Document 3NZ9KG4OQdpMXZ8JD1rQVq2Qy

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date September 1'^ 1977 Subject____________ RCWnfl_________________________ y0 Hr. Richard Fleming From ft- J- D19110 cc: Mr. T. L. Carey (Location, Organization, or Dapartmant) (Location, Organization, or Dapartmant) According to your request, information on the following is provided: - Environmental Protection Costs - Chemical Group's Permitting - Gulf Coast Waste Authority' Washburn Tunnel Water Discharge Permit. r (320) AP00024876 Mr. Richard Fleming -2- GCUDA Environmental Protection Costs Total estimated capital costs for pollution control for existing facilities are $19,000,000. The projected ongoing cost for 1977 fiscal year for environmental protection is estimated at $6.7 MM. An estimated $15 MM of the total $19 MM capital is for water pollution control to meet the 1977 standards of "best practical control technology", BPT. Air pollution control expenditure to date is estimated at $4 MM excluding $10J8 MM capital that is required for compliance to EPA Air Emission Standards on vinyl chlorine for PVC ($7.0 MM) and emulsions EVC1 ($3.8 MM) APCI chemical plants that discharge directly to U. S. waters have installed water pollution control facilities to meet or exceed BPT (duly 1, 1977 deadline). Air emission control equip ment for particulate nitrogen dioxide, hydrocarbons and odors are Installed that reduce emissions in excess of 90% compared to the unabated source. Based on Industry factors, BAT water pollution control facilities are estimated to cost $13 MM (in 1977 dollars) and operating costs to Increase threefold by 1983. Benefit to the environment from this expenditure is very questionable. AP00024877 Mr. Richard Fleming - 3- GCWDA Summary of Capital Expenditure for Environmental Protection EXPENDITURE EXISTING FACILITIES ITEM $MM Water 15.0 Air 4.0 TOTAL 19.0 VINYL CHLORIDE STANDARD COMPLIANCE EXPENDITURE BY OCTOBER 21, 1978 ITEM $MM PVC 7.0 Emulsions (EVC1) 3.8 TOTAL 10.8 ONGOING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COSTS ITEM MM$ 1977 FISCAL Plant Operation 5.7 other costs, technical, legal, administration 0.7 R& D 0.3 TOTAL 6.7 this figure may be low since each company Individual working on environmental matters does not charge their time and expenses towards the activity. WWW AP00024878 Hr. Richard Fleming -4- GCWDA PERMITS Mater Discharge Permits The permitting conditions for EPA water discharge permits (NPDES) are usually attained by a series of time consuming negotiations between EPA and company personnel. If a compromise cannot be attained on a technical basis, then the conditions of the permit are renegotiated on both a technical and legal approach requiring another time consuming, costly effort. The process may require from one to several years from the time an application for an NPDES permit Is filed. During this time, EPA internal policies, and new regulations are proposed and even though not promulgated, EPA personnel attempt to impose them, and at times through directives to the States in the form of EPA "guidelines". Capital expenditure for environmental protection as well as operating cost may be significantly increased over this period of time pending the final conditions of the permits. How much benefit results to the Environment In relation to cost does not appear to be EPA's main objective, but rather how tight or restrictive can EPA impose the permitting conditions on Industry. ! It Is suggested that to improve the process that EPA personnel only consider promulgated regulations and that EPA, State, and Industry meet simultaneously to prevent EPA and the State from "see-sawing" tighter regulations at separate times on the same discharge. New Source determinations is another area of concern for expansions and new projects. EPA must make a new source determination relative to proposed water effluent guidelines. If an expansion Is determined to be a new source, EPA may require an environmental inpact statement, EIP. This process may require one to two years. Capital requirements or whether the project may proceed is pending the outcome of the new source determination and the EIP. Certain conditions must exist before a new source determination can be made by EPA, one of which is construction must be started. The definition of "construction started" varies from region to region. Region VI requires 102 of construction capital committed. Region IV requires 20*. This example shows the inconsistency of applying regulations from region to region. ..., AP00024879 t Mr. Richard Fleming -5- GCWDA Air Emissions Permit Most states have air emissions permitting authority. An air permit to construct must be approved by the State Agencies before permanent field construction can be made. In the case of emissions from a hazardous pollutant, ERA must also approve the State Permit. Within ninety days after the new plant or expansion is operating, test data must be supplied on air emissions to the State. Pending these results, the state may issue an Air Emission Operating Permit or require additional pollution abatement facilities to meet the emission levels approved in the air construction permit. Until 1976, the air permitting process was predictable. Designed emission reduction equipment was required to meet State emission levels. If this condition was met, with few exceptions an air permit to construct would be obtained within 30 to 60 days. After EPA stressed to the permitting agencies that Federal ambient air standards, where exceeded, must be met under threat of EPA's legal action against the permitting state agencies, the per mitting of expansions and new projects were delayed or not permitted. In December, 1976, EPA Issued interpretative guidelines for alremlsslons in non-attainment areas. These guidelines permitted expansions if missions were under.100 Tons/yr. or 22 Ibs/hr in non-attainment areas. If emissions exceed 22 Ibs/hr, new emissions must be offset from existing sources. The Dec. 1976 Federal register again advised the permitting agencies EPA would sue them if the regulations were not upheld. In order to complete air applications to construct, the project must be completely defined, such that small quantities of emissions are known at every discharge point. Historically this is not done until six to nine months after project funds are apprgved for major projects. In the past, the air construction permit could be obtained in thirty days. No delays resulted In construction. However, the time required for this process Is now uncertain, and we attempt to apply for a construction permit as early as possible. This has the disadvantage of not having refined emission data, but is necessary to minimize delays of construction without a permit. The case in point is the Calvert City project construction permit. "m m AP00024880 Mr. Richard Fleming -6- GCWOA Another difficulty Is that In both Region IV, EPA and Kentucky personnel, inexperienced in the field and not proficient in the English communications, cause additional delays and undue bottlenecks In the process. Industry has the additional burden of teaching these inex perienced personnel in basic communications and in the total field. Nitric Acid, Air Permit, Pasadena Plant. In the case of the Pasadena Nitric Acid Plant, there are frequent start-ups and shut-downs which result in excess nitrogen dioxide emissions. When the plant Is on stream, the plant emissions of nitrogen oxide are well within the federal limit of 3 lbs/ton of nitrogen oxide per ton of acid. However, because of the frequent start-ups and reporting of excess emissions during start-ups, APCI has come to the attention of Texas Air Control Board, Harris County Pollution Control Agency, and EPA. Because of the plant reliability, Texas Air Control Board has not taken final action on air construction permit for this plant after restarting operations of November, 1975. ] : i We met with these three agencies last week and believe the State will extend our Air Construction Permit to make further reliability improvements. However, indications are that TACB and Harris County after the next period will take legal action if the plant does not consistently operate four to six weeks without shut down. We were also successful meeting with the EPA to withdraw their previous 114 letter for information on a performance test without penalty. EPA and APCI will reschedule the performance test for the onstream plant. AP00024881 Mr. Richard Fleming -7- GCWDA Status of Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority NPDES Permit for the Washburn Tunnel The Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, GCWDA, and the participants, after long negotiations short of formal legal action, accepted a NPDES permit on June, 1974. Certain provisions of this permit, such as affluent limits and July, 1977 effluent limits on BOD, COD, suspended solids, were undesirable to both GCWDA and the participants. Engineering studies were made to determine the cost of meeting 1977 NPDES limits. This capital was estimated at $27 MM with no benefit to the receiving waters. Action was initiated in 1976 with the EPA to revise the limits upward and remove affluent limits from permit. Affluent limits are limits Imposed on the raw waste before treatment. In meetings initially with EPA and the Texas Water Quality Board, (TWQB), and subsequently with TWqB, a permit was issued oh 31 August 77 by TWQB and accepted by GCWDA and participants. BOD was Increased from 7001 to 9141 lbs/day and COD from 82,464 to 143,100 lbs/day and with no affluent limits. Since EPA is planning to give permitting authority to the TWQB, the EPA will concur with TWQB limits. The existing treatment plant meets the new limits. Cyanide Limits However, the cyanide values in the permit have been sporadicly exceeded. GCWDA has not determined what is the cause of the excursions since Cyanide at the concentrations discharged should be biodegradable. APCI however appears to be the major contributor of Cyanide to Gulf Coast raw waste load, 90-80%. However, APCI's waste load of Cyanide has not increased significantly from the past (80 to 100 lbs/day) to attribute for amount of excess Cyanide discharged. We have requested GCWDA to fully analyze each participant's stream for cyanide, and the efficiency of the treatment plant. This comprehensive study should be completed by GCWDA by September 20th. Our process technology group has developed several alternatives to remove cyanide. Indications are that 60% of the Cyanide can be removed by steam stripping at an operating cost of $105M with capital of $518M as the least costly alternative. However, the data is not consistent as yet to establish the solution to the sporadic high Cyanide values, e.g., t AP00024882 Hr. Richard Fleming - 8- GCWQA analytical inaccuracies, greater discharge from other participants, less efficient biological treatment, or metabolic by-products causing higher values. These data must be further evaluated before a solution can be recommended with confidence. The regulatory agencies (EPA & TWQB) to date have been Informed in July concerning this problem, but no response has been received to date. AJD:djm A. J. Diglio mm mm AP00024883