Date: January 4, 2010

Subject: Meeting with The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)

Nitric Acid NSPS Review

EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; Work Assignment No. 3-22 

RTI Project No. 0210426.003.022

From: Roy Neulicht

Jason Goldsmith

To: Bill Neuffer

OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

A meeting was held on November 18, 2009 to discuss EPA’s review of the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Nitric Acid plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart 

G). The meeting attendees included:

EPA

Keith Barnett, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Minerals Group

Bill Neuffer, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Minerals Group

Tina Ndoh, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Program Design Group

Peter Westlin, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Measurement Policy Group

Bill Grimley, EPA, OAQPS, AQAD, Measurement Technology Group

Robin Segall, EPA, OAQPS, AQAD, Measurement Technology Group 

Larry Sorrels, EPA, OAQPS, HEID, Air Benefits and Cost Group (via phone)

Mausami Desai, EPA, OAR, Climate Change Division (via phone)

Nathan Frank, EPA, Region V (via phone)

The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)

William (Bill) Herz, TFI; Vice President of Scientific Programs

Chris Leason, Gallagher and Kennedy; Attorney at Law

William (Bill) Flederbach, Jr., ClimeCo; Executive Vice President

Johnny McDaniel, Coffeyville Resources (via phone)

Adam Diamond, CF Industries; Manager, Public Affairs (via phone)

Scott Rodrigue, CF Industries (via phone)
Jim Schellhorn, Terra Industries; Director of Environmental Health and Safety

(via phone)

Gary Collins, Terra Industries (via phone)

Neil Olsen, Dyno Nobel (via phone)

Gordon Zavilla, LSB Industries (via phone)

Tom Siegrist, Koch Industries (via phone)

EPA Support Contractors:

Roy Neulicht, RTI International

Jason Goldsmith, RTI International

Purpose: 

The purpose of the meeting was to review the results of the nitric acid plant 

survey performed by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) on the activities related to the review 

of the Nitric Acid Manufacturing NSPS. 

Discussion:

A summary of the key items discussed during the meeting follows.

Schedule update. Bill Neuffer (EPA) initiated the meeting by informing the 

attendees of the Monday November 16, 2009 Federal Register notice of a proposed 

consent decree which included the scheduled dates of November 15, 2010 for the 

publication of any proposed revisions or determination not to revise the Nitric Acid 

NSPS and November 15, 2011 for the publication of any final revisions or determination 

not to revise the rule. 

Meeting agenda overview. Bill Herz (TFI) gave an overview of the agenda, and 

provided attendees with three handouts: a memorandum describing the results of the 

Nitric Acid Plant survey, EPA’s proposed data request form with TFI comments, and an 

updated TFI Member Company Active Nitric Acid Facilities list dated November 12, 

2009. This list provided the company name, the location, number of active trains, 

number of trains subject to the NSPS, and identified the acid strength. The list contained 

51 plants, including 50 “weak acid” plants and 1 “strong acid” plant. Mr. Herz discussed 

the delay in providing the survey results to EPA, citing the need to identify and resolve 

discrepancies in the data that individual plants provided in their completed survey.

The TFI memorandum and list of active nitric acid facilities are included as 

attachments.

Survey results. Bill Flederbach (ClimeCo) identified himself and ClimeCo as the 

contractor hired by TFI to conduct the survey and summarize the information collected. 

Mr. Flederbach described the methods in which cost effectiveness data were calculated 

for the plants, citing EPA’s Air Pollution Control Cost Manual – Sixth Edition. Larry 

Sorrels (EPA) commented that EPA appreciates the use of this methodology in the 

survey. Mr. Flederbach stated that 51 process lines or plants completed the survey, and 

that the total number currently subject to the NSPS was 35. He noted that in between the 

time the survey was initiated and when it was completed, one plant that was not subject 
to the NSPS became subject to the NSPS requirements; as noted in a footnote on Page 2 

of the memorandum, this plant was not included in the list of those subject to the NSPS in 

the summary information.

Performance vs. Permit Limits. Mr. Flederbach described the graphs contained on 

Page 3 of the memorandum which show a comparison of actual emission rates to permit 

limits for non-NSPS sources. When discussing Figure 6, the comparison of NOX limits 

to performance for plants subject to the NSPS that use SCR as the control, Mr. 

Flederbach noted that the averaging periods differ among the plants and this should be 

considered when making comparisons among plants. 

Source of Emissions Data and Methodology. During the discussion of actual 

emissions, Bill Neuffer inquired as to which of the actual emissions data provided were 

collected with the modified Method 7E protocol. Chris Leason (Gallagher and Kennedy) 

and Mr. Herz responded by describing that the survey was initiated prior to EPA’s 

guidance that sources adhere to the modified Method 7E protocol. Keith Barnett (EPA) 

suggested that TFI provide the underlying data for the test reports for EPA to analyze. 

Peter Westlin (EPA) also suggested that EPA obtain the test reports for review, such that 

EPA can determine which test methods/protocols were used. A question also was raised 

regarding whether the reported information was based on annual compliance/RATA tests 

or CEMS data. TFI did not know the answer to this question.

Keith Barnett inquired about the availability of CEMS data, given that plants 

subject to the NSPS are required to utilize CEMS. In response to this inquiry, Bill 

Grimley (EPA) commented that CEMS data may not be accurate, and that EPA would 

need information on CEMS equipment in addition to the CEMS data to determine if the 

data are appropriate for EPA’s use in revising the NSPS. Mr. Barnett also suggested that 

EPA would need CEMS data for a representative timeframe for it to be useful to EPA for 

analysis. A campaign, which is the length of nitric acid production time between catalyst 

replacements, was suggested as a representative timeframe. It was mentioned that 

detailed information on the test methods and protocols would not be necessary for tests 

conducted at all facilities, only for the tests conducted at the best-performing facilities 

that would form the basis of the NSPS.

Control Technology Assessment. The control technology assessment beginning 

on Page 6 of the memo was discussed. As background, Mr. Leason stated the 1971 

proposal indicated catalytic reduction was the best available control technology. The 

1979 and 1984 NSPS revisions indicated that extended absorption supplanted catalytic 

reduction. Bill Neuffer did not agree with this assessment of previous rules. Bill Neuffer 

asked how the industry defined when extended absorption was a control as opposed to 

part of the process design. Mr. Flederbach responded that extended absorption was 

considered emissions control where it was clearly added on after plant design. 

For the cost analysis of SCR and NSCR controls beginning on page 7, only 

complete data sets were used; incomplete data sets were excluded from the analysis. Of 

the data received, 78% of the data sets were complete and used in the analysis. Bill 
Neuffer asked how the reported control efficiencies were calculated. Mr. Flederbach 

explained that the destruction efficiencies in Table 2 were calculated using inlet/outlet 

testing, if the data were available. Otherwise TFI used either vendor guarantees or

CEMS data in conjunction with known inlet values. Mr. Flederbach noted that each plant 

is different so the analysis of control options must take into account that certain 

technologies may not be more appropriate for all types of processes. Bill Neuffer asked 

whether EPA should look at specific process information such as the type of plant, 

operating pressures, absorption towers, etc. Mr Fledenbach indicated that EPA should 

consider the different plant types when assessing options. Bill Neuffer requested TFI 

provide specific plant details with the survey data so EPA could take this information into 

account during analysis.

Larry Sorrels asked whether TFI had conducted a hydrogen peroxide cost 

analysis. TFI indicated they had not; only two members use hydrogen peroxide. He also 

asked what life expectancy was used; TFI indicated 20 years. When discussing Figure 9, 

the comparison of installed costs in 2009 dollars, EPA commented that it may not be 

appropriate to use standard inflation rates for costs incurred more then a few years prior 

to 2009

Selection of Control Technologies. TFI and ClimeCo stated that NSCR should not 

be considered as a retrofit add-on control for modified sources as this control needs to be 

designed into the plant and the overall energy balance/need. Mr. Flederbach also noted 

that no new plants are expected to be built in the near future; modifications are more 

likely. Nathan Frank (EPA, Region 5) commented that there could be cases where plants 

are sold, in which case the entire plant could be dismantled, packed up, and moved to 

another location. Mr. Frank indicated he knew of anecdotal information of 5 such 

situations. Mr. Frank indicated that in such cases these plants are almost always subject 

to NSPS upon startup at the other location. Mr. Frank then discussed how BACT 

determinations would impose more stringent emissions control than the emissions limits 

contained in the NSPS rules if the new installations are subject to PSD regulations. Mr. 

Frank also noted that the design of the SCR for emissions control could vary between 

plants based on the process, pressure, or the variables considered such as the goals of 

achieving permit limits or achieving a certain level of efficiency.

N2O regulation. Mr. Leason provided TFI’s thoughts on the potential inclusion of 

N2O emission limits in the revised NSPS. According to Mr. Leason, EPA is not 

procedurally required to address N2O during the NSPS review, and currently lacks the 

authority to regulate N2O under the NSPS rule. TFI wants EPA to wait for the passing of 

legislation related to greenhouse gases. Nonetheless, TFI queried its members regarding 

N2O and found that: a) they are looking at N2O emissions, b) there is a long way to go 

with respect to obtaining information, and c) they would not be able to obtain information 

within the timeframe of the NSPS review. 

The requirement of the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule to perform an 

annual emissions test to determine a site-specific emissions factor for the calculation of 

annual emissions was discussed. TFI stated that there is concern over the timing of the 
required testing, as emissions may vary greatly over the course of a campaign based on 

gauze life. The industry believes the tests should be conducted during the middle of a 

campaign. The question of how long a campaign lasts was asked. TFI indicated a 

campaign could range from 60 days to 10 months.

Data Collection Survey. TFI distributed a hard-copy version of comments on 

EPA’s draft data collection survey form. It was agreed upon by EPA and TFI not to 

discuss these comments at the meeting because EPA had already reviewed and 

incorporated the comments and revised the survey.

 

Action Items:

• TFI will contact its members to determine in what form the members can provide 

data; e.g., electronic files for CEMS data versus hard copy summary reports.

• EPA will provide specific information and bounds on what data are needed so TFI

can obtain the necessary detailed information and data discussed at the meeting.

• EPA will review the emissions test data already obtained under enforcement 

actions and notify TFI of which test data information is able to be used for the 

NSPS revision process so that the data do not need to be resubmitted, as well as 

what additional data are needed.

• TFI will provide test reports from the earlier RATAs so EPA can review the 

moisture removal methods used in the Method 7E testing and the potential effects 

on results.

• TFI will provide detailed descriptions of the various CEMS used by tested 

facilities so EPA can review the potential effects on test results.

• EPA will send the revised data collection request to TFI for a second review.
ATTACHMENTS

TFI Member Company Nitric Acid Plant Survey Results & Summary Memorandum

TFI Member Company Active Nitric Acid Facilities, November 12, 2009