[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7308-7355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2993]
[[Page 7307]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 52
Federal Rulemaking for the FMC Facility in the Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 7308]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Docket 24-7004; FRL-6231-1]
RIN 2060-AF84
Federal Rulemaking for the FMC Facility in the Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) containing emission
limits and work practice requirements that represent reasonably
available control technology, along with related monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, for particulate matter air
pollution emitted from an elemental phosphorous facility owned and
operated by FMC Corporation and located within the exterior boundaries
of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in southeastern Idaho (FMC or FMC
facility). A portion of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, known as the
``Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area,'' has been designated as a
nonattainment area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM-10), which pre-date the new
PM NAAQS that were promulgated in 1997. The FMC facility is the only
major stationary source of PM-10 located in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area.
Although there are other area sources and minor stationary sources
of PM-10 in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA believes that
these other sources have an insignificant impact on the violations of
the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard that have been recorded by the
monitors located in the nonattainment area. EPA believes that the
control strategy for FMC proposed by EPA in this rulemaking is
necessary to ensure maintenance of air quality that protects public
health during the transition period leading to implementation of the
newly-promulgated PM standards and assist in bringing the Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area into attainment with the recently-promulgated PM
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. If EPA later determines that
sources other than FMC contribute to PM violations in the area, the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes or EPA will develop and impose appropriate
controls on these other sources in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area.
EPA's 1997 PM NAAQS rulemaking established new standards for
particulate matter with a diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns
and also revised the existing PM-10 standards. Today's proposal,
however, does not directly address these new and revised standards.
Rather, it addresses requirements under the pre-existing PM-10
standards, which are still in effect for a limited time, and the
provisions of section 172(e) to which the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area is subject during the transition toward implementation of the new
and revised PM standards.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until May 13, 1999.
EPA will hold a public hearing at the following time: FMC FIP
Public Hearing, Thursday, March 18, 1999, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Montel Livingston, SIP Manager, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle Washington 98101.
EPA will hold a public hearing at the following location:
FMC FIP Public Hearing, Fort Hall Business Council Chambers, Agency
and Bannock Roads, Fort Hall, Idaho 83202.
EPA also plans to hold a public workshop prior to the public
hearing. The time, date, and location of the public workshop will be
announced in local papers.
Docket: A copy of docket no. ID 24-7004, containing material
relevant to EPA's proposed action, is available for public inspection
and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday
through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section, Office of Air and
Radiation, Room 1500 (M-6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20460, and between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, at
EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 10th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101. A copy of the docket is also available for
review at the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Office of Air Quality Program,
Land Use Commission, Fort Hall Government Center, Agency and Bannock
Roads, Fort Hall, Idaho 83202. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, Office of Air Quality
(OAQ-107), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, (202) 553-0782.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Background
B. Revised Particulate Matter Standards
C. FIP Proposal
D. Public Involvement in the FIP Process
II. Background
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
1. Designation and Classification
2. EPA's Authority to Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country
3. Moderate Area Planning Requirements for States
4. Serious Area Planning Requirements for States
B. History of PM-10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area
1. Background
2. PM-10 Planning for Portneuf Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area
3. PM-10 Planning for the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
4. Portneuf Environmental Council Lawsuit
5. Proposed Finding of Failure to Attain and Reclassification to
Serious
C. Air Quality Monitoring Data
1. Tribal Monitoring Sites
2. PM-10 Precursors
3. Evidence of Adverse Health Effects Attributable to Poor Air
Quality
III. FIP Proposal
A. Emission Inventory
B. Determining RACM/RACT
C. RACM/RACT Determination for Minor Stationary Sources and Area
Sources
1. Stationary Sources
2. Area Sources
a. Roads
b. Wind Blown Agricultural Dust
c. Fires
D. Overview of FMC Operations
E. General Process for Determining RACT for FMC
1. In General
2. RCRA Consent Decree
3. Mass Emission Limitations
4. Opacity Limits
a. Point Sources
b. Fugitive Emission Sources
5. Work Practice Requirements
6. Reference Test Methods
7. Startup, Shutdown, Scheduled Maintenance, Upsets, Breakdowns,
Malfunctions, and Emergencies
F. RACT Determination for Sources for Which EPA believes
Additional Controls Are Required for RACT
1. Slag Handling Sources (Source 8)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
2. Calciner Scrubbers (Source 9)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
3. Elevated Secondary Condenser Flare and Ground Flare (Source
26)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
[[Page 7309]]
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
4. Phosphorus Loading Dock (Source 21)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
5. Furnace Building (Source 18c)
a. Overview of Current Operations
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements
G. Monitoring, Work Practice, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements
1. Monitoring and Work Practice Requirements
a. Annual Source Testing of Point Sources
b. Monitoring Devices
c. Operations and Maintenance Plan
d. Other Periodic Inspections and testing
e. Monitoring Malfunctions and Data Availability
2. Recordkeeping
3. Reporting Requirements
H. Compliance Schedule
I. Effectiveness of Proposed Control Measures
J. EPA's Plan for Addressing other PM-10 Planning Issues
1. PM-10 Precursors
2. Quantitative Milestones
3. New Source Review
4. Contingency Measures
IV. Request for Public Comment
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA)
I. Executive Summary
A. Background
The Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is located in southeastern
Idaho and consists of both trust and fee lands within the exterior
boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation (Reservation). Until
recently, it was part of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment
area, which also included State lands in Power and Bannock Counties,
including the cities of Pocatello and Chubbuck.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As discussed in more detail below, the State land within the
former Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area is now known
as ``the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10 monitors established on the Reservation in 1996 have recorded
numerous exceedences of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard and
document a violation of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard as of
December 31, 1996, and continuing in subsequent years. The monitors
also strongly suggest that the area is in violation of the pre-existing
annual PM-10 NAAQS. Although EPA revised both the 24-hour and annual
PM-10 standards on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38651), the pre-existing PM-10
standards remain in effect in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area.2 In addition, EPA believes there is a strong
likelihood that the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is in violation
of the revised 24-hour and annual PM-10 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ There are two pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, a 24-hour standard
and an annual standard. See 40 CFR 50.6 (1996). EPA promulgated
these NAAQS on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672), replacing standards for
total suspended particulate with new standards applying only to
particulate matter up to ten microns in diameter (PM-10). The annual
PM-10 standard is attained when the expected annual arithmetic
average of the 24-hour samples for a period of one year does not
exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3). Attainment of
the 24-hour PM-10 standard is determined by calculating the expected
number of days in a year with PM-10 concentrations greater than 150
g/m3. The 24-hour PM-10 standard is attained when the
expected number of days with levels above the standard, averaged
over a three-year period, is less than or equal to one. See 40 CFR
50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. When EPA promulgated revised
NAAQS for PM-2.5 and PM-10 in 1997, it provided that the pre-
existing standards for PM-10 would remain in effect until certain
prescribed events occur. See 40 CFR 50.6(d)(1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, the residents of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
continue to breathe unhealthy air. Particulate matter affects the
respiratory system and can cause damage to lung tissue and premature
death. The elderly, children, and people with chronic lung disease,
influenza, and asthma are especially sensitive to high levels of
particulate matter. As EPA concluded in promulgating the new and
revised particulate matter NAAQS, the serious health effects associated
with exposure to coarse particulate matter justified retaining PM-10
standards, in addition to fine particle, or PM-2.5, standards. See 62
FR 38651, 38677-679 (July 18, 1997). The highest PM-10 level reported
from the monitors in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is 433
g/m3, a level almost three times the level of the pre-existing
and revised 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
Based on available information, EPA believes that the primary, if
not the sole, cause of the PM-10 problem in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area is primary PM-10 emissions from an elemental
phosphorous facility owned and operated by FMC Corporation (FMC or FMC
facility), which is located on fee lands within the Reservation and the
nonattainment area.3 The FMC facility emits more than 700
tons of PM-10 each year. Without substantial reductions in PM-10
emissions from FMC, the monitors located on the Reservation will
continue to show violations of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
and, in all likelihood, the revised 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS, and
the residents of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation will continue to
breathe unhealthy air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A portion of the FMC facility is located on State lands.
This issue is discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have been developing a program for
regulating sources of air pollution within the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation since the early 1990s. Until February 1998, however, Indian
tribes did not have authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to
regulate sources of air emissions and to carry out the requirements of
the Act. Therefore, EPA, in close consultation with the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes, began in the early 1990s to develop a strategy for
bringing what is now known as the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area
into attainment with the pre-existing PM-10 standards. Based on
information indicating that the PM-10 violations on the Reservation
were caused by PM-10 emissions from FMC, EPA and the Tribes focused
their efforts on developing controls for FMC.
Although EPA has now passed regulations that allow the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes to request authorization from EPA to carry out Clean Air
Act requirements within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, including PM-
10 planning requirements, the Tribes have advised EPA that they
continue to support its efforts to develop and promulgate PM-10 control
requirements for FMC because of the substantial resources EPA has
already expended on this effort and because of the technical
complexities of controlling PM-10 emissions from FMC. The Tribes have
advised EPA that they will continue to develop and request EPA approval
of a general air pollution program for sources within the Reservation,
including any additional PM-10 controls for other PM-10 area sources
and minor stationary sources that may be necessary to meet the anti-
backsliding requirements of section 172(e) of the Act during the period
of transition to implementation of the revised PM NAAQS and ultimately
to attain the revised PM standards.
[[Page 7310]]
B. Revised Particulate Matter Standards
As mentioned earlier, on July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated revisions
to both the annual and the 24-hour PM-10 standards and also established
two new standards for particulate matter, both of which apply only to
particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-
2.5). See 62 FR 38651. These standards became effective on September
16, 1997. Although the overall suite of promulgated particulate matter
(PM) standards reflects an overall strengthening of the regulatory
standards for particulate matter, the revised PM-10 standards, by
themselves, effectively constitute a relaxation of the pre-existing PM-
10 standards. As a consequence, areas that had not attained the pre-
existing PM-10 standards at the time of the relaxation of the PM-10
NAAQS, such as the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, have become
subject to CAA section 172(e). That section calls for promulgation by
EPA of a rule that requires application of controls that are no less
stringent than the controls that would have been required for areas
that were designated nonattainment prior to the relaxation. In the
preamble to the final rule establishing the new and revised PM
standards, EPA stated that inherent in the promulgation of the revised
set of PM standards and associated provisions is the revocation of the
pre-existing PM-10 standards and associated provisions. However, the
Agency decided that the pre-existing PM-10 standards would remain in
effect (i.e., revocation would be deferred) for a period of time after
the effective date of the new standards to ensure maintenance of public
health protection during the transition to the new standards. 62 FR at
38701. For areas that are subject to section 172(e), like the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA provided that the pre-existing PM-10
standards would continue to apply until the Agency completed the
rulemaking to establish the interim controls required under that
section. EPA expects to propose a rule meeting the requirements of
section 172(e) in early 1999. It should be understood that once EPA
issues a final rule pursuant to section 172(e), the requirements of
that rule--and not the pre-existing PM-10 standards which will be
revoked at that time--will govern all areas subject to section 172(e),
including the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. The section 172(e)
rulemaking will also govern today's action because it proposes
requirements intended to apply to areas like the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area that had not attained the standard at the time of
the relaxation. Therefore, although today's FIP proposal addresses the
clear statutory requirement of section 172(e)(namely, that for subject
areas controls be applied and implemented that are no less stringent
than were applicable in areas designated nonattainment prior to the
NAAQS relaxation), statements made in today's proposal that relate to
other CAA requirements concerning the pre-existing 24-hour and annual
PM-10 standards will be subject to interpretations established by EPA
when it takes final action on the forthcoming section 172(e)
rulemaking, which may in some cases require modifications to such
statements.
References in today's FIP proposal to attainment requirements or
attainment demonstrations applicable for the pre-existing PM-10
standards are being utilized by EPA primarily as a yardstick for
determining the emissions reduction levels that are appropriate to
achieve during this regulatory transition period in order to avoid
backsliding as contemplated by section 172(e). Accordingly, EPA
believes that the control requirements set forth in this proposed FIP
for the FMC facility will be consistent with the requirements of the
forthcoming section 172(e) rule, when that rule is promulgated and the
pre-existing PM-10 standards are revoked. This FIP proposal requires
application of controls that represent reasonably available control
technology (RACT). This is consistent with the plain terms of section
172(e), because this is the same level of controls that would have been
required prior to the relaxation of the PM-10 standards in states with
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.
In the preamble to the rule that established the revised PM
standards, EPA also indicated that, as part of its implementation
policy during the period of transition from the pre-existing to the
revised PM standards, it would not require current PM-10 nonattainment
areas to undertake attainment demonstrations for the pre-existing PM-10
standards. Instead, the Agency said it would concentrate on getting
approved into the SIPs for such areas the controls needed to ensure
that healthy PM levels would be maintained during the transition
period. See 62 FR at 38701. As noted above, however, EPA believes it
remains appropriate to use emissions reduction targets that are
commensurate with attainment levels for the pre-existing PM-10
standards in order to determine the adequacy of the adopted controls to
protect the public's health. This is necessary for several reasons.
First, it will take some time for states and EPA to identify the PM
problems under the new and revised standards, to designate areas
appropriately, and to develop effective means to address the PM
problems. Also, as a threshold matter, states will need to accumulate
the three years of ambient air quality data on which EPA regulations
base most significant PM NAAQS. Another important reason is that the
control requirements for a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area (i.e.,
reasonably available control measures (RACM) and RACT) are
traditionally determined by considering the attainment needs of the
area. A state with such an area would typically prepare an attainment
demonstration to determine the level by which emissions need to be
reduced to meet the standards. It would then select a mix of reasonably
available measures, consistent with EPA guidance, calculated to achieve
that emissions reduction level. As applied to the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area--an area for which no comprehensive PM
implementation plan and control strategy has really ever been applied--
and as applied to FMC in particular, the discussions throughout this
FIP proposal regarding the relationship of the emissions reductions
expected to be achieved through implementation of the proposed RACT-
level controls to attainment of the pre-existing PM-10 standards are
not included for purposes of demonstrating attainment of those
standards. Rather, the discussion of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS
serves the benchmark purpose described above of determining the
appropriate RACT-level measures needed to be implemented in that area,
both to maintain public health protection during the transition period
as well as to assist in ultimately attaining the revised PM-10
standards. In summary, then, the fact that (1) These new and revised PM
standards have now been promulgated, (2) there is a need for states and
EPA to begin to transition from implementation under the pre-existing
PM-10 standards towards implementation under the revised PM-10
standards, and (3) regulatory requirements for this area during the
transition period will be governed by the statutory provisions of
section 172(e), as interpreted by EPA, all have a direct bearing on the
substance and content of the FIP that is being proposed today for the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
C. FIP Proposal
In this proposal, EPA is exercising its discretionary authority
under section 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA to promulgate such FIP
provisions as are necessary or appropriate to protect air
[[Page 7311]]
quality within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. EPA's ultimate goal,
which is being initiated by this FIP proposal, is to ensure that all
persons residing and working in and traveling through the Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area can breathe air that meets appropriate PM-10
levels.
EPA has used the PM-10 planning requirements applicable to states
with PM-10 nonattainment areas, including the statutory requirements
provided for in section 172(e) that apply to areas that are not
attaining a NAAQS standard as of the date that standard is relaxed, as
a guide in determining what is necessary or appropriate for the
protection of air quality in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
The Clean Air Act requires states to impose RACT on major stationary
sources of PM-10 in moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. See sections
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. Section 172(e) requires areas
that are subject to its provisions to implement controls that are no
less stringent than the controls applicable to areas designated
nonattainment prior to the relaxation of a standard.
This FIP proposal contains emission limits and work practice
requirements that EPA believes represent RACT, along with related
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, for PM-10
emissions from the FMC facility that emanate from the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area. EPA believes that many sources at FMC currently
employ RACT-level controls. For point sources that EPA believes
currently employ RACT-level controls, the FIP proposes mass emissions
limits based on current actual maximum daily emission rates from these
point sources and opacity limits designed to keep PM-10 emissions at
current levels. For area sources that EPA believes currently employ
RACT-level controls, the FIP proposes opacity limits and work practice
requirements designed to keep emissions at current levels.
The largest sources of PM-10 emissions at the FMC facility are the
slag pit and related slag handling operations, the elevated secondary
condenser and ground flares, and the calciners. EPA believes that these
sources do not currently employ RACT-level controls, and that
additional process changes and control technology will be necessary to
achieve the emission limits and work practice requirements proposed in
this notice as representing RACT for these sources. EPA also believes
additional process changes and control technology will be necessary for
the phosphorous loading dock and the furnace building to achieve the
emission limits and work practice requirements proposed in this notice
as representing RACT for these sources.
The controls required to comply with the proposed emission limits
and work practice requirements will be costly--an estimated $49 million
dollars in capital expenditures over the next three years and annual
costs for monitoring, work practice requirements, recordkeeping, and
reporting of up to $202,000. EPA nonetheless believes the controls
needed to comply with the requirements of this proposed FIP are both
technologically and economically feasible. In developing the FIP
proposal, EPA has carefully evaluated alternative control technologies
for each source at FMC, including the incremental emission reductions
and estimated cost of installing, operating, and maintaining these
alternative control technologies. In addition, in connection with the
settlement of alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act at the FMC facility, FMC has agreed to expend more than
$64 4 million in capital costs to implement 13 PM-10
reduction projects at the facility. Five of these projects include the
controls that EPA believes are necessary to comply with the proposed
FIP. EPA believes that the remaining eight projects will better enable
FMC to comply with the requirements of the proposed FIP. FMC's
commitment to install and operate the 13 PM-10 reduction projects for
five years as part of the RCRA settlement is persuasive evidence that
the control technology identified in this FIP proposal is both
technologically and economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The difference in the estimated amount of expenditures EPA
believes is necessary to comply with the proposed FIP ($49 million)
and the amount of capital expenditures FMC has agreed to incur under
the RCRA consent decree ($64 million) is due to the fact that EPA
believes that only five of the SEP projects are necessary in order
to comply with the proposed FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also believes that this FIP proposal is necessary in order to
ensure that PM levels in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area do not
endanger public health, and that emissions reductions will be achieved
on a time frame that will contribute to attainment of the revised PM-10
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. To achieve these goals, EPA
believes that PM-10 emissions from the FMC facility must be reduced by
approximately 65%. EPA anticipates that the emission limitation and
work practice requirements in this proposed FIP, when considered
together, will result in an overall reduction in PM emissions of
approximately 69%.
To further these objectives, EPA is proposing a rigorous compliance
schedule. For sources that EPA believes currently employ RACT-level
controls, the FIP proposes to require compliance with the proposed
emission limits and work practice requirements 60 days after the
effective date of the FIP. For those sources that EPA believes will
require substantial modification in order to comply with the proposed
emission limits and work practice standards, EPA proposes to give FMC
time to complete the necessary engineering work, design, construction,
and initial operation. EPA is proposing that all RACT control
requirements necessary to maintain public health protection and
contribute to attainment of the revised PM-10 standards in the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area will be in place and fully operational by
April 1, 2002. Many of the new controls should be in place well before
that time. EPA does not expect PM values above the level of the revised
PM-10 NAAQS to be recorded on the Tribal monitors after April 1, 2002.
Because attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS requires three calendar years of
clean data, however, the area may not be eligible for an attainment
designation for the applicable PM-10 standards until after that date.
Given the number and extent of the projects FMC will need to undertake
to achieve compliance with the proposed FIP, as well as the amount of
necessary expenditures, EPA believes that the proposed FIP schedule
achieves implementation of RACT as expeditiously as practicable.
In addition to requiring the imposition of control requirements on
sources of PM-10 emissions in PM-10 nonattainment areas subject to the
pre-existing PM-10 standards, the Clean Air Act requires states with
nonattainment areas to meet several other PM-10 planning requirements,
such as enacting contingency measures, meeting quantitative milestones
which demonstrate reasonable further progress toward attainment,
implementing a permit program for construction and modification of new
and modified major stationary sources, and imposing controls on major
stationary sources of PM-10 precursors except where PM-10 precursors do
not contribute significantly to nonattainment.
As discussed above, EPA is promulgating this FIP for FMC, a
facility located in Indian country on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,
under the discretionary authority granted to EPA under sections 301(a)
and 301(d)(4) of the CAA. Because of the longstanding PM-10
nonattainment problem in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area,
[[Page 7312]]
EPA believes it is necessary and appropriate to focus the efforts of
this proposed FIP on the RACT-level emissions reduction requirements
that EPA believes will maintain public health protection in the
transition to the revised PM standards and that will ultimately assist
in attaining those standards as expeditiously as practicable. Based on
available information, EPA believes that implementation of RACT for
sources of primary particulate matter at FMC, as proposed in this
notice, will achieve these objectives. EPA will address the other PM-10
planning obligations that apply to states with PM-10 nonattainment
areas subject to the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS, as necessary or
appropriate, in future rulemaking proposals.
D. Public Involvement in the FIP Process
EPA believes that public involvement at the local level is critical
to the successful development and ultimate implementation of any air
quality planning effort. To that end, EPA, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ), and the Tribes established a Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) in the early 1990s, made up of representatives
of local elected officials, transportation planning organizations, and
local citizen health and environmental organizations. The CAC actively
participated in the oversight of the development of a comprehensive PM-
10 plan for what was then called the ``Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area.'' This comprehensive plan was the basis for the
state implementation plan (SIP) for the portion of the nonattainment
area located on State lands (now known as the ``Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area''). EPA participated in the State's public workshops
on the SIP and attended the public hearings on the SIP. In addition,
EPA used the technical products developed by EPA, the Tribes, and IDEQ,
as well as the State SIP, as a basis for developing this FIP proposal
for FMC in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
EPA has also worked extensively with the Air Quality Program of the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in the development of this FIP proposal and
provided periodic updates to the Fort Hall Business Council, the
governing body of the Tribes, on the development of the FIP. EPA has
also held several public workshops and meetings seeking public input on
the control strategy, both from members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
and citizens living on State lands adjacent to the Reservation. EPA has
also made significant efforts to keep local elected officials and the
congressional delegation informed of the implications of this proposed
FIP and other related actions.
In September 1997, EPA conducted two public workshops on the
general content and scope of the FIP. One workshop was held on the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation and a second workshop was held in Pocatello.
There were several themes that emerged during these public workshops.
First, most citizens of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and the
Pocatello area want clean healthful air. Tribal members in particular
expressed concern that the Federal government exercise its trust
responsibility to ensure Clean Air Act protections on the Reservation.
Commenters pointed out that, because air pollution from FMC is plainly
visible, its impact is commonly perceived as extensive and regularly
invokes critical attention in the local media. Because FMC is a major
employer of Tribal members and residents of the Pocatello area,
however, there is also a concern about the continued economic viability
of FMC if costly air pollution and other environmental controls are
required. EPA has never received any information from FMC to establish
that the controls necessary to meet the PM-10 planning requirements of
the Clean Air Act would require closure of the FMC facility. In fact,
during the week the public workshops were held in Fort Hall and
Pocatello in September 1997, the plant manager for the FMC facility
stated in a radio broadcast that FMC had made a corporate commitment to
expend $120 million for environmental controls at the FMC facility, of
which approximately $85 million was targeted for air pollution control.
Finally, EPA has participated in several meetings of a Citizens
Advisory Panel (CAP) facilitated through the Idaho State University and
sponsored by FMC and J.R. Simplot, the two largest industrial
facilities in the Fort Hall and Pocatello areas. The purpose of the CAP
is to discuss environmental issues relating to the Fort Hall and
Pocatello areas. EPA has attended several meetings of the CAP in order
to present updates on the PM-10 planning process for the Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area and to seek public input.
After this proposed action is signed and published in the Federal
Register, EPA will hold a public workshop. The workshop, which has not
yet been scheduled, will provide an opportunity for EPA to explain to
the community why it is proposing this FIP, what measures are included
in the proposal, and who will potentially be impacted by the proposal.
The workshop will also provide the community an opportunity to ask
questions of EPA and to make suggestions with respect to this proposed
action. EPA will announce the time, date, and location of the public
workshop through local newspapers several weeks in advance of the
workshop.
Following the public workshop, EPA will hold a public hearing on
this FIP proposal from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on March 18, 1999, at the
Chambers of the Fort Hall Business Council. During the public hearing,
EPA will be taking formal comment on the FIP proposal. The public
comment period will begin upon publication of the FIP proposal and will
remain open for 30 days after the public hearing. EPA encourages
everyone who has an interest in this proposed action to comment during
the public comment period. EPA will consider all comments received
during the public comment period.
II. Background
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
1. Designation and Classification
On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, PM-
10 areas meeting the conditions of section 107(d) of the Act were
designated nonattainment for the PM-10 NAAQS by operation of law. The
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area was designated as a PM-
10 nonattainment area through this process. Once an area is designated
nonattainment, section 188 of the CAA outlines the process for
classification of the area and establishes the area's attainment date.
In accordance with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all PM-
10 nonattainment areas were initially classified as ``moderate'' by
operation of law, with an attainment date of December 31, 1994. 56 FR
11101 (March 15, 1991).
A moderate area could subsequently be reclassified as ``serious''
under CAA section 188(b)(1), if, at any time, EPA determined that the
area could not practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. In addition, a moderate area would be reclassified by
operation of law if EPA determined after the applicable attainment date
that, based on actual air quality data, the area had not attained the
standard by the attainment date. CAA section 188(b)(2).
Effective December 7, 1998, the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area was split into two nonattainment areas at the
boundary between the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and State lands. The
Fort
[[Page 7313]]
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area consists of land within the former Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area that lies within the exterior
boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The Portneuf Valley PM-
10 nonattainment area consists of the remaining portion of the former
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area. See 63 FR 59722
(November 5, 1998). Both the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and the
Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area continue to be classified as
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.
2. EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 greatly expanded the role of
Indian tribes in implementing the provisions of the Clean Air Act in
Indian country. Section 301(d) of the Act authorizes EPA to issue
regulations specifying the provisions of the Clean Air Act for which
Indian tribes may be treated in the same manner as states. See CAA
sections 301(d) (1) and (2). EPA promulgated the final rule under
section 301(d) of the Act, entitled ``Indian Tribes: Air Quality
Planning and Management,'' on February 12, 1998. 63 FR 7254. The rule
is generally referred to as the ``Tribal Authority Rule'' or ``TAR''.
In the preamble to the proposed 5 and final rule, EPA
discusses generally the legal basis under the CAA by which EPA and
tribes are authorized to regulate sources of air pollution in Indian
country. EPA concluded that the CAA constitutes a statutory grant of
jurisdictional authority to Indian tribes that allows them to develop
air programs for EPA approval in the same manner as states. 63 FR at
7254-7259; 59 FR 43958-43960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 59 FR 43956 (August 25, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also concluded that the CAA authorizes EPA to protect air
quality throughout Indian country, including on fee lands. See 63 FR
7262; 59 FR 43960-43961 (citing to CAA sections 101(b)(1), 301(a), and
301(d)). In fact, in promulgating the TAR, EPA specifically provided
that, pursuant to the discretionary authority explicitly granted to EPA
under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Act, EPA
``shall promulgate without unreasonable delay such federal
implementation plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to
protect air quality, consistent with the provisions of sections
304(a) and 301(d)(4), if a tribe does not submit a tribal
implementation plan meeting the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V, or does not receive EPA approval of a submitted
tribal implementation plan.''
63 FR at 7273 (codified at 40 CFR 49.11(a)).6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In the preamble to the final TAR, EPA explained that it
believed it was inappropriate to treat tribes in the same manner as
States with respect to section 110(c) of the Act, which directs EPA
to promulgate a FIP within two years after EPA finds a state has
failed to submit a complete state plan or within two years after EPA
disapproval of a state plan. In lieu of section 110(c), EPA
promulgated 40 CFR 49.11(a) to clarify that EPA will continue to be
subject to the basic requirement to issue any necessary or
appropriate FIP provisions for affected tribal areas within some
reasonable time. See 63 FR 7264-7265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is EPA's policy to aid tribes in developing comprehensive and
effective air quality management programs by providing technical and
other assistance to them. EPA recognizes, however, that just as it
required many years to develop state and federal programs to cover
lands subject to state jurisdiction, it will also require time to
develop tribal and federal programs to cover reservations and other
lands subject to tribal jurisdiction. 59 FR at 43961.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have expressed a strong interest in
seeking authority under the TAR to regulate sources of air pollution
located on the Reservation under the Clean Air Act. Based on
discussions with the Tribes, however, EPA believes that it will be at
least several months before the Tribes will be ready to seek authority
under the TAR to assume Clean Air Act planning responsibilities and
that, when they do so, the Tribes intend to build their capacity and
seek authority for the various Clean Air Act programs over time, rather
than all at once. The Tribes have advised EPA that they continue to
support EPA's efforts to impose such controls on FMC as are necessary
to bring the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area into attainment with
the PM-10 NAAQS as quickly as possible, notwithstanding the recent
promulgation of the TAR.
Therefore, in this proposed FIP, EPA is exercising its
discretionary authority under section 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA
and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate such FIP provisions as are necessary
or appropriate to protect air quality within the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have not submitted a tribal
implementation plan to address PM-10 emissions from FMC and have
indicated to EPA that they prefer to have EPA address PM-10 emissions
from FMC at this time. Given the longstanding air quality concerns in
the area, EPA believes that the proposed FIP provisions are both
necessary and appropriate to protect air quality on the Reservation.
3. Moderate Area Planning Requirements for States
The air quality planning requirements for states with PM-10
nonattainment areas under the pre-existing NAAQS are set out in
subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the Clean Air Act. EPA has issued a
``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how the
Agency intends to review state implementation plans and SIP revisions
submitted by states under title I of the Act, including those state
submittals containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP
provisions.7 Although these moderate area planning
requirements are not directly applicable to EPA in this rulemaking, EPA
believes it is appropriate to use the planning requirements applicable
to states with PM-10 nonattainment areas as a guide where, as here, EPA
is acting to ensure maintenance of healthy PM air quality within Indian
country through direct federal implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
(General Preamble) 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions
by November 15, 1991:
(a) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993 (CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C));
(b) Provisions to assure implementation of RACT on major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where EPA has determined that such
sources do not contribute significantly to exceedences of the PM-10
standards (CAA section 189(e));
(c) Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment
by that date is impracticable (CAA section 189(a)(1)(B));
(d) For plan revisions demonstrating attainment, quantitative
milestones which are to be achieved every three years and which
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP), as defined in section
171(l), toward attainment by the applicable attainment date (CAA
section 189(c));
[[Page 7314]]
(e) For plan revisions demonstrating impracticability, such annual
incremental reductions in PM-10 emissions as are required by part D of
the Act or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date (CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 171(1));
(f) A permit program for the construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources of PM-10 (see Section 189(a) of the
Act); and
(g) Contingency measures, which become effective without further
action by EPA upon a determination that the area has failed to achieve
reasonable further progress or to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the
attainment date (see Section 172(c)(9) of the Act).
Moderate area plans were also required to meet the generally
applicable SIP requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing
under section 110(a)(1); necessary assurances that the implementing
agencies have adequate personnel, funding and authority under section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 40 CFR 51.280; and the description of enforcement
methods as required by 40 CFR 51.111, and EPA guidance implementing
these provisions.
4. Serious Area Planning Requirements for States
PM-10 nonattainment areas under the pre-existing NAAQS that are
reclassified as serious under section 188(b)(2) of the Act (for failing
to attain by the applicable attainment date) are required to submit,
within 18 months of the area's reclassification, SIP provisions
providing for, among other things, the adoption and implementation of
best available control measures (BACM), including best available
control technology (BACT), for PM-10 no later than four years from the
date of reclassification. The SIP must also contain a demonstration
that its implementation will provide for attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.
These requirements are in addition to the moderate PM-10 nonattainment
requirements of RACT/RACM. These and other requirements applicable to
states with serious PM-10 nonattainment areas are discussed in more
detail in EPA's guidance document, ``State Implementation Plans for
Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-
10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to Preamble for
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59
FR 41988 (August 16, 1994).
B. History of PM-10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
1. Background
The Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area was designated
nonattainment for the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS and classified as
moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act
upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act or CAA).
See 40 CFR 81.313 (PM-10 Initial Nonattainment Areas); see also 55 FR
45799 (October 31, 1990); 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991); 56 FR 37654
(August 8, 1991); 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). For an extensive
discussion of the history of the designation of the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area, please refer to the discussion at 61
FR 29667, 29668-29670 (June 12, 1996). The original attainment date for
the area was December 31, 1994. The attainment date was later extended
to December 31, 1995, and then to December 31, 1996, under the
authority of section 188(d) of the Act. See 61 FR 20730 (May 8, 1996)
(first one-year extension); 61 FR 66602 (December 18, 1996)(second one-
year extension).
Effective December 7, 1998, the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area was split into two nonattainment areas at the
boundary between the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and State lands: the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and the Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area. For a more detailed discussion of the rationale for
EPA's decision to split the Power-Bannock County PM-10 nonattainment
area into two separate PM-10 nonattainment areas, please refer to the
discussion at 63 FR 33597 (June 19, 1998)(proposed action) and 63 FR
59722 (November 5, 1998)(final action). Both the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area and the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area
continue to be classified as moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.
The boundary between the two nonattainment areas runs through an
area known as the ``industrial complex,'' which is comprised of two
major stationary sources of PM-10. FMC is located primarily on fee
lands within the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
and primarily within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area.8 J.R. Simplot Corporation (Simplot) is located on
State lands immediately adjacent to the Reservation in the Portneuf
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A small portion of the FMC facility extends on to State
lands. The only PM-10 sources of potential significance on this
portion of FMC property (i.e., on State lands) are a few raw
materials piles and a small number of unpaved access roads, which
sources collectively account for less than one percent of total PM-
10 emissions from the FMC facility. The limits proposed in this
notice do not apply to the portion of the FMC facility on State
lands. EPA expects Idaho to address the sources at FMC on State
lands in a SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PM-10 Planning for the Portneuf Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area
After the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area was
designated nonattainment, IDEQ, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and EPA
began to work together in the early 1990s to prepare the technical
elements needed to bring the area into attainment and meet the planning
requirements of title I of the Act. Based on these technical products,
IDEQ, along with several local agencies, developed and implemented
control measures on PM-10 sources in what is now known as the Portneuf
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area. The State submitted these control
measures to EPA in 1993 as a moderate PM-10 nonattainment state
implementation plan revision under section 189(a) of the Act. Although
the State had, in the past, sought to regulate sources on fee lands
within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,9 the SIP revision
submitted by the State in May 1993 did not purport to impose control
requirements on FMC or other sources on fee or trust lands within the
exterior boundaries of the Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Prior to the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, IDEQ had
asserted regulatory authority over the sources of air pollution on
fee lands in the Fort Hall Reservation, most notably, FMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The control measures submitted by the State include a comprehensive
residential wood combustion program, including a mandatory woodstove
curtailment program; stringent controls on fugitive road dust,
including controls on winter road sanding and a limited road paving
program; and a revised operating permit for the J.R. Simplot facility,
the only major stationary source of PM-10 on State lands within the
nonattainment area.
EPA has not yet taken final action to approve the State's moderate
PM-10 SIP for the area. EPA has previously stated, however, based on
EPA's preliminary review in the context of approving the State's
requests for extensions of the attainment date, that these control
measures substantially meet EPA's guidance for RACM, including RACT,
for sources of primary particulate. See 61 FR 66602, 66604-66605
(December 18, 1996). EPA will take action on IDEQ's SIP revision for
the Portneuf
[[Page 7315]]
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area in a separate rulemaking.
3. PM-10 Planning for the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
Using the technical products jointly developed by IDEQ, the Tribes,
and EPA, EPA began to develop, in close consultation with the Tribes, a
control strategy for what is now known as the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area. As stated above, EPA and the Tribes believe that
the primary, if not sole, cause of the continued PM-10 violations that
have been recorded on the PM-10 monitors located within the Reservation
are PM-10 emissions from the FMC facility. Therefore, in developing the
control strategy, EPA and the Tribes focused on developing control
requirements for PM-10 emissions from FMC.
At the same time, the Tribes began developing the infrastructure
for running a tribal air quality program, including hiring staff,
enacting authorizing legislation, drafting air quality regulations,
establishing an air monitoring network, and participating in regional
air quality planning efforts. The Tribes were very interested in
seeking authority to regulate sources of air pollution within the
exterior boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation under the Clean
Air Act once EPA promulgated authorizing regulations under section
301(d) of the CAA.
Originally, it was thought that a PM-10 control strategy for FMC
would be completed before promulgation of the TAR, that is, before the
Tribes were in a position to obtain authority under the Clean Air Act
to carry out PM-10 planning within the Reservation. For this reason,
EPA took the lead in developing a PM-10 control plan for what is now
known as the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, and, in particular,
developing a control strategy for FMC, with the intent of promulgating
a Federal Implementation Plan for FMC in close consultation with the
Tribes. Because of several setbacks in the planning process, however,
EPA was not able to promulgate or even propose a FIP for the area
before the TAR was promulgated in February 1998.
Because of resource constraints, the Tribes have advised EPA they
intend to build their capacity and seek authority for the various Clean
Air Act programs under the TAR over time, rather than all at once. In
light of the substantial resources EPA has already expended in
developing a control strategy for FMC and the technical complexities of
controlling PM-10 emissions from FMC, the Tribes have requested that
EPA continue with the development and promulgation of a FIP for the FMC
facility, even though the Tribes now have the ability to seek authority
to regulate FMC under the Clean Air Act. The Tribes have advised EPA
that they will continue to develop and request EPA approval of a
general air pollution program for sources within the Reservation,
including any additional PM controls for other PM sources (e.g., area
sources and minor stationary sources) that may be determined to be
necessary to protect air quality.
EPA believes that, in circumstances such as exist here, it is
appropriate for EPA to step in and fill the current gap in Clean Air
Act protection by direct federal implementation of Clean Air Act
requirements, in this case, implementation of measures to control PM-10
emissions from the FMC facility originating within the Reservation. The
Tribes have not submitted a tribal implementation plan to control PM-10
emissions for FMC and have indicated to EPA that the Tribes prefer that
EPA take the lead in this area at this time. EPA is therefore
exercising its discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and
301(d)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate a FIP containing
control measures and other requirements for the FMC facility. EPA is
proposing these emission limitations and related control requirements
to provide federally-enforceable PM-10 requirements on FMC in
accordance with the Clean Air Act provisions specifically calling for
the implementation of control measures in PM-10 nonattainment areas.
See, e.g., CAA section 189(a)(1)(C). EPA believes direct federal
implementation of control measures is necessary and appropriate to
ensure maintenance of healthy air quality in Indian country and is
proposing to act here to improve air quality in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area during the transition to new PM standards.
4. Portneuf Environmental Council Lawsuit
On November 20, 1997, the Portneuf Environmental Council (PEC)
filed suit against EPA alleging that EPA had failed to make a finding
whether the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area had
attained the PM-10 NAAQS by the December 31, 1996, extended attainment
date, as provided for in CAA section 188(b)(2)(A). During settlement
discussions, PEC indicated that it was considering amending its
complaint to allege that EPA has unreasonably delayed promulgation of a
FIP addressing PM-10 planning requirements for what is now known as the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, and, more specifically, for failing
to impose controls on PM-10 emissions from FMC.
As part of the settlement with PEC, EPA agreed to sign a Federal
Register notice proposing a FIP to control PM-10 emissions in the area
by January 31, 1999. EPA also agreed to take final action on the FIP
proposal no later than July 31, 2000. A copy of the settlement
agreement between EPA and PEC is in the docket. Although EPA had been
working on a FIP proposal for the FMC facility in order to ensure
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS long before the PEC filed its suit
against EPA, in issuing this proposal, EPA is also responding to PEC's
lawsuit and the resulting settlement agreement between EPA and PEC.
5. Proposed Finding of Failure To Attain and Reclassification to
Serious
On June 19, 1998, EPA published a Federal Register notice in which
EPA proposed to make a finding that the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area failed to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
of December 31, 1996. If EPA takes final action on that proposal, the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area would be reclassified as a serious
PM-10 nonattainment area by operation of law under section 188(b)(2) of
the Act. In general, the serious area planning requirements are in
addition to, and do not take the place of, the moderate area planning
requirements. As noted earlier, the outcome of the final action will
likely depend on determinations made by EPA when it promulgates the
section 172(e) rule.
C. Air Quality Monitoring Data
1. Tribal Monitoring Sites
The former Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area was
originally designated nonattainment for PM-10 based on monitors located
on State lands within the nonattainment area that showed violations of
the pre-existing 24-hour and annual PM-10 standard in the late 1980s
and early 1990s. Although there were no PM-10 monitors located on the
Reservation at this time, dispersion modeling conducted to support the
PM-10 planning efforts for the area predicted high PM-10 concentrations
on the Reservation in the vicinity of FMC in what is now known as the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
In the mid-1990s, the Tribes requested and EPA granted the Tribes
additional program support grant funds to enable the Tribes to
establish their own
[[Page 7316]]
monitoring stations in order to collect ambient air quality data
representative of conditions on the Reservation and to generate data to
support Tribal air quality planning efforts. This monitor, called the
``Sho-Ban site,'' is located approximately 100 feet north of the FMC
facility across a frontage road. Due to operational problems with the
sampler and quality assurance problems, valid data was not reported for
this monitor until October 1, 1996. Also in October 1996, the Tribes
initiated monitoring at two new sites. The ``primary site'' is located
approximately 100 feet north of the FMC facility across the frontage
road, approximately 600 feet east of the Sho-Ban site and approximately
600 feet from the boundary between the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and
State lands. Both the Sho-Ban and primary sites are located in the area
of expected maximum concentrations of PM-10 in the ambient air. The
``background site'' is located approximately one and one-half miles
southwest of the FMC facility upwind of the predominant wind direction
from the industrial complex.
All three Tribal monitoring sites are owned by the Tribes and
operated by a contractor for the Tribes. The Tribal monitors meet EPA
SLAMS network design and siting requirements, set forth at 40 CFR part
58, appendices D and E. A description of the monitoring network and
instrument siting relative to the EPA SLAMS siting criteria, as
specified in 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E, can be found in the
technical support document (TSD) and the air quality data report in the
docket for this proposal.
The air quality data for the period from October 8, 1996, to
December 31, 1996, was validated by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. EPA
has reviewed the air quality data collected and reported by the Tribes
during this period and quality assured the data for precision and
accuracy prior to entering the data into the AIRS data base. In
addition, a contractor with extensive experience in operating large
state monitoring networks conducted an independent audit of the Tribal
monitoring data. The audit included a review of both the sampling
effort and filter analysis, and concluded that the data reported by the
Tribes during 1996 and 1997 was valid and reliable data.
Both the Sho-Ban and primary sites have recorded numerous PM-10
concentrations above the level of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
since October 1996. Table 1 lists each of the monitoring sites in the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area where the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS was
exceeded between 1994 and 1997. Table 2 lists the concentration, in
micrograms per cubic meter, of each exceedence.
Table 1.--Fort Hall PM-10 Monitoring Data--1994, 1995, 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Year Number of exceedences Expected exceedences 3 year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary....................... 1994 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1995 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1996 18.................... 20.96................. 7.0.
1997 19.................... 20.1.................. 13.69.
Sho-Ban....................... 1994 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1995 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1996 9..................... 11.34................. 3.78.
1997 12.................... 14.................... 8.4.
Background Site............... 1994 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1995 No data............... Assume 0.............. Assume 0.
1996 0..................... 0.00.................. 0.00.
1997 1..................... 1.05.................. .35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--PM-10 Exceedences at Tribal Monitors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Primary site Sho-ban site site (g/ (g/ m>g/m3)
m3) m3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 10, 1996................................................... *165 118 56
Oct. 16, 1996................................................... *199 ND 57
Oct. 18, 1996................................................... *184 *193 ND
Oct. 22, 1996................................................... *200 ND 7
Oct. 24, 1996................................................... *229 ND ND
Nov. 17, 1996................................................... 124 *245 3
Nov. 18, 1996................................................... *277 85 1
Nov. 19, 1996................................................... *420 135 5
Nov. 28, 1996................................................... 109 *163 8
Dec. 3, 1996.................................................... *167 128 8
Dec. 4, 1996.................................................... 90 *199 9
Dec. 9, 1996.................................................... *184 *199 3
Dec. 10, 1996................................................... 132 *208 2
Dec. 15, 1996................................................... *219 53 1
Dec. 20, 1996................................................... *156 ND 18
Dec. 24, 1996................................................... *174 36 2
Dec. 25, 1996................................................... *174 56 1
Dec. 26, 1996................................................... *317 111 0
Dec. 27, 1996................................................... *236 48 0
Dec. 29, 1996................................................... *290 *282 0
Dec. 30, 1996................................................... *187 *293 3
Dec. 31, 1996................................................... *186 *442 2
Jan. 1, 1997.................................................... *268 *409 5
Jan. 2, 1997.................................................... *161 94 ND
Jan. 22, 1997................................................... *16 ND 1
[[Page 7317]]
Jan. 25, 1997................................................... 13 ND *246
Feb. 14, 1997................................................... *222 35 2
Feb. 17, 1997................................................... *198 45 6
Feb. 19, 1997................................................... *215 *259 2
Mar. 1, 1997.................................................... *223 *221 6
Mar. 2, 1997.................................................... *196 91 4
Mar. 9, 1997.................................................... *239 139 2
Mar. 10, 1997................................................... *337 95 3
Mar. 11, 1997................................................... *206 77 4
Mar. 18, 1997................................................... 77 *173 9
Mar. 26, 1997................................................... *166 ND 26
Mar. 30, 1997................................................... 96 *234 10
Jun. 3, 1997.................................................... 87 *167 23
Aug. 26, 1997................................................... 86 *184 33
Sept. 13, 1997.................................................. 145 *230 69
Sept. 14, 1997.................................................. 128 *346 ND
Sept. 15, 1997.................................................. *167 91 25
Sept. 26, 1997.................................................. *222 79 42
Oct. 3, 1997.................................................... 186 *156 2
Oct. 4, 1997.................................................... *254 128 19
Oct. 5, 1997.................................................... *273 46 10
Oct. 8, 1997.................................................... 80 200 10
Oct. 9, 1997.................................................... 68 *271 30
Dec. 17, 1997................................................... *158 67 1
Dec. 27, 1997................................................... *160 59 101
Dec. 29, 1997................................................... *245 69 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND = No Data Reported
= level above 24-hour standard
According to 40 CFR part 50, the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a
24-hour average concentration above 150 g/m3, averaged over
three years, is equal to or less than one. Because the Tribal
monitoring sites did not begin full operation until October 1996, the
data base is less than the three years of data generally needed for a
determination of compliance with the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
under 60 CFR 50.6. Nevertheless, the number of PM-10 concentrations
above the level of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS between October 8, 1996, and
December 31, 1996 results in the Sho-Ban and primary monitors showing a
violation of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS as of the December
31, 1996 attainment date for the area. Appendix K of 40 CFR part 50
contains ``gap filling'' techniques for situations where less than
three complete years of data are available. In brief, that procedure
allows a determination of non-compliance with a standard if it can be
unambiguously demonstrated that a violation occurred. With respect to
the Sho-Ban and primary sites, the expected exceedence rate of the 24-
hour standard, averaged over the years 1994, 1995, and 1996, for each
site is substantially greater than the 1.1 allowed for under the pre-
existing PM-10 NAAQS, even if the days during which the monitors did
not operate or collect valid data had reported zero PM-10 levels. For
example, the expected exceedence rate for 1996 was 20.96 at the primary
site and 11.34 at the Sho-Ban site. When this rate is averaged with an
assumed zero for 1994 and 1995, the three-year average expected
exceedence rate of 7.0 for the primary site and 3.78 for the Sho-Ban
site are above the 1.1 required to show attainment of the pre-existing
24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. In other words, even if there were zero
exceedences from January 1, 1994, to October 8, 1996, a violation of
the standard would have occurred because of the number of exceedences
that occurred from October 8, 1996, to December 31, 1996. EPA therefore
believes that the Sho-Ban and primary monitors document a violation of
the pre-existing 24-hour NAAQS for PM-10 under 40 CFR 50.6 using
calendar year data from 1994, 1995, and 1996.
EPA also believes that the Sho-Ban and primary monitors document a
violation of the pre-existing 24-hour NAAQS for PM-10 as of December
1997 (using calendar year data from 1995, 1996, and 1997). The primary
site recorded exceedences of the pre-existing PM-10 standard on 19 days
during 1997, resulting in an expected exceedence rate for 1997 of 20.1.
Similarly, the Sho-Ban site recorded exceedences of the pre-existing
standard on 12 days during 1997, resulting in an exceedence rate of 14.
The three-year average of exceedence rates for calendar years 1995,
1996, and 1997 were 13.69 and 8.4, respectively, for the primary and
Sho-Ban sites. The PM-10 values recorded on the Tribal monitors in 1998
have been fairly consistent with the values recorded during 1996 and
1997.
None of the Tribal monitors has collected sufficient data to make
an attainment determination with respect to the pre-existing annual PM-
10 standard. Generally, three years of data must be collected in order
to calculate the three-year average of each year's annual average. The
1997 annual average recorded at the primary site, however, was 66.3
g/m3, approximately 25% above the annual PM-10 standard, and
strongly suggests that a violation of the pre-existing annual standard
will be documented once three years of data has been collected at the
Tribal monitors.
As discussed above, EPA promulgated revised PM-10 standards on July
18, 1997. See 62 FR 38651. Although the levels of the 24-hour and
annual standards remain unchanged, there has been a change in the
statistical form for determining compliance with the 24-hour NAAQS
(from an expected exceedence rate to averaging the 99th percentile
concentration from three
[[Page 7318]]
years of data) and a change in the procedures for reporting PM-10
concentrations at reference conditions to PM-10 concentrations at local
temperature and pressure. Determining compliance with the revised PM-10
standards, even the revised 24-hour PM-10 standard, now requires three
calendar years of data. Because the Tribal monitors have only been
collecting valid data since the last quarter of 1996, there is
insufficient data at this time to conclude with certainty that the
Tribal monitors violate the revised PM-10 standards. Nonetheless, after
converting previously reported PM-10 concentrations to local
temperature and pressure and calculating the 99th percentile of the
data base for each site and the arithmetic mean for each site for each
year, EPA believes there is a strong likelihood that the Tribal
monitors will document violations of the revised 24-hour and annual PM-
10 standards unless there are significant reductions in PM-10 emissions
from the FMC facility. The 99th percentile PM-10 concentrations for
1997 were 231 g/m3 for the primary site and 243 g/m3
for the Sho-ban site, well above the 24-hour standard of 150
g/m3. Similarly, the arithmetic annual mean for 1997 was 60
g/m3 for the primary, again, well above the annual standard of
50 g/m3. The arithmetic annual mean for 1997 for the Sho-Ban
site was 46 g/m3, just below the level of the standard.
Please refer to the air quality data report and the TSD in the
docket for further discussion and analysis of the air quality data.
2. PM-10 Precursors
Section 189(e) of the Act states that the control requirements
applicable under SIPs to major stationary sources of PM-10 must also be
applied to major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors, unless EPA
determines such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels
which exceed the PM-10 standard in the area.
Not all particulate in the air is directly emitted as particulate
from emission sources. Particulate can also be formed in the air
through complex chemical processes involving emission of gaseous
pollutants called ``precursor gasses'', or ``precursors''. The
particulate formed in the air are generally referred to as ``secondary
aerosol.'' Precursor gasses of concern in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area and the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area
include sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and ammonia. The secondary
aerosol formed in the atmosphere are ammonium sulfate and ammonium
nitrate.
At the beginning of the PM-10 planning process for the former
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area, PM-10 precursors were
not thought to contribute to PM-10 levels which exceeded the PM-10
standard. In the winter of 1992, however, the State of Idaho began to
analyze particulate matter collected on the PM-10 filters at the State
monitoring sites for secondary aerosol contribution. Analysis of the
particulate collected on the filters by the State in January 1993,
including on the date of an exceedence on January 7, 1993, showed that
ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate, which are PM-10 precursors,
constituted approximately 60% of the measured PM-10 mass. Filter
samples collected on other days with high PM-10 concentrations were
selected from the total of a year's routine monitoring at the State
monitoring sites and analyzed for secondary aerosol fractions. The
results indicated that secondary aerosol was a significant fraction of
the total PM-10 mass loading only during cold stagnant winter days with
high relative humidity. High PM-10 concentrations measured and analyzed
during other meteorological conditions did not have a significant
aerosol contribution. This new information necessitated a reevaluation
of the contribution of PM-10 precursors to the nonattainment problem in
the former Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
Accordingly, in conjunction with EPA and the Tribes, the State
developed a work plan for analyzing and addressing the contribution of
PM-10 precursors to the nonattainment problem in the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
Since PM-10 precursors were first identified in particulate samples
collected in January 1993 from the State monitors as a potential
contributor to the nonattainment problem in the former Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area, however, no levels above the
standard have been recorded at any of the monitors located on State
lands in what is now known as the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment
area. Instead, it appears that PM-10 resulting from precursor emissions
represent a significant fraction of the total PM-10 mass loading on the
monitors located on State lands only during very specific and rare
meteorological conditions--cold stagnant winter days with relative high
humidity. Based on the fact that the State monitors have not recorded
an exceedence since January 1993, that there have been only two times
between 1986 and 1997 in which violations of the PM-10 NAAQS on the
State monitors have been attributed to PM-10 precursors, and that all
State monitoring sites have attained the standard, it does not appear
that major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the standard within the
Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area.
With respect to the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, based on
data from the State monitors that show secondary aerosol reaches its
highest levels at the monitoring sites furthest away from the
industrial complex, EPA would not expect PM-10 precursors to contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels that exceed the standard on the Tribal
monitors, which are located near the industrial complex. In order to
confirm the contribution of PM-10 precursors to the exceedences that
have been recorded on the Tribal monitors, however, EPA is conducting
additional chemical analysis of filters collected from the Tribal
monitors as part of a comprehensive study of the types of particles and
their chemical composition collected at the Tribal monitors. If the
results of this study demonstrate that PM-10 precursors from major
stationary sources contribute significantly to levels that exceed the
applicable PM standards in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA
will determine whether additional controls on FMC and any other major
stationary sources of PM-10 precursors within the nonattainment area
are necessary or appropriate, to the extent the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
have not submitted a tribal implementation plan addressing such
concerns. The State would be required to address any significant PM
precursor emissions attributable to sources on State lands that
contribute to levels that exceed the applicable PM standards in the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
3. Evidence of Adverse Health Effects Attributable to Poor Air Quality
As demonstrated above, the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area
violates the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard and may also violate
the pre-existing annual PM-10 standard and the revised 24-hour and
annual PM-10 standards. A recent report prepared by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), appears to be consistent with
the growing body of epidemiologic evidence showing an association
between particulate pollution and respiratory illnesses. The
[[Page 7319]]
report looked at the Native American population living on the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation and the Native American population living on the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation. The Duck Valley Indian Reservation is
located in an undeveloped area in northern Nevada and has no known air
quality problem. A total of 515 individuals (229 from Fort Hall and 286
from Duck Valley) participated in this study. The study compared
pulmonary function, levels of cadmium, chromium, fluoride, and several
renal biomarkers in urine specimens, and results from a questionnaire
filled out by the participants concerning respiratory symptoms or
diseases.
The report reveals a significantly higher incidence of self-
reported respiratory symptoms or diseases among the residents living on
the Fort Hall Indian Reservation as compared with those living on the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation. For example, the incidence of chronic
bronchitis was three times higher and the incidence of pneumonia was
two times higher for the population living on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. Differences in respiratory outcomes at the two
reservations were greatest when comparing the health of participants
younger than 20 years of age. A copy of this report is in the docket.
Although this report does not prove that the reported adverse health
effects among the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are caused by the PM-10
nonattainment problem in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, the
report does support EPA's concern with the air quality in the area.
III. FIP Proposal
As discussed above, in this proposed rulemaking, EPA is exercising
its discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate such FIP provisions as are
necessary or appropriate to protect air quality within the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area. Based on information available to EPA, EPA
believes that the primary, if not sole, cause of continued violations
of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS that have been recorded on the
Tribal monitors are PM-10 emissions from the FMC facility that emanate
from within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. In this FIP
proposal, EPA is proposing controls for the FMC facility that EPA
believes represent RACT.
A. Emission Inventory
Section 172(C)(3) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.114 require that a PM-10
nonattainment plan include a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant
pollutant in the relevant area. An emission inventory is used to
identify sources that contribute to measured violations of the NAAQS
and to estimate the rate at which these sources emit pollutants into
the atmosphere. The source emission data that comprise an emission
inventory are used in evaluating the effectiveness of alternative
control technology and the emissions that result from implementation of
controls. Emission data are also used to predict air quality benefits
from implementation of selected control technologies.
An emission inventory is generally prepared to reflect estimates of
actual emissions. Actual emissions are estimates of what a source
actually emitted into the atmosphere within a specified time frame,
usually on an annual or 24-hour basis, and are used to assess emission
conditions that could have led to specific measured air quality. Actual
annual emissions are the emissions emitted into the air during the
calendar year and are expressed in tons/year. The 24-hour actual
emission rates can be expressed in several different ways: average
daily emission rates; worst case emission rates for any 24-hour period
for each source; or a worst case emission rate for each source during a
specified season.
In the early 1990s, EPA, the State and, the Tribes worked together
on the technical products that would serve as the basis for the PM-10
planning for the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area. An
emission inventory of all stationary sources and area sources in the
nonattainment area was one of these technical products. For this FIP
proposal, EPA started with the emission inventory for the former Power-
Bannock County PM-10 nonattainment area that was developed jointly by
EPA, the State, and the Tribes, which contained inventories of actual
annual emission rates, average daily emission rates, worst case
emission rates for a 24-hour period, and worst case emission rates
during the winter, when exceedences are most likely to occur in the
area. Two types of changes to the emission inventory have been made
along the way. First, although the emission inventory uses a base year
of 1993, it has been revised to reflect 1996 emissions for FMC. EPA
believes that the 1996 emission inventory more accurately represents
current operations at FMC than any previous emission inventory prepared
for the facility. For example, the 1996 emission inventory for FMC
reflects additional engineering evaluation of furnace gas composition,
as well as the change in the ore used by FMC, which has an effect on
PM-10 emissions throughout the facility. Second, EPA has used emissions
only from the stationary sources and area sources in what is now known
as the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. With respect to area
sources, this meant apportioning area source emissions between the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and the Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area.
Table 3 below summarizes the 1993 actual annual emissions for the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area (1996 base year for FMC). Point
source and area source emissions of less than one ton per year are
excluded from the table. EPA used the emission inventory for the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, in conjunction with ambient air quality
and meteorological data and analysis, in reaching its determination
that the continued violations of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10
standard that have been recorded on the Tribal monitors are primarily,
if not exclusively, attributable to PM-10 emissions emanating from the
FMC facility within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. In this FIP
proposal, EPA estimated emission reduction targets at FMC from the
estimated design value using the worst case daily emission rates at
FMC. EPA believes it is appropriate to develop a control strategy
assuming the potential of both adverse meteorology and worst case daily
emissions occurring simultaneously in order to ensure that PM levels in
the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area do not endanger public health.
Table 4 below summarizes the 1996 actual daily worst case emissions for
FMC. EPA has used this more refined emission inventory of the
individual sources of PM-10 at the FMC facility to identify the largest
emission sources at the FMC facility that appear to be contributing to
high PM-10 concentrations in the area.
Table 3.--1993 Actual PM-10 Emissions Summary, Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area (greater than 1 ton/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10
emissions
Source name (tons/
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources:
FMC Corporation (1996).................................... 727
J.K. Merrill #43 (main)................................... 7
McNabb Grain.............................................. 2
General Mills, Schiller................................... 1
-----------
Subtotal................................................ 737
Area Sources:
Resident/Commer. Const.................................... 31
Residential Heating....................................... 0
[[Page 7320]]
Prescribed Burning........................................ 35
Wild Fires................................................ 49
Road Construction......................................... 12
Aircraft Emissions........................................ 1
Agricultural Equipment.................................... 1
Agricultural Windblown Dust............................... 310
Locomotive Emissions...................................... 0
Brake Wear................................................ 0
Tire Wear................................................. 0
Unpaved Roads............................................. 571
Paved Roads............................................... 59
Mobile Exhaust............................................ 0
-----------
Subtotal................................................ 1069
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--FMC 1996 Actual Worst Case Daily and Annual PM-10 Emissions
Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10 emissions PM-10 emissions
Source name (lb/day) (ton/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POINT SOURCES:
Ground Flare.................. 2281 197
Calciners..................... 1204 100
Elevated Secondary CO Flare... 828 62
All other Baghouses........... 446 49
Medusa Anderson (four
furnaces).................... 269 43
Calciner Cooler Vents......... 188 27
Pressure Relief Vents......... 99 1
Cooling Tower................. 96 18
Phos Dock..................... 34 6
Boilers....................... 13 2
Emergency CO Flares........... 12 0
-------------------------------------
Subtotal Point Sources.... 5470 505
PROCESS and OTHER FUGITIVES:
Slag Handling:
Slag tap.................. 173 28
Metal Tap................. 88 14
Slag cooling.............. 209 33
Slag digging.............. *173 *27
Loader to truck........... **270 **43
Truck to slag pile........ 132 20
All Roads......................... 190 25
All Piles......................... 163 23
Dry fines material recycle........ 33 6
Nodule fines handling truck
loading.......................... 12 2
Nodule fines stockpiling.......... 7 1
-------------------------------------
Subtotal Fugitives............ 1450 222
-------------------------------------
Grand Total............... 6920 727
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Slag handling.
**Subtotal 1045.
As can be seen from Table 3, FMC accounts for more than 98% of PM-
10 emissions from all stationary sources and more than 40% of PM-10
emissions from all sources of PM-10 in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area. Because of the size of FMC's PM-10 emissions, both
in absolute terms and in comparison to other sources of PM-10 emissions
in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA has invested many years
and hundred of thousands of dollars in developing an accurate and
comprehensive inventory of emissions from the FMC facility. Changes in
the emission estimates for the FMC facility have resulted from changes
in FMC processes over time, better identification of emission sources
at the facility, and better understanding of emissions from known
sources through source testing or further engineering analysis of known
processes. Process fugitive emissions account for a significant portion
of the emissions at FMC. There are approximately 450 individual
fugitive emission points listed in the inventory. Because fugitive
emissions do not emanate from a single point, they are difficult to
measure and are determined based on assumptions and judgement. In
addition, for some of the point sources at FMC, emissions cannot be
measured through source tests because of the combustible nature of the
gas stream, but are instead estimated based on theoretical chemical
reactions and engineering calculations.
The emission inventory for FMC has undergone almost continual
revision and updating since the early 1990s. As described in more
detail below, EPA initially planned on using dispersion modeling to
identify specific sources subject to control and to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. During this time, FMC
continued to provide EPA with new information that made the inventory
more complex and more detailed, but also tended to lower emission
estimates.
[[Page 7321]]
After the dispersion modeling failed to adequately perform at the
Tribal monitoring sites, and EPA decided in the summer of 1997 to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy by
rolling back overall facility emissions based on the design value, FMC
came forward in December 1997 with information identifying new emission
sources with significant emissions and significantly higher emission
estimates for previously identified sources. This new information
effectively quadrupled the daily facility-wide emission rates. EPA
evaluated this new information and revised the emission inventory,
where appropriate, to reflect this new information. Although EPA has,
for the most part, used the emission estimates provided by FMC, EPA has
in some instances revised FMC's estimates to provide a more realistic
estimate of worst case daily emissions. Please refer to the docket and
TSD for a more detailed discussion of the emission inventory.
B. Determining RACM/RACT
The General Preamble describes the methodology for determining
RACM/RACT in detail. 57 FR 13498, 13540-13541. In summary, EPA suggests
starting to define RACM with the list of available control measures for
fugitive dust, residential wood combustion, and prescribed burning
contained in Appendices C1, C2, and C3 of the General Preamble and
adding to this list any additional control measures proposed and
documented in public comments. Any measures that apply to emission
sources of PM-10 that are insignificant (i.e., de minimis) and any
measures that are unreasonable for technology reasons or because of the
cost of the control in the area can then be culled from the list. In
addition, potential RACM may be culled from the list if a measure
cannot be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for
attainment in the area. 57 FR 13498, 13540-41, 13560.
The General Preamble also provides guidance for states in
determining RACT for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas for SIP
planning purposes. See 57 FR 13540-41 and Appendix C4 (57 FR 18070,
18073-74 (April 28, 1992)). EPA recommends to states that major
stationary sources of PM-10 be the starting point for RACT analysis. 57
FR 13541. EPA has defined RACT for PM-10 planning purposes as the
lowest emission rate that a particular source is capable of meeting by
application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. RACT applies to
existing sources of PM-10 stack, process fugitive, and fugitive dust
emissions (e.g., haul roads and unpaved staging areas). See section
172(c)(1) of the Act and 57 FR 13541. RACT for a particular source is
determined on a case-by-case basis considering the technological and
economic feasibility of reducing emissions from that source through
process changes or add-on control technology.
The technological feasibility of applying an emission reduction
method to a particular source should consider the source's process and
operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and any
other environmental impacts such as water pollution, waste disposal,
and energy requirements. The process, operating procedures, and raw
materials used by a source can affect the feasibility of implementing
process changes that reduce emissions and the selection of add-on
control equipment. An otherwise available control technology may not be
reasonable if reducing air emissions has an adverse effect on other
resources and these adverse environmental impacts cannot reasonably be
mitigated. 57 FR 13540-41 and 57 FR 18073-74.
Economic feasibility considers the cost of reducing emissions and
the difference in these costs between the particular source and other
similar sources that have implemented emission reductions. EPA presumes
that it is reasonable for similar sources to bear similar costs of
emission reductions. Economic feasibility rests very little on the
ability of a particular source to ``afford'' to reduce emissions to the
level of similar sources. Less efficient sources would be rewarded by
having to bear lower emission reduction costs if affordability were
given high consideration. Rather, economic feasibility for RACT
purposes is largely determined by evidence that other sources in a
source category have in fact applied the control technology in
question. The capital costs, annualized costs, and cost effectiveness
of an emission reduction technology should be considered in determining
its economic feasibility. The OAQPS Control Costs Manual, Fourth
Edition, EPA-450/3-90-006, January 1990, describes procedures for
determining these costs. The above costs should be considered for all
technologically feasible emission reduction options. 57 FR 13540-41 and
57 FR 18073-74.
The attainment needs of the area should also be considered in
determining RACT. Where a source contributes insignificantly to ambient
concentrations that exceed the NAAQS, it would be unreasonable, and
therefore would not constitute RACT, to require additional controls on
the source. 57 FR 13540-13541 and fn. 18 and 20.
C. RACM/RACT Determination for Minor Stationary Sources and Area
Sources
EPA evaluated the extent to which emissions from various sources
throughout the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area affected attainment
of the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS as a guide to determining whether
controls for those different sources is RACT. At the conclusion of that
evaluation, EPA believes that emissions emanating from the FMC facility
located within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area are the primary,
if not sole, cause of the continued violations of the pre-existing 24-
hour PM-10 NAAQS within the nonattainment area. Therefore, EPA's
determination at this time is that imposing controls on PM-10 emissions
from other stationary sources and area sources in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area is not necessary to protect air quality during the
transition period and would not expedite attainment of the revised PM-
10 NAAQS.
In this case, EPA was not able to determine on the basis of
available modeling the precise contribution of other area and minor
stationary sources in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area to the
locations of expected 24-hour and annual PM-10 violations within the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. Despite repeated efforts, with the
assistance of the Tribes, IDEQ, and affected industry, the air quality
models initially selected and approved by EPA for use in the Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area have continued to fail well-
established performance criteria in the vicinity of the FMC facility,
precisely the area where monitored violations of the pre-existing 24-
hour PM-10 standard continue to occur. As discussed in more detail
below in section III.I., EPA has therefore relied on simple linear
proportionality between facility-wide emissions at FMC and ambient PM-
10 concentrations measured at the Tribal monitors to establish that the
proposed control strategy is expected to result in attainment of the
PM-10 standard. The use of simple roll back assumes that each source in
the area has a contribution at the monitor based only on emission rates
rather than source location and emissions characteristics. The use of
simple roll back in the nonattainment area therefore does not allow EPA
to determine the contribution
[[Page 7322]]
of a particular area or minor stationary source to the locations of
expected 24-hour and annual PM-10 violations.
Other information, however, strongly suggests that PM-10 emissions
from FMC are responsible for the high PM-10 values that have been
recorded on the Tribal monitors. A simple comparison of the data among
the three Tribal monitors on days when the primary site and Sho-Ban
site documented exceedences of the standard strongly suggests that
contributions from sources other than FMC are insignificant. Data from
the background site, which is upwind from FMC based on prevailing wind
directions, reveals that the background site rarely exceeded 50 ug/m3
and generally recorded values less than 10 ug/m3 on days when the
primary site and Sho-Ban site, both downwind of the FMC facility,
recorded values in excess of 150 ug/m3. See Table 2.
EPA has also analyzed the PM-10 readings on the primary and Sho-Ban
monitors and the wind direction observed during the sampling time frame
on a more detailed level. EPA compared the 24-hour average wind
direction with the PM-10 concentrations recorded at these monitors for
the period between October 6, 1996, and December 31, 1997. In other
words, PM-10 concentrations are presented as a function of 24-hour wind
direction. Based on this data, it is evident that exceedences of the
PM-10 24-hour NAAQS are recorded on the primary and Sho-Ban monitors
only when the wind is blowing from the FMC calciner and furnace
building areas--two of the largest sources of PM-10 at FMC--toward the
monitors. No exceedences of the PM-10 standard have been recorded on
these monitors when the wind is blowing from any other direction,
including from the part of the FMC facility located on State lands and
from Simplot, the other potential source of PM-10 emissions containing
phosphorous and which is located on State lands. EPA and the Tribes
have been conducting additional air sampling and analysis at the
primary and Sho-Ban monitoring sites. Filter samples from these sites
are being analyzed for chemical and physical composition to determine
the types of sources contributing to the high PM-10 levels. Preliminary
information from this work indicates that emissions from high
temperature or combustion sources from FMC are significant contributors
to the PM-10 observed on the filters and that the fine particles (PM-
2.5 or less) are the major component of the PM-10. In addition, wind
directional chemical analysis resulted in high levels of phosphorus ore
components in the fine particles when the wind is blowing from the
direction of the FMC calciners and furnace.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Although both FMC and Simplot both utilize phosphate ore in
their processes (FMC produces elemental phosphorus and Simplot
produces chemical compounds (fertilizers) containing phosphorus), as
discussed above, the exceedences of the PM-10 standard have been
recorded on the Tribal monitors when the wind is blowing from the
FMC facility toward the monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this information, the fact that PM-10 emissions from FMC
are the single largest source of PM-10 emissions in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area, and the other factors discussed below in this
section III.C., EPA's determination at this time is that FMC is the
primary, if not the sole, contributor to PM-10 levels that exceed the
pre-existing standard in the nonattainment area. EPA expects to
complete the analytical and receptor-modeling study by summer of 1999.
The initial results suggest the study will confirm that the sources
targeted in this proposal are indeed contributing to the problem at the
level the emissions inventory would indicate.
1. Stationary Sources
The FMC facility is the only major stationary source of PM-10
within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and within the entire
Reservation and it emits more than 727 tons of PM-10 each year (actual
emissions). There are currently five other minor stationary sources of
PM-10 operating in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, with
emissions ranging from .01 to 6.8 tons per year. These minor stationary
sources consist of two grain loading and storage facilities, a
fertilizer handling operation, a pipeline pump station with an
associated boiler, and an aggregate handling facility. PM-10 emissions
from all stationary sources in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area
are estimated at 737 tons per year. FMC emits 727 tons per year of this
amount, or more than 98% of all emissions from stationary sources.
EPA has recommended to states in the SIP planning process that
major stationary sources of PM-10 be the minimum starting point for
RACT analysis. 57 FR 13541. EPA recommends that states go on to conduct
a RACT analysis of minor stationary sources and require control
technology for other stationary sources in the area that are reasonable
to control in light of the area's attainment needs and the feasibility
of such controls. Id. In light of the fact that all stationary sources
within the nonattainment area other than FMC emit less than two percent
of all PM-10 emissions from stationary sources, and in light of the
monitoring analysis indicating that exceedences of the standard occur
only when the wind is blowing from FMC's facility toward the Tribal
monitors, EPA's determination at this time is that minor stationary
sources within the nonattainment area--considered individually as well
as collectively--have an insignificant impact on exceedences of the PM-
10 NAAQS in the area. Therefore, EPA's determination at this time is
that additional controls on minor stationary sources in the
nonattainment area are not needed for attainment and would not expedite
attainment. RACT for such sources would thus consist of no additional
controls because it would be unreasonable to impose additional controls
on these minor stationary sources in light of the attainment needs of
the area. See 57 FR 13541 & n. 20.
To ensure that these and any new minor stationary sources that may
locate within the nonattainment area continue to have a de minimis
effect on PM-10 levels in the area that exceed the standard, EPA
believes it is appropriate for these and any new stationary sources to
be subject to generally applicable restrictions on PM-10 emissions. EPA
has been working with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on air quality
regulations that address the pollutants for which EPA has established
NAAQS, including PM-10, and that include a new source review program.
EPA strongly encourages the Tribes to continue working toward the
submission of a general air quality tribal implementation plan,
including general rules for controlling PM-10 emissions from existing
minor sources and a new source review program. Because these existing
minor sources are relatively minor sources, EPA sees no urgency in
going forward now with a minor new source review program and other
general rules, but will instead await Tribal action for some reasonable
period of time.
2. Area Sources
Area source emissions from within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area total approximately 1069 tons per year, or approximately 60%, of
all PM-10 emissions within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. The
largest of the area source categories are paved and unpaved roads,
agricultural wind blown dust, wild fires, and prescribed burning.
Although area source emissions are slightly larger than the total
emissions from FMC, area source emissions are spread over the entire
48.7 square miles of the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
[[Page 7323]]
area. As discussed below, the impact of area source emissions on air
quality at any given location in the nonattainment area is therefore
greatly reduced.
a. Roads. Emissions from paved and unpaved roads in the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area are the second largest source of particulate
emissions on the Reservation, second only to FMC. Emissions from paved
roads in the nonattainment area are 59 tons per year, or nine percent
of all road emissions within the nonattainment area, whereas emissions
from unpaved roads in the nonattainment area are 571 tons per year, or
91% of all road emissions in the nonattainment area. Combined, paved
and unpaved road emissions account for 59% of all area source emissions
in the Fort Hall Nonattainment area.
Emissions from paved roads have been determined by the State to
have a significant ambient impact in the Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area, particularly in the Pocatello urban area, because
of the high density roadway network on State lands. Most of the paved
and unpaved roads within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area,
however, service the rural agricultural activities that are evenly
distributed throughout the Reservation. Therefore, road dust emissions
are distributed over the approximately 48.7 square miles of the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. Moreover, there are few roads within the
nonattainment area that are upwind of the Tribal monitors. Because of
the large area over which road dust emissions are spread in the
nonattainment area and the location of the roads in relation to the
Tribal monitors that have recorded violations of the 24-hour PM-10
standard, EPA believes that the ambient PM-10 impact of road emissions
in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is insignificant.
b. Wind Blown Agricultural Dust. Wind blown dust from agricultural
operations is the second largest area source in the nonattainment area.
Emissions from this source are estimated at 310 tons per year. These
fugitive emissions result from tilling, harvesting, and exposure of
tilled land to high winds. The impact of these emissions on the
measured PM-10 levels at the Tribal monitors appears to be
insignificant for several reasons. First, the agricultural land that is
tilled and used for crops in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is
downwind of FMC and the Tribal monitors. The agricultural land upwind
of the FMC facility is used primarily for cattle grazing and has
vegetative cover which resists re-entrainment of windblown dust.
In addition, most of the agricultural land within the Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area is leased from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes by
private concerns. The Natural Resource Conservation Service in Bannock
County (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) reports that most
farming operations on the Reservation, like farming across the country,
already utilize best management practices to control soil erosion
(including wind erosion) in order to qualify for Federal subsidies
under the Food Securities Act (see The Effectiveness of the 1985 Food
Securities Act's Highly Erodible Land Provisions to Reduce Agricultural
Fugitive Dust Emissions, EPA 171-R-92-015, PB-92-182401, July 1992).
EPA has determined that, in general, these management practices
represent RACM for agricultural sources. See 57 FR 13498.
Finally, as with road emissions, agricultural emissions are spread
across a wide geographic area, and thus have a reduced ambient impact.
EPA therefore believes, based on available information, that
agricultural emissions have an insignificant impact on the violations
that have been recorded in the nonattainment area.
c. Fires. Prescribed fires and wild fires in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area emit a combined total of approximately 84 tons of
PM-10 emissions each year. Emissions from these activities are usually
of high intensity with smoke plumes that rise quickly into the air
because of the heat generated, are of short duration (on the order of
hours), and seldom if ever re-occur at the same location. Based on the
experience of other areas in the country where prescribed fires and
wild fires are common (such as eastern Washington and the Idaho
panhandle), recording a violation of the PM-10 NAAQS at a fixed
location due to fire is rare. In addition, there have been no reports
or evidence of wild or prescribed fires directly upwind of the Sho-Ban
or primary monitors or directly upwind of the background monitor. In
short, emissions from fires do not appear to have contributed to the
violations of the PM-10 NAAQS recorded in the nonattainment area. For
these reasons, EPA's determination at this time is that prescribed and
wild fires have an insignificant impact on the continued violations of
the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard that have been recorded on the
Tribal monitors.
D. Overview of FMC Operations
The FMC facility located on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation near
Pocatello, Idaho, produces ``food grade'' elemental phosphorus from
shale (or ore) mined in the general area. Elemental phosphorus is then
shipped to other FMC processing facilities throughout the United States
where it is converted into phosphates and phosphoric acid, which in
turn are used in a wide variety of household products from dishwasher
soap to additives to soft drinks. At the FMC facility near Pocatello,
crushed phosphate ore is pressed into briquettes and heated (calcined)
to remove organic matter. These calcined briquettes, now called
nodules, are mixed with silica and dried coke (this mix is called
burden) and fed to the four electric arc furnaces in a continuous
operation. In a reducing atmosphere in the plasma of the electric arc
furnace, elemental phosphorus is liberated as a gas.
Furnace gases are ducted to an electrostatic precipitator to clean
the gas stream and then to condensers where the phosphorus is cooled,
liquified, and collected for transport. Molten slag (calcium silicate),
a waste product, is formed at the bottom of the furnace and must be
periodically removed through a process called ``slag tapping''.
Ferrophos, a metal byproduct, also forms in the bottom of the furnace
below the slag layer and must also be periodically removed through a
process called ``metal tapping''. Potential particulate emission points
include handling of raw ore, nodules, slag, and burden. Particulates
are also emitted during the calcining of briquettes, and from various
furnace flares and vents.
For ease of reference, EPA has assigned a number to each of the
known sources of PM-10 at FMC. The numbering system is consistent
throughout this notice.
E. General Process for Determining RACT for FMC
1. In General
The process for determining RACT in states with moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas is discussed above in section III.B. above. Where,
as here, EPA is exercising its discretionary authority under sections
301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate a FIP
for a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area in Indian country as necessary
or appropriate to assure protection of healthy air quality, EPA
believes it is appropriate for EPA to use this same RACT methodology in
developing the control strategy.
EPA hired Environmental Quality Management, Inc. (EQM), a
contractor with extensive knowledge of the phosphorus industry in
general and experience with the FMC Pocatello facility in particular,
to assist in the
[[Page 7324]]
development of a comprehensive and accurate particulate emission
inventory for FMC. The emission inventory identified the point and
fugitive sources of PM-10 at FMC, the emission rate for each source,
and all existing control devices operating on each source.
EQM then conducted an evaluation of alternative control
technologies for each source that could be used as the basis for a
determination of RACT. For each source, EQM identified the existing
control technology for the source and alternative control technologies
11 that could be more effective in reducing emissions than
the existing control technology used at FMC. EQM then evaluated these
alternative control technologies, including the incremental emission
reductions and estimated cost of installing, operating, and maintaining
these control technologies. EQM also determined the ``cost
effectiveness'' ($/ton of PM-10 reductions) of the alternative control
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The term ``control technologies'' as used here includes
process changes that would result in a reduction of emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the EQM report, EPA considered whether each alternative
control technology represented RACT, that is, whether the technology
was both technologically and economically feasible in light of the
attainment needs of the area. After selecting the control technology
that represented RACT for each source, EPA developed enforceable
emission limitations and work practice requirements that represent the
lowest emission limitation the source is capable of achieving with the
selected control technology.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Clean Air Act defines the term ``emission limitation''
as ``a requirement established by the state or the Administrator
which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of
air pollution on a continuous basis, including any requirement
relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to assure
continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work
practice or operational standard.'' CAA section 301(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For five sources at FMC--slag handling and related processes
(source 8), the calciner scrubbers (source 9), the furnace building
(source 18c), fugitive and point source emissions from the phosphorous
loading dock (source 21), and the elevated secondary condenser and
ground flares (source 26a)--EPA believes that additional controls are
both technologically and economically feasible and necessary in light
of the attainment needs of the area. Collectively, slag handling, the
calciner scrubbers, and the elevated secondary condenser and ground
flares account for more than 77% of daily worst case PM-10 emissions
from all sources at FMC. The control strategy proposed in this FIP is
anticipated to result in a reduction of PM-10 emissions of 4756 pounds
per day from these sources, a 69% facility-wide reduction of PM-10
emissions from current levels in the emission inventory. The phos dock
and the furnace building will be reduced to the levels of emissions in
the emission inventory. The RACT determination for these five sources
is discussed in more detail below.
EPA believes that all remaining sources at FMC currently employ
controls that represent RACT. For example, most of the point sources at
FMC are controlled by baghouses or scrubbers. Baghouses and scrubbers
are, in general, among the most effective control technologies
available for controlling PM-10 emissions from point sources and
therefore generally represent RACT. With respect to fugitive sources,
the available alternative control technologies are, in general, very
expensive, such as building an enclosure around the fugitive source.
Many of the fugitive sources, individually, have low emissions, which
results in a high cost effectiveness for the alternative control
technologies. In addition, further PM-10 reductions from many of these
smaller sources do not appear to be necessary in light of the
attainment needs of the area and would not expedite attainment.
As discussed above, however, none of the sources at FMC are
currently subject to federally-enforceable emission limitations or work
practice requirements on PM-10 emissions. For those sources which EPA
believes currently employ RACT-level controls, EPA is proposing
emission limitations and work practice requirements designed to
maintain PM-10 emissions from those sources at the current levels in
the emission inventory. This is essential because, as discussed in more
detail below, the proposed control strategy will result in attainment
of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard only if PM-10 emissions from
these other sources remain at the current levels in the emission
inventory. Please refer to the TSD for a detailed analysis of the
existing and alternative control technologies, an evaluation of the
available alternatives, and emission limitations and work practice
requirements that EPA believes represent the lowest emission limitation
that each source is capable of achieving by the application of the
RACT-level controls for each source that EPA believes currently employs
RACT-level controls.
2. RCRA Consent Decree
On October 16, 1998, a consent decree between FMC and EPA was
lodged in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho
regarding alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) at the FMC facility. The public comment period on the RCRA
consent decree closed on December 18, 1998. If, after reviewing the
comments received, EPA and the Department of Justice determine that it
is appropriate to proceed with entry of the RCRA consent decree, the
Department will file a motion for entry of the decree.13
Upon entry of the RCRA consent decree by the court, the RCRA consent
decree will require FMC to pay a civil penalty of $11,864,800 for
alleged RCRA violations and to bring the FMC facility into compliance
with RCRA. In addition, as part of the settlement, FMC agreed to
implement 13 ``supplemental environmental projects'' (referred to as
SEPs) in order to reduce PM-10 emissions at the FMC facility.
Altogether, these SEPs will require FMC to expend more than $64 million
in capital costs to implement these PM-10 reduction
projects.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Department of Justice reserves the right to withdraw or
withhold its consent to entry of the proposed consent decree if the
comments, view, and allegations concerning the consent decree
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed
decree is inappropriate. 50 CFR 50.7(b).
\14\ FMC has also agreed to commit $1,650,000 to fund a study of
the potential health effects on residents of the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation that may have resulted from releases of hazardous
substances at the FMC facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five of the SEPs address PM-10 emissions from the five sources for
which EPA believes additional RACT controls are necessary for
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS. For each of these five sources, as is
discussed in more detail below, FMC has agreed to install and operate
as SEPs the control technology EPA believes represents RACT. FMC's
commitment to install and operate this control technology for five
years is persuasive evidence that the identified control technology is
both technologically and economically feasible. Because of FMC's
agreement to implement the control technology for these sources as SEPs
in the RCRA consent decree, EPA believes that the controls will be in
place at least two years before the controls would have been in place
without FMC's agreement to install the necessary controls as SEPs. The
acceleration of the compliance date is discussed in more detail in
section III.H. below.
FMC has also agreed to implement as SEPs eight other projects
designed to
[[Page 7325]]
modernize and upgrade control systems at the FMC facility which will
make it easier to keep existing control technology operating properly
without upsets and breakdowns, thereby reducing PM-10 emissions at the
FMC facility. For example, FMC has agreed to replace at least three
existing baghouses with larger, more efficient baghouses and to spend
more than $5.5 million for the upgrading or replacement of other
existing baghouses. FMC has also agreed to upgrade and improve other
PM-10 processes and controls. For these other projects, that is, other
than the five projects for sources for which EPA believes additional
controls are necessary to meet the RACT requirements, EPA believes that
FMC can achieve the proposed emission limitations and work practice
requirements even without the SEPs. The SEPs provide additional
assurance, however, that FMC will be able to comply with the
requirements of this proposed FIP. A copy of the RCRA consent decree is
in the docket.
3. Mass Emission Limitations
EPA has proposed a mass emission limitation for most identified
point sources. For sources for which EPA has determined that additional
controls are not necessary for attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, the
proposed mass emission limitation is based on the daily maximum
emission estimate for the source in the 1996 emission inventory. EPA
believes that compliance with the proposed mass emission limitations
will, except for the point sources discussed below, entail no new or
additional control equipment and no or minor changes in practices,
procedures, or processes.
As discussed in more detail in section III.F. below, for three
point sources--the calciner scrubbers (source 9), the phos dock
Andersen scrubber (source 21a), and the elevated secondary condenser
and ground flares (source 26)--EPA believes that additional controls
are technologically and economically feasible and needed for attainment
of the PM-10 standard. For these sources, the proposed mass emission
limitation is in general based on the daily maximum emission estimate
for the source in the 1996 emission inventory, but this emission rate
is then reduced by the estimated percentage reduction in emissions that
is expected after application of the control technology identified as
RACT-level controls.
EPA is not proposing mass emission limits for fugitive sources
because, in general, there are no readily available test methods to
determine compliance with mass emission limits for fugitive sources.
Instead, EPA is proposing visible emission limitations for fugitive
sources as an indication that emission capture and control equipment is
designed and operating properly and that proper housekeeping and
maintenance activities are being conducted to prevent the escape of
fugitive emissions. EPA is also proposing work practice requirements
for fugitive sources, which are discussed in more detail below.
4. Opacity Limits
EPA is proposing a specific opacity limit for all but one of the
known point and fugitive sources at FMC. EPA is also proposing a limit
of no visible emissions from any location at the FMC facility, except
to the extent a specific opacity limit is established for an identified
point or fugitive emission source, in order to ensure that sources
inadvertently omitted from the emission inventory do not go
unregulated.
The opacity limits proposed in this FIP are based on best
engineering judgment, as explained in more detail below and in the
technical support document. EPA is relying in part on surveys of
visible emissions conducted at the FMC facility to verify conditions
used in the determination of emissions estimates and to determine
whether the sources could comply with the proposed opacity limits. At
EPA's request, air quality inspectors from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,
State of Idaho, and EPA, who are certified readers using EPA Method 9,
conducted visible emissions observations of most of the point and
fugitive emission sources at FMC in December 1995 and January 1996
(1995-1996 visible emissions survey) and again in October and November
1998 (1998 visible emissions survey). The surveys are collectively
referred to as the ``visible emissions surveys''. In general, the
inspectors documented no visible emissions during the period of
observation and rarely documented visible emissions greater than five
percent opacity. Several of the sources for which visible emissions
greater than five percent were observed are among the five sources for
which EPA believes additional controls are necessary or sources that
EPA believes were not being properly maintained or operated at the time
of the inspection. In addition to the visible emissions surveys, EPA
has considered opacity limits that apply to similar sources.
In summary, EPA believes that the visible emissions surveys and
review of other similar sources support EPA's conclusion that the
proposed opacity limits are both technologically and economically
feasible because FMC appears to be capable of meeting the limits on a
daily basis.15 The demonstration of the effectiveness of
this proposed control strategy is premised on ensuring that, for those
sources for which EPA does not believe additional controls are
necessary, emissions from those sources remain at the current levels in
the emission inventory. EPA therefore believes that the proposed
opacity standards are also necessary because they are designed to keep
PM-10 emissions at the current levels in the emission inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The results of the visible emissions surveys are discussed
in more detail in the in-depth RACT discussion of the sources for
which EPA believes additional controls are necessary and, for all
other sources, in the TSD in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Point Sources. Many of the point sources at FMC are currently
controlled by baghouses and scrubbers. In general, EPA has proposed an
opacity limit of seven percent for point sources (i.e., stacks)
controlled by baghouses and five percent for point sources controlled
by scrubbers. Based on best engineering judgement and field experience,
EPA believes that point sources controlled by baghouses or scrubbers
should have zero visible emissions if the control equipment is properly
designed, maintained, and operated. A limit of five percent or seven
percent provides for an appropriate margin of error. EPA is proposing
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) as the reference test method. The
1995-1996 and 1998 visible emissions surveys confirm that the baghouses
and scrubbers at FMC, when operating properly, had no visible
emissions.
EPA is proposing a seven percent opacity limit for point sources
controlled by baghouses at FMC. All of these sources involve processes
and raw materials similar to processes and raw materials used by
facilities subject to New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart
000. See 40 CFR part 60, subpart 000. This standard applies to
nonmetallic mineral processing plants processing crushed and broken
stone, including shale, sand and gravel, and other similar materials.
40 CFR 60.670 and 60.671. Under this standard, stack emissions are
subject to an opacity limit of seven percent unless the emissions are
controlled by a wet scrubber. 40 CFR 60.672(a)(2). EPA believes that
the point sources controlled by baghouses at FMC that capture emissions
from shale, briquette, and nodule handling are sufficiently similar to
the processes subject to the seven percent opacity limit of NSPS
subpart 000 as to provide a basis for proposing a seven percent limit
for the following point sources:
[[Page 7326]]
east shale baghouse (source 5a); middle shale baghouse (source 6a);
west shale baghouse (source 7a); north nodule discharge baghouse
(source 12a); south nodule discharge baghouse (source 12b); east nodule
baghouse (source 15a); west nodule baghouse (source 15b); nodule
reclaim baghouse (source 16a); dust silo baghouse (source 17a); the
east and west baghouses in the furnace building (sources 18a and 18b);
and the coke handling baghouse (source 20a).
For point sources at FMC controlled by scrubbers, EPA is proposing
an opacity limit of five percent. As stated above, EPA believes that
point sources controlled by scrubbers should have zero opacity if they
are being properly operated and maintained. A five percent opacity
limit is commonly seen for point sources controlled by scrubbers. EPA
proposes the five percent opacity limit for the following sources
controlled by scrubbers: phos dock Andersen scrubber (source 21a) and
excess CO burner (source 26b). Although the calciners are also
controlled by scrubbers, EPA is proposing that the calciners be exempt
from an opacity limit, as discussed in more detail in section
III.F.2.c. below.
EPA is also proposing a five percent opacity limit for the boilers
(source 23). Because the boilers are fired on natural gas, EPA believes
that the boilers should have zero visible emissions if they are
properly designed, maintained, and operated.
EPA has proposed an opacity limit of no visible emissions for the
pressure relief vents (source 24) except during a ``pressure release,''
as defined in the proposed FIP. The pressure release vents at FMC are a
safety device for the furnace system to prevent excessive pressure and
potential explosion in the furnaces. They are designed to open and
release excess furnace gasses directly to the atmosphere under certain
conditions so as to reduce the potential for explosions.
EPA believes that the pressure release vents, when not venting
furnace gasses (i.e., when not experiencing a pressure release), should
have no visible emissions if properly maintained and operated. EPA
therefore is proposing a prohibition on visible emissions except during
a pressure release. To ensure that the pressure release vents are not
used as regular uncontrolled emission points and to ensure they are
properly maintained and operated, EPA is proposing several work
practice and monitoring requirements for the pressure release vents,
which are discussed in more detail in section III.E.5. below.
The furnace CO emergency flares (source 25) are also a safety
feature. When the furnace is shut down, due to an emergency, scheduled
power outage, or scheduled maintenance, it is necessary to flare the
furnace gases directly to the atmosphere until they can be safely
routed to the furnace scrubbing system. Like the pressure release
vents, when not venting furnace gasses, the furnace CO emergency flares
should have no visible emissions if properly maintained and operated.
EPA therefore is proposing a prohibition on visible emissions during
normal operating conditions. To account for the need to vent furnace
gases directly to the atmosphere under certain conditions, EPA proposes
that this limit not apply during an ``emergency''. To ensure that
venting of the CO emergency flares is minimized, EPA is proposing
definitions for an emergency, along with recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, which are discussed in more detail below in section
III.G.
The proposed opacity limitations for the point sources for which
EPA believes additional controls are necessary for attainment are
discussed in section III.F. below.
b. Fugitive Emission Sources. EPA is proposing a limit of no
visible emissions from most storage piles that consist of materials
with a high moisture content. For example, the main shale pile (source
2) and the emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3) are
comprised of material with a very high moisture content from which no
visible emissions should be expected. EPA has also proposed a limit of
no visible emissions from rail car unloading (source 1) and the stacker
and reclaimer (source 4), again, because the raw ore as received from
the mine has a very high moisture content.
EPA is also proposing a limit of no visible fugitive emissions from
all buildings, with the exception of the furnace building, which is
discussed in more detail in section III.F.5. below. NSPS subpart 000,
which applies to facilities using similar processes and raw materials
as those used at FMC, imposes a limit of no visible fugitive emissions
from any building enclosing any process subject to NSPS subpart 000,
except through a vent, which is a point source subject to the seven
percent opacity limit under NSPS subpart 000. See 40 CFR 60.672(e). In
general, buildings should be sealed and sources contained within them
under a negative pressure created by the dust control systems for the
sources located therein.
EPA is also proposing an opacity limit of no visible fugitive
emissions from the dust silo and the pneumatic dust transport system
(source 17b). Dust collected in the various baghouses at FMC is
pneumatically transported from each baghouse to the dust silo via a
pneumatic transport system. The dust silo and pneumatic transport
system are enclosed systems and, when properly operated and maintained,
should have no leaks to the atmosphere. Leaks in ducts can occur due to
abrasion, wear and tear, and poor maintenance. These conditions
represent poor operations and maintenance and can be prevented. Any
visible emission is indicative of a leak that needs repair.
EPA is proposing an opacity limit of ten percent for all other
fugitive sources identified in Table A. The ten percent limit applies
to uncaptured fugitive emissions and process fugitive emissions from
sources controlled by scrubbers and baghouses, including fugitive
emissions that are not in fact captured by the control device. A
properly designed and operating hood and capture system should be able
to capture almost all particulate and ensure no visible emissions. A
ten percent opacity will allow for rare situations when conditions
overwhelm the emission capture system. NSPS subpart 000 establishes a
ten percent opacity limit on most fugitive emissions. See 40 CFR
60.672(b).
The proposed ten percent opacity limit also applies to the nodule
pile (source 11), the nodule fines pile (source 13), and the screened
shale fines pile (source 14) which contain material a portion of which
consists of fine dust materials and is subject to entrainment by wind
during the addition of material to the piles. These piles are therefore
are more likely to experience periods of visible fugitive emissions.
For similar reasons, EPA proposes that roads be subject to an opacity
limit of ten percent.
The proposed opacity limitations for the fugitive sources for which
EPA believes additional controls are necessary for attainment--slag
handling and related processes (source 8), the furnace building (source
18c), and phos dock fugitives (source 21b)--are discussed in section
III.F. below.
5. Work Practice Requirements
EPA is proposing a general requirement that FMC maintain and
operate each source, including all associated pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions. This requirement is based on a
general provision in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 40
CFR 60.11(d). Many States
[[Page 7327]]
have comparable provisions in their SIPs or include such a provision in
new source construction permits. See Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 173-405-040(10); WAC 173-410-040(4); WAC 173-415-030(6)). EPA
believes that control equipment and processes should at all times be
operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practice for minimizing emissions. Determinations of whether acceptable
operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on
all information available to EPA, including, but not limited to,
monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and
maintenance procedures and inspections.
EPA is also proposing a moisture content and latex application
requirement for the main shale pile (source 2) and the emergency/
contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3). This requirement is designed
to ensure PM-10 emissions from these sources remain at current levels.
In addition, according to FMC, FMC already applies latex to these piles
to reduce fugitive emissions.
As discussed above, the pressure relief vents (source 24) are not
subject to an opacity limit during a pressure release. Because EPA is
proposing that the opacity limit does not apply to the pressure relief
vents during a ``pressure release'', it is essential to know the
frequency and duration of a pressure release in order to implement the
proposed opacity standard. In addition, in order to minimize PM-10
emissions from this source, it is essential that the duration and
frequency of pressure releases are minimized to the extent possible.
EPA therefore proposes to require FMC to install continuous temperature
indicators and recorders to detect when a pressure release from a
furnace begins and ends on each of the pressure release vents. The
installation of temperature indicators and recorders on each pressure
relief vent should detect all pressure releases and indicate their
duration because the expected temperature during a pressure release
should be significantly above ambient temperatures. Similar monitoring
devices are being used to monitor the venting of uncontrolled emissions
of noncondensible gases from pressure relief devices on digesters at
pulp mills in Washington State.
EPA proposes to require that FMC submit a proposed parameter range
of operation for the pressure relief vents that would indicate when a
pressure release is occurring. The parameters would be approved through
the title V permit issuance process or as a modification to FMC's title
V permit. Until that time, the parameter range proposed by FMC for the
pressure relief vent devices would serve to define when a ``pressure
release'' is occurring.
After a pressure release, the seal must be re-established. Poor
maintenance of the pressure relief vents and valves can lead to a delay
in re-establishing the seal, which can result in excessive visible
emissions. EPA has proposed as a work practice standard and monitoring
requirement that FMC be required to conduct a visible emissions
observation of each pressure relief vent after the seal has been re-
established or otherwise sealed after each pressure release. The
requirement to ensure that a pressure relief vent is properly resealed
after a release is well established in the various leak monitoring
rules in the NSPS and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS). See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.482-4 (requiring that
pressure relief devices be returned to state of no detectable
emissions); 40 CFR 61.648 (same).
Finally, because the pressure relief vents at FMC are designed to
release at 18 inches of water, EPA also proposes to require that FMC
maintain the release point on each pressure relief vent at a minimum of
18 inches of water and to inspect each pressure relief valve after the
seal has been re-established or otherwise sealed after each pressure
release to ensure 18 inches of water is maintained. This will ensure
that the pressure required to cause a release to the atmosphere is not
reduced below the 18 inches of water setting, thereby preventing
unnecessary releases to the atmosphere.
The 1995-1996 visible emissions survey did document several
occasions when the pressure relief vents were emitting visible
emissions. In one case the pressure relief valve was open and furnace
gasses were being emitted. In a second case emissions were occurring
even though the pressure relief valve was sealed. In accordance with
the RCRA consent decree, FMC has replaced the existing pressure relief
valves with an improved design that will quickly re-establish the seal.
EPA believes that the new pressure relief valves should be able to
comply with a requirement of no visible emissions from the pressure
relief vents.
Additional work practice requirements are discussed in conjunction
with the discussion of monitoring in section III.G. below.
6. Reference Test Methods
EPA has promulgated Methods 201/201A and 202 (40 CFR part 51,
appendix M, ``Recommended Test Methods for State Implementation
Plans'') as the reference test methods for mass PM-10 emission
limitations for point sources and recommends that states use these
reference test methods for PM-10 emission limitations in SIPs. Method
201 or its alternative, 201A, are used to measure primary PM-10 at
stack conditions. Method 202 is used to measure matter that will
condense to PM-10 at ambient temperatures but which is a gas at stack
conditions.
In general, EPA proposes that both Methods 201 or 201A and Method
202 be required as the general reference test methods for the proposed
mass emission limitations for point sources at FMC. EPA has proposed
several exceptions to this requirement. First, FMC must use Method 5
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) in place of Method 201 or 201A for the
calciners (source 9) and any other sources with entrained water drops.
In such case, all the particulate matter measured by Method 5 must be
counted as PM-10 because Method 5 is a test method for determining
total suspended particulate from a stationary source, not just PM-10.
Second, FMC may use Method 5 as an alternative to Method 201 or 201A
for a particular point source. Again, if Method 5 is used, all of the
particulate measured by Method 5 must be counted as PM-10. Finally, FMC
is not required to use Method 202 for a particular point source if FMC
submits a written request to the Regional Administrator which
demonstrates that the contribution of condensible particulate matter to
total PM-10 emissions is insignificant for such point source and the
Regional Administrator approves the request in writing.
For opacity standards, EPA is proposing EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A) as the reference test method for opacity standards with
numerical limits for both point sources and fugitive sources, with an
averaging period of six minutes and an observation interval of 15
seconds.
For those sources at FMC for which EPA is proposing a limit of no
visible emissions, EPA is proposing a ``visual observation'' as the
reference test method. The standard of no visible emissions means that
at no time during the observation period shall the source emit any
visible emissions. A ``visual observation'' is defined to mean that no
visible emissions are detected during 10 minutes of continuous viewing
conducted in accordance with section 5 of EPA Method 22 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A) by a person who meets the training guidelines described
in section 1 of Method 22.
[[Page 7328]]
The proposed FIP clarifies that the specification of a reference
test method does not preclude the use of other credible evidence for
the purpose of submitting compliance certifications or establishing
whether or not FMC is in compliance with a particular requirement. This
is consistent with recent amendments to the requirements for SIPs, 40
CFR 51.212(c) and 52.12(c), and recent amendments to the NSPS and
NESHAPs, 40 CFR 60.11(g) and 61.12(e). See 62 FR 8314 (February 24,
1997).
7. Startup, Shutdown, Scheduled Maintenance, Upsets, Breakdowns,
Malfunctions, and Emergencies
EPA has carefully considered whether to provide an affirmative
defense to a penalty action for violation of the proposed emission
limitations occurring during periods of startup, shutdown, scheduled
maintenance, upset, breakdown, malfunction, or emergency. Because the
emission limitations proposed in this FIP are designed to attain and
maintain the applicable health-based PM NAAQS, any affirmative defense
to a penalty for exceeding the standards proposed in this notice must
not interfere with EPA's responsibility for assuring such attainment
and maintenance.
After careful consideration of the issue, EPA is proposing two
alternative approaches with respect to violations attributable to such
events. Under the first approach, the proposed emission limitations
would apply at all times and there would be no affirmative defense for
excess emissions caused by such events. If emissions exceeded the
proposed standards during startup, shutdown, scheduled maintenance, a
malfunction, or an emergency, EPA would, of course, retain its
enforcement discretion to forgo seeking a civil penalty for violation
of the standard. For example, EPA could determine not to pursue a
penalty action because excess emissions occurred during a particular
sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or control equipment beyond
FMC's control, such event could not have been prevented through better
planning, design, operation, or maintenance, and FMC made repairs in an
expeditious fashion and took steps to minimize the excess emissions to
the extent practicable.
Under the second approach, EPA would provide an affirmative defense
to a penalty action (but not to an action for injunctive relief)
provided certain conditions are satisfied. Under this second approach,
EPA is proposing somewhat different conditions that must be satisfied
for startup, shutdown, and scheduled maintenance, on the one hand, and
upsets, breakdowns, malfunctions, and emergencies (collectively
referred to here as ``malfunctions or emergencies''), on the other
hand. Startup, shutdown, and scheduled maintenance 16 are
generally foreseen or planned events and should be accounted for in the
planning, design, and implementation of operating procedures for the
process and control equipment. In contrast, malfunctions and
emergencies are, by definition, unplanned or unforseen events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A shutdown or startup necessitated by a malfunction or
emergency would be treated as any other malfunction or emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this second approach, for FMC to obtain relief from penalty
for violations resulting from startup, shutdown, or scheduled
maintenance, FMC would be required to notify EPA of any startup,
shutdown, or scheduled maintenance event expected to cause emissions in
excess of the generally applicable standards prior to the occurrence of
such event. FMC would also be required to establish, through properly
signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence, that
the excess emissions could not have been avoided through careful and
prudent planning, design, and operations and maintenance practices;
that the emission unit in question and any related control equipment
and processes were at all times maintained and operated in a manner
consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions; that the amount
and duration of the excess emissions were minimized to the maximum
extent practicable; and that all reasonable steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess emissions on the ambient air. FMC
would also be required to file reports of emissions in excess of the
generally applicable standard within 48 hours of occurrence. To ensure
protection of the PM-10 NAAQS, the affirmative defense would not apply
on any day on which an exceedence of the revised PM-10 NAAQS was
recorded on any monitor in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. In
addition, the affirmative defense would only be available in a penalty
action. In order to protect the PM-10 NAAQS, the affirmative defense
would not be available in an action seeking injunctive relief.
With respect to the affirmative defense for malfunctions and
emergencies under the second approach, EPA is proposing an affirmative
defense based on the affirmative defense for ``emergencies'' under the
title V air operating permit program. See 40 CFR 70.6(g) and
71.6(g).17 An ``emergency'' is defined as any situation
arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events beyond the
control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires
immediate corrective action to restore normal operation, where the
increase in emissions are unavoidable. An emergency would not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by improperly designed equipment,
lack of preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation or
operator error. See 40 CFR 70.6(g)(1) and 71.6(g)(2). In claiming an
emergency, FMC would be required to establish, through properly signed,
contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence, that an
``emergency'' occurred and that FMC can identify the cause, the
facility was being properly operated at the time, FMC took all
reasonable steps to minimize levels of emissions that exceeded the
standard, and that FMC notifies EPA within 48 hours of occurrence.
Again, to ensure protection of the PM-10 NAAQS, the affirmative defense
would not apply on any day on which an exceedence of the revised PM-10
NAAQS was recorded on any monitor in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area. In addition, the affirmative defense for emergencies would also
only be available in a penalty action. In order to protect the PM-10
NAAQS, the affirmative defense would not be available in an action
seeking injunctive relief. EPA specifically requests comment on whether
to provide an affirmative defense to a penalty action for excess
emissions due to startup, shutdown, scheduled maintenance, or
emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Although EPA has proposed to delete the emergency defense
from the title V program, see 60 FR 45530, 45559-60 (August 31,
1995), the basis for the proposed deletion was that the title V
program should not be used as a vehicle to revise underlying
applicable requirements. There was no suggestion that the elements
of the affirmative defense set forth in the title V rules were in
anyway insufficient or improper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. RACT Determination for Sources for Which EPA believes Additional
Controls Are Required for RACT
1. Slag Handling Sources (Source 8)
a. Overview of Current Operations. Slag handling, from the furnace
to final storage in the slag pile, is a major source of primary
particulate at FMC. The alternative control technologies that are
currently being used in the phosphorus industry and industries with
similar processes today would reduce or eliminate PM-10 emissions from
several separate and distinct emission sources at FMC, as discussed
below. Therefore,
[[Page 7329]]
EPA evaluated RACT for these several slag handling sources as a single
source.
Slag Pit, Tap Hoods, and Sump Vents
Slag is a waste byproduct generated within the furnace, which must
be periodically removed. This process is called ``slag tapping'' and
entails the furnace operator removing a plug from the furnace wall
which in turn allows molten slag to flow out of the furnace into slag
runners. Slag runners direct the molten slag out of the furnace
building into an area behind the furnace building called the slag pits.
Each furnace has two tap holes, runners, and pits. Each furnace is
tapped for approximately 20 minutes each hour. In FMC's current
operations, hot molten slag flows through slag runners from the
furnaces along troughs in the furnace building floor to the slag pits
located outside the furnace building. The slag is then cooled by
exposure to the outside ambient air and application of water sprays.
The water sprays (quench water) also serve to crack the cooling mass to
aid in digging. ``Hot slag'', which has cooled significantly but is
still at a temperature well above the outside ambient temperature, is
dug by front-end loaders from each pit and loaded into trucks for
transport to the slag pile. Digging and loading of slag occurs daily.
After the slag is removed, the pit is lined with crushed slag from the
recycle material pile as protection from the molten slag, to create a
berm to contain the slag, and to aid in digging.
Fugitive emissions of PM-10 are emitted at several points in the
process described above: from the tap hoods inside the furnace
building; from the cooling slag in the slag pits; when the slag is dug
by front-end loaders; and when the slag is dumped into trucks. In
addition, emissions occur when recycle material (crushed slag) is
loaded back into trucks and then dumped back into the slag pit to line
the pits. Emissions from these sources account for 784 pounds of PM-10
each day and 143 tons per year.
Dump to Slag Pile
After slag has been loaded into trucks, it is hauled from the slag
pit area to the final slag storage pile where it is dumped. The slag,
although already broken up in the digging and loading process, is still
fracturing from continued cooling. Significant fugitive PM-10 emissions
occur when the slag is dumped from the trucks to the slag pile. EPA
estimates that this process accounts for an additional 135 pounds per
day and 20 tons per year of PM-10.
Recycle Material Pile
A portion of the slag, approximately one third, is recycled by
sending it off site, where it is crushed, returned to FMC, and stored
in a pile. The crushed slag is used to line the slag pit after the
molten slag has been removed and hauled to the slag pile in order to
create a berm to contain the molten slag and to aid in digging. EPA
estimates PM-10 emissions from the recycle material pile to be
negligible.
Total Emissions from Slag Handling Sources
EPA estimates the total combined PM-10 emissions from the handling
of slag at FMC at 1045 pounds per day and 165 tons per year. Slag
handling emissions account for 16% of FMC's total facility-wide daily
emissions. The 1996 emissions from each slag handling source are
outlined below:
Cooling slag: 209 pounds/day; 33 tons/year.
Digging slag: 173 pounds/day; 27 tons/year.
Loading slag into truck: 270 pounds/day; 43 tons/year.
Truck to slag pile: 132 pounds/day; 20 tons/year.
Slag tapping: 173 pounds/day; 28 tons/year.
Metal tapping: 88 pounds/day; 14 tons/year.
Total slag emissions 1045 pounds/day; 165 tons/year.
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology. There are two
currently available alternative control technologies for slag handling.
``Slag granulation'' was used by a thermal process elemental
phosphorous plant that ceased operation in late 1995. ``Hot pour pot
handling'' is used at the only other thermal process elemental
phosphorus plant in the United States that remains in operation. Ten
other elemental phosphorus facilities were previously operated in the
United States and Canada, but have not been in operation for many
years. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to consider the
technology used by old, non-operational, and presumably obsolete,
facilities in determining RACT. EPA therefore considered only the
alternative control technologies employed by the other elemental
phosphorous facility that remains in operation and the facility that
recently ceased operation at the end of 1995.
Application of either slag granulation or hot pour pot handling
would significantly reduce PM-10 emissions at almost all slag handling
sources throughout the FMC facility, including slag tapping, ferrophos
tapping, slag cooling, quench water, slag digging, slag dumping to slag
pile, slag crushing, and lining the slag pits.
Slag Granulation
With slag granulation, molten slag flows down slag runners (troughs
in the furnace floor) from the furnace to a concrete launder just
outside the furnace building, where the slag flows into a high pressure
and high volume water jet that instantly cools and solidifies the slag
into sand-like granules. The slag is then de-watered and transported by
conveyor belt to a small storage pile. The granulated slag is then
loaded into trucks for transport to the slag pile.
EPA evaluated the slag granulation system at a facility near Butte,
Montana, that ceased operations in 1995. Fugitive tap hood emissions
from slag tapping would not be reduced through the implementation of
slag granulation because the existing slag runners, capture hoods and
control devices within the furnace building would remain. However, PM-
10 emissions from the launder to final storage on the slag pile would
be eliminated because of the large size and high moisture content of
the granules. PM-10 emissions from slag cooling, digging, loading,
crushing, lining the pits, and dumping to the slag pile would also be
eliminated if the granulation process is used. EPA estimates the
reductions from implementation of this technology could be on the order
of 90% of current emissions from this source at FMC (or 946 pounds per
day) if the granulation process is continuously operated.
There are significant engineering problems, however, with the slag
granulation technology. During slag tapping, it is impossible to
identify when ferrophos metal begins to flow out of the furnace. When
this metal comes into contact with water, a violent explosion occurs.
Although a system could potentially be designed to reduce the
likelihood of explosion, the potential for explosion would always be
present. FMC has verbally advised EPA of its concerns regarding the
safety of the granulation system and explosions from ferrophos coming
into contact with water.
In addition, during periods of extreme cold, like that experienced
in Idaho and Montana, the conveyor belt that transports the slag
granules from the de-watering process to the storage pile can freeze.
It is therefore unlikely that, if the granulation system is implemented
at FMC, 100% of all the slag will be processed using the granulation
system. The facility that used this technology until recently estimated
that only 50%
[[Page 7330]]
of its slag was processed by granulation. If this system were to be
used at the FMC facility, the slag granulation system might not be
functional during the winter and FMC would need to revert to the pit
system, which would not result in the anticipated reductions in
emissions during the winter. This is a significant concern because both
the highest PM-10 concentrations and the most frequent violations of
the pre-existing 24-hour PM-10 standard have generally been recorded on
the Tribal monitors during winter.
EPA estimates that slag granulation, if implemented at FMC, would
be able to reduce emissions on an annual basis by 85 tons per year.
However, worst case daily emissions would not be reduced at all during
the winter. Therefore, EPA does not consider slag granulation to be an
appropriate control measure for ensuring attainment and maintenance of
the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
Hot Pour Pot Handling
The second alternative control technology is hot pour pot handling.
In this process, the slag is tapped from the furnace into short slag
runners and then into large cast iron crucibles, or ``pots'', that are
placed adjacent to or below the furnace. The slag tapping system (tap
hole, runners, dump to pot, and pot) is totally enclosed in a ``pot
room'' and kept under a negative pressure. All fumes and particulates
are captured by the enclosure and evacuated to the furnace scrubbers
(source 18d, 18e, 18f, and 18g). A small amount of PM-10 is emitted
when the pot transporter opens the doors to the pot room and removes a
pot for transport to the slag pile. Slag in the molten state is then
transported to the slag storage pile where it is dumped in the molten
state onto the pile.
Implementation of hot pour pot handling would significantly reduce
fugitive and tap hood emissions from furnace tapping as compared with
current levels at FMC, but it would not eliminate these emissions
entirely. The current tap hood design could be improved to capture more
emissions and send them to the control device. FMC has already
installed redesigned tap hoods on two furnaces and has agreed to
install this design on the two remaining furnaces as part of the RCRA
consent decree.
Transport of molten slag and dumping of molten slag onto the slag
pile will result in emissions of some PM-10 into the atmosphere. The
cooling slag in the pot during transport, however, quickly forms a skin
on the slag which prevents further emissions. Tapping slag into a pot
eliminates the need for the slag pits. Therefore, PM-10 emissions from
the slag pit, the crushing, and transporting of recycle slag would be
eliminated.
EPA has estimated the anticipated emissions reductions that would
be achieved at FMC through implementation of pot handling based on
information provided by the facility that currently uses hot pour pot
handling. With the pot handling system, PM-10 is emitted from the pots
as the pots sit in the ``pot room,'' as the pots are transported to the
slag pile, and during the dump of molten slag onto the pile. EPA
believes that during these operations, PM-10 emissions are roughly
equivalent to cooling slag emissions. EPA also believes that the
emission factor for cooling slag of 3.74 pounds per hour, which was
developed from source testing at FMC and which EPA used in the 1996
base-year emission inventory for FMC, is the most representative
emission factor available. EPA estimates that 30% of the emissions
associated with the cooling would occur within the ``pot room'', where
the emissions would be captured and ducted to the tap hood control
device. The remaining 70% of the emissions associated with the cooling
slag would be emitted during transport, dumping to the pile, and
cooling on the pile. These emissions would be uncontrolled. Assuming
the quantity of slag to be processed at FMC remains roughly the same,
the emissions in the FMC 1996 emission inventory for cooling slag will
remain approximately the same, at 209 pounds per day. Assuming that 30%
of emissions would be captured in the ``pot room'' and that the
remaining 70% would continue to be emitted into the atmosphere, PM-10
emissions from this process would be reduced to 146 pounds per day and
23 tons per year at FMC. All other PM-10 emission sources associated
with slag handling would be eliminated. In addition, the ambient impact
of the remaining emissions should be further reduced through
implementation of the pot handling system because the remaining
emissions will be distributed over the larger area of the haul roads
and dump pile.
Installation of the hot pour pot handling system at FMC may require
a significant design and construction effort. The ground below part of
the furnace building may need to be excavated to accommodate the pots
for tapping, and the building itself might need to be modified to
support the furnaces and enclose the pots. Conveyors or carriers would
be required to move the pots into place for tapping. Finally, pots and
trucks to haul the pots to the slag pile must be purchased and
maintained.
As part of the RCRA consent decree, FMC has agreed to design,
purchase, and install equipment and to modify the plant as necessary to
implement a hot pour pot handling system for its slag ladling
operations. In the RCRA consent decree, FMC has agreed to design and
purchase the equipment by March 1, 1999, to install the ladling system
and complete tapping system upgrades by November 1, 1999, for two
furnaces, and to install the ladling system and complete the tapping
upgrades for the other two furnaces by November 1, 2000. FMC has also
agreed to purchase and install ventilation system upgrades for two of
the furnaces by December 1, 2002.
FMC has estimated that it will cost $20.2 million in capital costs
to install the ladling and upgrade tapping for all four furnaces and
that pot handling will increase its annual operating costs by $200,000
a year (over its current operating costs). The ventilation system
upgrades for two of the furnaces is estimated to cost an additional
$5.3 million.
EPA believes that FMC's current furnace scrubber control system
(sources 18d, 18e, 18f, and 18g) is adequate for the additional PM-10
emissions that will be captured and controlled after implementation of
a hot pour pot handling system. EPA has therefore not included the $5.3
million for these upgrades in the RACT evaluation. Based on the cost
estimates provided by FMC, the cost effectiveness of hot pour pot
handling is estimated to be $8,260 per ton of PM-10 reductions based on
annualized daily worst case emissions.
Conclusion
EPA believes that hot pour pot handling technology is a
technologically and economically feasible alternative to the existing
slag pit operations at FMC. The hot pour pot handling system is used by
the only other currently-operating elemental phosphorous facility. FMC
has agreed to install and implement the hot pour pot ladling system in
the RCRA consent decree. These facts are strong evidence that the
control technology is technologically and economically feasible.
Particulate emissions from slag handling significantly contribute to
PM-10 concentrations in the nonattainment area which exceed the level
of the PM-10 standards. Application of hot pour pot handling is
expected to reduce PM-10 emissions from the facility as a whole by 14%.
As discussed below in section III.I. below, these reductions are
[[Page 7331]]
necessary for attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS in the area. EPA
therefore believes that hot pour pot handling represents RACT-level
controls for slag handling. EPA is not aware of any other control
technology for slag handling or any similar process that is expected to
result in greater emission reductions.
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements. EPA is
proposing that FMC be prohibited from using the current slag pit
process beginning November 1, 2000. This includes eliminating the
discharge of molten slag from furnaces or slag runners onto the ground,
slag pit floors (whether dressed with crushed slag or not), or other
non-mobile permanent surfaces and eliminating the digging and loading
of cold (solid) slag into transport trucks in the slag pit area. EPA is
proposing that the prohibition of loading cold slag not apply to the
lining of slag pots and the handling (loading, crushing, or digging) of
cold slag for purposes of the lining of slag pots. The slag pots may
need to be lined in order to protect the pots from the molten slag and
prevent wear and tear on the pots.
After November 1, 2000, EPA is proposing that the slag pit and all
other current slag handling operations be subject to an opacity limit
of five percent. The five percent opacity limit will also apply to any
enclosure separate from, but physically adjacent to, the furnace
building that is built to enclose the pot handling system and will
ensure that any such building is effectively sealed to prevent the
escape of fumes to the atmosphere.
EPA is proposing several exceptions to the five percent opacity
limitation for the slag pit and related slag handling operations. EPA
is proposing an exemption for visible fugitive emissions due to fuming
of molten slag from slag pots during transport from the pot handling
room to the slag pile. This exemption is needed because, even though a
skim forms quickly over the molten slag that inhibits fuming, some
fuming will continue until the slag is completely solidified in the
storage pile. EPA is also proposing an exemption for the dumping of
molten slag on to the slag pile. There will be visible fuming from the
molten slag as it flows from the pot onto the slag pile. Currently EPA
is unaware of any control technology or process to reduce or eliminate
these fuming emissions. EPA specifically seeks comment from the public
on possible emission reduction techniques for this operation. Finally,
EPA is proposing a limit of no visible emissions from the recycle
material pile, because the pile consists of large material from which
no visible emissions should be expected.
2. Calciner Scrubbers (Source 9)
a. Overview of Current Operations. FMC uses two traveling grate
calciners to fuse green briquettes into nodules for furnace feed. Each
calciner consists of a grate that carries green briquettes through the
calciners. Heat is used to drive off volatile organics and to fuse the
briquettes which makes the burden stable for handling until introduced
into the furnace. There are two exhausts on each calciner. Particulate
emissions from each of the two calciner stacks are vented first to a
low energy venturi scrubber and then to a John Zink (tm) high energy
hydrosonic venturi wet scrubber on each stack. There are two stacks for
each John Zink scrubber and therefore, a total of eight calciner point
sources. The daily worst case emission rate from the calciner stacks
(all eight stacks combined) is 1204 pounds per day and 100 tons of PM-
10 per year. The calciner scrubbers account for more than 18% of total
PM-10 emissions from FMC.
A high energy wet scrubber is generally considered an effective
control technology for particulate emissions. The control efficiency of
the current combined low and high energy scrubbers at FMC, however,
which were installed in order to comply with the radionuclide NESHAPs,
is on the order of 50 to 60%. This level of control is far below the
manufacturer's specification and below the results of pilot testing of
this scrubber at FMC prior to full scale construction and operation.
FMC has conducted considerable research and development on the current
John Zink scrubbers in the course of assuring compliance with the
radionuclide NESHAPs and in an attempt to achieve full calciner
production. Little improvement in control efficiency, however, has been
achieved since installation in 1992.
Failure of FMC's existing control system to achieve the desired
emission reductions appears to be caused by the regeneration of
submicron particles in quench water by evaporation of aerosol water
droplets in the inlet gasses of the hydrosonic scrubbers. The high
pressure fan compresses the gasses, causing isentropic heating of the
gas stream as it passes through the fan upstream of the hydrosonic
scrubbers. The heated subsaturated gas stream allows evaporation of a
portion of the water droplets that are critical to the capture and
entrainment of fine particulate, and thus reduces the capture
efficiency of the John Zink scrubbers.
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology.
Steam Injection With High Energy Wet Scrubbers
There are three alternative control technologies for this source.
The first is to modify the existing John Zink scrubbers to improve
performance by installing steam injection upstream of the scrubbers.
Steam injection is an attempt to saturate the gas stream, create larger
particles in the exhaust gasses, and, thus, increase the particle
entrainment in the high energy wet scrubbing system.
Adding steam injection to FMC's existing system would help assure
saturation of the gas entering the scrubbers and improve performance.
EPA expects that the addition of steam injection could achieve an
emissions rate of 0.01 grain per dry standard cubic foot of air. By EPA
estimates, steam injection would result in an emission reduction of 23%
over current emissions, or a total emission reduction from all calciner
scrubbers of 23 tons per year from current conditions. There is a
concern, however, that steam injection will not adequately saturate the
gas stream--steam injection will increase the gas temperature and
therefore increase its capability of holding more water vapor, thus
defeating the intent of adding the steam.
Based on estimates provided by FMC in the RCRA settlement
negotiations, the capital costs to modify the John Zink scrubbers for
steam injection are expected to be $2.5 million and the annual
operating expenses for the system are estimated to be $120,000. The
cost effectiveness of steam injection is $38,120 per ton of particulate
removed.
Spray Tower With Hydrosonic Scrubbers
The second technology, similar to steam injection, is installation
of a spray tower between the low energy scrubber and the John Zink
scrubbers. Spray will saturate the gas stream and create larger
particle sizes and increase scrubber performance.
Installation of a spray tower between the low energy scrubbers and
the John Zinc scrubbers on FMC's current control system for the
calciners would provide a better means to saturate the gas stream,
avoid regeneration of particulates, and avoid evaporation of water
droplets at the inlet of the scrubber. The spray towers would need to
be capable of generating water drops of 40 micrometers in diameter and
thus allow for the rapid evaporation needed before entering the throat
of the
[[Page 7332]]
hydrosonic. Water would not raise the temperature of the gas stream and
would provide for a saturated gas stream. EPA estimates this technology
would achieve an emission level of 0.005 grains per standard dry cubic
foot (gr/dscf) resulting in a reduction of 75% over current emissions,
or a total emission reduction from all calciner scrubbers of 74 tons
per year. Based on worst case 24-hour emissions annualized over a year,
the cost effectiveness of adding a spray tower is just under $5,000 per
ton of PM-10 removed. Using the existing hourly emission rate of 6.27
pounds per hour from each outlet stack, a 75% reduction would mean the
calciner scrubbers could achieve an emission limitation of 1.57 pounds
per hour from each hydrosonic outlet stack.
Baghouse
The third technology is replacement of the existing John Zink
scrubbers with baghouses. Baghouses typically have proven control
efficiencies of 99% for particulate matter.
A baghouse is an efficient and commonly-accepted technology that
could be used to control particulate emissions from the calciners.
Expected emission reductions are 16 and 19 tons per year depending on
the calciners. Installation of a baghouse system on each calciner
exhaust is technically feasible but not desirable because of potential
adverse environmental effects. The calciners are a significant source
of Polonium-210, a pollutant regulated under the radionuclide NESHAPS.
With a baghouse, which is a dry system that does not use water,
Polonium-210 would be captured in the dust and would be retained on the
baghouse walls, hoppers, and bags. This would create health and safety
problems for maintenance workers. Capital costs for installation of a
baghouse system for each calciner is estimated to be $1.7 million.
Annual operating costs, including capital recovery, are estimated at
$1.26 to $1.28 million for each calciner. This results in a cost
effectiveness of the baghouse system of $57,032 per ton of particulate
removed.
Conclusion
EPA believes that modification of the John Zink scrubbers by
installation of a spray tower represents RACT-level controls. This
alternative is technologically and economically feasible and could
achieve results comparable to, or better than, a baghouse. FMC has
agreed in the RCRA settlement to spend $2.5 million for the purchase,
installation, modification, testing, and operation of the necessary
equipment for enhancing the performance on the existing John Zink
scrubbers on the calciners to achieve an overall control efficiency of
90%. The system is required to be installed, tested, and fully
operational by December 1, 2000. EPA believes that installation of the
spray towers will be less expensive and will result in a higher control
efficiency than steam injection. EPA is not aware of any other
alternative system that achieves comparable control efficiency.
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements. EPA is
proposing a mass emission limitation of 0.005 gr/dscf for each calciner
stack, effective December 1, 2000. This is equivalent to a 75%
reduction from current maximum emissions. FMC has committed to a 90%
overall control efficiency for calciner emission reductions in the RCRA
consent decree. EPA believes that this emission limitation can be
achieved by at least one of the available alternate modifications to
the existing control system.
EPA is not proposing an opacity limit for the calciner scrubbers.
Emissions from the calciner scrubbers have a visible steam plume
because of the wet scrubber. Method 9 states that opacity observations
shall be made at the point of greatest opacity in that portion of the
plume where condensed water is not present. 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
method 9, section 2.3. Because of the close proximity of the four
stacks for each calciner at FMC, it is likely that the individual stack
plumes will have combined into a single plume just prior to the point
where the steam plume dissipates and it will therefore be very
difficult to take a proper reading. As discussed below, EPA is
proposing parametric monitoring and other monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements to ensure that the calciner scrubbers comply
with the proposed emission limit.
3. Elevated Secondary Condenser Flare and Ground Flare (Source 26a)
a. Overview of Current Operations. Furnace gasses are used as fuel
for the calciners. Excess furnace gasses are ducted to either the
elevated carbon monoxide (CO) secondary condenser flare or the ground
flare. Furnace CO gas, in excess of that required to fuel the
calciners, is flared in the elevated secondary CO flare to maintain
pressure in the furnaces and CO lines. CO gas in excess of that needed
to maintain pressure is then flared in the ground flare. The CO gas
contains elemental phosphorous which is oxidized in the flares to
phosphorous pentoxide and emitted as particulate matter.
In addition to flaring excess furnace CO gas, the secondary
condenser periodically becomes contaminated with solidified phosphorus
and must be ``flushed'' with one of two processes. One process is
called a ``mini-flush'' and it occurs on a daily basis. The second
process is a ``hot-flush'' in which the entire condensing system is
flushed by elevating the temperature of the condensing system to
liquify and flush all phosphorus in the system. Emissions from these
processes are included in the 1996 emission inventory for FMC and are
identified separately.
The initial 1990 base year emissions inventory for the area, which
was relied on by IDEQ in its May 1993 SIP submittal, estimated
emissions from the elevated secondary condenser and ground flares at
23.7 pounds per day of PM-10. The 1996 emission inventory estimated
emissions from these sources at 350 pounds per day of PM-10 on a worst
case daily basis. Emissions from mini-flushes and hot-flushes are
estimated at 2740 pounds per day of PM-10. The disparity in emissions
between the 1990 inventory and the 1996 inventory for FMC is because
the 1990 inventory did not include mini-flush emissions nor additional
information and analysis of furnace gas composition.
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology. EPA initially
proposed ducting excess CO furnace gas from both the elevated secondary
condenser flare and the ground flare to an enclosed burner and control
device during public workshops in Pocatello and Fort Hall in September
1997. In the RCRA consent decree, FMC has agreed to this approach and
to reduce emissions during flaring, mini-flushes and hot flushes by
95%. In the burner/combustion device, the excess CO furnace gas will be
burned under controlled combustion conditions to oxidize CO to carbon
dioxide and elemental phosphorus to form particulate phosphorus
pentoxide. The off-gas from the enclosed burner/combustion device will
be sent to a high efficiency scrubber where the particulates will be
removed before the gas is vented to the atmosphere. FMC anticipates
removal of over 95% of particulates using this system. FMC has
estimated the capital costs of this system at $18.5 million, with an
additional $700,000 in annual operating costs. The cost effectiveness,
based on worst case daily emissions over the year, is $5,172 per ton.
FMC has agreed to have this new CO burner installed and fully
operational by January 1, 2001.
[[Page 7333]]
The secondary condenser flare and ground flare are sources unique
to the elemental phosphorus industry. The excess CO burner which FMC
has designed and proposes to implement is the only alternative control
technology currently available of which EPA is aware. EPA believes that
the excess CO burner is both technically and economically feasible.
FMC's agreement to install and operate the technology as part of the
RCRA consent decree is persuasive evidence of this fact. As discussed
below in section III.I., the emission reductions resulting from
implementation of the CO burner are necessary to attain the PM-10
standard.
EPA is not aware of any other control technology for the flares
that would be more effective in reducing emissions than the excess CO
burner.
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements. EPA is
proposing a mass emission limitation of 6.5 pounds per hour of PM-10
emissions from the excess CO burner, effective January 1, 2001. This
limitation is derived from the total estimated emissions from the
flares (2740 + 350 pounds per day) divided by 24-hours per day and
assuming 95% control efficiency. EPA proposes to require that the
reference test method be conducted during operating conditions that
represent maximum emissions, that is, during either a mini-flush or a
hot-flush.
EPA is proposing a limit of no visible emissions, effective January
1, 2001. Although the 1995-1996 visible emission survey reported
visible emissions from this source, EPA believes that installation and
operation of the CO burner should enable FMC to meet a requirement of
no visible emissions.
Because of the high emissions from the flares and the predicted
impact on ambient PM-10 concentrations, EPA is also proposing interim
work practice measures that FMC must comply with until the excess CO
burner is fully operational. These work practice requirements are based
on interim measures FMC has agreed to implement as part of the RCRA
consent decree to reduce the ambient impact of emissions from the
flares until the excess CO burner is fully operational. EPA is
proposing that FMC limit mini-flushes to no more than 50 minutes per
day (based on a monthly average). FMC's 1997 data indicate that mini-
flush durations averaged 100 minutes per day, which would result in an
average emission reduction of 50%. EPA is also proposing a prohibition
on mini-flushes unless the flow rate of recirculated condenser water
(phossy water) falls to or below 1800 gallons per minute or the
secondary condenser outlet temperature meets or exceeds 36 degrees
Centigrade. These operating parameters are designed to ensure there is
no bias toward conducting mini-flushes at night, when winds are
generally lower and there is less dispersion.
Under the RCRA consent decree, the operating parameters for
conducting mini-flushes do not apply during periods of ``malfunction,''
as defined in 40 CFR 60.2. To ensure consistency with the RCRA consent
decree, EPA is similarly proposing that the operating parameters for
conducting mini-flushes not apply during periods of ``malfunction.''
EPA is also proposing that FMC be required to submit a bimonthly report
on mini-flushes showing FMC's compliance with the interim emission
reduction requirements.
4. Phosphorus Loading Dock (Source 21)
a. Overview of Current Operations. The phosphorus loading dock (or
``phos dock'') is the location where condensed phosphorus from the
primary and secondary condensers is further clarified, stored, and
loaded into railcars for shipment. Phosphorus is transferred by water
displacement so that it is never exposed to air and thereby does not
burn. At the phosphorus-water interface is a layer called sludge which
is an emulsion of phosphorus, water and contaminants. Because sludge
does not form a distinct layer between the phosphorus or water layers,
it is difficult for operators to determine when tanks are full.
Spillage of sludge, phosphorus, and phossy water has been a frequent
occurrence at the FMC facility, leading to phosphorous fires which in
turn lead to excessive fugitive emissions from the phos dock (source
21b) that in turn overwhelm and cause excessive emissions from the
Andersen scrubber on the phos dock (source 21a).
EPA has not been able to quantify fugitive emissions or excessive
stack emissions from the phos dock attributable to spillage and other
``upset'' 18 conditions because such events are intermittent
and of varying duration. The emission inventory for FMC lists point
source emissions from the phos dock at 34 pounds per day. This
emissions estimate, which represents so called ``worst case
emissions,'' represents emissions from the Andersen scrubber assuming
normal operations and full phosphorus production. It does not include
the fugitive emissions due to ``upset'' conditions or the excessive
emissions from the scrubber that occur when the Andersen scrubber is
overwhelmed due to ``upset'' conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ EPA is using the term ``upset'' conditions here to mean
operations that do not reflect normal operating conditions. EPA does
not believe that these conditions qualify as a ``malfunction'' or an
``emergency'' because EPA believes they could be avoided through
better design or better operation and maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions from the phos dock area, however, are of great concern to
the public and the Tribes. The phos dock is located at the front of the
FMC facility in view of the general public from the nearby highway.
Based on EPA's own observations and verbal communications from the
Tribal Air Quality Office, EPA believes that fugitive emissions and
excess stack emissions from the phos dock due to ``upset'' conditions
could be contributing to the measured exceedences of the PM-10 NAAQS at
the Tribal monitors. FMC also appears to be concerned about the public
perception that visible emissions from the phos dock area contribute to
PM-10 levels that exceed the standard, as evidenced by FMC's commitment
in the RCRA consent decree to make improvements in the phos dock area,
which is discussed in more detail below.
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology. The phos dock
currently employs capture and control technology. Captured emissions
from the sumps and launder are ducted to the phos dock Andersen
scrubber. The Andersen scrubber is an efficient control device for PM-
10 that is primarily comprised of phosphorus pentoxide, with a control
efficiency of 99.5% for this pollutant stream. Much of the equipment
used to capture (as oppose to control) emissions from the phos dock at
the FMC facility, however, is old and obsolete. Sump tops are corroded,
pumps are old, and seals leak. The launder is warped, resulting in
phossy water pools and phosphorus fires. Spills have contaminated
storage tank insulation with phosphorus requiring continuous flooding
of tank insulation with water. There is no single control device or
upgrade to the control system that is needed for reducing emissions
from the phos dock. Rather, replacement and upgrading of the existing
emissions capture system at numerous places throughout the phos dock
and improved instrumentation for storage tanks to help operators avoid
spillage are needed to prevent the recurrence of ``upset'' conditions
which result in fugitive and excessive stack emissions in the phos dock
area.
FMC has committed as a SEP project in the RCRA consent decree to
spend $750,000 by January 1, 2000 to upgrade
[[Page 7334]]
and improve the capture and control of emissions from the phos dock
area. This commitment involves basic improvements in measuring
phosphorus levels in storage tanks, upgrading design, and replacing
old, worn, and obsolete equipment. FMC has acknowledged that this SEP
project is intended to reduce emissions that result from ``upset''
conditions.
The phos dock is a source unique to the elemental phosphorous
industry, and EPA is not aware of any control technology that would
control emissions from this source better than the Andersen scrubber.
EPA believes that the improvements to the capture system for emissions
from the phos dock area that FMC has agreed to undertake as part of the
RCRA consent decree are both technically and economically feasible, as
evidenced by FMC's agreement. As discussed above, the emission
inventory does not include the fugitive emissions and excessive stack
emissions in the phos dock area attributable to upset conditions. EPA
nonetheless believes that the improvements to the phos dock area
designed to eliminate ``upsets'' are necessary for attainment of the
PM-10 standard because the attainment demonstration has not accounted
for the emissions from the phos dock area attributable to ``upset''
conditions. In other words, the attainment demonstration assumes that
the only emissions from the phos dock area are 34 pounds per day of
emissions from the Andersen scrubber under normal operating conditions.
To the extent fugitive and point source emissions from the phos dock
area exceed this amount, those emissions must be eliminated for
attainment to be demonstrated.
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements. EPA
proposes that, effective November 1, 1999, emissions from the phos dock
Andersen scrubber (source 21a) to 0.007 grains per dry standard cubic
feet, a limit based on the emissions for this source included in the
emissions inventory. EPA believes that FMC can achieve this limit on a
continuous basis if FMC eliminates the routine ``upset'' conditions
that have been occurring in the phos dock area through the scheduled
improvements to the capture system for the phos dock area and
instituting better operations and maintenance procedures. Under the
RCRA consent decree, the improvements to the phos dock area are
scheduled to be completed by November 1, 1999.
EPA is proposing an opacity limitation of five percent averaged
over six minutes for point source emissions from the phos dock Andersen
scrubber, effective November 1, 1999. Again, EPA believes that, with
the scheduled improvements to the phos dock area, FMC should be able to
achieve continuous compliance with this requirement on and after
November 1, 1999. During the 1995-1996 visible emissions survey,
visible emissions from the phos dock Andersen scrubber were observed
for three 15 minute observation periods, with reading taken every 15
seconds. During two of the 15 minute observation periods, no visible
emissions were observed. During the third 15 minute observation period,
visible emissions above five percent opacity were observed for ten of
the 60 observations in that 15 minute period, with a high of 40%.
Although the average opacity over this third 15 minute period was
4.75%, the highest six minute average within this third 15 minute
period was 10.625% and would represent an exceedence of the proposed
five percent opacity limit. EPA believes that the scheduled
improvements and upgrades to the phos dock, however, will allow FMC to
achieve compliance with the proposed five percent opacity limitation on
a continuous basis because these improvements and upgrades will prevent
emissions that overwhelm the phos dock Andersen scrubber by preventing
phos-fires.19 An opacity limit of five percent averaged over
six minutes allows for limited excursions of short duration over five
percent opacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The observation forms from the 1995-1996 survey note that
no railcar loading occurred during any of the three observation
periods. EPA does not expect phos dock emissions to be higher during
railcar loading than at other times because phosphorus is produced,
clarified, and transferred to storage tanks on a continuous basis,
not just during railcar loading. EPA therefore believes that the
opacity observed during the 1995-1996 survey is representative of
normal operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For fugitive emissions emanating from the phos dock (source 21b),
EPA is proposing an opacity limitation of ten percent averaged over six
minutes, effective November 1, 1999. This limitation would apply to
fugitive emissions emanating from any operation or location within the
phos dock area. Again, EPA believes that the reduction in spills,
improvements to the capture system, improved housekeeping, and the
other scheduled improvements and upgrades to the phos dock area will
enable FMC to comply with the ten percent opacity limit on a continuous
basis.
5. Furnace Building (Source 18c)
a. Overview of Current Operations. The furnace building contains
several sources of fugitive emissions that can escape through doors,
windows, vents, and holes in the furnace building. On the ground level
of the building, there are the slag and metal tap hoods from which tap
emissions can escape. Fugitive emissions from the furnace building from
slag and metal tapping are included in the emissions estimate for slag
handling.
On the top level of the furnace building (called the ``burden
level''), the furnace feed (called ``burden'') is transported by
conveyor belt to feed burden bins above each furnace. Dust build-up on
the burden level floor and fugitive emissions from transfer points is a
source of fugitive emissions from the burden level of the furnace
building. The emissions inventory lists emissions from the burden level
of the furnace building at .013 pounds per day, which was derived from
information provided by FMC. More recently, FMC has asserted that the
current maximum emissions from the burden level of the furnace building
could be as high as 2538 pounds per day. Although FMC has provided no
documentation to explain the basis for this very high emissions
estimate, EPA believes that the difference between the .013 pounds per
day included in the emissions inventory and the 2538 pounds per day
figure recently provided by FMC are emissions that FMC estimates could
occur when the venting dampers on the furnace building are opened as a
safety precaution and during other ``upset'' conditions.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Again, EPA is using the term ``upset'' conditions here to
mean operations that do not reflect normal operating conditions. EPA
does not believe that these conditions qualify as a ``malfunction''
or an ``emergency'' because EPA believes they could be avoided
through better design or better operation and maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Evaluation of Alternative Control Technology. EPA expects
fugitive emissions from the lower level of the furnace building to be
greatly reduced through the implementation of hot pour pot handling,
which FMC has committed to undertake as part of the RCRA consent decree
as discussed in section III.F.1. above. As part of that project, slag
and metal tap hood emissions in the furnace building will be reduced by
installation of upgraded tap hoods with reduced head space and
increased sweep velocities. Under the RCRA consent decree, this project
is to be completed by November 1, 2000.
As part of the RCRA consent decree, FMC has also agreed to spend at
least $1.5 million to reduce fugitive emissions from the furnace
building burden level through increases in ventilation volume and
capture efficiency for the conveyor belts and burden bins at the burden
level,
[[Page 7335]]
improved instrumentation and controls on the furnace bins to reduce
spillage, and improved housekeeping systems. New controls and
instrumentation will reduce reliance on manual operation and visual
observation in filling burden bins, thus reducing the occurrence of
furnace fires and emissions due to ``upset'' conditions. Improved
housekeeping through more frequent clean-up of spillage by installation
of a vacuum system and upgraded operator procedures will reduce re-
entrainment of dust as wind blows through the upper level of the
furnace building. As with the phos dock, this SEP project is designed,
in part, to reduce the frequency of ``upsets.'' Under the RCRA consent
decree, these changes are to be completed by April 1, 2002.
EPA believes that increasing ventilation volume and capture
efficiency and improving process control instrumentation at the burden
level of the furnace building is economically and technologically
feasible, as evidenced by FMC's agreement to undertake these projects
under the RCRA consent decree. As discussed above, the emission
inventory may not include all of the fugitive emissions at the burden
level, in particular, emissions resulting from the opening of the
venting dampers on the building and other ``upset'' conditions. EPA
nonetheless believes that the improvements to the furnace building are
necessary for attainment of the PM-10 standard because the attainment
demonstration has not accounted for the emissions from the burden level
attributable to ``upset'' conditions and, according to FMC, these
emissions can be quite high. In other words, the attainment
demonstration assumes that the only emissions from the burden level of
the furnace building are .013 pounds per day. To the extent fugitive
emissions from the burden level exceed this amount, those emissions
must be eliminated for attainment to be demonstrated.
c. Emission Limitations and Work Practice Requirements. EPA is
initially proposing an opacity limitation of 20% opacity averaged over
six minutes using Method 9 for the furnace building. Twenty percent is
the generally applicable opacity limit found in most state
implementation plans for sources that are not subject to more stringent
limits. Opacity limits in excess of 20% are rare. During the 1995-1996
visible emissions survey, visible emissions from the furnace building
were observed for 15 minutes, at 15 second intervals. The readings
ranged from five percent to 45%, with a 15 minute average of 17.5% and
the highest six minute average of 22%, which would represent an
exceedence of the proposed 20% opacity standard. EPA nonetheless
believes that FMC can comply with a 20% opacity limit on a continuous
basis even before the scheduled improvements to the slag handling
practices and the burden level of the furnace building are implemented
if FMC institutes improved housekeeping practices, such as increased
diligence on the part of burden level operators in filling burden bins
without spills and promptly cleaning up any spills that occur. EPA
believes FMC can implement such improved housekeeping practices quickly
and with little additional expenditure. EPA finds no basis for
proposing an opacity limit in excess of 20% for the furnace building,
even before the slag handling and furnace burden building improvements
are implemented.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In this regard, EPA notes that an air operating permit
issued by the State of Idaho to the FMC facility in 1980 contained a
facility-wide opacity limit of 20%. The 20% opacity limit purported
to apply to, among other things, the furnace building. Although EPA
believes that the State of Idaho does not and, at the time of
issuance of the permit, did not have authority to regulate FMC, EPA
notes that FMC has claimed over the years that it was capable of
complying with the State-issued permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the improvements to the slag handling process and the furnace
building are completed by April 1, 2002, fugitive emissions from
processes within the furnace building should be greatly reduced. From
this date on, EPA believes that FMC should be able to meet a five
percent opacity limitation averaged over 6 minutes using Method 9. EPA
notes that this five percent limit is higher than the limit of no
visible emissions that is proposed for most other building at the FMC
facility.
G. Monitoring, Work Practice, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
EPA believes it has broad latitude, when promulgating a Federal
Implementation Plan, to include such monitoring, work practice,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as are necessary or
appropriate to ensure compliance with the proposed standards. Including
such requirements in the FIP itself is particularly appropriate where,
as here, the FIP is a regulation that applies only to a single facility
and a greater degree of specificity is possible than in the case of a
generally applicable rule that applies to many source categories or
many sources. Therefore, EPA is proposing as part of this FIP
monitoring, work practice, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
that EPA believes will help assure compliance with proposed emission
limitations and work practice requirements.
EPA notes that the FMC facility is a major stationary source under
title V of the Clean Air Act and will be required to have an operating
permit under CAA section 502(a) (referred to here as a ``title V
permit''). Because FMC is located in Indian country, FMC must apply for
and will be subject to a title V permit issued by EPA under the federal
operating permit program, 40 CFR part 71, unless the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes apply for and receive EPA delegation or approval of an operating
permit program under the Tribal Authority Rule and 40 CFR part
70.22 Revisions to the part 71 program, which will establish
the date FMC is required to submit an application for a title V permit
to EPA, are expected to be promulgated in early 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes could also request full or
partial delegation of the part 71 program from EPA under 40 CFR
71.10 and 40 CFR part 49 (Tribal Authority Rule), in which case EPA
would remain the permit-issuing authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title V operating permits are required to contain all applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act to which the source is subject;
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure
compliance with all applicable requirements; and standard permit terms
addressing administrative issues. A major goal of the title V operating
permit program is to clarify what Clean Air Act requirements apply to a
source in a single document, thereby better enabling the source, EPA,
states, tribes, and the public to better understand the requirements to
which the source is subject and whether the source is meeting those
requirements. See generally 56 FR 21712 (May 10, 1991).
Once this FIP is promulgated, FMC will also be subject to the
compliance assurance requirements (referred to as ``CAM'') of 40 CFR
part 63 for those emission units with control devices that have
potential pre-control device emissions of 100 tons per year or more of
PM-10. 40 CFR 64.2(a). As such, FMC will be required to submit to the
permitting authority along with its title V operating permit
application a monitoring plan that meets the design requirements of 40
CFR 64.3, 64.4, and 64.5. The requirements of the approved monitoring
plan will then become requirements of FMC's title V permit. 40 CFR 64.6
and 64.7.
Because FMC is required to apply for a title V permit and to submit
a CAM plan, EPA has carefully considered the extent to which
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements necessary to
assure compliance with the proposed PM-10
[[Page 7336]]
emission limitations and work practice requirements should be included
in the proposed FIP or should be deferred to the title V permit
issuance process. As stated above, EPA believes it has broad latitude,
when promulgating a FIP, to include such monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements as are necessary or appropriate to ensure
compliance with the proposed standards, especially in the case of a
source-specific FIP. Because of the serious air quality problem that
exists in the vicinity of FMC and the importance of compliance with the
proposed emissions limitations and work practice standards to the
protection of air quality in the vicinity of FMC, EPA is proposing as
part of this FIP monitoring, work practice, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the
proposed emission limitations and work practice standards. Additional
monitoring, work practice, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
will be included in the title V permit as necessary and appropriate to
assure compliance with the requirements of this FIP and the
requirements of the title V program. For example, as discussed below,
EPA proposes that FMC be required to take prompt corrective action when
certain operating parameters fall outside designated ranges. Although
FMC is required to submit the ranges to EPA under this FIP, the precise
ranges will be approved as part of FMC's title V permit. As another
example, although FMC is required to submit an operations and
maintenance plan as part of this proposed FIP, EPA may determine it is
appropriate to include certain provisions of the plan in FMC's title V
permit. To clarify this point, EPA proposes to include a provision that
specifically authorizes additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to be established in FMC's title V permit as
appropriate. EPA has also clarified that, although FMC's obligation to
submit proposed parameter ranges for certain units is in addition to
and separate from FMC's obligations under the CAM rule, monitoring for
any pollutant specific emissions unit that meets the design criteria of
40 CFR 64.3 and the submittal requirements of 40 CFR 64.4 may be
submitted to meet the requirement to submit proposed parameter ranges
under the proposed FIP.
1. Monitoring and Work Practice Requirements
a. Annual Source Testing of Point Sources. EPA is proposing that
FMC be required to conduct a performance test to measure PM-10
emissions from most point sources on an annual basis. This will result
in a requirement to test more than twenty-five individual emission
sources each year. FMC could meet this requirement by implementing an
in-house testing program, as many pulp mills in Washington and Oregon
have done in response to similar annual testing requirements, or by
hiring an outside consultant to perform the testing. The proposed FIP
is written to allow the source tests to be conducted on a staggered
basis so long as each annual test for a particular source is conducted
within 12 months of the most recent previous test.
b. Monitoring Devices.
i. Sources Controlled by Baghouses
When operating properly, the particulate removal efficiency of a
baghouse is very high (99.9 to 99.99% efficient). Two primary problems,
however, can result in increased emissions from systems controlled by
baghouses. First, reduced gas flow through the baghouse system due to
excessive buildup of the dust cake on the bags or other deterioration
in the system results in inadequate dust capture at the emission point
controlled by the baghouse and increased fugitive emissions at the
capture point. Second, holes or tears in the bags allows the dirty gas
to leak through the bags.
EPA proposes that FMC be required to install two monitoring devices
to guard against these problems. First, EPA proposes to require FMC to
install on all point sources controlled by baghouses a device for
continuously measuring and recording pressure drop across the baghouse.
Pressure drop is an indirect measure of flow rate through the baghouse
system. Monitoring pressure drop is an effective means for detecting
reduced gas flow through the baghouse system due to excessive buildup
of the dust cake on the bags or other deterioration of the baghouse
system. Monitoring pressure drop is also important because operation of
a baghouse under excessively high pressure drop conditions can lead to
accelerated bag deterioration by erosion through pin holes in the bags.
Monitoring pressure drop is also useful in diagnosing other problems
that may be contributing to high particulate emissions from the
baghouse system. FMC may have in fact already installed devices to
measure pressure drop on some of its baghouses because such devices are
commonly used to evaluate the performance of a baghouse.
EPA proposes to require that FMC submit a proposed parameter range
of operation for pressure drop for each baghouse that is representative
of compliance with the applicable emission limitations and work
practice standards. The parameters would be approved through the title
V permit issuance process or as a modification to FMC's title V permit.
Once those proposed parameter ranges are established in FMC's title V
permit, EPA proposes that FMC be required to maintain and operate the
source to stay within the approved range and to take immediate
corrective action to bring source operation back within the approved
range if an excursion from the approved range occurs. Operating outside
of an approved range would require corrective action. Similar
monitoring is routinely required for baghouses by New Source
Performance Standards. See generally 40 CFR part 60.
To provide early detection of leaks and holes in bags, EPA proposes
to require FMC to install and operate a triboelectric monitor on each
baghouse to continuously monitor and record the readout of the
instrument response for all baghouses. This type of baghouse leak
detector is sensitive enough to detect even very small leaks. Given the
normal variation in pressure drop, monitoring pressure drop alone is
not effective for detecting smaller holes and tears in bags. A
triboelectric monitor is also more likely to detect a leak than a
continuous opacity monitor and is much less expensive than an opacity
monitor. In addition, because a triboelectric detector provides a
continuous output, a leak will be detected much earlier than by
periodic inspection of the equipment or visible emission observations.
EPA proposes that the triboelectric monitors be installed,
maintained, and operated in accordance with the manufacture's
specifications and EPA's guidance document, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS): Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance, EPA 454/R-98-015 (Sept. 1997). The guidance document
discusses the process for establishing a range of operation so that an
``alarm,'' as defined in and as determined in accordance with the
guidance, does not occur. EPA proposes to require that FMC be required
to operate each baghouse so as to stay within the approved range and to
take immediate corrective action to bring source operation back within
the approved range in the event of an excursion.
ii. Sources Controlled by Scrubbers
With respect to the calciner scrubbers (source 9) and the Medusa
Andersen scrubbers that control the furnaces (sources 18d, 18e, 18f,
and 18g), EPA
[[Page 7337]]
proposes to require FMC to install devices for the continuous
measurement and recording of pressure drop, scrubber liquor flow rate,
and scrubber liquor pH on all sources controlled by scrubbers. Pressure
drop and scrubber liquor flow rate are common indicators of performance
of scrubbers. See generally 40 CFR part 60. The calciners and the
furnaces are controlled by scrubbers and have significant phosphorous
pentoxide emissions. Phosphorous pentoxide dissolves in water to form
phosphoric acid, which can be re-emitted as phosphorous pentoxide if
the scrubber liquor becomes overloaded due to inadequate blowdown and
makeup with fresh water. Monitoring scrubber liquor pH provides a good
indication of adequate removal of phosphoric acid from the scrubber
liquor through sufficient scrubber blow down. Furthermore, low scrubber
liquor pH can result in equipment corrosion and a corresponding
reduction in the effectiveness of the control device.
EPA also proposes to require that FMC submit a proposed parameter
range of operation for pressure drop, scrubber liquor flow rate, and
scrubber liquor pH for each source controlled by a scrubber that is
representative of compliance with the applicable emission limitations
and work practice standards. Again, the parameters would be approved
through the title V permit issuance process or as a modification to
FMC's title V permit. Once those proposed parameter ranges are
established in FMC's title V permit, EPA proposes that FMC be required
to maintain and operate the source to stay within the approved range
and to take immediate corrective action to bring source operation back
within the approved range if an excursion from the approved range
occurs.
For the other two sources controlled by scrubbers at the FMC
facility, the phos dock Andersen scrubber (source 21a) and the excess
CO burner (source 26b), EPA proposes to require that FMC install and
operate a device to continuously measure and continuously record the
pressure drop across the scrubber. As with the other monitoring
devices, EPA proposes to require that FMC submit a proposed parameter
range of operation for pressure drop that is representative of
compliance with the applicable emission limitations and work practice
standards, to maintain and operate the source to stay within the
approved range, and to take immediate corrective action if an excursion
from the approved range occurs.
iii. Pressure Relief Vents
As discussed above in section III.E.5. above, EPA proposes to
require FMC to install continuous temperature indicators and recorders
on each of the pressure relief vents (source 24) to detect when a
pressure release from a furnace begins and ends.
c. Operations and Maintenance Plan. EPA proposes that FMC be
required to develop, submit to EPA, and implement a written operations
and maintenance (O&M) plan covering all sources of PM-10 emissions at
the FMC facility, including uncaptured fugitive and general fugitive
emissions of PM-10. The purpose of the O&M plan is to ensure each
source at the FMC facility will be operated and maintained consistent
with good air pollution control practices and procedures for maximizing
control efficiency and minimizing emissions at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction, emergency, and to establish
procedures for assuring continuous compliance with the emission
limitations, work practice requirements, and other requirements of this
proposed FIP. The development of O&M plans is required of sources under
several standards recently promulgated under section 112 of the CAA, as
well as under some state implementation plans. See 40 CFR 63.545; 40
CFR 63.803(a) and 63.803(c); 40 CFR 63.306(a); 40 CFR 63.105(b); WAC
173-400-101(4); OAPCA Regulation 1, Section 5.03 (f); PSAPCA Regulation
1, Section 5.05(e).
Requiring FMC to develop and implement an O&M plan is particularly
appropriate for several reasons. First, approximately 22% of all
emissions from FMC are uncaptured fugitive emissions. EPA has not
proposed mass emission limitations for these fugitive sources because
of the difficulty of measuring such emissions. Good operations and
maintenance procedures are especially important for controlling
fugitive emissions because much of the control efficiency is dependent
upon diligent housekeeping requirements, including vacuum sweeping,
application of dust suppressants, and replacing expendable parts and
supplies prior to breakdown. Second, EPA believes that many of the air
quality problems attributable to the FMC facility have in the past, at
least in part, been due to the lack of comprehensive operations and
maintenance procedures at FMC. This, in turn, has led to frequent
``upsets'' at the FMC facility.
EPA proposes to require that the O&M plan address certain
identified topics, in addition to good operations and maintenance
procedures for all sources at FMC. The identified topics include
procedures for minimizing fugitive PM-10 emissions from materials
handling, storage piles, roads, staging areas, parking lots, mechanical
processes, and other processes, including weekly inspection; procedures
for the application of dust suppressants to and the sweeping of storage
piles, roads, staging areas, parking lots, or any open area as
appropriate to maintain compliance with applicable emission
limitations; specifying parts or elements of control equipment needing
replacement after some set interval prior to breakdown or malfunction;
process conditions that indicate need for repair, maintenance or
cleaning of control or process equipment (such as the need to open
furnace access ports or holes); procedures for the weekly visual
inspection of all control equipment; procedures for the regular
maintenance of control equipment; procedures that meet or exceed
manufacturer recommendations for the inspection, maintenance,
operation, and calibration of each required monitoring device;
procedures for the rapid identification and repair of equipment or
processes causing an emergency and for reducing or minimizing the
duration of and emissions resulting from any emergency; and procedures
for the training of staff in the above procedures.
As proposed, FMC is required to submit the O&M plan to EPA for
review. Although there is no explicit requirement for EPA approval of
the plan, EPA can require FMC to modify the plan. FMC may revise the
plan, as necessary and appropriate, so long as the plan meets the
identified requirements and so long as FMC provides EPA with copies of
any revisions. FMC is required to review and revise the plan as
necessary at least annually. Failure to implement the O&M plan would be
a violation of the FIP.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ As discussed above, EPA may determine it is appropriate to
include certain provisions of FMC's O&M plan in FMC's title V
permit. In that event, FMC could revise those provisions of the O&M
plan only in accordance with the permit revision procedures of 40
CFR part 70 or 71, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the RCRA consent decree, FMC agreed to take measures to minimize
fugitive emissions from the north-east portion of the facility, which
includes the main shale pile (source 2), the emergency/contingency raw
ore shale pile (source 3), some roads (source 22), and related staging
areas. More specifically, FMC has agreed to submit a dust control plan
that specifies the actions FMC will take, including applying more dust
suppressant,
[[Page 7338]]
increasing cleaning and sweeping of roads, increasing water-application
during dry weather, and using slag to cover unpaved areas. EPA believes
the requirements of the RCRA consent decree in this regard are
consistent with the O&M requirements in this proposal.
d. Other Periodic Inspections and Testing. EPA is also proposing
specific inspection requirements for certain sources in order to
provide a basis for identifying and correcting control equipment and
process problems in a timely manner and to minimize emissions. For each
source subject to an opacity limit of no visible emissions, EPA is
proposing that an observer make a visual observation of visible
emissions from each source at least once each week, and that FMC take
corrective action if any visible emissions are observed for any period
of time during the observation period. Because the proposed standard
for these sources is no visible emissions, the observation of visible
emissions would constitute a violation. A visible emissions observation
is required upon completion of the corrective action to ensure a return
to compliance. Such periodic self-evaluation requirements are common in
the NSPS. See generally 40 CFR part 60.
For each fugitive emission source and point source subject to a
numerical opacity limit, EPA is proposing that an observer make a
visual observation of visible emissions from each such source at least
once each week. If visible emissions are observed, FMC would be
required to determine if any corrective action is needed and, if so, to
take appropriate corrective action. Based on the visible emissions
surveys, EPA believes that visible emissions at the FMC facility
frequently indicate that the source in question is not being properly
operated or is in need of maintenance. The observance of visible
emissions would require corrective action but would not constitute a
violation if prompt action was taken, unless the numerical opacity
standard is exceeded. Where corrective action is taken, a visual
observation is required upon completion of the corrective action. This
weekly inspection requirement is intended to ensure prompt
identification and correction of control equipment and process
problems.
EPA proposes to allow FMC, after conducting weekly inspections for
one year without documenting any visible emissions with respect to a
particular source to conduct monthly inspections for that source. The
inspection schedule would revert to a weekly schedule for a source if
visible emissions were observed during any monthly inspection of that
source.
With respect to the main shale pile (source 2) and the emergency/
contingency raw ore storage pile (source 3), EPA is proposing that FMC
analyze a representative sample of each pile for moisture content using
ASTM Standard D2216-92 at least once each month. FMC is required to
submit a proposed sampling plan to EPA for review and approval 30 days
prior to any required sampling. All sampling must thereafter adhere to
the plan.
e. Monitoring Malfunctions and Data Availability. EPA proposes to
require that monitoring with all required monitoring devices, such as
pressure drop measurement devices and temperature detectors, be
operated at all times that the process being monitored is in operation,
except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required
quality assurance or control activities. Monitoring data recorded
during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required
quality assurance or control activities will not be used for data
averages and minimum data availability requirements, but data collected
at all other times would be used in assessing control device operation.
These requirements, including the definition of ``monitoring
malfunction,'' are based on similar provisions in the Compliance
Assurance Monitoring rule. See 40 CFR 64.7(c). EPA has also included a
minimum data availability requirement for all monitoring devices of 90%
on a monthly average basis.
2. Recordkeeping Requirements
In general, EPA proposes to require that FMC keep records of all
required monitoring information. Parts 70 and 71 require records of all
required monitoring information that include the date, place and time
of the sampling or measurement, the analytical methods used, the
results of the analysis, and the operating conditions at the time of
sampling. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(A) and 71.6(a)(3)(ii)(A). Parts 70
and 71 also require the retention of all required monitoring data and
support information for a period of at least five years. See 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(ii)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(ii)(B). Because FMC is subject to the
title V operating permit program and will be issued a title V operating
permit, EPA believes it is appropriate to make the general
recordkeeping requirements in the proposed FIP consistent with parts 71
and 70.
EPA has also more specifically identified the recordkeeping
requirements relating to each required inspection and visible emissions
observation, including the date of the inspection or observation, what
was observed, and the time, date, and nature of any corrective action
taken; the parameters required to be measured under the monitoring
requirements; any excursions from approved ranges, and the time, date,
and nature of any corrective action taken; the time, date, and duration
of each pressure release from a furnace pressure relief vent; the time,
date, and duration of each flaring of the emergency CO flares;
application of dust suppressants; frequency of road sweeping; and
moisture content records. Until the secondary condenser flare is
eliminated, EPA proposes that FMC be required to keep records of all
mini-flushes, include the date, time, duration, water flow rate, and
temperature.
EPA also proposes that FMC be required to keep a maintenance log
for each control device, which will include information on all
inspections and maintenance activities on the control device, and
evidence of certification and recertification of all individuals who
conduct required visible emissions observations.
3. Reporting Requirements
Because FMC will be subject to a title V operating permit, EPA used
the reporting requirements of parts 70 and 71 as a starting point for
the reporting requirements proposed in this FIP. Thus, EPA proposes to
require that FMC submit a report of all required monitoring every six
months, which report must clearly identify all instances of deviations.
See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) and 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). EPA has
specifically identified certain items that must be addressed in this
report, including excess emissions and excursions from approved
operating ranges, corrective action taken, and a written report of each
annual performance test. Parts 70 and 71 require sources to submit a
compliance certification at least annually and more frequently if
required by the permitting authority. 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5) and 71.6(c)(5).
Given the contribution of FMC to the PM-10 nonattainment problem in the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA proposes to require that FMC
submit, as part of the semi-annual report, a compliance certification
meeting the requirements of parts 70 and 71 on a semi-annual basis. The
semi-annual report must be certified by a ``responsible official'' for
FMC as to its truth, accuracy, and completeness in accordance with the
compliance certification requirements of parts 70 and 71.
EPA also proposes to require the prompt reporting of violations of
the
[[Page 7339]]
requirements of the proposed FIP, and has used the default definitions
of ``prompt reporting'' in part 71 for those situations where the
proposed FIP does not establish a required time period for reporting.
See 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(B). This would require reporting to EPA by
telephone or fax, within 48 hours of occurrence, all excess emissions
that continue for more than two hours, followed by a written notice
within ten days. All other violations would be reported as part of the
semi-annual report. The requirement to report excess emissions applies
regardless of whether FMC asserts that the excess emissions were due to
startup, shutdown, scheduled maintenance, or emergency.
As discussed above, EPA proposes that FMC be required to submit a
proposed range of operation for each parameter required to be monitored
under the proposed FIP, along with documentation demonstrating that
operating the source within the proposed range will provide a
reasonable assurance of compliance with the proposed emission
limitations and work practice standards. The proposed range of
operation will be approved by EPA through the title V permit issuance
process.
Until the secondary condenser flare is eliminated, EPA proposes to
require that FMC submit a bi-monthly report to EPA regarding the
operating parameters for each mini-flush and the total mini-flush time
in minutes for each month, the number of operating days for the
secondary condenser, and the average minutes per operating day for each
month. This requirement is based on a requirement in the RCRA consent
decree.
EPA strongly encourages FMC to provide to the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes Air Quality Program copies of all information required to be
submitted to EPA under this proposed FIP.
H. Compliance Schedule
Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA, read together,
require that moderate area PM-10 nonattainment plans submitted by
States provide for implementation of RACM and RACT by existing sources
of PM-10 no later than December 10, 1993. In cases where the moderate
area deadline for the implementation of RACM/RACT had passed at the
time the state submitted its plan, EPA has concluded that the RACM/RACT
required in the SIP must be implemented ``as soon as possible.''
Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted
this requirement to be ``as soon as practicable.'' See 55 FR 41204,
41210 (October 1, 1990). Where, as here, EPA is exercising its
discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA
and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate a FIP for a moderate PM-10
nonattainment area in Indian country as necessary and appropriate to
assure implementation of RACT in order to protect air quality during
the transition to implementation of newly-promulgated PM NAAQS, EPA
believes it is appropriate to require that the controls be implemented
as soon as practicable.
In general, EPA is proposing that FMC be required to comply with
the emission limitations, work practice requirements, and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements beginning 60 days after the
effective date of this FIP proposal. This includes emission limitations
and work practice requirements for those sources for which EPA believes
no additional controls or process changes will be necessary for
compliance, and the general monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of this FIP proposal. Together with the proposed 30-day
delay in the effective date of the FIP, FMC will have 90 days from the
date the FIP is published until it will be required to comply. EPA
believes that this is sufficient time to ensure compliance with those
requirements for which no additional controls or process changes will
be necessary, as well as to implement general monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
EPA is proposing to give FMC additional time to comply with those
requirements that necessitate design work, purchase of equipment,
process or control modifications, or construction of new processes or
controls. In proposing the compliance date for these requirements, EPA
is proposing the shortest possible compliance date, in light of the
time and expenditures necessary for the various projects, and keeping
in mind the total number and extent of the production and control
changes necessary for compliance with this FIP proposal. Just as States
may give consideration to the amount of expenditures and time required
of sources to implement control measures in determining the time period
for implementation in the SIP planning process (see Criteria for
Granting 1-Year Extensions of Moderate PM-10 Nonattainment Area
Attainment Dates, Making Attainment Determinations and Reporting on
Quantitative Milestones, from Sally L. Shaver, Director of Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division, to EPA Regional Air Division
Directors (November 14, 1994), pp. 14-15), EPA believes it is
appropriate to consider the time and expenditures necessary for FMC to
comply with the requirements proposed in this FIP in determining the
appropriate compliance period.
For those sources for which EPA believes additional controls are
needed for compliance and for which FMC has agreed to implement
additional controls as part of the RCRA consent decree, EPA is
proposing as the compliance dates in this FIP proposal the compliance
dates established in the RCRA consent decree. EPA's major goal in
negotiating the SEP projects in the RCRA consent decree was the same as
EPA's goal in this FIP proposal: achieving reductions in PM-10
emissions at the FMC facility as expeditiously as practicable. The
dates agreed to in the RCRA consent decree and proposed in this notice
achieve that goal. EPA believes FMC's agreement to install the controls
as SEPs as part of the RCRA consent decree has accelerated the date by
which EPA could reasonably propose to require full compliance with the
proposed FIP by at least two years. This is because FMC began
implementing the SEP projects necessary for compliance with this FIP
proposal before publication of this FIP proposal and long before final
action will be taken on this FIP proposal. Because FMC has already
begun to implement the control technology as part of the RCRA
settlement, it is practicable for FMC to comply with the emission
limitations and work practice requirements at a much earlier date. For
example, FMC and EPA reached an agreement in principle as part of the
RCRA settlement in May 1998 to have the hot pour slag ladling fully
operational by November 1, 2000. This agreement was based on an
understanding that, acting as expeditiously as practicable, it would
take FMC 28 months to complete design and installation of the slag
ladling and have the system fully operational. Because FMC has already
agreed to install slag ladling as part of the RCRA settlement, it is
possible for FMC to comply with the proposed emission limits and
related requirements as of November 1, 2000. Had FMC not already agreed
to undertake the slag ladling as part of the RCRA settlement, it would
have been reasonable for EPA to give 28 months from the effective date
of final action on this FIP to comply with the slag ladling
requirements.
Under this FIP proposal, the emission limitations and work practice
requirements relating to the following sources will come into effect as
follows:
[[Page 7340]]
1. Phosphorus loading dock, November 1, 1999.
2. Slag handling, November 1, 2000.
3. Calciners, December 1, 2000.
4. Secondary condenser flare and ground flare by January 1, 2001,
although interim measures apply 60 days after the effective date of the
proposed FIP.
5. Fugitive emissions from the furnace building, April 1, 2002.
If final action on the proposed FIP occurs after any of these dates,
EPA proposes that the emission limitations and work practice
requirements relating to the source in question become effective 60
days after the effective date of final action on the FIP.
With the compliance schedule proposed above, EPA anticipates that
all proposed RACT-level requirements for the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area will be in place and fully operational by April 1,
2002. Many of the new controls should be in place well before that
time. EPA does not expect PM-10 values above the level of the revised
PM-10 NAAQS to be recorded on the Tribal monitors after April 1, 2002.
Because attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS requires three calendar years of
clean data, the area may not be eligible for an attainment designation
for the applicable PM-10 standards until after that date. Given the
number and extent of the projects FMC will need to undertake to achieve
compliance with the proposed FIP, as well as the amount of the
necessary expenditures, however, EPA believes that the proposed FIP
achieves implementation of RACT as expeditiously as practicable.
As stated above, in general, EPA is proposing that FMC comply with
all monitoring, work practice, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements no later than 60 days after the effective date of final
action on this proposal. An exception is for monitoring requirements
that require installation of new equipment, such as a device for
measuring pressure drop. In general, where EPA is requiring the
installation and calibration of new monitoring equipment, EPA proposes
that FMC have 180 days after the effective date of this FIP to comply.
Because it will take time for FMC to select, install, and test the
required monitoring equipment, EPA believes that a 180-day period for
compliance with these requirements is reasonable. EPA notes that this
is the same time period allowed for installation of monitoring
equipment in the New Source Performance Standards. See generally 40 CFR
part 60.
I. Effectiveness of Proposed Control Measures
The proposed control strategy, as discussed above, establishes
emission limitations and work practice requirements that will entail
the installation of significant control technology affecting five
sources of PM-10 at FMC. Table 5 below presents FMC emissions before
and after implementation of the proposed control strategy and shows the
overall percentage reduction achieved.
Table 5.--Attainment Demonstration 24-Hour PM-10 Standard FMC 1996
Actual Worst Case PM-10 Emissions Summary Full Implementation of
Proposed Control Strategy
[Pounds/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10 emissions PM-10 emissions
Source name before control after control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POINT SOURCES:
Ground Flare.................. 2281 114
Calciners..................... 1204 301
Elevated Secondary CO Flare... 828 41
All other Baghouses........... 446 446
Medusa Anderson (four furnaces)... 269 269
Calciner Cooler Vents............. 188 188
Pressure Relief Vents............. 99 99
Cooling Tower..................... 96 96
Phos Dock......................... 34 34
Boilers........................... 13 13
Emergency CO Flares 12 12
-------------------------------------
Subtotal Point Sources.... 5470 1613
PROCESS and OTHER FUGITIVES:
Slag Handling:
Slag tap.................. 173 .................
Metal Tap................. 88 .................
Slag cooling.............. 209 146
Slag digging.............. 173 .................
Loader to truck........... 270 .................
Truck to slag pile........ 135 .................
--------------------
Slag handling subtotal........ 1045 146
All Roads......................... 190 190
All Piles......................... 163 163
Dry fines material recycle........ 33 33
Nodule fines handling truck
loading.......................... 12 12
Nodule fines stockpiling.......... 7 7
--------------------
Subtotal Fugitives............ 1450 551
--------------------
Grand Total............... 6920 \1\ 2164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 69% reduction.
[[Page 7341]]
TABLE 6.--Attainment Demonstration Annual PM-10 Standard FMC 1996 Annual
Emissions Summary, Full Implementation of Proposed Control Strategy
Tons/year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10 emissions PM-10 emissions
Source name before control after control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POINT SOURCES
Ground Flare.................. 197 10
Calciners..................... 100 25
Elevated Secondary CO Flare... 62 3
All other Baghouses........... 49 49
Medusa Anderson (four
furnaces).................... 43 43
Calciner Cooler Vents......... 27 27
Pressure Relief Vents......... 1 1
Cooling Tower................. 18 18
Phos Dock..................... 6 6
Boilers....................... 2 2
Emergency CO Flares 0 0
-------------------------------------
Subtotal Point Sources.... 505 184
PROCESS and OTHER FUGITIVES
Slag Handling:
Slag tap.................. 28 .................
Metal Tap................. 14 .................
Slag cooling.............. 33 23
Slag digging.............. 27 .................
Loader to truck........... 43 .................
Truck to slag pile........ 20 .................
-------------------------------------
Slag handling subtotal........ 165 23
All Roads......................... 25 25
All Piles......................... 23 23
Dry fines material recycle........ 6 6
Nodule fines handling truck
loading.......................... 2 2
Nodule fines stockpiling.......... 1 1
-------------------------------------
Subtotal Fugitives............ 222 80
-------------------------------------
Grand Total............... 727 \1\ 264
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 64% reduction.
The above tables reflect reductions in emissions from three sources
as a result of this FIP proposal: slag handling (source 8), the
calciner scrubbers (source 9), and the elevated secondary condenser and
ground flares (source 26a). As discussed above, the improvements to the
phos dock that FMC has agreed to undertake as part of the RCRA consent
decree and the resulting emission limitations and work practice
requirements proposed for the phos dock are designed to eliminate
emissions due to ``upset'' conditions, which emissions were not
included in the emission inventory in the first place. In other words,
the proposed improvements to the phos dock area and the proposed
emission limitations for that source are designed to ensure emissions
from that source do not exceed the level of emissions included in the
emission inventory for the phos dock. Therefore, there is no emission
reduction attributed to the phos dock Anderson scrubber as a result of
this FIP proposal in Table 5 ``Attainment Demonstration for 24-hour PM-
10 NAAQS'' or Table 6 ``Attainment Demonstration for the Annual PM-10
NAAQS''. The same is true for the furnace building, although some of
the anticipated emission reductions from this source are reflected
under the category ``slag handling.''
EPA anticipates that the emission limitations and work practice
requirements proposed in this FIP, when considered together, will
result in an overall reduction in daily worst case emissions of 69%
from the levels contained in the emission inventory.
EPA believes that the emission limitations and work practice
requirements, and the related monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements will result in attainment of the pre-existing 24-hour PM-
10 NAAQS and annual PM-10 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. As
discussed above, measured ambient air quality serves as the basis for
determining the level of control necessary to attain the standard.
Attainment of the annual standard requires that the expected annual PM-
10 concentration be less than or equal to the level of the annual
NAAQS. Attainment of the pre-existing 24-hour standard requires that
the expected number of exceedences of the NAAQS be less than or equal
to one per year. Conceptually, determining the PM-10 concentration for
a particular site that must be reduced to the level of the NAAQS,
thereby assuring attainment, is known as determining the ``design
value.'' The design value is then used to determine the level of
control needed.
There are several recommended methods for determining the design
concentration as specified in the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline (EPA-
460 2-86-001, June 1987). For purposes of this proposed FIP, EPA used
the log-normal graphical estimation method, with air quality data
collected from October 8, 1996 through March 1997 at all three Tribal
monitors. The highest 24-hour design value estimated for any site was
for the primary site, at 433 g/m3. EPA therefore concluded
that, in order for the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area to attain the
24-hour PM-10 standard, the second highest
[[Page 7342]]
PM-10 concentration must be reduced from 433 g/m3 to 150
g/m3, a reduction of 65%. The second highest PM-10 level is
used because the PM-10 NAAQS allows, over a three-year period, on
average, one exceedence per year.
As discussed above, because the annual PM-10 NAAQS is based on a
three-year average, there is insufficient monitoring data from the
Tribal monitors to document a violation of the pre-existing annual PM-
10 NAAQS. The only calendar year for which there is complete data
available in order to estimate the annual design value is 1997. The
highest annual average PM-10 concentration for 1997, 66.3 g/
m3, was recorded at the primary site. In order to attain the annual
standard, this value would need to be reduced to 50 g/m3, a
reduction of 16.3 g/m3 or 25%.
EPA believes the control strategy proposed in this notice will
achieve a 69% reduction of daily worst case PM-10 emissions from FMC on
a facility-wide basis. The sources for which EPA believes emission
reductions will be necessary to meet the proposed emission
limitations--slag handling, the calciner scrubbers, the furnace
building, the phos dock, and the elevated secondary condenser and
ground flares--are not seasonal in nature. Emissions from these sources
remain relatively constant throughout the year. Thus, EPA expects that
the emission reductions will occur throughout the year and will produce
sufficient reductions in annual emissions to achieve the annual
standard. Table 6 above shows the 64% reduction in annual emission that
are expected from implementation of the control strategy. In short, EPA
believes that, so long as the proposed control strategy achieves an
overall emission reduction from the FMC facility of 69%, the proposed
control strategy should result in attainment of the pre-existing 24-
hour and annual PM-10 standards.
As discussed above, EPA promulgated revised PM-10 standards on July
18, 1997. See 62 FR 38651. Although the levels of the 24-hour and
annual standards remain unchanged, there has been a change in the
statistical form for determining compliance with the 24-hour NAAQS
(from an expected exceedence rate to averaging the 99th percentile
concentration from three years of data) and a change in the procedures
for reporting PM-10 concentrations at reference conditions to PM-10
concentrations at local temperature and pressure. After converting
previously reported PM-10 concentrations to local temperature and
pressure and calculating the 99th percentile of the data base for each
site and the arithmetic mean for each site for each year, EPA believes
that the control strategy for attaining the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS
(as provided for in this proposed notice) will be sufficient to attain
and maintain the revised 24-hour and annual PM-10.
J. EPA's Plan for Addressing other PM-10 Planning Issues
The following section contains a brief discussion of the other
planning requirements applicable to states with moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas under the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS. EPA will
address these other PM-10 planning requirements that apply to states
with PM-10 nonattainment areas subject to the pre-existing PM-10 NAAQS
as necessary or appropriate in future rulemaking proposals following
final promulgation of the section 172(e) rulemaking.
1. PM-10 Precursors
As stated above, under CAA section 189(e), the control requirements
applicable under SIPs to major stationary sources of PM-10 must also be
applied to major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors, unless EPA
determines such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels
in excess of the NAAQS in the area. ``Significantly'' is not defined in
either the Act or in the General Preamble. Rather, EPA has indicated
that for moderate areas, the determination should be made on a case-by-
case basis. 57 FR at 13539.
As discussed above, it is unclear whether PM-10 precursors
contribute significantly to the PM-10 exceedences that have been
recorded on the Tribal monitors. EPA expects to have the information
necessary to make that determination by the summer of 1999.
EPA is aware that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and citizens in the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area believe that PM-10 precursors
contribute to air quality problems in the area and should be addressed.
In general EPA shares this concern over these very small particulates.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new, more stringent, air quality
standards for PM-2.5. These standards were promulgated to address the
serious health effects associated with these very small particles, of
which PM-10 precursors make up a significant fraction. EPA, the State,
and the Tribes are just now in the process of establishing PM-2.5 air
monitoring stations in the Pocatello and Fort Hall areas to better
define and characterize the nature and extent of the fine particulate
air quality problem near Pocatello and Fort Hall. Even if EPA later
determines, based on the ongoing analysis of the filters from the
Tribal monitors, that PM-10 precursors do not need to be addressed for
the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area in the context of the revised
PM-10 planning process, EPA believes it is likely that particulate
precursors will need to be addressed in the area under the new PM-2.5
standard.
2. Quantitative Milestones
For plan revisions demonstrating attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS,
States are required to include in moderate PM-10 state implementation
plans quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP), as
defined in section 171(l), toward attainment by the applicable
attainment date. See CAA section 189(c). Section 172(c)(2) of the Act
also states that nonattainment plans shall require RFP. RFP is defined
in section 171(1) as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions
of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part [D] or may
reasonably be required by [EPA] for the purpose of ensuring attainment
of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.''
3. New Source Review
States with moderate and serious PM-10 nonattainment areas are
required to implement a permit program for the construction and
operation of new and modified major stationary sources of PM-10. See
CAA section 189(a).
4. Contingency Measures
States with moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas are required to
include in their state implementation plans contingency measures that
become effective without further action by EPA upon a determination
that the area has failed to achieve reasonable further progress or to
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the attainment date. See CAA section
172(c)(9).
IV. Request for Public Comment
EPA is soliciting public comment on all aspects of this proposed
FIP. Interested parties should submit comments in triplicate, to the
address listed in the front of this Notice. Public comments postmarked
by May 13, 1999 will be considered in the final action taken by EPA.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), all
``regulatory
[[Page 7343]]
actions'' that are ``significant'' are subject to Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. A
``regulatory action'' is defined as ``any substantive action by an
agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or
is expected to result in the promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including * * * notices of proposed rulemaking.'' A
``regulation or rule'' is defined as ``an agency statement of general
applicability and future effect, * * *''
The proposed FIP is not subject to OMB review under E.O. 12866
because it applies to only to a single, specifically named facility and
is therefore not a rule of general applicability. Thus, it is not a
``regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 601 et seq.,
EPA generally must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless EPA
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. Secs. 603, 604 and
605(b).
``Small entities'' include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governments. The proposed FIP only affects one
plant, which is classified in SIC Code 2819. The Small Business
Administration definition of ``small business'' for this SIC code is
less than 1,000 employees. Because FMC has more than 1,000 employees,
it is not a small entity under the RFA. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
section 605(b), I certify that the proposed FIP will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, P.L. 04-4,
establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and
the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must
prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for
proposed rules and for final rules for which EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking, if those rules contain ``federal mandates'' that
may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in
any one year. If section 202 requires a written statement, section 205
of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives. Under section 205, EPA must adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why EPA did not adopt that
alternative. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Section 204 of UMRA requires EPA to
develop a process to allow elected officers of state, local, and tribal
governments (or their designated, authorized employees), to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals containing significant Federal intergovernmental mandates.
EPA has determined that the proposed FIP contains no federal
mandates on state, local or tribal governments, because it will not
impose any enforceable duties on any of these entities. EPA further has
determined that the proposed FIP is not likely to result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more by the private sector in any one
year. Although the proposed FIP would impose enforceable duties on an
entity in the private sector, the costs are expected to be less than
$50 million. Consequently, sections 202, 204, and 205 of UMRA do not
apply to the proposed FIP.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it must have
developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The
plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that the proposed FIP will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, because it imposes no requirements
on small governments. Therefore, the requirements of section 203 do not
apply to the proposed FIP. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section I.D.
above, EPA worked closely with representatives of the Tribes, the City
of Pocatello, the City of Chubbuck, and representatives of other small
governments in the area during the development of today's proposed
action. In particular, since the early 1990s, EPA has worked closely
with the Air Quality Program of the Tribes and representatives of the
Fort Hall Business Council in developing the proposed FIP.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP
only applies to one company, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply.
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This executive order applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to
be ``economically significant'' as that term is defined in E.O. 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. The FMC FIP is not subject to E.O. 13045
because it implements a previously promulgated health or safety-based
federal standard.
F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and EPA's position supporting the need to issue
[[Page 7344]]
the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
As stated above, the proposed FIP will not create a mandate on
state, local or tribal governments because it will not impose any
enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
Nonetheless, as discussed in Section I.D. above, EPA worked closely
with representatives of the Tribes during the development of today's
proposed action. In particular, since the early 1990s, EPA has worked
closely with the Air Quality Program of the Tribes and representatives
of the Fort Hall Business Council in developing the proposed FIP.
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.''
The proposed FIP does not impose substantial direct compliance
costs on the communities of Indian tribal governments. The proposed FIP
imposes obligations only on the owner or operator of FMC. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply
to this rule.
As discussed in Section I.D. above, EPA worked closely with
representatives of the Tribes during the development of today's
proposed action. In particular, since the early 1990s, EPA has worked
closely with the Air Quality Program of the Tribes and representatives
of the Fort Hall Business Council in developing the proposed FIP.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary standards.
The proposed reference test methods for the emissions limitations
and work practice requirements in this FIP proposal are technical
standards. EPA is proposing a voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D2216-
92, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock, as the reference test method for
determining compliance with the moisture content requirement for the
main shale pile and the emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile. This
standard was developed by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM). ASTM standards are published in the Annual Book of
ASTM Standards (a multiple volume set) and are available at major
libraries.
With respect to the other emission limitations and work practice
requirements proposed in this notice, EPA is proposing as the reference
test methods test methods that have been promulgated by EPA. See
Methods 201, 201A, and 202, 40 CFR part 51, appendix M; Methods 1, 2,
2C, 2D, 3, 3A, 4, 5, and 22 (in part), 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Before proposing these reference test methods, EPA conducted a search
to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA
did not identify any potentially applicable standards that could be
used in place of Methods 201, 201A, and 202, 40 CFR part 51, appendix
M; or Methods 1, 3, 3A, 4, 5, and 22 (in part), 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. Therefore, EPA proposes to use those test methods as the
reference test methods for this FIP proposal.
EPA did identify ASTM D3464-96, Standard Test Method for Average
Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer, as being potentially
applicable for determining gas velocity and volumetric flow rate, as do
EPA Methods 2, 2C, 2D. EPA does not propose to use this ASTM method in
this FIP proposal, however, because the use of this voluntary consensus
standard would be impractical. ASTM D3464-96 is intended for
determining air velocities in HVAC ducts, fume hoods, vent stacks of
nuclear power stations and in performing model studies of pollution
control devices. By its terms, application of this ASTM standard is
limited to certain temperature, moisture, and contaminant loading
conditions which can not always be met for the proposed monitoring
applications at the FMC facility. Therefore, use of ASTM D3436-96 is
impractical for purposes of this proposed FIP.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed FIP and,
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 29, 1999.
Carol Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N--Idaho
2. Subpart N is proposed to be amended by adding Sec. 52.676 to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.676 Control Strategy: Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area, Fort
Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho.
(a) Applicability. This regulation applies to the owner or operator
of the FMC Corporation's elemental phosphorus facility located on the
Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho, including any new owner or
operator in
[[Page 7345]]
the event of a change in ownership of the FMC facility.
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section.
Except as specifically defined herein, terms used in this section
retain the meaning accorded them under the Clean Air Act.
Bag leak detection guidance means Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS): Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA
454/R-98-015 (Sept. 1997)
Certified observer means a visual emissions observer who has been
properly certified using the initial certification and periodic semi-
annual recertification procedures of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method
9.
Emergency means any situation arising from sudden and reasonably
unforeseeable events beyond the control of the owner or operator of the
FMC facility, including acts of God, which requires immediate
corrective action to restore normal operation. An emergency shall not
include events caused by improperly designed equipment, lack of
preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator
error.
EPA means United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.
Emission limitation and emission standard mean a requirement which
limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air
pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirements which
limit the level of opacity, prescribe equipment, set fuel
specifications, or prescribe operations or maintenance procedures to
assure continuous emission reduction.
Excess emissions means emissions of an air pollutant in excess of
an emission limitation.
Excursion means a departure from a parameter range approved under
paragraphs (e)(3) or (g)(1) of this section.
FMC or FMC facility means all of the pollutant-emitting activities
that comprise the elemental phosphorus plant owned by or under the
common control of FMC Corporation in Township 6 south, Range 33 east,
Sections 12 and 13, and that lie within the exterior boundaries of the
Fort Hall Indian Reservation, in Idaho, including, without limitation,
all buildings, structures, facilities, installations, material handling
areas, storage piles, roads, staging areas, parking lots, mechanical
processes and related areas, and other processes and related areas. For
purposes of this section, the term ``FMC'' or ``FMC facility'' shall
not include pollutant emitting activities located on lands outside the
exterior boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Fugitive emissions means those emissions which could not reasonably
pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent
opening. For the purposes of determining compliance with the opacity
limitations that apply to fugitive sources only, fugitive emissions
includes all emissions which do not actually pass through a stack,
chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening for which an
opacity standard is established in this rule.
Method 5 is the reference test method described in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, conducted in accordance with the requirements of this
section.
Method 9 is the reference test method described in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A.
Methods 201, 201A, and 202 are the reference test methods described
in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, conducted in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or unusual manner.
Failures that are caused by poor maintenance or careless operation are
not malfunctions.
Mini-flush means the process of flushing elemental phosphorus,
which has solidified in the secondary condenser, to the elevated
secondary condenser flare or to the ground flare, and thus into the
atmosphere.
Monitoring malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid data. Monitoring
failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not monitoring malfunctions.
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises the FMC facility or any portion thereof.
Particulate matter means any airborne finely-divided solid or
liquid material with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 100
micrometers.
PM-10 or PM-10 emissions means finely divided solid or liquid
material, with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal
ten micrometers emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable
reference method such as Method 201, 201A, or 202, or an equivalent or
alternative method specifically approved by the Regional Administrator
Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator, EPA Region
10, or a duly designated representative of the Regional Administrator.
Road means any portion of the FMC facility upon which a motorized
vehicle has reasonable access for movement or for which there is
visible evidence of previous vehicle access (e.g., visible wheel
tracks).
Scheduled maintenance means planned upkeep, repair activities, and
preventative maintenance on any source, including the shutdown and
startup of such equipment.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a source for any
purpose.
Slag pit area means within 100 yards of the furnace building at the
FMC facility.
Startup means the setting in operation of a source for any purpose.
Source means any building, structure, facility, installation,
material handling area, storage pile, road, staging area, parking lot,
mechanical process or related area, or other process or related area
which emits or may emit particulate matter.
Title V permit means an operating permit issued under 40 CFR part
70 or 71.
Tribes means the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
Visual observation means the continuous observation of a source for
the presence of visible emissions for a period of ten consecutive
minutes conducted in accordance with section 5 of EPA Method 22, 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, by a person who meets the training guidelines
described in section 1 of Method 22.
Visible emissions means the emission of pollutants into the
atmosphere, excluding uncombined condensed water vapor (steam) that is
observable by the naked eye.
(c) Emission limitations and work practice requirements. (1) Except
as otherwise provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, there shall
be no visible emissions from any location at the FMC facility at any
time, as determined by a visual observation.
(2) For each source identified in Column II of Table 1 to this
section, the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall comply with
the emission limitations and work practice requirements established in
Column III of Table 1 to this section for that source.
(3) The opacity limits for the following fugitive emission sources,
which are also identified in Column II of Table 1 to this section,
apply to adding of material to, taking of material
[[Page 7346]]
from, reforming, or otherwise disturbing the pile: main shale pile
(source 2), emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3),
stacker and reclaimer (source 4), recycle material pile (source 8b),
nodule pile (source 11), nodule fines pile (source 13), and screened
shale fines pile (source 14).
(4) (i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section,
beginning November 1, 2000, the following activities shall be
prohibited:
(A) The discharge of molten slag from furnaces or slag runners onto
the ground, pit floors (whether dressed with crushed slag or not), or
other non-mobile permanent surface.
(B) The digging of solid slag in the slag pit area or the loading
of slag into transport trucks in the slag pit area.
(ii) The prohibition set forth in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this
section shall not apply to the lining of slag pots and the handling
(including but not limited to loading, crushing, or digging) of cold
slag for purposes of the lining of slag pots.
(5)(i) Beginning January 1, 2001, no furnace gas shall be burned in
the elevated secondary condenser flare or the ground flare (source
26a).
(ii) Until December 31, 2000, the owner or operator of the FMC
facility shall take the following measures to reduce PM-10 emissions
from mini-flushes and to ensure there is no bias toward conducting
mini-flushes during night-time hours.
(A) Mini-flushes shall be limited to no more than 50 minutes per
day (based on a monthly average) beginning January 1, 1999. Failure to
meet this limit for any given calendar month will be construed as a
separate violation for each day during that month that mini-flushes
lasted more than 50 minutes. The monthly average for any calendar month
shall be calculated by summing the duration (in actual minutes) of each
mini-flush during that month and dividing by the number of days in that
month.
(B)(1) No mini-flush shall be conducted at any time unless one of
the following operating parameters is satisfied:
(i) The flow rate of recirculated phossy water is equal to or less
than 1800 gallons per minute; or
(ii) The secondary condenser outlet temperature is equal to or
greater than 36 degrees Centigrade.
(2) The prohibition set for in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B) of this
section shall not apply during periods of malfunction, provided the
owner or operator of the FMC facility provides to EPA written notice of
a malfunction within 24 hours of occurrence and takes all reasonable
precautions to minimize the duration and extent of emissions during
such malfunction. The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall have
the burden of proving the existence of a malfunction. The owner or
operator of the FMC facility shall maintain properly signed
contemporaneous records documenting the date, time, and duration of the
malfunction; the probable cause of the malfunction; and any corrective
action or preventative measures taken.
(6) At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown,
malfunction, or emergency, the owner or operator of the FMC facility
shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate each source
identified in Column II of Table 1 to this section, including
associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based on information available to the
Regional Administrator which may include, but is not limited to,
monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and
maintenance procedures, and inspection of the source.
(7) Maintaining operation of a source within approved parameter
ranges, promptly taking corrective action, and otherwise following the
work practice, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of
this section do not relieve the owner or operator of the FMC facility
from the obligation to comply with applicable emission limitations and
work practice requirements at all times.
Alternative One
(8) An affirmative defense to a penalty action brought for
noncompliance with an emission limitation shall be available if the
excess emissions were due to startup, shutdown, or scheduled
maintenance and all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The owner or operator of the FMC facility notifies EPA in
writing of anystartup, shutdown, or scheduled maintenance that is
expected to cause excess emissions. The notification shall be given as
soon as possible, but no later than 48 hours prior to the start of the
startup, shutdown, or scheduled maintenance, unless the owner or
operator demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that a shorter advanced
notice was necessary. The notice shall identify the expected date,
time, and duration of the excess emissions event, the source involved
in the excess emissions event, and the type of excess emissions event.
(ii) The affirmative defense for excess emissions due to startup,
shutdown, or scheduled maintenance shall be demonstrated through
properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant
evidence that:
(A) The excess emissions could not have been avoided through
careful and prudent planning, design, and operations and maintenance
practices.
(B) The source in question and any related control equipment and
processes were at all times maintained and operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions.
(C) During the period of the startup, shutdown, or scheduled
maintenance, the owner or operator of the FMC facility took all
reasonable steps to minimize levels of emissions that exceeded the
emission limitations or other requirements of this section.
(D) During the period of the startup, shutdown, or scheduled
maintenance, the owner or operator of the FMC facility took all
reasonable steps to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on the
ambient air.
(E) The owner or operator of the FMC facility submitted notice of
the startup, shutdown, or scheduled maintenance to EPA within 48 hours
of the time when emission limitations were exceeded due to startup,
shutdown, or scheduled maintenance. This notice fulfills the
requirement of paragraph (g)(4) of this section. This notice must
contain a description of the startup, shutdown, or scheduled
maintenance, any steps taken to mitigate emissions, and corrective
actions taken.
(iii) No exceedence of the 24-hour PM-10 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, 40 CFR 50.7(a)(2)(1998) was recorded on any monitor
located within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area that regularly
reports information to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System-Air
Quality Subsystem, as defined under 40 CFR 58.1(p), on any day for
which the defense of startup, shutdown, or scheduled maintenance is
asserted.
(iv) In any enforcement proceeding, the owner or operator of the
FMC facility has the burden of proof on all requirements of this
paragraph (c)(8).
Alternative Two
(9) An affirmative defense to a penalty action brought for
noncompliance with an emission limitation shall be available if the
excess emissions were due to an emergency and all of the following
conditions are met:
[[Page 7347]]
(i) The affirmative defense of emergency shall be demonstrated
through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other
relevant evidence that:
(A) An emergency occurred and that the owner or operator of the FMC
facility can identify the causes of the emergency.
(B) The FMC facility was at the time being properly operated.
(C) During the period of the emergency the owner or operator of the
FMC facility took all reasonable steps to minimize levels of emissions
that exceeded the emission limitation or other requirements of this
section.
(D) The owner or operator of the FMC facility submitted notice of
the emergency to EPA within 48 hours of the time when emission
limitations were exceeded due to the emergency. This notice fulfills
the requirement of paragraph (g)(4)of this section. This notice must
contain a description of the emergency, any steps taken to mitigate
emissions, and corrective actions taken.
(ii) No exceedence of the 24-hour PM-10 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, 40 CFR 50.7(a)(2)(1998), was recorded on any monitor
located within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area that regularly
reports information to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System-Air
Quality Subsystem, as defined under 40 CFR 58.1(p), on any day for
which the defense of emergency is asserted.
(iii) In any enforcement proceeding, the owner or operator of the
FMC facility has the burden of proof on all requirements of this
paragraph (c)(9).
(d) Reference test methods. (1) For each source identified in
Column II of Table 1 to this section, the reference test method for the
corresponding emission limitation in Column III of Table 1 to this
section for that source is identified in Column IV of Table 1 to this
section
(2) When Methods 201/201A and 202 are specified as the reference
test methods, the testing shall be conducted in accordance with the
identified test methods and the following additional requirements:
(i) Each test shall consist of three runs, with each run a minimum
of one hour.
(ii) Method 202 shall be run concurrently with Method 201 or Method
201A.
(iii) The source shall be operated at a capacity of at least 90% of
maximum during all tests, unless the Regional Administrator determines
in writing that other operating conditions are representative of normal
operations.
(iv) Only regular operating staff may adjust the processes or
emission control device parameters during a performance test or within
two hours prior to the tests. Any operating adjustments made during a
performance test, which are a result of consultation during the tests
with source testing personnel, equipment vendors, or other consultants
may render the source test invalid.
(v) For all reference tests, the sampling site and minimum number
of sampling points shall be selected according to EPA Method 1 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A).
(vi) EPA Methods 2, 2C, 2D, 3, 3A, and 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
A) shall be used, as appropriate, for determining mass emission rates.
(vii) The mass emission rate of PM-10 shall be determined by first
adding the PM-10 concentrations from Methods 201/201A and 202, and then
multiplying by the average hourly volumetric flow rate for the run. The
average of the three required runs shall be compared to the emission
standard for purposes of determining compliance.
(viii) Source testing of the Medusa Andersen stacks on the furnace
building (sources 18d, 18e, 18f, and 18g) shall be conducted during
slag tapping.
(ix) Source testing of the excess CO burner (source 26b) shall be
conducted during either a mini-flush or hot-flush.
(3) Method 5 shall be used in place of Method 201 or 201A for the
calciner scrubbers (source 9) and any other sources with entrained
water drops. In such case, all the particulate matter measured by
Method 5 must be counted as PM-10, and the testing shall be conducted
in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(4) Method 5 may be used as an alternative to Method 201 or 201A
for a particular point source, provided that all of the particulate
measured by Method 5 is counted as PM-10 and the testing is conducted
in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(5) Method 202 shall not be required for a particular source
provided that:
(i) The owner or operator of the FMC facility submits a written
request to the Regional Administrator which demonstrates that the
contribution of condensible particulate matter to total PM-10 emissions
is insignificant for such source; and
(ii) The Regional Administrator approves the request in writing.
(6) For the purpose of submitting compliance certifications or
establishing whether or not a person has violated or is in violation of
any requirement of this section, nothing in this section shall preclude
the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or
reference test or procedure had been performed.
(e) Monitoring and additional work practice requirements. (1) The
owner or operator of the FMC facility shall conduct a performance test
to measure PM-10 emissions from each of the following sources on an
annual basis using the specified reference test methods: east shale
baghouse (source 5a), middle shale baghouse (source 6a), west shale
baghouse (source 7a), calciner scrubbers (source 9), calciner cooler
vents (source 10), north nodule discharge baghouse (source 12a), south
nodule discharge baghouse (source 12b), proportioning building-east
nodule baghouse (source 15a), proportioning building-west nodule
baghouse (source 15b), nodule reclaim baghouse (source 16a), dust silo
baghouse (source 17a), furnace building-east baghouse (source 18a),
furnace building-west baghouse (source 18b), furnace
1, 2, 3 and
4-Medusa Andersen scrubbers (sources 18d, 18e, 18f
and 18g), coke handling baghouse (source 20a), phos dock-Andersen
scrubber (source 21a), and excess CO burner (source 26b).
(i) The first annual test for each source shall be completed within
12 months of the effective date of this section, except that the first
annual test for the calciner scrubbers (source 9), the phos dock
Andersen scrubber (source 21a), and the excess CO burner (source 26b)
shall be conducted within 60 days after the date on which the PM-10
emission limitations become applicable to those sources. Subsequent
annual tests shall be completed within 12 months of the most recent
previous test.
(ii) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall provide the
Regional Administrator a proposed test plan at least 30 days in advance
of each scheduled source test.
(iii) Concurrently with the performance testing and for at least
two hours prior to and two hours following the test, the owner or
operator of the FMC facility shall monitor and record the parameters
specified in paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5) of this
section, as appropriate, for the source being tested, and shall report
the results to EPA as part of the performance test report referred to
in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(E) of this section.
(iv) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall conduct a 12
minute visible emission observation using Method 9 at least twice
during the performance test at an interval of no less than one hour
apart, and shall report the results of this observation to EPA as part
of the performance test report referred to in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(E) of
this section.
[[Page 7348]]
(v) Concurrently with the performance testing, the owner or
operator of the FMC facility shall measure the flow rate (throughput to
the control device) using Method 2 for the calciner scrubbers (source
9) and the phos dock Andersen scrubber (source 21a) and shall report
the results to EPA as part of the performance test report referred to
in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(E) of this section.
(2) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications a device to continuously measure and continuously record
the pressure drop across the baghouse for each of the following sources
identified in Column II of Table A: east shale baghouse (source 5a),
middle shale baghouse (source 6a), west shale baghouse (source 7a),
north nodule discharge baghouse (source 12a), south nodule discharge
baghouse (source 12b), proportioning building-east nodule baghouse
(source 15a), proportioning building-west nodule baghouse (source 15b),
nodule reclaim baghouse (source 16a), dust silo baghouse (source 17a),
furnace building-east baghouse (source 18a), furnace building-west
baghouse (source 18b), and coke handling baghouse (source 20a).
(i) The devices shall be installed and fully operational no later
than 180 days after the effective date of this rule.
(ii) Upon EPA approval of the acceptable range of baghouse pressure
drop for each source, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section,
the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall maintain and operate
the source to stay within the approved range. Until EPA approval of the
acceptable range of baghouse pressure drop for each source, the owner
or operator of the FMC facility shall maintain and operate the source
to stay within the proposed range for that source, as provided in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(iii) If an excursion from an approved range occurs, the owner or
operator of the FMC facility shall immediately upon discovery, but no
later than within three hours of discovery, initiate corrective action
to bring source operation back within the approved range.
(iv) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall complete the
corrective action as expeditiously as possible.
(3) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with the manufacture's
specifications and the bag leak detection guidance a triboelectric
monitor to continuously monitor and record the readout of the
instrument response for each of the following sources identified in
Column II of Table 1 to this section: east shale baghouse (source 5a),
middle shale baghouse (source 6a), west shale baghouse (source 7a),
north nodule discharge baghouse (source 12a), south nodule discharge
baghouse (source 12b), proportioning building-east nodule baghouse
(source 15a), proportioning building-west nodule baghouse (source 15b),
nodule reclaim baghouse (source 16a), dust silo baghouse (source 17a),
furnace building-east baghouse (source 18a), furnace building-west
baghouse (source 18b), and coke handling baghouse (source 20a).
(i) The triboelectric monitors shall be installed and fully
operational no later than 180 days after the effective date of this
rule.
(ii) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall maintain and
operate the source to stay within the approved range. For the
triboelectric monitors, the ``approved range'' shall be defined as
operating the source so that an ``alarm,'' as defined in and as
determined in accordance with the bag leak detection guidance, does not
occur.
(iii) If an excursion from an approved range occurs, the owner or
operator of the FMC facility shall immediately upon discovery, but no
later than within three hours of discovery, initiate corrective action
to bring source operation back within the approved range.
(iv) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall complete the
corrective action as expeditiously as possible.
(4) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications, a device to continuously measure and continuously
record the pressure drop across the scrubber, the scrubber liquor
flowrate, and scrubber liquor pH for each of the following sources
identified in Column II of Table 1 to this section: calciner scrubbers
(source 9) and furnaces #1, #2, #3 and #4--Medusa Andersen scrubbers
(sources 18d, 18e, 18f and 18g). Scrubber liquor pH shall be measured
just prior to the point of addition of makeup water and/or caustic
addition.
(i) The devices for the calciner scrubbers (source 9) shall be
installed and fully operational on or before December 1, 2000. The
devices for the Medusa Andersen scrubbers on furnaces 1,
2, 3 and 4 (sources 18d, 18e, 18f, and 18g)
shall be installed and fully operational no later than 180 days after
the effective date of this rule.
(ii) Upon EPA approval of the acceptable range of pressure drop,
scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber liquor pH for each source, as
provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, the owner or operator of
the FMC facility shall maintain and operate the source to stay within
the approved range. Until EPA approval of the acceptable ranges for
each source, the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall maintain
and operate the source to stay within the proposed range for that
source, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(iii) If an excursion from an approved range occurs, FMC shall
immediately upon discovery, but no later than within three hours of
discovery, initiate corrective action to bring source operation back
within the approved range.
(iv) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall complete the
corrective action as expeditiously as possible.
(5) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications, a device to continuously measure and continuously
record the pressure drop across the scrubber for each of the following
sources identified in Column II of Table 1 to this section: phos dock
Andersen scrubber (source 21a) and excess CO burner (source 26b).
(i) The device for the phos dock Andersen scrubber (source 21a)
shall be installed and fully operational on or before November 1, 1999.
The device for the excess CO burner (source 26b) shall be installed and
fully operational no later than January 1, 2001.
(ii) Upon EPA approval of the acceptable range of scrubber pressure
drop for each source, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section,
the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall maintain and operate
the source to stay within the approved range. Until EPA approval of the
acceptable ranges of scrubber pressure drop for each source, the owner
or operator of the FMC facility shall maintain and operate the source
to stay within the proposed range for that source, as provided in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(iii) If an excursion from an approved range occurs, the owner or
operator of the FMC facility shall immediately upon discovery, but no
later than within three hours of discovery, initiate corrective action
to bring source operation back within the approved range.
(iv) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall complete the
corrective action as expeditiously as possible.
(6) For each of the pressure relief vents on the furnaces (source
24), FMC shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance
with the manufacturer's specifications, a device to continuously
measure and
[[Page 7349]]
continuously record the temperature of gases in the relief vent
downstream of the pressure relief valve.
(i) The devices shall be installed and fully operational no later
than 60 days after the effective date of this rule.
(ii) A ``pressure release'' is defined as an excursion of the
temperature above the temperature range approved in accordance with
paragraph (g)(1) of this section. Until EPA approval of the acceptable
range of temperature for the pressure release vents, a ``pressure
release'' is defined as an excursion of the temperature above the range
proposed by the owner or operator of the FMC facility for the pressure
relief vents, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) below.
(iii) The release point on each pressure relief vent shall be
maintained at no less than 18 inches of water.
(iv) When a pressure release through a pressure relief vent is
detected, the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall, within 30
minutes of the beginning of the pressure release, inspect the pressure
relief valve to ensure that it has properly sealed and verify that at
least 18 inches of water seal pressure is maintained. The owner or
operator of the FMC facility shall then immediately conduct a visual
observation to determine compliance with the applicable emission
limitation set forth in Table 1 to this section.
(v) If any visible emissions are detected for any period of time
during the observation period of the visual observation referenced in
paragraph (e)(6)(iv) of this section, the valve shall be manually
resealed or repaired as necessary within three hours of the visual
observation, and another ten minute visual observation shall be
conducted. The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall repeat
corrective action, manually resealing or repairing the valve as
necessary, until no visible emissions are observed for any period of
time during the required ten minute visual observation.
(7) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall develop and
implement a written operations and maintenance (O&M) plan covering each
source identified in Column II of Table 1 to this section, including
uncaptured fugitive and general fugitive emissions of PM-10 from each
source.
(i) The purpose of the O&M plan is to ensure each source at the FMC
facility will be operated and maintained consistent with good air
pollution control practices and procedures for maximizing control
efficiency and minimizing emissions at all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and emergency, and to establish procedures for
assuring continuous compliance with the emission limitations, work
practice requirements, and other requirements of this section.
(ii) The O&M plan shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator
within 60 days of the effective date of this rule and shall cover all
sources and requirements for which compliance is required 60 days after
the effective date of this rule.
(A) A revision to the O&M plan covering each source or requirement
with a compliance date of more than 60 days after the effective date of
this rule shall be submitted at least 60 days before the source is
required to comply with the requirement.
(B) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall review and, as
appropriate, update the O&M plan at least annually.
(C) The Regional Administrator may require the owner or operator of
the FMC facility to modify the plan if, at any time, the Regional
Administrator determines that the O&M plan does not:
(1) Adequately ensure that each source at the FMC facility will be
operated and maintained consistent with good air pollution control
practices and procedures for maximizing control efficiency and
minimizing emissions at all times;
(2) Contain adequate procedures for assuring continuous compliance
with the emission limitations, work practice requirements, and other
requirements of this section;
(3) Adequately address the topics identified in this paragraph
(e)(7); or
(4) Include sufficient mechanisms for ensuring that the O&M plan is
being implemented.
(iii) The O&M plan shall address at least the following topics:
(A) Procedures for minimizing fugitive PM-10 emissions from
material handling, storage piles, roads, staging areas, parking lots,
mechanical processes, and other processes, including but not limited
to:
(1) A visual inspection of all material handling, storage piles,
roads, staging areas, parking lots, mechanical processes, and other
processes at least once each week at a regularly scheduled time. The
O&M plan shall include a list of equipment, operations, and storage
piles, and what to look for at each source during this regularly
scheduled inspection.
(2) A requirement to document the time, date, and results of each
visual inspection, including any problems identified and any corrective
actions taken.
(3) A requirement to take corrective action as soon as possible but
no later than within 48 hours of identification of operations or
maintenance problems identified during the visual inspection (unless a
shorter time frame is specified by this rule or is warranted by the
nature of the problem).
(4) Procedures for the application of dust suppressants to and the
sweeping of material from storage piles, roads, staging areas, parking
lots, or any open area as appropriate to maintain compliance with
applicable emission limitations or work practice requirements. Such
procedures shall include the specification of dust suppressants, the
application rate, and application frequency, and the frequency of
sweeping. Such procedures shall also include the procedures for
application of latex to the main shale pile (source 2) and the
emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3) after each
reforming of the pile or portion of the pile.
(B) Specifications for parts or elements of control or process
equipment needing replacement after some set interval prior to
breakdown or malfunction.
(C) Process conditions that indicate need for repair, maintenance
or cleaning of control or process equipment, such as the need to open
furnace access ports or holes.
(D) Procedures for the visual inspection of all baghouses,
scrubbers, and other control equipment of at least once each week at a
regularly scheduled time.
(E) Procedures for the regular maintenance of control equipment,
including without limitation, procedures for the rapid identification
and replacement of broken or ripped bags for all sources controlled by
a baghouse, bag dimensions, bag fabric, air-to-cloth ratio, bag
cleaning methods, cleaning type, bag spacing, compartment design, bag
replacement schedule, and typical exhaust gas volume.
(F) Procedures that meet or exceed the manufacturer's
recommendations for the inspection, maintenance, operation, and
calibration of each monitoring device required by this rule.
(G) Procedures for the rapid identification and repair of equipment
or processes causing a malfunction or emergency and for reducing or
minimizing the duration of and emissions resulting from any malfunction
or emergency.
(H) Procedures for the training of staff in the above procedures.
(8) For each of the following sources identified in Column II of
Table 1 to this section, the owner or operator of the FMC facility
shall conduct a visual observation of each source at least once each
week at a regularly scheduled time:
[[Page 7350]]
railcar unloading (source 1), main shale pile (source 2), emergency/
contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3), stacker and reclaimer
(source 4), east shale baghouse building--fugitives (source 5b), middle
shale baghouse building--fugitives (source 6b), west shale baghouse
building--fugitives (source 7b), recycle material pile (source 8b),
proportioning building--fugitives (source 15c), dust silo fugitives and
pneumatic dust handling system (source 17b), briquetting building
(source 19), coke unloading building (source 20b), pressure relief
vents (source 24), and furnace CO emergency flares (source 25).
(i) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall immediately,
but no later than within 24 hours of discovery, take corrective action
if any visible emissions are observed for any period of time during the
observation period. Immediately upon completion of the corrective
action, the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall conduct another
visual observation. This process shall be repeated until no visible
emissions are observed for any period of time during the observation
period.
(ii) Should, for good cause, the visible emissions reading not be
conducted on schedule, the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall
record the reason observations were not conducted. Visible emissions
observations shall be conducted immediately upon the return of
conditions suitable for visible emissions observations.
(iii) If, after conducting weekly visible emissions observations
for a given source for more than one year and detecting no visible
emissions from that source for 52 consecutive weeks, the frequency of
observations may be reduced to monthly. The frequency of observations
for such source shall revert to weekly if visible emissions are
detected from that source during any monthly observation or at any
other time.
(9) For each following sources identified in Column II of Table 1
to this section, the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall
conduct a visual observation of each source at least once each week at
a regularly scheduled time: east shale baghouse (source 5a), middle
shale baghouse (source 6a), middle shale baghouse outside capture hood-
fugitives (source 6c), west shale baghouse (source 7a), west shale
baghouse outside capture hood-fugitives (source 7c), slag pit area and
pot rooms (source 8a), calciner cooler vents (source 10), nodule pile
(source 11), north nodule discharge baghouse (source 12a), south nodule
discharge baghouse (source 12b), north and south nodule discharge
baghouse outside capture hood-fugitives (source 12c), nodule fines pile
(source 13), screened shale fines pile (source 14), proportioning
building-east nodule baghouse (source 15a), proportioning building-west
nodule baghouse (source 15b), nodule reclaim baghouse (source 16a),
nodule reclaim baghouse outside capture hoods-fugitives (source 16b),
dust silo baghouse (source 17a), furnace building-east baghouse (source
18a), furnace building-west baghouse (source 18b), furnace building
(source 18c), furnace #1, #2, #3 and #4-Medusa Andersen scrubbers
(sources 18d, 18e, 18f and 18g), coke handling baghouse (source 20a),
phos dock Andersen scrubber (source 21a), phos dock fugitives (source
21b), roads (source 22), boilers (source 23), and excess CO burner
(source 26b).
(i) If visible emissions are detected, the owner or operator of the
FMC facility shall immediately, but no later than within 24 hours of
discovery, determine if corrective action is needed to reduce visible
emissions and ensure proper operations and maintenance of the source
and, if so, take corrective action. Immediately upon completion of any
corrective action, a certified observer shall conduct a visible
emissions observation of the source using Method 9 with an observation
duration of at least 12 minutes. If opacity exceeds allowable levels,
the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall take prompt corrective
action. This process shall be repeated until opacity returns to
allowable levels.
(ii) In lieu of a visual observation under this paragraph (e)(9),
the owner or operator of the FMC facility may conduct a visible
emissions observation of any source subject to the requirements of this
paragraph using EPA Method 9 and a certified reader, in which case
corrective action must be taken only if opacity exceeds allowable
levels.
(iii) Should, for good cause, the visible emissions reading not be
conducted on schedule, the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall
record the reason observations were not conducted. Visible emissions
observations shall be conducted immediately upon the return of
conditions suitable for visible emissions observations.
(iv) If, after conducting weekly visible emissions observations for
a given source for more than one year and detecting no visible
emissions from that source for 52 consecutive weeks, the frequency of
observations may be reduced to monthly. The frequency of observations
for such source shall revert to weekly if visible emissions are
detected from that source during any monthly observation or at any
other time.
(10) A representative sample of the main shale pile (source 2) and
the emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3) shall be
analyzed for moisture content using ASTM Standard D 2216-92 at least
once each month.
(i) Such sample shall be taken from the surface of the pile.
(ii) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall submit a
sampling plan to the Regional Administrator for review and approval at
least 30 days prior to any sampling that is conducted to meet this
requirement.
(iii) Upon EPA approval of the plan, any subsequent sampling must
adhere to the plan.
(iv) Any modification to the sampling plan must be submitted to the
Regional Administrator for review and approval 60 days prior to the
intended use of the modified plan.
(11) Except for, as applicable, monitoring malfunctions, associated
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero span
adjustments), the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall conduct
all monitoring with the monitoring devices required by paragraphs
(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), (e)(5), and (e)(6) of this section in
continuous operation at all times that the monitored process is in
operation. Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities shall not
be used for purposes of this section, including data averages and
calculations, or fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement.
The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall use data collected
during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control
device and associated control system.
(12) The minimum data availability requirement for monitoring data
pursuant to paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), (e)(5), and (e)(6) of
this section is 90% on a monthly average basis. Data availability is
determined by dividing the time (or number of data points) representing
valid data by the time (or number of data points) that the monitored
process is in operation.
(13) Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude EPA from requiring
any other testing or monitoring pursuant to section 114 of the Clean
Air Act.
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. (1) The owner or operator of the
FMC facility shall keep records of all monitoring required by this
section that
[[Page 7351]]
include, at a minimum, the following information:
(i) The date, place as defined in this section, and time of the
sampling or measurement.
(ii) The dates the analysis were preformed.
(iii) The company or entity that performed the analysis.
(iv) The analytical techniques or methods used.
(v) The results of the analyses.
(vi) The operating conditions existing at the time of the sampling
or measurement.
(2)(i) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep records
of all inspections and all visible emissions observations required by
this section or conducted pursuant to the O&M plan, which records shall
include the following:
(A) The date, place, and time of the inspection or observation.
(B) The name and title of the person conducting the inspection or
observation.
(C) In the case of a visible emission observation, the test method
(Method 9 or visual observation), the relevant or specified
meteorological conditions, and the results of the observation,
including raw data and calculations.
(D) For any corrective action required by this section or the O&M
plan or taken in response to a problem identified during an inspection
or visible emissions observation required by this section or the O&M
plan, the time and date corrective action was initiated and completed
and the nature of corrective action taken.
(E) The reason for any monitoring not conducted on schedule.
(ii) With respect to control devices, this requirement is satisfied
by meeting the requirements of paragraph (f)(11) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall continuously
record the parameters specified in paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4),
(e)(5), and (e)(6) of this section.
(4) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep records of
all excursions from ranges approved under paragraphs (e)(3) of this
section or (g)(1) of this section, including without limitation, the
measured excursion, time and date of the excursion, duration of the
excursion, time and date corrective action was initiated and completed,
and nature of corrective action taken.
(5) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep records of
the time, date, and duration of each pressure release from a furnace
pressure relief vent (source 24), the method of detecting the release,
the results of the inspection required by paragraph (e)(6) of this
section, and any actions taken to ensure resealing, including the time
and date of such actions.
(6) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep records of
the time, date, and duration of each flaring of the emergency CO flares
(source 25) due to an emergency, the method of detecting the emergency,
and all corrective action taken in response to the emergency.
(7) Until January 1, 2001, the owner or operator of the FMC
facility shall keep records of the date and start/stop time of each
mini-flush; the phossy water flow rate and outlet temperature
immediately preceding the start time; whether the operating parameters
for conducting the mini-flush set forth in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this
section were met; and, if the parameters were not met, whether the
failure to comply with the parameters was attributable to a
``malfunction.''
(8) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep records of
the application of dust suppressants to all storage piles, roads,
staging areas, parking lots, and any other area, including the
identification of the surface covered, type of dust suppressant used,
the application rate (gallons per square foot), and date of
application.
(9) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep records of
the frequency of sweeping of all roads, staging areas, parking lots,
and any other area, including the identification of the surface swept
and date and duration of sweeping.
(10)(i) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep the
following records with respect to the main shale pile (source 2) and
emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3):
(A) The date and time of each reforming of the pile or portion of
the pile.
(B) The date, time, and quantity of latex applied.
(C) Each moisture content analysis performed on material from the
pile.
(ii) The information to be contained in this record shall be
identified in the sampling plan required under paragraph (e)(10) of
this section.
(11) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep a log for
each control device of all inspections of and maintenance on the
control device, including without limitation the following information:
(i) The date, place, and time of the inspection or maintenance
activity.
(ii) The name and title of the person conducting the inspection or
maintenance activity.
(iii) The condition of the control device at the time.
(iv) For any corrective action required by this section or the O&M
plan or taken in response to a problem identified during an inspection
required by this section or the O&M plan, the time and date corrective
action was initiated and completed, and the nature of corrective action
taken.
(v) A description of, reason for, and the date of all maintenance
activities, including without limitation any bag replacements.
(vi) The reason any monitoring was not conducted on schedule,
including a description of any monitoring malfunction, and the reason
any required data was not collected.
(12) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep the
following records:
(i) The Method 9 initial certification and recertification for all
individuals conducting visual emissions observations using Method 9 as
required by this section.
(ii) Evidence that all individuals conducting visual observations
as required by this section meet the training guidelines described in
section 1 of Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(13) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep records
on the type and quantity of fuel used in the boilers (source 23),
including without limitation the date of any change in the type of fuel
used.
(14) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall keep a copy of
all reports required to be submitted to EPA under paragraph (g) of this
section.
(15) All records required to be maintained by this section and
records of all required monitoring data and support information shall
be maintained on site at the FMC facility in a readily accessible
location for a period of at least five years from the date of the
monitoring sample, measurement, report, or record.
(i) Such records shall be made available to EPA on request.
(ii) Support information includes all calibration and maintenance
records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous
monitoring instrumentation.
(g) Reporting requirements. (1) The owner or operator of the FMC
facility shall submit to EPA, for each of the operating parameters
required to be continuously monitored pursuant to paragraphs (e)(2),
(e)(4), (e)(5), and (e)(6) of this section, a proposed range of
operation, including a proposed averaging period, and documentation
demonstrating that operating the source within the proposed range will
assure
[[Page 7352]]
compliance with applicable emission limitations and work practice
requirements of this section.
(i) The proposed parameter ranges shall be submitted within 180
days of the effective date of this rule for all sources except as
follows:
(A) A proposed parameter range for the pressure relief vents
(source 24) shall be submitted within 60 days of the effective date of
this rule.
(B) Proposed parameter ranges for the calciner scrubbers (source
9), the phos dock Andersen scrubber (source 21a), and the excess CO
burner (source 26b) shall be submitted no later than the date by which
the emission limitations become applicable to those sources under this
section.
(ii) A parameter range for each source shall be approved by EPA
through the issuance of a title V operating permit to the FMC facility,
or as a modification thereto. Until EPA approval of the acceptable
range for a parameter for a source, the owner or operator of the FMC
facility shall maintain and operate the source to stay within the
proposed range for that source.
(iii) If EPA determines at any time that the proposed or approved
range does not adequately assure compliance with applicable emission
limitations and work practice requirements, EPA may request additional
information, request that revised parameter ranges and supporting
documentation be submitted to EPA for approval, or establish
alternative approved parameter ranges through the issuance of a title V
operating permit to the FMC facility, or as a modification thereto.
(iv) This requirement to submit proposed parameter ranges is in
addition to and separate from any requirement to develop parameter
ranges under 40 CFR part 64 (Compliance Assurance Monitoring rule).
However, monitoring for any pollutant specific source that meets the
design criteria of 40 CFR 64.3 and the submittal requirements of 40 CFR
64.4 may be submitted to meet the requirements of this paragraph
(g)(1).
(2) The owner or operator of FMC shall submit to EPA a bi-monthly
report covering the preceding two calendar months (e.g., January-
February, March-April). Such report shall be submitted 15 days after
the end of each two month period, with the last such report covering
the period of November and December 2000. The report shall include the
following:
(i) The date and start/stop time of each mini-flush; the phossy
water flow rate and outlet temperature immediately preceding the start
time; and a ``Yes/No'' column indicating whether the operating
parameters for conducting the mini-flush set forth in paragraph
(c)(5)(ii) of this section were met.
(ii) For any ``No'' entry, an indication of whether the failure to
comply with the parameters was attributable to a malfunction and, if
so, the date and time of notification to EPA of the malfunction and a
copy of the contemporaneous record described in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of
this section.
(iii) For each month, the total mini-flush time in minutes, the
number of operating days for the secondary condenser, and the average
minutes per operating day.
(3) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall submit to EPA a
semiannual report of all monitoring required by this section covering
the six month period from January 1 through June 30 and July 1 through
December 31 of each year. Such report shall be submitted 30 days after
the end of such six month period.
(i) The semiannual report shall:
(A) Identify each time period (including the date, time, and
duration) during which a visible emissions observation or PM-10
emissions measurement exceeded the applicable emission limitation and
state what actions were taken to address the exceedence. If no action
was taken, the report shall state the reason that no action was taken.
(B) Identify each time period (including the date, time, and
duration) during which there was an excursion of a monitored parameter
from the approved range and state what actions were taken to address
the excursion. If no action was taken, the report shall state the
reason that no action was taken.
(C) Identify each time period (including date, time and duration)
of each flaring of the emergency CO flares (source 25) due to an
emergency and state what actions were taken to address the emergency.
If no action was taken, the report shall state the reason that no
action was taken.
(D) Include a summary of all monitoring required under this
section.
(E) Include a written report of the results of each performance
test conducted in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(F) Describe the status of compliance with this section for the
period covered by the semi-annual report, the methods or other means
used for determining the compliance status, and whether such methods or
means provide continuous or intermittent data.
(1) Such methods or other means shall include, at a minimum, the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting required by this section.
(2) If necessary, the owner or operator of FMC shall also identify
any other material information that must be included in the report to
comply with section 113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits
making a knowing false certification or omitting material information.
(3) The determination of compliance shall also take into account
any excursions from the required parameter ranges reported pursuant to
paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
(ii) Each semi-annual report submitted pursuant to this paragraph
shall contain certification by a responsible official, as defined in 40
CFR 71.2, of truth, accuracy and completeness. Such certification shall
state that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable
inquiry, the statements and information in the documents are true,
accurate, and complete.
(4) The owner or operator of the FMC facility shall notify EPA by
telephone or facsimile within 48 hours of the beginning of each flaring
of the emergency CO flares (source 25) due to an emergency.
(5)(i) For emissions that continue for more than two hours in
excess of the applicable emissions limitation, the owner or operator of
the FMC facility shall notify EPA by telephone or facsimile within 48
hours. A written report containing the following information shall be
submitted to EPA within ten working days of the occurrence of the
excess emissions:
(A) The identity of the stack and/or other source where excess
emissions occurred.
(B) The magnitude of the excess emissions expressed in the units of
the applicable emissions limitation and the operating data and
calculations used in determining the magnitude of the excess emissions.
(C) The time and duration or expected duration of the excess
emissions.
(D) The identity of the equipment causing the excess emissions.
(E) The nature and probable cause of such excess emissions.
(F) Any corrective action or preventative measures taken.
(G) The steps taken or being taken to limit excess emissions.
(g)(5)(ii) If alternative one or two for paragraph (c)(8) of this
section is addopted
(iii) Compliance with this paragraph is required even in cases
where the owner or operator of the FMC facility does not seek to
establish an affirmative defense of startup, shutdown, scheduled
[[Page 7353]]
maintenance, or emergency under paragraphs (c)(8) or (c)(9) of this
section.
(6) The owner or operator of FMC shall notify EPA if it uses any
fuel other than natural gas in the boilers (source 23) within 24 hours
of commencing use of such other fuel.
(7) All reports and notices submitted under this section shall be
submitted to EPA at the addresses set forth below:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, State and Tribal
Programs Unit, Office of Air Quality, OAQ 107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-1189, Fax: 206-553-0404.
(h) Title V permit. Additional monitoring, work practice,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements may be included in the title
V permit for the FMC facility to assure compliance with the
requirements of this section.
(i) Compliance schedule. Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the owner or operator of the FMC facility shall comply with
the requirements of this section within 60 days of the effective date
of this section.
Table.--1 to Sec. 52.676
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III Emission
I Source II Source limitations and IV Reference test
number description work practice method
requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............ Railcar unloading There shall be no Visual
of shale (ore) visible fugitive observation.
into underground emissions as a
hopper. result of railcar
unloading of
shale.
2............ Main shale pile There shall be no Visual
(portion located visible fugitive observation.
on Fort Hall emissions.
Indian
Reservation).
Moisture content ASTM D2216-92.
of shale shall be
at least 11%.
Latex shall be
applied after
each reforming of
pile or portion
of pile.
3............ Emergency/ There shall be no Visual
contingency raw visible fugitive observation.
ore shale pile. emissions.
Moisture content ASTM D2216-92.
of shale shall be
at least 11%.
Latex shall be
applied after
each reforming of
pile or portion
of pile.
4............ Stacker and There shall be no Visual
reclaimer. visible fugitive observation.
emissions.
5a........... East shale a. Emissions shall a. Methods 201/
baghouse. not exceed 0.10 201A and 202.
lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
5b........... East shale b. There shall be b. Visual
baghouse building. no visible observation
fugitive
emissions from
any portion of
the building.
6a........... Middle shale a. Emissions shall a. Methods 201/
baghouse. not exceed 0.60 201A and 202.
bl. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
6b........... Middle shale b. There shall be b. Visual
baghouse building. no visible observation.
fugitive
emissions from
any portion of
the building.
6c........... MIddle shale c. Opacity shall c. Method 9.
baghouse outside not exceed 10%
capture hood-- over a 6 minute
fugitive average.
emissions.
7a........... West shale a. Emissions shall a. Methods 201/
baghouse. not exceed 0.20 201A and 202.
lb. PM 10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
7b........... West shale b. There shall be b. Visual
baghouse building. no visible observation.
fugitive
emissions from
any portion of
the building.
7c........... West shale c. Opacity shall c. Method 9.
baghouse outside not exceed 10%
capture hood-- over a 6 minute
fugitive average.
emissions.
8a........... a. Slag handling: a. Until November
slag pit area and 1, 2000,
pot rooms. emissions from
the slag pit area
and the pot rooms
shall be exempt
from opacity
limitations.
Effective November Method 9.
1, 2000, opacity
of emissions in
the slag pit area
and from pot
rooms shall not
exceed 5% over a
6 minute average.
Exemption: Fuming
of molten slag in
transport pots
during transport
are exempt
provided the pots
remain in the pot
room for at least
3 minutes after
the flow of
molten slag to
the pots has
ceased.
See also 40 CFR
52.676(c)(4).
8b........... b. Recycle b. There shall be v. Visual
material pile. no visible observation.
fugitive
emissions.
8c........... c. Dump to slag c. Fuming of
pile. molten slag
during dump to
slag pile shall
be exempt from
opacity
limitations.
[[Page 7354]]
9............ Calciner scrubbers Effective December Methods 5 (all
1, 2000, counted PM10)
emissions from and 202.
any one calciner
scrubber exhaust
stack shall not
exceed 0.005
grains per dry
standard cubic
foot PM10.
Flow rate Method 2.
(throughput to
the control
device) shall not
exceed
manufacturer's
design
specification.
The calciner
scrubbers shall
be exempt from
opacity
limitations.
10........... Calciner cooler Emissions from any Methods 201/201A
vents. one calciner and 202.
cooler vent shall
not exceed 2.0
lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 5% over a
6 minute average.
11........... Nodule pile....... Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 10% over a
6 minute average.
12a.......... North nodule a. Emissions shall a. Methods 201/
discharge not exceed 2.7 201A and 202.
baghouse. lb. PM 10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
12b.......... South nodule b. Emissions shall b. Methods 201/
discharge not exceed 2.7 201A and 202.
baghouse. lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
12c.......... North and south Opacity shall not c. Method 9.
nodule discharge exceed 10% over a
baghouse outside 6 minute average.
capture hood--
fugitive
emissions.
13........... Nodule fines pile. Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 10% over a
6 minute average.
14........... Screened shale Opacity shall not Method 9.
fines pile exceed 10% over a
adjacent to the 6 minute average.
West shale
building.
Proportioning
building.
15a.......... a. East nodule a. Emissions shall a. Methods 201/
baghouse. not exceed 2.0 201A and 202.
lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
15b.......... b. West nodule b. Emissions shall b Methods 201/
baghouse. not exceed 1.6 201A and 202.
lb. PM10 /hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
15c.......... c. Proportioning c. There shall be c. Visual
building--fugitiv no visible observation.
e emissions. fugitive
emissions from
any portion of
the building.
16a.......... Nodule reclaim a. Emissions shall a. Methods 201/
baghouse. not exceed 0.9 201A and 202.
lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
16b.......... Nodule reclaim b. Opacity shall b. Method 9.
baghouse outside not exceed 10%
capture hood-- over a 6 minute
fugitive average.
emissions.
17a.......... Dust silo baghouse a. Emissions shall a. Methods 201/
not exceed 3.3 201A and 202.
lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
17b.......... Dust silo fugitive b. There shall be b. Visual
emissions and no fugitive observation.
pneumatic dust emissions from
handling system. any portion of
the dust silo or
pneumatic dust
handling system.
Furnace building..
18a.......... a. East baghouse.. a. Emissions shall a. Methods 201/
not exceed 1.5 201A and 202.
lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
18b.......... b. West baghouse.. b. Emissions shall b. Methods 201/
not exceed 1.2 201A and 202.
lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
18c.......... c. Furnace c. Until April 1, c. Method 9.
building; any 2002, opacity
emission point shall not exceed
except 18a, 18b, 20% over a 6
18d, 18e, 18f, or minute average.
18g.
Effective April 1, Method 9.
2002, opacity
shall not exceed
5% over a 6
minute average.
18d.......... d. Furnace #1 d,e,f,g: PM-10 d,e,f,g: Methods
Medusa Andersen. emissions from 201/201A and
any one Medusa. 202.
18e.......... e. Furnace #2 Andersen shall not
Medusa Andersen. exceed 4.8 lb/hr.
[[Page 7355]]
18f.......... f. Furnace #3 Opacity from any Method 9.
Medusa Andersen. one Medusa
Andersen shall
not exceed 5%
over a 6 minute
average.
18g.......... g. Furnace #4
Medusa Anderson.
19........... Briquetting There shall be no Visual
building. visible fugitive observation.
emissions from
any portion of
the building.
20a.......... a. Coke handling a. Emissions shall a. Methods 201/
baghouse. not exceed 1.7 201A and 202.
lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 7% over a
6 minute average.
20b.......... b. Coke unloading b. There shall be b.Visual
building. no visible observation.
fugitive
emissions from
any portion of
the coke
unloading
building.
21a.......... a. Phosphorous a. Effective a. Methods 201/
loading dock November 1, 1999, 201A and 202.
(phos dock), emissions shall
Andersen Scrubber. not exceed 0.007
grains per dry
standard cubic
foot PM10.
Effective November Method 2.
1, 1999, flow
rate (throughput
to the control
device) shall not
exceed
manufacturer's
design
specificatio.
Effective November Method 9.
1, 1999, opacity
shall not exceed
5% over a 6
minute average.
21b.......... b. Phosphorous b. Effective b. Method 9.
loading dock-- November 1, 1999,
fugitive opacity shall not
emissions.. exceed 10% over a
6 minute average.
22........... All roads......... Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 10% over a
6 minute average.
23........... Boilers........... Emissions from any Methods 201/201A
one boiler shall and 202.
not exceed 0.09
lb. PM10/hr.
Opacity from any Method 9.
one boiler shall
not exceed 5%
over a 6 minute
average.
24........... Pressure relief There shall be no Visual
vents. visible fugitive observation.
emissions at any
time except
during a pressure
release, as
defined in 40 CFR
52.676(e)(6).
Pressure release Inspection of
point shall be pressure release
maintained at 18 vent.
inches of water
pressure at all
times.
Emissions during a
pressure release,
as defined in 40
CFR
52.676(e)(6)(ii)
are exempt from
opacity
limitations.
25........... Furnace CO There shall be no Visual
emergency flares. fugitive observation.
emissions at any
time except
during an
emergency flaring
caused by an
emergency as
defined in 40 CFR
52.626(b).
Emissions during
an emergency
flaring caused by
an emergency are
exempt from
opacity
limitations.
26a.......... a. Elevated a. See 40 CFR
secondary 52.676(c)(5)..
condenser flare
and ground flare.
26b.......... b. Excess CO b. Effective b. Methods 201/
burner (to be January 1, 2001, 201A and 202.
built to replace total emissions
the elevated from all vents/
secondary stacks from
condenser flare control devices
and ground flare). on this source
shall not exceed
6.5 lb. PM10/hr.
Effective January Method 9.
1, 2001,opacity
shall not exceed
5% over a 6
minute average.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-2993 Filed 2-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P