November 19,2015 

Robert Kaplan 

Deputy Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

77 W. Jackson Boulevard (C-14J) 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Dear Mr. Kaplan: 

G)veouA 

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you, George Czerniak and US EPA's staff at your offices on 

October 28, 2015 ("Meeting"). Veolia's discussion with US EPA during the Meeting provided the 

foundation for this proposal. Veolia believes its presentation, as revised, captures those issues that were 

agreed upon and attempts to address US EPA's remaining concerns. 

Veolia believes we are essentially in agreement on three of the four basic points addressed during the 

Meeting: 

1. The parties are in conceptual agreement on the need for an enhanced Feedstream Analysis Plan 

("FAP"). The parties' technical groups will continue to work together on outstanding issues 

including possible new additions; 

2. Veolia agrees to install carbon injection on Veolia incineration units 2 and 3 as detailed in its 

September 22, 2015 correspondence; and 

3. US EPA agrees that it is not necessary for Veolia to install high-efficiency particulate arrestance 

("HEPA") filters in Veolia's incinerators. 

The remaining issue relates to the installation and use of mercury Continuous Emission Monitor Systems 

("CEMS") on Veolia's incinerators. During the parties' discussion of the CEMS, US EPA stated that it 

lacked confidence that Veolia's FAP accurately demonstrated compliance for emissions from Veolia's 

incinerators. In response to US EPA's concerns and in recognition that all other commercial hazardous 

waste incinerators utilize FAPs and are not required to install mercury CEMS, Veolia reiterated its longstanding offer to be treated like all other incinerators-that is, Veolia offered to adopt the currently 

approved FAP for any other commercial hazardous waste incinerator in Region 5 and avoid the financial 

burden and resulting competitive disadvantage of installing a mercury CEMS. Veolia's offer has not been 

accepted. 

Rather, Region 5 proposed installing three mercury CEMS simultaneously-one on each of Veolia's 

incinerators-for a period of at least one year and beginning prior to Veolia's comprehensive performance 

testing ("CPT"), which is to be conducted in 2018. USEPA suggested it intends to use the data 

developed by the CEMS and by the CPT to calibrate the FAP. If US EPA obtains sufficient confidence in 

the FAP as a result of the data collection and calibration efforts, the CEMS will be removed. 

During the Meeting, Veolia expressed doubts that the cost of purchasing the CEMS technology was 

justified given Veolia's minor mercury emissions, which are extremely small as compared to other 

mercury emissions sources in the St. Louis area. See Exhibit A attached hereto. Moreover, Veolia 

already operates at a level where it emits less than 50% of the mercury limit established by the 

Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT. Veolia has never failed a CPT and continues to exhibit outstanding 

environmental compliance performance. Further, the accuracy of the mercury CEMS technology is 

untested in a commercial hazardous waste incinerator. In fact, mercury calibration gas traceability 

protocols and procedures have not even been finalized by US EPA for this technology. Although 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(6181271-2804 

www.veolia.com 
G)veouA 

regulators have made unsubstantiated claims against Veolia in the past, the Department of Justice and 

other governmental agencies charged with enforcing environmental laws and regulations have, at the 

regulators' request, investigated such claims and, apparently as a result of the findings of such 

investigations, declined to take any action. In short, Region 5 has no reasonable basis to require Veolia 

to use unproven technology such as the mercury GEMS when Veolia has verified and proven compliance 

through the required means (i.e., Operating Parameter Limits and FAP). Rather, Region 5 is requiring 

Veolia install a mercury GEMS simply because Veolia finds itself in the unique position, through no fault 

of its own, of being the only hazardous waste incinerator in the country directly permitted by US EPA 

rather than an authorized state. 

Nevertheless, Veolia is determined to work with and develop a positive relationship with Region 5. 

Therefore, Veolia proposes for a period of one year prior to Veolia's next CPT ("One-Year Period"), Veolia 

will make a reasonable attempt to retain various waste types over a nine-month period that represents the 

broad spectrum of waste received. Additionally, US EPA can utilize the Generator and EPA Form and 

Source Codes to select a broad spectrum of waste received at Veolia and direct Veolia to retain 

reasonable quantities of such waste ("Retained Waste"). Veolia will destroy the Retained Waste in the 

final three months of the One Year Period ("Destruction Period") to the extent reasonably possible. 

During the Destruction Period, US EPA can continue to use the Generator and EPA Form and Source 

Codes to add waste received by Veolia to the Retained Waste for destruction during the remainder of the 

Destruction Period. US EPA will select one of Veolia's incinerators to destroy the Retained Waste during 

the Destruction Period. This incinerator will have a mercury GEMS installed during the Destruction 

Period. 

While the parties will still need to negotiate the manner in which the mercury GEMS data will be compiled, 

interpreted and used, Veolia believes its basic proposal addresses Region 5's concerns as expressed at 

the Meeting in a timely and cost efficient manner. Veolia's proposal: 

1. Assures US EPA is in control of the type of waste burned during the Destruction Period, so as to 

assure that the burned waste encompasses the spectrum of waste received by Veolia during a 

one year period of operation; 

2. Assures US EPA that the waste US EPA selects will be burned in an incinerator monitored by the 

GEMS technology; and 

3. Assures US EPA that the waste US EPA selects will be burned consistent with Veolia's FAP. 

Likewise, Veolia's proposal addresses Veolia's concerns because the proposal requires lessor capital 

expenditures and will not require hiring and training additional, full-time employees on a permanent basis. 

Rather, Veolia expects to retain a contractor with sufficient expertise to operate the GEMS technology for 

the proposed three-month duration. Of course, any waste identified by USEPA will be retained and 

incinerated consistent with Veolia's current permits, including its existing RCRA permit 

While Veolia continues to believe it could successfully appeal a Title V permit that contains a mercury 

GEMS requirement, Veolia recognizes that such an appeal would be a lengthy and resource intensive 

endeavor for all parties involved. In light of this reality, Veolia would rather work with US EPA to establish 

a partnership based upon verifiability and trust, than engage in protracted and costly litigation. 

Conclusion 

Veolia requests that the issuance of the renewed Title V permit with the provisions discussed above bring 

a close to any and all existing issues between Veolia and the US EPA It is Veolia's desire to partner with 

US EPA to develop and advance technology while remaining a highly-valued member of our community. 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veolia.com 

~-. 
G)VEOLIA 

To be clear, Veolia will provide comments on any draft permit but will not appeal the final permit if the final 

permit decision embraces Veolia's proposal as set forth herein. 

In sum, Veolia appreciates US EPA's willingness to work with Veolia towards a successful resolution of 

this matter and hopes that the points set forth above are acceptable to the Agency. Veolia is available to 

further discuss and/or meet on these issues at USEPA's convenience. 

Please contact me with any questions. 

·.~ely, . 

aug .~ 1s 

Genera anager 

Enclosures 

cc: George Czerniak 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veolia.com 
Veolia Is a Small Source o(Mercwy Emissions In the St. Louis Area 

Region 5's primary concern since this process began has been Veolia's mercury emissions. 

However, Veolia's yearly mercury emissions are magnitudes lower than other major sources of 

mercury emissions in the St. Louis area. As the table below shows, Veolia's estimated Toxic 

Release Inventory ("TRI") emissions for reporting year 2013 were a mere 3.1 pounds of 

mercury. 

Facility State TRIMercury Method of Calculation Approx, Distance 

Emissions for 2013 & Direction from 

Reporting Year* Veolia's Sauget 

Facility 

Labadie Power MO 823.2 lbs/yr published emission factor 36.6 miles west Station 

Rush Island Power MO 402.5 lbs/yr published emission factor 32.6 miles south Station 

US Steel - Granite IL 223.41 lbs/yr published emission factor 7..5 miles north City 

Sioux Power Plant MO 194.9 lbs/yr published emission factor 19.3 miles 

southwest 

Baldwin Power IL 82.7 lbs/yr site-specific emission 32.6 miles 

Station factor southeast 

Meramec Power MO 68.7 lbs/yr published emissions factor 15.9 miles 

Plant southwest 

Mississippi Lime MO 54.16 lbs/yr published emissions factor 45.0 miles south Concrete Plant 

Wood River Power IL 41.3 lbs/yr site-specific emission 18.4 miles north Station factor 

Prairie State IL 40.0 lbs/yr site-specific emission 35.9 miles 

Energy Campus factor southeast 

Wood River IL 20.0 lbs/yr published emissions factor 17.7 miles north Refinery 

Veolia Incinerator IL 3 .I lbs/yr site-specific emissions 0 miles monitoring .. *Values are from each famhty's 2013 reportmg year Form R, at www.epa.gov/emvro/filcts/tnform_r_search.html. 

This pales in comparison to the hundreds of pounds of mercury emitted by sources within a 45 

mile radius of the Veolia facility. Specifically, Veolia is literally surrounded by coal-frred 

utilities that emit hundreds of pounds of mercury on a yearly basis. To the west, the Labadie 

power station emits a whopping 823 pounds of mercury a year. To the south, Rush Island power 

station emits over 400 pounds. To the southeast, Baldwin power station and Prairie State Energy 

(which are only II miles apart) combine to emit over a 100 pounds of mercury per year, and, just 

7.5 miles to the north of the Veolia facility, US Steel in Granite City releases over 220 pounds of 

mercury into the atmosphere per year. In relative terms, Veolia's mercury emissions are only a 

tiny portion of the total mercury emissions of the greater St. Louis area. 

I