Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo

Crompton Corporation (Formerly Witco Corporation)

Minutes for Meetings Used to Develop the Final Project Agreement

59385 8/1/96

OSi Specialties - Project XL July 22-23, 1996 Meeting Minutes

I. July 22, 1996 (Sistersville, West Virginia).

A. Attendees - See Attachment 1.

B. Summary of Discussions.

1. Dennis Heintzman opened the meeting noting that the primary intention of the meeting was to provide a forum for identifying questions and concerns of all parties. He identified the agenda to include: (1) project definition, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) goals with achievement dates, and (4) responses to EPA/DEP questions.

2. Beth Termini noted that many individuals in various divisions at EPA headquarters and the region will be involved in assessing the project, and it is likely that additional questions and concerns will arise during the development process.

3. The group then identified a list of issues and concerns that needed to be addressed during the development process. For a list of those concerns and questions, see Attachment 2.

4. Dennis Heintzman presented a discussion of the components and operation of the wastewater treatment system at the Sistersville plant. As part of that discussion, the participants noted that the potential issuance of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule may have a significant impact on the development of the project. Based on the rule as proposed, it appeared that much of the materials generated in the wastewater treatment plant would no longer be considered hazardous waste and thus, a number of units would no longer be subject to RCRA CC controls.

II. July 23, 1996 Meeting (Sistersville, West Virginia).

A. Attendees - See Attachment 3.

B. Summary of Discussions.

1. Scheduling.

a. It was agreed that weekly conference calls would be held each Tuesday beginning at 1:30 p.m. In addition, it was decided that a face-to-face meeting would be held on August 7, 1996 in Pittsburgh.

2. The participants discussed OSi's request for a "no action" assurance letter from DEP and EPA. EPA expressed concerns that issuance of a "no action" letter could be premature. OSi explained that the letter is necessary now because the anticipated start-up time to reach compliance with RCRA Subpart CC is 18 months. Accordingly, OSi explained that work to achieve compliance would have had to start in June of 1996. EPA and DEP requested additional documentation regarding the length of time required to achieve compliance and a formal letter requesting the "no action" assurance.

3. Stakeholder Involvement.

a. Dennis Heintzman described efforts undertaken by OSi to encourage stakeholder involvement. He noted that the project has received a great deal of attention in the print and electronic media. He explained that mailings and newspaper advertisements had been used to publicize the pendency of the project, but noted that the response from the community has been limited. Dennis explained that he contacted the state Environmental Advocate, Wendy Radcliff. The Advocate informed Dennis that she was unable to participate in the development due to the press of other business. Dennis also noted that Don McNaughton, who is a chemist and a state legislator, was the only person who has expressed significant interest in being involved in the process.

b. Michele Aston asked whether any outside groups had been involved, for example, members of the county planning committee or commission. Dennis noted that they had been involved in the initial meeting, and had been contacted but were unable to commit to being involved in the development process.

c. Beth Termini noted that the suggested use of an information repository with periodic updates was an important part of the stakeholder involvement approach for this project. She also encourages the use of contact personnel within OSi who would be designated to address community concerns.

d. A number of other suggestions were made by the group regarding possible areas for stakeholder involvement, including contact with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, contact with the local bar association, and the development of an educational outreach program to bridge the potential gap between the technical aspects of the project and the level of expertise in the general public. It was suggested that prior to implementing such an education plan, some assessment of the need for that type of education should be completed.

e. Julie Frieder of EPA discussed contacts available with national environmental groups so as to provide easy access to critical information for their review of the projects. OSi expressed interest in pursuing that type of contact.

4. State Concerns.

a. The state asked EPA for identification of when any potentially applicable MACT standard could be expected. Michele Aston noted that the only potentially applicable MACT would be the anticipated miscellaneous organic NESHAPs ("MON"), which would be required to be promulgated by no later than November 15, 2000. Michele expects that the MON may be promulgated a year earlier, but with a three year compliance period. The group agreed that for these purposes, we would anticipate the MON becoming effective in June of the year 2002. The group also agreed that the MON will likely require controls on the capper unit, as well as controls on the wastewater treatment plant and collection systems. The parties agreed that it is likely that when the MON is promulgated, a reevaluation of the project will be required. OSi pointed out that while the reevaluation will be necessary prior to the time that the MON actually becomes effective, the project and its associated regulatory relief would certainly remain in effect at least until the compliance date for the MON.

b. The state noted that it takes the position that the proposed capper unit would constitute a "modification" for purposes of its implementation of Section 112(g) of the Clear Air Act Amendments. As a result, the state believes that no case-by-case MACT determination would be required with respect to the project.

c. The parties briefly discussed possible implementation mechanisms. OSi expressed its concern that the implementation mechanism be enforceable, and in that regard, OSi believes that individual rulemaking to establish the regulatory relief should be used. EPA noted that other enforceable implementation mechanisms may be available. The state also noted that as part of the Project XL in Louisiana, the Louisiana legislature had specifically approved the use of a limited number of demonstration projects under Project XL. The group discussed whether that type of approach would be appropriate for legislative action in West Virginia.

d. DEP asked whether the facility would intend to meet the requirements of Subpart BB of RCRA even under Project XL. OSi confirmed that it would be in full compliance with RCRA Subpart BB.

5. Development of Project Overview.

a. OSi presented an overview of the anticipated project involving the capper unit and the wastewater treatment system. OSi noted that its proposal had been modified a number of times, with the most recent proposal being dated February of 1996. Some of the emissions numbers set forth in the February 1996 proposal differ from those in prior proposals due to changes in the estimating techniques used in deriving the emissions numbers. The emissions numbers were based on OSi's SARA Section 313 reporting for 1995.

b. OSi also noted that much of the SARA 313 reporting of air emissions was attributable to fugitive emissions. The estimates included in the reporting do not reflect actual emissions but are based on model and assumptions. OSi noted that it is implementing a Leak Detention and Repair ("LDAR") program as required under various regulations, and even in a number of areas that are not required. The implementation of that LDAR program has demonstrated that the estimates are overstated. Based on the monitoring performed under the LDAR program, the plant expects that the fugitive emission number in this area of reporting will ultimately be substantially lower.

c. Beth Termini asked what would be the result if the new capper is not put in. OSi noted that similar emission controls may be used with respect to the old capper. Dennis Heintzman noted that the decision to put in a new capper is based on a number of issues, and he presented a brief discussion of the company's business planning to be used in reaching a determination to build a new capper, and if so, whether to build it in Sistersville. Dennis noted that as a working assumption, the parties should assume that construction of a new capper will occur at Sistersville in the first quarter of 1997, and will be finished by the second to third quarter of 1997.

d. Bill Morrelles of DEP noted that thought should be given in planning for the project as to the type of permitting that may be required for various aspects of the project.

6. Regulatory Assumptions. The participants preliminarily agreed to the following regulatory assumptions with respect to the project.

a. No case-by-case MACT determination would be required under Section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act.

b. If tanks were used to replace the surface impoundments, Subpart CC of RCRA would not apply to the tanks.

c. Only two other hazardous waste tanks at the facility would be subject to Subpart CC (tank T872 (blending tank) and tank R72 (the hydrolysis unit)). The hydrolysis unit currently has air controls in place which OSi believes would meet RCRA Subpart CC.

d. The MON will not be applicable until June of 2002.

e. No PSD review would require controls on the new capper.

7. Waste Minimalization.

a. EPA expressed concern that the project does not have a great deal of waste minimization as part of the project. OSi responded that the recovery of methanol comprises an important part of the project. EPA expressed the belief that one of the XL criteria requires the innovative use of pollution prevention. OSi believes that innovative approaches to regulation would meet that criteria.

b. OSi presented a brief discussion of the waste reduction and minimization projects that have been accomplished and which are currently planned, but noted that it was not in a position at this point to include the planned activities in the project. Both parties agreed to reevaluate their position based on the conversation.

8. Discussion of Costs. OSi presented a discussion of estimated costs to be incurred under Project XL, as compared to costs that would be incurred without Project XL. (For a breakdown of the costs, see Attachment 4.)

C. Next Steps. (See Attachment 5.)

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.