[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