[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49384-49407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24048]



[[Page 49383]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 264 and 265



Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for OSi Specialties, Inc., 
Sistersville, WV; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 15, 1998 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 49384]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 264 and 265

[FRL-6157-6 ]


Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for OSi Specialties, Inc., 
Sistersville, WV

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is implementing a project under the Project XL program 
for the OSi Specialties, Inc. plant, a wholly owned subsidiary of Witco 
Corporation, located near Sistersville, West Virginia (the 
``Sistersville Plant''). The terms of the XL project are defined in a 
Final Project Agreement (``FPA'') which has been available for public 
review and comment. See 62 FR 34748, June 27, 1997. Following a review 
of the public comments, the FPA was signed by delegates from the EPA, 
the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (``WVDEP'') and 
Witco Corporation on October 17, 1997. EPA is today publishing a final 
rule, applicable only to the Sistersville Plant, to facilitate 
implementation of the XL project. Today's final rule is an outgrowth of 
the proposed rule published on March 6, 1998, and a supplemental 
proposal published on July 10, 1998. See 63 FR 11200 and 63 FR 37309, 
respectively.
    Today's action is a site-specific regulatory deferral from the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (``RCRA'') organic air emission 
standards, commonly known as RCRA Subpart CC. The applicability of this 
site-specific deferral is limited to two existing hazardous waste 
surface impoundments, and is conditioned on the Sistersville Plant's 
compliance with air emission and waste management requirements that 
have been developed under this XL project. The air emission and waste 
management requirements are set forth in today's final rule. Today's 
action is intended to provide site-specific regulatory changes to 
implement this XL project. The EPA expects this XL project to result in 
superior environmental performance at the Sistersville Plant, while 
deferring significant capital expenditures, and thus providing cost 
savings for the Sistersville Plant.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Docket: Three dockets contain supporting information used in 
developing this final rule, and are available for public inspection and 
copying at the EPA's docket office located at Crystal Gateway, 1235 
Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia. The public 
is encouraged to phone in advance to review docket materials. 
Appointments can be scheduled by phoning the Docket Office at (703) 
603-9230. Refer to RCRA docket numbers F-98-MCCP-FFFFF, F-98-MCCF-
FFFFF, and F-98-MCCA-FFFFF.
    A duplicate copy of each docket is available for inspection and 
copying at U.S. EPA, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 
19103-2029, during normal business hours. Persons wishing to view a 
duplicate docket at the Philadelphia location are encouraged to contact 
Mr. Tad Radzinski in advance, by telephoning (215) 814-2394.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tad Radzinski, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 3 (3WC11), Waste and Chemicals Management 
Division, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103-2029, (215) 814-
2394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Authority
II. Background
    A. Overview of Project XL
    B. Overview of the OSi Sistersville Plant XL Project
    1. Introduction
    2. OSi Sistersville Plant XL Project Description and 
Environmental Benefits
    3. Economic Benefits
    4. Stakeholder Involvement and Changes Since Proposal
    5. Regulatory Implementation Approach
    6. Project Duration and Completion
III. Regulatory Requirements and Performance Standards
    A. Capper Unit Control Requirements
    B. Methanol Recovery Operation
    C. Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention Study
IV. Summary of Response to Public Comments
V. Additional Information
    A. Immediate Effective Date
    B. Executive Order 12866
    C. Regulatory Flexibility
    D. Congressional Review Act
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Applicability of Executive Order 13045
    H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental 
Partnerships
    I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments

I. Authority

    This regulation is being published under the authority of sections 
1006, 2002, 3001-3007, 3010, and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6921-6927, 6930, and 6974).

II. Background

A. Overview of Project XL

    This site-specific regulation will implement a project developed 
under Project XL, an EPA initiative to allow regulated entities to 
achieve better environmental results at less cost. Project XL--
``eXcellence and Leadership''-- was announced on March 16, 1995, as a 
central part of the National Performance Review and the EPA's effort to 
reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995). 
Project XL provides a limited number of private and public regulated 
entities an opportunity to develop their own pilot projects to provide 
regulatory flexibility that will result in environmental protection 
that is Superior to what would be achieved through compliance with 
current and reasonably anticipated future regulations. These efforts 
are crucial to the Agency's ability to test new regulatory strategies 
that reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth while 
achieving better environmental and public health protection. The Agency 
intends to evaluate the results of this and other Project XL projects 
to determine which specific elements of the project(s), if any, should 
be more broadly applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of 
both the economy and the environment.
    Under Project XL, participants in four categories--facilities, 
industry sectors, governmental agencies and communities--are offered 
the flexibility to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that 
will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements, on the 
condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental 
performance. To participate in Project XL, applicants must develop 
alternative pollution reduction strategies pursuant to eight criteria: 
superior environmental performance; cost savings and paperwork 
reduction; local stakeholder involvement and support; test of an 
innovative strategy; transferability; feasibility; identification of 
monitoring, reporting and evaluation methods; and avoidance of shifting 
risk burden. They must have full support of affected Federal, state and 
tribal agencies to be selected.
    For more information about the XL criteria, readers should refer to 
the two descriptive documents published in the Federal Register (60 FR 
27282, May 23,

[[Page 49385]]

1995 and 62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997), and the December 1, 1995 
``Principles for Development of Project XL Final Project Agreements'' 
document. For further discussion as to how the Sistersville Plant XL 
project addresses the XL criteria, readers should refer to the notice 
of availability for this XL project (62 FR 34748, June 27, 1997) and 
the related documents that were noticed by that Federal Register 
action. Each of these documents is available from the supporting 
dockets for this action (see ADDRESSES section of today's preamble).
    The XL program is intended to allow the EPA to experiment with 
untried, potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess 
whether they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and 
whether they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot 
projects allow the EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible 
when undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. As part of this 
experimentation, the EPA may try out approaches or legal 
interpretations that depart from, or are even inconsistent with, 
longstanding Agency practice, so long as those interpretations are 
within the broad range of discretion enjoyed by the Agency in 
interpreting statutes that it implements. The EPA may also modify 
rules, on a site-specific basis, that represent one of several possible 
policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as 
the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.
    Adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the 
context of a given XL project does not, however, signal the EPA's 
willingness to adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even 
in the context of other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the 
forward-looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative 
approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining 
whether or not they are viable in practice and successful in the 
particular projects that embody them. Furthermore, as EPA indicated in 
announcing the XL program, the Agency expects to adopt only a limited 
number of carefully selected projects. These pilot projects are not 
intended to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs. 
Depending on the results in these projects, EPA may or may not be 
willing to consider adopting the alternative interpretation again, 
either generally or for other specific facilities.
    The EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and 
interpretations, on a limited, site-specific basis and in connection 
with a carefully selected pilot project, is consistent with the 
expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the 
environmental statutes (so long as the Agency acts within the 
discretion allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is 
a need for experimentation and research, as well as ongoing re-
evaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of 
statutory provisions, such as section 8001 of RCRA.

B. Overview of the OSi Sistersville Plant XL Project

1. Introduction
    The EPA is today publishing a temporary deferral of RCRA Subpart CC 
applicable to the Sistersville Plant, to implement key provisions of 
this Project XL initiative. Today's site-specific temporary deferral 
supports a Project XL FPA that has been developed by the Sistersville 
Plant XL project stakeholder group. This group consisted of 
representatives from the Sistersville Plant, EPA, WVDEP, and the 
community around the Sistersville Plant. Environmental organizations 
were encouraged to participate in the stakeholder process; in response, 
a representative from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 
participated in, and provided valuable input to, the development of 
this XL Project and the FPA.
    The FPA is available for review in RCRA Docket Number F-98-MCCP-
FFFFF, and also is available on the world wide web at http://
www.epa.gov/ProjectXL. A Federal Register document was published June 
27, 1997 at 62 FR 34748 to notify the public of the details of this XL 
project and to solicit comments on the specific provisions of the FPA, 
which embodies the Agency's intent to implement this project. The FPA 
addresses the eight Project XL criteria, and the expectation of the 
Agency that this XL project will meet those criteria. Those criteria 
are: (1) Environmental performance superior to what would be achieved 
through compliance with current and reasonably anticipated future 
regulations; (2) cost savings or economic opportunity, and/or decreased 
paperwork burden; (3) stakeholder support; (4) test of innovative 
strategies for achieving environmental results; (5) approaches that 
could be evaluated for future broader application; (6) technical and 
administrative feasibility; (7) mechanisms for monitoring, reporting, 
and evaluation; and (8) consistency with Executive Order 12898 on 
Environmental Justice (avoidance of shifting of risk burden). The FPA 
specifically addresses the manner in which the project is expected to 
produce, measure, monitor, report, and demonstrate superior 
environmental benefits.
2. OSi Sistersville Plant XL Project Description and Environmental 
Benefits
    The Sistersville Plant is a specialty chemical manufacturer of 
silicone products and is located near Sistersville, West Virginia along 
the east side of the Ohio River. The Sistersville plant produces a 
family of man-made organo-silicone chemicals which are used in industry 
and homes throughout the world. The organo-silicones have applications 
in electronic equipment; aircraft, missile, and space technology; 
appliance, automotive and metal working production; textile, paper, 
plastics, and glass fabrication; rubber products; paint, polish, and 
cosmetics; food processing and preparation; building and highway 
construction and maintenance; and chemical reactions and processes.
    For this XL Project, the Sistersville Plant will install an 
incinerator and route the process vents from its polyether methyl 
capper (``capper'') unit to that incinerator for control of organic air 
emissions. In April 1998, the Sistersville Plant began implementing 
these organic air emission controls. There are no currently-applicable 
nationwide regulations that require the Sistersville Plant to install 
this incinerator or to control the organic emissions from the capper 
unit. The EPA anticipates that these controls will be required for the 
Sistersville Plant under the National Emission Standard for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants for the source category Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Production and Processes (``MON''), scheduled to be published under the 
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (``CAA''). The MON is 
currently scheduled to be published as a final rulemaking in November 
of 2000, with air emission controls expected to be required 
approximately three years later. Under this XL project, and as a 
requirement of today's final site-specific temporary deferral, the 
Sistersville Plant will operate organic air emission controls on the 
capper unit approximately five years earlier than EPA expects the 
controls to be required by the MON. Based on current production levels, 
the Sistersville Plant estimates these incinerator vent controls will 
reduce the facility's organic air emissions by about 309,000 pounds per 
year.
    The Sistersville Plant will also recover and reuse an estimated 
500,000 pounds per year of methanol that would

[[Page 49386]]

otherwise be disposed of through the on-site wastewater treatment 
system, and will reduce approximately 50,000 pounds per year of organic 
air emissions from the wastewater treatment system. These modifications 
will reduce sludge generation from the wastewater system, that would 
otherwise be disposed of in an onsite landfill, by an estimated 815,000 
pounds per year. In addition, the Sistersville Plant has committed to 
conduct a waste minimization/pollution prevention (``WMPP'') study 
which is expected to result in additional reductions in waste 
generation at the facility. These initiatives are described further in 
section III of today's preamble. Absent today's action, there are no 
existing or anticipated applicable regulations that would require the 
Sistersville Plant to perform the environmentally beneficial measures 
of the methanol recovery and WMPP initiatives.
    As an incentive for the Sistersville Plant to install the 
incinerator vent controls, recover and re-use the methanol, and to 
conduct the WMPP study, the EPA considers it appropriate to temporarily 
defer other regulatory requirements applicable to the Sistersville 
Plant. Specifically, EPA is today publishing a temporary, conditional 
deferral from the RCRA Subpart CC organic air emission control 
requirements applicable to the facility's two hazardous waste surface 
impoundments. The deferral is from the RCRA Subpart CC surface 
impoundment standards codified at 40 CFR 264.1085 and 40 CFR 265.1086, 
as well as associated requirements that are referenced in or by 40 CFR 
264.1085 and 265.1086 that would otherwise apply to the two hazardous 
waste surface impoundments. The provisions of 40 CFR 264.1085 and 
265.1086 would have required the Sistersville Plant to install organic 
vapor suppressing covers on the two existing hazardous waste surface 
impoundments. The deferred provisions referenced in or by 40 CFR 
264.1085 and 265.1086 are the compliance assurance requirements that 
directly relate to the air emission control requirements for surface 
impoundments codified at 40 CFR 264.1085 and 265.1086. Since EPA is 
today temporarily deferring the requirements for the Sistersville Plant 
to comply with the RCRA Subpart CC air emission control requirements 
applicable to its two hazardous waste surface impoundments, EPA is also 
temporarily deferring those requirements directly related to air 
emission controls on surface impoundments; specifically, the inspection 
and monitoring requirements codified at 40 CFR 264.1088 and 265.1089, 
the recordkeeping requirements codified at 40 CFR 264.1089 and 
265.1090, and the reporting requirements codified at 40 CFR 264.1090, 
as each relate to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments at the 
Sistersville Plant.
    The Sistersville Plant estimates that, if implemented, installation 
and operation of the required RCRA Subpart CC air emission controls on 
the two surface impoundments would result in a total organic emission 
reduction of 45,000 pounds per year. In lieu of installing surface 
impoundment covers to comply with RCRA Subpart CC (either in absence of 
this XL project, or when this project concludes), the Sistersville 
Plant plans to close the two hazardous waste impoundments, and install 
two wastewater treatment tanks to serve in their place. The replacement 
wastewater treatment tanks would most likely be exempt from RCRA 
requirements, under 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6) and 40 CFR 265.1(c)(10); thus, 
the RCRA Subpart CC standards would not be applicable to those tanks. 
There are no currently applicable regulations that would require air 
emission controls on such tanks; however, the Agency anticipates that 
the MON will be applicable to such tanks, and may require that they be 
equipped with organic air emission controls. Therefore, it is 
reasonable to assume that in absence of this XL Project, the organic 
air emissions attributed to the Sistersville Plant's two hazardous 
waste surface impoundments would be transferred to two RCRA-exempt 
wastewater treatment tanks, and would not be controlled for 
approximately five years.
3. Economic Benefits
    The Sistersville Plant estimates that the costs it will incur as a 
result of the RCRA Subpart CC standards being applicable to its two 
hazardous waste surface impoundments would be $2,500,000. Of that 
total, $2,000,000 would be for construction of wastewater treatment 
tanks to replace the surface impoundments, and $500,000 would be for 
performance of RCRA closure requirements for the two existing hazardous 
waste surface impoundments. In contrast to these compliance options, 
the Sistersville Plant estimates that the cost to install the 
incinerator and the process vent controls on the capper unit, to 
implement the methanol recovery operation, and to conduct the WMPP 
initiatives will be $700,000.
    The Sistersville Plant considers it economically beneficial to 
spend the resources to install a thermal incinerator and process vent 
controls five years before those controls are likely to be required by 
federal regulation, and to implement a methanol recovery operation and 
implement a WMPP study, in exchange for deferring for five years the 
cost of $2,500,000 that they estimate will be required to implement 
their planned approach to the RCRA Subpart CC surface impoundment 
requirements.
4. Stakeholder Involvement and Changes Since Proposal
    Stakeholder involvement during the Project development stage was 
cultivated in several ways. The methods included communicating through 
the media (newspaper and radio announcements), directly contacting 
interested parties, and offering an educational program on the 
regulatory programs impacted by the XL project. Stakeholders have been 
kept informed on the project status via mailing lists, newspaper 
articles, public meetings and the establishment of a public file at the 
Sistersville Public Library and the EPA Region 3 office.
    A local environmental group, the Ohio Valley Environmental 
Coalition, was contacted but stated that they did not have time to 
participate actively in the development of the XL project. However, a 
representative from NRDC, a national environmental interest group, has 
participated in conference call meetings with the Project XL team and 
provided comments during the development of the FPA. This 
representative continues to be notified of all XL project meetings and 
activities. There are few homes located near the facility, and, 
therefore, few local stakeholders other than employees of the facility 
have expressed interest in actively participating in the development of 
the project. However, the Sistersville Plant has provided stakeholders 
with regular project development updates by circulating meeting and 
conference call minutes. In June of 1997, an announcement of the 
availability of the draft FPA was published in local newspapers and the 
Federal Register (62 FR 34748, June 27, 1997), and the draft FPA was 
widely distributed for public comment. In addition, during the public 
comment period for the draft FPA, the Sistersville Plant hosted a 
general public meeting to present the draft FPA. In response to a 
request from the Environmental Defense Fund, EPA extended the public 
comment period on the proposed FPA by 30 days. EPA received four very 
positive comments during the public comment period for the draft FPA. 
After

[[Page 49387]]

that proposed rule public comment period had closed, a comment letter 
was received from a citizen who was concerned about the installation of 
what he believed was a toxic waste incinerator. EPA responded to this 
citizen's concern by providing further explanation of the project and 
the environmental benefits that will result from the installation and 
operation of the vent incinerator as well as other aspects of the 
project. This citizen also commented on the March 6, 1998 proposed rule 
(see section IV. below). Copies of all the comment letters, as well as 
EPA's response to the concerned citizen's letter, are located in the 
rulemaking Dockets (see the ADDRESSES section of today's preamble).
    Today's final rule for a site-specific temporary deferral was 
proposed in the Federal Register on March 6, 1998 at 63 FR 11200. 
During the 30-day public comment period following that document's 
publication, EPA received two comments on the proposal. The first 
comment was a positive one, submitted by the Tyler County Commission. 
The other comment was submitted by the same citizen who submitted a 
negative comment letter on the draft FPA. This second comment letter is 
discussed more fully in Section IV of today's preamble. The commenter 
requested a public hearing. Thereafter, EPA met with the commenter and 
addressed his concerns. The commenter then submitted a letter 
withdrawing his request for a public hearing. However, EPA held a 
public hearing on April 28, 1998, to give all concerned citizens an 
opportunity to be heard. No one from the public attended this hearing.
    On May 26, 1998, the Sistersville Plant notified EPA that they 
would not be able to meet a provision of the proposed site-specific 
temporary deferral that required the Sistersville Plant to conduct an 
initial performance test on the thermal oxidizer within 60 days of 
initial start-up. This provision is contained at paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(B) in Secs. 264.1080 and 265.1080 of the March 6, 1998 
proposed rule and of today's final rule. Owing to mechanical 
difficulties and severe weather conditions, the Sistersville Plant 
requested a 60-day extension of that initial performance test deadline, 
in order to allow them time to prepare their equipment and complete the 
performance test. At that time, the Sistersville Plant was legally 
subject to the provisions of that proposed deferral through a consent 
order issued by the WVDEP, and through that legal mechanism, those 
proposed provisions are enforceable by the state against the 
Sistersville Plant. The EPA considered the relevant information 
submitted by the Sistersville Plant, and published a supplemental 
proposal in the Federal Register to notify the public of EPA's proposal 
to modify the performance test deadline. For more information regarding 
this supplemental proposal, see 63 FR 37309 (July 10, 1998). The 
Sistersville Plant sent notification of that proposal to the project 
stakeholder group, and published a notification in the local 
Sistersville newspaper of the opportunity for public comment related to 
that supplemental proposal. The supplemental proposal allowed a 14-day 
public comment period; however, no comments were received. Therefore, 
based on the information contained in that July 10, 1998 supplemental 
notice, and the supporting Docket Number F-98-MCCA-FFFFF, the EPA is 
today publishing the site-specific temporary deferral as a final rule, 
with the extended deadline for the thermal oxidizer initial performance 
test. Aside from revising that performance test deadline, the 
requirements of today's final rule are the same as the proposal 
published March 6, 1998 at 63 FR 11200.
    As this XL project continues to be implemented, the stakeholder 
involvement program will shift its focus to ensure that: (1) 
Stakeholders are apprised of the status of project construction and 
operation, and (2) stakeholders have access to information sufficient 
to judge the success of this Project XL initiative. Anticipated 
stakeholder involvement during the term of the project will likely 
include other general public meetings to present periodic status 
reports, availability of data and other information generated, and 
appointment of a Sistersville Plant Project XL contact at the facility 
to serve as a resource for the community. In addition to the EPA and 
WVDEP reporting requirements of today's rulemaking, the FPA includes 
provisions whereby the Sistersville Plant will make copies of 
semiannual and annual project reports available to all interested 
parties. A public file on this XL project has been maintained at the 
local Sistersville library throughout project development, and will 
continue to be updated as the project is implemented.
    A detailed description of this program and the stakeholder support 
for this project is included in the Final Project Agreement, which is 
available through the docket or through EPA's Project XL site which can 
be found at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.
5. Regulatory Implementation Approach
    Today's action provides the Sistersville Plant with a temporary, 
conditional deferral from the applicability of certain existing RCRA 
Subpart CC regulatory requirements. This action allows the Sistersville 
Plant to continue to operate the two hazardous waste surface 
impoundments without installing the organic air emission controls that 
are required for those types of units under the RCRA Subpart CC Federal 
regulations. Today's site-specific deferral from RCRA Subpart CC 
surface impoundment requirements is conditioned upon the Sistersville 
Plant's continuous compliance with the environmentally beneficial 
initiatives that were developed for this XL project. Those initiatives 
are described in Section III of today's preamble, and further detailed 
in the FPA.
    The state of West Virginia is not yet authorized under the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to implement the RCRA 
Subpart CC air regulations. However, West Virginia regulations, 
codified in 45 Code of State Regulations 25 (``WV 45 CSR 25''), contain 
the same technical requirements as the Federal regulations of RCRA 
Subpart CC. The Sistersville Plant is subject to the West Virginia 
State Regulations, which would include requirements that the two 
hazardous waste surface impoundments be operated with organic air 
emission controls. Thus, to implement this XL project, the WVDEP and 
the Sistersville Plant have negotiated and executed a consent order 
under the authority of W.Va. Code Sec. 22-4-5. A copy of that consent 
order is available in the docket for today's rulemaking. The consent 
order defers application of the organic air emission requirements of WV 
45 CSR 25, which would otherwise be applicable to the hazardous waste 
surface impoundments at the Sistersville Plant. The state consent order 
will implement the deferral from WV 45 CSR 25 for the same effective 
period that today's rulemaking will implement a temporary, conditional 
deferral from Federal RCRA Subpart CC requirements. Essentially, the 
consent order implements this XL project at the State level, while 
today's rulemaking implements the project at the Federal level.
    West Virginia is expected to adopt today's rulemaking during their 
1999 State Legislative Session. After that adoption, WVDEP intends to 
implement the project through regulations contained in the Code of 
State Regulations (``CSR''), rather than

[[Page 49388]]

through a consent order. As with today's rulemaking, the state consent 
order's temporary deferral from WV 45 CSR 25 surface impoundment 
requirements is conditioned upon the Sistersville Plant's continuous 
compliance with the environmentally beneficial conditions developed 
under this XL project. Similarly, when today's Federal rulemaking is 
adopted into the West Virginia CSR, as described above, the 
Sistersville Plant will be required to comply with those 
environmentally beneficial conditions in order to maintain the 
temporary deferral from surface impoundment requirements of WV 45 CSR 
25. The state adoption of today's rulemaking, and its use of the rule 
rather than the consent order to regulate the project, will result in a 
slight change in the way this XL project is implemented at the state 
level; however, that adoption will not result in any changes to the 
environmentally beneficial conditions to which the Sistersville Plant 
is subject, or to the nature of the Sistersville Plant's deferral from 
hazardous waste surface impoundment air emission control requirements.
    It is the intent of the EPA and the WVDEP to incorporate the 
provisions of today's rulemaking and the WV state consent order into 
the Sistersville Plant's permits, as appropriate. This would be 
accomplished in the normal course of reissuance of the RCRA part B 
permit, and in any other permits when issued in their normal course. 
Although today's rulemaking action temporarily defers the applicability 
of RCRA Subpart CC air emission control requirements to the two 
hazardous waste surface impoundments, today's action does not affect 
the Sistersville Plant's RCRA permitting requirements under 40 CFR 
270.27. Those permitting requirements are applicable to air emission 
control equipment operated in accordance with RCRA Subpart CC. Today's 
action temporarily defers the applicability of those air emission 
control requirements to the Sistersville Plant surface impoundments; 
but if there is a time that the Sistersville Plant installs air 
emission controls on those hazardous waste surface impoundments, the 
applicable information would be required to be reflected in the Plant's 
RCRA part B permit.
    The only Federal regulation that today's temporary, conditional 
deferral affects is the RCRA Subpart CC organic air emission standards. 
Furthermore, the only aspect of those standards that today's rulemaking 
affects is the applicability of the organic air emission standards to 
the two hazardous waste surface impoundments at the Sistersville Plant. 
Similarly, the only State regulatory requirements that are affected by 
the state consent order are WV 45 CSR 25 requirements applicable to 
organic air emission controls for the two hazardous waste surface 
impoundments at the Sistersville Plant. The EPA emphasizes that today's 
rulemaking action, and the state consent order that parallels today's 
action, do not affect the provisions or applicability of any other 
existing or future regulations; furthermore, the applicability of 
today's rulemaking and the parallel state consent order are limited in 
scope to the Sistersville Plant.
6. Project Duration and Completion
    As with all XL projects testing alternative environmental 
protection strategies, the term of the Sistersville Plant XL project is 
one of limited duration. Section 264.1080(f)(3) of today's rule 
provides that the temporary deferral of the RCRA Subpart CC air 
emission requirements for the surface impoundments at the Sistersville 
Plant will expire on the ``MON Compliance Date.'' Today's rule defines 
the ``MON Compliance Date'' as three years after the effective date of 
the MON. As described in Section II.B.2 of this preamble, air emission 
controls for the MON source category are scheduled to become final in 
late 2000, and air emission controls for MON sources are anticipated to 
be required three years after that date. Accordingly, this XL project 
will not continue after that time, and the Sistersville Plant will 
thereafter be subject to those requirements deferred by today's rule, 
if applicable. However, the Sistersville Plant may propose to EPA a new 
Project XL to take effect after that time.
    Today's rule provides for an orderly transition from the 
requirements of this XL project to those requirements which will apply 
to the facility after the project ends. Pursuant to 40 CFR 
264.1080(f)(3)(iii) and 264.1080(g)(1)(ii) of today's rulemaking, the 
Sistersville Plant is required to submit to EPA an implementation 
schedule specifying how the Sistersville Plant will come into 
compliance with the requirements that are deferred by today's rule. The 
implementation schedule must be submitted to EPA eighteen months prior 
to the MON Compliance Date, and must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
264.1080(g)(1)(iii) of today's rule. In no event will the 
implementation schedule extend beyond the MON Compliance Date. The 
implementation schedule submitted by the Sistersville Plant must 
contain interim calendar, or ``milestone,'' dates for the purchase and 
installation of equipment, performance testing, and other measures, as 
necessary for the Sistersville Plant to come into compliance with the 
deferred requirements.
    Today's rule provides that the Sistersville Plant has the option 
within the above-described transitional period to either install 
equipment and take such other steps as may be necessary to comply with 
the deferred requirements (i.e., to bring the surface impoundments into 
compliance with 40 CFR 264.1085), or to install equipment and undertake 
such modifications as may be necessary so as to preclude the 
application of the deferred requirements (i.e., such that 40 CFR 
264.1085 is no longer applicable). Regardless of which approach the 
Sistersville Plant selects, those changes must be fully completed and 
implemented by the MON Compliance Date in order to provide 
uninterrupted environmental benefits, and a seamless transition for the 
Sistersville Plant to move from its XL project requirements to its 
otherwise applicable requirements.
    Because Project XL is a voluntary and experimental program, today's 
rule contains provisions that allow the project to conclude prior to 
the MON Compliance Date, in the event that it is desirable or necessary 
to do so. For example, an early conclusion (or revocation ``for 
cause,'' as set forth in 40 CFR 264.1080(f)(3)(iv) of today's rule) 
would be warranted if the project's environmental benefits do not meet 
the Project XL requirement for the achievement of ``superior'' 
environmental results, or if the capper unit is removed from service at 
the facility and no environmental benefits are realized from the air 
emission controls installed on the capper unit under this XL project. 
In addition, new laws or regulations may become applicable to the 
Sistersville Plant during the project term which might render the 
project impractical, or might contain regulatory requirements that 
supersede the ``superior'' environmental benefits that the Sistersville 
Plant is achieving under this project. Finally, upon reviewing a 
proposed transfer of ownership under 40 CFR 264.1080(f)(7) of today's 
rule, the Agency might determine that a future owner or operator of the 
facility does not adequately implement this XL project. Similarly, the 
Sistersville Plant may also request that the temporary deferral be 
revoked prior to the MON Compliance Date if this experimental project 
does not provide sufficient benefits for the company to justify 
continued participation. If an early conclusion to the project is 
determined to be

[[Page 49389]]

appropriate, 40 CFR 264.1085(f)(3)(iv) of today's final rule provides a 
mechanism for EPA to legally conclude the project prior to the MON 
Compliance Date, which would trigger the eighteen-month transitional 
period described earlier in this preamble discussion.
    While both EPA and the Sistersville Plant have broad discretion and 
latitude to initiate an early conclusion of the project, both expect to 
exercise their good faith and judgment in determining whether 
exercising this option is appropriate. In this respect, and as provided 
in the FPA, EPA expects that it would not be necessary to exercise its 
discretion under this provision to conclude this project for ``minor'' 
noncompliance by the Sistersville Plant. However, as with any failure 
to comply with EPA regulations, the Agency retains its full authority 
to bring a formal or informal enforcement action (if necessary) to 
bring the Sistersville Plant back into compliance. Though the Agency 
has the option of concluding this project for noncompliance, EPA 
expects that this would be appropriate in response to material 
noncompliance by the Sistersville Plant (e.g., substantial or repeated 
violations, failure to disclose material facts during the FPA 
development, etc.).
    Finally, in the event that the XL project concludes (for whatever 
reason) prior to the MON Compliance Date, the Sistersville Plant must 
submit and comply with an implementation schedule (as described earlier 
in this preamble section) setting forth how the Sistersville Plant will 
come into compliance within the eighteen-month transitional period. The 
schedule shall reflect the Sistersville Plant's intent to use its best 
efforts to come into compliance as quickly as practicable within the 
eighteen-month transitional period; in no event will the implementation 
schedule extend beyond the MON Compliance Date. There is an important 
exception to the provision for an eighteen-month transitional period: 
if project conclusion occurs less than eighteen months prior to the MON 
Compliance Date, the Sistersville Plant still must come into compliance 
with all applicable requirements no later than the MON Compliance Date. 
In other words, concluding the project during the eighteen-month 
transitional period prior to the MON Compliance Date does not operate 
to extend the temporary conditional deferral beyond the MON Compliance 
Date.

III. Regulatory Requirements and Performance Standards

A. Capper Unit Control Requirements

    Under this XL project, the Sistersville Plant will reduce air 
emissions and waste that would otherwise be generated by its capper 
unit. The organic air emission reduction will be accomplished by 
installing a vent system to collect the organic emissions from the 
capper unit process vents, and routing the organic vent stream to a 
thermal incinerator. The thermal vent incinerator will be required to 
reduce the organics in the vent stream 98% by weight. Following 
installation of the thermal vent incinerator, the Sistersville Plant 
will conduct an initial performance test for the thermal vent 
incinerator, to determine an operating temperature that they consider 
appropriate to achieve the required 98% organic reduction. At that 
time, the Sistersville Plant will also conduct an initial inspection of 
the vent system to ensure there are no leaks, so that all organics 
collected in the vent system are routed to the thermal vent incinerator 
for treatment. Throughout the duration of this project, the 
Sistersville Plant will continue to monitor the thermal vent 
incinerator operating temperature, as an indication that the thermal 
vent incinerator is achieving the 98% organic reduction from the 
process vent stream. The EPA considers it appropriate to assume that 
operating the thermal vent incinerator at or above the temperature 
determined in the initial performance test will provide an adequate 
level of assurance that the incinerator is achieving an organic 
destruction efficiency of 98% by weight. However, since the achievement 
of the environmental benefits from this XL project is very dependent on 
the effectiveness of this thermal vent incinerator, the EPA may, at 
some time during the project term, consider it appropriate to request 
that the Sistersville Plant verify that the thermal vent incinerator 
operating temperature is achieving the required 98% reduction in 
organics.

B. Methanol Recovery Operation

    In addition to the organic air emission controls that the 
Sistersville Plant shall operate, this XL project will also result in a 
reduction of methanol discharged from the capper unit to the facility's 
wastewater treatment system. To accomplish this, the Sistersville Plant 
will operate a methanol recovery system that will collect the methanol 
that would otherwise be sent to the facility's on-site wastewater 
treatment system. The Sistersville Plant will attempt to recycle and 
re-use the collected methanol on-site, in lieu of virgin methanol. If 
the Sistersville Plant does not consider such re-use to be an 
economically feasible endeavor, it will attempt to sell the collected 
methanol to other facilities, for use in place of virgin methanol or 
for recovery. Only if these first two approaches are not viable, would 
the Sistersville Plant dispose of the collected methanol by routing it 
for thermal recovery, treatment, or bio-treatment. For the expected 
term of this XL project, the Sistersville Plant shall ensure that no 
more than five percent of the collected methanol is subject to bio-
treatment; however, if the project is revoked prior to the MON 
Compliance Date, the Sistersville Plant is not subject to that five 
percent limit.

C. Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention Study

    An additional environmental benefit of this XL project is that the 
Sistersville Plant will conduct a WMPP study to explore new initiatives 
that could be employed at the facility. The Sistersville Plant shall 
conduct the WMPP study to identify and implement source reduction 
opportunities (as defined in EPA's Hazardous Waste Minimization 
National Plan, November 1994 (EPA 530/R-94/045) (``National Plan'')). 
The purposes of source reduction opportunities are to: (1) Reduce the 
amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering a 
waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including 
fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and (2) 
reduce the hazards to public health and the environment associated with 
the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants. For those 
waste streams that the Sistersville Plant concludes cannot be reduced 
at the source, the WMPP initiative will identify sound recycling 
opportunities (as defined in the National Plan), and evaluate the 
feasibility of implementing such recycling opportunities at the 
Sistersville Plant. One focus of the WMPP initiative shall be the 
reduction of specific constituents listed in 40 CFR 264.1080(f)(8) of 
today's rulemaking, to the extent that such constituents are found in 
waste streams at the Sistersville Plant.

IV. Summary of Response to Public Comments

    EPA received two public comments on the March 6, 1998 proposed rule 
for the Sistersville Plant site-specific temporary deferral. One of 
these was a positive comment from the Tyler County Commission, 
supporting the XL

[[Page 49390]]

project initiative and the regulatory implementing mechanism. The other 
comment was submitted by a citizen living in the Sistersville area who 
had previously submitted a comment letter on the draft FPA expressing 
concern regarding the installation of what he believed was a toxic 
waste incinerator (see section II.B.4. above). This commenter expressed 
concern that the project would increase hazardous waste generation at 
the facility and increase the cancer rate in the area. The commenter 
was also concerned that there had been an insufficient review of the 
risks involved in the project and that EPA was not acting in good faith 
in approving the project. He suggested that EPA should focus on 
reducing the cancer rate in the area rather than approving projects 
that would increase pollution. He stated that he did not believe the 
regulatory process had any integrity in this case and that EPA was 
merely giving the project its rubber stamp. He also requested a hearing 
regarding the proposed rulemaking.
    In response to this comment letter, representatives from EPA and 
the Sistersville Plant met with the commenter to explain the project 
further. At this meeting, representatives from EPA and the Sistersville 
Plant explained that the project would not increase hazardous waste 
generation at the facility or the cancer rate in the area; in fact, the 
project would result in reductions in air emissions and sludge 
generation at the facility. EPA assured the commenter that EPA had 
performed a thorough analysis of both the benefits and any potential 
adverse effects of the project. Copies of the detailed technical 
analyses EPA performed and supporting documentation have been made 
publicly available in the rulemaking docket. In addition, EPA explained 
that it had followed its guidelines regarding XL projects. These 
guidelines are set forth in the two descriptive documents published in 
the Federal Register (60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995 and 62 FR 19872, April 
23, 1997), and the December 1, 1995 ``Principles for Development of 
Project XL Final Project Agreements'' document. EPA explained how the 
OSi Specialties Sistersville Plant XL project addresses the XL criteria 
to the commenter. A detailed description of how the project meets the 
XL criteria can be found in the notice of availability for this XL 
project (62 FR 34748, June 27, 1997) and the related documents that 
were noticed by that Federal Register action. Each of these documents 
is available from the docket for this action (see ADDRESSES section of 
today's preamble).
    As a result of the meeting with the commenter, the commenter 
withdrew his request for a public hearing. He also stated that he was 
dropping his objections to the project. Because the retraction of the 
hearing request was not submitted to EPA until after notice of a public 
hearing had been published, EPA decided to proceed with the public 
hearing. The public hearing was held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at the 
Wells Inn in Sistersville, West Virginia. EPA Region 3 representatives 
and several Sistersville Plant personnel attended the public hearing. 
The public hearing was advertised in the Federal Register and announced 
on a local Sistersville radio station; however, no one from the public 
attended the public hearing. An EPA representative opened the hearing 
by describing the purpose of the hearing, and acknowledged that no one 
from the public was in attendance. The citizen commenter's initial 
letter dated March 14, 1998, was entered as Exhibit Number 1. The EPA 
representative explained that EPA and the Sistersville Plant had met 
with the commenter on April 20, 1998, to provide an overview of the XL 
project and address the commenter's questions. The second letter dated 
April 20, 1998 and retracting the commenter's request for a public 
hearing was entered as Exhibit Number 2. The transcript of the hearing 
is publicly available in the rulemaking docket.
    As described in section II.B.4 of today's preamble, the EPA 
published a supplemental proposal regarding a proposed delay to the 
thermal oxidizer initial performance test deadline. See 63 FR 37309, 
July 10, 1998. That supplemental proposal provided a 14-day public 
comment period; however, no comments were received.

V. Additional Information

A. Immediate Effective Date

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(3), EPA finds 
that good cause exists to make today's site-specific rule effective 
immediately. The Sistersville Plant is the only regulated entity that 
is subject to this rule. The Sistersville Plant has had very extensive 
notice of this final rule for a conditional, site-specific deferral, 
and is prepared to comply immediately. As described in section II.B.4 
of today's preamble, the public and the project stakeholder group have 
had several opportunities to review today's action, provide public 
comment, and participate in the rulemaking process. An immediate 
effective date will allow this XL project to proceed without delay.

B. Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) does not cover 
rules of particular applicability. As a result, this action does not 
fall within the scope of the Executive Order.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it only affects one 
facility, the OSi Sistersville Plant, located near Sistersville, West 
Virginia. The Sistersville Plant is not a small entity. Therefore, EPA 
certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General 
of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from Section 801 
the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to Agency management or personnel; and rules of Agency 
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect 
the rights or obligations of non-Agency parties. 5 U.S.C. Section 
804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's 
action under Section 801 because this is a rule of particular 
applicability.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action applies only to one company, and therefore requires no 
information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, and therefore no information collection request (ICR) will be 
submitted to OMB for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L.

[[Page 49391]]

104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    As noted above, this rule is applicable only to the Sistersville 
Plant, located near Sistersville, West Virginia. The EPA has determined 
that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has also 
determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one 
year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA.

G. Applicability of Executive Order 13045

    The Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns 
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
an economically significant rule, as defined by Executive Order 12866, 
and because it does not involve decisions based on environmental health 
or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates. 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities. Today's rule does not significantly 
or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. There 
are no communities of Indian tribal governments located in the vicinity 
of the OSi facility. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Control device, 
Hazardous waste, Monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Surface impoundment, Treatment storage and disposal facility, Waste 
determination.

    Dated: August 31, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 264 and 265 of 
chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as 
follows:

PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    1. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925.

Subpart CC--Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, 
and Containers

    2. Section 264.1080 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 264.1080  Applicability.

* * * * *

[[Page 49392]]

    (f) This section applies only to the facility commonly referred to 
as the OSi Specialties Plant, located on State Route 2, Sistersville, 
West Virginia (``Sistersville Plant'').
    (1)(i) Provided that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with 
the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the requirements 
referenced in paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section are 
temporarily deferred, as specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, 
with respect to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments at the 
Sistersville Plant. Beginning on the date that paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of 
this section is first implemented, the temporary deferral of this 
paragraph shall no longer be effective.
    (ii)(A) In the event that a notice of revocation is issued pursuant 
to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, the requirements referenced in 
paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section are temporarily 
deferred, with respect to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments, 
provided that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), 
(f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vi) and (g) of this section, except as provided under 
paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section. The temporary deferral of the 
previous sentence shall be effective beginning on the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, and 
continuing for a maximum period of 18 months from that date, provided 
that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), (f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vi) 
and (g) of this section at all times during that 18-month period. In no 
event shall the temporary deferral continue to be effective after the 
MON Compliance Date.
    (B) In the event that a notification of revocation is issued 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section as a result of the 
permanent removal of the capper unit from methyl capped polyether 
production service, the requirements referenced in paragraphs 
(f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section are temporarily deferred, 
with respect to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments, provided 
that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(vi), and (g) of this section. The temporary deferral 
of the previous sentence shall be effective beginning on the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, and 
continuing for a maximum period of 18 months from that date, provided 
that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(vi) and (g) of this section at all times during that 
18-month period. In no event shall the temporary deferral continue to 
be effective after the MON Compliance Date.
    (iii) The standards in Sec. 264.1085 of this part, and all 
requirements referenced in or by Sec. 264.1085 that otherwise would 
apply to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments, including the 
closed-vent system and control device requirements of Sec. 264.1087 of 
this part.
    (iv) The reporting requirements of Sec. 264.1090 that are 
applicable to surface impoundments and/or to closed-vent systems and 
control devices associated with a surface impoundment.
    (2) Notwithstanding the effective period and revocation provisions 
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, the temporary deferral provided in 
paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section is effective only if the 
Sistersville Plant meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section.
    (i) The Sistersville Plant shall install an air pollution control 
device on the polyether methyl capper unit (``capper unit''), implement 
a methanol recovery operation, and implement a waste minimization/
pollution prevention (``WMPP'') project. The installation and 
implementation of these requirements shall be conducted according to 
the schedule described in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(vi) of this 
section.
    (A) The Sistersville Plant shall complete the initial start-up of a 
thermal incinerator on the capper unit's process vents from the first 
stage vacuum pump, from the flash pot and surge tank, and from the 
water stripper, no later than April 1, 1998.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall provide to the EPA and the West 
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, written notification 
of the actual date of initial start-up of the thermal incinerator, and 
commencement of the methanol recovery operation. The Sistersville Plant 
shall submit this written notification as soon as practicable, but in 
no event later than 15 days after such events.
    (ii) The Sistersville Plant shall install and operate the capper 
unit process vent thermal incinerator according to the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(A) through (f)(2)(ii)(D) of this section.
    (A) Capper unit process vent thermal incinerator.
    (1) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(D) of this 
section, the Sistersville Plant shall operate the process vent thermal 
incinerator such that the incinerator reduces the total organic 
compounds (``TOC'') from the process vent streams identified in 
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of this section, by 98 weight-percent, or to a 
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, on a dry basis, 
corrected to 3 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
    (i) Prior to conducting the initial performance test required under 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall 
operate the thermal incinerator at or above a minimum temperature of 
1600 Fahrenheit.
    (ii) After the initial performance test required under paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall operate the 
thermal incinerator at or above the minimum temperature established 
during that initial performance test.
    (iii) The Sistersville Plant shall operate the process vent thermal 
incinerator at all times that the capper unit is being operated to 
manufacture product.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall install, calibrate, and maintain 
all air pollution control and monitoring equipment described in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (f)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of this section, according 
to the manufacturer's specifications, or other written procedures that 
provide adequate assurance that the equipment can reasonably be 
expected to control and monitor accurately, and in a manner consistent 
with good engineering practices during all periods when emissions are 
routed to the unit.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(B)(1) through (f)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of this section 
for performance testing and monitoring of the capper unit process vent 
thermal incinerator.
    (1) Within sixty (120) days after thermal incinerator initial 
start-up, the Sistersville Plant shall conduct a performance test to 
determine the minimum temperature at which compliance with the emission 
reduction requirement specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this section is 
achieved. This determination shall be made by measuring TOC minus 
methane and ethane, according to the procedures specified in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall conduct the initial performance 
test in accordance with the standards set forth in paragraph (f)(4) of 
this section.
    (3) Upon initial start-up, the Sistersville Plant shall install, 
calibrate, maintain and operate, according to manufacturer's 
specifications and in a manner consistent with good engineering 
practices, the monitoring equipment described in paragraphs

[[Page 49393]]

(f)(2)(ii)(B)(3)(i) through (f)(2)(ii)(B)(3)(iii) of this section.
    (i) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous 
recorder. The temperature monitoring device shall be installed in the 
firebox or in the duct work immediately downstream of the firebox in a 
position before any substantial heat exchange is encountered.
    (ii) A flow indicator that provides a record of vent stream flow to 
the incinerator at least once every fifteen minutes. The flow indicator 
shall be installed in the vent stream from the process vent at a point 
closest to the inlet of the incinerator.
    (iii) If the closed-vent system includes bypass devices that could 
be used to divert the gas or vapor stream to the atmosphere before 
entering the control device, each bypass device shall be equipped with 
either a bypass flow indicator or a seal or locking device as specified 
in this paragraph. For the purpose of complying with this paragraph, 
low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or 
lines, spring-loaded pressure relief valves, and other fittings used 
for safety purposes are not considered to be bypass devices. If a 
bypass flow indicator is used to comply with this paragraph, the bypass 
flow indicator shall be installed at the inlet to the bypass line used 
to divert gases and vapors from the closed-vent system to the 
atmosphere at a point upstream of the control device inlet. If a seal 
or locking device (e.g. car-seal or lock-and-key configuration) is used 
to comply with this paragraph, the device shall be placed on the 
mechanism by which the bypass device position is controlled (e.g., 
valve handle, damper levels) when the bypass device is in the closed 
position such that the bypass device cannot be opened without breaking 
the seal or removing the lock. The Sistersville Plant shall visually 
inspect the seal or locking device at least once every month to verify 
that the bypass mechanism is maintained in the closed position.
    (C) The Sistersville Plant shall keep on-site an up-to-date, 
readily accessible record of the information described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(ii)(C)(1) through (f)(2)(ii)(C)(4) of this section.
    (1) Data measured during the initial performance test regarding the 
firebox temperature of the incinerator and the percent reduction of TOC 
achieved by the incinerator, and/or such other information required in 
addition to or in lieu of that information by the WVDEP in its approval 
of equivalent test methods and procedures.
    (2) Continuous records of the equipment operating procedures 
specified to be monitored under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of this 
section, as well as records of periods of operation during which the 
firebox temperature falls below the minimum temperature established 
under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section.
    (3) Records of all periods during which the vent stream has no flow 
rate to the extent that the capper unit is being operated during such 
period.
    (4) Records of all periods during which there is flow through a 
bypass device.
    (D) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the start-up, 
shutdown, maintenance and malfunction requirements contained in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(D)(1) through (f)(2)(ii)(D)(6) of this section, 
with respect to the capper unit process vent incinerator.
    (1) The Sistersville Plant shall develop and implement a Start-up, 
Shutdown and Malfunction Plan as required by the provisions set forth 
in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(D) of this section. The plan shall describe, in 
detail, procedures for operating and maintaining the thermal 
incinerator during periods of start-up, shutdown and malfunction, and a 
program of corrective action for malfunctions of the thermal 
incinerator.
    (2) The plan shall include a detailed description of the actions 
the Sistersville Plant will take to perform the functions described in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(D)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(ii)(D)(2)(iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Ensure that the thermal incinerator is operated in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices.
    (ii) Ensure that the Sistersville Plant is prepared to correct 
malfunctions as soon as practicable after their occurrence in order to 
minimize excess emissions.
    (iii) Reduce the reporting requirements associated with periods of 
start-up, shutdown and malfunction.
    (3) During periods of start-up, shutdown and malfunction, the 
Sistersville Plant shall maintain the process unit and the associated 
thermal incinerator in accordance with the procedures set forth in the 
plan.
    (4) The plan shall contain record keeping requirements relating to 
periods of start-up, shutdown or malfunction, actions taken during such 
periods in conformance with the plan, and any failures to act in 
conformance with the plan during such periods.
    (5) During periods of maintenance or malfunction of the thermal 
incinerator, the Sistersville Plant may continue to operate the capper 
unit, provided that operation of the capper unit without the thermal 
incinerator shall be limited to no more than 240 hours each calendar 
year.
    (6) For the purposes of paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(D) of this section, 
the Sistersville Plant may use its operating procedures manual, or a 
plan developed for other reasons, provided that plan meets the 
requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(D) of this section for the start-
up, shutdown and malfunction plan.
    (iii) The Sistersville Plant shall operate the closed-vent system 
in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(A) 
through (f)(2)(iii)(D) of this section.
    (A) Closed-vent system.
    (1) At all times when the process vent thermal incinerator is 
operating, the Sistersville Plant shall route the vent streams 
identified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section from the capper unit 
to the thermal incinerator through a closed-vent system.
    (2) The closed-vent system will be designed for and operated with 
no detectable emissions, as defined in paragraph (f)(6) of this 
section.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant will comply with the performance 
standards set forth in paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(A)(1) of this section on 
and after the date on which the initial performance test referenced in 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section is completed, but no later than 
sixty (60) days after the initial start-up date.
    (C) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the monitoring 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(C)(1) through (f)(2)(iii)(C)(3) 
of this section, with respect to the closed-vent system.
    (1) At the time of the performance test described in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall inspect the 
closed-vent system as specified in paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
    (2) At the time of the performance test described in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, and annually thereafter, the 
Sistersville Plant shall inspect the closed-vent system for visible, 
audible, or olfactory indications of leaks.
    (3) If at any time a defect or leak is detected in the closed-vent 
system, the Sistersville Plant shall repair the defect or leak in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(C)(3)(i) and 
(f)(2)(iii)(C)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) The Sistersville Plant shall make first efforts at repair of 
the defect no later than five (5) calendar days after detection, and 
repair shall be completed as soon as possible but no later than forty-
five (45) calendar days after detection.

[[Page 49394]]

    (ii) The Sistersville Plant shall maintain a record of the defect 
repair in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(f)(2)(iii)(D) of this section.
    (D) The Sistersville Plant shall keep on-site up-to-date, readily 
accessible records of the inspections and repairs required to be 
performed by paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (iv) The Sistersville Plant shall operate the methanol recovery 
operation in accordance with paragraphs (f)(2)(iv)(A) through 
(f)(2)(iv)(C) of this section.
    (A) The Sistersville Plant shall operate the condenser associated 
with the methanol recovery operation at all times during which the 
capper unit is being operated to manufacture product.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the monitoring 
requirements described in paragraphs (f)(2)(B)(1) through (f)(2)(B)(3) 
of this section, with respect to the methanol recovery operation.
    (1) The Sistersville Plant shall perform measurements necessary to 
determine the information described in paragraphs (f)(2)(iv)(B)(1)(i) 
and (f)(2)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section to demonstrate the percentage 
recovery by weight of the methanol contained in the influent gas stream 
to the condenser.
    (i) Information as is necessary to calculate the annual amount of 
methanol generated by operating the capper unit.
    (ii) The annual amount of methanol recovered by the condenser 
associated with the methanol recovery operation.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall install, calibrate, maintain and 
operate according to manufacturer specifications, a temperature 
monitoring device with a continuous recorder for the condenser 
associated with the methanol recovery operation, as an indicator that 
the condenser is operating.
    (3) The Sistersville Plant shall record the dates and times during 
which the capper unit and the condenser are operating.
    (C) The Sistersville Plant shall keep on-site up-to-date, readily-
accessible records of the parameters specified to be monitored under 
paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
    (v) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(v)(A) through (f)(2)(v)(C) of this section for the 
disposition of methanol collected by the methanol recovery operation.
    (A) On an annual basis, the Sistersville Plant shall ensure that a 
minimum of 95% by weight of the methanol collected by the methanol 
recovery operation (also referred to as the ``collected methanol'') is 
utilized for reuse, recovery, or thermal recovery/treatment. The 
Sistersville Plant may use the methanol on-site, or may transfer or 
sell the methanol for reuse, recovery, or thermal recovery/treatment at 
other facilities.
    (1) Reuse. To the extent reuse of all of the collected methanol 
destined for reuse, recovery, or thermal recovery is not economically 
feasible, the Sistersville Plant shall ensure the residual portion is 
sent for recovery, as defined in paragraph (f)(6) of this section, 
except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)(v)(A)(2) of this section.
    (2) Recovery. To the extent that reuse or recovery of all the 
collected methanol destined for reuse, recovery, or thermal recovery is 
not economically feasible, the Sistersville Plant shall ensure that the 
residual portion is sent for thermal recovery/treatment, as defined in 
paragraph (f)(6) of this section.
    (3) The Sistersville Plant shall ensure that, on an annual basis, 
no more than 5% of the methanol collected by the methanol recovery 
operation is subject to bio-treatment.
    (4) In the event the Sistersville Plant receives written 
notification of revocation pursuant to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this 
section, the percent limitations set forth under paragraph (f)(2)(v)(A) 
of this section shall no longer be applicable, beginning on the date of 
receipt of written notification of revocation.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall perform such measurements as are 
necessary to determine the pounds of collected methanol directed to 
reuse, recovery, thermal recovery/treatment and bio-treatment, 
respectively, on a monthly basis.
    (C) The Sistersville Plant shall keep on-site up-to-date, readily 
accessible records of the amounts of collected methanol directed to 
reuse, recovery, thermal recovery/treatment and bio-treatment necessary 
for the measurements required under paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this 
section.
    (vi) The Sistersville Plant shall perform a WMPP project in 
accordance with the requirements and schedules set forth in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi)(A) through (f)(2)(vi)(C) of this section.
    (A) In performing the WMPP Project, the Sistersville Plant shall 
use a Study Team and an Advisory Committee as described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi)(A)(1) through (f)(2)(vi)(A)(6) of this section.
    (1) At a minimum, the multi-functional Study Team shall consist of 
Sistersville Plant personnel from appropriate plant departments 
(including both management and employees) and an independent 
contractor. The Sistersville Plant shall select a contractor that has 
experience and training in WMPP in the chemical manufacturing industry.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall direct the Study Team such that 
the team performs the functions described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi)(A)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vi)(A)(2)(v) of this section.
    (i) Review Sistersville Plant operations and waste streams.
    (ii) Review prior WMPP efforts at the Sistersville Plant.
    (iii) Develop criteria for the selection of waste streams to be 
evaluated for the WMPP Project.
    (iv) Identify and prioritize the waste streams to be evaluated 
during the study phase of the WMPP Project, based on the criteria 
described in paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(A)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (v) Perform the WMPP Study as required by paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi)(A)(3) through (f)(2)(vi)(A)(5), paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(B), and 
paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(C) of this section.
    (3)(i) The Sistersville Plant shall establish an Advisory Committee 
consisting of a representative from EPA, a representative from WVDEP, 
the Sistersville Plant Manager, the Sistersville Plant Director of 
Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs, and a stakeholder 
representative(s).
    (ii) The Sistersville Plant shall select the stakeholder 
representative(s) by mutual agreement of EPA, WVDEP and the 
Sistersville Plant no later than 20 days after receiving from EPA and 
WVDEP the names of their respective committee members.
    (4) The Sistersville Plant shall convene a meeting of the Advisory 
Committee no later than thirty days after selection of the stakeholder 
representatives, and shall convene meetings periodically thereafter as 
necessary for the Advisory Committee to perform its assigned functions. 
The Sistersville Plant shall direct the Advisory Committee to perform 
the functions described in paragraphs (f)(2)(vi)(A)(4)(i) through 
(f)(2)(vi)(A)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Review and comment upon the Study Team's criteria for selection 
of waste streams, and the Study Team's identification and 
prioritization of the waste streams to be evaluated during the WMPP 
Project.
    (ii) Review and comment upon the Study Team progress reports and 
the draft WMPP Study Report.
    (iii) Periodically review the effectiveness of WMPP opportunities 
implemented as part of the WMPP Project, and, where appropriate, WMPP 
opportunities previously determined to

[[Page 49395]]

be infeasible by the Sistersville Plant but which had potential for 
feasibility in the future.
    (5) Beginning on January 15, 1998, and every ninety (90) days 
thereafter until submission of the final WMPP Study Report required by 
paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(C) of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall 
direct the Study Team to submit a progress report to the Advisory 
Committee detailing its efforts during the prior ninety (90) day 
period.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall ensure that the WMPP Study and the 
WMPP Study Report meet the requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(vi)(B)(1) 
through (f)(2)(vi)(B)(3) of this section.
    (1) The WMPP Study shall consist of a technical, economic, and 
regulatory assessment of opportunities for source reduction and for 
environmentally sound recycling for waste streams identified by the 
Study Team.
    (2) The WMPP Study shall evaluate the source, nature, and volume of 
the waste streams; describe all the WMPP opportunities identified by 
the Study Team; provide a feasibility screening to evaluate the 
technical and economical feasibility of each of the WMPP opportunities; 
identify any cross-media impacts or any anticipated transfers of risk 
associated with each feasible WMPP opportunity; and identify the 
projected economic savings and projected quantitative waste reduction 
estimates for each WMPP opportunity identified.
    (3) No later than October 19, 1998, the Sistersville Plant shall 
prepare and submit to the members of the Advisory Committee a draft 
WMPP Study Report which, at a minimum, includes the results of the WMPP 
Study, identifies WMPP opportunities the Sistersville Plant determines 
to be feasible, discusses the basis for excluding other opportunities 
as not feasible, and makes recommendations as to whether the WMPP Study 
should be continued. The members of the Advisory Committee shall 
provide any comments to the Sistersville Plant within thirty (30) days 
of receiving the WMPP Study Report.
    (C) Within thirty (30) days after receipt of comments from the 
members of the Advisory Committee, the Sistersville Plant shall submit 
to EPA and WVDEP a final WMPP Study Report which identifies those WMPP 
opportunities the Sistersville Plant determines to be feasible and 
includes an implementation schedule for each such WMPP opportunity. The 
Sistersville Plant shall make reasonable efforts to implement all 
feasible WMPP opportunities in accordance with the priorities 
identified in the implementation schedule.
    (1) For purposes of this section, a WMPP opportunity is feasible if 
the Sistersville Plant considers it to be technically feasible (taking 
into account engineering and regulatory factors, product line 
specifications and customer needs) and economically practical (taking 
into account the full environmental costs and benefits associated with 
the WMPP opportunity and the company's internal requirements for 
approval of capital projects). For purposes of the WMPP Project, the 
Sistersville Plant shall use ``An Introduction to Environmental 
Accounting as a Business Management Tool,'' (EPA 742/R-95/001) as one 
tool to identify the full environmental costs and benefits of each WMPP 
opportunity.
    (2) In implementing each WMPP opportunity, the Sistersville Plant 
shall, after consulting with the other members of the Advisory 
Committee, develop appropriate protocols and methods for determining 
the information required by paragraphs (f)(2)(vi)(2)(i) through 
(f)(2)(vi)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) The overall volume of wastes reduced.
    (ii) The quantities of each constituent identified in paragraph 
(f)(8) of this section reduced in the wastes.
    (iii) The economic benefits achieved.
    (3) No requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(vi) of this section are 
intended to prevent or restrict the Sistersville Plant from evaluating 
and implementing any WMPP opportunities at the Sistersville Plant in 
the normal course of its operations or from implementing, prior to the 
completion of the WMPP Study, any WMPP opportunities identified by the 
Study Team.
    (vii) The Sistersville Plant shall maintain on-site each record 
required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, through the MON 
Compliance Date.
    (viii) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the reporting 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(viii)(A) through (f)(2)(viii)(G) of 
this section.
    (A) At least sixty days prior to conducting the initial performance 
test of the thermal incinerator, the Sistersville Plant shall submit to 
EPA and WVDEP copies of a notification of performance test, as 
described in 40 CFR 63.7(b). Following the initial performance test of 
the thermal incinerator, the Sistersville Plant shall submit to EPA and 
WVDEP copies of the performance test results that include the 
information relevant to initial performance tests of thermal 
incinerators contained in 40 CFR 63.7(g)(1), 40 CFR 63.117(a)(4)(i), 
and 40 CFR 63.117(a)(4)(ii).
    (B) Beginning in 1999, on January 31 of each year, the Sistersville 
Plant shall submit a semiannual written report to the EPA and WVDEP, 
with respect to the preceding six month period ending on December 31, 
which contains the information described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(viii)(B)(1) through (f)(2)(viii)(B)(10) of this section.
    (1) Instances of operating below the minimum operating temperature 
established for the thermal incinerator under paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section which were not corrected within 24 
hours of onset.
    (2) Any periods during which the paper unit was being operated to 
manufacture product while the flow indicator the vent streams to the 
thermal incinerator showed no flow.
    (3) Any periods during which the capper unit was being operated to 
manufacture product while the flow indicator for any bypass device on 
the closed vent system to the thermal incinerator showed flow.
    (4) Information required to be reported during that six month 
period under the preconstruction permit issued under the state 
permitting program approved under subpart XX of 40 CFR Part 52--
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for West Virginia.
    (5) Any periods during which the capper unit was being operated to 
manufacture product while the condenser associated with the methanol 
recovery operation was not in operation.
    (6) The amount (in pounds and by month) of methanol collected by 
the methanol recovery operation during the six month period.
    (7) The amount (in pounds and by month) of collected methanol 
utilized for reuse, recovery, thermal recovery/treatment, or bio-
treatment, respectively, during the six month period.
    (8) The calculated amount (in pounds and by month) of methanol 
generated by operating the capper unit.
    (9) The status of the WMPP Project, including the status of 
developing the WMPP Study Report.
    (10) Beginning in the year after the Sistersville Plant submits the 
final WMPP Study Report required by paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(C) of this 
section, and continuing in each subsequent Semiannual Report required 
by paragraph (f)(2)(viii)(B) of this section, the Sistersville Plant 
shall report on the progress of the implementation of feasible WMPP 
opportunities identified in the WMPP Study Report. The Semiannual 
Report required by paragraph (f)(2)(viii)(B) of this section shall 
identify any cross-media impacts or impacts to worker safety or 
community health issues that have

[[Page 49396]]

occurred as a result of implementation of the feasible WMPP 
opportunities.
    (C) Beginning in 1999, on July 31 of each year, the Sistersville 
Plant shall provide an Annual Project Report to the EPA and WVDEP 
Project XL contacts containing the information required by paragraphs 
(f)(2)(viii)(C)(1) through (f)(2)(viii)(C)(8) of this section.
    (1) The categories of information required to be submitted under 
paragraphs (f)(2)(viii)(B)(1) through (f)(2)(viii)(B)(8) of this 
section, for the preceding 12 month period ending on June 30.
    (2) An updated Emissions Analysis for January through December of 
the preceding calendar year. The Sistersville Plant shall submit the 
updated Emissions Analysis in a form substantially equivalent to the 
previous Emissions Analysis prepared by the Sistersville Plant to 
support Project XL. The Emissions Analysis shall include a comparison 
of the volatile organic emissions associated with the capper unit 
process vents and the wastewater treatment system (using the EPA Water 
8 model or other model agreed to by the Sistersville Plant, EPA and 
WVDEP) under Project XL with the expected emissions from those sources 
absent Project XL during that period.
    (3) A discussion of the Sistersville Plant's performance in meeting 
the requirements of this section, specifically identifying any areas in 
which the Sistersville Plant either exceeded or failed to achieve any 
such standard.
    (4) A description of any unanticipated problems in implementing the 
XL Project and any steps taken to resolve them.
    (5) A WMPP Implementation Report that contains the information 
contained in paragraphs (f)(2)(viii)(C)(5)(i) through (viii)(C)(5)(vi) 
of this section.
    (i) A summary of the WMPP opportunities selected for 
implementation.
    (ii) A description of the WMPP opportunities initiated and/or 
completed.
    (iii) Reductions in volume of waste generated and amounts of each 
constituent reduced in wastes including any constituents identified in 
paragraph (f)(8) of this section.
    (iv) An economic benefits analysis.
    (v) A summary of the results of the Advisory Committee's review of 
implemented WMPP opportunities.
    (vi) A reevaluation of WMPP opportunities previously determined to 
be infeasible by the Sistersville Plant but which had potential for 
future feasibility.
    (6) An assessment of the nature of, and the successes or problems 
associated with, the Sistersville Plant's interaction with the federal 
and state agencies under the Project.
    (7) An update on stakeholder involvement efforts.
    (8) An evaluation of the Project as implemented against the Project 
XL Criteria and the baseline scenario.
    (D) The Sistersville Plant shall submit to the EPA and WVDEP 
Project XL contacts a written Final Project Report covering the period 
during which the temporary deferral was effective, as described in 
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (1) The Final Project Report shall contain the information required 
to be submitted for the Semiannual Report required under paragraph 
(f)(2)(viii)(B) of this section, and the Annual Project Report required 
under paragraph (f)(2)(viii)(C) of this section.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall submit the Final Project Report to 
EPA and WVDEP no later than 180 days after the temporary deferral of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section is revoked, or 180 days after the MON 
Compliance Date, whichever occurs first.
    (E)(1) The Sistersville Plant shall retain on-site a complete copy 
of each of the report documents to be submitted to EPA and WVDEP in 
accordance with requirements under paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 
The Sistersville Plant shall retain this record until 180 days after 
the MON Compliance Date. The Sistersville Plant shall provide to 
stakeholders and interested parties a written notice of availability 
(to be mailed to all persons on the Project mailing list and to be 
provided to at least one local newspaper of general circulation) of 
each such document, and provide a copy of each document to any such 
person upon request, subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 2.
    (2) Any reports or other information submitted to EPA or WVDEP may 
be released to the public pursuant to the Federal Freedom of 
Information Act (42 U.S.C. 552 et seq.), subject to the provisions of 
40 CFR part 2.
    (F) The Sistersville Plant shall make all supporting monitoring 
results and records required under paragraph (f)(2) of this section 
available to EPA and WVDEP within a reasonable amount of time after 
receipt of a written request from those Agencies, subject to the 
provisions of 40 CFR part 2.
    (G) Each report submitted by the Sistersville Plant under the 
requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be certified by 
a Responsible Corporate Officer, as defined in 40 CFR 270.11(a)(1).
    (H) For each report submitted in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) 
of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall send one copy each to the 
addresses in paragraphs (f)(2)(viii) (H)(1) through (H)(3) of this 
section.
    (1) U.S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2029, Attention Tad Radzinski, Mail Code 3WC11.
    (2) U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention L. 
Nancy Birnbaum, Mail Code 2129.
    (3) West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, Office of 
Air Quality, 1558 Washington Street East, Charleston, WV 25311-2599, 
Attention John H. Johnston.
    (3) Effective period and revocation of temporary deferral.
    (i) The temporary deferral contained in this section is effective 
from April 1, 1998, and shall remain effective until the MON Compliance 
Date. The temporary deferral contained in this section may be revoked 
prior to the MON Compliance Date, as described in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) 
of this section.
    (ii) On the MON Compliance Date, the temporary deferral contained 
in this section will no longer be effective.
    (iii) The Sistersville Plant shall come into compliance with those 
requirements deferred by this section no later than the MON Compliance 
Date. No later than 18 months prior to the MON Compliance Date, the 
Sistersville Plant shall submit to EPA an implementation schedule that 
meets the requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (iv) The temporary deferral contained in this section may be 
revoked for cause, as determined by EPA, prior to the MON Compliance 
Date. The Sistersville Plant may request EPA to revoke the temporary 
deferral contained in this section at any time. The revocation shall be 
effective on the date that the Sistersville Plant receives written 
notification of revocation from EPA.
    (v) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the MON, 
as applicable to the Sistersville Plant.
    (vi) Nothing in paragraph (f) or (g) of this section shall affect 
any regulatory requirements not referenced in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) or 
(f)(1)(iv) of this section, as applicable to the Sistersville Plant.
    (4) The Sistersville Plant shall conduct the initial performance 
test required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section using the 
procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. The organic 
concentration and percent reduction shall be measured as TOC minus 
methane and ethane, according to the procedures specified in paragraph 
(f)(4) of this section.

[[Page 49397]]

    (i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, 
shall be used for selection of the sampling sites.
    (A) To determine compliance with the 98 percent reduction of TOC 
requirement of paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section, sampling 
sites shall be located at the inlet of the control device after the 
final product recovery device, and at the outlet of the control device.
    (B) To determine compliance with the 20 parts per million by volume 
TOC limit in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section, the sampling 
site shall be located at the outlet of the control device.
    (ii) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method 
2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
    (iii) To determine compliance with the 20 parts per million by 
volume TOC limit in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section, the 
Sistersville Plant shall use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to 
measure TOC minus methane and ethane. Alternatively, any other method 
or data that has been validated according to the applicable procedures 
in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, may be used. The following 
procedures shall be used to calculate parts per million by volume 
concentration, corrected to 3 percent oxygen:
    (A) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which 
either an integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be 
taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at 
approximately equal intervals in time, such as 15 minute intervals 
during the run.
    (B) The concentration of TOC minus methane and ethane 
(CTOC) shall be calculated as the sum of the concentrations 
of the individual components, and shall be computed for each run using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE98.016

Where:

CTOC=Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane), dry 
basis, parts per million by volume.
Cji=Concentration of sample components j of sample i, dry 
basis, parts per million by volume.
n=Number of components in the sample.
x=Number of samples in the sample run.

    (C) The concentration of TOC shall be corrected to 3 percent oxygen 
if a combustion device is the control device.
    (1) The emission rate correction factor or excess air, integrated 
sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3B of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration 
(%O2d). The samples shall be taken during the same time that 
the TOC (minus methane or ethane) samples are taken.
    (2) The concentration corrected to 3 percent oxygen (Cc) 
shall be computed using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE98.017

Where:

Cc=Concentration of TOC corrected to 3 percent oxygen, dry 
basis, parts per million by volume.
Cm=Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane), dry 
basis, parts per million by volume.
%O2d=Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percent by volume.
    (iv) To determine compliance with the 98 percent reduction 
requirement of paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section, the 
Sistersville Plant shall use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 
alternatively, any other method or data that has been validated 
according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, 
appendix A may be used. The following procedures shall be used to 
calculate percent reduction efficiency:
    (A) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which 
either an integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be 
taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at 
approximately equal intervals in time such as 15 minute intervals 
during the run.
    (B) The mass rate of TOC minus methane and ethane (Ei, 
Eo) shall be computed. All organic compounds (minus methane 
and ethane) measured by Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A are 
summed using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE98.018

Where:

Cij, Coj=Concentration of sample component j of 
the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Ei, Eo=Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and 
ethane) at the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, 
dry basis, kilogram per hour.
Mij, Moj=Molecular weight of sample component j 
of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively, gram/gram-mole.
Qi, Qo=Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and 
outlet of the control device, respectively, dry standard cubic meter 
per minute.
K2=Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (parts per 
million)-1 (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram/
gram) (minute/hour), where standard temperature (gram-mole per standard 
cubic meter) is 20  deg.C.

    (C) The percent reduction in TOC (minus methane and ethane) shall 
be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE98.019

Where:

R=Control efficiency of control device, percent.
Ei=Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) at the inlet 
to the control device as calculated under paragraph (f)(4)(iv)(B) of 
this section, kilograms TOC per hour.
Eo=Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) at the outlet 
of the control device, as calculated under paragraph (f)(4)(iv)(B) of 
this section, kilograms TOC per hour.

    (5) At the time of the initial performance test of the process vent 
thermal incinerator required under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this 
section, the Sistersville Plant shall inspect each closed vent system 
according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) through 
(f)(5)(vi) of this section.
    (i) The initial inspections shall be conducted in accordance with 
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (ii) (A) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(B) of this 
section, the detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria 
of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, except the instrument 
response factor criteria in section 3.1.2(a) of Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A shall be for the average composition of the process 
fluid not each individual volatile organic compound in the stream. For 
process streams that contain nitrogen, air, or other inerts which are 
not organic hazardous air pollutants or volatile organic compounds, the 
average stream response factor shall be calculated on an inert-free 
basis.
    (B) If no instrument is available at the plant site that will meet 
the performance criteria specified in

[[Page 49398]]

paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, the instrument readings may be 
adjusted by multiplying by the average response factor of the process 
fluid, calculated on an inert-free basis as described in paragraph 
(f)(5)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (iii) The detection instrument shall be calibrated before use on 
each day of its use by the procedures specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A.
    (iv) Calibration gases shall be as follows:
    (A) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million hydrocarbon in air); 
and
    (B) Mixtures of methane in air at a concentration less than 10,000 
parts per million. A calibration gas other than methane in air may be 
used if the instrument does not respond to methane or if the instrument 
does not meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph 
(f)(5)(ii)(A) of this section. In such cases, the calibration gas may 
be a mixture of one or more of the compounds to be measured in air.
    (v) The Sistersville Plant may elect to adjust or not adjust 
instrument readings for background. If the Sistersville Plant elects to 
not adjust readings for background, all such instrument readings shall 
be compared directly to the applicable leak definition to determine 
whether there is a leak. If the Sistersville Plant elects to adjust 
instrument readings for background, the Sistersville Plant shall 
measure background concentration using the procedures in 40 CFR 
63.180(b) and (c). The Sistersville Plant shall subtract background 
reading from the maximum concentration indicated by the instrument.
    (vi) The arithmetic difference between the maximum concentration 
indicated by the instrument and the background level shall be compared 
with 500 parts per million for determining compliance.
    (6) Definitions of terms as used in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this 
section.
    (i) Closed vent system is defined as a system that is not open to 
the atmosphere and that is composed of piping, connections and, if 
necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from the 
capper unit process vent to the thermal incinerator.
    (ii) No detectable emissions means an instrument reading of less 
than 500 parts per million by volume above background as determined by 
Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.
    (iii) Reuse includes the substitution of collected methanol 
(without reclamation subsequent to its collection) for virgin methanol 
as an ingredient (including uses as an intermediate) or as an effective 
substitute for a commercial product.
    (iv) Recovery includes the substitution of collected methanol for 
virgin methanol as an ingredient (including uses as an intermediate) or 
as an effective substitute for a commercial product following 
reclamation of the methanol subsequent to its collection.
    (v) Thermal recovery/treatment includes the use of collected 
methanol in fuels blending or as a feed to any combustion device to the 
extent permitted by federal and state law.
    (vi) Bio-treatment includes the treatment of the collected methanol 
through introduction into a biological treatment system, including the 
treatment of the collected methanol as a waste stream in an on-site or 
off-site wastewater treatment system. Introduction of the collected 
methanol to the on-site wastewater treatment system will be limited to 
points downstream of the surface impoundments, and will be consistent 
with the requirements of federal and state law.
    (vii) Start-up shall have the meaning set forth at 40 CFR 63.2.
    (viii) Flow indicator means a device which indicates whether gas 
flow is present in the vent stream, and, if required by the permit for 
the thermal incinerator, which measures the gas flow in that stream.
    (ix) Continuous Recorder means a data recording device that records 
an instantaneous data value at least once every fifteen minutes.
    (x) MON means the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for the source category Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Production and Processes (``MON''), promulgated under the authority of 
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
    (xi) MON Compliance Date means the date 3 years after the effective 
date of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for the source category Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Production and 
Processes (``MON'').
    (7) OSi Specialties, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Witco 
Corporation (``OSi''), may seek to transfer its rights and obligations 
under this section to a future owner of the Sistersville Plant in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through 
(f)(7)(iii) of this section.
    (i) OSi will provide to EPA a written notice of any proposed 
transfer at least forty-five days prior to the effective date of any 
such transfer. The written notice will identify the proposed 
transferee.
    (ii) The proposed transferee will provide to EPA a written request 
to assume the rights and obligations under this section at least forty-
five days prior to the effective date of any such transfer. The written 
request will describe the transferee's financial and technical 
capability to assume the obligations under this section, and will 
include a statement of the transferee's intention to fully comply with 
the terms of this section and to sign the Final Project Agreement for 
this XL Project as an additional party.
    (iii) Within thirty days of receipt of both the written notice and 
written request described in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) and (f)(7)(ii) of 
this section, EPA will determine, based on all relevant information, 
whether to approve a transfer of rights and obligations under this 
section from OSi to a different owner.
    (8) The constituents to be identified by the Sistersville Plant 
pursuant to paragraphs (f)(2)(vi)(C)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(viii)(C)(5)(iii) 
of this section are: 1 Naphthalenamine; 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene; 1,1 
Dichloroethylene; 1,1,1 Trichloroethane; 1,1,1,2 Tetrachloroethane; 
1,1,2 Trichloro 1,2,2 Triflouroethane; 1,1,2 Trichloroethane; 1,1,2,2 
Tetrachloroethane; 1,2 Dichlorobenzene; 1,2 Dichloroethane; 1,2 
Dichloropropane; 1,2 Dichloropropanone; 1,2 Transdichloroethene; 1,2, 
Trans--Dichloroethene; 1,2,4,5 Tetrachlorobenzine; 1,3 Dichlorobenzene; 
1,4 Dichloro 2 butene; 1,4 Dioxane; 2 Chlorophenol; 2 Cyclohexyl 4,6 
dinitrophenol; 2 Methyl Pyridine; 2 Nitropropane; 2, 4-Di-nitrotoluene; 
Acetone; Acetonitrile; Acrylonitrile; Allyl Alcohol; Aniline; Antimony; 
Arsenic; Barium; Benzene; Benzotrichloride; Benzyl Chloride; Beryllium; 
Bis (2 ethyl Hexyl) Phthalate; Butyl Alcohol, n; Butyl Benzyl 
Phthalate; Cadmium; Carbon Disulfide; Carbon Tetrachloride; 
Chlorobenzene; Chloroform; Chloromethane;   Chromium; Chrysene; Copper; 
Creosol;   Creosol, m-; Creosol, o; Creosol, p; Cyanide; Cyclohexanone; 
Di-n-octyl phthalate; Dichlorodiflouromethane; Diethyl Phthalate; 
Dihydrosafrole; Dimethylamine; Ethyl Acetate; Ethyl benzene; Ethyl 
Ether; Ethylene Glycol Ethyl Ether; Ethylene Oxide; Formaldehyde; 
Isobutyl Alcohol; Lead; Mercury; Methanol; Methoxychlor; Methyl 
Chloride; Methyl Chloroformate; Methyl Ethyl Ketone; Methyl Ethyl 
Ketone Peroxide; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone; Methyl Methacrylate; Methylene 
Bromide; Methylene Chloride; Naphthalene; Nickel; Nitrobenzene; 
Nitroglycerine; p-Toluidine; Phenol; Phthalic Anhydride; 
Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Propargyl Alcohol; Pyridine; Safrole; 
Selenium; Silver; Styrene; Tetrachloroethylene;

[[Page 49399]]

Tetrahydrofuran; Thallium; Toluene; Toluene 2,4 Diisocyanate; 
Trichloroethylene; Trichloroflouromethane; Vanadium; Vinyl Chloride; 
Warfarin; Xylene; Zinc.
    (g) This section applies only to the facility commonly referred to 
as the OSi Specialties Plant, located on State Route 2, Sistersville, 
West Virginia (``Sistersville Plant'').
    (1)(i) No later than 18 months from the date the Sistersville Plant 
receives written notification of revocation of the temporary deferral 
for the Sistersville Plant under paragraph (f) of this section, the 
Sistersville Plant shall, in accordance with the implementation 
schedule submitted to EPA under paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, 
either come into compliance with all requirements of this subpart which 
had been deferred by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, or complete a 
facility or process modification such that the requirements of 
Sec. 264.1085 are no longer applicable to the two hazardous waste 
surface impoundments. In any event, the Sistersville Plant must 
complete the requirements of the previous sentence no later than the 
MON Compliance Date; if the Sistersville Plant receives written 
notification of revocation of the temporary deferral after the date 18 
months prior to the MON Compliance Date, the date by which the 
Sistersville Plant must complete the requirements of the previous 
sentence will be the MON Compliance Date, which would be less than 18 
months from the date of notification of revocation.
    (ii) Within 30 days from the date the Sistersville Plant receives 
written notification of revocation under paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this 
section, the Sistersville Plant shall enter and maintain in the 
facility operating record an implementation schedule. The 
implementation schedule shall demonstrate that within 18 months from 
the date the Sistersville Plant receives written notification of 
revocation under paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section (but no later 
than the MON Compliance Date), the Sistersville Plant shall either come 
into compliance with the regulatory requirements that had been deferred 
by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, or complete a facility or 
process modification such that the requirements of Sec. 264.1085 are no 
longer applicable to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments. 
Within 30 days from the date the Sistersville Plant receives written 
notification of revocation under paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, 
the Sistersville Plant shall submit a copy of the implementation 
schedule to the EPA and WVDEP Project XL contacts identified in 
paragraph (f)(2)(viii)(H) of this section. The implementation schedule 
shall reflect the Sistersville Plant's effort to come into compliance 
as soon as practicable (but no later than 18 months after the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, or the 
MON Compliance Date, whichever is sooner) with all regulatory 
requirements that had been deferred under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 
section, or to complete a facility or process modification as soon as 
practicable (but no later than 18 months after the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, or the 
MON Compliance Date, whichever is sooner) such that the requirements of 
Sec. 264.1085 are no longer applicable to the two hazardous waste 
surface impoundments.
    (iii) The implementation schedule shall include the information 
described in either paragraph (g)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) Specific calendar dates for: Award of contracts or issuance of 
purchase orders for the control equipment required by those regulatory 
requirements that had been deferred by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 
section; initiation of on-site installation of such control equipment; 
completion of the control equipment installation; performance of any 
testing to demonstrate that the installed control equipment meets the 
applicable standards of this subpart; initiation of operation of the 
control equipment; and compliance with all regulatory requirements that 
had been deferred by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section.
    (B) Specific calendar dates for the purchase, installation, 
performance testing and initiation of operation of equipment to 
accomplish a facility or process modification such that the 
requirements of Sec. 264.1085 are no longer applicable to the two 
hazardous waste surface impoundments.
    (2) Nothing in paragraphs (f) or (g) of this section shall affect 
any regulatory requirements not referenced in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or 
(ii) of this section, as applicable to the Sistersville Plant.
    (3) In the event that a notification of revocation is issued 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, the requirements 
referenced in paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section are 
temporarily deferred, with respect to the two hazardous waste surface 
impoundments, provided that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance 
with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(iii), 
(f)(2)(iv), (f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vi) and (g) of this section, except as 
provided under paragraph (g)(4) of this section. The temporary deferral 
of the previous sentence shall be effective beginning on the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, and 
subject to paragraph (g)(5) of this section, shall continue to be 
effective for a maximum period of 18 months from that date, provided 
that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), (f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vi) 
and (g) of this section at all times during that 18-month period.
    (4) In the event that a notification of revocation is issued 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section as a result of the 
permanent removal of the capper unit from methyl capped polyether 
production service, the requirements referenced in paragraphs 
(f)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv) of this section are temporarily deferred, 
with respect to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments, provided 
that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(vi), and (g) of this section. The temporary deferral 
of the previous sentence shall be effective beginning on the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, and 
subject to paragraph (g)(5) of this section, shall continue to be 
effective for a maximum period of 18 months from that date, provided 
that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(vi) and (g) of this section at all times during that 
18-month period.
    (5) In no event shall the temporary deferral provided under 
paragraph (g)(3) or (g)(4) of this section be effective after the MON 
Compliance Date.
* * * * *

PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    3. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 6925, and 6935.

Subpart CC--Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, 
and Containers

    4. Section 265.1080 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 265.1080  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (f) This section applies only to the facility commonly referred to 
as the OSi Specialties Plant, located on State Route 2, Sistersville, 
West Virginia (``Sistersville Plant'').

[[Page 49400]]

    (1)(i) Provided that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with 
the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the requirements 
referenced in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section are temporarily 
deferred, as specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, with 
respect to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments at the 
Sistersville Plant. Beginning on the date that paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of 
this section is first implemented, the temporary deferral of this 
paragraph shall no longer be effective.
    (ii)(A) In the event that a notice of revocation is issued pursuant 
to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, the requirements referenced in 
paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section are temporarily deferred, with 
respect to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments, provided that 
the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), (f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vi) 
and (g) of this section, except as provided under paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section. The temporary deferral of the previous 
sentence shall be effective beginning on the date the Sistersville 
Plant receives written notification of revocation, and continuing for a 
maximum period of 18 months from that date, provided that the 
Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 
(f)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), (f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vi) and (g) of 
this section at all times during that 18-month period. In no event 
shall the temporary deferral continue to be effective after the MON 
Compliance Date.
    (B) In the event that a notification of revocation is issued 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section as a result of the 
permanent removal of the capper unit from methyl capped polyether 
production service, the requirements referenced in paragraph 
(f)(1)(iii) of this section are temporarily deferred, with respect to 
the two hazardous waste surface impoundments, provided that the 
Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi), and (g) of this section. The temporary deferral of the 
previous sentence shall be effective beginning on the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, and 
continuing for a maximum period of 18 months from that date, provided 
that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(vi) and (g) of this section at all times during that 
18-month period. In no event shall the temporary deferral continue to 
be effective after the MON Compliance Date.
    (iii) The standards in Sec. 265.1086 of this part, and all 
requirements referenced in or by Sec. 265.1086 that otherwise would 
apply to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments, including the 
closed-vent system and control device requirements of Sec. 265.1088 of 
this part.
    (2) Notwithstanding the effective period and revocation provisions 
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, the temporary deferral provided in 
paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section is effective only if the 
Sistersville Plant meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section.
    (i) The Sistersville Plant shall install an air pollution control 
device on the polyether methyl capper unit (``capper unit''), implement 
a methanol recovery operation, and implement a waste minimization/
pollution prevention (``WMPP'') project. The installation and 
implementation of these requirements shall be conducted according to 
the schedule described in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(vi) of this 
section.
    (A) The Sistersville Plant shall complete the initial start-up of a 
thermal incinerator on the capper unit's process vents from the first 
stage vacuum pump, from the flash pot and surge tank, and from the 
water stripper, no later than April 1, 1998.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall provide to the EPA and the West 
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, written notification 
of the actual date of initial start-up of the thermal incinerator, and 
commencement of the methanol recovery operation. The Sistersville Plant 
shall submit this written notification as soon as practicable, but in 
no event later than 15 days after such events.
    (ii) The Sistersville Plant shall install and operate the capper 
unit process vent thermal incinerator according to the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(A) through (f)(2)(ii)(D) of this section.
    (A) Capper unit process vent thermal incinerator.
    (1) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(D) of this 
section, the Sistersville Plant shall operate the process vent thermal 
incinerator such that the incinerator reduces the total organic 
compounds (``TOC'') from the process vent streams identified in 
paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) of this section, by 98 weight-percent, or to a 
concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, on a dry basis, 
corrected to 3 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
    (i) Prior to conducting the initial performance test required under 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall 
operate the thermal incinerator at or above a minimum temperature of 
1600 Fahrenheit.
    (ii) After the initial performance test required under paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall operate the 
thermal incinerator at or above the minimum temperature established 
during that initial performance test.
    (iii) The Sistersville Plant shall operate the process vent thermal 
incinerator at all times that the capper unit is being operated to 
manufacture product.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall install, calibrate, and maintain 
all air pollution control and monitoring equipment described in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) and (f)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of this section, according 
to the manufacturer's specifications, or other written procedures that 
provide adequate assurance that the equipment can reasonably be 
expected to control and monitor accurately, and in a manner consistent 
with good engineering practices during all periods when emissions are 
routed to the unit.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(B)(1) through (f)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of this section 
for performance testing and monitoring of the capper unit process vent 
thermal incinerator.
    (1) Within sixty (120) days after thermal incinerator initial 
start-up, the Sistersville Plant shall conduct a performance test to 
determine the minimum temperature at which compliance with the emission 
reduction requirement specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this section is 
achieved. This determination shall be made by measuring TOC minus 
methane and ethane, according to the procedures specified in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall conduct the initial performance 
test in accordance with the standards set forth in paragraph (f)(4) of 
this section.
    (3) Upon initial start-up, the Sistersville Plant shall install, 
calibrate, maintain and operate, according to manufacturer's 
specifications and in a manner consistent with good engineering 
practices, the monitoring equipment described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(ii)(B)(3)(i) through (f)(2)(ii)(B)(3)(iii) of this section.
    (i) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous 
recorder. The temperature monitoring device shall be installed in the 
firebox or in the duct work immediately downstream of the firebox in a 
position before any substantial heat exchange is encountered.

[[Page 49401]]

    (ii) A flow indicator that provides a record of vent stream flow to 
the incinerator at least once every fifteen minutes. The flow indicator 
shall be installed in the vent stream from the process vent at a point 
closest to the inlet of the incinerator.
    (iii) If the closed-vent system includes bypass devices that could 
be used to divert the gas or vapor stream to the atmosphere before 
entering the control device, each bypass device shall be equipped with 
either a bypass flow indicator or a seal or locking device as specified 
in this paragraph. For the purpose of complying with this paragraph, 
low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or 
lines, spring-loaded pressure relief valves, and other fittings used 
for safety purposes are not considered to be bypass devices. If a 
bypass flow indicator is used to comply with this paragraph, the bypass 
flow indicator shall be installed at the inlet to the bypass line used 
to divert gases and vapors from the closed-vent system to the 
atmosphere at a point upstream of the control device inlet. If a seal 
or locking device (e.g. car-seal or lock-and-key configuration) is used 
to comply with this paragraph, the device shall be placed on the 
mechanism by which the bypass device position is controlled (e.g., 
valve handle, damper levels) when the bypass device is in the closed 
position such that the bypass device cannot be opened without breaking 
the seal or removing the lock. The Sistersville Plant shall visually 
inspect the seal or locking device at least once every month to verify 
that the bypass mechanism is maintained in the closed position.
    (C) The Sistersville Plant shall keep on-site an up-to-date, 
readily accessible record of the information described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(ii)(C)(1) through (f)(2)(ii)(C)(4) of this section.
    (1) Data measured during the initial performance test regarding the 
firebox temperature of the incinerator and the percent reduction of TOC 
achieved by the incinerator, and/or such other information required in 
addition to or in lieu of that information by the WVDEP in its approval 
of equivalent test methods and procedures.
    (2) Continuous records of the equipment operating procedures 
specified to be monitored under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of this 
section, as well as records of periods of operation during which the 
firebox temperature falls below the minimum temperature established 
under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section.
    (3) Records of all periods during which the vent stream has no flow 
rate to the extent that the capper unit is being operated during such 
period.
    (4) Records of all periods during which there is flow through a 
bypass device.
    (D) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the start-up, 
shutdown, maintenance and malfunction requirements contained in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(D)(1) through (f)(2)(ii)(D)(6) of this section, 
with respect to the capper unit process vent incinerator.
    (1) The Sistersville Plant shall develop and implement a Start-up, 
Shutdown and Malfunction Plan as required by the provisions set forth 
in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(D) of this section. The plan shall describe, in 
detail, procedures for operating and maintaining the thermal 
incinerator during periods of start-up, shutdown and malfunction, and a 
program of corrective action for malfunctions of the thermal 
incinerator.
    (2) The plan shall include a detailed description of the actions 
the Sistersville Plant will take to perform the functions described in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(D)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(ii)(D)(2)(iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Ensure that the thermal incinerator is operated in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices.
    (ii) Ensure that the Sistersville Plant is prepared to correct 
malfunctions as soon as practicable after their occurrence in order to 
minimize excess emissions.
    (iii) Reduce the reporting requirements associated with periods of 
start-up, shutdown and malfunction.
    (3) During periods of start-up, shutdown and malfunction, the 
Sistersville Plant shall maintain the process unit and the associated 
thermal incinerator in accordance with the procedures set forth in the 
plan.
    (4) The plan shall contain record keeping requirements relating to 
periods of start-up, shutdown or malfunction, actions taken during such 
periods in conformance with the plan, and any failures to act in 
conformance with the plan during such periods.
    (5) During periods of maintenance or malfunction of the thermal 
incinerator, the Sistersville Plant may continue to operate the capper 
unit, provided that operation of the capper unit without the thermal 
incinerator shall be limited to no more than 240 hours each calendar 
year.
    (6) For the purposes of paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(D) of this section, 
the Sistersville Plant may use its operating procedures manual, or a 
plan developed for other reasons, provided that plan meets the 
requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(D) of this section for the start-
up, shutdown and malfunction plan.
    (iii) The Sistersville Plant shall operate the closed-vent system 
in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(A) 
through (f)(2)(iii)(D) of this section.
    (A) Closed-vent system.
    (1) At all times when the process vent thermal incinerator is 
operating, the Sistersville Plant shall route the vent streams 
identified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section from the capper unit 
to the thermal incinerator through a closed-vent system.
    (2) The closed-vent system will be designed for and operated with 
no detectable emissions, as defined in paragraph (f)(6) of this 
section.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant will comply with the performance 
standards set forth in paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(A)(1) of this section on 
and after the date on which the initial performance test referenced in 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section is completed, but no later than 
sixty (60) days after the initial start-up date.
    (C) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the monitoring 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(C)(1) through (f)(2)(iii)(C)(3) 
of this section, with respect to the closed-vent system.
    (1) At the time of the performance test described in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall inspect the 
closed-vent system as specified in paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
    (2) At the time of the performance test described in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, and annually thereafter, the 
Sistersville Plant shall inspect the closed-vent system for visible, 
audible, or olfactory indications of leaks.
    (3) If at any time a defect or leak is detected in the closed-vent 
system, the Sistersville Plant shall repair the defect or leak in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(iii)(C)(3)(i) and 
(f)(2)(iii)(C)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) The Sistersville Plant shall make first efforts at repair of 
the defect no later than five (5) calendar days after detection, and 
repair shall be completed as soon as possible but no later than forty-
five (45) calendar days after detection.
    (ii) The Sistersville Plant shall maintain a record of the defect 
repair in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(f)(2)(iii)(D) of this section.
    (D) The Sistersville Plant shall keep on-site up-to-date, readily 
accessible records of the inspections and repairs required to be 
performed by paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.

[[Page 49402]]

    (iv) The Sistersville Plant shall operate the methanol recovery 
operation in accordance with paragraphs (f)(2)(iv)(A) through 
(f)(2)(iv)(C) of this section.
    (A) The Sistersville Plant shall operate the condenser associated 
with the methanol recovery operation at all times during which the 
capper unit is being operated to manufacture product.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the monitoring 
requirements described in paragraphs (f)(2)(B)(1) through (f)(2)(B)(3) 
of this section, with respect to the methanol recovery operation.
    (1) The Sistersville Plant shall perform measurements necessary to 
determine the information described in paragraphs (f)(2)(iv)(B)(1)(i) 
and (f)(2)(iv)(B)(1)(ii) of this section to demonstrate the percentage 
recovery by weight of the methanol contained in the influent gas stream 
to the condenser.
    (i) Information as is necessary to calculate the annual amount of 
methanol generated by operating the capper unit.
    (ii) The annual amount of methanol recovered by the condenser 
associated with the methanol recovery operation.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall install, calibrate, maintain and 
operate according to manufacturer specifications, a temperature 
monitoring device with a continuous recorder for the condenser 
associated with the methanol recovery operation, as an indicator that 
the condenser is operating.
    (3) The Sistersville Plant shall record the dates and times during 
which the capper unit and the condenser are operating.
    (C) The Sistersville Plant shall keep on-site up-to-date, readily-
accessible records of the parameters specified to be monitored under 
paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
    (v) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(v)(A) through (f)(2)(v)(C) of this section for the 
disposition of methanol collected by the methanol recovery operation.
    (A) On an annual basis, the Sistersville Plant shall ensure that a 
minimum of 95% by weight of the methanol collected by the methanol 
recovery operation (also referred to as the ``collected methanol'') is 
utilized for reuse, recovery, or thermal recovery/treatment. The 
Sistersville Plant may use the methanol on-site, or may transfer or 
sell the methanol for reuse, recovery, or thermal recovery/treatment at 
other facilities.
    (1) Reuse. To the extent reuse of all of the collected methanol 
destined for reuse, recovery, or thermal recovery is not economically 
feasible, the Sistersville Plant shall ensure the residual portion is 
sent for recovery, as defined in paragraph (f)(6) of this section, 
except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)(v)(A)(2) of this section.
    (2) Recovery. To the extent that reuse or recovery of all the 
collected methanol destined for reuse, recovery, or thermal recovery is 
not economically feasible, the Sistersville Plant shall ensure that the 
residual portion is sent for thermal recovery/treatment, as defined in 
paragraph (f)(6) of this section.
    (3) The Sistersville Plant shall ensure that, on an annual basis, 
no more than 5% of the methanol collected by the methanol recovery 
operation is subject to bio-treatment.
    (4) In the event the Sistersville Plant receives written 
notification of revocation pursuant to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this 
section, the percent limitations set forth under paragraph (f)(2)(v)(A) 
of this section shall no longer be applicable, beginning on the date of 
receipt of written notification of revocation.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall perform such measurements as are 
necessary to determine the pounds of collected methanol directed to 
reuse, recovery, thermal recovery/treatment and bio-treatment, 
respectively, on a monthly basis.
    (C) The Sistersville Plant shall keep on-site up-to-date, readily 
accessible records of the amounts of collected methanol directed to 
reuse, recovery, thermal recovery/treatment and bio-treatment necessary 
for the measurements required under paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this 
section.
    (vi) The Sistersville Plant shall perform a WMPP project in 
accordance with the requirements and schedules set forth in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi)(A) through (f)(2)(vi)(C) of this section.
    (A) In performing the WMPP Project, the Sistersville Plant shall 
use a Study Team and an Advisory Committee as described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi)(A)(1) through (f)(2)(vi)(A)(6) of this section.
    (1) At a minimum, the multi-functional Study Team shall consist of 
Sistersville Plant personnel from appropriate plant departments 
(including both management and employees) and an independent 
contractor. The Sistersville Plant shall select a contractor that has 
experience and training in WMPP in the chemical manufacturing industry.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall direct the Study Team such that 
the team performs the functions described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi)(A)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vi)(A)(2)(v) of this section.
    (i) Review Sistersville Plant operations and waste streams.
    (ii) Review prior WMPP efforts at the Sistersville Plant.
    (iii) Develop criteria for the selection of waste streams to be 
evaluated for the WMPP Project.
    (iv) Identify and prioritize the waste streams to be evaluated 
during the study phase of the WMPP Project, based on the criteria 
described in paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(A)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (v) Perform the WMPP Study as required by paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi)(A)(3) through (f)(2)(vi)(A)(5), paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(B), and 
paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(C) of this section.
    (3)(i) The Sistersville Plant shall establish an Advisory Committee 
consisting of a representative from EPA, a representative from WVDEP, 
the Sistersville Plant Manager, the Sistersville Plant Director of 
Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs, and a stakeholder 
representative(s).
    (ii) The Sistersville Plant shall select the stakeholder 
representative(s) by mutual agreement of EPA, WVDEP and the 
Sistersville Plant no later than 20 days after receiving from EPA and 
WVDEP the names of their respective committee members.
    (4) The Sistersville Plant shall convene a meeting of the Advisory 
Committee no later than thirty days after selection of the stakeholder 
representatives, and shall convene meetings periodically thereafter as 
necessary for the Advisory Committee to perform its assigned functions. 
The Sistersville Plant shall direct the Advisory Committee to perform 
the functions described in paragraphs (f)(2)(vi)(A)(4)(i) through 
(f)(2)(vi)(A)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Review and comment upon the Study Team's criteria for selection 
of waste streams, and the Study Team's identification and 
prioritization of the waste streams to be evaluated during the WMPP 
Project.
    (ii) Review and comment upon the Study Team progress reports and 
the draft WMPP Study Report.
    (iii) Periodically review the effectiveness of WMPP opportunities 
implemented as part of the WMPP Project, and, where appropriate, WMPP 
opportunities previously determined to be infeasible by the 
Sistersville Plant but which had potential for feasibility in the 
future.
    (5) Beginning on January 15, 1998, and every ninety (90) days 
thereafter until submission of the final WMPP Study Report required by 
paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(C) of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall 
direct the Study Team to submit a progress report to the

[[Page 49403]]

Advisory Committee detailing its efforts during the prior ninety (90) 
day period.
    (B) The Sistersville Plant shall ensure that the WMPP Study and the 
WMPP Study Report meet the requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(vi)(B)(1) 
through (f)(2)(vi)(B)(3) of this section.
    (1) The WMPP Study shall consist of a technical, economic, and 
regulatory assessment of opportunities for source reduction and for 
environmentally sound recycling for waste streams identified by the 
Study Team.
    (2) The WMPP Study shall evaluate the source, nature, and volume of 
the waste streams; describe all the WMPP opportunities identified by 
the Study Team; provide a feasibility screening to evaluate the 
technical and economical feasibility of each of the WMPP opportunities; 
identify any cross-media impacts or any anticipated transfers of risk 
associated with each feasible WMPP opportunity; and identify the 
projected economic savings and projected quantitative waste reduction 
estimates for each WMPP opportunity identified.
    (3) No later than October 19, 1998, the Sistersville Plant shall 
prepare and submit to the members of the Advisory Committee a draft 
WMPP Study Report which, at a minimum, includes the results of the WMPP 
Study, identifies WMPP opportunities the Sistersville Plant determines 
to be feasible, discusses the basis for excluding other opportunities 
as not feasible, and makes recommendations as to whether the WMPP Study 
should be continued. The members of the Advisory Committee shall 
provide any comments to the Sistersville Plant within thirty (30) days 
of receiving the WMPP Study Report.
    (C) Within thirty (30) days after receipt of comments from the 
members of the Advisory Committee, the Sistersville Plant shall submit 
to EPA and WVDEP a final WMPP Study Report which identifies those WMPP 
opportunities the Sistersville Plant determines to be feasible and 
includes an implementation schedule for each such WMPP opportunity. The 
Sistersville Plant shall make reasonable efforts to implement all 
feasible WMPP opportunities in accordance with the priorities 
identified in the implementation schedule.
    (1) For purposes of this section, a WMPP opportunity is feasible if 
the Sistersville Plant considers it to be technically feasible (taking 
into account engineering and regulatory factors, product line 
specifications and customer needs) and economically practical (taking 
into account the full environmental costs and benefits associated with 
the WMPP opportunity and the company's internal requirements for 
approval of capital projects). For purposes of the WMPP Project, the 
Sistersville Plant shall use ``An Introduction to Environmental 
Accounting as a Business Management Tool,'' (EPA 742/R-95/001) as one 
tool to identify the full environmental costs and benefits of each WMPP 
opportunity.
    (2) In implementing each WMPP opportunity, the Sistersville Plant 
shall, after consulting with the other members of the Advisory 
Committee, develop appropriate protocols and methods for determining 
the information required by paragraphs (f)(2)(vi)(2)(i) through 
(f)(2)(vi)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) The overall volume of wastes reduced.
    (ii) The quantities of each constituent identified in paragraph 
(f)(8) of this section reduced in the wastes.
    (iii) The economic benefits achieved.
    (3) No requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(vi) of this section are 
intended to prevent or restrict the Sistersville Plant from evaluating 
and implementing any WMPP opportunities at the Sistersville Plant in 
the normal course of its operations or from implementing, prior to the 
completion of the WMPP Study, any WMPP opportunities identified by the 
Study Team.
    (vii) The Sistersville Plant shall maintain on-site each record 
required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, through the MON 
Compliance Date.
    (viii) The Sistersville Plant shall comply with the reporting 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(viii)(A) through (f)(2)(viii)(G) of 
this section.
    (A) At least sixty days prior to conducting the initial performance 
test of the thermal incinerator, the Sistersville Plant shall submit to 
EPA and WVDEP copies of a notification of performance test, as 
described in 40 CFR 63.7(b). Following the initial performance test of 
the thermal incinerator, the Sistersville Plant shall submit to EPA and 
WVDEP copies of the performance test results that include the 
information relevant to initial performance tests of thermal 
incinerators contained in 40 CFR 63.7(g)(1), 40 CFR 63.117(a)(4)(i), 
and 40 CFR 63.117(a)(4)(ii).
    (B) Beginning in 1999, on January 31 of each year, the Sistersville 
Plant shall submit a semiannual written report to the EPA and WVDEP, 
with respect to the preceding six month period ending on December 31, 
which contains the information described in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(viii)(B)(1) through (f)(2)(viii)(B)(10) of this section.
    (1) Instances of operating below the minimum operating temperature 
established for the thermal incinerator under paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section which were not corrected within 24 
hours of onset.
    (2) Any periods during which the capper unit was being operated to 
manufacture product while the flow indicator for the vent streams to 
the thermal incinerator showed no flow.
    (3) Any periods during which the capper unit was being operated to 
manufacture product while the flow indicator for any bypass device on 
the closed vent system to the thermal incinerator showed flow.
    (4) Information required to be reported during that six month 
period under the preconstruction permit issued under the state 
permitting program approved under subpart XX of 40 CFR Part 52--
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for West Virginia.
    (5) Any periods during which the capper unit was being operated to 
manufacture product while the condenser associated with the methanol 
recovery operation was not in operation.
    (6) The amount (in pounds and by month) of methanol collected by 
the methanol recovery operation during the six month period.
    (7) The amount (in pounds and by month) of collected methanol 
utilized for reuse, recovery, thermal recovery/treatment, or bio-
treatment, respectively, during the six month period.
    (8) The calculated amount (in pounds and by month) of methanol 
generated by operating the capper unit.
    (9) The status of the WMPP Project, including the status of 
developing the WMPP Study Report.
    (10) Beginning in the year after the Sistersville Plant submits the 
final WMPP Study Report required by paragraph (f)(2)(vi)(C) of this 
section, and continuing in each subsequent Semiannual Report required 
by paragraph (f)(2)(viii)(B) of this section, the Sistersville Plant 
shall report on the progress of the implementation of feasible WMPP 
opportunities identified in the WMPP Study Report. The Semiannual 
Report required by paragraph (f)(2)(viii)(B) of this section shall 
identify any cross-media impacts or impacts to worker safety or 
community health issues that have occurred as a result of 
implementation of the feasible WMPP opportunities.
    (C) Beginning in 1999, on July 31 of each year, the Sistersville 
Plant shall provide an Annual Project Report to the EPA and WVDEP 
Project XL contacts containing the information required by paragraphs 
(f)(2)(viii)(C)(1) through (f)(2)(viii)(C)(8) of this section.
    (1) The categories of information required to be submitted under

[[Page 49404]]

paragraphs (f)(2)(viii)(B)(1) through (f)(2)(viii)(B)(8) of this 
section, for the preceding 12 month period ending on June 30.
    (2) An updated Emissions Analysis for January through December of 
the preceding calendar year. The Sistersville Plant shall submit the 
updated Emissions Analysis in a form substantially equivalent to the 
previous Emissions Analysis prepared by the Sistersville Plant to 
support Project XL. The Emissions Analysis shall include a comparison 
of the volatile organic emissions associated with the capper unit 
process vents and the wastewater treatment system (using the EPA Water 
8 model or other model agreed to by the Sistersville Plant, EPA and 
WVDEP) under Project XL with the expected emissions from those sources 
absent Project XL during that period.
    (3) A discussion of the Sistersville Plant's performance in meeting 
the requirements of this section, specifically identifying any areas in 
which the Sistersville Plant either exceeded or failed to achieve any 
such standard.
    (4) A description of any unanticipated problems in implementing the 
XL Project and any steps taken to resolve them.
    (5) A WMPP Implementation Report that contains the information 
contained in paragraphs paragraphs (f)(2)(viii)(C)(5)(i) through 
(viii)(C)(5)(vi) of this section.
    (i) A summary of the WMPP opportunities selected for 
implementation.
    (ii) A description of the WMPP opportunities initiated and/or 
completed.
    (iii) Reductions in volume of waste generated and amounts of each 
constituent reduced in wastes including any constituents identified in 
paragraph (f)(8) of this section.
    (iv) An economic benefits analysis.
    (v) A summary of the results of the Advisory Committee's review of 
implemented WMPP opportunities.
    (vi) A reevaluation of WMPP opportunities previously determined to 
be infeasible by the Sistersville Plant but which had potential for 
future feasibility.
    (6) An assessment of the nature of, and the successes or problems 
associated with, the Sistersville Plant's interaction with the federal 
and state agencies under the Project.
    (7) An update on stakeholder involvement efforts.
    (8) An evaluation of the Project as implemented against the Project 
XL Criteria and the baseline scenario.
    (D) The Sistersville Plant shall submit to the EPA and WVDEP 
Project XL contacts a written Final Project Report covering the period 
during which the temporary deferral was effective, as described in 
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (1) The Final Project Report shall contain the information required 
to be submitted for the Semiannual Report required under paragraph 
(f)(2)(viii)(B) of this section, and the Annual Project Report required 
under paragraph (f)(2)(viii)(C) of this section.
    (2) The Sistersville Plant shall submit the Final Project Report to 
EPA and WVDEP no later than 180 days after the temporary deferral of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section is revoked, or 180 days after the MON 
Compliance Date, whichever occurs first.
    (E)(1) The Sistersville Plant shall retain on-site a complete copy 
of each of the report documents to be submitted to EPA and WVDEP in 
accordance with requirements under paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 
The Sistersville Plant shall retain this record until 180 days after 
the MON Compliance Date. The Sistersville Plant shall provide to 
stakeholders and interested parties a written notice of availability 
(to be mailed to all persons on the Project mailing list and to be 
provided to at least one local newspaper of general circulation) of 
each such document, and provide a copy of each document to any such 
person upon request, subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 2.
    (2) Any reports or other information submitted to EPA or WVDEP may 
be released to the public pursuant to the Federal Freedom of 
Information Act (42 U.S.C. 552 et seq.), subject to the provisions of 
40 CFR part 2.
    (F) The Sistersville Plant shall make all supporting monitoring 
results and records required under paragraph (f)(2) of this section 
available to EPA and WVDEP within a reasonable amount of time after 
receipt of a written request from those Agencies, subject to the 
provisions of 40 CFR Part 2.
    (G) Each report submitted by the Sistersville Plant under the 
requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be certified by 
a Responsible Corporate Officer, as defined in 40 CFR 270.11(a)(1).
    (H) For each report submitted in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) 
of this section, the Sistersville Plant shall send one copy each to the 
addresses in paragraphs (f)(2)(viii) (H)(1) through (H)(3) of this 
section.
    (1) U.S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2029, Attention Tad Radzinski, Mail Code 3WC11.
    (2) U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention L. 
Nancy Birnbaum, Mail Code 2129.
    (3) West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, Office of 
Air Quality, 1558 Washington Street East, Charleston, WV 25311-2599, 
Attention John H. Johnston.
    (3) Effective period and revocation of temporary deferral.
    (i) The temporary deferral contained in this section is effective 
from April 1, 1998, and shall remain effective until the MON Compliance 
Date. The temporary deferral contained in this section may be revoked 
prior to the MON Compliance Date, as described in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) 
of this section.
    (ii) On the MON Compliance Date, the temporary deferral contained 
in this section will no longer be effective.
    (iii) The Sistersville Plant shall come into compliance with those 
requirements deferred by this section no later than the MON Compliance 
Date. No later than 18 months prior to the MON Compliance Date, the 
Sistersville Plant shall submit to EPA an implementation schedule that 
meets the requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (iv) The temporary deferral contained in this section may be 
revoked for cause, as determined by EPA, prior to the MON Compliance 
Date. The Sistersville Plant may request EPA to revoke the temporary 
deferral contained in this section at any time. The revocation shall be 
effective on the date that the Sistersville Plant receives written 
notification of revocation from EPA.
    (v) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the MON, 
as applicable to the Sistersville Plant.
    (vi) Nothing in paragrahs (f) or (g) of this section shall affect 
any regulatory requirements not referenced in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of 
this section, as applicable to the Sistersville Plant.
    (4) The Sistersville Plant shall conduct the initial performance 
test required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section using the 
procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. The organic 
concentration and percent reduction shall be measured as TOC minus 
methane and ethane, according to the procedures specified in paragraph 
(f)(4) of this section.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, 
shall be used for selection of the sampling sites.
    (A) To determine compliance with the 98 percent reduction of TOC 
requirement of paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section, sampling 
sites shall be located at the inlet of the control device after the 
final product recovery device, and at the outlet of the control device.

[[Page 49405]]

    (B) To determine compliance with the 20 parts per million by volume 
TOC limit in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section, the sampling 
site shall be located at the outlet of the control device.
    (ii) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method 
2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
    (iii) To determine compliance with the 20 parts per million by 
volume TOC limit in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section, the 
Sistersville Plant shall use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to 
measure TOC minus methane and ethane. Alternatively, any other method 
or data that has been validated according to the applicable procedures 
in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, may be used. The following 
procedures shall be used to calculate parts per million by volume 
concentration, corrected to 3 percent oxygen:
    (A) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which 
either an integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be 
taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at 
approximately equal intervals in time, such as 15 minute intervals 
during the run.
    (B) The concentration of TOC minus methane and ethane 
(CTOC) shall be calculated as the sum of the concentrations 
of the individual components, and shall be computed for each run using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE98.020

Where:

CTOC=Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane), dry 
basis, parts per million by volume.
Cji=Concentration of sample components j of sample i, dry 
basis, parts per million by volume.
n=Number of components in the sample.
x=Number of samples in the sample run.

    (C) The concentration of TOC shall be corrected to 3 percent oxygen 
if a combustion device is the control device.
    (1) The emission rate correction factor or excess air, integrated 
sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3B of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration 
(%O2d). The samples shall be taken during the same time that 
the TOC (minus methane or ethane) samples are taken.
    (2) The concentration corrected to 3 percent oxygen (Cc) 
shall be computed using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE98.021

Where:

Cc=Concentration of TOC corrected to 3 percent oxygen, dry 
basis, parts per million by volume.
Cm=Concentration of TOC (minus methane and ethane), dry 
basis, parts per million by volume.
%O2d=Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percent by volume.

    (iv) To determine compliance with the 98 percent reduction 
requirement of paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section, the 
Sistersville Plant shall use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 
alternatively, any other method or data that has been validated 
according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, 
appendix A may be used. The following procedures shall be used to 
calculate percent reduction efficiency:
    (A) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour in which 
either an integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples shall be 
taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at 
approximately equal intervals in time such as 15 minute intervals 
during the run.
    (B) The mass rate of TOC minus methane and ethane (Ei, 
Eo) shall be computed. All organic compounds (minus methane 
and ethane) measured by Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A are 
summed using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE98.022

Where:

Cij, Coj=Concentration of sample component j of 
the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Ei, Eo=Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and 
ethane) at the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, 
dry basis, kilogram per hour.
Mij, Moj=Molecular weight of sample component j 
of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, 
respectively, gram/gram-mole.
Qi, Qo=Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and 
outlet of the control device, respectively, dry standard cubic meter 
per minute.
K2=Constant, 2.494  x  10-6 (parts per 
million)-1 (gram-mole per standard cubic meter) (kilogram/
gram) (minute/hour), where standard temperature (gram-mole per standard 
cubic meter) is 20  deg.C.

    (C) The percent reduction in TOC (minus methane and ethane) shall 
be calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15SE98.023

where:
R=Control efficiency of control device, percent.
Ei=Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) at the inlet 
to the control device as calculated under paragraph (f)(4)(iv)(B) of 
this section, kilograms TOC per hour.
Eo=Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) at the outlet 
of the control device, as calculated under paragraph (f)(4)(iv)(B) of 
this section, kilograms TOC per hour.
    (5) At the time of the initial performance test of the process vent 
thermal incinerator required under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this 
section, the Sistersville Plant shall inspect each closed vent system 
according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) through 
(f)(5)(vi) of this section.
    (i) The initial inspections shall be conducted in accordance with 
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (ii)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(B) of this 
section, the detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria 
of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, except the instrument 
response factor criteria in section 3.1.2(a) of Method 21 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A shall be for the average composition of the process 
fluid not each individual volatile organic compound in the stream. For 
process streams that contain nitrogen, air, or other inerts which are 
not organic hazardous air pollutants or volatile organic compounds, the 
average stream response factor shall be calculated on an inert-free 
basis.
    (B) If no instrument is available at the plant site that will meet 
the performance criteria specified in paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(A) of this 
section, the instrument readings may be adjusted by multiplying by the 
average response factor of the process fluid, calculated on an inert-
free basis as described in paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (iii) The detection instrument shall be calibrated before use on 
each day of its use by the procedures specified in

[[Page 49406]]

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (iv) Calibration gases shall be as follows:
    (A) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million hydrocarbon in air); 
and
    (B) Mixtures of methane in air at a concentration less than 10,000 
parts per million. A calibration gas other than methane in air may be 
used if the instrument does not respond to methane or if the instrument 
does not meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph 
(f)(5)(ii)(A) of this section. In such cases, the calibration gas may 
be a mixture of one or more of the compounds to be measured in air.
    (v) The Sistersville Plant may elect to adjust or not adjust 
instrument readings for background. If the Sistersville Plant elects to 
not adjust readings for background, all such instrument readings shall 
be compared directly to the applicable leak definition to determine 
whether there is a leak. If the Sistersville Plant elects to adjust 
instrument readings for background, the Sistersville Plant shall 
measure background concentration using the procedures in 40 CFR 
63.180(b) and (c). The Sistersville Plant shall subtract background 
reading from the maximum concentration indicated by the instrument.
    (vi) The arithmetic difference between the maximum concentration 
indicated by the instrument and the background level shall be compared 
with 500 parts per million for determining compliance.
    (6) Definitions of terms as used in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this 
section.
    (i) Closed vent system is defined as a system that is not open to 
the atmosphere and that is composed of piping, connections and, if 
necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from the 
capper unit process vent to the thermal incinerator.
    (ii) No detectable emissions means an instrument reading of less 
than 500 parts per million by volume above background as determined by 
Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.
    (iii) Reuse includes the substitution of collected methanol 
(without reclamation subsequent to its collection) for virgin methanol 
as an ingredient (including uses as an intermediate) or as an effective 
substitute for a commercial product.
    (iv) Recovery includes the substitution of collected methanol for 
virgin methanol as an ingredient (including uses as an intermediate) or 
as an effective substitute for a commercial product following 
reclamation of the methanol subsequent to its collection.
    (v) Thermal recovery/treatment includes the use of collected 
methanol in fuels blending or as a feed to any combustion device to the 
extent permitted by federal and state law.
    (vi) Bio-treatment includes the treatment of the collected methanol 
through introduction into a biological treatment system, including the 
treatment of the collected methanol as a waste stream in an on-site or 
off-site wastewater treatment system. Introduction of the collected 
methanol to the on-site wastewater treatment system will be limited to 
points downstream of the surface impoundments, and will be consistent 
with the requirements of federal and state law.
    (vii) Start-up shall have the meaning set forth at 40 CFR 63.2.
    (viii) Flow indicator means a device which indicates whether gas 
flow is present in the vent stream, and, if required by the permit for 
the thermal incinerator, which measures the gas flow in that stream.
    (ix) Continuous Recorder means a data recording device that records 
an instantaneous data value at least once every fifteen minutes.
    (x) MON means the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for the source category Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Production and Processes (``MON''), promulgated under the authority of 
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
    (xi) MON Compliance Date means the date 3 years after the effective 
date of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for the source category Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Production and 
Processes (``MON'').
    (7) OSi Specialties, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Witco 
Corporation (``OSi''), may seek to transfer its rights and obligations 
under this section to a future owner of the Sistersville Plant in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through 
(f)(7)(iii) of this section.
    (i) OSi will provide to EPA a written notice of any proposed 
transfer at least forty-five days prior to the effective date of any 
such transfer. The written notice will identify the proposed 
transferee.
    (ii) The proposed transferee will provide to EPA a written request 
to assume the rights and obligations under this section at least forty-
five days prior to the effective date of any such transfer. The written 
request will describe the transferee's financial and technical 
capability to assume the obligations under this section, and will 
include a statement of the transferee's intention to fully comply with 
the terms of this section and to sign the Final Project Agreement for 
this XL Project as an additional party.
    (iii) Within thirty days of receipt of both the written notice and 
written request described in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) and (f)(7)(ii) of 
this section, EPA will determine, based on all relevant information, 
whether to approve a transfer of rights and obligations under this 
section from OSi to a different owner.
    (8) The constituents to be identified by the Sistersville Plant 
pursuant to paragraphs (f)(2)(vi)(C)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(viii)(C)(5)(iii) 
of this section are: 1 Naphthalenamine; 1, 2, 4 Trichlorobenzene; 1,1 
Dichloroethylene; 1,1,1 Trichloroethane; 1,1,1,2 Tetrachloroethane; 
1,1,2 Trichloro 1,2,2 Triflouroethane; 1,1,2 Trichloroethane; 1,1,2,2 
Tetrachloroethane; 1,2 Dichlorobenzene; 1,2 Dichloroethane; 1,2 
Dichloropropane; 1,2 Dichloropropanone; 1,2 Transdichloroethene; 1,2, 
Trans--Dichloroethene; 1,2,4,5 Tetrachlorobenzine; 1,3 Dichlorobenzene; 
1,4 Dichloro 2 butene; 1,4 Dioxane; 2 Chlorophenol; 2 Cyclohexyl 4,6 
dinitrophenol; 2 Methyl Pyridine; 2 Nitropropane; 2, 4-Di-nitrotoluene; 
Acetone; Acetonitrile; Acrylonitrile; Allyl Alcohol; Aniline; Antimony; 
Arsenic; Barium; Benzene; Benzotrichloride; Benzyl Chloride; Beryllium; 
Bis (2 ethyl Hexyl) Phthalate; Butyl Alcohol, n; Butyl Benzyl 
Phthalate; Cadmium; Carbon Disulfide; Carbon Tetrachloride; 
Chlorobenzene; Chloroform; Chloromethane; Chromium; Chrysene; Copper; 
Creosol; Creosol, m-; Creosol, o; Creosol, p; Cyanide; Cyclohexanone; 
Di-n-octyl phthalate; Dichlorodiflouromethane; Diethyl Phthalate; 
Dihydrosafrole; Dimethylamine; Ethyl Acetate; Ethyl benzene; Ethyl 
Ether; Ethylene Glycol Ethyl Ether; Ethylene Oxide; Formaldehyde; 
Isobutyl Alcohol; Lead; Mercury; Methanol; Methoxychlor; Methyl 
Chloride; Methyl Chloroformate; Methyl Ethyl Ketone; Methyl Ethyl 
Ketone Peroxide; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone; Methyl Methacrylate; Methylene 
Bromide; Methylene Chloride; Naphthalene; Nickel; Nitrobenzene; 
Nitroglycerine; p-Toluidine; Phenol; Phthalic Anhydride; 
Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Propargyl Alcohol; Pyridine; Safrole; 
Selenium; Silver; Styrene; Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrahydrofuran; 
Thallium; Toluene; Toluene 2,4 Diisocyanate; Trichloroethylene; 
Trichloroflouromethane; Vanadium; Vinyl Chloride; Warfarin; Xylene; 
Zinc.
    (g) This section applies only to the facility commonly referred to 
as the OSi Specialties Plant, located on State Route

[[Page 49407]]

2, Sistersville, West Virginia (``Sistersville Plant'').
    (1)(i) No later than 18 months from the date the Sistersville Plant 
receives written notification of revocation of the temporary deferral 
for the Sistersville Plant under paragraph (f) of this section, the 
Sistersville Plant shall, in accordance with the implementation 
schedule submitted to EPA under paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, 
either come into compliance with all requirements of this subpart which 
had been deferred by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, or complete a 
facility or process modification such that the requirements of 
Sec. 265.1086 are no longer applicable to the two hazardous waste 
surface impoundments. In any event, the Sistersville Plant must 
complete the requirements of the previous sentence no later than the 
MON Compliance Date; if the Sistersville Plant receives written 
notification of revocation of the temporary deferral after the date 18 
months prior to the MON Compliance Date, the date by which the 
Sistersville Plant must complete the requirements of the previous 
sentence will be the MON Compliance Date, which would be less than 18 
months from the date of notification of revocation.
    (ii) Within 30 days from the date the Sistersville Plant receives 
written notification of revocation under paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this 
section, the Sistersville Plant shall enter and maintain in the 
facility operating record an implementation schedule. The 
implementation schedule shall demonstrate that within 18 months from 
the date the Sistersville Plant receives written notification of 
revocation under paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section (but no later 
than the MON Compliance Date), the Sistersville Plant shall either come 
into compliance with the regulatory requirements that had been deferred 
by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, or complete a facility or 
process modification such that the requirements of Sec. 265.1086 are no 
longer applicable to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments. 
Within 30 days from the date the Sistersville Plant receives written 
notification of revocation under paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, 
the Sistersville Plant shall submit a copy of the implementation 
schedule to the EPA and WVDEP Project XL contacts identified in 
paragraph (f)(2)(viii)(H) of this section. The implementation schedule 
shall reflect the Sistersville Plant's effort to come into compliance 
as soon as practicable (but no later than 18 months after the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, or the 
MON Compliance Date, whichever is sooner) with all regulatory 
requirements that had been deferred under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 
section, or to complete a facility or process modification as soon as 
practicable (but no later than 18 months after the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, or the 
MON Compliance Date, whichever is sooner) such that the requirements of 
Sec. 265.1086 are no longer applicable to the two hazardous waste 
surface impoundments.
    (iii) The implementation schedule shall include the information 
described in either paragraph (g)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) Specific calendar dates for: award of contracts or issuance of 
purchase orders for the control equipment required by those regulatory 
requirements that had been deferred by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this 
section; initiation of on-site installation of such control equipment; 
completion of the control equipment installation; performance of any 
testing to demonstrate that the installed control equipment meets the 
applicable standards of this subpart; initiation of operation of the 
control equipment; and compliance with all regulatory requirements that 
had been deferred by paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section.
    (B) Specific calendar dates for the purchase, installation, 
performance testing and initiation of operation of equipment to 
accomplish a facility or process modification such that the 
requirements of Sec. 265.1086 are no longer applicable to the two 
hazardous waste surface impoundments.
    (2) Nothing in paragraphs (f) or (g) of this section shall affect 
any regulatory requirements not referenced in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or 
(ii) of this section, as applicable to the Sistersville Plant.
    (3) In the event that a notification of revocation is issued 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, the requirements 
referenced in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section are temporarily 
deferred, with respect to the two hazardous waste surface impoundments, 
provided that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the 
requirements of paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), 
(f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vi) and (g) of this section, except as provided under 
paragraph (g)(4) of this section. The temporary deferral of the 
previous sentence shall be effective beginning on the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, and 
subject to paragraph (g)(5) of this section, shall continue to be 
effective for a maximum period of 18 months from that date, provided 
that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), (f)(2)(v), (f)(2)(vi) 
and (g) of this section at all times during that 18-month period.
    (4) In the event that a notification of revocation is issued 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section as a result of the 
permanent removal of the capper unit from methyl capped polyether 
production service, the requirements referenced in paragraph 
(f)(1)(iii) of this section are temporarily deferred, with respect to 
the two hazardous waste surface impoundments, provided that the 
Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 
(f)(2)(vi), and (g) of this section. The temporary deferral of the 
previous sentence shall be effective beginning on the date the 
Sistersville Plant receives written notification of revocation, and 
subject to paragraph (g)(5) of this section, shall continue to be 
effective for a maximum period of 18 months from that date, provided 
that the Sistersville Plant is in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(2)(vi) and (g) of this section at all times during that 
18-month period.
    (5) In no event shall the temporary deferral provided under 
paragraph (g)(3) or (g)(4) of this section be effective after the MON 
Compliance Date.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-24048 Filed 9-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P