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)

• Terry 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 – Koogler

• Kevin Schanilec – EPA/R10 

• Jon Averback – EPA

• Tom Walton – EPA

• Ann Johnson – EPA

• Mariel Morales – EPA

• Jim Hirtz – EPA

• Scott Throwe – OECA 

• Brandon Long – ERG

• Jason Renzaglia – ERG

Page 1 of 3
Topics 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 comments 

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 calciners. 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 gypsum 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 minimum 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 enforcement 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 for 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 in 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 EPA does not allow this. EPA asked Simplot whether they were 

in the process of getting rid of their cooling towers. Simplot said not necessarily, and stated 

that part of them will likely be removed; however, the decision is being driven by an Idaho 

state rule 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 their cooling towers, then they would be required 

to install about 100 acres of ponds.

Page 2 of 3
3. 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 extend 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 gypsum 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 cells, 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 would 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 

techniques 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 the 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 For 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

• EPA stated that they were not lead to believe that Simplot’s calciner would 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 controls for rules that were not 

listed in the comments provided by TFI.

Page 3 of 3