September 22, 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 and George Czerniak at your offices on August II, 

20 15. Your proposal gave us much to think about. 

As we understand it, USEP A's proposal to bring a resolution to the ongoing negotiations over Veolia's 

Part 71 Title V Permit consists of four basic points: 

I. Implementation of the enhanced Feedstream Analysis Plan ("FAP"); 

2. Installation of carbon injection on Veolia incineration units 2 and 3; 

3. Installation of high-efficiency particulate arrestance ("HEPA") filters at points after 

Veolia's baghouses; and 

4. Installation of mercury Continuous Emission Monitor Systems ("CEMS") on each of 

Veolia's incineration units for the duration of the permit (5 years). 

You propose that these conditions would be further refined through negotiations between 

technical personnel and would be included in a final Part 71 operating permit that Veolia would 

agree not to appeal. 

As we expressed at the meeting, Veolia believes there is much in USEPA's proposal that we can 

agree on although, as we also related, Veolia has some concerns with the mercury CEMS and, in 

particular, the installation ofHEPA filters at each of its units. However, it is Veolia's hope that 

these issues do not present insurmountable obstacles. 

As demonstrated in Exhibit A to this letter, Veolia's mercury emissions are extremely small as 

compared to other mercury emissions sources in the St. Louis area. Moreover, Veolia already 

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

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veolia.com 
G)veOUA 

Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT. Veolia has never failed a comprehensive performance 

test ("CPT") and continues to exhibit outstanding performance during its CPTs-the latest 

occurring in late 2013. In short, we take compliance seriously and have consistently operated 

our equipment in a way that ensures superior performance and low emissions. 

As we explained during the meeting, these facts make it difficult for Veolia to accept measuresincluding controls and monitors-that create the appearance that Veolia is doing something 

wrong. Our customers and community will take notice and these measures will hurt Veolia' s 

reputation and profitability. This situation is particularly frustrating when our competitors that 

are also located in Region 5 (and beyond) are not being asked to install similar controls and 

monitors--even though these competitors have had violations and compliance problems, while 

Veolia has not. Still, Veolia recognizes and appreciates the Agency's willingness to work with 

Veolia to resolve the issues that have prevented a successful renewal of its Title V permit. 

Thus, V eolia has discussed internally at length USEP A's proposal, and would like to suggest that 

USEP A consider the following points. 

I. Proposal for Enhanced F AP 

Veolia is in conceptual agreement with the Agency regarding the provisions of the enhanced 

F AP. V eolia is already performing many of the analyses featured in the enhanced F AP and will 

agree to implement the enhanced PAP as a part of its renewed Title V permit (subject to the 

conclusion of the discussions between technical personnel for Veolia and USEP A). Moreover, 

as you are aware, the technical personnel of V eolia and USEP A began addressing the enhanced 

F AP issues earlier this year and have already made progress towards a mutually acceptable final 

F AP. Specifically, there have been numerous productive discussions between Veolia and 

USEP A since our August 11th meeting. 

2. Proposal for Carbon Injection 

Veolia currently operates a carbon injection system at its unit 4 incinerator. Veolia voluntarily 

installed this carbon injection system on unit 4 over a decade ago to optimize compliance with 

the HWC MACT standards as part of its uniquely designed pollution control equipment. Like 

unit 4, Veolia's incineration units 2 and 3 use a dry-scrubbing pollution control system; however, 

the system is of a slightly different design, and, as a result, does not require carbon injection to 

meet the HWC MACT standards. Moreover, both units have demonstrated compliance with the 

HWC MACT emissions standards during multiple comprehensive and confi1matory performance 

tests. 

Nevertheless, carbon injection is an accepted and proven technology for emissions reductions. 

As a result, Veolia is willing to install carbon injection on each of these units in an effort to reach 

an agreement with USEP A Region 5 concerning a final permit. This installation will result in 

$300,000 to $500,000 in capital expenditures and in ongoing annual operating, supply, and 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veolia.com 
G)VEOUA 

carbon disposal costs of $100,000 to $200,000. Veolia will work with US EPA to obtain the 

necessary permits and approvals to install and operate the equipment. Once these approvals are 

secured, Veolia will be responsible for the tuning and operation of this equipment and will keep 

the Agency fully informed ofVeolia's progress. 

3. Proposal for the Installation of HEP A filters 

When EPA proposed the installation of HEP A filters on all three incinerators during the August 

11th meeting, Veolia representatives were unable to fully comment on the proposal as they had 

only limited knowledge of the HEPA technology. Needing an objective evaluation, Veolia 

retained the services of Amec Foster Wheeler ("AFW"). AFW is a highly respected engineering 

and consulting firm located in Utah that has extensive experience in incinerator design. Also, 

AFW is currently involved with designing and permitting the newest state-of-the-art hazardous 

waste incinerator in the country. 

V eolia charged AFW with investigating the feasibility of installing HEP A filtration systems on 

the rotary kiln and both fixed hearth incinerators. The project included a site visit by AFW 

technical staff, an extensive analysis ofVeolia's pollution control systems, and AFW providing 

their conclusions to Veolia in a final report. A copy of the AFW report is attached as Exhibit B. 

Among other factors, AFW's study considered Veolia's stack gas environment (e.g., gas flow, 

moisture, temperature, particulate matter characteristics, pressure); expected HEP A -filter 

efficiency based on particle loading; upstream process operations and conditions which may 

affect the filtration system operation (and vice versa); if gas pre-conditioning was required; if 

additional power was required; siting (i.e., where to install the HEP A filtration systems and if 

reconfiguration of current equipment was required); and initial and ongoing costs of installing 

three HEP A filtration systems. 

After completing its extensive analysis, AFW concluded: 

HEP A filters have been used on combustors that feed mixed or radioactive waste 

material due to the need of eliminating radioactive particulate to extremely low 

levels. However, Amec Foster Wheeler is not aware o(anv commercial 

industria/hazardous waste incinerators that employ the use o(HEPA filters. 

Therefore they are not proven in this application and are not industry accepted 

standard. As shown by the operating data for these units, HEP A filters are not 

required as a control method to meet HWC standards. 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veolia.com 
VEOUA 

Exhibit Bat 3 (emphasis supplied). AFW pointed out that Veolia's emissions of particulate 

matter, as well as low volatile and semi-volatile metals, as demonstrated under worst case 

operating conditions during CPTs, are 5 to 10 times lower than the HWC emissions standards. 

Jd. at 1. Thus, according to AFW, "[t]his indicates a superior level of control with no further 

treatment required." !d. 

It is evident that the current primary control devices for particulate matter (i.e., baghouses) 

function extremely well on all three incinerators. Even ifthere were a fail me of any component 

of the baghouse systems that resulted in elevated pmiiculate matter emissions, currently installed 

instrumentation (bag leak detectors and opacity monitors) would detect that failure. Since the 

outputs from these instruments are included in the automatic waste feed cut -off systems on all 

three incinerators, elevated instrument readings would trigger all waste feeds to stop 

automatically and corrective action to be initiated. 

AFW also considered the possible repercussions HEP A filter installation could have on the entire 

combustion system and concluded: 

Additionally, increasing the total pressure drop through the incineration system 

makes it more difficult to control the small draft pressure required at the front of 

the incinerator. If the draft press me is too negative, the complete combustion of 

the waste is compromised by excessive leakage of air into the incinerator. But if 

the pressure goes positive, partially com busted, hot gas (that has not been 

scrubbed) can be emitted at ground levels where it is much more hazardous to 

personnel at the plant and results in emission of multiple pollutants at levels 

above HWC standards. 

Exhibit Bat 3. Thus, adding this equipment would likely compromise the overall combustion 

efficiency of the incinerators and could present a safety hazard to plant personnel. 

The estimated installed cost for HEP A filtration systems on incinerators 2 and 3 is $642,000 

each. For incinerator 4 the installed cost is $1,177,000. This is a total estimated cost of 

$2,460,000 for all three units. Additionally, annual filter replacement is estimated to cost 

$95,000, not including labor costs. Increased electrical usage will also be realized due to the 

required booster fan operation on each incinerator and is estimated to cost $71,000 annually. 

AFW concluded that siting the HEPA equipment for integration into Veolia's existing systems 

for all three incinerators would be extremely challenging and therefore did not attempt to assign 

an estimated cost to the relocation ofVeolia's existing infrastructure. However, based on 

conversations with the AFW engineers that toured Veolia's facility, several existing 

buildings/structures may need to be moved in order to accommodate the HEPA equipment, 

including one of the main employee facilities (which houses offices, incinerator control system 

equipment, and employee locker room/lunch room facilities), electrical power supply equipment 

located within close proximity of the incinerators, and/or a large amount of current incineration 

equipment. Although relocation of existing facilities is not included in the cost estimate, it is 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veolia.com 
G)veouA 

clear that these costs would be prohibitive. Further, installation of the filters would require a 

total shutdown of each of the incinerators for several weeks. 

In sum, taking into account the incinerators' exemplary performance under worst case conditions 

(i.e., during CPTs), the high costs involved with the installation and replacement ofHEPA 

filters, and the likely negative combustion ramifications with the installation of HEP A filters, 

Veolia believes that there is a number of fatal flaws associated with the concept of adding HEP A 

filtration to its pollution control system and therefore cannot agree with installation of this 

equipment. 

4. Proposal for the Installation o.f Mercury CEMS 

As we discussed, mercury CEMS have never been utilized continuously on any commercial 

hazardous waste incinerator in the United States. While the Agency speculates that a mercury 

CEMS could work in such an environment, Veolia believes, based upon Veolia's experience in 

operating its commercial hazardous waste incinerators, that the high moisture, high temperature 

environment found in the incinerators make the mercury CEMS technology likely to fail. It will 

only succeed, if ever, by Veolia incurring much time and expense attempting to force the 

technology to successfully operate. 

USEP A's own evaluation of the use of mercury CEMS in coal-fired power plants supports 

Veolia's concerns. On November 29, 2006, US EPA published a report regarding the results of a 

long-term evaluation of mercury CEMS in a coal-fired power plant. See USEP A, Long-Term 

Field Evaluation of Mercury (Hg) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems: Coal-Fired Power 

Plant Burning Eastern Bituminous Coal, attached hereto as Exhibit C, hereinafter "CEMS 

Report". The CEMS Report detailed the performance of the mercury CEMS in the homogenous 

and consistent environment produced by a coal-fired boiler. Of the many findings, the Agency 

reported that the CEMS struggled with obtaining a consistent sample: 

The most commonly observed problems related to either physical 

plugging of the probe during sample transfer or fouling of the 

converter. Often it would take some time for this type of problem 

to be evident. In some cases, more than one attempt was necessary 

to meet performance criteria and system maintenance was 

required. 

Exhibit Cat 6-1 (emphasis added). Moreover, USEPA concluded that "[t]his test program 

demonstrated that the source characteristics can have a significant effect on Hg CEMS 

performance." Id (emphasis added). This is an important and critical finding for the prospects 

of installing a mercury CEMS at Veolia, because, in contrast to Veolia, a coal fired power plant 

presents lower moisture, lower temperatures and a relatively homogenous feed, with few 

variations in the mercury levels. Yet, despite this comparatively friendly environment, the 

mercury CEMS still experienced multiple failures. 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veolia.com 
QveouA 

USEP A produced the CEMS Report from a government funded "test program" where "much 

was learned" concerning the operation and capabilities of the mercury CEMS technology. See 

id. However, Veolia does not have unlimited funds to spend on a "test program." In the 

competitive world of commercial hazardous waste incineration, Veolia's installation of one 

mercury CEMS (much less three mercury CEMS) for five years places Veolia at a significant 

competitive disadvantage. Veolia's concern about the competitive disadvantage is heightened 

given that USEP A experienced significant operational problems when USEP A used the mercury 

CEMS in a comparatively friendlier environment. 

In the CEMS Repmi, USEP A provided a methodology for how a potential purchaser of a 

mercury CEMS could responsibly evaluate mercury CEMS technology at its facility. 

Specifically, the Agency set forth the following factors for those considering installing mercury 

CEMS: 

• Potential purchasers should review available mercury CEMS performance testing data 

obtained from sources similar to their own. 

• Potential purchasers should ask vendors to provide specific experience, including 

ongoing improvements that the vendor has made as a result of their experience at similar 

sources. 

• A mercury CEMS considered for purchase should be operated on-site for six months to 

demonstrate its capability to perform (reliability and accuracy) under the site-specific 

conditions before acceptance. 

• The above criteria should be part of a performance warranty agreement. 

Exhibit C at 6-1 to 6-2. Veolia agrees with these recommendations. Unfortunately, many of 

USEPA's recommendations cannot be followed given the facts in this case. For instance, there is 

no available mercury CEMS perfotmance testing data from sources similar to V eolia. Likewise, 

vendors caunot provide V eolia with specific experience at similar sources since no sources with 

similar source characteristics to a commercial hazardous waste incinerator exist. The mere fact 

that many of USEP A's recommendations cannot be followed because the mercury CEMS has 

never been tested or used in a similar environment indicates that USEPA's application of 

mercnry CEMS to a commercial hazardous waste incinerator is premature. 

Veolia continues to believe that it is unjustifiably being singled out for the installation of 

mercury CEMS. Further, V eolia is concerned that installation of such a monitor would indicate 

to its customers and the community that there is a "problem" at Veolia that does not exist. 

However, in an effort to improve mercury CEMS technology to a point that it could be 

successfully implemented through rulemaking as an industry standard, Veolia is willing to 

partner and cooperate with USEPA to perform a demonstrative test of the mercury CEMS that 

could provide the practical and technical basis for future Agency decision-making and 

rulemaking. 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veolia.com 
G)VEOUA 

Therefore, in light of these facts, Veolia will agree to work with the Agency to create a data 

collection program where V eolia will install a single mercury CEMS on the incineration unit of 

the Agency's choice to be operated for a single 60 day period. The technical details of this data 

collection program will be worked out with the appropriate Agency personnel to ensure that 

USEP A may collect quality-assured continuous emission data over the collection period. Veolia 

will retain an environmental contractor with experience in operating mercury CEMS to operate 

and maintain the mercury CEMS. Veolia has received a budgetary estimate of$125,000 per 

month to install and operate such a mercury CEMS, and to assist in final report generation. 

Veolia, USEP A, and the environmental contractor will develop a specific plan that will provide 

the parameters of installation, operation, and data reporting; however, Veolia's willingness to 

enter into this project with the Agency is contingent on the data collected by the mercury CEMS 

not being used for compliance and enforcement purposes, which is consistent with the 

technology-forcing nature of this data and the purposes of the program. Veolia will provide the 

collected data to the Agency in a final test report within a reasonable timeframe after the 

completion of the test period. 

Conclusion 

Veolia requests that the issuance of the renewed Title V permit bring to a close any and all 

existing issues between Veolia and the USEP A. It is Veolia's desire to partner with USEP A to 

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

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

permit if the final permit decision embraces V eolia's proposal as set forth herein. 

In sum, Veolia appreciates USEP A'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 willing to meet with the Agency, at its convenience, if necessary to discuss and finalize 

the Title V permit conditions. 

Please contact me with any questions. 

Sin/irely, 

tft~:r /J&1fo~l) Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Enclosures 

cc: George Czerniak 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veolia.com