#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 June 17, 2008

Cheryl Newton Acting Director, Air and Radiation Division USEPA Region 5 77 West Jackson Blvd (Mail Code A-18J) Chicago, IL 60604-3507

Dear Cheryl:

I would like to address two issues in writing at this time. The first pertains to the avoidance of virtually duplicative testing when such avoidanc e can be easily accomplished by our receipt of timely US EPA input from the US EPA RCRA personnel. The second issue pertains to certain incomplete and potentially misleading statements in the recently issued Statement for Basis. These two issues, as explained below, cause us to request that certain actions be taken by the

US EPA.

We noted with interest (and some concern) the observation that, “if [Veolia] intends to rely on the [HWC MACT] performance test to establish a mercury system removal efficiency for your RCRA permit, you should consult with the RCRA permitting authority before finalizing your test plans.” We have in fact spoken with Mr. Ted Dragovich of the Illinois EPA, the RCRA permitting authority, about using our testing results to establish mercury removal efficiencies. We are reasonably confident we will receive IEPA’s agreement that the testing we will perform under the HWC MACT will satisfy IEPA’s concerns for se tting mercury removal efficiencies. However, Mr. Dragovich advised us that he was awaiting guidance from your colleagues in the RCRA section of US EPA Region 5 on how to conduct th is testing and had expected to receive that guidance this week. Obviously, given US EPA’ s overall authority over IEPA’s RCRA program, IEPA’s approval of our testing protocols under RCRA will depend on our performing the testing in a manner consistent with that US EPA guidance.

We fully intend to (and are capable of) conduct this testing in conformance with the agency’s Section 114 notice. As you know, the HWC MACT testing will cost Veolia several hundred thousand dollars. We would very much like to avoid the potential for having to do additional, expensive testing to satisfy the concerns of US EPA’s RCRA professionals. Therefore, we would appreciate very much anything you can do to make sure IEPA and Veolia receive that guidance as soon as possible . We will of course review that guidance and let you and your RCRA colleagues know if there appears to be any conflict between the directions you have given us, and those we receive from the RCRA side of US EPA. But, without that guidance, we would be unable to do the consulting you suggest and thus would be at risk of a later determination by the agency’s RCRA staff that ou r testing was insufficient for them and would need be redone to meet their standards. Simply put, it would be unfair for the agency effectively to require us to conduct separate similar testing when such redundancies can be avoided by timely input from the RCRA personnel at US EPA.

(618) 271-2804

www.veoliaes.com#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 There is one additional request Veolia would make to the agency. In the Statement of Basis for the CAA permit, Section 1 (E), US EPA has included a discussion of the September 2006 FOV/NOV and has further stated that it found, at some unstated later date, Veolia to be in noncompliance with several other US EPA regulations. The agency is of course aware that, following the issuance of the September 2006 FOV/NOV, US EPA and Veolia representatives met in October, 2006 to discuss that FOV/NOV. At that meeting, Veolia presented a significant amount of information disputing the agency’s findings. Indeed, at the conclusion of that meeting, the agency committed to providing a response to Veolia’s information. However, as of this writing, the US EPA has not provided to Veol ia any such response. In addition, and as you know, Veolia has never received an FOV/NOV or any other sort of document referencing several of the other, later “findings” referenced in the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 1 (E).

Veolia is therefore very concerned that a member of the public, unfamiliar with this history, might conclude that Veolia had never contested or even responded to the September, 2006 FOV/NOV or to the later set of “findings.” That inaccurate conclusion by the public would be understandable, if not expected, from the current Statement of Basis. Given the level of public interest in this permitting process, it is critical that the agency communicate to the public a reasonably complete and accurate summary. Veolia believes that the current Statement of Basis does not achieve these important standards and should be revised.

We would therefore appreciate your issuing an amended Statement of Basis, in which you clarify the history of the discussions Veolia and US EPA have had over the past 21 months on these enforcement issues. We do not, in this context, ask the agency to withdraw its FOV/NOV or other findings (although we would appreciate the opportunity to respond to the second set of findings referenced in that Statement of Basis at some point). Rather, for the benefit of the public, we simply ask that the Agency’s description of the history be made more complete.

We thank you in advance for your assistance on these important issues. As always, we welcome any questions you or your colleagues at US EPA may have.

Sincerely,

Doug Harris General Manager Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.

(618) 271-2804

www.veoliaes.com