![[logo] US EPA](../gif/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Crompton Corporation (Formerly Witco Corporation)
Minutes for Meetings Used to Develop the Final Project Agreement
OSi Specialties - Project XL September 5-6, 1996 Meeting Minutes
I. Location and Participants
A. A meeting of the OSi Project XL Workgroup was held at EPA's Region III headquarters in Philadelphia on September 5-6, 1996.B. Meeting Participants
Dennis Heintzman Witco-OSi
Dale Koontz Witco-OSi
Okey Tucker Witco-OSi
Tony Vandenberg Witco-OSi
Brenda Gotanda Witco-Manko, Gold & Katcher
Tim Malloy Witco-Manko, Gold & Katcher
Cheryl Atkinson EPA Region III
Jim Cashel EPA Region III
Cecil Rodriguez EPA Region III
Beth Termini EPA Region III
Michele Aston EPA Headquarters
Britt Ludwig WV DEP (by telephone)
Jonathan McClung WV DEP (by telephone)
Lucy Pontiveros WV DEP (by telephone)
Chris van Löben Sels NRDC (by telephone on 9/6 only)
II. Summary of Discussions
A. Draft Emissions Estimates1. The Workgroup reviewed the draft emissions estimates prepared by OSi. Okey Tucker explained that the emissions estimates are now complete except for some further review of the Water 8 modeling of the new capper unit. Michele Aston requested that OSi send the draft emissions estimates and modeling documentation to Dr. Clark Allen (EPA) for review prior to finalizing the document for distribution.
2. The emissions estimates when finalized will be incorporated into the Final Project Agreement ("FPA") as an attachment.
3. WV DEP had some questions concerning the Water 8 modeling process. Michele explained that the estimates are generated from EPA's Model 8 software which is employed to model emission rates from wastewater systems. Michele offered to arrange for some of EPA's modeling staff to discuss the Water 8 modeling program in more detail with Lucy Pontiveros and others from WV DEP.4. The assumptions that OSi has used in modeling the emissions are set forth in the draft emissions estimates document. Further documentation will be prepared to explain why the assumptions used are appropriate.B. Draft Regulatory Analysis1. The Workgroup reviewed the draft regulatory analysis prepared by OSi which summarizes the regulatory requirements which are potentially applicable to the components of this XL Project and analyzes their impact on the Project.2. WV DEP clarified that the State has adopted RCRA Subpart CC by reference as a state air quality rule and has delegated enforcement on the state level to the Office of Air Quality. Thus, the requirements are found in the air quality management regulations at 45 C.S.R. Part 25. WV DEP will confirm that RCRA Subpart CC is not part of the waste management regulations at 47 C.S.R. Part 35. The RCRA Part B permit for the OSi facility is issued under Part 35. WV has not received EPA authorization to enforce RCRA Subpart CC on behalf of the federal government.3. Tim questioned whether 45 C.S.R. Part 25 was part of the WV State Implementation Plan ("SIP") under the Clean Air Act, and if so, whether this Project would require amendment of the SIP. Britt Ludwig, Cecil Rodriguez, and Jim Cashel agreed to check on this and report back to the Workgroup.4. Michele will check on the anticipated promulgation date for the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP ("MON").5. Jim Cashel is in the process of verifying that methanol generated and disposed of in the sewer would not be considered "produced" for purposes of NSPS Subparts NNN and RRR.6. EPA anticipates that CAA Subpart YYY will be promulgated in November 1997 with compliance deadlines of 180 days or up to 3 years from issuance, depending upon whether the completion of the affected facility is a construction/reconstruction or a modification. All members of the Workgroup will assess the nature of the Project in light of the proposed regulation to determine whether it should be classified as a construction/reconstruction or as a modification.7. Lucy stated that currently there is no proposed state regulatory counterpart to CAA Subpart YYY.8. WV DEP will confirm whether the installation of the control device itself on the new capper unit would require a Reg. 13 permit pursuant to Reg. 6.9. OSi and WV DEP anticipate that under proposed CAA § 112(g), case-by-case MACT regulations will not apply to the Project because it will be a modification, rather than a construction or reconstruction. As this is a state program, OSi requested WV DEP's formal concurrence in this analysis. Jim offered to send Britt a copy of the preamble to the regulations which discusses the nature of modifications and provides specific examples.10. EPA suggested that the final date of the proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule be included in the analysis.11. The Workgroup believes that all current and anticipated future regulations potentially applicable to the Project have been included in the regulatory analysis. EPA and WV DEP will conduct a final review of the draft analysis and then will report back to the Workgroup with their concurrence, or with further revisions if necessary.C. Risk Evaluation1. OSi has provided emissions information to Michele for use in the risk evaluation. With respect to RCRA Subpart CC, the agencies and OSi agree that there will be no increased risk associated with implementation of this Project because compliance, absent Project XL, would not result in any change of emissions as there would be no change in emissions if the surface impoundments at the facility were replaced with tanks. The only expected "increase" in emissions that would have been controlled under RCRA Subpart CC are annual emissions of 33 lbs. from one hazardous waste tank. EPA does not believe that this would represent any increased risk, especially given the substantial reductions of similar pollutants expected from the capper unit and wastewater system under the Project. This will be explained briefly in the FPA. Cheryl will consult with an EPA risk assessor on this issue.2. Michele is preparing a toxicological profile on the Project which will be added to the Administrative Record File. This profile will not become part of the FPA, but Michele will add a few sentences to the FPA concerning the toxicological profile.
D. No Action Letter
1. EPA inquired about the status of the proposal for implementing the capper unit at the Sistersville facility. OSi stated that the request for expenditure of funds for detailed engineering is just awaiting signature for authorization. OSi anticipates that construction of the new capper unit will begin in the second or third quarter of 1997 and that the new unit will go on-line late in the fourth quarter of 1997 or the first quarter of 1998.2. EPA stated that no decisions have yet been made on OSi's request for protection from enforcement of RCRA Subpart CC for such time as may be necessary to come into compliance with those regulations in the event that FPA negotiations are terminated and the Project is not implemented. EPA added that it has not yet decided on what type of protection it can provide to OSi but stated that it has been considering issuance of an order or a no action letter. Tim conveyed OSi's strong preference for an order. Beth will contact Tim next week to advise him of EPA's progress on this issue.
3. Britt stated that WV DEP would like to know how EPA is going to address this issue prior to making a decision at the state level.
E. Legal Mechanisms
1. RCRA Subpart CC
a. Based upon current project information, EPA considers a site-specific rule the most appropriate mechanism to authorize OSi's deferred compliance with RCRA Subpart CC under the Project. EPA would take the lead on drafting the rule, but will look to OSi for its input and for assistance. EPA would like to approach the rulemaking as it approaches the reg-neg process and to seek input from OSi during the drafting stage. Michele estimated that it would take EPA 4 to 6 weeks to draft the rule.b. Britt advised that WV DEP would prefer to promulgate a regulation after EPA does so. She added that it is very unlikely that a regulation would make it into the next legislative session as the due date for submittals is August/September. In addition, she stated that WV DEP has very little chance of getting something passed as an emergency rulemaking as such a rule must be approved by the Secretary of State who has significantly restricted the types of rules that he will consider as emergencies. Britt suggested as an alternative that perhaps some language authorizing the RCRA part of the project could be added to Reg. 25 which is already scheduled for legislative consideration in the next session. She added that WV DEP would be happy to support this if OSi could find a sponsor for it in the legislature. OSi will arrange a conference call with Britt and some state senators to discuss this possibility further.c. The group will need to determine whether language will need to be added to the facility's RCRA Part B permit to reflect the implementation of the Project and the alternative compliance provided for by the Project. The facility's Part B permit is due to expire at the end of 1998. Beth will consult with EPA's permitting staff to determine how EPA handles Part B permits in states, such as West Virginia, which are not authorized to implement RCRA Subpart CC.
d. EPA indicated that it does not want to begin drafting the federal rule until the state legal mechanism has been identified. Tim noted that work on the rule should begin as soon as possible (perhaps immediately after the performance criteria are defined during FPA development) regardless of the status of the state discussions. WV DEP stated that it does not want to draft a state rule until it has an opportunity to review EPA's rule. A management plan for coordinating rulemaking by EPA and WV DEP will need to be developed.
2. CAA Subpart YYY
a. EPA has not yet decided how it intends to implement provision for deferred compliance with CAA Subpart YYY. It suggested that it may be advisable to incorporate authorization into a partial Title V permit to be issued within a few months where it can also incorporate necessary emission controls for the capper unit. Such a permit could be limited to the proposed new source performance standard and the methanol recovery. Tim stated that OSi's preferred legal implementation mechanism is a site-specific rulemaking but that a partial Title V permit may be useful as a gap-filler until such time as the site-specific rule becomes effective. Tim added that EPA has ample authority under the CAA to issue such a rule.b. Rick Atkinson, who handles WV DEP's Title V program is out of the office until September 16, so WV DEP cannot address this issue until that time.c. The Workgroup members agreed to take some time to consider these options further and to come back to this issue at a future conference call or meeting.
F. Final Project Agreement - Draft #1
1. Minor changes to the language of the FPA are not reflected in these minutes but will be made to the FPA. Any additional minor language changes should be forwarded to Tim so that they can be included in the next draft of the FPA.2. Cheryl requested that a description of the methanol recovery unit and its processes be added to the FPA. In addition, she would like more specificity concerning the reduction of air emissions and sludge generation in the first paragraph of the Project Overview section. Further, Cheryl requested that the language in the second paragraph of that section be revised to specifically address RCRA Subpart CC and CAA Subpart YYY or any other regulation being discussed.3. Air emissions from the capper's process vents should be referred to as organic compounds or organics.4. Michele suggested that the Regulatory Flexibility section explain that it is the methanol recovery undertaken as part of this Project which triggers CAA Subpart YYY and, therefore, the need for an exemption from CAA Subpart YYY is only triggered by this process change.
5. Michele noted that the proposed exemption would no longer apply if other changes at the plant were to trigger applicability of CAA Subpart YYY. OSi suggested that it would be preferable to build the parameters of this exemption into the performance standards so as not to overly constrict OSi's ability to modify its operations if necessary. OSi agreed to get back to EPA on this issue with some suggestions for performance standards.
6. The Workgroup discussed the likely impact of the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP ("MON") on this Project. EPA explained that its belief has been that when the MON is promulgated it will negate any environmental benefit from this Project as EPA believes that the MON will mandate controls on the capper unit. Tim explained that it is possible that there may be other superior environmental benefits from this Project during its term (for example, if either RCRA Subpart CC or CAA Subpart YYY were found to be inapplicable to the plant during the term of the Project). He suggested that rather than setting a final termination date as of promulgation of the MON, the FPA should provide for reevaluation of the Project at some time after the MON is proposed. This will provide an incentive for all parties to pursue superior environmental benefits regardless of regulatory changes which may potentially negate some of the anticipated benefits of the compliance alternatives offered at the initiation of the Project.Beth cautioned that past efforts cannot be used to justify future projects. Tim replied that this prohibition is precisely the reason why a dynamic FPA with a procedure for reevaluation is preferable to a finite end to the Project since the reevaluation approach can provide incentive to pursue projects with superior environmental benefit as the opportunities are presented over the course of this Project. Okey noted that OSi has already expressed willingness to investigate other waste minimization opportunities of the plant. Implementation of one or more such waste minimization projects could justify continuation of the Project. Thus, environmentally beneficial undertakings would not be delayed, but rather could be incorporated with the ongoing Project. Chris added that a reevaluation presents an opportunity to try to link alternative MON compliance to ongoing activities, although some performance standards should be established for purposes of the reevaluation.Beth stated that EPA is willing to consider the addition of language to the FPA which provides an opportunity for reevaluation of the Project some time after proposal of the MON. She explained that any reevaluation of the Project will necessarily be performed in light of the XL project criteria, but that perhaps EPA would consider allowing OSi to present its case on what it has done during the Project and what it plans for the future. Beth suggested that OSi draft some language for EPA to consider. She stated that the language should reflect EPA's present belief that the superior environmental benefit gained by the Project will end with the effective date of the MON. Chris stated his belief that there is a great deal to be gained from a continuing process.EPA stated that the legal mechanisms employed for implementation of the Project will be tied to the effective date of the MON.
III. Action Items
A. Action Items Responsible Persons
1. Send draft emissions estimates/ Okeyto Dr. Clark AllenWater 8 outputs/backup documentation
2. After Dr. Allen's review, Okey
provide copies to Cheryl, Michele,and others with interest
3. Determine applicability of Britt
47 C.S.R. 35
4. Determine if 45 C.S.R. 25 is Cecil, Jim
part of WV SIP
5. Determine applicability of NNN & RRR Jim
6. Confirm compliance period for YYY, Micheleif possible
7. Verify that there is no proposed Lucy, Britt
state counterpart to YYY
8. Determine whether new vent incinerator Lucy
on capper process vent needs a new Reg
13 Permit
9. Fax Preamble on § 112(g) Jim
w/examples of modification] to Britt
10. Check dates of MON Michele11. Add HWIR final date to Okey, Bethregulatory analysis
12. Make contact with risk Cherylassessor at EPA
13. Add toxicological data to Michele, OkeyAdministrative Record File
14. Add short summary statement on Tim, Okey, Michelerisk evaluation to FPA
IV. Schedule
The next conference call of the XL Workgroup will be held on Tuesday September 10, 1996 at 3:00. The Workgroup will continue its review of FPA Draft #1 at that time.