[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 250 (Friday, December 27, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68430-68451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-31706]
[[Page 68429]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Environmental Protection Agecny
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Phosphoric
Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 250 / Friday, December 27, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 68430]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5656-4]
RIN 2060-AE40 and 2060-AE44
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing major sources in
phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production
plants. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the facilities
covered by this proposed rule include hydrogen fluoride (HF); arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel (HAP
metals); and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) emissions. Human exposure to
the HAP constituents in these emissions may be associated with adverse
carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous system, dermal, developmental, and/
or reproductive health effects. Implementation of the proposed
requirements would achieve an emission reduction of HF estimated at 315
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (345 tons per year [tpy]). The standards
would reduce 940 Mg/yr (1035 tpy)of total fluorides and particulate
matter containing heavy metals which are regulated pollutants under the
Clean Air Act as amended (the Act).
The standards are proposed under the authority of section 112(d) of
the Act and are based on the Administrator's determination that
phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production
plants may reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the 189 HAPs
listed in section 112(b) of the Act from the various process operations
found within the industry. The proposed NESHAP would provide protection
to the public by requiring all phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizers plants that are major sources to meet emission
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT).
DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed standards must be received on
or before February 25, 1997 at the address noted below.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts the Agency requesting to speak
at a public hearing, the hearing will be held on February 10, 1997
beginning at 9 a.m. Persons wishing to present oral testimony must
contact the Agency by January 21, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate if possible) to Public Docket No. A-94-02 at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center (formerly known as the Air Docket) (6102), 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460. The Agency requests that a separate
copy also be sent to the contact person listed below. The docket is
located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground
floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information submitted to or otherwise considered by Agency in the
development of this proposed rulemaking. For additional information on
the Docket and electronic availability see Supplementary Information.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the Agency requesting to speak
at a public hearing, the hearing will be held at the Agency's Office of
Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. If a
public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions
during the oral presentation but will not respond to the presentations
or comments. Written statements and supporting information will be
considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting
information subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held.
Persons wishing to present oral testimony or to inquire as to whether
or not a hearing is to be held should notify Ms. Cathy Coats, Minerals
and Inorganic Chemicals Group (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-5422.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning specific
aspects of this proposal, contact Mr. David Painter [telephone number
(919) 541-5515], Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Today's proposed rulemaking would apply to
process components at new and existing phosphoric acid manufacturing
and phosphate fertilizers production plants. Examples of those process
components are listed in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category Examples
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phosphoric acid manufacturing............. Wet Process Phosphoric Acid
Plant, Superphosphoric Acid
Plant, Phosphate Rock
Dryer, Phosphate Rock
Calciner, Purified
Phosphoric Acid Plant.
Phosphate fertilizers production.......... Diammonium and/or
Monoammonium Phosphate
Plant, Granular Triple
Superphosphate Plant,
Granular Triple
Superphosphate Storage
Building.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed regulations. This table lists the types of entities that the
Agency is now aware could be potentially regulated. To determine
whether your facility could be regulated by the proposed regulations,
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the proposed
rules. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) to allow interested
parties to readily identify and locate documents so that they can
intelligently and effectively participate in the rulemaking process,
and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review. The docket
index, technical support information, the economic profile of the
industry (item II-A-27) and other materials related to this rulemaking
are available for review in the docket center or copies may be mailed
on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by
calling (202) 260-7548 or 7549. The FAX number for the Center is (202)
260-4000. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's document which includes the proposed regulatory text is
available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of Agency's
electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The service is
free, except for the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up
[[Page 68431]]
to a 14,400 bps modem. If more information on the TTN is needed, call
the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
The information in this preamble is organized as shown below.
I. Statutory Authority
II. Introduction
A. Background
B. NESHAP for Source Categories
C. Health Effects of Pollutants
D. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers
Production Industry Profile
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
B. Emission Limits and Requirements
C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions
D. Monitoring Requirements
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
IV. Selection of Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Source Categories
B. Selection of Emission Sources and Pollutants
C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
1. Background
2. Emissions Limits--General
3. Emission Limits for Classes of Sources
D. Selection of Test Methods
E. Selection of Monitoring Requirements
F. Selection of Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
Requirements
G. Solicitation of Comments
V. Impacts of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
B. Air Quality Impacts
C. Water Impacts
D. Solid Waste Impacts
E. Energy Impacts
F. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts
G. Cost Impacts
H. Economic Impacts
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Public Hearing
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Clean Air Act
I. Pollution Prevention Act
I. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).
II. Introduction
A. Background
The EPA estimates that up to 550 Mg/yr (605 tpy) of HF, the
predominate HAP, and other HAPs are emitted from sources at phosphoric
acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production plants at the
current level of control. Implementing MACT-level controls is expected
to reduce these HAP emissions from regulated sources by about 315 Mg/yr
(345 tpy) nationwide. Plants affected by the standards could achieve
these reductions by upgrading or installing wet scrubbing systems.
The overall effect would be to raise the control performance of
plants in the industry to the level achieved by the best performing
plants. In addition to the health and environmental benefits associated
with HAP emission reductions, benefits of this action include a
decrease in site-specific levels of nonHAP pollutants and lowered
occupational exposure levels for employees.
The nationwide capital and annualized costs of the proposed NESHAP,
including emission controls and associated monitoring equipment, are
estimated at $1.4 million and $862,000/yr, respectively. The economic
impacts are predicted to increase prices in all products less than
three fourths of a percent. At least one company in the industry is a
small entity which would be subject to the proposed standards. The
economic impact of the proposed NESHAP on this company is estimated to
be low and would not be significant. No production line or plant
closures are expected.
The Agency has proposed controls at the MACT-floor level and
tailored the requirements to allow less-costly testing and monitoring
by using surrogates for HAP emissions.
A detailed description of industry processes and emissions data
used to support the standards is presented in the draft ``Technical
Support Document for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate
Fertilizers Production NESHAP'' which, along with additional supporting
information is included in a memorandum in air docket A-94-02, as item
II-B-20. This memorandum is referred to as the TSD in the following
discussions.
B. NESHAP for Source Categories
Section 112 of the Act requires that EPA promulgate regulations for
the control of HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources.
The statute requires the regulations to reflect the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable taking into
consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any nonair
quality health and environmental reduction, and energy requirements.
This level of control is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT).
The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of
technology-based emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f)
and work practice standards under 112(h) for categories of sources that
emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques
including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or
eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes,
substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing,
or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack,
storage or fugitive emissions point; (4) design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator
training or certification) as provided in subsection (h); or (5) a
combination of the above. [See section 112(d)(2).] The EPA may
promulgate more stringent regulations at a later date to address
residual risk that remains after the imposition of controls. [See
section 112(f)(2).]
C. Health Effects of Pollutants
The Act was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (CAA, section
101(b)(1)). Title III of the Act establishes a control technology-based
program to reduce stationary source emissions of HAPs. The goal of
section 112(d) is to apply such control technology to reduce emissions
and thereby reduce the hazard of HAPs emitted from stationary sources.
This proposed rule is technology-based (i.e., based on MACT). The
Act's strategy avoids dependence on a risk-based approach which would
be limited by incomplete information on what HAPs are emitted, what
level of emissions is occurring, what health and safety benchmarks are
available to assess risk, what health effects may be caused by certain
pollutants, and how best to model these effects, among other things.
Because of these issues, a detailed quantitative risk assessment of
potential effects from HAPs emitted from phosphoric acid manufacturing
and phosphate fertilizer production plants is not included in this
rulemaking.
The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the
health effects may be experienced is dependent upon (1) the ambient
concentrations observed
[[Page 68432]]
in the area, (2) duration of exposures, and (3) characteristics of
exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health
conditions, and lifestyle) which vary significantly with the
population. Some of these factors are also influenced by source-
specific characteristics (e.g., emission rates and local meteorological
conditions) as well as pollutant-specific characteristics.
Available emission data, collected during development of this
proposed NESHAP, show that HF, a number of HAP metals, and MIBK are the
most significant HAPs emitted from phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizer production plants. These pollutants have the
potential to be reduced by implementation of the proposed emission
limits. Following is a summary of the potential health effects
associated with exposures, at some level, to emitted pollutants that
would be reduced by the standard.
Short-term inhalation exposure to gaseous HF and related fluoride
compounds can cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including
severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Long-term inhalation exposures
to low levels of HF by humans has been reported to result in irritation
and congestion of the nose, throat, and bronchi while damage to liver,
kidney, and lungs has been observed in animals. Long-term inhalation
exposure, at levels of HF well above the ambient concentrations being
observed at phosphate fertilizers complexes can result in skeletal
fluorosis (i.e., an accumulation of fluoride in the bones). There is
generally a lack of information on human health effects associated with
exposures to hydrogen fluoride at current ambient air concentrations
near phosphate fertilizers complexes. Occupational studies have not
specifically implicated inhaled fluoride as a cause of cancer and the
Agency has not classified HF with respect to potential carcinogenicity.
Almost all metals appearing on the section 112(b) list of HAPs are
emitted from phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers
production facilities. The most important of the nonvolatile metals
that would be reduced by the standard are arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, nickel, and manganese compounds. The major target of toxicity
for these metals via inhalation tends to be the respiratory tract, with
the exception of manganese, for which the central nervous system is the
primary target. These metals can cause a range of effects including
mucous membrane irritation (e.g., bronchitis, decreased lung function),
gastrointestinal effects, nervous system disorders (from loss of
function to tremor and numbness), skin irritation, and reproductive and
developmental disorders. Additionally, several of the metals accumulate
in the environment and in the human body. Cadmium, for example, is a
cumulative pollutant, which can cause kidney effects after the
cessation of exposure. Similarly, the onset of effects from beryllium
exposure may be delayed months to years. Metals and metal compounds
that would be reduced by this proposed rule are also known (arsenic and
chromium) and probable (beryllium and cadmium)human carcinogens.
Mercury, a volatile metal, would also be reduced by the proposed
standard. All forms of mercury may be characterized as quite toxic,
with different health effects associated with different forms of the
pollutant. Methyl mercury is the most toxic form of mercury to which
humans and wildlife are generally exposed. Exposure to methyl mercury
occurs primarily through ingestion of fish. Methyl mercury primarily
effects the nervous systems in humans. The range of neurotoxic effects
can vary from subtle decrements in motor skills and sensory ability to
tremors, inability to walk, convulsions, and death. Exposure to
inorganic mercury is associated with renal impairment. Some forms of
mercury have also been classified as possible human carcinogens.
Exposure to mercury compounds can also cause effects in plants, birds,
and non-human mammals. Reproductive effects are the primary concern for
avian mercury poisoning.
The organic compound that would be reduced by this standard is
MIBK. Some of the human health effects associated with short-term
exposure, at some level, to this pollutant include irritation to the
eyes and mucous membranes, weakness, headache, nausea, lightheadedness,
dizziness, incoordination, and narcosis. Long-term occupational
exposure has been observed to cause nausea, headache, burning in the
eyes, weakness, insomnia, intestinal pain, and slight enlargement of
the liver in humans. No information is available on the carcinogenic
effects of MIBK in humans.
D. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production
Industry Profile
This section includes general overviews of the two source
categories for which NESHAP are being proposed. Phosphoric acid is
manufactured by way of two process approaches. One approach is the
thermal process whereby purified elemental phosphorous is combusted and
hydrated to directly form phosphoric acid. There are currently ten
facilities operating in the United States. For the period from 1971-
1991, nationwide production of phosphoric acid via the thermal process
declined by forty-seven percent and this trend is expected to continue.
No new thermal process plants are expected to be constructed. The
decline in usage of this process may be attributed to price competition
by competitive products, energy costs associated with production of
feedstock phosphorous and safety concerns with regard to shipping
phosphorous.
The second means of manufacturing phosphoric acid is through wet
processes. There are 47 wet acid plants at 21 locations. The basic step
for producing phosphoric acid is the acidulation of phosphate rock.
Typically, sulfuric acid, phosphate rock and water are reacted with one
another to produce phosphoric acid and gypsum. When phosphate rock is
acidulated to manufacture wet process phosphoric acid (WPPA), fluorine
contained in the rock is released. Fluoride compounds, including HF,
are evolved as particulates and gases which are emitted to the
atmosphere unless removed from the exhaust stream. Some of these same
fluoride compounds also remain in the product acid and are available
for release as air pollutants during subsequent processing of the acid.
Gypsum is pumped as a slurry to ponds atop stacks of waste gypsum where
the liquids separate from the slurry and are decanted for return to the
process with process cooling water. The gypsum is discarded as a major
solid waste stream. There are 13 acid plants at eight locations which
concentrate WPPA to make superphosphoric acid (SPA). Most producers use
the vacuum evaporation process. One manufacturer uses the submerged
combustion process to achieve the same effect.
The bulk of WPPA is used to produce fertilizers and animal feeds.
In addition, two companies now use solvent extraction processes to
further refine WPPA into purified phosphoric acid (PPA) for use in food
manufacturing or specialized chemical processes. Purified phosphoric
acid produced through wet processes now competes directly with acid
produced by the thermal process.
There are two major processes employed for the production of
phosphate fertilizers. One produces ammoniated phosphate fertilizers in
the form of either diammonium phosphate (DAP) or monoammonium phosphate
(MAP). Approximately 85 percent of all ammonium phosphates are produced
as DAP. Diammonium phosphate and MAP
[[Page 68433]]
plants are generally collocated with wet-process phosphoric acid
plants. Forty individual production units for DAP or MAP are located at
22 facilities. Plants that produce DAP and MAP are generally co-located
with wet-process phosphoric acid plants. Most facilities can produce
either product in the same process train.
Diammonium phosphate and MAP are manufactured from phosphoric acid
and ammonia. The process consists of three basic steps: reaction,
granulation, and finishing operations such as drying, cooling, and
screening. Side reactions resulting from the production of ammonium
phosphates produce ammonium fluoride, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium
fluorosilicate. In addition, some of the fluorine is liberated as
SiF4 and HF. Sources of fluoride emissions from DAP/MAP plants
include the reactor, granulator, dryer, cooler, screens, and mills.
The second major process employed in the phosphate fertilizers
industry produces granular triple superphosphate (GTSP). Ten production
units at seven facilities produce GTSP in the U.S. The primary raw
materials used to produce GTSP are WPPA and ground phosphate rock.
Plants that produce GTSP are generally collocated with wet-process
phosphoric acid plants. Granular triple superphosphate is an impure
monocalcium phosphate made by reacting phosphoric acid with ground
phosphate rock. After manufacture, the product is sent to a storage
building by a conveyor belt which discharges the material into bins or
piles for curing. The GTSP is typically held five to ten days to
stabilize the composition, after which it is considered cured and ready
for shipping. Sources of emissions from GTSP plants include the
reactor, the granulator, the dryer, the cooler, the screening and
crushing equipment, and the storage building. Fluorides are emitted in
both gaseous and particulate form. The reactor and granulator account
for about 38 percent of the fluoride emissions; the dryer and screens
account for 50 percent, and the storage facilities account for the
remainder.
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
The proposed standards apply to affected sources at each existing,
modified, reconstructed, and newly constructed phosphoric acid
manufacturing plant and each phosphate fertilizers production plant.
All phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production
plants that are major sources of HAPs would be subject to the
standards. Provisions are included in the NESHAP General Provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A) for the owner or operator to obtain a
determination of applicability. A facility that is determined by EPA to
be an area source would not be subject to the NESHAP.
B. Emission Limits and Requirements
The emissions levels being proposed for NESHAP for existing and new
sources are given in the tables below. The permit information and test
data used to select these proposed limits are presented in the TSD
referenced above. The rationale for selection of the individual
emissions limits is explained in section V.C. of this notice.
Proposed Emissions Limitations for Existing Phosphoric Acid
Manufacturing Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed emission
Class of source Pollutant limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Total Fluorides... 0.020 lb. Total
Plant. Fluoride (F-)Per
Ton P2O5 Feed.
Superphosphoric Acid Plant...... Total Fluorides... 0.010 lb. F- Per
Ton P2O5 Feed.
Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Total Fluorides... 0.060 lb. F- Per
Phosphate Plant. Ton P2O5 Feed.
Granular Triple Superphos-phate Total Fluorides... 0.150 lb. F- Per
Plant. Ton P2O5 Feed.
Granular Triple Superphos-phate Total Fluorides... 5.0 X 10-4 lb. F-
Storage Buildings. Per Hour Per Ton
of P2O5 Stored.
Phosphate Rock Dryers........... Particulate Matter 0.2150 lb. PM Per
Ton of Rock Feed.
Phosphate Rock Calciners........ Particulate Matter 0.060 grains PM
Per Dry Standard
Cubic Foot.
Purified Phosphoric Acid Plants. MIBK.............. 0.168640 lb. MIBK
Per Ton P2O5
Feed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Emissions Limitations for New Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing
Plants and Phosphate Fertilizers Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed emission
Class of source Pollutant limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Total Fluorides... 0.01350 lb. Total
Plant. Fluoride (F-) per
ton P2O5 Feed.
Superphos-phoric Acid Plant..... Total Fluorides... 0.00870 lb. F- per
ton P2O5 Feed.
Diammonium and/or Monoammonium Total Fluorides... 0.0580 lb. F- per
Phosphate Plant. ton P2O5 Feed.
Granular Triple Superphos-phate Total Fluorides... 0.1230 lb. F- per
Plant. ton P2O5 Feed.
Granular Triple Superphos-phate Total Fluorides... 5.0 x 10-4 lb. F-
Storage Buildings. Per Hour Per Ton
of P2O5 Stored.
Phosphate Rock Dryers........... Particulate Matter 0.060 lb. PM Per
Ton of Rock Feed.
Phosphate Rock Calciners........ Particulate Matter 0.040 grains PM
Per Dry Standard
Cubic Foot.
Purified Phosphoric Acid Plants. MIBK.............. 0.168640 lb. MIBK
Per Ton P2O5
Feed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions
A one-time performance test would be required to demonstrate
initial compliance with each applicable numerical limit for total
fluorides or particulate matter. The owner/operator would be required
to record process and control device operating parameters during the
performance test. The owner/operator would be required to maintain
scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate within plus or minus ten
percent of the values recorded during the performance test. Any
exceedance of that operating range would be considered a violation of
the applicable standard. A source would be allowed up to 30 days to re-
test and demonstrate compliance with the numerical limit of the
standard. As an alternative to the preceding, the proposed regulations
would provide sources the option of establishing ranges of the control
device operating ranges on the basis of data derived from previous
performance tests
[[Page 68434]]
or specially-conducted performance tests. Any exceedance of those
ranges would be considered a violation of the numerical limit of the
applicable standard.
Compliance with the limitations upon MIBK emissions would be
established through inventory and production records and through daily
measurements of process parameters.
D. Monitoring Requirements
The proposed monitoring provisions require the owner or operator to
continuously monitor the pressure drop and liquid flow rate of
scrubbing devices used to control total fluorides or particulate
matter. The feed rate of raw materials to the processes would also be
continuously monitored.
For PPA plants that emit MIBK, the standards would require
continuous monitoring of chiller stack temperature and daily monitoring
of MIBK concentrations at two points in the process.
As required by the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), the owner or operator also must develop and implement a
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan.
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
All notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
General Provisions would apply to phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizers production facilities. These include: (1) initial
notification(s) of applicability, notification of performance test, and
notification of compliance status; (2) a report of performance test
results; (3) a Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan with semiannual
reports of reportable events (if they occur); and (4) semiannual
reports of excess emissions. If excess emissions are reported, the
owner or operator must report quarterly until a request to return the
reporting frequency to semiannual is approved.
The NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) require
that records be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each
record. The owner or operator must retain the records on site for at
least 2 years but may retain the records off site the remaining 3
years. The files may be retained on microfilm, microfiche, on a
computer, on computer disks, or on magnetic tape disks. Reports may be
made on paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available
and compatible computer software.
IV. Selection of Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Source Categories
Section 112(c) of the Act directs the Agency to list each category
of major and area sources, as appropriate, emitting one or more of the
189 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA published an
initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and
may amend the list at any time. ``Phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizers production'' are two of the 174 categories of
sources listed in the notice.
For this study, EPA collected information and data through the
following: (1) review of existing literature; (2) visits to State air
pollution control agencies to obtain plant-specific test data and
permits; (3) visits to three plant sites; (4) meetings with
representatives of individual companies; (5) meetings with The
Fertilizer Institute, an industry trade organization; and (8) meetings
with State air pollution control agency personnel. Based on this
information and data, EPA believes that 15 facilities may be major
sources subject to the NESHAP. As defined in the Act, a major source
must have the potential to emit 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) or more of a single
HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of a combination of HAPs.
On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941), EPA published a schedule for the
promulgation of standards for the sources selected for regulation under
section 112(c) of the Act. According to this schedule, MACT standards
for this source category must be promulgated no later than November 15,
2000. If standards are not promulgated by May 15, 2002 (18 months
following the promulgation deadline), section 112(j) of the Act
requires States or local agencies with approved permit programs to
issue permits or revise existing permits containing either an
equivalent emission limitation or an alternate emission limitation for
HAP control.
Section 112 of the Act requires the Agency to establish national
standards to reduce air emissions from major sources and certain area
sources that emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of
HAP to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the Agency to use
this pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source categories
for which NESHAP will be developed and a schedule for development of
those NESHAP. The Agency must list all known source categories and
subcategories of ``major sources'' that emit one or more of the listed
HAP. A major source is defined in section 112(a) as any stationary
source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area
and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit in the
aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons per year or more of any one
HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP. This list of
source categories was published in the Federal Register on July 16,
1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizers production.
For area sources, the Agency examined available data on facilities,
emissions, and health and environmental effects of emitted HAPs and
concluded that there is no threat of adverse effects to human health or
the environment from the area sources in these two source categories.
Consequently, the Agency decided not to list the area sources.
B. Selection of Emission Sources and Pollutants
While phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers
production facilities are listed separately for the purposes of section
112 (c) of the Act, they are generally collocated. Phosphoric acid
manufacturing facilities provide feedstock for phosphate fertilizer
production facilities and much of the phosphoric acid produced in the
United States is consumed in the manufacture of fertilizers. Thus, the
Agency has chosen to regulate component processes of both source
categories through a combined rulemaking action. This course of action
was previously adopted when the Agency promulgated new source
performance standards (NSPS) (see 40 FR 33152) to limit emissions of
total fluoride compounds (which include the HAP HF) from several
processes in the phosphate fertilizers industry. The NSPS apply to
processes units producing WPPA, SPA, DAP, and GTSP, including GTSP
storage buildings.
Once source categories have been listed as major for one or more
HAPs, the Act requires that the Agency establish emission limits for
all HAP-emitting units at sources within the source category regardless
of whether or not those individual units emit HAPs in major quantities.
An exception to this occurs when the Agency has listed specific types
of sources as major sources and is developing a separate rule for those
individual sources. Examples are boilers and cooling towers. For
phosphoric acid manufacturing, the Agency explored the need to
establish standards for phosphate rock drying and calcination (arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium,
[[Page 68435]]
chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel (HAP metals) emissions), WPPA
manufacturing (HF emissions), SPA manufacturing (HF emissions), thermal
process SPA (phosphorous emissions), and solvent extracted SPA (methyl
isobutyl ketone (MIBK) emissions) which is commonly referred to as
purified phosphoric acid (PPA).
A review of information for existing thermal process acid plants
indicated that none are major sources of HAP emissions nor are they
collocated with major sources. The potential for emissions of the HAP
phosphorous is quite minimal because phosphorous is extremely reactive
with oxygen and, therefore, does not exist in nature as a pure
substance. Many plants previously in service have been closed due to
economic pressures and no new ones are expected to be built. Since no
existing thermal process plants are major sources and no new ones are
to be built, there is no benefit to be derived from the development of
applicable NESHAP. Given that the manufacture of WPPA, SPA, and PPA
cause emission of significant quantities of HAPs and the availability
of emission control systems, the Agency elected to develop and propose
NESHAP for manufacture of those three products.
The phosphate fertilizers production source category potentially
includes production of DAP, MAP, GTSP, normal superphosphate (NSP), and
ammonium polyphosphate (APP). No NESHAP were developed for the NSP
process because no production occurs at major sources and no stand-
alone major sources were identified. Standards were not developed for
APP production because the pollutant of concern is ammonia which is not
a listed HAP. For the other phosphate fertilizers production processes,
emissions limits were developed and are being proposed in today's
action.
Today's action proposes NESHAP that would be applicable to new and
existing major sources emitting HAP from the phosphoric acid
manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production source categories.
For major sources, the rules would apply to each of the following
affected sources: (1) WPPA plants; (2) SPA plants; (3) PPA plants; (4)
phosphate rock dryers; (5) phosphate rock calciners; (6) DAP/MAP
plants; (7) GTSP plants; and (8) GTSP storage facilities. The proposed
emission limits are based on an analysis of the available emission test
data from the various types of sources present in the source
categories. Except for PPA plants, phosphate rock dryers, and phosphate
rock calciners, the potentially affected units listed above are subject
to NSPS and State regulations which limit emissions of total fluorides.
The Agency test methods used to determine compliance with the NSPS
measure total fluoride and are not specific to the HAP HF. At the time
data were collected for this action, many sources affected by today's
proposal were subject to either NSPS or State regulations. No
performance test data were provided which specifically measured the HAP
HF. Therefore, the database contains many performance tests for total
fluorides and none for HF. To support a State air toxics permit
application, one company performed tests which indicated that the HF
content of emissions from WPPA plants can vary from 28 to 49 percent of
total fluoride emissions depending upon whether the phosphate rock has
been calcined (docket item II-I-32 cc). Since the wet scrubbing systems
used for control of total fluorides are effective at reducing HF
emissions, the Agency chose to use total fluorides as a surrogate for
HF for those classes of sources for which HF is the regulated
pollutant. This approach allows use of the available test data for
establishing the MACT level of control and it provides consistency with
current Federal and State permits. It would also result in a common
basis for permitting in those cases where sources would continue to be
covered by existing regulations but not be subject to NESHAP due to
their nonmajor status.
Particulate emissions from phosphate rock dryers and calciners,
contain HAP metals. Particulate matter emissions from dryers include
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel.
Particulate matter emissions from calciners include arsenic, beryllium,
chromium, manganese, mercury, and nickel. However, there are no stack
test data specific to HAP metals. All permits and test data are for
particulate matter. In the absence of detailed information on HAP
metals emissions, the MACT floor has been determined using particulate
matter as a surrogate for HAP metals. Accordingly, the proposed
emissions limits are expressed as particulate matter.
One PPA plant is a major source of MIBK emissions. For that source,
there is sufficient information to directly establish NESHAP for MIBK.
C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
1. Background
After EPA has identified the specific source categories or
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, it must
set MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112
establishes a minimum baseline or ``floor'' for standards. For new
sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory cannot be
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice
by the best-controlled similar source. [See section 112(d)(3).] The
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more
sources, or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
After the floor has been determined for a new or existing source in
a source category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT
standards that are no less stringent than the floor. Such standards
must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. In
establishing the standards, EPA may distinguish among classes, types,
and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. [See section
112(d)(1).]
The next step in establishing MACT standards is traditionally the
investigation of regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only
alternatives at least as stringent as the floor may be selected.
Information about the industry is analyzed to develop model plants for
projecting national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels
and cost, energy, and secondary impacts. Several regulatory alternative
levels (which may be different levels of emissions control, equal to or
more stringent than the floor levels) are then evaluated to select the
regulatory alternative that best reflects the appropriate MACT level.
The selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but
the control level selected must be technically achievable. The
regulatory alternatives selected for new and existing sources may be
different because of different MACT floors, and separate regulatory
decisions may be made for new and existing sources.
The Agency may consider going ``beyond-the-floor'' to require more
stringent controls. Here, EPA considers the achievable emission
reductions of HAPs (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, and other non-
air environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the maximum
degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable economic or other
impacts. [See section 112(d)(2).]
[[Page 68436]]
Subcategorization within a source category may be considered only
when there is enough evidence to demonstrate clearly that there are
significant differences among the subcategories. The criteria to
consider include process operations (including differences between
batch and continuous operations), emission characteristics, and control
device applicability.
The EPA examined the processes, the process operations, and other
factors to determine if separate classes of units, operations, or other
criteria have an effect on air emissions. For phosphoric acid
manufacturing and phosphate fertilizers production plants,
characteristics of emissions streams and, therefore, effectiveness of
control technologies are differentiated by the products being
manufactured. Thus, in this rulemaking, the Agency has adopted the
overall approach used in the previous development of NSPS and developed
proposed emissions limits for major unit operations that manufacture
specific products.
2. Emission Limits--General
For existing sources, Sec. 112(d)(3) of the Act requires that the
Agency establish NESHAP no less stringent than ``the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing
sources (for which the Administrator has information).'' This language
has led to two differing interpretations of the intent of the CAA
language. One interpretation is that the Act requires the Agency to
establish MACT on the basis of permitted emissions limits. The other
interpretation holds that MACT must be established on the basis of
actual emissions as established through emissions test data. In the
document ``Municipal Waste Combustion: Background Information for
Promulgated Standards and Guidelines--Summary of Public Comments and
Responses,'' EPA-453/R-95-0136, October 1995, published in support of
the December 19, 1995 Federal Register notice (60 FR 65387) for
promulgated standards of performance for new municipal waste combustors
(MWC) and emission guidelines for existing MWC, the Agency discussed
the legislative history and relevant case law at some length. In that
discussion, the Agency concluded that Congress did not directly speak
to the question at issue. The discussion was focused upon Sec. 129 of
the Act. Since sections 129 and 112 are quite similarly worded, the
same approach is being applied in this instance. Accordingly, the
Agency has applied the test from Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
that its interpretation of the Act must be a ``permissible
construction'' of the statute.
In this instance, the Agency first notes that it was the clear
intent of Congress that, when possible, NESHAP are to be numerical
limitations derived from the application of emissions control
technologies. As was described above, for existing sources, the
limitations may be no less stringent than the average level of control
achieved by the best controlled twelve percent of those sources. This
is commonly referred to as the MACT floor. As a starting point, the
Agency attempted to identify the technology applied to achieve the
lowest emissions. Since the HAP HF was the main concern for this
standard, the initial approach was focused upon determining MACT for
HF. The same approach was later extended to HAP metals for subsequent
analyses. After thoroughly searching for studies which directly
measured stack emissions of HF, the Agency concluded that there is a
paucity of definitive data as to the exact amount of HF actually being
emitted, although, as was previously noted, the HF content potentially
ranges from 28 to 49 percent of total fluoride. This finding led the
Agency to look for other means to establish a technical basis for
NESHAP. During its information collection effort, the Agency found that
there is a large body of existing data for the surrogate pollutant
total fluoride, which the Agency previously designated for control
under Sec. 111 of the Act through the development of NSPS. Those NSPS
are emissions limitations based upon demonstrated technologies. Given a
paucity of direct data on HF emissions and a large body of data
developed to demonstrate achievement of permitted emissions which
include HF as a component of total fluorides, the Agency chose to use
total fluoride as a surrogate for HF in its analyses. By adopting the
approach of regulating total fluoride as surrogate for HF, the Agency
avails itself of information reflecting the effect of over twenty years
of implementation of NSPS and emissions guidelines (EG) which are
technology-based standards. The Agency has obtained a wealth of
performance data derived from emissions tests conducted to establish
compliance with permitted emissions limitations required by NSPS and
with State-permitted emissions limitations developed pursuant to EG for
previously existing sources. Reviewing this information base reveals
that, in general, the best controlled sources for the various processes
used differently configured combinations of wet scrubbing devices.
Several different types and configurations of wet scrubbing devices
were found to give high levels of removal of fluorides. For most
sources, the control systems were designed to achieve emissions limits
equal to or more stringent than the NSPS. For this rulemaking, the
Agency has concluded that permitted emissions constitute the emissions
limits which the technological controls were designed to achieve. To
determine emissions limits corresponding to MACT floors, the Agency
first identified the median of the top twelve percent of permits issued
for the best controlled sources for each process. Generally, this
resulted in the identification of the third of the five most
stringently permitted sources for a given process. After thus
identifying the best controlled sources and establishing preliminary
MACT floors, the Agency then used the available test data to ascertain
that the permit limits were being achieved and to determine if greater
degrees of control were actually being achieved in practice. For
sources of total fluorides, the range of the available test data showed
that the permitted emissions were reflective of the degree of emissions
control actually being achieved.
For phosphate rock dryers and calciners, the MACT floors were
established using particulate matter as a surrogate for HAP metals. For
dryers, there was very little available test data. So, the MACT floor
analysis was performed using permitted emissions of particulate matter.
For calciners, there were numerous test reports for particulate matter.
The permits for calciners were all based upon general process rate
allowances which were not developed specifically for phosphate rock
calcining. Test data showed that the permits do not reflect the level
of emissions reductions achieved in practice. So, for calciners, the
MACT analysis was based upon the test data.
One source manufactures a purified phosphoric acid through a
solvent extraction method. The plant emits MIBK, which is a HAP. The
source has modified its process several times to improve capacity and
there is no information which the Agency can use to determine the
effects of those modifications upon emissions as determined from
inventory records. Therefore, MACT was determined on the basis of the
original permitted emissions. Those limits were based upon the
engineering design of the controls built into the plant. To that
permitted amount, the Agency added an allowance for fugitive emissions
of
[[Page 68437]]
MIBK known to occur because of utilization of a waste stream in an
adjoining fertilizer plant. The permitted emissions were added to the
fugitives and divided by permitted production capacity to calculate a
unit emissions factor for MIBK based upon the input of P2O5.
For new sources, the most stringent permit issued for any given
process was adopted as MACT, except for calciners. The calciners limit
was based upon test data. Performance test data are presented in the
TSD and show that the most stringent permit limits are being achieved
in practice.
Having thus identified the floor level of control, the Agency then
considered the possibility of setting more stringent limitations. As a
part of that consideration, the Agency modeled MACT floor level
emissions of HF for the purpose of quantifying potential health
concerns. For HF, there is no Agency-approved health bench mark with
which to identify potential public exposure and risk problems. A
screening level exposure analysis was performed using State agency
health bench marks and no health concerns were identified (docket item
II-B-14). In addition, the Agency reviewed a detailed exposure and risk
assessment performed for a source subject to State air toxics
requirements which reached this same conclusion (docket item II-I-32
cc). Besides exploring potential health impacts for HF, the Agency also
examined modeling performed by a source for trace metal emissions from
calciners subject to the MACT floor level of control. Estimated health
risks were minimal. None of the health impacts analyses for existing
sources indicated a need to control emissions beyond the levels
corresponding to the MACT floors. Therefore, the Agency proposes to
establish limits for existing major sources at the floor levels.
During the analysis of public health impacts, the Agency also
considered the need for area source standards. A screening level
exposure analysis using a ten ton per year of HF model plant and State
agency health bench marks did not identify ``a threat of adverse
effects to human health or the environment (by such sources
individually or in the aggregate).'' Therefore, the Agency does not
recommend listing area sources and developing standards.
3. Emission Limits for Classes of Sources
WPPA Plants. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS which limit
emissions of total fluorides. Those NSPS appear in 40 CFR Subpart T.
For NSPS purposes, a WPPA plant is defined as any plant manufacturing
phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate rock and acid. This same
definition is applied herein. The NSPS limit total fluoride emissions
to 0.02 pounds per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. At this
time there are 35 WPPA plants and permitted emissions range from 0.0135
to 0.69 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the
process. Twenty five of those plants are permitted at limits equivalent
to or more stringent than the NSPS. All plants employ wet scrubbing
devices to control total fluoride emissions.
The Act requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in
categories with 30 or more sources must be no less stringent than the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of those sources. In this instance, the best performing sources are all
subject to permit provisions requiring that they achieve emissions
limitations equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. For those
plants, permitted emissions range from 0.01350 to the NSPS limit of
0.020 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the
process. The median of these permit limits is at the NSPS level of
control and this was selected as the MACT floor level. The available
test data summarized in the TSD show that the plants which form the
basis for the MACT floor are achieving the NSPS level of control.
Tested emissions for all plants permitted at or below the MACT floor
range from 0.0004 to 0.019 pounds of total fluoride per ton of
P2O5 fed to the process. Thus, the emissions limit
corresponding to the MACT floor, which is the NSPS, is being proposed
as MACT for existing WPPA plants.
For new sources, MACT must be as stringent as the emission
limitation that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
source, as determined by the Administrator. Currently, the most
stringent permit for a WPPA plant is for the Cargill Industries
facility in Riverview Florida which has been permitted at an emission
limitation of 0.01350 pounds of total fluoride per ton of
P2O5 fed to the process. Therefore, this limit is being
proposed for new WPPA plants.
During the development of NESHAP, the Agency examined the emission
of HF from gypsum and cooling pond systems. Recent testing of pond
systems was performed using long path Fourier transform infra-red
spectroscopy to typify emissions of HF (docket item II-D-15). The tests
indicted that although small quantities of HF may be evolved from pond
surfaces, the measured quantities would not be significant in
comparison to overall process emissions. The Agency did investigate
options for treating pond water to further minimize HF emissions
(docket item II-B-9). None of the technologies considered have been
successfully demonstrated on a commercial basis when applied to the
ores and processes common to the United States. Thus, the Agency
concluded that MACT for pond systems is no control.
All the plants which are being used to define MACT discharge
scrubber effluent to cooling ponds. Four sources subject to the NSPS
pump effluent from scrubbers to evaporative cooling towers where the
collected fluorides are subjected to air stripping. This practice
renders the air pollution controls largely ineffective for their
intended purpose. Accordingly, the proposed NESHAP specifically
prohibits this practice. The plants affected by the proposed NESHAP
have other options available, such as discharging scrubber effluents to
gypsum ponds. This requirement would be applied to both WPPA and SPA
plants. The Agency notes that this provision will apply only to liquid
discharges from air pollution control devices and is not intended to
apply to process equipment.
SPA Plants. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS which limit
emissions of total fluorides. Those NSPS appear in 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart U. The NSPS limit total fluoride emissions to 0.01 pounds per
ton of P2O5 fed to the process. For NSPS purposes, an SPA
plant is defined as any facility which concentrates WPPA to 66 percent
or greater P2O5 content for eventual consumption as
fertilizer. For purposes of the proposed NESHAP, the basic NSPS
definition for the plant will be adopted but it will not be limited to
production of SPA for consumption as fertilizer. The end use of the
manufactured SPA is not relevant to the need to control HAP emissions
pursuant to the Act. With the exception of one source employing the
submerged combustion process, all producers in the United States employ
vacuum evaporation to make SPA. The best-controlled plants for which
data were available use the vacuum evaporation process. There are
twelve SPA plants using vacuum evaporation and permitted emissions
range from 0.0087 to 1.1 pounds of total fluoride per ton of
P2O5 fed to the process. Nine of those plants are permitted
at limits equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. All plants
employ wet scrubbing devices to control total fluoride emissions.
Several different scrubber designs are employed.
The Act requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in
categories with fewer than 30 sources must be no less stringent than
the average emission
[[Page 68438]]
limitation achieved by the best performing five of those sources. In
this instance, the five best performing sources are all subject to
permit provisions requiring that they achieve emissions limitations
equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. The median of these
permit limits is at the NSPS level of control, 0.01 pounds per ton of
P2O5 fed to the process, and this was selected as the MACT
floor level. The available test data summarized in the TSD show that
the plants which form the basis for the MACT floor are achieving the
NSPS level of control. Tested emissions for all plants permitted at or
below the MACT floor range from 0.00013 to 0.00847 pounds of total
fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. Thus, the
emissions limit corresponding to the MACT floor, which is the NSPS, is
being proposed as MACT for existing SPA plants that use the vacuum
evaporation process.
The one source which manufactures SPA using a variation of the
submerged combustion process requested that the Agency consider a
separate subcategory for the process on the basis that a combination of
feedstock, final product, and process requirements uniquely influences
the level of control achievable at that site. The source provided
information (docket item II-D-52) showing that their imported feedstock
differs from that of other domestic producers of SPA in that it
contains lesser amounts of impurities including radium and magnesium.
The lesser amounts of radium are beneficial from the perspective that
this reduces the radioactivity of the phosphogypsum waste material
resulting from the processes. The lowered magnesium content is
important to customers with whom the source has contractual
obligations. The negative result of the lesser magnesium content is
that it causes increased corrosivity of the acid manufactured at that
site. Engineering studies have been unable to resolve the corrosion
problem and, so, the source cannot readily convert its production to
the vacuum evaporation process. In discussions with its State agency,
the source has committed itself to install new air pollution controls
and has performed engineering analyses which indicate that the source
cannot meet the MACT performance level of the vacuum evaporation
process. The potential to meet a level of 0.20 pounds of total fluoride
per ton of P2O5 fed to the process has been successfully
tested in a pilot test. In consideration of the overall environmental
and technical factors unique to the existing operations of that source,
the Agency has determined that subcategorization of that one existing
source is appropriate and that MACT is 0.20 pounds of total fluoride
per ton of P2O5 fed to the process for existing operations.
For a new SPA plant at that site, the Agency would expect that the
source could avail itself of the same resources as other companies in
the industry and that no special consideration would be appropriate.
For new sources, MACT must be as stringent as the emission
limitation that is achieved by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator. Currently, the best controlled SPA
plant achieves a permitted emission limit of 0.0087 pounds of total
fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. Emissions test
data confirm that this level of control is being achieved in practice.
Therefore, this limit is being proposed for new SPA plants.
DAP/MAP Plants. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS which limit
emissions of total fluorides from DAP production. Those NSPS appear in
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart V. The NSPS limit total fluoride emissions to
0.06 pounds per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. For NSPS
purposes, a DAP plant is defined as any plant manufacturing granular
DAP by reacting phosphoric acid with ammonia. The NSPS do not include
MAP production plants as affected facilities. Available information
shows that many production plants are dedicated to produce either DAP
or MAP. Other plants are configured and permitted to produce either
product using the same equipment. As a part of the Agency's MACT
partnership initiative, the Agency met with State agency and industry
representatives to discuss issues pertinent to the proposed NESHAP.
Several discussions addressed the question of whether to have separate
rules for DAP, MAP and combined DAP/MAP production plants. During those
discussions it was noted that the plant configurations used to make
either one or both products are essentially identical. All plants
employ wet scrubbing devices to control total fluoride emissions.
Several different scrubber designs were employed. During the MACT
partnership discussions, the Agency was advised that technical
considerations cause a dual use production plant to be more difficult
to control than those dedicated to individual products. All parties to
the discussion were in agreement that the current NSPS for DAP is
achievable for DAP, MAP or combined DAP/MAP production. After due
consideration of these factors, the Agency is proposing that a single
emissions limitation should be applied to this class of ammoniated
phosphates. Accordingly, the data for plants permitted to produce both
products were selected for analysis to establish the MACT floor.
There are 12 plants permitted to produce both DAP and MAP. For
those plants, permitted emissions range from 0.0580 to 0.9640 pounds of
total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. The Act
requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in categories with
fewer than 30 sources must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing five of those
sources. In this instance, the five best performing sources are all
subject to permit provisions requiring that they achieve emissions
limitations equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. For those
plants, permitted emissions range from 0.0580 to the NSPS limit of 0.06
pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process.
The median of these permit limits is at the NSPS level of control and
this was selected as the MACT floor level. The available test data
summarized in the TSD show that the plants which form the basis for the
MACT floor are achieving the NSPS level of control. Tested emissions
for all plants permitted at or below the MACT floor range from 0.0021
to 0.0408 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the
process. Thus, the emissions limit corresponding to the MACT floor,
which is the NSPS, is being proposed as MACT for existing DAP and/or
MAP plants.
For new sources, MACT must be as stringent as the emission
limitation that is achieved by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator. Currently, the best controlled
combined DAP/MAP plant achieves a permitted emission limit of 0.00580
pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process.
Emissions test data confirm that this level of control is being
achieved in practice. Therefore, this limit is being proposed for new
sources producing DAP and/or MAP.
GTSP Production Plants. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS
which limit emissions of total fluorides from triple superphosphate
production. Those NSPS appear in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart W. The NSPS
limit total fluoride emissions to 0.2 pounds per ton of P2O5
fed to the process. For NESHAP purposes, a GTSP plant would be defined
as any plant manufacturing GTSP by reacting phosphate rock with
phosphoric acid. At this time, there are ten GTSP plants and permitted
[[Page 68439]]
emissions range from 0.1230 to 0.760 pounds of total fluoride per ton
of P2O5 fed to the process. Seven of those plants are
permitted at limits equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. Six
of those plants are permitted at State limits below the NSPS. All
plants employ wet scrubbing devices to control total fluoride
emissions. Several different scrubber designs are employed.
The Act requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in
categories with fewer than 30 sources must be no less stringent than
the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five of
those sources. In this instance, the five best performing sources are
all subject to permit provisions requiring that they achieve emissions
limitations equivalent to or more stringent than the NSPS. The median
of the permit limits for the five best controlled existing plants is
0.150 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the
process and this was selected as representing the MACT floor level of
control. The available test data summarized in the TSD show that the
plants which form the basis for the MACT floor are achieving the permit
limit of 0.150 pounds of total fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed
to the process in practice. Tested emissions for all plants permitted
at or below the MACT floor range from 0.00845 to 0.148 pounds of total
fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. Thus, an
emissions limit equivalent to the MACT floor is being proposed for
existing GTSP plants.
For new sources, MACT must be at least as stringent as the emission
limitation that is achieved by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator. Currently, the best controlled GTSP
plant achieves a permitted emission limit of 0.01230 pounds of total
fluoride per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. Emissions test
data confirm that this level of control is being achieved in practice.
Therefore, this value is being proposed as an emissions limit for new
GTSP plants.
GTSP Storage Buildings. The Agency previously promulgated NSPS
which limit emissions of total fluorides from GTSP storage buildings.
Those NSPS appear in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart X. The NSPS limit total
fluoride emissions to 5.0 x 10-4 pounds per hour per ton of
P2O5 stored. For NESHAP purposes, the same definition used in
the NSPS will be used for GTSP storage buildings. At this time there
are seven GTSP storage buildings in operation. Of the seven, four are
equipped with wet scrubbers to control fluoride emissions. These
provide the control technology basis for the MACT floor. In general,
the permitted emissions limits reflect apportionments assigned by the
operators to meet emissions limitations for their GTSP plants as a
whole. Thus, the emissions limits are not based upon the technological
performance of control systems. The State air pollution control agency
with jurisdiction over most of the sources was contacted and indicated
that impacts of emissions from the storage buildings had been
considered as a part of the overall emissions allowances for the
fertilizer plants. None of the seven existing GTSP storage buildings is
subject to the NSPS. Further, the applicable emissions limitations for
the controlled buildings are in a format which differs from the NSPS.
Permitted emissions are dependent upon the rate at which GTSP is
transferred into the buildings. Available data indicate that the actual
emission rates are comparable to the NSPS limits.
The Agency previously addressed the issue of determining the best
technological approach for establishing emission limits for GTSP
storage buildings during the development of the NSPS in 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart X. Those standards reflect the previous judgement of the Agency
as to the best approach to controlling emissions of total fluorides
from GTSP storage buildings. That same judgement was reflected in the
Agency's emissions guidelines for then-existing sources. During
development of the proposed NESHAP, the Agency requested the opinions
of State air pollution control agencies and the technical
representatives of companies which produce phosphate fertilizers. The
State representatives concluded that the NSPS approach to setting
emissions limits is preferable to the basis for the permitted emissions
in that it is clearly based upon technological considerations. The
industry representatives noted that the NSPS approach accounts for the
effects of the continued curing of GTSP during initial storage and the
NSPS also provides consideration of the amount of GTSP stored. Given
the similarity of the results of the two approaches and the clear
preference of the involved parties for the NSPS format, the Agency has
concluded that the NSPS best expresses the MACT floor level of control
for existing GTSP storage buildings. Should any new GTSP storage
buildings be placed in service, the Agency continues to believe that
the NSPS also constitutes the best approach to new source MACT. The
NSPS is based upon a demonstrated control technology and directly ties
allowable emissions to the quantity of GTSP in storage. Thus, existing
and new source MACT is proposed to be a maximum emission of 5.0 x
10-4 pounds of total fluorides per hour per ton of P2O5
stored.
During the development of the NESHAP, the question was raised as to
whether the proposed NESHAP should be applied to GTSP storage buildings
which are not co-located with GTSP production plants. The Agency has
concluded that the proposed NESHAP should only apply to co-located
storage buildings. The reason for this is that the reactions which
cause emissions of HF and total fluorides continue for several days
after newly manufactured GTSP is placed into storage. This is referred
to as curing. Thus, there is a clear reason to place emissions limits
upon this class of sources. Opinions differed as to how long
appreciable emissions are generated. Material handling problems can
occur if GTSP is shipped from the production plant prior to the
completion of the curing phase. So, the need for controlling emissions
during storage coincides with the need to allow time for curing.
Accordingly there is no benefit to be gained from applying the proposed
NESHAP to GTSP storage facilities that handle only cured GTSP and are
not located at GTSP production plants.
Phosphate Rock Dryers at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants and
Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants. On April 16, 1982, the Agency
promulgated emissions limits (47 FR 16589) which apply to phosphate
rock dryers at phosphate rock plants as 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart NN. The
NSPS limit particulate matter emissions to 0.030 kilogram per megagram
of phosphate rock feed (0.060 pounds per ton). For NSPS purposes, a
dryer is defined as a unit in which the moisture content of phosphate
rock is reduced by contact with a heated gas stream. For the proposed
NESHAP, the NSPS definition will be adopted. The Agency has found
little test data for particulate matter emissions. Initially available
permit information indicated that eight dryers were present at seven
major sources. One of those dryers is subject to Subpart NN. More
recent information provided by industry representatives indicates that
two of those dryers have been demolished and that two others are not
used as rock dryers. That leaves four dryers from which to establish
the MACT floor for existing sources.
The Act requires that the MACT floor for existing sources in
categories with fewer than 30 sources must be no less stringent than
the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five of
those sources. In this instance, there are only four sources. To
[[Page 68440]]
provide consistency with the methodology used elsewhere in this notice,
the third or ``median'' dryer was selected as representing the floor
level of control. That dryer is limited to 0.215 pounds of particulate
matter per ton of rock fed. With no additional information available,
the Agency is unable to conclude that a more stringent emissions limit
is warranted for dryers. Thus, the emissions limit corresponding to the
MACT floor is being proposed as MACT for existing phosphate rock dryers
at phosphoric acid manufacturing plants.
For new sources, MACT must be at least as stringent as the emission
limitation that is achieved by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator. Currently, the best controlled dryer
achieves a permitted emission limit of 0.060 pounds of particulate
matter per ton of rock fed to the process. Emissions test data confirm
that this level of control is being achieved in practice. Therefore,
this value is being proposed as MACT for new phosphate rock dryers at
phosphoric acid manufacturing plants.
Calciners at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants. On April 16,
1982, the Agency promulgated emissions limits (47 FR 16589) which apply
to phosphate rock calciners at phosphate rock plants as 40 CFR Part 60
Subpart NN. For NSPS purposes, a calciner is defined as a unit in which
the moisture and organic matter of phosphate rock is reduced within a
combustion chamber. For the proposed NESHAP, the NSPS definition will
be adopted. Information gathered during the development of proposed
NESHAP show that calciners are present at four major sources. None of
those calciners are subject to Subpart NN. As previously discussed, the
Agency chose to use particulate matter as a surrogate for HAP metal
compounds because no speciated test data were available for calciners.
All plants use wet scrubbers to control particulate matter. Calciners
permitted to operate at one source are not in service at this time. A
second source operates two calciners controlled by wet scrubbers. No
performance data were available for the second source. A third source
operates a calciner controlled by a wet scrubber. Performance test data
for the calciner are included in the docket. A fourth source operates
six calciners. The calciners are similar in their design and emissions
controls. Performance test data for those six are summarized in the
TSD. Although speciation factors for HAP metals were available for the
fourth source, the enforceable permit limits were for particulate
matter. Given that the controls are the same for the best five units,
the MACT floor level of control is based upon the use of wet scrubbers.
The best performing calciners are permitted in a process rate format
which allows the emissions rate to vary as function of process feed
rate. For this class of sources, performance data show actual emissions
to be well below permitted levels. The Agency has concluded that
analysis of test data would best characterize the level of control
being achieved in practice. Review of test data indicates that an
emission limit equivalent to 0.06 grains of particulate matter per dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) is now being achieved by all calciners
for which the Agency has data. This level of control was selected as
the MACT floor for existing sources. The highest test data point for
the calciners constituting the MACT floor was 0.058 gr/dscf. The Agency
reviewed health impacts modelling provided by the fourth source and
concluded that an ample margin of safety is provided at the MACT floor
and that a more stringent standard for existing sources is not
indicated. Thus, an emissions limit equivalent to the MACT floor is
being proposed for existing calciners.
Emissions test data for the best performing calciner indicated that
it could meet a somewhat lower emission limit and that this could be
considered the best controlled source for establishing new source MACT.
The data showed that a similar new source could achieve an emission
limit of 0.04 grains per dry standard cubic foot. This level of control
is consistent with that which the Agency selected as best demonstrated
technology for similar sources in the NSPS for calciners and dryers in
the mineral industries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUU). That standard was
promulgated on September 28, 1992 in 57 FR 44503. Thus, the Agency is
proposing 0.040 grains per dry standard cubic foot as MACT for new
calciners located at phosphoric acid manufacturing plants.
PPA Plants. Two sources in the United States manufacture PPA
through the use of solvent extraction to further refine WPPA. One plant
uses the HAP compound MIBK as a solvent. This results in permitted
losses of MIBK which total approximately 29 tons per year. The second
plant uses a different solvent and a different process from which no
HAPs are emitted. The Act does not provide clear guidance on the
establishment of MACT when less than five sources are present for floor
analysis. In this instance, the following facts were considered. The
two process designs are distinctly different. The owners of the second
plant have patented their process and it is not readily available for
licensing by competitors. The PPA produced by the source using MIBK is
used in applications which differ in their requirements from the PPA
produced by the competing source. Information provided by the owners of
the plant using MIBK included information showing that reconstructing
their plant to use a non-HAP solvent would result in a control cost of
$800,000 per ton of MIBK reduced. This would clearly exceed the value
of any environmental benefits to be derived. Thus, the Agency elected
to set an emissions limit for MIBK based upon a MACT analysis of the
one plant which uses that compound.
The initial permit for the PPA plant in question allows the source
to emit 19 tons of MIBK per year from the operation of the plant
itself. That amount was determined by engineering calculations to
predict the performance of the emissions controls installed at the
plant. Information provided by the operator shows an estimated 9.9 tons
per year of MIBK in a process waste stream being emitted from an
adjoining fertilizer plant. The combined total of 28.9 tons of MIBK is
equivalent to 0.16864 pounds of MIBK per ton of P2O5 fed to
the process. Information listing historical purchases of makeup MIBK
provided by the operators indicates that emissions may have exceeded
that rate on several occasions. Additional information from the source
shows that several changes to the process have been made to increase
production. Insufficient information was provided to allow an analysis
of how the process changes are affecting emissions. Likewise, no
information has been provided to show what options have or could have
been pursued to maintain the permitted emissions levels. Absent any
basis for determining that the permitted limits are inconsistent with
the emission controls installed at the plant, the Agency has elected to
use the approach consistently applied to other phosphoric acid
manufacturing processes during this rulemaking and to base MACT upon
permitted emissions of MIBK. The MACT limit is proposed as 0.16864
pounds of MIBK per ton of P2O5 fed to the process. The
Agency specifically invites public comment upon this proposed action.
Any comments advocating a different standard for emissions of MIBK from
PPA plants should be accompanied and supported by data and information
that clearly support the commenter's position.
[[Page 68441]]
D. Selection of Test Methods
Included in the proposed rules are methods for determining initial
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time.
The Agency has made every effort to simplify the requirements in the
rule. The Agency has also attempted to maintain consistency with
existing regulations by either incorporating text from existing
regulations or cross-referencing such regulations. Under the proposed
rules, total fluoride would serve as a surrogate for HF and particulate
matter would serve as a surrogate measure for HAP metals. So, for those
standards which would limit emissions of total fluorides or particulate
matter, the approaches to testing and monitoring in the corresponding
NSPS would be adopted as closely as possible. That is, initial
compliance would be determined by a performance test employing Agency
Test Method 13 A or B for total fluorides or Method 5 for particulate
matter. The owner or operator could also use other alternative test
methods subject to approval by the Administrator. The proposed
standards would require that sources continuously record and maintain
control device pressure drop and liquid flow rate parameters within
plus or minus ten percent of the values established during performance
testing. Those values would have to be determined concurrently with
initial performance testing. The values of the operating parameters
would be based upon the average values recorded during three one-hour
test runs. This approach to monitoring control device operating
parameters and an alternative requested by industry are discussed in
the monitoring requirements section of this preamble.
During the development of the proposed NESHAP, two concerns were
raised by industry about testing for fluoride emissions. First, the
industry suggested that Method 13 B could be simplified. In response,
the Agency is proposing to simplify Method 13 B for this source
category by eliminating the fusion and distillation steps in the sample
preparation. The fusion step is intended to make all fluorides water
soluble. For these source categories, preliminary information indicates
that all fluorides are water soluble. The distillation step is intended
to eliminate analytical interferences. Industry has submitted data that
indicates that the distillation step is unneeded for these source
categories. At this time the Agency is reviewing data to verify that
the requested changes in the test method are reasonable. The changes
would not apply to other categories of sources.
The second concern raised was that of how to test uncontrolled GTSP
storage buildings using method 13 A or B. Uncontrolled buildings do not
have a stack or a single discharge point. Section 63.7 of the general
provisions provides that sources may develop site-specific test plans.
The Agency is working with the affected sources and their
respective permitting agencies through this site- specific test plan
process to develop a consistent methodology for the purpose of
determining whether the sources can achieve the emission limits of the
proposed standards without add-on controls.
E. Selection of Monitoring Requirements
The proposed standards would require that sources continuously
monitor and maintain control device operating parameters within plus or
minus ten percent of the values established during performance testing.
Since control of particulate matter is impaired by a lessening of
pressure drop or liquid flow rate, decreases in these parameters
indicate a decline in emissions control efficiency. For HF, as
determined by total fluoride, the opposite effect can occur. Removal of
fluorides by wet scrubbers is enhanced by increased residence time in
the control device. So, it is appropriate that an upper bound to
pressure drop should be included as a means of maintaining residence
time at a value similar to that obtained during the performance test.
Similar to the NSPS, the proposed NESHAP would require monitoring of
process feed rate.
During development of the proposed NESHAP, industry representatives
expressed some concern over EPA's intention to define scrubber
monitoring parameter exceedances in excess of plus or minus ten percent
of the values established during the most recent performance test as
violations. That concern centered upon the possibility that those
values could change as a result of equipment or process variables which
would not necessarily result in noncompliance with the numerical limits
of the standards. They suggested that Agency should allow a grace
period for re-testing to determine compliance with the numerical limits
of the standard. In particular, the inclusion of the upper bound was
questioned. The Agency's response is that the upper limit is
appropriate because higher pressure drops could indicate that emissions
controls were suffering from a reduction in residence time associated
with higher pressure drops or process upsets and the Agency has elected
to keep the upper band for parameter excursions because of enforcement
concerns. To allay the concerns of industry, the Agency is including in
the proposed regulation language which provides a grace period for re-
testing under the conditions measured during the exceedance to
determine compliance. Upon considering that some sources at relatively
remote locations need time to arrange for services of outside test
crews, the proposed rule would allow sources thirty days to re-test and
demonstrate compliance with the numerical emissions limits. If a source
is re-tested within that time period and passes the required test, the
exceedances of the parameter limits would not be considered violations
of the Act.
Some industry representatives recommended defining the acceptable
range of operational parameters on the basis of the ranges resulting
from previous or specially-conducted successful performance tests.
Initially, the Agency considered this approach and concluded that to
require extensive testing to develop operational ranges during
performance testing could be construed as burdensome. So, the Agency
chose the approach first described in this section as a requirement. In
addition, the proposed regulations would allow use of the approach
requested by industry, with its attendant costs, as an alternative
which sources could choose to employ at their discretion. In
particular, the alternative provides flexibility for sources to
establish operational ranges for control device parameters on the basis
of data derived from multiple performance tests. Operating ranges could
based upon values recorded during previous successful performance tests
or upon the results of new performance testing conducted specifically
for the purpose of establishing operating ranges. Sources would be
required to certify that the control devices and processes had not been
modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to
establish the operating ranges were obtained. Following the approval by
the permitting authority of operating ranges for the affected source,
any three hour averages of the values of total pressure drop or flow
rate of the scrubbing liquid in exceedance of the approved operating
ranges would constitute violations of applicable emission limits.
For PPA plants, compliance would be determined by inventory records
documenting the amounts of MIBK
[[Page 68442]]
added to the process as makeup for routine losses from the system. In
addition, the source would be required to maintain records of
maintenance activities which would include estimates of MIBK losses.
The source would be required to document in its inventory any losses
from nonroutine equipment failures or malfunctions. On a continuing
basis, the source would be required to monitor and record the MIBK
content of raffinate, gas chiller temperature and cooling tower losses.
Recordkeeping and reporting would be subject to the General Provisions
to 40 CFR Part 63.
F. Selection of Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
All requirements of the General Provisions apply under the proposed
rule. The General Provisions include requirements for notifications;
reports on performance test results; semiannual excess emissions
reports; and startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans and reports.
Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of production lines can occur in
this industry. The development and implementation of the plan will aid
in reducing emissions from these events and in reducing malfunctions. A
semiannual report to EPA is required only in the event a reportable
event occurs and the steps in the plan were not followed. Semiannual
excess emission reports are required to ensure that the permitting
authority is aware of any potential operating or compliance problems at
the source.
The proposed rule requires that minimum information and data be
maintained in a file available for inspection at the site. Records of
control device operational parameters, process feed rate, MIBK addition
to PPA plants and MIBK concentrations at specified points would be
required to ensure that MACT-level controls are in place and properly
operated and maintained.
G. Solicitation of Comments
The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final
decisions and encourages comments on all aspects of this proposal from
all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses
should be submitted with comments to allow EPA to make maximum use of
the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-95-33 (see ADDRESSES).
Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before the date
specified in DATES.
Commentors wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information''
(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be
sent directly to the Emission Standards Division CBI Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (MD-13), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, with a copy of the cover letter directed to the contact
person listed above. Confidential business information should not be
sent to the public docket. Information covered by such a claim of
confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and
by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by EPA,
it may be made available to the public without further notice to the
commentor.
V. Impacts of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
Currently, 21 phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate
fertilizers production complexes, owned by 15 companies, are located in
seven States. The EPA estimates that five of these plants would need to
install better controls on at least one process each to reduce
emissions. All plants in the industry would be subject to the proposed
standards unless the plant owner or operator demonstrates that the
facility is not a major source. The Agency expects that six of the 21
phosphate fertilizers production complexes will be demonstrated to be
non-major sources.
B. Air Quality Impacts
Nationwide HAP emissions from phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizers production complexes are estimated to be up to
550 Mg/yr (605 tpy) of HF and other HAP at the current level of
control. Implementation of the proposed NESHAP would reduce HF
emissions by 315 Mg/yr (345 tpy) from currently permitted levels. The
corresponding reduction in total fluorides would be 940 Mg/yr (1035
tpy). This would equate to 1570 Mg (1725 tons) of HF and 4700 Mg (5175
tons) of total fluoride over the first five years of the proposed
standards. Since the PPA plant emitting MIBK and calciners emitting HAP
metals in the form of particulates would meet the NESHAP in their
current configurations, no additional emissions reductions would be
gained from those operations. The proposed NESHAP would ensure that the
currently installed control systems would be properly operated and
maintained. Additional information on emissions and emission reductions
is included in the TSD.
C. Water Impacts
As a result of NESHAP, five plants would install five to six low
energy scrubbers using recycled pond water as the scrubbing liquid
would result from NESHAP. Most, if not all, new scrubbers would employ
cooling pond water as the scrubbing fluid and return the scrubber
discharge to the pond for recycle to the process. The impacts of this
would therefore be minimal.
D. Solid Waste Impacts
Solid waste impacts would be minimal.
E. Energy Impacts
A total of five to six low energy scrubbers would result from
NESHAP. Increased power for the scrubbers was estimated to cause an
additional annual power consumption of twenty million kilowatt hours.
F. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts
Reducing HAPs and ambient pollutant levels may help lower
occupational exposure levels.
G. Cost Impacts
The proposed rule would affect phosphoric acid manufacturing and
phosphate fertilizers production facilities that are major sources or
that are located at major sources. The Agency projects that six process
lines at existing source complexes would install new control systems.
The Agency estimated that five additional sources would be expected to
employ better operation and maintenance practices to meet the
standards. Based upon availability of surplus production capacity and
recent market trends, the Agency projects that no new facilities will
be constructed within the next five years. For the five plants expected
to add new air pollution control scrubbers to meet the proposed NESHAP,
the capital cost of new control devices is estimated to be $1,401,561.
Estimated annualized capital, operation, and maintenance costs of new
scrubbers are estimated to total $847,851. The annual costs for the
plants expected to implement improved operation and maintenance are
estimated to be $14,400. Thus, the total annualized costs of the
standards would be $862,251 nationwide.
H. Economic Impacts
Prices are expected to increase in each regional market by the per-
unit-cost
[[Page 68443]]
increase for the marginal firm. Because neither the exact regional
structure, nor which firm is the high cost producer within the region,
is known, a range of prices changes has been estimated. For the lower
estimate, one national market is assumed for each good. The production
weighted average cost increase is assumed to be the expected cost
increase for the marginal firm and is used for the price increase. The
higher estimate has been developed by using the highest cost increase
among the facilities as the cost increase for the marginal firm. This
makes the highest cost increase the price increase for the national
market. Even the highest estimate for the product (MAP/DAP) with the
highest cost increase would be a price increase of less than one third
of one percent.
Although demand elasticity estimates are not available, the lack of
close substitutes, the small cost share of fertilizers in final
agricultural products, and the expected low elasticity for the
production of food lead to the expectation of an inelastic demand.
Since elasticity of demand would be expected to be less than one,
percentage quantity adjustments would be expected to be smaller than
the percentage price changes discussed above.
Detailed plant information needed for plant closure analysis is not
available, but, plant closure as a result of the costs of this
regulation would be unlikely. The highest estimate for market quantity
adjustment is less than three percent of the production of the smallest
affected facility for each of the three markets. If there were to be no
market price increase, the cost increase as a percentage of sales would
always be less than two-fifths of a percent. While closure due to the
regulation would be unlikely, a facility planning to close in the
absence of the regulation could close earlier because of the
regulation. The effect of this regulation would be expected to be
minimal on both small businesses and the industry as a whole.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is
a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of
judicial review. [See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.]
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act.
Persons wishing to make oral presentations on the proposed standards
should contact EPA (see ADDRESSES). If a public hearing is requested
and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral
presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. To
provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak, oral
presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the
public may file a written statement on or before February 25, 1997.
Written statements should be addressed to the Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center (see ADDRESSES), and refer to Docket No. A-95-
33. Written statements and supporting information will be considered
with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information
subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held. A verbatim
transcript of the hearing and written statements will be placed in the
docket and be available for public inspection and copying, or mailed
upon request, at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(see ADDRESSES).
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan
programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has
determined that this rule is not ``significant'' because none of the
listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action was not
submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the Agency involved
State,local and Federal governments in the development of this rule.
These governments are not directly impacted by the rule; i.e. they are
not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of
the rule. However, they will be required to implement the rule; e.g.
incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will
collect permit fees which will be used to offset the resource burden of
implementing the rule. One representative of a State environmental
agency has been a member of the EPA work group developing the rule. In
addition, the Agency has contacted the staffs of State air pollution
control agencies to exchange information during development of the
rule. The comments and suggestions of the State agency staffs have been
carefully considered in the rule development. In addition, all States
are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule during the public
comment period and the Agency intends to fully consider these comments
in the final rulemaking.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995 (109 Stat. 48),
requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section
203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from
and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may
be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative for State,
local, and tribal governments and the private sector that
[[Page 68444]]
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or unless the selection of this
alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule, if promulgated, is estimated to result
in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the
private sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency
has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed
the selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative. Because small governments will not be
significantly or uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not
required to develop a plan with regard to small governments. Therefore,
the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this
action.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
Federal agencies are required to assess the economic impact of Federal
regulations on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act specifies
that Federal agencies must prepare an initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (RFA) if a proposed regulation will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Agency has found that two of the twenty one firms that
potentially would be subject to the proposed standards are small firms.
Of the two, one is an area source which would not be covered by the
standards. The second source would be major and subject to the
requirements of the standards. Information available to the Agency
shows that the second source is able to achieve the control levels of
the proposed NESHAP using existing equipment. The testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are essentially identical to
current requirements and, thus, would cause little or no change in
these burdens. Therefore, given that only one small entity would see
only a minimal change from its current requirements, the Agency
certifies that the proposed rulemaking will not impact a substantial
number of small entities and that any impacts would be non-significant.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1790.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740.
The information to be collected includes the results of performance
testing to be conducted to demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limits in the proposed rules. At the time that performance
testing would be performed, sources would be required to measure and
record operating parameters for the processes and control devices.
Following the performance testing, sources would be required under
authority of the Act to monitor and record operating parameters to
assure that they were maintained within approved ranges, based upon
values determined during the initial tests. The purpose of the
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements would be to provide
implementing agencies information to assure that MACT was being
implemented on an ongoing basis.
The Agency estimated the projected cost and hour burden of the
proposed standards. The average annual reporting burden was estimated
to be 132 hours per response. There would be fifteen likely respondents
and reports would required twice a year. The total burden would equate
to 3790 hours per year nationwide and the corresponding cost was
estimated to be $121,773 per year. The total capital cost of the
monitoring devices was estimated to be $564, 200 of which the major
cost would be for the installation of sensors to measure and record the
flow of scrubbing liquid to the control devices. The annualized cost of
that capital would be $53,200 per year and the operation and
maintenance of the monitoring equipment was estimated as $13,300 per
year. Thus, the total annualized capital and operation and maintenance
costs were estimated to be $66,500 per year. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 27, 1996, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January
27, 1997. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
H. Clean Air Act
In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of
the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
I. Pollution Prevention Act
During the development of the standards, the Agency explored
opportunities to eliminate or reduce emissions through the application
of new processes or work practices. As previously discussed, at the
outset the Agency explored options for reduction of cooling pond
emissions of HF. Among the possibilities was a recently patented
process which offers the promise of eliminating the ponds altogether
while at the same time
[[Page 68445]]
recovery HF for sale to outside parties. At this time that process has
not yet been commercially demonstrated.
The other opportunity for prevention of pollution arose when the
Agency learned of the piping of air pollution control scrubber effluent
to cooling towers, where the HF content was being stripped and emitted
to the atmosphere. As previously discussed, the proposed NESHAP would
expressly prohibit that practice.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Phosphoric acid
manufacturing, and Phosphate fertilizers production.
Dated: November 21, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that part
63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations be
amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AA consisting of
Secs. 63.600 through 63.610 to read as follows:
Subpart AA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
From Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants
Sec.
63.600 Applicability.
63.601 Definitions.
63.602 Standards for existing sources.
63.603 Standards for new sources.
63.604 Monitoring requirements.
63.605 Performance tests and compliance provisions.
63.606 Notification requirements.
63.607 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.608 Reporting requirements.
63.609 Compliance dates.
63.610 Exemption from new source performance standards.
Subpart AA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants
Sec. 63.600 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the
requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each new
or existing phosphoric acid manufacturing plant.
(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted from the following affected
sources at a new or existing phosphoric acid manufacturing plant:
(1) Each wet-process phosphoric acid plant. The requirements of
this subpart apply to the following emission points which are
components of a wet-process phosphoric acid plant: reactors, filters,
evaporators, and hot wells.
(2) Each evaporative cooling tower at a phosphoric acid
manufacturing plant.
(3) Each phosphate rock dryer located at a phosphoric acid
manufacturing plant.
(4) Each phosphate rock calciner located at a phosphoric acid
manufacturing plant.
(5) Each superphosphoric acid plant. The requirements of this
subpart apply to the following emission points which are components of
a superphosphoric acid plant: evaporators, hot wells, acid sumps, and
cooling tanks; and
(6) Each purified acid plant. The requirements of this subpart
apply to the following emission points which are components of a
purified phosphoric acid plant: solvent extraction process equipment,
solvent stripping and recovery equipment, seal tanks, carbon treatment
equipment, cooling towers, storage tanks, pumps and process piping.
(c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or
operator of a new or existing phosphoric acid manufacturing plant for
which the owner or operator demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that the facility is not a major source as defined in
Sec. 63.2.
Sec. 63.601 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
Equivalent P2O5 feed means the quantity of phosphorus,
expressed as phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the process.
Evaporative cooling tower means an open water recirculating device
that uses fans or natural draft to draw or force ambient air through
the device to remove heat from process water by direct contact.
HAP metals mean those chemicals and their compounds (in particulate
or volatile form) that are included on the list of hazardous air
pollutants in section 112 of the Clean Air Act. HAP metals include, but
are not limited to: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium expressed as particulate matter
as measured by the methods and procedures in this subpart or an
approved alternative method. For the purposes of this subpart, HAP
metals are expressed as particulate matter as measured by 40 CFR Part
60, Appendix A, Method 5.
Phosphate rock calciner means the equipment used to remove moisture
and organic matter from phosphate rock through direct or indirect
heating.
Phosphate rock dryer means the equipment used to reduce the
moisture content of phosphate rock through direct or indirect heating.
Phosphate rock feed means all material entering any phosphate rock
dryer or phosphate rock calciner including moisture and extraneous
material as well as the following ore materials: fluorapatite,
hydroxylapatite, chlorapatite, and carbonateapatite.
Purified phosphoric acid plant means any facility which
concentrates wet-process phosphoric acid to 58 percent or greater
P2O5 content by weight and which uses solvent extraction to
separate impurities from the product acid for the purposes of rendering
that product suitable for industrial, manufacturing or food grade uses.
Superphosphoric acid plant means any facility which concentrates
wet-process phosphoric acid to 66 percent or greater P2O5
content by weight.
Total fluorides means elemental fluorine and all fluoride
compounds, including the HAP hydrogen fluoride, as measured by
reference methods specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A , Method 13 A
or B, or by equivalent or alternative methods approved by the
Administrator pursuant to Sec. 63.7(f).
Wet process phosphoric acid plant means any facility manufacturing
phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate rock and acid.
Sec. 63.602 Standards for existing sources.
(a) Wet process phosphoric acid plant. On and after the date on
which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and
63.605 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of
10.0 gram/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.020 lb/ton).
(b) Superphosphoric acid plant. (1) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605
is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of
5.0 gram/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.010 lb/ton).
[[Page 68446]]
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, on and after
the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is completed, each submerged combustion process
superphosphoric acid plant at the Arcadian Fertilizers facility in
Geismar, Louisiana shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of 100.0 gram/metric
ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.20 lb/ton).
(c) Phosphate rock dryer. On or after the date on which the
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is
completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain particulate matter in excess of
0.10750 kilogram/metric ton of phosphate rock feed (0.2150 lb/ton).
(d) Phosphate rock calciner. On or after the date on which the
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is
completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain particulate matter in excess of
0.138 gram per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) [0.060 grain per dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)].
(e) Evaporative cooling tower. No owner or operator shall introduce
into any evaporative cooling tower any liquid effluent from any wet
scrubbing device installed to control emissions from process equipment.
(f) Purified phosphoric acid plant. No owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain methyl
isobutyl ketone in excess of 84.320 gram/metric ton of equivalent
P2O5 feed (0.16864 lb/ton). Compliance shall be determined as
a monthly average based upon records of the addition of methyl isobutyl
ketone to the process as required in Sec. 63.605(f).
Sec. 63.603 Standards for new sources.
(a) Wet process phosphoric acid plant. On and after the date on
which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and
63.605 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of
6.750 gram/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.01350 lb/
ton).
(b) Superphosphoric acid plant. On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is
completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of
4.35 gram/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.00870 lb/
ton).
(c) Phosphate rock dryer. On or after the date on which the
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is
completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain particulate matter in excess of
0.030 kilogram/metric ton per megagram of phosphate rock feed (0.060
lb/ton).
(d) Phosphate rock calciner. On or after the date on which the
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.605 is
completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain particulate matter in excess of
0.0920 gram per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) [0.040 grain per dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)].
(e) Evaporative cooling tower. No owner or operator shall introduce
into any evaporative cooling tower any liquids containing the effluent
from any air pollution control device.
(f) Purified phosphoric acid plant. No owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain methyl
isobutyl ketone in excess of 84.320 gram/metric ton of equivalent
P2O5 feed (0.16864 lb/ton). Compliance shall be determined as
a monthly average based upon records of the addition of methyl isobutyl
ketone to the process.
Sec. 63.604 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process
phosphoric acid plant, superphosphoric acid plant, phosphate rock
dryer, phosphate rock calciner, or purified phosphoric acid plant
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a monitoring system which can be used to
determine and permanently record the mass flow of phosphorus-bearing
feed material to the process. The monitoring system shall have an
accuracy of 5 percent over its operating range.
(b) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process
phosphoric acid plant, superphosphoric acid plant, phosphate rock
calciner, or purified phosphoric acid plant subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall maintain a daily record of equivalent
P2O5 feed by first determining the total mass rate in metric
ton/hour of phosphorus bearing feed using a monitoring system for
measuring mass flowrate which meets the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section and then by proceeding according to Sec. 63.605(c)(3).
(c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process
phosphoric acid plant, superphosphoric acid plant, phosphate rock dryer
or phosphate rock calciner using a wet scrubbing emission control
system shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate the following
monitoring systems:
(1) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently
records the total pressure drop across each scrubber in the process
scrubbing system. The monitoring system shall be certified by the
manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 percent over its
operating range.
(2) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently
records the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the
process scrubbing system. The monitoring system shall be certified by
the manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 percent over its
operating range.
(d) Any new or existing source subject to emissions limitations for
total fluorides or particulate matter contained in this subpart shall
comply with either paragraph (d) (1) or (2) of this section:
(1) For a new or existing affected source, following the date on
which the performance test required in Sec. 63.605 is completed, any
three-hour average of the total pressure drop across the scrubber(s) or
of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to the scrubber(s) in the
process scrubbing system which exceeds ten percent of the
value determined as a requirement of Sec. 63.605(c)(4), (d)(4), or
(e)(2) shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit
contained in this subpart unless the affected source performs and
passes a performance test as required in Sec. 63.605 within thirty days
following the exceedance. Any owner or operator who intends to conduct
a performance test pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the
Administrator of that intention within one business day of the
parameter exceedance. Any owner or operator conducting a performance
test pursuant to this paragraph (d)(1) shall establish and maintain
during that test the same operating conditions as were determined
during the exceedance of the operating range.
(2) The owner or operator of any new or existing affected source
shall establish operating ranges for the total
[[Page 68447]]
pressure drop across or of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to
each scrubber in the process scrubbing system for the purpose of
assuring compliance with applicable emission limits required in this
subpart. Operating ranges may be based upon values recorded during
previous performance tests using the test methods required in this
subpart and established in the manner required in Sec. 63.605 (c)(4),
(d)(4), or (e)(2). As an alternative the owner or operator can base the
operating ranges upon the results of performance tests conducted
specifically for the purposes of this paragraph (d)(2) using the test
methods required in this subpart and established in the manner required
in Sec. 63.605(c)(4), (d)(4), or (e)(2). The source shall certify that
the control devices and processes have not been modified subsequent to
the testing upon which the data used to establish the operating ranges
were obtained. Following the approval by the permitting authority of
operating ranges for the affected source, any three hour average of the
values of total pressure drop or flow rate of the scrubbing liquid
which exceeds the approved operating ranges shall constitute a
violation of the applicable emission limit contained in this subpart.
(e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing purified phosphoric
acid plant shall: (1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently records
the stack gas exit temperature for each chiller stack. (2) Measure and
record the concentration of methyl isobutyl ketone in each product acid
stream and each raffinate stream once daily.
(f) For any new or existing purified phosphoric acid plant, any of
the following shall constitute a violation of this subpart:
(1) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of twenty parts per million for each
stripped acid stream.
(2) A thirty day average of daily concentration measurements of
methyl isobutyl ketone in excess of thirty parts per million for each
raffinate stream.
(3) A daily average chiller stack exit gas stream temperature in
excess of fifty degrees Fahrenheit.
Sec. 63.605 Performance tests and compliance provisions.
(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphoric acid
manufacturing plant shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable emission standard for each wet-process
phosphoric acid plant, superphosphoric acid plant, phosphate rock
dryer, and phosphate rock calciner. If the affected source has multiple
control devices and/or emission points subject to the provisions of
this subpart, those control devices and/or emission points shall be
tested simultaneously. The owner or operator shall conduct the
performance test according to the procedures in the General Provisions
in subpart A of this part and in this section.
(b) In conducting performance tests, each owner or operator of an
affected source shall use as reference methods and procedures the test
methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, or other methods and procedures
as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).
(c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing wet-process
phosphoric acid plant or superphosphoric acid plant shall determine
compliance with the applicable total fluorides standards in Sec. 63.602
or Sec. 63.603 as follows:
(1) The emission rate (E) of total fluorides shall be computed for
each run using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27DE96.009
Where:
E=emission rate of total fluorides, g/metric ton (lb/ton) of
equivalent P2O5 feed.
Csi=concentration of total fluorides from emission point ``i,''
mg/dscm (mg/dscf).
Qsdi=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission point
``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
N=number of emission points associated with the affected facility.
P=equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr).
K=conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (453,600 mg/lb).
(2) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to
determine the total fluorides concentration (Csi) and volumetric
flow rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each of the emission
points. If Method 13 B is used, the fusion of the filtered material
described in Section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of suitable aliquots
of containers 1 and 2, described in section 7.3.3 and 7.3.4. in Method
13 A, may be omitted. The sampling time and sample volume for each run
shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
(3) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) shall be computed
for each run using the following equation:
P=Mp Rp
Where:
Mp=total mass flow rate of phosphorus-bearing feed, metric ton/
hr (ton/hr).
Rp=P2O5 content, decimal fraction.
(i) The accountability system of Sec. 63.604 (a) and (b) shall be
used to determine the mass flow rate (Mp) of the phosphorus-
bearing feed.
(ii) The Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method
9 (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 60.17) shall be used to
determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of the feed.
(4) To comply with Sec. 63.604(d) (1) or (2), the owner or operator
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.604(c) to determine the
average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the
process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the
scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during
each of the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic averages of the three
runs shall be used as the baseline average values for the purposes of
Sec. 63.604(d) (1) or (2).
(d) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate rock
dryer shall demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter
standards in Sec. 63.602 or Sec. 63.603 as follows:
(1) The emission rate (E) of particulate matter shall be computed
for each run using the following equation:
E=(cs Qsd)/(P K)
Where:
E=emission rate of particulate matter, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of phosphate
rock feed.
cs=concentration of particulate matter, g/dscm (g/dscf).
Qsd=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
P=phosphate rock feed rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
K=conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (453.6 g/lb).
(2) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to
determine the particulate matter concentration (cs) and volumetric
flow rate (Qsd) of the effluent gas. The sampling time and sample
volume for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.85 dscm (30
dscf).
(3) The system of Sec. 63.604(a) shall be used to determine the
phosphate rock feed rate (P) for each run.
(4) To comply with Sec. 63.604 (d)(1) or (2), the owner or operator
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.604(c) to determine the
average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the
process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the
scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during
each of the particulate matter runs. The arithmetic average of the one-
hour averages determined during the three test runs shall be used as
the baseline average values for the purposes of Sec. 63.604 (d)(1) or
(2).
(e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate rock
calciner shall
[[Page 68448]]
demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter standards in
Secs. 63.602 and 63.603 as follows:
(1) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to
determine the particulate matter concentration. The sampling time and
volume for each test run shall be at least 2 hours and 1.70 dscm.
(2) To comply with Sec. 63.604(d)(1) or (2), the owner or operator
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.604(c) to determine the
average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the
process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the
scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during
each of the particulate matter runs. The arithmetic average of the one-
hour averages determined during the three test runs shall be used as
the baseline average values for the purposes of Sec. 63.604 (d)(1) or
(2).
(f) Each owner or operator of a new or existing purified phosphoric
acid manufacturing plant shall establish and maintain an inventory
system to determine the mass of methyl isobutyl ketone added to each
process line at an affected source. For the purposes of determining
compliance with the requirements of Sec. 63.602(f) or Sec. 63.603(f),
the mass of methyl isobutyl ketone added to the process at any time
shall be apportioned on the basis of tons of equivalent P2O5 feed, as
determined under the requirements of Secs. 63.604(a) and 63.604(b), for
production occurring during the corresponding period of time.
Sec. 63.606 Notification requirements.
Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart
shall comply with the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9.
Sec. 63.607 Recordkeeping requirements.
Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart
shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.10.
Sec. 63.608 Reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with
the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.10 as follows:
(1) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner
or operator shall report the results of the initial performance test as
part of the notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.9.
(2) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner
or operator of an affected source shall submit an excess emissions
report for any event when an operating parameter limit is exceeded. The
report shall contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10. When no
exceedances of a parameter have occurred, such information shall be
included in the report. The report shall be submitted semiannually and
shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of
the calendar half. If excess emissions are reported, the owner or
operator shall report quarterly until a request to reduce reporting
frequency is approved as described in Sec. 63.10.
(3) Summary report. If the total duration of control system
exceedances for the reporting period is less than 1 percent of the
total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator
shall submit a summary report containing the information specified in
Sec. 63.10 rather than the full excess emissions report, unless
required by the Administrator. The summary report shall be submitted
semiannually and shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day
following the end of the calendar half.
(4) If the total duration of control system parameter exceedances
for the reporting period is 1 percent or greater of the total operating
time for the reporting period, the owner or operator shall submit a
summary report and the excess emissions report.
Sec. 63.609 Compliance dates.
(a) Each owner or operator of an existing phosphoric acid
manufacturing plant shall achieve compliance with the requirements of
this subpart no later than (Three Years After Date of Publication of
Final Rule).
(b) Each owner or operator of a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant
that commences construction or reconstruction after (Date of
Publication of Final Rule) shall achieve compliance with the
requirements of this subpart by (Date of Publication of Final Rule) or
upon startup of operations, whichever is later.
Sec. 63.610 Exemption from new source performance standards.
Any process component subject to the provisions of this subpart is
exempted from any otherwise applicable new source performance standard
contained in 40 CFR Part 60.
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart BB consisting of
Secs. 63.620 through 63.630 to read as follows:
Subpart BB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
From Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants
Sec.
63.620 Applicability.
63.621 Definitions.
63.622 Standards for existing sources.
63.623 Standards for new sources.
63.624 Monitoring requirements.
63.625 Performance tests and procedures.
63.626 Notification requirements.
63.627 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.628 Reporting requirements.
63.629 Compliance dates.
63.630 Exemption from exemption from new source performance
standards.
Subpart BB--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants
Sec. 63.620 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the
requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each new
or existing phosphate fertilizers production plant.
(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted from the following affected
sources at a new or existing phosphate fertilizers production plant:
(1) Each diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate plant. The
requirements of this subpart apply to the following emission points
which are components of a diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate
plant: reactors, granulators, dryers, coolers, screens, and mills.
(2) Each granular triple superphosphate plant. The requirements of
this subpart apply to the following emission points which are
components of a granular triple superphosphate plant: mixers, curing
belts (dens), reactors, granulators, dryers, coolers, screens, and
mills.
(3) Each granular triple superphosphate storage building located at
a granular triple superphosphate plant. The requirements of this
subpart apply to the following emission points which are components of
a granular triple superphosphate storage building: storage or curing
buildings, conveyors, elevators, screens, and mills.
(c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or
operator of a new or existing phosphate fertilizers production plant
for which the owner or operator demonstrates, to the satisfaction of
the Administrator, that the facility is not a major source as defined
in Sec. 63.2.
Sec. 63.621 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
Diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate plant means any plant
manufacturing granular diammonium and/or monoammonium
[[Page 68449]]
phosphate by reacting phosphoric acid with ammonia.
Equivalent P2O5 feed means the quantity of phosphorus,
expressed as phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the process.
Equivalent P2O5 stored means the quantity of phosphorus,
expressed as phosphorus pentoxide, being cured or stored in the
affected facility.
Fresh granular triple superphosphate means granular triple
superphosphate produced no more than 10 days prior to the date of the
performance test.
Granular triple superphosphate plant means any facility, not
including storage buildings, manufacturing granular triple
superphosphate by reacting phosphate rock with phosphoric acid.
Granular triple superphosphate storage building means any facility
curing or storing fresh granular triple superphosphate.
Total fluorides means elemental fluorine and all fluoride
compounds, including the HAP hydrogen fluoride, as measured by
reference methods specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 13 A
or B, or by equivalent or alternative methods approved by the
Administrator pursuant to Sec. 63.7(f).
Sec. 63.622 Standards for existing sources.
(a) Diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate plant. On and after
the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
Secs. 63.7 and 63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total
fluorides in excess of 30 grams/metric ton of equivalent P2O5
feed (0.060 lb/ton).
(b) Granular triple superphosphate plant. On and after the date on
which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and
63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of 75
grams/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.15 lb/ton).
(c) Granular triple superphosphate storage building. On and after
the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
Secs. 63.7 and 63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total
fluorides in excess of 0.250 grams/hr/metric ton of equivalent
P2O5 stored (5.0 X 10-\4\ lb/hr/ton of equivalent
P2O5 stored).
Sec. 63.623 Standards for new sources.
(a) Diammonium and/or monoammonium phosphate plant. On and after
the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
Secs. 63.7 and 63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total
fluorides in excess of 29.0 grams/metric ton of equivalent
P2O5 feed (0.0580 lb/ton).
(b) Granular triple superphosphate plant. On and after the date on
which the performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and
63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
affected source any gases which contain total fluorides in excess of
61.50 grams/metric ton of equivalent P2O5 feed (0.1230 lb/
ton).
(c) Granular triple superphosphate storage building. On and after
the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by
Secs. 63.7 and 63.625 is completed, no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any affected source any gases which contain total
fluorides in excess of 0.250 grams/hr/metric ton of equivalent
P2O5 stored (5 x 10 1-4 lb/hr/ton of equivalent
P2O5 stored).
Sec. 63.624 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or
monoammonium phosphate plant or granular triple superphosphate plant
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a monitoring system which can be used to
determine and permanently record the mass flow of phosphorus-bearing
feed material to the process. The monitoring system shall have an
accuracy of 5 percent over its operating range.
(b) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or
monoammonium phosphate plant or granular triple superphosphate plant
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall maintain a daily record
of equivalent P2O5 feed by first determining the total mass
rate in metric ton/hour of phosphorus bearing feed using a monitoring
system for measuring mass flowrate which meets the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section and then by proceeding according to
Sec. 63.625(c)(3).
(c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or
monoammonium phosphate plant, granular triple superphosphate plant, or
granular triple superphosphate storage building using a wet scrubbing
emission control system shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
the following monitoring systems:
(1) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently
records the total pressure drop across each scrubber in the process
scrubbing system. The monitoring system shall be certified by the
manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 percent over its
operating range.
(2) A monitoring system which continuously measures and permanently
records the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the
process scrubbing system. The monitoring system shall be certified by
the manufacturer to have an accuracy of 5 percent over its
operating range.
(d) The owner or operator of any granular triple superphosphate
storage building subject to the provisions of this subpart shall
maintain an accurate account of granular triple superphosphate in
storage to permit the determination of the amount of equivalent
P2O5 stored.
(e) Each owner or operator of a new or existing granular triple
superphosphate storage building subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall maintain a daily record of total equivalent
P2O5 stored by multiplying the percentage P2O5
content, as determined by Sec. 63.625(d)(3)(C), times the total mass of
granular triple superphosphate stored.
(f) Any new or existing source subject to emissions limitations for
total fluorides or particulate matter contained in this subpart shall
comply with either paragraph (f) (1) or (2) of this section:
(1) For a new or existing affected source, following the date on
which the performance test required in Sec. 63.625 is completed, any
three-hour average of the total pressure drop across the scrubber(s) or
of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to the scrubber(s) in the
process scrubbing system which exceeds ten percent of the
value determined as a requirement of Sec. 63.625 (c)(4) or (d)(4) shall
constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit contained in
this subpart unless the affected source performs and passes a
performance test as required in Sec. 63.625 within thirty days
following the exceedance. Any owner or operator who intends to conduct
a performance test pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the
Administrator of that intention within one business day of the
parameter exceedance. Any owner or operator conducting a performance
test pursuant to this paragraph shall establish and maintain during
that test
[[Page 68450]]
the same operating conditions as were determined during the exceedance
of the operating range.
(2) The owner or operator of any new or existing affected source
shall establish operating ranges for the total pressure drop across or
of the flow rate of the scrubbing liquid to each scrubber in the
process scrubbing system for the purpose of assuring compliance with
applicable emission limits required in this subpart. Operating ranges
may be based upon values recorded during previous performance tests
using the test methods required in this subpart and established in the
manner required in Sec. 63.625 (c)(4) or (d)(4). As an alternative the
owner or operator can base the operating ranges upon the results of
performance tests conducted specifically for the purposes of this
paragraph using the test methods required in this subpart and
established in the manner required in Sec. 63.625 (c)(4) or (d)(4). The
source shall certify that the control devices and processes have not
been modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to
establish the operating ranges were obtained. Following the approval by
the permitting authority of operating ranges for the affected source,
any three-hour average of the values of total pressure drop or flow
rate of the scrubbing liquid which exceeds the approved operating
ranges shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit
contained in this subpart.
Sec. 63.625 Performance tests and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator of a new or existing phosphate
fertilizers production plant subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission standard for each diammonium and/or monoammonium
phosphate plant, granular triple superphosphate plant, or granular
triple superphosphate storage building. If the affected source has
multiple control devices and/or emission points subject to the
provisions of this subpart, those control devices and/or emission
points shall be tested simultaneously. The owner or operator shall
conduct the performance test according to the procedures in the General
Provisions in subpart A of this part and in this section.
(b) In conducting performance tests, each owner or operator of an
affected source shall use as reference methods and procedures the test
methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, or other methods and procedures
as specified in this section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).
(c) Each owner or operator of a new or existing diammonium and/or
monoammonium phosphate plant or granular triple superphosphate plant
shall determine compliance with the applicable total fluorides
standards in Sec. 63.622 or Sec. 63.623 as follows:
(1) The emission rate (E) of total fluorides shall be computed for
each run using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27DE96.010
Where:
E=emission rate of total fluorides, g/metric ton (lb/ton) of
equivalent P2O5 feed.
Csi=concentration of total fluorides from emission point ``i,''
mg/dscm (mg/dscf).
Qsdi=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission point
``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
N=number of emission points associated with the affected facility.
P=equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hr).
K=conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (453,600 mg/lb).
(2) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to
determine the total fluorides concentration (Csi) and volumetric
flow rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each of the emission
points. If Method 13B is used, the fusion of the filtered material
described in section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of suitable aliquots
of containers 1 and 2, described in sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 in Method
13A, may be omitted. The sampling time and sample volume for each run
shall be at least one hour and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
(3) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) shall be computed
for each run using the following equation:
P=Mp Rp
Where:
Mp=total mass flow rate of phosphorus-bearing feed, metric ton/
hr (ton/hr).
Rp=P2O5 content, decimal fraction.
(i) The accountability system of Sec. 63.624 (a) and (b) shall be
used to determine the mass flow rate (Mp) of the phosphorus-
bearing feed.
(ii) The Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method
9 (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 60.17) shall be used to
determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of the feed.
(4) To comply with Sec. 63.624(f) (1) or (2), the owner or operator
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.624(c) to determine the
average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the
process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the
scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during
each of the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic averages of the three
runs shall be used as the baseline average values for the purposes of
Sec. 63.624(f) (1) or (2).
(d) Each owner or operator of a new or existing granular triple
superphosphate storage building shall determine compliance with the
applicable total fluorides standards in Sec. 63.622 or Sec. 63.623 as
follows:
(1) The owner or operator shall conduct performance tests only when
the following quantities of product are being cured or stored in the
facility.
(i) Total granular triple superphosphate is at least 10 percent of
the building capacity, and
(ii) Fresh granular triple superphosphate is at least 20 percent of
the total amount of triple superphosphate, or
(iii) If the provision in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section
exceeds production capabilities for fresh granular triple
superphosphate, fresh granular triple superphosphate is equal to at
least 5 days maximum production.
(2) In conducting the performance test, the owner or operator shall
use as reference methods and procedures the test methods in Part 60,
Appendix A, or other methods and procedures as specified in this
section, except as provided in Sec. 63.7(f).
(3) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the total
fluorides standard in Secs. 63.622 and 63.623 as follows:
(i) The emission rate (E) of total fluorides shall be computed for
each run using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27DE96.011
Where:
E=emission rate of total fluorides, g/hr/metric ton (lb/hr/ton) of
equivalent P2O5 stored.
Csi=concentration of total fluorides from emission point ``i,''
mg/dscm (mg/dscf).
Qsdi=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from emission point
``i,'' dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
N=number of emission points in the affected facility.
P=equivalent P2O5 stored, metric tons (tons).
K=conversion factor, 1000 mg/g (453,600 mg/lb).
(ii) Method 13A or 13B (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used
to determine the total fluorides concentration (Csi) and
volumetric flow rate (Qsdi) of the effluent gas from each of the
emission points. If Method 13 B is used, the fusion of the filtered
material described in section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of suitable
aliquots of containers 1 and 2, described in Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4
in Method 13 A,
[[Page 68451]]
may be omitted. The sampling time and sample volume for each run shall
be at least one hour and 0.85 dscm (30 dscf).
(iii) The equivalent P2O5 feed rate (P) shall be computed
for each run using the following equation:
P=Mp Rp
Where:
Mp=amount of product in storage, metric ton (ton).
Rp=P2O5 content of product in storage, weight
fraction.
(A) The accountability system of Sec. 63.624 (d) and (e) shall be
used to determine the amount of product (Mp) in storage.
(B) The Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method 9
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 60.17) shall be used to
determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of the product in
storage.
(4) To comply with Sec. 63.624(f) (1) or (2), the owner or operator
shall use the monitoring systems in Sec. 63.624(c) to determine the
average pressure loss of the gas stream across each scrubber in the
process scrubbing system and to determine the average flow rate of the
scrubber liquid to each scrubber in the process scrubbing system during
each of the total fluoride runs. The arithmetic averages of the three
runs shall be used as the baseline average values for the purposes of
Sec. 63.624(f) (1) or (2).
Sec. 63.626 Notification requirements.
Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart
shall comply with the notification requirements in Sec. 63.9.
Sec. 63.627 Recordkeeping requirements.
Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart
shall comply with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.10.
Sec. 63.628 Reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with
the reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.10 as follows:
(1) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner
or operator shall report the results of the initial performance test as
part of the notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.9.
(2) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10, the owner
or operator of an affected source shall submit an excess emissions
report for any event when an operating parameter limit is exceeded. The
report shall contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10. When no
exceedances of a parameter have occurred, such information shall be
included in the report. The report shall be submitted semiannually and
shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of
the calendar half. If excess emissions are reported, the owner or
operator shall report quarterly until a request to reduce reporting
frequency is approved as described in Sec. 63.10.
(3) Summary report. If the total duration of control system
exceedances for the reporting period is less than 1 percent of the
total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator
shall submit a summary report containing the information specified in
Sec. 63.10 rather than the full excess emissions report, unless
required by the Administrator. The summary report shall be submitted
semiannually and shall be delivered or postmarked by the 30th day
following the end of the calendar half.
(4) If the total duration of control system parameter exceedances
for the reporting period is 1 percent or greater of the total operating
time for the reporting period, the owner or operator shall submit a
summary report and the excess emissions report.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 63.629 Compliance dates.
(a) Each owner or operator of an existing phosphate fertilizers
production plant shall achieve compliance with the requirements of this
subpart no later than (Three Years After Date of Publication of Final
Rule).
(b) Each owner or operator of a phosphate fertilizers production
plant that commences construction or reconstruction after (Date of
Publication of Final Rule), shall achieve compliance with the
requirements of this subpart by (Date of Publication of Final Rule) or
upon startup of operations, whichever is later.
Sec. 63.630 Exemption from new source performance standards.
Any process component subject to the provisions of this subpart is
exempted from any otherwise applicable new source performance standard
contained in 40 CFR Part 60.
[FR Doc. 96-31706 Filed 12-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P