1 Ogulei, David From: Ogulei, David Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:30 AM To: Genevieve Damico (damico.genevieve@epa.gov); Jane Woolums Subject: Summary of 9/17 Veolia Call Participants: David, Genevieve, Dennis Warchol, Dave Klarich Call Date (time): 9/17/15 (11:00 am). Summary:

- We informed Veolia that our preliminary review of Veolia’s proposal has result ed in three preliminary categories all of which are depende nt on Veolia’s submittal of its co mplete response to our previous proposal.

- The three categories are discussed in detail below, and include: o Yes (with changes) – waste acceptan ce procedures, batching of wastes; o No (but willing to continue evaluating) – exemption for visually identifiable wastes, Administrator’s review period for additional exemptions; and o Defer (wait for Veolia’s complete respons e package) – treatment of non-detects.

- Veolia stated that they believe we are on a positiv e track, and expressed optimism that consensus on the outstanding issues would be reached.

- Veolia assured us that they would submit their complete respons e package by Sept. 22.
Details: Yes (with changes) 1. Waste acceptance procedures. We informed Veolia that:

- We understand Veolia doesn’t want to analyze non-varying wastestreams every time they are received.

- We are willing to revise the permit language to pr ovide for a structured analytical protocol as proposed by Veolia.

- We would not adopt Veolia’s propo sed categorization of wastes in to “suspect” vs “non-suspect” wastes because we believe certain “non-suspect” wast es that actually contain high levels of metals could slip through the cracks.

- The revised analytical protocol would be ba sed upon Veolia’s submission but with some improvements. For example, we said that we woul d require analysis of the first 5 shipments instead of the first 3 proposed by Veolia. And we woul d use the 95% upper confid ence level concentration instead of the arithmetic mean plus two standard deviations. We also sa id that any subsequent measurement above the upper confidence level would be discrepant and woul d trigger sampling and analysis of the next five shipments. 2. Batching of wastes.

- We informed Veolia that we would be willing to grant Veolia’s requested changes to the batching procedures.

- We would, however, clarify that only wastes for which there is sufficient information to quantify metal concentrations can be batched, mixed, treated or otherwise altered.2 No (but continue to evaluate) 3. Exemption for visually identifiable wastes.

- Veolia stated that this proposed exemption for “v isually identifiable” wastes is mostly taken from Heritage’s or Ross’ feedstream analysis plans.

- We told Veolia that we are currently not inclined to grant Veolia’s requ est to exempt “visually identifiable” wastes but would be willing to furt her evaluate the request once we have received Veolia’s complete response package.

- We said that some of the listed wastestreams can and should be sampled and analyzed; some of the waste descriptions are too broad and would need to be narrowed; and others are already exempted from sampling.

- We told Veolia that instead of an exemption, we would consider a combination of sampling and other methods as described in EPA’s recently released waste analysis guidance. 4. Approval from the Administrator to exempt additional waste.

- Veolia has requested that all requests to exempt additional wastes after the permit is issued be approved/denied by the Administrato r within 14 days of the reque st. The draft permit currently gives the Administrator up to 60 days.

- We told Veolia that we cannot approve the reque sted 14-day timeframe as it would be impractical for us to implement.

- We told Veolia that we would c ontinue to evaluate the request to see if we can grant a different timeframe. Defer 5. Treatment of non-detects

- We told Veolia that we will make a decision on the treatment of non-de tects after we receive Veolia’s complete response package.