National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous

air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing major sources in

phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production

plants. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the facilities

covered by this proposed rule include hydrogen fluoride (HF); arsenic,

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel (HAP

metals); and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) emissions. Human exposure to

the HAP constituents in these emissions may be associated with adverse

carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous system, dermal, developmental, and/

or reproductive health effects. Implementation of the proposed

requirements would achieve an emission reduction of HF estimated at 315

megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (345 tons per year [tpy]). The standards

would reduce 940 Mg/yr (1035 tpy)of total fluorides and particulate

matter containing heavy metals which are regulated pollutants under the

Clean Air Act as amended (the Act).

The standards are proposed under the authority of section 112(d) of

the Act and are based on the Administrator's determination that

phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production

plants may reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the 189 HAPs

listed in section 112(b) of the Act from the various process operations

found within the industry. The proposed NESHAP would provide protection

to the public by requiring all phosphoric acid manufacturing and

phosphate fertilizers plants that are major sources to meet emission

standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed standards must be received on

or before February 25, 1997 at the address noted below.

Public hearing. If anyone contacts the Agency requesting to speak

at a public hearing, the hearing will be held on February 10, 1997

beginning at 9 a.m. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must

contact the Agency by January 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in

duplicate if possible) to Public Docket No. A-94-02 at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (formerly known as the Air Docket) (6102), 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460. The Agency requests that a separate

copy also be sent to the contact person listed below. The docket is

located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground

floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to or otherwise considered by Agency in the

development of this proposed rulemaking. For additional information on

the Docket and electronic availability see Supplementary Information.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the Agency requesting to speak

at a public hearing, the hearing will be held at the Agency's Office of

Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. If a

public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions

during the oral presentation but will not respond to the presentations

or comments. Written statements and supporting information will be

considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting

information subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held.

Persons wishing to present oral testimony or to inquire as to whether

or not a hearing is to be held should notify Ms. Cathy Coats, Minerals

and Inorganic Chemicals Group (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number

(919) 541-5422.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning specific

aspects of this proposal, contact Mr. David Painter [telephone number

(919) 541-5515], Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission

Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities. Today's proposed rulemaking would apply to

process components at new and existing phosphoric acid manufacturing

and phosphate fertilizers production plants. Examples of those process

components are listed in the following table:

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

Source category Examples

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

Phosphoric acid manufacturing............. Wet Process Phosphoric Acid

Plant, Superphosphoric Acid

Plant, Phosphate Rock

Dryer, Phosphate Rock

Calciner, Purified

Phosphoric Acid Plant.

Phosphate fertilizers production.......... Diammonium and/or

Monoammonium Phosphate

Plant, Granular Triple

Superphosphate Plant,

Granular Triple

Superphosphate Storage

Building.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the

proposed regulations. This table lists the types of entities that the

Agency is now aware could be potentially regulated. To determine

whether your facility could be regulated by the proposed regulations,

you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the proposed

rules. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) to allow interested

parties to readily identify and locate documents so that they can

intelligently and effectively participate in the rulemaking process,

and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review. The docket

index, technical support information, the economic profile of the

industry (item II-A-27) and other materials related to this rulemaking

are available for review in the docket center or copies may be mailed

on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by

calling (202) 260-7548 or 7549. The FAX number for the Center is (202)

260-4000. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of

today's document which includes the proposed regulatory text is

available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of Agency's

electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The service is

free, except for the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up

[[Page 68431]]

to a 14,400 bps modem. If more information on the TTN is needed, call

the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

The information in this preamble is organized as shown below.

I. Statutory Authority

II. Introduction

A. Background

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

D. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers

Production Industry Profile

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions

D. Monitoring Requirements

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

IV. Selection of Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Source Categories

B. Selection of Emission Sources and Pollutants

C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources

1. Background

2. Emissions Limits--General

3. Emission Limits for Classes of Sources

D. Selection of Test Methods

E. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

F. Selection of Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping

Requirements

G. Solicitation of Comments

V. Impacts of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

B. Air Quality Impacts

C. Water Impacts

D. Solid Waste Impacts

E. Energy Impacts

F. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts

G. Cost Impacts

H. Economic Impacts

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Public Hearing

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive

Order 12875

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Clean Air Act

I. Pollution Prevention Act

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections

101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.

7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Introduction

A. Background

The EPA estimates that up to 550 Mg/yr (605 tpy) of HF, the

predominate HAP, and other HAPs are emitted from sources at phosphoric

acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production plants at the

current level of control. Implementing MACT-level controls is expected

to reduce these HAP emissions from regulated sources by about 315 Mg/yr

(345 tpy) nationwide. Plants affected by the standards could achieve

these reductions by upgrading or installing wet scrubbing systems.

The overall effect would be to raise the control performance of

plants in the industry to the level achieved by the best performing

plants. In addition to the health and environmental benefits associated

with HAP emission reductions, benefits of this action include a

decrease in site-specific levels of nonHAP pollutants and lowered

occupational exposure levels for employees.

The nationwide capital and annualized costs of the proposed NESHAP,

including emission controls and associated monitoring equipment, are

estimated at $1.4 million and $862,000/yr, respectively. The economic

impacts are predicted to increase prices in all products less than

three fourths of a percent. At least one company in the industry is a

small entity which would be subject to the proposed standards. The

economic impact of the proposed NESHAP on this company is estimated to

be low and would not be significant. No production line or plant

closures are expected.

The Agency has proposed controls at the MACT-floor level and

tailored the requirements to allow less-costly testing and monitoring

by using surrogates for HAP emissions.

A detailed description of industry processes and emissions data

used to support the standards is presented in the draft ``Technical

Support Document for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate

Fertilizers Production NESHAP'' which, along with additional supporting

information is included in a memorandum in air docket A-94-02, as item

II-B-20. This memorandum is referred to as the TSD in the following

discussions.

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

Section 112 of the Act requires that EPA promulgate regulations for

the control of HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources.

The statute requires the regulations to reflect the maximum degree of

reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable taking into

consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any nonair

quality health and environmental reduction, and energy requirements.

This level of control is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable

control technology (MACT).

The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of

technology-based emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f)

and work practice standards under 112(h) for categories of sources that

emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through the

application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques

including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or

eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes,

substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing

systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing,

or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack,

storage or fugitive emissions point; (4) design, equipment, work

practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator

training or certification) as provided in subsection (h); or (5) a

combination of the above. [See section 112(d)(2).] The EPA may

promulgate more stringent regulations at a later date to address

residual risk that remains after the imposition of controls. [See

section 112(f)(2).]

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

The Act was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality

of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and

welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (CAA, section

101(b)(1)). Title III of the Act establishes a control technology-based

program to reduce stationary source emissions of HAPs. The goal of

section 112(d) is to apply such control technology to reduce emissions

and thereby reduce the hazard of HAPs emitted from stationary sources.

This proposed rule is technology-based (i.e., based on MACT). The

Act's strategy avoids dependence on a risk-based approach which would

be limited by incomplete information on what HAPs are emitted, what

level of emissions is occurring, what health and safety benchmarks are

available to assess risk, what health effects may be caused by certain

pollutants, and how best to model these effects, among other things.

Because of these issues, a detailed quantitative risk assessment of

potential effects from HAPs emitted from phosphoric acid manufacturing

and phosphate fertilizer production plants is not included in this

rulemaking.

The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health

can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the

health effects may be experienced is dependent upon (1) the ambient

concentrations observed

[[Page 68432]]

in the area, (2) duration of exposures, and (3) characteristics of

exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health

conditions, and lifestyle) which vary significantly with the

population. Some of these factors are also influenced by source-

specific characteristics (e.g., emission rates and local meteorological

conditions) as well as pollutant-specific characteristics.

Available emission data, collected during development of this

proposed NESHAP, show that HF, a number of HAP metals, and MIBK are the

most significant HAPs emitted from phosphoric acid manufacturing and

phosphate fertilizer production plants. These pollutants have the

potential to be reduced by implementation of the proposed emission

limits. Following is a summary of the potential health effects

associated with exposures, at some level, to emitted pollutants that

would be reduced by the standard.

Short-term inhalation exposure to gaseous HF and related fluoride

compounds can cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including

severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Long-term inhalation exposures

to low levels of HF by humans has been reported to result in irritation

and congestion of the nose, throat, and bronchi while damage to liver,

kidney, and lungs has been observed in animals. Long-term inhalation

exposure, at levels of HF well above the ambient concentrations being

observed at phosphate fertilizers complexes can result in skeletal

fluorosis (i.e., an accumulation of fluoride in the bones). There is

generally a lack of information on human health effects associated with

exposures to hydrogen fluoride at current ambient air concentrations

near phosphate fertilizers complexes. Occupational studies have not

specifically implicated inhaled fluoride as a cause of cancer and the

Agency has not classified HF with respect to potential carcinogenicity.

Almost all metals appearing on the section 112(b) list of HAPs are

emitted from phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers

production facilities. The most important of the nonvolatile metals

that would be reduced by the standard are arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,

chromium, nickel, and manganese compounds. The major target of toxicity

for these metals via inhalation tends to be the respiratory tract, with

the exception of manganese, for which the central nervous system is the

primary target. These metals can cause a range of effects including

mucous membrane irritation (e.g., bronchitis, decreased lung function),

gastrointestinal effects, nervous system disorders (from loss of

function to tremor and numbness), skin irritation, and reproductive and

developmental disorders. Additionally, several of the metals accumulate

in the environment and in the human body. Cadmium, for example, is a

cumulative pollutant, which can cause kidney effects after the

cessation of exposure. Similarly, the onset of effects from beryllium

exposure may be delayed months to years. Metals and metal compounds

that would be reduced by this proposed rule are also known (arsenic and

chromium) and probable (beryllium and cadmium)human carcinogens.

Mercury, a volatile metal, would also be reduced by the proposed

standard. All forms of mercury may be characterized as quite toxic,

with different health effects associated with different forms of the

pollutant. Methyl mercury is the most toxic form of mercury to which

humans and wildlife are generally exposed. Exposure to methyl mercury

occurs primarily through ingestion of fish. Methyl mercury primarily

effects the nervous systems in humans. The range of neurotoxic effects

can vary from subtle decrements in motor skills and sensory ability to

tremors, inability to walk, convulsions, and death. Exposure to

inorganic mercury is associated with renal impairment. Some forms of

mercury have also been classified as possible human carcinogens.

Exposure to mercury compounds can also cause effects in plants, birds,

and non-human mammals. Reproductive effects are the primary concern for

avian mercury poisoning.

The organic compound that would be reduced by this standard is

MIBK. Some of the human health effects associated with short-term

exposure, at some level, to this pollutant include irritation to the

eyes and mucous membranes, weakness, headache, nausea, lightheadedness,

dizziness, incoordination, and narcosis. Long-term occupational

exposure has been observed to cause nausea, headache, burning in the

eyes, weakness, insomnia, intestinal pain, and slight enlargement of

the liver in humans. No information is available on the carcinogenic

effects of MIBK in humans.

D. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production

Industry Profile

This section includes general overviews of the two source

categories for which NESHAP are being proposed. Phosphoric acid is

manufactured by way of two process approaches. One approach is the

thermal process whereby purified elemental phosphorous is combusted and

hydrated to directly form phosphoric acid. There are currently ten

facilities operating in the United States. For the period from 1971-

1991, nationwide production of phosphoric acid via the thermal process

declined by forty-seven percent and this trend is expected to continue.

No new thermal process plants are expected to be constructed. The

decline in usage of this process may be attributed to price competition

by competitive products, energy costs associated with production of

feedstock phosphorous and safety concerns with regard to shipping

phosphorous.

The second means of manufacturing phosphoric acid is through wet

processes. There are 47 wet acid plants at 21 locations. The basic step

for producing phosphoric acid is the acidulation of phosphate rock.

Typically, sulfuric acid, phosphate rock and water are reacted with one

another to produce phosphoric acid and gypsum. When phosphate rock is

acidulated to manufacture wet process phosphoric acid (WPPA), fluorine

contained in the rock is released. Fluoride compounds, including HF,

are evolved as particulates and gases which are emitted to the

atmosphere unless removed from the exhaust stream. Some of these same

fluoride compounds also remain in the product acid and are available

for release as air pollutants during subsequent processing of the acid.

Gypsum is pumped as a slurry to ponds atop stacks of waste gypsum where

the liquids separate from the slurry and are decanted for return to the

process with process cooling water. The gypsum is discarded as a major

solid waste stream. There are 13 acid plants at eight locations which

concentrate WPPA to make superphosphoric acid (SPA). Most producers use

the vacuum evaporation process. One manufacturer uses the submerged

combustion process to achieve the same effect.

The bulk of WPPA is used to produce fertilizers and animal feeds.

In addition, two companies now use solvent extraction processes to

further refine WPPA into purified phosphoric acid (PPA) for use in food

manufacturing or specialized chemical processes. Purified phosphoric

acid produced through wet processes now competes directly with acid

produced by the thermal process.

There are two major processes employed for the production of

phosphate fertilizers. One produces ammoniated phosphate fertilizers in

the form of either diammonium phosphate (DAP) or monoammonium phosphate

(MAP). Approximately 85 percent of all ammonium phosphates are produced

as DAP. Diammonium phosphate and MAP

[[Page 68433]]

plants are generally collocated with wet-process phosphoric acid

plants. Forty individual production units for DAP or MAP are located at

22 facilities. Plants that produce DAP and MAP are generally co-located

with wet-process phosphoric acid plants. Most facilities can produce

either product in the same process train.

Diammonium phosphate and MAP are manufactured from phosphoric acid

and ammonia. The process consists of three basic steps: reaction,

granulation, and finishing operations such as drying, cooling, and

screening. Side reactions resulting from the production of ammonium

phosphates produce ammonium fluoride, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium

fluorosilicate. In addition, some of the fluorine is liberated as

SiF4 and HF. Sources of fluoride emissions from DAP/MAP plants

include the reactor, granulator, dryer, cooler, screens, and mills.

The second major process employed in the phosphate fertilizers

industry produces granular triple superphosphate (GTSP). Ten production

units at seven facilities produce GTSP in the U.S. The primary raw

materials used to produce GTSP are WPPA and ground phosphate rock.

Plants that produce GTSP are generally collocated with wet-process

phosphoric acid plants. Granular triple superphosphate is an impure

monocalcium phosphate made by reacting phosphoric acid with ground

phosphate rock. After manufacture, the product is sent to a storage

building by a conveyor belt which discharges the material into bins or

piles for curing. The GTSP is typically held five to ten days to

stabilize the composition, after which it is considered cured and ready

for shipping. Sources of emissions from GTSP plants include the

reactor, the granulator, the dryer, the cooler, the screening and

crushing equipment, and the storage building. Fluorides are emitted in

both gaseous and particulate form. The reactor and granulator account

for about 38 percent of the fluoride emissions; the dryer and screens

account for 50 percent, and the storage facilities account for the

remainder.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

The proposed standards apply to affected sources at each existing,

modified, reconstructed, and newly constructed phosphoric acid

manufacturing plant and each phosphate fertilizers production plant.

All phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production

plants that are major sources of HAPs would be subject to the

standards. Provisions are included in the NESHAP General Provisions (40

CFR part 63, subpart A) for the owner or operator to obtain a

determination of applicability. A facility that is determined by EPA to

be an area source would not be subject to the NESHAP.

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

The emissions levels being proposed for NESHAP for existing and new

sources are given in the tables below. The permit information and test

data used to select these proposed limits are presented in the TSD

referenced above. The rationale for selection of the individual

emissions limits is explained in section V.C. of this notice.

Proposed Emissions Limitations for Existing Phosphoric Acid

Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Plants

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

Proposed emission

Class of source Pollutant limit

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

Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Total Fluorides... 0.020 lb. Total

Plant. Fluoride (F-)Per

Ton P2O5 Feed.

Superphosphoric Acid Plant...... Total Fluorides... 0.010 lb. F- Per

Ton P2O5 Feed.

Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Total Fluorides... 0.060 lb. F- Per

Phosphate Plant. Ton P2O5 Feed.

Granular Triple Superphos-phate Total Fluorides... 0.150 lb. F- Per

Plant. Ton P2O5 Feed.

Granular Triple Superphos-phate Total Fluorides... 5.0 X 10-4 lb. F-

Storage Buildings. Per Hour Per Ton

of P2O5 Stored.

Phosphate Rock Dryers........... Particulate Matter 0.2150 lb. PM Per

Ton of Rock Feed.

Phosphate Rock Calciners........ Particulate Matter 0.060 grains PM

Per Dry Standard

Cubic Foot.

Purified Phosphoric Acid Plants. MIBK.............. 0.168640 lb. MIBK

Per Ton P2O5

Feed.

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

Proposed Emissions Limitations for New Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing

Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Plants

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

Proposed emission

Class of source Pollutant limit

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

Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Total Fluorides... 0.01350 lb. Total

Plant. Fluoride (F-) per

ton P2O5 Feed.

Superphos-phoric Acid Plant..... Total Fluorides... 0.00870 lb. F- per

ton P2O5 Feed.

Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Total Fluorides... 0.0580 lb. F- per

Phosphate Plant. ton P2O5 Feed.

Granular Triple Superphos-phate Total Fluorides... 0.1230 lb. F- per

Plant. ton P2O5 Feed.

Granular Triple Superphos-phate Total Fluorides... 5.0 x 10-4 lb. F-

Storage Buildings. Per Hour Per Ton

of P2O5 Stored.

Phosphate Rock Dryers........... Particulate Matter 0.060 lb. PM Per

Ton of Rock Feed.

Phosphate Rock Calciners........ Particulate Matter 0.040 grains PM

Per Dry Standard

Cubic Foot.

Purified Phosphoric Acid Plants. MIBK.............. 0.168640 lb. MIBK

Per Ton P2O5

Feed.

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

C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions

A one-time performance test would be required to demonstrate

initial compliance with each applicable numerical limit for total

fluorides or particulate matter. The owner/operator would be required

to record process and control device operating parameters during the

performance test. The owner/operator would be required to maintain

scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate within plus or minus ten

percent of the values recorded during the performance test. Any

exceedance of that operating range would be considered a violation of

the applicable standard. A source would be allowed up to 30 days to re-

test and demonstrate compliance with the numerical limit of the

standard. As an alternative to the preceding, the proposed regulations

would provide sources the option of establishing ranges of the control

device operating ranges on the basis of data derived from previous

performance tests

[[Page 68434]]

or specially-conducted performance tests. Any exceedance of those

ranges would be considered a violation of the numerical limit of the

applicable standard.

Compliance with the limitations upon MIBK emissions would be

established through inventory and production records and through daily

measurements of process parameters.

D. Monitoring Requirements

The proposed monitoring provisions require the owner or operator to

continuously monitor the pressure drop and liquid flow rate of

scrubbing devices used to control total fluorides or particulate

matter. The feed rate of raw materials to the processes would also be

continuously monitored.

For PPA plants that emit MIBK, the standards would require

continuous monitoring of chiller stack temperature and daily monitoring

of MIBK concentrations at two points in the process.

As required by the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A), the owner or operator also must develop and implement a

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

All notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the

General Provisions would apply to phosphoric acid manufacturing and

phosphate fertilizers production facilities. These include: (1) initial

notification(s) of applicability, notification of performance test, and

notification of compliance status; (2) a report of performance test

results; (3) a Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan with semiannual

reports of reportable events (if they occur); and (4) semiannual

reports of excess emissions. If excess emissions are reported, the

owner or operator must report quarterly until a request to return the

reporting frequency to semiannual is approved.

The NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) require

that records be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each

record. The owner or operator must retain the records on site for at

least 2 years but may retain the records off site the remaining 3

years. The files may be retained on microfilm, microfiche, on a

computer, on computer disks, or on magnetic tape disks. Reports may be

made on paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available

and compatible computer software.

IV. Selection of Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Source Categories

Section 112(c) of the Act directs the Agency to list each category

of major and area sources, as appropriate, emitting one or more of the

189 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA published an

initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and

may amend the list at any time. ``Phosphoric acid manufacturing and

phosphate fertilizers production'' are two of the 174 categories of

sources listed in the notice.

For this study, EPA collected information and data through the

following: (1) review of existing literature; (2) visits to State air

pollution control agencies to obtain plant-specific test data and

permits; (3) visits to three plant sites; (4) meetings with

representatives of individual companies; (5) meetings with The

Fertilizer Institute, an industry trade organization; and (8) meetings

with State air pollution control agency personnel. Based on this

information and data, EPA believes that 15 facilities may be major

sources subject to the NESHAP. As defined in the Act, a major source

must have the potential to emit 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) or more of a single

HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of a combination of HAPs.

On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941), EPA published a schedule for the

promulgation of standards for the sources selected for regulation under

section 112(c) of the Act. According to this schedule, MACT standards

for this source category must be promulgated no later than November 15,

2000. If standards are not promulgated by May 15, 2002 (18 months

following the promulgation deadline), section 112(j) of the Act

requires States or local agencies with approved permit programs to

issue permits or revise existing permits containing either an

equivalent emission limitation or an alternate emission limitation for

HAP control.

Section 112 of the Act requires the Agency to establish national

standards to reduce air emissions from major sources and certain area

sources that emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of

HAP to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the Agency to use

this pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source categories

for which NESHAP will be developed and a schedule for development of

those NESHAP. The Agency must list all known source categories and

subcategories of ``major sources'' that emit one or more of the listed

HAP. A major source is defined in section 112(a) as any stationary

source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area

and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit in the

aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons per year or more of any one

HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP. This list of

source categories was published in the Federal Register on July 16,

1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes phosphoric acid manufacturing and

phosphate fertilizers production.

For area sources, the Agency examined available data on facilities,

emissions, and health and environmental effects of emitted HAPs and

concluded that there is no threat of adverse effects to human health or

the environment from the area sources in these two source categories.

Consequently, the Agency decided not to list the area sources.

B. Selection of Emission Sources and Pollutants

While phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers

production facilities are listed separately for the purposes of section

112 (c) of the Act, they are generally collocated. Phosphoric acid

manufacturing facilities provide feedstock for phosphate fertilizer

production facilities and much of the phosphoric acid produced in the

United States is consumed in the manufacture of fertilizers. Thus, the

Agency has chosen to regulate component processes of both source

categories through a combined rulemaking action. This course of action

was previously adopted when the Agency promulgated new source

performance standards (NSPS) (see 40 FR 33152) to limit emissions of

total fluoride compounds (which include the HAP HF) from several

processes in the phosphate fertilizers industry. The NSPS apply to

processes units producing WPPA, SPA, DAP, and GTSP, including GTSP

storage buildings.

Once source categories have been listed as major for one or more

HAPs, the Act requires that the Agency establish emission limits for

all HAP-emitting units at sources within the source category regardless

of whether or not those individual units emit HAPs in major quantities.

An exception to this occurs when the Agency has listed specific types

of sources as major sources and is developing a separate rule for those

individual sources. Examples are boilers and cooling towers. For

phosphoric acid manufacturing, the Agency explored the need to

establish standards for phosphate rock drying and calcination (arsenic,

beryllium, cadmium,

[[Page 68435]]

chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel (HAP metals) emissions), WPPA

manufacturing (HF emissions), SPA manufacturing (HF emissions), thermal

process SPA (phosphorous emissions), and solvent extracted SPA (methyl

isobutyl ketone (MIBK) emissions) which is commonly referred to as

purified phosphoric acid (PPA).

A review of information for existing thermal process acid plants

indicated that none are major sources of HAP emissions nor are they

collocated with major sources. The potential for emissions of the HAP

phosphorous is quite minimal because phosphorous is extremely reactive

with oxygen and, therefore, does not exist in nature as a pure

substance. Many plants previously in service have been closed due to

economic pressures and no new ones are expected to be built. Since no

existing thermal process plants are major sources and no new ones are

to be built, there is no benefit to be derived from the development of

applicable NESHAP. Given that the manufacture of WPPA, SPA, and PPA

cause emission of significant quantities of HAPs and the availability

of emission control systems, the Agency elected to develop and propose

NESHAP for manufacture of those three products.

The phosphate fertilizers production source category potentially

includes production of DAP, MAP, GTSP, normal superphosphate (NSP), and

ammonium polyphosphate (APP). No NESHAP were developed for the NSP

process because no production occurs at major sources and no stand-

alone major sources were identified. Standards were not developed for

APP production because the pollutant of concern is ammonia which is not

a listed HAP. For the other phosphate fertilizers production processes,

emissions limits were developed and are being proposed in today's

action.

Today's action proposes NESHAP that would be applicable to new and

existing major sources emitting HAP from the phosphoric acid

manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production source categories.

For major sources, the rules would apply to each of the following

affected sources: (1) WPPA plants; (2) SPA plants; (3) PPA plants; (4)

phosphate rock dryers; (5) phosphate rock calciners; (6) DAP/MAP

plants; (7) GTSP plants; and (8) GTSP storage facilities. The proposed

emission limits are based on an analysis of the available emission test

data from the various types of sources present in the source

categories. Except for PPA plants, phosphate rock dryers, and phosphate

rock calciners, the potentially affected units listed above are subject

to NSPS and State regulations which limit emissions of total fluorides.

The Agency test methods used to determine compliance with the NSPS

measure total fluoride and are not specific to the HAP HF. At the time

data were collected for this action, many sources affected by today's

proposal were subject to either NSPS or State regulations. No

performance test data were provided which specifically measured the HAP

HF. Therefore, the database contains many performance tests for total

fluorides and none for HF. To support a State air toxics permit

application, one company performed tests which indicated that the HF

content of emissions from WPPA plants can vary from 28 to 49 percent of

total fluoride emissions depending upon whether the phosphate rock has

been calcined (docket item II-I-32 cc). Since the wet scrubbing systems

used for control of total fluorides are effective at reducing HF

emissions, the Agency chose to use total fluorides as a surrogate for

HF for those classes of sources for which HF is the regulated

pollutant. This approach allows use of the available test data for

establishing the MACT level of control and it provides consistency with

current Federal and State permits. It would also result in a common

basis for permitting in those cases where sources would continue to be

covered by existing regulations but not be subject to NESHAP due to

their nonmajor status.

Particulate emissions from phosphate rock dryers and calciners,

contain HAP metals. Particulate matter emissions from dryers include

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel.

Particulate matter emissions from calciners include arsenic, beryllium,

chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel. However, there are no stack

test data specific to HAP metals. All permits and test data are for

particulate matter. In the absence of detailed information on HAP

metals emissions, the MACT floor has been determined using particulate

matter as a surrogate for HAP metals. Accordingly, the proposed

emissions limits are expressed as particulate matter.

One PPA plant is a major source of MIBK emissions. For that source,

there is sufficient information to directly establish NESHAP for MIBK.

C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources

1. Background

After EPA has identified the specific source categories or

subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, it must

set MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112

establishes a minimum baseline or ``floor'' for standards. For new

sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory cannot be

less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice

by the best-controlled similar source. [See section 112(d)(3).] The

standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for

new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average

emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of

existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more

sources, or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or

subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.

After the floor has been determined for a new or existing source in

a source category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT

standards that are no less stringent than the floor. Such standards

must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. In

establishing the standards, EPA may distinguish among classes, types,

and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. [See section

112(d)(1).]

The next step in establishing MACT standards is traditionally the

investigation of regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only

alternatives at least as stringent as the floor may be selected.

Information about the industry is analyzed to develop model plants for

projecting national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels

and cost, energy, and secondary impacts. Several regulatory alternative

levels (which may be different levels of emissions control, equal to or

more stringent than the floor levels) are then evaluated to select the

regulatory alternative that best reflects the appropriate MACT level.

The selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but

the control level selected must be technically achievable. The

regulatory alternatives selected for new and existing sources may be

different because of different MACT floors, and separate regulatory

decisions may be made for new and existing sources.

The Agency may consider going ``beyond-the-floor'' to require more

stringent controls. Here, EPA considers the achievable emission

reductions of HAPs (and possibly other pollutants that are co-

controlled), cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, and other non-

air environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the maximum

degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable economic or other

impacts. [See section 112(d)(2).]

[[Page 68436]]

Subcategorization within a source category may be considered only

when there is enough evidence to demonstrate clearly that there are

significant differences among the subcategories. The criteria to

consider include process operations (including differences between

batch and continuous operations), emission characteristics, and control

device applicability.

The EPA examined the processes, the process operations, and other

factors to determine if separate classes of units, operations, or other

criteria have an effect on air emissions. For phosphoric acid

manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production plants,

characteristics of emissions streams and, therefore, effectiveness of

control technologies are differentiated by the products being

manufactured. Thus, in this rulemaking, the Agency has adopted the

overall approach used in the previous development of NSPS and developed

proposed emissions limits for major unit operations that manufacture

specific products.

2. Emission Limits--General

For existing sources, Sec. 112(d)(3) of the Act requires that the

Agency establish NESHAP no less stringent than ``the average emission

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing

sources (for which the Administrator has information).'' This language

has led to two differing interpretations of the intent of the CAA

language. One interpretation is that the Act requires the Agency to

establish MACT on the basis of permitted emissions limits. The other

interpretation holds that MACT must be established on the basis of

actual emissions as established through emissions test data. In the

document ``Municipal Waste Combustion: Background Information for

Promulgated Standards and Guidelines--Summary of Public Comments and

Responses,'' EPA-453/R-95-0136, October 1995, published in support of

the December 19, 1995 Federal Register notice (60 FR 65387) for

promulgated standards of performance for new municipal waste combustors

(MWC) and emission guidelines for existing MWC, the Agency discussed

the legislative history and relevant case law at some length. In that

discussion, the Agency concluded that Congress did not directly speak

to the question at issue. The discussion was focused upon Sec. 129 of

the Act. Since sections 129 and 112 are quite similarly worded, the

same approach is being applied in this instance. Accordingly, the

Agency has applied the test from Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

that its interpretation of the Act must be a ``permissible

construction'' of the statute.

In this instance, the Agency first notes that it was the clear

intent of Congress that, when possible, NESHAP are to be numerical

limitations derived from the application of emissions control

technologies. As was described above, for existing sources, the

limitations may be no less stringent than the average level of control

achieved by the best controlled twelve percent of those sources. This

is commonly referred to as the MACT floor. As a starting point, the

Agency attempted to identify the technology applied to achieve the

lowest emissions. Since the HAP HF was the main concern for this

standard, the initial approach was focused upon determining MACT for

HF. The same approach was later extended to HAP metals for subsequent

analyses. After thoroughly searching for studies which directly

measured stack emissions of HF, the Agency concluded that there is a

paucity of definitive data as to the exact amount of HF actually being

emitted, although, as was previously noted, the HF content potentially

ranges from 28 to 49 percent of total fluoride. This finding led the

Agency to look for other means to establish a technical basis for

NESHAP. During its information collection effort, the Agency found that

there is a large body of existing data for the surrogate pollutant

total fluoride, which the Agency previously designated for control

under Sec. 111 of the Act through the development of NSPS. Those NSPS

are emissions limitations based upon demonstrated technologies. Given a

paucity of direct data on HF emissions and a large body of data

developed to demonstrate achievement of permitted emissions which

include HF as a component of total fluorides, the Agency chose to use

total fluoride as a surrogate for HF in its analyses. By adopting the

approach of regulating total fluoride as surrogate for HF, the Agency

avails itself of information reflecting the effect of over twenty years

of implementation of NSPS and emissions guidelines (EG) which are

technology-based standards. The Agency has obtained a wealth of

performance data derived from emissions tests conducted to establish

compliance with permitted emissions limitations required by NSPS and

with State-permitted emissions limitations developed pursuant to EG for

previously existing sources. Reviewing this information base reveals

that, in general, the best controlled sources for the various processes

used differently configured combinations of wet scrubbing devices.

Several different types and configurations of wet scrubbing devices

were found to give high levels of removal of fluorides. For most

sources, the control systems were designed to achieve emissions limits

equal to or more stringent than the NSPS. For this rulemaking, the

Agency has concluded that permitted emissions constitute the emissions

limits which the technological controls were designed to achieve. To

determine emissions limits corresponding to MACT floors, the Agency

first identified the median of the top twelve percent of permits issued

for the best controlled sources for each process. Generally, this

resulted in the identification of the third of the five most

stringently permitted sources for a given process. After thus

identifying the best controlled sources and establishing preliminary

MACT floors, the Agency then used the available test data to ascertain

that the permit limits were being achieved and to determine if greater

degrees of control were actually being achieved in practice. For

sources of total fluorides, the range of the available test data showed

that the permitted emissions were reflective of the degree of emissions

control actually being achieved.

For phosphate rock dryers and calciners, the MACT floors were

established using particulate matter as a surrogate for HAP metals. For

dryers, there was very little available test data. So, the MACT floor

analysis was performed using permitted emissions of particulate matter.

For calciners, there were numerous test reports for particulate matter.

The permits for calciners were all based upon general process rate

allowances which were not developed specifically for phosphate rock

calcining. Test data showed that the permits do not reflect the level

of emissions reductions achieved in practice. So, for calciners, the

MACT analysis was based upon the test data.

One source manufactures a purified phosphoric acid through a

solvent extraction method. The plant emits MIBK, which is a HAP. The

source has modified its process several times to improve capacity and

there is no information which the Agency can use to determine the

effects of those modifications upon emissions as determined from

inventory records. Therefore, MACT was determined on the basis of the

original permitted emissions. Those limits were based upon the

engineering design of the controls built into the plant. To that

permitted amount, the Agency added an allowance for fugitive emissions

of

[[Page 68437]]

MIBK known to occur because of utilization of a waste stream in an

adjoining fertilizer plant. The permitted emissions were added to the

fugitives and divided by permitted production capacity to calculate a

unit emissions factor for MIBK based upon the input of P2O5.

For new sources, the most stringent permit issued for any given

process was adopted as MACT, except for calciners. The calciners limit

was based upon test data. Performance test data are presented in the

TSD and show that the most stringent permit limits are being achieved

in practice.

Having thus identified the floor level of control, the Agency then

considered the possibility of setting more stringent limitations. As a

part of that consideration, the Agency modeled MACT floor level

emissions of HF for the purpose of quantifying potential health

concerns. For HF, there is no Agency-approved health bench mark with

which to identify potential public exposure and risk problems. A

screening level exposure analysis was performed using State agency

health bench marks and no health concerns were identified (docket item

II-B-14). In addition, the Agency reviewed a detailed exposure and risk

assessment performed for a source subject to State air toxics

requirements which reached this same conclusion (docket item II-I-32

cc). Besides exploring potential health impacts for HF, the Agency also

examined modeling performed by a source for trace metal emissions from

calciners subject to the MACT floor level of control. Estimated health

risks were minimal. None of the health impacts analyses for existing

sources indicated a need to control emissions beyond the levels

corresponding to the MACT floors. Therefore, the Agency proposes to

establish limits for existing major sources at the floor levels.

During the analysis of public health impacts, the Agency also

considered the need for area source standards. A screening level

exposure analysis using a ten ton per year of HF model plant and State

agency health bench marks did not identify ``a threat of adverse

effects to human health or the environment (by such sources

individually or in the aggregate).'' Therefore, the Agency does not

recommend listing area sources and developing standards.

3. Emission Limits for Classes of Sources

WPPA Plants. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS which limit

emissions of total fluorides. Those NSPS appear in 40 CFR Subpart T.

For NSPS purposes, a WPPA plant is defined as any plant manufacturing

phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate rock and acid. This same

definition is applied herein. The NSPS limit total fluoride emissions

to 0.02 pounds per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. At this

time there are 35 WPPA plants and permitted emissions range from 0.0135

to 0.69 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the

process. Twenty five of those plants are permitted at limits equivalent

to or more stringent than the NSPS. All plants employ wet scrubbing

devices to control total fluoride emissions.

The Act requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in

categories with 30 or more sources must be no less stringent than the

average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent

of those sources. In this instance, the best performing sources are all

subject to permit provisions requiring that they achieve emissions

limitations equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. For those

plants, permitted emissions range from 0.01350 to the NSPS limit of

0.020 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the

process. The median of these permit limits is at the NSPS level of

control and this was selected as the MACT floor level. The available

test data summarized in the TSD show that the plants which form the

basis for the MACT floor are achieving the NSPS level of control.

Tested emissions for all plants permitted at or below the MACT floor

range from 0.0004 to 0.019 pounds of total fluoride per ton of

P2O5 fed to the process. Thus, the emissions limit

corresponding to the MACT floor, which is the NSPS, is being proposed

as MACT for existing WPPA plants.

For new sources, MACT must be as stringent as the emission

limitation that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar

source, as determined by the Administrator. Currently, the most

stringent permit for a WPPA plant is for the Cargill Industries

facility in Riverview Florida which has been permitted at an emission

limitation of 0.01350 pounds of total fluoride per ton of

P2O5 fed to the process. Therefore, this limit is being

proposed for new WPPA plants.

During the development of NESHAP, the Agency examined the emission

of HF from gypsum and cooling pond systems. Recent testing of pond

systems was performed using long path Fourier transform infra-red

spectroscopy to typify emissions of HF (docket item II-D-15). The tests

indicted that although small quantities of HF may be evolved from pond

surfaces, the measured quantities would not be significant in

comparison to overall process emissions. The Agency did investigate

options for treating pond water to further minimize HF emissions

(docket item II-B-9). None of the technologies considered have been

successfully demonstrated on a commercial basis when applied to the

ores and processes common to the United States. Thus, the Agency

concluded that MACT for pond systems is no control.

All the plants which are being used to define MACT discharge

scrubber effluent to cooling ponds. Four sources subject to the NSPS

pump effluent from scrubbers to evaporative cooling towers where the

collected fluorides are subjected to air stripping. This practice

renders the air pollution controls largely ineffective for their

intended purpose. Accordingly, the proposed NESHAP specifically

prohibits this practice. The plants affected by the proposed NESHAP

have other options available, such as discharging scrubber effluents to

gypsum ponds. This requirement would be applied to both WPPA and SPA

plants. The Agency notes that this provision will apply only to liquid

discharges from air pollution control devices and is not intended to

apply to process equipment.

SPA Plants. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS which limit

emissions of total fluorides. Those NSPS appear in 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart U. The NSPS limit total fluoride emissions to 0.01 pounds per

ton of P2O5 fed to the process. For NSPS purposes, an SPA

plant is defined as any facility which concentrates WPPA to 66 percent

or greater P2O5 content for eventual consumption as

fertilizer. For purposes of the proposed NESHAP, the basic NSPS

definition for the plant will be adopted but it will not be limited to

production of SPA for consumption as fertilizer. The end use of the

manufactured SPA is not relevant to the need to control HAP emissions

pursuant to the Act. With the exception of one source employing the

submerged combustion process, all producers in the United States employ

vacuum evaporation to make SPA. The best-controlled plants for which

data were available use the vacuum evaporation process. There are

twelve SPA plants using vacuum evaporation and permitted emissions

range from 0.0087 to 1.1 pounds of total fluoride per ton of

P2O5 fed to the process. Nine of those plants are permitted

at limits equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. All plants

employ wet scrubbing devices to control total fluoride emissions.

Several different scrubber designs are employed.

The Act requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in

categories with fewer than 30 sources must be no less stringent than

the average emission

[[Page 68438]]

limitation achieved by the best performing five of those sources. In

this instance, the five best performing sources are all subject to

permit provisions requiring that they achieve emissions limitations

equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. The median of these

permit limits is at the NSPS level of control, 0.01 pounds per ton of

P2O5 fed to the process, and this was selected as the MACT

floor level. The available test data summarized in the TSD show that

the plants which form the basis for the MACT floor are achieving the

NSPS level of control. Tested emissions for all plants permitted at or

below the MACT floor range from 0.00013 to 0.00847 pounds of total

fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. Thus, the

emissions limit corresponding to the MACT floor, which is the NSPS, is

being proposed as MACT for existing SPA plants that use the vacuum

evaporation process.

The one source which manufactures SPA using a variation of the

submerged combustion process requested that the Agency consider a

separate subcategory for the process on the basis that a combination of

feedstock, final product, and process requirements uniquely influences

the level of control achievable at that site. The source provided

information (docket item II-D-52) showing that their imported feedstock

differs from that of other domestic producers of SPA in that it

contains lesser amounts of impurities including radium and magnesium.

The lesser amounts of radium are beneficial from the perspective that

this reduces the radioactivity of the phosphogypsum waste material

resulting from the processes. The lowered magnesium content is

important to customers with whom the source has contractual

obligations. The negative result of the lesser magnesium content is

that it causes increased corrosivity of the acid manufactured at that

site. Engineering studies have been unable to resolve the corrosion

problem and, so, the source cannot readily convert its production to

the vacuum evaporation process. In discussions with its State agency,

the source has committed itself to install new air pollution controls

and has performed engineering analyses which indicate that the source

cannot meet the MACT performance level of the vacuum evaporation

process. The potential to meet a level of 0.20 pounds of total fluoride

per ton of P2O5 fed to the process has been successfully

tested in a pilot test. In consideration of the overall environmental

and technical factors unique to the existing operations of that source,

the Agency has determined that subcategorization of that one existing

source is appropriate and that MACT is 0.20 pounds of total fluoride

per ton of P2O5 fed to the process for existing operations.

For a new SPA plant at that site, the Agency would expect that the

source could avail itself of the same resources as other companies in

the industry and that no special consideration would be appropriate.

For new sources, MACT must be as stringent as the emission

limitation that is achieved by the best controlled similar source, as

determined by the Administrator. Currently, the best controlled SPA

plant achieves a permitted emission limit of 0.0087 pounds of total

fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. Emissions test

data confirm that this level of control is being achieved in practice.

Therefore, this limit is being proposed for new SPA plants.

DAP/MAP Plants. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS which limit

emissions of total fluorides from DAP production. Those NSPS appear in

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart V. The NSPS limit total fluoride emissions to

0.06 pounds per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. For NSPS

purposes, a DAP plant is defined as any plant manufacturing granular

DAP by reacting phosphoric acid with ammonia. The NSPS do not include

MAP production plants as affected facilities. Available information

shows that many production plants are dedicated to produce either DAP

or MAP. Other plants are configured and permitted to produce either

product using the same equipment. As a part of the Agency's MACT

partnership initiative, the Agency met with State agency and industry

representatives to discuss issues pertinent to the proposed NESHAP.

Several discussions addressed the question of whether to have separate

rules for DAP, MAP and combined DAP/MAP production plants. During those

discussions it was noted that the plant configurations used to make

either one or both products are essentially identical. All plants

employ wet scrubbing devices to control total fluoride emissions.

Several different scrubber designs were employed. During the MACT

partnership discussions, the Agency was advised that technical

considerations cause a dual use production plant to be more difficult

to control than those dedicated to individual products. All parties to

the discussion were in agreement that the current NSPS for DAP is

achievable for DAP, MAP or combined DAP/MAP production. After due

consideration of these factors, the Agency is proposing that a single

emissions limitation should be applied to this class of ammoniated

phosphates. Accordingly, the data for plants permitted to produce both

products were selected for analysis to establish the MACT floor.

There are 12 plants permitted to produce both DAP and MAP. For

those plants, permitted emissions range from 0.0580 to 0.9640 pounds of

total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. The Act

requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in categories with

fewer than 30 sources must be no less stringent than the average

emission limitation achieved by the best performing five of those

sources. In this instance, the five best performing sources are all

subject to permit provisions requiring that they achieve emissions

limitations equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. For those

plants, permitted emissions range from 0.0580 to the NSPS limit of 0.06

pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process.

The median of these permit limits is at the NSPS level of control and

this was selected as the MACT floor level. The available test data

summarized in the TSD show that the plants which form the basis for the

MACT floor are achieving the NSPS level of control. Tested emissions

for all plants permitted at or below the MACT floor range from 0.0021

to 0.0408 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the

process. Thus, the emissions limit corresponding to the MACT floor,

which is the NSPS, is being proposed as MACT for existing DAP and/or

MAP plants.

For new sources, MACT must be as stringent as the emission

limitation that is achieved by the best controlled similar source, as

determined by the Administrator. Currently, the best controlled

combined DAP/MAP plant achieves a permitted emission limit of 0.00580

pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process.

Emissions test data confirm that this level of control is being

achieved in practice. Therefore, this limit is being proposed for new

sources producing DAP and/or MAP.

GTSP Production Plants. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS

which limit emissions of total fluorides from triple superphosphate

production. Those NSPS appear in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart W. The NSPS

limit total fluoride emissions to 0.2 pounds per ton of P2O5

fed to the process. For NESHAP purposes, a GTSP plant would be defined

as any plant manufacturing GTSP by reacting phosphate rock with

phosphoric acid. At this time, there are ten GTSP plants and permitted

[[Page 68439]]

emissions range from 0.1230 to 0.760 pounds of total fluoride per ton

of P2O5 fed to the process. Seven of those plants are

permitted at limits equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. Six

of those plants are permitted at State limits below the NSPS. All

plants employ wet scrubbing devices to control total fluoride

emissions. Several different scrubber designs are employed.

The Act requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in

categories with fewer than 30 sources must be no less stringent than

the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five of

those sources. In this instance, the five best performing sources are

all subject to permit provisions requiring that they achieve emissions

limitations equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. The median

of the permit limits for the five best controlled existing plants is

0.150 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the

process and this was selected as representing the MACT floor level of

control. The available test data summarized in the TSD show that the

plants which form the basis for the MACT floor are achieving the permit

limit of 0.150 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed

to the process in practice. Tested emissions for all plants permitted

at or below the MACT floor range from 0.00845 to 0.148 pounds of total

fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. Thus, an

emissions limit equivalent to the MACT floor is being proposed for

existing GTSP plants.

For new sources, MACT must be at least as stringent as the emission

limitation that is achieved by the best controlled similar source, as

determined by the Administrator. Currently, the best controlled GTSP

plant achieves a permitted emission limit of 0.01230 pounds of total

fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. Emissions test

data confirm that this level of control is being achieved in practice.

Therefore, this value is being proposed as an emissions limit for new

GTSP plants.

GTSP Storage Buildings. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS

which limit emissions of total fluorides from GTSP storage buildings.

Those NSPS appear in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart X. The NSPS limit total

fluoride emissions to 5.0 x 10-4 pounds per hour per ton of

P2O5 stored. For NESHAP purposes, the same definition used in

the NSPS will be used for GTSP storage buildings. At this time there

are seven GTSP storage buildings in operation. Of the seven, four are

equipped with wet scrubbers to control fluoride emissions. These

provide the control technology basis for the MACT floor. In general,

the permitted emissions limits reflect apportionments assigned by the

operators to meet emissions limitations for their GTSP plants as a

whole. Thus, the emissions limits are not based upon the technological

performance of control systems. The State air pollution control agency

with jurisdiction over most of the sources was contacted and indicated

that impacts of emissions from the storage buildings had been

considered as a part of the overall emissions allowances for the

fertilizer plants. None of the seven existing GTSP storage buildings is

subject to the NSPS. Further, the applicable emissions limitations for

the controlled buildings are in a format which differs from the NSPS.

Permitted emissions are dependent upon the rate at which GTSP is

transferred into the buildings. Available data indicate that the actual

emission rates are comparable to the NSPS limits.

The Agency previously addressed the issue of determining the best

technological approach for establishing emission limits for GTSP

storage buildings during the development of the NSPS in 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart X. Those standards reflect the previous judgement of the Agency

as to the best approach to controlling emissions of total fluorides

from GTSP storage buildings. That same judgement was reflected in the

Agency's emissions guidelines for then-existing sources. During

development of the proposed NESHAP, the Agency requested the opinions

of State air pollution control agencies and the technical

representatives of companies which produce phosphate fertilizers. The

State representatives concluded that the NSPS approach to setting

emissions limits is preferable to the basis for the permitted emissions

in that it is clearly based upon technological considerations. The

industry representatives noted that the NSPS approach accounts for the

effects of the continued curing of GTSP during initial storage and the

NSPS also provides consideration of the amount of GTSP stored. Given

the similarity of the results of the two approaches and the clear

preference of the involved parties for the NSPS format, the Agency has

concluded that the NSPS best expresses the MACT floor level of control

for existing GTSP storage buildings. Should any new GTSP storage

buildings be placed in service, the Agency continues to believe that

the NSPS also constitutes the best approach to new source MACT. The

NSPS is based upon a demonstrated control technology and directly ties

allowable emissions to the quantity of GTSP in storage. Thus, existing

and new source MACT is proposed to be a maximum emission of 5.0 x

10-4 pounds of total fluorides per hour per ton of P2O5

stored.

During the development of the NESHAP, the question was raised as to

whether the proposed NESHAP should be applied to GTSP storage buildings

which are not co-located with GTSP production plants. The Agency has

concluded that the proposed NESHAP should only apply to co-located

storage buildings. The reason for this is that the reactions which

cause emissions of HF and total fluorides continue for several days

after newly manufactured GTSP is placed into storage. This is referred

to as curing. Thus, there is a clear reason to place emissions limits

upon this class of sources. Opinions differed as to how long

appreciable emissions are generated. Material handling problems can

occur if GTSP is shipped from the production plant prior to the

completion of the curing phase. So, the need for controlling emissions

during storage coincides with the need to allow time for curing.

Accordingly there is no benefit to be gained from applying the proposed

NESHAP to GTSP storage facilities that handle only cured GTSP and are

not located at GTSP production plants.

Phosphate Rock Dryers at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and

Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants. On April 16, 1982, the Agency

promulgated emissions limits (47 FR 16589) which apply to phosphate

rock dryers at phosphate rock plants as 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart NN. The

NSPS limit particulate matter emissions to 0.030 kilogram per megagram

of phosphate rock feed (0.060 pounds per ton). For NSPS purposes, a

dryer is defined as a unit in which the moisture content of phosphate

rock is reduced by contact with a heated gas stream. For the proposed

NESHAP, the NSPS definition will be adopted. The Agency has found

little test data for particulate matter emissions. Initially available

permit information indicated that eight dryers were present at seven

major sources. One of those dryers is subject to Subpart NN. More

recent information provided by industry representatives indicates that

two of those dryers have been demolished and that two others are not

used as rock dryers. That leaves four dryers from which to establish

the MACT floor for existing sources.

The Act requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in

categories with fewer than 30 sources must be no less stringent than

the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five of

those sources. In this instance, there are only four sources. To

[[Page 68440]]

provide consistency with the methodology used elsewhere in this notice,

the third or ``median'' dryer was selected as representing the floor

level of control. That dryer is limited to 0.215 pounds of particulate

matter per ton of rock fed. With no additional information available,

the Agency is unable to conclude that a more stringent emissions limit

is warranted for dryers. Thus, the emissions limit corresponding to the

MACT floor is being proposed as MACT for existing phosphate rock dryers

at phosphoric acid manufacturing plants.

For new sources, MACT must be at least as stringent as the emission

limitation that is achieved by the best controlled similar source, as

determined by the Administrator. Currently, the best controlled dryer

achieves a permitted emission limit of 0.060 pounds of particulate

matter per ton of rock fed to the process. Emissions test data confirm

that this level of control is being achieved in practice. Therefore,

this value is being proposed as MACT for new phosphate rock dryers at

phosphoric acid manufacturing plants.

Calciners at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants. On April 16,

1982, the Agency promulgated emissions limits (47 FR 16589) which apply

to phosphate rock calciners at phosphate rock plants as 40 CFR Part 60

Subpart NN. For NSPS purposes, a calciner is defined as a unit in which

the moisture and organic matter of phosphate rock is reduced within a

combustion chamber. For the proposed NESHAP, the NSPS definition will

be adopted. Information gathered during the development of proposed

NESHAP show that calciners are present at four major sources. None of

those calciners are subject to Subpart NN. As previously discussed, the

Agency chose to use particulate matter as a surrogate for HAP metal

compounds because no speciated test data were available for calciners.

All plants use wet scrubbers to control particulate matter. Calciners

permitted to operate at one source are not in service at this time. A

second source operates two calciners controlled by wet scrubbers. No

performance data were available for the second source. A third source

operates a calciner controlled by a wet scrubber. Performance test data

for the calciner are included in the docket. A fourth source operates

six calciners. The calciners are similar in their design and emissions

controls. Performance test data for those six are summarized in the

TSD. Although speciation factors for HAP metals were available for the

fourth source, the enforceable permit limits were for particulate

matter. Given that the controls are the same for the best five units,

the MACT floor level of control is based upon the use of wet scrubbers.

The best performing calciners are permitted in a process rate format

which allows the emissions rate to vary as function of process feed

rate. For this class of sources, performance data show actual emissions

to be well below permitted levels. The Agency has concluded that

analysis of test data would best characterize the level of control

being achieved in practice. Review of test data indicates that an

emission limit equivalent to 0.06 grains of particulate matter per dry

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) is now being achieved by all calciners

for which the Agency has data. This level of control was selected as

the MACT floor for existing sources. The highest test data point for

the calciners constituting the MACT floor was 0.058 gr/dscf. The Agency

reviewed health impacts modelling provided by the fourth source and

concluded that an ample margin of safety is provided at the MACT floor

and that a more stringent standard for existing sources is not

indicated. Thus, an emissions limit equivalent to the MACT floor is

being proposed for existing calciners.

Emissions test data for the best performing calciner indicated that

it could meet a somewhat lower emission limit and that this could be

considered the best controlled source for establishing new source MACT.

The data showed that a similar new source could achieve an emission

limit of 0.04 grains per dry standard cubic foot. This level of control

is consistent with that which the Agency selected as best demonstrated

technology for similar sources in the NSPS for calciners and dryers in

the mineral industries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUU). That standard was

promulgated on September 28, 1992 in 57 FR 44503. Thus, the Agency is

proposing 0.040 grains per dry standard cubic foot as MACT for new

calciners located at phosphoric acid manufacturing plants.

PPA Plants. Two sources in the United States manufacture PPA

through the use of solvent extraction to further refine WPPA. One plant

uses the HAP compound MIBK as a solvent. This results in permitted

losses of MIBK which total approximately 29 tons per year. The second

plant uses a different solvent and a different process from which no

HAPs are emitted. The Act does not provide clear guidance on the

establishment of MACT when less than five sources are present for floor

analysis. In this instance, the following facts were considered. The

two process designs are distinctly different. The owners of the second

plant have patented their process and it is not readily available for

licensing by competitors. The PPA produced by the source using MIBK is

used in applications which differ in their requirements from the PPA

produced by the competing source. Information provided by the owners of

the plant using MIBK included information showing that reconstructing

their plant to use a non-HAP solvent would result in a control cost of

$800,000 per ton of MIBK reduced. This would clearly exceed the value

of any environmental benefits to be derived. Thus, the Agency elected

to set an emissions limit for MIBK based upon a MACT analysis of the

one plant which uses that compound.

The initial permit for the PPA plant in question allows the source

to emit 19 tons of MIBK per year from the operation of the plant

itself. That amount was determined by engineering calculations to

predict the performance of the emissions controls installed at the

plant. Information provided by the operator shows an estimated 9.9 tons

per year of MIBK in a process waste stream being emitted from an

adjoining fertilizer plant. The combined total of 28.9 tons of MIBK is

equivalent to 0.16864 pounds of MIBK per ton of P2O5 fed to

the process. Information listing historical purchases of makeup MIBK

provided by the operators indicates that emissions may have exceeded

that rate on several occasions. Additional information from the source

shows that several changes to the process have been made to increase

production. Insufficient information was provided to allow an analysis

of how the process changes are affecting emissions. Likewise, no

information has been provided to show what options have or could have

been pursued to maintain the permitted emissions levels. Absent any

basis for determining that the permitted limits are inconsistent with

the emission controls installed at the plant, the Agency has elected to

use the approach consistently applied to other phosphoric acid

manufacturing processes during this rulemaking and to base MACT upon

permitted emissions of MIBK. The MACT limit is proposed as 0.16864

pounds of MIBK per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. The

Agency specifically invites public comment upon this proposed action.

Any comments advocating a different standard for emissions of MIBK from

PPA plants should be accompanied and supported by data and information

that clearly support the commenter's position.

[[Page 68441]]

D. Selection of Test Methods

Included in the proposed rules are methods for determining initial

compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that

sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time.

The Agency has made every effort to simplify the requirements in the

rule. The Agency has also attempted to maintain consistency with

existing regulations by either incorporating text from existing

regulations or cross-referencing such regulations. Under the proposed

rules, total fluoride would serve as a surrogate for HF and particulate

matter would serve as a surrogate measure for HAP metals. So, for those

standards which would limit emissions of total fluorides or particulate

matter, the approaches to testing and monitoring in the corresponding

NSPS would be adopted as closely as possible. That is, initial

compliance would be determined by a performance test employing Agency

Test Method 13 A or B for total fluorides or Method 5 for particulate

matter. The owner or operator could also use other alternative test

methods subject to approval by the Administrator. The proposed

standards would require that sources continuously record and maintain

control device pressure drop and liquid flow rate parameters within

plus or minus ten percent of the values established during performance

testing. Those values would have to be determined concurrently with

initial performance testing. The values of the operating parameters

would be based upon the average values recorded during three one-hour

test runs. This approach to monitoring control device operating

parameters and an alternative requested by industry are discussed in

the monitoring requirements section of this preamble.

During the development of the proposed NESHAP, two concerns were

raised by industry about testing for fluoride emissions. First, the

industry suggested that Method 13 B could be simplified. In response,

the Agency is proposing to simplify Method 13 B for this source

category by eliminating the fusion and distillation steps in the sample

preparation. The fusion step is intended to make all fluorides water

soluble. For these source categories, preliminary information indicates

that all fluorides are water soluble. The distillation step is intended

to eliminate analytical interferences. Industry has submitted data that

indicates that the distillation step is unneeded for these source

categories. At this time the Agency is reviewing data to verify that

the requested changes in the test method are reasonable. The changes

would not apply to other categories of sources.

The second concern raised was that of how to test uncontrolled GTSP

storage buildings using method 13 A or B. Uncontrolled buildings do not

have a stack or a single discharge point. Section 63.7 of the general

provisions provides that sources may develop site-specific test plans.

The Agency is working with the affected sources and their

respective permitting agencies through this site- specific test plan

process to develop a consistent methodology for the purpose of

determining whether the sources can achieve the emission limits of the

proposed standards without add-on controls.

E. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

The proposed standards would require that sources continuously

monitor and maintain control device operating parameters within plus or

minus ten percent of the values established during performance testing.

Since control of particulate matter is impaired by a lessening of

pressure drop or liquid flow rate, decreases in these parameters

indicate a decline in emissions control efficiency. For HF, as

determined by total fluoride, the opposite effect can occur. Removal of

fluorides by wet scrubbers is enhanced by increased residence time in

the control device. So, it is appropriate that an upper bound to

pressure drop should be included as a means of maintaining residence

time at a value similar to that obtained during the performance test.

Similar to the NSPS, the proposed NESHAP would require monitoring of

process feed rate.

During development of the proposed NESHAP, industry representatives

expressed some concern over EPA's intention to define scrubber

monitoring parameter exceedances in excess of plus or minus ten percent

of the values established during the most recent performance test as

violations. That concern centered upon the possibility that those

values could change as a result of equipment or process variables which

would not necessarily result in noncompliance with the numerical limits

of the standards. They suggested that Agency should allow a grace

period for re-testing to determine compliance with the numerical limits

of the standard. In particular, the inclusion of the upper bound was

questioned. The Agency's response is that the upper limit is

appropriate because higher pressure drops could indicate that emissions

controls were suffering from a reduction in residence time associated

with higher pressure drops or process upsets and the Agency has elected

to keep the upper band for parameter excursions because of enforcement

concerns. To allay the concerns of industry, the Agency is including in

the proposed regulation language which provides a grace period for re-

testing under the conditions measured during the exceedance to

determine compliance. Upon considering that some sources at relatively

remote locations need time to arrange for services of outside test

crews, the proposed rule would allow sources thirty days to re-test and

demonstrate compliance with the numerical emissions limits. If a source

is re-tested within that time period and passes the required test, the

exceedances of the parameter limits would not be considered violations

of the Act.

Some industry representatives recommended defining the acceptable

range of operational parameters on the basis of the ranges resulting

from previous or specially-conducted successful performance tests.

Initially, the Agency considered this approach and concluded that to

require extensive testing to develop operational ranges during

performance testing could be construed as burdensome. So, the Agency

chose the approach first described in this section as a requirement. In

addition, the proposed regulations would allow use of the approach

requested by industry, with its attendant costs, as an alternative

which sources could choose to employ at their discretion. In

particular, the alternative provides flexibility for sources to

establish operational ranges for control device parameters on the basis

of data derived from multiple performance tests. Operating ranges could

based upon values recorded during previous successful performance tests

or upon the results of new performance testing conducted specifically

for the purpose of establishing operating ranges. Sources would be

required to certify that the control devices and processes had not been

modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to

establish the operating ranges were obtained. Following the approval by

the permitting authority of operating ranges for the affected source,

any three hour averages of the values of total pressure drop or flow

rate of the scrubbing liquid in exceedance of the approved operating

ranges would constitute violations of applicable emission limits.

For PPA plants, compliance would be determined by inventory records

documenting the amounts of MIBK

[[Page 68442]]

added to the process as makeup for routine losses from the system. In

addition, the source would be required to maintain records of

maintenance activities which would include estimates of MIBK losses.

The source would be required to document in its inventory any losses

from nonroutine equipment failures or malfunctions. On a continuing

basis, the source would be required to monitor and record the MIBK

content of raffinate, gas chiller temperature and cooling tower losses.

Recordkeeping and reporting would be subject to the General Provisions

to 40 CFR Part 63.

F. Selection of Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements

All requirements of the General Provisions apply under the proposed

rule. The General Provisions include requirements for notifications;

reports on performance test results; semiannual excess emissions

reports; and startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans and reports.

Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of production lines can occur in

this industry. The development and implementation of the plan will aid

in reducing emissions from these events and in reducing malfunctions. A

semiannual report to EPA is required only in the event a reportable

event occurs and the steps in the plan were not followed. Semiannual

excess emission reports are required to ensure that the permitting

authority is aware of any potential operating or compliance problems at

the source.

The proposed rule requires that minimum information and data be

maintained in a file available for inspection at the site. Records of

control device operational parameters, process feed rate, MIBK addition

to PPA plants and MIBK concentrations at specified points would be

required to ensure that MACT-level controls are in place and properly

operated and maintained.

G. Solicitation of Comments

The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final

decisions and encourages comments on all aspects of this proposal from

all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses

should be submitted with comments to allow EPA to make maximum use of

the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-95-33 (see ADDRESSES).

Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before the date

specified in DATES.

Commentors wishing to submit proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other

comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information''

(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be

sent directly to the Emission Standards Division CBI Office, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (MD-13), Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711, with a copy of the cover letter directed to the contact

person listed above. Confidential business information should not be

sent to the public docket. Information covered by such a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and

by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by EPA,

it may be made available to the public without further notice to the

commentor.

V. Impacts of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

Currently, 21 phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate

fertilizers production complexes, owned by 15 companies, are located in

seven States. The EPA estimates that five of these plants would need to

install better controls on at least one process each to reduce

emissions. All plants in the industry would be subject to the proposed

standards unless the plant owner or operator demonstrates that the

facility is not a major source. The Agency expects that six of the 21

phosphate fertilizers production complexes will be demonstrated to be

non-major sources.

B. Air Quality Impacts

Nationwide HAP emissions from phosphoric acid manufacturing and

phosphate fertilizers production complexes are estimated to be up to

550 Mg/yr (605 tpy) of HF and other HAP at the current level of

control. Implementation of the proposed NESHAP would reduce HF

emissions by 315 Mg/yr (345 tpy) from currently permitted levels. The

corresponding reduction in total fluorides would be 940 Mg/yr (1035

tpy). This would equate to 1570 Mg (1725 tons) of HF and 4700 Mg (5175

tons) of total fluoride over the first five years of the proposed

standards. Since the PPA plant emitting MIBK and calciners emitting HAP

metals in the form of particulates would meet the NESHAP in their

current configurations, no additional emissions reductions would be

gained from those operations. The proposed NESHAP would ensure that the

currently installed control systems would be properly operated and

maintained. Additional information on emissions and emission reductions

is included in the TSD.

C. Water Impacts

As a result of NESHAP, five plants would install five to six low

energy scrubbers using recycled pond water as the scrubbing liquid

would result from NESHAP. Most, if not all, new scrubbers would employ

cooling pond water as the scrubbing fluid and return the scrubber

discharge to the pond for recycle to the process. The impacts of this

would therefore be minimal.

D. Solid Waste Impacts

Solid waste impacts would be minimal.

E. Energy Impacts

A total of five to six low energy scrubbers would result from

NESHAP. Increased power for the scrubbers was estimated to cause an

additional annual power consumption of twenty million kilowatt hours.

F. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts

Reducing HAPs and ambient pollutant levels may help lower

occupational exposure levels.

G. Cost Impacts

The proposed rule would affect phosphoric acid manufacturing and

phosphate fertilizers production facilities that are major sources or

that are located at major sources. The Agency projects that six process

lines at existing source complexes would install new control systems.

The Agency estimated that five additional sources would be expected to

employ better operation and maintenance practices to meet the

standards. Based upon availability of surplus production capacity and

recent market trends, the Agency projects that no new facilities will

be constructed within the next five years. For the five plants expected

to add new air pollution control scrubbers to meet the proposed NESHAP,

the capital cost of new control devices is estimated to be $1,401,561.

Estimated annualized capital, operation, and maintenance costs of new

scrubbers are estimated to total $847,851. The annual costs for the

plants expected to implement improved operation and maintenance are

estimated to be $14,400. Thus, the total annualized costs of the

standards would be $862,251 nationwide.

H. Economic Impacts

Prices are expected to increase in each regional market by the per-

unit-cost

[[Page 68443]]

increase for the marginal firm. Because neither the exact regional

structure, nor which firm is the high cost producer within the region,

is known, a range of prices changes has been estimated. For the lower

estimate, one national market is assumed for each good. The production

weighted average cost increase is assumed to be the expected cost

increase for the marginal firm and is used for the price increase. The

higher estimate has been developed by using the highest cost increase

among the facilities as the cost increase for the marginal firm. This

makes the highest cost increase the price increase for the national

market. Even the highest estimate for the product (MAP/DAP) with the

highest cost increase would be a price increase of less than one third

of one percent.

Although demand elasticity estimates are not available, the lack of

close substitutes, the small cost share of fertilizers in final

agricultural products, and the expected low elasticity for the

production of food lead to the expectation of an inelastic demand.

Since elasticity of demand would be expected to be less than one,

percentage quantity adjustments would be expected to be smaller than

the percentage price changes discussed above.

Detailed plant information needed for plant closure analysis is not

available, but, plant closure as a result of the costs of this

regulation would be unlikely. The highest estimate for market quantity

adjustment is less than three percent of the production of the smallest

affected facility for each of the three markets. If there were to be no

market price increase, the cost increase as a percentage of sales would

always be less than two-fifths of a percent. While closure due to the

regulation would be unlikely, a facility planning to close in the

absence of the regulation could close earlier because of the

regulation. The effect of this regulation would be expected to be

minimal on both small businesses and the industry as a whole.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information

considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is

a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the

public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.

Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,

the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of

judicial review. [See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.]

B. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the

proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act.

Persons wishing to make oral presentations on the proposed standards

should contact EPA (see ADDRESSES). If a public hearing is requested

and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral

presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. To

provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak, oral

presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the

public may file a written statement on or before February 25, 1997.

Written statements should be addressed to the Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (see ADDRESSES), and refer to Docket No. A-95-

33. Written statements and supporting information will be considered

with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information

subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held. A verbatim

transcript of the hearing and written statements will be placed in the

docket and be available for public inspection and copying, or mailed

upon request, at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center

(see ADDRESSES).

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million

or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter

the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan

programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or (4)

raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the

President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has

determined that this rule is not ``significant'' because none of the

listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action was not

submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the Agency involved

State,local and Federal governments in the development of this rule.

These governments are not directly impacted by the rule; i.e. they are

not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of

the rule. However, they will be required to implement the rule; e.g.

incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will

collect permit fees which will be used to offset the resource burden of

implementing the rule. One representative of a State environmental

agency has been a member of the EPA work group developing the rule. In

addition, the Agency has contacted the staffs of State air pollution

control agencies to exchange information during development of the

rule. The comments and suggestions of the State agency staffs have been

carefully considered in the rule development. In addition, all States

are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule during the public

comment period and the Agency intends to fully consider these comments

in the final rulemaking.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded

Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995 (109 Stat. 48),

requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before

promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in

expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or

by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section

203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may

be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must

identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives

before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must

be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative for State,

local, and tribal governments and the private sector that

[[Page 68444]]

achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why

this alternative is not selected or unless the selection of this

alternative is inconsistent with law.

Because this proposed rule, if promulgated, is estimated to result

in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the

private sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency

has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed

the selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative. Because small governments will not be

significantly or uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not

required to develop a plan with regard to small governments. Therefore,

the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this

action.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,

Federal agencies are required to assess the economic impact of Federal

regulations on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act specifies

that Federal agencies must prepare an initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (RFA) if a proposed regulation will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Agency has found that two of the twenty one firms that

potentially would be subject to the proposed standards are small firms.

Of the two, one is an area source which would not be covered by the

standards. The second source would be major and subject to the

requirements of the standards. Information available to the Agency

shows that the second source is able to achieve the control levels of

the proposed NESHAP using existing equipment. The testing, monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are essentially identical to

current requirements and, thus, would cause little or no change in

these burdens. Therefore, given that only one small entity would see

only a minimal change from its current requirements, the Agency

certifies that the proposed rulemaking will not impact a substantial

number of small entities and that any impacts would be non-significant.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An

Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 1790.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-

2740.

The information to be collected includes the results of performance

testing to be conducted to demonstrate initial compliance with the

emissions limits in the proposed rules. At the time that performance

testing would be performed, sources would be required to measure and

record operating parameters for the processes and control devices.

Following the performance testing, sources would be required under

authority of the Act to monitor and record operating parameters to

assure that they were maintained within approved ranges, based upon

values determined during the initial tests. The purpose of the

monitoring and recordkeeping requirements would be to provide

implementing agencies information to assure that MACT was being

implemented on an ongoing basis.

The Agency estimated the projected cost and hour burden of the

proposed standards. The average annual reporting burden was estimated

to be 132 hours per response. There would be fifteen likely respondents

and reports would required twice a year. The total burden would equate

to 3790 hours per year nationwide and the corresponding cost was

estimated to be $121,773 per year. The total capital cost of the

monitoring devices was estimated to be $564, 200 of which the major

cost would be for the installation of sensors to measure and record the

flow of scrubbing liquid to the control devices. The annualized cost of

that capital would be $53,200 per year and the operation and

maintenance of the monitoring equipment was estimated as $13,300 per

year. Thus, the total annualized capital and operation and maintenance

costs were estimated to be $66,500 per year. Burden means the total

time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the

purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,

processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing

information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously

applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to

respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete

and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's

regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,

the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested

methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of

automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the

Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management

and Budget, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked

``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the

ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 27, 1996, a comment to OMB is

best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January

27, 1997. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on

the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. Clean Air Act

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this

proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory

committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.

This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation.

This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of

the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the

existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in

emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

I. Pollution Prevention Act

During the development of the standards, the Agency explored

opportunities to eliminate or reduce emissions through the application

of new processes or work practices. As previously discussed, at the

outset the Agency explored options for reduction of cooling pond

emissions of HF. Among the possibilities was a recently patented

process which offers the promise of eliminating the ponds altogether

while at the same time

[[Page 68445]]

recovery HF for sale to outside parties. At this time that process has

not yet been commercially demonstrated.

The other opportunity for prevention of pollution arose when the

Agency learned of the piping of air pollution control scrubber effluent

to cooling towers, where the HF content was being stripped and emitted

to the atmosphere. As previously discussed, the proposed NESHAP would

expressly prohibit that practice.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Phosphoric acid

manufacturing, and Phosphate fertilizers production.

Dated: November 21, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that part

63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations be

amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AA consisting of

Secs. 63.600 through 63.610 to read as follows:

Subpart AA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants

Sec.

63.600 Applicability.

63.601 Definitions.

63.602 Standards for existing sources.

63.603 Standards for new sources.

63.604 Monitoring requirements.

63.605 Performance tests and compliance provisions.

63.606 Notification requirements.

63.607 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.608 Reporting requirements.

63.609 Compliance dates.

63.610 Exemption from new source performance standards.

Subpart AA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants From Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants

Sec. 63.600 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the

requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each new

or existing phosphoric acid manufacturing plant.

(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted from the following affected

sources at a new or existing phosphoric acid manufacturing plant:

(1) Each wet-process phosphoric acid plant. The requirements of

this subpart apply to the following emission points which are

components of a wet-process phosphoric acid plant: reactors, filters,

evaporators, and hot wells.

(2) Each evaporative cooling tower at a phosphoric acid

manufacturing plant.

(3) Each phosphate rock dryer located at a phosphoric acid

manufacturing plant.

(4) Each phosphate rock calciner located at a phosphoric acid

manufacturing plant.

(5) Each superphosphoric acid plant. The requirements of this

subpart apply to the following emission points which are components of

a superphosphoric acid plant: evaporators, hot wells, acid sumps, and

cooling tanks; and

(6) Each purified acid plant. The requirements of this subpart

apply to the following emission points which are components of a

purified phosphoric acid plant: solvent extraction process equipment,

solvent stripping and recovery equipment, seal tanks, carbon treatment

equipment, cooling towers, storage tanks, pumps and process piping.

(c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or

operator of a new or existing phosphoric acid manufacturing plant for

which the owner or operator demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the

Administrator, that the facility is not a major source as defined in

Sec. 63.2.

Sec. 63.601 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in

Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:

Equivalent P2O5 feed means the quantity of phosphorus,

expressed as phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the process.

Evaporative cooling tower means an open water recirculating device

that uses fans or natural draft to draw or force ambient air through

the device to remove heat from process water by direct contact.

HAP metals mean those chemicals and their compounds (in particulate

or volatile form) that are included on the list of hazardous air

pollutants in section 112 of the Clean Air Act. HAP metals include, but

are not limited to: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,

lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium expressed as particulate matter

as measured by the methods and procedures in this subpart or an

approved alternative method. For the purposes of this subpart, HAP

metals are expressed as particulate matter as measured by 40 CFR Part

60, Appendix A, Method 5.

Phosphate rock calciner means the equipment used to remove moisture

and organic matter from phosphate rock through direct or indirect

heating.

Phosphate rock dryer means the equipment used to reduce the

moisture content of phosphate rock through direct or indirect heating.

Phosphate rock feed means all material entering any phosphate rock

dryer or phosphate rock calciner including moisture and extraneous

material as well as the following ore materials: fluorapatite,

hydroxylapatite, chlorapatite, and carbonateapatite.

Purified phosphoric acid plant means any facility which

concentrates wet-process phosphoric acid to 58 percent or greater

P2O5 content by weight and which uses solvent extraction to

separate impurities from the product acid for the purposes of rendering

that product suitable for industrial, manufacturing or food grade uses.

Superphosphoric acid plant means any facility which concentrates

wet-process phosphoric acid to 66 percent or greater P2O5

content by weight.

Total fluorides means elemental fluorine and all fluoride

compounds, including the HAP hydrogen fluoride, as measured by

reference methods specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A , Method 13 A

or B, or by equivalent or alternative methods approved by the

Administrator pursuant to Sec. 63.7(f).

Wet process phosphoric acid plant means any facility manufacturing

phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate rock and acid.

Sec. 63.602 Standards for existing sources.

(a) Wet process phosphoric acid plant. On and after the date on

which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and

63.605 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of

this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of

10.0 gram/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.020 lb/ton).

(b) Superphosphoric acid plant. (1) On and after the date on which

the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605

is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of

5.0 gram/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.010 lb/ton).

[[Page 68446]]

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, on and after

the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by

Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is completed, each submerged combustion process

superphosphoric acid plant at the Arcadian Fertilizers facility in

Geismar, Louisiana shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere

any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of 100.0 gram/metric

ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.20 lb/ton).

(c) Phosphate rock dryer. On or after the date on which the

performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is

completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain particulate matter in excess of

0.10750 kilogram/metric ton of phosphate rock feed (0.2150 lb/ton).

(d) Phosphate rock calciner. On or after the date on which the

performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is

completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain particulate matter in excess of

0.138 gram per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) [0.060 grain per dry

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)].

(e) Evaporative cooling tower. No owner or operator shall introduce

into any evaporative cooling tower any liquid effluent from any wet

scrubbing device installed to control emissions from process equipment.

(f) Purified phosphoric acid plant. No owner or operator subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain methyl

isobutyl ketone in excess of 84.320 gram/metric ton of equivalent

P2O5 feed (0.16864 lb/ton). Compliance shall be determined as

a monthly average based upon records of the addition of methyl isobutyl

ketone to the process as required in Sec. 63.605(f).

Sec. 63.603 Standards for new sources.

(a) Wet process phosphoric acid plant. On and after the date on

which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and

63.605 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of

this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of

6.750 gram/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.01350 lb/

ton).

(b) Superphosphoric acid plant. On and after the date on which the

performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is

completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of

4.35 gram/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.00870 lb/

ton).

(c) Phosphate rock dryer. On or after the date on which the

performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is

completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain particulate matter in excess of

0.030 kilogram/metric ton per megagram of phosphate rock feed (0.060

lb/ton).

(d) Phosphate rock calciner. On or after the date on which the

performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is

completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain particulate matter in excess of

0.0920 gram per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) [0.040 grain per dry

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)].

(e) Evaporative cooling tower. No owner or operator shall introduce

into any evaporative cooling tower any liquids containing the effluent

from any air pollution control device.

(f) Purified phosphoric acid plant. No owner or operator subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain methyl

isobutyl ketone in excess of 84.320 gram/metric ton of equivalent

P2O5 feed (0.16864 lb/ton). Compliance shall be determined as

a monthly average based upon records of the addition of methyl isobutyl

ketone to the process.

Sec. 63.604 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process

phosphoric acid plant, superphosphoric acid plant, phosphate rock

dryer, phosphate rock calciner, or purified phosphoric acid plant

subject to the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a monitoring system which can be used to

determine and permanently record the mass flow of phosphorus-bearing

feed material to the process. The monitoring system shall have an

accuracy of 5 percent over its operating range.

(b) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process

phosphoric acid plant, superphosphoric acid plant, phosphate rock

calciner, or purified phosphoric acid plant subject to the provisions

of this subpart shall maintain a daily record of equivalent

P2O5 feed by first determining the total mass rate in metric

ton/hour of phosphorus bearing feed using a monitoring system for

measuring mass flowrate which meets the requirements of paragraph (a)

of this section and then by proceeding according to Sec. 63.605(c)(3).

(c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process

phosphoric acid plant, superphosphoric acid plant, phosphate rock dryer

or phosphate rock calciner using a wet scrubbing emission control

system shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate the following

monitoring systems:

(1) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently

records the total pressure drop across each scrubber in the process

scrubbing system. The monitoring system shall be certified by the

manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 percent over its

operating range.

(2) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently

records the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the

process scrubbing system. The monitoring system shall be certified by

the manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 percent over its

operating range.

(d) Any new or existing source subject to emissions limitations for

total fluorides or particulate matter contained in this subpart shall

comply with either paragraph (d) (1) or (2) of this section:

(1) For a new or existing affected source, following the date on

which the performance test required in Sec. 63.605 is completed, any

three-hour average of the total pressure drop across the scrubber(s) or

of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to the scrubber(s) in the

process scrubbing system which exceeds ten percent of the

value determined as a requirement of Sec. 63.605(c)(4), (d)(4), or

(e)(2) shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit

contained in this subpart unless the affected source performs and

passes a performance test as required in Sec. 63.605 within thirty days

following the exceedance. Any owner or operator who intends to conduct

a performance test pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the

Administrator of that intention within one business day of the

parameter exceedance. Any owner or operator conducting a performance

test pursuant to this paragraph (d)(1) shall establish and maintain

during that test the same operating conditions as were determined

during the exceedance of the operating range.

(2) The owner or operator of any new or existing affected source

shall establish operating ranges for the total

[[Page 68447]]

pressure drop across or of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to

each scrubber in the process scrubbing system for the purpose of

assuring compliance with applicable emission limits required in this

subpart. Operating ranges may be based upon values recorded during

previous performance tests using the test methods required in this

subpart and established in the manner required in Sec. 63.605 (c)(4),

(d)(4), or (e)(2). As an alternative the owner or operator can base the

operating ranges upon the results of performance tests conducted

specifically for the purposes of this paragraph (d)(2) using the test

methods required in this subpart and established in the manner required

in Sec. 63.605(c)(4), (d)(4), or (e)(2). The source shall certify that

the control devices and processes have not been modified subsequent to

the testing upon which the data used to establish the operating ranges

were obtained. Following the approval by the permitting authority of

operating ranges for the affected source, any three hour average of the

values of total pressure drop or flow rate of the scrubbing liquid

which exceeds the approved operating ranges shall constitute a

violation of the applicable emission limit contained in this subpart.

(e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing purified phosphoric

acid plant shall: (1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a

monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently records

the stack gas exit temperature for each chiller stack. (2) Measure and

record the concentration of methyl isobutyl ketone in each product acid

stream and each raffinate stream once daily.

(f) For any new or existing purified phosphoric acid plant, any of

the following shall constitute a violation of this subpart:

(1) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of

methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of twenty parts per million for each

stripped acid stream.

(2) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of

methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of thirty parts per million for each

raffinate stream.

(3) A daily average chiller stack exit gas stream temperature in

excess of fifty degrees Fahrenheit.

Sec. 63.605 Performance tests and compliance provisions.

(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphoric acid

manufacturing plant shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable emission standard for each wet-process

phosphoric acid plant, superphosphoric acid plant, phosphate rock

dryer, and phosphate rock calciner. If the affected source has multiple

control devices and/or emission points subject to the provisions of

this subpart, those control devices and/or emission points shall be

tested simultaneously. The owner or operator shall conduct the

performance test according to the procedures in the General Provisions

in subpart A of this part and in this section.

(b) In conducting performance tests, each owner or operator of an

affected source shall use as reference methods and procedures the test

methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, or other methods and procedures

as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).

(c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process

phosphoric acid plant or superphosphoric acid plant shall determine

compliance with the applicable total fluorides standards in Sec. 63.602

or Sec. 63.603 as follows:

(1) The emission rate (E) of total fluorides shall be computed for

each run using the following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27DE96.009

Where:

E=emission rate of total fluorides, g/metric ton (lb/ton) of

equivalent P2O5 feed.

Csi=concentration of total fluorides from emission point ``i,''

mg/dscm (mg/dscf).

Qsdi=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission point

``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).

N=number of emission points associated with the affected facility.

P=equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr).

K=conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (453,600 mg/lb).

(2) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to

determine the total fluorides concentration (Csi) and volumetric

flow rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each of the emission

points. If Method 13 B is used, the fusion of the filtered material

described in Section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of suitable aliquots

of containers 1 and 2, described in section 7.3.3 and 7.3.4. in Method

13 A, may be omitted. The sampling time and sample volume for each run

shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).

(3) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) shall be computed

for each run using the following equation:

P=Mp Rp

Where:

Mp=total mass flow rate of phosphorus-bearing feed, metric ton/

hr (ton/hr).

Rp=P2O5 content, decimal fraction.

(i) The accountability system of Sec. 63.604 (a) and (b) shall be

used to determine the mass flow rate (Mp) of the phosphorus-

bearing feed.

(ii) The Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method

9 (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 60.17) shall be used to

determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of the feed.

(4) To comply with Sec. 63.604(d) (1) or (2), the owner or operator

shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.604(c) to determine the

average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the

process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the

scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during

each of the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic averages of the three

runs shall be used as the baseline average values for the purposes of

Sec. 63.604(d) (1) or (2).

(d) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate rock

dryer shall demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter

standards in Sec. 63.602 or Sec. 63.603 as follows:

(1) The emission rate (E) of particulate matter shall be computed

for each run using the following equation:

E=(cs Qsd)/(P K)

Where:

E=emission rate of particulate matter, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of phosphate

rock feed.

cs=concentration of particulate matter, g/dscm (g/dscf).

Qsd=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).

P=phosphate rock feed rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).

K=conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (453.6 g/lb).

(2) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to

determine the particulate matter concentration (cs) and volumetric

flow rate (Qsd) of the effluent gas. The sampling time and sample

volume for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30

dscf).

(3) The system of Sec. 63.604(a) shall be used to determine the

phosphate rock feed rate (P) for each run.

(4) To comply with Sec. 63.604 (d)(1) or (2), the owner or operator

shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.604(c) to determine the

average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the

process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the

scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during

each of the particulate matter runs. The arithmetic average of the one-

hour averages determined during the three test runs shall be used as

the baseline average values for the purposes of Sec. 63.604 (d)(1) or

(2).

(e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate rock

calciner shall

[[Page 68448]]

demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter standards in

Secs. 63.602 and 63.603 as follows:

(1) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to

determine the particulate matter concentration. The sampling time and

volume for each test run shall be at least 2 hours and 1.70 dscm.

(2) To comply with Sec. 63.604(d)(1) or (2), the owner or operator

shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.604(c) to determine the

average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the

process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the

scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during

each of the particulate matter runs. The arithmetic average of the one-

hour averages determined during the three test runs shall be used as

the baseline average values for the purposes of Sec. 63.604 (d)(1) or

(2).

(f) Each owner or operator of a new or existing purified phosphoric

acid manufacturing plant shall establish and maintain an inventory

system to determine the mass of methyl isobutyl ketone added to each

process line at an affected source. For the purposes of determining

compliance with the requirements of Sec. 63.602(f) or Sec. 63.603(f),

the mass of methyl isobutyl ketone added to the process at any time

shall be apportioned on the basis of tons of equivalent P2O5 feed, as

determined under the requirements of Secs. 63.604(a) and 63.604(b), for

production occurring during the corresponding period of time.

Sec. 63.606 Notification requirements.

Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart

shall comply with the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9.

Sec. 63.607 Recordkeeping requirements.

Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart

shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.10.

Sec. 63.608 Reporting requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with

the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.10 as follows:

(1) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner

or operator shall report the results of the initial performance test as

part of the notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.9.

(2) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner

or operator of an affected source shall submit an excess emissions

report for any event when an operating parameter limit is exceeded. The

report shall contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10. When no

exceedances of a parameter have occurred, such information shall be

included in the report. The report shall be submitted semiannually and

shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of

the calendar half. If excess emissions are reported, the owner or

operator shall report quarterly until a request to reduce reporting

frequency is approved as described in Sec. 63.10.

(3) Summary report. If the total duration of control system

exceedances for the reporting period is less than 1 percent of the

total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator

shall submit a summary report containing the information specified in

Sec. 63.10 rather than the full excess emissions report, unless

required by the Administrator. The summary report shall be submitted

semiannually and shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day

following the end of the calendar half.

(4) If the total duration of control system parameter exceedances

for the reporting period is 1 percent or greater of the total operating

time for the reporting period, the owner or operator shall submit a

summary report and the excess emissions report.

Sec. 63.609 Compliance dates.

(a) Each owner or operator of an existing phosphoric acid

manufacturing plant shall achieve compliance with the requirements of

this subpart no later than (Three Years After Date of Publication of

Final Rule).

(b) Each owner or operator of a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant

that commences construction or reconstruction after (Date of

Publication of Final Rule) shall achieve compliance with the

requirements of this subpart by (Date of Publication of Final Rule) or

upon startup of operations, whichever is later.

Sec. 63.610 Exemption from new source performance standards.

Any process component subject to the provisions of this subpart is

exempted from any otherwise applicable new source performance standard

contained in 40 CFR Part 60.

3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart BB consisting of

Secs. 63.620 through 63.630 to read as follows:

Subpart BB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants

Sec.

63.620 Applicability.

63.621 Definitions.

63.622 Standards for existing sources.

63.623 Standards for new sources.

63.624 Monitoring requirements.

63.625 Performance tests and procedures.

63.626 Notification requirements.

63.627 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.628 Reporting requirements.

63.629 Compliance dates.

63.630 Exemption from exemption from new source performance

standards.

Subpart BB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants From Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants

Sec. 63.620 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the

requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each new

or existing phosphate fertilizers production plant.

(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted from the following affected

sources at a new or existing phosphate fertilizers production plant:

(1) Each diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate plant. The

requirements of this subpart apply to the following emission points

which are components of a diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate

plant: reactors, granulators, dryers, coolers, screens, and mills.

(2) Each granular triple superphosphate plant. The requirements of

this subpart apply to the following emission points which are

components of a granular triple superphosphate plant: mixers, curing

belts (dens), reactors, granulators, dryers, coolers, screens, and

mills.

(3) Each granular triple superphosphate storage building located at

a granular triple superphosphate plant. The requirements of this

subpart apply to the following emission points which are components of

a granular triple superphosphate storage building: storage or curing

buildings, conveyors, elevators, screens, and mills.

(c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or

operator of a new or existing phosphate fertilizers production plant

for which the owner or operator demonstrates, to the satisfaction of

the Administrator, that the facility is not a major source as defined

in Sec. 63.2.

Sec. 63.621 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in

Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:

Diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate plant means any plant

manufacturing granular diammonium and/or monoammonium

[[Page 68449]]

phosphate by reacting phosphoric acid with ammonia.

Equivalent P2O5 feed means the quantity of phosphorus,

expressed as phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the process.

Equivalent P2O5 stored means the quantity of phosphorus,

expressed as phosphorus pentoxide, being cured or stored in the

affected facility.

Fresh granular triple superphosphate means granular triple

superphosphate produced no more than 10 days prior to the date of the

performance test.

Granular triple superphosphate plant means any facility, not

including storage buildings, manufacturing granular triple

superphosphate by reacting phosphate rock with phosphoric acid.

Granular triple superphosphate storage building means any facility

curing or storing fresh granular triple superphosphate.

Total fluorides means elemental fluorine and all fluoride

compounds, including the HAP hydrogen fluoride, as measured by

reference methods specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 13 A

or B, or by equivalent or alternative methods approved by the

Administrator pursuant to Sec. 63.7(f).

Sec. 63.622 Standards for existing sources.

(a) Diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate plant. On and after

the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by

Secs. 63.7 and 63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total

fluorides in excess of 30 grams/metric ton of equivalent P2O5

feed (0.060 lb/ton).

(b) Granular triple superphosphate plant. On and after the date on

which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and

63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of

this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of 75

grams/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.15 lb/ton).

(c) Granular triple superphosphate storage building. On and after

the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by

Secs. 63.7 and 63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total

fluorides in excess of 0.250 grams/hr/metric ton of equivalent

P2O5 stored (5.0 X 10-\4\ lb/hr/ton of equivalent

P2O5 stored).

Sec. 63.623 Standards for new sources.

(a) Diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate plant. On and after

the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by

Secs. 63.7 and 63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total

fluorides in excess of 29.0 grams/metric ton of equivalent

P2O5 feed (0.0580 lb/ton).

(b) Granular triple superphosphate plant. On and after the date on

which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and

63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of

this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of

61.50 grams/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.1230 lb/

ton).

(c) Granular triple superphosphate storage building. On and after

the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by

Secs. 63.7 and 63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total

fluorides in excess of 0.250 grams/hr/metric ton of equivalent

P2O5 stored (5 x 10 1-4 lb/hr/ton of equivalent

P2O5 stored).

Sec. 63.624 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or

monoammonium phosphate plant or granular triple superphosphate plant

subject to the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate a monitoring system which can be used to

determine and permanently record the mass flow of phosphorus-bearing

feed material to the process. The monitoring system shall have an

accuracy of 5 percent over its operating range.

(b) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or

monoammonium phosphate plant or granular triple superphosphate plant

subject to the provisions of this subpart shall maintain a daily record

of equivalent P2O5 feed by first determining the total mass

rate in metric ton/hour of phosphorus bearing feed using a monitoring

system for measuring mass flowrate which meets the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this section and then by proceeding according to

Sec. 63.625(c)(3).

(c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or

monoammonium phosphate plant, granular triple superphosphate plant, or

granular triple superphosphate storage building using a wet scrubbing

emission control system shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate

the following monitoring systems:

(1) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently

records the total pressure drop across each scrubber in the process

scrubbing system. The monitoring system shall be certified by the

manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 percent over its

operating range.

(2) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently

records the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the

process scrubbing system. The monitoring system shall be certified by

the manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 percent over its

operating range.

(d) The owner or operator of any granular triple superphosphate

storage building subject to the provisions of this subpart shall

maintain an accurate account of granular triple superphosphate in

storage to permit the determination of the amount of equivalent

P2O5 stored.

(e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing granular triple

superphosphate storage building subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall maintain a daily record of total equivalent

P2O5 stored by multiplying the percentage P2O5

content, as determined by Sec. 63.625(d)(3)(C), times the total mass of

granular triple superphosphate stored.

(f) Any new or existing source subject to emissions limitations for

total fluorides or particulate matter contained in this subpart shall

comply with either paragraph (f) (1) or (2) of this section:

(1) For a new or existing affected source, following the date on

which the performance test required in Sec. 63.625 is completed, any

three-hour average of the total pressure drop across the scrubber(s) or

of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to the scrubber(s) in the

process scrubbing system which exceeds ten percent of the

value determined as a requirement of Sec. 63.625 (c)(4) or (d)(4) shall

constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit contained in

this subpart unless the affected source performs and passes a

performance test as required in Sec. 63.625 within thirty days

following the exceedance. Any owner or operator who intends to conduct

a performance test pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the

Administrator of that intention within one business day of the

parameter exceedance. Any owner or operator conducting a performance

test pursuant to this paragraph shall establish and maintain during

that test

[[Page 68450]]

the same operating conditions as were determined during the exceedance

of the operating range.

(2) The owner or operator of any new or existing affected source

shall establish operating ranges for the total pressure drop across or

of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the

process scrubbing system for the purpose of assuring compliance with

applicable emission limits required in this subpart. Operating ranges

may be based upon values recorded during previous performance tests

using the test methods required in this subpart and established in the

manner required in Sec. 63.625 (c)(4) or (d)(4). As an alternative the

owner or operator can base the operating ranges upon the results of

performance tests conducted specifically for the purposes of this

paragraph using the test methods required in this subpart and

established in the manner required in Sec. 63.625 (c)(4) or (d)(4). The

source shall certify that the control devices and processes have not

been modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to

establish the operating ranges were obtained. Following the approval by

the permitting authority of operating ranges for the affected source,

any three-hour average of the values of total pressure drop or flow

rate of the scrubbing liquid which exceeds the approved operating

ranges shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit

contained in this subpart.

Sec. 63.625 Performance tests and procedures.

(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate

fertilizers production plant subject to the provisions of this subpart

shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the

applicable emission standard for each diammonium and/or monoammonium

phosphate plant, granular triple superphosphate plant, or granular

triple superphosphate storage building. If the affected source has

multiple control devices and/or emission points subject to the

provisions of this subpart, those control devices and/or emission

points shall be tested simultaneously. The owner or operator shall

conduct the performance test according to the procedures in the General

Provisions in subpart A of this part and in this section.

(b) In conducting performance tests, each owner or operator of an

affected source shall use as reference methods and procedures the test

methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, or other methods and procedures

as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).

(c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or

monoammonium phosphate plant or granular triple superphosphate plant

shall determine compliance with the applicable total fluorides

standards in Sec. 63.622 or Sec. 63.623 as follows:

(1) The emission rate (E) of total fluorides shall be computed for

each run using the following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27DE96.010

Where:

E=emission rate of total fluorides, g/metric ton (lb/ton) of

equivalent P2O5 feed.

Csi=concentration of total fluorides from emission point ``i,''

mg/dscm (mg/dscf).

Qsdi=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission point

``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).

N=number of emission points associated with the affected facility.

P=equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr).

K=conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (453,600 mg/lb).

(2) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to

determine the total fluorides concentration (Csi) and volumetric

flow rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each of the emission

points. If Method 13B is used, the fusion of the filtered material

described in section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of suitable aliquots

of containers 1 and 2, described in sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 in Method

13A, may be omitted. The sampling time and sample volume for each run

shall be at least one hour and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).

(3) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) shall be computed

for each run using the following equation:

P=Mp Rp

Where:

Mp=total mass flow rate of phosphorus-bearing feed, metric ton/

hr (ton/hr).

Rp=P2O5 content, decimal fraction.

(i) The accountability system of Sec. 63.624 (a) and (b) shall be

used to determine the mass flow rate (Mp) of the phosphorus-

bearing feed.

(ii) The Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method

9 (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 60.17) shall be used to

determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of the feed.

(4) To comply with Sec. 63.624(f) (1) or (2), the owner or operator

shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.624(c) to determine the

average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the

process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the

scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during

each of the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic averages of the three

runs shall be used as the baseline average values for the purposes of

Sec. 63.624(f) (1) or (2).

(d) Each owner or operator of a new or existing granular triple

superphosphate storage building shall determine compliance with the

applicable total fluorides standards in Sec. 63.622 or Sec. 63.623 as

follows:

(1) The owner or operator shall conduct performance tests only when

the following quantities of product are being cured or stored in the

facility.

(i) Total granular triple superphosphate is at least 10 percent of

the building capacity, and

(ii) Fresh granular triple superphosphate is at least 20 percent of

the total amount of triple superphosphate, or

(iii) If the provision in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section

exceeds production capabilities for fresh granular triple

superphosphate, fresh granular triple superphosphate is equal to at

least 5 days maximum production.

(2) In conducting the performance test, the owner or operator shall

use as reference methods and procedures the test methods in Part 60,

Appendix A, or other methods and procedures as specified in this

section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).

(3) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the total

fluorides standard in Secs. 63.622 and 63.623 as follows:

(i) The emission rate (E) of total fluorides shall be computed for

each run using the following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27DE96.011

Where:

E=emission rate of total fluorides, g/hr/metric ton (lb/hr/ton) of

equivalent P2O5 stored.

Csi=concentration of total fluorides from emission point ``i,''

mg/dscm (mg/dscf).

Qsdi=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission point

``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).

N=number of emission points in the affected facility.

P=equivalent P2O5 stored, metric tons (tons).

K=conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (453,600 mg/lb).

(ii) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used

to determine the total fluorides concentration (Csi) and

volumetric flow rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each of the

emission points. If Method 13 B is used, the fusion of the filtered

material described in section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of suitable

aliquots of containers 1 and 2, described in Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4

in Method 13 A,

[[Page 68451]]

may be omitted. The sampling time and sample volume for each run shall

be at least one hour and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).

(iii) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) shall be computed

for each run using the following equation:

P=Mp Rp

Where:

Mp=amount of product in storage, metric ton (ton).

Rp=P2O5 content of product in storage, weight

fraction.

(A) The accountability system of Sec. 63.624 (d) and (e) shall be

used to determine the amount of product (Mp) in storage.

(B) The Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method 9

(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 60.17) shall be used to

determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of the product in

storage.

(4) To comply with Sec. 63.624(f) (1) or (2), the owner or operator

shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.624(c) to determine the

average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the

process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the

scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during

each of the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic averages of the three

runs shall be used as the baseline average values for the purposes of

Sec. 63.624(f) (1) or (2).

Sec. 63.626 Notification requirements.

Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart

shall comply with the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9.

Sec. 63.627 Recordkeeping requirements.

Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart

shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.10.

Sec. 63.628 Reporting requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with

the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.10 as follows:

(1) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner

or operator shall report the results of the initial performance test as

part of the notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.9.

(2) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner

or operator of an affected source shall submit an excess emissions

report for any event when an operating parameter limit is exceeded. The

report shall contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10. When no

exceedances of a parameter have occurred, such information shall be

included in the report. The report shall be submitted semiannually and

shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of

the calendar half. If excess emissions are reported, the owner or

operator shall report quarterly until a request to reduce reporting

frequency is approved as described in Sec. 63.10.

(3) Summary report. If the total duration of control system

exceedances for the reporting period is less than 1 percent of the

total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator

shall submit a summary report containing the information specified in

Sec. 63.10 rather than the full excess emissions report, unless

required by the Administrator. The summary report shall be submitted

semiannually and shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day

following the end of the calendar half.

(4) If the total duration of control system parameter exceedances

for the reporting period is 1 percent or greater of the total operating

time for the reporting period, the owner or operator shall submit a

summary report and the excess emissions report.

(b) [Reserved]

Sec. 63.629 Compliance dates.

(a) Each owner or operator of an existing phosphate fertilizers

production plant shall achieve compliance with the requirements of this

subpart no later than (Three Years After Date of Publication of Final

Rule).

(b) Each owner or operator of a phosphate fertilizers production

plant that commences construction or reconstruction after (Date of

Publication of Final Rule), shall achieve compliance with the

requirements of this subpart by (Date of Publication of Final Rule) or

upon startup of operations, whichever is later.

Sec. 63.630 Exemption from new source performance standards.

Any process component subject to the provisions of this subpart is

exempted from any otherwise applicable new source performance standard

contained in 40 CFR Part 60.

[FR Doc. 96-31706 Filed 12-26-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P