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

Thankyou for the opportunityto meetwith you, George Czerniak and USEPA's staffat your offices on October 28, 2015 ("Meeting"). Veolia's discussion with USEPA 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 USEPA's remaining concerns. Veolia believes we are essentially in agreement on three ofthe 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. USEPA 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 ofmercury Continuous Emission Monitor Systems ("CEMS") on Veolia's incinerators. During the parties' discussion ofthe CEMS, USEPA stated that it lacked confidence that Veolia's FAP accurately demonstrated compliance for emissions from Veolia's incinerators. In response to USEPA'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 anyothercommercial 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 ofVeolia's incinerators-for a period ofat 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 bythe CEMS and by the CPT to calibrate the FAP. If USEPA obtains sufficient confidence in the FAP as a result ofthe data collection and calibration efforts, the CEMS will be removed. During the Meeting, Veolia expressed doubts that the cost of purchasing the CEMS technologywas 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% ofthe 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 ofthe 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 USEPA 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 ofJustice and other governmental agencies charged with enforcing environmental laws and regulations have, atthe regulators' request, investigated such claims and, apparently as a result ofthe 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 USEPA 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 attemptto retain various waste types over a nine-month period that represents the broad spectrum ofwaste received. Additionally, USEPA can utilize the Generator and EPA Form and Source Codes to select a broad spectrum ofwaste received at Veolia and direct Veolia to retain reasonable quantities ofsuch waste ("Retained Waste"). Veolia will destroythe Retained Waste in the final three months ofthe One Year Period ("Destruction Period") to the extent reasonably possible. During the Destruction Period, USEPA 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 ofthe Destruction Period. USEPA will select one ofVeolia's incinerators to destroythe Retained Waste during the Destruction Period. This incineratorwill 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 USEPA is in control ofthe type ofwaste burned during the Destruction Period, so as to assure that the burned waste encompasses the spectrum ofwaste received by Veolia during a one year period of operation;
2. Assures USEPAthat the waste USEPA selects will be burned in an incinerator monitored bythe GEMS technology; and
3. Assures USEPAthat the waste USEPA 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, anywaste 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 lengthyand resource intensive endeavorfor all parties involved. In light of this reality, Veolia would rather workwith USEPAto establish a partnership based upon verifiability and trust, than engage in protracted and costly litigation. Conclusion
Veolia requests that the issuance ofthe renewed Title V permitwith the provisions discussed above bring a close to any and all existing issues between Veolia and the USEPA It is Veolia's desire to partnerwith USEPA to develop and advance technology while remaining a highly-valued member ofour 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 USEPA'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 SmallSource o(MercwyEmissions In the St. LouisArea
Region 5'sprimary concern sincethis process beganhas beenVeolia's mercuryemissions. However, Veolia's yearlymercury emissions are magnitudes lowerthan othermajor sources of mercuryemissions in the St. Louis area. As the table below shows, Veolia's estimatedToxic Release Inventory ("TRI") emissions for reporting year2013 were a mere 3.1 pounds of mercury. Facility State TRIMercury Method ofCalculation Approx,Distance Emissionsfor2013 & 

### Directionfrom

ReportingYear* Veolia's Sauget Facility 

### Labadie Power MO 823.2 lbs/yr published emissionfactor 36.6miles west Station Rush Island Power MO 402.5 lbs/yr published emissionfactor 32.6 miles south Station US Steel

- Granite IL 223.41 lbs/yr published emission factor 7..5 miles north City Sioux PowerPlant MO 194.9 lbs/yr published emission factor 19.3 miles southwest Baldwin Power IL 82.7 lbs/yr site-specific emission 32.6miles Station factor southeast MeramecPower 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 RiverPower IL 41.3 lbs/yr site-specific emission 18.4 miles north Station factor Prairie State IL 40.0 lbs/yr site-specific emission 35.9miles EnergyCampus factor southeast Wood River IL 20.0lbs/yr published emissions factor 17.7 miles north Refinery Veolia Incinerator IL 3.I lbs/yr site-specific emissions 0miles 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 comparisontothe hundreds ofpounds ofmercury emitted by sources within a 45 mile radius ofthe Veolia facility. Specifically, Veolia is literally surroundedbycoal-frred utilities thatemit hundreds ofpounds ofmercury on a yearly basis. Tothe west, the Labadie powerstationemits a whopping 823 pounds ofmercurya year. Tothe south, Rush Island power station emits over400 pounds. Tothe southeast, Baldwinpowerstation andPrairie StateEnergy (whichare only II miles apart) combineto emit overa 100 pounds ofmercuryperyear, and,just 7.5 milestothe north ofthe Veoliafacility, US Steel in Granite Cityreleases over220poundsof mercury into the atmosphereperyear. In relative terms, Veolia's mercuryemissions are only a tiny portionofthe total mercuryemissions ofthe greater St. Louis area. 

# I