Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo

Crompton Corporation (Formerly Witco Corporation)

Minutes for Meetings Used to Develop the Final Project Agreement

OSi Specialties - Project XL
April 25, 1997 Workgroup Meeting
Pittsburgh, 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
Michele Aston EPA Headquarters
Nancy Birnbaum EPA Headquarters
Sherri Stevens EPA Headquarters (by phone)
Lucy Pontiveros WV DEP (by phone)
Jonathan McClung WV DEP (by phone)
Bev McKeone WV DEP (by phone)

II. Minutes

All comments have been received on the draft minutes from conference calls held on February 11 and on March 3, 11, 18, and 25. These minutes will be finalized and distributed to everyone on the mailing list.

III. Vent Incinerator Performance Standards

A. OSi stated that it will add a new subsection to the vent incinerator performance standards, as requested by WVDEP, which provides that until the performance test is completed, the incinerator will run at a minimum temperature of 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. After the performance test is completed, the incinerator will run at the temperature established during the performance test. The standards will also make clear that the goal of the performance test is to determine the minimum temperature which achieves the target destruction efficiency.

B. The Workgroup discussed other changes to the performance standards that OSi agreed to make at the request of WVDEP.

C. Michele requested that the standards governing operation of the closed vent system be consistent with the provisions contained in the Hazardous Organic National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("HON"). She will provide OSi with a copy of the HON provisions.

D. Bev requested that the FPA include provisions concerning start-up, shut down, maintenance, and malfunction which follow the general MACT provisions. EPA expressed reservation about including provisions similar to the MACT because those provisions have been challenged in litigation and are currently undergoing revision. Bev suggested looking at some other state provisions, but added that she will be discussing the matter further with Dale Farley, Chief of Air Quality at WVDEP.

IV. RCRA Subpart CC Applicability Issue

A. Okey asked Michele for clarification concerning her conclusion that recent changes to RCRA Subpart CC do not alter the applicability of such regulations to OSi's surface impoundments. Okey explained that these amendments provide that RCRA Subpart CC requirements do not apply to certain waste streams which are below certain treatment standards established as part of the land disposal restriction (LDR) regulations which are an NPDES-permitted wastewater system. OSi has three hazardous waste streams going to its surface impoundments which are part of an NPDES-permitted wastewater system. Of the three hazardous waste streams, two streams are below the LDR standards and the third is decharacterized for corrosivity prior to entering the surface impoundment and, therefore, is not hazardous at the time of entry. Currently, all three streams are combined prior to entry into the surface impoundment. If considered separately, however, it appears to OSi that they would fall within exemptions to RCRA Subpart CC applicability.

B. Michele stated that the surface impoundments do not meet the requirements of the newly-amended LDR treatment demonstration option and, therefore, are still subject to RCRA Subpart CC control requirements. She added that the treatment demonstration options require that wastes be treated to meet an organic LDR treatment standard or concentration level; streams that simply meet applicable LDR levels (e.g., for metals) do not necessarily qualify for the exclusion. OSi's mixed waste stream, Michele explained, is not treated to meet the limits. The mixed stream, therefore, would only qualify if OSi could demonstrate that the decharacterized waste stream falls below the LDR organic concentration limit at the point of origination. Michele further explained that the exemption is only available if there is some kind of treatment used to meet the organic loading concentration or if the stream meets the limits at the point of origination.

C. Okey stated, however, that if OSi segregated all three streams so that they entered the impoundments separately, it appears that RCRA Subpart CC should not require organic air emission controls on the surface impoundments. This is because one stream, a characteristic hazardous waste, is decharacterized prior to entering the surface impoundment and therefore not is hazardous upon entry into the impoundment. The other two streams each meet RCRA Subpart CC treatment demonstration options. It is only the mixed stream that does not meet the treatment demonstration option concentration levels. Michele and Cheryl stated that the new RCRA Subpart CC exemption was designed to address particular forms of waste treatments (i.e. stabilization of metal-bearing wastes) and that a clarification of this intent will be issued shortly by EPA.

V. Allowable Exclusion/Allowable Increase

A. Nancy noted that she has not yet received the revised Allowable Exclusion/Allowable Increase ("AE/AI") provisions and will need some additional time to review and provide comments on the provisions.

B. The Workgroup discussed some language changes, requested by EPA, for the AE/AI section of the FPA.

C. Beth noted that OSi had included some language in the provisions to address the situation where OSi ceases a recovery operation begun under an AE or AI. At such time as the activity ceases, OSi expects that CAA Subpart YYY would no longer apply to it because it is no longer engaging in the recovery activity which triggered CAA Subpart YYY in the first place. However, OSi expressed concern that EPA needs to make clear that just because OSi became an affected facility for purposes of engaging in the recovery operation that it would not retain that status when the activity ceases. Otherwise, the AE/AI is meaningless to the facility if the regulations continue to apply even after the Project is over. There was some discussion concerning the impact of how the proposed CAA Subpart YYY will define an affected facility. EPA stated that they would need to discuss this matter further internally. It was decided that after EPA discussed the matter, a subgroup of the XL Workgroup would hold a conference call to work through this issue.

D. The Workgroup discussed the superior environmental performance expected to be achieved under the Project and the methods by which EPA could quantify the benefits for purposes of evaluating the appropriateness of termination, if necessary, due to failure to achieve superior environmental performance during the term of the Project. EPA stated that it would prefer to use a numerical quantification which describes pounds of emission reductions expected to be gained from operation of the vent incinerator. OSi stated that it would be more appropriate to focus on the destruction efficiency of the vent incinerator (98%) since that efficiency will remain as a constant unlike the level of emissions reductions which can vary with the capper unit production rate. If production decreases, for example, so too will emissions although such reductions will not be attributable to operation of the vent incinerator. EPA expressed its concern that the 98% efficiency needs to be meaningful, in terms of the quantity of emissions reductions to be achieved, in order for there to be superior environmental performance and, therefore, EPA would prefer to have numbers used in the quantification. OSi will discuss the matter further internally and report back to EPA.

E. EPA inquired whether OSi has determined which process vents are going to be routed to the vent incinerator. OSi stated that it believes that the capper has three process vent streams and that all three can and will be routed to the vent incinerator. OSi will confirm this and report back to EPA.

F. The Workgroup discussed what would be an appropriate time period, to include in the FPA, for the agencies to draft and propose legal implementation mechanisms for an AE/AI deferral. EPA expressed reluctance to agree to a specific period of time for it to complete this task. The Workgroup agreed, however, to include an expected time period for completion of the legal implementation mechanisms with a recognition that the period could possibly be longer if necessary.

G. EPA advised the Workgroup that it has agreed that the AI emissions allowance will not have constituents-specific sub-levels within the allowance but that OSi can use all of the allowance for one listed constituent so long as all the AI criteria are met.

H. There was some discussion concerning what type of monitoring OSi will perform to ensure that it does not exceed any AI granted for recovery operations. OSi stated that monitoring requirements should be set forth in the protocol established for each AI granted since each proposal for an AI will likely be different and, therefore, they will likely warrant different monitoring requirements.

VI. FPA Draft #5

A. OSi has added language to the FPA, at EPA's request, which describes the ecology at and near the facility. Beth stated that EPA would also like to add in some descriptions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She will send these descriptions to OSi. Tony noted that there are no endangered species in the area.

B. Beth inquired whether OSi had put together a cost-savings table to include in the FPA. Okey noted that it was working on one and inquired whether there was any particular information that EPA would like to see included. Beth stated that the table should include the cost of RCRA Subpart CC compliance as well as the cost of what OSi will be doing under Project XL.

C. EPA requested that OSi also include in the FPA the agreed-upon milestone for installation of the vent incinerator, that is, the major equipment order date. There was discussion as to whether stipulated penalties should be associated with failure to complete the milestone on time. EPA stated that its concern is that it wants to know if OSi is on schedule or not. OSi stated that it would prefer to use a notification provision rather than a stipulated penalty provision for this purpose. EPA agreed that a notification provision would be appropriate. OSi suggested that the notification provision appear in the consent order for implementation.

D. The Workgroup agreed to omit from the FPA the letters of public support for the Project which OSi has received and, instead to include them in the administrative record file. Other non-substantive revisions to the FPA were also discussed.

VII. Revised Project Schedule

April 30 FPA Draft #6 to EPA/DEP
May 12 EPA/DEP Consolidated Comments
on FPA to OSi
May 13
(10 am to Noon EST)
Work Team Conference Call
May 19/20 Hold Open for Possible Work Team Meeting in Charleston, West Virginia
May 20 Work Team Closure on FPA
May 23 Draft Final FPA to EPA/DEP
May 26 DEP Consent Order Final
June 9 EPA Concurrence Package
(AA Level Concurrence)
June 16 FPA Public Notice (30 days)
July 8 Public Meeting (Sistersville)
July 16 Public Notice Period Ends
July 16 Draft Site-Specific RCRA CC rule to Work Team
August 14 EPA (AA Level) Concurrence on Site-Specific RCRA CC Rule
September 4 Site-Specific Rule to Fed. Reg.
(Direct Final)

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.