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 youfor the opportunity to meet with you and George Czerniak at your offices on August II, 20 15. Yourproposal gave us muchto think about. As we understand it, USEPA'sproposal to bring a resolution to the ongoing negotiations over Veolia's Part 71 Title V Permit consists offour basic points:

I. Implementationofthe enhanced FeedstreamAnalysis Plan ("FAP"); 2. Installation ofcarbon injection on Veoliaincinerationunits 2 and 3; 3. Installation ofhigh-efficiency particulate arrestance ("HEPA") filters at points after Veolia's baghouses; and 4. Installation ofmercury Continuous EmissionMonitor Systems ("CEMS") on each of Veolia's incinerationunits for the duration ofthe permit (5 years). Youpropose that these conditions would be further refined through negotiations between technical personnel andwouldbe included in a final Part 71 operating permit that Veolia would agree not to appeal. As we expressed at the meeting, Veoliabelieves there is muchinUSEPA's proposal that we can agree on although, as we also related, Veoliahas some concerns withthe mercury CEMS and, in particular, the installation ofHEPAfilters at each ofits units. However, it is Veolia's hope that these issues do notpresent insurmountable obstacles. As demonstrated in Exhibit A to this letter, Veolia's mercury emissions are extremely small as comparedto other mercury emissions sources in the St. Louis area. Moreover, Veolia already operates at a level where it emits less than 50% ofthe 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 andprofitability. 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--eventhough 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 ofits Title V permit. Thus, Veoliahas discussed internally at length USEPA'sproposal, and would like to suggestthat USEPA consider the following points. 

### I. Proposal for EnhancedF AP Veoliais in conceptual agreement withthe Agency regarding the provisions ofthe enhanced FAP. Veoliais already performingmany ofthe analyses featured inthe enhanced FAP and will agree to implementthe enhanced PAP as a part ofits renewed Title V permit (subject to the conclusionofthe discussions between technical personnel for Veolia and USEPA). Moreover, as you are aware, the technicalpersonnel ofVeolia and USEPA began addressing the enhanced FAP issues earlier this year and have already made progress towards a mutually acceptable final FAP. 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 ofits 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 ofa slightly different design, and, as a result, does notrequire carbon injectionto meet the HWC MACT standards. Moreover, bothunits have demonstrated compliance with the HWC MACT emissions standards during multiple comprehensive and confi1matory performance tests. Nevertheless, carbon injectionis an accepted and proven technology for emissions reductions. As a result, Veolia is willingto install carbon injection on each ofthese units in an effortto reach an agreement withUSEPA 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 USEPA to obtainthe necessarypermits and approvals to install and operate the equipment. Once these approvals are secured, Veolia will be responsible for the tuning and operation ofthis equipment and will keep the Agency fully informed ofVeolia'sprogress.



### 3. Proposal for the Installation of HEP Afilters When EPAproposed the installation ofHEPA filters on all three incinerators during the August 11thmeeting, Veolia representatives were unable to fully comment on the proposal as theyhad only limited knowledge ofthe HEPAtechnology. Needing an objective evaluation, Veolia retained the services ofAmec Foster Wheeler ("AFW"). AFW is a highly respected engineering and consulting firm located in Utah thathas extensive experience in incinerator design. Also, AFWis currently involved with designing and permitting the newest state-of-the-art hazardous waste incinerator in the country. Veolia charged AFWwith investigating the feasibility ofinstalling HEPA 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'spollution control systems, and AFWproviding their conclusions to Veolia in a final report. A copy ofthe AFWreport 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 HEPA -filter efficiency based onparticle loading; upstreamprocess operations and conditions whichmay affect the filtration system operation (and vice versa); ifgas pre-conditioning was required; if additional powerwas required; siting (i.e., where to install the HEPA filtration systems and if reconfiguration ofcurrent equipment was required); and initial and ongoing costs ofinstalling three HEPA filtration systems. After completing its extensive analysis, AFW concluded: HEPA filters have been used on combustors that feed mixed or radioactive waste material due to the need ofeliminating radioactive particulate to extremely low levels. However,

### AmecFoster Wheeler is notaware o(anvcommercial industria/hazardous waste incinerators that employ the use o(HEPAfilters. Therefore they are not proven in this application and are not industry accepted standard. As shownby the operating data for these units, HEPA filters are not required as a control method to meetHWC 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 ofparticulate 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 ofcontrol with no further treatment required." 

### !d. Itis evident that the current primary control devices for particulate matter (i.e., baghouses) function extremely well on all three incinerators. Even ifthere were a failme ofany component ofthe 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 inthe automatic waste feed cut-offsystems on all three incinerators, elevated instrumentreadings would trigger all waste feeds to stop automatically and corrective action to be initiated. AFW also considered the possible repercussions HEPA filter installation could have onthe 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. Ifthe draftpressme is too negative, the complete combustion of the waste is compromisedby excessive leakage ofair into the incinerator. But if the pressure goes positive, partially com busted, hot gas (that has notbeen scrubbed) can be emitted at ground levels where it is much more hazardous to personnel at the plant and results in emission ofmultiple pollutants at levels above HWC standards. Exhibit Bat 3. Thus, adding this equipment would likely compromise the overall combustion efficiency ofthe incinerators and couldpresent 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 estimatedto 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 orderto accommodate the HEPA equipment, including one ofthe main employee facilities (which houses offices, incinerator control system equipment, and employee locker room/lunchroom facilities), electrical power supply equipment located within close proximity ofthe incinerators, and/or a large amount ofcurrent incineration equipment. Although relocation ofexisting facilities is not included inthe cost estimate, it is

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 (618) 271-2804 www.veolia.com

# G)veouA

clearthat these costs would be prohibitive. Further, installation ofthe filters would require a total shutdown ofeach ofthe 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 withthe installation and replacement ofHEPA filters, and the likely negative combustion ramifications with the installation ofHEPA filters, Veoliabelieves that there is a number offatal flaws associated with the concept ofadding HEPA filtration to its pollution control system and therefore cannot agree with installation ofthis equipment. 4. Proposal for the Installation o.f Mercury CEMS As we discussed, mercury CEMS have never beenutilized continuously on any commercial hazardous waste incinerator inthe 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 inthe incinerators make the mercury CEMS technology likely to fail. Itwill only succeed, ifever, by Veolia incurring much time and expense attempting to force the technology to successfully operate. USEPA's own evaluation ofthe use ofmercury CEMS in coal-firedpowerplants supports Veolia's concerns. On November 29, 2006, USEPA published a report regarding the results ofa long-term evaluation ofmercury CEMS in a coal-fired powerplant. See USEPA, Long-Term Field Evaluation ofMercury (Hg) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems: Coal-Fired Power Plant Burning Eastern Bituminous Coal, attachedhereto as Exhibit C, hereinafter "CEMS Report". The CEMS Report detailed the performance ofthe mercury CEMS in the homogenous and consistent environment producedby a coal-firedboiler. Ofthe many findings, the Agency reported that the CEMS struggled with obtaining a consistent sample: The most commonly observed problems related to eitherphysical plugging ofthe probe during sample transfer or fouling ofthe converter. Often it wouldtake some time for this type ofproblem to be evident. In some cases, more than one attempt was necessary to meetperformance criteria and system maintenance was required. Exhibit Cat 6-1 (emphasis added). Moreover, USEPA concludedthat "[t]his test program demonstrated that the source characteristics canhave a significant effect on Hg CEMS performance." Id (emphasis added). This is an important and critical finding for the prospects ofinstalling a mercury CEMS at Veolia, because, incontrast to Veolia, a coal fired powerplant presents lower moisture, lowertemperatures and a relatively homogenous feed, with few variations inthe mercury levels. Yet, despite this comparatively friendly environment, the mercury CEMS still experiencedmultiple failures.

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 (618) 271-2804 www.veolia.com

# QveouA

USEPA produced the CEMS Report from a government funded "test program" where "much was learned" concerning the operation and capabilities ofthe mercury CEMS technology. See 

### id. However, Veolia does not have unlimited funds to spend on a "testprogram." In the competitive world ofcommercial hazardous waste incineration, Veolia's installation ofone 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 USEPA experienced significant operational problems when USEPA used the mercury CEMS in a comparatively friendlier environment. Inthe CEMS Repmi, USEPA provided a methodology for howa potential purchaser ofa 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 similarto their own.

• Potential purchasers should ask vendors to provide specific experience, including ongoing improvements that the vendor has made as a result oftheir 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 ofa 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 inthis case. For instance, there is no available mercury CEMS perfotmance testing data from sources similar to Veolia. Likewise, vendors caunot provide Veoliawith specific experience at similar sources since no sources with similar source characteristics to a commercialhazardous waste incinerator exist. The mere fact that many ofUSEPA'srecommendations cannot be followed because the mercury CEMS has never beentested 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 installationof mercury CEMS. Further, Veoliais concernedthat installation ofsuch a monitor would indicate to its customers and the communitythat there is a "problem" at Veoliathat does not exist. However, in an effort to improve mercury CEMS technology to apoint that it could be successfully implementedthroughrulemaking as an industry standard, Veolia is willing to partner and cooperate withUSEPA to perform a demonstrative test ofthe 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 ofthese facts, Veolia will agree to work withthe Agency to create a data collectionprogram where Veolia will install a single mercury CEMS onthe incineration unit of the Agency's choice to be operated for a single 60 day period. The technical details ofthis data collection program will be worked out with the appropriate Agency personnel to ensure that USEPA may collect quality-assured continuous emission data over the collectionperiod. 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 monthto install and operate such a mercury CEMS, and to assist in final report generation. Veolia, USEPA, and the environmental contractor will develop a specific plan that will provide the parameters ofinstallation, operation, and data reporting; however, Veolia's willingness to enter into this project withthe Agency is contingent on the data collected by the mercury CEMS notbeing used for compliance and enforcement purposes, which is consistent with the technology-forcing nature ofthis data and the purposes ofthe program. Veolia will provide the collected data to the Agency in a final testreport within a reasonable timeframe after the completion ofthe test period. Conclusion Veoliarequests that the issuance ofthe renewed Title V permit bring to a close any and all existing issues between Veolia and the USEPA. It is Veolia's desire to partner with USEPAto develop and advance technology while remaining a highly-valued member ofour community. To be clear, Veoliawill provide comments on any draft permit but will not appeal the final permit ifthe final permit decision embraces Veolia's proposal as set forth herein. In sum, Veolia appreciates USEPA's willingness to work with Veoliatowards a successful resolution ofthis matter and hopes that the points set forth above are acceptable to the Agency. Veoliais willing to meet withthe Agency, at its convenience, ifnecessary 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