DATE: April 25, 1995

TO: Karl Spilhaus

FROM: David Trumbull

Re: ATMI - EPA Atlanta Mtg on Metals in Textile Discharges

Thursday, April 20, ATMI and state textile organization people met at the Lenox Inn in Buchhead (Atlanta), GA to plan for the Friday meeting with EPA. Present were Bob Lee form the Ogletree law firm; Wallace Storey, retired from Milliken; Ralph Mellom. Ogletree; Al _______; Sam Griggs from Greenville, SC, JPS Textiles and Converter and South Carolina Textile Manf. Ass’n. (Sam used to work for EPA); Gene Roberts, Westpoint Stevens; Carl, Vanity Fair; Terry, Vanity Fair; David Trumbull, NTA; Rex Stuckey, Coats American and Georgia Textile Manuf. Ass’n.; Jay Stewart, Collins & Aikman and North Carolina Textile Manuf. Ass’n.; Gilbert, an outside technical consultant; Jeffrey Silliman, Milliken and ATMI Water Subcmte; Karil Kochenderfer, ATMI.

We agreed that our position to EPA is that our metals, found in textile dyes are stable and are not bio-available. We propose ultra-filtration (at 500 molecular weight). Pre-metalized dyes of concern contain copper, chrome, cobalt, and nickel. We decided to point out to EPA that we have worked with them on this issue for years, but to not bring up the fact that the metal finishers, who sued instead of working with EPA, have already gotten their relief.

Thursday evening we dined at the Cherokee Town and Country Club. Roy Bowen with the Georgia Textile Manuf. Ass’n. was very gracious in welcoming me to Atlanta.

Friday, April 21 we met with EPA (Karil will send me a complete attendance list). Region I was represented by Jerry Potamis, Section Head; Mark Spinale, Pre-treatment Coordinator; and Nick Prodany, Permits. I passed the coffee break with Mark and Nick, and took the MARTA to the airport with Mark. Both Mark and Nick indicated in several ways that they think EPA should give us the relief requested. Mark was surprises no state people from New England attended, he suggested Angelo Liberti (Liberti was the one person to respond to our fax; his travel budget did not permit him to attend, but he wants us to send him the papers). Nick Prodany writes permits for MA, NH, and ME; CT, RI, and VT do their own under his supervision. He does all industry and is not familiar with textile mills. Jerry and Nick stayed for the afternoon session for EPA people. EPA Headquarters was represented by Mike Cook, Chief, Office of Industrial Waste; Margaret Stasikowski, Deputy Chief for Science and Technology; and others. Region IV was represented by several people including Mike Magee, acting director Region IV who chaired the meeting;; Fritz Wagner; and others. State environmental agency people from several southeastern states were present.

Jeff Silliman of Milliken presented the textile industry position. The metals limits EPA has imposed are not appropriate for the textile industry because our metals are in dye molecules that are stable and not bio-available. These molecules are chosen precisely because they do not easily breakdown, hence they are colorfast; this very property causes them not to be of concern in discharges. Gilbert _____ presented technical information to support our position and presented an alternative metals limit methodology for textile dyes based on ultra-filtration. Jerry and Karil both pointed out that the textile industry has been working on this issue with EPA since 1991. We have worked with EPA successfully in the past; we wish to continue; but we do need to see a movement toward resolution.

Mike Cook of EPA headquarters stated that EPA wants to move toward instream biological testing. Margaret Stasikowski stated that EPA is comfortable that textile dyes are different from other metals in discharges. Dr. Stasikowski informed the meeting that the grant proposal is at peer review state now with results expected in about a month. EPA was concerned that we had address acute toxicity but not chronic. The industry assumes that chronic is related to acute. Mark Spinale was concerned that while our proposal has merit for direct dischargers, it is, he thinks, difficult to implement in the case of a facility discharging to a POTW.

There was much discussion of whether the relief could be provided via friendly administrative orders as has been done in some cases. The problem is that an AO, while giving the company breathing room from EPA action does not protect against citizen suits. If the relief is provided by writing a compliance schedule into the permit there may be protection from suits, but there is a limit to how long EPA can stretch out compliance schedules. Jerry Potamis stated that state water regulations would have to change before some regional offices would have freedom to write compliance schedules into permits.

ATMI presented the following Interim Proposal:

1 Monitor and report for metals
2 Periodic wet testing
3 Re-open any existing permit (with limits) to incorporate the above
4 Anti-backsliding doesn’t apply because there is new science.