4466 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket 24–7004; FRL–6527–1]

RIN 2060–AF84

Federal Rulemaking for the FMC

Facility in the Fort Hall PM–10

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: On February 12, 1999, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA

or we) published a proposed Federal

Implementation Plan (February 1999

FIP proposal) to control particulate

emissions from an elemental

phosphorus facility owned by FMC

Corporation (FMC) in southeastern

Idaho (FMC facility). The FMC facility

is located on the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation and in the Fort Hall PM–10

nonattainment area. The purpose of the

February 1999 FIP proposal was to

propose a control strategy for particulate

matter emissions from the FMC facility

consisting of emission limits and work

practice requirements that constitute

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) which would, in light of this

area’s longstanding nonattainment

problem, ensure expeditious progress

towards improving air quality and

attaining the particulate matter

standards in order to protect the public

health.

EPA believes that comments and

additional technical information

received during the public comment

period require reconsideration of several

of the emission limitations and work

practice requirements in the February

1999 FIP proposal. EPA is therefore

issuing this supplemental proposal to

revise certain limited aspects of the

February 1999 FIP proposal.

DATES: Written comments, identified by

the docket control number ID 24–7004,

must be received by EPA on or before

February 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in triplicate if possible) to:

Montel Livingston, SIP Manager,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven K. Body, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, (206) 553–0782.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Additional Information or

Copies of Support Documents?

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit

Comments?

C. Will There Be a Public Hearing on This

Supplemental Proposal?

II. Background

III. How Is This Supplemental Proposal

Affected by Changes to the Air Quality

Standards?

IV. How Does This Supplemental Proposal

Change the February 1999 FIP Proposal?

A. Emission Limitations and Work Practice

Requirements

1. Mass Emission Limits for Sources

Currently at RACT

2. Calciner Scrubbers (Source 9)

a. Emissions Estimate

b. Evaluation of Alternative Control

Technology

c. Emission Limit and Control Efficiency

Requirements

3. Calciner Cooler Vents (Source 10)

4. Phosphorous Loading Dock (Phos Dock)

Scrubber (Source 21a)

5. Excess CO Burner (Source 26b)

a. Emissions Estimate

b. Mass Emission Limit and Control

Efficiency Requirements

i. Mass Emission Limit

ii. Control Efficiency Requirement

iii. Reference Test Methods

c. Opacity Limit

d. Flare on Excess CO Burner

6. Opacity Limits

7. Sources Not Identified in Table 1

a. Insignificant Sources

b. New Sources

B. Reference Test Methods

C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements

1. Periodic Source Testing

2. Pressure Relief Vents

3. Weekly Visible Emission Observations

4. Moisture Content Requirements

5. Future Revisions to Montitoring, Work

Practice, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements

D. Definitions

1. Excursion

2. Road

3. Slag Pit Area

V. What is the Impact of this Supplemental

Proposal on Air Quality in the Area?

A. Emission Inventory

B. Source Apportionment Study

C. Recent Air Quality Data

D. Effectiveness of the Control Strategy

VI. How Do I Comment on This Action?

VII. Do Any of the Regulatory Assessment

Requirements Apply to This Action?

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health Risks

and Safety Risks

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and

Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Additional

Information or Copies of Support

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document and

the February 12, 1999 FIP proposal from

the internet at the following address:

http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/. Once

there, click on ‘‘Events.’’ You can also

go directly to the ‘‘Federal Register’’

listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person or by phone. If you have

any questions or need additional

information about this action, please

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

In addition, the official record for this

document, which is called the ‘‘docket,’’

has been established under docket

control number ID 24–7004. The docket

is available for public inspection and

copying from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Eastern Standard Time, Monday

through Friday, at EPA’s Central Docket

Section, Office of Air and Radiation,

Room 1500 (M–6102), 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, and

between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Pacific

Standard Time, at EPA Region 10, Office

of Air Quality, 10th Floor, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. A

copy of the docket is also available for

review at the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,

Office of Air Quality Program, Land Use

Commission, Fort Hall Government

Center, Agency and Bannock Roads,

Fort Hall, Idaho 83203; the ShoshoneBannock Library, Pima and Bannock,

Fort Hall, Idaho, 83203; and the Idaho

State University Library, Government

Documents Dept., 850 South 9th

Avenue, Pocatello, Idaho. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copies.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit

Comments?

You may submit comments on this

supplemental proposal through the mail

or in person. Be sure to identify the

appropriate docket control number ( i.e.,

‘‘ID–24–7004’’) in your correspondence.

1. By mail. Submit written comments

to: Montel Livingston, SIP Manager,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

2. In person or by courier. Deliver

written comments to: Montel

Livingston, SIP Manager, Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Comments on the February 1999 FIP

proposal are discussed in this

supplemental proposal only to the

extent a particular comment is relevant

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4467

1EPA published a Federal Register notice with

minor corrections to the February 1999 FIP

proposal on April 13, 1999. 64 FR 17990.

2 In its decision in ATA the Court requested

supplemental briefing which, among other things,

‘‘should address the possibility that the previous

particulate matter standard will spring back to life

in response to our decision’’, Id. at 1057 n.8. EPA

then explained to the Court that the 1987 PM–10

standards remained in effect even after

promulgation of the new standards. The Court

issued an Order (June 18, 1999), in which it

declined to vacate the new PM–2.5 NAAQS, but

was silent regarding EPA’s explanation of the

continued applicability of the 1987 PM–10 NAAQS.

EPA believes this is an indication that the Court

Continued

to this supplemental proposal. All

comments received on the February

1999 FIP proposal and on this

supplemental proposal will be

addressed when EPA takes final action

on the Federal Implemental Plan (FIP).

C. Will There Be a Public Hearing on

This Supplemental Proposal?

Very few members of the public

attended the public hearing on the

February 1999 FIP proposal held on

March 18, 1999. Only three members of

the public provided comments at the

hearing and the comments were

provided after extensions of time by the

hearing officer. In addition, EPA hopes

to expedite the issuance of the final FIP.

Therefore, no public hearing will be

held to discuss this supplemental

proposal unless a member of the public

requests in writing that a hearing be

held and provides a sufficient reason for

holding a hearing. If you wish to request

a public hearing, you must submit a

written request to Montel Livingston on

or before February 11, 2000 at the

address given above. If a public hearing

is held, it will take place on February

28, 2000, the last day of the public

comment period. If you wish to attend

the hearing, if one is held, please call

Steven Body at (206) 553–0782 to

determine if a hearing will be held and

to obtain the time and location.

II. Background

FMC produces elemental phosphorus

at its facility located on the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation in southeastern

Idaho near Pocatello (FMC facility). The

FMC facility emits over 1400 tons of

particulate matter into the atmosphere

each year. Numerous exceedances of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal ten micrometers (PM–10),

in effect as of July 1, 1987, have been

and continue to be recorded at

monitoring stations located in the Fort

Hall PM–10 nonattainment area in the

vicinity of the FMC facility (Tribal

monitors).

On February 12, 1999, we published

a proposed rule containing air pollution

emission limitations, work practice

requirements, and related monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements designed to control PM–10

emissions from the FMC facility. 64 FR

7308 (February 12, 1999).1 We held a

public workshop on the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation on March 4, 1999, to

explain the February 1999 FIP proposal

and to answer questions on the

proposal. On March 18, 1999, we held

a public hearing on the February 1999

FIP proposal on the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation. Three members of the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes provided oral

testimony at the hearing. A copy of the

transcript from the public hearing is

located in the docket. EPA accepted

written comments on the February 1999

FIP proposal until May 13, 1999, and

received written comments from six

commenters, including FMC and the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes).

Copies of all written comments are in

the docket.

After carefully reviewing the public

comments, including additional

technical and source test information

provided by FMC, we have reconsidered

several of the emission limits and work

practice requirements in the February

1999 FIP proposal. We are therefore

issuing this supplemental proposal to

revise certain limited aspects of the

original February 1999 FIP proposal,

including revisions to mass emission

limits and opacity for certain sources

and minor changes to monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements.

Please note that comments on the

February 1999 FIP proposal are

discussed in this supplemental proposal

only to the extent a particular comment

is relevant to this supplemental

proposal. All comments received on the

February 1999 FIP proposal and on this

supplemental proposal will be

addressed when EPA takes final action

on the FIP.

III. How is This Supplemental Proposal

Affected by Changes to the Air Quality

Standards

The Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment

area was designated as a nonattainment

area under the 24-hour and annual PM–

10 standards that were adopted on July

1, 1987 (52 FR 24672). On July 18, 1997,

we published revisions to both the

annual and the 24-hour PM–10

standards and also established two new

standards for particulate matter, both of

which apply only to particulate matter

equal to or less than 2.5 microns in

diameter (PM–2.5). See 62 FR 38651.

These standards became effective on

September 16, 1997. When EPA adopted

the revised 1997 particulate matter

standards, we provided that the preexisting 1987 standards for PM–10

would remain in effect until certain

conditions specified in 40 CFR § 50.6(d)

had occurred. See 62 FR at 38701.

Although the pre-existing 1987 PM–10

standards were therefore still in effect at

the time of the February 1999 FIP

proposal, EPA was in transition towards

implementation of the revised

particulate matter standards and, thus,

anticipated that the 1987 PM–10

standards would likely be phased out

and no longer be applicable by the time

we took final action on the FIP proposal.

Therefore, the control strategy proposed

by EPA in the February 1999 FIP

proposal was designed to ensure that

progress towards maintenance of air

quality that protected public health

continued during the transition to the

implementation of the revised 1997

PM–10 standards and also to assist in

bringing the Fort Hall PM–10

nonattainment area into attainment with

the revised particulate matter standards

as quickly as possible. See 64 FR at

7308, 7310. In the February 1999 FIP

proposal, EPA demonstrated that the

Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area

violates the pre-existing 1987 24-hour

PM–10 standard. 64 FR at 7317. We also

showed that there was a strong

likelihood that the area was in violation

of the pre-existing 1987 annual PM–10

standard, as well as the less-stringent,

revised 1997 24-hour and annual PM–10

standards, although the Tribal monitors

had not collected sufficient data at that

time to make a definitive determination

in that regard. 64 FR at 7317–18. EPA

also demonstrated in the February 1999

FIP proposal that implementation of the

proposed control strategy was expected

to result in attainment of the preexisting 1987 and revised 1997 24-hour

and annual PM–10 standards. 64 FR at

7341–7342.

On May 14, 1999, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an

opinion in American Trucking

Associations, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027

(‘‘ATA’’), which, among other things,

vacated the revised PM–10 standards

that were published on July 18, 1997

and became effective September 16,

1997. The pre-existing 1987 PM–10

standards were not at issue in this

litigation, however, and the Court’s

decision does not affect the applicability

of those pre-existing 1987 PM–10

standards. Those standards continue to

be codified at 40 CFR 50.6 and remain

in effect for the Fort Hall PM–10

nonattainment area.2

4468 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

was unwilling to disturb that aspect of the Agency’s

July 18, 1997 rule.

IV. How Does This Supplemental

Proposal Change the February 1999 FIP

Proposal?

A. Emission Limitations and Work

Practice Requirements

1. Mass Emission Limits for Sources

Currently at RACT

As stated in the preamble to the

February 1999 FIP proposal, we believe

that many of the sources at FMC

currently employ RACT-level controls.

See 64 FR at 7311 and 7325. These

include the following point sources:

source 5a (east shale baghouse); source

6a (middle shale baghouse); source 7a

(west shale baghouse); source 10

(calciner cooler vents); sources 12a and

12b (north and south nodule discharge

baghouses); source 15a and 15b (east

and west nodule discharge baghouses);

source 16a (nodule reclaim baghouse);

17a (dust silo baghouse); sources 18a

and 18b (furnace building east and west

baghouses); source 18d, 18e, 18f, and

18g (furnace building Medussa

Andersen stacks); and source 20a (coke

handling baghouse). For these point

sources, EPA intended to propose mass

emission limits designed to keep PM–10

emissions at current levels and not to

require additional controls in order to

meet the FIP limits. See 64 FR at 7311

and 7325.

Based on information provided by

FMC during the public comment period,

we believe that the mass emission limits

proposed for the above identified

sources were not consistent with current

emission levels. In its comments, FMC

noted that the proposed mass emission

limits were derived from the 1996

emission inventory, which was

compiled on the basis of source tests

conducted using EPA Method 5, 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A (Method 5). Method

5 does not distinguish between PM–10

and total particulate matter and also

does not measure condensible

particulate matter. Condensible

particulate is material that is in the

vapor state at elevated stack sampling

temperature but, at lower or ambient

temperature, condenses to either liquid

droplets or solid particulate. Although

condensible particulate is not measured

using Method 5, it can condense to

particulate and be measured at air

quality monitoring sites. In the February

1999 FIP proposal, we proposed EPA

Methods 201/201A and 202, 40 CFR

part 51 appendix M (Methods 201/201A

and 202), as the reference test methods

for determining compliance with the

proposed mass emission limits. Method

201/201A measures all PM–10 except

condensible PM–10 and Method 202

measures condensible PM–10. Thus,

FMC asserted, the proposed reference

test method requires the inclusion of

more particulate matter (condensible

PM–10) than originally considered

when developing the 1996 emission

inventory and establishing the proposed

emission limits.

To support its contention that it

cannot comply with the proposed mass

emission limits for the sources

identified above without installing

additional controls, FMC submitted the

results of source tests conducted after

publication of the February 1999 FIP

proposal. These source test results show

that, using Methods 201/201A and 202,

FMC would be in violation of many of

the proposed emission limits in the

February 1999 FIP proposal because of

the difference in the test method used

to establish the emission limits (Method

5) and the reference test method

proposed in the FIP (Methods 201/201A

and Method 202). This is clearly

contrary to EPA’s intent in proposing

the mass emission limits for these

sources. To address this issue, FMC

requested that the reference test method

be only Method 201/201A and that

Method 202 be performed on each

source for informational purposes only.

FMC also requested that the definition

of PM–10 or PM–10 emissions be

revised to expressly state that it does not

include condensible particulate matter,

unless otherwise specified in the FIP.

Because the mass emission limits for

the sources identified above were

derived from an emission inventory that

did not include condensible PM–10, we

believe it is appropriate that the

proposed mass emission limits not

apply to condensible PM–10 and that

the reference test method for these mass

emission limits be consistent with the

method used to derive the emission

limits. In this supplemental proposal,

we are therefore proposing to include

only Method 201/201A as the reference

test method for the sources identified

above. We have considered the

alternative approach of establishing

mass emission limits for these sources

that includes condensible PM–10. We

have decided not to pursue this option

for the reasons presented below.

The only information we have on

condensible PM–10 emissions from the

FMC facility is from the limited source

test data recently conducted by FMC

and submitted with FMC’s response to

comments. This information includes

one stack test using Methods 201/201A

and 202 consisting of three runs each for

each of these sources. The test results

are puzzling in some respects. We

would generally expect condensible

particulate to be present in emissions

from hot or heated emission sources,

such as combustion or furnace emission

releases, but would not expect

condensible particulate to be present in

sources which are at ambient

temperature. The source test results

provided by FMC show condensible

PM–10 emissions were high for most

sources at FMC, including material

handling of dry cold aggregate (shale,

briquettes, coke, and nodules) from

which no condensible particulate

emissions would normally be expected

because the material is already at

ambient temperature. In addition, the

range of reported condensible PM–10

varied considerably over the three test

runs conducted for each source. EPA

believes that attempting to establish

emission limits that include

condensible PM–10 emissions based on

this limited set of data could result in

less stringent limits. Because the intent

of the FIP for these sources is to

maintain emissions at current levels, we

would need to set emission limits that

would account for the wide variation in

condensible emissions from these

sources and set the limits at the high

range of the test results.

We recognize that by establishing

emission limits that do not apply to

condensible PM–10 emissions,

condensible PM–10 from these sources

would not be directly regulated by the

FIP. We nonetheless believe that this

approach will not interfere with the

effectiveness of the control strategy for

attaining the PM–10 standard for several

reasons. First, it is very unlikely that

fugitive emissions from shale, briquette,

coke, or nodule handling, where the

material is stored at ambient

temperature, contain significant

condensible PM–10 because there is no

further cooling process that would

condense additional particulate.

Second, it is not possible for FMC to

change the ratio of non-condensible to

condensible particulate for these

sources. Therefore, establishing an

emission limit that limits the amount of

non-condensible PM–10 emissions from

a given source to current emission levels

should likewise limit condensible PM–

10 emissions from that source at current

levels.

We therefore believe that the more

prudent course at this time is to modify

the mass emission limits for these

sources to exclude condensible PM–10

and to modify the reference test method

so that it includes only non-condensible

PM–10. In order to ensure the continued

collection of information on

condensible PM–10 emissions from

point sources at the FMC facility and to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4469

3The RCRA Consent Decree was entered by the

Court on July 14, 1999. A copy of the RCRA

Consent Decree and the order of entry is in the

docket.

4There are two calciners at FMC, each of which

has two high energy John Zink scrubbers, and there

are two stacks on each scrubber, adding up to eight

stacks on the calciners.

5Method 5 is used in lieu of Method 201/201A

for measuring emissions from the outlet from the

calciner scrubbers because of the presence of

entrained water drops. See 64 FR 7327.

6EPA is unable to reconstruct at this time how

the 0.013 gr/dscf was settled on as the basis for the

1996 emission inventory.

allow for the further analysis of this

data, we are proposing to require FMC

to conduct Method 202 concurrently

with Methods 201/201A for

informational purposes. This will allow

better evaluation of the extent to which

condensible PM–10 is emitted from the

FMC facility and whether limitations

that include condensible emissions are

necessary and appropriate. If we later

determine that the control strategy in

this FIP proposal is not sufficient to

attain the PM–10 NAAQS, we will

consider the extent to which

condensible PM–10 emissions from the

FMC facility contribute to the

nonattainment problem and, if

necessary and appropriate, propose

additional control measures.

As stated above, FMC also

commented that, for purposes of this

FIP, EPA should define PM–10

emissions to include only noncondensible PM–10. FMC presumably

urges this change to make absolutely

clear that condensible PM–10 will not

be included in determining compliance

with mass emission limits for these

sources. We agree with the end result

sought to be accomplished by FMC, but

do not agree that a change to the

definition of ‘‘PM–10’’ or ‘‘PM–10

emissions’’ is appropriate because those

terms are used in other contexts where

condensible PM–10 emissions should be

considered. To account for FMC’s

concern, we instead propose to revise

Table 1 to make clear that the mass

emission limitations for these sources

do not apply to condensible particulate

matter.

The source test results provided by

FMC in response to the February 1999

FIP proposal also show that for some of

the sources identified above, the 1996

emission inventory on which the

February 1999 FIP proposal was based

overestimates emissions of noncondensible PM–10. Because the

emission limits for these sources in the

February 1999 FIP proposal were

derived from the 1996 emission

inventory, the proposed emissions

limits are therefore well above what the

recent source tests show to be

representative of actual worst case

emissions of non-condensible PM–10

from these sources. As stated above, for

those sources that we currently believe

employ RACT-level controls, EPA

intends to propose mass emission limits

designed to keep PM–10 emissions at

current levels. Based on the recent

sources test data provided by FMC, we

are therefore proposing to reduce the

mass emission limits for the following

sources from the levels identified in the

February 1999 FIP proposal as shown

below:

Source

Limit in 2/

99 proposal

(lbs/hr)

Proposed

limit

(lbs/

hr)

Middle shale BH (source

6b) ............................... 0.6 0.30

N. discharge BH (source

12a) ............................. 2.7 0.20

S. discharge BH (source

12b) ............................. 2.7 0.20

E. nodule BH (source

15a) ............................. 2.0 0.50

W. nodule BH (source

15b) ............................. 1.6 0.50

Nodule reclaim BH

(source 16a) ................ 0.9 0.20

Dust silo BH (source

17a) ............................. 3.3 0.15

E. BH (furnace bldg)

(source 18a) ................ 1.5 0.75

W. BH (furnace bldg)

(source 18b) ................ 1.2 0.75

Furnace #1 MA (source

18d) ............................. 4.8 2.0

Furnace #1 MA (source

18d) ............................. 4.8 2.0

Furnace #2 MA (source

18e) ............................. 4.8 2.0

Furnace #3 MA (source

18f) .............................. 4.8 2.0

Furnace #4 MA (source

18g) ............................. 4.8 2.0

2. Calciner Scrubbers (Source 9)

The February 1999 FIP proposal

proposed a mass concentration limit for

the calciner scrubbers (source 9) of

0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot

(gr/dscf). During the public comment

period on the February 1999 FIP

proposal, FMC argued that the proposed

emission limit was not achievable

because the February 1999 FIP proposal

underestimated existing emissions from

the calciner scrubbers and

underestimated the control efficiency of

the existing control system. The end

result, according to FMC, is an emission

limit that is not achievable by FMC even

after the installation of RACT-level

controls and is inconsistent with the

performance criteria for the calciner

scrubbers agreed to by EPA and FMC in

the consent decree that was lodged in

the United States District Court for the

District of Idaho on October 16, 1998,

regarding alleged violations of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act at the FMC facility (RCRA Consent

Decree).3 After careful consideration of

the issues, we believe that the proposed

emission limit for the calciner scrubbers

of 0.005 gr/dscf must be revised.

a. Emissions Estimate

The 1996 emission inventory

estimated existing emissions from the

calciner scrubbers at 1204 pounds per

day or 6.27 pounds per hour from each

of the eight calciner scrubbing stacks.4

This estimate was based on a grain

loading of 0.013 gr/dscf from each

calciner scrubber stack at a flow rate of

58,000 dscfm. This grain loading and

flow rate underestimate current PM–10

emissions from the calciner scrubbers.

During the public comment period on

the 1996 FIP proposal, FMC submitted

information from 219 source tests of the

outlet from the calciner scrubbers

conducted from April 1992 to June 1998

using EPA Method 5. As discussed

above, this test method does not

measure condensible particulate matter.

The scrubber outlet grain loading during

these tests ranged from 0.009 to 0.034

gr/dscf, with an average of 0.019 gr/dscf.

The flow rate ranged from 24,400 to

40,800 dscfm, with an average of 34,200

dscfm. FMC also submitted the results

of 18 source tests of the inlet to the

scrubbers using, EPA Method 201/201A

and Method 202, and 11 tests of the

outlet from the scrubbers conducted

during 1998 and 1999 using EPA

Method 5 and Method 202.5 The 1998–

1999 test results of the outlet from the

calciner scrubbers using Method 5 only

ranged from 0.014 to 0.021 gr/dscf, with

an average of 0.017 gr/dscf. These

results are generally consistent with the

results of the source tests conducted

with Method 5 from April 1992 to June

1998 (an average of 0.017 gr/dscf

compared to an average of 0.019 gr/

dscf), although the range of the recent

tests is narrower. This narrower range is

likely due to the fact that the data set

of the more recent tests is smaller than

for the earlier tests. The 0.013 gr/dscf

used for compiling the 1996 emission

inventory for the calciner scrubbers

does not appear to be representative of

reasonable worst case emissions from

this source and in fact is not even

representative of average emissions from

this source.6 Instead, it significantly

underestimated reasonable worst case

emissions from this source.

The flow rate of 58,000 dscfm relied

on in compiling the 1996 emission

inventory also was in error, which

4470 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

7The February 1999 FIP proposal estimated the

emission reductions from the addition of a spray

tower at 75%. This number appears to have resulted

from a calculation error. A reduction in emissions

from 0.013 gr/dscf to 0.005 gr/dscf results in

emission reductions of 62% over current levels.

8Two other alternative technologies considered

by EPA and discussed in the docket, but not

discussed in the February 1999 FIP proposal are

lime injection and installation of waste evaporators.

Lime injection has performance characteristics

similar to steam injection with respect to PM–10,

but has the added benefit of reducing sulfur dioxide

emissions. The costs for lime injection, however,

are almost three times higher than steam injection

per ton of particulate removed. Installing water

evaporators on the recirculated scrubber water to

reduce solids content also is expected to reduce

PM–10 emissions to the same extent as steam

injection. As stated above, EPA believes spray

towers can achieve greater emission reductions at

a lower cost.

appears to have resulted from an error

in calculating the total number of

calciner scrubber stacks and an

oversight by FMC in its review of the

emission inventory for accuracy. The

error in the estimate of flow rate would

overestimate current worst case

emissions from this source. The

combined effect of these errors is that

the 1996 emission inventory

underestimated reasonable worst case

PM–10 emissions from the calciner

scrubbers (excluding condensible PM–

10).

Another factor that led to the

underestimation of total PM–10

emissions from the calciner scrubbers in

the 1996 emission inventory is that the

emission estimate was based on source

test data that did not measure

condensible PM–10 emissions. As

discussed above, the 1996 emission

inventory was based on source tests

conducted with EPA Method 5, which

does not measure condensible PM–10

emissions. The more than 200 source

tests on the calciner scrubbers

conducted by FMC from April 1992 to

June 1998 were also conducted with

Method 5 and did not include

condensible particulate matter. The

more recent source tests conducted

during 1998–1999 used EPA Method

202, as well as Method 5. Method 202

does measure condensible particulate

matter. The test results of the outlet

from the calciner scrubbers using

Method 202, which for the first time

measured condensible PM–10 emissions

from this source, ranged from 0.006 to

0.028 gr/dscf, with an average of .012 gr/

dscf. Total PM–10 emissions ranged

from 0.021 to 0.043 gr/dscf, with an

average of 0.029 gr/dscf. Thus, it

appears that condensible PM–10

emissions account on average for

approximately 40% of the total PM–10

mass from the calciner scrubbers.

After consideration of all information

regarding emissions from the calciner

scrubbers, including the information

before EPA at the time the 1996

emission inventory was developed, the

historical source test data collected by

FMC from April 1992 to June 1998 using

EPA Method 5, and the recent source

tests conducted by FMC in 1998–1999

using EPA Method 5and Method 202,

EPA believes that a more accurate

estimate of current reasonable worst

case of PM–10 emissions from the

calciner scrubbers is 12.6 pounds per

hour from each calciner scrubber,

including condensible PM–10

emissions. This estimate is based on an

average gas flow rate of 34,200 dscfm

and on a reasonable worst case scrubber

outlet grain loading of 0.043 gr/dscf

using Method 5 and Method 202. This

results in emissions from all eight

calciner stacks of 2419 pounds per day

or 200 tons per year.

b. Evaluation of Alternative Control

Technology

In the February 1999 FIP proposal,

EPA evaluated three alternative control

technologies for increasing emission

reductions from the calciner scrubbers:

steam injection with high energy wet

scrubbers, spray tower with hydrosonic

scrubbers, and replacement of the

existing scrubbing system with a

baghouse. Replacement of the existing

scrubbing control system with a

baghouse was expected to have the

highest emission reduction of any of the

alternatives considered. 64 FR 7332.

EPA was concerned, however, about the

safety of using a baghouse on the

calciner scrubbers because polonium210 (Po–210) would be captured in the

baghouse dust and retained on the

baghouse walls, hoppers, and bags,

creating a health and safety risk for

workers. 64 FR 7332. In addition, the

costs of installing baghouses was

estimated to be $1.7 million with annual

operating costs of up to $1.28 million,

which resulted in a very high cost

effectiveness. EPA continues to believe

that replacement of the existing

scrubbing system with a baghouse is not

technologically or economically feasible

and therefore does not represent RACTlevel control for this source.

Of the other alternatives considered

by EPA and discussed in the February

1999 FIP proposal, EPA estimated that

steam injection would result in

emission reductions of approximately

23% over current emissions, achieving

a grain loading standard of 0.01 gr/dscf,

and that a spray tower would result in

emission reductions of approximately

62%, 7 achieving a grain loading

standard of 0.005 gr/dscf. As discussed

above, the 1996 emission inventory

underestimated emissions from the

calciner scrubbers. This

underestimation of emissions prior to

implementation of additional controls

would similarly underestimate the grain

loading standard that each alternative

control system (steam injection or spray

towers) could be expected to achieve.

There is no reason to expect that steam

injection would perform better than

spray towers now that emissions from

the calciner scrubbers are higher than

originally estimated. In other words,

EPA continues to believe that spray

towers will be able to achieve a higher

percentage of emission reductions than

steam injection.8 Therefore, EPA

continues to believe that modification of

the existing calciner scrubbers by

installation of a spray tower represents

RACT-level control for this source.

c. Emission Limit and Control Efficiency

Requirements

In the February 1999 FIP proposal,

EPA determined RACT-level controls

(installation of spray towers in front of

the hydrosonics) could achieve a grain

loading of 0.005 gr/dscf at the design

flow rate, estimated to be 58,000 dscfm,

and proposed this emission limit as

RACT for the calciner scrubbers. As

discussed above, because reasonable

worst case emissions from the calciner

scrubbers were estimated at 0.013 gr/

dscf in the 1996 emission inventory,

achieving a grain loading of 0.005 gr/

dscf was estimated to result in an

emission reduction of 62%. In the

February 1999 FIP proposal, EPA

estimated the control efficiency of the

current configuration of the scrubbing

control system at 60%. Given that the

modifications representing RACT were

expected to result in a 62% reduction in

emissions, the overall control efficiency

of RACT-level controls was predicted to

be approximately 85% (60% control

efficiency of existing control system

plus 62% additional reductions of the

remaining 40% of emissions). As

discussed in the February 1999 FIP

proposal, in the RCRA Consent Decree,

FMC agreed to spend $2.5 million for

the purchase, installation, modification,

testing, and operation of the necessary

equipment for enhancing the

performance of the existing scrubbing

system on the calciners to achieve an

overall control efficiency of 90%, with

Methods 201/201A and 202 as the

reference test methods. 64 FR 7332. EPA

therefore determined that FMC’s

commitment under the RCRA Consent

Decree for the calciner scrubbers would

be equivalent to RACT-level controls.

We continue to believe that enhancing

the scrubber control system to achieve

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4471

9As discussed above, EPA believes that the 1998–

1999 source test results provided by FMC are

reliable because the Method 5 results (excluding the

condensible fraction) are consistent with the results

of the 219 source tests conducted from April 1992

to June 1998, which also excluded the condensible

fraction.

10As stated above, neither the Method 5 data, nor

EPA’s estimation of PM–10 emissions from the

Method 5 data included condensible particulate

matter.

11FMC had advised EPA at the time the 1996

emission inventory was prepared that only 7.5% of

total particulate emissions from this source was

PM–10. EPA assumed 10% to provide for a margin

of error.

a control efficiency of at least 90%

constitutes RACT-level controls.

We also believe, however, that the

emission limit for the calciner scrubbers

must be revised because the emission

limit of 0.005 gr/dscf was based on an

underestimation of current reasonable

worst case PM–10 emissions from the

calciner scrubbers, both because the

previous estimate was based on a grain

loading standard that was not

representative of reasonable worst case

conditions and because the estimate did

not include condensible particulate

matter in the exhaust. Because the

performance requirement in the RCRA

Consent Decree applies to all PM–10,

including condensible PM–10

emissions, and because this is a high

temperature combustion source, EPA

believes it is appropriate that the

emission limit for the calciner scrubbers

apply to all PM–10, including

condensibles.

In the February 1999 FIP proposal, we

estimated that the current configuration

of the calciner scrubbers resulted in a

control efficiency of 50 to 60% based on

information previously provided by

FMC. Because no source tests had ever

been conducted on the inlet to the

calciner scrubbing system, the estimate

of 50% to 60% control efficiency of the

existing control system was based on

best engineering judgement (of both

FMC engineers and EPA), and not on

actual source test data. As discussed

above, the source tests conducted by

FMC in 1998 and 1999 measured PM–

10 emissions at both the inlet to and

outlet from the calciner scrubbing

system. This source test data indicates

that the current scrubbing control

system achieves a control efficiency of

approximately 80%, much higher than

previously understood. 9

Increasing the control efficiency of the

calciner scrubbing system from 80% to

90% results in an emission reduction of

50%. In proposing an emission limit for

the calciner scrubbers that represents

RACT, EPA believes it is appropriate

that the reasonable worst case grain

loading standard be reduced by 50%.

The highest outlet grain loading of all

PM–10, including condensibles, is 0.043

gr/dscf. A reduction of 50% would

result in a grain loading of 0.022 gr/dscf.

EPA therefore proposes that the calciner

scrubbing system be required to achieve

a grain loading standard of 0.022 gr/

dscf, effective December 1, 1999, using

Method 5 (with all particulate matter

collected counted as PM–10) and

Method 202 as the reference test

methods. EPA is also proposing to

establish a flow rate that is never to be

exceeded based on the highest flow rate

measured by FMC between 1992 and

1998 of 40,800 dscfm. These limits will

are expected to achieve a reduction in

emissions from the calciner scrubbers of

50% over current levels.

As discussed above and in the

February 1999 FIP proposal, FMC

agreed in the RCRA Consent Decree to

achieve a control efficiency from the

modified calciner scrubbing system of at

least 90% under all operating

conditions. To ensure that the modified

scrubbing control system is being

properly operated and maintained at all

times, EPA also proposes to require that

the pollution control equipment on the

calciner stacks achieve a 90% control

efficiency under all operating

conditions, regardless of inlet loadings,

production, and other variations in

operations. The requirement to achieve

a 90% overall control efficiency would

be based on a reference test method that

requires simultaneously measuring

emissions at the inlet and outlet of the

air pollution control equipment. The

requirement for simultaneous testing is

designed to reduce errors that could

occur due to variability in emissions

among the five test points (as stated

above, there are two John Zink high

energy scrubbers on each of the two

calciners and two stacks per scrubber,

resulting in one inlet test point and four

outlet test points for each calciner). EPA

proposes Methods 201 and 202 for the

inlet to the calciner scrubbing system

and Method 5 (with all particulate

counted as PM–10) and Method 202 for

the outlet from the system.

During the public comment period on

the February 1999 FIP proposal, the

Tribes commented that they supported

the emission limitation of 0.005 gr/dscf

for the outlet of the calciner scrubbing

system in the February 1999 FIP

proposal. The Tribes have expressed

concern that, because the proposed FIP

controls are based on the emission

inventory, if the emission inventory has

underestimated emissions by not

including condensible particulate

matter, revised emission limits might be

inadequate to attain the particulate

matter standards. For the reasons

discussed above, we believe the

emission limit for the calciner scrubbers

of 0.005 gr/dscf proposed in the

February 1999 FIP proposal is in error

and must be revised. We also believe

that the requirement to meet the revised

limit of 90% control efficiency, but at

no time to exceed 0.022 gr/dscf,

represents RACT for this source.

Moreover, EPA does not believe that the

error in the estimation of emissions

from the calciner scrubbers in the

February 1999 FIP proposal and the

increase in the emissions limit for the

calciner scrubbers that would occur

with this supplemental proposal will

interfere with or delay attainment of the

particulate matter standards. Rather, as

discussed in more detail in section V.C.

below, EPA believes that

implementation of the emission limits

in the February 1999 FIP proposal, as

revised by this notice, will result in

attainment of the PM–10 standards as

expeditiously as practicable.

3. Calciner Cooler Vents (Source 10)

In the February 1999 FIP proposal,

EPA stated that the calciner cooler vents

currently employed RACT-level

controls. We therefore proposed an

emission limit for this source that we

believed would keep emissions from the

calciner cooler vents at current levels.

64 FR at 7324. As stated above, the

emission inventory from which the

proposed emission limits were derived

was, for most sources, based on source

tests using Method 5. Method 5

measures total suspended particulate,

not just PM–10, and does not include

condensible particulate matter. To

determine the PM–10 emissions from

the Method 5 data for a particular

source for the 1996 emission inventory,

EPA estimated, based on information

provided by FMC, the percentage of

total particulate matter from the source

that was less than ten micrometers in

diameter (PM–10).10 Based on

information provided by FMC, we

estimated that 10% of the total

particulate matter emitted from the

calciner cooler vents was PM–10.11

From this information, EPA determined

that the current hourly emission rate of

PM–10 from each calciner cooler vent

was 2.0 pounds per hour (lb/hr) of PM–

10. 64 FR at 7354 (proposed Table 1 to

40 CFR 52.676 (source 10)). EPA

therefore proposed this emission rate as

the emission limit for this source.

In its comments on the February 1999

FIP proposal, FMC asserted that, by

estimating that only 10% of the total

particulate matter from the calciner

cooler vents was PM–10 in the 1996

emission inventory, EPA significantly

4472 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

underestimated PM–10 emissions from

this source. Based on the source tests

conducted by FMC after the February

1999 FIP proposal, it appears that on

average 38% of total particulate matter

from the calciner cooler vents is

comprised of PM–10, and that 59% of

the PM–10 is condensible particulate

matter. The average emission rate across

the four calciner cooler vents is 2.9 lb/

hr of PM–10 (excluding condensible

PM–10), with a range of 2.0 to 4.0 lb/

hr, depending on the stack. FMC

commented that the mass emission limit

for the calciner cooler stacks (source 10)

must be revised because current source

tests show that FMC cannot comply

with the proposed emission limit for

this source even when condensible PM–

10 is excluded from the limit. FMC

noted that EPA stated in the February

1999 FIP proposal that the calciner

cooler vents currently employ RACTlevel controls and that the intent of the

proposed mass emission limit was to

keep emissions at current levels.

After reviewing the information

provided by FMC in its comments on

the February 1999 FIP proposal, EPA

believes that the emission limits for the

calciner cooler stacks should be revised

to account for this new source test data.

EPA is therefore proposing an emission

limit for each calciner cooler stack of 4.4

lb/hr of PM–10 (which is the maximum

emission rate reported by FMC plus a

margin for error), excluding condensible

PM–10. Method 201/201A is proposed

as the reference test method.

4. Phosphorous Loading Dock (Phos

Dock) Scrubber (Source 21a)

We proposed a 0.007 gr/dscf emission

limit in the February 1999 FIP proposal

for the phos dock scrubber. This limit

was designed to keep emissions at the

levels in the 1996 emission inventory.

As stated in the February 1999 FIP

proposal, the additional controls FMC

has agreed to undertake for the phos

dock area are designed to reduce

emissions due to ‘‘upset’’ conditions.

Emissions from ‘‘upset’’ conditions were

not included in the 1996 emission

inventory as discussed in our earlier

proposal. 64 FR at 7341. During the

public comment period on the February

1999 FIP proposal, FMC requested that

the emission limit for the phos dock

scrubber exclude condensible PM–10

emissions because, as discussed above

in section IV.A.1., the emission estimate

for this source in the 1996 emission

inventory was based on source tests

conducted with Method 5. For the

reasons discussed above in section

IV.A.1., we agree that the emission limit

for the phos dock scrubber should

exclude condensible PM–10 emissions

and that the reference test method for

this source should be Method 201/201A.

Method 202 would be required to be

conducted for informational purposes.

The new source test data for the phos

dock scrubbers submitted by FMC in

response to comments on the February

1999 FIP proposal indicated that the

worst case daily PM–10 emissions

(excluding condensibles) from the phos

dock scrubber were 0.003 gr/dscf. This

emission rate is less than what is

presented in the 1996 emission

inventory. Accordingly, as also

discussed above in section IV.A.1., EPA

proposes that the emission limit for the

phos dock scrubber be reduced from

0.007 gr/dscf to 0.004 gr/dscf with

Method 201/201A as the reference test

method.

5. Excess CO Burner (Source 26b)

In the RCRA Consent Decree, FMC

committed to replacing the existing

elevated secondary condenser flare

(elevated flare) and ground flare with

new technology, which is referred to as

the excess CO burner. The excess CO

burner will burn the phosphorus in the

excess carbon monoxide (CO) gas stream

in an enclosed combustion chamber and

duct exhaust gasses to a scrubber to

remove phosphorus pentoxide. FMC

committed to achieving a 95% control

efficiency for PM–10 in the RCRA

Consent Decree. In the February 1999

FIP proposal, EPA stated that it believed

this system constituted RACT for this

source. 64 FR 7332–7333. During the

summer of 1999, FMC built, operated,

and tested a pilot excess CO burner

demonstration project. This project is

approximately 1/80 scale of the excess

CO burner FMC intends to build to

satisfy its obligations under the RCRA

Consent Decree. Based on operating and

testing of the excess CO burner pilot

project, on November 1, 1999, FMC

provided EPA with summary

information on current emissions,

problems with reference test methods,

PM–10 removal efficiencies, and other

performance and durability information.

A summary of the discussions with

FMC at the November 1, 1999, meeting,

as well as a copy of the information

provided by FMC to EPA at the meeting,

is in the docket.

a. Emissions From the Existing Elevated

Flare and Ground Flare

The existing elevated flare and ground

flare, to which excess CO at the FMC

facility is currently directed, emit

combustible gas mixtures. There is no

EPA approved test method for

measuring emissions from this source

and, because of the nature of the

emissions, it has not previously been

possible to directly measure emissions

from this source. The difficulty in

accurately measuring emissions from

this source has been compounded by

the fact that emissions from this source

vary tremendously (by orders of

magnitude) throughout a 24-hour period

and from week to week based on plant

operating conditions. The emission

estimate of 3109 pounds per day (2281

from the ground flare and 828 from the

elevated flare) contained in the 1996

emission inventory that served as a

basis for the February 1999 FIP proposal

was derived from theoretical chemical

reaction calculations and assumptions

of worst case operating conditions.

Those calculations also accounted for

the oxidation of phosphorus to

phosphorus pentoxide (P205) and

reported mass emissions as P2O5.

In its comments on the February 1999

FIP proposal, FMC asserted that

emissions from the existing elevated

flare and ground flare are far greater

than estimated in the 1996 emission

inventory—as much as four times

higher. FMC did not provide any

documentation along with its

comments, however, to justify its claim

that the estimate for these sources in the

1996 emission inventory was in error.

The construction of the excess CO

burner pilot plant has allowed FMC for

the first time to conduct actual source

tests on PM–10 emissions generated

from the excess CO at the facility. FMC

used the results of their source testing

of the inlet to the excess CO burner to

estimate emission from the current

elevated secondary condenser flare and

CO ground flare. This recent source

testing has provided more accurate

information on the levels of particulate

emissions from this source and shows

that previous emission estimates

underestimated PM–10 emissions from

the excess CO because of the chemical

composition of the emission stream.

Particulate in the excess CO exhaust

gas consists primarily of oxidized

phosphorus compounds, including

phosphorus pentoxide and phosphoric

acid. Phosphorus pentoxide will rapidly

hydrolyze to phosphoric acid in the

presence of water vapor. Phosphoric

acid is a strong desiccant and its mass

continues to increase when exposed to

water vapor. FMC contends that this

phenomenon was highlighted when

they tried to equilibrate source test

filters in the desiccator and weigh to a

constant weight. The mass of the filter

from a reference test method source test

continues to increase as water is

absorbed from the atmosphere, even in

the desiccator and it cannot be driven

off by heating the filters to 220 degrees

Fahrenheit. This same phenomenon

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4473

occurs in exhaust gas streams and in the

atmosphere.

Emissions in the elevated flare and

ground flare while in the stack are

mostly pure phosphorus. The

phosphorus burns immediately upon

contact with air to form P2O5 and

further chemical reactions continue to

occur in the atmosphere to form more

complex phosphorus compounds These

compounds end up on the ambient

sampler filter media and are measured

for determining ambient PM–10 levels.

The excess CO burner takes the same

phosphorus laden gas stream, burns it to

P2O5, hydrolyzes to phosphoric acid,

possibly undergoes other reactions, and

emits a complex mixture of phosphoric

acid and other compounds. Essentially

the excess CO burner will contain the

chemical reactions that now occur in

the atmosphere and scrub them in the

Andersen filter system.

Based on the information provided by

FMC at the November 1, 1999, meeting,

it appears that previous estimates of

PM–10 emissions generated by the

excess CO burned in the elevated flare

and ground flare did not account for

increased mass due to absorption of

water vapor in the atmosphere as

emissions were transported from FMC

to the monitoring sites. FMC presented

a chart of phosphorus and the mass

conversion factor after exposure to

water vapor. One pound of phosphorus

can result in particulate that is 4.3 times

greater in mass, or 4.3 pounds. EPA’s

previous estimates of emissions

calculated the mass of P2O5 emitted

from the elevated flare and ground flare

and did not account for an increase in

mass due to absorption of the water

vapor.

Based on the source test data from the

pilot project provided by FMC, FMC

estimates worst case daily emissions

from the elevated secondary condenser

flare and CO ground flare of 10,543

pounds per day. This is more than three

times as high as the estimate of 3109

pounds per day that EPA relied on the

February 1999 FIP proposal. Both

methods used the same operating

conditions for calculating 24-hour worst

case emissions (one calciner down and

two hours of hot flush in a 24 hour

period). EPA believes these new results

are far superior to the original emission

estimates made by EPA and presented

in the February 1999 FIP proposal,

because FMC’s revised estimates

account for some water vapor that is in

the combustion air. It is important to

emphasize that the revision of the

emission estimate for this source does

not reflect an increase in emissions from

this source since 1996, but instead,

reflects a more accurate estimate of what

has been and is currently being emitted

from the elevated flare and ground flare.

b. Mass Emission Limit and Control

Efficiency Requirements

We proposed a mass emission limit

for the excess CO burner of 6.5 lbs/hour

in the February 1999 FIP proposal.

During the public comment period on

the proposal, FMC commented that the

proposed limit is inconsistent with, and

much more stringent than the

performance criteria FMC agreed to

meet for the excess CO burner in the

RCRA Consent Decree. FMC contended

that this inconsistency was due in part

to the fact that the emission limit was

derived using an incorrect baseline

emission inventory which greatly

underestimated current emissions from

the elevated flare and ground flare that

the excess CO burner will replace. The

error in the estimation of emissions was

compounded, according to FMC’s

comments on the February 1999 FIP

proposal, by applying an oversimplified

mathematical calculation and requiring

compliance testing during worst case

conditions. The end result, according to

FMC, is an emission limit that is

technologically infeasible. In support of

this position, FMC submitted a letter

from Andersen 2000, Inc, (Andersen)

the manufacturer of the Andersen

CHEAF scrubber, the control equipment

for the excess CO burner under

consideration by FMC. Andersen’s May

7, 1999, letter to FMC stated that the

Andersen CHEAF scrubber cannot

achieve the proposed emission limit of

6.5 lbs/hour from an emission source

with oxidized phosphorus present, such

as the excess CO burner.

In commenting on the February 1999

FIP proposal, FMC also noted that the

excess CO burner involves novel

applications of existing technology and

is still in the research and development

stage. Because of the difficulty of

estimating current emissions from the

existing elevated secondary condenser

flare and the existing CO ground flare

and because of the difficulty of

forecasting actual emissions from the

excess CO burner upon completion,

FMC urged EPA in its comments to

establish a control efficiency

requirement rather than a mass emission

limit for the excess CO burner or to

defer establishing any requirements for

the excess CO burner until the source is

constructed and tested.

In the RCRA Consent Decree, FMC

committed to achieving a 95% control

efficiency for PM–10 for the excess CO

burner. As stated in the preamble to the

February 1999 FIP proposal, we

intended that the mass emission limit in

the February 1999 FIP proposal for the

excess CO burner be consistent with the

performance measures agreed to by the

United States and EPA in the RCRA

Consent Decree. 64 FR at 7332–33.

Based on the information provided

during the public comment period and

in consultation with others at Region 10,

EPA circulated a letter to all those who

commented on the February 1999 FIP

proposal. The letter was dated June 8,

1999, and was addressed ‘‘To whom it

may concern.’’ A copy of the letter is in

the docket. In the letter, EPA stated that

based on our preliminary review of the

public comments received with respect

to two sources at the FMC facility, EPA

was considering changes to the mass

emission limits for the calciner

scrubbers and the excess CO burner.

With respect to the excess CO burner,

the letter stated that EPA was

considering establishing an emission

limit for the excess CO burner that

required FMC to achieve a control

efficiency of 95% at all times, consistent

with the RCRA Consent Decree. EPA

further stated that it believed it was

essential to establish an upper limit on

emissions from the excess CO burner to

ensure that an increase in production

does not result in an increase in

emissions that could interfere with

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS.

Although the letter from Andersen

stated that the excess CO burner could

not achieve an emission limit of 6.5

pounds per hour, Andersen did state

that it would guarantee an emission

limit of 15.81 pounds per hour of PM–

10 (including condensible PM–10

emissions) from the excess CO burner

using Methods 201/201A and 202, based

on the design parameters provided by

FMC. Based on the Andersen letter, the

June 8, 1999 ‘‘To whom it may concern’’

letter stated that EPA was also

considering a requirement that the

emissions from the excess CO burner

also not exceed 15.81 pounds per hour.

As stated above, FMC conducted

numerous source tests on the excess CO

burn pilot plant over the course of the

summer of 1999. During the November

1, 1999, meeting, FMC presented a

summary of the source test results and

expressed a concern that the excess CO

burner would not be able to comply

with a mass emission limit of 15.81

pounds per hour and might not be able

to achieve a control efficiency of 95% at

all times, as outlined in the June 8, 1999

‘‘To whom it may concern’’ letter from

EPA.

i. Mass Emission Limit

With respect to the mass emission

limit, FMC stated that as a result of the

recent source tests conducted on the

inlet to the excess CO burner, current

4474 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

emissions from the secondary elevated

flare and CO ground flare are

significantly higher than previously

estimated. This issue is discussed in

more detail above. The guarantee in the

Andersen letter of 15.81 pounds per

hour most likely did not completely

anticipate the water vapor issue. Based

on the data provided by FMC in the

November 1, 1999, meeting it appears

that the maximum emission rate from

the excess CO burner will occur during

a hot flush and will result in a mass

loading at the inlet of the scrubber of

472 pound per hour. This calculation is

based on excess CO burner design

capacity, a grain loading during a hot

flush of 2.0 gr/dscf. With a 95% control

efficiency, the resulting maximum

hourly emission rate would be 24

pounds per hour. Because the hot flush

generally occurs for no more than two

hours and the source test consists of

three one hour runs, generally separated

by a period of time necessary to set up

for the next run, EPA believes that a

maximum emission limitation of 24

pounds per hour, as measured by the

reference test methods, along with a

control efficiency requirement of 95%,

represents RACT for the excess CO

burner. The control efficiency

requirement, discussed below, will

assure that emissions are minimized on

a continuous basis during normal

operation of four furnaces and two

calciners.

ii. Control Efficiency Requirement

With respect to the control efficiency

requirement, FMC presented a table of

scrubber inlet loadings comprised of 29

individual tests. FMC also presented a

graph showing the test run number and

the overall system PM–10 removal

efficiency (%) for each run. The early

runs show performance of less than

95% but are characterized by wide

variability. These results are unreliable

because of a problem with the test

method used, which is discussed in

more detail below. The last four runs

presented on the graph show control

efficiencies of between 90 to 95%, but

the corresponding inlet and outlet

loading results are not presented on this

graph. The manner in which FMC

conducted the source testing on the

pilot plant appears to have

underestimated the removal efficiency

of the control device on the excess CO

burner pilot project. The excess CO

burner pilot project burns the CO gas in

an enclosed burner with excess air.

Burner exhaust passes through ducts to

a water quench to cool the gas stream

and which saturates the gas stream with

water vapor prior to entering the

Andersen scrubber. The sampling

protocol has two problems. Most

significantly, the sampling ports for the

inlet to the scrubber are upstream of the

water quench. And secondly, but of less

significance, the combustion air

contains water vapor and the inlet

sampling ports are upstream of rather

long ducting before reaching the

scrubber, thus allowing residence time

for any water vapor to react with the

P2O5 before being sampled at the outlet.

There appears to be more than 20 feet

(perhaps as much as 40 feet) of ducting

before the water quench and the control

device. If the inlet to the control device

had been sampled after the water

quench, EPA believes the control

efficiency would have achieved 95%.

The true performance of the control

device on the excess CO burner appears

to have been significantly

underestimated because of where FMC

measured the inlet to the control

system.

iii. Reference Test Methods

The information provide by FMC at

the November 1, 1999, meeting also

identified an apparent problem with

Method 201/201A and Method 5, the

reference test methods proposed in the

February 1999 FIP proposal and the

June 8, 1999 ‘‘To whom it may concern’’

letter for the excess CO burner.

According to FMC, because of the

chemical composition of the emission

stream, conducting performance tests

with these EPA reference test methods,

without modification, are unreliable and

overestimate PM–10 emissions. FMC

contends that some modifications to the

proposed reference test methods

(Methods 201/201A and 5) are needed

for the excess CO burner. As discussed

above, particulate in the excess CO

exhaust gas consists primarily of

oxidized phosphorus compounds,

including phosphorus pentoxide and

phosphoric acid. Phosphorus pentoxide

will rapidly hydrolyze to phosphoric

acid in the presence of water vapor.

Phosphoric acid is a strong desiccant

and its mass continues to increase when

exposed to water vapor.

Reference Method 5 and Method 201/

201A provide filter handling procedures

after sample collection. See 40 CFR Part

60, Appendix A, Method 5 , section 4.3,

and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M,

Method 201, section 4.2.1. This

procedure requires storing filters in an

enclosure with silica gel desiccant

(desiccator), conditioning of filters for

24 hours before weighing, and weighing

to a constant weight. It provides an

alternative procedure that calls for

heating the filter to 220 degrees

Fahrenheit for two to three hours,

cooling in the desiccator, and weighing

until the weight stabilizes with no less

than six hours between weighings. The

particulate catch from the excess CO

burner is primarily phosphorus

pentoxide, which appears to be a strong

desiccant and renders the silica gel

ineffective in preserving the filter catch

from water vapor contamination. Filter

weight continues to grow in this

environment. Heating filters to 220

degrees Fahrenheit and cooling in the

desiccator likewise allows filter mass to

increase and a constant weight cannot

be achieved. It appears that filters,

immediately after sampling, should be

transported, stored and weighed in a

water vapor free environment. In the

later test runs conducted by FMC, FMC

chose to use inert gas for this purpose.

These improvements in filter

handling and storage in inert gas

environments implemented by FMC in

response to the initial problems with the

source test methods would require a

modification to the EPA reference test

methods proposed in the February 1999

FIP proposal. As discussed in more

detail in section IV.B. below, EPA is

including in this supplemental proposal

a provision that would allow FMC to

use an alternative reference test method

or a deviation from the reference test

method provided certain showings are

made upon the written request of FMC

and the written approval of the Regional

Administrator. This provision should

accommodate FMC’s need to modify the

proposed test method for this source.

c. Opacity Limit

In the February 1999 FIP proposal, we

proposed an opacity limit of 5% for the

scrubber on the excess CO burner. In

commenting on the February 1999 FIP

proposal, FMC submitted a letter from

Andersen 2000, Inc., to FMC dated May

7, 1999. In the letter, Andersen stated

that at the upper range of the emissions

from this source, there are trace visible

emissions that could exceed 5%

opacity. The letter further stated that the

control equipment could not achieve

5% opacity on this source on a

continuous basis, but that Andersen

would guarantee an opacity limit of

10% under all operating conditions.

EPA does not believe there is a more

efficient control technology than the

Andersen scrubber for controlling PM–

10 emissions from the excess CO burner,

which is dominated by phosphorus

pentoxide a very small particulate that

is difficult to control.

At the November 1, 1999 meeting,

FMC submitted a summary of results of

opacity readings conducted on the

excess CO burner pilot plant conducted

over the summer of 1999. Opacity was

measured at the outlet of the Andersen

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4475

scrubber on the pilot plant. FMC did not

submit individual data sheets for each

observation; therefore independent

analysis of the results presented is not

possible.

The summary of results presented by

FMC demonstrates that when the burner

and scrubber were operating at ‘‘design

condition,’’ normal opacity was zero

percent. Some readings were less than

or equal to 10% opacity and one reading

taken during a ‘‘heavy’’ hot flush was

reported at less than or equal to 20%

opacity. In the oral presentation of this

information by FMC at the November 1,

1999 meeting, the project manager made

a statement that he believed that the

completed full size project might

actually perform better than the

demonstration project. It appears the

opacity readings were taken during the

same time frame that source tests were

being conducted. Unfortunately,

correlation of opacity with scrubber

inlet loadings was not conducted to

provide information why any elevated

opacity readings were observed.

Based on the information provided by

FMC in response to the February 1999

FIP proposal, the information provided

to EPA by FMC at the November 1, 1999

meeting, and the other information in

the docket, EPA believes that the excess

CO burner is capable of meeting an

opacity limit of 10% and that 5% is an

appropriate opacity action level. Based

on the information provided by FMC at

the November 1, 1999, meeting, during

normal operation of the pilot project,

there were no visible emissions.

d. Flare on Excess CO Burner

In its comments on the February 1999

FIP proposal, FMC asked for

clarification that the requirements of

proposed 40 CFR 52.676(c)(5), which

prohibits the burning of furnace gas in

the elevated secondary condenser flare

and the ground flare, apply to the

existing flares at the FMC facility. The

design of the excess CO burner is

nearing completion and the new system

will require an emergency flare to

prevent the possibility of explosions.

We have requested information on this

new source from FMC, but have yet to

receive it. EPA therefore proposes that

this new source be addressed by the

new section of this proposal pertaining

to EPA notification of the construction

of new sources of PM–10 emissions at

the FMC facility, as discussed in section

IV.A.7.b. below . Because the excess CO

burner will not be operational until

January 1, 2001, there should be

sufficient time to promulgate emission

limits for this source once EPA is

provided appropriate documentation

from FMC.

6. Opacity Limits

In the February 1999 FIP proposal, we

proposed limits on visible emissions

from all sources except for the calciner

scrubbers. The proposed opacity limits

ranged from a limit of no visible

emissions from certain piles and

processes to 10% opacity on fugitive

emissions not captured by baghouses.

See 64 FR at 7325–7326. EPA did not

rely on a direct correlation between

opacity levels and mass emissions in

supporting the opacity limits proposed

in the FIP. Instead, as stated in the

proposal, the control strategy is

premised on ensuring that, for those

sources that we believe currently

employ RACT-level controls, emissions

from those sources remain at current

levels in the emission inventory. 64 FR

at 7325. The emissions rates in the 1996

emission inventory were premised on

the fact that the process and control

equipment that affect a particular source

are properly operated and maintained at

all times. The opacity limits proposed

by EPA were therefore intended to

ensure that the process and control

equipment are being properly operated

and maintained at all times.

In commenting on the February 1999

FIP proposal, FMC contended that the

opacity limits proposed in the FIP are

overly stringent and not supported by

the record, although FMC did concede

that some enforceable limits on visible

emissions should be required in the FIP.

As an alternative approach, FMC

suggested that the FIP should establish

a facility-wide opacity limit of 20% and

then establish action levels for each

source below 20% that would trigger a

requirement for FMC to commence an

investigation and take corrective action.

A source that exceeded the action level

would not, however, be in violation of

the opacity limit under FMC’s suggested

approach so long as emissions do not

exceed the 20% opacity limit.

EPA does not believe that an opacity

limit of 20% achieves EPA’s objective of

ensuring that, for those sources that we

believe currently employ RACT-level

controls, emissions from those sources

remain at current levels in the emission

inventory by ensuring that the process

and control equipment are being

properly operated and maintained at all

times. Based on the visible emission

surveys of the FMC facility conducted

in December 1995–January 1996,

October–November 1998, and a recent

survey conducted in September 1999,

an opacity limit of 20% is far above

typical opacity levels for the sources at

FMC and would be indicative of a

source that was not being properly

operated or maintained. On further

reflection, however, EPA is proposing

an alternative approach toward opacity

that EPA believes will be easier to

implement and enforce than EPA’s

February 1999 FIP proposal, and yet

will still achieve EPA’s objective of

ensuring that process and control

equipment is being properly operated

and maintained at all times.

With a few exceptions, all of the

opacity limits in the February 1999 FIP

proposal were 10% or less. For the

reasons discussed in the February 1999

FIP proposal and the docket

accompanying the proposal, EPA

continues to believe that, with the few

exceptions discussed below, the

identified point and fugitive sources

should be able to achieve an opacity

limit of 10% on a continuous basis if the

process and control equipment is

properly operated and maintained. EPA

is therefore proposing an opacity limit

of 10% for most sources. To ensure that

emissions from these sources are

minimized at all times, however, EPA is

also proposing an opacity action level

for each source. For those sources for

which EPA proposed an opacity limit of

no visible emissions in the February

1999 FIP proposal, such as some piles

and buildings, EPA is proposing an

opacity action level of ‘‘any visible

emissions.’’ If visible emissions are

observed from a source with an opacity

action level of ‘‘any visible emissions,’’

FMC would be required to take prompt

corrective action to minimize visible

emissions, but would not be in violation

of the opacity limit so long as the

opacity level from such a source does

not exceed 10%. For those sources with

a proposed numerical opacity limit of 5,

7, or 10% in the February 1999 FIP

proposal, such as baghouses, scrubbers,

and some piles, EPA is proposing an

opacity action level of 5%. For these

sources, FMC would be required to take

prompt corrective action to minimize

visible emissions if opacity exceeded

5%, but would not be in violation of the

opacity limit so long as opacity did not

exceed 10%.

One commenter commented that

properly operating baghouses are

expected to have no visible emissions

and that the baghouses at FMC should

therefore be subject to a limit of no

visible emissions. EPA agrees that a

properly operating baghouse will

generally have no visible emissions.

Indeed, FMC also noted in its comments

that ‘‘Typically, baghouse stacks have

zero percent opacity.’’ However, most

baghouse systems, including the

baghouses at FMC have a self-cleaning

mode in which the bags are

4476 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

automatically cleaned through a

pneumatic pulse where the collected

dust falls into the baghouse hopper and

is conveyed to the dust silo. During

these cleaning episodes, one can

observe occasional wisps of visible

emissions. EPA therefore believes that

an emission limitation of no visible

emissions from the baghouse is not

consistent with current operations and

procedures.

In the February 1999 FIP proposal,

EPA proposed an opacity limit of 20%

for the furnace building until April 1,

2002, the date by which additional

controls must be installed on the

furnace and in the furnace building.

After further consideration, EPA

believes that an opacity limit of 20%,

with a corrective action level of 10%, is

also appropriate for certain open (i.e.,

uncaptured) fugitive dust sources, such

as certain piles and roads. These sources

include the nodule pile (source 11), the

nodule fines pile (source 13), the

screened shale fines pile (source 14),

and all roads (source 22). For these

sources, EPA believes that

meteorological conditions, such as high

winds during dry conditions, could

cause emissions in excess of 10% and

therefore believes on further reflection

that an opacity limit of 20% is

appropriate for these sources. Under

this proposal, if opacity exceeded 10%

for these sources, FMC would be

required to take appropriate additional

work practice measures, such as

additional application of dust

suppressants or clean-up of spillage to

reduce emissions to 10% opacity or

below. Exceedances of the opacity

action level would not constitute a

violation, however, so long as the

opacity level for such a source remains

below 20% and FMC takes prompt

appropriate corrective action.

EPA believes that having two opacity

limits—10% or 20%—for all identified

sources, with lower corrective action

levels of ‘‘any visible emissions,’’ 5% or

10% will make it easier for FMC to

implement the FIP requirements, and

will also make it easier for regulators

and citizens to monitor FMC’s

compliance with the FIP. The

simplification of the opacity limits will

also result in more streamlined

procedures for the weekly inspection of

sources for opacity, as discussed in

section IV.C.3. below. Increasing the

opacity limits for some sources should

also help to allay FMC’s concerns that

short term increases in opacity could

result in violation of the opacity limit.

Including a specific requirement that

FMC initiate corrective action if opacity

exceeds the opacity action level will at

the same time ensure that emissions are

minimized.

To implement this proposal, EPA

proposes to include a provision stating

that exceeding an opacity action level

shall require prompt corrective action to

minimize emissions, as well as a

definition of ‘‘opacity action level.’’ EPA

also proposes to revise the operation

and maintenance requirements to

specifically require the operation and

maintenance plan to specify, for each

source, corrective measures to be taken

when the source exceeds the opacity

action level.

7. Sources Not Identified in Table 1

a. Insignificant Sources

The February 1999 FIP proposal

contained a prohibition on visible

emissions from any location at the FMC

facility at any time except as otherwise

specifically provided in the rule. See 64

FR at 7347 (proposed 40 CFR 676(c)(1)).

The intent of this provision was to

ensure that sources inadvertently

omitted from the emissions inventory

do not go unregulated. 64 FR at 7325.

During the public comment period on

the February 1999 FIP proposal, FMC

expressed concern because there are

numerous small sources of PM–10 at the

FMC facility, which are not included in

Table 1 to the rule, which FMC asserts

could not reasonably be expected to

have a measurable impact on the PM–

10 loadings on the Tribal monitors but

could not meet the requirement of no

visible emissions. As examples, FMC

identified welding operations, grinding,

sand blasting and cleaning operations,

housekeeping activities, construction

activities, street sweeping operations,

maintenance activities, pond piping

discharges, small elemental

phosphorous fires from spills or

releases, landfill activities, and

laboratory stack vents. FMC expressed

concern because such activities do, at

times, have intermittent visible

emissions and would be in violation of

the prohibition of no visible emissions.

FMC proposed that these activities be

exempt from all opacity requirements

and that the specific list of the

exempted insignificant activities be

included in FMC’s title V permit

application and title V permit. FMC did

acknowledge that it would implement

reasonable precautions to minimize

visible emissions from these activities.

After further consideration, EPA is

proposing to exempt from the

prohibition on visible emissions certain

identified sources and activities that

could not reasonably be expected to

have a measurable impact on the PM–

10 loadings on the Tribal monitors, but

that could be expected to have visible

emissions on an intermittent basis. EPA

does not believe, however, it is

appropriate to exempt these sources and

activities from all limitations on

opacity. Most state implementation

plans have a generally-applicable

opacity limit that applies to all sources

of emissions, even sources and activities

that would not be expected to have a

measurable impact on air quality in the

area. See WAC 173–400–040(1); IDAPA

16.01.01.625. EPA is therefore

proposing that these smaller sources

would be exempted from the

prohibition on no visible emissions, but

would be subject to an opacity limit of

20% over a six minute average, with

Method 9 as the reference test method.

In determining the categories of

smaller sources of PM–10 at the FMC

facility that have not been included in

the emission inventory and that would

not be expected to have a measurable

impact on the PM–10 loadings at the

Tribal monitors, EPA considered the list

proposed by FMC and also categories of

sources that have been determined by

states to be ‘‘insignificant emission

units’’ for purposes of the title V

operating permit program. These are

categories of sources that are subject

only to generally applicable emission

limits and that generally need not be

described in the title V permit

application. Based on that review, EPA

proposes that the following categories of

sources be exempt from the general

prohibition on visible emissions and

instead be subject to a general opacity

limitation of 20%.

a. Brazing, welding, and welding

equipment and oxygen-hydrogen cutting

torches;

b. Plant upkeep, including routine

housekeeping, preparation for and

painting of structures;

c. Grinding, sandblasting, and

cleaning operations that are not part of

a routine operation or a process at FMC;

d. Cleaning and sweeping of streets

and paved surfaces;

e. Lawn and landscaping activities;

f. Repair and maintenance activities;

g. Landfill operations;

h. Laboratory vent stacks; and

i. Pond piping discharges.

Under this supplemental proposal,

FMC would also be required to address

these sources in its operation and

maintenance plan.

FMC also included in its suggested

list of insignificant sources construction

activities and small elemental

phosphorous fires (phos fires) from

spills or releases. We do not agree that

such sources can be characterized as

insignificant with respect to their

potential emissions of PM–10.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4477

Construction activities can involve

considerable emissions of PM–10

depending on the extent of the activity.

Likewise, phos fires can generate

considerable emissions depending on

the amount of phosphorus that is

burned. The fuming (burning) of the

FMC Pond 9E a few years ago is one

good example of a elemental

phosphorus fire that was of large extent

and that continued for several weeks.

Preventing spillage of elemental

phosphorus should be a matter of good

housekeeping and would prevent

phosphorus fires.

b. New Sources

A related concern raised by FMC is

that the prohibition on visible emissions

from any source except as specifically

authorized in Table 1 to proposed 40

CFR 52.676 presents two problems.

First, it effectively prohibits the

construction of new sources if the new

source would have visible emissions.

Second, to the extent a source of PM–

10 could be constructed that would

have no visible emissions, there would

be no additional requirements on that

source. To address this issue, FMC

suggested in its comments on the

February 1999 FIP proposal that the FIP

include a provision requiring FMC to

notify EPA if it plans to construct a new

source or modify an existing source in

a manner that would increase emissions

of PM–10. FMC suggested that this

notice be provided 10 days prior to

construction or modification.

EPA, in a rulemaking process separate

from this FIP for FMC, is developing a

rule that would apply to the

construction or modification of new

minor sources in Indian Country and

extending to Indian Reservations the

permitting requirements of sections

172(b)(6) and 173 of the Clean Air Act

and 40 CFR 51.165 for major stationary

sources and also major modifications in

nonattainment areas (referred to as ‘‘Part

D NSR’’). The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

also have the authority to seek EPA

approval of a program for reviewing the

construction and modification of new

sources under the Tribal Authority Rule,

40 CFR Part 49. Until such a time as

EPA or the Tribes, with EPA approval,

adopt a new source review program for

minor sources and major sources and

modifications in nonattainment areas,

we are proposing to require that FMC

notify EPA prior to beginning

construction of any new source of PM–

10 or modification of an existing source

that results in an increase of PM–10

emissions. ‘‘Begin actual construction,’’

‘‘construction,’’ and ‘‘modification’’ are

based on the definitions in the

regulations for state Part D NSR

programs, 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v), (xv),

and (xviii) and the New Source

Performance Standards, 40 CFR 60.2

and 40 CFR 60.14. The notice of

construction or modification would be

required to include a description of the

source, an estimate of potential PM–10

emissions from the source, and an

evaluation of any control technology

considered by FMC. EPA would intend

to promulgate emission limitations for

the source, as necessary and

appropriate, in another rulemaking. In

order to provide EPA time to evaluate

the new source, EPA proposes that FMC

must notify EPA at least 90 days prior

to the construction or modification of

such a source. After 90 days, FMC

would be authorized to construct the

source, but the source would be subject

to an opacity limit of 10%, unless EPA

establishes alternative or additional

emission limitations or work practice

requirements for the source. FMC would

also be required to address the new

source in its operation and maintenance

plan. The 90 day period is intended to

allow EPA time to consider if additional

requirements should be established for

the source.

B. Reference Test Methods

As discussed above, for many of the

mass emission limits identified in Table

1, EPA is proposing that only Method

201/201A be the reference test method.

For these sources, FMC would still be

required to conduct Method 202

concurrently with Method 201/201A but

the results would be for informational

purposes only.

The February 1999 FIP proposal

required the reference test for the

Medusa Andersen stacks on the furnace

building (sources 18d, 18e, 18f, and 18g)

be conducted during slag tapping. See

64 FR at 7347 (proposed 40 CFR

676(d)(2)(viii)). In its comments on the

February 1999 FIP proposal, FMC noted

that each furnace has two slag tap holes

and two metal tap holes and that, during

normal operation, slag is tapped from a

given furnace one side at a time for 20

minutes on each side during any given

hour. A metal tap is conducted from one

side of each furnace once each shift.

Because each of the three required test

runs lasts for at least 60 minutes, FMC

points out that any given stack test will

include a slag tap or metal tap, but that

tapping will not be continuous

throughout the source test. FMC

therefore requested that the language be

revised to state that the source tests on

the furnace stacks be conducted during

periods that include slag tapping or

metal tapping, but not exclusively

during tapping. EPA is proposing to

revise the source testing requirements to

include this language.

The February 1999 FIP proposal

required the performance test for the

excess CO burner (source 26b) be

conducted during either a mini-flush or

hot-flush. See 64 FR at 7347 (proposed

40 CFR 676(d)(2)(ix)). In its comments

on the February 1999 FIP proposal, FMC

noted mini-flushes typically last 21

minutes, with a recent maximum of 1.5

hours. Because each of the three

required test runs lasts for at least 60

minutes, FMC points out that a miniflush might have to be extended if the

entire test were to be conducted during

a mini-flush. FMC also commented that

requiring sampling during a mini-flush

or a hot-flush would greatly

overestimate hourly emissions because

such events last at most four hours in a

given day and the PM–10 NAAQS

includes a 24-hour standard. FMC

therefore requested that the language be

revised to provide that at least one of

the three test runs must be conducted

during a mini-flush or a hot-flush.

Devising the appropriate source

testing conditions for the excess CO

burner is difficult because this source is

subject to intermittent processes that

can significantly increase emissions for

short periods of time. EPA agrees that

requiring source testing to be conducted

only under these conditions would

overestimate emissions on a 24-hour

basis. After further consideration of this

issue, EPA believes it is appropriate to

require that only one of the source test

runs be conducted during a mini-flush

or a hot-flush but that the mini-flush or

hot flush last for at least thirty minutes

of the one hour run. EPA arrived at this

number by assuming that maximum 24-

hour emissions would occur on a day on

which a hot flush lasted for

approximately four hours, or one-sixth

of the day. One half hour equates to one

sixth of three one hour source tests.

The February 1999 FIP proposal

provided for some minor adjustments to

reference test methods with EPA

approval, such as using Method 5 in

place of Method 201 or 201A for a

particular point source. See, e.g., 64 FR

at 7347 (proposed 40 CFR 52.676(d)(3)).

During its comments on the February

1999 FIP proposal, FMC requested that

the FIP be revised to include additional

flexibility with respect to reference test

methods. Specifically, FMC requested

that the FIP include a provision

specifically allowing FMC to request

EPA to approve alternative test methods

or to deviate from the prescribed test

method. 40 CFR 51.212(c)(2), which sets

forth the requirements for testing for

state implementation plans, authorizes

the use of alternative test methods

4478 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

following the review and approval of

EPA. EPA believes it is appropriate to

provide FMC this same flexibility in this

FIP and has therefore included language

authorizing the use of alternative

methods approved by the Regional

Administrator. EPA has used the

procedure for requesting alternative test

methods under 40 CFR part 63 as a

guide in determining appropriate

procedures for requesting an alternative

test method under the FIP. See 40 CFR

63.7(f).

C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

1. Periodic Source Testing

The FIP proposed that FMC be

required to conduct annual source tests

on each point source, requiring the first

annual test for each source to be

conducted within 12 months of the

effective date of the FIP and that

subsequent annual tests be completed

within 12 months of the most recent

previous test. See 64 FR at 7347

(proposed 40 CFR 52.676(e)(1)(i)). For

the sources with emission limits that

become effective after the effective date

of the FIP, the February 1999 FIP

proposal proposed that the first annual

test be conducted 60 days after the

effective date of the emission limit. In

FMC’s comments on the February 1999

FIP proposal, FMC requested that it be

allowed 15 months in which to conduct

the first annual tests and that

subsequent tests be conducted thereafter

within 15 months of the most recent

previous test. For sources with later

effective dates, FMC requested 180 days,

rather than 60 days, in which to conduct

the initial source test.

EPA agrees that, for the first annual

tests, additional time may be needed to

complete the tests on all sources,

because of the number of requirements

that become effective within the first

year of the effective date of the FIP. EPA

therefore proposes to allow 15 months

within which to conduct the first annual

source tests for sources with limits that

become effective within 60 days of the

effective date of the FIP. For the calciner

scrubbers, the phos dock Anderson

scrubber and the excess CO burner, EPA

believes some additional time is

necessary for conducting the first

annual test, but does not believe the 180

days recommended by FMC is

appropriate. For these sources, EPA is

proposing that the first annual test be

required within 90 days after the

effective date of the emission limit for

these sources. EPA continues to believe

that subsequent annual tests should be

conducted within 12 months of the

previous test, but proposes to include a

provision allowing FMC to request an

extension of up to 90 days for any

source test for good cause. The

extension request must be submitted to

EPA at least 30 days before the source

test is otherwise required to be

conducted under the rules. EPA also

proposes to include a provision

allowing source tests to be conducted

for a particular source every other year,

instead of every year if, after two

consecutive years, the emissions from

that source are less than 80% of the

emission limit. The frequency of source

testing for a particular source would

revert to every year if the emissions are

at any time found to be greater than or

equal to 80% of the applicable emission

limit. Such ‘‘tiered’’ monitoring

provisions have been used with

increasing frequency in rules and title V

permits, and EPA believes it is

appropriate to provide FMC with

similar flexibility. Finally, EPA

proposes to include a provision

relieving FMC from the requirement to

submit a proposed test plan if the plan

is unchanged from the plan submitted to

EPA in connection with the

immediately preceding source test.

2. Pressure Relief Vents

In the February 1999 FIP proposal,

EPA proposed that the pressure relief

vents be subject to an opacity limit of

no visible emissions except during a

‘‘pressure release.’’ See 64 FR at 7355

(proposed Table 1 to 40 CFR 52.676

(source 24)). We also proposed to

require FMC to install monitoring

devices to continuously measure and

continuously record the temperature of

the gases in the pressure relief vent

downstream of the pressure relief valve.

A ‘‘pressure release’’ was defined as an

excursion of the temperature above the

approved temperature range. EPA also

proposed to require that the release

point on each pressure relief vent be

maintained at 18 inches of water. After

the occurrence of each pressure release,

we proposed to require that FMC

inspect the valve to ensure it was

properly sealed, to inspect the water

level, and to then conduct a visible

emissions observation to ensure there

were no visible emissions. See 64 FR at

7348–7349 (proposed 40 CFR

52.676(e)(6)).

During the public comment period on

the February 1999 FIP proposal, FMC

commented that a limit of no visible

emissions, except during a pressure

release, is not attainable because there

are minor phosphorus pentoxide

emissions that can occur even when the

pressure relief vents are not releasing

and the valves are properly operated

and maintained. FMC also noted that it

had recently installed new pressure

relief valves with a new design,

including devices that monitor not only

temperature, but also water level and

pressure. FMC stated that it was

currently monitoring temperature, water

level, and pressure and was evaluating

the data to determine the most reliable

operating parameters. Because of the

new monitoring devices, FMC

commented that the requirement to

conduct a visible emissions observation

following each pressure release was not

necessary to ensure proper operation.

In light of the new pressure relief

valves and related monitoring devices

installed by FMC, we believe revisions

to the proposed requirements for the

pressure relief vents are appropriate. We

first propose to require that FMC install,

calibrate, maintain, and operate devices

to continuously measure and

continuously record the pressure and

water level, in addition to temperature.

Similarly, we now propose that a

‘‘pressure release’’ be defined in terms

of an excursion outside of the approved

parameter ranges for pressure and water

level, in addition to temperature. EPA

also proposes that, in light of the

additional monitoring devices and the

new valves, FMC not be required to

conduct a visible emissions observation

following each pressure release, but

instead be required to only inspect the

valve to ensure it is properly sealed and

verify that all operating parameters are

within their approved range.

3. Weekly Visible Emission

Observations

The February 1999 FIP proposal

proposed to require that FMC conduct

weekly visible emission observations of

all sources subject to opacity limits once

each week during a regularly scheduled

time. 64 FR at 7349–7350 (proposed 40

CFR 52.676(e)(8) and (9)). During the

public comment period, FMC objected

to the requirement that the observations

occur at ‘‘a regularly scheduled time,’’

stating that random checks once each

week would be more indicative of actual

operation and would give FMC more

flexibility for scheduling. After further

consideration, we believe that, because

of the number of sources FMC is

required to observe for visible emissions

each week, requiring the observations to

be conducted at a regularly scheduled

time is too burdensome for FMC. We

therefore now propose to delete the

requirement that the weekly

observations be conducted at a

‘‘regularly scheduled time.’’

EPA has also revised the proposed

procedure for the weekly inspections to

reflect the changes to the opacity limits

and the addition of opacity action

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4479

levels. Under this proposal, FMC would

be required to conduct a visual

observation of each source each week

for the presence of visible emissions. If

visible emissions are detected during

the observation period, FMC would be

required to conduct prompt corrective

action to minimize emissions. The

corrective action would include, but

would not be limited to, the corrective

action identified in the operation and

maintenance plan for the source. After

completing the corrective action, FMC

would be required to conduct another

reading of the source using the reference

test method identified for the applicable

opacity action level. Additional

corrective action would be required if

emissions exceeded the opacity action

level. In lieu of this procedure, FMC

could instead conduct the initial weekly

reading using the reference test method

identified for the applicable opacity

action level, in which case corrective

action would be required only if opacity

exceeded the opacity action level.

4. Moisture Content Requirement

In the February 1999 FIP proposal,

EPA proposed to require that FMC

maintain the moisture content of the

main shale pile (source 2) and the

emergency/contingency raw ore shale

pile (source 3) at 11% and that FMC

monitor for this requirement once each

week by taking a representative sample.

See 64 FR at 7350 and 7353 (proposed

Table 1 to 40 CFR 52.676 (sources 2 and

3) and proposed 40 CFR 52.676(e)(10)).

During the public comment period on

the February 1999 FIP proposal, FMC

commented that the control of the shale

moisture content is not currently

possible or practicable because it is

affected by the moisture content of the

shale as it is extracted from the earth

and by meteorological conditions. FMC

further stated that application of water

to the shale to meet the 11% moisture

content requirement would reduce the

effectiveness of the application of the

latex to the piles, which is also required

as a control and work practice measure.

After further consideration of the

technical information provided by FMC,

we believe it is appropriate to delete the

requirement that FMC maintain the

moisture content of the shale at 11% as

well as the related monitoring

requirements. The requirement to apply

latex to these sources, along with the

additional work practice requirements

that will be contained in the operation

and maintenance plan, should

adequately ensure that PM–10

emissions from the main shale pile and

the emergency/contingency raw ore

shale pile are minimized.

5. Future Revisions to Monitoring,

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements

In its comments on the February 1999

FIP proposal, FMC expressed concern

that including extensive monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements in the FIP would

unnecessarily complicate the process of

making appropriate revisions and

modifications to these requirements in

the future. To make any such changes,

FMC continued, both the FIP and FMC’s

title V permit would need to be revised.

For many other sources, FMC

commented, monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements are not

included as part of the applicable

emission limits and work practice

requirements but are instead established

only in the title V permit. FMC

continued that including the

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements in the FIP gives

FMC less flexibility than provided to

facilities that can change monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements by simply revising the

facility’s title V permit.

Monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting may be established in title V

permits under the authority of the

periodic monitoring rule at 40 CFR

70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 40 CFR

70.6(a)(3)(i)(B). Such periodic

monitoring is a necessary addition to

title V permits where an existing

applicable requirements’s monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting fail to

assure compliance with those

requirements, by failing to provide

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting sufficient to yield reliable data

from the relevant time period that are

representative of the facility’s

compliance. Newly created applicable

requirements, however, should establish

adequate monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting that will assure

compliance with emission limits and

work practice requirements.

In this regard, EPA notes that New

Source Performance Standards and

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants promulgated

by EPA since 1990 have included

extensive monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements that also

serve as enhanced monitoring under the

Clean Air Act and are presumed to be

sufficient for title V periodic

monitoring. See generally 62 FR 54900,

54918 (Oct. 22, 1997); 40 CFR

64.2(b)(1)(i) (1998). EPA expects that

other new applicable requirements,

such as SIP requirements or SIP

preconstruction permit conditions,

should also establish adequate

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting upon the creation of the

applicable requirement.

EPA does not believe it is appropriate

to establish new applicable

requirements—in the form of FIP

requirements, here—that are purposely

lacking and deficient with respect to

compliance-assuring monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting, with the

express aim of correcting such

deficiencies through the title V permit

process. EPA continues to believe that it

is appropriate to establish monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements in this source-specific FIP

rule.

Nonetheless, EPA recognizes that

revisions to the proposed monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements may prove to be necessary

once the FIP is in place and over time.

Several of the sources and processes at

the FMC facility are unique to the

elemental phosphorous industry (which

consists of FMC and one other source)

and FMC will be required to install new

process and control equipment in

response to the FIP. EPA believes it can

establish monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements in the FIP

proposal and at the same time,

accommodate FMC’s request to

streamline the procedures for revising

the monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements in the FIP and

the public’s right to notice and an

opportunity to comment on any changes

to the FIP requirements.

In providing guidance to states on the

implementation of the title V operating

permits program, EPA provided

guidance on how states could revise

their state implementation plans to

provide for the establishment of equally

stringent alternative requirements in

title V permits. See White Paper Number

2 for Improved Implementation of The

Part 70 Operating Permits Program,

Attachment B (March 5, 1996) (White

Paper 2). Consistent with that guidance,

EPA proposes to include in the FIP a

provision authorizing revisions to the

requirements of 40 CFR

52.676(e)[monitoring], (f)

[recordkeeping], and (g)[reporting] to be

accomplished through issuance,

renewal, or significant permit

modification of a title V operating

permit to the FMC facility, provided

that certain substantive and procedural

requirements are met.

First, any alternative monitoring,

recordkeeping, or reporting

requirements that revise pre-existing FIP

requirements must be sufficient to yield

reliable data from the relevant time

period that are representative of the

source’s compliance with the

4480 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

requirements of 40 CFR 52.676(c)

[emission limits and work practice

requirements] and must provide no less

compliance assurance than the preexisting requirements of 40 CFR

52.676(e), (f), or (g) that the alternative

requirements would replace. Second,

FMC’s permit application must include

the proposed alternative monitoring,

recordkeeping, or reporting terms,

identify the specific provisions of 40

CFR 52.676(e), (f), or (g) being revised,

and include the supporting

documentation to establish that the

alternative terms meet the substantive

criteria for alternative monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting terms.

These documents all become part of the

administrative record for EPA’s

approval of the alternative

requirements. Third, the draft and final

title V operating permit or permit

modification would identify the specific

provisions of 40 CFR 52.676(e), (f), or (g)

being revised. Fourth, in the event a

revision to 40 CFR 52.676(e), (f), or (g)

is accomplished through a permit

modification to FMC’s title V operating

permit or in the event the alternative

title V permit terms are later revised, the

permit modification must be

accomplished using the significant

permit modification or revision

procedures of the part 71 program. This

is essential because each such title V

permit action is in effect a rulemaking

that revises the FIP. There must

therefore be a full opportunity for public

review and challenge of the title V

permit terms that will substitute for the

pre-existing requirements regarding

whether they meet the substantive

criteria for establishing the alternative

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements. This is

consistent with the White Paper 2 as

well as the current regulations

governing revisions to title V permits,

which require that any change to a caseby-case determination of a standard be

processed as a significant modification

with full EPA and public review. See 40

CFR 71.7(e)(1)(i)(A)(3). Finally, the FIP

would specifically state that, upon

issuance or renewal of FMC’s title V

permit or a modification thereto that

revises a requirement of 40 CFR

52.676(e), (f), or (g), the revision shall

remain in effect as a requirement of the

FIP notwithstanding expiration,

termination, or revocation of FMC’s title

V operating permit.

Because this FIP is a federal

requirement promulgated by EPA, EPA

believes it is appropriate to allow

revisions to the monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements of the FIP to be

accomplished through FMC’s title V

permit only where EPA is the permit

issuing authority under 40 CFR part 71.

If the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes later

apply for and receive approval of a title

V operating permit program under 40

CFR part 70 and a PM–10

nonattainment Tribal Implementation

Plan for FMC that corresponds to the

proposed FIP, the Tribal

Implementation Plan could include a

comparable provision authorizing

revisions to monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting in the Tribal

Implementation Plan to be implemented

through FMC’s title V permit issued by

the Tribes under 40 CFR part 70.

D. Definitions

Several proposed changes to

definitions or newly-proposed

definitions have already been discussed

above. In addition, EPA is proposing the

following revisions to definitions.

1. Excursion

EPA proposes to revise this definition

to be consistent with the definition of

‘‘excursion’’ in the Compliance

Assurance Monitoring (CAM) rule, 40

CFR 64.1, by adding the phrase

‘‘consistent with any averaging period

specified for averaging the results of

monitoring.’’

2. Road

EPA proposed to define ‘‘road’’ to

include any portion of the FMC facility

on which a motorized vehicle has

reasonable access for movement or for

which there is visible evidence of

previous vehicle access. See 64 FR at

7345 (proposed 40 CFR 52.676(b)).

During the public comment period on

the proposal, FMC expressed concern

that the definition was too broad and

could include almost the entire FMC

facility. FMC suggested an alternative

definition that included all roads or

established vehicle paths that are in any

way used or maintained for vehicle

movement. EPA proposes to use FMC’s

suggested definition of ‘‘road’’ because

it appears to be sufficiently broad to

include all sources that should be

considered roads.

3. Slag Pit Area

In the February 1999 FIP proposal,

EPA proposed to define the ‘‘slag pit

area’’ as the area within 100 yards of the

furnace building at the FMC facility. See

64 FR at 7345 (proposed 40 CFR

52.676(b)). This is the area to which the

prohibition on the discharge of molten

slag and the digging of slag would apply

after November 1, 2000. In its comments

on the February 1999 FIP proposal, FMC

asked that the slag pit area be defined

with reference to its current location,

which is limited to the south side of the

furnace building. EPA is proposing to

revise the definition of ‘‘slag pit area’’ as

the area of the FMC facility immediately

bordering the south side of the furnace

building extending out 100 yards.

V. What Is the Impact of This

Supplemental Proposal on Air Quality

in the Area?

A. Emission Inventory

As discussed above, in commenting

on the February 1999 FIP proposal, FMC

submitted additional source test results

for most point sources at the FMC

facility in May 1999 and submitted

additional source test data and other

technical information for the excess CO

burner in November 1999. Although the

results of these recent source tests are

consistent with the emission estimates

in the 1996 base-year emissions

inventory for some sources, for other

sources the recent source test results

indicate that emissions are higher or

lower than presented in the 1996 baseyear emission inventory relied on in the

February 1999 FIP proposal. After

reviewing the recent source test reports

submitted by FMC, EPA is proposing

revising the 1996 base-year emission

inventory. The additional FMC source

test data provides emissions in pounds

per hour. For these new emission

estimates, EPA proposes to use the new

hourly emission rates provided by FMC

and multiply the hourly emissions rate

by 24 hours to estimate a daily

emissions rate. Annual emissions for

each source are calculated by taking the

ratio of ‘‘daily emissions to annual

emissions’’ in Table 4 of the February

1999 FIP proposal and applying that

ratio to the new daily emissions

estimate for the source. This approach

accounts for processes that do not

operate daily throughout the year.

The most significant changes in the

emission inventory relate to the estimate

of current emissions from the calciners

and the elevated flare and ground flare.

As discussed in section IV.A.2.a. above,

FMC provided additional source test

information for the calciner scrubbers

which includes condensible particulate

as measured by Method 202. EPA has

used this additional information to

revise the estimate of current emissions

from the calciner scrubbers and believes

it more accurately reflects current

reasonable worst case emissions from

the calciners. As discussed above, the

revised emission estimate is based on a

grain loading of 0.043 gr/dscf and a flow

rate of 34,200 dscfm. As a result,

emissions from the calciners are

increased from 1204 pounds per day to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4481

2419 pounds per day and from 100 tons

per year to 200 tons per year.

As discussed in section IV.A.5.a.

above, FMC also provided new emission

information based on source tests

conducted over the summer of 1999 on

the excess CO burner pilot project. We

believe that this new emission

information more accurately reflects the

mass emission rates from the existing

flares for two reasons. First, the results

are based on actual source tests instead

of theoretical calculations of furnace gas

composition and phosphorus removal

rates in the condensers. Secondly, the

testing to a limited extent accounts for

the increase in mass due to water vapor

in the atmosphere. The same operating

assumptions were used to calculate the

revised emission estimate for the

elevated and ground flare as were used

in the February 1999 FIP proposal: four

furnaces operating, one calciner down

for repair and therefore not available for

consumption of excess CO and

scrubbing in the calciner scrubber, and

two hours of mini-flush. The revised

combined emissions from the elevated

secondary flare and CO ground flare are

10,543 pounds per day of PM–10. This

estimate is based on 22 hours at normal

operations (i.e., when no mini-flush is

occurring), emissions at a grain loading

of 1.106 gr/dscf and flow rate of 44,470

dscfm (421.6 pounds per hour), and two

hours of mini-flush at an elevated

emission rate of 633.9 pounds per hour.

These emissions make the elevated

condenser and ground flare the largest

sources of PM–10 at FMC. This

conclusion is consistent with the Source

Apportionment Study, discussed in

section V.B. below. Daily emissions

after control, assuming a 95% reduction

in emissions from the excess CO burner

of 506 pounds per day (421.6 x 24 hours

x 0.05) and one CO flare event when a

calciner goes down of 13.4 pounds per

event (FMC estimate of flare event), are

519 pounds per day.

Based on the additional data provided

by FMC, EPA has also revised the

emission estimates for the baghouses,

reducing baghouse emissions from 446

pounds per day to 106 pounds per day

and from 49 tons per year to 12 tons per

year. Emissions from the four furnace

building Medusa Andersen scrubbers

are reduced from 269 pounds per day to

69 pounds per day and from 43 tons per

year to 11 tons per year. Emissions from

the calciner coolers are increased from

188 pounds per day to 278 pounds per

day and from 27 tons per year to 39 tons

per year.

Table I below shows the difference

between the emissions inventory

estimates in the February 1999 FIP

proposal and how EPA proposes to

revise the 1996 base-year emission

inventory based on the additional

source test data.

TABLE I.—REVISED FMC CURRENT WORST CASE DAILY AND ANNUAL PM–10 EMISSIONS SUMMARY

Source name Old (lb/day) New (lb/day) Old ton/yr New ton/yr

Point Sources:

Ground Flare and Elevated CO Flare ...................................................... 3109 10543 259 903

Calciners ................................................................................................... 1204 2419 100 200

All Other Baghouses ................................................................................ 446 106 49 12

Medusa Anderson .................................................................................... 269 69 43 11

Calciner Coolers Vents ............................................................................. 188 278 27 39

Pressure Relief Vents ............................................................................... 99 99 1 1

Cooling Tower .......................................................................................... 96 96 18 18

Phos Dock ................................................................................................ 34 34 6 6

Boilers ....................................................................................................... 13 13 2 2

Emergency CO Flares .............................................................................. 12 12 0 0

Subtotal Point Sources ...................................................................... 5470 13669 505 1192

Process and Other Fugitives:

Slag Handling ........................................................................................... 1045 1045 165 165

All Roads .................................................................................................. 190 190 25 25

All Piles ..................................................................................................... 163 163 23 23

Dry Fines Recycle .................................................................................... 33 33 6 6

Nod Fines Truck Load .............................................................................. 12 12 2 2

Nod Fines Pile .......................................................................................... 7 7 1 1

Fugitive Subtotal ................................................................................ 1450 1450 222 222

Grand Total ....................................................................................... 6920 15119 727 1414

B. Source Apportionment Study

EPA, Region 10 sponsored the EPA,

Office of Research and Development

(ORD), National Exposure Research

Laboratory, to conduct a source

apportionment study of particulate

matter collected on the filters of the

three Tribal monitors (Source

Apportionment Study). The study

covered data collected from October

1996 through November 1998, with

short term intensive sampling

conducted during the overall study time

frame. Significant additional sampling,

monitoring, and filter analysis were

conducted for the duration of this study.

A complete report of the study protocol

and results can be found in the docket

to this action. The conclusions from the

Source Apportionment Study support

the control strategy proposed in the

February 1999 FIP proposal and this

supplemental proposal and show that

the proposed control measures are

necessary, yet adequate, to bring about

attainment of the particulate standards.

Those findings include the following:

1. PM–10 data, wind data, and

dichotomus sampler (dichot) chemistry

all indicate that the PM–10 exceedances

recorded on the Tribal monitors are

local in nature and point conclusively to

FMC as the source of the exceedances.

2. The PM–10 collected on the filters

during exceedances appears to be

dominated by fine mode (i.e.,

particluate matter of less than 2.5

micrometers in diameter) aerosol during

exceedances, with a fine to coarse mass

ratio of approximately three to two.

However, both fine and coarse (i.e.,

particulate matter with diameter of

between 2.5 and 10 micrometers) mode

contributions are needed to cause an

4482 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

12Beginning April 1998, the sampling frequency

of the Tribal monitors was reduced from daily

sampling to once every six days because it had

already been established that the area was in

violation of the PM–10 standards, and because of

the costs associated with daily sampling and

analysis. Because of the reduction in sampling

frequency, each exceedance recorded at the Tribal

monitors is counted as six exceedances, in

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.

exceedance. PM–10 mass during

exceedances is split approximately

evenly between fine phosphate (P2O5 to

PO4) and coarse calcium (Ca) and

silicon (Si) rich dust, with 22–32% of

the PM–10 mass that cannot be

attributed to any specific source.

3. Fine phosphate accounts for 30 to

40% of the PM–10 mass during

exceedances. Preliminary wind

direction analyses and scanning

electron microscope (SCM) analyses

suggest the most likely sources of the

fine phosphate are the elevated flare and

ground flare, with some additional

contribution from the calciner stacks

and furnace tapping operations. Miniflushes were the most concentrated

source of fine phosphorus but are

believed to have minor impact on PM–

10 exceedances because of their

infrequency and short duration.

Significant quantities of water may be

bound to the phosphorus rich particles,

which is consistent with the recent

source tests conducted by FMC on the

excess CO burner pilot project. Calciner

stack emissions and furnace tapping

emissions are each estimated to

contribute less than 9% of the average

fine mass during exceedances.

4. The coarse fraction aerosol is

highly enriched in calcium compared to

the earths crustal composition,

characteristic of the slag produced as a

byproduct at FMC, and point to slag

handling as the source of the coarse

fraction aerosol. Calcium and silicon

together with their associated oxygen

account for about 50% of the coarse

mass during exceedances.

This report supports the conclusion

that there is no one source at FMC, that

when controlled, would bring about

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS.

Rather, controls on a number of sources

are necessary to achieve the standards.

The sources emitting fine-mode

particles that must be controlled to

attain the standard include the elevated

flare, the ground flare, the calciner

scrubbers, and furnace tapping fumes.

The sources emitting coarse-mode

particles that must be controlled to

attain the standard include slag

handling and fugitive dust.

C. Recent Air Quality Data

We continue to receive additional

ambient particulate matter air quality

data from the continued operation of the

Tribal monitors.12 As indicated in Table

II below, the Tribal monitors continued

to record exceedances of the 24-hour

PM–10 standard during 1998 and 1999

(with data reported through the second

quarter of 1999), demonstrating the need

for a comprehensive control strategy for

FMC.

Because the annual PM–10 NAAQS is

based on a three calendar year average,

there is still insufficient monitoring data

from the Tribal monitors at this time to

determine whether a violation of the

pre-existing 1987 annual PM–10

NAAQS has occurred. The air quality

data, however, strongly suggest that the

Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area is

also in violation of the annual standard.

TABLE II.—FORT HALL PM–10 MONITORING DATA—JANUARY 1994 THROUGH JUNE 1999

Site Year Number of

exceedances

Expected

exceedances 3 year average

Primary ................................................................................................................ 1994 No data ............. Assume 0 ......... Assume 0

1995 No data ............. Assume 0 ......... Assume 0

1996 18 ..................... 20.96 ................ 7.0

1997 19 ..................... 20.1 .................. 13.69

1998 9 ....................... 18.9 .................. 19.99

1999 10* .................... 20.86* ............... 19.95*

Sho-Ban .............................................................................................................. 1994 No data ............. Assume 0 ......... Assume 0

1995 No data ............. Assume 0 ......... Assume 0

1996 9 ....................... 11.34 ................ 3.78

1997 12 ..................... 14 ..................... 8.4

1998 5 ....................... 10.59 ................ 11.98

1999 1* ...................... 6.92* ................. 10.5*

Background Site .................................................................................................. 1994 No data ............. Assume 0 ......... Assume 0

1995 No data ............. Assume 0 ......... Assume 0

1996 0 ....................... 0.00 .................. 0.00

1997 1 ....................... 1.05 .................. 0.35

1998 0 ....................... 0.00 .................. 0.35*

1999 0 ....................... 0.00 .................. 0.35*

* Data/calculations through June 30, 1999.

D. Effectivess of the Control Strategy

EPA believes that the emission

limitations and work practice

requirements in the February 1999 FIP

proposal, as modified by this

supplemental proposal, will result in

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable,

notwithstanding the revisions to the

emission inventory and the changes to

the proposed emission limits in this

supplemental proposal

As discussed in the February 1999 FIP

proposal, measured ambient air quality

serves as the basis for determining the

level of control necessary to attain the

PM–10 standards. 64 FR at 7341.

Attainment of the pre-existing 24-hour

standard requires that the expected

number of exceedances of the NAAQS

be less than or equal to one per year.

Attainment of the annual standard

requires that the expected annual PM–

10 concentration be less than or equal

to the level of the annual NAAQS. As

stated in the February 1999 FIP

proposal, in order for the Fort Hall PM–

10 nonattainment area to attain the 24-

hour standard, daily PM–10 emissions

from the FMC facility must be reduced

by approximately 65%. Annual PM–10

emissions must be reduced by

approximately 25%. 64 FR 7342.

Table III below sets forth a revised

analysis of the effectiveness of the

control strategy for attaining the 24-hour

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4483

PM–10 NAAQS. Table IV below sets

forth the revised analysis of the

effectiveness of the control strategy for

attaining the annual PM–10 NAAQS.

TABLE III.—ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION 24-HOUR PM–10 STANDARD FMC 1996 ACTUAL WORST CASE PM–10

EMISSIONS SUMMARY FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY

[Pounds/day]

Source name

PM–10

emissions

before control

PM–10

emissions

after control

Point Sources:

Ground Flare & Elevated CO Flare .......................................................................................................................... 10,543 527

Calciners ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,419 1,210

All Other Baghouses ................................................................................................................................................ 106 106

Medusa Andersens ................................................................................................................................................... 69 69

Calciner Coolers ....................................................................................................................................................... 278 278

Pressure Relief Vents ............................................................................................................................................... 99 99

Cooling Tower .......................................................................................................................................................... 96 96

Phos Dock ................................................................................................................................................................ 34 34

Boilers ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13 13

Emergency Flares .................................................................................................................................................... 12 12

Subtotal Point Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 13,669 2,444

Fugitive Sources:

Slag Handling ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,045 146

All Roads .................................................................................................................................................................. 190 190

All Piles ..................................................................................................................................................................... 163 163

Dry Fines Recycle Material ...................................................................................................................................... 33 33

Nodule Fines Truck Loading .................................................................................................................................... 12 12

Nodule Fines Stockpile ............................................................................................................................................. 7 7

Subtotal Fugitives .............................................................................................................................................. 1,450 551

Grand total ......................................................................................................................................................... 15,119 2,995

TABLE IV.—ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION ANNUAL PM–10 STANDARD FMC 1996 ACTUAL WORST CASE PM–10

EMISSIONS SUMMARY FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY

[Tons/year]

Source name

PM–10

emissions

before control

PM–10

emissions

after control

Point Sources:

Ground Flare & Elevated CO flare ........................................................................................................................... 903 45

Calciners ................................................................................................................................................................... 200 100

All Other Baghouses ................................................................................................................................................ 12 12

Medusa Andersens ................................................................................................................................................... 11 11

Calciner Coolers ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 39

Pressure Relief Vents ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1

Cooling Tower .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 18

Phos Dock ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 6

Boilers ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2

Emergency Flares .................................................................................................................................................... 0 0

Subtotal Point Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 1,192 234

Fugitive Sources:

Slag Handling ........................................................................................................................................................... 165 23

All Roads .................................................................................................................................................................. 25 25

All Piles ..................................................................................................................................................................... 23 23

Dry Fines Recycle Material ...................................................................................................................................... 6 6

Nodule Fines Truck Loading .................................................................................................................................... 2 2

Nodule Fines Stockpile ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1

Subtotal Fugitives .............................................................................................................................................. 222 80

Grand Total ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,414 314

4484 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

With the exception of the excess CO

burner, emissions ‘‘after control’’ for all

sources represent the allowable

emission limitations for those sources.

As discussed above, for the excess CO

burner, EPA has proposed emission

limits of 95% control efficiency at all

times, but not to exceed 24 pounds per

hour. As discussed above in section

IV.A.5., EPA has calculated emissions

‘‘after control’’ based on an assumption

of 95% control efficiency. EPA does not

believe it is appropriate to use the

pounds-per-hour emission limit to

estimate emissions from the excess CO

burner (after implementation of

controls) on a 24-hour or annual basis,

because the hourly emissions rate is a

peak emissions design rate that would

be expected to occur for the duration of

a mini-flush or a hot flush, but would

not be expected to be maintained over

a 24-hour period.

As discussed in section V.A. above,

the emissions estimates for all

baghouses, the four furnaces (Medusa

Andersen), and the calciner coolers

have been revised based on the

additional source test data provided by

FMC. Because the control strategy for

these sources is designed to keep

emissions from these sources at current

levels, however, there is no change in

the emissions estimates for these

sources before and after implementation

of the control strategy.

Estimated emissions following full

implementation of the control strategy

has been revised for the calciner

scrubbers. As discussed in section

IV.A.2., the February 1999 FIP proposal

over-estimated the reduction in

emissions from the calciner scrubbers

following implementation of the

controls. EPA now expects a 50%

reduction in emissions from the calciner

scrubbers.

EPA believes the control strategy

proposed in the February 1999 FIP

proposal, as modified by this

supplemental proposal, will result in a

80% reduction of daily worst-case PM–

10 emissions from FMC on a facilitywide basis, a reduction of 12,124

pounds per day. The sources for which

EPA believes emissions reductions will

be necessary to meet the proposed

emissions limitations—slag handling,

the calciner scrubbers, the furnace

building, the phos dock, and the

elevated secondary condenser and

ground flares—are not seasonal in

nature. Emissions from these sources

remain relatively constant throughout

the year. Thus, EPA expects that the

emissions reductions will occur

throughout the year and will produce

sufficient reductions in annual

emissions to achieve the annual

standard. EPA anticipates a 78%

reduction in annual PM–10 emissions

after full implementation of the control

strategy, a reduction of 1100 tons per

year. As discussed above, so long as the

proposed control strategy achieves

overall emission reductions from the

FMC facility of 65%, we believe the

proposed control strategy should result

in attainment of the pre-existing 24-hour

and annual PM–10 standards.

VI. How Do I Comment on This Action?

We are soliciting public comment on

all aspects of this supplemental

proposal only. The period of comment

has closed for the February 12, 1999 FIP

proposal. Thus, at this time, we will

consider comments only on those

portions of the February 12, 1999

proposal that would be affected if EPA

were to take action approving this

supplemental proposal. Comments on

the February 1999 FIP proposal are

discussed in this supplemental proposal

only to the extent a particular comment

is relevant to this supplemental

proposal. All comments received on the

February 1999 FIP proposal and on this

supplemental proposal will be

addressed when EPA takes final action

on the Federal Implemental Plan (FIP).

To comment on today’s supplemental

proposal, you should submit comments

by mail or in person (in triplicate if

possible) to the address listed in the

front of this notice. Be sure to identify

the appropriate docket control number

( i.e., ‘‘ID–24–7004’’) in your

correspondence. Your comments must

be postmarked by February 28, 2000 to

be considered in the final action taken

by EPA.

You may also comment on this

supplemental proposal by attending the

public hearing if one is held and

providing oral comments. If EPA

determines that a hearing should be

held, the time and date will be

announced in local papers. You may

also call Steven Body at (206) 553–0782

to determine if a hearing will be held

and to obtain the time and location.

VII. Do Any of the Regulatory

Assessment Requirements Apply to

This Action?

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993), all ‘‘regulatory

actions’’ that are ‘‘significant’’ are

subject to Office of Management and

Budget review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. As discussed in the

February 1999 FIP proposal, the

proposed FIP, including this

supplemental proposal, is not a rule of

general applicability and therefore is not

a ‘‘regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. See 64 FR at 7342–7343.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. section 601 et seq., EPA

generally must prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking

requirements unless EPA certifies that

the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. Secs.

603, 604 and 605(b). As discussed in the

February 1999 FIP proposal, because

FMC has more than 1,000 employees, it

is not a small entity under the RFA.

Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section

605(b), I certify that the proposed FIP,

including this supplemental proposal,

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. See 64 FR at 7343.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA)

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 04–4,

establishes requirements for federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on state, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. For the reasons discussed in the

February 1999 FIP proposal, the

proposed FIP, including this

supplemental proposal, does not impose

any enforceable duties or contain any

unfunded mandate on state, local or

tribal governments, or impose any

significant or unique impact on small

governments as described in UMRA.

Moreover, the proposed FIP, including

this supplemental proposal, is not likely

to result in the expenditure of $100

million or more by the private sector in

any one year. Therefore, the

requirements of UMRA do not apply.

See 64 FR at 7343.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of

information’’ as a requirement for

‘‘answers to * * * identical reporting or

recordkeeping requirements imposed on

ten or more persons.* * * ’’ 44 U.S.C.

3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP

only applies to one company, the

Paperwork Reduction Act does not

apply.

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

This executive order applies to any

rule that: (1) Is determined to be

‘‘economically significant’’ as that term

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4485

is defined in E.O. 12866, and (2)

concerns an environmental health or

safety risk that EPA has reason to

believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children. A rule is

economically significant if it is likely to

have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more or adversely

affect in a material way the economy, a

sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or state, local, or

tribal governments or communities. As

discussed in the February 1999 FIP

proposal, the costs to FMC of complying

with the FIP are expected to be less than

$50 million dollars. 64 FR at 7343. In

addition, EPA does not believe the FIP

will adversely affect in a material way

the economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

state, local, or tribal governments or

communities. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that the FIP proposal,

including this supplemental proposal, is

not economically significant and thus

not subject to Executive Order 13045.

F. Executive Orders 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the states, on the relationship

between the national government and

the states, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by state and local

governments, or EPA consults with state

and local officials early in the process

of developing the proposed regulation.

EPA also may not issue a regulation that

has federalism implications and that

preempts state law unless EPA consults

with state and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB), in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a federalism summary impact

statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include

a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with state and local

officials, a summary of the nature of

their concerns and the agency’s position

supporting the need to issue the

regulation, and a statement of the extent

to which the concerns of state and local

officials have been met. Also, when EPA

transmits a draft final rule with

federalism implications to OMB for

review pursuant to Executive Order

12866, EPA must include a certification

from the agency’s Federalism Official

stating that EPA has met the

requirements of Executive Order 13132

in a meaningful and timely manner.

Neither the February 1999 FIP

proposal nor this supplemental proposal

will have substantial direct effects on

the states, on the relationship between

the national government and the states,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. This rule only

prescribes standards appropriate for one

facility on an Indian Reservation, and

thus does not directly affect any state.

Moreover, it does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule. Nonetheless, as

discussed in the February 1999 FIP

proposal, EPA worked closely with

representatives of the Tribes during the

development of the proposed FIP. See

64 FR at 7312. EPA has continued to

work with the Tribes in developing this

supplemental proposal.

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’ This

Executive Order is discussed in more

detail in the February 1999 FIP

proposal. See 64 FR at 7312.

The proposed FIP, including this

supplemental proposal, imposes

obligations only on the owner or

operator of FMC, and does not impose

substantial direct compliance costs on

the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule. As discussed in the February

1999 FIP proposal, EPA worked closely

with representatives of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes during the development

of the FIP proposal. See 64 FR at 7312.

EPA has continued to work with the

Tribes in developing this supplemental

proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Pub. L. No.

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through the

Office of Management and Budget,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary standards.

The supplemental proposal does not

propose any new reference test methods

for the emissions limitations and work

practice requirements in the FIP

proposal. Therefore, EPA is relying on

the analysis of potentially applicable

voluntary consensus standards

contained in the February 1999 FIP

proposal. See 64 FR at 7344.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 13, 2000.

Carol M Browner,

Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

4486 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Subpart N—Idaho

2. Section 52.676, which was

proposed to be added to subpart N on

February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7308) is

proposed to be amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (b), by revising the

definitions of ‘‘Excursion,’’ ‘‘Road,’’ and

‘‘Slag Pit Area’’ and adding definitions

of ‘‘Begin Actual Construction,’’

‘‘Construction,’’ ‘‘Modification,’’ and

‘‘Opacity Action Level’’ in alphabetical

order;

b. In paragraph (c), by revising

paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(5)(i), and (c)(6) and

adding new paragraphs (c)(10) and

(c)(11);

c. In paragraph (d), by revising

paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) introductory

text, (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(2)(viii),

(d)(2)(ix), and (d)(5); redesignating

paragraph (d)(6) as (d)(7); and adding a

new paragraph (d)(6);

d. In paragraph (e), by revising

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii); adding

a new paragraph (e)(1)(vi); revising

paragraphs (e)(6) introductory text,

(e)(6)(ii), and (e)(6)(iv); removing

paragraph (e)(6)(v); revising paragraph

(e)(7) introductory text; adding a new

paragraph (e)(7)(iii)(I); revising

paragraph (e)(8); removing paragraphs

(e)(9) and (e)(10); and redesignating

paragraphs (e)(11) through (e)(13) as

paragraphs (e)(9) through (e)(11);

e. In paragraph (f), by revising

paragraph (f)(10);

f. In paragraph (h), by redesignating

the existing text as paragraph (h)(1) and

adding a new paragraph (h)(2);

g. Revising Table 1 to this section; and

h. Adding a new Table 2 to this

section.

§ 52.676 Control Strategy: Fort Hall PM–10

Nonattainment Area, Fort Hall Indian

Reservation, Idaho.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

Begin Actual Construction means, in

general, initiation of physical on-site

construction activities on a source

which are of a permanent nature. Such

activities include, but are not limited to,

installation of building supports and

foundations, laying of underground

pipework, and construction of

permanent storage structures. With

respect to a change in the method of

operating, this term refers to those onsite activities other than preparatory

activities which mark the initiation of

the change.

* * * * *

Construction means any physical

change or change in the method of

operation (including fabrication,

erection, installation, demolition, or

modification of a source) which would

result in a change in actual emissions.

* * * * *

Excursion means a departure from a

parameter range approved under

paragraphs (e)(3) or (g)(1) of this section,

consistent with any averaging period

specified for averaging the results of

monitoring.

* * * * *

Modification means any physical

change in or a change in the method of

operation of, an existing source which

increases the amount of particulate

matter emitted by that source. The

activities described in 40 CFR 60.14(e)

shall not, by themselves, be considered

modifications.

* * * * *

Opacity Action Level means the level

of opacity of emissions from a source

requiring the owner or operator of the

FMC facility to take prompt corrective

action to minimize emissions, including

without limitation those actions

described in the approved operation and

maintenance plan.

* * * * *

Road means access and haul roads,

driveways or established vehicle paths,

permanent or temporary, which are

graded, constructed, used,

reconstructed, improved, or maintained

for use in vehicle movement throughout

the FMC facility.

* * * * *

Slag Pit Area means the area of the

FMC facility immediately bordering the

south side of the furnace building

extending out 100 yards.

(c) * * *

(1)(i) Except as otherwise provided in

paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iii); and (c)(2)

of this section, there shall be no visible

emissions from any location at the FMC

facility at any time, as determined by a

visual observation.

(ii) Emissions from the following

equipment, activities, processes, or

sources shall not exceed 20% opacity

over a six minute average. Method 9 is

the reference test method for this

requirement.

(A) Brazing, welding, and welding

equipment and oxygen-hydrogen cutting

torches;

(B) Plant upkeep, including routine

housekeeping, preparation for and

painting of structures;

(C) Grinding, sandblasting, and

cleaning operations that are not part of

a routine operation or a process at the

FMC facility;

(D) Cleaning and sweeping of streets

and paved surfaces;

(E) Lawn and landscaping activities;

(F) Repair and maintenance activities;

(G) Landfill operations;

(H) Laboratory vent stacks; and

(I) Pond piping discharges.

(iii) Except as otherwise provided in

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section,

emissions from equipment, activities,

processes, or sources not identified in

Table 1 to this section shall not exceed

10% opacity over a six minute average

provided that FMC has complied with

the requirements of paragraph (c)(11) of

this section and provided further that a

more stringent opacity limit has not

been established for the source in this

section. Method 9 is the reference test

method for this requirement.

* * * * *

(5)(i) Beginning January 1, 2001, no

furnace gas shall be burned in the

existing elevated secondary condenser

flare or the existing ground flare (source

26a).

* * * * *

(6) At all times, including periods of

startup, shutdown, malfunction, or

emergency, the owner or operator of the

FMC facility shall, to the extent

practicable, maintain and operate each

source of PM–10 at the FMC facility,

including without limitation those

sources identified in Column II of Table

1 to this section and associated air

pollution control equipment, in a

manner consistent with good air

pollution control practices for

minimizing emissions. Determination of

whether acceptable operating and

maintenance procedures are being used

will be based on information available

to the Regional Administrator which

may include, but is not limited to,

monitoring results, opacity

observations, review of operating and

maintenance procedures, and inspection

of the source.

* * * * *

(10) For each source identified in

Column II of Table 2 to this section, the

owner or operator of the FMC facility

shall take appropriate actions to reduce

visible emissions from the source if

opacity exceeds the opacity action level

for that source identified in Column III

of Table 2. Such actions shall be

commenced as soon as possible but not

to exceed 24 hours after an exceedance

of the opacity action level is first

identified and shall be completed as

soon as possible. Such actions shall

include, but not be limited to those

actions identified in the operation and

maintenance plan for the source.

Exceedance of an opacity action level

does not constitute a violation of this

section, but failure to take appropriate

corrective action as identified in this

paragraph (c)(10) does constitute a

violation of this section.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4487

(11) The owner or operator of the

FMC facility shall notify EPA prior to

the construction of a new source of PM–

10 at the FMC facility or the

modification of an existing source at the

FMC facility in a manner that increases

emissions of PM–10 as follows:

(i) Such notification shall be

submitted to EPA at least 90 days prior

to commencement of the construction or

modification.

(ii) Such notification shall include the

following information:

(A) A description of the source and

any modification thereto;

(B) An estimate of potential PM–10

emissions from source on a 24-hour

basis, both with and without any

proposed air pollution control

equipment;

(C) The expected daily hours of

operation of the source or emission

release from the source, including any

seasonal variation; and

(D) A description of any PM–10

control technology to be implemented at

the source along with an analysis of

alternative control technologies

considered but rejected.

(iii) Any source identified in this

section shall continue to be subject to

the requirements of this section

notwithstanding the modification of the

source.

(iv) The requirement of this paragraph

(e)(11) is in addition to any other

requirement to obtain a permit pursuant

to 40 CFR parts 49 or 52.

(v) This paragraph (e)(11) shall cease

to apply if either of the following events

occur:

(A) EPA promulgates a new source

review program for PM–10 that applies

to the FMC facility; or

(B) The Tribes promulgate a new

source review program for PM–10 that

applies to the FMC facility and EPA

approves the Tribes’ program under 40

CFR part 49.

(d) * * *

(1) For each source identified in

Column II of Table 1 to this section, the

reference test method for the

corresponding emission limitation in

Column III of Table 1 to this section for

that source is identified in Column IV

of Table 1 to this section. For each

source identified in Column II of Table

2 to this section, the reference test

method for the corresponding opacity

action level in Column III of Table 2 to

this section for that source is identified

in Column IV of Table 2 to this section.

(2) When Method 201/201A or

Methods 201/201A and 202 are

specified as the reference test methods,

the testing shall be conducted in

accordance with the identified test

methods and the following additional

requirements:

* * * * *

(ii) Method 202 shall be run

concurrently with Method 201 or

Method 201A. Unless Method 202 is

specifically designated as part of the

reference test method, Method 202 shall

be performed on each source for

informational purposes only and the

results from the Method 202 test shall

not be included in determining

compliance with the mass emission

limit for the source.

* * * * *

(vii) The mass emission rate of PM–

10 shall be determined as follows: (A)(1)

Where Method 201/201A is identified as

the reference test method, the mass

emission rate of PM–10 shall be

determined by taking the results of the

Method 201/201A test and then

multiplying by the average hourly

volumetric flow rate for the run.

(2) Where Methods 201/201A and 202

are identified as the reference test

methods, the mass emission rate of PM–

10 shall be determined by first adding

the PM–10 concentrations from

Methods 201/201A and 202, and then

multiplying by the average hourly

volumetric flow rate for the run.

(B) The average of the three required

runs shall be compared to the emission

standard for purposes of determining

compliance.

(viii) Source testing of the Medusa

Andersen stacks on the furnace building

(sources 18d, 18e, 18f, and 18g) shall be

conducted during periods which

include slag tapping or metal tapping.

(ix) At least one of the three runs from

a source test of the excess CO burner

(source 26b) shall be conducted during

either a mini-flush or hot-flush that lasts

for at least 30 minutes.

* * * * *

(5) Where Method 202 is identified as

part of the reference test method for a

particular source, Method 202 shall not

be required for that source provided

that:

(i) The owner or operator of the FMC

facility submits a written request to the

Regional Administrator which

demonstrates that the contribution of

condensible particulate matter to total

PM–10 emissions is insignificant for

such source; and

(ii) The Regional Administrator

approves the request in writing.

(6)(i)An alternative reference test

method or a deviation from a reference

test method identified in this section

may be approved as follows:

(A) The owner or operator of the FMC

facility must submit a written request to

the Regional Administrator at least 60

days before the performance test is

scheduled to begin which includes the

reasons why the alternative or deviation

is needed and the rationale and data to

demonstrate that the alternative test

method or deviation from the reference

test method:

(1) Provides equal or improved

accuracy and precision as compared to

the specified reference test method; and

(2) Does not decrease the stringency of

the standard as compared to the

specified reference test method.

(B) If requested by EPA, the

demonstration referred to in paragraph

(d)(6)(i)(A) of this section must use

Method 301 in 40 CFR part 63,

Appendix A to validate the alternative

test method or deviation.

(C) The Regional Administrator must

approve the request in writing.

(ii) Until the Regional Administrator

has given written approval to use an

alternative test method or to deviate

from the reference test method, the

owner or operator of the FMC facility is

required to use the reference test

method when conducting a performance

test pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this

section.

(e) * * *

(1) * * *

* * * * *

(i) The first annual test for each

source shall be completed within 15

months of the effective date of this

section, except that the first annual test

for the calciner scrubbers (source 9), the

phos dock Andersen scrubber (source

21a), and the excess CO burner (source

26b) shall be conducted within 90 days

after the date on which the PM–10

emission limitations become applicable

to those sources. Subsequent annual

tests shall be completed within 12

months of the most recent previous test.

The time period for conducting any

annual source test may be extended by

a period of up to 90 days provided that:

(A) The owner or operator of the FMC

facility submits a written request to the

Regional Administrator which

demonstrates the need for the extension;

and

(B) The Regional Administrator

approves the request in writing.

(ii) The owner or operator of the FMC

facility shall provide the Regional

Administrator a proposed test plan at

least 30 days in advance of each

scheduled source test. If the proposed

test plan is unchanged for the next

scheduled source test on the source, the

owner or operator of the FMC facility

shall not be required to resubmit a

source test plan. FMC shall submit a

new source test plan to EPA in

accordance with this paragraph (d)(1)(ii)

4488 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

if the proposed test plan will be

different than the immediately

preceding source test plan that had been

submitted to EPA.

* * * * *

(vi) If, after conducting annual source

tests for a particular source for two

consecutive years, the emissions from

that source are less than 80% of the

applicable emission limit, then the

frequency of source testing for that

source may be reduced to every other

year. The frequency of source testing

shall revert to annual if the emissions

from any source test on the source are

greater than or equal to 80% of the

applicable emission limit.

* * * * *

(6) For each of the pressure relief

vents on the furnaces (source 24), FMC

shall install, calibrate, maintain, and

operate in accordance with the

manufacturer’s specifications, devices to

continuously measure and continuously

record the temperature and pressure of

gases in the relief vent downstream of

the pressure relief valve and the water

level of the pressure relief valve.

* * * * *

(ii) A ‘‘pressure release’’ is defined as

an excursion of the temperature,

pressure, or water level outside of the

parameters approved in accordance

with paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

Until EPA approval of the acceptable

range of parameters for the pressure

release vents, a ‘‘pressure release’’ is

defined as an excursion of the

temperature, pressure, or water level

outside of the parameters proposed by

the owner or operator of the FMC

facility for the pressure relief vents, as

provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this

section.

* * * * *

(iv) When a pressure release through

a pressure relief vent is detected, the

owner or operator of the FMC facility

shall, within 30 minutes of the

beginning of the pressure release,

inspect the pressure relief valve to

ensure that it has properly sealed and

verify that at least 18 inches of water

seal pressure is maintained.

(7) The owner or operator of the FMC

facility shall develop and implement a

written operations and maintenance

(O&M) plan covering all sources of PM–

10 at the FMC facility, including

without limitation, each source

identified in Column II of Table 1 to this

section and uncaptured fugitive and

general fugitive emissions of PM–10

from each source.

* * * * *

(iii)*** (I) For each source

identified in Column II of Table 2 to this

section, additional control measures or

other actions to be taken if the

emissions from the source exceed the

opacity action level identified in

Column III of Table 2 to this section.

(8) For each source identified in

Column II of Table 1 to this section, the

owner or operator of the FMC facility

shall conduct a visual observation of

each source at least once during each

calendar week.

(i) If visible emissions are observed

for any period of time during the

observation period, the owner or

operator of the FMC facility shall

immediately, but no later than within 24

hours of discovery, take corrective

action to minimize visible emissions

from the source. Such actions shall

include, but not be limited to, those

actions identified in the operation and

maintenance plan for the source.

Immediately upon completion of the

corrective action, a certified observer

shall conduct a visible emissions

observation of the source using the

reference test method for the opacity

action level with an observation

duration of at least six minutes. If

opacity exceeds the opacity action level,

the owner or operator of the FMC

facility shall take prompt corrective

action. This process shall be repeated

until opacity returns to below the

opacity action level.

(ii) In lieu of the periodic visual

observation under this paragraph (e)(8),

the owner or operator of the FMC

facility may conduct a visible emission

observation of any source subject to the

requirements of this paragraph (e)(8)

using the reference test method for the

opacity action level, in which case

corrective action must be taken only if

opacity exceeds the opacity action level.

(iii) Should, for good cause, the

visible emissions reading not be

conducted on schedule, the owner or

operator of the FMC facility shall record

the reason observations were not

conducted. Visible emissions

observations shall be conducted

immediately upon the return of

conditions suitable for visible emissions

observations.

(iv) If, after conducting weekly visible

emissions observations for a given

source for more than one year and

detecting no visible emissions from that

source for 52 consecutive weeks, the

frequency of observations may be

reduced to monthly. The frequency of

observations for such source shall revert

to weekly if visible emissions are

detected from that source during any

monthly observation or at any other

time.

(f) * * *

* * * * *

(10) The owner or operator of the

FMC facility shall keep the following

records with respect to the main shale

pile (source 2) and emergency/

contingency raw ore shale pile (source

3):

(i) The date and time of each

reforming of the pile or portion of the

pile.

(ii) The date, time, and quantity of

latex applied.

* * * * *

(h) Title V permit. (1) * * *

(2) (i) A requirement of paragraph (e),

(f), or (g) of this section may be revised

through issuance or renewal of a title V

operating permit by EPA to the FMC

facility under 40 CFR part 71 or through

a significant permit modification

thereto, provided that:

(A) Any alternative monitoring,

recordkeeping, or reporting

requirements that revise requirements of

paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of this section:

(1) Are sufficient to yield reliable data

from the relevant time period that are

representative of the source’s

compliance with the requirements of

paragraph (c) of this section; and

(2) Provide no less compliance

assurance than the requirements of

paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of this section

that the alternative requirements would

replace.

(B) In the event the alternative

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting

requirements are requested by the

owner or operator of the FMC facility,

FMC’s application for its title V

operating permit or significant permit

modification must include:

(1) The proposed alternative

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting

permit terms or conditions;

(2) The specific provisions of

paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of this section

the owner or operator of the FMC

facility is seeking to revise; and

(3) The supporting documentation to

establish that the alternative permit

terms or conditions meet the

requirements of paragraph (h)(2)(i)(A) of

this section.

(C) The draft and final title V

operating permit or significant permit

modification identifies the specific

provisions of paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of

this section being revised;

(D) In the event a revision to

paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of this section

is accomplished through a significant

modification to FMC’s title V operating

permit, it is accomplished using the

significant permit modification

procedures of 40 CFR part 71; and

(ii) Upon issuance or renewal of

FMC’s title V permit or a significant

permit modification thereto that revises

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4489

a requirement of paragraphs (e), (f), or

(g) of this section, the revision shall

remain in effect as a requirement of this

section not withstanding expiration, termination, or revocation of FMC’s title

V operating permit.

* * * * *

TABLE 1 TO § 52.676

I. Source No. II. Source description III. Emission limitations and work practice requirements IV. Reference test method

1 ............................. Railcar unloading of shale (ore) into

underground hopper.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

2 ............................. Main shale pile (portion located on

Fort Hall Indian Reservation).

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average..

Latex shall be applied after each reforming of pile or

portion of pile.

Method 9.

3 ............................. Emergency/contingency raw ore

shale pile.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average..

Latex shall be applied after each reforming of pile or

portion of pile.

Method 9.

4 ............................. Stacker and reclaimer ...................... Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

5a ........................... East shale baghouse ....................... a. Emissions shall not exceed 0.10 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).a. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

5b ........................... East shale baghouse building ......... b. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average from any portion of the building.b. Method 9.

6a ........................... Middle shale baghouse .................... a Emissions shall not exceed 0.30 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).a. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

6b ........................... Middle shale baghouse building ...... b. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average from any portion of the building.b. Method 9.

6c ........................... Middle shale baghouse outside capture hood—fugitive emissions.c. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.c. Method 9.

7a ........................... West shale baghouse ...................... a. Emissions shall not exceed 0.20 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).a. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

7b ........................... West shale baghouse building ........ b. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average from any portion of the building.b. Method 9.

7c ........................... West shale baghouse outside capture hood—fugitive emissions.c. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.c. Method 9.

8a ........................... a. Slag handling: slag pit area and

pot rooms.

a. Until November 1, 2000, emissions from the slag

pit area and the pot rooms shall be exempt from

opacity limitations.

Effective November 1, 2000, opacity of emissions in

the slag pit area and from pot rooms shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average. Exemption:

Fuming of molten slag in transport pots during

transport are exempt provided the pots remain in

the pot room for at least 3 minutes after the flow of

molten slag to the pots has ceased. See also 40

CFR 52.676(c)(4).

a. Method 9.

8b ........................... b. Recycle material pile ................... b. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.b. Method 9.

8c ........................... c. Dump to slag pile ......................... c. Fuming of molten slag during dump to slag pile

shall be exempt from opacity limitations.

9 ............................. Calciner scrubbers ........................... Effective December 1, 2000, the calciner scrubbing

chain (air pollution control equipment) shall achieve

an overall control efficiency* of at least 90% for

PM–10 (including condensible PM–10) under all operating conditions.

Method 5 (all particulate

collected shall be counted as PM–10) and Method 202 at the scrubber

outlet. Method 201A and

Method 202 at the inlet

to the scrubber systems.

Emissions from any one calciner scrubber exhaust

stack shall not exceed 0.022 grains per dry standard cubic foot PM–10 (including condensible PM–

10).

Method 5 (all particulate

collected shall be counted as PM–10) and Method 202 at the scrubber

outlet.

Total gas flow rate through any one outlet stack shall

not exceed 40,800 dry standard cubic feet per

minute.

Method 2.

The calciner scrubbers shall be exempt from opacity

limitations.

4490 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1 TO § 52.676—Continued

I. Source No. II. Source description III. Emission limitations and work practice requirements IV. Reference test method

10 ........................... Calciner cooler vents ....................... Emissions from any one calciner cooler vent shall not

exceed 4.4 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible

PM–10).

Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

11 ........................... Nodule pile ....................................... Opacity shall not exceed 20% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

12a ......................... North nodule discharge baghouse .. a. Emissions shall not exceed 0.20 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).a. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

12b ......................... South nodule discharge baghouse .. b. Emissions shall not exceed 0.20 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).b. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

12c ......................... North and south nodule discharge

baghouse outside caputure

hood—fugitive emissions.

c. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.c. Method 9.

13 ........................... Nodule fines pile .............................. Opacity shall not exceed 20% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

14 ........................... Screened shale fines pile adjacent

to the West shale building.

Opacity shall not exceed 20% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

15a ......................... Proportioning building—a. East nodule baghouse.a. Emissions shall not exceed 0.50 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).a. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

15b ......................... b. West nodule baghouse ................ b. Emissions shall not exceed 0.50 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).b. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

15c ......................... c. Proportioning building—fugitive

emissions.

c. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average from any portion of the building.c. Method 9.

16a ......................... Nodule reclaim baghouse ................ a. Emissions shall not exceed 0.20 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).a. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

16b ......................... Nodule reclaim baghouse outside

caputrue hood—fugitive emissions.

b. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.b. Method 9.

17a ......................... Dust silo baghouse .......................... a. Emissions shall not exceed 0.15 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).a. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

17b ......................... Dust silo fugitive emissions and

pneumatic dust handling system.

b. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average from any portion of the dust silo or pneumatic

dust handling system.

b. Method 9.

18a ......................... Furnace building— a. East

baghouse.

a. Emissions shall not exceed .75 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).a. Methods 201/201A.

18b ......................... b. West baghouse ............................ b. Emissions shall not exceed .75 lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).b. Methods 201/201A.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

18c ......................... c. Furnace building; any emission

point except 18a, 18b, 18d, 18e,

18f, or 18g.

c. Until April 1, 2002, opacity shall not exceed 20%

over a 6 minute average.

c. Method 9.

Effective April 1, 2002, opacity shall not exceed 10%

over a 6 minute average.

Method 9.

18d ......................... d. Furnace #1 Medusa Andersen .... d,e,f,g: PM–10 emissions from any one Medusa Andersen shall not exceed 2.0 lb/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).d,e,f,g: Methods 201/201A.

18e ......................... e. Furnance #2 Medusa Andersen.

18f .......................... f. Furnace #3 Medusa Andersen ..... Opacity from any one Medusa Andersen shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

18g ......................... g. Furnace #4 Medusa Andersen .... .......................................................................................

19 ........................... Briquetting building .......................... Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average from any portion of the building.Method 9.

20a ......................... a. Coke handling baghouse ............. a. Emissions shall not exceed 1.7 lb. PM–10/hr. (excluding condensible PM–10).a. Methods 201/201A.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4491

TABLE 1 TO § 52.676—Continued

I. Source No. II. Source description III. Emission limitations and work practice requirements IV. Reference test method

Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

20b ......................... b. Coke unloading building .............. b. Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average from any portion of the coke unloading building.b. Method 9.

21a ......................... a. Phosphorous loading dock (phos

dock), Andersen Scrubber.

a. Effective November 1, 1999, emissions shall not

exceed 0.004 grains per dry standard cubic foot

PM–10 (excluding condensible PM–10).

a. Methods 201/201A.

Effective November 1, 1999, flow rate (throughput to

the control device) shall not exceed manufacturer’s

design specification.

Method 2.

Effective November 1, 1999, opacity shall not exceed

10% over a 6 minute average.

Method 9.

21b ......................... b. Phosphorous loading dock—fugitive emissions.b. Effective November 1, 1999, opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average.b. Method 9.

22 ........................... All roads ........................................... Opacity shall not exceed 20% over a 6 minute average.Method 9.

23 ........................... Boilers .............................................. Emissions from any one boiler shall not exceed 0.09

lb. PM–10/hr (excluding condensible PM–10).

Methods 201/201A.

Opacity from any one boiler shall not exceed 10%

over a 6 minute average.

Method 9.

24 ........................... Pressure relief vents ........................ Opacity shall not exceed 10% over a 6 minute average except during a pressure release, as defined in

40 CFR 52.676(e)(6)(ii).

Method 9.

Pressure release point shall be maintained at 18

inches of water pressure at all times. Emissions

during a pressure release, as defined in 40 CFR

52.676(e)(6)(ii) are exempt from opacity limitations.

Inspection of pressure release vent and monitoring device.

25 ........................... Furnace CO emergency flares ........ Except during an emergency flaring caused by an

emergency as defined in 40 CFR 52.626(b), opacity

shall not exceed 10% over a six minute average.

Emissions during an emergency flaring caused by

an emergency are exempt from opacity limitations.

Method 9.

26a ......................... a. Existing elevated secondary condenser flare and ground flare.a. See 40 CFR 52.676(c)(5) .........................................

26b ......................... b. Excess CO burner (to be built to

replace the existing elevated secondary consenser flare and

ground flare).

b. Effective January 1, 2001, i. The control efficiency*

of the air pollution control equipment shall achieve

an overall control efficiency of at least 95% for PM–

10 (including condensible PM–10) under all operating conditions.

i. Methods 201/201A and

Method 202 for the inlet

(sampling locations to be

determined). Method

201/201A (Method 5 if

gas stream contains

condensed water vapor)

and Method 202 for the

outlet.

ii. The total excess CO burner particulate emission

loadings (including condensible PM–10) shall not

exceed 24 lb. PM–10/hr.

ii. Method 201/201A (Method 5 if gas stream contains condensed water

vapor) and Method 202

for the outlet.

Effective January 1, 2001, opacity shall not exceed

10% over a 6 minute average.

Method 9.

* The control efficiency (as a percentage) of the air pollution control equipment shall be determined by the following equation:

CE (%) = 100 {1-([Fho + Bho] / [Fhi + Bhi])}

Where CE = Control efficiency.

Fhi is the front half emissions for the inlet.

Bhi is the back half emissions for the inlet.

Fho is the sum of the front half emissions from each stack for the outlet.

Bho is the sum of the back half emissions from each stack for the outlet.

Inlet and all outlet stacks to be sampled simultaneously for required testing.

TABLE 2 TO § 52.676

I. Source No. II. Source description III. Opacity action level IV. Reference test method

1 ............................ Railcar unloading of shale (ore)

into underground hopper.

Any visible emissions ............................................. Visual observation.

2 ............................ Main shale pile (portion located

on Fort Hall Indian Reservation).

Any visible emissions ............................................. Visual observation.

3 ............................ Emergency/contingency raw ore

shale pile.

Any visible emissions ............................................. Visual observation.

4492 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2 TO § 52.676—Continued

I. Source No. II. Source description III. Opacity action level IV. Reference test method

4 ............................ Stacker and reclaimer ................. Any visible emissions ............................................. Visual observation.

5a .......................... East shale baghouse .................. a. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. a. Method 9.

5b .......................... East shale baghouse building ..... b. Any visible emissions ......................................... b. Visual observation.

6a .......................... Middle shale baghouse ............... a. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. a. Method 9.

6b .......................... Middle shale baghouse building b. Any visible emissions ......................................... b. Visual observation.

6c .......................... Middle shale baghouse outside

capture hood—fugitive emissions.

c. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. c. Method 9.

7a .......................... West shale baghouse ................. a. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. a. Method 9.

7b .......................... West shale baghouse building .... b. Any visible emissions ......................................... b. Visual observation.

7c .......................... West shale baghouse outside

capture hood fugitive emissions.

c. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. c. Method 9.

8a .......................... a. Slag handling: slag pit area

and pot rooms.

a. Until November 1, 2000, emissions from the

slag pit area and the pot rooms shall be exempt

from opacity limitations. Effective November 1,

2000, the opacity action level for this source

shall 5% over a 6 minute average. Exemption:

Fuming of molten slag in transport pots during

transport are exempt from opacity action levels

and opacity limits provided the pots remain in

the pot room for at least 3 minutes after the

flow of molten slag to the pots has ceased. See

also 40 CFR 52.676(c)(4).

Method 9.

8b .......................... b. Recycle material pile ............... b. Any visible emissions ......................................... b. Visual observation.

8c .......................... c. Dump to slag pile.

c. Fuming of molten slag during dump to slag pile

shall be exempt from opacity action levels.

9 ............................ Calciner scrubbers ...................... The calciner scrubbers shall be exempt from

opacity action levels and opacity limits.

10 .......................... Calciner cooler vents .................. 5% over a 6 minute average ................................. Method 9.

11 .......................... Nodule pile .................................. 10% over a 6 minute average ............................... Method 9.

12a ........................ North nodule discharge

baghouse.

a. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. a. Method 9.

12b ........................ South nodule discharge

baghouse.

b. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. b. Method 9.

12c ........................ North and south nodule discharge baghouse outside capture hood fugitive emissions.c. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. c. Method 9.

13 .......................... Nodule fines pile ......................... 10% over a 6 minute average ............................... Method 9.

14 .......................... Screened shale fines pile adjacent to the West shale building.10% over a 6 minute average ............................... Method 9.

15a ........................ Proportioning building a. East

nodule baghouse.

a. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. a. Method 9.

15b ........................ b. West nodule baghouse ........... b. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. b. Method 9.

15c ........................ c. Proportioning building—fugitive

emissions.

c. Any visible emissions ......................................... c. Visual observation.

16a ........................ Nodule reclaim baghouse ........... a. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. a. Method 9.

16b ........................ Nodule reclaim baghouse outside

capture hood—dash; fugitive

emissions.

b. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. b. Method 9.

17a ........................ Dust silo baghouse ..................... a. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. a. Method 9.

17b ........................ Dust silo fugitive emissions and

pneumatic dust handling system.

b. Any visible emissions ......................................... b. Visual observation.

18a ........................ Furnace building a. East

baghouse.

a. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. a. Method 9.

18b ........................ b. West baghouse ....................... b. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. b. Method 9.

18c ........................ c. Furnace building; any emission

point except 18a, 18b, 18d,

18e, 18f, or 18g.

c. Until April 1, 2002, 10% over a 6 minute average. Effective April 1, 2002, 5% over a 6

minute average.

c. Method 9.

18d ........................ d. Furnace #1 Medusa Andersen d,e,f,g: 5% over a 6 minute average ..................... d,e,f,g: Method 9.

18e ........................ e. Furnace #2 Medusa Andersen.

18f ......................... f. Furnace #3 Medusa Andersen.

18g ........................ g. Furnace #4 Medusa Anderson.

19 .......................... Briquetting building ...................... Any visible emissions ............................................. Visual observation.

20a ........................ a. Coke handling baghouse ........ a. 5% over a 6 minute average ............................. a. Method 9.

20b ........................ b. Coke unloading building ......... b. Any visible emissions ......................................... b. Visual observation.

21a ........................ a. Phosphorous loading dock

(phos dock), Andersen Scrubber.

a. Effective November 1, 1999, 5% over a 6

minute average.

a. Method 9.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 18 / Thursday, January 27, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4493

TABLE 2 TO § 52.676—Continued

I. Source No. II. Source description III. Opacity action level IV. Reference test method

21b ........................ b. Phosphorous loading dock—

fugitive emissions.

b. Effective November 1, 1999, 5% over a 6

minute average.

b. Method 9.

22 .......................... All roads ...................................... 10% over a 6 minute average ............................... Method 9.

23 .......................... Boilers ......................................... 5% over a 6 minute average ................................. Method 9.

24 .......................... Pressure relief vents ................... 5% over a 6 minute average ................................. Method 9.

25 .......................... Furnace CO emergency flares .... Any visible emissions except during an emergency flaring caused by an emergency as defined in 40 CFR 52.626(b). Emissions during an

emergency flaring caused by an emergency are

exempt from opacity action level.

Visual observation.

26a ........................ a. Existing elevated secondary

condenser flare and ground

flare.

a. Exempt from opacity limitations and opacity action level.

26b ........................ b. Excess CO burner (to be built

to replace the elevated secondary condenser flare and

ground flare).

5% opacity over a 6 minute average ..................... Method 9.

[FR Doc. 00–1361 Filed 1–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P