[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4466-4493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1361]



[[Page 4465]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 52



Federal Rulemaking for the FMC Facility in the Fort Hall PM-10 
Nonattainment Area; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 4466]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Shoshone-Bannock 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

[[Page 4467]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA published a Federal Register notice with minor 
corrections to the February 1999 FIP proposal on April 13, 1999. 64 
FR 17990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 pre-existing 1987 
standards for PM-10 would remain in effect until certain conditions 
specified in 40 CFR Sec. 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 pre-
existing 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 was unwilling to disturb that aspect 
of the Agency's July 18, 1997 rule.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4468]]

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

[[Page 4469]]

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 non-condensible 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 non-condensible 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Limit in
                                                        2/99    Proposed
                       Source                         proposal    limit
                                                      (lbs/hr)  (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ There 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Method 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.
    \6\ EPA is unable to reconstruct at this time how the 0.013 gr/
dscf was settled on as the basis for the 1996 emission inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The flow rate of 58,000 dscfm relied on in compiling the 1996 
emission inventory also was in error, which

[[Page 4470]]

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 polonium-210 (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 RACT-level 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 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.
    \8\ Two 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 4471]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As stated above, neither the Method 5 data, nor EPA's 
estimation of PM-10 emissions from the Method 5 data included 
condensible particulate matter.
    \11\ FMC 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 4472]]

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 RACT-level 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 4474]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 4476]]

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.

[[Page 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 mini-flush 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

[[Page 4478]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 4480]]

requirements of 40 CFR 52.676(c) [emission limits and work practice 
requirements] and must provide no less compliance assurance than the 
pre-existing 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 case-by-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 base-year 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 4482]]

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. 
Mini-flushes 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Beginning 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   PM-10        PM-10
                                                 emissions    emissions
                  Source name                      before       after
                                                  control      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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   PM-10        PM-10
                                                 emissions    emissions
                  Source name                      before       after
                                                  control      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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4484]]

    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 
facility-wide 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

[[Page 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 
Shoshone-Bannock 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.

[[Page 4486]]

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.


Sec. 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 on-site 
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.

[[Page 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)

[[Page 4488]]

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

[[Page 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 Sec.  52.676
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             III. Emission limitations and    IV. Reference test
          I. Source No.            II. Source description      work practice requirements           method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................  Railcar unloading of     Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                   shale (ore) into         a 6 minute average.
                                   underground hopper.
2...............................  Main shale pile          Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                   (portion located on      a 6 minute average..
                                   Fort Hall Indian        Latex shall be applied after each
                                   Reservation).            reforming of pile or portion of
                                                            pile.
3...............................  Emergency/contingency    Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                   raw ore shale pile.      a 6 minute average..
                                                           Latex shall be applied after each
                                                            reforming of pile or portion of
                                                            pile.
4...............................  Stacker and reclaimer..  Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
5a..............................  East shale baghouse....  a. Emissions shall not exceed      a. Methods 201/
                                                            0.10 lb. PM-10/hr (excluding       201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
5b..............................  East shale baghouse      b. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    b. Method 9.
                                   building.                over a 6 minute average from any
                                                            portion of the building.
6a..............................  Middle shale baghouse..  a Emissions shall not exceed 0.30  a. Methods 201/
                                                            lb. PM-10/hr (excluding            201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
6b..............................  Middle shale baghouse    b. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    b. Method 9.
                                   building.                over a 6 minute average from any
                                                            portion of the building.
6c..............................  Middle shale baghouse    c. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    c. Method 9.
                                   outside capture hood--   over a 6 minute average.
                                   fugitive emissions.
7a..............................  West shale baghouse....  a. Emissions shall not exceed      a. Methods 201/
                                                            0.20 lb. PM-10/hr (excluding       201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
7b..............................  West shale baghouse      b. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    b. Method 9.
                                   building.                over a 6 minute average from any
                                                            portion of the building.
7c..............................  West shale baghouse      c. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    c. Method 9.
                                   outside capture hood--   over a 6 minute average.
                                   fugitive emissions.
8a..............................  a. Slag handling: slag   a. Until November 1, 2000,
                                   pit area and pot rooms.  emissions from the slag pit area
                                                            and the pot rooms shall be
                                                            exempt from opacity limitations.
                                                           Effective November 1, 2000,        a. Method 9.
                                                            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).
8b..............................  b. Recycle material      b. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    b. Method 9.
                                   pile.                    over a 6 minute average.
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    Method 5 (all
                                                            calciner scrubbing chain (air      particulate
                                                            pollution control equipment)       collected shall
                                                            shall achieve an overall control   be counted as PM-
                                                            efficiency* of at least 90% for    10) and Method
                                                            PM-10 (including condensible PM-   202 at the
                                                            10) under all operating            scrubber outlet.
                                                            conditions.                        Method 201A and
                                                                                               Method 202 at the
                                                                                               inlet to the
                                                                                               scrubber systems.
                                                           Emissions from any one calciner    Method 5 (all
                                                            scrubber exhaust stack shall not   particulate
                                                            exceed 0.022 grains per dry        collected shall
                                                            standard cubic foot PM-10          be counted as PM-
                                                            (including condensible PM-10).     10) and Method
                                                                                               202 at the
                                                                                               scrubber outlet.
                                                           Total gas flow rate through any    Method 2.
                                                            one outlet stack shall not
                                                            exceed 40,800 dry standard cubic
                                                            feet per minute.
                                                           The calciner scrubbers shall be
                                                            exempt from opacity limitations.

[[Page 4490]]

 
10..............................  Calciner cooler vents..  Emissions from any one calciner    Methods 201/201A.
                                                            cooler vent shall not exceed 4.4
                                                            lb. PM-10/hr (excluding
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
11..............................  Nodule pile............  Opacity shall not exceed 20% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
12a.............................  North nodule discharge   a. Emissions shall not exceed      a. Methods 201/
                                   baghouse.                0.20 lb. PM-10/hr (excluding       201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
12b.............................  South nodule discharge   b. Emissions shall not exceed      b. Methods 201/
                                   baghouse.                0.20 lb. PM-10/hr (excluding       201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
12c.............................  North and south nodule   c. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    c. Method 9.
                                   discharge baghouse       over a 6 minute average.
                                   outside caputure hood--
                                   fugitive emissions.
13..............................  Nodule fines pile......  Opacity shall not exceed 20% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
14..............................  Screened shale fines     Opacity shall not exceed 20% over  Method 9.
                                   pile adjacent to the     a 6 minute average.
                                   West shale building.
15a.............................  Proportioning building-- a. Emissions shall not exceed      a. Methods 201/
                                   a. East nodule           0.50 lb. PM-10/hr (excluding       201A.
                                   baghouse.                condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
15b.............................  b. West nodule baghouse  b. Emissions shall not exceed      b. Methods 201/
                                                            0.50 lb. PM-10/hr (excluding       201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
15c.............................  c. Proportioning         c. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    c. Method 9.
                                   building--fugitive       over a 6 minute average from any
                                   emissions.               portion of the building.
16a.............................  Nodule reclaim baghouse  a. Emissions shall not exceed      a. Methods 201/
                                                            0.20 lb. PM-10/hr (excluding       201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
16b.............................  Nodule reclaim baghouse  b. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    b. Method 9.
                                   outside caputrue hood--  over a 6 minute average.
                                   fugitive emissions.
17a.............................  Dust silo baghouse.....  a. Emissions shall not exceed      a. Methods 201/
                                                            0.15 lb. PM-10/hr (excluding       201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
17b.............................  Dust silo fugitive       b. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    b. Method 9.
                                   emissions and            over a 6 minute average from any
                                   pneumatic dust           portion of the dust silo or
                                   handling system.         pneumatic dust handling system.
18a.............................  Furnace building-- a.    a. Emissions shall not exceed .75  a. Methods 201/
                                   East baghouse.           lb. PM-10/hr (excluding            201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
18b.............................  b. West baghouse.......  b. Emissions shall not exceed .75  b. Methods 201/
                                                            lb. PM-10/hr (excluding            201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
18c.............................  c. Furnace building;     c. Until April 1, 2002, opacity    c. Method 9.
                                   any emission point       shall not exceed 20% over a 6
                                   except 18a, 18b, 18d,    minute average.
                                   18e, 18f, or 18g.
                                                           Effective April 1, 2002, opacity   Method 9.
                                                            shall not exceed 10% over a 6
                                                            minute average.
18d.............................  d. Furnace #1 Medusa     d,e,f,g: PM-10 emissions from any  d,e,f,g: Methods
                                   Andersen.                one Medusa Andersen shall not      201/201A.
                                                            exceed 2.0 lb/hr (excluding
                                                            condensible PM-10).
18e.............................  e. Furnance #2 Medusa
                                   Andersen.
18f.............................  f. Furnace #3 Medusa     Opacity from any one Medusa        Method 9.
                                   Andersen.                Andersen shall not exceed 10%
                                                            over a 6 minute average.
18g.............................  g. Furnace #4 Medusa     .................................  ..................
                                   Andersen.
19..............................  Briquetting building...  Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average from any
                                                            portion of the building.
20a.............................  a. Coke handling         a. Emissions shall not exceed 1.7  a. Methods 201/
                                   baghouse.                lb. PM-10/hr. (excluding           201A.
                                                            condensible PM-10).

[[Page 4491]]

 
                                                           Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
20b.............................  b. Coke unloading        b. Opacity shall not exceed 10%    b. Method 9.
                                   building.                over a 6 minute average from any
                                                            portion of the coke unloading
                                                            building.
21a.............................  a. Phosphorous loading   a. Effective November 1, 1999,     a. Methods 201/
                                   dock (phos dock),        emissions shall not exceed 0.004   201A.
                                   Andersen Scrubber.       grains per dry standard cubic
                                                            foot PM-10 (excluding
                                                            condensible PM-10).
                                                           Effective November 1, 1999, flow   Method 2.
                                                            rate (throughput to the control
                                                            device) shall not exceed
                                                            manufacturer's design
                                                            specification.
                                                           Effective November 1, 1999,        Method 9.
                                                            opacity shall not exceed 10%
                                                            over a 6 minute average.
21b.............................  b. Phosphorous loading   b. Effective November 1, 1999,     b. Method 9.
                                   dock--fugitive           opacity shall not exceed 10%
                                   emissions.               over a 6 minute average.
22..............................  All roads..............  Opacity shall not exceed 20% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average.
23..............................  Boilers................  Emissions from any one boiler      Methods 201/201A.
                                                            shall not exceed 0.09 lb. PM-10/
                                                            hr (excluding condensible PM-10).
                                                           Opacity from any one boiler shall  Method 9.
                                                            not exceed 10% over a 6 minute
                                                            average.
24..............................  Pressure relief vents..  Opacity shall not exceed 10% over  Method 9.
                                                            a 6 minute average except during
                                                            a pressure release, as defined
                                                            in 40 CFR 52.676(e)(6)(ii).
                                                           Pressure release point shall be    Inspection of
                                                            maintained at 18 inches of water   pressure release
                                                            pressure at all times. Emissions   vent and
                                                            during a pressure release, as      monitoring
                                                            defined in 40 CFR                  device.
                                                            52.676(e)(6)(ii) are exempt from
                                                            opacity limitations.
25..............................  Furnace CO emergency     Except during an emergency         Method 9.
                                   flares.                  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.
26a.............................  a. Existing elevated     a. See 40 CFR 52.676(c)(5).......  ..................
                                   secondary condenser
                                   flare and ground flare.
26b.............................  b. Excess CO burner (to  b. Effective January 1, 2001, i.   i. Methods 201/
                                   be built to replace      The control efficiency* of the     201A and Method
                                   the existing elevated    air pollution control equipment    202 for the inlet
                                   secondary consenser      shall achieve an overall control   (sampling
                                   flare and ground         efficiency of at least 95% for     locations to be
                                   flare).                  PM-10 (including condensible PM-   determined).
                                                            10) under all operating            Method 201/201A
                                                            conditions.                        (Method 5 if gas
                                                                                               stream contains
                                                                                               condensed water
                                                                                               vapor) and Method
                                                                                               202 for the
                                                                                               outlet.
                                                           ii. The total excess CO burner     ii. Method 201/
                                                            particulate emission loadings      201A (Method 5 if
                                                            (including condensible PM-10)      gas stream
                                                            shall not exceed 24 lb. PM-10/hr.  contains
                                                                                               condensed water
                                                                                               vapor) and Method
                                                                                               202 for the
                                                                                               outlet.
                                                           Effective January 1, 2001,         Method 9.
                                                            opacity shall not exceed 10%
                                                            over a 6 minute average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 Sec.  52.676
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         I. Source No.              II. Source description            III. Opacity action level                    IV. Reference test method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Railcar unloading of shale     Any visible emissions.................  Visual observation.
                                 (ore) into underground
                                 hopper.
2.............................  Main shale pile (portion       Any visible emissions.................  Visual observation.
                                 located on Fort Hall Indian
                                 Reservation).
3.............................  Emergency/contingency raw ore  Any visible emissions.................  Visual observation.
                                 shale pile.

[[Page 4492]]

 
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          b. Any visible emissions..............  b. Visual observation.
                                 building.
6c............................  Middle shale baghouse outside  c. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  c. Method 9.
                                 capture hood--fugitive
                                 emissions.
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    c. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  c. Method 9.
                                 capture hood fugitive
                                 emissions.
8a............................  a. Slag handling: slag pit     a. Until November 1, 2000, emissions    Method 9.
                                 area and pot rooms.            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).
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         a. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  a. Method 9.
                                 baghouse.
12b...........................  South nodule discharge         b. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  b. Method 9.
                                 baghouse.
12c...........................  North and south nodule         c. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  c. Method 9.
                                 discharge baghouse outside
                                 capture hood fugitive
                                 emissions.
13............................  Nodule fines pile............  10% over a 6 minute average...........  Method 9.
14............................  Screened shale fines pile      10% over a 6 minute average...........  Method 9.
                                 adjacent to the West shale
                                 building.
15a...........................  Proportioning building a.      a. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  a. Method 9.
                                 East nodule baghouse.
15b...........................  b. West nodule baghouse......  b. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  b. Method 9.
15c...........................  c. Proportioning building--    c. Any visible emissions..............  c. Visual observation.
                                 fugitive emissions.
16a...........................  Nodule reclaim baghouse......  a. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  a. Method 9.
16b...........................  Nodule reclaim baghouse        b. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  b. Method 9.
                                 outside capture hood--dash;
                                 fugitive emissions.
17a...........................  Dust silo baghouse...........  a. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  a. Method 9.
17b...........................  Dust silo fugitive emissions   b. Any visible emissions..............  b. Visual observation.
                                 and pneumatic dust handling
                                 system.
18a...........................  Furnace building a. East       a. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  a. Method 9.
                                 baghouse.
18b...........................  b. West baghouse.............  b. 5% over a 6 minute average.........  b. Method 9.
18c...........................  c. Furnace building; any       c. Until April 1, 2002, 10% over a 6    c. Method 9.
                                 emission point except 18a,     minute average. Effective April 1,
                                 18b, 18d, 18e, 18f, or 18g.    2002, 5% over a 6 minute average.
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    a. Effective November 1, 1999, 5% over  a. Method 9.
                                 (phos dock), Andersen          a 6 minute average.
                                 Scrubber.

[[Page 4493]]

 
21b...........................  b. Phosphorous loading dock--  b. Effective November 1, 1999, 5% over  b. Method 9.
                                 fugitive emissions.            a 6 minute average.
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  Visual observation.
                                                                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.
26a...........................  a. Existing elevated           a. Exempt from opacity limitations and
                                 secondary condenser flare      opacity action level.
                                 and ground flare.
26b...........................  b. Excess CO burner (to be     5% opacity over a 6 minute average....  Method 9.
                                 built to replace the
                                 elevated secondary condenser
                                 flare and ground flare).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-1361 Filed 1-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P