o Cultivate a trusting relationship 

• Engage with diverse leadership so that 

many views can be brought into the 

dialogue. Successful partnerships have a 

variety of local perspectives, including: 

° Grassroots organizations and leaders 

o Faith community leaders 

° Tribal government and community 

representatives 

° Academic institutions 

o State, county or local governments 

° Environmental groups 

o Health organizations 

o Permittees, including, ideally, the 

facilities in tlie neighborhood that engage 

in activities that generate pollution. 

Text Box 1: Community Advisory Councils, 

such as The Deer Park Community Advisory 

Council (DPCAC, http:// 

www.deerparkcac.org/) provide a "foram for 

an open and frank mutual exchange of ideas 

between representatives of the local 

community and industry." These groups 

engage in frequent dialogue to help build 

understanding between industry and 

community. 

• Foster sustained involvement by the 

participants; relationships are created 

VES 001303 
38058 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 

between individuals, not ihe positions 

they hold. 

3. Engage Effectively 

As is the case with any relationship, 

predictable and ongoing interactions are key 

to a strong partnership between a permit 

applicant and community. A permit 

applicant engaging a community early in the 

permitting process, or even before the formal 

permitting process begins through preapplication meetings, can lay the foundation 

for a positive relationship with a community. 

In addition to early engagement, holding 

regularly scheduled meetings throughout the 

permitting process can build on that earlier 

outreach, further fostering the relationship 

between the community and permit 

applicant. 

The following best practices can help the 

permit applicant engage effectively with the 

community. 

• If a public participation plan describing 

outreach activities was developed, make 

it available to the pubhc as a sign of the 

permit applicant's intention to engage 

meaningfully with the community. 

• Invite community members and leaders to 

comment on community outreach plans 

and processes, and give feedback on 

what is working and lessons learned. 

• Discuss project plans and potential impacts 

as early in the planning process as 

possible, even if the permit applicant can 

speak only in general terms. 

<> If the pennit applicant is unsure about 

potential impacts, it is better to 

acknowledge this fact; denying the 

existence of potential impacts can 

undermine credibility and trust. 

o Encourage input from the community on 

their concerns about particular impacts 

early in the planning stages. 

• Provide progress or status reports 

• Invite members ofthe community and 

community leaders for regular tours of 

the facility, especially when the facility 

is planning to change a process that 

might affect tlie community. 

• Consider investing time in public 

education, e.g., by hosting one or two 

day public information sessions with 

posters and kiosks dedicated to specific 

topics, with discussions led by facility 

personnel who are both familiar with the 

subject and capable of effective 

discussion with the public 

(conversational tone, not defensive, nontechnical language, etc.] 

4. Communicate Effectively 

Permit applicants may need help to 

determine the most effective and appropriate 

methods for informing and receiving input 

from the community. Community leaders can 

provide this help. For example they can 

identify commonly spoken languages and 

any language barriers or Limited English 

Proficiency within the fence-line. They can 

also help identify which media outlets (radio, 

newspaper, church bulletins), outreach 

methods (knocking door-to-door, using social 

media, texting, phoning, putting up fliers) 

and outreach materials (brochures, fact 

sheets, postcards, letters) will be most 

effective in communicating with the 

community. Community leaders can also 

help to create more effective opportunities to 

receive information from the public 

(indMdual/small/Iarge/public/private 

meetings, anonymous hotlines, solicitation of 

written comments). Every community is 

different, so pennit applicants that listen to 

their community's advice and involve them 

in their outreach efforts have a gTeater chance 

of a successful outcome. 

A key component of effective 

communication is creating an environment 

for all stakeholders to meaningfully 

participate in a dialogue. Good ideas, 

including ideas that are good for the 

permitted enterprise or business, can come 

from many sources, By meaningfully 

engaging with the community potentially 

affected by an environmental permit, a 

permit applicant may acquire abetter sense 

of a community's true concerns and ways a 

permit applicant could help alleviate them. 

Transparency and disclosure of information 

that may be of interest to a community, such 

as performance reports, can build trust 

conducive to meaningful dialogue. 

Text Box 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution 

The success of pre-application meetings 

will vary widely depending on the proposed 

project, the concerns ofthe community, and 

the ability of the permit applicant and the 

community to agTee upon potential solutions. 

Sometimes, conversations between a 

community and a permit applicant have the 

potential to be contentious. As such, EPA 

recommends the use of a professional, 

tramed, neutral facilitator to aid in creating 

and implementing their outreach strategy. 

EPA and The U.S. Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution have 

designed and initiated The National Roster of 

Environmental Dispute Resolution and 

Consensus Building Professionals (http:// 

roster.ecr.gov/Search.aspx), which is a 

resource to identify neutral third parties and 

connect them with appropriate projects. 

EPA recognizes that both permit applicants 

and the communities have limited resources 

to engage in dialogue. The following best 

practices on fostering two-way 

communication and collaboration between 

permit applicants and communities, 

collected from permit applicants and 

communities, may help permit applicants 

communicate more effectively and thus 

efficiently use their resources. 

• Set up a hotline for community members 

to report a problem or concern about the 

proposed project. 

• Identify a single person within the facility 

to be the liaison that community 

members can call with concerns or 

problems. 

• Institute regular meetings among all 

stakeholders 

• Consider organizing citizen advisory 

councils or community environmental 

partnerships 

• Select meeting locations and times that are 

convenient and comfortable for the 

community. Follow advice from 

community leaders to communicate in 

ways most effective for the community 

you are trying to reach. Use language and 

terminology that the community 

understands, including providing 

technical data in every-day terms. 

• Build in mechanisms for meeting attendees 

to ask questions, express concerns and 

propose solutions. 

• During the meeting, talk about participants' 

concerns and questions (rather than 

simply "taking note" of them). 

• Recognize that community members may 

be concerned about a variety of things, 

within and outside the permit 

applicant's control, including matters 

that do not relate to the permit under 

discussion (e.g., truck routes, delivery 

times, etc.) 

o Careful listening and an effort to 

understand the underlying interests 

behind related and seemingly unrelated 

complaints might yield a solution that 

addresses the community's true concerns 

al a reasonable (or even minimal) cost lo 

the facility. 

• Consider using a neutral facililalor to assist 

in designing an effective public 

participation process and conduct 

meetings to encourage all participants 

(permit applicant and community like) 

to listen effectively, focus on interests 

rather than initial positions, and to 

identify potential solutions. 

5. Follow Up 

Follow-up can be crucial in building a 

strong partnership with a community. The 

repeated interaction that follow-up provides 

can create a predictable pattern of 

engagement that is conducive to building 

trust. When a permit applicant delivers on 

commitments made during meetings (e.g., to 

provide additional information) a permit 

applicant demonstrates responsibility, 

integrity and commitment to the process. The 

foUowing best practices can help permit 

applicants design follow-up activities with 

communities. 

• If the public is invited to comment on 

plans, discuss the comments with the 

community after considering them. 

" If a comment is not clear, ask for 

clarification; do not ignore a suggestion 

due to a lack of understanding. 

o Report back to the community to let 

them know how their comments affected 

the pennit applicant's planning or 

operation. 

o Explain when comments cannot be 

incorporated into the permit applicant's 

planned actions. 

• Consider using a good neighborhood 

agreement to memorialize agreements 

between permit applicants and 

communities. 

• Make environmental performance records 

available to the community without 

being asked, especially regarding 

pollution mailers that are important lo 

the community. 

• Keep Ihe conversation going even after the 

permit has been issued; maintaining a 

collaborative relationship with the 

community can pay benefits at 

unexpected limes. 

V. Return on Investment: Benefits of 

Outreach to Permit Applicants 

EPA recognizes that a permit applicant 

would need to invest time, energy and money 

VES 001304 
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 38059 

in order lo reach oul lo the neighboring 

community. For some permit applicants, 

"business as usual" might appear to be the 

path of least resistance. But EPA has learned 

from conversations with permittees that 

permit applicants that engage in effective 

outreach with fence-line communities can 

realize a meaningful return on that 

investment. The list below reflects these 

conversations. To further illustrate these 

ideas, we present text (in italics) from 

corporate mission statements, lists of 

corporate values, and annual reports linking 

these benefits from effective community 

outreach and engagement to overarching 

business principles. 

1. The neighborhood has a stake in a 

permit applicant's success. Community 

members are not only neighbors, but also 

often employees, customers or investors. As 

such, healthy and sustainable companies 

directly promote healthy and sustainable 

communities. That alignment of interests can 

lead to creative solutions that promote the 

achievement of mutual economic goals in 

more sustainable ways. We are proud of our 

involvement in the communities where we 

operate. It's our goal not only to support 

important projects in the communities where 

we operate, but also to partner and build 

relationships where we live and work. We 

always listen to local needs and find ways to 

invest that are relevant to our business. 

2. An environment of trust pays dividends 

throughout the permit term. A permit 

applicant not only applies for a permit but 

also develops strategies for complying with 

its requirements. Meaningful public 

engagement during the permitting process 

and throughout the permit term can be a 

thoughtful component of a permit applicant's 

compliance strategy. Community members 

often say they have nowhere to turn when 

they worry about their local environment; a 

meaningful dialogue with the permit 

applicant that addresses their concerns can 

build trust. So, a permit applicant that 

experiences a failure of its treatment 

processes—and, in real time, discloses and 

takes action to remedy the problem—may 

maintain its reservoir of trust within the 

community. We know you have questions; 

call us. We believe that people work best 

when there's a foundation of trust. 

3. Engaging with the community is an 

effective cost-containment strategy. Permit 

applicants that foster meaningful community 

outreach experience "costs" in terms of time, 

resources energy, and money. But a permit 

applicant that bypasses outreach incurs costs 

as well, especially when these choices lead 

to misunderstandings in the community. 

Even if the permit is granted, at what cost? 

Certainly, the permit applicant incurs the 

cost of delay, negative publicity among peers 

and investors, and community distrust (even 

apart from attorneys' fees associated with 

litigation). Each of these costs has a monetary 

value and each is potentially avoidable with 

an upfront investment. Good business sense 

often dictates a small investment early in 

order to avert larger costs later. Corporate 

leaders tell us that meaningful community 

outreach is no different. Successful 

companies engage in long-term planning to 

achieve strategic goals. Working with the 

community during project development and 

implementation is just part ofthe process, 

4. Engaging with the community is an 

effective risk management strategy. 

Thoughtful risk-taking is a characteristic of 

many successful enterprises. A permit 

applicant engaged in thoughtful risk-taking 

around a new idea routinely gathers 

information and critically examines the idea 

from many perspectives, identifies the range 

of possible risks, modifies tlie idea as 

appropriate to minimize the risks, and then 

weighs the benefits against the risks that 

remain. The better a permit applicant 

anticipates and manages the risks, the more 

predictable and successful the outcome. 

Engaging the community early in a permit 

applicant's decision-making process can be 

an effective way to manage the risks of a new 

idea. A permit applicant that is Iruly open lo 

gathering infonnation, dialogue, and 

collaboration will find itself with a more 

predictable operating or business 

environment, reduced conflict, and, 

frequently, an outcome that achieves greater 

operational efficiency and community 

support. Its risk-taking is thoughtful because 

it identifies, analyzes and manages its risks. 

Permit applicants that are thoughtful risktakers recognize that having an engaged and 

informed community as an ally promotes 

reasonable expectations among the public 

and, therefore, more predictable outcomes. 

We practice humility and intellectual 

honesty. We consistently seek to understand 

and constructively deal with reality in order 

to create value and achieve personal 

improvement. 

5. A permit applicant that engages 

meaningfully with a community is more 

likely to be considered a good neighbor. A 

permit applicant is more likely to be seen as 

a good neighbor by a community when it 

makes efforts to engage and build a 

relationship with the community. Having 

treated the community as a good neighbor, 

the permit applicant is more likely to be 

treated as a good neighbor in return by the 

community. A community that understands 

the actual impacts a facility has on the 

neighborhood and trusts the facility to 

behave responsibly may also be less likely to 

hold the facility responsible for otheT 

facilities' pollution. We are committed to 

improving our environmental performance: 

we track our progress and report our results 

to the public. 

6. Investors prefer good corporate citizens. 

Even if a permit applicant survives a dispute 

with a community over a new project and 

obtains the necessary environmental permits, 

investors may well inquire whether that 

costly battle could have been avoided. 

Indeed, some investors might even wonder 

whether the permit applicant's inadequate 

response to the neighboring community's 

concerns signals a lack of corporate 

responsibility, values-based leadership, or 

long-term strategic thinking that is important 

in other areas of the business. Leaders in this 

area sa}': It is more important than ever that 

we continually earn investor confidence. We 

will do this by remaining a leader in good 

corporate governance and providing clear, 

consistent, and truthful communication 

about our performance. 

Text Box 3: Collaborations in Chester, 

Pennsylvania 

Since the early 1990s, US EPA Region HI 

has been working closely with fhe 

community and residents of Chester. With 

effective collaborations and partnerships, the 

City of Chester and its residents have 

successfully worked with local business and 

industry, government, and academia. These 

community-driven partnerships have led to 

increased awareness of environmental justice 

within the City of Chester. 

When citizens first raised their 

Environmental Justice concerns to EPA 

Region III, the regional Office took action by 

establishing a dialogue with the citizens, 

PADEP, PADOH, and a number of local 

businesses in an effort to bring greater 

understanding and resources to the issues 

and concerns. EPA Region III, PADEP, and 

PADOH were active in working with the 

community and the other partners to address 

the issues that had been raised. The 1995 

EPA Chester Risk Study not only looked at 

community risk and environmental concerns, 

but opened dialogues among the partners, 

and led to the formation of a number of 

workgroups. The workgroups then undertook 

on-the-ground actions to address some of the 

local concerns. PADEP provided an onsite 

inspector for the City of Chester. EPA and 

PADEP continued their dialogue on 

Environmental Justice, holding a number of 

joint meetings on the issues. 

Covanta Energy applied for permits to 

operate in Chester, and the citizens raised 

their concerns to Region III and PADEP. 

PADEP hosted a series of meetings between 

the citizens and the company. From these 

collaborative discussions, the Chester 

residents' concerns were heard and 

considered, and an agreement was reached 

that allowed for the citizens and the 

company to have their needs met. Covanta 

continues to work proactively with tlie 

citizens in a productive and successful 

partnership, primarily through a citizen-led 

community organization called the Chester 

Environmental Partnership, founded and 

chaired by Reverend Dr. Horace Strand. The 

residents and other community stakeholders, 

including Covanta, have worked together in 

a primarily cooperative fashion to effect 

change and environmental improvement in 

Chester. The Chester Environmental 

Partnership works to bring about 

environmental improvement and growth by 

bringing all parties to the table—industry, 

government, non-government organizations, 

and the citizens—to have face to face 

dialogue on issues of concern. Covanta has 

taken an active partnership role in CEP. The 

ongoing dialogue and ground work of the 

partnership is a hallmark of these 

collaborative efforts and reflects a 

community-driven model that has produced 

positive results for Chester and its neighbors. 

Conclusion 

The best practices are a starting point 

intended to initiate partnerships between 

communities and permit applicants. EPA 

believes that a permit applicant that follows 

the best practices will take an important step 

on the path to building a fruitful and 

cooperative relationship with the community 

VES 001305 
38060 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 123/Tuesday, June 26, 2012/Notices 

(in environmental issues. EPA also believes 

that a permit applicant's efforts to 

meaningfully engage an overburdened 

community are an important way to promote 

environmental justice. EPA agrees with the 

message that many stakeholders send: 

collaborations between permit applicants and 

the surrounding neighborhoods achieve 

greater environmental protections, more 

profitable operations, and more sustainable 

communities. 

[FRDac. 2012-15605 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am) 

BILLING COOE 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL-9693-1] 

Proposed Consent Decree 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent 

decree; request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended 

("Act"), notice is hereby given of a 

proposed consent decree to resolve two 

lawsuits filed by various parties and 

consolidated in the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia. Plaintiffs filed the lawsuits 

under the Act alleging that EPA has 

violated a nondiscretionary duty under 

the Clean Air Act, to complete a fiveyear review of the national ambient air 

quality standards ("NAAQS") for 

particulate matter. Under the terms of 

the proposed consent decree, EPA 

agrees that no later than December 14, 

2012, EPA shall sign a notice of final 

rulemaking setting forth its final 

decision concerning its review of the 

NAAQS for particulate matter and 

promulgating such revisions to the 

NAAQS and/or promulgating such new 

NAAQS as may be appropriate. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreement must be 

received by July 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA -

HQ-OGC-2012-0474, online at 

www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred 

method); by email to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; by mail to EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by 

hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW,, Washington, 

DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Comments on a disk or CD -

R O M should be formatted in Word or 

ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption, 

and may be mailed to the mailing 

address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Silverman, Air and Radiation 

Law Office (2344A), Office of General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 

564-5523; fax number (202) 564-5603; 

email address: 

silverman.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Consent Decree 

This proposed consent decree would 

potentially resolve lawsuits 

consolidated in the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia that were filed by the 

following plaintiffs: American Lung 

Association and National Parks 

Conservation Association (Civil Action 

No. l:12-cv-00243-RLW), and the State 

of New York, et al. (Civil Action No. 

l:12-cv-00531-RLW). Plaintiffs filed 

the lawsuits under the Act alleging that 

EPA has violated a nondiscretionary 

duty under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7409(d)(1), to complete a five-year 

review of the NAAQS for particulate 

matter. Under the terms of the proposed 

consent decree, EPA agrees that no later 

than December 14, 2012, EPA shall sign 

a notice of final rulemaking setting forth 

its final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

7409(d)(1) concerning its review ofthe 

NAAQS for particulate matter and 

promulgating such revisions to the 

NAAQS and/or promulgating such new 

NAAQS as may be appropriate in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7408 and 

7409(b); that EPA shall seek expedited 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the notice of final rulemaking; and shall 

establish the effective date of the final 

decision such that any final rule shall 

become effective, barring intervening 

congressional or judicial action, on the 

earliest date that complies with the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

consent decree from persons who were 

not named as parties or intervenors to 

the litigation in question. EPA or the 

Department of Justice may withdraw or 

withhold consent to the proposed 

consent decree if the comments disclose 

facts or considerations that indicate that 

such consent is inappropriate, 

improper, inadequate, or inconsistent 

with the requirements of the Act. Unless 

EPA or the Department of Justice 

determines, based on any comment 

submitted, that consent to this decree 

should be withdrawn, the terms of the 

consent decree will be affirmed. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed Consent 

Decree 

A. How can I get a copy ofthe proposed 

consent decree? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0474) contains a 

copy of the proposed consent decree. 

The official public docket is available 

for public viewing at the Office of 

Environmental Information (OEI) Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, 

and die telephone number for the OEI 

Docket is (202) 566-1752. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through 

www.regulations.gov. You may use the 

www.regulations.gov to submit or view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, key in the appropriate docket 

identification number then select 

"search". 

It is important to note that EPA's 

policy is that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing online at tvww.regufufions.gov 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute 

is not included in the official public 

docket or in the electronic publicdocket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted 

material, including copyrighted material 

contained in a public comment, will not 

be placed in EPA's electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the EPA Docket 

Center. 

VES 001306 
V ES 001307.pdf 
^ RE: EPA Activities To Promote Environmental Justice in the Permit 

$ Application Process 

" - Doug Harris to: David Ogulei 07/03/2012 10:22 AM 

„ David A Klarich, Dennis J Warchol , Genevieve Damico, 

L<cDanny Marcus, "Bakowski, Ed", Andrea Morgan 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

David , 

Than k yo u fo r giving m e a heads-u p regarding the Notic e an d Best Practices Development s going o n at 

EPA. I read the m carefully , alon g wit h sharing the m wit h Veolia' s local an d corporat e environmenta l 

staffs. Veoli a believes tha t publi c involvemen t an d stron g communit y relations are a key componen t in 

t h e succes s of an y business . W e woul d enjo y workin g wit h Regio n 5 t o further develo p ou r involvemen t 

wit h the communit y w e operat e in . Geneviev e shoul d be somewha t familiar wit h ou r communit y 

relations activities as she directed ou r mos t recent publi c meeting . W e are currentl y involved in man y 

of the bes t practices th e EPA suggests an d look forwar d to workin g wit h Region 5 o n th e upcomin g 

significant modification s an d Title V renewal . In fact, nex t wee k o n July 13th w e are hostin g on e of ou r 

man y activities as the Illinois Governor s Environmenta l Cor p wil l retur n to tou r ou r facility for th e tent h 

year in a row . Thi s grou p is comprise d of abou t 35 high achievin g environmenta l college student s fro m 

across the State of Illinois. The y are quite an impressive grou p of youn g me n an d women . Veoli a finds 

it quite flattering that the y continu e t o choos e us , given the y are onl y allowe d on e field trip. W e 

conduc t man y similar activities wit h local schools , colleges an d communit y groups . Ifyou , or any of 

you r colleague s at Region 5, have an y suggestions o n ho w w e ca n improv e ou r publi c involvement , w e 

woul d welcom e them . Again , than k yo u for sharing this notice wit h us . 

Doug Harris 

General Manage r 

Veolia E S Technical Solutions, LL C 

7 Mobile Ave . 

Sauget, I L 62201 

Office 618-271-2804 Ext. 101 

Cell: 618-616-7420 

Fax: 618-271-2128 

Doug. hai'ris@veoliaes. com 

www.veoliaes.com 

Service First. Safety Always 

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services Nort h Americ a Corp. is for the sole use of 

the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information . An y unauthorized 

review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyo u are not the intended recipient, please 

communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and 

delete same from all computers. 

From : David Ogulei [mailto:Ogulei.David@epamail.epa.gov ] 

Sent: Tuesday , Jun e 26 , 2012 1:51 P M 

T o : Dou g Harris 

VES 001307 
C c : David A Klarich; Denni s J Warchol ; Genevieve Damico ; Dann y Marcus ; Bakowski , Ed ; Andre a Morga n 

Subject: EPA Activities To Promote Environmental Justice in the Permit Application Proces s 

Doug , 

E P A ha s just release d for public commen t the attached "Notice of Availability of Propose d Regiona l 

Action s to Promot e Publi c Participation in the Permitting Process " an d "Draft Bes t Practice s for Permit 

Applicant s Seekin g EPA-Issue d Permits." Th e notice describe s an d seek s commen t on actions that EP A 

regional offices ca n take whe n issuing EP A permits to promote greater participation in the permitting 

proces s by historically underrepresented communities . Th e draft bes t practices are designe d to 

encourag e an d assis t permit applicants to reac h out to neighboring communities whe n applying for 

permits that ma y affect the community' s quality of life, including their health an d environment. 

E P A Regio n 5 intends to follow the guidelines discusse d in this notice, in accordanc e with a regional 

implementation plan, whe n reviewing the current Title V significant modification an d the upcomin g Title V 

renewal for Veolia' s Sauge t facility. Th e guidelines are designe d to (1) help EP A regional offices identify 

whic h permits to prioritize for greater public involvement for overburdene d communities ; an d (2) sugges t 

activities the regional offices ca n undertake to promote greater public involvement in their permitting 

process . 

I encourag e yo u to review the notice an d the accompanyin g draft guidanc e documen t (located in the 

appendi x to the notice), an d provide comment s o n both the propose d actions that Regiona l offices ca n 

take an d the draft best practices for permit applicants . Th e addresse s for filing your comments , and the 

specifi c questions for whic h commen t is sought, are provided in the notice. 

Let m e know if yo u have any questions . 

David Ogule i 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agenc y 

Regio n 5 | Air & Radiation Division | A-18 J 

7 7 Wes t Jackso n Blvd . | Chicago , Illinois 6060 4 

Phone : (312) 353-098 7 | Fax : (312) 692-208 0 

Ogulei.David@epa.go v 

(See attached file: 2012-15605.pdf) 

VES 001308 
V ES 001309.pdf 
Upcoming actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

Andrea Morga n to-' kathyandria, milipele, dougharris 07/12/2012 07:56 AM 

C(> Genevieve Damico, David Ogulei 

Kathy, Maxine, and Doug, 

EPA will soon be providing public notice of its proposed actions regarding a request by 

Veolia Environmental Services (Veolia), located at 7 Mobile Ave, Sauget, St Clair County 

Illinois to revise their Clean Air Act Title V . As the American Bottom Conservancy and 

Washington University Law Clinic have been involved in previous issues regarding this 

facility EPA would like to inform you of the proposed action and request suggestions to 

improve public participation in the permitting process. 

As directed by EPA, Veolia requested a revision to its Title V operating permit to 

incorporate feedrate limits for heavy metals based on testing performed in 2008. In the 

proposed action EPA intends to revise Veolia's Title V operating permit, through the 

significant modification process, by incorporating into the Title V permit feedrate limits for 

heavy metals. EPA proposes to establish feedrate limits for mercury, semivolatile metals 

and low volatile metals. 

E PA would like to invite you to provide suggestions on how you would like to see the 

permitting process run. Such suggestions can include the most suitable methods of 

communication to inform community members of public hearings, the types of 

informational materials that would be most beneficial to community members as well as 

the best methods of making such materials available. While we may not be able to act on 

all of the suggestions, they will all be taken into consideration. We would like to invite you 

to participate in a call with EPA staff as well as a representative from Veolia, Doug Harris, 

to discuss suggestions. If you would be interested in participating, please provide us with 

times during the week of either July 16 or July 23 that you would be available to 

participate. 

Thank you, 

Andre a Morgan 

Environmental Engineer 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 | Ai r & Radiation Division 

Phone: (312) 353-6058 | Fax'- (312) 692-2920 

VES 001309 
V ES 001310.pdf 
History: 

Andrea , 

I a m available any day or tim e during the week of July 16th excep t Tuesday th e 17th. I a m available 

onl y Mo n an d Tuesday during the week of July 23rd . 

We woul d be happ y to host a meeting at our facility o r if the peopl e local to St . Louis woul d like to join 

us in ou r conference roo m for thi s call the y are welcome. 

We look forward to speaking wit h yo u all . 

Doug Harris 

General Manage r 

Veoli a ES Technical Solutions, LL C 

7 Mobile Ave . 

Sauget, I L 6220 1 

Office 618-271-280 4 Ext. 101 

Cell: 618-616-742 0 

Fax: 618-271-212 8 

Doug.harris@veoliaes.com 

www.veoliaes.coin 

Service First. Safety Always 

This e-mail message from Veoli a Environmental Services Nort h Americ a Corp . is for the sole use of 

the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized 

review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyo u are not the intended recipient, please 

communicate wit h the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and 

delete same from all computers. 

From : Andre a Morga n [mailto:Morgan.Andrea@epamail.epa.gov ] 

Sent: Thursday , July 12, 2012 8:10 A M 

T o : Andre a Morgan ; Dou g Harris 

C c : David Ogulei ; Genevieve Damico ; kathyandria@gmail.com ; milipele@wulaw.wustl.edu 

Subject: Re : Upcomin g actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

I apologiz e everyone, I mistyped Doug' s emai l address . 

Doug - pleas e se e the messag e below. 

Than k you , 

Andre a 

VES 001310 
From: 

To: 

Cc: 

Andrea Morgan/R5/USEPA/US 

kathyandria@gmail.com, milipele@wulaw.wusti.edu, dougharris@veolia.com, 

Genevieve Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, David Ogulei/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 07/12/2012 07:56 AM 

Subject; Upcoming actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

Kathy, Maxine , an d Doug , 

E P A will soo n be providing public notice of its propose d actions regarding a request by Veoli a 

Environmenta l Service s (Veolia), located at 7 Mobil e Ave , Sauget , St Clair Count y Illinois to revise their 

Clea n Air Ac t Title V. A s the America n Bottom Conservanc y an d Washingto n University La w Clini c hav e 

bee n involved in previous issue s regarding this facility EP A would like to inform you ofth e propose d action 

a n d reques t suggestions to improve public participation in the permitting process . 

A s directed by EPA , Veoli a requested a revision to its Title V operating permit to incorporate feedrate 

limits for heav y metal s base d on testing performed in 2008 . In the proposed action EP A intends to revise 

Veolia' s Title V operating permit, through the significant modification process , by incorporating into the 

Title V permit feedrate limits for heav y metals . EP A propose s to establish feedrate limits for mercury, 

semivolatile metal s an d low volatile metals . 

E P A woul d like to invite yo u to provide suggestion s o n ho w you would like to se e the permitting proces s 

run. Suc h suggestions ca n include the mos t suitable method s of communicatio n to inform communit y 

member s of public hearings , the types of informational materials that would be mos t beneficial to 

communit y member s a s wel l as the bes t method s of makin g suc h materials available . Whil e w e ma y not 

b e able to act on all ofth e suggestions , they will all be take n into consideration. W e would like to invite 

y o u to participate in a call with EP A staff a s wel l a s a representative from Veolia , Dou g Harris, to discus s 

suggestions . If you would b e interested in participating, pleas e provide us with times during the wee k of 

either Jul y 16 or July 23 that you would be available to participate. 

Than k you , 

Andre a Morga n 

Environmental Enginee r 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agenc y 

Regio n 5 | Air & Radiation Division 

Phone : (312) 353-605 8 | Fax : (312) 692-292 0 

VES 001311 
V ES 001312.pdf 
RE: Upcoming actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

^- .f •' -ine Lipeles tc>: Doug Harris, Andrea Morgan 07/12/2012 09:51 AM 

Ci: David Ogulei, Genevieve Damico, kathyandria, "David Bender" 

I don't think our Clinic wa s involved with the Veolia/Ony x Title V permit in the past. I believe David 

Bender represented AB C and Sierra Club in that matter. 

Maxine 

Maxine I. Lipeles 

Co-Director, Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic 

Washington University School of Law 

O n e Brookings Drive - Campu s Box 1120 

St. Louis, MO 63130 

314-935-5837 (phone) 

314-935-5171 (fax) 

milipele@wulaw.wustl.edu 

^Pleas e consider the environment before printing. 

From : Dou g Harris [mailto:doug.harris@veoliaes.com] 

Sent: Thursday , July 12, 2012 8:52 A M 

T o : Andre a Morga n 

C c : David Ogulei ; Genevieve Damico ; kathyandria@gmail.com ; Maxine Lipeles 

Subject: RE : Upcomin g actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

Andrea , 

I a m available any day or tim e during the wee k of July 16th excep t Tuesda y th e 17th. I a m available 

onl y Mo n an d Tuesda y during the wee k of July 23rd . 

W e woul d be happy t o host a meetin g at ou r facility or if the peopl e local to St . Louis woul d like t o join 

us in ou r conferenc e roo m for this call the y are welcome . 

W e look forwar d to speakin g wit h yo u all . 

Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LL C 

7 Mobile Ave . 

Sauget, I L 6220 1 

Office 618-271-280 4 Ext. 101 

Cell: 618-616-742 0 

Pax: 618-271-212 8 

Doug.harris@veoliaes.com 

www. veoliaes. com 

Service First. Safety Always 

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services Nort h Americ a Corp. is for the sole use of 

the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized 

review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 

VES 001312 
communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and 

delete same from all computers. 

From : Andre a Morga n [mailto:Morgan.Andrea@epamail.epa.gov ] 

Sent: Thursday , July 12, 2012 8:10 A M 

T o : Andre a Morgan ; Dou g Harris 

C c : David Ogulei ; Geneviev e Damico ; kathyandria@gmail.com ; milipele@wulaw.wustl.edu 

Subject: Re : Upcomin g actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

I apologize everyone, I mistyped Doug' s emai l address . 

Doug - pleas e se e the messag e below. 

Than k you , 

Andre a 

From: Andrea Morgan/R5/USEPA/US 

To: kathyandria@gmail.com, milipele@wulaw.wustl.edu, dougharris@veolia.com, 

Cc: Genevieve Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, David Ogulei/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 07/12/2012 07:56 AM 

Subject: Upcoming actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

Kathy, Maxine , and Doug , 

E P A will soo n be providing public notice of its propose d actions regarding a reques t by Veoli a 

Environmental Service s (Veolia), located at 7 Mobile Ave , Sauget , St Clair Count y Illinois to revise their 

Clea n Air Ac t Title V . A s the America n Bottom Conservanc y an d Washingto n University La w Clini c hav e 

bee n involved in previous issue s regarding this facility EP A would like to inform yo u ofth e propose d action 

a n d request suggestion s to improve public participation in the permitting process . 

A s directed by EPA , Veoli a requested a revision to its Title V operating permit to incorporate feedrate 

limits for heav y metal s base d o n testing performed in 2008 . In the propose d action EP A intends to revise 

Veolia' s Title V operating permit, through the significant modification process , by incorporating into the 

Title V permit feedrate limits for heav y metals . EP A propose s to establish feedrate limits for mercury , 

semivolatile metal s an d low volatile metals . 

E P A would like to invite yo u to provide suggestion s on ho w yo u would like to se e the permitting proces s 

run. Suc h suggestion s ca n include the mos t suitable methods of communication to inform communit y 

member s of public hearings , the types of informational materials that would b e mos t beneficial to 

communit y member s a s wel l a s the bes t methods of making suc h materials available . Whil e w e ma y not 

be able to act on all ofth e suggestions , they will all be taken into consideration. W e would like to invite 

y o u to participate in a cal l with EP A staff a s well a s a representative from Veolia , Dou g Harris, to discus s 

suggestions . If yo u would be interested in participating, pleas e provide us with times during the wee k of 

either July 16 or Jul y 23 that yo u would b e available to participate. 

Than k you , 

VES 001313 
Andre a Morga n 

Environmental Enginee r 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agenc y 

Regio n 5 | Air & Radiation Division 

Phone : (312) 353-605 8 | Fax : (312) 692-292 0 
V ES 001315.pdf 
RE: Upcoming actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 0 

L - j Andrea Morgan to'. Maxine Lipeles 07/16/2012 09:58 AM 

„ "David Bender", David Ogulei, "Doug Harris", Genevieve Damico, 

kathyaudria, Jane Woolums 

Maxine an d David- we would value both of your opinions if yo u are able to attend . Or if yo u have any 

other suggestions of people in the area wh o would be interested in participating in this call please let us 

know. 

Doug - thank yo u for the offer, unfortunately w e will not be able to mak e it dow n from Chicago for the 

meeting , but w e will be sure to let St . Louis locals know that they are welcom e to join you for the call. 

Thanks , 

Andre a 

"Maxine Lipeles" I don't think our Clinic was involved wit h the... 07/12/2012 09:51:07 A M 

From: "Maxine Lipeles" <milipele@wulaw.wustl.edu> 

To: "Doug Harris" <doug.harris@veoliaes.com>, Andrea Morgan/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Cc: David Ogulei/R5AJSEPA/US@EPA, Genevieve Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, 

<kathyandria@gmail.com>, "David Bender" <bender@mwbattorneys.com> 

Date: 07/12/2012 09:51 AM 

Subject: RE-' Upcoming actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

I don't think our Clinic was involved with the Veolia/Ony x Title V permit in the past. I believe David 

Bender represented AB C an d Sierra Club in that matter. 

Maxine 

Maxine I. Lipeles 

Co-Director, Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic 

Washington University School of Law 

One Brookings Drive - Campu s Box 1120 

St. Louis, M O 63130 

314-935-5837 (phone) 

314-935-5171 (fax) 

milipele@wulaw.wustl.edu 

l^jPleas e conside r th e environmen t befor e printing . 

From: Dou g Harris [mailto:doug.harris@veoliaes.com] 

Sent: Thursday , Jul y 12, 201 2 8:52 A M 

To: Andre a Morgan 

Cc: David Ogulei; Geneviev e Damico ; kathyandria@gmail.com ; Maxine Lipeles 

Subject: RE : Upcomin g actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

Andrea , 

th th 

I a m available any day or tim e during th e wee k of July 16 except Tuesda y th e 17 . I a m available onl y 

rd 

Mon an d Tuesday during the wee k of July 23 . 

VES 001315 
We woul d be happy to host a meetin g at ou r facility or if the peopl e local to St. Louis woul d like t o join 

us in ou r conferenc e roo m fo r this call the y are welcome . 

We look forwar d to speakin g wit h yo u all. 

Doug Harris 

General Manage r 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LL C 

7 Mobile Ave . 

Sauget, I L 62201 

Office 618-271-2804 Ext. 101 

Cell: 618-616-7420 

Pax: 618-271-2128 

Doug.harris@veoliaes.com 

www.veoliaes.com 

Service First. Safety Always 

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services North Americ a Corp. is for the sole use of 

the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized 

review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyo u are not the intended recipient, please 

communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and 

delete same from all computers. 

From: Andre a Morgan [mailto:Morgan.Andrea@epamail.epa.gov ] 

Sent: Thursday , July 12, 2012 8:10 A M 

To: Andre a Morgan ; Doug Harris 

Cc: David Ogulei; Geneviev e Damico ; kathyandria@gmail.com ; milipele@wulaw.wustl.edu 

Subject: Re : Upcomin g actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

I apologiz e everyone, I mistyped Doug' s emai l address . 

Doug - pleas e se e the messag e below. 

Than k you , 

Andre a 

From: Andrea Morgan/R5/USEPA/US 

To: kathvandria(g>qmail.com, milipele@wuiaw.wustl.edu, douqharris(S)veolia,corn, 

Cc: Genevieve Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, David Ogulei/R5/uSEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 07/12/2012 07:56 AM 

Subject: Upcoming actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

Kathy, Maxine , an d Doug , 
E P A will soo n be providing public notice of its propose d actions regarding a reques t by Veoli a 

Environmental Service s (Veolia), located at 7 Mobil e Ave , Sauget , St Clair Count y Illinois to revise their 

Clea n Air Ac t Title V . A s the America n Bottom Conservanc y an d Washingto n University La w Clini c hav e 

bee n involved in previous issue s regarding this facility EP A would like to inform you ofth e propose d action 

a n d request suggestions to improve public participation in the permitting process . 

A s directed by EPA , Veoli a requested a revision to its Title V operating permit to incorporate feedrate 

limits for heav y metal s base d o n testing performed in 2008 . In the propose d action EP A intends to revise 

Veolia' s Title V operating permit, through the significant modification process , by incorporating into the 

Title V permit feedrate limits for heav y metals . EP A propose s to establish feedrate limits for mercury , 

semivolatile metal s an d low volatile metals . 

E P A would like to invite yo u to provide suggestion s on ho w yo u would like to se e the permitting proces s 

run. Suc h suggestion s ca n include the mos t suitable methods of communicatio n to inform communit y 

member s of public hearings , the types of informational materials that would be mos t beneficial to 

communit y member s a s well a s the best method s of making suc h materials available . While w e may not 

be able to act on all of the suggestions , they will all be taken into consideration. W e would like to invite 

you to participate in a cal l with EP A staff a s well a s a representative from Veolia , Dou g Harris, to discus s 

suggestions . If yo u would be interested in participating, pleas e provide us with times during the wee k of 

either Jul y 16 or Jul y 23 that yo u would be available to participate. 

Thank you , 

Andre a Morga n 

Environmental Enginee r 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y 

Regio n 5 | Air & Radiation Division 

Phone : (312) 353-605 8 | Fax : (312) 692-292 0 

VES 001317 
V ES 001318.pdf 
Re: Upcoming actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services 

Kathy Andria to: Andrea Morgan 07/27/2012 02:10 I'M 

David Bender, David Ogulei, Genevieve Damico, Jane Woolums, 

Cc: Alan Walts, Kat Logan Smith, Samantha Ballard, Amy Funk, 

Verena Owen 

Andrea: I'm sorry for the delay in answering. Thank you for your efforts at outreach. 

There are a number of folks who are interested in participating in the public process 

for any proposed changes to the Veolia emission limits, including people in East St. 

Louis and St. Louis who are interested in the environmental justice issue as well as air 

pollution. Indeed, we are alarmed that you are considering such changes, since the 

issues remain the same: subsistence fishing at Frank Holten State Park (even more 

so, given the current economy) and the location of the hazardous waste incinerator in 

the middle between the cities of East St. Louis and St. Louis. 

We are compiling a list and think that Sierra Club (both Illinois and Missouri), 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment, the Metro East Community Air Project, 

and a number of community and church-affiliated groups are interested. 

Thank you for the email. 

Kathy 

Kathy Andria 

President, American Bottom Conservancy 

Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Kaskaskia Group 

Kathy, Maxine, and Doug, 

E PA will soon be providing public notice of its proposed actions regarding a request 

by Veolia Environmental Services (Veolia), located at 7 Mobile Ave, Sauget, St Clair 

County Illinois to revise their Clean Air Act Title V. As the American Bottom 

Conservancy and Washington University Law Clinic have been involved in previous 

issues regarding this facility EPA would like to inform you of the proposed action and 

request suggestions to improve public participation in the permitting process. 

VES 001318 
As directed by EPA, Veolia requested a revision to its Title V operating permit to 

incorporate feedrate limits for heavy metals based on testing performed in 2008. In 

the proposed action EPA intends to revise Veolia's Title V operating permit, through 

the significant modification process, by incorporating into the Title V permit feedrate 

limits for heavy metals. EPA proposes to establish feedrate limits for mercury, 

semivolatile metals and low volatile metals. 

E PA would like to invite you to provide suggestions on how you would like to see the 

permitting process run. Such suggestions can include the most suitable methods of 

communication to inform community members of public hearings, the types of 

informational materials that would be most beneficial to community members as well 

as the best methods of making such materials available. While we may not be able to 

act on all of the suggestions, they will all be taken into consideration. We would like 

to invite you to participate in a call with EPA staff as well as a representative from 

Veolia, Doug Harris, to discuss suggestions. Ifyou would be interested in 

participating, please provide us with times during the week of either July 16 or July 23 

that you would be available to participate. 

Thank you, 

Andrea Morgan 

Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division 

Phone: (312) 353-6058 | Fax: (312) 692-2920 

V E S 001319 
V ES 001320.pdf 
Re: Upcoming actions regarding Veolia Environmental Services Q 

— I Kathy Andria, David Bender, Kat Logan 

Andrea Morgan to: Smith, Samantha Ballard, Amy Funk, 07/30/2012 03:58 PM 

Verena Owen, david.klarich, 

^ . David Ogulei, Genevieve Damico, Jane Woolums, Alan Walts, 

Lara Lasky 

KathyThank you for your comments and suggested contacts. 

Everyone: 

We would like to move forward and begin to develop a public participation plan. The goal of 

this plan is to determine what strategies and approaches make the most sense to ensure 

that we are able to provide opportunities for community members and interested parties to 

having meaningful involvement in the permitting process. Such suggestions can include 

the most suitable methods of communication to inform community members of public 

hearings, the types of informational materials that would be most beneficial to community 

members as well as the best methods of making such materials available. While we may 

not be able to act on all of the suggestions, they will all be taken into consideration. We 

would like to schedule a call for either Thursday August 2, or Monday August 6 to discuss 

suggestions for the public participation plan. Ifyou are interested in participating please 

send me your availability for Thursday August 2 and Monday August 6 by the end of the 

day Tuesday, and we will provide the information for the call no later than Wednesday. 

This meeting is just a first step - more opportunities to participate will be forthcoming and 

discussed at the call. Ifyou are unable to attend the call, but have suggestions for the 

public participation plan that 5rou would like to share please send them to me no later than 

Wednesday and they will be shared with the group. 

Thank you for your time and we look forward to your suggestions. 

Andrea 

Andrea Morgan 

Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division 

Phone: (312) 353-6058 I Fax: (312) 692-2920 

Kathy Andria > > 07/27/2012 02:10:11 PM 

From: Kathy Andria <kathyandria@gmail.com> 

To: Andrea Morgan/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Cc: David Bender <bender@mwbattorneys.com>, David Ogulei/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Genevieve 

Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Jane Woolums/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Alan 

Walts/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Kat Logan Smith <klogansmith@moenviron.org>, Samantha 

Ballard <brealring.reality@gmail.com>, Amy Funk <amyfunk@illinois.edu>, Verena Owen 

<baumling@aol.com> 

Date: 07/27/2012 02-10 PM 

VES 001320 
Subject: 

Andrea: I'm sorry for the delay in answering. Thank you for your efforts at outreach. 

There are a number of folks who are interested in participating in the public process 

for any proposed changes to the Veolia emission limits, including people in East St. 

Louis and St. Louis who are interested in the environmental justice issue as well as air 

pollution. Indeed, we are alarmed that you are considering such changes, since the 

issues remain the same: subsistence fishing at Frank Holten State Park (even more 

so, given the current economy) and the location ofthe hazardous waste incinerator in 

the middle between the cities of East St. Louis and St. Louis. 

We are compiling a list and think that Sierra Club (both Illinois and Missouri), 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment, the Metro East Community Air Project, 

and a number of community and church-affiliated groups are interested. 

Thank you for the email. 

Kathy 

Kathy Andria 

President, American Bottom Conservancy 

Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Kaskaskia Group 

Kathy, Maxine, and Doug, 

E PA will soon be providing public notice of its proposed actions regarding a request 

by Veolia Environmental Services (Veolia), located at 7 Mobile Ave, Sauget, St Clair 

County Illinois to revise their Clean Air Act Title V. As the American Bottom 

Conservancy and Washington University Law Clinic have been involved in previous 

issues regarding this facility EPA would like to inform you of the proposed action and 

request suggestions to improve public participation in the permitting process. 

As directed by EPA, Veoiia requested a revision to its Title V operating permit to 

incorporate feedrate limits for heavy metals based on testing performed in 2008. In 

the proposed action EPA intends to revise Veolia's Title V operating permit, through 

the significant modification process, by incorporating into the Title V permit feedrate 

V E S 001321 
limits for heavy metals. EPA proposes to establish feedrate limits for mercury, 

semivolatile metals and low volatile metals. 

E PA would like to invite you to provide suggestions on how you would like to see the 

permitting process run. Such suggestions can include the most suitable methods of 

communication to inform community members of public hearings, the types of 

informational materials that would be most beneficial to community members as well 

as the best methods of making such materials available. While we may not be able to 

act on all ofthe suggestions, they will all be taken into consideration. We would like 

to invite you to participate in a call with EPA staff as well as a representative from 

Veolia, Doug Harris, to discuss suggestions. Ifyou would be interested in 

participating, please provide us with times during the week of either July 16 or July 23 

that you would be available to participate. 

Thank you, 

Andrea Morgan 

Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division 

Phone: (312)353-6058 | Fax: (312)692-2920 

V E S 001322 
V ES 001323.pdf 
tinted Smic.s I n\ i;"'~-mnental Protection Agency 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training 

ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL 

NEICVP0972E02 

MULTIMEDIA COMPLIANCE INVESTIGATION 

OBSERVATIONS REPORT 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, Illinois 62201 

NEIC Project No.: VP0972 

August 2012 

"Project Man 

{/ ^ ,.-> 

j_ & f f ^ 

D,0ft Smith 

Other Contributors: 

Dave Holzwarth. Information Technology Specialist 

Alison Ruhs, Physical Scientist 

Brad Venner, Statistician 

Theresa Morris, Principal Analytical Chemist 

Prepared for: 

EPA Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 

Authorized for Release by: 

Suzanne Schulman, Civil Services Section Chief 

NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER 

P.O. Box 25227 

Building 25, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, Colorado 80225-5227 

Page 1 of 28 

VES 001323 
CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 3 

BACKGROUND 4 

Facility Unit Operations Overview 4 

Bulk Liquids Processing 6 

Containerized Liquids Processing 6 

Containerized Solids Processing

 7 

Bulk Solids Processing 8 

INVESTIGATION OBJECTIVES 8 

WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION 9 

Waste Approvals 9 

Waste Acceptance 10 

On-site Laboratory Process Overview 11 

Veolia Feedstream Rate Determination 12 

NEIC FEED STREAM EVALUATION 13 

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS 27 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT 27 

TABLES 

1 Summary of Total Waste Profiles Meeting Specified Criteria for 2009, 2010, and 2011 14 

2 Waste Profiles with RCRA Metals Codes that were not Analyzed On-site According to the 

WTS - Facility Explanation 16 

3 Summary of High-Volume Waste Profiles Received in 2011 that were Reviewed On-site ..16 

4 List of Profiles with Concerns Regarding How the Metals Values were Established in the 

WTS 19 

5 Summary of Repeating Metals Concentrations for Waste Receipts Greater than 20,000 

Pounds Per Year 24 

6 Summary of Loads Received and Analyzed from June 2009 to June 2012 for Standard Profile 

CARBN1 and SOL005 24 

FIGURES 

1 Google Earth Pro image of Veolia ES Technical Services in Sauget, Illinois 4 

2 Summary of Waste Analysis Categories for Profiles Received in 2011 26 

The Contents page shows all sections contained in this report 

and provides a clear indication of the end of the report. 

Services 

VES 001324 
INTRODUCTIO N 

At the request of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, EPA's National 

Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) conducted a focused multimedia compliance 

investigation of the Veolia Environmental Services (ES) Technical Solutions, LLC (Veolia) 

hazardous waste incinerator in Sauget, Illinois. The Veolia facility's mailing address is 7 Mobile 

Avenue, Sauget, Illinois 62201. 

Figure 1 is an image of the Veolia site that was generated from Google Earth Pro. Veolia's 

waste disposal and incineration operations are subject to several environmental statutes, including 

the Clean Water Act (CWA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Clean Air Act 

(CAA); and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

Veolia's operations are subject to environmental permits and regulations administered by the EPA 

and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). 

The NEIC on-site inspection was conducted December 5 through December 15,2011. The 

inspection team included: Alison Ruhs (environmental scientist) Don Smith (chemist), Brad Venner 

(statistician) from NEIC and Shannon Downey, Sarah Marshall, and Jamie Paulin from EPA Region 

5. Credentials were presented to Veolia representatives Doug Harris, Dennis Warshol, and David 

Klarich. 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 3 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001325 
Figure 1. Google Earth Pro image of Veolia ES Technical Services in Sauget, Illinois 

(9/1/2011) 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

BACKGROUND 

Facility Unit Operations Overview 

According to Veolia' s RCRA permit, Veolia has a maximum total container storage capacity 

of 1,062,789 gallons of waste and a maximum tank storage capacity of656,724 gallons. The facility 

has the following 12 container storage units: 

• Drum storage unit 1 with a capacity of 61,490 gallons 

• Drum storage unit 2 with a capacity of 90,640 gallons 

• Drum storage unit 3with a capacity of 563,200 gallons 

• Drum storage unit 6 with a capacity of 36,960 gallons 

• A roll-off storage building that can store up to 24 roll-off boxes with a total storage capacity of 

96,960 gallons 

• A drum decant area with a total capacity of 16,830 gallons 

„ „ Veolia ES Technical Services 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 4 of 27 Sauget ; ^ 

VES 001326 
• Material processing area (MP) 1 with a total storage capacity of 15,950 gallons 

• MP 2 with a total storage capacity of 4,125 gallons 

• Lab pack repackaging building 2B with a storage capacity of 7,700 drums 

• A direct inject system at incinerators 2 and 3 with a total storage capacity of 77,920 gallons 

• A direct injection system at incinerator 4 with a storage capacity of 60,214 gallons 

• A trailer storage pad with a storage capacity of up to 30,800 gallons 

Veolia has two tank farms, tank farms 1 and 3. Tank fann 1 is located on the north side of 

the facility and has 10 tanks. Before stored bulk liquid wastes are incinerated, they are blended at 

tank farm 1 in tanks 2, 4, 6, and 8, which feed to incinerators 2 and 3. Six additional tanks (10,20, 

30, 40, 50, and 60) at tank farm 1 are used to store different waste streams (typically based on 

British thermal unit [Btu] value) before they are pumped to one ofthe four blend tanks that feed the 

waste to incinerators 2 or 3. Tank farm 3 is located on the south side of the facility, adjacent to 

incinerator 4, and has eight tanks (300, 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 314). The tanks in tank 

farms 1 and 3 are used to store the liquid organic waste, aqueous wastes, pumpable sludges, and 

virgin fuel that are fed to the incinerator system. Pumps transfer these wastes and fuel via aboveground pipelines to the incinerators. According to D. Warshol, Veolia environmental, health, and 

safety manager, the pipelines used to transfer liquid organic waste and aqueous waste are equipped 

with stainless steel strainers to remove solids that may plug the incinerator nozzles. Operators at 

each incinerator control rates of feed. The contents of the tanks are mixed and then sampled before 

they are fed to the incinerators. The samples are tested for Btu value and chlorine. After the 

analysis is completed, the tank contents are released to the incinerator. 

According to Veolia's CA A Title V permit V-IL-1716300103-08-01, the facility operates 

two fixed-hearth dual-chambered incinerators (units 2 and 3) and one rotary kiln (unit 4). The two 

fixed-hearth units each are rated at 16 million Btu/hour (hr). According to D. Warshol, incinerator 3 

is a mirror image of incinerator 2. According to the Title V pennit, the only difference between 

incinerators 2 and 3 is that incinerator 2 is equipped with four baghouse modules, while incinerator 3 

is equipped with three baghouse modules. Incinerators 2 and 3 are designed to receive containers of 

40 gallons or less of solid waste and containers of 1 gallon or less of containerized aqueous and/or 

organic liquid wastes. Additionally, incinerators 2 and 3 have specialty liquid feeds for containers 

with acute health hazards and a direct inject liquid feed for containers with viscosity, odor, and/or 

compatibility concerns. Incinerator 2 can also incinerate gases. Each of the fixed-hearth 

incinerators can also receive liquid wastes from the storage/blend tanks located in tank farm 1. 

Incinerator 4 is rated at 50 million Btu/hour and is equipped with its own tank farm system 

(tank farm 3), drum storage, bulk solids storage, and feed systems. Incinerator 4 is permitted for all 

forms of bulk waste, as well as containerized waste (including 85-gallon steel drums). 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 5 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 
Bulk Liquids Processing 

Liquid waste can be blended in bulk tanks before it is incinerated, or it can be directly fed 

into the incinerators. If the waste is blended in a bulk tank before incineration, a sample is drawn 

from the tank to be analyzed for the following parameters: 

• Heat value - measured to control the feed rates of waste fed into the incinerators. 

• Total chlorine content - measured to control the percent chlorine in waste fed into the 

incinerators 

• pH - measured to protect the integrity of tank farm construction materials and provide 

management data for proper blending 

• Specific gravity (s.g.) - measured to ensure that the specific gravity of bulk or decant composite 

liquid is less than the design specific gravity for the storage tanks (s.g.= 1.5) 

Samples of bulk liquids are not analyzed for metals; instead, metals concentrations are 

calculated based on profile information stored in Veolia's waste tracking system (WTS). The WTS 

pulls information from the corporate tracking system, called the "I-Series" (discussed in detail in 

"Waste Characterization Process Description"). Either a value from the profile, or a shipmentspecific value based on metals analysis at Veolia's on-site laboratory, is used in the calculation. Onsite analyses may be used to update the profile infonnation in the WTS. 

Containerized Liquids Processing 

Containerized liquids can be processed one of four ways, depending on the nature of the 

waste and which incinerator unit will ultimately receive the waste: (1) the entire container may be 

fed (charged) directly to incinerators as it was received, (2) the container may be repackaged into 

smaller charge boxes, (3) the container may be bulked with similar waste into a tote or a tank for 

injection into the incinerators, or (4) the container may be directly injected into the incinerator. 

Lab-packed liquid wastes usually remain in the original container and are placed with similar 

waste streams into charge boxes. However, lab packs can also be bulked together (done when 

original container is greater than 1 gallon) into a tote for injection into the incinerator. Lab-packs 

are stored in buildings 2A and 2C, and processed in building 2B. 

There are four possibilities for managing non-lab-pack containers of liquid waste that are 

greater than 1 gallon: (1) the entire container can be fed to the incinerator (up to 85 gallons can be 

fed into incinerator 4), (2) the container can be decanted with a suction wand directly to the 

incinerator if the material is highly odorous or poses a health hazard, (3) the container can be bulked 

into a tank or tote for injection into the incinerator (generally smaller containers of less than 5 

gallons), or (4) the container can be decanted to plastic-lined cardboard charge boxes at volumes of 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 6 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 
1 gallon or less. These containers are processed in material processing areas 1 and 2 (MP1 and 

MP2). 

When smaller containers are bulked into a tote, the combined waste is assigned a 

"consolidation number" that tracks all the receiver numbers of all the waste that was placed in the 

tote. The consolidation number is created from the month-day-year when the first volume of waste 

was placed in the bulking container. Once the tote is full, a sample is taken for mandatory analyses 

(the same parameters used for bulk liquids) and supplemental analyses. The laboratory values for 

Btu and metals are used in the feed rate calculation when the tote is injected into the incinerator. 

As for containers destined to be bulked into a tank, a sample of each waste is taken before 

bulking occurs to ensure compatibility. If a "heel" of waste remains in the tank, the heel is also 

sampled to ensure compatibility. Once all the samples have been taken, they are combined in the 

laboratory and mandatory and supplemental analyses are performed. Once compatibility testing and 

mandatory and supplemental laboratory analyses are complete, the containers are decanted to the 

tank. After the wastes have been bulked into the tank, a final tank sample is taken for analysis of 

chlorine, viscosity, and Btu value to ensure optimum incinerator performance when the waste is 

injected. Laboratory staff enter the analytical results performed prior to bulking in the tank into the 

WTS, and this information, along with the tank volume, is used to calculate the metals values for the 

tank. 

Containerized Solids Processing 

Containerized solids are generally processed by repackaging the contents into containers that 

are suitable for storage and incineration at MP1 and MP2. However, incinerator 4 can directly 

receive up to 85-gallon drums if the material does not pose a concern with regard to maintaining 

incinerator operating parameters. Incinerators 2 and 3 can receive up to 40-gallon containers 

directly. 

According to Veolia personnel, the containers to be processed are moved using a forklift 

from storage, transport trailers, or other processing areas to MP 1 or MP2. This container movement 

is tracked with a bar code scanner that sends the infonnation to the WTS. At MP1 and MP2, 

operators place the container on a conveyor system. The containers are moved to a tipper system 

that is used to empty the contents into charge boxes. Operators empty the material from the 

container into a mixing box by slowly tilting the tipper and using a shovel or other appropriate tool 

to scrape material out ofthe container as needed until the container is empty. According to Veolia 

personnel, any free liquid of more than 1 gallon is absorbed with com cobs or Dry-All absorbent. A 

process planner determines the amount and types of wastes placed in each charge box, and the 

information is included in a process plan for the waste type. According to D. Warshol, the criteria 

for filling tlie boxes include Btu value, regulated metals concentrations, presence of reactive 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 7 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 
materials, and the size and shape of the material. After the charge boxes are filled, each pallet of 

boxes is labeled with a "skid card." The skid card includes the words "hazardous waste," the 

receiver number, the drum number, the date the charges were processed, the crew that processed 

them, where they were processed, and where they are to be incinerated. 

Charge boxes are received at the loading dock located at each dock adjoining each 

incinerator. The packages are loaded onto a scale, and the receiver number is entered into the 

incinerator control/processing system (ICS/IPS) system. The container is then introduced into the 

incinerator through an airlock-ram system located at the lower front ofthe primary chamber of the 

incinerator. The airlock is composed of a refractory-lined door adjacent to the incinerator, a door 

into the airlock enclosure, and a pneumatic ram to push the material into the incinerator. The 

loading operation can be controlled manually or set to automatic feed by the operator. 

Bulk Solids Processing 

Only incinerator 4 can receive bulk solids. Before bulk solids are introduced into the 

incinerator 4 hopper, they are dumped into one of four in-ground pits (pits 1,2,3, and 4). According 

to D. Harris, Veolia general manager, these pits are used for mixing and feeding bulk solids and 

incinerator ash from incinerators 2 and 3. Hie ash from incinerators 2 and 3 is incinerated in 

incinerator 4 to remove excess water. When bulk solids are scheduled for feeding into incinerator 4 

from pits 1~4, an operator lowers a clamshell into the pits and grabs the desired amount of material. 

The clamshell is then positioned above the bulk solids hopper located next to incinerator 4. The 

operator verifies that the hopper is empty by viewing the feed from the remote camera, observing the 

indicator light at the clamshell station, or by communicating on the intercom with the incinerator 

operator in the control room. Once it has been verified that the hopper is empty, the operator opens 

the clamshell and drops the material into the hopper. The incinerator operator then opens the hopper 

slide gate, allowing the material to fall into the charge box; closes the hopper slide gate; opens the 

charge door; and finally extends the ram, pushing the material into the incinerator. 

INVESTIGATION OBJECTIVES 

The goal of the investigation was to determine Veolia's compliance with CA A and RCRA 

regulatory requirements. Veolia is subject to maximum achievable control technology standards 

under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 63, Subpart EEE - National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC MACT). Regarding CA A 

compliance, the NEIC investigation primarily focused on 40 CFR Part 63.1209 (c) (analysis of feed 

streams). Regarding RCRA compliance, the investigation primarily focused on compliance with the 

facility's waste analysis plan (WAP). 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 8 of 27 Veolia ES Technical Services 

&

 Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001330 
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

Waste Approvals 

Veolia uses a corporate-wide waste tracking system called the "I-Series." Waste generators 

usually work with Veolia Environmental Services North America (VESNA) representatives who 

begin the waste approval process by entering waste information into the I-Series. The generator fills 

out a waste profile sheet (WPS), often with the help of VESNA representatives, and the information 

is entered into the I-Series. VESNA representatives then determine which Veolia facility could 

manage the waste and work with that facility's approvals department. Typically, Veolia deals 

directly with the VESNA representatives to obtain the necessary waste information for approval 

because VESNA provides waste transportation and acts as a broker for numerous generators. 

A ll approval decisions are based on an assessment of several criteria, which are listed in the 

WAP, Section 4.2. Veolia uses the WAP requirements to determine if further information, such as 

sample analysis results, is necessary before approving the waste stream. For some generators, 

Veolia's on-site analytical laboratory also conducts mandatory analysis on the "sale samples" before 

Veolia approves the waste stream for treatment. Additionally, Veolia's approvals coordinators have 

created a "dynamic suspect list" of industries and process wastes that could contain volatile/semivolatile metals (specifically mercury, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, lead, and beryllium) and must be 

analyzed for metals before the waste stream can be approved. This list continues to grow, according 

to Kelly Meredith, Veolia approvals coordinator, and Christie Narez, Veolia technical manager. 

If the waste stream submitted for approval is similar to waste streams that are already 

accepted for treatment at Veolia facilities, then a standard profile designation may be used. Standard 

profile designations are used for waste streams that have similar physical and chemical 

characteristics, are generated by similar industries or processes, or have the same EPA hazardous 

waste codes as similar process waste. When a standard profile is used for a waste stream, sampling 

is not conducted; instead, Veolia uses an analytical database that was developed for that standard 

profile. The analytical database is based on analytical data from wastes from similar industries or 

processes. According to C. Narez and D. Warshol, many of the standard profiles used at Veolia are 

based on historical data obtained by the Veolia facility located in Port Arthur, Texas. 

As described in the WAP, Veolia can perform three types of waste analyses: mandatory 

analyses, supplemental analyses, and blend analyses. Incoming wastes awaiting approval are subject 

to mandatory analyses, unless a standard profile can be used or if the waste meets an exception from 

required analyses. Five mandatory analyses are required for waste profile approval: pH, radiation, 

flash point, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and apparent viscosity. Supplemental analyses are 

performed to further identify wastes and are performed if the waste stream is suspected of containing 

constituents such as metals or PCBs. Facility management, along with the approvals department, 

„ „ „ Veolia ES Technical Services 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 9 of 27 Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001331 
determines if supplemental analyses are necessary. Blend analyses are used to determine the liquid 

blend characteristics in order to maintain a steady state (normal) operation of the incinerator. Blend 

analyses are typically performed after approval, once the waste is received, and is scheduled to be 

bulked into a tote or tank. 

Ten categories of wastes are exempted from sampling requirements, as outlined in the WAP. 

One of these categories is commercial products or chemicals, such as off-specification, outdated, 

unused, or banned chemicals that are in the original container or package. Another category is 

wastes that are identifiable through a visual inspection process, such as batteries, filters, and filter 

cartridges. A third category is non-hazardous waste for which the generator has provided analytical 

data to support the determination. 

Waste Acceptance 

Once Veolia has approved a waste stream profile, the waste may be delivered to the facility. 

VESNA representatives schedule waste shipments to Veolia in the I-Series, and Veolia's material 

acceptance group (MAG) prints the daily shipping schedule every morning. MA G personnel 

compare the manifested profiles of wastes that are received at the facility to the schedule to ensure 

that each load is scheduled. Once the waste stream has been verified on the schedule, the profile 

information is downloaded from the I-Series into the WTS for waste tracking on-site. A receipt 

number for each manifested line item (waste profile) is sequentially generated during waste 

receiving and is used to track the waste stream throughout its on-site processing. The receipt 

numbers are written on the shipping document for each line item and on each receipt packet. A 

customer service representative (CSR) must resolve any waste profiles that are not approved. 

Veolia visually inspects and samples waste, according to the WAP, before a waste stream can 

be accepted, unless the waste stream is exempt from inspection and sampling, as discussed 

previously. Containers of wastes are sampled and analyzed after receipt at receiving building 3. 

Ten percent of containers from each receipt number (profile) within a shipment are randomly 

sampled. Mandatory analysis is performed on all samples, and additional analysis may be required. 

If multiple samples are taken from the same waste profile, up to five samples can be composited for 

analysis according to the WAP. 

Section 5.2 ofthe WAP describes how non-conforming waste is managed. If a discrepancy 

is discovered, the following Veolia personnel can initiate a discrepancy report: 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 10 of 27 Veolia ES Technical Services 

° Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001332 
• Customer service supervisor (CSS) 

• Lab personnel 

• Receiving technicians and/or supervisor 

• MA G personnel 

• Sales coordinators 

• Tank farm technicians and/or supervisor 

• CSRs 

C. Narez contacts the waste generator or waste broker to resolve waste discrepancies. Onetime discrepancies typically are noted on the paperwork, and any changes in handling are tracked in 

the I-Series. If the discrepancy occurs again, then the profile is either changed or a new profile is 

created to better represent the waste stream. Once the received waste stream has been verified, it can 

be accepted for incineration processing. 

On-site Laboratory Process Overview 

Veolia's on-site analytical laboratory performs waste analysis as required by Veolia's WAP 

and feedstream analysis plan (FAP). The laboratory is equipped with two ion chromatograph (IC) 

instruments for measuring total halogens, two inductively coupled plasma- atomic emission 

spectrometers (ICP-AES) for measuring metals, two gas chromatographs (GCs) for analyzing 

samples for PCBs, and two bomb calorimeters for determining the Btu content of wastes. 

Samples of received wastes are assigned a unique, sequential laboratory identification 

number that is generated on the basis of when the sample is received at the laboratory. The 

laboratory identification number is entered into a laboratory database. The laboratory identification 

number and the associated analytical results are entered into the WTS under the waste receiver 

numbers associated with that laboratory sample. 

The Veolia on-site laboratory performs tests on samples of generator waste samples (sale 

sample) before approval, incoming accepted wastes, and some on-site-generated wastes. The primary 

tests conducted by the laboratory are: WAP-required fingerprint testing (mandatory analyses), 

supplemental analyses (including volatile/semivolatile metals analysis), and blend analyses. Blend 

analyses and supplemental analyses are only performed if the profile paperwork indicates these analyses 

are required. 

At a minimum, incoming wastes are subjected to 11 mandatory analyses: 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 11 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 
Physical description 

pH screen 

Oxidizer screen 

Radioactivity screen 

Flammability potential screen 

Paint filter test 

Liquid waste compatibility (water mix) 

Heat value (Btu) 

Chlorine content 

Cyanide screen 

Sulfide screen 

Five of these mandatory analyses may not be perfonned due to the nature of the waste 

stream. Cyanide and sulfide screening are not performed on wastes with a pH less than or equal to 

2. The water mix screening is not necessary for wastes already in contact with excess water. Heat 

value and chlorine content are not measured on liquid decant drums. Liquid waste compatibility 

testing is performed on samples of liquid wastes for compatibiUty before the wastes are added to other 

wastes in tanks and containers. Samples of liquid wastes are added to each other in proportion to the 

bulk quantities of the wastes. During the addition, the generation of heat, fire, explosion, or violent 

reaction is noted by the analyst. 

The laboratory uses bomb calorimetry to detennine Btu content. The bomb washings from 

the calorimetry detennination are diluted and analyzed by ion chromatography for total halogens as 

chloride, fluoride, bromide, and iodide. Only the chloride result, as total chlorine, is entered into the 

feed rate calculation. Veolia determines the concentration of semivolatile metals (SVM) and volatile 

metals (VM) by microwave digestion and dilution followed by ICP-AES analysis. The facility has 

two ICP spectrometers that use a radial viewing ofthe plasma and simultaneous optical spectrometry 

for determining the trace elements—arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and lead—and for 

mercury screening in acid-digested solutions of waste samples. 

Veolia Feedstream Rate Determination 

Several feed stream constituents have maximum feed rate limits specified in the HWC 

MACT standard, including: 

^t^TM^^TM^ ^ „ j,^- , Veolia ES Technical Services NEICVP0972E02 Page 12 of 27 ^ 

VES 001334 
• Chlorine and chloride 

• Semivolatile metals (cadmium and lead) 

• Low volatility metals (arsenic, beryllium, chromium) 

• Mercury 

• Ash 

According to D. Warshol, metals and ash concentrations for feed streams are entered into the 

WTS. These feed streams are identified in the WTS under a receiver number, bulk pit number, or 

tank number. Once this information is in the WTS, tlie incinerator control systems (ICS) are able to 

import and store the data for use as the waste streams are processed at the incinerators. All waste 

introduced into the incinerators has an associated site receiver number so it can be referenced to the 

appropriate data from the WTS. As weights are recorded at 15-second intervals for each specific 

waste stream entering the incinerator, computations are performed to calculate the quantities of 

metals (as low volatile metals, semivolatile metals, and mercury) and ash that are being incinerated. 

These quantities are displayed to the incinerator operator and recorded. One-hour and 12-hour 

rolling totals are displayed for the incinerator operators to monitor these feeds. 

NEIC Feed Stream Evaluation 

NEIC evaluated Veolia's process for determining feed rates for compliance with the HWC 

MACT standard limits for chlorine and metals. The evaluation included an examination of 

laboratory methods and procedures, informational queries of the WTS database to evaluate how 

metals and chlorine values were established in the waste profiles, and an examination of select 

profiles based on the results of the database queries. According to D. Warshol and C. Narez, there 

are four sources of analytical information that Veolia can use in evaluating the feedstream 

parameters including: 

• Analysis performed on-site by Veolia 

• Analysis performed off-site 

• Manufacturer data or other published information such as material data safety sheets (MSDS) 

• Generator process knowledge 

According to D. Warshol, the following criteria are used in determining whether or not the 

Veolia laboratory will conduct metals analysis (supplemental analysis) on a waste: 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 13 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 
• The waste has RCRA waste codes 

• The chemical composition of the waste provided by the generator 

• The process generating the waste 

• An internal list of suspect wastes (dynamic suspect list) 

• Brokered waste (third party) 

To evaluate the process for determining waste feed concentrations for metals, NEIC 

requested Veolia to conduct a query of the WTS database to compare the portion of waste profiles 

that were tested by the on-site laboratory to those that were not. This query was performed on 

wastes received in 2011 (January 1 through December 15, 2011), 2010, and 2009. Additional 

queries were performed for waste received in 2011,2010, and 2009 to better understand why certain 

wastes were sampled and analyzed for metals, while others were not. Table 1 summarizes the total 

number of profiles for a particular year that met a particular query criteria. 

Table 1. SUMMARY OF TOTAL WASTE PROFILES MEETING SPECIFIED CRITERIA FOR 2009, 

2010, AND 2011 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Year 

Total 

Profiles 

Received 

Profiles with 

No On-site 

Metals 

Analysis 

Profiles 

with No 

RCRA 

Metals 

Codes 

Profiles With No 

RCRA Metals Codes 

and No On-site 

Metals Analysis 

Profiles with No RCRA 

Metals Codes but with 

On-site Metals Analysis 

2011 474 7 9 0 7 1131 881 2 50 

2010 518 5 1043 1116 876 2 40 

2009 439 6 1039 1051 973 178 

NEIC began its evaluation by reviewing waste profiles received in 2011 (January 1 through 

December 15, 2011) with RCRA metals codes but for which on-site analyses were not performed. 

Of the 907 profiles that were not analyzed for metals, 881 did not have RCRA metals codes. This 

left 26 profiles, according to the WTS, that were not analyzed for metals even though the waste 

stream had RCRA metals codes. C. Narez printed out the list of profiles that carried RCRA metal 

codes but for which on-site analyses were not performed. This list had 28 profiles instead of 26, 

because the WTS database query generated two profiles that did not have RCRA metals codes. K. 

Meredith and C. Narez went through 17 ofthe 28 profiles with NEIC inspectors during the on-site 

inspection. Information on the remaining 11 profiles was provided following the inspection. After 

review of all the information provided, 19 profiles had on-site metals analysis in the hard-copy file, 

but the metals information was entered in the approvals screen rather than the laboratory screen. 

Five of the profiles had been analyzed sometime in the past by the Port Arthur, Texas, Veolia, 

facility. Two profiles were analyzed by an off-site laboratory, and the metals concentrations for two 

profiles were based on generator knowledge but no analyses were performed. Both profiles 396651 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 14 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001336 
and 008509 used generator knowledge; however, these profiles should not have been included in the 

RCRA metals codes group based on information provided by Veolia after the inspection. Table 2 

shows the profiles that had on-site analysis, historical data, off-site analysis, or generator knowledge 

data. 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 15 of 27 Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 
Table 2. WASTE PROFILES WITH RCRA METALS CODES THAT WERE NOT ANALYZED ON-SITE 

ACCORDING TO the WTS - FACILITY EXPLANATION 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

Year 

Do In Fact Have 

On-site Analyses 

Historic Analyses 

(Port Arthur, TX) 

Off-site Analyses 

(Commercial 

Laboratory) 

Other 

(Process 

Knowledge, MSDS, 

etc.) 

2011 15706 2 CI578 9 M5706 2 008509 2

'

a 

Profiles 27268 4 693128 2 36006 9 396651 3 

32399 0 ELLIQ3 2 

360041 WBA501 2 

37433 9 WLIQ03 2 

38885 2 

55434 3 

55434 7 

565601 

566491 

56742 3 

58178 0 

660210 1 

76026 6 

34662 8 

ELSOL 3 

FSSOL 3 

LOP00 5 

WSOL0 3 

1

 Veolia conducted on-site supplemental metals analysis after the NEIC inspection. 

2

 Veolia intends to conduct on-site supplemental metals analysis the next time these profiles are received. 

3 These profiles do not contain RCRA metals codes. 

By December 2011, 881 profiles had been received in 2011 that did not contain RCRA 

metals codes and had not been analyzed for metals. Many of the waste names and process 

descriptions used to describe the 881 profiles in the WTS were generic and somewhat ambiguous. 

NEIC sorted the list of waste streams by largest volume in order to obtain more infonnation on the 

higher volume wastes with generic descriptions. From the larger volume waste streams, NEIC 

inspectors briefly reviewed 26 profiles on-site based on the waste name and generator process 

description. K. Meredith and C. Narez explained the infonnation provided in the hard-copy files for 

each selected profile. Table 3 summarizes the 26 high-volume wastes NEIC inspectors reviewed 

briefly while on-site. 

Table 3. SUMMARY OF HIGH-VOLUME WASTE PROFILES RECEIVED IN 2011 THAT WERE 

REVIEWED ON-SITE 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Profile 

Waste Name 

in the WTS 

Process Generating 

Waste 

in the WTS 

Quantity 

Received 

Jan - Dec 15, 

2011 

(Gallons) 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 16 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001338 
Table 3. SUMMARY OF HIGH-VOLUME WASTE PROFILES RECEIVED IN 2011 THAT WERE 

REVIEWED ON-SITE 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois == _ _ = ^ === = 

Profile 

Waste Name 

in the WTS 

Process Generating 

Waste 

in the WTS 

Quantity 

Received 

Jan - Dec 15, 

2011 

(Gallons) 

397628 DE175-IP A WAS H & 

FILTRAT E W A 

CHEMICA L MANUFACTURIN G 554,958 

388522 MOTHE R LIQUO R 

RESIDU E 

PROCES S WAST E FRO M 

MANUFACTURIN G O F 

INERMEDIATE D HERBI C 

251,24 5 

076148 FORMULATIO N 

AQUEOU S W / O R W/ O 

PROCES S WAS H WATE R 230,602 

330470 RINSEWATER-ACUT E 

TOXI C 

CONTAINE R CLEANIN G 55,591 

076886 DECO N WATER -

TREATE D V X & G B T O 

DECO N O F CHEMICA L 

WEAPON S RECOGNITIO N 

TRAININ G COMPLEX . 

52,372 

127773 WR-120 S OVE R 3M P 

CONCENTRAT E 

PROCES S WAST E 29,82 8 

AF4699 RINS E WATE R 

CLEANIN G OU T A N HERBICID E 

PLAN T 

27,39 5 

BJ3050 LABORATOR Y GC/HPL C 

VIAL S AN D D 

LABORATOR Y ANALYSI S 

ACCUMULATIO N 

24,500 

104147 FORMULATIO N 

AQUEOU S COMB O 

PROCES S WAS H WATE R 24,442 

PZLOP3 LOOS E PACK S O F NON -

REGULATE D M 

UNUSE D PRODUCT S O R USE D 

MATERIAL S 

21,404 

075342 5 54 PAIN T BOOT H 

FILTER S 

PAIN T BOOT H FILTE R CHANG E 

O U T 

19,250 

375309 FORMULATIN G & 

PROCES S BIPRODU C 

PESTICID E MANUFACTURIN G 16,775 

131690 MAR S D-1200 TA R TAN K 

WAST E 

PRODUCTIO N PROCES S WAST E 15,228 

JJLP03 N O N RE G MATERIA L -

LOOS E PAC K 

UNUSE D PRODUCT S O R USE D 

MATERIAL S 

13,880 

048932 

XM-07735 2 

ORGANOMETALLI C 

SOLI D 

METALORGANI C 

MANUFACTURIN G 

11,685 

164854 CARBO N WIT H 1107 

FLUI D 

CARBO N WIT H RESIDUA L 

CONTAMINATIO N AFTE R MOS T 

O F FLUI D REMOVE D B Y 

NITROGE N FLUS H 

11,600 

ELSOL3 SOLID S CHLORIN E <25% 

INDUSTRIA L CLEANING , R&D , 

L A B WASTE , MACHININ G 

OPERATIOAN K CLEAN-OUT S 

10,744 

AF3753 MERCUR Y 

CONTAMINATE D SOLID S 

THIMEROSA L FILTERING , 

COLLECTIN G AN D STORIN G 

10,230 

388582 GANTRE Z S SOLUTIO N OFF-SPE C SOLUTIO N 9,985 

236152 CARBO N WIT H CHROM E 

DISCAR D O F USE D CARBO N 

FILTE R MEDI A 

9,090 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 17 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 
Table 3. SUMMARY OF HIGH-VOLUME WASTE PROFILES RECEIVED IN 2011 THAT WERE 

REVIEWED ON-SITE 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

Profile 

Waste Name 

in the WTS 

Process Generating 

Waste 

in the WTS 

Quantity 

Received 

Jan - Dec 15, 

2011 

(Gallons) 

008509 

CARBO N 

W/HALOGENATE D 

ORGANIC S 

PROCES S B Y PRODUC T 8,349 

127318 POWDE R PAIN T WIT H 

BENZEN E 

POWDE R COATIN G META L 

PART S 

7,205 

BZ3601 MERC K (PA) -

TOLUENE/AVERMECT I 

SPIL L CLEANU P 7,050 

442913 DEBRI S ARSENI C 

SEMICONDUCTO R 

MANUFACTURING/EQUIPMEN T 

CLEANIN G 

6,600 

BS1067 WAST E VO C SLUDG E 

GRAVIT Y SEPARATIO N O F 

LEACHAT E FRO M NON-CERCL A 

REMEDIA T 

6,396 

075231 R E D DUS T W/TRAC E 

FUNGICIDES/I N 

DUS T CREATE D B Y 

APPLICATIO N O F FUNGICID E & 

INSECTICID E SEE D COR N IN 

PLANT . COLLECTIO N SYSTE M 

REMOVE S DUS T FRO M 

5,885 

Several profile files were photocopied and reviewed more thoroughly following the 

inspection. Six of the complete profile files for select waste streams from Tables 2 and 3 had 

conflicting information with respect to metals values in the WTS compared to the hard-copy file. 

Table 4 lists the six profiles with concerns regarding how the metals values were established in the 

WTS. 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 18 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001340 
Table 4 L.ST OF PROFILES WITH CONCERNS REGARDING HOW THE METALS VALUES 

I ame <t. l.io i ur r « Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

Total Metal 

Concentrations 

(mg/kg) 

30000 

WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE WTS 

NEICVP0972E02 

Page 19 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001341 
Table 4. LIST OF PROFILES WITH CONCERNS REGARDING HOW THE METALS VALUES WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE WTS 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Profile 

Generator/Waste 

Source 

Waste Type 

Initial 

Date 

Metal 

TCLP 

(mg/L) 

Total Metal 

Concentrations 

(mg/kg) 

Value 

used in 

the WTS 

Value 

used in 

IPS/ICS 

Gal/Year 

Comments: 

Source of Value Used 

And Flushing Of 

Sprayer 

mg/L 1.8mg/L (6/9/2005 

offsite analysis result 

in profile package). 

2) Veolia stated that 

the process 

generating the waste 

is not suspected of 

containing MACT 

metals. No onsite 

metal analyses has 

been conducted 

And Flushing Of 

Sprayer Cr 1.8 

mg/L 

0 0 

1.8mg/L (6/9/2005 

offsite analysis result 

in profile package). 

2) Veolia stated that 

the process 

generating the waste 

is not suspected of 

containing MACT 

metals. No onsite 

metal analyses has 

been conducted 

And Flushing Of 

Sprayer 

Pb <0.40 

mg/L 

0 0 

1.8mg/L (6/9/2005 

offsite analysis result 

in profile package). 

2) Veolia stated that 

the process 

generating the waste 

is not suspected of 

containing MACT 

metals. No onsite 

metal analyses has 

been conducted 

And Flushing Of 

Sprayer 

Hg <0.002 0 0 

1.8mg/L (6/9/2005 

offsite analysis result 

in profile package). 

2) Veolia stated that 

the process 

generating the waste 

is not suspected of 

containing MACT 

metals. No onsite 

metal analyses has 

been conducted 

660210 Veolia - Azuza / 

Unused Materials 

From TSDF 

Transhipment, 

Consolidation 

Cyanide 

Loosepack 

As <5 5 5 5 3,740 Used Port Arthur, TX 

analytical. Veolia ran 

metals analysis after 

the NEIC inspection. 

Profile stated that the 

waste contains 

cadmium cyanide. 

Since this is a broker 

type waste, some 

shipments may have 

very high Cd. 

660210 Veolia - Azuza / 

Unused Materials 

From TSDF 

Transhipment, 

Consolidation 

Cyanide 

Loosepack Be 0.1 0.1 0.1 

3,740 Used Port Arthur, TX 

analytical. Veolia ran 

metals analysis after 

the NEIC inspection. 

Profile stated that the 

waste contains 

cadmium cyanide. 

Since this is a broker 

type waste, some 

shipments may have 

very high Cd. 

660210 Veolia - Azuza / 

Unused Materials 

From TSDF 

Transhipment, 

Consolidation 

Cyanide 

Loosepack 

Cd <1 1 1 1 

3,740 Used Port Arthur, TX 

analytical. Veolia ran 

metals analysis after 

the NEIC inspection. 

Profile stated that the 

waste contains 

cadmium cyanide. 

Since this is a broker 

type waste, some 

shipments may have 

very high Cd. 

660210 Veolia - Azuza / 

Unused Materials 

From TSDF 

Transhipment, 

Consolidation 

Cyanide 

Loosepack 

Cr <5 2.5 2.5 2.5 

3,740 Used Port Arthur, TX 

analytical. Veolia ran 

metals analysis after 

the NEIC inspection. 

Profile stated that the 

waste contains 

cadmium cyanide. 

Since this is a broker 

type waste, some 

shipments may have 

very high Cd. 

660210 Veolia - Azuza / 

Unused Materials 

From TSDF 

Transhipment, 

Consolidation 

Cyanide 

Loosepack 

Hg <.2 0 0 0 

3,740 Used Port Arthur, TX 

analytical. Veolia ran 

metals analysis after 

the NEIC inspection. 

Profile stated that the 

waste contains 

cadmium cyanide. 

Since this is a broker 

type waste, some 

shipments may have 

very high Cd. 

660210 Veolia - Azuza / 

Unused Materials 

From TSDF 

Transhipment, 

Consolidation 

Cyanide 

Loosepack 

Pb <5 2.5 2.5 2.5 

3,740 Used Port Arthur, TX 

analytical. Veolia ran 

metals analysis after 

the NEIC inspection. 

Profile stated that the 

waste contains 

cadmium cyanide. 

Since this is a broker 

type waste, some 

shipments may have 

very high Cd. 

CI5789 Burlington 

Environmental 

Inc. / Cyanide 

Consolidation 

From Outside 

Sources 

Cyanide 

Mixture 

Solution 

As 200 <5 14,281 Port Arthur, TX 

analytical value of 

6470 ppm Cd has 

been used since 1999. 

No values in the WTS 

query provided to 

NEIC. According to 

Veolia the waste has 

been analyzed onsite 

CI5789 Burlington 

Environmental 

Inc. / Cyanide 

Consolidation 

From Outside 

Sources 

Cyanide 

Mixture 

Solution 

Cd 6470 None 4941 

14,281 Port Arthur, TX 

analytical value of 

6470 ppm Cd has 

been used since 1999. 

No values in the WTS 

query provided to 

NEIC. According to 

Veolia the waste has 

been analyzed onsite 

CI5789 Burlington 

Environmental 

Inc. / Cyanide 

Consolidation 

From Outside 

Sources 

Cyanide 

Mixture 

Solution Cr 200 23.8 

14,281 Port Arthur, TX 

analytical value of 

6470 ppm Cd has 

been used since 1999. 

No values in the WTS 

query provided to 

NEIC. According to 

Veolia the waste has 

been analyzed onsite 

CI5789 Burlington 

Environmental 

Inc. / Cyanide 

Consolidation 

From Outside 

Sources 

Cyanide 

Mixture 

Solution 

Pb 200 6.7 

14,281 Port Arthur, TX 

analytical value of 

6470 ppm Cd has 

been used since 1999. 

No values in the WTS 

query provided to 

NEIC. According to 

Veolia the waste has 

been analyzed onsite 

CI5789 Burlington 

Environmental 

Inc. / Cyanide 

Consolidation 

From Outside 

Sources 

Cyanide 

Mixture 

Solution 

Hg 0 <0.2 

14,281 Port Arthur, TX 

analytical value of 

6470 ppm Cd has 

been used since 1999. 

No values in the WTS 

query provided to 

NEIC. According to 

Veolia the waste has 

been analyzed onsite 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 20 of 27 Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001342 
Table 4. LIST OF PROFILES WITH CONCERNS REGARDING HOW THE METALS VALUES WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE WTS 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

Profile 

Generator/Waste 

Source 

Waste Type 

Initial 

Date 

Metal 

TCLP 

(mg/L) 

Total Metal 

Concentrations 

(mg/kg) 

Value 

used in 

the WTS 

Value 

used in 

IPS/ICS 

Gal/Year 

Comments: 

Source of Value Used 

and total metals 

values are used for 

the incinerator feed 

rate calculations. 

AF3753 Boehringer 

Ingelheim 

Vetmedica / 

Thimerosal 

Filtering, 

collecting and 

storing 

Mercury 

contaminated 

solids 

Jul-93 Hg 37.8 4140 0-25 25 10,230 7/23/93 and 11/16/93 

TCLP (on profile) = 

37.8 mg/L. 

7/23/93 Total 

mercury (on profile) = 

4140. 

12/30/04 and 2/14/07 

TCLP ">= 0.2 mg/L". 

According to Veolia 

total mercury analysis 

was measured and 

the measured value 

of 25 ppm is used for 

the incinerator feed 

rate calculations, 

rather than the 

profile values stored 

in the WTS. However, 

since the historical 

data in the profile 

indicates a mercury 

value as high as 4140 

mg/kg, this waste 

stream should be 

analyzed each time it 

is received. 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 21 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001343 
Table 4. LIST OF PROFILES WITH CONCERNS REGARDING HOW THE METALS VALUES WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE WTS 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

Profile 

Generator/Waste 

Source 

Waste Type 

Initial 

Date 

Metal 

TCLP 

(mg/L) 

Total Metal 

Concentrations 

(mg/kg) 

Value 

used in 

the WTS 

Value 

used in 

IPS/ICS 

Gal/Year 

Comments: 

Source of Value Used 

374339 Environmental 

Enterprises / 

Consolidated at 

TSDF 

Organic 

Debris 

Jan-04 As <5 None 5 76,760 According to Veolia 

total metals analyses 

was run onsite and 

total MACT metals 

used for IPS/WTS. 

This is a variable 

waste stream that 

should be analyzed 

each time a load is 

received. 

374339 Environmental 

Enterprises / 

Consolidated at 

TSDF 

Organic 

Debris 

Jan-04 

Cd <1 None 5 

76,760 According to Veolia 

total metals analyses 

was run onsite and 

total MACT metals 

used for IPS/WTS. 

This is a variable 

waste stream that 

should be analyzed 

each time a load is 

received. 

374339 Environmental 

Enterprises / 

Consolidated at 

TSDF 

Organic 

Debris 

Jan-04 

Cr <5 None 5 

76,760 According to Veolia 

total metals analyses 

was run onsite and 

total MACT metals 

used for IPS/WTS. 

This is a variable 

waste stream that 

should be analyzed 

each time a load is 

received. 

374339 Environmental 

Enterprises / 

Consolidated at 

TSDF 

Organic 

Debris 

Jan-04 

Hg <0.2 None 0 

76,760 According to Veolia 

total metals analyses 

was run onsite and 

total MACT metals 

used for IPS/WTS. 

This is a variable 

waste stream that 

should be analyzed 

each time a load is 

received. 

374339 Environmental 

Enterprises / 

Consolidated at 

TSDF 

Organic 

Debris 

Jan-04 

Pb <5 None 5 

76,760 According to Veolia 

total metals analyses 

was run onsite and 

total MACT metals 

used for IPS/WTS. 

This is a variable 

waste stream that 

should be analyzed 

each time a load is 

received. 

374339 Environmental 

Enterprises / 

Consolidated at 

TSDF 

Organic 

Debris 

Jan-04 

Be <10 None 10 

76,760 According to Veolia 

total metals analyses 

was run onsite and 

total MACT metals 

used for IPS/WTS. 

This is a variable 

waste stream that 

should be analyzed 

each time a load is 

received. 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 22 of 27 Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001344 
In general, the evaluation of the profiles listed in Table 4 revealed three major concerns 

regarding Veolia's waste characterization protocols. 

• The use of toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) results instead of total metals 

concentrations: Some of the profile packages reviewed contained metals values that were based 

on TCLP analysis instead of total metals analyses. For profile 236152, TCLP values were used 

to calculate the total chromium and cadmium feed rates in the ICS. This calculation is based on 

Veolia's application of the "20 times rule" because ofthe 1:20 dilution used in the TCLP test. 

This rule cannot be used when attempting to derive total concentrations from TCLP because the 

ratio of 20 assumes that the material being analyzed by TCLP is completely soluble. The result 

of misapplication of the 20 times rule is an underestimation of actual metals concentration in the 

waste. Veolia is using a chromium value of 228 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and a 

cadmium value of 17.52 mg/kg for profile 236152. However, a material safety data sheet in the 

profile package listed a total chromium oxide value of30,000 to 60,000 mg/kg. Profile 691163 

has a TCLP value for chromium of 1.8 (milligrams per liter [mg/L]), but the WTS and ICS used 

a chromium value of 0 mg/L. This result may greatly underestimate the actual chromium 

concentration for this waste stream. 

• Overly broad profiles: NEIC reviewed several profiles that were based on general processes 

that did not consider the possibility for variability in volatile or semivolatile metals 

concentrations. For example, profiles 660210 and CI5789 both are described as "cyanide 

containing wastes." While both profiles list cadmium cyanide as a possible constituent, Veolia 

uses a value of 6,470 mg/kg cadmium for profile CI5789 and 1 mg/kg cadmium for profile 

660210. Since these are very similar waste streams generated by different generators, Veolia 

should analyze these variable waste streams each time they arrive on-site. Profile 374339 is 

another example of overly broad profiling. Profile 374339 is organic debris, and the metals 

concentrations in the waste loads could vary greatly. 

• Conflicting metals data: NEIC identified the presence of conflicting metals data between the 

profile package and the information in the WTS and ICS. For profile 236152, an MSDS 

contained in the profile package listed the chromium concentration as "3 to 6 percent chromium 

as chromium oxide" (30,000 to 60,000 mg/kg), while the ICS used a value of228 mg/L for this 

profile. The profile package for 691163 has a TCLP value for chromium of 1.8 mg/L, while the 

WTS and ICS used a value of 0 mg/L. The profile package for AP3753 has a total mercury 

value of 4140 mg/kg (TCLP value of 37.8 mg/L), but the WTS and ICS used a value of 25 

mg/kg for at least 5 years. 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. 

Additionally, Veolia has several profiles that contain metals results identical to those used in 

other profiles. There is a concern regarding insufficient testing of incoming wastes under these 

profiles: Table 5 shows the number of times that a "pattern" of metals values was repeated for 

different profiles that were received in quantities greater than 20,000 pounds in 2010 and 2011. 

There are several times when a profile initially matches the metals values of several other profiles at 

one point in time, and then the metal values change and match the metals values of several other 

different profiles. 

VES 001345 
Table 5. SUMMARY OF REPEATING METALS CONCENTRATIONS FOR WASTE RECEIPTS 

GREATER THAN 20,000 POUNDS PER YEAR 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Number of 

Profiles With 

Same Metals 

Concentrations 

Pounds 

Received 

in 2010 

Number of Repeating Constituents (mg/kg) 

Profiles With 

Same Metals 

Concentrations 

Pounds 

Received 

in 2010 Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury 

21 19205 8 5 5 263.8 5 21.6 0 

15 18722 9 7 8 5 2 3 139 4 3 3 0 

4 14490 5 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 

18 4541 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 

49 4395 0 2 0 0 5 5 3 8 5 0 

9 4324 8 0 0 0 5 0 0 

7 4273 0 12 5 5 2 6 5 0 

6 4091 2 26 10 2 0 5 0 100 0 

21 3006 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 

6 2032 4 5 0 5 5 5 0 

NEIC examined the number of times that two of the profiles that contained repeating metals 

concentrations were analyzed by Veolia. The profiles examined were CARBN1 and SOL005. 

Veolia provided NEIC with a database containing the number of times each of these profiles was 

received during the period of June 2009 through June 2012. The database also listed the waste 

receipts that were analyzed for metals. For profile CARBN1, Veolia received 330 waste loads 

(receipts). Ofthe 330 receipts, 19 were analyzed for metals. As shown in Table 6, 12 ofthe 19 

loads analyzed were on waste loads received after December 2011, which is more than two times the 

number of loads analyzed in the previous 2 years. No analyses were conducted on the 56 waste 

loads received in 2009 and the 112 waste loads received in 2010. This data is summarized in Table 

6. 

Table 6. SUMMARY OF LOADS RECEIVED AND ANALYZED FROM JUNE 2009 TO JUNE 2012 FOR 

STANDARD PROFILE CARBN1 AND SOL005 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Profile CARBN1 Profile SOL005 

Numbe r of receipts 

between 6/200 9 and 

6/2012 

330 

Numbe r of receipts 

between 6/200 9 an d 

6/2012 

2 6 4 

Numbe r of receipts not 

analyze d 

311 

Numbe r of receipts not 

analyze d 

244 

Numbe r of receipts 

analyze d between 

6/2009 an d 6/2012 

19 

Numbe r of receipts 

analyze d betwee n 

6/200 9 an d 6/2012 

2 0 

SUMMARY OF WHEN LOADS WERE ANALYZED FROM JUNE 2009 TO JUNE 2012 FOR STANDARD 

PROFILE CARBN1 AND SOL005 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 24 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001346 
Profile CARBN1 Profile SOL005 

Month and Year Load Number of Receipts Month and Year Number of Load 

Receipt Analyzed Analyzed Receipt Analyzed Receipts Analyzed 

Januar y 2011 1 Jul y 2011 1 

Marc h 2011 1 Februar y 201 2 5 

April 2011 5 Marc h 201 2 3 

Decembe r 2011 1 Apri l 201 2 7 

Januar y 201 2 11 M a y 201 2 4 

Veolia provided NEIC with all analysis results for profile CARBN1. One ofthe load 

receipts (received on April 8,2011) that was sampled and analyzed on June 9,2011, had a chromium 

concentration of99,780 mg/kg, while the standard value for chromium is 139 mg/kg chromium for 

CARBN1 waste streams. There is a concern that standard profiles such as CARBN1, which has the 

potential to have such significant differences in chromium concentrations, are not adequately 

representing the waste streams or being analyzed regularly enough to detect variability in the waste. 

Only 19 ofthe 330 total CARBN1 loads received in a 3-year period (June 2009 to June 2012) were 

sampled and analyzed for metals, and all of these 19 analyzed loads were since January 2011. The 

use of overly broad standard profiles could lead to incorrect metals values being used to calculate the 

feed rate requirements for the incinerator. 

Figure 2 is a flowchart that summarizes analysis categories (exempt from analysis, 

mandatory analysis, or supplemental analysis) for all the profiles received from January 1, 2011, 

through December 15,2011. Of the 1,197 profiles received in 2011 that required mandatory on-site 

analysis, 881 of these profiles were not analyzed for metals as of the NEIC inspection. This is 

roughly 73 percent of the profiles received that require mandatory sampling. 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 25 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001347 
Figure 2 

Summary of Waste Analysis Categories for profiles Received in 2011 

Veolia ES Technical Services - Sauget, Illinois 

/ 4,747 

j Profiles received 

[ according to WTS 

\r7,859,146_gal),/ 

1,197 YES 

(6,031,695 gal) 25.2% (by profile) 

76.7% (by waste volume) 

NO 3,550 

w 

74.8% (by profile) 

23.3% (by waste volume) 

(1,827,451 gal) 

5.5% (by profile) 

17.2% (by waste volume) 

66 

(1,037,577 gal) 

94,5% (by profile) 

82.8% (by waste volume) 

22.1% (by profile) 

26.1% (by waste volume) 

Have onsii 

/supplemental^ 

metals analysis 

xaccordingto 

WTS 

250 

(1,303,408 gal) 

15.2% (by profile) 

56 

(atttietimeoftheNEIC 

Inspection/ 

10 

•Gprofiles with historical 

nnatytted (e.g. Port Arthur) 

•2 profiles with offsite 

metals analysis results 

- 2 profiles with MSDS or 

process knowledge 

Spot checked: 

-1 with concern 

-profile no. 374339 

is a variable waste 

stream (76,760 gal) 

77.9% (by profile) 

73.9% (by waste volume) 

20.0% (by profile) 

- 2 profiles with 

questionable metal 

values (18,021 gal) 

28.5% (by profile) 

95.9% (by volume) 

647 

(149,158 gal) 

234 

(3,541,552 gal) 

-1 profile reviewed 

- Profile no. 691163 

with questionable 

metals values (935 gal) 

These 6 profiles 

Accountforll5,036gal of 

waste received in 2011 7,7% of profiles reviewed 

1.3% of waste volume 

Reviewed: 

11.1% (by profile) 

40.7% (by volume) 

- 26 profiles reviewed 

(1,442,289 gal) 

- 2 profiles with 

questionable metal 

values (19,320 gal) 

Figure 2. Summary of Waste Analysis Categories for Profiles Received in 2011 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 26 of 27 

Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001348 
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS 

The following observations were made at the time ofthe inspection, and during review of documents received prior to, during, and after NEIC's 

inspection of the Veolia facility. The observations pertain to areas or issues identified by NEIC that may have potential compliance implications, but 

are neither inclusive nor exclusive of all such potential areas or issues. Observations included potential problems/activities that could impact the 

environment, result in future noncompliance with pennit or regulatory requirements, and/or are areas associated with pollution prevention issues. 

U.S. EPA Region 5 will assess the applicability of regulatory requirements based on its review of this report and other technical, regulatory, and 

facility infonnation. 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT 

# Observations/Areas of Concerns 

1 1. On at least two waste profiles, Veolia used TCLP concentrations instead of total metals concentrations. 

2. Overly broad waste categories listed in profiles. 

2 1. Veolia is not analyzing the metals values for the ash from incinerators 2 and 3 at an evaluation frequency that adequately characterizes the waste 

per the FAP requirements. 

2. Conflicting metals values are present in several profile packages (236152, 691163, and AF3753), with no clear indication of which metal values 

appropriately characterize the waste per the FAP requirements. 

3 ICP analysis of metals - The automatic background and overlap corrections applied by the Veolia's ICP software were observed to result in large negative 

peaks when unknown constituents were present in the sample. Veolia personnel do not measure all major elements in samples to identify and correct for 

potential negative interferences. 

4 Profile AF3753 is a debris waste stream from veterinary pharmaceutical manufacturing. In the profile package, there was a total mercury analytical value of 

4,140 ppm. If this concentration were present in the waste that was incinerated on August 28 and 29, 2011, the emissions and feedrate limits for mercury 

would have been exceeded. 

NEICVP0972E02 Page 27 of 27 Veolia ES Technical Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

VES 001349 
V E S 001350.pdf 
Re: Veolia Environmental Services (fka Onyx) Significant Modification -

Q 

Davi d Ogule i to: Reed , Michae l 08/08/2012 12:37 P M 

^ . "Belogorsky, Anatoly", Danny Marcus, Genevieve Damico, Jane 

Woolums 

Here is where things stand with respect to your 7 questions below: 

1. EP A received an updated application from Veolia on Marc h 2, 2010. EP A will make the updated 

application, as well as any supplemental information, available to the public and Illinois EP A as part 

of the permit record. 

2. EP A is still preparing a draft permit and statement of basis for this permit action. We wil l inform 

you when these documents are available for review. 

3. A public repository has not yet been established. EP A wil l establish a pubhc repository and 

communicate its location to the public and Illinois EP A once a draft permit is issued for public 

comment. 

4. The public notice date has not yet been determined. The public notice wil l state the end the 

public comment period. 

5. Although it is likely that EP A wil l share a preliminary draft permit with Illinois EP A before 

seeking public comment, that decision has not yet been made. 

6. In general, we intend to follow the guidance documented i n "EP A Activities To Promote 

Environmental Justice i n the Permit Apphcation Process", Notice of Availability of Proposed 

Regional Actions to Promote Public Participation i n the Permitting Process and Draft Best Practices 

for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits; Request for Comments, 77 Fed. Reg. 38052 

(June 26, 2012). However, we are still finalizing an E J plan that is specific to this permit action. 

7. Illinois EP A has been involved i n discussions on an E J plan for this permit action. More 

discussions might occur, as necessary, once EP A proposes a preliminary draft permit. 

Please contact me with any questions. 

Davi d Ogulei 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 | Ai r & Radiation Division I A-18 J 

77 West Jackson Blvd . | Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Phone: (312) 353-0987 I Fax: (312) 692-2080 

Ogulei.David@epa.gov 

"Reed, Michael " Is it possible to get an update on the above pe... 08/08/2012 11:51:16 A M 

From: "Reed, Michael" <Michael.Reed@Illinois.gov> 

To: Genevieve Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, "Belogorsky, Anatoly" 

<Anatoly.Belogorsky@Illinois.gov>, 

Cc: David Ogulei/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Danny Marcus/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 08/08/2012 11:51 AM 

Subject: Veolia Environmental Services (fka Onyx) Significant Modification -
Is it possible to get a n update on the abov e permitting action? 

1. Is there a n application or any updates/supplement s to this application? 

2. Is there a draft permit/statement of basi s that has bee n prepared ? 

3. Is there a public repository that contains all the documentation in the permit record 

that wa s relied on ? If so, is it electronic an d where would I find that repository? 

4. Wha t is the date whe n Publi c Notice will begin and whe n is the Publi c Commen t 

period? 

5. Will the Illinois EPA see a preliminary draft before Notice for review? 

6. What are the planned EJ activities for this permit? 

7. Has there been any outreach with Illinois EPA (Air, Water and Land) 

regarding sufficiency of any limits and compliance status ofthe source? 

Thanks. 

Michael T. Reed, CAAPP Unit Manager 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

BOA/DAPC/Permit Section 

1021 N. Grand Ave East 

Springfield, Illinois 62794 

Michael.Reed@illinois.aov 

Office: 217.782.4651 | Fax 217.524.5023 

E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message, including any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only This 

e-mail and any attachments might contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected or exempt from disclosure 

under applicable law. ifyou are not a named recipient or if you are named but believe that you received this e-mail in error, please notify (he 

sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail and any attachments and copies thereof from your system 

If you are not the intended recipient please be aware that any copying, distribution, dissemination, disclosure or other use of this e-mail and 

any attachments is unauthorized and prohibited Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege or claim of 

confidentiality, and any prohibited or unauthorized disclosure is not binding on the sender or the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED 

******************* 

This Email message contained an attachment named 

image001.jpg 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

VES 001351 
This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After 

receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED 

•k-k-k-k-kicicic'kic-kicic-k'k-k'k'kic-kic-kit 

VES 001352 
V ES 001353.pdf 
RE: Veolia Environmental Services (fka Onyx) Significant Modification -

f Meed, Michael io- David Ogulei 08/08/2012 12:54 PM 

p . "Belogorsky, Anatoly", Danny Marcus, Genevieve Damico, Jane 

Woolums 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

Thanks David. I am not necessarily concerned with the EJ Plan except for awareness ofthe 

activities that would take place. 

What I am more concerned with are the actual limits that USEPA Region V will be allowing 

Veolia to operate under for Heavy Metals. I believe that our BOL staff is also a little concerned 

for what these modifications are in this pennit and whether they are acceptable and consistent. 

You may not be aware, but Illinois EPA still has a pending enforcement action before the LAGO 

regarding violations of Hg feed rates, semi-volatiles and I believe HCl/Aresenic also. The 

Illinois EPA, before USEPA took over the pennit had Veolia do testing with extremely tight 

oversight and Veolia could not demonstrate compliance at any higher extrapolated values or even 

at the actual feed rates they were putting in the system. 

I am just a bit alarmed at what we might be allowing given the sensitivity ofthe area. 

Michael T. Reed, CAAP P Uni t Manage r 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

BOA/DA P C/Permit Section 

1021 N . Grand Ave East 

Springfield, Illinois 62794 

MichacLReed@i]linois.gov 

Office: 217.782.4651 [ Fax 217.524.5023 

E-MAI L CONFIDENTIALIT Y NOTICE : This electronic mail message, including any attachments, is 

for the intended recipient(s) only. This e-mail and any attachments might contain information that is 

confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected or exempt from disclosure under applicable 

law. Ifyo u are not a named recipient, or ifyo u are named but believe that you received this e-mail i n 

error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and promptly delete this 

e-mail and any attachments and copies thereof from .your system. Ifyo u are not the intended 

recipient, please be aware that any copying, distribution, dissemination, disclosure or other use of 

this e-mail and any attachments is unauthorized and prohibited. Your receipt of this message is not 

intended to waive any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality , and any prohibited or 

unauthorized disclosure is not binding on the sender or the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency. Thank you for your cooperation. 

From: David Ogulei [mailto-'Ogulei.David@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 12:38 P M 

To: Reed, Michae l 

Cc: Belogorsky, Anatoly; Danny Marcus; Genevieve Damico; Jane Woolums 

Subject: Re: Veolia Environmental Services (fka Onyx) Significant Modification -

Here is where things stand with respect to your 7 questions below'-

VES 001353 
1. EP A received an updated application from Veoli a on Marc h 2, 2010. EP A wil l make the updated 

application, as well as any supplemental information, available to the public and Illinois EP A as part 

of the permit record. 

2. EP A is still preparing a draft permit and statement of basis for this permit action. We wil l inform 

you when these documents are available for review. 

3. A public repository has not yet been established. EP A wil l establish a public repository and 

communicate its location to the public and Illinois EP A once a draft permit is issued for public 

comment. 

4. The public notice date has not yet been determined. The public notice wil l state the end the public 

comment period. 

5. Although it is likely that EP A wil l share a preliminary draft permit with Illinois EP A before 

seeking public comment, that decision has not yet been made. 

6. I n general, we intend to follow the guidance documented i n "EP A Activities To Promote 

Environmental Justice i n the Permit Application Process", Notice of Availability of Proposed 

Regional Actions to Promote Public Participation i n the Permitting Process and Draft Best Practices 

for Permit Applicants Seeking EPATssue d Permits; Request for Comments, 77 Fed. Reg. 38052 

(June 26, 2012). However, we are still finalizing an E J plan that is specific to this permit action. 

7. Illinois EP A has been involved i n discussions on an E J plan for this permit action. Mor e 

discussions might occur, as necessary, once EP A proposes a preliminary draft permit. 

Please contact me wit h any questions. 

Davi d Ogulei 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 | Ai r & Radiation Division | A-18 J 

77 West Jackson Blvd . | Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Phone: (312) 353-0987 | Fax-' (312) 692-2080 

Ogulei.David@epa.gov 

"Reed, Michael " —08/08/2012 11:51:16 AM—Is it possible to get an update on the above permitting 

action? 1. Is there an application or an 

From: "Reed, Michael " <Michael.Reed@Illinois.gov> 

To: Genevieve Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, "Belogorsky, Anatoly" 

<Anatoly.Belogorsky@Illinois.gov>, 

Cc: Davi d Ogulei/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Danny Marcus/R5/USEPA/US@EP A 

Date: 08/08/2012 11:51 A M 

Subject: Veolia Environmental Services (fka Onyx) Significant Modification -

Is 

1. 

it possible to get an update on the above permitting action? 

Is there an application or any updates/supplements to this application? 

2 Is there a draft permit/statement of basis that has been prepared? 

3. Is there a public repository that contains all the documentation i n the permit 

VES 001354 
record that was relied on? If so, is it electronic and where would I find that 

repository? 

4. What is the date when Public Notice wil l begin and when is the Public Comment 

period? 

5. Wil l the Illinois EP A see a preliminary draft before Notice for review? 

6. Wha t are the planned E J activities for this permit? 

7. Has there been any outreach wit h Illinois EP A (Air, Water and Land) regarding 

sufficiency of any limits and compliance status of the source? 

Thanks. 

VES 001355 
V ES 001356.pdf 
UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 

REGIO N 5 

7 7 WES T JACKSO N BOULEVAR D 

CHICAGO , IL 60604-359 0 

AUG 2 4 2012 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Veolia Environmental Services 

#7 Mobile Avenue . 

Sauget, Illinois 62201 

Re: Fmdingof Violation of Clean Air Act 

Veolia Environmental Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

Dear Mr. Harris: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing the enclosed Finding of Violation (FOV) 

to Veolia Environmental Services (you). We find that you are violating Sections 112 and 114 of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412 and 7414, at your Sauget, Illinois facility. 

We have several enforcement optionsunder Section 113(a)(3) ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7413(a)(3). These options include issuing an administrative compliance order, issumg an 

administrative penalty order and bringing a judicial civil or criininal action. 

We are offering you an opportunity to confer with us about the violations alleged in the FOV. 

The conference will give you the opportunity to present information on the specific findings of 

violation, the efforts you have taken to comply, and the steps you will take to prevent future 

violations. 

Please plan for your facility's technical and management personnel to attend the conference to 

discuss compliance measures and commitments. You may have an attorney represent you at this 

conference. 

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

VES 001356 
The EPA contacts in this matter are Sarah Marshall and Nathan Frank. You may call Ms. 

Marshall or Mr. Frank at 312.886.6797 and 312.886.3850, respectively, to request a conference. 

You should make the request within 10 calendar days following receipt of this letter. We should 

hold any conference within 30 calendar days following receipt of this letter. 

Sincerely 

GeorgffT. C&erniaJ* 

Acting jE^regfor 

Air and Radiation Division 

cc: Ray Pilapil, Manager 

Compliance and Systems Management Section 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Joseph M . Kellmeyer 

VES 001357 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

FINDING OF VIOLATION 

EPA-5-12-BL-15 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

Veolia Environmental Services 

Sauget, Illinois 

Proceedings Pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. 

FINDING OF VIOLATION 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finds that Veolia Environmental Services 

(Veolia) is violating Section 112 ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7412, and its 

implementing regulations for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Hazardous Waste Combustors at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE, and Section 114 ofthe CAA, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7414, at its Sauget, Illinois facility (Facility). 

Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

Section 114 ofthe CAA: 

1. Section 114 ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, provides, in part, that the 

Administrator of the EPA may require any person who owns or operates any emission source to 

install, use, and maintain monitoring equipment to determine whether that source is in violation 

of Section 112 ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412. 

The NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors: 

2. On September 30,1999, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC MACT) at 40 C.F.R. Part 

63, Subpart EEE (64 Fed. Reg. 53038). 

3. In July 2001, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the HWC MACT. 

Cement Recycling Coal v. EPA, 347 U.S. App. D.C. 127,255 F.3d 855, 857 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 

The Court stayed the vacatur until EPA could promulgate interim standards. 

4. On February 13,2002, EPA promulgated the HWC MACT mterim standards at 

40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE (67 Fed. Reg. 6792). 

5. On October 12,2005, EPA promulgated the HWC MACT final standards at 40 

C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE (70 Fed. Reg. 59402). 

VES 001358 
6. The HWC MACT final standards at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart EEE became 

effective on October 14,2008. (70 Fed. Reg. 59402). 

7. The HWC MACT applies to hazardous waste incinerators (HW incinerators). 40 

C.F.R § 63.1200. . 

8. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(a)(1)(h), requires existing HW 

incinerators to comply with ernission standards provided under 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219, including 

the standard for mercury, by no later than October 14,2008. 

9. . The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219(a)(2), prohibits HW incinerators from 

emitting into the atmosphere mercury in excess of 130 ug/dscm, corrected to 7% oxygen. 

10. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R § 63.1206(c), provides operating requirements for 

HW incinerators and states that failure to comply with the operating requirements is failure to 

ensure compliance with the emission standard, including the mercury standard in 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.1219(a)(2). 

11. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(b)(1), requires HW incinerators to . 

conduct a comprehensive performance test (CPT) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

standards and establish operating parameter limitations (OPLs) that ensure comphance with 

emission standards, including the mercury standard in 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219(a)(2). 

12. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1211(c), requires HW incinerators to 

develop and include in the operating record at the facility a Document of Compliance (DOC) by 

the compliance date ofthe regulations. The DOC identifies the applicable emission standards 

and the OPLs under § 63.1209 that will ensure comphance with those emission standards. When 

the DOC is included in the operating record, a source is no longer subject to the previously 

apphcable Notice of Compliance (NOC) that documented compliance with, and established' 

OPLs for, the interim HWC MACT emission standards. 

13. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1211(c)(3), requires HW incinerators to 

include a signed and dated certification in the DOC that, based on an engineering evaluation 

prepared under the source's direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to 

ensure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information and supporting 

documentation,, and considering at a minimum the design, operation, and maintenance 

characteristics of the combustor and emissions control equipment, the types, quantities, and 

characteristics of feedstreams, and available emissions data: 

a. the HW incinerator is in comphance with the emission standards of the HWC 

MACT and 

b. the limils on the operating parameters under § 63.1209 ensure compliance 

with.the emission standards of the HWC MACT (emphasis added). 

14. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207(j)(l)(i), requires HW incinerators to 

submit a NOC within 90 days of completion of a CPT. The NOC must document compliance 

2 

VES 001359 
with the emission standards and continuous monitoring system requirements, and identify OPLs 

under § 63.1209. 

15. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R § 63.1207G)(l)(h), requires HW incinerators, 

upon postmark of the NOC, to comply with all operating requirements specified in the NOC in 

lieu ofthe limits specified in the DOC required under § 63.1211(c). 

16. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(l)(i), requires that HW incinerators 

operate under the operating requhements specified in the applicable DOC under 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.1211(c) or NOC under 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.12070) and 63.1210(d). 

17. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(1), requires that prior to feeding the 

material to the incinerator, HW incinerators must obtain an analysis of each feedstream that is 

sufficient to document comphance with the apphcable feed rate limits. The applicable feed rate 

limits are OPLs for the HW incinerators. 

18. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(2), requires HW incinerators to 

develop and implement a feedstream analysis plan (FAP) and record it in the operating record. 

The FAP must specify tlie frequency with which a source must review or repeat the initial 

analysis of the feedstream to ensure that the analysis is accurate and up to date. 

19. The HWC MACT, at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(4), states that to comply with 

applicable feed rate hmits, HW incinerators must monitor and record feed rates by, among other 

requirements, deterrnining and recording the value of the parameter for each feedstream by 

sampling and analysis or other method. 

The Veolia HWC MACT Feedstream Analysis Plan: 

20. Veolia's FAP, at Section 5.3, specifies that the procedure for determining 

concentrations of Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium and Lead in samples is EPA SW846 Method 6010C. EPA SW-846 Method 6010C is for the use of inductively coupled plasmaatomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). 

21. EPA SW-846 Method 6010C Section 4.2.6 states that the interference effects must 

be evaluated for each individual instrument. This involves determining and documenting the 

effect of referenced interferences and any other suspected interference for each recommended 

wavelength. The method goes on to require that a computer routine be used for automatic 

correction on all analyses. 

22. The FAP, at Section 6.0(3), requires that the analytical infonnation for the 

feedstreams be re-evaluated on a frequency of five years since the last assessment of the 

feedstream. 

CAA Enforcement Authority: 

23. Section 113(a)(3) ofthe CAA , 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a)(3), provides that whenever, on 

the basis of any information available to the Administrator, the Administrator finds that any 

3 

VES 001360 
person has violated, or is in violation of, inter alia, Sections 112 or 114 of the CAA, the 

Administrator may issue an adminishative penalty order, an order requiring compliance, or a 

civil or criminal action, as appropriate. 

Finding of Fact 

24. Veolia owns and operates three hazardous waste incinerators at #7 Mobile 

Avenue, Sauget, Illinois. 

25. Veolia's incinerators are subject to the HWC MACT requirements at 40 C.F.R. 

Part 63, Subpart EEE. 

Fact Related to Section 114 of the CAA Violation: 

26. On March 10, 2010, EPA issued an Information Request under Section 114 of the 

C A A to Veoha instructing the HW incinerator to install and operate a mercury continuous 

emissions monitor (CEM) on each of its three incinerators, including a request that Veolia 

submit requests for proposals (RFPs) to mercury CE M vendors by March 26,2010; provide 

copies of the RFPs to EPA by March 30, 2010; submit an Alternative Monitoring Plan covering 

the mercury CEMs to EPA by May 16, 2010; perform all ofthe required certification and 

calibration of the CEMs upon installation and operation; provide all CEMs data on a monthly 

basis for one year after certification; and provide appropriate waste analyses. 

27. To date, Veolia has failed to provide to EPA any ofthe information, and take the 

actions, identified in Paragraph 26, above. 

Facts Related to Emission Standard and Feed Rate OPL Violations: 

28. Veolia conducted stack tests for MACT metals, including mercury, in August and 

September 2008 on Incinerators 2, 3, and 4. During the test, Veolia fed mercury into the 

incinerators in the form of waste and a pre-calibrated spike. 

29. On October 10, 2008, based on the 2008 stack testing, Veolia submitted to EPA a 

N OC under the interim HWC MACT standards containing, in relevant part, the following feed 

rate OPLs for mercury (Hg): 

Unit HgFeedrate/OPL 

lb/hour 

2 0.0047 

3 0.0047 

4 0.031 

3 0. Veoha calculated the OPLs for mercury in the October 10,2008 NOC using an 

incorrect moisture content for the waste, resulting in higher than appropriate mercury feed rate 

OPLs. 

4 

VES 001361 
31. Veolia filed a DOC under the final HWC MACT in its operating record at its 

Facility on October 14, 2008. The DOC contained, in relevant part, the following feed rate OPLs 

for mercury: 

Unit HgFeedrate/OPL 

lb/hour 

2 0.0034 

3 0.0034 

4 0.026 

32. The OPLs specified in paragraph 31 above were based on the rate mercury was 

fed during the 2008 metals stack test with an updated, yet still incorrect, moisture content value 

that resulted in higher than appropriate mercury feed rate OPLs. 

33. On March 16,2010, after Veolia conducted its CPT in December 2009, Veolia 

submitted to EPA a NOC under the final HWC MACT standards containing, in relevant part, the 

following feed rate OPLs for mercury which were updated with the correct moisture content 

values: 

Unit Hg Feedrate/OPL 

lb/hour 

2 0.0019 

3 0.0019 

• 4 0.026 

34. EPA has detennined that the 2008 metals stack test spike mercury concentration 

Veolia used to calculate the feed rate OPLs for mercury was incorrect, resulting in mercury feed 

rate OPLs that remained higher than appropriate. 

35. The Facility is operating under a Title V permit issued by EPA on September 12, 

2008. The Title V permit does not contain feed rate OPLs for mercury, semi-volatile metals 

(SVM), or low volatile metals (LVM), as required by the HWC MACT, because EPA did not 

have reliable data necessary to establish the appropriate OPLs for those hazardous wastes. 

36. Between October 10,2008 and May 31,2009, Veoha operated Incinerator 2 

above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure comphance with the HWC 

MAC T mercury emission standard for at least 9,600 12-hour one-minute rolling averages. 

37. Between October 10,2008 and May 31,2009, Veolia operated Incinerator 3 

above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure compliance with the HWC 

MAC T mercury emission standard for at least 11,500 12-hour one-minute rolling averages. 

38. Between October 10,2008 and May 31, 2009, Veoha operated Incinerator 4 

above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure comphance with the HWC 

MAC T mercury emission standard for at least 6,100 12-hour one-minute rolling averages. 

5 

VES 001362 
Facts Related to Waste Analysis Violations: 

39. In October 2008, Veolia developed a FAP as required by 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.1209(c)(2). 

40. From December 5 through December 15,2011, EPA's National Enforcement 

Investigations Center (NEIC) conducted a focused investigation of Veolia's compliance with the 

C A A and RCRA's waste analysis procedures. 

41. As part of the investigation, NEIC did an in depth review of less than 1 % of the 

waste profiles received by Veolia in 2011 and less than 1.5% ofthe waste volume received by 

Veolia in 2011. NEIC found that a high percentage of the profiles it reviewed were inaccurate. 

Therefore, EPA believes that a broader investigation would reveal that significantly more waste 

profiles at Veolia's facihty are inaccurate. 

42. Veolia used the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) concentrations 

instead ofthe total metals concentrations as the value of metals in a feedstream for at least two 

waste profdes, specifically 236152 and 691163. Veolia's practice underestimates the actual 

metals concentration in the waste stream. 

43. NEIC inspectors found that Veolia used generic waste profiles for waste streams 

that contain volatile and semi-volatile metals, and assigns one metals concentration based on the 

generic waste profile rather than analyzing for metals each time the waste is received. For 

example: 

a. Profiles CI5789 and 660210 are both described as "cyanide containing 

wastes." While both profiles list cadmium cyanide as a possible constituent, 

Veolia uses a value of 6,470 mg/kg cadmium for profile C15789 and 1 mg/kg 

cadmium for profile 660210. Since these are very similar waste streams 

generated by different generators, Veolia should analyze these variable waste 

streams each time they arrive on site. 

b. Profile 374339 is organic debris, and the metals concentrations in the waste 

loads could vary greatly. Veoha should analyze these variable waste streams 

each time they arrive on site. 

c. Profile CARBN1 is a generic profile broadly used by Veolia that uses a 

standard concentration value for chromium of139 mg/kg. One ofthe load 

receipts received on April 8,2011, and sampled and analyzed on June 9,2011, 

had an actual chromium concentration of 99,780 mg/kg. Standard profiles 

such as CARBN1, that have the potential to have significant variation in 

metals concentration, do not accurately estimate the metals concentration of 

the waste streams. Only 19 ofthe 330 total CARBN1 loads received in a 3-

year period (June 2009 to June 2012) were sampled and analyzed for metals, 

and all of these loads were sampled after January 2011. The use of overly 

broad standard profiles leads to incorrect metals concentrations being used to 

calculate the feed rates for the HWC incinerators, 

6 

VES 001363 
d. Veolia used several profiles that use metals concentrations identical to those 

used, in other profiles. This is statistically unlikely. 

44. Veolia feeds incinerator ash from Incinerators 2 and 3 into Incinerator 4 prior to 

offsite disposal. NEIC inspectors found that Veoha analyzed this ash for metals only once in the 

last seven years. NEIC inspectors analyzed six grab samples ofthe ash from Incinerators 2 and 

3. Tlie results of the analysis show that the metals composition of the ash is highly variable. 

45. NEIC inspectors identified the presence of conflicting metals data between the 

profile package and the infonnation in the waste tracking system (WTS) and the incinerator 

control system (ICS) as follows: 

a. The profile package for Profile 236152 uses the material safety datasheet 

(MSDS) concentration of three to six percent chromium as chromium oxide 

(30,000 to 60,000 mg/kg). ICS uses a value of 228 mg/kg for chromium 

oxide. 

b. The profile package for Profile 691163 has a TCLP value for chromium of 1.8 

mg/L, while ICS and WTS use a value of 0 mg/L. 

c. The profile package for Profile AF3753 has a total mercury value of 4,140 

mg/kg and TLCP value of 37.8 mg/kg, but WTS and ICS used a value of 25 

mg/kg for at least five years. 

46. Veolia uses ICP-AES software for metals analysis. When unknown constituents 

are present in a sample, automatic background and overlap corrections result in large negative 

values. Veolia does not measure all major elements in samples to identify and correct potential 

negative interferences which could underestimate the metals concentrations. This results in 

inaccurate feedstream'analysis. 

Violations 

47. To date, Veolia has failed to provide any of the information required by the 

March 10,2010 Information Request in violation of Section 114 ofthe CAA. 

48. Veolia failed to and continues to fail to ensure compliance with the HWC MACT 

mercury emission standard by failing to establish an appropriate mercury feed rate OPL in its 

October 10,2008 NOC, October 14,2008 DOC, and March 16, 2010 NOC in violation of the 

H WC MACT at 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1206(a)(ii), 63.1206(c), 63.1207(b)(1), 63.1211(c), and 

63.1207(j)(lXi). 

49. Between October 10,2008 and May 31,2009, Veolia operated Incinerators 2, 3, 

and 4 above the appropriate mercury feed rate OPL necessary to ensure comphance with the 

HWC MACT mercury emission standard as described in Paragraphs 29 through 38j above, in 

violation of the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R §§ 63.1206(a)(ii), 63.1206(c)(l)(i), 63.1219(a)(2). 

50. Veolia failed and continues to fail to ensure that qualified personnel properly 

gathered and evaluated the information and supporting documentation from the 2008 metals 

. 7 

VES 001364 
stack test to establish mercury-feed rate OPLs that ensure comphance with the HWC MACT 

mercury emission standard in violation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1211(c)(3). 

51. By using the TCLP concentrations instead of the total metals on Profiles 236152 

and 691163, Veolia failed and continues to fail to obtain an analysis of each of the related 

feedstreams sufficient to document compliance with the applicable feed rate OPLs in violation of 

the HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(1) and 63.1209(c)(4). 

52. By using generic waste profiles and assuming a constant metals concentration 

for variable wastes, rather than analyzing each waste stream, Veolia failed and continues to fail 

to obtain an analysis of each ofthe related feedstreams sufficient to document compliance with 

the apphcable feed rate OPLs in violation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(1) and 

63.1209(c)(4). 

53. Veolia failed and continues to fail to analyze the ash from Incinerators 2 and 3 

at a frequency necessary to obtain an analysis of each of the related feedstreams sufficient to 

document compliance with the applicable feed rate limits OPLs in violation ofthe HWC MACT 

at 40 C.F.R. § 63T209(c)(l) and 63.1209(c)(4) and Section 6.0(3) ofthe FAP. 

54. Veolia failed and continues to fail to resolve the conflict between metals data 

for Profiles 236152, 691163, and AF3753 which resulted in a failure to obtain an analysis of 

each of the related feedstreams sufficient to document comphance with the applicable feed rate 

OPLs in violation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1209(c)(2) and 63.1209(c)(4) and 

Section 6.0 ofthe FAP. 

55. Veolia failed and continues to fail to evaluate interference effects on its ICPAES resulting in a failure to obtain an analysis of each of the related feedstreams sufficient to 

document compliance with the applicable feed rate limits in violation ofthe HWC MACT at 40 

C.F.R. § 63.1209(c)(2) and 63.1209(c)(4)and Section 5.3 ofthe FAP. 

Date 

8 

VES 001365 
V ES 001366.pdf 
Veolia partial outreach list 

Kathy Andria to: Andrea Morgan 08/27/2012 02:54 PM 

^ . David Ogulei, Genevieve Damico, Jane Woolums, Amy Funk, 

C

' "Elizabeth J. Hubertz" 

Andre a e t al : 

Belo w is a list, certainl y no t complete , o f suggeste d contact s fo r th e outreac h list fo r Veolia' s 

sigmo d permit . 

A l l ofth e name s I've previousl y given , includin g Am y Funk , Ka t Logan , Liz Hubert z "Elizabet h J . 

Hubertz " <ejhubertz@wulaw.wustl.edu>, Veren a Owe n an d Davi d Bende r 

T h e Cit y o f St . Loui s 

Cit y o f Eas t St . Louis—mayor' s offic e an d fir e chie f 

Villag e o f Sauge t 

Villag e o f Cahoki a 

Eas t St . Loui s Churche s c/ o ministers , man y o f whic h ca n be foun d a t 

http://www.stlouischurches.org/Category/South-St-Louis-IL-Churches/East-St-Louis-IL-Churche 

s-62207/ 

East-Wes t Gatewa y Ai r Qualit y Advisor y Cmt e 

Mik e Coulso n "Mik e Coulson " rnike.coulson@ewgateway.or g 

Caro l Lawrenc e carol.lawrence@ewgateway.org 

R o b Kaleel , LADCO , kaleel@ladco.or g 

Jeff Benbene k IEP A jeff.benbenek@illinois.go v 

K e n Page , IEPA EJ Office r "Page , Ken " ken.page@illinois.go v 

Shirle y Schultz , Metr o Eas t Asthm a group , sschultz@memhosp.co m 

Bar b Hohlt , St . Clair Count y Healt h Distric t "Bar b Hohlt " barb.hohlt@co.st-clair.il.us , 

Dou g King , EastSid e Healt h District , ESL 

Richar d Ellerbrake , "Richar d Ellerbrake " rellerbrake@att.ne t 

Barbar a Levin , ESL Universit y Collaborativ e blevin@wustl.ed u 

Jac k Norma n jmnorman@htc.ne t 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment—Kat Logan 

VES 001366 
Metro East Community Air Project—Amy Funk 

Sierr a Club , Missour i Chapte r 

Joh n Hicke y 

Chapte r Director 

John.Hickey@sierraclub.or g 

Sierra Club , Illinois, Kaskaski a Grou p 

"Wojtkowski , Dale " wojo@wisperhome.co m 

I don' t hav e a n update d list o f communit y organization s in Eas t St . Louis , bu t the y shoul d 

certainl y b e added , as shoul d thos e in St . Louis . 

I als o sugges t tha t yo u contac t Ke n Bard o an d Dav e Nova k o f EP A wh o compile d outreac h lists 

f o r Solutia/Sauge t Superfun d sit e an d th e ESL Alco a site . 

Newspaper s shoul d includ e St . Loui s Post-Dispatc h (jtomich@post-dispatch.co m an d 

pgauen@post-dispatch.com) Bellevill e News-Democrat , Th e St . Loui s American , Eas t St . Loui s 

Monitor . 

Kath y 

Kath y Andri a 

America n Botto m Conservanc y 

VES 001367 
V ES 001368.pdf 
Fvr- More from Region 5 

. David Ogulei, Sarah Marshall, Charles Hall , 

D a n Bivins, Ki m Garnett 

09/26/2012 03:40 PM 

Info from Pal l 

Jeff Rya n 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

A i r Pollution Prevention and Control Division 

A i r Pollution Technology Branch 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Mai l Drop E305 01 

Research Triangle Park, N C 27711 

(919) 541-1437 (919) 541-0554 FA X 

"And all this science, I don't understand." 

"It's just my job 5 days a week" 

Elton John - Rocket Ma n 

Forwarded by Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US on 09/26/2012 04:39 P M 

From: Douglas_Barth@pall.com 

To: Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Marty_Ladner@pall.com 

Date: 09/26/2012 12:25 PM 

Subject: Re : More from Region 5 

Jeff, 

Pe r your request for building a case why the Xact 640 Multi-Metals CEM S cannot be rejected from 

monitoring a HWI. 

General Information 

Literature Review 
Enjoy! 

Douglas C. Bart h 

Pal l Corporation Power Generation Group 

Business Development Manager 

Emissions Monitoring Products 

2118 Greenspring Dr. 

Timonium, M D 21093 

cell: 860-576-2409 

http://www.pall.com/industrialmaterials monitoring 

From: Jeff Ryan <Ryan.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov> 

To: Douglas Barth/Timonium/Pall@PALL 

Cc: Brent VanZandt/Cortland7Pall@Pall, "Dr. John A Cooper" <jacooper@cooperenvironmentaI.com>, Krag 

Petterson/Cortland/Pall@PALL, Marty Ladner/Pensacola/Pall@Pall, Matt Scharf/Timonium/Pall@Pall 

Date: 09/20/2012 01:48 PM 

Subject: Re: More from Region 5 

Awesome Doug! 

Thanks! 

Jeff Rya n 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Nationa l Ris k Management Research Laboratory 

A i r Pollution Prevention and Control Division 

A i r Pollution Technology Branch 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Mai l Drop E305-01 

Research Triangle Park, N C 27711 

(919) 541-1437 (919) 541-0554 FA X 

"And all this science, I don't understand." 

"It's just my job 5 days a week" 

Elton John - Rocket Ma n 
Douglas_Barth—09/20/2012 01:19:11 PM—Jeff, I could 100% refute the El i Lill y experience as told 

to you by this HWI. However, that would 

From: Douglas_Barth@pall.com 

To: Jeff Ryar^RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Brent_VanZandt@pall.com, "Dr. John A Cooper" <jacooper@cooperenvironmental.com>, Krag_Petterson@pall.com, 

Marty_Ladner@pall.com, Matt_Scharf@pall.com 

Date: 09/20/2012 01:19 PM 

Subject: Re: More from Region 5 

Jeff, 

I could 100% refute the El i Lill y experience as told to you by this HWI . However, that would be 

properly done by contacting Rick Lambert directly using the below information. 

Yes, we can operate i n 40% moisture. I wil l send you our system configuration questionnaire, so R5 

can provide us more info on this specific application. 

Let's talk next week, enjoy the game! 

Cheers, 

LAMBERT_RICHARD_H@LILLY.CO M 

Office: 13172761820 

Cell: 13173190523 

This was sent from a BlackBerry device. 

From: Jeff Rya n [Ryan.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: 09/20/2012 12:46 P M AS T 

To= Douglas Bart h 

Cc: Brent VanZandt; "Dr. John A Cooper" <jacooper@cooperenvironmental.com>; Kra g Petterson; 

Mart y Ladner; Matt Scharf 

Subject: Re-' More from Region 5 

Thanks Doug 

I'll have to catch up with you next week. Getting ready to head out on travel. 

Short story is I want to confirm/refute status of system at Lil y and need to know whether you can 

operate @ 40% moisture. These are their 2 major points as why not. The H g is a totally separate 

issue, and one we are well prepared for. 

Talk to you soon. 

Jeff 

VES 001370 
Jeff Rya n 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

A i r Pollution Prevention and Control Division 

A i r Pollution Technology Branch 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Mai l Drop E305-01 

Research Triangle Park, N C 27711 

(919) 541-1437 (919) 541-0554 FA X 

"And all this science, I don't understand." 

"It's just my job 5 days a week" 

Elton John - Rocket Ma n 

Douglas_Barth—09/19/2012 05-'38-'33 PM--Jeff, It looks like this effort will take some time and 

tact. I will be happy to guide you and R5 th 

From-' Douglas_Barth@pall.com 

To: Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Dr. John A Cooper" <jacooper@cooperenvironmental.com>, "Marty Ladner" 

<Marty_Ladner@pail.com> 

Cc: "Matt Scharf' <Matt_Scharf@pall.com>, "Krag Petterson" <krag_petterson@pall.eom>, Brent_VanZandt@pall.com 

Date: 09/19/2012 05:38 PM 

Subject: Re : More from Region 5 

Jeff, 

It looks like this effort will take some time and tact. I will be happy to guide you and R 5 through the 

maze of information to build a scientifically defensible case for our XR F CEM S on HWI . 

X R F looks like the education starting point for this effort. H g CEM S are A F and Multi-Metals are 

XRF , those Hg CEM S references set no precedence here that section ofth e slate is clean. 

As for E h Lill y Co. Rick Lambert is the correct contact. Rick funded the research starting i n 1996 

with Arm y to R& D the first EP A certified M M CEMS . He owned and operated the system for 6 years. 

I wil l forward his contact information to you. 

I wil l save the rest of my responses for our talk. 

Cheers, 

This was sent from a BlackBerry device. 

VES 001371 
From: Jeff Rya n [Ryan.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: 09/19/2012 04:38 P M AS T 

To: "John Cooper" <jacooper@eooperenvironmental.com>; Douglas Bart h 

Subject: More from Region 5 

Jeff Rya n 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Nationa l Ris k Management Research Laboratory 

A i r Pollution Prevention and Control Division 

A i r Pollution Technology Branch 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Mai l Drop E305-01 

Research Triangle Park, N C 27711 

(919) 541-1437 (919) 541-0554 FA X 

"An d all this science, I don't understand." 

"It's just my job 5 days a week" 

Elton John - Rocket Ma n 

Attention "• 

This communication may contain information that is confidential, privileged and/or 

exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, 

please notify the sender immediately and delete the original, all attachments, and 

all copies of this communication. 

Attention: 

This communication may contain information that is confidential, privileged and/or 

exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, 

please notify the sender immediately and delete the original, all attachments, and 

all copies of this communication. 

Attention: 

This communication may contain information that is confidential, privileged and/or 

exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, 

please notify the sender immediately and delete the original, all attachments, and 

all copies of this communication. 

VES 001372 
*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zip, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

Usin g the Xact as a Mercury Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro H g RAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l wit h the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

F or further information, please contact the EP A Cal l Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zip, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

Usin g the Xact as a Mercury Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro Hg RAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l with the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

F or further information, please contact the EP A Call Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

VES 001373 
*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zip, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

Using the Xact as a Mercury Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro H g RAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l with the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

For further information, please contact the EP A Cal l Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zip, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

Using the Xact as a Mercury Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro H g RAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l with the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

VES 001374 
rename the file extension to its correct name. 

For further information, please contact the EP A Call Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zdp, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

Usin g the Xact as a Mercury Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro H g RAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l with the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

F or further information, please contact the EP A Call Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zip, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

Usin g the Xact as a Mercury Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro H g RAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

VES 001375 
If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l wit h the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

For further information, please contact the EP A Call Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 

Yanca 2006.pdf 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zip, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

Using the Xact as a Mercury Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro H g RAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to hmit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l with the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

For further information, please contact the EP A Call Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELD7ERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zip, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

Using the Xact as a Mercury Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro H g RAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 
network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to hmit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l wit h the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

For further information, please contact the EP A Call Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zip, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

Using the Xact as a Mercur y Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro Hg RAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l with the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

For further information, please contact the EP A Cal l Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D ******************* 

This Emai l message contained an attachment named 

Xact 640 Config Questions 41411.pdf.zip, PGXACT640EN.pdf.zip , Xact 640 References.pdf.zip, 

otml6.pdf.zip, otm20.pdf.zip, Xact 640 EP A Certification Document 020808.pdf.zip, Feasibility of 

VES 001377 
Using the Xact as a Mercury Monitor final.pdf.zip, Avogadro Hg EAT A report Apri l 2009.pdf.zip, 

2005 Hay-Boddu Paper.pdf.zip, El i Lill y Co. 2009 Metals RAT A Data.pdf.zip 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to hmit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EP A network. EP A is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency vi a Email . 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Emai l with the renamed attachment. Afte r 

receiving the revised Email , containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

F or further information, please contact the EP A Call Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TD D number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMEN T NO T DELIVERE D *********************** 
JOURNAL m 

if THE DID & MSTt MAIMEMEIT «SOCI»TIM 

IMPORTANT COPYRIGHT INFORMATION 

The following PDF article was originally published in the Journal of the Air & Waste 

Management Association and is fully protected under the copyright laws of the United 

States of America. The author of this article alone has been granted permission to copy 

and distribute this PDF. Additional uses of the PDF/article by the author(s) or recipients, 

including posting it on a Web site, are prohibited without the express consent of the Air 

& Waste Management Association. 

If you are interested in reusing, redistributing, or posting online all or parts of the 

enclosed article, please contact the offices of the Journal of the Air & Waste Management 

Association at 

Phone: +1-412-232-3444, ext. 3179 

E-mail: joumal@awma.org 

Web: www.awma.org 

You may also contact the Copyright Clearance Center for all permissions related to the 

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association; www.copyright.com. 

Copyright © 2006 Air & Waste Management Association 

VES 001379 
TECHNICAL PAPER ISSN 1047-3289 /. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 56:1733-1742 

Copyright 2006 Air & Waste Management Association 

Validation of Three New Methods for Determination of Metal 

Emissions Using a Modified Environmental Protection Agency 

Method 301 

Catherine A. Yanca, Douglas C. Barth, Krag A. Petterson, Michael P. Nakanishi, and 

John A. Cooper 

Cooper Environmental Services, LLC, Portland, OR 

Bruce E. Johnsen 

SAIF Co., Portland, OR 

Richard H. Lambert 

Engineering Tech Center, Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, IN 

Daniel G. Bivins 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

ABSTRACT 

Three new methods applicable to the determination of 

hazardous metal concentrations in stationary source 

emissions were developed and evaluated for use in U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compliance 

applications. Two of the three independent methods, a 

continuous emissions monitor-based method (Xact) 

and an X-iay-based filter method (XFM), are used to 

measure metal emissions. The third method involves a 

quantitative aerosol generator (QAG), which produces a 

reference aerosol used to evaluate the measurement 

methods. A modification of EPA Method 301 was used 

to validate the three methods for As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg, 

representing three hazardous waste combustor Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) metal 

categories (low volatile, semivolatile, and volatile). The 

modified procedure tested the methods using more 

stringent criteria than EPA Method 301; these criteria 

Included accuracy, precision, and linearity. The aerosol 

generation method was evaluated in the laboratory by 

comparing actual with theoretical aerosol concentrations. The measurement methods were evaluated at a 

hazardous waste combustor (HWC) by comparing measured with reference aerosol concentrations. The QAG, 

Xact, and XFM met the modified Method 301 validation criteria. All three of the methods demonstrated 

precisions and accuracies on the order of 5%. In addition, correlation coefficients for each method were on 

the order of 0.99, confirming the methods' linear response and high precision over a wide range of concentrations. The measurement methods should be applicable to emissions from a wide range of sources, and the 

reference aerosol generator should be applicable to additional analytes. EPA recently approved an alternative 

monitoring petition for an HWC at Eli Lilly's Tippecanoe site in Lafayette, IN, in which the Xact is used for 

demonstrating compliance with the HWC MACT metal 

emissions (low volatile, semivolatile, and volatile). The 

QAG reference aerosol generator was approved as a 

method for providing a quantitative reference aerosol, 

which is required for certification and continuing quality assurance of the Xact. 

INTRODUCTION 

Air toxic metals have been associated with a wide range 

of environmental and human health effects, including 

respiratory disorders, pulmonary disorders, and cancer.1

-

2

 EPA regulates the emissions of toxic metals from 

stationary sources under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) or Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule.3

 Currently, 

emissions are estimated based on control efficiencies 

established during performance tests and estimated 

feed rates during normal operations. When actual emissions are measured, EPA Reference Method 29 (Method 

29) is used.4 However, Method 29 is based on 30-yr-old 

IMPLICATIONS 

The two measurement methods for determining metal 

emissions validated In this study (the Xact and the XFM) 

include significant improvements in measurement technology. With these two new methods, plant operators can 

make more precise, accurate, and frequent measurements, 

leading to a better understanding of emissions. With the 

new reference aerosol generator validated in this study (the 

QAG), development and evaluation of new measurement 

methods are now more practical. The measurement methods are applicable to a wide range of elements and may be 

applicable to other sources. The aerosol generator may be 

applicable to both organic and inorganic analytes. 

Volume 56 December 2006 Journal ot the Air S Waste Management Association 1733 
Yanca et al. 

impinger technology with accuracies and precisions on 

the order of 15%.5-

7

 The method also involves hazardous chemicals, and it requires long turnaround times. It 

is clear that there are opportunities for improvement in 

the current monitoring technology. 

There have been attempts over the past decade to 

improve metals measurement technology by developing multimetal continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS).8

-

10

 None of the proposed technologies 

have been approved for compliance demonstration 

other than those discussed in this paper. The new technology presented here includes three new methods applicable to the determination of hazardous metal concentrations in emissions: a multimetal CEMS-based 

method (Xact), a sampling and analysis measurement 

method (X-ray-based filter method [XFM]), and a National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)-

traceable reference aerosol generating method (QAG). 

The methods and the instruments used to perform the 

methods were developed to provide more precise, accurate, and frequent measurement capabilities than are 

offered by Method 29. The Xact method uses a CEMS 

based on X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis of aerosol 

deposits (particulate and vapor phase) on reactive filter 

tape."'12 XFM is comparable to Method 29 but uses 

reactive filters (solid sorbants)11-

12

 instead of impingers 

to trap both particulate and vapor phase metals, followed by nondestructive XRF analysis of the filters. The 

quantitative aerosol generator (QAG) is based on nebulization of a metal-containing solution and produces a 

reference aerosol that can be used to validate measurement methods, such as the Xact and XFM. 

To evaluate the performance of the new methods, a 

test plan13 based on the requirements of EPA Method 

30114 was developed. Method 301 is a defined procedure 

for validating new pollutant measurement methods that 

could potentially be used to demonstrate compliance 

with permits or other EPA applications. A more stringent 

modification of this procedure was used to validate the 

three methods based on accuracy, precision, and linearity 

criteria. This paper presents: (1) an overview of the three 

methods, (2) the procedure used for validating these 

methods, and (3) the results ofthe validation tests. Details 

about these instruments and methods, performance specifications, and standard operating procedures are presented elsewhere.15

-

20 

EXPERIMENTAL WORK 

Quantitative Reference Aerosol Generation 

The method for generating a quantitative reference 

aerosol involves the operation of the QAG instrument.

 1S 'Z 1

 Using the QAG, an aerosol of analyte solution droplets is created using a nebulizer.21

-

22

 The droplets are then passed into a settling chamber where the 

large droplets are removed and liquid and vapor phases 

are equilibrated. Droplets <30 u.m in diameter are allowed to pass into a drying chamber where they are 

dried before being emitted. The aerosol exiting the drying chamber consists of the transport gas, water and 

metal vapor, and dried salt particles. The aerosol emission concentration (CJ is calculated from the analyte 

1734 Journal of Ihe Air & Waste Management Association 

concentration in the nebulized solution (Cs), the solution emission rate (J?m) corrected for vapor loss (J?v), 

and the total volume of nebulizing, drying, and dilution gas used to create the aerosol (F,). 

C, = ^(Rm-Rv) (1) 

Quantitation of the emitted aerosol is made possible by: 

(1) using a large reservoir of NIST-traceable analyte solution to minimize the impact of evaporation on solution 

concentration, (2) continuously measuring the solution 

emission rate {R^ with a NIST-traceable balance, (3) precise control of nebulizer conditions, and (4) stable control 

of the maximum droplet size introduced into the generator's drying chamber such that only aerosols with high 

transport efficiencies are generated. The reference aerosol 

produced by the QAG is process NIST traceable and can be 

used in addition to its other applications to challenge and 

evaluate the accuracy, precision, and linearity of the measurement methods. It is applicable to both metal and 

nonmetal species. 

Metal Concentration Measurement 

Xact. The Xact method of metals measurement uses a 

CEMS, called the Xact CEMS, that collects and analyzes 

a sample of emissions using filter-based technology and 

nondestructive XRF. 1 S-

2 3

 During sample collection, the 

Xact CEMS directs a continuous flow of stack gas 

through a stilling chamber where its velocity is reduced 

(i.e., stilled). A continuous subsample is taken from the 

stilling chamber and drawn through chemically-reactive filter tape, which traps both particulate and vaporphase metals.11

-

12

-

23

 The volume of the sample flow is 

measured, and the filter tape deposits are advanced to a 

position where they are analyzed for metal mass using 

XRF analytical procedures similar to those listed in 

EPA's Compendium Method 10-3.3." The Xact CEMS 

then divides the XRF-determined mass per sample by 

the volume per sample and simultaneously reports concentrations for s20 analyte metals every IS min. During analysis of the current sample, the next sample is 

automatically collected. In the Xact CEMS, sampling 

and analysis is performed continuously in the same 

instrument except for the time required to advance the 

tape (~3 sec) and the time required for automated 

quality assurance checks (~1 hr, once per day). Detection limits for the Xact CEMS are listed in Table 1 and 

range from 0.1 jig/dry standard cubic meter (dscm) to 

~6 fig/dscm with 15-min sampling times. These limits 

can be lowered significantly by varying sampling and 

analysis conditions. Both the XFM and Xact methods 

are generally applicable to elements with atomic numbers ranging from 13 (Al) to 92 (U). 

XFM. Like the Xact, the XFM uses filter-based technology 

to collect a representative sample of emissions followed 

by nondestructive XRF analysis of the sample.15 2 3 For 

sample collection, the XFM sampling train connects to a 

stilling chamber, such as the one used for the Xact CEMS. 

A representative sample of stack gas is continuously directed into the stilling chamber (at —30-100 L/min), and 

Volume 56 December 2006 

VES 001381 
Yanca et al. 

Table 1. Xact and XFM detection limits. 

Xact' XFM* 

Element (ixt/dKRl) 

Cr 0.3 0.08 

As 0.1 0.08 

Cd H.4 0.6 

Hg 0.3 0.14 

Pb 0.6 0.12 

Mn 0.2 0.08 

Co 0.3 0.08 

Ni 0.3 0.06 

Se 0.1 0.08 

*8 4.2 0.6 

Sb 6.2 1.6 

Cu 0.5 0.08 

Fe 0.9 0.12 

Zn 0.2 0.06 

Br 0.4 0.2 

Sr 0.3 0.18 

71 0.3 0.14 

Lab Air or 

Stack Gas Xact Stilling XFM 

Chamber Sample Train 

Quantitative 

Aerosol 

Generator 

(QAG) 

Exhaust 

Figure 1. Experimental arrangement for laboratory and field tests. 

NIST traceability of the generation and measurement 

methods, inductively coupled plasma (ICP) analysis conducted at an independent laboratory (Chester LabNet, 

Tigard, OR) confirmed the standard solution concentrations used in the QAG and the filter deposit measurements made by the XFM method. 

Notes: "95% Confidence, interference free, 15-min sample. "95% confidence, 

interference free, 30-min sample. 

the XFM pulls a subsample of ~1 L/min into its sampling 

train. The subsample is diluted and cooled before being 

drawn through a stacked filter cassette containing a polytetrafluoroethylene filter followed by a chemically reactive filter.11'

12'23 Particulate-phase metals are trapped on 

the nonreactive polytetrafluoroethylene filter, whereas 

vapor-phase metals, including Hg, are collected on the 

chemically reactive filter or solid sorbent. After sample 

collection, the filter cassettes are removed from the sampling train, and the resulting filter deposits are analyzed 

for metal mass using nondestructive XRF procedures similar to those listed In EPA's Compendium Method IO3.3.24

 The filters do not require handling during any part 

of the XFM procedure, and they can be readily shipped to 

a laboratory for analysis or analyzed in the field. The 

emissions concentration is calculated by dividing the 

XRF-detennined metal mass by the volume of emissions 

that passed through the niters. Typical sample times are 

30 min, and analysis turnaround times can be on the 

order of a few hours with a field-portable XRF analyzer. 

Detection limits typically range from 0.06 (ig/dscm to 1.6 

u.g/dscm with 30-min sample times (Table 1). Substantially lower detection limits can be attained by varying 

sampling and analysis conditions. 

Method Independence 

The QAG-generated aerosol concentration is independent 

of the aerosol concentrations measured by the Xact and 

XFM. Method independence is confirmed using NIST 

traceability and additional procedures. The concentration 

of the aerosol produced by the QAG is procedurally traceable to NIST through nebulized solution standards and 

QAG operating parameters. The XFM- and Xact-measured 

concentrations are both analytically NIST traceable 

through thin film standards and NIST Standard Reference 

Materials 1832 and 1833. In addition to the independent 

Validation Methodology 

The procedures used to validate the QAG, XFM, and Xact 

were based on EPA Method 301. This EPA method is 

required when new methods of measuring analytes are to 

be used on a source in lieu of the standard reference 

method. Method 301 establishes accuracy and precision 

capabilities of a new method by comparing its determined 

concentrations with those of an accepted reference 

method. The resulting bias between concentrations from 

the two methods is used as an indicator of accuracy. 

Simultaneous method measurements are used to determine precision. Following normal Method 301 procedures, the Xact and XFM measurement methods would be 

tested against Reference Method 29. However, the precision and accuracy of Method 29, which are on the order 

of 15%,s-

7

 were insufficient for verifying the precisions 

and accuracies believed to be attainable with the Xact and 

the XFM (i.e., potential precision <S% and accuracy 

<5%). The validation procedure presented in this section 

is a modified Method 301 in which Method 29 comparisons were replaced with QAG reference aerosol comparisons.13

 This modified method was more stringent than 

Method 301, because it included more replicate runs, 

sequential measurements instead of simultaneous measurements, additional validation criteria (e.g., linearity), 

and independent NIST traceability of results. 

The first step in the modified Method 301 procedure 

required laboratory validation of the QAG emissions, and 

the second step was a field validation of the XFM and Xact 

measurements. The general experimental arrangement 

used for both laboratory and field tests is schematically 

illustrated in Figure 1. First, the QAG generated an aerosol, which was blended with laboratory air for laboratory 

tests and stack gas for field tests. The aerosol flow was then 

directed into the Xact CEMS stilling chamber15-

17

.

19

 from 

which the Xact CEMS and XFM simultaneously withdrew 

representative samples. After sampling, the XFM filters 

were removed and analyzed, whereas the Xact automatically reported metal concentrations every IS min for the 

duration of the test. It should be noted that an Xact CEMS 

located at the Cooper Environmental Services facility was 

Volume 66 December 2006 Journal ofthe Air & Waste Management Association 1738 
Yanca et al. 

used in the laboratory tests, and an Xact CEMS located at 

Eli Lilly and Company's Tippecanoe facility in Lafayette, 

IN, was used in the field. 

Q4G Laboratory Validation. The QAG was evaluated in a 

series of laboratory tests15 in which a QAG-generated 

aerosol was combined with ambient laboratory air and 

simultaneously sampled by the Xact CEMS and XFM sampling train. The theoretical QAG concentration calculated 

using eq 1 was then compared with the actual concentrations measured with the Xact and XFM to detennine the 

accuracy, precision, and linearity of the QAG method. All 

of the QAG-generated aerosols contained As, Cd, Cr, Pb, 

and Hg, representing the volatile, semivolatile, and lowvolatility metal categories as defined in the NESHAP HWC 

rule.3 Tests were conducted at four concentration levels 

(high, mid, low, and blank) ranging from 0 to >130 

jig/dscm. ln these laboratory tests, the QAG aerosol concentrations were compared with results from a total of 22 

XFM and 135 Xact runs. Only Xact runs that corresponded with simultaneous XFM runs were used for accuracy and precision determinations. All of the runs for 

both methods were used in the linear regression analysis. 

The XFM sample time was 30 min per run and the Xact 

was 15 min; concentrations from two Xact runs were 

averaged to represent a 30-min sample period for comparison with the XFM. All of the methods were performed 

according to specifications set forth by their test method 

and standard operating procedures.15-

20 

Xact and XFM Field Validation. The Xact and the XFM 

were evaluated in a series of field tests conducted at a 

hazardous waste incinerator, where an Xact CEMS was in 

operation.15 For each field test, the validated QAG was 

used to generate a reference aerosol of known concentration, which was spiked into the hazardous waste incinerator flue gas. This dynamically-spiked flue gas was transported to the Xact CEMS stilling chamber where it was 

simultaneously sampled by the Xact CEMS and XFM sampling train. Measured concentrations from each method 

were compared with the QAG-spiked stack gas concentration to determine the accuracy and precision of the Xact 

and XFM methods. All of the QAG-generated aerosols 

contained As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg, and tests were conducted at four concentration levels (high, mid, low, and 

blank) ranging hom 0 to >130 (ig/dscm. During these 

field tests, a total of 24 XFM and 192 Xact runs were 

compared with the QAG aerosol concentrations. Again, 

only corresponding Xact/XFM runs were used for accuracy and precision determinations, but all of the runs 

were used for linear regression analysis. During these 

tests, the background concentrations of the stack gas were 

negligible relative to the spiked stack gas concentrations. 

All of the methods were performed according to specifications set forth by their test method and standard operating procedures.15

-

20 

Validation Criteria 

Criteria for method validation were based on Method 301 

bias and precision requirements and were either equal to 

those listed in Method 301 or were more stringent. A 

general criterion for all of the validation tests was that a9 

1736 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 

runs had to be used to demonstrate acceptable values for 

accuracy, precision, and linearity.25 Accuracy, precision, 

and linearity criteria are defined and discussed below. 

Accuracy. Accuracy for the ith element (A,) is defined as 

bias (B„ ug/dscm) divided by the theoretical or reference 

concentration of the QAG generated aerosol (CP A G, u.g/ 

dscm), expressed as a percent. 

A, = £§s-10 0 (2) 

Bias is the difference between the mean measured aerosol 

concentration (Cf, (ig/dscm) and the theoretical or reference concentration (C{ 1AG

, (Lg/dscm). 

B, = C * - C°- A G (3) 

For the QAG, accuracy values s20% were defined as acceptable for validation. For the measurement methods, 

this same criterion was required for accuracy values determined at concentrations at or near the emission limit as 

required by Method 301. In addition to meeting the 

above accuracy criterion, the bias was required to be insignificant relative to the uncertainty in the bias. In this 

case, the uncertainty in the bias for the rth element (Uf) is 

the square root of the sum of the uncertainty in the QAG 

aerosol concentration (t/PAG) squared and the standard 

deviation of the mean of the measurement method 

concentration (SDMf) squared, as shown in following 

equation: 

Vf = V(tr? A G )

2

 + (SDMj y (4) 

where the QAG propagated uncertainty was estimated to 

be -5% during the laboratory and field tests.15 Bias was 

considered significant at the 95% confidence level if B, > 

2Uf. If B, was found to be significant, a correction factor 

was required. The conection factor (CFJ is calculated by 

dividing the concentration of the QAG aerosol (CP* 0) by 

the concentration of the measurement method (C"). 

CF^^ r (5) 

Precision. Total precision for the fth element (Ff) is defined as percent relative standard deviation (PRSD j, or the 

standard deviation (SD,) divided by the mean concentration (C,) of a given method determined from sequential 

measurements. 

P? = -^-100 (6) 

Because there is random variability associated with both 

the QAG aerosol concentration, as well as the measured 

aerosol concentration, the total precision (Pf) is an indicator of the combined variability introduced by all 

Volume 56 December 2006 

VES 001383 
Yanca et al. 

Table 2. QAG accuracy determined during laboratory tests. 

Measurenect 

Method 

Uw Concentration 

(-20 pi/diem) 

Mid Conceuttatlon 

(-65 pi/feem) 

Hlgb Concentration 

(-130 iig/dnm) Average All Rum 

Measurenect 

Method Element N Accuracy A, % SD N Accuracy A, % SD N Accuracy A, % SB H Accuracy A, % SD 

Xact 

XFM 

Cr 

As 

HO 

Pb 

Cd 

Cr 

As 

Hg 

Pb 

Cd 

1.7 

1.9 

2.3 

2.9 

2.8 

2.5 

2.5 

6.3 

2.2 

6.2 

1.0 

1.7 

1.4 

2.1 

1.8 

1.9 

1.2 

1.1 

2.2 

3.4 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

1.4 

4.1 

1.3 

1.5 

1.7 

2.7 

3.0 

3.5 

2.3 

2.0 

1.4 

1.7 

1.0 

0.8 

0.9 

2.7 

3.0 

3.0 

2.6 

1.4 

2.4 

4.9 

0.6 

1.6 

2.0 

1,5 

2.6 

6.7 

2.3 

1.1 

0.3 

1.0 

0.5 

1.1 

1.5 

1.4 

1.5 

5.1 

1.5 

0.8 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

1.6 

3.8 

1.3 

1.8 

2.0 

2.4 

2.8 

4.7 

2.3 

2.6 

1.2 

1.9 

1.1 

1.2 

1.2 

2.3 

2.4 

3.5 

2.2 

2.5 

Notes: SD = standard deviation. 

components of the generation-measurement system; that 

is, QAG and measurement method. For this series of tests, 

tbe magnitude of the QAG precision is considered to be 

the same as the measurement method. Therefore, the 

individual precision of the QAG or measurement method 

(P,) is denned as the combined, or total, precision (Pf) 

divided by the square root of 2. 

P, = PRSDi 

A precision =slO% was required for the method to satisfy 

established validation requirements. 

Linearity. Evaluation of linearity was based on parameters 

derived from a linear least squares regression analysis of 

the theoretical or reference concentrations and the measured concentrations. Although slope and intercept of the 

regression line were considered, the key linearity criterion 

was the correlation coefficient (r). The QAG and both 

Tabic 3. QAG precision determined during laboratory tests. 

measurement methods must have a correlation coefficient (r) that is aO.85 for method validation. 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

QAG Validation 

Accuracy. QAG accuracy results for each of the five metals 

tested are listed in Table 2. This table includes results from 

a comparison of theoretical QAG concentrations with 40 

Xact and 20 corresponding XFM measurements. Concentrations ranged from a low of —20 u-g/dscm to a high of 

-130 o-g/dscm. The QAG demonstrated accuracies <7% 

for all of the elements at each concentration level, well 

below the 20% validation threshold. These results show 

that average QAG accuracy for all runs ranged from a low 

of 1.3% for Hg as measured with the Xact to a high of 

4.7% for Hg as measured with the XFM. The overall average accuracy including all five elements, all three concentration levels, and both methods is 2.5 ± 2.3%. None of 

the biases were detennined to be significant. In addition, 

independent ICP analysis of a nebulized solution and 

Uw Concsntratltn MM Concentration High ConccntratlM 

(-20 ug/dscm) (-65 i>o/d«cin) (-130 in/dscm) Average All Runs 

Measurement 

Method Element H Precision P,% N Precision P, % N Precision P,% n Precision P, % 

Xact 

Cr 8 1.7 24 1.1 8 1.7 40 1.0 

As 8 2.0 24 1.0 8 2.0 40 1.2 

Hg 8 2.0 24 0.7 8 2.0 40 1.1 

Pb 8 2.0 24 0.8 8 2.0 40 1.3 

Cd 8 2.5 24 1.5 8 2.5 40 1.7 

XFM 

Cr 4 1.3 12 2.3 4 1.3 20 1.5 

As 4 1.8 12 2.2 4 1.8 20 1.7 

Hg 4 0.8 12 2.8 4 0.8 20 2.4 

Pb 4 1.7 12 2.2 4 1.7 20 1.6 

Cd 4 2.3 12 1.9 4 2.3 20 1.7 

Volume 56 December 2006 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1737 
Yanca et al. 

Table 4. QAG linearity determined during laboratory tests. 

Method 

Element a R Slope SD Intercept SD 

XFM 

Cr 22 0.999 1.02 0.005 -0.54 0.35 

As 22 0.999 1.05 0.005 -0.71 0.38 

Hg 22 0.999 0.99 0.004 -0.01 0.32 

Pb 22 0.999 1.02 0.007 -1.13 0.51 

Cd 22 0.999 0.98 0.008 0.72 0.56 

Xact 

Cr 135 0.999 1.01 0.004 -0.42 0.25 

As 135 0.999 0.98 0.004 0.31 0.26 

H9 135 0.999 1.04 0.004 -0.67 0.25 

Pb 135 0.999 1.00 0.005 -0.41 0.30 

Cd 135 0.998 0.98 0.005 0.27 0.35 

Notes: SD = standard deviation. 

selected filter samples were supportive of the XFM measured concentrations. Clearly, these results demonstrate 

that the QAG is an accurate method for generating a 

reference aerosol containing metal concentrations in the 

range from 20 to 130 u.g/dscm. 

Precision. Precision for the QAG and the measurement 

methods tested in the field was determined from sequential measurements taken during a period of ~4 hr. The 

results from these tests are presented in Table 3. The QAG 

demonstrated precisions well below the 10% validation 

threshold; average precisions were better than 3% for all 

of the elements at each concentration level. The average 

QAG precision for all of the runs ranged from a low of 1% 

for Cr as measured with the Xact to a high of 2.4% for Hg 

as measured with XFM. Including all five ofthe elements, 

all three of the concentration levels, and both measurement methods, the average QAG precision was 2.2%. 

These results show that the QAG is a precise method for 

generating aerosols in the concentration range from 20 to 

130 (ig/dscm. 

Linearity. Linearity of the QAG was analyzed with linear 

least-squares regressions of the measured aerosol concentrations compared with the theoretical concentrations 

over all of the concentration levels. Correlation coefficients (r), slopes, and intercepts from these regressions are 

presented for each element in Table 4. The correlation 

coefficients for all of the elements as determined with 

each measurement method were >0.99, well above the 

acceptability requirement of 0.85. Slopes ranged from a 

low of 0.98 to a high of 1.05, all within 5% of unity (i.e., 

1.00). Intercepts ranged from -0.01 to -1.13 and were all 

<1% of the concentration range. Plots of fhe regression 

analyses using all 5 of the metals combined are presented 

for the Xact in Figure 2 and for the XFM in Figure 3. The 

QAG again demonstrated correlation coefficients of 0.99, 

and slopes were within 0.4% of 1.00. Intercepts were 

<0.3% of the concentration range. A final regression analysis of all of the measured versus theoretical QAG data 

yielded a 0.998 correlation coefficient, a slope within 

0.2% of unity (0.998 ± 0.002), and an intercept <0.1% of 

1 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

y = 0.999X - 0.103 

r - 0.998 

n = 675 

o Cr 

As 

• Hg 

X Pb 

+ Cd 

20 40 60 80 100 120 

Theoretical Concentration (ug/dscm) 

140 

Figure 2. QAG linearity as determined by the Xact using all five 

elements. 

the concentration range (-0.04 ± 0.16). This strong linear relationship between the theoretical QAG aerosol concentrations and the independently measured concentrations demonstrates the ability of the QAG to produce 

aerosols quantitatively over a wide range of concentrations. 

Xact Method Validation 

Accuracy. The Xact met the 20% validation criterion for 

accuracies demonstrated at the high concentration level 

(Table 5). For the measurement methods, this level is 

expected to be most representative of concentrations near 

the emission limit as required by Method 301. For the 24 

high-concentration runs, the Xact accuracies ranged from 

1,8% for As to a high of 13% for Hg. The Xact average 

accuracies for all 40 runs ranged from a low of 4.9% for As 

to a high of 16% for Hg. The average Xact accuracy calculated using all five of the elements was 4.7 ± 4.3% for 

the high concentration and 8.3 ± 7.2% for all three of the 

concentration levels. 

Bias was insignificant for four of the five metals but 

was significant for Hg at all of the concentration levels. A 

post-test investigation of this bias revealed a 6% calibration error, although these runs were retained in the dataset without correction. Assuming correct calibration, the 

Hg accuracies would have been on the same order as the 

accuracies of the other four elements; for example, the Hg 

accuracy at the high concentration level would be ~7% (i.e., 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

y = 0.996X - 0.286 

r = 0.997 

n = 110 

20 40 60 60 100 120 

Theoretical Concentration (ug/dscm) 

Figure 3. QAG linearity as determined by the XFM using all five 

elements. 

1738 Journal of the Atr t Waste Management Association Volume 56 December 2006 

VES 001385 
Yanca et al. 

Table 5. Xact accuracy determined during field tests. 

Low Concentration MM Concentration High Coece Titration 

(-20 (Lg/dsca) (-45 up/ncat) (—110 u.g/dscn) Annge All Bene 

Element N Accuracy A, % SO N Accwacy A, % SD N Accincy A, % SD N Acciracy A, % SD 

Cr 

As 

Hg 

Pb 

Cd 

7.4 

3.3 

14* 

13 

3.6 

2.9 8 

2.4 8 

2.1 8 

1.4 8 

2.6 8 

20 

16 

25" 

20 

16 

1.6 

1.9 

1.7 

1.4 

1.7 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

4.5 

1.8 

13" 

2.4 

2.1 

1.7 40 

0.7 40 

1.0 40 

1.5 40 

0.8 40 

8.2 

4.9 

16" 

7.9 

5.2 

6.5 

5.7 

5.2 

7.4 

5.7 

/Votes: SD = standard deviation; "Bias was determined to be significant for this value. 

6% of the 13% accuracy can be attributed to the calibration 

error). This identified error can be readily corrected and 

future bias, thus, eliminated. As a result, a correction factor 

was not required. In addition to the calibration error, the 

average accuracies for both the Xact and XFM (discussed 

below) were somewhat impacted by biases in the middle 

concentration runs. These biases appear to be the result of 

an increased difficulty in maintaining proper QA G operating conditions in the field compared with the laboratory. 

The biases were not significant, and these runs were retained 

in the dataset. The results presented in Table 5 demonstrate 

a high accuracy for the Xact measurement method even 

with the Hg calibration error and midconcentrarJon biases. 

Furthermore, these results suggest even better accuracies 

with correct Hg calibrations. 

Precision. The Xact demonstrated better than 4% for all of 

the concentration levels, well below the 10% validation 

threshold (Table 6). The average precision for all of the 

Xact runs ranged from a low of 1.4% for Hg to a high of 

1.9% for Cd. Over all five of the elements and all three of 

the concentration levels, the total average precision for 

the Xact was calculated as 1.6%. These results demonstrate the high precision of the Xact over a wide range of 

concentrations. 

Linearity. Xact linearity was evaluated with linear leastsquares regression analysis of the Xact-measured concentrations compared with the QAG-spiked stack gas reference concentrations over all of the concentration levels. 

Regression parameters for each element are presented in 

Table 7. Xact correlation coefficients for all of the elements were >0.99, easily surpassing the 0.85 requirement. Slopes for all of the metals ranged from 0.87 for Hg 

to a high of 1.02 for Pb. Intercepts ranged from -0.79 to 

-1.09, all <1% of the concentration range. A plotted 

regression analysis for all 5 of the metals combined (Figure 4) produced a correlation coefficient of 0.995, a slope 

within 5% of unity (0.952 ± 0.003), and an intercept <2% 

of the concentration range (-1.10 ± 0.18). The strong 

linear relationship between the Xact concentrations and 

the reference concentrations confirms the Xact linear response and high precision over a wide range of concentrations and demonstrates its ability to accurately measure metals over this range. 

XFM Validation 

Accuracy. The XFM accuracy results for each element are 

presented in Table 8. At the high concentration level, the 

XFM accuracies ranged from 3.5% for Hg to 5.8% for Pb, 

all well below the 20% validation requirement. None of 

the biases were significant relative to their uncertainty. 

The average XFM accuracy for all of the runs ranged from 

a low of 6% for Cd and As to a high of 7.9% for Pb. 

Combining data from all five ofthe elements, the average 

XFM accuracy was calculated as 4.7 ± 3.1% for the high 

concentration level and 6.5 ± 4.5% for all three of the 

concentration levels. These results clearly demonstrate 

the high accuracy of the XFM measurement method. 

Precision. The XFM precisions (Table 9) all met the 10% 

validation criterion and were better than 7% at all of the 

concentration levels. The average XFM precision for all of 

Tabla 6. Xact precisian determined during field tests. 

Low Concentration MM Concentration High Concentration 

(-20 |ig/dscm) (-45 u.g/dson) (-110 pj/nscm) Average All Rons 

Element K Precision P,% N Precision P, % N Precision P, % H Precision P, % 

Cr 8 2.2 8 1.4 24 1.3 40 1,6 

As 8 2.4 8 1.6 24 1.0 40 1.7 

Hg 8 1.7 6 1.6 24 0.83 40 1.4 

Pb 8 1.2 8 1.3 24 2.0 40 1.5 

Cd 8 3.4 8 1.4 24 0.83 40 1.9 

Volume 56 December 2006 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1739 
Yanca et al. 

Table 7. Xact linearity determined during field tests. Table ID. XFM linearity determined during field tests. 

Element H R Slepe SD Intercept SO Elenent N R Slope SD Intercept SD 

Cr 192 0.997 0.951 0.00505 -1.08 0.297 Cr 24 0.997 1.04 O.0174 -1.61 1.39 

As 192 0.998 0.982 0.00487 -0.994 0.287 As 24 0.997 1.07 0.0180 -2.72 1.43 

Hg 192 0.998 0.869 0.00412 -0.788 0.243 Hg 24 0,996 1.04 0.0209 -1.80 1.67 

Pb 192 0.999 1.02 0.00387 -1.09 0.220 Pb 24 0.995 1.07 0.0221 -2.08 1.81 

Cd 192 0.997 0.970 0.00573 -0.802 0.337 Cd 24 0.997 1.05 0.0171 -1.61 1.36 

Notes: SD - standard deviation. Notes: SO = standard deviation. 

the runs ranged from a low of 1.8% for Cr and As and to 

a high of 3.7% for Pb. The total average XFM precision 

was calculated as 2.6% over all five of the elements and all 

three of the concentration levels. These results demonstrate that the XFM met this acceptance criterion and is 

precise over a wide range of concentrations. 

140 

120 

100 

S 80 

60 

40 

« 20 

y = 0.952x -1.10 

r = 0.995 

n-960 . 

0 Cr 

As 

• Hg 

X Pb 

4 Cd 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

QAG Reference Concentration (ua'dscm) 

Figure 4. Xact linearity using all five elements. 

120 

Linearity. The results of the XFM linearity evaluation are 

presented on Table 10. These parameters were detennined 

with linear least-squares regression analysis of the XFMmeasured concentrations compared with the QAG-spiked 

stack gas concentrations over all of the concentration 

levels. XFM correlation coefficients for all elements were 

&0.99, well above the 0.85 acceptance value. Slopes for all 

of the metals ranged from 1.04 to 1.07, all within 7% of 

unity. Intercepts were all <3% of the linearity test concentration range and ranged from -1.61 to -2.72. A 

plotted regression analysis for all 5 of the metals combined is presented for the XFM in Figure 5. The combined 

metal regression yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.996, 

a slope within 5% of 1.00 (1.05 ± 0.01), and an intercept 

<2% of the full concentration range (-1.96 ± 0.6). The 

strong correlation of the XFM concentrations with the 

reference concentrations demonstrates the ability of the 

XFM to accurately measure a wide range "of concentrations and confirms its precision over this range. 

Summar y 

A summary of each method's performance in reference to 

the validation criteria is presented in Table 11. This table 

Table 1. XFM accuracy determined during field tests. 

low Concentration MM Concentration High Concentration 

(~20 pg/dscm) (-45 pg/dscni) (-110 ng/dien) Average All Rons 

Element • Accuracy A, % SD H Accuracy A, % SO N Accuracy A, % SO N Accuracy A, % SO 

Cr 4 6.0 3.4 4 12 1.3 12 4.0 2-4 20 6.0 3.9 

As 4 1.7 1.0 4 13 2.5 12 5.0 2.9 20 6.0 4,7 

Hg 4 5.5 3.4 4 15 3.8 12 3.5 3.4 20 6.1 5.5 

Pb 4 8.0 6.4 4 14 2.3 12 5.6 4.0 20 7.9 5.2 

Cd 4 6.7 2.0 4 9.0 2.5 12 5.1 2.5 20 62 2.8 

Notes: SD -standard deviation. 

Table 9, XFM precision determined during field tests. 

Low Concentration MM Concentration High Concentration 

(-20 u.g/doctn) (~ 45 u.g/dseju) (-110 u-H/dscn) Average AH Runs 

Elenent 1 Precision P, % N Precision P,% N Precision P, % N Precision P, % 

Cr 4 2.3 4 1.0 12 22 20 1.6 

As 4 1.5 4 2.0 12 1.9 20 1.6 

Hg 4 2,3 4 3.2 12 2.9 20 2.8 

Pb 4 6.5 4 1.9 12 2.7 20 3.7 

Cd 4 4.7 4 2.0 12 2.4 20 3.0 

1740 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 56 December 2006 

VES 001387 
Yanca et al. 

140 

120 

§ tt 

79 100 

1 

C 80 

O 

1 60 

c 

u 

c 

o 40 

u 

s 

u. 

20 

X 

y = 1.05x -1.96 

r = 0.996 

n = 120 

20 40 60 80 100 120 

QAG Reference Concentration (ug/dscm) 

Figure 8. XFM linearity using all five elements. 

clearly shows that the three methods easily passed all of 

the required criteria for all five of the metals. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The three independent methods discussed in this paper 

met EPA Method 301 requirements for compliance applications and are precise, accurate, and linear tools applicable to the determination of hazardous metal concentrations in emissions. The QAG and the Xact technologies 

have currently been approved by EPA for compliance 

demonstration at a HWC.26 In addition to the five elements measured with these tests, the methods are expected to be applicable to most hazardous elements in 

stack and fugitive emissions from stationary sources, as 

well as in the ambient environment. The QAG reference 

aerosol generator could, thus, be used as a generally applicable reference aerosol generator for research, method 

certification, and audits. The XFM measurement methods 

could be used for performance testing, initial certification, 

and continuing quality assurance audits of multimetal 

CEMS. Finally, the Xact could be used to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance through its use as a CEMS, and its 

technology could be extended to an instrumental analysis 

procedure with applications similar to the XFM. 

In addition to the results presented in this paper, all 

three methods have demonstrated high precisions and 

accuracies in other field and laboratory tests.27-

30

 The 

measurement methods have also consistently demonTable 11. Summary of validation results. 

Parameters Criteria OAS Hetriod XFM Method Xact Method 

No. of runs (n) a9 20 12 24 

Accuracy (A) £20% <5% <6V <7%''b 

Precision (P> sio% <3% <4% <4% 

Unearity(r) 2=0.85 0.99 0.S9 0.99 

Notes: 'Results from high concentration level; "Assuming correct calibration 

of Hg. 

strated frequent sampling times, rapid analysis turnaround times (15 min for the Xact and 2 hr for the XFM 

if a field-portable analyzer is used), and low detection 

limits. Analysis is nondestructive, and the methods can be 

independently audited with the QAG. In addition to metals, the QAG can potentially generate aerosols of both 

organic and inorganic analytes. 

REFERENCES 

1. Prieditis, H.; Adamson, IX Comparative Pulmonary Toxicity of Various Soluble Metals Found ln Urban Particulate Dust; Exp. Lung. Res. 

2002, 28, 563-576. 

Z. Monn, C; Becker, S. Cytotoxicity and Induction of Proinflammatory 

Cytokines from Human Monocytes Exposed to Fine (PM2.5) and 

Coarse Particles (PM10-2.S) in Outdoor and Indoor Alt; Toxicol. Appl. 

Pharmacol. 1999, ISS, 245-252. 

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Emissions Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories. In Code of federal 

Regulations, 40 CFR 63; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, 

DC, 2005. 

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Method 29, Determination of 

Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources, in Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 60; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 

200S. 

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of Two Methods for 

the Measurement of Mercury Emissions m Exhaust Gases from a Municipal 

Waste Combustor; EPA 450/4-92-013. U.S. Government Printing Office: 

Washington, DC, 1991. 

6. Rigo, H,G.; Chandler A.J. Quantitation Limits for Reference Methods 

23, 26, and 29; /. Afr & WasU Manage. Assoc. 1999, 49, 399-411. 

7. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Research Committee on 

Industrial and Municipal Waste. Reference Method Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements; 

Report No. CHTD-60; American Society of Mechanical Engineers International: Washington, DC, 2001. 

8. 2hang, H.; Yueh, F.Y.; Singh, J.P. Evaluation of the Potential of LaserInduced Breakdown Spectroscopy for Detection of Trace Element in 

Liquid; /. Afr & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2002, 51, 681-687. 

9. Seltzer, M.D. Performance Testing of a Multimetals Continuous Emissions Monitor. /. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2000,50, 6. 

10. Sky +, Inc. 7997 Perfonnance Testing of Multi-Metal Continuous Emissions Monitors; DOE/1D-10665. U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office: Idaho Falls, ID, 1998. 

11. Cooper, J.A; Fry, S.C.; Johnsen, B.E. Apparatus and Methods for Removing Mercury from Fluid Stream. U.S. Patent 6,770,250 B2, 2004. 

12. Cooper, J.A; Fry, S.C.; Johnsen, B.E. Apparatus and Methods for Removing Mercury from Fluid Stream. U.S. Patent 6,872,370 B2,2005. 

13. Draft Test Plan for Validating a Reference Procedure for Measuring the 

Concentration of Metals in ES Lilly and Company's Hazardous WasU 

Incinerator Stack Gas; Cooper Environmental Services: Portland, OR, 

2004. 

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Method 301, Field Validation 

of Pollution Measurement Methods for Various Media. In Code of 

Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 56; VS. Government Printing Office: 

Washington, DC, 2005. 

15. Method 301 Evaluation of Three Methods for Multi-Metals Measurement 

and Validation; Cooper Environmental Services: Portland, OR, 2006. 

16. Barth, D.C; Yanca, CA; Petterson, K.A., Nakanishi, M.P.; Cooper, 

J.A.; Johnsen, BJ.; Lambert, R. H. Aerosol Sci. Tech., submitted for 

publication. 

17. Determination of Metal Concentration In CES'Xact CEMS Stilling Chamber 

Using tiie CES XFM; Cooper Environmental Services: Portland, OR, 

2006. 

18. Detcnnination of Metal Concentrations from Stationary Sources Using Ihe 

CES XFM; Cooper Environmental Services: Portland, OR, 2006. 

19. Specifications and Test Procedure for X-Ray Fluorescence Based MultiMetals Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources; 

Cooper Environmental Services: Portland, OR, 2006. 

20. Quality Assurance Reqmremmts for X-Ray Fluorescence Based Multi-Metals 

Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources; Cooper 

Environmental Services: Portland, OR, 2006. 

21. Cooper, J.A.; Barth, D.B.; Nakanishi, M.P.; Petterson, KA; Yanca, CA. 

A Quantitative, Traceable-to-NIST, Reference Aerosol Generator for 

Evaluating Aerosol Speciation Monitors and Measurement Methods. 

In Proceedings ofthe Air & Waste Management Association's Symposium 

on Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, Durham, NC, May 

9-11, 2006; A&WMA: Pittsburgh, PA, In press. 

22. May, K.R. The Collison Nebulizer. Description, Performance & Application. /. Aerosol. Sci. 1973, 4, 235-243. 

23. Cooper, J.A.; Barth, D.B.; Nakanishi, M.P.; Petterson, K.A.; Yanca, CA. 

New Filter-Based Methods for Precise, Accurate, and Timelier Measurement of Metal Emissions, ln Proceedings of the Air St Waste Management 

Volume 56 December 2006 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 1741 

VES 001388 
Yanca et al. 

Association's Symposium on Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, Durham, NC, May 9-11, 2006; A&WMA: Pittsburgh, PA, in 

press. 

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compendium Method 10-3.3; 

Determination of Metals in Ambient Particulate Matter Using X-Ray 

Fluorescence (XRF) Spectroscopy. In Compendium of Methods for the 

Determination of Inorganic Compounds in Ambient Air; EPA/62S/R-96/ 

010a. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1999. 

25. Watson, J.G.; Lioy, PJ.; Mueller, P.K. The Measurement Process: Precision, Accuracy and Validity. InAtr Sampling Instruments for Evaluation 

of Atmospheric Contaminants, 6th ed.; Lioy, PJ; Lioy, M.J.Y; Eds.; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Cincinnati, 

OH, 1983; pp 2-7, 

26. Oldham, CB. Air Measurements and Quality Croup, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Written communication with Ell 

Lilly and Company: Lafayette, IN. 2006. 

27. Hay, KJ.; Boddu, V.M.; Johnsen; B.E.; Cooper, J.A. X-Ray FluorescenceBased Multi-Metal Continuous Emission Monitor Technology Demonstration; ERDC/CERL-TR-05-3; U i Army Corps of Engineers Engineer 

Research and Development Center: Champaign, IL, 2005. 

28. Installation and Use of an X-Ray Based Continuous Emissions Monitor for 

AED Treatability Study, Cooper Environmental Services: Portland, OR, 

2003. 

29. Re-design and Field Testing of an X-Ray Fluorescence Multi-Metals Monitor 

at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Middleton, Iowa Coal Fired Boiler, 

Cooper Environmental Services: Portland, OR, 2005. 

30. Hay, KJ.; Johnsen, B.E.; Ginochio, P.R.; Cooper, J.A. Relative Accuracy 

Testing of an X-Ray Fluorescence-Based Mercury Monitor at CoalFired Boilers; /. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc 2006, 56, 657-665. 

About the Author* 

Catherine Yanca, Douglas Barth, Krag Petterson, and Michael Nakanishi are environmental scientists at Cooper Environmental Services, LLC. John Cooper is the president of 

Cooper Environmental Services, LLC. Bruce Johnsen is a 

claims adjuster at SAIF Co. Richard Lambert is an engineering consultant at the Engineering Tech Center, Eli Lilly 

and Co. Daniel Bivins is the work assignment manager for 

the Emission Measurement Center of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Address correspondence to: John Cooper, Cooper 

Environmental Services, LLC, 10180 SW Nimbus Ave., Suite 

J6, Portland, OR 87223; phone: +1-503-624-5750; fax +1-

503-624-2120; e-mail: Jacooper9cooperenvironmerrtal.com. 

1742 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 56 December 2006 

VES 001389