Date: July 29, 2009

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

Melissa Icenhour

To: Bill Neuffer

OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

A meeting was held on June 30, 2009 to discuss EPA’s review of the New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) for Nitric Acid plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart G). The

agenda and a detailed list of attendees are attached. The meeting attendees included:

EPA

Steve Fruh, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Minerals Group

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

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

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

Robin Segall, EPA, OAQPS, AQAD, Measurement Technology 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

Johnny McDaniel, Coffeyville Resources (via phone)

Adam Diamond, CF Industries; Manager, Public Affairs

Jim Schellhorn, Terra Industries; Director of Environmental Health and Safety

Chris Leason, Gallagher and Kennedy; Attorney at Law
EPA Support Contractors:

Roy Neulicht, RTI International

Melissa Icenhour, RTI International

Jason Goldsmith, RTI International

Purpose: 

The purpose of the meeting was to initiate communication with 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.

Industry overview. Bill Herz (TFI) gave an overview of the industry and the 

process operations. They indicated that TFI represents companies responsible for about 

60 percent of the Nitric Acid production in the United States. Mr. Neuffer asked who 

might represent the other producers not represented by TFI; he asked if it would be the 

American Chemistry Council (ACC). TFI indicated they were not certain, but it would 

likely be the ACC. After the Sierra Club’s notice of intent to sue, TFI conducted a 

survey of their members and also obtained data from the International Fertilizer Center 

(IFC) in Mussel Shoals, Alabama. TFI identified forty nine nitric acid production 

locations, including seven Department of Defense (DOD) facilities. Twenty two of the 

company locations of the 42 non-DOD facilities are TFI members and represent 

approximately 60 percent of the production.

TFI compared their information to a list of the facilities provided to them by Bill 

Neuffer. The list provided by Mr. Neuffer represents EPA’s most current list of facilities 

and was developed as a result of an EPA project to develop a bottom up inventory of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the industry. TFI indicated that six of the facilities 

identified on EPA’s list may not be active nitric acid facilities. Furthermore, EPA’s list 

did not include the seven DOD facilities. According to the TFI information, DOD is the 

third largest producer of nitric acid in the US.

TFI indicated that 22 member company facilities out of 25 have responded to 

their survey. The 22 locations have 37 unique nitric acid production units (also known as 

trains). Twenty eight of these trains are subject to the nitric acid NSPS. All of the 37 

nitric acid trains at the 22 locations are producing nitric acid with an acid strength in the 

range of 53 to 67 percent acid. The NSPS applies to “weak nitric acid” production units; 

the NSPS defines “weak nitric acid” as acid which is 30 to 70 percent in strength. 

Whether the NSPS should be expanded to include strong acid facilities was raised as one 

issue to consider during the NSPS review. 

Process Description and Data Presentation. Jim Schellhorn (Terra Industries) 

presented a brief overview of the process, which basically has three steps. A mixture of 

ammonia in air (approximately 10 percent ammonia in air) reacts in the presence of a

precious metal catalyst in the nitric acid converter to produce nitric oxide (NO). Then, 
NO is reacted non-catalytically with residual oxygen and the addition of bleach air to 

form NO2. The NO2 is then passed through an absorption tower and absorbed in water to 

form nitric acid. Un-reacted NO and NO2 leave the absorption tower, pass through 

process heat exchangers and ultimately to the stack. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a byproduct 

that is formed in the converter and passes through the nitric acid process as an inert to the 

stack. 

In the mid 1970’s to 1980’s a typical absorber outlet was 800 to 1000 ppm NOx 

(NOx is the combined NO and NO2 emissions). Changes to the process technology have

reduced the uncontrolled emissions levels on some nitric acid plant designs (i.e., without 

add-on emissions control). For example, Terra Industries has a facility that meets the 

current NSPS limit without emissions control. The current NSPS limit is 3 lb NOx per 

ton of acid produced (100 percent acid basis) and equates to a concentration of 

approximately 200 ppm NOx. 

A discussion ensued about the term “extended absorption.” It was stated that it is 

difficult to differentiate between “extended absorption” whose intent is to improve plant 

efficiency and “extended absorption” whose intent is to control emissions. It was stated 

that industry uses the term “extended absorption” to refer to an additional absorption

tower that in many cases is considered a part of the process rather than a control device. 

A question was asked regarding whether one could assume that all new plants 

would be built using the dual pressure design. Although the TFI representatives felt 

many new plants would be the dual pressure design, it was noted that the Coffeyville unit 

built in 1998 was a single pressure unit. 

With respect to emissions controls, TFI stated that of the 28 process trains subject 

to the nitric acid NSPS that responded to the survey:

• 16 are equipped with selective catalytic reduction (SCR), 

• 6 are equipped with non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR), 

• 2 use extended absorption, 

• 1 uses extended absorption and NSCR;

• 1 uses extended absorption and hydrogen peroxide catalyst addition;

• 1 uses a water chiller; and 

• 1 is uncontrolled.

With respect to permit limits, NOx emissions limits range from 0.6 to 3 lb per ton 

of acid produced (100 percent acid basis), and average 1.1 lb/ton per ton of acid 

produced, (100 percent acid basis). TFI stated that the Sierra Club asserts emissions 

reductions ranging from 95 to 98 percent for extended absorption, SCR and NSCR. They 

have data from facilities that extended absorption achieves only 91 percent reduction, 

SCR achieves approximately 75 percent reduction, and NSCR achieves at most a 93 

percent reduction.
Bill Neuffer indicated that EPA would likely want to make some site visits in 

order to view the process first hand and gain a better understanding of the process. TFI 

indicated that site visits could be arranged. 

History of NSPS. Bill Neuffer gave a brief overview of the history of the NSPS. 

The handout is attached.

NSPS reviews occurred in 1979 and 1984. The emissions standard did not change 

as a result of either of the reviews. EPA will again be reviewing the NOx emissions limit. 

EPA also is interested in collecting information on GHG’s, specifically, N2O. Terra 

indicated there is very little actual N2O data, other than data based on emissions factors 

(EF). The available monitoring information indicates the emission factors are “pretty 

good.” There was a brief discussion on measurement techniques for N2O. Nathan Frank 

referred to a 1991 EIIP document. Robin Segall indicated that FTIR was one method for 

measuring N2O. Nathan Frank indicated he knew of at least one facility that was using 

an in-situ continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to measure both NOx and 

N2O. 

Path Forward/Cooperative Efforts. Bill Neuffer asked TFI if they had particular 

issues they wanted to discuss. TFI representatives stated that one issue is the regulation 

of GHG (i.e., N2O) under an NSPS. They believe it is more appropriate to regulate under 

GHG legislation. N2O emissions are of interest to the industry, but the nitric acid 

production industry should not be the first regulated industry. When natural gas price 

increases drove up the price of nitrogen in 1991, many nitrogen plants closed. Due to the 

reduction in US nitrogen capacity, approximately 50 percent of the nitrogen used in the 

US is imported. The nitrogen production process results in GHG emissions in the form 

of CO2. Now that nitrogen production capacity has been reduced, the baseline for total 

GHG emissions is reduced. TFI is concerned that a lower baseline might result in 

increased regulatory pressure to reduce N2O emissions. TFI believes that the GHG issue 

needs to be investigated holistically for the industry.

TFI asked a question about what type of economic impact analysis will be done 

by EPA for the NSPS, and were particularly interested in how this analysis would 

estimate impacts on trade. Larry Sorrels replied that an economic impact analysis will be 

done for this NSPS as is typically done by OAQPS. The analysis will include estimates 

of impacts on product prices and output, and impacts on imports and exports of affected 

products from implementing the NSPS. Such impacts are normally estimated for the fifth 

year after proposal of the NSPS, and the economic analysis uses the compliance costs for 

the NSPS as an input. 

TFI indicated that comments on the GHG reporting rule have been solicited for 

nitric acid production and ammonia production and the comments submitted to EPA. TFI 

also indicated that EF numbers have been reported to the IFC. 

Emissions test methods were discussed. The issue of whether Method 7E 

(instrumental method) was an appropriate method for determining compliance with the 
NSPS was raised by Bill Neuffer. Bill mentioned that only Methods 7 though 7D (wet 

chemistry methods) are approved methods in the current regulation. Robin Segall 

explained that there are two issues with the use of Method 7E: 1) how moisture in the 

sample is handled, and 2) the calibration procedures/gases used. The concern is a bias in 

measured emissions as a result of the loss of NO2 (which is highly soluble in water) 

during sample transport/conditioning. She stated EPA would look into clarifying 7E for 

use in nitric acid production units; e.g., specifying sample conditioning procedures and 

the use of dynamic spiking to verify performance. 

Jim Schellhorn (Terra Industries) indicated they would like EPA to look at the 

emissions characteristics of new (relative to when the NSPS was written) sources. He 

stated that the newer sources have low NO2 emissions relative to NO emissions, and the 

gas stream has low moisture content. He stated that the NO2 emissions are sufficiently 

low that accurate measurements of NOx can be made without being overly concerned 

about NO2 solubility in water. TFI indicated they would like EPA to look at ways to 

allow Method 7E as an approved performance test method for nitric acid plants. TFI also 

indicated they would like EPA to look at the NSPS Subpart G provision that currently 

states the calibration gas must be NO2. They would like to see NO2 and/or NO allowed as 

the calibration gas depending upon what is most appropriate for the analyzer.

Start up, shutdown, and malfunction emissions (SSM) are another area of concern 

for TFI. Currently, in Part 60, SSM emissions are excluded from regulation. Jim 

Schellhorn (Terra Industries) indicated it would not be a correct approach to include SSM 

emissions in a short-term (3-hr) average emission limit. He believes a more appropriate 

approach to address SSM emissions would be to set a maximum annual emissions cap, or 

a long-term average. Nathan Frank indicated he thought SSM emissions would vary 

substantially from facility to facility. 

Information collection was also discussed. TFI asked whether the EPA regulatory 

development team had access to the Section 114 information collected during the nitric 

acid enforcement initiative. Nathan Frank indicated there was no single repository for 

that Section 114 information. He also suggested that the enforcement initiative focused 

on the high emitters and would not likely provide the information needed for NSPS 

review. He stated he was the OECA National Coordinator for the enforcement initiative.

 

Summary and Action Items:

EPA indicated they wanted to keep lines of communication open with TFI and 

other representatives of the industry. The following action items and areas of concern 

were identified:

1. Working with TFI to refine the list of facilities and process units, as well as 

each facility’s process design (e.g., single pressure, dual pressure) and 

emissions controls (e.g., SCR, NSCR) characteristics;

2. Planning site visits to two or three representative facilities in the SeptemberNovember time frame;

3. Assessing the applicability of Method 7E for nitric acid facilities;

4. Assessing the use of NO in addition to NO2 for analyzer calibration;
5. Obtaining the most recent CEMS data for NOx emissions;

6. Regulation of GHG (N2O) via an NSPS revision or through GHG legislation

(TFI’s preferred option); 

7. Possibly obtaining available N2O data and emissions factors (TFI does not 

agree that this is warranted); and 

8. Obtaining available stack emissions test data collected via the Section 114 

NSR enforcement initiative. 
ATTACHMENTS

Meeting Agenda

Attendee Listing

History of NSPS
 

 William C. Herz

 Vice President,

Scientific Programs

Union Center Plaza 202.962.0490

820 First Street, NE Suite 430 202.962.0577 fax

Washington, DC 20002 www.tfi.org

PROPOSED AGENDA

EPA AND TFI MEETING

NITRIC ACID PLANT NSPS

JUNE 30, 2009

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC

I. INTRODUCTIONS – PEOPLE AND ROLES

II. DISCUSSION OF TFI AND ITS MEMBERS

III. DISCUSSION OF EPA CONTEMPLATED ACTIVITIES

IV. TFI DATA DISCUSSION

V. SYNERGIES

VI. NITROUS OXIDE AND CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION

VII. PATH FORWARD/RESOURCES
June 30, 2009 EPA/TFI MEETING - Nitric Acid NSPS

FIRST NAME LAST NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE E-MAIL

Bill Neuffer ESP/SPPD (919)541-5435 neuffer.bill@epa.gov

Bill Herz The Fertilizer Institute (202)515-2706 wcherz@tfi.org

Chris Leason Gallagher & Kennedy (602)530-8059 csl@gknet.com

Adam Diamond CF Industries (202)371-9271 adiamond@cfindustries.com

Jim Schellhorn Terra Industries (918)266-9653 jschellhorn@terraindustires.com

Melissa Icenhour RTI (919)316-3734 mkicenhour@rti.org

Jason Goldsmith RTI (919)541-7383 jgoldsmith@rti.org

Tina Ndoh EPA/SPPD (919)541-2750 ndoh.christina@epa.org

Roy Neulicht RTI (919)316-3736 rmneulicht@rti.org

Steve Fruh EPA/SPPD (919)541-2837 fruh.steve@epa.gov

Attendance by Phone

Larry Sorrels EPA/HEID/ABCG (919)541-5041 sorrels.larry@epa.gov

Robin Seagall EPA/AQAD (919)541-0893 segall.robin@epa.gov

Mansami Desai EPA/OAP/CCD (202)343-9381 desai.mausami@epa.gov

Nathan Frank EPA/Reg5/ARD (312)886-3850 frank.nathan@epa.gov

Johnny McDaniel Coffeyville Resources (620)870-4610 jmcdaniel@CVREnergy.com
Subpart G NSPS Review 

Notes for June 30, 2009 Meeting with The Fertilizer Institute 

Why is EPA reviewing the NSPSs?

The EPA is required by the CAA (section 111(b)(1)(B)) to review and, if appropriate, 

revise existing NSPS at least every 8 years. 

In addition to the CAA requirement to review the NSPS periodically, EPA has received a 

citizen suit from Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project related to the nitric acid 

NSPS which is also prompting review of the standards. 

NSPS (40 CFR part 60) Promulgation date Previous changes to rule

Nitric Acid (subpart G) June 14, 1974 

(39 FR 20794)

Changes dated October 6, 

1975 [40 FR 46258], April 

22, 1985 [50 FR 15894], 

and February 14, 1989 [40 

FR 6666]

NSPS Reviews were 1985 

and 1989

What is the schedule for the NSPS reviews?

Preliminary draft of Consent Decree (6/18/09): 

-Proposal of review in FR by November 15, 2010

-Promulgation of review in FR by November 15, 2011

The proposed/final FR notices must be one of the following: 

-Determination that revision to the NSPS is unnecessary based on complete 

review 

-Revisions to the NSPS

What are some potential outcomes of the NSPS reviews?

Potential outcomes include one or more of the following: 

-No changes 

-Clarifying amendments 

-Changes to emissions limits or other rule requirements

-Add emission limits for additional pollutants (i.e., N2O)

We currently have no inclination as to what will be changed. It will depend on what the 

information gathered reveals. 

Now is the time to provide your ideas on potential amendments needed.
Test Methods

Changes that increase stringency of the rule (if any) would apply only to new units 

installed following the NSPS review proposal date.

What is the process?

1. Data gathering (emissions test data, site visits, permits, information from 

companies/trade groups/equipment vendors/states, state regulations, etc.) 

2. Data analysis (compile data, analyze regulatory options, make recommendations)

3. Develop FR proposal (preamble and rule amendments)

4. Receive, summarize, and review public comments on proposal

5. Review conclusions, conduct additional analyses needed, make recommendations

6. Develop final FR notice

7. Litigation (hopefully none)

What is the status of our data gathering efforts?

A list of nitric acid facilities has been compiled from various information sources such as 

EPA’s AIRS, ICIS, Region 5, etc.

We have obtained many title V permits from state websites. We will use permit data to 

identify any States with requirements more stringent than NSPS, equipment capable of 

meeting more stringent emission limits, etc. 

Additional data needs include:

-For each facility subject to NSPS, the NOX emissions (in the same terms as the 

NSPS limits) and the NOX abatement method. 

-Emissions test data (e.g., for NOX and any other pollutants such as N2O) to 

evaluate the performance of current NOX abatement technologies and 

emerging NOX or N2O abatement technologies (if any).

There are approximately 60 facilities of which we are aware and resources are limited. 

Our goal is to get as much data from trade associations and states.