### Follow Follow-

- up from Veolia up from Veolia up from Veolia -

EPA Conference EPA Conference EPA Conference ; Deadlines

Deadlines David Ogulei David Ogulei to: Doug Harris 03/12/2012 02:36 PM Cc: David A Klarich, Genevieve Damico, Charles Hall Bcc: Danny Marcus, John Mooney, Jane Woolums Doug, EPA was pleased to host a conference call with you and other representatives of Veolia Environmental Services (Veolia) on March 8, 2012. At the meeting , we agreed that EPA would send you a schedule for submitting additional information for review by EPA . That schedule is as follows: By April By April 13 , 2012 , Veolia 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. EPA and Veolia shall schedule a conference call for no later than April no later than April no later than April

27 , 2012 , to review the  submitted information. If EPA and Veolia do not come to agreement on the outstanding issues by May 11 , 2012 , EPA  will issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the application on or after May 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 of the topics we discussed at the March 8 conference call. Please contact me with any questions. Extrapolation of metal feed rates EPA's current course of action is to fully deny Veolia’s significant modification request because EPA believes the extrapolation factors proposed in the application are not approvable . If EPA decides to deny the application, EPA will issue a notice of intent to deny (NOID) the permit application, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(a)(3). The NOID will explain the specific reasons for the denial and re-iterate the extent of extrapolation, if any, that might be acceptable to EPA. Veolia will then have an opportunity to submit a revised application that addresses EPA’s concerns. Veolia is interested in coming to the table with EPA to discuss a middle ground on the extrapolation factors . Feedstream Analysis Plan Feedstream Analysis Plan ( FAP ) EPA believes Veolia’s FAP is inadequate. EPA plans to require Veolia to either revise their plan to incorporate EPA’s comments, or EPA will impose a FAP that addresses their concerns. Veolia explained that their FAP is based on a 1994 wastestream analysis plan (WAP), which differs significantly from the 1985 version. Veolia will submit the 1994 version of the WAP/FAP to EPA for review. National Enforcement Investigations Center National Enforcement Investigations Center ( NEIC ) Report If EPA and Veolia agree on an extrapolation methodology , EPA will likely not issue a draft permit for public comment until the NEIC report is released. The report is expected in late spring.Follow

Follow-

- up Veolia will: Review 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.

Share historical feed rate data and calculations with EPA.  Provide 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. Submit a copy of the 1994 WAP.  EPA agreed to provide Veolia with a “drop dead date” by which Veolia must provide additional information on the proposed extrapolation methodology . EPA 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 in time? i.e., must the period used to develop the historical normal feed rate precede the date of the MACT 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 HWC  would always have a lower historical range of normal in the current permit action than the previous permit action. When EPA wrote the HWC MACT, did EPA intend to have a “downward spiral” of historical metal feed rates as facilities reduce the quantity of metals in their feedstreams? Sincerely, David Ogulei Environmental Engineer U.S. EPA | Air & Radiation Division, A -18J 77 West Jackson Blvd. | Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: (312) 353-0987 | Ogulei.David@epa.gov