![[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 17, 1996 Conference Call Minutes
I. Conference Call Participants
Dennis Heintzman Witco-OSi
Okey Tucker Witco-OSi
Tony Vandenberg Witco-OSi
Dale Koontz Witco-OSi
Jesse Barnhart Witco-OSi
Tim Malloy Witco-Manko, Gold & Katcher
Beth Termini EPA Region III
Maria Parisi-Vickers EPA Region III
David Friedman EPA Region III
Michele Aston EPA Headquarters
Britt Ludwig WV DEP
Lucy Pontiveros WV DEP
II. Summary of Discussions
A. Legal Mechanisms
1. Beth noted that EPA would like to work out a three-way consent order to handle the issue of RCRA Subpart CC compliance prior to rulemaking. She expected to have a draft of the document out the week of September 23, which she will share with the State of West Virginia.
2. Britt updated the Workgroup on discussions she had with Tony Vandenberg of OSi and Rick Atkinson of the West Virginia DEP regarding the use of the Title V permit as a legal mechanism for implementing the waiver for the CAA Subpart YYY requirements. She noted that a partial permit could be used, so long as it would be rolled into a final permit at the time the final permit for the facility is issued. She noted that DEP would not favor the approach of categorizing the entire project as an "affected facility." Instead, they would view the Title V permit mechanism as being similar to the permits used in the MACT Early Reduction Program.
3. Michelle noted that although the Title V mechanism could not be used to deal with RCRA Subpart CC, the site-specific rulemaking for RCRA Subpart CC could reference the provisions of the Title V permit.
4. OSi raised the issue of whether use of the Title V permit mechanism would effect the application shield for the facility's full Title V permit. The parties agreed that that issue should be considered prior to selecting any Title V mechanism, and expected that the application for the partial permit would be submitted as a modification to the full Title V permit application that will be submitted by OSi shortly.
5. With respect to CAA Subpart YYY, EPA noted that it had still made no final decision on whether a site-specific rule could be used. In the first instance, the Office of General Counsel will have to review the situation to assess the legal support for a site-specific rulemaking, but the Program Office will have to make the final decision. Alan Eckert is the Office of General Counsel attorney on this point.
6. Beth and David Friedman of EPA presented a short discussion on the expected effective date of the HWIR proposed rule. Currently, the Agency is under a court deadline of February 1997 for issuance of a final rule. It is expected that the earliest effective date will be June 1998 and there will likely be a phased approach to implementing the HWIR rule.
B. Action ItemsThe workgroup reviewed the status of the following action items which had been identified during the September 5-6 workgroup meeting:
Action Items Status
1. Send draft emissions estimates/ By September 20to Dr. Clark AllenWater 8 outputs/backup documentation
2. After Dr. Allen's review, Pending
provide copies to Cheryl, Michele,and others with interest
3. Determine applicability of Pending
47 C.S.R. 35
4. Determine if 45 C.S.R. 25 is Confirmed that this is not
part of WV SIP part of the SIP
5. Determine applicability of NNN & RRR Confirmed that Project
would be subject to NNN and RRR
6. Confirm compliance period for YYY, Pendingif possible
7. Verify that there is no proposed No state counterpart exists
state counterpart to YYY
8. Determine whether new vent incinerator Vent incinerator will need a
on capper process vent needs a new Reg Reg 13 Permit
13 Permit
9. Fax Preamble on § 112(g) Complete
w/examples of modification] to Britt
10. Check dates of MON Pending11. Add HWIR final date to Pendingregulatory analysis
12. Make contact with risk Completeassessor at EPA
13. Add toxicological data to OSi information added toAdministrative Record File file
14. Add short summary statement on Pendingrisk evaluation to FPA
C. Stakeholder Involvement
Okey reported to the group that he spoke with Janet Fout at OVEC. She informed Okey that she reviewed the Project and thought that it was a good project, but stated that she does not have the resources to become actively involved. She was pleased by the fact that OSi contacted her, but requested that OVEC be removed from the list of NGOs in the stakeholder involvement plan. She noted that she will send a letter expressing those thoughts.
D. Dennis asked that all Workgroup members provide their comments on outstanding minutes to Tim by Friday, September 20.