loseph M. Kellmeyer 

TH O M P 50 N P 314.552.6166 ra C O B U R N l.LP F 314.552.7166 

jkeHmeyer@thompsoncoburn.corn 

June 10, 2013 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Genevieve Damico 

Region 5 

77 W. Jackson Boulevard (A-18J) 

Chicago, Illinois 60604-3509 

Re: USEPA's Proposed Reopening of Air Pollution Control Title V Permit 

Dear Genevieve: 

I appreciate you and other members of the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

("USEPA" or "Agency") meeting with my client, Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

("Veolia") on June 5, 2013 ("Meeting"). 

During the Meeting, Veolia and USEPA discussed the ramifications should Veolia appeal the 

Agency's reopening of Veolia's Air Pollution Control Title V Permit or any terms or conditions 

related thereto (collectively "Conditions") to the Environmental Appeals Board ("EAB") and the 

EAB denied the petition or granted review of the petition and subsequently issued an order on 

the merits relating thereto. Veolia expressed the view that the EAB's decision becomes final 

Agency action and the Conditions must be implemented even if Veolia appealed the EAB action 

to the Seventh Circuit, absent additional relief from the EAB or the Seventh Circuit which would 

delay the implementation of such Conditions during the pendency of the appeal to the Seventh 

Circuit. In response, USEPA expressed the view that requiring Veolia to implement such 

Conditions during the pendency of an appeal to the Seventh Circuit was neither USEPA's intent 

nor was implementation of such Conditions required by the law. 

For the sake of clarity, Veolia was relying primarily upon 40 C.F.R. § 71.11 and various other 

authorities in forming its belief that additional relief would be needed following an EAB decision 

in order to avoid Veolia being required to implement the Conditions during the pendency of an 

appeal to the Seventh Circuit. Veolia is prepared to defer to USEPA's opinion as expressed 

during the Meeting — specifically, should Veolia appeal the Agency's reopening of Veolia's Air 

Pollution Control Title V Permit or Conditions to the EAB and the EAB deny the petition or 

grant review of the petition and subsequently issue an order on the merits relating thereto, the 

law does not require Veolia to implement such Conditions during the pendency of an appeal of 

the EAB action to the Seventh Circuit. In deferring to USEPA's opinion, Veolia simply wishes 

to ensure its rights are protected. In this regard, I would like to discuss tJSEPA's analysis further 

with you or your counsel. 

In any case, given USEPA's desire as expressed during the Meeting — to avoid Veolia 

implementing Conditions prior to the completion of Seventh Circuit judicial review, if such 

Thompson Coburn LLP I Attorneys at Law I One US Bank Plaza I St. Louis, Missouri 63101 

P 314.552.6000 1 F 314.552.7000 1 www.thompsoncoburn.com 5749109 
June 10, 2013 

Page 2 

review is desired, I believe the two parties can work together — if necessary, through an 

implementation schedule or otherwise — to avoid the unintended outcome of Veolia being 

required to implement the Conditions prior to the completion of Seventh Circuit review. 

Please have someone from your office give me a call to discuss further at your convenience. 

Very truly yours, 

Thompson Coburn LLP 

By ~ 

~J se M. Kellmeyer 

JMK/leb 

cc: George Czerniak, USEPA, Region 5 

Doug Harris 

5749109