Response to US EPA's Comments on Veolia's Feedstream Analysis Plan (FAP)
1. Please revise the FAP to include the following statement:  In the event of an inconsistency between the FAP and Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the Title V permit, Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the Title V permit shall govern.
   Veolia Response:  This statement will be added to the Introduction in Section 1.0.
   
2. The FAP contains several references to Veolia's current waste analysis plan (WAP), but the specific referenced provisions have not been submitted with the FAP.  Therefore, EPA cannot determine whether the FAP, as an independent document from the WAP, contains all the information required by 40 C.F.R. §63.1209(c)(2).  EPA requests that Veolia include in its revised FAP the relevant language from its WAP (rather than just citations to the WAP) that the EPA should review and approve as part of the FAP.  Specifically, please include for EPA review the portions of the following WAP sections that are being incorporated into the FAP:

      * In Section 3.1 of the FAP, Reference sources in Appendix WAP-F of the WAP;
      * In Section 3.3 of the FAP, Reference sources in Appendix WAP-F of the WAP;
      * In Section 5.0 of the FAP, Sampling and Analytical Methodology in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the WAP; and
      * In Section 5.3 of the FAP, Analytical Methods for Ash and Chlorine in Appendix WAP-A of the WAP.
   Veolia Response:  Veolia will include the portions of the following WAP sections in the FAP:  Appendix WAP-F, sampling and analytical methods in section 2 and 3 of the WAP, and Appendix WAP-A. 
         
3. The September 12, 2019, FAP does not specify the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures that it uses for sampling and analyses performed by Veolia or that Veolia requires for sampling and analyses performed by others.  EPA regards this omission as a major deficiency in the FAP.  Without adequate QA/QC procedures, EPA cannot determine whether the feedstream data is sufficient to document compliance with the ash, chlorine, low volatile metals (LVM; arsenic, beryllium, and chromium, combined), mercury, and semivolatile metals (SVM; cadmium and lead, combined) feed rate OPLs.  Further, condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of June 2019 Title V permit states, "Consistent with condition 2.1(D)(4)(b)(i)(D)..., the Permittee must specify in the feedstream analysis plan the quality assurance/quality control procedures and test methods it will use to conduct the sampling and analysis required in this condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)."  Please revise the FAP to include adequate QA/QC procedures for the ash, chlorine, LVM, mercury, and SVM sampling and analysis methods.
   Veolia Response:  The FAP will be modified to include the QA/QC procedures from the WAP, Section 7 and Appendix WAP-A.
   
4. Section 6.6 of the FAP is missing the following statement of Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(F)(II) of the June 17, 2019, Title V permit:

For each waste listed in conditions 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(F)(I)(aa) through (ff) [of the June 17, 2019, Title V permit], the Permitee shall review any container labels, material safety data sheets, drum inventories, packing lists, and any other relevant data or information provided by the generator to determine the metals concentrations in these exempted wastes, and shall keep this relevant documentation in the Technical Manager's File or electronic system.  The Permittee shall document the amount of mercury, LVM or SVM present in the waste based on such review.  The Permittee's documentation shall describe the information reviewed and the basis for the determination on the amount of mercury, LVM or SVM present in the waste.
      Please add this statement to your revised FAP.
   Veolia Response:  The "context" of the above statement appears in Section 6.6 (last paragraph on page 15).  However, Veolia will modify this section to include this exact language.
   
5. The third paragraph of section 1.0 of the FAP starts:  "As required by sections 63.6(e)(v) and 63.6(e)(vi)..." Both citations are missing the paragraph number between the subsection "(e)" and the subparagraph "(v)" and "(vi)".  In response to a November 12, 2019, electronic mail message from Charles Hall, of my staff, to Dave Klarich, of your staff, Mr. Klarich noted that the purpose of this reference is to make the FAP and other documents containing procedures or information referred to in the FAP available for inspection when requested by the Administrator.  With that purpose in mind, EPA recommends the general recordkeeping requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 63.10(b)(1) as a more appropriate reference than the startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 63.6(e).
   Veolia Response:  The reference to sections 63.6(e)(v) and 63.6(e)(vi) in the third paragraph of Section 1.0 will be changed to refer to the general recordkeeping requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 63.10(b)(1).
   
6. In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(2)(ii), Section 3.0 of the FAP lists three sources of information that Veolia can use in evaluating the feedstream data.  Specifically, Veolia can use analyses performed by Veolia, analyses performed by others, or manufacturer data or other published information.  We agree that Veolia can use all these methods.  However, please revise the FAP to describe when and how the company will use each source of information.  We agree that Veolia can use all these methods.  However, please revise the FAP to describe when and how the company will use each source of information.  Please also revise Section 3.0 to affirm that the analytical information obtained for MACT metals will, at a minimum, comply with FAP Section 6.0, which is based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit.  EPA is concerned that Section 3.0 leaves open the possibility that Veolia will use for compliance analytical information that Veolia did not collect in accordance with FAP Section 6.0.
   Veolia Response:  Veolia hierarchy for sources of information is:  first, using information from analysis performed by Veolia; second, using information obtained from analysis provided by the generator; and, third, using manufacturer data or other published information for wastes that are exempt from sampling or are off-spec products.  In some cases there is a combination of some or all of the following information: analysis from Veolia, analysis from the generator and manufacturer data or other published information.  Veolia uses all the information available to evaluate the feedstream before a decision is made to approve the waste for acceptance.  The FAP will be modified to reflect this review process and this hierarchy.  Section 3.0 will be revised to include the following statement:  "Analytical information obtained for MACT metals will, at a minimum, comply with FAP Section 6.0, which is based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit."    

7. In the second paragraph of Section 3.1 in the FAP, EPA requests that Veolia clarify that a feedstream is described by a waste profile.  Further, EPA asks Veolia to add "as specified in FAP Section 6.0, Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals, based on condition 2.1 (D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit", to the end of the second sentence of the second paragraph.
   Veolia Response:  The second paragraph of Section 3.1 will be changed to read:  "Typically, the feedstream is described by a waste profile from a generator that has been accepted according to the facility's WAP guidelines.  This waste will have had analytical work performed on a sample for an initial acceptance decision and supplemental analysis as required for subsequent shipments of the waste as specified in FAP Section 6.0, Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals, based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit.  This analytical work will include information on the parameters identified in the FAP and can be used to control the incineration of the feedstreams."

8. In the third paragraph of Section 3.1, Veolia states: 

Feedstreams that are the result of blending or other on-site processing steps prior to incineration can have parameters determined from the same analytical methods described in the previous paragraph or by statistically arriving at an average value based on a body of previously analyzed samples.
   In order to prevent the blending of two or more feedstreams without properly           determined concentrations of ash, chlorine LVM, mercury, and SVM, EPA requests that Veolia clarify in the FAP that the statistically-derived blend parameter should be based on analytical information from either previously analyzed samples of the same wastes that comprise the blend or of the most recent waste profile concentration as determined in FAP section 6.0.
   Veolia Response:  "The statistically-derived blend parameter should be based on analytical information from either previously analyzed samples of the same wastes that comprise the blend or of the most recent waste profile concentration as determined in FAP Section 6.0" will be added to the third paragraph in Section 3.1 after the above referenced statement in the third paragraph of Section 3.1. 
9. In the last sentence of the third paragraph of Section 3.1, Veolia states, "Wastes generated by the facility will have parameters determined from an average value based on a body of previously analyzed samples."  Because this language is not clear, this section must state that these determinations must be made in accordance with Section 6.0 of this FAP which requires specific procedures for sampling and specifies MACT Metal parameters be determined by adding two standard deviations to the arithmetic mean.  Consistent with Section 6.0 of the FAP, Veolia must perform sampling and analysis of each load (i.e., container or batch) of Veolia-generated wastes derived from unique or varying feedstreams (such as incinerator ash or spill-cleanup materials).
   Veolia Response:  Veolia samples site generated waste every 6 months.  Analytical data shows very little variance.  As a result, Veolia always uses the historically most stringent values. Veolia will modify Section 3.1 to reflect the analytical protocol for site-generated waste.
   
10. Section 3.3 of the FAP discusses manufacturer data or other published information.  EPA requests that Veolia affirm that the analytical information obtained will, at a minimum, comply with FAP Section 6.0, Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals, based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit.
   Veolia Response:  The following sentence will be added to the end of Section 3.3:  "The analytical information obtained will, at a minimum, comply with FAP Section 6.0, Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals, based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit." 

11. Section 5.1 of the FAP summarizes the sampling methods as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(2)(v).  Section 5.1 of the FAP refers the reader to Section 4.1.12(2) of the WAP.  However, the September 1994 WAP does not have a Section 4.1.12(2).  On December 12, 2019, Mr. Warchol confirmed that the reference to WAP Section 4.1.12 is incorrect.  Please revise the FAP to remove or correct this reference.
   Veolia Response:  The reference to "Section 4.1.12(2) of the WAP" will be removed from Section 5.1.

12. In the second sentence of Section 5.1 of the FAP, Veolia states, "In some instances, an actual sample will not be required because technical personnel at Veolia will have determined that sufficient documentation already exists that identifies information regarding the parameters described in Section 2.0 of the FAP..."  The referenced sentence is inconsistent with Section 6.0 of the FAP and needs to be removed. The FAP should state that sampling and analysis will be performed for all feedstreams according to Section 6.0 of the FAP.
   Veolia Response:  The above referenced sentenced will be removed and replaced with:  "Sampling and analysis will be performed for all feedstreams according to Section 6.0 of the FAP."

13. Section 5.3 of the FAP addresses the analytical methods as required by 40 C.F.R. §63.1206(c)(2)(iv).  Section 5.3 of the FAP references the ash analytical methods in Appendix A of the WAP.  Appendix A of the WAP lists three methods for ash content: 8-91-69, 3-D482, and D3174.  However, the WAP does not identify the source of each analytical method.  In response to a December 10, 2019, electronic mail message from Charles Hall, of my staff, on December 12, 2019, Dennis Warchol, of your staff, identified the September 1992 Chemical Waste Management (CWM) Analytical Method Manual as the source of Method 8-91-69 and the 1992 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, or more recent edition or update, as the source of method 3-D482.  Further, Mr. Warchol confirmed that D3174 refers to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method titled "Standard Test Method for Ash in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke from Coal."  EPA agrees that the ASTM methods are appropriate for determining the concentration of ash in waste samples.  However, Veolia must submit CWM method 8-91-69 for EPA review and approval, or it must use only the ASTM methods for ash content analysis.  Additionally, please revise the FAP to specify the sources of all analytical methods that Veolia will use.
   Veolia Response:  Veolia will only use the ASTM Method for ash analysis, specifically Method D482-13 and D2974-14.  The CWM Method is not being used and is only incorporated in the WAP as a reference method.  Veolia will modify the FAP to reflect this and also will revise the FAP to specify all sources of the analytical methods that will be used.  
   
14.   Section 5.3 of the FAP references the chlorine analytical methods in Appendix A of the WAP.  Appendix A of Veolia's WAP lists three methods for chlorides:  2-4500Clˉ, 4-300.0, and 325.3.  However, the WAP does not identify the source of each analytical method.  In response to Mr. Hall's December 10, 2019, electronic mail message, Mr. Warchol responded that the 18[th] Edition of the Standard Methods for the Examination of  Water and Wastewater from the American Public Health Association, or more recent edition or update, is the source of method 2-4500Clˉ and the EPA's "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", EPA-600/4-79-020, is the source of Method number 4-300.0.  On December 12, 2019, Mr. Warchol confirmed that method 325.3 is the method in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes which is similar if not identical to Method 9252 in SW-846.  EPA agrees that these are appropriate analytical methods to determine the concentration of total chlorine in waste samples.  Please revise the FAP to specify the sources of all analytical methods that Veolia will use.
  Veolia Response:  Veolia will identify the sources of the analytical methods in the revised FAP.

15.   Section 6.0 of the FAP includes sampling and analysis procedures that apply to a specified number of shipments or loads of feedstreams (e.g., the first three shipments, etc.)  To facilitate the calculation of the 3-sample minimum (plus every 10[th] shipment) based upper limit (mean plus two standard deviations), EPA requests that Veolia specify in the FAP in Section 6.0 the start date for collecting analytical information for all feedstreams pursuant to the revised FAP.  Since Veolia's historical analytical information may have not been collected in accordance with the procedures in the revised FAP or permit condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii), this clarification will ensure that all analytical information used to demonstrate compliance going forward is collected according to the sampling and analysis frequency contained in the revised FAP.
  Veolia Response:  Veolia will incorporate into Section 6.0 of the FAP the start date for collecting analytical information for all feedstreams.  Veolia started following all sampling and analysis requirements defined in the Title V Permit on the effective date of the Permit which was July 18, 2019.  In an effort to ensure compliance on the effective date of the permit, more stringent sampling and analysis were continued to ensure compliance with the revised requirements.

16.   In the first sentence of Section 6.2, Veolia states:

Subject to the exemptions to the analysis procedures below, representative sampling shall be conducted using the methods specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 261, Appendix I, of each shipment of waste prior to feeding the waste into any incinerator and shall analyze such sample for MACT metals using appropriate quality assurance and quality control procedures and test methods that are consistent with SW-846.
  
  Please modify this statement for clarity as follows:
  
Subject to the exemptions to the analysis procedures below, representative sampling shall be conducted using the methods specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 261, Appendix I, of each shipment of waste prior to feeding the waste into any incinerator.  Such samples shall be analyzed for MACT metals using appropriate quality assurance and quality control procedures and test methods that are consistent with SW-846 and specified in this FAP.

   Veolia Response:  The first sentence of Section 6.2 will be replaced with the suggested revision above.

17. In the second paragraph under Initial Analysis for Non-Suspect Waste in Section 6.2 of       the FAP, Veolia states, in part, "Each feedstream shall be sampled and analyzed by: ...(2) sampling and analyzing at least ten percent of each of the first three or more shipments of each feedstream received at the facility per 24-month period."  EPA recognizes that the Title V permit mistakenly uses the same language in Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(III)(aa).  As written, this statement requires Veolia to collect and analyze samples from ten percent of three shipments (or 0.3 shipments) and not the intended "sampling at least ten percent of containers of the first three or more shipments."  See similar language in Conditions 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(I)(aa), (II)(aa), (III) (aa) and (V)(bb).  Please revise this sentence accordingly.
   Veolia Response:  The referenced sentence in Section 6.2 of the FAP will be revised to read similarly to the language in Conditions 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(I)(aa), (II)(aa), (III) (aa) and (V)(bb).

18. The discrepancy procedure in the first paragraph under Discrepant Analytical Results in Section 6.2 of the FAP seems to refer exclusively to the initial determination of the profile concentration (only the first three samples) and not any updated calculated value provided for under Subsequent Analysis for Non-Suspect Waste.  Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(V) in the Title V permit clearly requires Veolia to use the more recent waste profile concentration of the initial and subsequent analysis.  Please revise this paragraph to match Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(V).
   Veolia Response:  The discrepancy procedure in the first paragraph under Discrepant Analytical Results in Section 6.2 will be revised to match Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(V) of the June, 2019 Title V permit.  

19. The three paragraphs of Section 6.3 of the FAP track their counterpart paragraphs in Condition 2.1(D)(4)(ii)(C) of the Title V permit very closely except for the fact that the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6.3 does not include the text pertaining to the determination of the LVM, mercury, and SVM concentrations in waste samples.  Please revise this sentence to state:

The calculation must be based on all batched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered ingredients and the contribution of each ingredient determined according to the Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals in Section 6.0 of the FAP.

   Veolia Response:  This sentence in the FAP will be revised as recommended above.

20. The last paragraph in Section 6.3 of the FAP reads:  "Feedstreams which are exemptions to the analysis procedures above can be batched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered provided the conditions for wastes exempt from sampling and analysis are followed."  Please revise this statement to read as follows:
      Feedstreams which are exempt from sampling can be batched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered provided the feedstreams comply with the exemption criteria in Section 6.6.
      
   Veolia Response:  This sentence in the FAP will be revised as recommended above.
21. The first paragraph of Section 6.6 of the FAP identifies six categories of feedsreams that are exempt from analysis.  The second paragraph addresses data review and recordkeeping tasks, but it does not identify whether Veolia or the waste generator is responsible for these tasks.   EPA requests that Veolia specify the responsible party.  Further, EPA requests that Veolia identify the title for the Veolia staff who performs these tasks.  Please revise Section 6.6 of the FAP to specify the title of the Veolia staff responsible for performing these tasks.
   Veolia Response:  Section 6.6 will be revised to include the responsible party for these tasks.  The responsible party is Veolia's Technical Manager, or his designee(s).
      

   
   
   
   
   
   
   





