TO: Tina Ndoh and Keith Barnett, EPA FROM: ERG DATE: March 12, 2015 SUBJECT Notes from meeting between EPA and The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)

Summary: A meeting was held at EPA

- RTP to discuss TFI’s Comments on the RTR for Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer NESHAPs. TFI discussed several topics as shown below.

Names of participants:

• Tina Ndoh

– EPA/OAQPS

• Keith Barnett

– EPA/OAQPS

• Ray Merrill

– EPA

• Marva King

– EPA

• Matthew Tejada

– EPA

• Stef Johnson

– EPA

• Wade Foster

– TFI

• Andy O’Hare

– TFI

• Chris Leason

– Gallagher & Kennedy ( TFI Counsel)

• Burl Ackerman

– Simplot

• Clint Humpherys

– Agrium

• Jeff Grussing

– Agrium

• Brandon Green

– Agrium

• Scott Burton

– (Hunton and Williams) (Agrium Counsel)

• Terr y Baker

– PCS

• Ross M. Smith

– PCS

• Judith George

– PCS

• Susan Jordan

– PCS

• Pam Jestness

– PCS

• Tim Jestness

– PCS

• Casey Bradford

– (Jones Day) (PCS Counsel)

• David Jellerson

– Mosaic

• Debbie Waters

– Mosaic

• Max Lee

– K oogler

• Kev i n Schanilec

– EPA/ R10

• Jon Averback

– EPA

• Tom W alton

– EPA

• Ann Johnson

– EPA

• Mariel Morales

– EPA

• Jim Hirtz

– EPA

• Scott Throwe

– OECA

• Brandon Long

– ERG

• Jason Renzaglia

– ERG

Page 1 of 3Topics of discussion: TFI opened the discussion with a comment regarding the residual risk assessment. TFI stated that the risk assessment showed no risk and the assumptions used in the assessment are overly conservative. TFI asked why EPA would make the NESHAPs stricter even though the conclusion of the risk assessment clearly identified that the current standards are sufficient (since no risk was shown in the assessment). This topic was previously included in TFI’s commen ts which are included in the docket.

EPA and TFI discussed matters regarding the proposed clarification of definitions, cooling towers, work practices, retention of total fluoride as a surrogate for hydrogen fluoride, schedule for rule completion, and cal ciners. These matters were previously included in TFI’s comments which are included in the docket, except for the following:

1. Clarification Of Definitions

• TFI said that the original rulemaking did not ignore gypsum dewatering stacks, but it was chosen not to regulate at the time. EPA said that a lot of court decisions have happened since the original rulemaking and that risk is not the driver for bringing these emission sources into the rule, but rather the driver is CAA 112(d)(2) and (3). EPA stated that g ypsum dewatering stacks are a previously unregulated source of HAP; therefore, even though the residual risk analysis shows no risk, it does not alleviate the need to address unregulated sources of HAP.

• TFI stated that cost would be at a minimu m over $35 million to bring the proposed new emission sources (i.e., clarifiers, defluorination units, oxidation reactors, and expansion of the applicability provision for DAP and MAP process lines ) into the rule

. EPA requested that TFI provide the cost associated with bringing each proposed process line clarification into compliance. TFI agreed to provide this cost breakdown to EPA

.

• TFI stated that the industry is heavily scrutinized in the context of PSD enforcem ent actions; and they are concerned about the phrase “includes, but not limited to” being in the rule because there is no clarity with it. They stated that the phrase is too broad and will likely be challenged by industry and does not provide specificity f or emission control compliance. TFI pointed out that enforcement could see the phrase as including every single pump, valve, product storage tank, ore washing process, etc.

• At a minimum, for these process line clarifications, TFI requests that EPA build i n some type of deferral for compliance for at least three years.

2. Cooling Towers

• TFI recommended (as stated in their comments ) that the agency clarify that you can’t use scrubber water “directly” into a cooling tower, but going through a gypsum pond or cooling pond is okay. Simplot stated that it would be a minimum of $50 million to reconfigure their water management system if EP A does not allow this

. EPA asked Simplot whether they were in the process of getting rid of their cooling towers. Simplot said not necessarily , an d stated that part of them will likely be removed ; however, the decision is being driven by a n Idaho state rul e and Simplot is negotiating a consent order that they will either include a requirement to reduce Fluoride emissions by 50% , or completely remove the cooling towers. Simplot stated that if they get rid of all of the ir cooling towers, then they would be required
to install about 100 acres of ponds.

Page 2 of 33. Gypsum Dewatering Stack And Cooling Pond Management Plan

• TFI said that EPA estimated the cost for industry to write the plan, but cost was not estimated for implementing the plan. TFI requested that EPA ext end the compliance deadline or defer these requirements. EPA stated the not every option in the plan may be appropriate for everyone, the list of options is intended to give facilities flexibility , which is also stated in the proposed rule

.

• With regard to including closing the gypsum dewatering stack as a control technique option in the plan, TFI pointed out that some facilities borrow dry gyp sum from an existing stack to be used to start a new stack (i.e., gypsum is needed to start a rim ditch); therefore, they contended that you cannot completely close an entire stack. Additionally, TFI said that EPA needs to provide distinction between active c ells, stacks, and the gypsum pond

. TFI said EPA should consider that the settling pond is responsible for the vast majority of the emissions; therefore, fewer stacks does not mean less emissions.

• TFI recommended that EPA include a generic provision that wo uld allow a facility to use something other than the control techniques proposed in the plan (i.e., include an option where a facility can petition the regulatory agency to do a different control technique than what is being required); and therefore, make the list of control technique options in the plan

non

- exclusive. TFI also stated that there is an issue in figuring out the equivalency of a new control technique option because it is not clear what level of control the proposed control technique s achieve.

• EPA asked TFI for additional control techniques that could be reasonable to include in the plan. However, TFI did not provide any additional control techniques to EPA for the plan

. TFI did state that they would provide to EPA suggested language edits to t he proposed plan.

4. Absorber Monitoring

• Pressure drop monitoring requirement in the proposed rule does not allow for systems that have less than 5 inches water, but TFI members stated that there is no correlation between emissions and pressure drop, and many of the industry uses low pressure scrubbers.

• TFI members confirmed that they do not inject anything in their scrubbing liquid to help neutralize the effluent

.

5. Retention Of Total Fluoride As A Surrogate For Hydrogen Fluoride

• Everything discussed on this topic in this meeting was previously included in TFI’s comments which are included in the docket.

6. Schedule F or Rule Completion

• EPA stated that July 21, 2015 is signature date (court ordered). EPA is working on what will be required procedurally (right now working under the assumption that the rulemaking will go through OMB review; however, there is no definitive date on when the package will be submitted to OMB).

7. Calciners

• E PA stated that they were not lead to believe that Simplot’s calciner wou ld be covered under subpart AA. Industry concern is that there could be a potential for an applicable calciner.

• TFI members requested EPA give them the past rulemaking standards that were used to evaluate the range of acceptable cost effectiveness for Hg c ontrols for rules that were not listed in the comments provided by TFI

.

Page 3 of 3