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 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

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

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)
Attachment 1

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.

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.