Crompton Corporation (Formerly Witco Corporation)
Minutes for Meetings Used to Develop the Final Project Agreement
OSi Specialties - Project XL
April 3, 1997 Workgroup Meeting
Philadelphia, PA
Meeting Minutes
I. Meeting Participants
Dennis Heintzman Witco-OSi
Okey Tucker Witco-OSi
Tony Vandenberg Witco-OSi
Dale Koontz Witco-OSi
Tim Malloy Witco-Manko, Gold & Katcher
Brenda Gotanda Witco-Manko, Gold & Katcher
Beth Termini EPA Region III
Cheryl Atkinson EPA Region III
Robin Moran EPA Region III (by phone)
Michele Aston EPA Headquarters
Nancy Birnbaum EPA Headquarters
Amey Marrella EPA Headquarters (by phone)
Britt Ludwig WV DEP (by phone)
Lucy Pontiveros WV DEP (by phone)
Jonathan McClung WV DEP (by phone)
Bev McKeone WV DEP (by phone)
II. Minutes
Brenda stated that all Workgroup participants, who have not already
done so, should submit their comments on the draft minutes from the
XL conference calls held on February 11 and March 3 as soon as possible
so that the minutes can be finalized and circulated to the mailing list.
III. PSD Issues
A. Tim stated that OSi has submitted to the agencies and circulated
to the Workgroup a letter addressing the PSD issues raised by the Project.
He inquired whether there is anything further that OSi needs to do with
respect to PSD issues.
B. Robin noted that EPA and WVDEP held an internal conference call to
discuss PSD issues and that there were a few items that they wanted
to review. She noted that OSi is in the process of determining whether
all of the capper unit's process vent streams can be routed to the incinerator.
The PSD analysis assumes that all of the streams will be routed to the
incinerator. Therefore, if a determination is made to the contrary,
it will be important to go back to and revise the analysis to take this
into account.
C. There was some discussion concerning where the vent streams going
to the incinerator should be identified, whether in a permit, order,
or otherwise. OSi noted that it will be entering into a consent order
with WVDEP to implement the Project and suggested this order would be
the most appropriate place to identify the streams. OSi will also obtain
a Reg 13 permit for the incinerator. It would also be appropriate to
identify the streams in this permit. WVDEP stated that it would also
like to have the capture rate of the vent incinerator identified in
the order and permit.
D. There was also discussion of how possible reliability upgrade work
on the capper could affect the PSD issues and whether new source review
("NSR") provisions such as operational limitations should
be included in the Reg 13 permit. OSi explained that the Reg 13 permit
must be obtained for installation of the vent incinerator but that such
permit does not pertain to or govern the capper unit. Therefore, if
additional control requirements are required for the capper, such requirements
should be set forth in the state consent order used to implement the
Project. OSi does not believe that it will need a Reg. 13 permit for
any reliability work which may be performed on the capper because it
will not perform any work which would increase emissions. EPA expressed
interest in incorporating the PSD requirements in a minor NSR permit.
OSi expressed its preference to maintain simplicity by including all
applicable requirements in the state consent order, rather than in several
different permits. OSi stated that it would discuss the matter further
internally and report back to EPA.
IV. Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention
A. OSi circulated to the Workgroup, on February 27, revised language
for the Final Project Agreement ("FPA") to describe the waste
minimization/pollution prevention ("WMPP") component of the
Project. EPA noted that the revised language provided by OSi incorporated
many of the changes requested by EPA. EPA will send OSi some minor editorial
comments later, but overall, was pleased with the changes to this section
of the FPA.
B. Cheryl stated that EPA would like OSi to have a multi-disciplinary
team of people involved in the review of plant operations and wastestreams
during the WMPP project, including persons with corporate finance responsibilities.
She explained that the inclusion of more than just engineers and managers
helps to give a fresh perspective in evaluating WMPP opportunities.
Cheryl noted that EPA's Pollution Prevention Guide (EPA 600/R-92/088)
contains an excellent outline of the types of people that EPA likes
to see involved in WMPP study teams or as part of the advisory committee
to the study team. Dennis explained that projects at OSi are routinely
sent in for economic analysis once they have been developed. Cheryl
suggested that it may be helpful to get those people involved during
the project development stage.
C. Cheryl inquired what was meant by subsection E.1.f.(3) of the WMPP
provisions which states that the Advisory Committee will make a recommendation
as to whether the study should continue. OSi explained that Chris van
L`ben Sels had suggested that OSi should leave open the possibility
of further study and development of projects, rather than have a finite
end to the study which might preclude development of opportunities which
may not be feasible at present but which may become feasible in the
future.
D. Cheryl requested that if OSi determines that certain WMPP opportunities
are not feasible that OSi provide an explanation as to why such opportunities
are not feasible.
E. Cheryl also noted that EPA has a list of approximately 800 chemicals
which it has designated as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic ("PBTs").
She added that Sherri Stevens is using OSi's waste codes and cross-matching
them against the PBT list to come up with a list of chemicals that EPA
would like OSi to focus on when performing the WMPP study. Sherri should
be faxing this list out to OSi today.
F. Cheryl requested that OSi contact Chris van L`ben Sels for any other
comments he may have on the WMPP component of the Project.
G. EPA requested that OSi include in the FPA, a provision for a final
report at the end of the Project which incorporates the final results
of the WMPP component of the Project.
V. Vent Incinerator Performance Standards
A. The Workgroup reviewed the latest revisions to the draft performance
standards for the vent incinerator circulated by EPA on March 31. Michele
explained that EPA has inserted some delay of repair provisions as well
as some provisions governing monitoring, bypasses, and recordkeeping.
She noted that many of the standards being used have been borrowed from
the regulations appearing at 40 C.F.R. Parts 63 (CAA MACT standards)
and Parts 264 and 265 (RCRA).
B. EPA requested that WVDEP name one of its permit writers to review
the draft performance standards for the vent incinerator since WVDEP
will issue the permit for the incinerator.
VI. Draft Final Project Agreement
A. The Workgroup reviewed the draft FPA Issues List which OSi prepared
based upon EPA's consolidated comments on FPA Draft #5. (See Attachment
1.) This list is intended to incorporate all the remaining issues, substantive
and editorial, which need to be resolved in order to reach a final draft
of the FPA. The Workgroup thought it would be useful to discuss and,
try to resolve, these outstanding issues prior to generating the next
draft of the FPA. By reviewing each of the outstanding issues on the
list and discussing the basis for the concerns expressed by each of
the parties with respect to the particular issue, the Workgroup was
able to resolve the majority of the outstanding issues.
B. EPA had requested that OSi identify in the FPA the percentage reduction
of methanol going to the wastewater treatment unit as a result of the
methanol recovery portion of the Project. OSi noted that it has agreed
to reuse/recycle 95% of the methanol it recovers. OSi added that it
expects to recover approximately 50% of the methanol generated by the
capper, but is uncomfortable making a commitment in the performance
standards to a specific percentage reduction. It would be extremely
difficult to accurately predict the percent of methanol that will be
recovered with the existing equipment being used. OSi would possibly
consider, however, including a percentage recovery as a non-binding
goal of the FPA. EPA agreed that this might be an acceptable resolution
if OSi could also state in the FPA that it is OSi's goal and reasonable
expectation that it will recover a certain percentage of methanol. EPA
will discuss the matter internally and report back to OSi.
C. EPA and WVDEP had previously expressed their desire to have a date
earlier than June 1998 for the start-up of the vent incinerator. OSi
stated that it has a commitment internally to start up the incinerator
by April 1, 1998, but that this is the earliest date by which it can
get the unit on-line given the time required to purchase and install
the necessary equipment. EPA is reviewing OSi's construction schedule
for incinerator installation to determine if there are any time frames
that could reasonably be shortened.
VII. Allowable Exclusion/Allowable Increase
A. On February 27, OSi circulated revised language for the Allowable
Exclusion ("AE") and Allowable Increase ("AI") provisions
of the FPA. EPA requested clarification on how the provisions would
work in practice. Okey sketched out two examples, one AE and one AI,
to show how OSi anticipates the AE/AI provisions would be implemented.
A copy of these examples is attached as Attachment 2.
B. Beth stated that the FPA should make clear that CAA Subpart YYY is
only proposed at this time and that it could change prior to final promulgation.
She added that the FPA should also include language that recognizes
the possibility that the anticipated recovery activities may not even
trigger CAA Subpart YYY once the rule is finalized.
C. OSi had previously proposed that 38,000 pounds per year of increases
should be available under the AI provision. EPA proposed, instead, that
the increases should be limited to 3,800 pounds per year. Further, EPA
suggested that the list of constituents for which an allowable increase
could be obtained should be reduced from thirteen constituents to three
constituents: dimethyl ether, methyl chloride, and methanol. In addition,
EPA thought it would be preferable to include a constituent-specific
emissions limit such that there could be no increase greater than 1,266
pounds per year for any one of the three constituents.
D. EPA stated that it is having trouble with the draft list of constituents
provided by OSi for which an AI would be available. EPA explained that
it can only allow an increase where there is an offsetting decrease.
Therefore, the list of constituents should be reduced to include only
the three constituents (dimethyl ether, methyl chloride, and methanol)
that are the subject of emission reductions resulting from the use of
the vent incinerator. OSi stated that all the constituents on OSi's
draft list are volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and there
is no difference among VOCs according to CAA regulations and, therefore,
there should be no distinction between VOCs in the AI provision. OSi
stated that all VOCs are treated the same under CAA Subpart YYY (like
in many other CAA regulations) and, accordingly, there should not be
any differentiation in the AI provision.
E. EPA suggested that it may be necessary to specify levels for individual
constituents. EPA stated that other XL agreements had specified levels
per individual constituent and that it may be necessary to do so in
this Project. EPA described this as an actual to actual test. Therefore,
EPA would like to have particular constituents identified and accounted
for under the AI provision.
F. OSi noted, however, that other projects have used VOCs as a category
without distinguishing between the particular constituents, other than
between hazardous air pollutants ("HAPs") and non-HAPs. OSi
would accept such a distinction in its Project. Nancy stated that in
one of the other XL projects, NRDC had serious reservations about the
trading of VOCs under the project. OSi suggested that it could call
Chris van L`ben Sels to discuss the issue with him and to get his impressions.
OSi also offered to reduce the number of constituents contained on its
previously proposed list. EPA stated that OSi should try to reduce the
list of constituents and that EPA would discuss the classification of
VOCs further internally.
G. EPA inquired about the types of projects for which OSi envisions
using the AI. Dennis noted that OSi would like to engage in recovery
of acetic acid for sale or internal reuse.
H. The Workgroup discussed the criteria that would apply in the determination
of whether an AI should be granted. The Workgroup also discussed other
proposed changes to the AE/AI proposal.
I. OSi stated that the legal implementation mechanism should make clear
that if OSi discontinues a recovery operation which it was operating
under an AE or AI, that, upon discontinuation, CAA Subpart YYY would
no longer be applicable. The Workgroup agreed that these provisions
should be included in the specific rule to be issued in implementing
the grant of an AE or AI.
VIII. RCRA Subpart CC Applicability Issue
OSi noted that recent changes to RCRA Subpart CC could render those
provisions inapplicable to the Sistersville plant. OSi requested that
EPA review these recent changes to determine their impact on the OSi
facility. Michele requested that OSi submit additional information to
her about the facility relevant to this issue.
IX. Revised Project Schedule
DATE | PROJECT PROGRESSION |
---|---|
April 15 | Workgroup Conference Call |
April 28 | FPA Draft #6 to EPA |
April 30 | Face-to-Face Meeting (Charleston) |
May 5 | Work Team Closure on FPA |
May 26 | FPA Concurrence Memo |
May 26 | DEP Consent Order Final |
May 30 | FPA Public Notice (30 days) |
June 19 | Public Meeting (Sistersville) |
June 30 | Public Notice Period Ends |
June 30 | Draft Site-Specific RCRA CC rule to Work Team |
July 31 | EPA (AA Level) Concurrence on Site-Specific RCRA CC Rule |
August 21 | Site-Specific Rule to Fed. Reg. (Direct Final) |
X. Project XL Issues and Action Items
ITEM | DATE | WHO | ISSUES & ACTION ITEMS |
---|---|---|---|
1 | April 4 | Okey | Provide EPA with narrative and diagram of allowable increase/allowable exclusion examples ("AE/AI") |
2 | ASAP | OSi | Execute DEP Pre-FPA Consent Order |
3 | April 7 (10:00 am) |
Beth, Britt Tim, Brenda |
Subgroup call to discuss DEP Consent Order on RCRA Subpart CC for Project implementation |
4 | April 8 | Cheryl | Provide OSi with revised WMPP proposal language to add to FPA |
5 | April 10 | Beth | Provide OSi with additional language for AE/AI provisions |
6 | April 10 | Beth, Tim | Subgroup call to discuss OSi response to EPA proposal for AE/AI |
7 | April 15 | OSi | Propose to EPA interim milestones for incinerator installation |
8 | April 15 | All | Workgroup Conference Call |
9 | April 16 | DEP | Provide OSi with comments, if any, from permit writer on performance standards for vent incinerator |
10 | April 16 | OSi | Provide EPA with revised AE/AI provisions |
11 | April 16 | OSi | Contact Chris van L`ben Sels for comments on WMPP provisions |
12 | April 16 | Sherri | Provide OSi with "PBT" cross-match list |
13 | April 18 | MGK | Send OSi FPA Draft #6 for internal review |
14 | April 23 | All | Finalize AE/AI Issue |
15 | April 28 | OSi | Provide EPA with FPA Draft #6 |
16 | April 30 | All | Face-to-Face Meeting in Charleston |
17 | April 30 | OSi | Finalize regulatory analysis |
18 | May 5 | All | Finalize DEP Consent Order |
19 | May 5 | All | Work Team Closure on FPA |
20 | May 30 | EPA | Develop proposed administrative record |
21 | May 30 | EPA | Prepare public notice for FPA |
22 | June 30 | EPA | Draft Implementing Site-Specific RCRA Subpart CC Rule to Work Team |
23 | ASAP | OSi | Advise EPA/DEP of which vent streams will be going to incinerator (then reassess PSD calculations) |
24 | ASAP | OSi | Resolve issue of where operational limitations should be contained (minor NSR permit or consent order) |
FPA ISSUES
ITEM | PAGES | ISSUES | COMMENTS |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | EPA requests additional environmental information, including endangered species information. | Additional information will be provided in FPA Draft #6. |
2 | 4, 11, 16 | EPA requests identification of the specific process vents that will be routed to the vent incinerator. | OSi expects the major process vents to be routed to the incinerator and is currently investigating the feasibility of routing smaller vent sources to the incinerator as well. OSi will provide requested information upon completion of its review of vent sources. |
3 | 4 | EPA requests more specific information on the design of incinerator. | Specific information will not be available until design engineering is completed. It is unlikely that the design will be completed prior to signing the FPA. |
4 | 5 | EPA requests statement concerning percentage reduction of methanol to WWTU. | OSi has agreed to reuse/recycle 95% of the methanol it recovers. OSi expects to recover approximately 50% of the methanol generated by the capper, but cannot commit to a specific percentage within the performance standards. OSi would consider including a percentage recovery as a non-binding goal of the FPA. |
5 | 5, 11, 12 | EPA question whether 1995 emissions is the appropriate Baseline for Project. | The Workgroup has been using 1995 emissions as a Baseline throughout negotiations. It was the most recent data available and it was a typical year. 1996 emissions calculations are not yet available. Pursuant to the FPA, updated emissions calculations will be included in periodic reports. |
6 | 10, 16, 27 | EPA concern about June 8, 1998 start-up date for vent incinerator. | OSi proposes to change the start-up date to April 1, 1998. |
7 | 10, 16, 27 | EPA question about start-up date for methanol recovery. | OSi is willing to begin methanol recovery as of the signing of the FPA by all parties. |
8 | 12, 15, 26 | Need to provide a final emissions analysis for Appendix B. | OSi will include in FPA Draft #6. |
9 | 14 | Need to produce a cost-savings table at Appendix E. | OSi will include in FPA Draft #6. |
10 | 17 | EPA question about possible interim milestones prior to performance test within 180 days after start-up. | OSi requests suggestions for possible milestones. |
11 | 22 | EPA concern about absence of performance standards for methanol recovery operations. | OSi is willing to return, to the FPA, some of the language it previously struck from section IV.D. |
12 | 28 | OSi concern about absence of any date for EPA promulgation of site-specific RCRA rule for implementation of Project. | There should be some expression of EPA's intentions. |
13 | 28, 32, 33 | EPA concern with language regarding "substantial compliance with material requirements." | OSi is willing to remove the word "material." |
14 | 28 | OSi concern with content of RCRA rule. | Even if the RCRA rule sets forth only a deferral without specifying performance standards, it must be clear that it cannot impose requirements beyond those set forth in the performance standards and reporting provisions of the FPA. |
15 | 29 | OSi concern with deletion of WVDEP intent to grant CAA Subpart YYY deferral. | This needs to be aligned with the Allowable Exclusion/Allowable Increase language provisions. |
16 | 29 | OSi concern with deletion of EPA commitment to defend challenges to the FPA implementation. | This needs to be discussed further. |
17 | 33 | OSi concern with modifications to the termination procedures. | Addition to paragraph B.3 negates force of that provision. EPA request regarding recordkeeping requirements is not clear. |
18 | OSi concern with confidentiality issues. | Next FPA draft needs to be comprehensively reviewed to ensure adequate confidential treatment of CBI material during Project XL implementation. | |
19 | Need to include PBT list, as applicable, as Appendix to FPA. | OSi would like to include in FPA Draft #6. |