Date: January 4 , 20 10

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. 0210426.00 3 .0 22

From: Roy Neulicht

Jason Gol dsmith

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 plant s (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, HEI D, 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, Ga llagher and Kennedy; Attorney at Law William (Bill) Flederbach, Jr., ClimeCo; Executive Vice President Johnny McD aniel , Coffeyville Resources (via phone) Adam Diamond, CF Industries; Manager, Public Affairs (via phone) Scott Rodrigue, CF Industries (via p hone)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 S iegrist

, Koch Industries (vi a phone)

E PA 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 acti vities 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 Novemb er 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 publica tion of any final revisions or determination

not to revise the rule.

Meeting agenda overview . Bill Herz (TFI) gave an overview of the agenda, and provid ed attendees with three handouts: a memorandum descri b ing 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. Th is 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 i n 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 de scribed the methods in which cost effectiveness data w ere 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. Flederba ch 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 subjectto the NSP S became subject to the NSPS requirements ; a s 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 summ a ry information.

Performance vs. Permit Limits

. Mr. Flederbach described the gra phs contained on Page 3 of the memorandum which show a comparison of act u al emission rates to permit

limits for n on

- NSPS sources. When discussing Figure 6, the comparison of NO X limits to performance for plants subject to the NSPS that use SCR as the cont rol, 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 Method ology

. During the discussion of actual emissions, Bill Neuffer inquired a s 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 th e 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 t est 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 dat a 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 cond ucted at the best

- performing facilities

that would form the basis of the NSPS.

Control Technology Assessment. T he control technology assessment beginning on Page 6 of the memo was discussed. As background, Mr. Leason stated the 1971 proposal indicated ca talytic reduction was the best available control technology. The

1979 and 1984 NSPS revisions indicated that exten d ed absorption supplanted catalytic reduction. Bill Neuffer did not agree with this assessment of previous rules. Bill Neuffer

asked how th e industry defined when extended absorption was a control as opposed to part of the process design. Mr. F lederbach responded that extended absorption was considered emissions control where it was clearly added on after plant design.

For the cost analy sis of SCR and NSCR controls beginning on page 7, only complete data sets w ere 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. BillNeuf

f er asked how the repor ted control efficiencies were calculated. Mr. Flederbach expl a ined that the destruction efficienc ies in Table 2 were calculated using inlet/outlet testing, if the data were available . O therwise TFI used either vendor guarantees or CEMS data in conjunctio n with know n 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 type s when assessing options . Bill Neuffer requested TFI provide specific p lant details with the survey data so EPA could take this information into account during an a lysis.

Larry Sorrels asked whether TFI had conducted a hydrogen peroxide cost

an a lysis. TFI indicated they had not; only two members use hydrogen peroxide. He al so asked what life expe c t a ncy 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 ye ars 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 case s 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 the n 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.

N 2 O regulation. Mr. Leason provided TFI’s thoughts on the potential incl usion of

N 2 O emission limits in the revised NSPS. According to Mr. Leason, EPA is not procedurally required to address N 2 O during the NSPS review, and currently lacks the authority to regulate N 2 O under the NSPS rule

. TFI wants EPA to wait for the passin g of legislation related to greenhouse gases. Nonetheless, TFI queried its members regarding

N 2 O a nd found that: a) they are looking at N 2 O emissions, b) there is a long way to go with respect to obtaining information, and c) they would not be able to obta in 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 w as discusse d

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

ga u ze life. The industry believes the tests should be conducted duri n g the middle of a campaign. The questi on 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 an d TFI not to

discuss these comments at the meeting because EPA ha d 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., elect ronic 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 tes t 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 w ill provide t est 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 descript ions of the various CEMS used by tested

facilities so EPA can review th e 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