(j) VEOLIA 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

August 2, 2013 

Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, 

U.S. Environinetital Protection Agency - Region 5 

77 W. Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Re: EPA's Proposed Reopening of Air Pollution Control Title V Permit for Veolia Environmental 

Services 

Dear Administrator Hedman, 

I am the General Manager at Veolia ES Techilical Solutions, L.L.C.'s Sauget, Illinois facility. I 

appreciate your willingness to take time to meet with us on the issues discussed below. I am concerned 

about Region 5's deviations from a past administrations commitment and the proposed reopening of the 

Veolia's Title V Permit under the Clean Air Act. Specifically, I am writing to express Veolia's concern 

over three issues: 

1) Region 5 breached an agreement with Veolia by requiring Veolia perform 

Comprehensive Performance Tests (CPT) in the fall of 2013; 

2) In reopening Veolia's Title V permit, Region 5 is unnecessarily placing Veolia at financial 

and compliance risks while expending taxpayers money with no increased benefit to the 

environment; and 

3) Region 5 has proposed permit terms and conditions in the reopening that are impossible 

or impractical to implement and go beyond what is reasonable and necessary to assure 

compliance with the Clean Air Act. 

Each issue is addressed in more detail below. 

1) Region 5 breached an agreement with VeoIia by requiring Veolia perform 

Comprehensive Performance Tests (CPT) in the fall of 2013. 

In mid-2008, the Director of the Air and Radiation Division llad concerns about the existing metals 

testing data available for Veolia. She expressed those concerns to Veolia and her desire for an additional 

round of testing prior to the issuance of the September 2008 Title V Permit. Veolia had cost aild timing 

concerns about performing the testing because such testing was not yet required by the regulations. In 

fact, the Air aild Radiation Division Director stated, "I cannot force Veolia to conduct these inetals tests 

early, however, I strongly recornmend Veolia coilduct them as it is in both Veolia and EPA's best interest 

to have the additional data." After a period of negotiations, EPA and Veolia ultimately reaclied an 

agreement whereby Veolia would perfonn the expedited metals testing at the Director's request and EPA 

would in turn-so long as the testing was properly conducted and the results were acceptable-allow the 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veoliaes.com 
(j) vEOLiA 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

results of the expedited metats testing to be used for compliance with the next required CPT.' This 

agreement ensured that Veolia would not experience the negative fina.ncial effect of having to perform 

two separate metals tests in close proxiinity to one another. 

Furkher, the Director memorialized the EPA-Veolia agreement in an attachment to a Request for 

Information dated June 5, 2008. Paragraph 13 which was added to an earlier Request for Information 

specifically set fortli the EPA-Veolia agreement that allowed Veolia to use the expedited metals testing 

data for the next required CPT: 

13. Provided that the results of these perfonnance tests result in data that meet 

quality assurance objectives such that the results demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standards, are sufficient to establish the applicable OPLs under 40 C.F.R. § 

63.1209, and meet all requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207 for conducting comprehensive 

performance tests (CPT), these perfornzance tests will serve as the mercury, SVM, and 

LVMportion of tlze CPT required hetween Octoher 14, 2008, the compliance date for 

tlie standards set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 63.1219 (a) and (c), and Octoher 14, 2009, the 

date hy which Veolia is otherwise required to conduct a CPT on each incinerator. 

In fact, Veolia conducted its CPT in December of 2009 and all subsequent necessary confinnatory 

performance testing had been scheduled based upon that CPT commencement date. For example, Veolia 

submitted its confirmatory test plan on April 13, 2412; the plan was approved on May 25, 2012; and 

Veolia concluded testing pursuant to the plan on June 27, 2012. This schedule is consistent both with the 

EPA-Veolia Agreement and the applicable regulations for performing CPTs. Veolia was therefore 

surprised when EPA subsequently took the position that Veolia's next CPT testing needed to be 

commenced in the fall of 2013. Pursuant to Veolia's agreement with Region 5, Veolia continues to 

believe that its next CPT must be commenced in Decelnber of 2014, with a CPT Plan due to the EPA in 

December of 2013. 

2) In reopening Veolia's Title V permit, Region 5 is unnecessarily placing Veolia at financial 

risk and expending taxpayers and Veolia's money with no increased benefit to the 

environment. 

With Veolia's current five-year Title V permit set to expire on October 12`", 2013, EPA is hastily and 

unnecessarily pursuing a reopening as opposed to simply moving forward with a renewal of Veolia's Title 

V permit. During a meeting with EPA on June 5, 2013, EPA stated that its intention is not to require 

Veolia to implement permit conditions sought through the reopening during the pendency of an appeal of 

those conditions to the Seventh Circuit. However, prior staternents and actions by EPA run counter to 

this intent and EPA refuses to take any actions to effectuate its intent. 

In fact, the result of this reopening would be that Veolia could very we11 be required to comply with three 

different permits within one year: (1) the reopened perinit as issued following the Environmental Appeal 

Board's final decision; (2) the reopened permit as enforced by the Seventh Circuit; and/or (3) the "new" 

' Under the EPA-Veolia agreement, and pursuant to the applicable regulations, Veolia's CPT Plan was due in 

October of 2008, with the actua) CPT testing to be commenced in October of 2009. Veolia submitted its CPT Plan on 

time in October of 2008; however, EPA subsequently granted Veolia an extension to perForm the actual CPT testing, 

which was ultimately commenced in December of 2009. 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veoliaes.com 
VEOLiA 

ENVIRONMENTAI. SERVICES 

pennit issued to Veolia as a part of the regular Title V renewal process (which is running concurrently 

with the reopening). Each iteration of the pennit could make it extremely difficult for Veolia to prove 

compliance while requiring Veolia to invest millions in significant capital improvements that could later 

be changed or made obsolete (or made totally unnecessary) by subsequent permit conditions. We believe 

Region 5's efforts are best focused on a renewal of Veolia's Title V permit, rather than forcing Veolia and 

taxpayers to pay for parallel Title V processes in the fonn of the Title V reopening occurring 

simultaneously with the Title V renewal process. 

3) Region 5 has proposed permit terms and condYtions in the reopening that are impossible 

or impractical to implement and go beyond what is reasonable and necessary to assure 

compliance with the Clean Air Act. 

EPA proposes to modify Veolia's Title V permit by requiring the installation of a multi-metals continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS). As Veolia has repeatedly stated to EPA, this technology has been 

proven not to work and the requirement is the flrst of its kind. At the time of the reopening, EPA 

abdicated its regulatory responsibility and relied upon representations inade by an entity with a financial 

motive to overstate the capabilities of the technology to develop EPA's case for why the technology could 

not be rejected. As reflected through EPA's incomplete internal cotninunications which were made a part 

of the adininistrative record in the reopening, EPA requested the sole distributor of commercially 

available multi-metals CEMS in the United States ("Distributor") to guide Region 5 through the maze of 

information necessary to build a scientifically defensible case for EPA to require the use of the CEMS at 

Veolia. However, that Distributor has now abandoned the technology and it appears the requirement is 

impossible to meet. Further, the technology could not be implemented, if ever, within the proposed 

timeframes even if such technology was available. 

The most effective way to reduce air emissions is not through the changes contained in the proposed 

permit reopening but rather through the installation of proven and effective pollution control equipment. 

Veolia has offered and is comnlitted to making major capital investment for pollution control equipment 

that is demonstrated, proven technology provided the correct regulatory approvals are in place. 

The attached memorandum provides additional background and context with regard to EPA's current 

Title V pennit reopening action. By reaching out to you, I hope to reinvigorate a cooperative relationship 

between Region 5 and Veolia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, 

please give me a call. 

Si

D &H is 

~ 

General Manager 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veoliaes.com