Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo


Minutes of Meetings Held to Develop Final Project Agreement


TO: Dan Reich DATE: January 30,1997

FROM: Daniel Myers

RE: Minutes of 1/29/97 Project XL Meeting at Region 9


Dan Reich (EPA 9), Sally Seymour (EPA 9), Gerardo Rios (EPA 9), Tom Kelly (EPA 9 - RCRA), Dierdre Nurre (EPA 9 - Office of Community & Govt. Relations), Michael Goo (EPA/OGC), Gail Lacy (EPA), George Wyeth (EPA), Pat Baggerly (Environmental Coalition), Bob Michels (Imation), Ann Brett (Imation), Sara Ethier (Imation), Dawn Kruger (Imation), Michael Barr (PM&S), Daniel Myers (PM&S)

Issues Discussed:

(1) MACT/NSPS (at 1/29 meeting and 1/30 conference call)

(a) Applicability of MACT Standards to Camarillo facility
        The group discussed with Gail Lacy what specific MACT standards apply to the Camarillo facility. After further discussion on 1`/30, the participants assigned Ann Brett (AB) & Dan Myers (DM) to continue to research this issue and consult with Gail Lacy (GL) regarding technical questions.

(b) Equivalency Determination
        The group identified one of the major problems in this area: Imation cannot yet completely state with specificity what MACT/NSPS monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting (MRR) procedures will replace those currently required by the regulations until the environmental management system (EMS) is developed. The group concluded that the preamble should contain information regarding the procedures and criteria for determination of equivalency of the EMS at a level of detail similar to the MACT rules providing for equivalent monitoring. The group also recommended that the preamble should better describe what will take place during the 18 month transition period until the EMS is developed.

(c) Delegation
        The group discussed the ability of EPA to delegate authority re: MRR decisions to the region and district. Dan Reich (DR) identified four CFR sections [40 CFR 60.13, 60.717 (NSPS) and 40 CFR 63.8, 63.10 (MACT)] where EPA has previously exercised and still may exercise discretion to authorize alternative MRR methods. By analogy, these sections illustrate that EPA has retained discretion to delegate authority to the region and district. The group assigned tasks to resolve this issue (see below).

(d) Capture Efficiency
        The group discussed the method by which Imation will show 95% capture.

(e) Tasks/Issues Remaining (Report back in 2-3 weeks)
        (1) What MACT standards apply? (AB/MB/DM/GL)
        (2) What is the ability of the EPA to delegate authority to the region and local district level / Who at EPA will have final authority to make an equivalency determination/approve the EMS? (DR/OGC)
(3) What is the process for determining equivalency? (DR/GL)
        (4) Draft language for the preamble re: 18 month transition period until EMS adopted. (MB/DM)

      Gerardo Rios (GR) raised the issue of worker protection. Imation provided an outline of how the Camarillo facility protects workers. MB/DM were assigned to draft language for the preamble re: worker protection methods utilized at the plant.

      The group raised several issues regarding stakeholder participation. (1) Will there be one or two stakeholder groups as there are two stakeholder issues (emissions & plant operations)? (2) How is the group going to be selected/formed? (3) What happens if the stakeholders do not agree with Imation's plans? (4) What happens if Imation does not comply with the stakeholders' recommendations?
      Imation supports the stakeholder process and believes that some of this information will be presented to the VCAPCD Board in January or February. Once the information is provided, MB/DM will draft language for inclusion in the preamble.

      Tom Kelly (TK) led the RCRA discussion. Imation already meets most of the requirements. Imation will meet the engineering and design requirements but wants to reserve the right to show equivalency of MRRs in the future. TK was assigned to draft language for the covenant on this subject and to consult with ARB. (2 weeks)

      The group discussed the approach taken regarding the Title V permit for the Camarillo facility. Frances Wilcher and Karl Krause will draft the language for inclusion in the Title V section of the preamble (2-3 weeks).

      The group discussed what the document should be called and considered a Final Project Agreement (FPA). There may be no need to change the name of the covenant now as the VCAPCD Board has already approved the document as a covenant and it will be a site-specific rule as well as serve several other functions.

      The group briefly discussed how the covenant would be enforceable and Dan Reich (DR) noted that this language has to be drafted for the preamble. The covenant is now enforceable by the district as a site-specific permit and certain parts of the covenant will be enforceable as part of the Title V permit. MB/DM/DR to draft language re: enforceability for the preamble. (2-3 weeks)

      The group conducted a page-by-page review of the draft preamble which Dan Reich (DR) prepared. There was general consensus on many portions of the preamble. The following portions of the preamble generated substantial discussion:
      (1) Tiered health assessment (p.5) - GR/DM to speak with VCAPCD to clarify this issue.
      (2) Language re: donation of emission credits (p.6) DR/MB/DM will discuss finding ways to redraft the language.
      (3) HAPs/TACs Calculation (p.14) The VCAPCD will address at what level action is required. The level needs to be determined.
      (4) Modification of New Equipment (p.16) The group discussed whether the preamble language was consistent with 112(I). Specifically, is the covenant, which allows Imation begin to construct (but not operate) non-mag. tape equipment prior to obtaining approval, consistent with 112. The group agreed that the corresponding provision of the covenant re: mag. tape equipment was consistent with the regulations.

      Sally Seymour suggested that the group/Imation should provide additionally possibly interested groups with information to resolve concerns that they have regarding the project. Imation agreed to send background information and contact, as appropriate.
      The group agreed that a conference call would be held in 2-4 weeks to determine what progress has been made. Drafts of preamble sections should be circulated for internal review at approximately that time. Within four weeks, a draft of the entire revised preamble should be distributed to the group.

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.