The most 

### critical aspect 

### of the survey 

### involved compiling both capital and operating costs

associated 

### with NOx control technologies 

### to 

### allowfor the

### calculation of cost effectiveness (CE). 

### In an

### effort to enhance data consistency, 

### TFI prepared a

### NOx CE calculator 

### following the procedures 

### outlined in EPA's 

### Air Pollution Control Cost 

### Manual - Sixth 

### Edition. The 

### Manual includes procedures

### to calculate 

### NOx cost effectiveness 

### for Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 

### technologies. The 

### Manual does 

### not include specific guidance 

### for Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction 

### (NSCR) nor does 

### it include guidance

### to estimate cost effectiveness 

### of nonconventional technologies such asextended 

### absorption. The procedures

### to calculate cost effectiveness 

### of SCR are

### very transferable to 

### NSCR and altemative technologies and were therefore used

### throughout

### TFI's analysis. The 

### NOx CE data (dollars per ton) were converted 

### to 2009 values using the US 

### inflation calculatorl. To convert 

### to 2009 dollars, the

### Total Capital Investment 

## tiCtl was converted to 2009 dollars, 

### while the

### variable costs remained unchanged asthevariable costs already 

### reflected current 

### pricing. 

### Section 

# 2: Member 

## Contributions /General Summary TFI circulated the 

### NAP survey 

### to each member 

### with anactive 

### NAP. The

### following highlights the number 

### of members, sites and 

### NAPs completing the survey: 

# o Number of companies 

### completing

# survey: 12 

# o Number of 

### facilities completing

# survey: 29 

# o Number of 

### NAPs completing

# survey: 51 

# o The

### total HNO3 

### production capacity 

# represented: 25,450 tons per day 

### (þd) 

# o Weak 

### Acid Producers

# (53-67%o): 50/51 

# o Strong

### Acid Producer

# (98-99.5%o): Il5I Section

# 3: Summary of member NSPS 

### status and existing 

## permit 

## limits As part 

### of the survey process, 

### TFI requested that each member 

### identify their NSPS Subpart G status, as

### well as

### their current 

### NOx permit 

### limit expressed 

### in 

### lbsNOx/tHNO3. Lastly, 

### TFI requested that each member also 

### include

### their actual emissions comparedto that 

### oftheir permit 

### limit. In summary, 34 

### of the 51 plants 

### completing the survey are

### currently subject

### to Subpart G.2

I http://www.usinfl ationcalculator.com/ 2We note that an additional plant became subject to the NSPS afterTFI's survey, bringing the current total number of plants subject to the NSPS to 35 plants. However, because this plant was not subject to the NSPS at the time ofTFI's survey, its status (and, in turn, its data) is not identified in this memorandum as being subject to the NSPS. 2288210v2121436-002

### Non-NSPS Source 

### Analvsis

As shown 

### in Figure 1, the 

### NOx limits for the 17 non-NSPS sources

### vary 

### significantly, from a 

### low 

### of 1.0 

### lbNOx/tHNO3 (lb/ton) to a

### high 

### of 13.1 

### lb/ton. The average 

### limit is5.421blton, and the average actual emission rate is

### 2.89lblton. Please notethat each data 

### point represents one 

### NAP

### within the

### TFI survey. 

### Figure 1

### -Non-NSPS Sources

Non-NSPS Sources NOx 

### [imits vs. Performance 74.OO 12.00 I 10.00 z c 8.00 o ð 6.00 z 3 4.oo
2.OO + Limit (lblton) +Acutal (lblton)

NOxAverages Limit - 5.42 lbs/ton Actual- 2.89 lbs/ton

1357911131577 

### A



## / 

# A. 

# ^

# ll 1\ 

# / il \I \

Figure 2 

### highlights 

### NOx limits and actual emissions 

### for NSCR-controlled sources (6 

### NAPs), 

### while Figure 3 provides the same 

### information 

### for SCR-controlled sources (7 

### NAPs), both

### for sources

### within the 

### Non-NSPS Source category. 

### Figure 2

## - Non NSPS Sources

## - NSCR
Non-NSPS Sources NSCR NOx Limits vs. Performance 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.OO 6.00 s.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 + Limit (lb/ton) +Acutal (lblton)
m o 

### z 

### r c o x o 

### z 4 NOxAverages Limit - 3.65 lbs/ton Actual- 1.78 lbs/ton

### Figure 3

## - Non NSPS Sources

## - SCR
Non-NSPS Sources SCR NOx Limits vs. Performance 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 + Limit (lblton) +Acutal (lblton)

rYl o 

### z ¿ E o x o z € 6.00 4.00 2.00 NOxAverases Limit - 6.76 lbs/ton Actual- 3.3 lbs/ton



### Ofthe 17 

### NAPs not covered 

### by Subpart G,

### two sources 

### utllize extended absorption 

### for 

### NOx control and

### two sources have no 

### NOx control. The 

### permit 

### limits for the extended absorption 

### only sources are 3.0 lbs/ton, 

### while the 

### permit 

### limits for the sources

### with no 

### NOx control are 10.0 

### lbs/ton. Further discussion 

### of extended absorption as a means 

### for 

### NOx control is 

### included 

### in Section 4 

### of this memorandum. NSPS Source 

### Analvsis As previously referenced, 34 

### of the

### 5l NAPs completing thesurvey are subject 

### to Subpart

### G. As shown 

### in Figure 

### 4,the NOx limits for NSPS sources

### vary from a

### low of 0.3 lbs/ton 

### to a

### high 

## of 3.0

### lb/ton. The average 

### limit 1s

### 2.36lblton, and

### the average actual emission rate 

### is 1.09 

### lbiton. 

### Figure 4

### -NSPS Subpart G Sources

NSPS Sources NOx Limits vs. Performance 3.s0 300 

## ^^ / 

# V l I 

# ttJ v 

# /Vr l
, 

# l- 

# \r Y 

## ,t^/ 

# V 1 3 5 7 9 111315777921232s27293t33 å 2s0 H n 200 

### r ó 1so N È roo 050 NOxAverases Limit - 2.36 lbs/ton Actual- 1.09 lbs/ton

### Figure 5 

### highlights 

### NOx limits and actual emissions

### for NSCR-controlled sources (10 

### NAps),



### while Figure 6 provides the same 

### information 

### for SCR-controlled sources (17 

### NAPs), both

### for sources

### within the NSPS Source category. 

### Figure 5 NSPS Sources - 

### NSCR

NSPS Sources NSCR NOx 

### [imits vs. Performance 3.50 3.00 2.50
2.OO 1.50 1.00 0.50 +Limit(lblton) +Acutal(lblton) o 

### z ¿ E o x o 

### z l¡ NOxAverases Limit - 2.31 lbs/ton Actual- 0.58 lbs/ton



### Figure 6 NSPS Sources

## - SCR

NSPS Sources SCR NOx 

### [imits vs. Performance 3.50 3.00 2.50
2.O0 1.50 1.00 0.50 +Limit(lblton) +Acutal (lblton) o 

### z Ê o x o z lt NOxAverages limit - 2.26 lbs/ton Actual- 0.86 lbs/ton



### As shown 

### in Figures 5 and 6,there is 

### little discernable difference between the 

### permit 

### limits

### for NSPS sources using 

### NSCRvs. 

### SCR. Likewise, the 

### overall performance 

### of NSCRvs. SCR is 

### similar (0.58 

### lbltonv. 0.86 

### lb/ton). Of the 34 

### NAPs subject 

### to Subpart G,

### five sources 

### claim some 

### form of absorption (extended 

### or chilled), 

### with two NAPs claiming no 

### NOx 

### control. Six of these 

### NAPs have a 

### NOx permit 

### limit of 3.0 

### lbs/ton and the 

### remaining source has a 

### permit 

### limit of 0.6 lbs/ton.The 

### five sources

### with extended or 

### chilled absorption have act;;øl 

### NOx emissions ranging 

### from

2.1to

### 2.75lbslton One source includes hydrogen 

### peroxide injection 

### within their extended absorber and 

### is able

### to achieve anactual emission rate 

### of 0.52

### lbs/ton. The

### two sources

### with no 

### NOx control have actual emission between 

### 2.2 

### and2.76lbslton. 

### Section

# 4: Summary of 

## NOx

## Air Pollution Control Technologies The 

### following statistics generally summarize thesurvey results

### with respect to the types of 

### NOx control applied 

### for the 51 

### NAPs completing the 

### NAP survey: 

### Table 1

## - Summary of 

### NOx control technologies 

## NOx 

## Control Number of Sources SCR SCR 

### with extended

# absorption 1 SCR 

### with hydrogen 

# peroxide 2 

# NSCR 14 

### NSCR

### with extended 

# absorption 3 Extended

# absorption 5 Extended absorption 

### with hydrogen 

## peroxide 1 

### Chiller

# absorber 1 

### No

# control 4 

### Although SCR and 

### NSCR are 

### commonly considered 

### "classic" 

### NOx controls, several 

### TFI member companies use 

### modifications totheir absorption 

### towerto enhance both 

### HNO¡ production and subsequently reduce 

### NOx emissions.

### Although these are not classic 

### NOx control measures, they do 

### play an 

### important role

### for certain 

### facilities in meeting 

### their 

### NOx 

### limits. As such, absorption 

### tower modifications should be considered a

### viable alternative to meet more stringent 

### NOx 

### limits. However, the economics 

### of an absorption 

### tower modification may 

### not support such adecision, asthese 

### modifications can be

### very costlyto existing NAPs. The data summarized 

### below focus on 

### both SCR and 

### NSCR technologies. The cost data associated 

### with absorption 

### tower modif,rcations is 

### not clear and could not be used

### to support accur ahe

### NOx cost effectivenes sdeterminations. 

### In addition 

### , the data summarized 

### below includes 

### only complete capital and operational cost data sets

### to

### allowfor acomplete statistical 

### analysis. Of the

### forty sources that 

### apply some 

### combination 

### of SCR or 

### NSCR technology, 

### twenty data sets

### for SCR technologies and eleven data sets

### for NSCR technologies \Mere 

### complete. This represents 78Yo 

### of the entire 

### groups. 

### TFI believes this 

### isstatistically 

### significant andthatthe data is

### very representative 

### of our member companies. 20

### Table 2

## - Summary of 

### NOx Cost 

### Effectiveness 

### Installation 

# Criteria Date 

### Abatement Cost (S/ton) DE 

### l%l Cost in 20oe 

### (sl 20 in data set 

### scR Average



### Minimum Maximum Median 2000



### t992 2009 1999 90%

75% 98o/o 

### 9t% s s s s 

## s16 s



## r1.4 s 

### 3,359 s 

## 277 s s93

t1.4 

### 4,359 296 LL in data set NSCR Average



### Minimum Maximum Median L985

1968 2008 1985 97%

8s% LOj% 99% 

### 2,790 s



## 377 5 

### 9,776 s 3,696

408 10,656 s s s s 

### 1,891 s 

### 3,794

As part 

### of the analysis, 

### TFI evaluated 

### minimum, maximum, average and median values

### for all variables as presented 

### in Table

### 2. As shown, 

### NSCR installations go back

### to 1968 and are

### in general 

### much older 

### installations compared to the 

### relatively newer SCR technology. The age 

### of these

### facilities also impacted the 

### inflation percentages used to represent the abatement costs 

### in 2009 dollars. 

### A further analysis 

### ofthe destruction 

### efficiency 

### (DE) and 

### installation dates 

### for NSCR and SCR acrossthe entire data set is presented as Figures 7 and 8. 

### Figure 7

## - NSCR 

### NOx 

### Control Efficiency vs. 

### Installation Dates

NSCR 

## lnstallation Dates 

### and NOx

### Control Efficiency 2020 2010 2000 1990 1980 7970 1960 1950 1940 t05o/o t00o/o 9s% 

## 90% r Install Date 

## 85% -DE(%l 80% 7s% 

## t 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 1011

Please note that 

### destruction

### fficiency cannot exceed 100%.

### Figure 

## I - SCR 

### NOx Control Efficiency vs. 

### Installation Dates
SCR 

## lnstallation Dates and NOx 

## Control Efficiency 2015 20ro 200s 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 720%

LOOo/o 80% 

## I Install Date 

## -DE(%)
13 5 7 91.1. 13 

## 1517 L9 

### Although thedestruction 

### efficiency for NSCR is higher, the cost per

### ton of 

### NOx abatedis also 

### significantþ higher. 

### A further analysis 

### of the 

### key components 

### of the abatement costs per 

### ton is 

### provided below. 

### Our analysis focused on the analysis 

### of three key variables that determine abatement costs: 

## 1. Capital costs 

## 2. Variable costs 

## 3. NOx inlet mass loadings 

### (tpy) NSCR vs. 

### SCR 

### Capital Costs 

### Of the three key variables evaluated, the capital cost 

### of the 

### control systems had the least 

### impact on abatement 

### costs.

### Although capital costs do play an 

### important role, SCR and 

### NSCR capital costs are

### similar. In addition, these costs are recognized over a

### 2}-year horizon (consistent

### with the useful 

### life of the equipment) per 

### EPA's 

### Air Pollution Control Cost 

### Manual (Sixth 

### Edition).As presented 

### in Table 3, although the capital costs

### for NSCR are greater than SCR, the

difference is 

### not appreciable. The 

### only major difference 

### in2009 dollars is due to the age 

### of the 

### NSCR systems and the associated 

### inflation rates. 

### Table 3

## - Total Capital Investment Comparison

Total Capital lnvestment lnstrumentation lnstallation TCI Summary 

## Summary 2009 scR 20 in data set Average

# S e$szo

# S tgz,ooo S 

## 88,305s 

## tze,o$5 L,225,4495 7,787,694



## Minimum$ 

## 165,000s 

## 15,000s 15,760s 43,340s zso,tooS sgr,ggr 

### Maximums 

### 1,700,000s 

## soo,æos 187,500s ¡go,oæs 2,530,000s 6,065,796 NSCR 

### Median

## S SzSoæ

## S 150000 S 

## 62,000s 154000s 1,000,000s 1,386,799 11 in data set Average 

# S ggs,szo

# S rza,s¿g S 89,206

## 5 245,315

## S 1,449,590

## S 4,713,64r



### MinimumS 

## 425,000S SO,OOOS 

### 38,OO0S fO4SOOS 617,500S 1,137,033 

### MaximumS 

### 1500,0005 308,447

## S 136,000S gZ4O00S 2,210,000S 10,891,540 

### [Discussion of 

### Figure 9] 

### Figure 9

## - Total Installed cost 

### comparison (2009 $)



### Total 

## lnstalled Cost (TCl)

31 29 27 25 23 2T 19 T7 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 S2,000,000 S4,000,000 S6,ooo,ooo S8,0oo,o0o S10,ooo,ooo S12,ooo,ooo



### 2009 

## dollars (USD)

### Variable Costs



### TFI evaluatedthe

### variable costs associated 

### with both SCR and 

### NSCR and observed a

### significant difference between the 

### two technologies. As presented 

### in Table 4,

### it is clearthat the most 

### significant annual

### variable expense for 

### NSCR is reagents 

### (þdrocarbons). Thisvariable alone isthe most 

### significant driver for 

### NOx abatement 

### costs. Unlike NSCR systems, SCR systems use ammonia as areagent 

### which is an 

### insignificant variable cost 

### in comparison 

### to the 

### hydrocarbon costs

### for 

### NSCR. SCR's largest 

### variable cost is associated 

### with catalysts and

### their associated 

### life expectancy and costs. 

### Table 4

## - Variable Expense 

### Comparison

scR Criteria Variable Expenses



## Maintenance Reagent Catalyst Catlyst life Catalyst 5lv¡ 20 in data set

NSCR Average

Minimum Maximum Median 

### 1&381 s



### 3,842 s 

### 3zss0 s 15,000 s 145,219 s



### s00 s 362,250 s 

### I2I,500 s 5 s s s 327,448 50,000 900,000 3M,413 

### 7.3

# s 54,L28

5.0

# s 6,200 15.0

# s L8o,ooo 

### 6.0

# s 43,750 11 in data set Average

Minimum Maximum Median 22,874 s



### 9,263 s 33,150 s 24,525 s 7,2æ,747 5



### 9r,740 s 2,318,745 s 1,300,000 s s s s s 277,7L5 L5,200 600,000 2æ,713 5.8

# s 55,285



### 4.0

# s 3,040 10.0

# s 120,000 5.0

# s 52,943 

### Figures 10and 11 present the 

### overall contributions of each

### variable cost category 

### for NSCR and SCR, respectively. 

### Figure 10

## - NSCR 

### Variable Costs



## NSCR

# Variable Cost Maintenance 2%

10

### Figure 11

## - SCR

### Variable Costs


### SCR

# Variable Costs Maintenance 4%



### A fuither analysis 

### of both reagent costs and catalysts costs acrossthe entire below. 

### Figure 12

## - NSCR vs. 

### SCR Reagent Costs 

### ($/year) 

### Reagent 

### Pricing data set are presented



### Variable Costs 

### (S/Vr)
31 29 27 25 23 2T T9 T7 15 13 7T 9 7 5 3 I 

### s1,000,000 s1,s00,000 

### I Reagent ($/yr) 

### S2,ooo,ooo S2,soo,ooo

The catalyst costs 

### did not show an appreciable difference between 

### NSCR vs. 

### SCR. However, across 

### both control technologies, there 

### is a

### wide range 

### of costs and 

### useful 

### life depending on the type and manufacturer 

### ofthe 

### catalyst. Figure 13 depicts the

### variations of catalyst costs and 

### life across both 

### NSCR and SCR systems.

11

### Figure 13

## - Catalyst Cost vs. 

### Useful 

### Life Comparison 

## Catalyst Costs 

### and 

## Useful Llfe L,OOO,OOO 900,ooo 800,ooo 700,ooo 600,ooo 500,ooo 400,ooo 300,ooo 200,ooo L00,ooo 16 

### I4

1,2 10
8
6 4
2 

## r e¿t¿ly5f ($) 

## -Catlyst life (yrs) 

### t

I FI 

### I .q 

## I T
I I 

## ,/ 

# II I



### NOx 

### Inlet Mass 

### Loadings Once

### the capital and

### variable cost aredetermined, the last factor 

### which impacts cost effectiveness isthe 

### inlet mass 

### loading of 

### NOx tothe

### control 

### device. Capital and operating costs 

### for both 

### NSCR and SCR are 

### not linearly related to 

### NOx loadings. Therefore, 

### for sources

### with minor 

### NOx loading on either aton per 

### hour orton per year basis

### will not tend to be as cost 

### effective as a source 

### with heavy 

### NOx loadings. Figures 14and 15 present cost effectiveness versus 

### inlet 

### NOx mass loadings.

12

### Figure 14

### -NSCRNOx CE vs. 

### NOx Loading

NSCR NOx 

### Cost Effectiveness vs 

### NOx 

### lnlet Loading 512,000 slo,ooo

S8,ooo

S6,ooo
s4,0oo

S2,ooo

s4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 

### 2,500 

## r 200e (S) 2,OOO 

## - NOx (tPY) lnlet 1,500 1,000 500 I 

### T À 

### T 

## /\ 

# I/ \ /\ 

# tl 

# I T 

### I



# TT

As shown 

### in Figure 14,three of the

### four lowest 

### NOx abatement costs are attributed to the highest annual 

### NOx pre-control mass loadings 

### (tpy). 

### Figure 15

## - SCR 

### NOx CE vs. 

### NOx 

### Loading

SCR 

### NOx Cost 

### Effectiveness vs 

### NOx 

## lnlet loadlng s5,000 s4,5oo s4,ooo s3,5oo s3,ooo s2,5oo s2,ooo s1,5oo s1,ooo ss00
s4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 

## 2,500 

## r 2009(S) 

## 2,000 

## - NOxtpy (inlet) 1,500 1,000 500 

# tl /t 

# I 

# /l V I

# r\AA ,1 

### I 

# YY \ 

# lIlll.l,. I 

# Irl,lt

13Once again, asshown 

### in Figure 15, the three most 

### significant 

### NOx abatement costs are

associated 

### with the lowest 

### NOx mass loading values. 

### Section 5

# - N2O

## Abatement and Emissions As previously discussed 

### with EPA, 

### TFI does not believe that 

### EPA has

### authority under the NSPS to regulate NzO 

### emissions. EPA's regulation of an 

### "air pollutant" under the NSPS is premised on an "endangerment 

### finding"

# - that the air 

### pollutant "causes, 

### or contributes 

### significantly to, air 

### pollution which may reasonably be anticipated 

### to endanger 

### public health or

### welfare." CAA $ 

### 111(bX1)(A). N2O was 

### neitherspecifically identihed as an

### "air pollutant" for purposes 

### of the 

### original 

### nitric acid 

### plant source category when promulgate d

### in 19713 

### nor is

### it identified asan

### air pollutant 

### for any other 

### NSPS. Further, because NzO has not been 

### identified as an NSPS 

### air pollutant, EPA has not made the 

### requisite endangerment

### finding to

## justifi regulating 

### it under the NSPS. 

### Finally, even though 

### EPA hasembarked on a 

### review of the

### sufficiency of the current 

### nitric acid plant NSPS, as 

### EPA has recognized, 

### "[n]othing in the statute tiesthe endangerment and 8-year 

### review requirements." 73 Fed. Reg. 35838, 35859 

### fn.2 (June

### 24,2008). Given 

### EPA's failure to satisfy the NSPS statutory air 

### pollutant 

### listing and endangerment 

### finding prerequisites to the 

### regulation of N2O, 

### EPA's own admission that a

### periodic review of an NSPS does 

### nottrigger the need 

### to engage 

### in anendangerment evaluation, andthe piecemeal approach

### of the Clean

### Air Act, TFI believes that NzO emissions are best addressed under comprehensive 

### climate change 

### legislation. Nonetheless, 

### to gain an understanding 

### of members 

### activities relating to NzO as part 

### of the survey process, 

### TFI requested NzO abatement and NzO emissions data

### from our 

### members. 

### As a result 

### of the data obtained, the

### following is clear: 

# l. Members are

### only now starting 

### to gather NzO emissions data 

### inpreparation for potential abatement projects and the 

### EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

### Rule. As a result, representative data sets are not 

### yet available. 

# 2. One member 

### facility has

### voluntarily installed

### two secondary catalyst projects 

### for NzO abatement and is

### currently evaluating options 

### for the

### verification ofthe N2O reductions through the soon to be

### published Climate

### Action Reserve 

### (CAR) 

### Nitric Acid Protocol. 

## 3. No member is required 

### to abate N2O, 

### nor does any member have an N2O 

### permit 

### limit. 

## 4. Members areevaluating the 

### potential for NzO abatement and are evaluating 

### timing, costs, and 

### facility

## - specific factors. 

## 5. Based on the 

### limited data sets, a 

### "Best Demonstrated 

### Technology" for NzO has not been "adequately demonstrated" and, therefore, there is no 

### identified "achievable" emission standard 

### for 

### NzO. Essex 

### Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 

### 486F.2d 

### 421,433 (D.C. Cir. r973).

3See 36 Fed. Reg. 24876 (Dec. 23, l97I); Background Information Document for Proposed New-Source Performance Standards: Steam Generators, Incinerators, Portland Cement Plants, Nitric Acid Plants, Sulfuric Acid Plants (August 1971). 

### I4

### Section 

# 6: Conclusions

Based onthedetailed data obtained 

### byTFI through 

### this survey program, the

### following conclusions can be drawn: 

### No two 

### NAPs aredesigned

### alike. NAPs have a

### wide range 

### of operating temperatures and pressures as

### well as process 

### configurations. Depending on the 

### NAP design,theamount 

### of 

### NOx (andthe 

### relative amounts of 

### NO v. NO2) 

### vary 

### significantly. As a result, there are serious cost 

### implications 

### in lowering the 

### NOx 

### limit to a

### uniform standard. Current 

### NSCR and SCR performance at NSPS Subpart G 

### facilities average 0.58 and 0.86 lbs/ton, 

### respectively. NSPS Subpart G

### facilities 

### with some 

### form of extended absorption have actual 

### NOx emissions 

### ranging 

### from2.L to

### 2.75|bslton, and

### two NSPS Subpart G sources

### with no controls have actual emissions between

### 2.2and2.76lbslton. 

# o NOx abatement costs 

### for NSCR are generally greater than SCR based 

### primarily onthe variable reagent costs necessitated by 

### NSCR. Most often, 

### NSCR installations date 

### back to aged

### facilities and are no longer common practice 

### in the 

### United States, however, there are newer 

### facilities 

### with NSCR. NSCR systems must be integrated 

### into a

### NAP's overall energy balance, asthe excess heat energy

### from the 

### NSCR is used

### within the process.



# . SCR, 

### NSCR, and extended absorption remain the most 

### utilized technologies; however, costs and performance can

### vary

### widely based on a number 

### of 

### facility 

## - specificfactors. 

# o The use

### of extended absorption, 

### chilled absorption and hydrogen peroxide 

### injection are 

### potentially viable technologies 

### to enhance the HNO3 process and 

### further remove 

### NOx. NAPs should have 

### the ability to evaluate 

### this option 

### in lieu of 

### modiffing existing control technologies 

### if a more stringent 

### NOx requirement is imposed. 

### SectÍon 

## 7: Next Steps Per our discussion, 

### TFI and our 

### Nitric Acid Subcommittee 

### will meet 

### with USEPA on 

### November 18th 

### at 1:30

### tofurther discuss these results. 

### TFI would 

### like to

### fuither discuss 

### USEPA's NSPS questionnaire and 

### its content, 

### in an

### effort to leveragethe

### work that has akeady been done and 

### minimize redundant questionsto the extent feasible.

15