### RE: Follow - up from Veolia up from Veolia up from Veolia -

EPA Conference EPA Conference EPA Conference ; Deadlines

Deadlines Doug Harris Doug Harris to: David Ogulei 03/27/2012 03:35 PM
Cc: David A Klarich, Genevieve Damico, Charles Hall
History: This message has been forwarded.



### David,

Veolia appreciated the opportunity to meet you and to discuss with you and Genevieve Damico our February 25, 2010 extrapolation modification request.

You should already be in receipt of the highest historical 12-hour rolling average (HRA) calculations you requested and the time period during which these were calculated. It appears Veolia and USEPA R5 used slightly different time periods which resulted in the difference of the highest historical 12-HRA in some cases. For example, the maximum value for Unit 4 LVM feed from your data table is 69.9 lbs/hr for the time period 7/1/04 to 1/1/08. Veolia’s value of 77.3 lbs/hr was obtained from an expanded data base that spanned the time period 7/1/04 through 5/31/08. We also included a copy of the 1994 WAP you requested.

With regard to the Veolia extrapolation modification request, it may be useful to review the history of Veolia’s efforts to obtain this modification, since you are new to this matter. In October of 2008, Veolia submitted a significant modification to extrapolate the metals feedrates from its successfully completed Metals Performance Tests from August and September 2008 to a maximum of 75% of the MACT emission standard using a previously accepted USEPA R5 methodology. Thirteen months later, during a conference call with Veolia in November 2009, USEPA R5 requested that Veolia voluntarily withdraw its modification and resubmit it using a methodology given to Veolia by the USEPA R5, which was the same as Veolia’s previously used extrapolation methodology, but would limit allowable extrapolation to a maximum of a low multiple of the Metals Performance Test feedrates or 75% of the MACT Emission Standard, whichever was less. In February 2010, Veolia resubmitted the extrapolation request. USEPA R5 indicated to Veolia that a modification based on this second extrapolation methodology would more likely be approved by USEPA R5. In an effort to work with USEPA R5 and come to a mutually agreeable solution, Veolia did exactly what USEPA R5 asked in submitting its second modification request in February 2010. Over two years later, USEPA R5 is now suggesting this second request is not acceptable and is asking that Veolia submit yet another revision of its modification request. Against this background, Veolia believes USEPA’s current request to further modify an extrapolation methodology that USEPA R5 had previously recommended is unreasonable. In providing the February 2010 modification request, Veolia did exactly what USEPA R5 requested in February 2010. Veolia therefore stands firm on its current modification request which was recommended by USEPA R5 to Veolia in February 2010.

Veolia’s goal, as it always has been, is to work closely with USEPA R5 to resolve all issues and in a reasonable and mutually agreeable fashion. The team at Veolia is available to meet with
USEPA R5 to discuss these issues at USEPA’s convenience.Doug Harris

General Manager

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC 7 Mobile Ave. Sauget, IL 62201 Office 618-271-2804 Ext. 101 Cell: 618-616-7420
Fax: 618-271-2128 Doug.harris@veoliaes.com www.veoliaes.com

Service First. Safety Always

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services North America Corp . is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information . Any unauthorized review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and delete same from all computers.

From: David Ogulei [mailto:Ogulei.David@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:37 PM
To : Doug Harris Cc: David A Klarich; Genevieve Damico; Charles Hall Subject: Follow-up from Veolia-EPA Conference; Deadlines

**Doug,**

**EPA was pleased to host a conference call with you and other representatives of Veolia Environmental Services (**  **Veolia ) on March 8, 2012. At the meeting,**  **we agreed that EPA would send you a schedule for submitting additional information for review by EPA. That schedule is as follows:**  **By April 13, 2012, Veolia must submit additional information to support Veolia’s extrapolation**   **methodology, or propose a different extrapolation methodology in the form of a revision to the significant modification application.** 

 **EPA and Veolia shall schedule a conference call for no later than April 27, 2012, to review the**  **submitted information.**

 **If EPA and Veolia do not come to agreement on the outstanding issues by May 11, 2012, EPA will**  **issue a Notice of Intent to Deny the application on or after May 11, 2012.**

 **If you are unable to submit the requested information according to the above schedule, you may provide a written request for an extension along with a detailed explanation of why your request should granted** 

**.**

**Meeting Summary**

**Below is a brief summary of the topics we discussed at the March 8 conference call. Please contact me with any questions** 

**. Extrapolation of metal feed rates** 

**EPA's current course of action is to fully deny Veolia’s significant modification request because EPA believes the extrapolation factors proposed in the application are not approvable. If EPA decides to deny**  **the application, EPA will issue a notice of intent to deny (NOID) the permit application, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 71.11(a)(3). The NOID will explain the specific reasons for the denial and re-iterate the extent of**  **extrapolation, if any, that might be acceptable to EPA. Veolia will then have an opportunity to submit a**  **revised application that addresses EPA’s concerns. Veolia is interested in coming to the table with EPA to**  **discuss a middle ground on the extrapolation factors.**

**Feedstream Analysis Plan (FAP)**

**EPA believes Veolia’s FAP is inadequate. EPA plans to require Veolia to either revise their plan to incorporate EPA’s comments, or EPA will impose a FAP that addresses their concerns.**  **Veolia explained that their FAP is based on a 1994**  **wastestream analysis plan (WAP),**  **which differs significantly from the**

**1985 version. Veolia will submit the**  **1994 version of the WAP/FAP to EPA for review.**

**National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) Report**

**If EPA and Veolia agree on an extrapolation methodology, EPA will likely not issue a draft permit for public comment until the NEIC report is released. The report is expected in late spring.** 

**Follow-up**

**Veolia will :**  **Review the highest historical rate calculations including a review of whether a more recent time**  **period is more appropriate for establishing the highest historical 12-hour rolling average.**


**Share historical feed rate data and calculations with EPA.** 

 **Provide additional information to support Veolia’s extrapolation methodology, or propose a**  **different extrapolation methodology in the form of a revision to the significant modification application.** 

 **Submit a copy of the 1994 WAP.** 

**EPA agreed to provide Veolia with a “drop dead date” by which Veolia must provide additional information on the proposed extrapolation methodology. EPA also pledged to research answers to the following**  **questions: Is the historical range of normal metal feed rates referenced by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1207 & § 63.1209**   **frozen in time? i.e., must the period used to develop the historical normal feed rate precede the date of the MACT or compliance date,**  **whichever is later , or should it always be the 5 years**  **preceding the permit action?**

 **If the historical range of normal is always the 5 years preceding the permit action, the HWC would**  **always have a lower historical range of normal in the current permit action than the previous permit action. When EPA wrote the HWC MACT, did EPA intend to have a “downward spiral” of**  **historical metal feed rates as facilities reduce the quantity of metals in their feedstreams?**

 **Sincerely, David Ogulei** 

**Environmental Engineer U.S. EPA | Air & Radiation Division, A-18J**  **77 West Jackson Blvd. | Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: (312) 353-0987 |**  **Ogulei.David@epa.gov**