![[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 October 22, 1996 Conference Call MinutesI. Conference Call Participants
Dennis Heintzman Witco-OSi
Okey Tucker Witco-OSi
Tony Vandenberg Witco-OSi
Dale Koontz Witco-OSi
Tim Malloy Witco-Manko, Gold & Katcher
Jonathan McClung WVDEP
Lucy Pontiveros WVDEP
Cheryl Atkinson EPA Region III
Beth Termini EPA Region III
Michele Aston EPA Headquarters
Julie Frieder EPA Headquarters
Brian Grant EPA Headquarters
Amey Marrella EPA Headquarters
James Michael EPA Headquarters
II. Discussion of Termination Upon MON Compliance Date
A. Michele expressed the belief that upon the MON compliance date, the FPA will terminate and the facility would have to be in compliance with all applicable regulations, including RCRA Subpart CC and CAA Subpart YYY. Tim noted that the company was not previously aware of this position. Rather, OSi believed that in the event that the MON does not completely subsume RCRA Subpart CC and CAA Subpart YYY, OSi would have additional time to bring itself into compliance with those regulations.
B. Amey Marrella noted that one possibility is that the FPA could call for the parties to discuss how to deal with RCRA and CAA compliance at the time the MON is promulgated. At that time, there will be more certainty as to the relationship between the MON, RCRA Subpart CC and CAA Subpart YYY.
C. Michele walked through the anticipated schedule for the MON. Following MON proposal, it is expected that a public comment period of approximately 90 days would occur. Following the close of the public comment period, Michele expects that it would take up to a year for the promulgation of the final regulation, with a compliance period after issuance of the final rule of probably three years.
D. The parties all agreed that they would go back and consider this issue and talk again at the next conference call.
III. De Minimis Provision for CAA Subpart YYY
A. The parties began with a general conceptual discussion of whether the de minimis concept is workable. OSi noted that the purpose of the de minimis concept is to make the project economically feasible for the company, while at the same time providing the continued superior environmental performance under the project. Given the large reduction in air emissions attributable to the project, the company noted that a small increase of emissions from the wastewater treatment plant as the result of a new process unit should not cause the Subpart YYY deferral to end.
B. Beth noted that there was an issue as to the constituents that would be emitted. She suggested that, without knowing which constituents would be increased under de minimis provision, it is difficult for the agency to assess the impact of additional emissions on the environmental performance. Tim noted that Beth's concern could probably be met in the first instance by limiting the types of constituents to those that are similar in nature to the constituents already covered by the project. Julie noted that this concept does fit within XL, which is intended to test new approaches to regulation.
C. Michele also noted that inclusion of a de minimis provision creates verification problems. She pointed out in reviewing this project, EPA and the company went through an extensive review of the modelling and assumptions made by the company in developing emissions estimates. She noted that similar efforts would be required for subsequent increases under a de minimis provision. Michele suggested that it might be more appropriate for FPA to provide that, in the event of increased emissions from the waste water treatment plant due to new process units, the parties would sit down and discuss whether CAA Subpart YYY should be triggered.
D. Tim commented that the company had always expected that there would be a procedure for verification of the applicability of de minimis provision. In the company's view, the FPA would set out objective criteria for the applicability of the de minimis provision. In the event that the company wanted to take advantage of the de minimis provision, it would submit its emissions calculations and supporting documentation to EPA and WVDEP for verification. The de minimis exception would only apply in the event that the parties could agree that the objective criteria in the FPA had been met.
E. Beth suggested that it may be possible to craft a two-stage process. In the first stage, an increase in emissions of constituents that are already present in the wastewater would be allowable. In the second stage, a reopener provision would be used for increases of new constituents.
F. An additional issue was identified by the group; namely, in the event that objective standard is built into the FPA for a de minimis exception, how would that be carried through to the implementation mechanisms. For example, what provisions would be in the site-specific rule in order to implement such a de minimis provision.
IV. Discussion of "Soft Landings."
A. The group then began to discuss whether in the event of a termination other than the MON default, the company would be afforded an opportunity to come into compliance with the otherwise applicable regulations. Michele noted that the agency could justify a soft landing period during which the company could take measures necessary to come into compliance with RCRA Subpart CC and CAA Subpart YYY, commensurate with the original compliance period set forth in each promulgated rule. In addition, she noted that the agency would be willing to accept a definite period, for example, of 18 months.B. The parties agree that they each would go back and consider these alternatives.
V. Miscellaneous
A. Jim Michael will be added to the distribution list of materials. His phone number is 703-308-8610, and his fax number is 703-308-8609. His e-mail address is michael.james@epamail.epa.gov.