# IFOLEY ATTORNEYS AT I¡W
WASHINGTON HARBOUR 3OOO K STREET, N,W. SUITE 600 wAsHtNcToN, D.C. 20007.5109 202.6725300TEL 202.672.5399 FAX foley.com October

## 10,2012 wRrrER,s DrREcr LINE 202"295.402t rstoll@loley.com EMAIL FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

Vrn fl¡,r.¡o DFr,rv4nv nnu 

### E-MAIL

Ms. Lisa Jackson Administrator, U.S. EPA Room 3000,Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. MailCode: 

## ll0lA Washington,DC 20460



### Re: Petition for Reconsiderdtion Under Clean 

### AirAct Q307(d),(7)(B)
Dear Ms. Jackson:
On behalf of my client Dyno Nobel Inc., I amfiling the enclosed "Petition for Reconsideration of the Final Rule 

### forNew Source Performance Standards

### forNitric Acid Plants," whioh was published at77 Fed. Reg.48433,Aug.14,2012.
You

### will seethat I am copyin g (vía e-mail) varíous personnel inyour Office ofAir and Radiation and Office of General Counsel. We look forward to meeting with those personnel in hopes that appropriate revisíons tothefinal rule might be secured.

Very truly yours,

Richard G. Stoll

cc: (via e-mail)

Ms. Gina McCarthy 

### Mr. Peter Tsirigotis 

### Mr. Nathan Topham 

### Mr, Steve Fruh 

### Mr. Scott Jordan A-and-R Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-201 0-0750

BOSTON JACKSONVILLE MILWAUKEE SANOIEGO SILICON VALLEY SRUSSELS LOSANGELES NÉWYORK SAN DIEGO/DEL MAR IALLAHASSEE CHICAGO MADISON ORLANDO SANFRANCISCO ÍAMPA 

### DErRorT MrAMr sAcRÀMENfo SHANGHA| Iu?1T...?rnror, o,..

### Pnrrrrox pon RncoNsrDERATrox On 

### Ttrp 

### Fnar, RulB 

### ron Nnw Souncp PnRroRprANcE 

### Sr¿,xolnos



### ron 

## NttntcAcm Pr,exrs Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750 77 

### Fed. Reg. 48433, 

### August 14,2012



# I. Introduction

Pursuant 

### to 

### clean

### AirAct section 307(d)(7)(B), 

### Dyno Nobel 

### Inc, 

### ("DNI") petitions the 

### EnvironmentalProtection Agency 

### ("EPA") to reconsider 

### portions

## of EPA's "New Source 

### Performance Standards 

### Revíew for 

### Nitric Acid Plants," published as a

### final rule in the Federal 

### Register on

### August 14,2012. See 77 Fed. 

### Reg.48433 

### (Aug. 

### 14,2012). Iü/e

### will hereafter 

### refer

### tothis rule as

### the 

### "NAP Rule."


### DNI is a

### supplierof industrial explosives and 

### blasting services headquartered 

### in Salt Lake 

### City, 

### Utah. DNI owns and operates several 

### nitric acid 

### plants 

### ("NAPs") in the 

### United States

### that are subject 

### to regulation under the 

### NAP Rule.

The 

### NAP Rule (codified in 40 

### c.F,R, part 60, subpart Ga) establishes a 

### nitrogen oxide 

### ("NOx") limit of 0.50 

### lb/ton of 

### nitric acid produced, as a30-day 

### emission rate 

### calculated based on 

### 30 consecutive 

### operating 

### days, This 

### NOx 

### limit applies not only 

### to "new" nitric acid 

### plants, but also

### to any 

### modifìcation or 

### reconstruction commencing after 

### October 

### 14,2011. The 0.50 

### lb/ton 

### limit is based on data 

### showing such astandard is 

### achievable by 

### NAPs using selective 

### catal¡ic reduction 

### ("SCR") to control 

### NOx.


### DNI is a

### member 

### of The 

### Fertilizer Institute 

### (TFI), and 

### DNI representatives 

### participated 

### actively in the

### TFI advocacy on the 

### NAP Rule, 

### including 

### TFI's written comments 

### of November 28,201 1and

### followup submissions. In particular, 

### DNI providedsignificant input into the 

### portions 

### of the

### TFI comments 

### dealing 

### with non

### selective

### catal¡ic reduction 

### ("NSCR") technology, and

### the inappropriateness 

## of applying a

### 0.50 

### lb/ton 

### limit to 

### modifications and 

### reconstructions at 

### NAPs that 

### utilize NSCR technology (hereafter, 

### "NSCR 

### NAPs").

# II. TFI's Comments on Proposed 

### NAP Rule

EPA proposed 

### the 0.50 

### lb/ton 

### limit for all 

### NAPs (both SCR and NSCR, 

### including 

### modifications and reconstructions), on 

### October 

### 14,2011,76 Fed. Reg. 

### 63878. In the

### TFI comments of November 28,2011, we made 

### the

### following points:



### 1. EPA stated 

### in its proposed 

### NAP Rulethat 

### it was 

### "uncertain" whether 

### NSCR NAPs could meet 

### the0.50 

### lblton 

### limit, as 

### EPA had 

### not reviewed any CEMS data showing that 

### any (much less an appropriate representative sample) 

### NSCR NAPs could meet

### the0.50 

### lblton 

### limiü


### 2. EPA had 

### not evaluated 

### additional steps 

### NSCRNAPs undergoing modifications/reconstructions 

### would need to take 

### to meet 

### the 0.50 

### lb/ton 

### limit, how such steps

### could affect operations and emissions, and the 

### compliance costs 

### of such steps; 

## 3, EPA could not 

### legally assume 

### CAA g I 

### l

## l "achievability" of the 0.50 

### lbiton 

### limit for NSCR 

### NAPs undergoing modification/reconstruction based on data 

### from SCR 

### NAPs, as

### there are 

### significant and

### fundamental differences between 

### NAPs usingthe 

### two different technologies, More 

### particularly, 

### TFI explained 

### in
some detail:

The atypical nature of the Test Plants is at its starkestwhen compared to

NAPs (typically older plants) that employ NSCR. Not only do none of the Test Plants use NSCR, but, as EPA long ago recognized, NSCR is not an end of the pipe controltechnology, as some would describe SCR. Rather, aNAP that employs NSCR is designeddifferently because the NSCR is built into, and is an integral part of, the operationof the NAp, particularly interms of heat balance and energy generation for other parts of the NAP. NAPswith an NSCR must keep temperatures elevated in order to create the reductive environment within the unit that eliminates both Nox and Nzo, In order to ensurethat temperatures and pressures are adequate for this reductive environment, the NSCR is placed upstream

### of the tail gas expander. These expanders 

### will malfunction above the temperatures they are designedto handle, and because NSCR reactions are extremely exothermic, any increased NOx destruction and associated temperature increases related thereto could cripple the expander, and thus, the entire NAP, The Test Plants do not facethese conditions, limitation or the ability to modify their operations, or their attendant ímpacts on emissions.

### The 

### foregoing conclusively showed, in

### TFI's view, that 

### EPA could not meet



### the mandates 

### of Nøf 

### 'l Lime Ass'n v. 

### EPA,627 F,2d 416 

### (D.C. 

### Cir. 1980) and

### Sierra Club 

### v. Costle,657 F.3d 298 

### (D.C, 

### Cir. 

## l98l) requiring that the data 

### relied upon 

### in setting an NSPS must be

### sufficiently'orepresentative of potential 

### industry-wide performance." 

### Id. 

### at377. TFI accordingly urged 

### EPA 

### to establish a separate standard 

### for NSCR 

### NAPs undergoing 

### modifì ation or 

### reconstruction.


# III. EPA's Final R Mo d ifica tions/Reco nstru ctio ns


### In the

### final rule, EPA rejected 

### TFI's request

### for a separate 

### limit for NSCR NAPs undergoing 

### modifications or 

### reconstructions. 

### In rejecting 

### TFI's request, 

### EPA offered nosubstantive response 

### tothe second and

### third basic 

### points 

### TFI had raised 

### in its comments summarized above.



### That is, 

### EPA made 

### no 

### effort

### to analyze and 

### account

### for the impacts and costs 

### of NSCR 

### NAPs having 

### to complywith the 0.50 

### lb/ton 

### limit when undertaking 

### modifications or reconstructions, 

### in response 

### to

### TFI's second basic

### point. And EPA offered no response

### to

### TFI's third basic 

### point about the

### significant and 

### fundamental differences between SCR and 

### NSCR 

### NAPs which affect 

### NSCR 

### NAPs' ability to comply 

### with the0,50 

### lb/ton 

### limit 

### if undertaking a 

### modification or reconstruction,l
Rather, 

### EPA's entire rationale 

### for refusing 

### TFI's request isthat 

### EPA 

### now believes 

### NSCR 

### NAPs (or 

### "at least

### some" 

### ofthem) can meet 

### the0.50 

### lb/ton limit. As 

### EPA explained:

Although the limit of 0,50 lb NOX/ton acid is based on the datafor SCR, NSPS do not require the use and installation of a specific control device, Whether NSCR can meetthe levels achievable by SCR over a long term was an areaof uncertainty at proposal. At proposal, the long term CEMS data from 2 NSCR plants (PCS Ceismar Train 4 andAgrium Sacramento) indicated that neither plant was achieving the 0.50 lb NOX/ton limit.After proposal, we evaluated

I EPA reprinted this portion of theTFI comments in its RTC as "Comment 5.1," on page 20, But in its "Response to Comments 5.1-5.5" on pages 23-24 of the RTC, EPA responds to several points but not TFI's point setforth in part 3 above.continuous NOX emission data from Dyno Nobel-St Helens (which uses NSCR) that showed a maximurn 30 day emission rateof 0.21 ib NOX/ton acid, Also, we had monthly data from JRSimplot (another nitric acid plantwith NSCR) that ranged from 0.15 to 0.36 lb NOX/ton acid. Although the data from JR Simplot are not directly comparable to continuous NOX emission data (hour by hour), there is a strong probability that this source alsocould comply with 0.50 lb NOX/ton acíd. Therefore, we conclude the standard of 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid limit isachievable for at least some NAPs using NSCR.

77 Fed. Reg. 

### at 48436-7,
Thus, 

### EPA resolved 

### the issue over whether 

### it believed NSCR 

### NAPs could meetthe 0.50 

### lb/ton 

### limit by reliance on 

### CEMS data

### it evaluated 

### "after proposal" of the 

### NAP 

### Rule. This data 

### is

### from one

### of 

### DNI's NAPs, and 

### is the 

### only 

### hourly CEMS data 

### that shows 

### compliance 

### with the 0.50 

### lb/ton 

### limit by a 

### NSCR 

### NAP. Theonly other 

### information cited by 

### EPA is 

### monthly data

### from a

### JR Simplot 

### NAP that in 

### EPA's (unexplained) 

### opinion created a

### "strong 

### probability" that 

### NAP could 

### comply 

### with the 0,50 

### lb/ton 

### limit.



## IV. ReconsideratÍon Is Necessarv 

### InThis SituatÍon

Section 

### 307(dX7XB) of the

### CAA provides 

### that 

### EPA shall grant reconsideration 

### when the 

### petitioner:

[C]an demonstrate 

### to the

### Administratorthat 

### it was 

### impracticable 

### to raise 

### [an] objection 

### [during the 

### period for public comment] 

### or 

### if the grounds 

### for such 

### objection
arose 

### after the 

### periodfor public comment



### ... and 

### if such 

### objection is

### of central relevance tothe 

### outcome 

### ofthe rule.
The standards 

### for reconsideration are most 

### clearly met 

### inthis situation. 

### First, neither 

### DNI, TFI, nor any interested 

### party had any 

### notice whatever from the proposed 

### NAP rule that 

### EPAwould utilize CEMS data 

### from 

### DNI's Oregon 

### plant
asthe 

### primary basis

### for supporting the 

### NAP Rule's application to NSCR NAPs and 

### rejecting our request 

### for a separate 

### limit, As EPA most 

### clearly states 

### in its

### final preamble, 

### EPA evaluated 

### this data 

### "after proposal."

### If EPA had 

### included 

### this data and 

### rationale 

### in its proposed 

### rule, 

### DNI,TFI,

and others

### would have had

### the opportunity to

### file comments 

### showing that the 

### DNI Oregon 

### plant is

### for several 

### key reasons 

### not representative 

### of overall industry performance among 

### U.S. NSCR 

### NAPs. We

### will explain 

### this in Section 

### V below. Thus, as 

### contemplated 

### by 

### CAA $307(dX7)(B), the grounds

### for our objection "arose after the 

### period for public comment,"
Second, as 

### contemplated by

### CAA $307(dX7)(B), our objection is most 

### certainly 

### "of central relevance 

### to the 

### outcome." We

## will explain in Section 

### V below that the 

### DNI Oregon 

### plant isfar

### from representative 

### of overall industry performance among U.S. 

### NSCRNAPs. This means

### that the

### only hourly CEMS data 

### showing a 

### NSCR 

### NAP in compliance 

### with the 

### 0.50 

### lb/ton 

### limit is 

### not representative, and 

### accordingly shows 

### how the 

### NAP rule is arbitrary and 

### capricious as

### it applies 

### to NSCR 

### NAPs under 

### CAA $

### I I

## I andthe 

### D.C. Circuit case 

### law referenced above.



## V. The 

### DNI Oregon 

### Blant Is Not Renresentative 

### Of Overall Jndustrv



### PerformanceAmong U.S. 

### NAPs

The 

### Dyno Nobel Oregon 

### NAP is 

### not representative 

### of NSCR NAPs throughout the 

### United States 

### for at least three 

### significant reasons: First, 

### it is a

### very 

### smallplant, Second, 

### the 

### NAP was 

### purposely 

### built for the sole 

### function

## of scrubbing emissions 

### from an on-site urea

## plant-it was 

### not designed 

### to be sustainable as a 

### NAP ín 

### its own 

### right. Third, the

### fuel to the 

### NSCR reactor is 

### unusual. Each 

### of these reasons 

### is discussed 

### in detail below.



## A. Plant SÍze



### The Oregon 

### NAP produces 

### only 70

### tons

### of nitric acid per

### day, This 

### facility may be

### the smallest 

### NAP in the 

### United States. 

### In contrast, 

### the next smallest 

### plant operated 

### by 

### DNI is 1.78

### times 

### bigger. The largest 

### plant operated 

### by 

### DNI is more 

### than7.5times 

### bigger. Further, 

### DNI operates 

### smallfacilities when compared tothe rest 

### of the 

### industry: World scale 

### NAPstypically produce morethan 1000 tons 

### of nitric acid per 

### day, Thus, extrapolating results 

### fromthe Oregon 

### NAP to the rest

## ofthe 

### industry is

### tantamount

### to conducting experiments on a 

### laboratory scale and



### surmising the results 

### would apply to an 

### industrial scale 

### plant.'



### A number 

### of factors mayfavor the 

### small scale

### facility that 

### may not applyto the

### typical NSCR 

### NAP. For example, the geometry and 

### relative condensate

### flow rate 

### inthe absorber

### tower should favor better 

### NOX absorption. 

### Additionally, the 

### flow to the 

### NSCR Reactor 

### should result 

### in better 

### mixing of reactants 

### in a

### waythat cannot be

### duplicated at a 

### larger scale.



### B. Purposely 

### Built as 

### a 

### Pollution Control Device

The Oregon 

### NAP was 

### built as a

### control device coupled 

### tothe urea 

### plant. No 

### nitric acid is produced 

### for sale.

### The urea 

### plant onthe 

### site 

### (which isthe 

### commercial
reason 

### for the existence 

### of the 

### DNI Oregon 

### facility) produces 

### tail gas 

### consisting 

### of relatively low 

### purityammonia. 

### Nitric acid is produced 

### to react

### with the 

### low purity ammonia,

### forming ammonium nitrate and ensuring 

### thattheammonia 

### in the

### tail gas stream is 

### notvented

### to the environment. The urea 

### plant cannot operate at

### full rate 

### without the small 

### NAP being on-line.
Thus, the

### nitric acid 

### plant functions 

### without regard

### to maximizing acid 

### purity or production 

### rate. 

### It accordingly has 

### relative vessel sizes and

### flow rates that 

### would never be 

### duplicated ín a

### typical NSCR 

### l.tAPwhich is designed 

### for commercial acid 

### production. We believethis 

### pollution control device 

### function is 

### unique among 

### NAPs 

### in the 

### U.S.



## C. Unusual Fuel By far the most 

### significant difference between 

### theOregon 

### NAP and any other 

### NSCR 

### NAP ofwhich we areaware isthat purge gas 

### from the on-site ammonia 

### plant is used as

### fuel. As the Oregon ammonia 

### plant issmall, recovering hydrogen

### from its purge gas is 

### uneconomic. Thus, the 

### fuel 

### flowing to the 

### NSCR reactor is 65%o hydrogen,

2Simplot's CAA Section Il4 response (in the docketfor the NAP Rule) indicatesthatthe Simplot Helm plant ís rated at 280TPD and its average production is231TPD. Thus, this facility (for which EPA has no hourly CEMS data) is also smaller than thetypical NSCR NAP facility,.

### In contrast, 

### four 

### of the sev€n

### NSCR 

### NAPs operated 

### by 

### DNI utilize methane

as

### fuel, as is

### the common industry 

### practice, The 

### remaining 

### two NSCR 

### NAPs use an ammonia 

### plant purge gas stream, 

### but 

### in those 

### situations the stream has been stripped 

### of 

### hydrogen-this purge gas is

### only I 2%o 

### hydrogen. (These situations 

### involve large 

### ammonia plants, 

### unlike the Oregon 

### plant. 

## It is 

### important 

### for large ammonia 

### plantsto recover and use the 

### hydrogen 

### in the 

### purge gæ because 

### it significantly contributes to the long term sustainability 

### of these

### ammonia plants.)



### The Oregon 

### plant is

### thus unique among 

### all of 

### DM's NSCR 

### NAPs in its use 

### of hydrogen-rich 

### fuel and so

### far as

### we 

### know, is 

### unique 

### inthis manner among 

### all U.S. 

### NSCR 

### NAPs. The use 

### of hydrogen 

### for fuel in an 

### NSCR 

### NAP 

### will produce 

### significantly lower 

### NOx emissions

### for several reasons, 

### First, hydrogen

## will ignite in the 

### NSCR reactor at

### 450oF. Methane (the 

### major component 

### of natural gas)

### will not 

### ignite until the 

### reactor 

### inlet temperature reaches 

### 900"F, This is 

### significant because the 

### NSCR reactor outlet temperature must be 

### held 

### below 1250"F 

### in order 

### to ensure 

### that downstream equipment 

### (particularly the hot gas 

### expander) is 

### not damaged 

### by the 

### heat. Heat is generated 

### in the 

### NSCR reactor 

### by the combustion 

### of oxygen remaining 

### in the 

### tail gas. The 

### maximum 

### allowable oxygen content

### for a

### NAP 

### utilizing natural gas 

### in the 

### NSCR reactor 

### is 1.2% 

### (the outlet temperature increases 250"F 

### lo/oO2). Conversely, a 

### hydrogenfueled 

### NSCR reactor operating at a450oF 

### inlettemperature cantolerate 3Yo oxygen 

### in the

### tail gas. This is 

### significant because the 

### hìgher oxygen concentration drives the conversion 

### of NOto 

### NO2 intheabsorber, The 

### NO2 is absorbed 

### in water 

### toform 

### nitric acid, 

### resulting 

### in lower 

### NOx levels atthe 

### inlet

## of the 

### NSCR reactor and,

### thus, 

### lower outlet 

### NOx.

In addition, the 

### reaction kinetics are 

### more favorable when hydrogen-rich fuel is 

### used. 

### As explained 

### in Johnson-Matthey's abatement 

### catalyst application literature: 

### "The catalyst 

### formulation is 

### particularly important when methane is used
asthe 

### reductant because the methane 

### molecule is

### difficult to oxidize due

### to its 

### high 

## stability." Johnson-Matthey, 

### Application Fact Sheet, 

### Case No.

### 601: NitricAcid Plant NOx Abatement, 

### at 4-5 

### (2006),located at 

### http:/iect.ir.n%talysts.com/pdfslibrarylApplicationo/o20F-actYo20Sheeto/o29601%20-

### To summarize, 

### plants that must use 

### natural gas as

### fuel to the 

### NSCR reactor

are penalized 

### bythermodynamics and 

### kinetics. They 

### simply cannot be compared to a 

### highly unique 

### plant 

### like the 

### DNI Oregon 

### plantthat 

### utilizes astream 

### rich in hydrogen 

### for fuel.



## V. Conclusion

For 

### all the

### foregoing reasons, we requestthat 

### EPA grant reconsideration

## of the 

### NAP Rule as

### it applies 

### to modifications and 

### reconstructions of NSCR NAPs.

R

### espectfully submitted,

Richard G. 

### Stoll Foley 

### & Lardner 

### LLP Washington 

### Harbour 3000 

### K Street, 

### NW Suite 500 rWashington, 

### DC 20007 -5109 

### Phone: 202-295-4021 

### Fax: 202-672-5399 

### E-mail: rstoll@foley.com
Counsel to 

### DNI
Dated: October 

### 10,2012