National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production
Federal RegisterJun 10, 1999
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing major sources in
phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production
plants (SIC 2874). Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the
facilities covered by this rule include hydrogen fluoride (HF);
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel
(HAP metals); and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). 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 rules will
achieve an emission reduction of HF estimated at 315 megagrams per year
(Mg/yr) (345 tons per year [tpy]). The standards will 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). This action also amends 40 CFR part 9 by updating
the table of currently approved information collection control numbers
to include the information requirements contained in this final rule.
The standards are promulgated under the authority of section 112 of
the Clean Air Act (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 188 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act from the
various process operations found within the industry. The NESHAP will
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: Effective Date. June 10, 1999. See the Supplementary Information
section concerning judicial review.
Incorporation by Reference. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications in these standards is approved by the Director of
the Office of the Federal Register as of June 10, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Public Docket No. A-94-02, containing information
considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated standards, is
available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday at the following address in room M-1500, Waterside Mall
(ground floor): U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7549. A reasonable fee may
be charged for copying docket materials. For additional information on
the Docket and electronic availability see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning
applicability and rule determinations contact:
Region I
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA, Region I, CAP, JFK Federal
Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3351
Region II
Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000
Region III
Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region III,
3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597-3989
Region IV
Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta Federal
Center 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-9131
Region V
George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region
V, 5AE-26, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-2088
Region VI
John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VI, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-7220
Region VII
Donald Toensing, Chief, Air Permitting and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7446
Region VIII
Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,
Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303)
312-6432
Region IX
Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1138
Region X
Anita Frankel, Office of Air Quality, U.S. EPA, Region X, OAQ-107, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 533-2963
For information concerning the analyses performed in developing
this rule, contact Mr. Ken Durkee, telephone number (919) 541-5425,
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 rulemaking applies 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
Process Line, Superphosphoric
Acid Process Line, Phosphate
Rock Dryer, Phosphate Rock
Calciner, Purified Phosphoric
Acid Process Line.
Phosphate Fertilizers Production....... Diammonium and/or Monoammonium
Phosphate Process Line,
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Process Line, Granular Triple
Superphosphate Storage
Building.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31359]]
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
regulations. This table lists the types of entities that the Agency is
now aware could be potentially regulated. To determine whether your
facility is covered by the regulations, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in the 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.
Docket and Electronic Information
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. The e-mail address for the Center is ``a-and-r-
[email protected]''. 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 regulatory text
is available through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) at the
Unified Air Toxics Website (UATW). Following promulgation, a copy of
the rule will be posted at the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
t3pfpr.html). More comprehensive information concerning the rule will
be posted on the UATW (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/7__10yrstds.html).
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control. If more information on the TTN is needed,
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review
The NESHAP for new and existing major sources in phosphoric acid
manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production plants were proposed
in the Federal Register (FR) on December 27, 1996 (61 FR 68430). This
Federal Register action announces the EPA's final decision on the rule.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the final rule
is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's
publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the
requirements that are the subject of today's action may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
The following outline is provided to aid in reading the preamble to
the final rule.
I. Background
A. Background and Purpose of Standards
B. Technical Basis of Regulation
C. Stakeholder and Public Participation
II. Summary of Promulgated Standards
III. Summary of Impacts
IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal and Responses
A. Selection of Pollutants
1. Hydrogen Fluoride
2. HAP Metals
3. Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS)
B. Compliance Provisions
1. Use of Monitored Operating Parameters for Establishing
Violations of the Standards
2. Selection of Monitored Parameters
3. Frequency of Testing
4. Simultaneous Testing
5. Process Monitoring Requirements for Purified Phosphoric Acid
Plant (PPA) Plants
6. Other
C. Emission Limits
1. General
2. Wet Process Phosphoric Acid (WPPA) Plants
3. Evaporative Cooling Towers at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing
Plants
4. Phosphate Rock Calciners and Dryers
5. Purified Phosphoric Acid (PPA) Plants
6. Granular Triple Superphosphate (GTSP) Storage Buildings
7. Cooling Ponds
D. Other Comments
1. Determination of Major Source Status
2. NSPS Exemption
3. Draft Technical Support Document (TSD)
4. Applicability--Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Phosphate (DAP/
MAP) Emission Limits
5. Applicability--Research and Development Facilities
6. Notification
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility
F. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Executive Order 13045
J. Executive Order 13084
I. Background
A. Background and Purpose of Standards
Section 112 of the Act requires the Agency to 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 effects, and energy
requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
Section 112 of the Act requires the Agency to establish national
standards to reduce HAP emissions from major sources and certain area
sources that emit one or more HAPs. Section 112(b) contains a list of
HAPs 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 section 112(e)
requires the Agency to devise 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
HAPs. 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 HAPs. 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.
The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of
technology-based emission standards under section 112(d) 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
[[Page 31360]]
requirements for operator training or certification) as provided in
subsection (h); or (5) a combination of the above. (See section
112(d)(2).) The Agency may promulgate more stringent standards at a
later date if residual risk remains after the imposition of controls.
(See section 112(f)(2)). Pursuant to section 112(d) of the Act, on
December 27, 1996 the Agency proposed NESHAP for new and existing
sources in the phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers
production source categories (61 FR 68430).
B. Technical Basis of Regulation
For existing sources, section 112(d) of the Act requires that the
Agency establish NESHAP which require the maximum degree of reductions
achievable by available control techniques. Such standards (called
``maximum achievable control technology'' or ``MACT'') may be 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).'' In general, NESHAP are to be
numerical limitations derived from the application of emissions control
technologies. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT
floor. As a starting point, the Agency gathered available data to
analyze to identify the technology that could 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.
During its information collection effort regarding HF emissions,
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 new source performance standards (NSPS) and emissions
guidelines (EG). The NSPS are emissions limitations for new sources
based upon the best demonstrated technologies considering cost, non-air
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy impacts. Given a
limited amount 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
availed itself of information reflecting the effect of over twenty
years of implementation of NSPS and EG which are technology-based
standards. The Agency obtained performance data derived from emissions
tests conducted to establish compliance with emissions limitations
required by NSPS and with State-permitted emissions limitations
developed pursuant to EG for previously existing sources.
Performance data were analyzed for several different types and
configurations of wet scrubbing devices and the data indicated that no
one design achieves superior control. Further, the data were reviewed
for the purpose of calculating MACT floors. Data for sources with
multiple emission tests showed significant variability which tended to
have as its upper bound the permitted emission limits. This was to be
expected since the controls were designed and operated to achieve
specific limits as reflected in permits. The permit limits were
typically based upon NSPS and EG. Since the data indicated that the
level of control capable of being achieved was reflected in sources'
permits, the Agency elected to directly calculate floors on the basis
of the permitted emission limits. So, to determine emissions limits
corresponding to MACT floors, the Agency first identified the median of
the top twelve percent of permits issued to sources for each process.
After thus identifying the best controlled sources and establishing
preliminary MACT floors, the Agency again analyzed the available test
data to ascertain that the control levels of the permit limits were
being achieved and to determine if greater degrees of control were
actually being achieved in practice for individual processes. For
sources of total fluorides, 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, the MACT floor analysis was performed using permitted emissions
of particulate matter. The available test data indicate permitted
levels are being achieved. For calciners, the permits were all based
upon general process rate allowances which were not developed
specifically for phosphate rock calcining. In the case of calciners,
there were numerous test reports for particulate matter. 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, which consistently were lower than
permitted levels.
One source manufactures a purified phosphoric acid (PPA) through a
solvent extraction method. The plant emits MIBK, which is a HAP.
Fugitive emissions of MIBK from valves, flanges, and seals are reduced
by means of an ongoing maintenance and repair program. As the lone PPA
facility in the source category, its control methods constitute the
MACT floor for controlling fugitive emissions of MIBK. The MIBK cannot
be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to capture
this pollutant. Upon consideration of the fugitive nature of these
emissions, the available information and the public comments received,
the Agency has concluded that it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission standard for control of these emissions. In section
112(h)(1), the Act provides that the Administrator may prescribe a work
practice consistent with the provisions of section 112(d) in lieu of an
emission standard, if it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard for control of a HAP. In this instance, the current
work practices at the plant constitute the floor level of control for
PPA plants. The LDAR (leak detection and repair) provisions in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart H were determined during development of the hazardous
organics NESHAP to be MACT for fugitive emissions sources with similar
characteristics to those of the one plant emitting MIBK. After
considering all available information, especially the public comments
received, the Agency has concluded that subpart H is at least
equivalent to the facility's current practices and has adopted the LDAR
provisions of the Hazardous Organics NESHAP (HON) as part of the MACT
controls for this process.
Having thus identified the floor level of control for the different
processes and pollutants of concern, the Agency then considered the
possibility of setting more stringent limitations. The final rule, like
the proposal, does not require facilities to achieve emission
reductions more stringent than the MACT floor.
As a part of a reconsideration, the Agency first explored the
possibility that different control technologies were available and
demonstrated for the classes of sources being controlled by today's
action. None were found that had been demonstrated and could be applied
without creating additional negative impacts to other environmental
media. The Agency also considered whether new source emission limits
could be applied to existing sources. The emissions data showed that
high levels of control were being achieved in both cases and that there
was minimal
[[Page 31361]]
opportunity for additional significant reductions to be achieved by
going from the existing-source MACT floors to the levels of new source
MACT. Balanced against the minimal potential for additional reductions
were the costs of retrofitting controls to plants for which emissions
data showed the existence of multiple test data points near the MACT
floor. As an example, the Agency previously calculated the annualized
capital cost for the addition of a new wet scrubber to a model WPPA
(wet process phosphoric acid) plant producing 36 tons per hour to be
$17,253 per year. Such a plant operating at the existing source MACT
level which would install a new scrubber to achieve the new source MACT
level would reduce HF emissions by 0.34 tons per year. So, the cost
effectiveness of the additional reduction would be $50,744 per ton of
additional HF removed, which the Agency considers to be inappropriately
high at this time. Thus, the Agency concludes that requiring existing
sources to be controlled beyond the MACT floor would be unreasonable in
terms of cost.
For new sources, section 112(d) of the Act requires that the Agency
establish NESHAP which may be no less stringent than ``the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
source.'' For new sources, the most stringent permit issued for any
given process was adopted as MACT, except for calciners. Performance
test data indicated that the most stringent permit limits were being
achieved in practice. The calciners limit was based upon test data that
showed an achievable level of performance exceeding the permitted
requirements. Thus, MACT was set for all but one of the subcategories
at the level of the most stringent permit requirements because there
was no case in which more effective controls were identified.
C. Stakeholder and Public Participation
In the development of these standards, numerous representatives of
the phosphate fertilizers industry were consulted. Industry
representatives have included trade associations and producers.
Representatives from other interested Agency offices, regional offices,
and State environmental agencies participated in the regulatory
development process as members of an informal work group. The work
group was involved in the regulatory development process, and was given
opportunities to review and comment on the standards before proposal
and promulgation. Finally, industry representatives, regulatory
authorities, and environmental groups had the opportunity to comment on
the proposed standards and to provide additional information during the
public comment period that followed proposal.
The standards were proposed in the Federal Register on December 27,
1996 (61 FR 68430). The preamble to the proposed standards described
the rationale for the proposed standards. Public comments were
solicited at the time of proposal. To provide interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed standards, a public hearing was offered at
proposal. However, the public did not request a hearing and, therefore,
one was not held. The public comment period was from December 27, 1996
to February 25, 1997. Sixteen comment letters were received. Commenters
included industry representatives, control device manufacturers, State
agencies and an environmental organization. The comments were carefully
considered, and changes were made in the proposed standards when
determined by the Agency to be appropriate. A detailed discussion of
these comments and responses can be found in Section IV of this
preamble.
II. Summary of Promulgated Standards
The NESHAP emissions limits for existing and new sources are given
in the tables below.
Emissions Limitations for Existing Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of source Pollutant Emission limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Process Total Fluorides...... 0.020 lb. Total Fluoride (F-) Per Ton P2O5 Feed.
Line.
Superphosphoric Acid Process Line.. Total Fluorides...... 0.010 lb. F- Per Ton P2O5 Feed.
Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Total Fluorides...... 0.060 lb. F- Per Ton P2O5 Feed.
Phosphate Process Line.
Granular Triple Superphosphate Total Fluorides...... 0.150 lb. F- Per Ton P2O5 Feed.
Process Line.
Granular Triple Superphosphate Total Fluorides...... 5.0 x 10-4 lb. F- Per Hour Per Ton of P2O5 Stored.
Storage Buildings.
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 Process MIBK................. Implement Part 63, Subpart H, Leak Detection and Repair Program.
Line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Limitations for New Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate FertilizeR Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of source Pollutant Emission limit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Process Total Fluorides...... 0.01350 lb. Total Fluoride (F-) per ton P2O5 Feed.
Line.
SuperphosPhoric Acid Process Line.. Total Fluorides...... 0.00870 lb. F- per ton P2O5 Feed.
Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Total Fluorides...... 0.0580 lb. F- per ton P2O5 Feed.
Phosphate Process Line.
Granular Triple SuperphosPhate Total Fluorides...... 0.1230 lb. F- per ton P2O5 Feed.
Process Line.
Granular Triple SuperphosPhate Total Fluorides...... 5.0 X 10-4 lb. F- Per Hour Per Ton of P2O5 Stored.
Storage Buildings.
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 Process MIBK................. Implement Part 63, Subpart H, Leak Detection and Repair Program.
Line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31362]]
The form, but not the substance, of the standard for one
subcategory has changed since proposal. In the proposal, the Agency
noted that two types of superphosphoric acid process lines currently
operate: a vacuum evaporation process and a submerged combustion
process. These processes are quite distinct from one another and they
use different feedstock. Moreover, the submerged combustion process is
not amenable to the same level of control as is the vacuum evaporation
process. The Agency therefore concluded that these processes should be
regulated as separate subcategories under this NESHAP.
Because only one facility currently exists in the submerged
combustion process subcategory, the proposal's emission standard for
the subcategory consisted of the lone source identified by company
name. In the final regulation, the Agency has established an emission
limit for the submerged combustion process subcategory generally
without reference to the specific facility. Doing so ensures that
changes in the facility's name or ownership would not change the
applicable emission standard.
Consistent with the proposal, the final regulation does not
distinguish between process types in its establishment of new source
emission limits for superphosphoric acid production. As the Agency
noted at proposal, a new facility ``could avail itself of the same
resources as other companies in the industry'' in choosing the kind of
process to employ in manufacturing superphosphoric acid. (See 61 FR
68438.) Put another way, the Agency examined both vacuum evaporation
process and submerged combustion process sources to identify the ``best
controlled similar source,'' which serves as the MACT floor for new
sources. The Agency concluded that the MACT floor was represented by a
facility employing the vacuum evaporation process. No commenter
objected to this proposal and the Agency has retained it in the final
regulation.
Two additional technical changes are present in the final
regulation. First, the standards as proposed often referred to
``plants'' in defining the affected source, but the final regulation
refers to ``process lines.'' For example, the proposed standard for a
``Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plant'' now refers to a ``Wet Process
Phosphoric Acid Process Line.'' Because the NSPS used the term
``plant,'' the proposal (based in large part upon the NSPS) did as
well. However, in practice, the ``plant'' to which the NSPS applies is
indeed a single process line. EPA has chosen to use the more specific
term in the final regulation in order to promote clarity for the
regulated public. The Agency is confident that this change has no
effect on the stringency of the standard.
Second, the requirement that owners or operators of purified
phosphoric acid process lines ensure that each product acid and
raffinate stream have no more than a specified concentration of MIBK
and that they ensure that the chiller stack exit gas stream remains
below a given temperature has been moved from the monitoring section of
the rule to its more appropriate location in the emission standard
section.
An annual performance test is required to demonstrate compliance
with each applicable numerical limit for total fluorides or particulate
matter. The monitoring provisions require an owner or operator using a
wet scrubbing device 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
must also be continuously monitored. During the performance test, the
owner/operator must record the scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow
rate to establish baseline levels. Following the performance test, it
is an operating requirement that the owner/operator must maintain
scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate within plus or minus twenty
percent of the values recorded during the performance test or within a
range established upon the basis of prior successful tests. Any
exceedance of the operating range averaged over 24 hours is a violation
of the operating requirement.
For PPA plants that emit MIBK, the standards require implementation
of a leak detection and repair program, 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 must develop and implement a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan. Most notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in the general provisions apply to phosphoric
acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production facilities.
These include but are not limited to: (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 also 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. Reports may be made on paper or on a labeled computer
disk using commonly available and EPA-compatible computer software.
III. Summary of Impacts
The overall effect of the rule is 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 non-HAP pollutants and lowered
occupational exposure levels for employees.
The Agency 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 are expected to
achieve these reductions by upgrading or installing wet scrubbing
systems.
Expected impacts to energy usage and other media are expected to be
negligible. The largest possible impact will be a minor increase in
liquid streams flowing to cooling ponds. Since the processes are net
consumers of water, those flows will be recycled to the processes.
The nationwide capital and annualized costs of the 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 product prices less than three-
fourths of a percent. One company in the industry is a small entity
which would be subject to the standards. The economic impact of the
NESHAP on this company is estimated to be low and would not be
significant. No production line or plant closures are expected.
[[Page 31363]]
IV. Summary of Comments on Proposal and Responses
A. Selection of Pollutants
1. Hydrogen Fluoride
Comment. One commenter said that the Agency had no empirical data
measuring whether and to what extent HF is actually emitted from
phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer production
facilities, and, that the Agency should not, and legally may not,
propose or promulgate a NESHAP for HF emissions from these facilities.
The commenter questioned whether or not phosphoric acid manufacturing
and phosphate fertilizer production facilities actually emit HF. The
commenter said that no direct measurements of HF emissions from such
facilities have ever been made. The commenter went on to question the
calculations used to support the original listing of the source
categories and the validity of the listings. The commenter further
questioned the suitability of the Agency's use of a state permitting
report (docket item II-I-32cc) since it did not contain results of
direct measurements of HF. The commenter read the March 1995 review
draft technical support document (TSD) as recognizing, whether or not,
and to what extent, HF may be emitted by the sources affected by the
draft NESHAP is dependent to a large extent on the levels of silica
present in the processes in question. The commenter postulated that
ammonia also ties up fluoride as ammonium bifluoride, making it even
less likely that phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer
production facilities actually emit HF. Thus, the commenter concluded
that it appears that the Agency is basing both its determination that
the facilities in question emit HF and its estimation of the amount of
HF emitted on two sources: (1) ``calculations'' made by an EPA
contractor; and (2) a report prepared by a company in connection with
state toxic air pollutant permitting. The commenter said that these
``calculations'' are unverified estimates and are not based on
empirical data. The commenter continued that the state permitting
report was not based on actual measurements of HF emissions. Rather,
the silica content of monitoring impingers employed to test total
fluoride emissions in two test runs was used to create a mass balance
for various fluoride species across all of the fluoride emission points
at the facility in question.
One commenter said that the HF fraction of the fluorides in air
emissions from phosphate-ore plants, in view of the speciating
difficulties of ascertaining the exact fraction as HF, should be closer
to the ``\1/3\ rule'' of chemistry (the reaction of
H2SiF6--> 2HF + SiF4), not the 28-49
percent range EPA is considering. The commenter said that with silica
present in all parts of the phosphoric acid process it is logical for
the HF portion in air emissions to be a mere fraction of the 28-49
percent range.
Response. The Agency responds to the statement that HF has not been
directly measured or detected at phosphate fertilizer complexes by
referring to docket items II-A-6 and II-A-12 which are reports of
Agency tests which used Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)
sampling and analysis to directly measure HF and silicon tetrafluoride
at two facilities. Hydrogen fluoride was measured in amounts that
exceeded the major source cutoff under Section 112. It was noteworthy
that no silicon tetrafluoride was present in several test runs. In
those test runs where silicon tetrafluoride was measured, its
concentrations were dwarfed by those of HF. In a third test reported in
docket item II-D-15, HF was also measured. The significance of all of
these tests is that there are major sources of HAP emissions and HF was
in fact directly measured. The low amount of silicon tetrafluoride
present is supportive of the Agency's approach of estimating the HF
component of total fluoride as one third of the total as predicted by
the chemical equations cited in the TSD. The information in the State
toxics permitting report (docket item II-I-32cc), which was submitted
to the State by a source in the industry, supports this approach.
Comment. One commenter said the Agency used inconsistent
methodology in evaluating and regulating HF from processes and the
associated cooling ponds. It was the commenter's position that the
Agency must use total fluoride as a surrogate for HF in all situations,
including cooling pond emissions. Further, the commenter thought that
use of one HF test from one cooling pond was highly questionable given
the historic wide variation in fluoride emission data from gypsum/
cooling ponds. The commenter cited an Agency publication that gave
fluoride emission data for gypsum/cooling ponds that has ranged from
0.2 to 10 lbs. of fluoride a day per acre of surface area. The
commenter concluded that gypsum/cooling ponds remain a major source of
fluoride emissions and the Agency had not established a sound
scientific basis for concluding that HF was not a significant part of
the large fluoride emissions from the cooling ponds.
Response. The Agency's analysis of NESHAP for cooling ponds focused
upon HF emissions because direct measurement data were available. The
Agency is aware that those results differed from those of prior
studies, including the Agency's own FTIR studies. The variations in
data result in different possible estimates of total emissions.
Nevertheless, these differences are not important for the purposes of
the present rulemaking. The MACT floor determination is driven by the
availability of existing control techniques. Here, MACT for existing
cooling ponds is no control because there are no demonstrated control
techniques used in practice which could have been applied to these
sources, regardless of estimated emissions.
Total fluorides were used as a surrogate for HF to establish MACT
for emissions from process sources, in contrast to the ponds, because
no direct measurements of HF were available and because the NSPS are
based on total fluorides. The Agency notes that the results of the FTIR
analyses for cooling ponds gave proportions of HF relative to total
fluoride which were consistent with those predicted by chemical
stoichiometry and, therefore, are supportive of the Agency's approach
to estimating the impacts of the emission standards for processes.
Since the control of total fluorides and HF from process sources is
accomplished with the same control technology (scrubbers), the MACT
analysis results in the same level of control regardless of how the
emissions are characterized. The use of total fluoride as a surrogate
for HF simply changes the manner in which the emissions limit is
quantified, not the actual level of control.
2. HAP Metals
Comment. Three commenters stated that particulate matter is an
adequate performance measurement for the most likely control technology
(wet scrubbers). However, they were concerned that particulate matter
used as a surrogate may not accurately track all HAP metals emissions.
Their primary concern arose from the fact that calciners operate at
temperatures near 1,500 degrees F, which volatilize some HAP metals
(such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury and selenium). They noted that such
volatilized metals would likely condense as sub-micron particles (for
which the scrubbers have significantly lower control efficiency than
they do for the bulk of the calciner particulate matter) and that
Method 5 measurements would not reflect those emissions. This could
lead to an erroneous conclusion that those
[[Page 31364]]
pollutants were adequately reduced. In consideration of these concerns,
the commenters suggested that the final rule should require affected
sources to collect appropriate data (such as that established by Method
29) with which to determine the extent of HAP emissions from calciners.
Response. As the commenters noted, the MACT floor technology
consists of wet scrubbers. EPA used available particulate matter
emissions data to serve as a surrogate for HAP metals. This PM
Surrogate will require the installation of equipment at least as
efficient as the technology that is representative of the floor level
of emissions. Emission tests and analysis for metals is more costly
than simply testing for particulate and would not result in a different
floor technology. Therefore the Agency is requiring that particulate
testing be performed to demonstrate compliance.
Comment. One commenter said that no direct information was
presented to confirm the existence of HAP from dryers and calciners at
phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities. The commenter asked that all
sections of the proposal dealing with these sources be deleted in the
absence of some evidence that they are major HAP emitters.
Another commenter said that the data cited by the Agency are not a
sufficient basis for the establishment of a NESHAP for such metals. The
commenter stated that there are no stack test data specific to HAP
metals and the only data on HAP metals cited are those included in a
state toxic air pollutant permitting report (docket item II-I-32cc).
The commenter said the establishment of NESHAP (or for particulate
matter as a surrogate for such metals) is beyond the legal authority of
the Agency under the Act.
Response. Since HAP metals are present in phosphate rock, they will
also be emitted from equipment subjecting the ore to high temperatures.
The information in the TSD and the docket, to which commenters allude,
is air toxics information provided to the State of North Carolina
(docket items II-I-32aa and cc) that certifies that a particular source
in that State emits HAP metals from dryers and calciners. The State has
endorsed the submittals of that source in the form of approved air
toxics permits. In particular, item II-I-32aa, which is an attachment
to item II-I-32cc, contains results of direct testing of particulate
matter from calciner emissions. The testing found arsenic, manganese,
nickel, and cadmium, all of which are HAPs. Thus, the Agency concluded
that PM is an effective surrogate for HAP metals.
Also, the docket includes item II-I-52u that refers to information
provided to a State regulatory agency that indicates that HAP compounds
are emitted from calciners that a commenter operated and for which the
commenter has current operating permits. Commenter's point that some
dryers and calciners may not be major HAP emitters by themselves would
not excuse the Agency from a duty to establish emissions limits for
that equipment when it is located at major sources of HAPs.
3. Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS)
Comment. One commenter expressed concern that the NESHAP would not
address TRS emissions from WPPA plants. The commenter gave as an
example one facility that emits 1690 tons per year of TRS and noted
that those emissions dwarfed those of kraft pulp mills in its
jurisdiction. The commenter suggested that TRS should be regulated and
the most appropriate way to do so would be through the next review of
the NSPS in subpart T.
Response. Because the TRS pollutants are not listed as HAPs for the
purposes of the Act, the Agency presently is not required to regulate
TRS under section 112 of the Act. The commenter's suggestion of
considering limits on TRS during the next review of the NSPS in Subpart
T will be addressed in that context.
B. Compliance Provisions
1. Use of Monitored Operating Parameters for Establishing Violations of
the Standards
Comment. A number of commenters expressed their opinions on the
Agency's proposal to relate operation outside established site-specific
ranges of wet scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate to
exceedances of the emissions limits. The commenters were unanimous in
questioning such relationships for emissions levels for total fluorides
and particulates for the sources subject to these NESHAP. One commenter
claimed that there was no basis for limiting the variation in operating
parameter monitoring results to plus or minus ten percent of the level
observed during a performance test. The commenter said there were no
data in the record to support any correlation between operating
parameter exceedances and a violation of the proposed NESHAP emission
limits, much less a correlation between a greater than ten percent
variation in operating parameter values and such a violation. Another
commenter said the proposed 10 percent restriction limit on
the emission control devices (usually scrubber pressure drop and the
liquid flow rate) was needlessly restrictive. The commenter recommended
a 17 percent restriction limit as being less restrictive
and serving as a ``surrogate'' indicator for continuous monitoring of
equipment whose function is to maintain emission limits.
The primary industry commenter argued that there is nothing in the
record of this rulemaking to establish that an operating parameter
exceedance is ``credible evidence'' of the duration, much less the
existence, of a violation of the proposed NESHAP emission limits. The
commenter noted that the data contained in the record of this
rulemaking consist entirely of performance test results and there are
absolutely no data or information in the record upon which the Agency
could base a determination that the operating parameter exceedances
identified in the proposal can be equated with a violation of the
proposed NESHAP emission limits. The commenter provided data for the
purpose of indicating that sources might meet proposed emissions limits
over a wide range of operating conditions. The data covered a period of
years and included a wide range of operating conditions. As a group,
these commenters were of the opinion that control device operating
parameters such as scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate could be
used as indicators of proper operation and the need for maintenance.
In the event that the monitoring provisions of the proposal were
retained, three commenters recommended that sources electing to use
historic test results to establish a range of operation for control
device operating parameters as provided by proposed Secs. 63.604(d)(2)
or 63.624(f)(2) should be given the same opportunity to retest to
demonstrate that prior exceedances did not constitute violations of
emission limits as provided in Secs. 63.604(d)(1) or 63.624(f)(1).
Pursuing the logic of the previous paragraph, one of the commenters
said the basis for the retest option would be the fact that compliance
with the emission limits can be achieved even if operating parameter
values are outside the range observed during a compliance performance
test. The commenter held that this rationale was valid whether the
operating parameter ranges are established by the plus or minus ten
percent method or by the owner or operator under the alternative
method.
Some commenters believe it is prudent to keep the continuous
parameter monitoring requirements in
[[Page 31365]]
the proposed rule to assist operators in determining whether their
controls are operating properly. They note that while it is not
necessarily true that sources are in compliance with the emission
standards just because their two monitored operating parameters are
within the range of values established during the performance test,
exceedances of operating parameters are good indicators of control
device malfunctions. These commenters recommended not allowing sources
that exceed the continuous monitoring parameters set during the
performance test to have the opportunity to retest within 30 days to
demonstrate that the prior exceedance did not constitute a violation of
an emission limit, as proposed. The commenters believe it would be very
difficult to ensure that the proposed provisions requiring the source
to establish and maintain during the re-test the same operating
conditions that existed during the exceedance of the operating range
could be properly followed and that the retest would, in all
probability, not represent conditions present during the exceedance.
Furthermore, they commented that the allowance to retest would add
another layer of complications for determining compliance under the
rule. They recommended deleting the allowance to retest from the final
rule.
Response. The final rule accommodates the concerns raised with
regard to the Agency's proposal linking exceedances of operating
parameter ranges to compliance with the emission limit. Specifically,
the final rule eliminates this direct linkage, based on data submitted
by commenters' indicating that compliance with an operating parameter
range does not always correlate to compliance with the emission limit,
and it establishes instead operating parameter limits which help assure
continuous compliance with the emission limit. In so doing, the rule
also reflects other concerns that the standard should contain operating
requirements aimed at ensuring proper operation and maintenance of
sources' control devices. Consequently, although the data available to
the Agency did not establish an exact correlation between operating
parameter values and specific exhaust gas concentrations, the rule
retains the requirement to maintain operating parameter values within
established ranges, in order to help assure that MACT is being complied
with on a continuous basis.
Monitoring of an operating parameter, with an enforceable operating
limit, will help assure continuous compliance with the emission limit
through continuous emission reductions. The operating limit is a
separately enforceable requirement of the rule and is not secondary to
the emission limit.
This standard requires sources using wet scrubbers to continuously
monitor the scrubber liquid flow rate and the pressure drop across the
scrubbers and to maintain these operating parameters within ranges
under which the source demonstrates, via a performance test, the source
can comply with the emission limit. The operating limits established
during a performance test help assure continuous compliance with the
emission limit. The EPA has considered the commenters' argument that an
exceedance of an operating parameter is not necessarily an exceedance
of an emission limit and has consequently not made operating limit
exceedances automatic violations of the emission limit; however, the
Agency has made these operating limits separately enforceable
requirements of the rule in order to promote continuous compliance with
the emission limit.
By doing so, the final rule accounts for the commenters' claims in
two ways: (1) the operating limits include an operating margin of
20 percent for sources that base the operating limit upon
the baseline values of operating parameters established in the most
recent performance test; and (2) by allowing sources to establish
operating limit ranges based upon baseline values of operating
parameters established in either historic performance tests or
performance tests conducted specifically to establish such ranges.
Thus, sources have two options to establish operating limit ranges
within which the source will still be in compliance with the operating
limit. By including an operating margin, the EPA recognizes that
control devices can be operated and maintained under a range of
conditions and still help assure compliance with the emission limit
through continuous emission reduction. For the final rule, the Agency
has increased the operating margins in the first instance described
above from 10 percent at proposal to 20
percent. This change was made in response to the Agency's review of
data submitted by the industry commenters that showed a wide range of
variability in the level of operating parameters over which the
emissions limits could be achieved. The Agency believes that sources
which operate in these expanded margins and sources which keep
operating parameters within a range established on the basis of test
data generally will be meeting the emission limit and, thus, these
changes make the operating requirements more likely to provide a
reasonable assurance of the source's compliance status. As an
additional safeguard to ensure that these operating requirements are
set to help assure continuous compliance with the emission limit, when
performance testing shows emissions near the emission limits, the
permitting agencies have the discretion to shrink a previously-
established operating range when a source operating within the broader
range could be expected to exceed the emission limits. On the other
hand, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to further
expand these operating margins, as some commenters suggest, because the
rule permits sources to undertake additional performance testing to
establish operating limits which reflect compliance with the emission
limit for the full range of operating conditions at the source.
Finally, because the final rule does not make operating limit
exceedances automatic violations of the emission limit, and because the
operating limits are separately enforceable requirements of the rule, a
provision which allows the source to retest to show that certain
operating parameter levels do not equate with an emission limit
violation is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Agency has deleted the
retest provision, as suggested by the State commenters.
Comment. Two commenters said, in many cases, the pressure drops
involved are less than one inch and the commenter is unaware of
monitoring equipment that can measure at the tenth of an inch level
necessary to determine whether or not the measured pressure drop is
plus or minus ten percent of that observed during a performance test.
Response. As a result of the comments concerning possible
unavailability of instrumentation with suitable sensitivity, the Agency
contacted an instrument vendor and was advised that the necessary
equipment is available.
Comment. One commenter speaking for the industry as a whole said
that operating parameter exceedances may not be denominated as
violations of NESHAP emission limits. The commenter said the Act
provides no legal authority to denominate operating parameter
exceedances as violations of emission limits. The commenter said this
is particularly the case when, as here, the emission limits have been
developed using a database which consists entirely of performance test
results. In such a case, the denomination of operating parameter
exceedances as a violation of the emission limit would have the effect
of changing the emission limit without
[[Page 31366]]
sufficient technical support in the record.
The commenter anticipated that the Agency could argue that section
113(e) of the Act provides the necessary legal authority and noted that
the section provides that the duration of a violation may be
established by ``any credible evidence (including evidence other than
the applicable test method).'' However, the commenter posited that any
argument that section 113(e) provides legal authority to denominate
operating parameter exceedances as a violation of emission limits in
general, and the proposed NESHAP in particular, would be without merit.
The commenter argued section 113(e) permits any credible evidence other
than the applicable test method to be used only to establish the
duration of a violation, not the fact that a violation has occurred.
Response. The final rule does not make exceedances of operating
requirements per se violations of the emission limitation. As such, the
commenter's concern presumably has been addressed by changes since
proposal. The Agency, however, specifically disagrees with the
commenter's suggestion that, under the Act, parameter deviations cannot
be denominated as violations of applicable emission standards. Section
113(a) of the Act directly contradicts the commenter's position. It
permits enforcement actions for violations of the statutory
requirements ``on the basis of any information available to the
Administrator* * * *'' This broad language means that the Agency can
prove a violation based on any information available, limited only by
general evidentiary rules.
In addition, the commenter's reading of section 113(e) is too
constrained. As the Agency stated in the Credible Evidence rulemaking,
section 113(e)'s focus on the duration of a violation grew out of
Congress's desire to reverse a judicial decision prohibiting the Agency
from establishing a violation's duration by non-reference test methods.
See 62 FR 8314, 8320-22 (February 24, 1997). Section 113(e) should not,
therefore, be read to limit the Agency's ability to prove the fact of
an emission violation, in addition to the duration of such violation,
by any credible evidence.
2. Selection of Monitored Parameters
Comment. One commenter said operating parameter ranges should be
established on the basis of any relevant data as opposed to the
proposal that would allow alternatives to the plus or minus ten percent
operating range to be established using data obtained during full-scale
performance testing. The commenter thought that data other than that
obtained during full-scale performance testing could validly establish
operating ranges for pressure drop and liquid flow rate that are
representative of compliance with the NESHAP emission limits. The
commenter believed that because other data may be used to establish the
required operating ranges, and because the ranges must be approved by
appropriate government officials, the proposed Secs. 63.604(d)(2) and
63.624(d)(2) should be revised to permit the establishment of the
required operating ranges on the basis of any relevant data or
information, including engineering assessments and manufacturer's
recommendations.
Another commenter said that changes in pressure drop are not always
an accurate indication of changes in performance for certain types of
scrubbers. In particular, the commenter said phosphoric acid production
and DAP/MAP fertilizer production are each highly scaling (e.g.
depositing hard incrustations inside process vessels) services, and
pressure taps necessary for continuous pressure drop monitoring readily
scale over in both services. The commenter said that while it is
certainly possible to operate a continuous pressure drop monitoring
system in these services, keeping the pressure taps from scaling over
can be a maintenance-intensive effort. So, the commenter suggested that
the final version of the proposed rule should allow for continuous
monitoring and recording of some other appropriate indicator
parameter(s) in lieu of pressure drop in cases where other parameters
provide a more accurate indication of scrubber performance.
Response. Since the scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate are
direct indicators of the operation of the control device and its
performance during the most recent testing, the final standards
continue to require that those parameters be monitored. The commenters'
suggestions that other ``relevant'' or ``appropriate'' indicators
should be specified in lieu of pressure drop and liquid flow rate are
vague and would result in case-by-case debates as to whether any of
innumerable options may or may not accomplish the same degree of
feedback on the performance of emissions controls. The commenters
provided no data as to how other parameters correlate with emissions
limits. Likewise, establishment of the required operating ranges on the
basis of any relevant data or information, including engineering
assessments and manufacturer's recommendations, as suggested by the
commenters, would be insufficient because there would be no link
established between such ranges and the emission limits as is the case
when ranges are set during performance testing. The general provisions
provide the opportunity for sources to obtain consideration of
alternative monitoring, as needed.
3. Frequency of Testing
Comment. Two commenters said that the proposed one-time performance
testing was inadequate. The commenters cited the example of one source
that is required to test WPPA plants, phosphate rock dryers and
calciners, DAP/MAP plants and GTSP plants on an annual basis. The
commenters recommended that the Agency require testing either annually
or once every permit cycle. The commenters consider one-time
performance testing insufficient and a step backwards from their
current requirements.
The commenters considered the proposed one-time performance test
requirement for sources ineffective and inadequate to demonstrate
compliance with each applicable numerical emission limit for total
fluorides and particulate matter (surrogate pollutants). They stated
that most sources at the affected facilities currently perform at least
annual stack testing for the surrogate pollutants identified above.
They commented that air pollution control agencies have required this
level of testing because their experience indicates that these sources
are prone to problems with control device maintenance. They note that
many affected facilities, which represent large industrial complexes
that have undertaken this type of stack testing for numerous years, use
their own environmental compliance staff to conduct the tests,
minimizing any economic burden. Accordingly, the commenters recommended
that the minimum requirement for ensuring compliance with the proposed
emission standards should be annual stack testing using the methods
described in the performance tests and compliance provisions sections
(Secs. 63.606 and 63.626).
Response. The Agency has taken note of the comments that the
equipment and control devices in these source categories are subject to
harsh conditions that cause corrosion and scaling of the process
components and that State agencies already require annual tests of
these facilities. So, the performance of the emissions controls will
vary over time and so may emissions. Thus, the Agency is promulgating a
requirement for annual
[[Page 31367]]
testing in the final rule. This change is also important in light of
the decision not to make operating parameter exceedances violations of
the emission standards, which raises concerns as to how to ensure
appropriate enforcement of the NESHAP. As was noted by commenters, most
jurisdictions already require annual, or more frequent testing and, so,
this will add minimal burden beyond that already required of the
sources.
Comment. One commenter said that in the event that the Agency
retains the provisions for designating exceedances of operating
parameter ranges as violations, he supports the alternative method of
setting the operating range for parameters of the air pollution control
device.
Response. The alternative for establishing operating ranges based
upon prior performance test results was retained in the final rule.
4. Simultaneous Testing
Comment. Two commenters said the requirement for simultaneous
testing would be burdensome for most facilities with multiple emission
points because, read strictly, this would require multiple test crews
and equipment whenever dealing with multiple emission points. One of
the commenters said this requirement would add nothing to the quality
of the information gathered. The other commenter found ambiguity in the
word ``simultaneous.'' He questioned whether ``simultaneous'' meant
exactly at the same time, or within a certain number of minutes or
hours. Also, the commenter said the processes undertaken at these
facilities are continuous operations and variations within these
continuous operations would be expected to be slight. Finally, the
commenter said simultaneous performance testing had never been required
by the existing NSPS on which the proposed NESHAP were based. The
commenter said under the NSPS, the relevant regulatory authority
establishes performance testing requirements based on the circumstances
presented by individual facilities. The commenter said that the NSPS
performance testing requirements have been in place for more than 20
years and there is no suggestion that the current approach to
performance testing is inadequate or inappropriate. So, he recommended
that the timing of performance testing be decided by the Administrator
on a case-by-case basis.
Response. Since there is a limited number of sources where multiple
emissions points are present and there are no known instances where
testing has been a problem in the past, the Agency decided not to make
simultaneous testing mandatory in the final rule. The site-specific
test plan required by Sec. 63.7(c)(2) of the general provisions will
cause development of test plans that can address the concerns which
lead the Agency to propose simultaneous testing.
5. Process Monitoring Requirements for Purified Phosphoric Acid (PPA)
Plants
Comment. One commenter recommended that the proposed process feed
rate monitoring requirements be amended to delete reference to PPA
plants. They noted that their plant records P2O5
feed to the process on a daily basis, and that, given the averaging
period for MIBK additions, continuous recording of feed rate is
unnecessary. In addition, the commenter recommended substituting
``product'' for ``stripped'' in connection with the descriptions of the
acid streams in proposed Sec. 63.604(f)(1) to distinguish them from
those referenced in proposed Sec. 63.604(f)(2).
Response. The Agency agrees with the commenter and the regulations
have been appropriately changed.
6. Other
Comment. One commenter opined that approval authority for operating
parameter ranges should be broadened. As proposed, Secs. 63.604(d)(2)
and 63.624(d)(2) required that pressure drop and liquid flow rate
ranges be approved by ``the permitting authority.'' The commenter was
concerned that limiting approval authority to the permitting authority
was unnecessarily restrictive and could result in the inability of an
owner or operator to establish operating parameter ranges because there
may be, at the relevant time, no ``permitting authority'' to give
approval. To address this potential problem, the commenter recommended
that operating parameter range approval authority be vested in the
``Administrator.''
Response. That term was deleted from the final rule which, instead,
now refers to the Administrator as defined in the General Provisions 40
CFR, part 63, 63.2 Definitions.
Comment. One commenter recommended that the proposal
(Secs. 63.605(c)(3)(ii) and 63.625(c)(3)(ii)), which would require that
the P2O5 content of the feed to the processes
subject to the NESHAP be determined in accordance with Method 9 of the
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), be revised. The
commenter observed that Method 9 was the accepted method for
P2O5 determinations in 1974 when it was specified
by, and incorporated by reference in, the NSPS for the processes
subject to the proposed NESHAP. In the intervening 23 years, AOAC has
developed and specified more advanced methods for making the
P2O5 determination, including Methods 962.02,
969.02, and 978.03. The commenter recommended that in order to avoid
specifying outdated methods for the P2O5
determination; and in order to keep this section of the NESHAP
``evergreen,'' proposed 40 CFR 63.605(c)(3)(ii) and 63.625(c)(3)(ii) be
revised to read: ``(ii) The P2O5 content (Rp) of
the feed shall be determined in accordance with the method(s) of the
Association of Official Analytical Chemists.''
Response. The Agency agrees that the specified AOAC methods are
appropriate methods to determine the total phosphorus content of
fertilizer, has amended Sec. 63.14 to incorporate by reference AOAC
methods 929.01, 929.02, 957.02, 958.01, 962.02, 969.02, and 978.01, and
has added appropriate references to those methods in the rule. The
Agency also has identified appropriate test methods published by The
Association of Florida Phosphate Chemists to quantify total phosphorus
content of fertilizer. In addition the Agency has added appropriate
references to methods published by The Association of Florida Phosphate
Chemists to quantify total phosphorus content of phosphoric acid,
superphosphoric acid, triple superphosphate, and ammonium phosphate.
The commenter suggested that a general reference to AOAC methods
was a way to avoid citing outdated methods. The Agency does not agree
that this is acceptable since changes to a method could affect the
stringency of the regulation. It is therefore important that the Agency
review changes in consensus methods to assure that this does not
inadvertently happen. The Agency accomplishes this by citing a specific
version of a consensus method.
Comment. A commenter recommended that the determination of whether
pressure drop is measured across each scrubber in the process scrubbing
system or across the entire scrubbing system be left to the
Administrator on a case-by-case basis. The commenter noted that
production facilities subject to the NESHAP employ various types of
scrubbers, and various scrubber configurations, as a means of achieving
compliance with the current NSPS and that these same systems will be
used to achieve compliance with the NESHAP. The commenter said that,
because of the variation in the types and configurations of scrubbers
used to achieve compliance, a requirement to
[[Page 31368]]
measure the total pressure drop across each scrubber in the process
scrubbing system in all cases could be unnecessarily burdensome. The
commenter went on to say that monitoring of both pressure drop and flow
rate may not be appropriate in all cases and that the determination of
the appropriate operating parameter(s) for monitoring should be made on
a case-by-case basis. The commenter posited that the requirement to
install continuous parameter monitoring systems for both pressure drop
and flow rate in all cases could be unduly burdensome, inappropriate
and not supported by the record. The commenter said whether pressure
drop or flow rate is the relevant parameter for monitoring turns
largely on the HAP being controlled by the relevant NESHAP.
Response. The documentation of the proposed NESHAP made clear that
the Agency was aware of the wide range of possible scrubber
configurations that can be and are used to meet the NESHAP level of
control. As written, the rules provide sources with flexibility to meet
the emission limits in the manner most efficient for a given source.
Accordingly, when choosing to use multiple control devices to achieve
limits that can be met by a single device, a source also accepts the
requirements attendant to operating and monitoring those devices. To
allow sources to monitor only chosen components of control systems as
suggested by the commenters would undermine the effectiveness of the
monitoring requirements in assessing the overall performance of
controls. The control systems are essentially doing the same job
regardless of whether removal of pollutants is occurring in one or a
series of vessels. The main concern is one of providing sufficient time
for the effluent gases to contact an absorbent liquid. The key
parameters therefore are contact time as reflected by pressure drop and
sufficient quantities of absorbent as reflected by liquid flow rate.
The overall operating effectiveness of the controls is reflected in
those two parameters.
Comment. One commenter questioned the two hour test time in
proposed Sec. 63.605(e)(1) which would require that the sampling time
for each run of a performance test for phosphate rock calciner
particulate matter emissions be ``at least 2 hours.'' Further, the
commenter believed that the equipment employed in performing the
relevant reference method would be incapable of producing accurate
results when operated for a two-hour period due to the plugging of the
particulate matter filters involved. Consequently, the commenter
suggested that the per-run sampling time for particulate matter
performance testing of phosphate rock calciners be set at one hour.
Response. There are two factors generally considered when
specifying a minimum particulate matter (Method 5) sampling time in a
regulation. The first priority is to assure that sufficient sample mass
would be collected to obtain quantitative results with an acceptable
degree of confidence at the level of the emission limit. The sample
size needed to determine compliance at concentrations of 0.040 grains
per dry standard cubic foot is small enough that one hour is a
sufficient sampling time. The second factor is the time necessary to
obtain a sample that represents normal process operational cycles.
Calcination is a continuous operation. Hence, this is not an overriding
factor. Thus, consistent with the commenter's suggestion, the Agency is
specifying a minimum sampling time for each performance test run of 1
hour.
Comment. One commenter said the Agency recognized in the preamble
to the proposed NESHAP that performance testing requirements for
uncontrolled GTSP storage buildings have not yet been proposed by the
agency and reserved the right to comment on these performance testing
requirements when they are proposed.
Response. The Agency previously promulgated Methods 13 A and B
which are applicable to GTSP storage buildings. Sources electing to
determine compliance without control devices or stacks need to develop
site-specific test protocols that are equivalent to Method 13. Source
owners wanting to assure compliance in an alternative manner should
propose a measurement procedure in their site-specific test plans,
required by Sec. 63.7(c)(2). The regulation requires that the owner or
operator submit those plans to the Agency for review within twelve
months of promulgation. The Administrator's review procedure is
governed by Sec. 63.7(c)(3). In the interest of maintaining uniformity
in the implementation of the NESHAP, the Administrator has retained
from delegation the authority to approve site-specific test plans for
uncontrolled granular triple superphosphate storage buildings developed
pursuant to Sec. 63.7(c)(2)(i). This retention of authority is
contained in Sec. 63.629 entitled ``Miscellaneous requirements.''
C. Emission Limits
1. General
Comment. One commenter expressed the opinion that the Agency has
proposed reasonable emissions limits which can be reasonably met using
commercially available control technologies.
Response. None required.
2. Wet Process Phosphoric Acid (WPPA) Plants
Comment. One commenter said the Agency should amend the standard
for existing WPPA facilities to be the same as for new WPPA facilities
because the proposed action failed to consider and analyze the economic
advantage that the proposed standard would give existing facilities
over new facilities.
Also, the commenter said the proposed MACT floor standard for
existing facilities failed to consider the benefits of airborne
radionuclides reductions achieved by the proposed new facility
standard. Citing the Agency's proposal not to exercise its statutory
authority to go ``beyond-the-floor'' and require more stringent
controls on existing WPPA plants based upon EPA's analysis of the
health impacts of HF and HAP metals, the commenter was unaware of any
Agency analysis of the human health and environmental benefit. The
commenter maintained that the Agency was required by section 112(d) to
evaluate the public health benefit and the environmental benefit which
would result from the decreased radionuclide emissions associated with
the particulate if existing WPPA facilities were required to meet the
new source WPPA standard for HF emissions.
Response. The Agency's actions have been guided by the language of
the Act. The Act clearly states that standards for new and existing
sources should be determined differently. The commenter was correct in
his observation that the Agency has a duty to consider going beyond the
floor level of control for existing sources.
For this rulemaking, there were no data which to base analyses of
additional reductions in radionuclide emissions. There was information
on HF and HAP metals emissions. So, the Agency's analysis for going
beyond the MACT floor focused upon those pollutants.
As a part of that consideration, the Agency first explored the
possibility that different control technologies were available and
demonstrated for the classes of sources being controlled by today's
action. None were found that had been demonstrated and could be applied
without creating additional negative impacts on other environmental
media. The Agency also considered whether the new source emission
limits could be applied to
[[Page 31369]]
existing sources. The emissions data showed that high levels of control
were being achieved in both cases and that there was minimal
opportunity for incremental reductions to be achieved in a cost-
effective manner by going from the existing-source MACT floors to the
levels of new source MACT. As discussed above (I. B.), a simple
calculation of the application of new source MACT in place of existing
source MACT for the subcategory of WPPA plants, which have the greatest
differential between the two levels of control, indicates that the
costs would be unreasonable. In that example, the annualized capital
cost of achieving the additional annual HF reduction of 0.34 tons per
year was $17,253 per year. There, the cost effectiveness of the
additional reduction would be $50,744 per ton of additional HF removed,
which the Agency considers to be inappropriate at this time.
3. Evaporative Cooling Towers at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants
Comment. Commenters support the Agency's proposed requirement to
forbid the introduction of liquids containing the effluent from air
pollution control devices into any evaporative cooling tower. They
agree that it does not make sense to scrub hydrogen fluoride and other
HAPs from potential emission points and then allow these HAPs to
evaporate when the scrubber water is routed to evaporative cooling
towers.
One commenter said that separating water discharges of pollution
control devices from the evaporative cooling towers would cost one
source in its jurisdiction approximately $0.4 million for process
alterations. The commenter stated that it could cause the source
various operational problems of increased water consumption and plant
water effluent, for which the source has no water effluent-handling
facilities outside of land application.
One commenter stated that his is the only existing facility
affected by this proposal and estimates compliance costs will be
several hundred thousand dollars. He commented that the Agency had not
considered the benefits or the compliance costs of the proposed work
standard and that Sec. 63.602(e) should be deleted.
Response. For phosphoric acid manufacturing, the Agency has elected
to base NESHAP upon the floor level of control. This is the least
stringent option permitted by the Act. Any consideration of costs would
be of significance only for consideration of options for control levels
exceeding the floor level of stringency.
Comment. Two commenters noted that the language for existing and
new evaporative cooling towers does not agree and proposed that
Sec. 63.602(e) should be used for both.
Response. The Agency agrees that the language for existing and new
evaporative cooling towers should have been identical. It was the
Agency's intent to use the language described for existing sources for
new ones also and this has been changed on the final rule.
4. Phosphate Rock Calciners and Dryers
Comment. One commenter expressed the opinion that the proposed
particulate matter limit of 0.040 grain per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf) for calciners is readily achievable and went on to note that
emissions below 0.025 gr/dscf have been achieved for at least one
calciner. The commenter suggested that the Agency should also limit
emissions of fluorides from calciners.
Response. The Agency agrees with the comments upon the
achievability of the proposed emissions limits. The first number
referred to by the commenter was selected as MACT for existing
calciners via the rationale in the proposal. The limit selected for
existing sources was established on the basis of test data for several
calciners that actually process phosphate ore and the data show that
the emissions limits can be met on an ongoing basis. The lower number
given by the commenter has been achieved by calciners in other
categories. However, the commenter provided no information that this
level of control is achievable for phosphate rock calciners. The
selection of new source MACT described in the proposal was made using
data specific to this industry to ensure achievability. The Agency did
consider setting a fluoride limit for calciners. The wet scrubbers used
in the industry for control of particulate matter also capture hydrogen
fluoride. Even if the Agency had established an HF floor, it would have
been based upon the same control devices that provided the basis for
setting the particulate limit.
5. Purified Phosphoric Acid (PPA) Plants
Comment. One commenter initially recommended that the level of the
proposed MIBK standard should be changed from that which was proposed.
Included with the comments was information describing plant
modifications, updated MIBK inventory records and process records from
which emissions could be determined. The Agency reviewed the updated
information and concluded that it supported neither the proposed
standards nor those suggested in the commenter's recommendations. To
clarify the comment, the commenter consulted with its State air
pollution control agency to discuss alternatives. Two commenters stated
that the leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart H would be a workable means of addressing fugitive emissions.
Other commenters stated that the LDAR program would not address tank
and stack emissions and they supported keeping the proposed
requirements to maintain the chiller stack temperature and the MIBK
concentration of the raffinate (process waste materials) and product
acid within specified limits.
Response. One commenter manufactures PPA through a solvent
extraction method. The plant emits MIBK, which is a HAP. Fugitive
emissions of MIBK from valves, flanges, and seals are reduced by means
of an ongoing maintenance and repair program. As the lone PPA facility
in the source category, its control methods constitute the MACT floor
for controlling fugitive emissions of MIBK. At proposal, the Agency
translated the source's maintenance and repair program into a numerical
limit on MIBK that was to be determined through plant production and
MIBK makeup records. The proposal was based upon the premise that the
MIBK makeup requirement was a result of fugitive emissions. That
approach was proposed because the Agency thought that doing so would
simplify enforcement of a standard based upon effectiveness of the work
practices in place at the plant for limiting process losses of MIBK. In
response to a commenter, the Agency reviewed information in the record
prior to proposal and the additional information provided by the
commenter for the purpose of determining whether the proposed numerical
limit would be an appropriate means of implementing MACT. The data
indicated that a numerical limit could not be established. Emissions
were not related to production and, therefore, the proposed standard
which tied allowable emissions to the production rate was not a valid
approach.
The MIBK cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and
constructed to capture this pollutant.
Upon consideration of the fugitive nature of these emissions, the
available information and the public comments received, the Agency has
concluded that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission
standard for control of these emissions. In section 112(h)(1), the Act
provides that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard
[[Page 31370]]
consistent with the provisions of section 112(d) in lieu of an emission
standard, if it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission
standard for control of a HAP. In this instance, the work practices at
the plant constitute the floor level of control. The Agency agrees with
the commenters recommendation that the leak detection and repair (LDAR)
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart H provides a means of expressing
the work practices as a regulatory requirement. The LDAR provisions in
subpart H were determined during development of the hazardous organics
NESHAP to be MACT for fugitive emissions sources with similar
characteristics to those of the one plant emitting MIBK. After
considering all available information, the Agency has concluded that
subpart H is at least equivalent to the facility's current practices
and has adopted the LDAR provisions of the HON as part of the MACT
controls for this process. Accordingly, the Agency has referenced the
subpart H requirements in today's rulemaking. The Agency is keeping the
proposed requirements to monitor and maintain the chiller stack
temperature and the MIBK concentration of the raffinate and product
acid within specified limits.
Comment. One commenter suggested generalizing the definition of a
PPA plant by modifying the proposed language to read as follows:
``Purified phosphoric acid plant means any facility which uses solvent
extraction to separate impurities from wet process phosphoric acid
product acid for the purposes of rendering the product suitable for
industrial, manufacturing or food grade uses.''
Response. The Agency found the commenter's suggestion acceptable
and has incorporated it into the final rule with a wording change that
clarifies that coverage is limited to those sources employing a HAP
compound as a solvent. So, the rules will effectively cover only one of
the two processes now in use because the second process does not emit
HAPs.
6. Granular Triple Superphosphate (GTSP) Storage Buildings
Comment. One commenter supported the Agency's proposed approach
limiting applicability for GTSP storage buildings to only those storage
buildings co-located with GTSP plants. The commenter concurred with the
Agency's rationale and cited additional reasons why the NESHAP for GTSP
storage buildings should be made applicable only to such storage
buildings collocated with GTSP plants. The commenter said requirements
of the proposed NESHAP for such facilities were based directly upon the
pre-existing NSPS and said his review of the background documents
associated with the original NSPS rulemaking indicated it was clear
that the Agency intended that the NSPS apply only to collocated GTSP
storage facilities. Furthermore, he noted the only GTSP storage
facilities sampled in connection with the development of the NSPS were
collocated facilities.
As a consequence of review of the public record, the commenter made
several specific suggestions about the proposed rules. First, he said
the definition of ``fresh'' GTSP in proposed Sec. 63.621 should be
redefined if the Agency does not limit the applicability of the NESHAP
to collocated GTSP storage facilities. The commenter suggested that for
regulatory purposes, the appropriate inquiry is the extent to which
GTSP in storage actually emits significant amounts of fluorides. The
commenter provided engineering data on measured fluoride emissions from
stored GTSP and said the data demonstrate that the vast majority of
fluoride emissions occur within 48 hours of the production of GTSP. The
commenter recommended that the definition of ``fresh'' GTSP be revised
to read: ``Fresh granular Triple superphosphate means granular Triple
superphosphate produced within the preceding 72 hours'' based on the
data provided.
The commenter also said that the percentage of fresh GTSP that must
be present during performance testing would also have to be revised
accordingly. If this were not done, no existing GTSP plant would be
capable of producing ``fresh'' GTSP at a rate which would permit the
current 20 percent limitation to be met. The commenter recommended that
the percentage of the total amount of stored GTSP which must be fresh
at performance testing should also be revised from 20 percent to six
percent.
Response. In general, the Agency agrees with the commenter's
conclusions and recommendations. The proposed approach was to adopt the
technical component of the NSPS and to add language exempting GTSP
storage buildings co-located with GTSP process lines. Shortly after
proposal, the co-location issue and the technical concerns raised by
the commenter also arose in the context of the NSPS itself. The NSPS
was subsequently revised (see 62 FR 18308) to address those concerns.
The main features of the revised NSPS were a change to the definition
of ``fresh GTSP'' that was consistent with the commenter's
recommendation and a provision requiring producers of GTSP not to ship
freshly produced GTSP until it had cured. In effect, the producers were
to hold the GTSP in their storage buildings until the HF emissions had
tapered off as a result of curing. This, in effect, accomplished the
purpose of the proposed NESHAP with regard to limiting applicability to
co-located storage buildings. In fact, the approach of the revised NSPS
better accomplished that purpose by more clearly addressing which
storage buildings were subject to the rules. Since, the revised NSPS
addresses the concerns voiced by the commenter and the Agency considers
the revised NSPS to better accomplish the purposes of establishing
MACT, the final rule for this NESHAP has been amended to reflect the
requirements of the NSPS, as revised.
7. Cooling Ponds.
Comment. One commenter said that the Agency must regulate the
corrosive hazardous waste in the cooling pond either under this rule or
by a definitive deadline under RCRA. The commenter said that the
proposed HF standards would require the discharge of air pollution
scrubber water containing HF into cooling pond water resulting in
unregulated corrosive hazardous waste discharge to ground waters and
surface waters. The commenter added that the Agency's analysis of the
non-air impacts of releases of pollution from cooling ponds did not
discuss the cooling pond water pH issue and the commenter was unable to
find any discussion of the non-air impacts of the surface and
groundwater releases from these ponds resulting from putting additional
HF into the ponds. The commenter suggested that addition of more HF to
the cooling ponds will lower the pH of these ponds even further below
the corrosive hazardous waste standard of a pH of 2.0. As such, the
commenter maintained that the proposal did not accomplish the section
112(d)(2) mandate that emission standards ``shall require the maximum
degree of reduction in the emissions of the hazardous air pollutants
subject to this section'' achievable ``taking into consideration costs
and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
impacts.'' The commenter believed that section 112(d)(2) required EPA
to consider: (a) the enclosure of systems to eliminate emissions; (b)
the collection, capture or treatment of such pollutants when released
from a process, stack or storage facility; or, (c) design standards for
processes.
In addition, the commenter said the proposed rule also did not
comply with
[[Page 31371]]
the Pollution Prevention Act because the proposed rule did not address
the cooling pond water corrosive hazardous issue by EPA using its
powers under section 112 of the Act or under RCRA to eliminate or
reduce the surface and groundwater pollution from the HF in the cooling
ponds.
Response. Although this rulemaking is focused upon air emissions
and regulating cooling ponds with respect to RCRA goals would be
outside the scope of this action, the Agency has considered the impacts
of MACT upon other media. An engineering analysis of options for
addressing the HF content of cooling ponds was included in the docket
prior to proposal as item II-B-9. As part of that analysis,
consideration was given to a process that would eliminate flows to
cooling ponds as encouraged by the Pollution Prevention Act. While the
Agency found the new process promising, it was not demonstrated under
commercial conditions and could not be adopted as an available control
technology. This was specifically discussed in the proposal (61 FR
68444).
As the preamble to the proposed rules indicated, it is the Agency's
expectation that five process lines would need to upgrade or replace
existing controls to meet the NESHAP. Since those facilities currently
route their scrubber effluent to cooling ponds, the effects of the rule
would constitute a very small incremental change to current practices
at those facilities. Given the relatively small contribution of
scrubber effluent to the ponds and buffering effects of the complex
mixture of chemicals in the ponds, there would be no observable effect
resulting from changes to the air pollution controls.
D. Other Comments
1. Determination of Major Source Status
Comment. One commenter noted that pursuant to 40 CFR 63.1 (b)(3),
owners or operators of stationary sources potentially subject to the
NESHAP must make an initial applicability determination concerning
whether or not they are a major source and, therefore, subject to the
NESHAP. The commenter acknowledged that this applicability
determination is specifically made the responsibility of the owner or
operator of a stationary source. The commenter asked that in order to
ensure that the statements concerning the number of major sources
contained in the December 27, 1996 preamble do not inadvertently lead
to ``prejudgments'' on major source determinations, the Agency should
specifically recognize, in the preamble to the final NESHAP, that the
calculations and the permit report used as the basis for the estimates
referred to in the proposal notice are not the exclusive sources to be
relied upon in making such major source determinations. The commenter
requested the Agency to explicitly state that such determinations may
be made upon any relevant data or information, including, but not
limited to, the calculation procedure used by the Agency.
Response. It is a normal practice for the Agency to examine the
impacts of its rules upon the environment and upon the regulated
community. In its estimates of the impacts of the proposed rules, the
Agency projected that 15 facilities may be major sources subject to
this NESHAP. Those estimates are the Agency's expectations and do not
constitute a determination of major source status for individual
sources for purposes of Title V operating permits. However, the Agency
does consider its methods of estimation to be sound and would carefully
examine any analyses provided by sources that indicated lesser amounts
of emissions. In particular, the argument by industry that silica or
free ammonia remove all available HF is not supported by the FTIR data
available for this rulemaking. If one could assume that sufficient
quantities of reactants, such as silica and ammonia in this case, were
present to theoretically drive a reaction to completion, real world
actualities such as imperfect mixing or equilibrium limitations would
prevent complete reactions of available ingredients from occurring.
Thus, regardless of the silica or ammonia content of the emissions
streams for this industry, it is expected that HF will be present in
the final exhaust. The most definitive approach for sources to employ
to determine their individual major source status would be for sources
to directly measure for HAP compounds using FTIR via a test method
validated per EPA Method 301.
2. NSPS Exemption
Comment. One commenter observed that proposed Secs. 63.610 and
63.630 would exempt any ``process component'' subject to the NESHAP
from otherwise applicable NSPS. The commenter stated that the term
``process component'' is not defined in the proposed NESHAP or in the
Act. In order to avoid any subsequent confusion on the scope of the
NSPS exemption, the commenter recommended that the term ``process
component'' be replaced by the term ``affected source'' or,
alternatively, that the term ``process component'' be specifically
defined.
Response. The Agency agrees with the commenter and has replaced the
term ``process component'' with the term ``affected source.'' Further,
while reviewing the proposed exemption to determine its response to the
commenter, the Agency found that the timing of the performance test as
required in the general provisions could lead to further confusion as
to a source's compliance status during the period between the
compliance date of the NESHAP and completion of the performance test.
The final rule has been re-worded to require the source to demonstrate
compliance via a performance test by the compliance date for the NESHAP
and to have a valid operating permit pursuant to Title V to qualify for
the NSPS exemption.
3. Draft Technical Support Document (TSD)
Comment. One commenter said that throughout the draft TSD,
companies involved in the manufacture of phosphoric acid or the
production of phosphate fertilizer were often misidentified. Also, the
commenter noted that several of the production and other values given
in the TSD were inaccurate and urged the Agency to use the most
accurate and up-to-date values available. With regard to the discussion
on nutrient carry-over and industry trends, the commenter cited some
concerns and asked that the sections quoted in his comment letter be
deleted from the draft TSD or revised.
One commenter provided additional information on the type of
processes present at two plants in its jurisdiction. The commenter
highlighted the production of a unique kind of GTSP from phosphate ore
and limestone at one plant. That source makes ``GTSP'' by acidizing
limestone with phosphoric acid and is different from the normal process
which acidifies phosphate ore with phosphoric acid. The commenter said
GTSP thus made from limestone does not fall under the definition stated
in the proposed standards. The information about the second source
noted a change of ownership.
Response. The original draft of the TSD was sent to outside
reviewers, including the commenters, and was subsequently revised
according to comments received. The draft TSD in the docket was current
as of May 1995. The purpose of the draft TSD was to assemble the
information upon which MACT could be established and various
environmental and economic impacts could be assessed. The draft TSD
also presented the Agency's methodologies and projections of the
impacts of the NESHAP as they were envisioned at that
[[Page 31372]]
time. Subsequently, companies have been bought and sold and the
productive output of the industry has changed. Newer information and
analyses pertinent to the rulemaking have since been made available and
added to the docket. Thus, given that the draft TSD has served its
original purpose and any newer relevant information is in the docket,
the Agency will not revise the draft TSD.
4. Applicability Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Phosphate (DAP/MAP)
Emission Limits
Comment. One commenter described one of his sources that
manufactures MAP/DAP using thermal process phosphoric acid, instead of
WPPA. The commenter cited the information in the TSD to support his
observation that information available to the Agency indicate that HAP
emissions are a concern only in those instances where WPPA is used to
manufacture DAP/MAP. The commenter requested that the Agency clarify
the applicability of the NESHAP to exclude those sources not using WPPA
to manufacture DAP/MAP.
Response. The Agency agrees with the commenter and the regulations
in subpart BB have been revised by incorporating language the commenter
provided.
5. Applicability--Research and Development Facilities
Comment. One commenter recommended that the Agency include an
exemption for research and development (R&D) facilities. The commenter
cited section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) and its
direction to establish a separate source category for R&D facilities as
necessary to ensure equitable treatment of such facilities. The
commenter cited other recent NESHAP that have included R&D exemptions
and said that this rulemaking needed to include such an exemption for
consistency. The commenter suggested that the following language be
added to the definitions contained in the rule: ``Research and
development activities means (1) activities conducted at a laboratory
to analyze air, soil, water or product samples for contaminants,
environmental impact, or quality control, (2) activities conducted to
test more efficient production processes or methods for preventing or
reducing adverse environmental impacts, provided that the activities do
not include the production of an intermediate or final product for sale
or exchange for commercial profit, except in a de minimis manner, and
(3) activities conducted at a research or laboratory facility that is
operated under the close supervision of technically trained personnel
the primary purpose of which is to conduct research and development
into new processes and products and that is not engaged in the
manufacture of products for sale or exchange for commercial profit,
except in a de minimis manner.''
Response. The Agency agrees with the commenter and has added
appropriate language, including an R&D facility definition similar to
the commenter's, into the rules. The Agency plans to issue a NESHAP
applicable to R&D facilities at a later date.
6. Notification
Comment. One commenter recommended that notification, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements should be coextensive with those required
under the current NSPS. The proposed rules would apply Secs. 63.9 and
63.10 of the NESHAP general provisions with their recordkeeping and
reporting that in the commenter's opinion is neither appropriate nor
justified. The commenter said the record of the NESHAP general
provisions rulemaking makes it clear that the notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements were developed to address
situations where the NESHAP for a particular chemical or process would
be the initial federal regulation addressing that chemical or process.
The commenter said that phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate
fertilizer production facilities have long been subject to federal
regulation under the NSPS and State regulation under provisions similar
to the NSPS and owner/operators of regulated sources and government
regulators are familiar and adept with these preexisting notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The commenter recommended
that notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements be
coextensive with the requirements of the pre-existing NSPS and
submitted that such an approach is consistent with 40 CFR 63.10(a)(7)
which permits owners and operators subject to both NSPS and NESHAP,
along with the Administrator or the state permitting authority, to
mutually agree on a common schedule for submitting required reports.
The commenter said his recommendation was also consistent with 40 CFR
63.10(f) which permits the Administrator to waive the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of the NESHAP general provisions.
Response. The Agency discussion in the preambles proposing and
promulgating the part 63 general provisions did not support the
commenter's points concerning their application to sources subject to
prior regulations. Instead, the discussions made clear that the part 63
requirements, while patterned after those parts 60 and 61, were made
more extensive because of the need to incorporate specific legal
requirements added by the 1990 Amendments to the Act. The Agency also
mentioned the importance of maintaining consistent requirements for the
various source categories affected by NESHAP and minimizing case-by-
case negotiations on timing and content of notification and
recordkeeping activities. Last, the Agency does not concur with the
commenter's interpretation of 40 CFR 63.10(a)(7). That language is
specifically aimed at instances where affected sources are subject to
both NSPS and NESHAP. Since this rule specifically exempts those
sources subject to its requirements from duplicate coverage by NSPS,
the language of Sec. 63.10(a)(7) is not applicable.
Comment. One commenter asked for the intent of Secs. 63.608 and
63.628 to be clarified. The commenter said proposed Secs. 63.608 and
63.628 specified that particular reporting requirements of Sec. 63.10
would be applicable to owners and operators of phosphoric acid
manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer production facilities.
Furthermore, proposed Secs. 63.604 and 63.605 specified the monitoring
requirements applicable to owners and operators of such facilities.
Certain of the monitoring requirements otherwise applicable under 40
CFR 63.8 were not made applicable to phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizer production facilities. Concomitantly, the
reporting requirements of Sec. 63.10 associated with those monitoring
requirements also were not made applicable to such facilities by
proposed Secs. 63.608 and 63.628. However, the excess emissions report
which was made applicable to such facilities by proposed
Secs. 63.608(a)(2) and 63.628(a)(2) was required, by the NESHAP general
provisions, to include information concerning certain of the monitoring
requirements not made applicable to phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizer production facilities. The commenter asked that
the Agency's intent be made specific in the final NESHAP so that it
would be clear that the excess emissions report required by proposed
Secs. 63.608(a)(2) and 63.628(a)(2) is to include only the information
relevant to the monitoring requirements
[[Page 31373]]
specifically imposed on phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate
fertilizer production facilities pursuant to proposed Secs. 63.604 and
63.624.
Response. The Agency explored the commenter's concerns and came to
agree that the coordination of the general provisions requirements for
notification, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance dates as
proposed could be improved. The sections of the rule addressing those
points have been re-structured and a table has been added to
specifically state the applicability of the components of the general
provisions. The timing of the initial performance test relative to the
compliance date and the exemption from new source performance standards
were further clarified to eliminate ambiguity. These changes should
ease implementation via Title V operating permits.
V. 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. 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 entitlements, 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.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review. The nationwide capital and
annualized costs of the NESHAP, including emission controls and
associated monitoring equipment, are estimated at $1.4 million and
$862,000/yr, respectively.
C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
Under Executive Order 12875, the Agency may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a
State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments.
If the Agency complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires
the Agency to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a
description of the extent of the Agency's prior consultation with
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on State,
local or tribal governments, because they do not own or operate any
sources subject to this rule and therefore are not required to purchase
control systems to meet the requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this rule. Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with
States to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of this rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it must
have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that these final rules do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The EPA projects that annual economic
impacts would be far less than $100 million. Thus, today's final rules
are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that these final rules
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because they do not impose any enforceable
duties on small governments; such governments own or operate no sources
subject to these proposed rules and therefore would not be required to
purchase control systems to meet the requirements of these proposed
rules.
[[Page 31374]]
E. Regulatory Flexibility
The Agency has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The
Agency has also determined that this rule will not 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 could be
subject to the standards are small firms. Of the two, data indicate
that one is an area source which would not be covered by the standards.
The second source could 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 NESHAP using
existing equipment. The testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are essentially identical to current
requirements and, thus, should cause little or no change in these
burdens.
F. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The Agency will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0361.
The information to be collected includes the results of annual
performance testing to be conducted to demonstrate compliance with the
emissions limits in the rules. At the time that performance testing
will be performed, sources will be required to measure and record
operating parameters for the processes and control devices. Following
the performance testing, sources will be required under authority of
the Clean Air Act to monitor and record operating parameters to assure
that they were maintained within approved ranges, based upon values
determined during the performance tests. One source will be required to
monitor potential emissions from equipment leaks and to keep records of
leaks detected and repairs made to correct leaks. The purpose of the
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements is to provide implementing
agencies information to assure that MACT is implemented on an ongoing
basis.
The Agency estimated the projected cost and hour burden of the
standards. The average annual reporting burden was estimated to be 132
hours per response. There will be fifteen likely respondents and
reports will 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. EPA is amending the
table in 40 CFR part 9, Sec. 9.1 of currently approved ICR control
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information
requirements contained in this final rule.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) developed or adapted by one or more voluntary consensus
bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress,
through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does
not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Consistent with the requirements of the NTTAA, today's rulemaking
incorporates the analytical methods of two consensus standard bodies.
Instead of developing its own methods for determining the phosphate
content of feedstocks to the processes covered by the standards, the
Agency is incorporating by reference into today's rules certain
analytical protocols of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists
and of The Association of Florida Phosphate Chemists.
Also, consistant with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search to
identify voluntary consensus standards for emissions test methods. The
search identified 17 voluntary consensus standards that appeared to
have possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However,
after reviewing available standards, EPA determined that 12 of the
candidate consensus standards identified for measuring emissions of the
HAPs or surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not
be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data
and other important technical and policy considerations. Five of the
remaining candidate consensus standards are new standards under
development that EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting at a
later date. This rule requires standard EPA methods known to the
industry and States. Approved alternative methods also may be used with
prior EPA epproval.
I. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885,
[[Page 31375]]
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be
``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on
environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately
affect children.
J. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on the communities of Indian tribal governments,
because they do not own or operate any sources subject to this rule and
therefore are not required to purchase control systems to meet the
requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference. Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 14, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title
40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:
PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by adding new entries under the
indicated heading in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories 3
* * * * *
63.602-63.603.............................................. 2060-0361
63.605-63.608.............................................. 2060-0361
63.625-63.628.............................................. 2060-0361
63.630..................................................... 2060-0361
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
which are not independent information collection requirements.
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. Section 63.14 is amended by adding new paragraphs (g) and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporation by Reference.
* * * * *
(g) The materials listed below are available for purchase from AOAC
International, Customer Services, Suite 400, 2200 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, Virginia, 22201-3301, Telephone (703) 522-3032, Fax (703)
522-5468.
(1) AOAC Official Method 978.01 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers,
Automated Method, Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved for
Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
(2) AOAC Official Method 969.02 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers,
Alkalimetric Quinolinium Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth edition,
1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
(3) AOAC Official Method 962.02 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers,
Gravimetric Quinolinium Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth edition,
1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
(4) AOAC Official Method 957.02 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers,
Preparation of Sample Solution, Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved
for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
(5) AOAC Official Method 929.01 Sampling of Solid Fertilizers,
Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
(6) AOAC Official Method 929.02 Preparation of Fertilizer Sample,
Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
(7) AOAC Official Method 958.01 Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers,
Spectrophotometric Molybdovanadophosphate Method, Sixteenth edition,
1995, IBR approved for Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(vi).
(h) The materials listed below are available for purchase from The
Association of Florida Phosphate Chemists, P.O. Box 1645, Bartow,
Florida, 33830, Book of Methods Used and Adopted By The Association of
Florida Phosphate Chemists, Seventh Edition 1991, IBR.
(1) Section IX, Methods of Analysis for Phosphate Rock, No. 1
Preparation of Sample, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and
Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii).
(2) Section IX, Methods of Analysis for Phosphate Rock, No. 3
Phosphorus--P2O5 or
Ca3(PO4)2, Method A-Volumetric Method,
IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii).
(3) Section IX, Methods of Analysis for Phosphate Rock, No. 3
Phosphorus-P2O5 or
Ca3(PO4)2, Method B--Gravimetric
Quimociac Method, IBR
[[Page 31376]]
approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii).
(4) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3
Phosphorus-P2O5 or
Ca3(PO4)2, Method C--
Spectrophotometric Method, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii) and
Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii).
(5) Section XI, Methods of Analysis for Phosphoric Acid,
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A--Volumetric
Method, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii), Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii),
and Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(v).
(6) Section XI, Methods of Analysis for Phosphoric Acid,
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B--Gravimetric
Quimociac Method, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii),
Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii), and Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(v).
(7) Section XI, Methods of Analysis for Phosphoric Acid,
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C--
Spectrophotometric Method, IBR approved for Sec. 63.606(c)(3)(ii),
Sec. 63.626(c)(3)(ii), and Sec. 63.626(d)(3)(v).
* * * * *
3. 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 Operating requirements.
63.605 Monitoring requirements.
63.606 Performance tests and compliance provisions.
63.607 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.608 Applicability of general provisions.
63.609 Compliance dates.
63.610 Exemption from new source performance standards.
Appendix A to Subpart AA of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart AA
Subpart AA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants
Sec. 63.600 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section,
the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each
phosphoric acid manufacturing plant.
(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted from the following new or
existing affected sources at a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant:
(1) Each wet-process phosphoric acid process line. The requirements
of this subpart apply to the following emission points which are
components of a wet-process phosphoric acid process line: 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 process line. The requirements of
this subpart apply to the following emission points which are
components of a superphosphoric acid process line: evaporators, hot
wells, acid sumps, and cooling tanks; and
(6) Each purified acid process line. The requirements of this
subpart apply to the following emission points which are components of
a purified phosphoric acid process line: 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 that
is not a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2.
(d) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to research and
development facilities as defined in Sec. 63.601.
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.
Exceedance means a departure from an indicator range established
under this subpart, consistent with any averaging period specified for
averaging the results of the monitoring.
HAP metals mean those metals 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 process line means any process line which
uses a HAP as a solvent in the separation of impurities from the
product acid for the purposes of rendering that product suitable for
industrial, manufacturing or food grade uses.
Research and development facility means research or laboratory
operations whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development
into new processes and products, where the operations are under the
close supervision of technically trained personnel, and where the
facility is not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial
sale in commerce or other off-site distribution, except in a de minimis
manner.
Superphosphoric acid process line means any process line 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 process line means any process line
manufacturing phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate rock and acid.
Sec. 63.602 Standards for existing sources.
(a) Wet process phosphoric acid process line. On and after the date
on which the performance test required to
[[Page 31377]]
be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is required to be 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 process line.
(1) Vacuum evaporation process. On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is
required to be 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).
(2) Submerged combustion process. On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606
is required to be 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 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 63.606 is
required to be 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 63.606 is
required to be 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 0.1380 gram per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm)
[0.060 grains 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.
Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this paragraph
(e) must certify to the Administrator annually that he/she has complied
with the requirements contained in this section.
(f) Purified phosphoric acid process line.
(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall comply with the provisions of subpart H of this part.
(2) For any existing purified phosphoric acid process line, any of
the following shall constitute a violation of this subpart:
(i) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of twenty parts per million for each
product acid stream.
(ii) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of thirty parts per million for each
raffinate stream.
(iii) A daily average chiller stack exit gas stream temperature in
excess of fifty degrees Fahrenheit.
Sec. 63.603 Standards for new sources.
(a) Wet process phosphoric acid process line. On and after the date
on which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7
and 63.606 is required to be 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 process line. On and after the date on
which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and
63.606 is required to be 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 4.350 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 63.606 is
required to be 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 63.606 is
required to be 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 liquid effluent from any wet
scrubbing device installed to control emissions from process equipment.
Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this paragraph
(e) must certify to the Administrator annually that he/she has complied
with the requirements contained in this section.
(f) Purified phosphoric acid process line.
(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall comply with the provisions of subpart H of this part.
(2) For any new purified phosphoric acid process line, any of the
following shall constitute a violation of this subpart:
(i) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of twenty parts per million for each
product acid stream.
(ii) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of thirty parts per million for each
raffinate stream.
(iii) A daily average chiller stack exit gas stream temperature in
excess of fifty degrees Fahrenheit.
Sec. 63.604 Operating requirements.
On or after the date on which the performance test required to be
conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.606 is required to be completed, the
owner/operator using a wet scrubbing emission control system must
maintain three-hour averages of the pressure drop across each scrubber
and of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber within
the allowable ranges established pursuant to the requirements of
Sec. 63.605(d)(1) or (2).
Sec. 63.605 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process
phosphoric acid process line, superphosphoric acid process line,
phosphate rock dryer, or phosphate rock calciner 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)(1) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process
phosphoric acid process line or superphosphoric acid process line
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
[[Page 31378]]
measuring mass flowrate which meets the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section and then by proceeding according to Sec. 63.606(c)(3).
(2) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate rock
calciner or phosphate rock dryer subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall maintain a daily record of phosphate rock feed by
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.
(c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process
phosphoric acid process line, superphosphoric acid process line,
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 pressure drop across each scrubber in the process scrubbing
system in 15-minute block averages. 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 in 15-minute block averages. The monitoring
system shall be certified by the manufacturer to have an accuracy of
5 percent over its operating range.
(d) Following the date on which the performance test required in
Sec. 63.606 is completed, the owner or operator of a new or existing
affected source using a wet scrubbing emission control system and
subject to emissions limitations for total fluorides or particulate
matter contained in this subpart must establish allowable ranges for
operating parameters using the methodology of either paragraph (d)(1)
or (2) of this section:
(1) The allowable range for the daily averages of the pressure drop
across each scrubber and of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to
each scrubber in the process scrubbing system is 20
percent of the baseline average value determined as a requirement of
Sec. 63.606(c)(4), (d)(4), or (e)(2). The Administrator retains the
right to reduce the 20 percent adjustment to the baseline
average values of operating ranges in those instances where performance
test results indicate that a source's level of emissions is near the
value of an applicable emissions standard, but, in no instance shall
the adjustment be reduced to less than 10 percent. The
owner or operator must notify the Administrator of the baseline average
value and must notify the Administrator each time that the baseline
value is changed as a result of the most recent performance test. The
baseline average values used for compliance shall be based on the
values determined during the most recent performance test. The new
baseline average value shall be effective on the date following the
performance test.
(2) The owner or operator of any new or existing affected source
shall establish, and provide to the Administrator for approval,
allowable ranges of baseline average values for the pressure drop
across and of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in
the process scrubbing system for the purpose of assuring compliance
with this subpart. Allowable ranges may be based upon baseline average
values recorded during previous performance tests using the test
methods required in this subpart and established in the manner required
in Sec. 63.606(c)(4), (d)(4), or (e)(2). As an alternative, the owner
or operator can establish the allowable ranges of baseline average
values using 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. 63.606(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 allowable ranges were
obtained. The allowable ranges of baseline average values developed
pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph must be submitted to the
Administrator for approval. The owner or operator must request and
obtain approval of the Administrator for changes to the allowable
ranges of baseline values. When a source using the methodology of this
paragraph is retested, the owner operator shall determine new allowable
ranges of baseline average values unless the retest indicates no change
in the operating parameters from previous tests. Any new allowable
ranges of baseline average values resulting from the most recent
performance test shall be effective on the date following the retest.
Until changes to allowable ranges of baseline average values are
approved by the Administrator, the allowable ranges for use in
Sec. 63.604 shall be based upon the range of baseline average values
proposed for approval.
(e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing purified phosphoric
acid process line 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.
Sec. 63.606 Performance tests and compliance provisions.
(a)(1) On or before the applicable compliance date in Sec. 63.609
and once per annum thereafter, each owner or operator of a phosphoric
acid manufacturing plant shall conduct a performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standard for each
existing wet-process phosphoric acid process line, superphosphoric acid
process line, phosphate rock dryer, and phosphate rock calciner. The
owner or operator shall conduct the performance test according to the
procedures in subpart A of this part and in this section.
(2) As required by Sec. 63.7(a)(2) and once per annum thereafter,
each owner or operator of a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant shall
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission standard for each new wet-process phosphoric acid
process line, superphosphoric acid process line, phosphate rock dryer,
and phosphate rock calciner. The owner or operator shall conduct the
performance test according to the procedures 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 process line or superphosphoric acid process line 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] TR10JN99.000
Where:
E = emission rate of total fluorides, g/metric ton (lb/ton) of
equivalent P2O5 feed.
[[Page 31379]]
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 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 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 described in Sec. 63.605(a) and (b)
shall be used to determine the mass flow rate (Mp) of the
phosphorus-bearing feed.
(ii) The P2O5 content (Rp) of the
feed shall be determined using as appropriate the following methods
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) specified in the Book of
Methods Used and Adopted By The Association Of Florida Phosphate
Chemists, Seventh Edition 1991, where applicable:
(A) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 1
Preparation of Sample.
(B) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3
Phosphorus-P2O5 or
Ca3(PO4)2, Method A-Volumetric Method.
(C) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3
Phosphorus-P2O5 or
Ca3(PO4)2, Method B-Gravimetric
Quimociac Method.
(D) Section IX, Methods of Analysis For Phosphate Rock, No. 3
Phosphorus-P2O5 or
Ca3(PO4)2, Method C-Spectrophotometric
Method.
(E) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid,
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A-Volumetric
Method.
(F) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid,
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B-Gravimetric
Quimociac Method.
(G) Section XI, Methods of Analysis For Phosphoric Acid,
Superphosphate, Triple Superphosphate, and Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3
Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C-
Spectrophotometric Method.
(4) To comply with Sec. 63.605(d) (1) or (2), the owner or operator
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.605(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. 63.605(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 described in Sec. 63.605(a) shall be used to
determine the phosphate rock feed rate (P) for each run.
(4) To comply with Sec. 63.605(d) (1) or (2), the owner or operator
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.605(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. 63.605(d) (1) or
(2).
(e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate rock
calciner shall 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 60 minutes and 1.70 dscm.
(2) To comply with Sec. 63.605(d) (1) or (2), the owner or operator
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.605(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. 63.605(d) (1) or
(2).
Sec. 63.607 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this
subpart shall comply with the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9.
(b) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this
subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.10.
(c) 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 and annual
performance tests 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 exceedance of an operating parameter limit. The report
shall contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10. When no
exceedances of an operating 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 exceedances are reported,
the owner or operator shall report quarterly until a request to reduce
reporting frequency is approved as described in Sec. 63.10.
[[Page 31380]]
(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 delive
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.