Federal Rulemaking for the FMC Facility in the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
Federal RegisterFeb 12, 1999
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) containing emission
limits and work practice requirements that represent reasonably
available control technology, along with related monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, for particulate matter air
pollution emitted from an elemental phosphorous facility owned and
operated by FMC Corporation and located within the exterior boundaries
of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in southeastern Idaho (FMC or FMC
facility). A portion of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, known as the
``Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area,'' has been designated as a
nonattainment area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM-10), which pre-date the new
PM NAAQS that were promulgated in 1997. The FMC facility is the only
major stationary source of PM-10 located in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area.
Although there are other area sources and minor stationary sources
of PM-10 in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA believes that
these other sources have an insignificant impact on the violations of
the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard that have been recorded by the
monitors located in the nonattainment area. EPA believes that the
control strategy for FMC proposed by EPA in this rulemaking is
necessary to ensure maintenance of air quality that protects public
health during the transition period leading to implementation of the
newly-promulgated PM standards and assist in bringing the Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area into attainment with the recently-promulgated PM
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. If EPA later determines that
sources other than FMC contribute to PM violations in the area, the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes or EPA will develop and impose appropriate
controls on these other sources in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area.
EPA's 1997 PM NAAQS rulemaking established new standards for
particulate matter with a diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns
and also revised the existing PM-10 standards. Today's proposal,
however, does not directly address these new and revised standards.
Rather, it addresses requirements under the pre-existing PM-10
standards, which are still in effect for a limited time, and the
provisions of section 172(e) to which the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area is subject during the transition toward implementation of the new
and revised PM standards.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until May 13, 1999.
EPA will hold a public hearing at the following time: FMC FIP
Public Hearing, Thursday, March 18, 1999, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Montel Livingston, SIP Manager, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle Washington 98101.
EPA will hold a public hearing at the following location:
FMC FIP Public Hearing, Fort Hall Business Council Chambers, Agency
and Bannock Roads, Fort Hall, Idaho 83202.
EPA also plans to hold a public workshop prior to the public
hearing. The time, date, and location of the public workshop will be
announced in local papers.
Docket: A copy of docket no. ID 24-7004, containing material
relevant to EPA's proposed action, is available for public inspection
and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday
through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section, Office of Air and
Radiation, Room 1500 (M-6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20460, and between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, at
EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 10th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101. A copy of the docket is also available for
review at the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Office of Air Quality Program,
Land Use Commission, Fort Hall Government Center, Agency and Bannock
Roads, Fort Hall, Idaho 83202. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, Office of Air Quality
(OAQ-107), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, (202) 553-0782.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Background
B. Revised Particulate Matter Standards
C. FIP Proposal
D. Public Involvement in the FIP Process
II. Background
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
1. Designation and Classification
2. EPA's Authority to Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country
3. Moderate Area Planning Requirements for States
4. Serious Area Planning Requirements for States
B. History of PM-10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area
1. Background
2. PM-10 Planning for Portneuf Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area
3. PM-10 Planning for the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
4. Portneuf Environmental Council Lawsuit
5. Proposed Finding of Failure to Attain and Reclassification to
Serious
C. Air Quality Monitoring Data
1. Tribal Monitoring Sites
2. PM-10 Precursors
3. Evidence of Adverse Health Effects Attributable to Poor Air
Quality
III. FIP Proposal
A. Emission Inventory
B. Determining RACM/RACT
C. RACM/RACT Determination for Minor Stationary Sources and Area
Sources
1. Stationary Sources
2. Area Sources
a. Roads
b. Wind Blown Agricultural Dust
c. Fires
D. Overview of FMC Operations
E. General Process for Determining RACT for FMC
1. In General
2. RCRA Consent Decree
3. Mass Emission Limitations
4. Opacity Limits
a. Point Sources
b. Fugitive Emission Sources
5. Work Practice Requirements
6. Reference Test Methods
7. Startup, Shutdown, Scheduled Maintenance, Upsets, Breakdowns,
Malfunctions, and Emergencies
F. RACT Determination for Sources for Which EPA believes
Additional Controls Are Required for RACT
1. Slag Handling Sources (Source 8)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
2. Calciner Scrubbers (Source 9)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
3. Elevated Secondary Condenser Flare and Ground Flare (Source
26)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
[[Page 7309]]
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
4. Phosphorus Loading Dock (Source 21)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
5. Furnace Building (Source 18c)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
G. Monitoring, Work Practice, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements
1. Monitoring and Work Practice Requirements
a. Annual Source Testing of Point Sources
b. Monitoring Devices
c. Operations and Maintenance Plan
d. Other Periodic Inspections and testing
e. Monitoring Malfunctions and Data Availability
2. Recordkeeping
3. Reporting Requirements
H. Compliance Schedule
I. Effectiveness of Proposed Control Measures
J. EPA's Plan for Addressing other PM-10 Planning Issues
1. PM-10 Precursors
2. Quantitative Milestones
3. New Source Review
4. Contingency Measures
IV. Request for Public Comment
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA)
I. Executive Summary
A. Background
The Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is located in southeastern
Idaho and consists of both trust and fee lands within the exterior
boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation (Reservation). Until
recently, it was part of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment
area, which also included State lands in Power and Bannock Counties,
including the cities of Pocatello and Chubbuck.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As discussed in more detail below, the State land within the
former Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area is now known
as ``the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10 monitors established on the Reservation in 1996 have recorded
numerous exceedences of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard and
document a violation of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard as of
December 31, 1996, and continuing in subsequent years. The monitors
also strongly suggest that the area is in violation of the pre-existing
annual PM-10 NAAQS. Although EPA revised both the 24-hour and annual
PM-10 standards on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38651), the pre-existing PM-10
standards remain in effect in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area.2 In addition, EPA believes there is a strong
likelihood that the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is in violation
of the revised 24-hour and annual PM-10 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ There are two pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, a 24-hour standard
and an annual standard. See 40 CFR 50.6 (1996). EPA promulgated
these NAAQS on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672), replacing standards for
total suspended particulate with new standards applying only to
particulate matter up to ten microns in diameter (PM-10). The annual
PM-10 standard is attained when the expected annual arithmetic
average of the 24-hour samples for a period of one year does not
exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3). Attainment of
the 24-hour PM-10 standard is determined by calculating the expected
number of days in a year with PM-10 concentrations greater than 150
g/m3. The 24-hour PM-10 standard is attained when the
expected number of days with levels above the standard, averaged
over a three-year period, is less than or equal to one. See 40 CFR
50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. When EPA promulgated revised
NAAQS for PM-2.5 and PM-10 in 1997, it provided that the pre-
existing standards for PM-10 would remain in effect until certain
prescribed events occur. See 40 CFR 50.6(d)(1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, the residents of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
continue to breathe unhealthy air. Particulate matter affects the
respiratory system and can cause damage to lung tissue and premature
death. The elderly, children, and people with chronic lung disease,
influenza, and asthma are especially sensitive to high levels of
particulate matter. As EPA concluded in promulgating the new and
revised particulate matter NAAQS, the serious health effects associated
with exposure to coarse particulate matter justified retaining PM-10
standards, in addition to fine particle, or PM-2.5, standards. See 62
FR 38651, 38677-679 (July 18, 1997). The highest PM-10 level reported
from the monitors in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is 433
g/m3, a level almost three times the level of the pre-existing
and revised 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
Based on available information, EPA believes that the primary, if
not the sole, cause of the PM-10 problem in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area is primary PM-10 emissions from an elemental
phosphorous facility owned and operated by FMC Corporation (FMC or FMC
facility), which is located on fee lands within the Reservation and the
nonattainment area.3 The FMC facility emits more than 700
tons of PM-10 each year. Without substantial reductions in PM-10
emissions from FMC, the monitors located on the Reservation will
continue to show violations of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
and, in all likelihood, the revised 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS, and
the residents of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation will continue to
breathe unhealthy air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A portion of the FMC facility is located on State lands.
This issue is discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been developing a program for
regulating sources of air pollution within the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation since the early 1990s. Until February 1998, however, Indian
tribes did not have authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to
regulate sources of air emissions and to carry out the requirements of
the Act. Therefore, EPA, in close consultation with the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes, began in the early 1990s to develop a strategy for
bringing what is now known as the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area
into attainment with the pre-existing PM-10 standards. Based on
information indicating that the PM-10 violations on the Reservation
were caused by PM-10 emissions from FMC, EPA and the Tribes focused
their efforts on developing controls for FMC.
Although EPA has now passed regulations that allow the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes to request authorization from EPA to carry out Clean Air
Act requirements within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, including PM-
10 planning requirements, the Tribes have advised EPA that they
continue to support its efforts to develop and promulgate PM-10 control
requirements for FMC because of the substantial resources EPA has
already expended on this effort and because of the technical
complexities of controlling PM-10 emissions from FMC. The Tribes have
advised EPA that they will continue to develop and request EPA approval
of a general air pollution program for sources within the Reservation,
including any additional PM-10 controls for other PM-10 area sources
and minor stationary sources that may be necessary to meet the anti-
backsliding requirements of section 172(e) of the Act during the period
of transition to implementation of the revised PM NAAQS and ultimately
to attain the revised PM standards.
[[Page 7310]]
B. Revised Particulate Matter Standards
As mentioned earlier, on July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated revisions
to both the annual and the 24-hour PM-10 standards and also established
two new standards for particulate matter, both of which apply only to
particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-
2.5). See 62 FR 38651. These standards became effective on September
16, 1997. Although the overall suite of promulgated particulate matter
(PM) standards reflects an overall strengthening of the regulatory
standards for particulate matter, the revised PM-10 standards, by
themselves, effectively constitute a relaxation of the pre-existing PM-
10 standards. As a consequence, areas that had not attained the pre-
existing PM-10 standards at the time of the relaxation of the PM-10
NAAQS, such as the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, have become
subject to CAA section 172(e). That section calls for promulgation by
EPA of a rule that requires application of controls that are no less
stringent than the controls that would have been required for areas
that were designated nonattainment prior to the relaxation. In the
preamble to the final rule establishing the new and revised PM
standards, EPA stated that inherent in the promulgation of the revised
set of PM standards and associated provisions is the revocation of the
pre-existing PM-10 standards and associated provisions. However, the
Agency decided that the pre-existing PM-10 standards would remain in
effect (i.e., revocation would be deferred) for a period of time after
the effective date of the new standards to ensure maintenance of public
health protection during the transition to the new standards. 62 FR at
38701. For areas that are subject to section 172(e), like the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA provided that the pre-existing PM-10
standards would continue to apply until the Agency completed the
rulemaking to establish the interim controls required under that
section. EPA expects to propose a rule meeting the requirements of
section 172(e) in early 1999. It should be understood that once EPA
issues a final rule pursuant to section 172(e), the requirements of
that rule--and not the pre-existing PM-10 standards which will be
revoked at that time--will govern all areas subject to section 172(e),
including the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. The section 172(e)
rulemaking will also govern today's action because it proposes
requirements intended to apply to areas like the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area that had not attained the standard at the time of
the relaxation. Therefore, although today's FIP proposal addresses the
clear statutory requirement of section 172(e)(namely, that for subject
areas controls be applied and implemented that are no less stringent
than were applicable in areas designated nonattainment prior to the
NAAQS relaxation), statements made in today's proposal that relate to
other CAA requirements concerning the pre-existing 24-hour and annual
PM-10 standards will be subject to interpretations established by EPA
when it takes final action on the forthcoming section 172(e)
rulemaking, which may in some cases require modifications to such
statements.
References in today's FIP proposal to attainment requirements or
attainment demonstrations applicable for the pre-existing PM-10
standards are being utilized by EPA primarily as a yardstick for
determining the emissions reduction levels that are appropriate to
achieve during this regulatory transition period in order to avoid
backsliding as contemplated by section 172(e). Accordingly, EPA
believes that the control requirements set forth in this proposed FIP
for the FMC facility will be consistent with the requirements of the
forthcoming section 172(e) rule, when that rule is promulgated and the
pre-existing PM-10 standards are revoked. This FIP proposal requires
application of controls that represent reasonably available control
technology (RACT). This is consistent with the plain terms of section
172(e), because this is the same level of controls that would have been
required prior to the relaxation of the PM-10 standards in states with
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.
In the preamble to the rule that established the revised PM
standards, EPA also indicated that, as part of its implementation
policy during the period of transition from the pre-existing to the
revised PM standards, it would not require current PM-10 nonattainment
areas to undertake attainment demonstrations for the pre-existing PM-10
standards. Instead, the Agency said it would concentrate on getting
approved into the SIPs for such areas the controls needed to ensure
that healthy PM levels would be maintained during the transition
period. See 62 FR at 38701. As noted above, however, EPA believes it
remains appropriate to use emissions reduction targets that are
commensurate with attainment levels for the pre-existing PM-10
standards in order to determine the adequacy of the adopted controls to
protect the public's health. This is necessary for several reasons.
First, it will take some time for states and EPA to identify the PM
problems under the new and revised standards, to designate areas
appropriately, and to develop effective means to address the PM
problems. Also, as a threshold matter, states will need to accumulate
the three years of ambient air quality data on which EPA regulations
base most significant PM NAAQS. Another important reason is that the
control requirements for a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area (i.e.,
reasonably available control measures (RACM) and RACT) are
traditionally determined by considering the attainment needs of the
area. A state with such an area would typically prepare an attainment
demonstration to determine the level by which emissions need to be
reduced to meet the standards. It would then select a mix of reasonably
available measures, consistent with EPA guidance, calculated to achieve
that emissions reduction level. As applied to the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area--an area for which no comprehensive PM
implementation plan and control strategy has really ever been applied--
and as applied to FMC in particular, the discussions throughout this
FIP proposal regarding the relationship of the emissions reductions
expected to be achieved through implementation of the proposed RACT-
level controls to attainment of the pre-existing PM-10 standards are
not included for purposes of demonstrating attainment of those
standards. Rather, the discussion of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS
serves the benchmark purpose described above of determining the
appropriate RACT-level measures needed to be implemented in that area,
both to maintain public health protection during the transition period
as well as to assist in ultimately attaining the revised PM-10
standards. In summary, then, the fact that (1) These new and revised PM
standards have now been promulgated, (2) there is a need for states and
EPA to begin to transition from implementation under the pre-existing
PM-10 standards towards implementation under the revised PM-10
standards, and (3) regulatory requirements for this area during the
transition period will be governed by the statutory provisions of
section 172(e), as interpreted by EPA, all have a direct bearing on the
substance and content of the FIP that is being proposed today for the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
C. FIP Proposal
In this proposal, EPA is exercising its discretionary authority
under section 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA to promulgate such FIP
provisions as are necessary or appropriate to protect air
[[Page 7311]]
quality within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. EPA's ultimate goal,
which is being initiated by this FIP proposal, is to ensure that all
persons residing and working in and traveling through the Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area can breathe air that meets appropriate PM-10
levels.
EPA has used the PM-10 planning requirements applicable to states
with PM-10 nonattainment areas, including the statutory requirements
provided for in section 172(e) that apply to areas that are not
attaining a NAAQS standard as of the date that standard is relaxed, as
a guide in determining what is necessary or appropriate for the
protection of air quality in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
The Clean Air Act requires states to impose RACT on major stationary
sources of PM-10 in moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. See sections
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. Section 172(e) requires areas
that are subject to its provisions to implement controls that are no
less stringent than the controls applicable to areas designated
nonattainment prior to the relaxation of a standard.
This FIP proposal contains emission limits and work practice
requirements that EPA believes represent RACT, along with related
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, for PM-10
emissions from the FMC facility that emanate from the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area. EPA believes that many sources at FMC currently
employ RACT-level controls. For point sources that EPA believes
currently employ RACT-level controls, the FIP proposes mass emissions
limits based on current actual maximum daily emission rates from these
point sources and opacity limits designed to keep PM-10 emissions at
current levels. For area sources that EPA believes currently employ
RACT-level controls, the FIP proposes opacity limits and work practice
requirements designed to keep emissions at current levels.
The largest sources of PM-10 emissions at the FMC facility are the
slag pit and related slag handling operations, the elevated secondary
condenser and ground flares, and the calciners. EPA believes that these
sources do not currently employ RACT-level controls, and that
additional process changes and control technology will be necessary to
achieve the emission limits and work practice requirements proposed in
this notice as representing RACT for these sources. EPA also believes
additional process changes and control technology will be necessary for
the phosphorous loading dock and the furnace building to achieve the
emission limits and work practice requirements proposed in this notice
as representing RACT for these sources.
The controls required to comply with the proposed emission limits
and work practice requirements will be costly--an estimated $49 million
dollars in capital expenditures over the next three years and annual
costs for monitoring, work practice requirements, recordkeeping, and
reporting of up to $202,000. EPA nonetheless believes the controls
needed to comply with the requirements of this proposed FIP are both
technologically and economically feasible. In developing the FIP
proposal, EPA has carefully evaluated alternative control technologies
for each source at FMC, including the incremental emission reductions
and estimated cost of installing, operating, and maintaining these
alternative control technologies. In addition, in connection with the
settlement of alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act at the FMC facility, FMC has agreed to expend more than
$64 4 million in capital costs to implement 13 PM-10
reduction projects at the facility. Five of these projects include the
controls that EPA believes are necessary to comply with the proposed
FIP. EPA believes that the remaining eight projects will better enable
FMC to comply with the requirements of the proposed FIP. FMC's
commitment to install and operate the 13 PM-10 reduction projects for
five years as part of the RCRA settlement is persuasive evidence that
the control technology identified in this FIP proposal is both
technologically and economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The difference in the estimated amount of expenditures EPA
believes is necessary to comply with the proposed FIP ($49 million)
and the amount of capital expenditures FMC has agreed to incur under
the RCRA consent decree ($64 million) is due to the fact that EPA
believes that only five of the SEP projects are necessary in order
to comply with the proposed FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also believes that this FIP proposal is necessary in order to
ensure that PM levels in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area do not
endanger public health, and that emissions reductions will be achieved
on a time frame that will contribute to attainment of the revised PM-10
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. To achieve these goals, EPA
believes that PM-10 emissions from the FMC facility must be reduced by
approximately 65%. EPA anticipates that the emission limitation and
work practice requirements in this proposed FIP, when considered
together, will result in an overall reduction in PM emissions of
approximately 69%.
To further these objectives, EPA is proposing a rigorous compliance
schedule. For sources that EPA believes currently employ RACT-level
controls, the FIP proposes to require compliance with the proposed
emission limits and work practice requirements 60 days after the
effective date of the FIP. For those sources that EPA believes will
require substantial modification in order to comply with the proposed
emission limits and work practice standards, EPA proposes to give FMC
time to complete the necessary engineering work, design, construction,
and initial operation. EPA is proposing that all RACT control
requirements necessary to maintain public health protection and
contribute to attainment of the revised PM-10 standards in the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area will be in place and fully operational by
April 1, 2002. Many of the new controls should be in place well before
that time. EPA does not expect PM values above the level of the revised
PM-10 NAAQS to be recorded on the Tribal monitors after April 1, 2002.
Because attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS requires three calendar years of
clean data, however, the area may not be eligible for an attainment
designation for the applicable PM-10 standards until after that date.
Given the number and extent of the projects FMC will need to undertake
to achieve compliance with the proposed FIP, as well as the amount of
necessary expenditures, EPA believes that the proposed FIP schedule
achieves implementation of RACT as expeditiously as practicable.
In addition to requiring the imposition of control requirements on
sources of PM-10 emissions in PM-10 nonattainment areas subject to the
pre-existing PM-10 standards, the Clean Air Act requires states with
nonattainment areas to meet several other PM-10 planning requirements,
such as enacting contingency measures, meeting quantitative milestones
which demonstrate reasonable further progress toward attainment,
implementing a permit program for construction and modification of new
and modified major stationary sources, and imposing controls on major
stationary sources of PM-10 precursors except where PM-10 precursors do
not contribute significantly to nonattainment.
As discussed above, EPA is promulgating this FIP for FMC, a
facility located in Indian country on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,
under the discretionary authority granted to EPA under sections 301(a)
and 301(d)(4) of the CAA. Because of the longstanding PM-10
nonattainment problem in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area,
[[Page 7312]]
EPA believes it is necessary and appropriate to focus the efforts of
this proposed FIP on the RACT-level emissions reduction requirements
that EPA believes will maintain public health protection in the
transition to the revised PM standards and that will ultimately assist
in attaining those standards as expeditiously as practicable. Based on
available information, EPA believes that implementation of RACT for
sources of primary particulate matter at FMC, as proposed in this
notice, will achieve these objectives. EPA will address the other PM-10
planning obligations that apply to states with PM-10 nonattainment
areas subject to the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, as necessary or
appropriate, in future rulemaking proposals.
D. Public Involvement in the FIP Process
EPA believes that public involvement at the local level is critical
to the successful development and ultimate implementation of any air
quality planning effort. To that end, EPA, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ), and the Tribes established a Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) in the early 1990s, made up of representatives
of local elected officials, transportation planning organizations, and
local citizen health and environmental organizations. The CAC actively
participated in the oversight of the development of a comprehensive PM-
10 plan for what was then called the ``Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area.'' This comprehensive plan was the basis for the
state implementation plan (SIP) for the portion of the nonattainment
area located on State lands (now known as the ``Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area''). EPA participated in the State's public workshops
on the SIP and attended the public hearings on the SIP. In addition,
EPA used the technical products developed by EPA, the Tribes, and IDEQ,
as well as the State SIP, as a basis for developing this FIP proposal
for FMC in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
EPA has also worked extensively with the Air Quality Program of the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in the development of this FIP proposal and
provided periodic updates to the Fort Hall Business Council, the
governing body of the Tribes, on the development of the FIP. EPA has
also held several public workshops and meetings seeking public input on
the control strategy, both from members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
and citizens living on State lands adjacent to the Reservation. EPA has
also made significant efforts to keep local elected officials and the
congressional delegation informed of the implications of this proposed
FIP and other related actions.
In September 1997, EPA conducted two public workshops on the
general content and scope of the FIP. One workshop was held on the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation and a second workshop was held in Pocatello.
There were several themes that emerged during these public workshops.
First, most citizens of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and the
Pocatello area want clean healthful air. Tribal members in particular
expressed concern that the Federal government exercise its trust
responsibility to ensure Clean Air Act protections on the Reservation.
Commenters pointed out that, because air pollution from FMC is plainly
visible, its impact is commonly perceived as extensive and regularly
invokes critical attention in the local media. Because FMC is a major
employer of Tribal members and residents of the Pocatello area,
however, there is also a concern about the continued economic viability
of FMC if costly air pollution and other environmental controls are
required. EPA has never received any information from FMC to establish
that the controls necessary to meet the PM-10 planning requirements of
the Clean Air Act would require closure of the FMC facility. In fact,
during the week the public workshops were held in Fort Hall and
Pocatello in September 1997, the plant manager for the FMC facility
stated in a radio broadcast that FMC had made a corporate commitment to
expend $120 million for environmental controls at the FMC facility, of
which approximately $85 million was targeted for air pollution control.
Finally, EPA has participated in several meetings of a Citizens
Advisory Panel (CAP) facilitated through the Idaho State University and
sponsored by FMC and J.R. Simplot, the two largest industrial
facilities in the Fort Hall and Pocatello areas. The purpose of the CAP
is to discuss environmental issues relating to the Fort Hall and
Pocatello areas. EPA has attended several meetings of the CAP in order
to present updates on the PM-10 planning process for the Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area and to seek public input.
After this proposed action is signed and published in the Federal
Register, EPA will hold a public workshop. The workshop, which has not
yet been scheduled, will provide an opportunity for EPA to explain to
the community why it is proposing this FIP, what measures are included
in the proposal, and who will potentially be impacted by the proposal.
The workshop will also provide the community an opportunity to ask
questions of EPA and to make suggestions with respect to this proposed
action. EPA will announce the time, date, and location of the public
workshop through local newspapers several weeks in advance of the
workshop.
Following the public workshop, EPA will hold a public hearing on
this FIP proposal from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on March 18, 1999, at the
Chambers of the Fort Hall Business Council. During the public hearing,
EPA will be taking formal comment on the FIP proposal. The public
comment period will begin upon publication of the FIP proposal and will
remain open for 30 days after the public hearing. EPA encourages
everyone who has an interest in this proposed action to comment during
the public comment period. EPA will consider all comments received
during the public comment period.
II. Background
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
1. Designation and Classification
On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, PM-
10 areas meeting the conditions of section 107(d) of the Act were
designated nonattainment for the PM-10 NAAQS by operation of law. The
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area was designated as a PM-
10 nonattainment area through this process. Once an area is designated
nonattainment, section 188 of the CAA outlines the process for
classification of the area and establishes the area's attainment date.
In accordance with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all PM-
10 nonattainment areas were initially classified as ``moderate'' by
operation of law, with an attainment date of December 31, 1994. 56 FR
11101 (March 15, 1991).
A moderate area could subsequently be reclassified as ``serious''
under CAA section 188(b)(1), if, at any time, EPA determined that the
area could not practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. In addition, a moderate area would be reclassified by
operation of law if EPA determined after the applicable attainment date
that, based on actual air quality data, the area had not attained the
standard by the attainment date. CAA section 188(b)(2).
Effective December 7, 1998, the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area was split into two nonattainment areas at the
boundary between the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and State lands. The
Fort
[[Page 7313]]
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area consists of land within the former Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area that lies within the exterior
boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The Portneuf Valley PM-
10 nonattainment area consists of the remaining portion of the former
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area. See 63 FR 59722
(November 5, 1998). Both the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and the
Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area continue to be classified as
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.
2. EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 greatly expanded the role of
Indian tribes in implementing the provisions of the Clean Air Act in
Indian country. Section 301(d) of the Act authorizes EPA to issue
regulations specifying the provisions of the Clean Air Act for which
Indian tribes may be treated in the same manner as states. See CAA
sections 301(d) (1) and (2). EPA promulgated the final rule under
section 301(d) of the Act, entitled ``Indian Tribes: Air Quality
Planning and Management,'' on February 12, 1998. 63 FR 7254. The rule
is generally referred to as the ``Tribal Authority Rule'' or ``TAR''.
In the preamble to the proposed 5 and final rule, EPA
discusses generally the legal basis under the CAA by which EPA and
tribes are authorized to regulate sources of air pollution in Indian
country. EPA concluded that the CAA constitutes a statutory grant of
jurisdictional authority to Indian tribes that allows them to develop
air programs for EPA approval in the same manner as states. 63 FR at
7254-7259; 59 FR 43958-43960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 59 FR 43956 (August 25, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also concluded that the CAA authorizes EPA to protect air
quality throughout Indian country, including on fee lands. See 63 FR
7262; 59 FR 43960-43961 (citing to CAA sections 101(b)(1), 301(a), and
301(d)). In fact, in promulgating the TAR, EPA specifically provided
that, pursuant to the discretionary authority explicitly granted to EPA
under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Act, EPA
``shall promulgate without unreasonable delay such federal
implementation plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to
protect air quality, consistent with the provisions of sections
304(a) and 301(d)(4), if a tribe does not submit a tribal
implementation plan meeting the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V, or does not receive EPA approval of a submitted
tribal implementation plan.''
63 FR at 7273 (codified at 40 CFR 49.11(a)).6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In the preamble to the final TAR, EPA explained that it
believed it was inappropriate to treat tribes in the same manner as
States with respect to section 110(c) of the Act, which directs EPA
to promulgate a FIP within two years after EPA finds a state has
failed to submit a complete state plan or within two years after EPA
disapproval of a state plan. In lieu of section 110(c), EPA
promulgated 40 CFR 49.11(a) to clarify that EPA will continue to be
subject to the basic requirement to issue any necessary or
appropriate FIP provisions for affected tribal areas within some
reasonable time. See 63 FR 7264-7265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is EPA's policy to aid tribes in developing comprehensive and
effective air quality management programs by providing technical and
other assistance to them. EPA recognizes, however, that just as it
required many years to develop state and federal programs to cover
lands subject to state jurisdiction, it will also require time to
develop tribal and federal programs to cover reservations and other
lands subject to tribal jurisdiction. 59 FR at 43961.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have expressed a strong interest in
seeking authority under the TAR to regulate sources of air pollution
located on the Reservation under the Clean Air Act. Based on
discussions with the Tribes, however, EPA believes that it will be at
least several months before the Tribes will be ready to seek authority
under the TAR to assume Clean Air Act planning responsibilities and
that, when they do so, the Tribes intend to build their capacity and
seek authority for the various Clean Air Act programs over time, rather
than all at once. The Tribes have advised EPA that they continue to
support EPA's efforts to impose such controls on FMC as are necessary
to bring the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area into attainment with
the PM-10 NAAQS as quickly as possible, notwithstanding the recent
promulgation of the TAR.
Therefore, in this proposed FIP, EPA is exercising its
discretionary authority under section 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA
and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate such FIP provisions as are necessary
or appropriate to protect air quality within the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have not submitted a tribal
implementation plan to address PM-10 emissions from FMC and have
indicated to EPA that they prefer to have EPA address PM-10 emissions
from FMC at this time. Given the longstanding air quality concerns in
the area, EPA believes that the proposed FIP provisions are both
necessary and appropriate to protect air quality on the Reservation.
3. Moderate Area Planning Requirements for States
The air quality planning requirements for states with PM-10
nonattainment areas under the pre-existing NAAQS are set out in
subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the Clean Air Act. EPA has issued a
``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how the
Agency intends to review state implementation plans and SIP revisions
submitted by states under title I of the Act, including those state
submittals containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP
provisions.7 Although these moderate area planning
requirements are not directly applicable to EPA in this rulemaking, EPA
believes it is appropriate to use the planning requirements applicable
to states with PM-10 nonattainment areas as a guide where, as here, EPA
is acting to ensure maintenance of healthy PM air quality within Indian
country through direct federal implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
(General Preamble) 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions
by November 15, 1991:
(a) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993 (CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C));
(b) Provisions to assure implementation of RACT on major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where EPA has determined that such
sources do not contribute significantly to exceedences of the PM-10
standards (CAA section 189(e));
(c) Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment
by that date is impracticable (CAA section 189(a)(1)(B));
(d) For plan revisions demonstrating attainment, quantitative
milestones which are to be achieved every three years and which
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP), as defined in section
171(l), toward attainment by the applicable attainment date (CAA
section 189(c));
[[Page 7314]]
(e) For plan revisions demonstrating impracticability, such annual
incremental reductions in PM-10 emissions as are required by part D of
the Act or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date (CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 171(1));
(f) A permit program for the construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources of PM-10 (see Section 189(a) of the
Act); and
(g) Contingency measures, which become effective without further
action by EPA upon a determination that the area has failed to achieve
reasonable further progress or to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the
attainment date (see Section 172(c)(9) of the Act).
Moderate area plans were also required to meet the generally
applicable SIP requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing
under section 110(a)(1); necessary assurances that the implementing
agencies have adequate personnel, funding and authority under section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280; and the description of enforcement
methods as required by 40 CFR 51.111, and EPA guidance implementing
these provisions.
4. Serious Area Planning Requirements for States
PM-10 nonattainment areas under the pre-existing NAAQS that are
reclassified as serious under section 188(b)(2) of the Act (for failing
to attain by the applicable attainment date) are required to submit,
within 18 months of the area's reclassification, SIP provisions
providing for, among other things, the adoption and implementation of
best available control measures (BACM), including best available
control technology (BACT), for PM-10 no later than four years from the
date of reclassification. The SIP must also contain a demonstration
that its implementation will provide for attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.
These requirements are in addition to the moderate PM-10 nonattainment
requirements of RACT/RACM. These and other requirements applicable to
states with serious PM-10 nonattainment areas are discussed in more
detail in EPA's guidance document, ``State Implementation Plans for
Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-
10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to Preamble for
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59
FR 41988 (August 16, 1994).
B. History of PM-10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
1. Background
The Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area was designated
nonattainment for the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS and classified as
moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act
upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act or CAA).
See 40 CFR 81.313 (PM-10 Initial Nonattainment Areas); see also 55 FR
45799 (October 31, 1990); 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991); 56 FR 37654
(August 8, 1991); 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). For an extensive
discussion of the history of the designation of the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area, please refer to the discussion at 61
FR 29667, 29668-29670 (June 12, 1996). The original attainment date for
the area was December 31, 1994. The attainment date was later extended
to December 31, 1995, and then to December 31, 1996, under the
authority of section 188(d) of the Act. See 61 FR 20730 (May 8, 1996)
(first one-year extension); 61 FR 66602 (December 18, 1996)(second one-
year extension).
Effective December 7, 1998, the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area was split into two nonattainment areas at the
boundary between the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and State lands: the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and the Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area. For a more detailed discussion of the rationale for
EPA's decision to split the Power-Bannock County PM-10 nonattainment
area into two separate PM-10 nonattainment areas, please refer to the
discussion at 63 FR 33597 (June 19, 1998)(proposed action) and 63 FR
59722 (November 5, 1998)(final action). Both the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area and the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area
continue to be classified as moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.
The boundary between the two nonattainment areas runs through an
area known as the ``industrial complex,'' which is comprised of two
major stationary sources of PM-10. FMC is located primarily on fee
lands within the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
and primarily within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area.8 J.R. Simplot Corporation (Simplot) is located on
State lands immediately adjacent to the Reservation in the Portneuf
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A small portion of the FMC facility extends on to State
lands. The only PM-10 sources of potential significance on this
portion of FMC property (i.e., on State lands) are a few raw
materials piles and a small number of unpaved access roads, which
sources collectively account for less than one percent of total PM-
10 emissions from the FMC facility. The limits proposed in this
notice do not apply to the portion of the FMC facility on State
lands. EPA expects Idaho to address the sources at FMC on State
lands in a SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PM-10 Planning for the Portneuf Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area
After the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area was
designated nonattainment, IDEQ, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and EPA
began to work together in the early 1990s to prepare the technical
elements needed to bring the area into attainment and meet the planning
requirements of title I of the Act. Based on these technical products,
IDEQ, along with several local agencies, developed and implemented
control measures on PM-10 sources in what is now known as the Portneuf
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area. The State submitted these control
measures to EPA in 1993 as a moderate PM-10 nonattainment state
implementation plan revision under section 189(a) of the Act. Although
the State had, in the past, sought to regulate sources on fee lands
within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,9 the SIP revision
submitted by the State in May 1993 did not purport to impose control
requirements on FMC or other sources on fee or trust lands within the
exterior boundaries of the Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Prior to the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, IDEQ had
asserted regulatory authority over the sources of air pollution on
fee lands in the Fort Hall Reservation, most notably, FMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The control measures submitted by the State include a comprehensive
residential wood combustion program, including a mandatory woodstove
curtailment program; stringent controls on fugitive road dust,
including controls on winter road sanding and a limited road paving
program; and a revised operating permit for the J.R. Simplot facility,
the only major stationary source of PM-10 on State lands within the
nonattainment area.
EPA has not yet taken final action to approve the State's moderate
PM-10 SIP for the area. EPA has previously stated, however, based on
EPA's preliminary review in the context of approving the State's
requests for extensions of the attainment date, that these control
measures substantially meet EPA's guidance for RACM, including RACT,
for sources of primary particulate. See 61 FR 66602, 66604-66605
(December 18, 1996). EPA will take action on IDEQ's SIP revision for
the Portneuf
[[Page 7315]]
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area in a separate rulemaking.
3. PM-10 Planning for the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
Using the technical products jointly developed by IDEQ, the Tribes,
and EPA, EPA began to develop, in close consultation with the Tribes, a
control strategy for what is now known as the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area. As stated above, EPA and the Tribes believe that
the primary, if not sole, cause of the continued PM-10 violations that
have been recorded on the PM-10 monitors located within the Reservation
are PM-10 emissions from the FMC facility. Therefore, in developing the
control strategy, EPA and the Tribes focused on developing control
requirements for PM-10 emissions from FMC.
At the same time, the Tribes began developing the infrastructure
for running a tribal air quality program, including hiring staff,
enacting authorizing legislation, drafting air quality regulations,
establishing an air monitoring network, and participating in regional
air quality planning efforts. The Tribes were very interested in
seeking authority to regulate sources of air pollution within the
exterior boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation under the Clean
Air Act once EPA promulgated authorizing regulations under section
301(d) of the CAA.
Originally, it was thought that a PM-10 control strategy for FMC
would be completed before promulgation of the TAR, that is, before the
Tribes were in a position to obtain authority under the Clean Air Act
to carry out PM-10 planning within the Reservation. For this reason,
EPA took the lead in developing a PM-10 control plan for what is now
known as the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, and, in particular,
developing a control strategy for FMC, with the intent of promulgating
a Federal Implementation Plan for FMC in close consultation with the
Tribes. Because of several setbacks in the planning process, however,
EPA was not able to promulgate or even propose a FIP for the area
before the TAR was promulgated in February 1998.
Because of resource constraints, the Tribes have advised EPA they
intend to build their capacity and seek authority for the various Clean
Air Act programs under the TAR over time, rather than all at once. In
light of the substantial resources EPA has already expended in
developing a control strategy for FMC and the technical complexities of
controlling PM-10 emissions from FMC, the Tribes have requested that
EPA continue with the development and promulgation of a FIP for the FMC
facility, even though the Tribes now have the ability to seek authority
to regulate FMC under the Clean Air Act. The Tribes have advised EPA
that they will continue to develop and request EPA approval of a
general air pollution program for sources within the Reservation,
including any additional PM controls for other PM sources (e.g., area
sources and minor stationary sources) that may be determined to be
necessary to protect air quality.
EPA believes that, in circumstances such as exist here, it is
appropriate for EPA to step in and fill the current gap in Clean Air
Act protection by direct federal implementation of Clean Air Act
requirements, in this case, implementation of measures to control PM-10
emissions from the FMC facility originating within the Reservation. The
Tribes have not submitted a tribal implementation plan to control PM-10
emissions for FMC and have indicated to EPA that the Tribes prefer that
EPA take the lead in this area at this time. EPA is therefore
exercising its discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and
301(d)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate a FIP containing
control measures and other requirements for the FMC facility. EPA is
proposing these emission limitations and related control requirements
to provide federally-enforceable PM-10 requirements on FMC in
accordance with the Clean Air Act provisions specifically calling for
the implementation of control measures in PM-10 nonattainment areas.
See, e.g., CAA section 189(a)(1)(C). EPA believes direct federal
implementation of control measures is necessary and appropriate to
ensure maintenance of healthy air quality in Indian country and is
proposing to act here to improve air quality in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area during the transition to new PM standards.
4. Portneuf Environmental Council Lawsuit
On November 20, 1997, the Portneuf Environmental Council (PEC)
filed suit against EPA alleging that EPA had failed to make a finding
whether the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area had
attained the PM-10 NAAQS by the December 31, 1996, extended attainment
date, as provided for in CAA section 188(b)(2)(A). During settlement
discussions, PEC indicated that it was considering amending its
complaint to allege that EPA has unreasonably delayed promulgation of a
FIP addressing PM-10 planning requirements for what is now known as the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, and, more specifically, for failing
to impose controls on PM-10 emissions from FMC.
As part of the settlement with PEC, EPA agreed to sign a Federal
Register notice proposing a FIP to control PM-10 emissions in the area
by January 31, 1999. EPA also agreed to take final action on the FIP
proposal no later than July 31, 2000. A copy of the settlement
agreement between EPA and PEC is in the docket. Although EPA had been
working on a FIP proposal for the FMC facility in order to ensure
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS long before the PEC filed its suit
against EPA, in issuing this proposal, EPA is also responding to PEC's
lawsuit and the resulting settlement agreement between EPA and PEC.
5. Proposed Finding of Failure To Attain and Reclassification to
Serious
On June 19, 1998, EPA published a Federal Register notice in which
EPA proposed to make a finding that the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area failed to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
of December 31, 1996. If EPA takes final action on that proposal, the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area would be reclassified as a serious
PM-10 nonattainment area by operation of law under section 188(b)(2) of
the Act. In general, the serious area planning requirements are in
addition to, and do not take the place of, the moderate area planning
requirements. As noted earlier, the outcome of the final action will
likely depend on determinations made by EPA when it promulgates the
section 172(e) rule.
C. Air Quality Monitoring Data
1. Tribal Monitoring Sites
The former Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area was
originally designated nonattainment for PM-10 based on monitors located
on State lands within the nonattainment area that showed violations of
the pre-existing 24-hour and annual PM-10 standard in the late 1980s
and early 1990s. Although there were no PM-10 monitors located on the
Reservation at this time, dispersion modeling conducted to support the
PM-10 planning efforts for the area predicted high PM-10 concentrations
on the Reservation in the vicinity of FMC in what is now known as the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
In the mid-1990s, the Tribes requested and EPA granted the Tribes
additional program support grant funds to enable the Tribes to
establish their own
[[Page 7316]]
monitoring stations in order to collect ambient air quality data
representative of conditions on the Reservation and to generate data to
support Tribal air quality planning efforts. This monitor, called the
``Sho-Ban site,'' is located approximately 100 feet north of the FMC
facility across a frontage road. Due to operational problems with the
sampler and quality assurance problems, valid data was not reported for
this monitor until October 1, 1996. Also in October 1996, the Tribes
initiated monitoring at two new sites. The ``primary site'' is located
approximately 100 feet north of the FMC facility across the frontage
road, approximately 600 feet east of the Sho-Ban site and approximately
600 feet from the boundary between the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and
State lands. Both the Sho-Ban and primary sites are located in the area
of expected maximum concentrations of PM-10 in the ambient air. The
``background site'' is located approximately one and one-half miles
southwest of the FMC facility upwind of the predominant wind direction
from the industrial complex.
All three Tribal monitoring sites are owned by the Tribes and
operated by a contractor for the Tribes. The Tribal monitors meet EPA
SLAMS network design and siting requirements, set forth at 40 CFR part
58, appendices D and E. A description of the monitoring network and
instrument siting relative to the EPA SLAMS siting criteria, as
specified in 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E, can be found in the
technical support document (TSD) and the air quality data report in the
docket for this proposal.
The air quality data for the period from October 8, 1996, to
December 31, 1996, was validated by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. EPA
has reviewed the air quality data collected and reported by the Tribes
during this period and quality assured the data for precision and
accuracy prior to entering the data into the AIRS data base. In
addition, a contractor with extensive experience in operating large
state monitoring networks conducted an independent audit of the Tribal
monitoring data. The audit included a review of both the sampling
effort and filter analysis, and concluded that the data reported by the
Tribes during 1996 and 1997 was valid and reliable data.
Both the Sho-Ban and primary sites have recorded numerous PM-10
concentrations above the level of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
since October 1996. Table 1 lists each of the monitoring sites in the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area where the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS was
exceeded between 1994 and 1997. Table 2 lists the concentration, in
micrograms per cubic meter, of each exceedence.
Table 1.--Fort Hall PM-10 Monitoring Data--1994, 1995, 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Year Number of exceedences Expected exceedences 3 year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary....................... 1994 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1995 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1996 18.................... 20.96................. 7.0.
1997 19.................... 20.1.................. 13.69.
Sho-Ban....................... 1994 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1995 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1996 9..................... 11.34................. 3.78.
1997 12.................... 14.................... 8.4.
Background Site............... 1994 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1995 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1996 0..................... 0.00.................. 0.00.
1997 1..................... 1.05.................. .35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--PM-10 Exceedences at Tribal Monitors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Primary site Sho-ban site site (g/ (g/ m>g/m3)
m3) m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 10, 1996................................................... *165 118 56
Oct. 16, 1996................................................... *199 ND 57
Oct. 18, 1996................................................... *184 *193 ND
Oct. 22, 1996................................................... *200 ND 7
Oct. 24, 1996................................................... *229 ND ND
Nov. 17, 1996................................................... 124 *245 3
Nov. 18, 1996................................................... *277 85 1
Nov. 19, 1996................................................... *420 135 5
Nov. 28, 1996................................................... 109 *163 8
Dec. 3, 1996.................................................... *167 128 8
Dec. 4, 1996.................................................... 90 *199 9
Dec. 9, 1996.................................................... *184 *199 3
Dec. 10, 1996................................................... 132 *208 2
Dec. 15, 1996................................................... *219 53 1
Dec. 20, 1996................................................... *156 ND 18
Dec. 24, 1996................................................... *174 36 2
Dec. 25, 1996................................................... *174 56 1
Dec. 26, 1996................................................... *317 111 0
Dec. 27, 1996................................................... *236 48 0
Dec. 29, 1996................................................... *290 *282 0
Dec. 30, 1996................................................... *187 *293 3
Dec. 31, 1996................................................... *186 *442 2
Jan. 1, 1997.................................................... *268 *409 5
Jan. 2, 1997.................................................... *161 94 ND
Jan. 22, 1997................................................... *16 ND 1
[[Page 7317]]
Jan. 25, 1997................................................... 13 ND *246
Feb. 14, 1997................................................... *222 35 2
Feb. 17, 1997................................................... *198 45 6
Feb. 19, 1997................................................... *215 *259 2
Mar. 1, 1997.................................................... *223 *221 6
Mar. 2, 1997.................................................... *196 91 4
Mar. 9, 1997.................................................... *239 139 2
Mar. 10, 1997................................................... *337 95 3
Mar. 11, 1997................................................... *206 77 4
Mar. 18, 1997................................................... 77 *173 9
Mar. 26, 1997................................................... *166 ND 26
Mar. 30, 1997................................................... 96 *234 10
Jun. 3, 1997.................................................... 87 *167 23
Aug. 26, 1997................................................... 86 *184 33
Sept. 13, 1997.................................................. 145 *230 69
Sept. 14, 1997.................................................. 128 *346 ND
Sept. 15, 1997.................................................. *167 91 25
Sept. 26, 1997.................................................. *222 79 42
Oct. 3, 1997.................................................... 186 *156 2
Oct. 4, 1997.................................................... *254 128 19
Oct. 5, 1997.................................................... *273 46 10
Oct. 8, 1997.................................................... 80 200 10
Oct. 9, 1997.................................................... 68 *271 30
Dec. 17, 1997................................................... *158 67 1
Dec. 27, 1997................................................... *160 59 101
Dec. 29, 1997................................................... *245 69 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND = No Data Reported
= level above 24-hour standard
According to 40 CFR part 50, the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a
24-hour average concentration above 150 g/m3, averaged over
three years, is equal to or less than one. Because the Tribal
monitoring sites did not begin full operation until October 1996, the
data base is less than the three years of data generally needed for a
determination of compliance with the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
under 60 CFR 50.6. Nevertheless, the number of PM-10 concentrations
above the level of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS between October 8, 1996, and
December 31, 1996 results in the Sho-Ban and primary monitors showing a
violation of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS as of the December
31, 1996 attainment date for the area. Appendix K of 40 CFR part 50
contains ``gap filling'' techniques for situations where less than
three complete years of data are available. In brief, that procedure
allows a determination of non-compliance with a standard if it can be
unambiguously demonstrated that a violation occurred. With respect to
the Sho-Ban and primary sites, the expected exceedence rate of the 24-
hour standard, averaged over the years 1994, 1995, and 1996, for each
site is substantially greater than the 1.1 allowed for under the pre-
existing PM-10 NAAQS, even if the days during which the monitors did
not operate or collect valid data had reported zero PM-10 levels. For
example, the expected exceedence rate for 1996 was 20.96 at the primary
site and 11.34 at the Sho-Ban site. When this rate is averaged with an
assumed zero for 1994 and 1995, the three-year average expected
exceedence rate of 7.0 for the primary site and 3.78 for the Sho-Ban
site are above the 1.1 required to show attainment of the pre-existing
24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. In other words, even if there were zero
exceedences from January 1, 1994, to October 8, 1996, a violation of
the standard would have occurred because of the number of exceedences
that occurred from October 8, 1996, to December 31, 1996. EPA therefore
believes that the Sho-Ban and primary monitors document a violation of
the pre-existing 24-hour NAAQS for PM-10 under 40 CFR 50.6 using
calendar year data from 1994, 1995, and 1996.
EPA also believes that the Sho-Ban and primary monitors document a
violation of the pre-existing 24-hour NAAQS for PM-10 as of December
1997 (using calendar year data from 1995, 1996, and 1997). The primary
site recorded exceedences of the pre-existing PM-10 standard on 19 days
during 1997, resulting in an expected exceedence rate for 1997 of 20.1.
Similarly, the Sho-Ban site recorded exceedences of the pre-existing
standard on 12 days during 1997, resulting in an exceedence rate of 14.
The three-year average of exceedence rates for calendar years 1995,
1996, and 1997 were 13.69 and 8.4, respectively, for the primary and
Sho-Ban sites. The PM-10 values recorded on the Tribal monitors in 1998
have been fairly consistent with the values recorded during 1996 and
1997.
None of the Tribal monitors has collected sufficient data to make
an attainment determination with respect to the pre-existing annual PM-
10 standard. Generally, three years of data must be collected in order
to calculate the three-year average of each year's annual average. The
1997 annual average recorded at the primary site, however, was 66.3
g/m3, approximately 25% above the annual PM-10 standard, and
strongly suggests that a violation of the pre-existing annual standard
will be documented once three years of data has been collected at the
Tribal monitors.
As discussed above, EPA promulgated revised PM-10 standards on July
18, 1997. See 62 FR 38651. Although the levels of the 24-hour and
annual standards remain unchanged, there has been a change in the
statistical form for determining compliance with the 24-hour NAAQS
(from an expected exceedence rate to averaging the 99th percentile
concentration from three
[[Page 7318]]
years of data) and a change in the procedures for reporting PM-10
concentrations at reference conditions to PM-10 concentrations at local
temperature and pressure. Determining compliance with the revised PM-10
standards, even the revised 24-hour PM-10 standard, now requires three
calendar years of data. Because the Tribal monitors have only been
collecting valid data since the last quarter of 1996, there is
insufficient data at this time to conclude with certainty that the
Tribal monitors violate the revised PM-10 standards. Nonetheless, after
converting previously reported PM-10 concentrations to local
temperature and pressure and calculating the 99th percentile of the
data base for each site and the arithmetic mean for each site for each
year, EPA believes there is a strong likelihood that the Tribal
monitors will document violations of the revised 24-hour and annual PM-
10 standards unless there are significant reductions in PM-10 emissions
from the FMC facility. The 99th percentile PM-10 concentrations for
1997 were 231 g/m3 for the primary site and 243 g/m3
for the Sho-ban site, well above the 24-hour standard of 150
g/m3. Similarly, the arithmetic annual mean for 1997 was 60
g/m3 for the primary, again, well above the annual standard of
50 g/m3. The arithmetic annual mean for 1997 for the Sho-Ban
site was 46 g/m3, just below the level of the standard.
Please refer to the air quality data report and the TSD in the
docket for further discussion and analysis of the air quality data.
2. PM-10 Precursors
Section 189(e) of the Act states that the control requirements
applicable under SIPs to major stationary sources of PM-10 must also be
applied to major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors, unless EPA
determines such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels
which exceed the PM-10 standard in the area.
Not all particulate in the air is directly emitted as particulate
from emission sources. Particulate can also be formed in the air
through complex chemical processes involving emission of gaseous
pollutants called ``precursor gasses'', or ``precursors''. The
particulate formed in the air are generally referred to as ``secondary
aerosol.'' Precursor gasses of concern in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area and the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area
include sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and ammonia. The secondary
aerosol formed in the atmosphere are ammonium sulfate and ammonium
nitrate.
At the beginning of the PM-10 planning process for the former
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area, PM-10 precursors were
not thought to contribute to PM-10 levels which exceeded the PM-10
standard. In the winter of 1992, however, the State of Idaho began to
analyze particulate matter collected on the PM-10 filters at the State
monitoring sites for secondary aerosol contribution. Analysis of the
particulate collected on the filters by the State in January 1993,
including on the date of an exceedence on January 7, 1993, showed that
ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, which are PM-10 precursors,
constituted approximately 60% of the measured PM-10 mass. Filter
samples collected on other days with high PM-10 concentrations were
selected from the total of a year's routine monitoring at the State
monitoring sites and analyzed for secondary aerosol fractions. The
results indicated that secondary aerosol was a significant fraction of
the total PM-10 mass loading only during cold stagnant winter days with
high relative humidity. High PM-10 concentrations measured and analyzed
during other meteorological conditions did not have a significant
aerosol contribution. This new information necessitated a reevaluation
of the contribution of PM-10 precursors to the nonattainment problem in
the former Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
Accordingly, in conjunction with EPA and the Tribes, the State
developed a work plan for analyzing and addressing the contribution of
PM-10 precursors to the nonattainment problem in the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
Since PM-10 precursors were first identified in particulate samples
collected in January 1993 from the State monitors as a potential
contributor to the nonattainment problem in the former Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area, however, no levels above the
standard have been recorded at any of the monitors located on State
lands in what is now known as the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment
area. Instead, it appears that PM-10 resulting from precursor emissions
represent a significant fraction of the total PM-10 mass loading on the
monitors located on State lands only during very specific and rare
meteorological conditions--cold stagnant winter days with relative high
humidity. Based on the fact that the State monitors have not recorded
an exceedence since January 1993, that there have been only two times
between 1986 and 1997 in which violations of the PM-10 NAAQS on the
State monitors have been attributed to PM-10 precursors, and that all
State monitoring sites have attained the standard, it does not appear
that major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the standard within the
Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area.
With respect to the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, based on
data from the State monitors that show secondary aerosol reaches its
highest levels at the monitoring sites furthest away from the
industrial complex, EPA would not expect PM-10 precursors to contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels that exceed the standard on the Tribal
monitors, which are located near the industrial complex. In order to
confirm the contribution of PM-10 precursors to the exceedences that
have been recorded on the Tribal monitors, however, EPA is conducting
additional chemical analysis of filters collected from the Tribal
monitors as part of a comprehensive study of the types of particles and
their chemical composition collected at the Tribal monitors. If the
results of this study demonstrate that PM-10 precursors from major
stationary sources contribute significantly to levels that exceed the
applicable PM standards in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA
will determine whether additional controls on FMC and any other major
stationary sources of PM-10 precursors within the nonattainment area
are necessary or appropriate, to the extent the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
have not submitted a tribal implementation plan addressing such
concerns. The State would be required to address any significant PM
precursor emissions attributable to sources on State lands that
contribute to levels that exceed the applicable PM standards in the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
3. Evidence of Adverse Health Effects Attributable to Poor Air Quality
As demonstrated above, the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area
violates the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard and may also violate
the pre-existing annual PM-10 standard and the revised 24-hour and
annual PM-10 standards. A recent report prepared by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), appears to be consistent with
the growing body of epidemiologic evidence showing an association
between particulate pollution and respiratory illnesses. The
[[Page 7319]]
report looked at the Native American population living on the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation and the Native American population living on the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation. The Duck Valley Indian Reservation is
located in an undeveloped area in northern Nevada and has no known air
quality problem. A total of 515 individuals (229 from Fort Hall and 286
from Duck Valley) participated in this study. The study compared
pulmonary function, levels of cadmium, chromium, fluoride, and several
renal biomarkers in urine specimens, and results from a questionnaire
filled out by the participants concerning respiratory symptoms or
diseases.
The report reveals a significantly higher incidence of self-
reported respiratory symptoms or diseases among the residents living on
the Fort Hall Indian Reservation as compared with those living on the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation. For example, the incidence of chronic
bronchitis was three times higher and the incidence of pneumonia was
two times higher for the population living on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. Differences in respiratory outcomes at the two
reservations were greatest when comparing the health of participants
younger than 20 years of age. A copy of this report is in the docket.
Although this report does not prove that the reported adverse health
effects among the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are caused by the PM-10
nonattainment problem in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, the
report does support EPA's concern with the air quality in the area.
III. FIP Proposal
As discussed above, in this proposed rulemaking, EPA is exercising
its discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate such FIP provisions as are
necessary or appropriate to protect air quality within the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area. Based on information available to EPA, EPA
believes that the primary, if not sole, cause of continued violations
of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS that have been recorded on the
Tribal monitors are PM-10 emissions from the FMC facility that emanate
from within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. In this FIP
proposal, EPA is proposing controls for the FMC facility that EPA
believes represent RACT.
A. Emission Inventory
Section 172(C)(3) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.114 require that a PM-10
nonattainment plan include a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant
pollutant in the relevant area. An emission inventory is used to
identify sources that contribute to measured violations of the NAAQS
and to estimate the rate at which these sources emit pollutants into
the atmosphere. The source emission data that comprise an emission
inventory are used in evaluating the effectiveness of alternative
control technology and the emissions that result from implementation of
controls. Emission data are also used to predict air quality benefits
from implementation of selected control technologies.
An emission inventory is generally prepared to reflect estimates of
actual emissions. Actual emissions are estimates of what a source
actually emitted into the atmosphere within a specified time frame,
usually on an annual or 24-hour basis, and are used to assess emission
conditions that could have led to specific measured air quality. Actual
annual emissions are the emissions emitted into the air during the
calendar year and are expressed in tons/year. The 24-hour actual
emission rates can be expressed in several different ways: average
daily emission rates; worst case emission rates for any 24-hour period
for each source; or a worst case emission rate for each source during a
specified season.
In the early 1990s, EPA, the State and, the Tribes worked together
on the technical products that would serve as the basis for the PM-10
planning for the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area. An
emission inventory of all stationary sources and area sources in the
nonattainment area was one of these technical products. For this FIP
proposal, EPA started with the emission inventory for the former Power-
Bannock County PM-10 nonattainment area that was developed jointly by
EPA, the State, and the Tribes, which contained inventories of actual
annual emission rates, average daily emission rates, worst case
emission rates for a 24-hour period, and worst case emission rates
during the winter, when exceedences are most likely to occur in the
area. Two types of changes to the emission inventory have been made
along the way. First, although the emission inventory uses a base year
of 1993, it has been revised to reflect 1996 emissions for FMC. EPA
believes that the 1996 emission inventory more accurately represents
current operations at FMC than any previous emission inventory prepared
for the facility. For example, the 1996 emission inventory for FMC
reflects additional engineering evaluation of furnace gas composition,
as well as the change in the ore used by FMC, which has an effect on
PM-10 emissions throughout the facility. Second, EPA has used emissions
only from the stationary sources and area sources in what is now known
as the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. With respect to area
sources, this meant apportioning area source emissions between the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and the Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area.
Table 3 below summarizes the 1993 actual annual emissions for the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area (1996 base year for FMC). Point
source and area source emissions of less than one ton per year are
excluded from the table. EPA used the emission inventory for the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, in conjunction with ambient air quality
and meteorological data and analysis, in reaching its determination
that the continued violations of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10
standard that have been recorded on the Tribal monitors are primarily,
if not exclusively, attributable to PM-10 emissions emanating from the
FMC facility within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. In this FIP
proposal, EPA estimated emission reduction targets at FMC from the
estimated design value using the worst case daily emission rates at
FMC. EPA believes it is appropriate to develop a control strategy
assuming the potential of both adverse meteorology and worst case daily
emissions occurring simultaneously in order to ensure that PM levels in
the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area do not endanger public health.
Table 4 below summarizes the 1996 actual daily worst case emissions for
FMC. EPA has used this more refined emission inventory of the
individual sources of PM-10 at the FMC facility to identify the largest
emission sources at the FMC facility that appear to be contributing to
high PM-10 concentrations in the area.
Table 3.--1993 Actual PM-10 Emissions Summary, Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area (greater than 1 ton/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10
emissions
Source name (tons/
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources:
FMC Corporation (1996).................................... 727
J.K. Merrill #43 (main)................................... 7
McNabb Grain.............................................. 2
General Mills, Schiller................................... 1
-----------
Subtotal................................................ 737
Area Sources:
Resident/Commer. Const.................................... 31
Residential Heating....................................... 0
[[Page 7320]]
Prescribed Burning........................................ 35
Wild Fires................................................ 49
Road Construction......................................... 12
Aircraft Emissions........................................ 1
Agricultural Equipment.................................... 1
Agricultural Windblown Dust............................... 310
Locomotive Emissions...................................... 0
Brake Wear................................................ 0
Tire Wear................................................. 0
Unpaved Roads............................................. 571
Paved Roads............................................... 59
Mobile Exhaust............................................ 0
-----------
Subtotal................................................ 1069
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--FMC 1996 Actual Worst Case Daily and Annual PM-10 Emissions
Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10 emissions PM-10 emissions
Source name (lb/day) (ton/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POINT SOURCES:
Ground Flare.................. 2281 197
Calciners..................... 1204 100
Elevated Secondary CO Flare... 828 62
All other Baghouses........... 446 49
Medusa Anderson (four
furnaces).................... 269 43
Calciner Cooler Vents......... 188 27
Pressure Relief Vents......... 99 1
Cooling Tower................. 96 18
Phos Dock..................... 34 6
Boilers....................... 13 2
Emergency CO Flares........... 12 0
-------------------------------------
Subtotal Point Sources.... 5470 505
PROCESS and OTHER FUGITIVES:
Slag Handling:
Slag tap.................. 173 28
Metal Tap................. 88 14
Slag cooling.............. 209 33
Slag digging.............. *173 *27
Loader to truck........... **270 **43
Truck to slag pile........ 132 20
All Roads......................... 190 25
All Piles......................... 163 23
Dry fines material recycle........ 33 6
Nodule fines handling truck
loading.......................... 12 2
Nodule fines stockpiling.......... 7 1
-------------------------------------
Subtotal Fugitives............ 1450 222
-------------------------------------
Grand Total............... 6920 727
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Slag handling.
**Subtotal 1045.
As can be seen from Table 3, FMC accounts for more than 98% of PM-
10 emissions from all stationary sources and more than 40% of PM-10
emissions from all sources of PM-10 in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area. Because of the size of FMC's PM-10 emissions, both
in absolute terms and in comparison to other sources of PM-10 emissions
in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA has invested many years
and hundred of thousands of dollars in developing an accurate and
comprehensive inventory of emissions from the FMC facility. Changes in
the emission estimates for the FMC facility have resulted from changes
in FMC processes over time, better identification of emission sources
at the facility, and better understanding of emissions from known
sources through source testing or further engineering analysis of known
processes. Process fugitive emissions account for a significant portion
of the emissions at FMC. There are approximately 450 individual
fugitive emission points listed in the inventory. Because fugitive
emissions do not emanate from a single point, they are difficult to
measure and are determined based on assumptions and judgement. In
addition, for some of the point sources at FMC, emissions cannot be
measured through source tests because of the combustible nature of the
gas stream, but are instead estimated based on theoretical chemical
reactions and engineering calculations.
The emission inventory for FMC has undergone almost continual
revision and updating since the early 1990s. As described in more
detail below, EPA initially planned on using dispersion modeling to
identify specific sources subject to control and to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. During this time, FMC
continued to provide EPA with new information that made the inventory
more complex and more detailed, but also tended to lower emission
estimates.
[[Page 7321]]
After the dispersion modeling failed to adequately perform at the
Tribal monitoring sites, and EPA decided in the summer of 1997 to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy by
rolling back overall facility emissions based on the design value, FMC
came forward in December 1997 with information identifying new emission
sources with significant emissions and significantly higher emission
estimates for previously identified sources. This new information
effectively quadrupled the daily facility-wide emission rates. EPA
evaluated this new information and revised the emission inventory,
where appropriate, to reflect this new information. Although EPA has,
for the most part, used the emission estimates provided by FMC, EPA has
in some instances revised FMC's estimates to provide a more realistic
estimate of worst case daily emissions. Please refer to the docket and
TSD for a more detailed discussion of the emission inventory.
B. Determining RACM/RACT
The General Preamble describes the methodology for determining
RACM/RACT in detail. 57 FR 13498, 13540-13541. In summary, EPA suggests
starting to define RACM with the list of available control measures for
fugitive dust, residential wood combustion, and prescribed burning
contained in Appendices C1, C2, and C3 of the General Preamble and
adding to this list any additional control measures proposed and
documented in public comments. Any measures that apply to emission
sources of PM-10 that are insignificant (i.e., de minimis) and any
measures that are unreasonable for technology reasons or because of the
cost of the control in the area can then be culled from the list. In
addition, potential RACM may be culled from the list if a measure
cannot be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for
attainment in the area. 57 FR 13498, 13540-41, 13560.
The General Preamble also provides guidance for states in
determining RACT for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas for SIP
planning purposes. See 57 FR 13540-41 and Appendix C4 (57 FR 18070,
18073-74 (April 28, 1992)). EPA recommends to states that major
stationary sources of PM-10 be the starting point for RACT analysis. 57
FR 13541. EPA has defined RACT for PM-10 planning purposes as the
lowest emission rate that a particular source is capable of meeting by
application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. RACT applies to
existing sources of PM-10 stack, process fugitive, and fugitive dust
emissions (e.g., haul roads and unpaved staging areas). See section
172(c)(1) of the Act and 57 FR 13541. RACT for a particular source is
determined on a case-by-case basis considering the technological and
economic feasibility of reducing emissions from that source through
process changes or add-on control technology.
The technological feasibility of applying an emission reduction
method to a particular source should consider the source's process and
operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and any
other environmental impacts such as water pollution, waste disposal,
and energy requirements. The process, operating procedures, and raw
materials used by a source can affect the feasibility of implementing
process changes that reduce emissions and the selection of add-on
control equipment. An otherwise available control technology may not be
reasonable if reducing air emissions has an adverse effect on other
resources and these adverse environmental impacts cannot reasonably be
mitigated. 57 FR 13540-41 and 57 FR 18073-74.
Economic feasibility considers the cost of reducing emissions and
the difference in these costs between the particular source and other
similar sources that have implemented emission reductions. EPA presumes
that it is reasonable for similar sources to bear similar costs of
emission reductions. Economic feasibility rests very little on the
ability of a particular source to ``afford'' to reduce emissions to the
level of similar sources. Less efficient sources would be rewarded by
having to bear lower emission reduction costs if affordability were
given high consideration. Rather, economic feasibility for RACT
purposes is largely determined by evidence that other sources in a
source category have in fact applied the control technology in
question. The capital costs, annualized costs, and cost effectiveness
of an emission reduction technology should be considered in determining
its economic feasibility. The OAQPS Control Costs Manual, Fourth
Edition, EPA-450/3-90-006, January 1990, describes procedures for
determining these costs. The above costs should be considered for all
technologically feasible emission reduction options. 57 FR 13540-41 and
57 FR 18073-74.
The attainment needs of the area should also be considered in
determining RACT. Where a source contributes insignificantly to ambient
concentrations that exceed the NAAQS, it would be unreasonable, and
therefore would not constitute RACT, to require additional controls on
the source. 57 FR 13540-13541 and fn. 18 and 20.
C. RACM/RACT Determination for Minor Stationary Sources and Area
Sources
EPA evaluated the extent to which emissions from various sources
throughout the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area affected attainment
of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS as a guide to determining whether
controls for those different sources is RACT. At the conclusion of that
evaluation, EPA believes that emissions emanating from the FMC facility
located within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area are the primary,
if not sole, cause of the continued violations of the pre-existing 24-
hour PM-10 NAAQS within the nonattainment area. Therefore, EPA's
determination at this time is that imposing controls on PM-10 emissions
from other stationary sources and area sources in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area is not necessary to protect air quality during the
transition period and would not expedite attainment of the revised PM-
10 NAAQS.
In this case, EPA was not able to determine on the basis of
available modeling the precise contribution of other area and minor
stationary sources in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area to the
locations of expected 24-hour and annual PM-10 violations within the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. Despite repeated efforts, with the
assistance of the Tribes, IDEQ, and affected industry, the air quality
models initially selected and approved by EPA for use in the Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area have continued to fail well-
established performance criteria in the vicinity of the FMC facility,
precisely the area where monitored violations of the pre-existing 24-
hour PM-10 standard continue to occur. As discussed in more detail
below in section III.I., EPA has therefore relied on simple linear
proportionality between facility-wide emissions at FMC and ambient PM-
10 concentrations measured at the Tribal monitors to establish that the
proposed control strategy is expected to result in attainment of the
PM-10 standard. The use of simple roll back assumes that each source in
the area has a contribution at the monitor based only on emission rates
rather than source location and emissions characteristics. The use of
simple roll back in the nonattainment area therefore does not allow EPA
to determine the contribution
[[Page 7322]]
of a particular area or minor stationary source to the locations of
expected 24-hour and annual PM-10 violations.
Other information, however, strongly suggests that PM-10 emissions
from FMC are responsible for the high PM-10 values that have been
recorded on the Tribal monitors. A simple comparison of the data among
the three Tribal monitors on days when the primary site and Sho-Ban
site documented exceedences of the standard strongly suggests that
contributions from sources other than FMC are insignificant. Data from
the background site, which is upwind from FMC based on prevailing wind
directions, reveals that the background site rarely exceeded 50 ug/m3
and generally recorded values less than 10 ug/m3 on days when the
primary site and Sho-Ban site, both downwind of the FMC facility,
recorded values in excess of 150 ug/m3. See Table 2.
EPA has also analyzed the PM-10 readings on the primary and Sho-Ban
monitors and the wind direction observed during the sampling time frame
on a more detailed level. EPA compared the 24-hour average wind
direction with the PM-10 concentrations recorded at these monitors for
the period between October 6, 1996, and December 31, 1997. In other
words, PM-10 concentrations are presented as a function of 24-hour wind
direction. Based on this data, it is evident that exceedences of the
PM-10 24-hour NAAQS are recorded on the primary and Sho-Ban monitors
only when the wind is blowing from the FMC calciner and furnace
building areas--two of the largest sources of PM-10 at FMC--toward the
monitors. No exceedences of the PM-10 standard have been recorded on
these monitors when the wind is blowing from any other direction,
including from the part of the FMC facility located on State lands and
from Simplot, the other potential source of PM-10 emissions containing
phosphorous and which is located on State lands. EPA and the Tribes
have been conducting additional air sampling and analysis at the
primary and Sho-Ban monitoring sites. Filter samples from these sites
are being analyzed for chemical and physical composition to determine
the types of sources contributing to the high PM-10 levels. Preliminary
information from this work indicates that emissions from high
temperature or combustion sources from FMC are significant contributors
to the PM-10 observed on the filters and that the fine particles (PM-
2.5 or less) are the major component of the PM-10. In addition, wind
directional chemical analysis resulted in high levels of phosphorus ore
components in the fine particles when the wind is blowing from the
direction of the FMC calciners and furnace.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Although both FMC and Simplot both utilize phosphate ore in
their processes (FMC produces elemental phosphorus and Simplot
produces chemical compounds (fertilizers) containing phosphorus), as
discussed above, the exceedences of the PM-10 standard have been
recorded on the Tribal monitors when the wind is blowing from the
FMC facility toward the monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this information, the fact that PM-10 emissions from FMC
are the single largest source of PM-10 emissions in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area, and the other factors discussed below in this
section III.C., EPA's determination at this time is that FMC is the
primary, if not the sole, contributor to PM-10 levels that exceed the
pre-existing standard in the nonattainment area. EPA expects to
complete the analytical and receptor-modeling study by summer of 1999.
The initial results suggest the study will confirm that the sources
targeted in this proposal are indeed contributing to the problem at the
level the emissions inventory would indicate.
1. Stationary Sources
The FMC facility is the only major stationary source of PM-10
within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and within the entire
Reservation and it emits more than 727 tons of PM-10 each year (actual
emissions). There are currently five other minor stationary sources of
PM-10 operating in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, with
emissions ranging from .01 to 6.8 tons per year. These minor stationary
sources consist of two grain loading and storage facilities, a
fertilizer handling operation, a pipeline pump station with an
associated boiler, and an aggregate handling facility. PM-10 emissions
from all stationary sources in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area
are estimated at 737 tons per year. FMC emits 727 tons per year of this
amount, or more than 98% of all emissions from stationary sources.
EPA has recommended to states in the SIP planning process that
major stationary sources of PM-10 be the minimum starting point for
RACT analysis. 57 FR 13541. EPA recommends that states go on to conduct
a RACT analysis of minor stationary sources and require control
technology for other stationary sources in the area that are reasonable
to control in light of the area's attainment needs and the feasibility
of such controls. Id. In light of the fact that all stationary sources
within the nonattainment area other than FMC emit less than two percent
of all PM-10 emissions from stationary sources, and in light of the
monitoring analysis indicating that exceedences of the standard occur
only when the wind is blowing from FMC's facility toward the Tribal
monitors, EPA's determination at this time is that minor stationary
sources within the nonattainment area--considered individually as well
as collectively--have an insignificant impact on exceedences of the PM-
10 NAAQS in the area. Therefore, EPA's determination at this time is
that additional controls on minor stationary sources in the
nonattainment area are not needed for attainment and would not expedite
attainment. RACT for such sources would thus consist of no additional
controls because it would be unreasonable to impose additional controls
on these minor stationary sources in light of the attainment needs of
the area. See 57 FR 13541 & n. 20.
To ensure that these and any new minor stationary sources that may
locate within the nonattainment area continue to have a de minimis
effect on PM-10 levels in the area that exceed the standard, EPA
believes it is appropriate for these and any new stationary sources to
be subject to generally applicable restrictions on PM-10 emissions. EPA
has been working with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on air quality
regulations that address the pollutants for which EPA has established
NAAQS, including PM-10, and that include a new source review program.
EPA strongly encourages the Tribes to continue working toward the
submission of a general air quality tribal implementation plan,
including general rules for controlling PM-10 emissions from existing
minor sources and a new source review program. Because these existing
minor sources are relatively minor sources, EPA sees no urgency in
going forward now with a minor new source review program and other
general rules, but will instead await Tribal action for some reasonable
period of time.
2. Area Sources
Area source emissions from within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area total approximately 1069 tons per year, or approximately 60%, of
all PM-10 emissions within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. The
largest of the area source categories are paved and unpaved roads,
agricultural wind blown dust, wild fires, and prescribed burning.
Although area source emissions are slightly larger than the total
emissions from FMC, area source emissions are spread over the entire
48.7 square miles of the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
[[Page 7323]]
area. As discussed below, the impact of area source emissions on air
quality at any given location in the nonattainment area is therefore
greatly reduced.
a. Roads. Emissions from paved and unpaved roads in the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area are the second largest source of particulate
emissions on the Reservation, second only to FMC. Emissions from paved
roads in the nonattainment area are 59 tons per year, or nine percent
of all road emissions within the nonattainment area, whereas emissions
from unpaved roads in the nonattainment area are 571 tons per year, or
91% of all road emissions in the nonattainment area. Combined, paved
and unpaved road emissions account for 59% of all area source emissions
in the Fort Hall Nonattainment area.
Emissions from paved roads have been determined by the State to
have a significant ambient impact in the Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area, particularly in the Pocatello urban area, because
of the high density roadway network on State lands. Most of the paved
and unpaved roads within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area,
however, service the rural agricultural activities that are evenly
distributed throughout the Reservation. Therefore, road dust emissions
are distributed over the approximately 48.7 square miles of the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. Moreover, there are few roads within the
nonattainment area that are upwind of the Tribal monitors. Because of
the large area over which road dust emissions are spread in the
nonattainment area and the location of the roads in relation to the
Tribal monitors that have recorded violations of the 24-hour PM-10
standard, EPA believes that the ambient PM-10 impact of road emissions
in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is insignificant.
b. Wind Blown Agricultural Dust. Wind blown dust from agricultural
operations is the second largest area source in the nonattainment area.
Emissions from this source are estimated at 310 tons per year. These
fugitive emissions result from tilling, harvesting, and exposure of
tilled land to high winds. The impact of these emissions on the
measured PM-10 levels at the Tribal monitors appears to be
insignificant for several reasons. First, the agricultural land that is
tilled and used for crops in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is
downwind of FMC and the Tribal monitors. The agricultural land upwind
of the FMC facility is used primarily for cattle grazing and has
vegetative cover which resists re-entrainment of windblown dust.
In addition, most of the agricultural land within the Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area is leased from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes by
private concerns. The Natural Resource Conservation Service in Bannock
County (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) reports that most
farming operations on the Reservation, like farming across the country,
already utilize best management practices to control soil erosion
(including wind erosion) in order to qualify for Federal subsidies
under the Food Securities Act (see The Effectiveness of the 1985 Food
Securities Act's Highly Erodible Land Provisions to Reduce Agricultural
Fugitive Dust Emissions, EPA 171-R-92-015, PB-92-182401, July 1992).
EPA has determined that, in general, these management practices
represent RACM for agricultural sources. See 57 FR 13498.
Finally, as with road emissions, agricultural emissions are spread
across a wide geographic area, and thus have a reduced ambient impact.
EPA therefore believes, based on available information, that
agricultural emissions have an insignificant impact on the violations
that have been recorded in the nonattainment area.
c. Fires. Prescribed fires and wild fires in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area emit a combined total of approximately 84 tons of
PM-10 emissions each year. Emissions from these activities are usually
of high intensity with smoke plumes that rise quickly into the air
because of the heat generated, are of short duration (on the order of
hours), and seldom if ever re-occur at the same location. Based on the
experience of other areas in the country where prescribed fires and
wild fires are common (such as eastern Washington and the Idaho
panhandle), recording a violation of the PM-10 NAAQS at a fixed
location due to fire is rare. In addition, there have been no reports
or evidence of wild or prescribed fires directly upwind of the Sho-Ban
or primary monitors or directly upwind of the background monitor. In
short, emissions from fires do not appear to have contributed to the
violations of the PM-10 NAAQS recorded in the nonattainment area. For
these reasons, EPA's determination at this time is that prescribed and
wild fires have an insignificant impact on the continued violations of
the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard that have been recorded on the
Tribal monitors.
D. Overview of FMC Operations
The FMC facility located on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation near
Pocatello, Idaho, produces ``food grade'' elemental phosphorus from
shale (or ore) mined in the general area. Elemental phosphorus is then
shipped to other FMC processing facilities throughout the United States
where it is converted into phosphates and phosphoric acid, which in
turn are used in a wide variety of household products from dishwasher
soap to additives to soft drinks. At the FMC facility near Pocatello,
crushed phosphate ore is pressed into briquettes and heated (calcined)
to remove organic matter. These calcined briquettes, now called
nodules, are mixed with silica and dried coke (this mix is called
burden) and fed to the four electric arc furnaces in a continuous
operation. In a reducing atmosphere in the plasma of the electric arc
furnace, elemental phosphorus is liberated as a gas.
Furnace gases are ducted to an electrostatic precipitator to clean
the gas stream and then to condensers where the phosphorus is cooled,
liquified, and collected for transport. Molten slag (calcium silicate),
a waste product, is formed at the bottom of the furnace and must be
periodically removed through a process called ``slag tapping''.
Ferrophos, a metal byproduct, also forms in the bottom of the furnace
below the slag layer and must also be periodically removed through a
process called ``metal tapping''. Potential particulate emission points
include handling of raw ore, nodules, slag, and burden. Particulates
are also emitted during the calcining of briquettes, and from various
furnace flares and vents.
For ease of reference, EPA has assigned a number to each of the
known sources of PM-10 at FMC. The numbering system is consistent
throughout this notice.
E. General Process for Determining RACT for FMC
1. In General
The process for determining RACT in states with moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas is discussed above in section III.B. above. Where,
as here, EPA is exercising its discretionary authority under sections
301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate a FIP
for a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area in Indian country as necessary
or appropriate to assure protection of healthy air quality, EPA
believes it is appropriate for EPA to use this same RACT methodology in
developing the control strategy.
EPA hired Environmental Quality Management, Inc. (EQM), a
contractor with extensive knowledge of the phosphorus industry in
general and experience with the FMC Pocatello facility in particular,
to assist in the
[[Page 7324]]
development of a comprehensive and accurate particulate emission
inventory for FMC. The emission inventory identified the point and
fugitive sources of PM-10 at FMC, the emission rate for each source,
and all existing control devices operating on each source.
EQM then conducted an evaluation of alternative control
technologies for each source that could be used as the basis for a
determination of RACT. For each source, EQM identified the existing
control technology for the source and alternative control technologies
11 that could be more effective in reducing emissions than
the existing control technology used at FMC. EQM then evaluated these
alternative control technologies, including the incremental emission
reductions and estimated cost of installing, operating, and maintaining
these control technologies. EQM also determined the ``cost
effectiveness'' ($/ton of PM-10 reductions) of the alternative control
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The term ``control technologies'' as used here includes
process changes that would result in a reduction of emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the EQM report, EPA considered whether each alternative
control technology represented RACT, that is, whether the technology
was both technologically and economically feasible in light of the
attainment needs of the area. After selecting the control technology
that represented RACT for each source, EPA developed enforceable
emission limitations and work practice requirements that represent the
lowest emission limitation the source is capable of achieving with the
selected control technology.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Clean Air Act defines the term ``emission limitation''
as ``a requirement established by the state or the Administrator
which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of
air pollution on a continuous basis, including any requirement
relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure
continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work
practice or operational standard.'' CAA section 301(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For five sources at FMC--slag handling and related processes
(source 8), the calciner scrubbers (source 9), the furnace building
(source 18c), fugitive and point source emissions from the phosphorous
loading dock (source 21), and the elevated secondary condenser and
ground flares (source 26a)--EPA believes that additional controls are
both technologically and economically feasible and necessary in light
of the attainment needs of the area. Collectively, slag handling, the
calciner scrubbers, and the elevated secondary condenser and ground
flares account for more than 77% of daily worst case PM-10 emissions
from all sources at FMC. The control strategy proposed in this FIP is
anticipated to result in a reduction of PM-10 emissions of 4756 pounds
per day from these sources, a 69% facility-wide reduction of PM-10
emissions from current levels in the emission inventory. The phos dock
and the furnace building will be reduced to the levels of emissions in
the emission inventory. The RACT determination for these five sources
is discussed in more detail below.
EPA believes that all remaining sources at FMC currently employ
controls that represent RACT. For example, most of the point sources at
FMC are controlled by baghouses or scrubbers. Baghouses and scrubbers
are, in general, among the most effective control technologies
available for controlling PM-10 emissions from point sources and
therefore generally represent RACT. With respect to fugitive sources,
the available alternative control technologies are, in general, very
expensive, such as building an enclosure around the fugitive source.
Many of the fugitive sources, individually, have low emissions, which
results in a high cost effectiveness for the alternative control
technologies. In addition, further PM-10 reductions from many of these
smaller sources do not appear to be necessary in light of the
attainment needs of the area and would not expedite attainment.
As discussed above, however, none of the sources at FMC are
currently subject to federally-enforceable emission limitations or work
practice requirements on PM-10 emissions. For those sources which EPA
believes currently employ RACT-level controls, EPA is proposing
emission limitations and work practice requirements designed to
maintain PM-10 emissions from those sources at the current levels in
the emission inventory. This is essential because, as discussed in more
detail below, the proposed control strategy will result in attainment
of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard only if PM-10 emissions from
these other sources remain at the current levels in the emission
inventory. Please refer to the TSD for a detailed analysis of the
existing and alternative control technologies, an evaluation of the
available alternatives, and emission limitations and work practice
requirements that EPA believes represent the lowest emission limitation
that each source is capable of achieving by the application of the
RACT-level controls for each source that EPA believes currently employs
RACT-level controls.
2. RCRA Consent Decree
On October 16, 1998, a consent decree between FMC and EPA was
lodged in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho
regarding alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) at the FMC facility. The public comment period on the RCRA
consent decree closed on December 18, 1998. If, after reviewing the
comments received, EPA and the Department of Justice determine that it
is appropriate to proceed with entry of the RCRA consent decree, the
Department will file a motion for entry of the decree.13
Upon entry of the RCRA consent decree by the court, the RCRA consent
decree will require FMC to pay a civil penalty of $11,864,800 for
alleged RCRA violations and to bring the FMC facility into compliance
with RCRA. In addition, as part of the settlement, FMC agreed to
implement 13 ``supplemental environmental projects'' (referred to as
SEPs) in order to reduce PM-10 emissions at the FMC facility.
Altogether, these SEPs will require FMC to expend more than $64 million
in capital costs to implement these PM-10 reduction
projects.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Department of Justice reserves the right to withdraw or
withhold its consent to entry of the proposed consent decree if the
comments, view, and allegations concerning the consent decree
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed
decree is inappropriate. 50 CFR 50.7(b).
\14\ FMC has also agreed to commit $1,650,000 to fund a study of
the potential health effects on residents of the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation that may have resulted from releases of hazardous
substances at the FMC facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five of the SEPs address PM-10 emissions from the five sources for
which EPA believes additional RACT controls are necessary for
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS. For each of these five sources, as is
discussed in more detail below, FMC has agreed to install and operate
as SEPs the control technology EPA believes represents RACT. FMC's
commitment to install and operate this control technology for five
years is persuasive evidence that the identified control technology is
both technologically and economically feasible. Because of FMC's
agreement to implement the control technology for these sources as SEPs
in the RCRA consent decree, EPA believes that the controls will be in
place at least two years before the controls would have been in place
without FMC's agreement to install the necessary controls as SEPs. The
acceleration of the compliance date is discussed in more detail in
section III.H. below.
FMC has also agreed to implement as SEPs eight other projects
designed to
[[Page 7325]]
modernize and upgrade control systems at the FMC facility which will
make it easier to keep existing control technology operating properly
without upsets and breakdowns, thereby reducing PM-10 emissions at the
FMC facility. For example, FMC has agreed to replace at least three
existing baghouses with larger, more efficient baghouses and to spend
more than $5.5 million for the upgrading or replacement of other
existing baghouses. FMC has also agreed to upgrade and improve other
PM-10 processes and controls. For these other projects, that is, other
than the five projects for sources for which EPA believes additional
controls are necessary to meet the RACT requirements, EPA believes that
FMC can achieve the proposed emission limitations and work practice
requirements even without the SEPs. The SEPs provide additional
assurance, however, that FMC will be able to comply with the
requirements of this proposed FIP. A copy of the RCRA consent decree is
in the docket.
3. Mass Emission Limitations
EPA has proposed a mass emission limitation for most identified
point sources. For sources for which EPA has determined that additional
controls are not necessary for attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, the
proposed mass emission limitation is based on the daily maximum
emission estimate for the source in the 1996 emission inventory. EPA
believes that compliance with the proposed mass emission limitations
will, except for the point sources discussed below, entail no new or
additional control equipment and no or minor changes in practices,
procedures, or processes.
As discussed in more detail in section III.F. below, for three
point sources--the calciner scrubbers (source 9), the phos dock
Andersen scrubber (source 21a), and the elevated secondary condenser
and ground flares (source 26)--EPA believes that additional controls
are technologically and economically feasible and needed for attainment
of the PM-10 standard. For these sources, the proposed mass emission
limitation is in general based on the daily maximum emission estimate
for the source in the 1996 emission inventory, but this emission rate
is then reduced by the estimated percentage reduction in emissions that
is expected after application of the control technology identified as
RACT-level controls.
EPA is not proposing mass emission limits for fugitive sources
because, in general, there are no readily available test methods to
determine compliance with mass emission limits for fugitive sources.
Instead, EPA is proposing visible emission limitations for fugitive
sources as an indication that emission capture and control equipment is
designed and operating properly and that proper housekeeping and
maintenance activities are being conducted to prevent the escape of
fugitive emissions. EPA is also proposing work practice requirements
for fugitive sources, which are discussed in more detail below.
4. Opacity Limits
EPA is proposing a specific opacity limit for all but one of the
known point and fugitive sources at FMC. EPA is also proposing a limit
of no visible emissions from any location at the FMC facility, except
to the extent a specific opacity limit is established for an identified
point or fugitive emission source, in order to ensure that sources
inadvertently omitted from the emission inventory do not go
unregulated.
The opacity limits proposed in this FIP are based on best
engineering judgment, as explained in more detail below and in the
technical support document. EPA is relying in part on surveys of
visible emissions conducted at the FMC facility to verify conditions
used in the determination of emissions estimates and to determine
whether the sources could comply with the proposed opacity limits. At
EPA's request, air quality inspectors from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,
State of Idaho, and EPA, who are certified readers using EPA Method 9,
conducted visible emissions observations of most of the point and
fugitive emission sources at FMC in December 1995 and January 1996
(1995-1996 visible emissions survey) and again in October and November
1998 (1998 visible emissions survey). The surveys are collectively
referred to as the ``visible emissions surveys''. In general, the
inspectors documented no visible emissions during the period of
observation and rarely documented visible emissions greater than five
percent opacity. Several of the sources for which visible emissions
greater than five percent were observed are among the five sources for
which EPA believes additional controls are necessary or sources that
EPA believes were not being properly maintained or operated at the time
of the inspection. In addition to the visible emissions surveys, EPA
has considered opacity limits that apply to similar sources.
In summary, EPA believes that the visible emissions surveys and
review of other similar sources support EPA's conclusion that the
proposed opacity limits are both technologically and economically
feasible because FMC appears to be capable of meeting the limits on a
daily basis.15 The demonstration of the effectiveness of
this proposed control strategy is premised on ensuring that, for those
sources for which EPA does not believe additional controls are
necessary, emissions from those sources remain at the current levels in
the emission inventory. EPA therefore believes that the proposed
opacity standards are also necessary because they are designed to keep
PM-10 emissions at the current levels in the emission inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The results of the visible emissions surveys are discussed
in more detail in the in-depth RACT discussion of the sources for
which EPA believes additional controls are necessary and, for all
other sources, in the TSD in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Point Sources. Many of the point sources at FMC are currently
controlled by baghouses and scrubbers. In general, EPA has proposed an
opacity limit of seven percent for point sources (i.e., stacks)
controlled by baghouses and five percent for point sources controlled
by scrubbers. Based on best engineering judgement and field experience,
EPA believes that point sources controlled by baghouses or scrubbers
should have zero visible emissions if the control equipment is properly
designed, maintained, and operated. A limit of five percent or seven
percent provides for an appropriate margin of error. EPA is proposing
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) as the reference test method. The
1995-1996 and 1998 visible emissions surveys confirm that the baghouses
and scrubbers at FMC, when operating properly, had no visible
emissions.
EPA is proposing a seven percent opacity limit for point sources
controlled by baghouses at FMC. All of these sources involve processes
and raw materials similar to processes and raw materials used by
facilities subject to New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart
000. See 40 CFR part 60, subpart 000. This standard applies to
nonmetallic mineral processing plants processing crushed and broken
stone, including shale, sand and gravel, and other similar materials.
40 CFR 60.670 and 60.671. Under this standard, stack emissions are
subject to an opacity limit of seven percent unless the emissions are
controlled by a wet scrubber. 40 CFR 60.672(a)(2). EPA believes that
the point sources controlled by baghouses at FMC that capture emissions
from shale, briquette, and nodule handling are sufficiently similar to
the processes subject to the seven percent opacity limit of NSPS
subpart 000 as to provide a basis for proposing a seven percent limit
for the following point sources:
[[Page 7326]]
east shale baghouse (source 5a); middle shale baghouse (source 6a);
west shale baghouse (source 7a); north nodule discharge baghouse
(source 12a); south nodule discharge baghouse (source 12b); east nodule
baghouse (source 15a); west nodule baghouse (source 15b); nodule
reclaim baghouse (source 16a); dust silo baghouse (source 17a); the
east and west baghouses in the furnace building (sources 18a and 18b);
and the coke handling baghouse (source 20a).
For point sources at FMC controlled by scrubbers, EPA is proposing
an opacity limit of five percent. As stated above, EPA believes that
point sources controlled by scrubbers should have zero opacity if they
are being properly operated and maintained. A five percent opacity
limit is commonly seen for point sources controlled by scrubbers. EPA
proposes the five percent opacity limit for the following sources
controlled by scrubbers: phos dock Andersen scrubber (source 21a) and
excess CO burner (source 26b). Although the calciners are also
controlled by scrubbers, EPA is proposing that the calciners be exempt
from an opacity limit, as discussed in more detail in section
III.F.2.c. below.
EPA is also proposing a five percent opacity limit for the boilers
(source 23). Because the boilers are fired on natural gas, EPA believes
that the boilers should have zero visible emissions if they are
properly designed, maintained, and operated.
EPA has proposed an opacity limit of no visible emissions for the
pressure relief vents (source 24) except during a ``pressure release,''
as defined in the proposed FIP. The pressure release vents at FMC are a
safety device for the furnace system to prevent excessive pressure and
potential explosion in the furnaces. They are designed to open and
release excess furnace gasses directly to the atmosphere under certain
conditions so as to reduce the potential for explosions.
EPA believes that the pressure release vents, when not venting
furnace gasses (i.e., when not experiencing a pressure release), should
have no visible emissions if properly maintained and operated. EPA
therefore is proposing a prohibition on visible emissions except during
a pressure release. To ensure that the pressure release vents are not
used as regular uncontrolled emission points and to ensure they are
properly maintained and operated, EPA is proposing several work
practice and monitoring requirements for the pressure release vents,
which are discussed in more detail in section III.E.5. below.
The furnace CO emergency flares (source 25) are also a safety
feature. When the furnace is shut down, due to an emergency, scheduled
power outage, or scheduled maintenance, it is necessary to flare the
furnace gases directly to the atmosphere until they can be safely
routed to the furnace scrubbing system. Like the pressure release
vents, when not venting furnace gasses, the furnace CO emergency flares
should have no visible emissions if properly maintained and operated.
EPA therefore is proposing a prohibition on visible emissions during
normal operating conditions. To account for the need to vent furnace
gases directly to the atmosphere under certain conditions, EPA proposes
that this limit not apply during an ``emergency''. To ensure that
venting of the CO emergency flares is minimized, EPA is proposing
definitions for an emergency, along with recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, which are discussed in more detail below in section
III.G.
The proposed opacity limitations for the point sources for which
EPA believes additional controls are necessary for attainment are
discussed in section III.F. below.
b. Fugitive Emission Sources. EPA is proposing a limit of no
visible emissions from most storage piles that consist of materials
with a high moisture content. For example, the main shale pile (source
2) and the emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3) are
comprised of material with a very high moisture content from which no
visible emissions should be expected. EPA has also proposed a limit of
no visible emissions from rail car unloading (source 1) and the stacker
and reclaimer (source 4), again, because the raw ore as received from
the mine has a very high moisture content.
EPA is also proposing a limit of no visible fugitive emissions from
all buildings, with the exception of the furnace building, which is
discussed in more detail in section III.F.5. below. NSPS subpart 000,
which applies to facilities using similar processes and raw materials
as those used at FMC, imposes a limit of no visible fugitive emissions
from any building enclosing any process subject to NSPS subpart 000,
except through a vent, which is a point source subject to the seven
percent opacity limit under NSPS subpart 000. See 40 CFR 60.672(e). In
general, buildings should be sealed and sources contained within them
under a negative pressure created by the dust control systems for the
sources located therein.
EPA is also proposing an opacity limit of no visible fugitive
emissions from the dust silo and the pneumatic dust transport system
(source 17b). Dust collected in the various baghouses at FMC is
pneumatically transported from each baghouse to the dust silo via a
pneumatic transport system. The dust silo and pneumatic transport
system are enclosed systems and, when properly operated and maintained,
should have no leaks to the atmosphere. Leaks in ducts can occur due to
abrasion, wear and tear, and poor maintenance. These conditions
represent poor operations and maintenance and can be prevented. Any
visible emission is indicative of a leak that needs repair.
EPA is proposing an opacity limit of ten percent for all other
fugitive sources identified in Table A. The ten percent limit applies
to uncaptured fugitive emissions and process fugitive emissions from
sources controlled by scrubbers and baghouses, including fugitive
emissions that are not in fact captured by the control device. A
properly designed and operating hood and capture system should be able
to capture almost all particulate and ensure no visible emissions. A
ten percent opacity will allow for rare situations when conditions
overwhelm the emission capture system. NSPS subpart 000 establishes a
ten percent opacity limit on most fugitive emissions. See 40 CFR
60.672(b).
The proposed ten percent opacity limit also applies to the nodule
pile (source 11), the nodule fines pile (source 13), and the screened
shale fines pile (source 14) which contain material a portion of which
consists of fine dust materials and is subject to entrainment by wind
during the addition of material to the piles. These piles are therefore
are more likely to experience periods of visible fugitive emissions.
For similar reasons, EPA proposes that roads be subject to an opacity
limit of ten percent.
The proposed opacity limitations for the fugitive sources for which
EPA believes additional controls are necessary for attainment--slag
handling and related processes (source 8), the furnace building (source
18c), and phos dock fugitives (source 21b)--are discussed in section
III.F. below.
5. Work Practice Requirements
EPA is proposing a general requirement that FMC maintain and
operate each source, including all associated pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions. This requirement is based on a
general provision in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 40
CFR 60.11(d). Many States
[[Page 7327]]
have comparable provisions in their SIPs or include such a provision in
new source construction permits. See Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 173-405-040(10); WAC 173-410-040(4); WAC 173-415-030(6)). EPA
believes that control equipment and processes should at all times be
operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practice for minimizing emissions. Determinations of whether acceptable
operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on
all information available to EPA, including, but not limited to,
monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and
maintenance procedures and inspections.
EPA is also proposing a moisture content and latex application
requirement for the main shale pile (source 2) and the emergency/
contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3). This requirement is designed
to ensure PM-10 emissions from these sources remain at current levels.
In addition, according to FMC, FMC already applies latex to these piles
to reduce fugitive emissions.
As discussed above, the pressure relief vents (source 24) are not
subject to an opacity limit during a pressure release. Because EPA is
proposing that the opacity limit does not apply to the pressure relief
vents during a ``pressure release'', it is essential to know the
frequency and duration of a pressure release in order to implement the
proposed opacity standard. In addition, in order to minimize PM-10
emissions from this source, it is essential that the duration and
frequency of pressure releases are minimized to the extent possible.
EPA therefore proposes to require FMC to install continuous temperature
indicators and recorders to detect when a pressure release from a
furnace begins and ends on each of the pressure release vents. The
installation of temperature indicators and recorders on each pressure
relief vent should detect all pressure releases and indicate their
duration because the expected temperature during a pressure release
should be significantly above ambient temperatures. Similar monitoring
devices are being used to monitor the venting of uncontrolled emissions
of noncondensible gases from pressure relief devices on digesters at
pulp mills in Washington State.
EPA proposes to require that FMC submit a proposed parameter range
of operation for the pressure relief vents that would indicate when a
pressure release is occurring. The parameters would be approved through
the title V permit issuance process or as a modification to FMC's title
V permit. Until that time, the parameter range proposed by FMC for the
pressure relief vent devices would serve to define when a ``pressure
release'' is occurring.
After a pressure release, the seal must be re-established. Poor
maintenance of the pressure relief vents and valves can lead to a delay
in re-establishing the seal, which can result in excessive visible
emissions. EPA has proposed as a work practice standard and monitoring
requirement that FMC be required to conduct a visible emissions
observation of each pressure relief vent after the seal has been re-
established or otherwise sealed after each pressure release. The
requirement to ensure that a pressure relief vent is properly resealed
after a release is well established in the various leak monitoring
rules in the NSPS and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS). See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.482-4 (requiring that
pressure relief devices be returned to state of no detectable
emissions); 40 CFR 61.648 (same).
Finally, because the pressure relief vents at FMC are designed to
release at 18 inches of water, EPA also proposes to require that FMC
maintain the release point on each pressure relief vent at a minimum of
18 inches of water and to inspect each pressure relief valve after the
seal has been re-established or otherwise sealed after each pressure
release to ensure 18 inches of water is maintained. This will ensure
that the pressure required to cause a release to the atmosphere is not
reduced below the 18 inches of water setting, thereby preventing
unnecessary releases to the atmosphere.
The 1995-1996 visible emissions survey did document several
occasions when the pressure relief vents were emitting visible
emissions. In one case the pressure relief valve was open and furnace
gasses were being emitted. In a second case emissions were occurring
even though the pressure relief valve was sealed. In accordance with
the RCRA consent decree, FMC has replaced the existing pressure relief
valves with an improved design that will quickly re-establish the seal.
EPA believes that the new pressure relief valves should be able to
comply with a requirement of no visible emissions from the pressure
relief vents.
Additional work practice requirements are discussed in conjunction
with the discussion of monitoring in section III.G. below.
6. Reference Test Methods
EPA has promulgated Methods 201/201A and 202 (40 CFR part 51,
appendix M, ``Recommended Test Methods for State Implementation
Plans'') as the reference test methods for mass PM-10 emission
limitations for point sources and recommends that states use these
reference test methods for PM-10 emission limitations in SIPs. Method
201 or its alternative, 201A, are used to measure primary PM-10 at
stack conditions. Method 202 is used to measure matter that will
condense to PM-10 at ambient temperatures but which is a gas at stack
conditions.
In general, EPA proposes that both Methods 201 or 201A and Method
202 be required as the general reference test methods for the proposed
mass emission limitations for point sources at FMC. EPA has proposed
several exceptions to this requirement. First, FMC must use Method 5
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) in place of Method 201 or 201A for the
calciners (source 9) and any other sources with entrained water drops.
In such case, all the particulate matter measured by Method 5 must be
counted as PM-10 because Method 5 is a test method for determining
total suspended particulate from a stationary source, not just PM-10.
Second, FMC may use Method 5 as an alternative to Method 201 or 201A
for a particular point source. Again, if Method 5 is used, all of the
particulate measured by Method 5 must be counted as PM-10. Finally, FMC
is not required to use Method 202 for a particular point source if FMC
submits a written request to the Regional Administrator which
demonstrates that the contribution of condensible particulate matter to
total PM-10 emissions is insignificant for such point source and the
Regional Administrator approves the request in writing.
For opacity standards, EPA is proposing EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A) as the reference test method for opacity standards with
numerical limits for both point sources and fugitive sources, with an
averaging period of six minutes and an observation interval of 15
seconds.
For those sources at FMC for which EPA is proposing a limit of no
visible emissions, EPA is proposing a ``visual observation'' as the
reference test method. The standard of no visible emissions means that
at no time during the observation period shall the source emit any
visible emissions. A ``visual observation'' is defined to mean that no
visible emissions are detected during 10 minutes of continuous viewing
conducted in accordance with section 5 of EPA Method 22 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A) by a person who meets the training guidelines described
in section 1 of Method 22.
[[Page 7328]]
The proposed FIP clarifies that the specification of a reference
test method does not preclude the use of other credible evidence for
the purpose of submitting compliance certifications or establishing
whether or not FMC is in compliance with a particular requirement. This
is consistent with recent amendments to the requirements for SIPs, 40
CFR 51.212(c) and 52.12(c), and recent amendments to the NSPS and
NESHAPs, 40 CFR 60.11(g) and 61.12(e). See 62 FR 8314 (February 24,
1997).
7. Startup, Shutdown, Scheduled Maintenance, Upsets, Breakdowns,
Malfunctions, and Emergencies
EPA has carefully considered whether to provide an affirmative
defense to a penalty action for violation of the proposed emission
limitations occurring during periods of startup, shutdown, scheduled
maintenance, upset, breakdown, malfunction, or emergency. Because the
emission limitations proposed in this FIP are designed to attain and
maintain the applicable health-based PM NAAQS, any affirmative defense
to a penalty for exceeding the standards proposed in this notice must
not interfere with EPA's responsibility for assuring such attainment
and maintenance.
After careful consideration of the issue, EPA is proposing two
alternative approaches with respect to violations attributable to such
events. Under the first approach, the proposed emission limitations
would apply at all times and there would be no affirmative defense for
excess emissions caused by such events. If emissions exceeded the
proposed standards during startup, shutdown, scheduled maintenance, a
malfunction, or an emergency, EPA would, of course, retain its
enforcement discretion to forgo seeking a civil penalty for violation
of the standard. For example, EPA could determine not to pursue a
penalty action because excess emissions occurred during a particular
sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or control equipment beyond
FMC's control, such event could not have been prevented through better
planning, design, operation, or maintenance, and FMC made repairs in an
expeditious fashion and took steps to minimize the excess emissions to
the extent practicable.
Under the second approach, EPA would provide an affirmative defense
to a penalty action (but not to an action for injunctive relief)
provided certain conditions are satisfied. Under this second approach,
EPA is proposing somewhat different conditions that must be satisfied
for startup, shutdown, and scheduled maintenance, on the one hand, and
upsets, breakdowns, malfunctions, and emergencies (collectively
referred to here as ``malfunctions or emergencies''), on the other
hand. Startup, shutdown, and scheduled maintenance 16 are
generally foreseen or planned events and should be accounted for in the
planning, design, and implementation of operating procedures for the
process and control equipment. In contrast, malfunctions and
emergencies are, by definition, unplanned or unforseen events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A shutdown or startup necessitated by a malfunction or
emergency would be treated as any other malfunction or emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this second approach, for FMC to obtain relief from penalty
for violations resulting from startup, shutdown, or scheduled
maintenance, FMC would be required to notify EPA of any startup,
shutdown, or scheduled maintenance event expected to cause emissions in
excess of the generally applicable standards prior to the occurrence of
such event. FMC would also be required to establish, through properly
signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence, that
the excess emissions could not have been avoided through careful and
prudent planning, design, and operations and maintenance practices;
that the emission unit in question and any related control equipment
and processes were at all times maintained and operated in a manner
consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions; that the amount
and duration of the excess emissions were minimized to the maximum
extent practicable; and that all reasonable steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess emissions on the ambient air. FMC
would also be required to file reports of emissions in excess of the
generally applicable standard within 48 hours of occurrence. To ensure
protection of the PM-10 NAAQS, the affirmative defense would not apply
on any day on which an exceedence of the revised PM-10 NAAQS was
recorded on any monitor in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. In
addition, the affirmative defense would only be available in a penalty
action. In order to protect the PM-10 NAAQS, the affirmative defense
would not be available in an action seeking injunctive relief.
With respect to the affirmative defense for malfunctions and
emergencies under the second approach, EPA is proposing an affirmative
defense based on the affirmative defense for ``emergencies'' under the
title V air operating permit program. See 40 CFR 70.6(g) and
71.6(g).17 An ``emergency'' is defined as any situation
arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the
control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires
immediate corrective action to restore normal operation, where the
increase in emissions are unavoidable. An emergency would not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by improperly designed equipment,
lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation or
operator error. See 40 CFR 70.6(g)(1) and 71.6(g)(2). In claiming an
emergency, FMC would be required to establish, through properly signed,
contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence, that an
``emergency'' occurred and that FMC can identify the cause, the
facility was being properly operated at the time, FMC took all
reasonable steps to minimize levels of emissions that exceeded the
standard, and that FMC notifies EPA within 48 hours of occurrence.
Again, to ensure protection of the PM-10 NAAQS, the affirmative defense
would not apply on any day on which an exceedence of the revised PM-10
NAAQS was recorded on any monitor in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area. In addition, the affirmative defense for emergencies would also
only be available in a penalty action. In order to protect the PM-10
NAAQS, the affirmative defense would not be available in an action
seeking injunctive relief. EPA specifically requests comment on whether
to provide an affirmative defense to a penalty action for excess
emissions due to startup, shutdown, scheduled maintenance, or
emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Although EPA has proposed to delete the emergency defense
from the title V program, see 60 FR 45530, 45559-60 (August 31,
1995), the basis for the proposed deletion was that the title V
program should not be used as a vehicle to revise underlying
applicable requirements. There was no suggestion that the elements
of the affirmative defense set forth in the title V rules were in
anyway insufficient or improper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. RACT Determination for Sources for Which EPA believes Additional
Controls Are Required for RACT
1. Slag Handling Sources (Source 8)
a. Overview of Current Operations. Slag handling, from the furnace
to final storage in the slag pile, is a major source of primary
particulate at FMC. The alternative control technologies that are
currently being used in the phosphorus industry and industries with
similar processes today would reduce or eliminate PM-10 emissions from
several separate and distinct emission sources at FMC, as discussed
below. Therefore,
[[Page 7329]]
EPA evaluated RACT for these several slag handling sources as a single
source.
Slag Pit, Tap Hoods, and Sump Vents
Slag is a waste byproduct generated within the furnace, which must
be periodically removed. This process is called ``slag tapping'' and
entails the furnace operator removing a plug from the furnace wall
which in turn allows molten slag to flow out of the furnace into slag
runners. Slag runners direct the molten slag out of the furnace
building into an area behind the furnace building called the slag pits.
Each furnace has two tap holes, runners, and pits. Each furnace is
tapped for approximately 20 minutes each hour. In FMC's current
operations, hot molten slag flows through slag runners from the
furnaces along troughs in the furnace building floor to the slag pits
located outside the furnace building. The slag is then cooled by
exposure to the outside ambient air and application of water sprays.
The water sprays (quench water) also serve to crack the cooling mass to
aid in digging. ``Hot slag'', which has cooled significantly but is
still at a temperature well above the outside ambient temperature, is
dug by front-end loaders from each pit and loaded into trucks for
transport to the slag pile. Digging and loading of slag occurs daily.
After the slag is removed, the pit is lined with crushed slag from the
recycle material pile as protection from the molten slag, to create a
berm to contain the slag, and to aid in digging.
Fugitive emissions of PM-10 are emitted at several points in the
process described above: from the tap hoods inside the furnace
building; from the cooling slag in the slag pits; when the slag is dug
by front-end loaders; and when the slag is dumped into trucks. In
addition, emissions occur when recycle material (crushed slag) is
loaded back into trucks and then dumped back into the slag pit to line
the pits. Emissions from these sources account for 784 pounds of PM-10
each day and 143 tons per year.
Dump to Slag Pile
After slag has been loaded into trucks, it is hauled from the slag
pit area to the final slag storage pile where it is dumped. The slag,
although already broken up in the digging and loading process, is still
fracturing from continued cooling. Significant fugitive PM-10 emissions
occur when the slag is dumped from the trucks to the slag pile. EPA
estimates that th
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.