#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 avoidance 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 setting 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 this 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 our 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 Veolia 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